Danny Jowenko - Manipulated by 9/11 Deniers

[Oystein]

Maybe you need a better view.

WTC6 was contributing substantially to the clouds of smoke climbing the south face of WTC7.

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/715/wtc7wtc6smokin1rua0.png

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5430/wtc6smoke1mh8.png

MM

The wind was blowing from north-west that day. In that picture, that would be left-to-right, from WTC7 to WTC6. More likely, some of the smoke hovering next to and above number 6 came from number 7, not vice versa. Certainly, none of the smoke directly on the facade of 7 came from 6.

[Oystein]

Against the wind direction? Interesting.

I thought it was 13 floors on fire? You said 10. Could you source that please? I may be mistaken.

The final NIST-report says "at least 10". They only counted those for which photographic or video evidence exists, IIRC.

[twinstead]

Yea, if the wind was indeed blowing north-west, there's no way that WTC6's smoke could have been contributing much at all

[Miragememories]

"I thought it was 13 floors on fire? You said 10. Could you source that please? I may be mistaken."

Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.xxxvi
" The fires were ignited on at least 10 floors;
however, only the fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 grew and lasted until the time of the building collapse."

pg.18
" Fires broke out on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, near the damaged southwest corner of the building (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5)."

pg.18
[i]" The collapse of WTC 1 damaged seven exterior columns, between Floors 7 and 17 of the south and west faces of WTC 7. It also ignited fires on at least 10 floors between Floors 7 and 30, and the fires burned out of control on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13.

MM

[Oystein]

Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.xxxvi
" The fires were ignited on at least 10 floors;
however, only the fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 grew and lasted until the time of the building collapse."

pg.18
" Fires broke out on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, near the damaged southwest corner of the building (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5)."

pg.18
[i]" The collapse of WTC 1 damaged seven exterior columns, between Floors 7 and 17 of the south and west faces of WTC 7. It also ignited fires on at least 10 floors between Floors 7 and 30, and the fires burned out of control on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13.

MM

I don't know where funk de fino got his 13 from. Just want to point out that "13" and "at least 10" are not a contradiction.

[Miragememories]

I see smoke from WTC7 and WTC6 combining;

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/715/wtc7wtc6smokin1rua0.png

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5430/wtc6smoke1mh8.png

Regardless of such quibbling, the NIST WTC7 investigation, which relied heavily on the same visual evidence you folks are citing, as well as firefighter interviews, determined that; "...fires burned out of control on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13.".

The NIST also determined, that after 1 p.m.,
"the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13."

That is the relevant finding.

MM

[BigAl]

I see smoke from WTC7 and WTC6 combining;

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/715/wtc7wtc6smokin1rua0.png

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5430/wtc6smoke1mh8.png

Regardless of such quibbling, the NIST WTC7 investigation, which relied heavily on the same visual evidence you folks are citing, as well as firefighter interviews, determined that; "...fires burned out of control on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13.".

The NIST also determined, that after 1 p.m.,
"the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13."

That is the relevant finding.

MM

And the relevant finding shows fire of sufficient size and duration to cause the collapse.

[beachnut]

Maybe you need a better view.

WTC6 was contributing substantially to the clouds of smoke climbing the south face of WTC7.





MM
Making excuses for you CD delusion? lol

You missed first hand testimony on the fires - you now quibble about fires you have no knowledge because you deny the facts, you deny the math, the physics and you think Danny is an exert on fire and gravity collapse. You made a mistake and failed with your delusion of CD. failure

[BigAl]

The wind was blowing from north-west that day. In that picture, that would be left-to-right, from WTC7 to WTC6. More likely, some of the smoke hovering next to and above number 6 came from number 7, not vice versa. Certainly, none of the smoke directly on the facade of 7 came from 6.

You are correct on the wind direction.

[BigAl]

Maybe you need a better view.

WTC6 was contributing substantially to the clouds of smoke climbing the south face of WTC7.

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/715/wtc7wtc6smokin1rua0.png

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5430/wtc6smoke1mh8.png

MM

There is video of the same smoke that shows it coming from WTC7.

[BigAl]

Does placing a smoke detector in my house automatically establish proof that it is on fire?

MM

It does when the alarm goes off.

The transit measurement told the structures experts present that WTC7 was doomed. It's not like they were frying hamburgers on the kitchen stove.

[Miragememories]

Right now the only smoke being blown is by you OCTers.

None of you appear brave enough to ponder why the NIST, with all their resources, 7 years of investigation, and after interviewing the firefighters, do not place any significant weight on the visual evidence displayed by the smoke rising up the south face of WTC7?

You have nothing that compares with what was available to the NIST investigation.

This is not like your Danny Jowenko claim of not being presented with all the available data.

The NIST determined, that after 1 p.m.,
"the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13."

That is the relevant finding.

MM

[TruthersLie]

Right now the only smoke being blown is by you OCTers.

None of you appear brave enough to ponder why the NIST, with all their resources, 7 years of investigation, and after interviewing the firefighters, do not place any significant weight on the visual evidence displayed by the smoke rising up the south face of WTC7?

You have nothing that compares with what was available to the NIST investigation.

This is not like your Danny Jowenko claim of not being presented with all the available data.

The NIST determined, that after 1 p.m.,
"the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13."

That is the relevant finding.

MM

BUMP for MM.
School is still in session MM.

I have backed up that assertion and you have apparently chosen to ignore my response.

As I pointed out to you before, the NIST made frequent reference to the relationship of the concrete and steel in WTC7.

Oh goody. Quote mining from NIST. I'll bold the important parts that you missed.



Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.6
"The floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness."

"on Floors 8 through 47, the concrete was 0.14 m (5.5 in.) thick."

pg.7
" The floor beams were connected to the concrete deck[/b] by shear studs, which caused the floor beams and concrete slab to act together, or compositely. This type of floor system is thus referred to as a composite floor. "

MM


The FLOOR DECKING was concrete. The building was NOT a steel and concrete building. A steel and concrete building is a building in which the steel is REINFORCED with concrete.

They all were steel framed... and the concrete played NO part in the structure.
http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=834


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...e/windsor.html



http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ade_Center.pdf

http://www.scienceof911.com.au/the-argument/wtc-7


http://www.buildings.com/ArticleDeta...1/Default.aspx
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

But lets continue shall we? Ok. School is still in session MM.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/WTC7Column79.jpg
Please show me where the concrete that is reinforcing this column is located? I don't see any.

or lets look at the main designers comments about the world trade center.

http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildi...de_Center.html


steel frame, glass, concrete slabs on steel truss joists


What? it is a STEEL FRAMED BUILDING.

How about his own words from the same source.


"The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures.


I don't seem to see concrete mentioned anywhere in there... why is that?

But lets destroy your NIST cherrypicking w/out reading for comprehension. Are you ready mm?

http://www.haifire.com/presentations...pse_Survey.pdf


Historical Survey of Multi-Story Building Collapses Due to Fire
by
Beitel, J. J., Hughes Associates, Inc
Iwankiw, N. R., Hughes Associates, Inc.
Introduction
This project was conducted for the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) under Contact Number NA1341-02-W-0686. It was commissioned to assess the needs and existing capabilities for full-scale fire resistance testing of structural connections under the direction of NIST Program Manager, William Grosshandler


now who is this for? Here I bolded it for you.
Oh it is for NIST.

Guess what they say? Hmmm?
About 7 world trade?


Steel moment frame with composite steel beam and deck floors; fire resistive with sprinklers


Hmm... I don't see concrete mentioned in there as being part of the structure...

What about wtc1 and 2?


Structural steel tube lateral system with composite floor truss system; fire resistive with retrofitted sprinklers


Nope... they don't mention concrete there either..

Hey, maybe this report just doesn't mention concrete buildings? oh no.. they do



Pentagon
Washington,DC,USA
Reinforced Concrete

Textile Factory
Alexandria, Egypt
Reinforced Concrete. no sprinklers

CESP, Sede 2
Sao Paulo, Brazil
Reinforced concrete frame, with ribbed slabs; no sprinklers


So we have a report for NIST which doesn't state the concrete was anything beyond part of the composite flooring.

The towers and wtc7 were long span truss steel framed buildings. Go pick up an architectural book or a engineering book and LEARN THE *********** DIFFERENCE.

[Miragememories]

It does when the alarm goes off.

The transit measurement told the structures experts present that WTC7 was doomed. It's not like they were frying hamburgers on the kitchen stove.

Did it really?

They said they used the tool [transit].

Speculative repetition of "we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse" is not the same as; and we determined from the transit reading that WTC7 was leaning and likely to collapse.

Hayden never said the tool told us WTC7 was indeed leaning.

The NIST reported the use of the transit but did not indicate that it revealed that WTC7 was leaning. A fact I'm certain they wouldn't have left out of their report.

MM

[TruthersLie]

Did it really?

They said they used the tool [transit].

Speculative repetition of "we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse" is not the same as; and we determined from the transit reading that WTC7 was leaning and likely to collapse.

Hayden never said the tool told us WTC7 was indeed leaning.

The NIST reported the use of the transit but did not indicate that it revealed that WTC7 was leaning. A fact I'm certain they wouldn't have left out of their report.

MM

Just as certain as you were that Bush would use Nukes on the US population to take control forever, right?

We all see how that worked out.

[Disbelief]

Almost 150 posts have been made in this thread since you made this claim,


post 1119
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.


and yet you have never backed it up. Do you plan on doing so or will you retract it?

[Newtons Bit]

Almost 150 posts have been made in this thread since you made this claim,



and yet you have never backed it up. Do you plan on doing so or will you retract it?

I'd like to see his evidence showing that it has never happened before. He needs to provide videos of every building that has ever collapsed so that someone like femr2 can analyze the free-fally-ness of the buildings.

[femr2]

He needs to provide videos of every building that has ever collapsed so that someone like femr2 can analyze the free-fally-ness of the buildings.

:jaw-dropp I can do a few (as long as actual building metrics are provided, and the camera is pretty static...rare) but ALL of them ? Not a chance. Far too time consuming. My presence is still required in bars and on beaches you know :)

[BigAl]

Did it really?

They said they used the tool [transit].

Speculative repetition of "we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse" is not the same as; and we determined from the transit reading that WTC7 was leaning and likely to collapse.

Hayden never said the tool told us WTC7 was indeed leaning.

The NIST reported the use of the transit but did not indicate that it revealed that WTC7 was leaning. A fact I'm certain they wouldn't have left out of their report.

MM

Why do you substitute "leaning" for "bulge"? Hayden says "bulge".


Professional engineers predicted the collapse and they were right.



FDNY Chief Hayden sighting it with a surveyor's transit: .. "we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html






An engineer at the World Trade Center site correctly predicts that WTC Building 7 is going to collapse. Deputy Chief Peter Hayden of the New York Fire Department will later recall: .We had our special operations people set up surveying instruments to monitor, and see if there was any movement of, [WTC 7]. We were concerned of the possibility of collapse of the building. And we had a discussion with one particular engineer there, and we asked him, if we allowed it to burn could we anticipate a collapse, and if so, how soon?. The engineer apparently predicts correctly that WTC 7 will collapse and also the time it will take before it comes down. As Hayden will continue: .And it turned out that he was pretty much right on the money, that he said, .In its current state, you have about five hours... Hayden will not reveal the name of this engineer. [BBC, 7/6/2008] WTC 7 will collapse at about 5:20 p.m. (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001), indicating that the engineer makes his prediction around midday or shortly after. [CNN, 9/12/2001]

[GlennB]

This is not smoke wafting up the front of WTC7 and being blown randomly by a breeze coming from around the corner. It's coming directly from virtually every broken window on the SW edge

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7horizontalsmoke.jpg

ditto :

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/wtc7gougegroundlevel.jpg

watch the videos if interested. The smoke is issuing from WTC7

[Oystein]

How many arms and legs does MM have??? :eek:

[Oystein]

...
The NIST determined, that after 1 p.m.,
"the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13."

That is the relevant finding.

MM

Yeah. This is like a coroner's report about the man who was shot at least 10 times. He writes in colnclusion: "the only gun wounds of significance were 3 to his head and 3 to his heart".

Then you come along, quoting this, speculating about another man who's also bleeding, and claiming no one was shot!

[uke2se]

MM, could you please provide evidence of any other CDs which caused FFA?

[Oystein]

MM, could you please source the claim that complete freefall is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions? Thanks.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

MM doesn't have anything to prove. It's all hearsay, speckulation, BS & pure paranoia from his/her point of view.

[alienentity]

It's interesting to see the form of argumentation MM uses. His tactic seems to be to parse the semantic meaning of every statement that contradicts the controlled demolition theory, 'disproving' it by quibbling about the exact meaning.

This becomes rather humorous and desperate in many cases. For example, when trying to determine how much of WTC 7 was involved in fire (an impossible task because smoke was obscuring many floors, as NIST pointed out also), MM declares that it is 'a straight out lie' to say that firefighters saw fires on every floor.

Yet several firefighters testify that it appeared almost that way, so is it a substantive point? No, of course not. MM wants it to seem far more significant than it is.

'When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers'
'7 World Trade was burning from the ground to the ceiling fully involved. It was unbelievable.
–Firefighter Steve Modica'

These firefighters give their opinion, and it is fairly clear that they think the whole building was completely engulfed in fire (and smoke, as we can see with pics of the South side).

So it's not a lie at all to paraphrase the firefighters and declare that they said they saw fires on every floor. Were they correct? That's another point entirely.

But this statement 'completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories' is pretty clear. MM is wrong, the firefighters did think they saw fire on every floor, from their perspective.

Yes, we know their statements aren't 100% accurate. MM is eager to show this.

Yet, when it comes to the sacred statements of the late Barry Jennings, MM cannot accept that Jennings could be even slightly incorrect. Every statement he made must be treated as unassailable - and why is that? Because Jennings reported hearing a giant 'explosion' which he perceived happened before either tower collapsed.

When Jennings says he had no way of knowing when the towers collapsed, yet thinks he saw them standing, his testimony is unclear. But truthers must interpret his statements literally and without critical thought.

But several firefighters describe WTC7 as burning from 'ground to ceiling'? That's a 'straight out lie' according to MM.

More perceptive and objective readers will soon realize that eyewitness accounts are perceptions and must be corroborated carefully. Whereas firefighter statements can be corroborated with each other and the photographic record to establish that WTC7 was indeed heavily involved in fires, the Jennings statements are much harder to corroborate for accuracy. But yet it is still possible to demonstrate that Jennings' perception of time was probably incorrect - simply by corroborating his estimate of time with the estimates for when the OEM centre was evacuated shows us that it was later than he thought; and of course the fact that there were other personnel in the building when Jennings and Hess were upstairs, none of whom heard an explosion before WTC1 collapsed, contradicts his timeline.

All MM is trying to do is to discredit every source of info which runs counter to his beliefs. But he will never apply the same scrutiny and skepticism to his own claims, which makes his approach transparently biased and ridiculous.

The most ironic part is how truthers cherry-pick thru the NIST reports to try to bolster their arguments. NIST itself admits that smoke obscured direct observation of fires in many cases, so there are limitations to the NIST estimates in terms of accuracy - yet MM incorrectly represents the NIST estimates as some kind of absolute proof.
Too funny :D

[GlennB]

This becomes rather humorous and desperate in many cases. For example, when trying to determine how much of WTC 7 was involved in fire (an impossible task because smoke was obscuring many floors, as NIST pointed out also), MM declares that it is 'a straight out lie' to say that firefighters saw fires on every floor.


Yes.

If MM were to read NCSTAR 1-9 properly he'd realise that NIST were extremely conservative about their fire estimates.

[Miragememories]

post 1139
"You also falsely stated that Brent Blanchard is somehow not an expert in controlled demolition."

post 1143
".. your attempt to misrepresent the credentials of Blanchard is downright dishonest"

Source, or retraction of those statements please?"

I'm still waiting.

Question me all you want, but I have no intention of responding to liars who refuse to recant when called on it.

MM

[grandmastershek]

So what now? We need to add estimation to the concepts truthers fail to grasp? Along with simile, metaphor, etc, etc.

[Oystein]

Source, or retraction of those statements please?"

I'm still waiting.

Question me all you want, but I have no intention of responding to liars who refuse to recant when called on it.

MM

Was your claim that "complete freefall ... is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions?" true, an error, or a lie?

[Disbelief]

Source, or retraction of those statements please?"

I'm still waiting.

Question me all you want, but I have no intention of responding to liars who refuse to recant when called on it.

MM

What about all the other questions you have not responded to?


post 1119
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

Are you going to recant since you have been called on it?

[funk de fino]

Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.xxxvi
" The fires were ignited on at least 10 floors;
however, only the fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 grew and lasted until the time of the building collapse."

pg.18
" Fires broke out on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, near the damaged southwest corner of the building (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5)."

pg.18
[i]" The collapse of WTC 1 damaged seven exterior columns, between Floors 7 and 17 of the south and west faces of WTC 7. It also ignited fires on at least 10 floors between Floors 7 and 30, and the fires burned out of control on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13.

MM

At least 10 then. 10 confirmed through hard evidence. Possibly more. I was certain that earlier reports said 13 floors. I may be mistaken but at least 10 and possibly 13 are not contradictory.

[alienentity]

MM you can clear it all up by simply stating whether Brent Blanchard is an expert on controlled demolition or not.

Yes or no?

Cat got your tongue?

[Miragememories]

"If MM were to read NCSTAR 1-9 properly he'd realise that NIST were extremely conservative about their fire estimates"

Any time you wish to source NIST statements that cast doubt on
NIST WTC7 FINAL - 1A fire conclusions, Glenn, feel free;

pg.29
" The visual evidence indicated that the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13.

By 1:00 p.m., there was no visual evidence that the small, early fires on Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30 were still burning (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5). Therefore, these fires were not included in the four-step analysis sequence.

There was no confirmed evidence of fires on other floors of WTC 7. The layout of the other tenant spaces (Floors 15 and above) indicated that, had there been fires of the duration and intensity of those on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13, they would have been recorded in at least some of the photographic images or videos.

There were no signs of fires on the 5th and 6th mechanical floors. There was little combustible material on the 6th floor, making a sustained and intense fire unlikely. "

I have read nothing in the NIST Final report on WTC7 that suggests they were conservative in the above fire assessments.

MM

[uke2se]

So, MM, when are you going to answer the questions put to you? I'll restate mine again:

Could you provide examples of other CDs that caused FFA?

[TruthersLie]

Source, or retraction of those statements please?"

I'm still waiting.

Question me all you want, but I have no intention of responding to liars who refuse to recant when called on it.

MM

Still waiting...

School is still in session MM.

Whenever you want to retract your ******** about steel and concrete in the attempt to imply they were reinforced concrete buildings....

Hey pot, there is a kettle on the phone for you.

[Miragememories]

MM you can clear it all up by simply stating whether Brent Blanchard is an expert on controlled demolition or not.

Yes or no?

Cat got your tongue?

That would clear up nothing.

You told those lies and now you are dodging because you have no
proof to substantiate them.

post 1139
"You also falsely stated that Brent Blanchard is somehow not an expert in controlled demolition."

post 1143
".. your attempt to misrepresent the credentials of Blanchard is downright dishonest"

If what you said was true, then it should be very easy to source my posts.

MM

[BigAl]

Any time you wish to source NIST statements that cast doubt on
NIST WTC7 FINAL - 1A fire conclusions, Glenn, feel free;

pg.29
" The visual evidence indicated that the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13.

By 1:00 p.m., there was no visual evidence that the small, early fires on Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30 were still burning (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5). Therefore, these fires were not included in the four-step analysis sequence.

There was no confirmed evidence of fires on other floors of WTC 7. The layout of the other tenant spaces (Floors 15 and above) indicated that, had there been fires of the duration and intensity of those on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13, they would have been recorded in at least some of the photographic images or videos.

There were no signs of fires on the 5th and 6th mechanical floors. There was little combustible material on the 6th floor, making a sustained and intense fire unlikely. "

MM

And the NIST conclusion is that the fire was of sufficient scale and duration to cause a collapse consistent with the eyewitness accounts, the evidence and fire science.

Your cherrypicked quotes do nothing to change that.

[Miragememories]

At least 10 then. 10 confirmed through hard evidence. Possibly more. I was certain that earlier reports said 13 floors. I may be mistaken but at least 10 and possibly 13 are not contradictory.
I appreciate your show of integrity.

MM

[alienentity]

MM you can clear it all up by simply stating whether Brent Blanchard is an expert on controlled demolition or not.

Yes or no?

[Miragememories]

And the NIST conclusion is that the fire was of sufficient scale and duration to cause a collapse consistent with the eyewitness accounts, the evidence and fire science.

Your cherrypicked quotes do nothing to change that.

The NIST theory.

MM

[funk de fino]

Many demo experts and officials were within a few hundred feet of WTC7 when it collapsed. None of them heard a CD.

[BigAl]

The NIST theory.

MM

Cite?

[Miragememories]

post 1139
"You also falsely stated that Brent Blanchard is somehow not an expert in controlled demolition."

post 1143
".. your attempt to misrepresent the credentials of Blanchard is downright dishonest"

MM you can clear it all up by simply stating whether Brent Blanchard is an expert on controlled demolition or not.

Yes or no?
So I can take your repeated dodge as a tacit admission that you lied?

MM

[alienentity]

So is Blanchard a demolition expert? Or just a photographer with 'no experience with explosives, blasting or demolition'?

Just curious. What's your opinion?

[uke2se]

So I can take your repeated dodge as a tacit admission that you lied?

MM

Why don't you want to answer if Brent Blanchard is an expert in controlled demolition or not? It's a simple yes or no question.

My question is a bit harder, but as you seem so sure of your "facts", you should be able to provide examples of other CDs which caused FFA.

[alienentity]

So MM do you agree that Blanchard is only 'a self proclaimed "expert"', or does he actually have expertise in controlled demolition?

[alienentity]

Let's put it another way - Are Brent Blanchard and Danny Jowenko both experts in controlled demolition?

[Disbelief]

So I can take your repeated dodge as a tacit admission that you lied?

MM

I guess this applies to you as well, and your statement that you have been dodging was even before the statements with which you are accusing AE.


post 1119
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

[alienentity]

Does the direct observation of Blanchard and his colleagues at GZ add any value to their conclusions?
Does direct observation matter in determining the accuracy of an investigation, or is a partial video-clip with no audio a better way to judge a collapse?

Why is Jowenko in a better position to judge the collapse using a partial video clip with no audio vs the position of Blanchard and his colleagues who were at GZ, and have seen the video as well?

[Miragememories]

And the NIST conclusion is that the fire was of sufficient scale and duration to cause a collapse consistent with the eyewitness accounts, the evidence and fire science.

Your cherrypicked quotes do nothing to change that.
"The NIST theory."
Cite?
theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something

You are suggesting that the NIST conclusion as to the cause of
the WTC7 collapse is a proven fact and not just a theory?

A theory implies a level of uncertainty.

A factual conclusion removes any uncertainty.

"The uncertainties in predicting the precise progression of the collapse sequence increased as the analysis proceeded due to the random nature of the interaction, break up, disintegration, and falling of the debris.

The uncertainties deriving from these random processes increasingly influenced the deterministic physics-based collapse process.

Thus, the details of the progression of horizontal failure and final global collapse were sensitive to the uncertainties in how the building materials (steel, concrete) and building systems and contents interacted, broke up, and disintegrated."

I see too much uncertainty-based wiggle room in that statement.

The NIST provided a theory.

MM

[Chuck Guiteau]

Let’s do a recap, and see if there’s anything I missed.

1.MM believes that the collapse of 7WTC was due to a covert controlled demolition utilizing nano-thermite, but MM admits ( by default, since he’s failed to provide one, many times in this thread alone) that he has no technically viable method for accomplishing the task.

2.If the logistical projections given in rebuttal ( and once again, MM has failed to adequately address this issue) are even reasonably close, then an amount of nano-thermite necessary to accomplish the task is so great that it would be unfeasible to employ this material without anyone noticing, would certainly be noticed missing ( I’m pretty sure records are kept on this substance) and may in fact exceed the total amount that existed at the time.

3. MM admits that at least six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire, and those same levels also received significant structural damage during the collapse of 1WTC, leading a reasonable person to conclude that the combination of uncontrolled fire and initial structural damage led to its eventual collapse.

Is my scorecard up to date, or did I miss something?

[Miragememories]

Does the direct observation of Blanchard and his colleagues at GZ add any value to their conclusions?
Does direct observation matter in determining the accuracy of an investigation, or is a partial video-clip with no audio a better way to judge a collapse?

Why is Jowenko in a better position to judge the collapse using a partial video clip with no audio vs the position of Blanchard and his colleagues who were at GZ, and have seen the video as well?
It is pointless to keep asking questions until you truthfully respond to this;

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6292109&postcount=1294

I'll just put you on ignore if you continue to badger.

MM

[BigAl]

theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something

You are suggesting that the NIST conclusion as to the cause of
the WTC7 collapse is a proven fact and not just a theory?

A theory implies a level of uncertainty.

A factual conclusion removes any uncertainty.



I see too much uncertainty-based wiggle room in that statement.

The NIST provided a theory.

MM

NIST says that unfought fire caused WTC7 to collapse. I don't see anything to change that in what you call a citation.

[alienentity]

So MM do you agree that Blanchard is only 'a self proclaimed "expert"', or does he actually have expertise in controlled demolition?

[alienentity]

'I'll take the word of an expert in controlled demolitions over that of a corporate video producer any day.'

A photographer for "Implosion World,"?

[Bell]

Why don't you want to answer if Brent Blanchard is an expert in controlled demolition or not? It's a simple yes or no question.

My question is a bit harder, but as you seem so sure of your "facts", you should be able to provide examples of other CDs which caused FFA.

Since Miragememories cannot provide such examples, he chooses to ignore your posts time and again rather than engage them. Shows how dishonest he really is.

[TruthersLie]

It is pointless to keep asking questions until you truthfully respond to this;

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6292109&postcount=1294

I'll just put you on ignore if you continue to badger.

MM

So then.. does this mean that school is out?

Will you retract your lies about the construction and structural type of the towers?

I'm still waiting to see if you have retracted your misuse of the term "footprint."

It is rather funny how fast you have run away...

[Miragememories]

"Let’s do a recap, and see if there’s anything I missed.

1.MM believes that the collapse of 7WTC was due to a covert controlled demolition utilizing nano-thermite, but MM admits ( by default, since he’s failed to provide one, many times in this thread alone) that he has no technically viable method for accomplishing the task."

Speculating only gets me accused of sensationalism.

"2.If the logistical projections given in rebuttal ( and once again, MM has failed to adequately address this issue) are even reasonably close, then an amount of nano-thermite necessary to accomplish the task is so great that it would be unfeasible to employ this material without anyone noticing, would certainly be noticed missing ( I’m pretty sure records are kept on this substance) and may in fact exceed the total amount that existed at the time."

Unless you have the answer for your first question, your second question is purely speculative, and thus meaningless.

"3. MM admits that at least six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire, and those same levels also received significant structural damage during the collapse of 1WTC, leading a reasonable person to conclude that the combination of uncontrolled fire and initial structural damage led to its eventual collapse.

Is my scorecard up to date, or did I miss something?"

Show me where I have indicated a belief that "at least six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire"?

At no time was any floor in WTC7 known to be completely engulfed by fire.

Your credibility just took a big nosedive Chuck.

MM

[TruthersLie]

blah blah blah, handwave handwave dodge

MM

FIFY.

Now then.

When will we see any citations which fit your definition of the "footprint" from any engineering or architectural source? Still waiting.

When will we see any citations (not datamined ********) on how the towers and wtc7 were "steel and concrete" buildings as defined by architects and engineers around the world?

Or will you retract those lies by implication?

[Miragememories]

So then.. does this mean that school is out?

Will you retract your lies about the construction and structural type of the towers?

I'm still waiting to see if you have retracted your misuse of the term "footprint."

It is rather funny how fast you have run away...
You really believe the average visitor here has any appreciation for your
semantic quibbling?

This is not a school.

All three towers were constructed of many different materials.

Most notably, steel and concrete.

The NIST would not have referred to WTC7 as a steel and concrete structure if they did not want their intended public readers to perceive it that way.

They are using a generic context while you are demanding the acceptance of a specific context. Fine, go for it.

My usage was in the same context as that used by the NIST.

MM

[TruthersLie]

You really believe the average visitor here has any appreciation for your
semantic quibbling?

Semantics?
No.

Making sure that you use the correct terminology and calling you on trying to imply things that are NOT CORRECT


This is not a school.


YOu are right... if it was you might actually LEARN something. Too bad, because you did get monumentally schooled.


All three towers were constructed of many different materials.

No argument there. They were


Most notably, steel and concrete.


Yes they used steel and concrete. But the buildings are STEEL FRAMED and not reinforced by concrete.

To claim they were "steel and concrete" buildings is implying they were steel reinforced with concrete. You do this to then try to point to other steel reinforced with concrete buildings.

You are implying that the buildings were more robust then they actually were.

aren't you?

Did you get schooled over it?
yes you did.


The NIST would not have referred to WTC7 as a steel and concrete structure if they did not want their intended public readers to perceive it that way.


NIST is VERY clear that the buildings were steel framed and used concrete int he composite flooring. That is VASTLY different than what you are trying to imply.

and you know it.

Any engineer or architect would and should know the difference between steel framed, and steel reinforced with concrete.

the towers and wtc7 were steel framed buildings and were NOT reinforced with concrete. Weren't they?


They are using a generic context while you are demanding the acceptance of a specific context. Fine, go for it.

My usage was in the same context as that used by the NIST.


No your implied usage is VASTLY different than that used by NIST, (just like your "usage" of the term footprint). And you have been schooled on it. Use the proper terminology.

[GlennB]

never mind

[twinstead]

To claim they were "steel and concrete" buildings is implying they were steel reinforced with concrete. You do this to then try to point to other steel reinforced with concrete buildings.

You are implying that the buildings were more robust then they actually were.


This is important. MM is indeed trying to imply that the buildings were more robust than they were. He can claim you are arguing semantics all he wants; the fact remains that trying to make the buildings more robust is simply a debate tactic used not to prove his point by providing evidence of it, but by trying to instill doubt in the commonly-held narrative of that day so he can shove whatever cockamamie theory he makes up in its place.

It's pretty much conspiracy theorist 101

[Miragememories]

"Yes they used steel and concrete. But the buildings are STEEL FRAMED and not reinforced by concrete.

You are implying that the buildings were more robust then they actually were.

NIST is VERY clear that the buildings were steel framed and used concrete int he composite flooring. That is VASTLY different than what you are trying to imply."

You seem to be doing all the implying.

I'm just letting the facts speak for themselves.

You imply that the concrete in WTC7 played little part in the structural strength of the building.

I think you undervalue the structural strength gained from the reinforced concrete floors.

MM

[Bell]

Why don't you want to answer if Brent Blanchard is an expert in controlled demolition or not? It's a simple yes or no question.

My question is a bit harder, but as you seem so sure of your "facts", you should be able to provide examples of other CDs which caused FFA.

Miragememories, hellooo?

[twinstead]

I think you undervalue the structural strength gained from the reinforced concrete floors.

MM

You overvalue the structural strength

[funk de fino]

You seem to be doing all the implying.

I'm just letting the facts speak for themselves.

You imply that the concrete in WTC7 played little part in the structural strength of the building.

I think you undervalue the structural strength gained from the reinforced concrete floors.

MM

Many demo experts and officials were within a few hundred feet of WTC7 when it collapsed. None of them heard a CD.

Do you accept this fact?

[Disbelief]

You seem to be doing all the implying.

I'm just letting the facts speak for themselves.

You imply that the concrete in WTC7 played little part in the structural strength of the building.

I think you undervalue the structural strength gained from the reinforced concrete floors.

MM

I am glad you like facts, how about providing some for this.


post 1119
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

[Miragememories]

You overvalue the structural strength

Do I?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFDD113BF93AA25751C0A96F9482 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

MM

[BigAl]

Do I?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFDD113BF93AA25751C0A96F9482 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

MM

Your point?

[geggy]

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

[bill smith]

According to miragememories, this photograph doesn't exist.

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

Completely fictional narrative, indeed.There's something wrong with this picture. Is it that the deliniation between smoke and no-smoke is too sharp ? THere's something off anyway..

[uke2se]

There's something wrong with this picture. Is it that the deliniation between smoke and no-smoke is too sharp ? THere's something off anyway..

Yes, there's something off. Your need to insinuate that the photo was faked shows that your grasp on reality is what's off.

[triforcharity]

Extracts from the NIST Final Report on the Collapse of WTC7;

pg.xxxvi
" The fires were ignited on at least 10 floors;
however, only the fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 grew and lasted until the time of the building collapse."

pg.18
" Fires broke out on at least 10 floors of WTC 7, near the damaged southwest corner of the building (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5)."

pg.18
[i]" The collapse of WTC 1 damaged seven exterior columns, between Floors 7 and 17 of the south and west faces of WTC 7. It also ignited fires on at least 10 floors between Floors 7 and 30, and the fires burned out of control on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13.

MM

I took the trouble of hiliting the words you aparently don't understand.

[triforcharity]

I see smoke from WTC7 and WTC6 combining;

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/715/wtc7wtc6smokin1rua0.png

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5430/wtc6smoke1mh8.png

Regardless of such quibbling, the NIST WTC7 investigation, which relied heavily on the same visual evidence you folks are citing, as well as firefighter interviews, determined that; "...fires burned out of control on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13.".

The NIST also determined, that after 1 p.m.,
"the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13."

That is the relevant finding.

MM

Even small fires that were not of "significant duration and intensity" still produce lots of smoke. LOTS.

You aparently are not understanding NIST at all. Maybe you need to take a reading comprehension course. I hear that TruthersLie's wife teaches a great one. You should PM him and see if she can get you it.

[triforcharity]

Right now the only smoke being blown is by you OCTers.

None of you appear brave enough to ponder why the NIST, with all their resources, 7 years of investigation, and after interviewing the firefighters, do not place any significant weight on the visual evidence displayed by the smoke rising up the south face of WTC7?

You have nothing that compares with what was available to the NIST investigation.

This is not like your Danny Jowenko claim of not being presented with all the available data.

The NIST determined, that after 1 p.m.,
"the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13."

That is the relevant finding.

MM

I hilited the relevent finding in this statement. Contact TL to get on the list for that class.

[triforcharity]

That would clear up nothing.

You told those lies and now you are dodging because you have no
proof to substantiate them.



If what you said was true, then it should be very easy to source my posts.

MM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6284054&postcount=1138

Your post states "They were under severe pressure".

ETA: Here is the exact one that everyone is referring to.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6181901&postcount=501

Retraction is required please, liar.

[GlennB]

Yes, there's something off. Your need to insinuate that the photo was faked shows that your grasp on reality is what's off.

Yes.

For a reality check Steve Spak's videos (good resolution, can be slow to play) are at

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos

Each clip is quite short. 2+5 are very revealing.

Anybody who suggests the photos are faked or that smoke was rising from WTC5+6 and being blown across WTC7 by the wind (like MM) hasn't looked very hard. Or has a deceitful agenda.

[GlennB]

Any time you wish to source NIST statements that cast doubt on
NIST WTC7 FINAL - 1A fire conclusions, Glenn, feel free;
pg.29
" The visual evidence indicated that the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13.
By 1:00 p.m., there was no visual evidence that the small, early fires on Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30 were still burning (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5). Therefore, these fires were not included in the four-step analysis sequence.


The sections you quote should explain it to you, but you just can't see it. Again. So allow me ....

NIST's definition of "visual" evidence eliminates anything that was reported but not recorded on camera. Thus eliminating any FDNY reports.
Given that GZ was to the immediate south of WTC7 and Vesey St. was a disaster area it's hardly surprising that cameras didn't get in there. Plus there was an exclusion zone later.

Steve Spak got as close as any, but even he was filming at a severe angle to the S facade of the building, with drifting smoke hiding most of the S facade.

"there was no visual evidence that the small, early fires on Floors 19, 22, 29, and 30 were still burning (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5). Therefore, these fires were not included ...."

Given NIST's stated methodology this cannot possibly be taken to mean that firefighters were plain wrong in their assessment.
p.s. and if you're going to trot out that insane bilge about much of the smoke actually coming up from WTC5+6 then you really should view Spak's videos (see post above). The smoke is gushing from WTC7.

[MikeW]

Yes.

For a reality check Speve Spak's videos (good resolution, can be slow to play) are at

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos
Yes, I figured people wanted detail so I didn't shrink them down. You can download the files, though, just click the download button on the player - you'll get them at your own pace & can view them properly in a decent desktop player.

[TruthersLie]

You seem to be doing all the implying.

I'm just letting the facts speak for themselves.

You imply that the concrete in WTC7 played little part in the structural strength of the building.

I think you undervalue the structural strength gained from the reinforced concrete floors.

MM

ROFLMAO.

The lead architect goes ON AND ON about the steel in the towers... not one mention of the concrete floor decking.

Any legitimate (you know engineering and or architectural) source on the towers or wtc7 state they were STEEL FRAMED buildings.

They used a thin layer of light weight concrete for the floor decking.

Can you show me the concrete reinforcement in this picture?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/WTC7Column79.jpg

Cuz I don't see any.
There is a VAST difference between a steel framed building with composite flooring and a steel and concrete building. As I have schooled you on.

I dont' IMPLY anything about the structural strength of the concrete in the FLOOR DECKING. There is negligable strength added by the concrete there.

So stop the LYING about it.

[bill smith]

Yes, I figured people wanted detail so I didn't shrink them down. You can download the files, though, just click the download button on the player - you'll get them at your own pace & can view them properly in a decent desktop player.

Hey Mike - where are those lines of burned out and broken windows in the attached photo below of the collapse of WTC7 ? (

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5MGdWNYLGc&feature=player_embedded#!

We can see by the windows that are breaking in the videos what broken windows should look like and burned out windows will look the same with some blackening.

In my videos I don't see the lines of burned, blackened and broken windows that you showed in your photo in post 1331. ?

This is the photo I meant

http://www.911myths.com/images/0/09/WTC_Fires_NBC_1_Still.jpg

[TruthersLie]

Do I?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFDD113BF93AA25751C0A96F9482 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

MM

did you even read your own citation there?

I don't think you did.

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space.

The work, which began last month at Seven World Trade Center, reflects both the adaptability of steel-framed towers and the extraordinary importance of fail-safe computer and telephone systems for the brokerage industry.


and
MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment

In fact, there isn't a damn thing in this article except for a mention about breaking up concrete in the FLOORS to get to the steel trusses.

workers are removing most of three existing floors, using jackhammers to demolish concrete slabs and torches to remove steel decking and girders beneath the concrete.


Not concrete reinforcement... it is in the FLOOR decking. It is vastly different.

Try again. This time use something like a REAL source, or maybe one that backs up your claims.

Schools still in session.

[Oystein]

Among several other FALSE CLAIMS, MM still has to retract the following LIE: "complete freefall ... is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions"

[Miragememories]

"I see smoke from WTC7 and WTC6 combining;

http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/715/wtc7wtc6smokin1rua0.png

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5430/wtc6smoke1mh8.png

Regardless of such quibbling, the NIST WTC7 investigation, which relied heavily on the same visual evidence you folks are citing, as well as firefighter interviews, determined that; "...fires burned out of control on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13.".

The NIST also determined, that after 1 p.m.,
"the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13."

That is the relevant finding."
"Even small fires that were not of "significant duration and intensity" still produce lots of smoke. LOTS.

Maybe you need to take a reading comprehension course."
Speculating on the existence of small fires producing additional smoke is irrelevant.

The NIST also determined, that after 1 p.m.,
"the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13."

As I said, that is the relevant finding.

MM

[Miragememories]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6284054&postcount=1138

Your post states "They were under severe pressure".

ETA: Here is the exact one that everyone is referring to.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6181901&postcount=501

Retraction is required please, liar.
???

Time for you to sign up for reading comprehension classes.

You gave two links to posts where I make no mention of Blanchard whatsoever.

I fail to see how they justify alienentitity's lies?

post 1139
"You also falsely stated that Brent Blanchard is somehow not an expert in controlled demolition."

post 1143
".. your attempt to misrepresent the credentials of Blanchard is downright dishonest"

MM

[Disbelief]

How many posts are you going to make before you address your claim?


post 1119
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

[triforcharity]

???

Time for you to sign up for reading comprehension classes.

You gave two links to posts where I make no mention of Blanchard whatsoever.

I fail to see how they justify alienentitity's lies?



MM

Who are you referring to in that pos there??

[Miragememories]

Anybody who suggests the photos are faked or that smoke was rising from WTC5+6 and being blown across WTC7 by the wind (like MM) hasn't looked very hard. Or has a deceitful agenda.
If you do not see smoke combining between WTC6 and WTC7, you have better eyes than anyone I know.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5430/wtc6smoke1mh8.png

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3771/croppedlayout1ii2.png

MM

[BigAl]

The NIST also determined, that after 1 p.m.,
"the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13."

As I said, that is the relevant finding.

MM

And the NIST conclusion is that the fire recorded on video was of sufficient scale and duration to cause a collapse consistent with the eyewitness accounts, the evidence and fire science.

[BigAl]

If you do not see smoke combining between WTC6 and WTC7, you have better eyes than anyone I know.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5430/wtc6smoke1mh8.png

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3771/croppedlayout1ii2.png

MM

Watch the video that has been provided and you'll see smoke streaming from WTC7.

[twinstead]

Well, you know what? Screw having this debate in the halls of academia or in the scientific and engineering community. A tiny minority thinks 9-11 was an inside job and are convincing the world one relatively obscure internet forum and web page at a time.

Keep the faith, truthers.

[carlitos]

Not concrete reinforcement... it is in the FLOOR decking. It is vastly different.



I suppose that the workers jackhammering away at the floor decks "undervalued the structural strength gained from the reinforced concrete floors." :rolleyes:

[GlennB]

The NIST relied heavily on visual confirmation for their final report and they insist that 10 floors at the most were ever on fire.

They examined all the photos and video of smoke supposedly pouring from every floor.

Try discounting the wind direction and the enormous amount of smoke from WTC6 which was joining that on the south face of WTC7.



If you do not see smoke combining between WTC6 and WTC7, you have better eyes than anyone I know.


We were discussing the NIST fire analysis. They specifically limited any consideration of smoke to that which was recorded on visual media as coming from identifiable windows. Examples would be windows in the Spak videos you appear to have hand waved aside. Smoke wafting around in the lower levels is utterly irrelevant to this argument. To suggest that smoke belching from specific windows higher up is something to do with WTC6 is, frankly, just par for the course where your debate technique is concerned. That is, distortion, obfuscation, hand-waving and baseless assertion at every step.

Meanwhile, NIST's methodology does not invalidate testimony of trained experts in close proximity to the scene. Namely the FDNY. The methodology is extremely conservative, which you would no doubt welcome (although you show no signs of actually having read it).

[A W Smith]

If you do not see smoke combining between WTC6 and WTC7, you have better eyes than anyone I know.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/5430/wtc6smoke1mh8.png

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/3771/croppedlayout1ii2.png

MM


Show me smoke gong from building 5 or 6 to building 7 in this video. WTF did the smoke do? get in through the lobby turnstiles and take elevators to the upper floors and jump out the windows? What a jackass.

Afb7eUHr64U

[Miragememories]

Watch the video that has been provided and you'll see smoke streaming from WTC7.
Al, clearly there was lots of visible the smoke clouding the south face of WTC7.

My objection is to the baseless claims that WTC6 was not contributing to the overall level of smoke flowing up the south face.

MM

[Miragememories]

Miragememories post 501, 1st August 2010, 04:32 PM
"Thanks for those very illustrative bare assertion fallacies, and a classic argument from authority.
The observations of Jowenko go far beyond simple documentary evidence which would be required to 'prove' scientifically that a CD had actually occurred. As discussed elsewhere, these would need to include careful engineering data, audio evidence of CD explosions, documentation of explosive squibs, forensic evidence of high explosives and cutter charges on the steel and the rubble, etc...

But of course his comments are devoid of any of these. Instead, he merely speculates about how it 'was' done, as if he actually knows!!!! He's not even a little bit skeptical..

I'll dig up some arguments in support of the moon landing hoax which show the same pattern. Time to go hike up a mountain tho..."
"When it comes to an opinion about whether WTC7 was felled by controlled demolition alienentity, I'll take the word of an expert in controlled demolitions over that of a corporate video producer any day."


Extract from: alienentitity post 1139, 31st August 2010, 12:02 PM
"You also falsely stated that Brent Blanchard is somehow not an expert in controlled demolition."


Extract from: alienentitity post 1143, 31st August 2010, 12:16 PM
".. your attempt to misrepresent the credentials of Blanchard is downright dishonest"


Who are you referring to in that pos there??
OMG

If you are referring to my reference to "corporate video producer"?, I was referring to alienentitity.

MM

[TruthersLie]

Miragememories post 501, 1st August 2010, 04:32 PM

Extract from: alienentitity post 1139, 31st August 2010, 12:02 PM

Extract from: alienentitity post 1143, 31st August 2010, 12:16 PM

OMG

If you are referring to my reference to "corporate video producer"?, I was referring to alienentitity.

MM


Still waiting for those citations to support your ******** definition of a "footprint" and your mischaracterization of the construction of the towers and wtc7.

Can I expect them anytime soon?

or do you plan to retract the ******** lie by implication?

[Chuck Guiteau]

Speculating only gets me accused of sensationalism.
Considering that, apart from your constant appeals to authority, virtually every post you've made consisted of speculation I wonder why you're suddenly so hesitant, but even so I was not asking you to speculate. Quite the opposite, I was asking you to offer a technically viable method of accomplishing a CD using thermite, nano-thermite or any type of explosive that would be consistent with the circumstances of the World Trade Center attack. This requires no more speculation than if I'd asked to to provide a technically viable method to change an automobile tire, or bake a cake.

Unless you have the answer for your first question, your second question is purely speculative, and thus meaningless.

You are correct. Unless you can offer a technically viable method, any discussion regarding thermite never rises above the level of "Could Superman beat the Incredible Hulk in a wrestling match?"
Thanks for finally admitting that. It took long enough.

Show me where I have indicated a belief that "at least six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire"?.


You have referred to this belief in numerous posts, calling on the NISt Report as your authority. The last one was:
The NIST also determined, that after 1 p.m.,
"the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13."

As I said, that is the relevant finding.
I suppose you want to quibble about the difference between "completely engulfed" and "significant duration and intensity", then attempt to crabcrawl away from the rest of the post. Let's not waste more bandwidth on such juvenile evasions. Amended to read " a belief that "at least six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire"?"

Your credibility just took a big nosedive Chuck..

My credibility?
I'm not the one who predicted a nuclear attack before the last elections, followed by a declaration of martial law.
I'm not the one who has claimed to possess evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, then refused to provide anything more than speculation.


Now, care to provide us with that "evidence" and a technically viable method of employing a CD that is consistent with the facts surrounding the attack?
Or are you just going to put your head back in the sand and pretend this post doesn't exist?

[alienentity]

Miragememories post 501, 1st August 2010, 04:32 PM





If you are referring to my reference to "corporate video producer"?, I was referring to alienentitity.

MM

I'm not a corporate video producer. Never have been, never claimed to be.

Why would you wrongly refer to me that way? Are you that incompetent? Apparently you are...:(

Anyway, why are you so shy to say whether Brent Blanchard is an expert in controlled demolitions? Do you believe he is or not?
You love to cite Danny Jowenko, yet cannot bring yourself to address any other the other experts - this is a cognitive black hole you've created for yourself.

[Miragememories]

"The NIST also determined, that after 1 p.m.,
"the only fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13."

That is the relevant finding."
"3. MM admits that at least six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire.."
"Show me where I have indicated a belief that "at least six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire"?

At no time was any floor in WTC7 known to be completely engulfed by fire.

Your credibility just took a big nosedive Chuck."
"You have referred to this belief in numerous posts, calling on the NISt Report as your authority"

No. Never. There is nothing left to doubt by the expression "six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire".

"I suppose you want to quibble about the difference between "completely engulfed" and "significant duration and intensity", then attempt to crabcrawl away from the rest of the post. Let's not waste more bandwidth on such juvenile evasions. Amended to read " a belief that "at least six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire"?"
Sorry Chuck. Weasel all you want but "six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire" does not have the same meaning as "fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13".

It is not quibbling. It reveals your lack of comprehension when using the english language.

MM

[Disbelief]

It is not quibbling. It reveals your lack of comprehension when using the english language.

MM

So, have you figured out the English language enough to back up this claim?


post 1119
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

Why the silence on this subject, mm?

[Chuck Guiteau]

Sorry Chuck. Weasel all you want but "six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire" does not have the same meaning as "fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13".

It is not quibbling. It reveals your lack of comprehension when using the english language.

MM
It is quibbling when you completely fail to address the other portions of the post and reply solely to a point I have already amended.
You're simply trying to direct attention away from your abysmal failure to provide the "evidence" you claimed you have, or submit a technically viable method of performing a CD that conforms to the facts surrounding the event, as I predicted.
It looks like at least one of us has a crystal ball that wasn't purchased through a Chinese dealer on eBay. And since I haven't seen any mushroom clouds lately,it ain't you!
Care to adress the rest of the post now?

[TruthersLie]

No. Never. There is nothing left to doubt by the expression "six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire".


Sorry Chuck. Weasel all you want but "six (6) stories were completely engulfed in the fire" does not have the same meaning as "fires of significant duration and intensity were on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13".

It is not quibbling. It reveals your lack of comprehension when using the english language.

MM

School is still in session MM.

Still waiting for you to provide those citations or to stop using the lying statements.

Which will it be?

[Miragememories]

"I'm not a corporate video producer. Never have been, never claimed to be.

Why would you wrongly refer to me that way?"

I stand corrected, make that "amateur video producer".

It was an old recollection from your first post over at the Loose Change Forum before you got banished to the Skeptics subforum for incivility.

"Hi dudes, dudettes and others,

This is my first time on your forum, just wanted to let y'all know I've produced a couple of videos that might interest you."
bolding is mine

"Anyway, why are you so shy to say whether Brent Blanchard is an expert in controlled demolitions? Do you believe he is or not?"

post 1139
"You also falsely stated that Brent Blanchard is somehow not an expert in controlled demolition."

post 1143
".. your attempt to misrepresent the credentials of Blanchard is downright dishonest"

Like I said; "Source, or retraction of those statements please?"

I'm still waiting.

Question me all you want, but I have no intention of responding to liars who refuse to recant when called on it."

MM

[BigAl]

Al, clearly there was lots of visible the smoke clouding the south face of WTC7.

My objection is to the baseless claims that WTC6 was not contributing to the overall level of smoke flowing up the south face.

MM

The claim is irrelevant for the criteria and process NIST used to count the number of floors on fire. If anything, the smoke made the count an under-count and therefore conservative for the calculation the effect of fire on the structure.

The wind was north-to-south on 9/11. I know that first-hand. That would blow WTC6 away from WTC7.

[triforcharity]

Miragememories post 501, 1st August 2010, 04:32 PM




Extract from: alienentitity post 1139, 31st August 2010, 12:02 PM



Extract from: alienentitity post 1143, 31st August 2010, 12:16 PM




OMG

If you are referring to my reference to "corporate video producer"?, I was referring to alienentitity.

MM

Thank you. Now that makes it clear. I stand corrected.

[alienentity]

I stand corrected, make that "amateur video producer".

It was an old recollection from your first post over at the Loose Change Forum before you got banished to the Skeptics subforum for incivility.


bolding is mine



Speaking of lies, you just lied. My very first post at LCF was to announce my video.
It's titled 'Hi there' or something like that. The post was immediately moved to the Skeptic section, as LCF does not allow skeptics to post threads in other sections.
Kind of like the 'Star of David' approach of the Nazis - you're branded as soon as you state an opinion.

So MM is lying when he says I was 'banished' for 'incivility'. He also lied when he said I was banned from prominent forums. I have never been banned from any forum, including LCF.
I choose not to post there because they don't enforce their own forum rules (personal attacks were rampant) and they treat skeptics like second-class cattle by locking them into one section.

At JREF as with other legitimate forums, this type of scapegoating and marginalizing is not done. MM is welcome to post wherever he likes on JREF, without any restrictions.

Why do truthers resort to lying and censorship to get their way?

Why does MM need to once again openly lie about me?

[Miragememories]

The claim is irrelevant for the criteria and process NIST used to count the number of floors on fire. If anything, the smoke made the count an under-count and therefore conservative for the calculation the effect of fire on the structure.

The wind was north-to-south on 9/11. I know that first-hand. That would blow WTC6 away from WTC7.
Well I'll be damned (of course you knew that), but the all that heavy smoke from WTC6 seems to have a mind of its own.

Maybe if you look at the pictures standing on your head, you can somehow convince yourself that WTC6 smoke wasn't getting it on with WTC7 smoke.

MM

[alienentity]

Would Miragememories care to explain what happens to any 9/11 skeptic that starts ANY thread on LCF?

Are you claiming that they are not sent to the 'skeptics' section or 'banished' as you put it?

You have some splaining to do. Does 'incivility' have anything to do with the LCF to 'banish' skeptics to a separate section?

Here's a snippet of the LCF rules:

'Also, if you are a self-professed "skeptic", please note the following arguments will be either ignored or erased, as they have no merit:
"too many people would be involved, so your conspiracy is bogus"
"all the people involved must be paid off, so your conspiracy is bogus"
"you guys are still alive, so your conspiracy is bogus"
"our government is too dumb to pull this off, so your conspiracy is bogus"
"our government would NEVER do this, so your conspiracy is bogus"
"screw you guys, your conspiracy is bogus"
"you guys are all in this for the money"
"you guys are all Bush bashers"
"you guys are all Liberals"
"you guys are all nuts"

On a final note, NPT theories, and support of movies like September Clues, is not allowed in any way. Planes hit the WTC. We refuse to allow that to be disputed on this forum.'

And the rules for the 'skeptics' forum:

'Those who choose to support the official story can post here to debate the issue with those who question the official story.'

Since I posted in the general area, my post was immediately moved to the 'skeptics' section. Miragememories has lied about this process, just as he also libeled me last month by denying that I am an audio expert - his post was removed, as it was complete fiction and out of line.

Any other lies you want to post, Miragememories?

If you want to clear up your views on Brent Blanchard, now is the time to refute what I wrote. Go ahead, make my day.

Otherwise stop complaining about it.

[Disbelief]

Like I said; "Source, or retraction of those statements please?"

I'm still waiting.

Question me all you want, but I have no intention of responding to liars who refuse to recant when called on it."

MM

Oh look, the liar is all indignant!


post 1119
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

[Miragememories]

"I stand corrected, make that "amateur video producer".

It was an old recollection from your first post over at the Loose Change Forum before you got banished to the Skeptics subforum for incivility. "
"Speaking of lies, you just lied. My very first post at LCF was to announce my video."
Oh really?

Extract from the LC thread "Hi everyone; New to forum, check out some of my video;

alienentity Aug 31 2009, 03:25 PM [drum roll] Post #1
"Hi dudes, dudettes and others,

This is my first time on your forum, just wanted to let y'all know I've produced a couple of videos that might interest you."
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/2219079/1/

"It was an old recollection from your first post over at the Loose Change Forum before you got banished to the Skeptics subforum for incivility."

Now where was I lying?

MM

[alienentity]

Now where was I lying?

MM

Do you even read what your write? You made yet another blatantly false claim.
Which I called you on right away. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6296128#post6296128)

Title of my first post at LCF, which was immediately moved to skeptics:
'Moved:Hi everyone; New to forum, check out some of my videos'

[16.5]

It was an old recollection from your first post over at the Loose Change Forum before you got banished to the Skeptics subforum for incivility.

MM

Uh, you didn't get "banished to the Skeptics subforum for incivility" you got banished there for not being a Truther.

"skeptics" subforum, man those jack asses were clowns.

Is that forum still running?

/1 post in the last 24 hours, the answer is "no."

[alienentity]

MM also, last time you started attacking me and misrepresenting me your post was removed for a Rule 12 violation.

The other post was moved to AAH, and was nothing but an outright lie (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6166195#post6166195).

That was July 27, 2010. Today you've posted more lies. Aren't you missing a valuable lesson somewhere?

'In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism'


You've now resorted to libel several times:
Falsely claiming that I'm not a professional audio engineer and/or have no expertise in audio
Falsely claiming that I've been kicked off respected forums
Falsely claiming that my LCF thread was 'banished' for 'incivility'

[Miragememories]

MM also, last time you started attacking me and misrepresenting me your post was removed for a Rule 12 violation.

The other post was moved to AAH, and was nothing but an outright lie (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6166195#post6166195).

That was July 27, 2010. Today you've posted more lies. Aren't you missing a valuable lesson somewhere?

'In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism'


You've now resorted to libel several times:
Falsely claiming that I'm not a professional audio engineer and/or have no expertise in audio
Falsely claiming that I've been kicked off respected forums
Falsely claiming that my LCF thread was 'banished' for 'incivility'

If you show me where I've told a lie, I will make a retraction.

I have shown you where you lied twice, and you have not shown the integrity to make a retraction.

I was unaware that it was possible to libel an alias?

There is no evidence that you are an audio engineer so I am entitled to claim you are not. A Google search shows no audio engineers by the name of alienentity.

Where did I say you were kicked off a respected forum. To my knowledge you have only been confined to a subforum. If I stated otherwise, I willingly retract.

Your LCF thread was not banished. It was moved later in the thread's history to the Skeptics subforum. Incivility was but one of the reasons.

So when are you going to prove you are better than me and retract your lies about what I supposedly said about Blanchard??????????????

What a hypocrite.

MM

[Disbelief]

If you show me where I've told a lie, I will make a retraction.

Here you go.


post 1119
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.


I have shown you where you lied twice, and you have not shown the integrity to make a retraction.

You did twice in that one post.


What a hypocrite.

MM

What do they say about glass houses?

[alienentity]

If you show me where I've told a lie, I will make a retraction.


Where did I say you were kicked off a respected forum.

I linked you to it in my post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6166195#post6166195), you nitwit.

'You get kicked off the more credible forums'

[alienentity]

So when are you going to prove you are better than me and retract your lies about what I supposedly said about Blanchard??????????????


Uhmmm...you already admitted that you misrepresented the object of your little slander, and had intended it for me. In the context, (demolitions experts Jowenko and Blanchard) you were both totally wrong and unclear.

What's new? I thought you were referring to Blanchard. If you weren't so busy engaging in serial defamation and false statements it would be easier to keep track of things.

So which is it? Is Blanchard an expert on demolitions or not? Forget about me and my training - you've already dismissed me as an audio engineer, but confused me as a maker of corporate videos. (both untrue allegations)
Which of your lies do I need to laugh at? all of them, I think:D

[alienentity]

Y'know what Miragememories? Since you've lied so openly and so many times about me, I think it's time to put you on ignore.

Truly nothing of value is coming from you, neither ideas nor criticism. I happily banish you from my life. Goodbye.:)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Is that forum still running?

/1 post in the last 24 hours, the answer is "no."

I'll bet 20 bucks it's a spam for "natural male enhancement".

[GlennB]

Oh really?


Now where was I lying?

MM

Here (possibly among others, your list of lies is getting quite long and hard to recollect exactly) :

"It was an old recollection from your first post over at the Loose Change Forum before you got banished to the Skeptics subforum for incivility."

alienentity was 'banished' to Skeptics (with swearing from JFK, which was ironic), but not for incivility because there wasn't a single word from alien that could remotely be considered uncivil.

He was sent there automatically, for being a non-twoofer. JFK explains it in that very thread.

[Miragememories]

Here (possibly among others, your list of lies is getting quite long and hard to recollect exactly) :

"It was an old recollection from your first post over at the Loose Change Forum before you got banished to the Skeptics subforum for incivility."

alienentity was 'banished' to Skeptics (with swearing from JFK, which was ironic), but not for incivility because there wasn't a single word from alien that could remotely be considered uncivil.

He was sent there automatically, for being a non-twoofer. JFK explains it in that very thread.

He was not sent there automatically.

It occurred after he made a number of ill-considered posts.

The Loose Change Forums have always encouraged honest dissent.

True skeptics do an excellent job in revealing the errors in 9/11 Truth analysis.

"In the past much time was wasted when skeptics like yourself invaded legitimate threads where discussion was taking place on what could have been the cause of the events on 9/11. Those skeptics in effect turned discussion into flame wars, and that is the reason for this section.

Blame your predecessors for that.

You are correct, there are two standards in place here diametrically opposed
to the double standard enforced the Jref forum."

MM

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Have you looked at JFK's anti-jew rants?

How could even truthers take that guy seriously? The ones who ignore and deny the rampant racism in their ranks, I mean.

[A W Smith]

He was not sent there automatically.


MM


Yes, Yes he was,

"In the past much time was wasted when skeptics like yourself invaded legitimate threads where discussion was taking place on what could have been the cause of the events on 9/11. Those skeptics in effect turned discussion into flame wars, and that is the reason for this section.

Blame your predecessors for that.

It is clear he was banished to the skeptics thread for nothing more than holding a viewpoint counter to the conspiradroid doctrine of the Loose Change forum. Nothing else.

[Miragememories]

Have you looked at JFK's anti-jew rants?

How could even truthers take that guy seriously? The ones who ignore and deny the rampant racism in their ranks, I mean.
Untrue.

I have no recollection of seeing him display prejudice against Jews.

Possible Israeli Mossad involvement in 9/11 is quite another matter.

MM

[alienentity]

Let's separate the lies from the facts, specifically the lies of Miragememories versus the facts:

My first post was Monday, Sept 31 2009 at 3:25pm
The second response to my post used the word '********' to describe it - Bonez

My second post was a lengthy response to Miragememories lengthy post, discussing the facts.
My third post was an invitation to examine someone's rebuttal when it came available.
Next I responded to the claim that my videos were 'rubbish' Domenick DiMaggio
My next post was a response to yet another attack from Domenick, where I mentioned I didn't want to breach forum rules.
By my 6th response on Sept 1 at 5:30pm I wrote 'Also, I notice that I'm not listed as a 'member', but as a 'skeptic'. That wasn't my choice either. I already feel like I've been branded. '
So by that point, just a day after my first post, I'd already been branded as a skeptic and moved. Those are the facts.

My recollection is that the thread was immediately moved into Skeptics, without any warning given, nor did I say anything 'uncivil' as miragememories lied about.

Miragememories has blatantly lied about both me being uncivil and being 'banished' for that alleged sin. Clearly my thread was moved to skeptics because it offended the weak-minded sensibilities of the moderators, and not because I'd done anything wrong.

But again, considering the very poor standards of conduct on that forum, it was no real surprise.

But clearly Miragememories lied about the situation, and you guys have correctly seen through the lies. Good job.

[TruthersLie]

Oh really?

Extract from the LC thread "Hi everyone; New to forum, check out some of my video;

alienentity Aug 31 2009, 03:25 PM [drum roll] Post #1
"Hi dudes, dudettes and others,

This is my first time on your forum, just wanted to let y'all know I've produced a couple of videos that might interest you."
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/2219079/1/


Now where was I lying?

MM

When you lied about the "footprint" and the implied lie about steel and concrete being structurally important for the towers and wtc7.

So when will you provide cititations or retractions? Sometime soon.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I have no recollection of seeing him display prejudice against Jews.

Possible Israeli Mossad involvement in 9/11 is quite another matter.

My cup of irony runneth over.

Next you'll be telling us you aren't racist. It's just the uppity blacks you don't like?

[Chuck Guiteau]

:boxedin:Untrue.

I have no recollection of seeing him display prejudice against Jews.

Possible Israeli Mossad involvement in 9/11 is quite another matter.

MM

Many things are "possible". It is possible the Spanish Navy was involved. It's possible the Boy Scouts were involved. Without some evidence that would lead a reasonable person to include the Israelis as "possible" suspects, your statement is both meaningless and just as racist as if you'd said, " Possible NAACP involvement in 9/11 is quite another matter".

Tick, tock, MM. I'm still waiting on the "evidence" you claimed to possess showing that 9/11 was an inside job. And don't forget to post a technically viable method for the CD that fits the facts of the attack.
Feeling :boxedin: ?

[Oystein]

MM has not yet retracted the following lie:


Originally Posted by miragememories
post 1119
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.


I suggest everybody suspend all debate with the liar MM until he has addressed this lie and retracted it.

[Bell]

MM has not yet retracted the following lie:

I suggest everybody suspend all debate with the liar MM until he has addressed this lie and retracted it.

No no no! MM is going to supply examples of FFA in a CD. Wait for it. Any minute now...

[Chuck Guiteau]

I'm not so sure MM is a liar and, at the risk of going against the tide, I think we should refrain from calling him one until we have more evidence.

One lies when one knowingly tells an untruth and, with the possible exception of his claim to have "evidence" of a conspiracy, it may very well be that he actually believes his own statements. That would make him a delusional boob, but not a liar. There is some indication of this from his own words.

MM has stated that, despite overwhelming evidence to support the 19 Muslim Hijackers position, he does not believe this to be the case. He has also admitted that he has nothing other than speculation to rebut it, and further, that mere speculation without evidence to back it up is meaningless. That is almost a textbook definition of a paranoid delusion.
To the best of my knowledge, he has stated no position of his own ( other than his alleged possession of "evidence"), and has merely taken the standard trolls tack of quoting other sources. Since these fit into his delusional view of reality, he may very well take them as gospel for no other reason.
Of course, there is his statement regarding the evidence, which he claims as his own.
We'll have to see if he can provide it. If not, then he pretty much condemns himself.

[Oystein]

I'm not so sure MM is a liar and, at the risk of going against the tide, I think we should refrain from calling him one until we have more evidence.

One lies when one knowingly tells an untruth and, with the possible exception of his claim to have "evidence" of a conspiracy, it may very well be that he actually believes his own statements.
...
To the best of my knowledge, he has stated no position of his own ( other than his alleged possession of "evidence"), and has merely taken the standard trolls tack of quoting other sources.
...

I have a hunch that the claim "complete freefall ... is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions" (my bolding) was invented fresh by him. He has not quoted anyone, as far as I can tell, and has so consequently ignored more than probably a dozend direct requests to source that claim that I am near 100% certain he knows this claim to be an unsupported invention. That would indeed make him a liar.

[Miragememories]

"I'm not so sure MM is a liar and, at the risk of going against the tide, I think we should refrain from calling him one until we have more evidence."

Finally, a voice of sanity amongst a chorus of kneejerks.

MM

[Mr. Skinny]

Finally, a voice of sanity amongst a chorus of kneejerks.

MM
Well, you could silence that "chorus of kneejerks" by actually responding to their questions and providing evidence of your claims, however you seem to be very selective about which posts you choose to respond to.

That's my observation from following this thread. Your mileage may vary. No guarantees are expressed or implied, and all that stuff.

[Disbelief]

"I'm not so sure MM is a liar and, at the risk of going against the tide, I think we should refrain from calling him one until we have more evidence."

Here I will present some evidence. Notice the post number when he initially made this statement and then note he has not made any post to demonstrate his claim. This continued failure to do so or to recant his claim, though he insists on this from others, shows tht he lied about the initial claim.

post 1119
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

Finally, a voice of sanity amongst a chorus of kneejerks.

MM

Plan on recanting or providing proof of your above statement?

[Miragememories]

Well, you could silence that "chorus of kneejerks" by actually responding to their questions and providing evidence of your claims, however you seem to be very selective about which posts you choose to respond to.

That's my observation from following this thread. Your mileage may vary. No guarantees are expressed or implied, and all that stuff.
Fair enough Mr. Skinny.

You have to keep in mind, I have quite a few members on ignore.

It is all very fine and nice to demand that I respond to each and every question, but if you have been truly following this thread, it should be quite apparent that when I answer questions that do not agree with popular group opinion here, they get ignored.

Why should I respect a double standard?

MM

[Disbelief]

Fair enough Mr. Skinny.

You have to keep in mind, I have quite a few members on ignore.

It is all very fine and nice to demand that I respond to each and every question, but if you have been truly following this thread, it should be quite apparent that when I answer questions that do not agree with popular group opinion here, they get ignored.

Why should I respect a double standard?

MM

Show me where I have ignored any question that you have put to me. Also, multiple people have asked you to back up your claim, so do you have all of us on ignore?

@Mr. Skinny Since MM does not have you on ignore (and I have no idea why I would be on his ignore list), could you please quote my post and show him where he has not backed his claim? Thank you.

[Mr. Skinny]

Fair enough Mr. Skinny.

You have to keep in mind, I have quite a few members on ignore.
I'll consider that in the future, but I know through experience that it's hard to ignore your critics even if you have them on ignore. Other people have that nasty habit of quoting them so that you can't really ignore them.:)

It is all very fine and nice to demand that I respond to each and every question, but if you have been truly following this thread, it should be quite apparent that when I answer questions that do not agree with popular group opinion here, they get ignored.
Nah, I don't think you need to respond to "each and every question", but I think it would be wise of you to admit to a mistake regarding the "concrete and steel" construction.

If you can't admit to any mistake, then people will tend to give you a lot less credibility. Certainly, this is something you're capable of understanding.

Why should I respect a double standard?

MM
I'm not sure I've seen a double standard in this instance. I think the folks here have given you evidence you are mistaken on a couple of issues, but you seem unwilling to bend in the slightest. IMHO, I've just seen stonewalling on your part on a few important issues, and as a result the discussion/debate really can't proceed past bickering.

If you're not willing to be wrong on anything, even in the face of compelling evidence, maybe it's best to just leave the arena and let this thread die. It's getting painful to follow this thread any longer.

Maybe I should take my own advice and just leave the "reading" arena.:)

[GlennB]

... it should be quite apparent that when I answer questions that do not agree with popular group opinion here, they get ignored.



Except - for example - where you claimed that alienentity was shoved into the LCF skeptics area for being disrespectful. And where you ignored incontrovertible evidence that your claim was false. Evidence confirmed by an LCF admin (JFK) no less?

In fact I'd say it's clear that your opinions expressed here get a monumental amount of attention. How bizarre that you should take the opposite p.o.v.

Chuck might be right. Perhaps you're systematically delusional. But what you say here makes no sense, either way. You contradict yourself routinely.

[Chuck Guiteau]

Finally, a voice of sanity amongst a chorus of kneejerks.

MM

I'm always willing to keep an open mind and here, as you have affirmed, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
But keeping an open mind is not the same thing as having an empty one, and so far the only person whose "sanity" is in doubt is yours. Not by reason of common consensus, but by your own words.

You have stated that you disbelieve the "official" findings regarding the events of 9/11, even though you also admit that without evidence that disbelief is mere meaningless speculation. Yet you continue to hold to it fervently.

It was you who predicted, in no uncertain terms, cataclysmic events would take place before the last election. None of these events came to pass, in fact just the opposite occurred, and your only response has been to mulishly ignore any references to these predictions despite repeated requests to explain yourself.

You have flatly claimed that you have evidence indicating 9/11 was an “inside job”, and once again, in the face of numerous requests to provide that evidence, you have invariably chosen to ignore these quite reasonable demands.

These are all clear indications of either a pattern of willful deception or a paranoid delusion.

In the final analysis, it will be you who makes the decision for us. Are you merely another underachieving delusional boob who blames “mysterious forces” for his inability cope with reality (and thus feverishly latches on to any huckster willing to pander to his worldview)?

Are you attempting to engage in acts of deception to gain momentary attention ( in short , are you just another lying troll desperate for someone, anyone, to recognize his existence)?

Or are you an honest and ethical individual with an insight we seem to lack? Your actions will dictate our response.

Maintaining your present course will prove beyond reasonable doubt that at best you are just another pathetic loser who has lost touch with reality, deserving only pity and contempt, and at worse that you are in fact a liar.

Or, you could stand up, provide the evidence you claim to have, prove your statements in regards to Oysteins request, and justify your position.

Tick, tock, MM

[Miragememories]

"Nah, I don't think you need to respond to "each and every question", but I think it would be wise of you to admit to a mistake regarding the "concrete and steel" construction.

If you can't admit to any mistake, then people will tend to give you a lot less credibility. Certainly, this is something you're capable of understanding."

It all depends on the context.

I have shown that even the NIST in their report made reference to WTC7 as being a "steel and concrete structure".

In addition, I have provided evidence from the NY Times about how over-engineered WTC7 was and how it underwent $200 million dollars in improvements.

No concession has been made to these points by the diehard OCTers here.

I am willing to concede to the terminology arguments re: architectural footprint and academic descriptions of the WTC7 building type, but not where they are used to obfuscate the underlying argument that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

If you have truly followed this thread, and are indeed a person with an open mind, you must realize that one has to be careful when agreeing.

Unlike other forums that I attend, I clearly hold a minority position here and face an onslaught of rebuke, mockery and pettiness whenever I agree with advisory opinions.

You'll be hard pressed to see Jref OCTers accept the merit in anything I, or any other 9/11 Truth advocate, post here.

MM

[Mr. Skinny]

It all depends on the context.
Agree.

I have shown that even the NIST in their report made reference to WTC7 as being a "steel and concrete structure".
True. I recall seeing that. However, in the context (there's that word again) of this discussion, it has been shown to you that construction with concrete floor slabs with steel columns and beams (that were not encased in concrete) is not the same as the examples of other buildings (which did not collapse) where the steel beams/colums were encased in concrete.

I just think you're being hard-headed about this issue and IMHO should admit you're wrong.

In addition, I have provided evidence from the NY Times about how over-engineered WTC7 was and how it underwent $200 million dollars in improvements.
I don't specifically recall your evidence here. However, every building designed for human occupancy or use is "overengineered". It's called "factor of safety".

[No concession has been made to these points by the diehard OCTers here.
Well, yeah, people here can get quite anal about evidence, and what it means in the context of a discussion. Believe it or not, I actually don't like the debating style of two or three of your "opponents". Skeptics have their faults too, I suppose. Generally though, you can work around them if you smack them down with really good evidence to support your argument.

I am willing to concede to the terminology arguments re: architectural footprint and academic descriptions of the WTC7 building type, but not where they are used to obfuscate the underlying argument that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
OK. See, you held out too long admitting the "footprint" mistake, and did the same with the "concrete and steel" structure comparison. You should have just said: OK, I retract that statement - let's move on to more important issues.

If you have truly followed this thread, and are indeed a person with an open mind, you must realize that one has to be careful when agreeing.
Totally agree. Being careful with what you say is important. So is admitting mistakes and moving on.

Unlike other forums that I attend, I clearly hold a minority position here and face an onslaught of rebuke, mockery and pettiness whenever I agree with advisory opinions.

You'll be hard pressed to see Jref OCTers accept the merit in anything I, or any other 9/11 Truth advocate, post here.

MM
MM, the "onslaught of rebuke, mockery and pettiness" wouldn't seem as bad if you didn't wait so long to admit mistakes. People here get tired of people who "just can't admit a mistake". Usually, someone who readily admits a mistake is actually admired for doing so. It makes your star rise, so to speak, as an honest debate opponent.

[Oystein]

Amazing. MM still totally ignores all requests to clarify the following claim:

...
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.


I am sure he has me on ignore. Mr. Skinny, Chuck, maybe you could quote this question:

MM, can you support the claim you made in Post 1119 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6281995&postcount=1119), which was:

"And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions."

[Miragememories]

"It all depends on the context."
"Agree."
"I have shown that even the NIST in their report made reference to WTC7 as being a "steel and concrete structure"."
"True. I recall seeing that. However, in the context (there's that word again) of this discussion, it has been shown to you that construction with concrete floor slabs with steel columns and beams (that were not encased in concrete) is not the same as the examples of other buildings (which did not collapse) where the steel beams/colums were encased in concrete.

I just think you're being hard-headed about this issue and IMHO should admit you're wrong"
Then show me that this is not relevant?

NIST WTC7 FINAL - 1A Extracts;

pg.xxxix Executive Summary
"Broadening the scope of the “structural frame” approach to fire resistance ratings by including, as part of the structural frame, floor systems and other bracing members that are essential to the vertical stability of the building under gravity loads."

pg.6
"The floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness. The 1st floor slab was 0.36 m (14 in.) thick. The concrete on almost all of the other floors was poured on top of 76 mm (3 in.) deep corrugated metal decking."

pg.7
"The floor beams were connected to the concrete deck by shear studs, which caused the floor beams and concrete slab to act together, or compositely."

Did this technical argument get challenged by OCTers?

No.

Instead of arguing the merits of my point, they chose to argue terminology so they could avoid explaining how steel reinforced floor slabs could not be a factor in the structural strength of WTC7.

[i]"In addition, I have provided evidence from the NY Times about how over-engineered WTC7 was and how it underwent $200 million dollars in improvements."
"I don't specifically recall your evidence here. However, every building designed for human occupancy or use is "overengineered". It's called "factor of safety"."

I suggest you read the NY Times article. In the case of WTC7, they were discussing engineering that was not typical and specifically referring to a specially adaptive design.

"No concession has been made to these points by the diehard OCTers here."
"Well, yeah, people here can get quite anal about evidence, and what it means in the context of a discussion. Believe it or not, I actually don't like the debating style of two or three of your "opponents". Skeptics have their faults too, I suppose. Generally though, you can work around them if you smack them down with really good evidence to support your argument."
There is more to argument than "smoking gun" evidence.

If it was as straightforward as that, most trials would never happen.

And yes, I've learned to "work around them" by using the ignore feature.

"I am willing to concede to the terminology arguments re: architectural footprint and academic descriptions of the WTC7 building type, but not where they are used to obfuscate the underlying argument that WTC7 was a controlled demolition."
"OK. See, you held out too long admitting the "footprint" mistake, and did the same with the "concrete and steel" structure comparison. You should have just said: OK, I retract that statement - let's move on to more important issues."

If you have truly followed this thread, you'll see where I bent over backwards to explain my usage of those terms. My message was quite understandable in terms of comprehensibility and context. I don't rebuke everyone for the chronic typos I observe unless their message is obscured. My message hasn't been obscured by the way I have referred to footprint or concrete and steel.

OCTers have merely taken the opportunity to pounce on those non-issues as a means to obfuscate the real argument.

Below are but a few examples of where I attempted to clarify but was met by deaf ears;

post 1078
It is virtually impossible to have a collapse footprint that will match its architectural footprint.

Also from post 1078
I have never suggested that the WTC7 collapse was confined to its architectural footprint.

When experts talk about falling into its own footprint, they are speaking in relative, not absolute terms.

A point which you already knew.

As an example;
"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

"Unlike other forums that I attend, I clearly hold a minority position here and face an onslaught of rebuke, mockery and pettiness whenever I agree with advisory opinions.

You'll be hard pressed to see Jref OCTers accept the merit in anything I, or any other 9/11 Truth advocate, post here."
"MM, the "onslaught of rebuke, mockery and pettiness" wouldn't seem as bad if you didn't wait so long to admit mistakes. People here get tired of people who "just can't admit a mistake". Usually, someone who readily admits a mistake is actually admired for doing so. It makes your star rise, so to speak, as an honest debate opponent."

I have to disagree.

Your words are easy when spoken from a position of strength (the majority position).

Show me all the rising stars on my opponents side?

MM

[Mr. Skinny]

MM,

Appreciate you responding, but your response does nothing more than repeat your previous behavior, in my opinion.

So, I honestly can't see having a fruitful discussion on these issues. I think you are the very opposite of "open minded".

Allow me to go back to lurking.

[Carlos]

The concrete slab was essential to the building and vertical members stability due its infinite stiffness (in terms of bending around the vertical axis and horizontal displacement), but it could not avoid neither the joints failure nor the excessive shear forces transmited to the slab by the connectors, both caused by the excessive thermal expansion of the beams. The concrete slabs were not designed to resist those shear forces.

[Mr. Skinny]

infinite stiffnesss? Not an engineering term I'm familiar with.

[Carlos]

But it's not exactly a term, when we are talking about bending around the vertical axis and horizontal displacement its stifness are considered infinite.

[ozeco41]

But it's not exactly a term, when we are talking about bending around the vertical axis and horizontal displacement its stifness are considered infinite.

Your careful qualification in the original post made it clear what you meant.

...due its infinite stiffness (in terms of bending around the vertical axis and horizontal displacement), but it could not avoid ...
Quite explicit. Fully understood by me.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm not so sure MM is a liar and, at the risk of going against the tide, I think we should refrain from calling him one until we have more evidence.

Chuck - Miragememories has been posting here for some time and like virtually all truthers who have come here, has turned to lies and deceit when stymied by the lack of evidence for thier fantasies.

Case in point just a few posts just below yours.


"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

MM is fully aware that not one of the buildings collapsed "symmetrically into their footprints at freefall speed", he has been corrected on this before yet insist on bringing it up over and over again.

Miragememories is a liar.

[Chuck Guiteau]

I am willing to concede to the terminology arguments re: architectural footprint and academic descriptions of the WTC7 building type, but not where they are used to obfuscate the underlying argument that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.

What argument? Without supplying an underlying foundation for the position, you have no argument, only meaningless speculation. Even you have admitted this.

Unlike other forums that I attend, I clearly hold a minority position here and face an onslaught of rebuke, mockery and pettiness whenever I agree with advisory opinions.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I think you mean "adverse" opinions, or possibly you are referring to your numerous appeals to authority as your "advisors". Either way, you can expect mockery and rebuke when you make claims that you cannot back up then ignore repeated demands to do so, and not just on this forum, but anywhere else.

You'll be hard pressed to see Jref OCTers accept the merit in anything I, or any other 9/11 Truth advocate, post here.

How would you know? You haven't posted anything of merit so far. You've merely made a few blanket assertions, followed by volumes of cut and paste quotes (invariably attempting to utilize the logical fallacy of appeal to authority) regarding relatively trivial points of a central position that you've already admitted is meaningless speculation until the position itself can be established as viable.

I note a hint of desperation in your posts, MM. It's obvious that you now realize that you're hard a'starboard and circling fast.
Why don't you do the right thing and post your evidence, state a technically viable method for a CD that is consistent with the facts and man up.
At this point, every post you make that doesn't address these issues, which are central to your position, just makes you look worse.

[Chuck Guiteau]

Chuck - Miragememories has been posting here for some time and like virtually all truthers who have come here, has turned to lies and deceit when stymied by the lack of evidence for thier fantasies.

It's disappointing, but I'm beginning to agree with you.

Removed breach of Rule 12. Please re-read the Membership Agreement and abide by it.

[GlennB]

When experts talk about falling into its own footprint, they are speaking in relative, not absolute terms.

As an example;

Originally Posted by Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia
"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"




Quite clearly Mason is not talking in relative terms here. If he were his statement would translate as "collapsing into their own collapse footprints", which would be meaningless.

And WTC7 did not collapse symmetrically, a point I think you've accepted by now.

Therefore Mason does not illustrate your point.

p.s. other posters have suggested that you claim to possess some undisclosed 'evidence' about 9/11. Can I assume this is a misunderstanding?

[TruthersLie]

It all depends on the context.

I have shown that even the NIST in their report made reference to WTC7 as being a "steel and concrete structure".

In addition, I have provided evidence from the NY Times about how over-engineered WTC7 was and how it underwent $200 million dollars in improvements.

I fully conceeded that there was a $200 Million upgrade to wtc7. And that there was NO mention of "structural" support offered by concrete. But that they added 375 TONS of Steel. Which you have pointedly ignored.


No concession has been made to these points by the diehard OCTers here.

I am willing to concede to the terminology arguments re: architectural footprint and academic descriptions of the WTC7 building type, but not where they are used to obfuscate the underlying argument that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.


Oh goody. Then you will stop using the lie by implication (Implying that the collapses were much smaller and more orderly than they were. Ie the "footprint" lie. And you will stop implying that the construction of the towers or wtc7 was steel and concrete (that the steel was reinforced by the concrete)).

Goody. Thank you for rectifying your LIE about the collapse and the structural properties of the towers and wtc7.


If you have truly followed this thread, and are indeed a person with an open mind, you must realize that one has to be careful when agreeing.


What we have seen is incessant handwaving and attempts to dodge and weave.


You'll be hard pressed to see Jref OCTers accept the merit in anything I, or any other 9/11 Truth advocate, post here.

MM

As soon as you post anything which deserves merit, I'll be happy to agree with it. So far you have handwaved, ignored or lied... Sometime soon, I hope you will bring up something that deseves merit.

[TruthersLie]

And you come out and try the handwaving again.. you were showing promise too.

Then show me that this is not relevant?

NIST WTC7 FINAL - 1A Extracts;

pg.xxxix Executive Summary
[i]"Broadening the scope of the “structural frame” approach to fire resistance ratings by including, as part of the structural frame, floor systems and other bracing members that are essential to the vertical stability of the building under gravity loads."

pg.6
"The floor slabs were reinforced concrete of varying thickness. The 1st floor slab was 0.36 m (14 in.) thick. The concrete on almost all of the other floors was poured on top of 76 mm (3 in.) deep corrugated metal decking."

pg.7
"The floor beams were connected to the concrete deck by shear studs, which caused the floor beams and concrete slab to act together, or compositely."

Did this technical argument get challenged by OCTers?

Not at all. Because there is nothing to challenge there. The FLOOR DECKING was concrete that was about 3 inches thick. GREAT. The concrete wasn't part of the collapse. It had NOTHING to do with the structure.

if you wouldn't keep on lying by implying that the concrete in the structure was used for structural support, then I wouldn't have ot bust you on it.



Instead of arguing the merits of my point, they chose to argue terminology so they could avoid explaining how steel reinforced floor slabs could not be a factor in the structural strength of WTC7.

Because the composite floors were not part of the structural strength... it was used for carrying the loads on the floors.

Why does the lead architect talk soooooo much about the steel, but forget to mention concrete? Because the concrete isn't important in the building designs.


I suggest you read the NY Times article. In the case of WTC7, they were discussing engineering that was not typical and specifically referring to a specially adaptive design.


and it says NOTHING about the concrete being added to help with this "overengineering" but talks a great deal about the STEEL reinforcement.


If you have truly followed this thread, you'll see where I bent over backwards to explain my usage of those terms. My message was quite understandable in terms of comprehensibility and context. I don't rebuke everyone for the chronic typos I observe unless their message is obscured. My message hasn't been obscured by the way I have referred to footprint or concrete and steel.

OCTers have merely taken the opportunity to pounce on those non-issues as a means to obfuscate the real argument.

Below are but a few examples of where I attempted to clarify but was met by deaf ears;

post 1078
It is virtually impossible to have a collapse footprint that will match its architectural footprint.

Also from post 1078
I have never suggested that the WTC7 collapse was confined to its architectural footprint.

When experts talk about falling into its own footprint, they are speaking in relative, not absolute terms.


In architectural and engineering circles there is ONE footprint. The architectural/building footprint.

There is NO SUCH THING AS A COLLAPSE FOOTPRINT. PROVIDE THAT CITATION.

[Sivan Kurzberg]

There is NO SUCH THING AS A COLLAPSE FOOTPRINT.

I don't think that is correct.

"Fábio Bruno Pinto, Director Operacional, Fábio Bruno Construções Ltda.

• Security Measures Adopted for Brazilian Implosion:

• Pre-demolition simulation & analysis (including video output of collapse direction, debris and final collapse footprint)

• Protective nylon screens against flying debris and isolation of the area.

I was born on June 1st 1976 and graduated in mining engineer from the Federal University of Minas Gerais in 2000, with a specialization course in use of explosives at Michigan Tech University, USA. I Work with urban rock blasting and implosion. I have done over 30 implosions, including the largest implosion of Brazil (Presidium Frei Caneca)."

http://www.khl.com/events/demolition-summit/speakers/

[TruthersLie]

I don't think that is correct.

"Fábio Bruno Pinto, Director Operacional, Fábio Bruno Construções Ltda.

• Security Measures Adopted for Brazilian Implosion:

• Pre-demolition simulation & analysis (including video output of collapse direction, debris and final collapse footprint)

• Protective nylon screens against flying debris and isolation of the area.

I was born on June 1st 1976 and graduated in mining engineer from the Federal University of Minas Gerais in 2000, with a specialization course in use of explosives at Michigan Tech University, USA. I Work with urban rock blasting and implosion. I have done over 30 implosions, including the largest implosion of Brazil (Presidium Frei Caneca)."

http://www.khl.com/events/demolition-summit/speakers/

From the link provided (unless I have missed it), the bottom bio is there, but the top bullet points are missing. (ETA: IN fact the only place on all of google that the quote you put up is in your post. It is NOT in the link you provided. (unless it is the UAE filters on google).

In CD you speak of debris zones and collapse zones. You don't call it a collapse footprint (IIRC). The only reference I can find to "collapse footprints" is this link, and it isn't in there.

Now with that out there, I should have been very clear. In engineering and architecture when you speak of the "footprint" you are very clear on what you mean. In them when you speak of footprint you mean the base of the structure. (sometimes it includes the sidewalk around the structure) but that is what is ment.

If MM is trying to pass of the Ae911twoof "engineers and architects" who use the footprint bs, then they are obviously talking out of their asses.

In this article
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Brent Blanchard is very clear and distinct between the collapse debris and the footprint of the buildings in the section Assertion 2.

And I would think that a website like controlled-demolition.com might have something on controlled demolition footprints... but amazingly enough they are not there.

ETA: Now with that all said, in Chapter 9 of the NIST report they use the term "collapse footprint."
The use the term 1 time.
On page 216 NIST NCSTAR 1 section 9.2.6 part C.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Recommendations.pdf

Command posts should be established outside the potential collapse footprint of any building which shows evidence of large multifloor fires or has serious

So with that said, I have to eat some humble pie. NIST does say it. ONE TIME.

There is no definition in the glossary, and it is not used (IIRC) in architecture or in engineering except that the "collapse" footprint would be the buildings architectural footprint.

I'm still waiting for good ole MM to provide me with any architectural or engineering (text or journal) which states a definition of a "collapse footprint."

[Sivan Kurzberg]

From the link provided (unless I have missed it), the bottom bio is there, but the top bullet points are missing. (ETA: IN fact the only place on all of google that the quote you put up is in your post. It is NOT in the link you provided. (unless it is the UAE filters on google).

In CD you speak of debris zones and collapse zones. You don't call it a collapse footprint (IIRC). The only reference I can find to "collapse footprints" is this link, and it isn't in there.

Now with that out there, I should have been very clear. In engineering and architecture when you speak of the "footprint" you are very clear on what you mean. In them when you speak of footprint you mean the base of the structure. (sometimes it includes the sidewalk around the structure) but that is what is ment.

If MM is trying to pass of the Ae911twoof "engineers and architects" who use the footprint bs, then they are obviously talking out of their asses.

In this article
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Brent Blanchard is very clear and distinct between the collapse debris and the footprint of the buildings in the section Assertion 2.

And I would think that a website like controlled-demolition.com might have something on controlled demolition footprints... but amazingly enough they are not there.

ETA: Now with that all said, in Chapter 9 of the NIST report they use the term "collapse footprint."
The use the term 1 time.
On page 216 NIST NCSTAR 1 section 9.2.6 part C.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Recommendations.pdf



So with that said, I have to eat some humble pie. NIST does say it. ONE TIME.

There is no definition in the glossary, and it is not used (IIRC) in architecture or in engineering except that the "collapse" footprint would be the buildings architectural footprint.

I'm still waiting for good ole MM to provide me with any architectural or engineering (text or journal) which states a definition of a "collapse footprint."

Well I searched "Collapse Footprint" and I found the KHL site. But once there I too could not find that exact quote. Part of the quote was in the google search result description. So I hit the cache button in the google description for the KHM site and I found that quote.

Now funny you should bring up Brent Blanchard in reply to a post that lists a real explosive expert and all of his education. Is Blanchard ever "very clear and distinct" in listing his own education? Because I did a search on Blanchard and I found this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2319605&postcount=67

Beavis and Butthead? That's not really Blanchard's reputation is it? He should clear that up with some credentials. The debunking community is counting on him to be their debunker expert.

[triforcharity]

From the link provided (unless I have missed it), the bottom bio is there, but the top bullet points are missing. (ETA: IN fact the only place on all of google that the quote you put up is in your post. It is NOT in the link you provided. (unless it is the UAE filters on google).

In CD you speak of debris zones and collapse zones. You don't call it a collapse footprint (IIRC). The only reference I can find to "collapse footprints" is this link, and it isn't in there.

Now with that out there, I should have been very clear. In engineering and architecture when you speak of the "footprint" you are very clear on what you mean. In them when you speak of footprint you mean the base of the structure. (sometimes it includes the sidewalk around the structure) but that is what is ment.

If MM is trying to pass of the Ae911twoof "engineers and architects" who use the footprint bs, then they are obviously talking out of their asses.

In this article
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Brent Blanchard is very clear and distinct between the collapse debris and the footprint of the buildings in the section Assertion 2.

And I would think that a website like controlled-demolition.com might have something on controlled demolition footprints... but amazingly enough they are not there.

ETA: Now with that all said, in Chapter 9 of the NIST report they use the term "collapse footprint."
The use the term 1 time.
On page 216 NIST NCSTAR 1 section 9.2.6 part C.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Recommendations.pdf



So with that said, I have to eat some humble pie. NIST does say it. ONE TIME.

There is no definition in the glossary, and it is not used (IIRC) in architecture or in engineering except that the "collapse" footprint would be the buildings architectural footprint.

I'm still waiting for good ole MM to provide me with any architectural or engineering (text or journal) which states a definition of a "collapse footprint."

There is a use of the phrase "Collapse Footprint" but it is usually used in terms of "potential collapse footprint" that firefighters and other safety officers use to define a collapse zone around a building.

It also is used to define the area that a collapsed building occupies. But, the way MM used it, it is absolutely incorrect.

[Miragememories]

From the NIST WTC7 FINAL - 1A

Recommendations

"Command posts should be established outside the potential collapse footprint of any building which shows evidence of large multi-floor fires or has serious structural damage. A continual assessment of building stability and safety should be made in such emergencies to guide ongoing operations and enhance emergency responder safety. The information necessary to make these assessments should be made available to those assigned responsibility (see related Recommendations 15 and 23 in NIST NCSTAR 1). "

bolding and underlining are mine.

"There is a use of the phrase "Collapse Footprint" but it is usually used in terms of "potential collapse footprint" that firefighters and other safety officers use to define a collapse zone around a building.

It also is used to define the area that a collapsed building occupies."

Some examples of my usage of the term collapse footprint in this thread;
"Given the 47-story original size of WTC7 and its relatively small collapse footprint, it is a legitimate talking point."

"It is virtually impossible to have a collapse footprint that will match its architectural footprint."

"And regarding your concerns about the size of the WTC7 debris field (since you apparently don't like the term: collapse footprint)."

"But, the way MM used it, it is absolutely incorrect."

The intent behind my usage of the expression "collapse footprint", is in full compliance with the NIST reference given above, "the collapse zone around a building", and "the area that a collapsed building occupies."

I fail to see how I am "absolutely incorrect" in how I've used the expression.

Such nit-picking as a means of refuting my overall argument is truly pathetic and only reveals the desperation behind your case.

MM

[DGM]

Such nit-picking as a means of refuting my overall argument is truly pathetic and only reveals the desperation behind your case.

MM

And what again was your "overall" argument?

[Disbelief]

And what again was your "overall" argument?

I think this was, but he has yet to back it up.


post 1119
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

[Chuck Guiteau]

Such nit-picking as a means of refuting my overall argument is truly pathetic and only reveals the desperation behind your case.

MM

What "overall argument"? You've already admitted that without a technically viable means to perform a CD that conforms to the circumstances of 9/11 you have no "overall argument", just meaningless speculation.

It's most telling that you go to some lengths to defend your use of terminology concerning an event that, by your own admission, never occurred.

Just keep repeating, "As long as my head is in the sand, the tiger can't see me", MM.
Then maybe everyone else will forget that you don't have an overall argument.

[triforcharity]

Im sorry MM, You don't say "footprint" but you quoted someone saying exactly that.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6260126&postcount=1060

In that context, he is talking about an architectual footprint. Not a collapse footprint. If he meant collapse footprint, he would make himself out to be a complete fool, as EVERY collapse falls into it's own collapse footprint. If it hadn't collapsed, there would BE no collapse footprint.

So, the way that you quoted it, it absoltely incorrect. This guy you quoted is not talking about a collapse footprint at all.

It would sound like this.

"collapsed into it's own collapse footprint" Which makes no grammatical sense, even to a guy whos first language is not English.

[TruthersLie]

Well I searched "Collapse Footprint" and I found the KHL site. But once there I too could not find that exact quote. Part of the quote was in the google search result description. So I hit the cache button in the google description for the KHM site and I found that quote.

ah that would do it. The UAE has difficulties running off of the cache.

and yet it is still amazing... (according to MM) that "collapse footprint" is common knowledge, yet it only shows up in like 3 places (that aren't unqualified truthers talking out of their asses).

Yet when you do footprint and look up construction, engineering or architecture it speaks about it being the base of the building.

I'm still waiting for someone to cite me any engineering or architectural manual, textbook, or journal article.

(as for the NIST issue...they say it 1x in 1 place)


Now funny you should bring up Brent Blanchard in reply to a post that lists a real explosive expert and all of his education. Is Blanchard ever "very clear and distinct" in listing his own education? Because I did a search on Blanchard and I found this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2319605&postcount=67

Beavis and Butthead? That's not really Blanchard's reputation is it? He should clear that up with some credentials. The debunking community is counting on him to be their debunker expert.

I don't think anyone with a modicum of basic intelligence has any doubt about Brent Blanchard's qualifications....

[triforcharity]

ah that would do it. The UAE has difficulties running off of the cache.

and yet it is still amazing... (according to MM) that "collapse footprint" is common knowledge, yet it only shows up in like 3 places (that aren't unqualified truthers talking out of their asses).

Yet when you do footprint and look up construction, engineering or architecture it speaks about it being the base of the building.

I'm still waiting for someone to cite me any engineering or architectural manual, textbook, or journal article.

(as for the NIST issue...they say it 1x in 1 place)



I don't think anyone with a modicum of basic intelligence has any doubt about Brent Blanchard's qualifications....

The NFPA uses it, but it is in relation to the potential collapse footprint that is around a building. I did a google search for "collapse footprint" and 99% came back to random sites, and a few came back to NFPA and NIST reccommendations.

I didn't see it in any engineering or architectual pages at all.

[Miragememories]

"It is virtually impossible to have a collapse footprint that will match its architectural footprint.

When experts talk about falling into its own footprint, they are speaking in relative, not absolute terms."

As an example;"
"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"
"In that context, he is talking about an architectual footprint. Not a collapse footprint. If he meant collapse footprint, he would make himself out to be a complete fool, as EVERY collapse falls into it's own collapse footprint. If it hadn't collapsed, there would BE no collapse footprint."

"Collapse" is an adjective describing the footprint after its parent building has collapsed.

He might have phrased it a number of ways, but unless the collapse was contained by a force field, I'm certain that Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, realized that there was debris spill outside of the building's architectural footprint.

Your response is nothing more than ridiculous semantic quibbling.


MM

[triforcharity]

"Collapse" is an adjective describing the footprint after its parent building has collapsed.

He might have phrased it a number of ways, but unless it the collapse was contained by a force field, I'm certain that Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, realized that there was debris spill outside of the building's architectural footprint.

Your response is nothing more than ridiculous semantic quibbling.


MM

No, it most certainly isn't. Your "expert" believes the collapse was symmectrical. It most certainly wasn't. It also did not fall into "it's own footprint". This is not semantics, this is facts. You can try to twist and turn and minipulate what he said, but he most certainly is not talking about a collapse footprint. No matter how hard you try to twist it, it still doesn't say what you think it does.

[Grizzly Bear]

Getting to the point - and it's been said numerous times as it is - appealing to Jowenko's "superiority" through what professional field he works in is irrelevant. If he has an opinion that he wants to state as fact he should be more than capable of backing it up and explaining to people less technically qualified why he believes something.

"He is a demolitions expert" is not enough
"He hasn't changed his mind" is not enough
"He was blind sided" is no excuse
"He gave an unbiased opinion" is not enough

I expect if he has an opinion and somebody takes his word for it, he/she should be able to tell me more than just a one-liner to support the validity of said opinion. Look up the definition of an appeal to authority (http://www.skepdic.com/authorty.html).

Oh and while I'm on the subject of "blind sided", if we're going to dredge up that remark about other professionals being threatened into silence or "too overwhelmed by the truth" I hope you have an explanation MM, for the remarks of people outside of the jurisdiction of the United States. The US is a super power, but your expectation of it's judicial power internationally is shall I say... unrealistic. Remember the saying; extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence... I hope you have it.

[Garb]

So MM basically concedes that the term "falling into its own footprint" is not an argument against the official story because it means falling into its own "collapse footprint", which would have happened in a CD or otherwise?

I'm not sure what relevance this has.

[Oystein]

So MM basically concedes that the term "falling into its own footprint" is not an argument against the official story because it means falling into its own "collapse footprint", which would have happened in a CD or otherwise?

I'm not sure what relevance this has.

I think what MM wants to argue is:

If a building collapses (A), it ends up in its collapse footprint (B).
From this follows: Controlled demolition (C).

Or, to put in in formal logic:

premise: A -> B
premise: A
conclusion: C


But maybe it is more subtle than this:

All collapsing buildings (A) collapse into their collapse footprint (B).
All controlled demolitions (C) are collapsing buildings (A)
From this follows: All contolled demolitions collapse into their collapse footprint (B).
WTC7 (D) is a collapsing building (A)
WTC7 (D) collapsed into its collapse footprint (B)
Therefore, WTC7 (D) is a controlled demolition (C)

Or formally:
All C are A
All A are B
Therefore all C are B
D is B
Therefore D is C

I'll leave it to those who took logic 101 to sort out what's wrong there.

[tsig]

So MM basically concedes that the term "falling into its own footprint" is not an argument against the official story because it means falling into its own "collapse footprint", which would have happened in a CD or otherwise?

I'm not sure what relevance this has.

Isn't "a building falls into it's collapse footprint" a tautology?

Collapse footprint = what remains after a building fell

[GlennB]

Isn't "a building falls into it's collapse footprint" a tautology?



I believe it is.

"collapsed into its collapse footprint" is self-defining and meaningless.

MM summons this up as a justification for his views, however :rolleyes: . And happily throws in the whole freefall canard to boot.

[Disbelief]

Just in case MM forgot about this (bolding mine):


post 1119
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

Maybe he has been quiet while he is researching his claim.

[triforcharity]

Just in case MM forgot about this (bolding mine):



Maybe he has been quiet while he is researching his claim pulling stuff out of his posterior.

FTFY, since we know that truthers never actually research anything. And if they do, they won't understand it anyway.

[A W Smith]

Now funny you should bring up Brent Blanchard in reply to a post that lists a real explosive expert and all of his education. Is Blanchard ever "very clear and distinct" in listing his own education? Because I did a search on Blanchard and I found this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2319605&postcount=67

Beavis and Butthead? That's not really Blanchard's reputation is it? He should clear that up with some credentials. The debunking community is counting on him to be their debunker expert.


Why didn't "demolition dave" support his accusations with a link to said documentary? And why did "Demolition Dave" refuse to provide his own credentials?

[alienentity]

Now funny you should bring up Brent Blanchard in reply to a post that lists a real explosive expert and all of his education. ...The debunking community is counting on him to be their debunker expert.

Your research chops are really bad then...

'Brent Blanchard is Director of Field Operations for Protec Documentation Services, a company that documents the work of building demolition contractors. This article is a summary of his response to those who feel that the WTC buildings "collapsed as if by a controlled demolition." His entire argument may be found on the Website he edits: www.implosionworld.com.

Blanchard and his experts at Protec are uniquely positioned to address concerns that explosives may have been used to bring down the World Trade Center buildings. They have worked with all major American demolition companies and many foreign ones to study the controlled demolition of over 1000 of some of the largest and tallest buildings around the world. Their duties include engineering studies, structural analysis, vibration/air overpressure monitoring and photographic.'

Blanchard's paper on the WTC collapses has cowriters as well. Are you going to pretend that none of them know anything about demolition as well?

But nevermind, if you can't fathom how someone who works documenting demolitions could know anything about it, there are other experts who have categorically stated that the towers and WTC 7 were NOT explosive controlled demolitions, namely:

Mark Loizeaux, who runs CDI, a very large American demolition firm
Ron Craig, Canadian demolition expert, Professor at Ryerson University in Toronto and member of the International Society of Explosives Engineers


Sivan, you can run, but you can't hide from the facts. And if you won't face what experts say, what does that say about your belief system?
Pretty damn shaky, it is.

[grandmastershek]

Your research chops are really bad then...

'Brent Blanchard is Director of Field Operations for Protec Documentation Services...

You forgot to include that Blanchard is a member of the Internat'l Society of Explosive Engineers, is published in their journal, and authored a book on the history of the demolition's industry.

[TexasJack]

Why didn't "demolition dave" support his accusations with a link to said documentary? And why did "Demolition Dave" refuse to provide his own credentials?

I remember this guy, and he did sound credible. He did have it for Blanchard, but at the same time, he didn't buy into the CD nonsense at all.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73979

[Disbelief]

MM is back. So, are you going to back up this claim yet?


And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

Have evidence yet or will you admit this was an incorrect statement?

[Miragememories]

I remember this guy, and he did sound credible. He did have it for Blanchard, but at the same time, he didn't buy into the CD nonsense at all.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73979
I guess he earns part marks.

MM

[Disbelief]

So MM, are you willing to answer yet? Keep doing this though, as you prove how the truthers are not willing to get the truth.



And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

[TruthersLie]

"Collapse" is an adjective describing the footprint after its parent building has collapsed.

He might have phrased it a number of ways, but unless the collapse was contained by a force field, I'm certain that Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, realized that there was debris spill outside of the building's architectural footprint.

Your response is nothing more than ridiculous semantic quibbling.


MM

Good. You seem to be learning.

Now that we have gotten the
"into its own footprint" out of the way, and we have corrected your lie about the towers and wtc7 being "steel and concrete" buildings we can move on to your latest ********.


post 1119
And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.


Please provide ANY proof that when you conduct a CD that you have buildings that undergo "complete freefall" for any duration.

You claim it is a "planned for characteristic in controlled demoltions." It isn't.

Provide a citation to support this claim, or retract it.

[Garb]

Isn't "a building falls into it's collapse footprint" a tautology?

Collapse footprint = what remains after a building fell

I would say so, which makes me wonder why MM brought it up in the first place.

[GlennB]

I would say so, which makes me wonder why MM brought it up in the first place.

Because in rare moments of reflection Truthers are mightily embarrassed by the "fell into its own footprint" nonsense, and need an escape route. That the 'escape' is tautologous is almost amusing. Few are as adept at this kind of wriggling as MM.

They're obliged to say that whatever happened was evidence of CD. This is because they start with belief in CT and have to torture reality to make it fit their faith. Holding multiple viewpoints at different times is no problem for them (watch Chris7 switch back+forth between explosives and thermite) and reminds me very much of the twisting and turning that creationist fundies have to go through when questioned about Noah's flood.

[twinstead]

They're obliged to say that whatever happened was evidence of CD. This is because they start with belief in CT and have to torture reality to make it fit their faith.

Indeed


Holding multiple viewpoints at different times is no problem for them (watch Chris7 switch back+forth between explosives and thermite) and reminds me very much of the twisting and turning that creationist fundies have to go through when questioned about Noah's flood.

Noah's flood was an inside job perpatrated by the ruling elite to keep the people down. Only a sheeple thinks God did it. ;)

[Disbelief]

Hey, I see MM is back. So MM, are you going to finally step up and provide evidence for this claim or will you continue to act like you never made the statement? You demand so much from the debunkers, don't you think you should man up?



And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

[Miragememories]

Sincere truth seekers are interested in the essential meaning of a statement.

BS artists resort to semantic game playing to hide the bankruptcy of their arguments.

Obsessive concern over the minute details of the speed and symmetry of the WTC7 collapse characterization
is a good example of such bs.

No other concrete and steel building has ever completely collapsed at high speed from fire alone.

That is the essence of what is important about WTC7.

MM

[triforcharity]

Sincere truth seekers are interested in the essential meaning of a statement.

BS artists resort to semantic game playing to hide the bankruptcy of their arguments.

Obsessive concern over the minute details of the speed and symmetry of the WTC7 collapse characterization
is a good example of such bs.

No other concrete and steel building has ever completely collapsed at high speed from fire alone.

That is the essence of what is important about WTC7.

MM

And, in 1986, no other space shuttle had exploded after liftoff, yet it happened.

In 2003, a space shuttle had never broken apart upon re-entry. but yet, it happened too.

Would you like to back up your claim of


And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions

So, where is that evidence to back up this BS claim.....

[Disbelief]

Sincere truth seekers are interested in the essential meaning of a statement.

That describes no one in the truth movement.


BS artists resort to semantic game playing to hide the bankruptcy of their arguments.

This describes the truth movement exactly.


Obsessive concern over the minute details of the speed and symmetry of the WTC7 collapse characterization
is a good example of such bs.

Look at the A&E presentation, and this is one of their main points.


No other concrete and steel building has ever completely collapsed at high speed from fire alone.

That is the essence of what is important about WTC7.

MM

Then you come out and lie about the construction of WTC7, though you have been repeatedly shown that the concrete was not a structural element. Yes, you are an intrepid "truth" seeker.

So, how does all this equate with the claim you made?


And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

I bolded it for you again. This is essential to your argument and it is an argument that you were making to support freefall. So now you are saying I am arguning semantics? Pathetic, even by your low standards.

[fess]

No other concrete and steel building has ever completely collapsed at high speed from fire alone.

That is the essence of what is important about WTC7.

MM

Back to the same old BS, with different words.

[Miragememories]

And, in 1986, no other space shuttle had exploded after liftoff, yet it happened.

In 2003, a space shuttle had never broken apart upon re-entry. but yet, it happened too.
OMG

That is the most pathetic and lame comparison imaginable..well almost.

You compare the highly vulnerable space shuttle technology against the millions of highly stable free standing concrete and steel structures on this planet.

Amazing.

MM

[TruthersLie]

Sincere truth seekers are interested in the essential meaning of a statement.

BS artists resort to semantic game playing to hide the bankruptcy of their arguments.

Obsessive concern over the minute details of the speed and symmetry of the WTC7 collapse characterization
is a good example of such bs.

No other concrete and steel building has ever completely collapsed at high speed from fire alone.

That is the essence of what is important about WTC7.

MM

You are correct.

No steel and concrete building has ever completely collapsed.

Too bad wtc1,2 and 7 were not steel and concrete. I thought we had gotten past this lie by implication? Or are you still trying to pass off light weight concrete in the floor pans (which has no strutural support offered to the building) as a concrete and steel building?

Even with numerous references which show they are considered steel framed buildings.

[BigAl]

OMG

That is the most pathetic and lame comparison imaginable..well almost.

You compare the highly vulnerable space shuttle technology against the millions of highly stable free standing concrete and steel structures on this planet.

Amazing.

MM

Please drop the concrete from any discussion of the collapse of WTC1/2/7.

[Grizzly Bear]

Not knowing the construction of said buildings is somewhat of a thread killer before the discussion even takes place :\

[triforcharity]

OMG

That is the most pathetic and lame comparison imaginable..well almost.

You compare the highly vulnerable space shuttle technology against the millions of highly stable free standing concrete and steel structures on this planet.

Amazing.

MM

In 1912, no ocean liner had ever sank after hitting an iceberg. Yet, on April 12-13, it happened.

And yet, no other Blow out Preventer had ever failed before. But yet, on April 20th, one did.

There are many firsts in history. But yet, they happen all the time.

And Trutherslie is correct. Still to this day, a concrete and steel structure has not collapsed completly due to fire alone. This much is true.

[Miragememories]

Please drop the concrete from any discussion of the collapse of WTC1/2/7.
The concrete was there.

Get over it.

MM

[Bell]

The concrete was there.

Get over it.

MM

Evidence?

[Garb]

The concrete was there.

Get over it.

MM

So?

Honest question: did the Windsor tower have concrete in all of its floors or no?

[Oystein]

The concrete was there.

Get over it.

MM

Bell, of course there was "concrete there". Non-structural, lightweight concrete in the floors that had no structural purpose other than making sure people and desks don't fall through.

Garb: Of course the Windsor had concrete on all floors: In the core. None of it collapsed. All of the unprotected steel structure however collapsed.

[Garb]

Bell, of course there was "concrete there". Non-structural, lightweight concrete in the floors that had no structural purpose other than making sure people and desks don't fall through.

Garb: Of course the Windsor had concrete on all floors: In the core. None of it collapsed. All of the unprotected steel structure however collapsed.

I'm asking about within the steel structure for the floors.

I am aware that the core and lower levels of the Windsor tower were built with concrete.

[Oystein]

I'm asking about within the steel structure for the floors.

I am aware that the core and lower levels of the Windsor tower were built with concrete.

Yeah, that's why the answer to your question "did the Windsor tower have concrete in all of its floors or no?" is "yes".

[Carlos]

The concrete was there.

Get over it.

MM

But not at the columns.

[Sivan Kurzberg]

In 1912, no ocean liner had ever sank after hitting an iceberg. Yet, on April 12-13, it happened.

And yet, no other Blow out Preventer had ever failed before. But yet, on April 20th, one did.

There are many firsts in history. But yet, they happen all the time.

And Trutherslie is correct. Still to this day, a concrete and steel structure has not collapsed completly due to fire alone. This much is true.

1986 Space Shuttle warnings ignored
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-11-28/news/mn-4901_1_hubble-space-telescope

2003 Space Shuttle warnings ignored
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/columbia

BP Blow out Preventer warnings ignored
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/12/bp-whistleblower-claimed_n_573839.html

Iceberg disasters were not unheard of.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F50D1EF93A5A11738DDDA90A94DD405B8284F0D3 (Date at the bottom)

The WTC collapses and the reasons given are not only the first time they are the only time. There was concrete and steel in the buildings. The concrete floors provided rigidity to the columns.

[Garb]

1986 Space Shuttle warnings ignored
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-11-28/news/mn-4901_1_hubble-space-telescope

2003 Space Shuttle warnings ignored
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/columbia

BP Blow out Preventer warnings ignored
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/12/bp-whistleblower-claimed_n_573839.html

Iceberg disasters were not unheard of.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F50D1EF93A5A11738DDDA90A94DD405B8284F0D3 (Date at the bottom)

The WTC collapses and the reasons given are not only the first time they are the only time. There was concrete and steel in the buildings. The concrete floors provided rigidity to the columns.

Cite this claim.

Also if fires aren't a factor in weakening steel or causing collapse, why is fireproofing added to the columns?

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Cite this claim.

Also if fires aren't a factor in weakening steel or causing collapse, why is fireproofing added to the columns?

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/godfrey.htm

Note that the buildings are stiffened by the composite steel-concrete floors. The floors are an integral part of the structural system. Without the composite floor slabs, the buildings would soon collapse.

The fireproofing is there to protect the steel nobody says differently. It doesn’t however mean that a high-rise will completely collapse all the way around simultaneously once the fire goes past the fire proof rating.

[Grizzly Bear]

The concrete was non-structural, If you want to start discussing the floors, yes they provided lateral stability to the buildings, but they were prefabricated steel truss systems, not concrete. The concrete was little more than a topping. If you guys are going to "debate" about structural materials you need to get them right before you start "correcting" others.

[Disbelief]

The concrete was there.

Get over it.

MM

Continue never admitting that you are wrong about anything, it makes you look foolish. Will you ever admit that freefall is not part of a planned demolition?

[Sivan Kurzberg]

The concrete was non-structural, If you want to start discussing the floors, yes they provided lateral stability to the buildings, but they were prefabricated steel truss systems, not concrete. The concrete was little more than a topping. If you guys are going to "debate" about structural materials you need to get them right before you start "correcting" others.

I don't know how you missed this post right above your reply. Here I'll bold all of it for you this time.

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/godfrey.htm

Note that the buildings are stiffened by the composite steel-concrete floors. The floors are an integral part of the structural system. Without the composite floor slabs, the buildings would soon collapse.

I was asked to cite a claim so I did. Your silly unsourced hand-waiving just won't do. Sorry.

[Carlos]

Sivan Kurzberg

A building with concrete beams, concrete columns and concrete slabs is one thing.

A building with steel beams, steel columns, and concrete slabs is another thing.

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Continue never admitting that you are wrong about anything, it makes you look foolish. Will you ever admit that freefall is not part of a planned demolition?

If I recall correctly building content fire has never been the cause of a complete collapse of a steel structured skyscraper before or since 9/11. It doesn't stop you from claiming it happened though.

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Sivan Kurzberg

A building with concrete beams, concrete columns and concrete slabs is one thing.

A building with steel beams, steel columns, and concrete slabs is another thing.

Carlos,

It is the debunker claim that the concrete played no part in the structural integrity of the WTC buldings. That is incorrect. Thanks for playing.

[Disbelief]

If I recall correctly building content fire has never been the cause of a complete collapse of a steel structured skyscraper before or since 9/11. It doesn't stop you from claiming it happened though.

Continue leaving out inconvenient information and making claims. So what is your claim? Thermite? What?

[Bell]

If I recall correctly building content fire has never been the cause of a complete collapse of a steel structured skyscraper before or since 9/11. It doesn't stop you from claiming it happened though.

Why would it stop Disbelief claiming it happened when it did happen?

Also, do you believe that if something has never happened before, it will not happen ever?

[Miragememories]

Continue leaving out inconvenient information and making claims. So what is your claim? Thermite? What?
What is your argument?

What?

Regurgitation of nonsense is all I ever see from you, which is why replying to you is such a waste of time.

Do some homework and actually present a real argument sometime.

Try it.

You'll like it.

Call your Mom, she'll agree.

MM

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Continue leaving out inconvenient information and making claims. So what is your claim? Thermite? What?

My claim is that the debunkers here and some of their statements about the concrete in the WTC were wrong. You have the claim about the collapse. You should get your facts straight or stop claiming it.

[Disbelief]

What is your argument?

What?

Regurgitation of nonsense is all I ever see from you, which is why replying to you is such a waste of time.

Do some homework and actually present a real argument sometime.

Try it.

You'll like it.

Call your Mom, she'll agree.

MM

Keep up the ad homs MM, as it is all you have to fall back on. So when are you going to do your homework and provide proof for your claims? Going to admit your mistakes, or are you going to continue to ignore them and prove your deceitfulness?

[Bell]

What is your argument?

What?

Regurgitation of nonsense is all I ever see from you, which is why replying to you is such a waste of time.

Do some homework and actually present a real argument sometime.

Try it.

You'll like it.

Call your Mom, she'll agree.

MM

What you said applies to you too.

And I called your mom. She agrees. She thinks you are **** nuts.

[Miragememories]

Keep up the ad homs MM, as it is all you have to fall back on. So when are you going to do your homework and provide proof for your claims? Going to admit your mistakes, or are you going to continue to ignore them and prove your deceitfulness?
As expected.

You replied with bs.

Back to ignore.

MM

[Bell]

As expected.

You replied with bs.

Back to ignore.

MM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/2010_Dodge_Challenger_RT_Classic.jpg/800px-2010_Dodge_Challenger_RT_Classic.jpgg

[Miragememories]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ad/2010_Dodge_Challenger_RT_Classic.jpg/800px-2010_Dodge_Challenger_RT_Classic.jpgg
Another ignore.

9/11 is such a joke to you folks.

Sad.

MM

[Disbelief]

As expected.

You replied with bs.

Back to ignore.

MM

Pathetic. So, it is bs to expect someone to back up a claim? Here, just so everyone can see you in action.


And as noted in their final report, the NIST, finally conceded that WTC7 underwent a complete freefall for at least 8 storys.

That is something that has never occurred before in a concrete and steel building, yet is a planned for characteristic in controlled demolitions.

Bolding mine. You are lying, as you have been called out repeatedly about this and refuse to make a correction.

[Bell]

Another ignore.

9/11 is such a joke to you folks.

Sad.

MM

:bigclap

[Miragememories]

Duh
:bigclap

MM

[Bell]

:bigclap

MM

I thought you put me on ignore? Yet another lie from MM...

[DGM]

This thread was started 4 years ago.

And their still arguing the same thing.


:eek:

[fess]

Carlos,

It is the debunker claim that the concrete played no part in the structural integrity of the WTC buldings. That is incorrect. Thanks for playing.

Please show how the concrete flooring, not the floor pans, was anchored to the inner and outer columns to provide structural integrity to the building. A simple explanation is acceptable, but an engineering drawing would be better.
Also consider that the temperatures of the fire floors would have spalled the concrete rendering it useless as far as providing any integrity whatsoever.

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Please show how the concrete flooring, not the floor pans, was anchored to the inner and outer columns to provide structural integrity to the building. A simple explanation is acceptable, but an engineering drawing would be better.

Why? I already sourced my claim complete with drawings. Did you not look at it? I was asked to cite a claim. I did just that.

Also consider that the temperatures of the fire floors would have spalled the concrete rendering it useless as far as providing any integrity whatsoever.

It's considered. Lets see your reports and drawings on how this would cause a sudden global collapse of an entire skyscraper. Good Luck.

[Grizzly Bear]

Sivan Kurzberg

A building with concrete beams, concrete columns and concrete slabs is one thing.

A building with steel beams, steel columns, and concrete slabs is another thing.

As you see... Certain people can't make the distinction. I made it very clear to him that the floor slabs were the only place in which it was used in the majority of the construction. It was not a load bearing component. Anyone suggesting that the existence of lightweight concrete on a composite floor deck makes the towers synonymous with the Windsor Building is making a DOA case.

[Sivan Kurzberg]

As you see... Certain people can't make the distinction. I made it very clear to him that the floor slabs were the only place in which it was used in the majority of the construction. It was not a load bearing component. Anyone suggesting that the existence of lightweight concrete on a composite floor deck makes the towers synonymous with the Windsor Building is making a DOA case.

This was your claim.

The concrete was non-structural,

That is wrong and I cited why it was wrong just like I was asked to.

[Garb]

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/godfrey.htm



The fireproofing is there to protect the steel nobody says differently. It doesn’t however mean that a high-rise will completely collapse all the way around simultaneously once the fire goes past the fire proof rating.

Thank you for citing. Though the red "commentary" confuses me. I would like to know who specifically is providing the commentary, because the claim that the concrete is an important structural factor in the building is a part of that. (Though it does say the composite steel AND concrete) is important.

[triforcharity]

If I recall correctly building content fire has never been the cause of a complete collapse of a steel structured skyscraper before or since 9/11. It doesn't stop you from claiming it happened though.

And multi-story fires, over 5+/- floors, starting at the same time after a 767 plowed into them at ~500 MPH had never happened before either.

But your terrorist friends that you cheer and applaud did fly 767's into two skyscrapers, an office, and a field.

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Thank you for citing. Though the red "commentary" confuses me. I would like to know who specifically is providing the commentary, because the claim that the concrete is an important structural factor in the building is a part of that. (Though it does say the composite steel AND concrete) is important.

You're welcome. I don't know who is commenting. But the explanation to the drawing in the original report says:

Diagram (above): Framed tube construction principle: load-bearing external walls stiffened by the floors to form a torsionally rigid tube

Which is what I originally posted and was asked to cite.

The concrete floors provided rigidity to the columns.

[Sivan Kurzberg]

And multi-story fires, over 5+/- floors, starting at the same time after a 767 plowed into them at ~500 MPH had never happened before either.

Planes have never crashed into buildings and set them on fire? That's not true. But what does it matter anyway? It was the fire according to NIST not the plane impacts that knocked the buildings down and no plane crashed into WTC-7.

But your terrorist friends that you cheer and applaud did fly 767's into two skyscrapers, an office, and a field.

My friends that I cheer huh? Yeah right. lol Do you remember who was caught cheering on 9/11? Sivan Kurzberg and his friends that's who.

[triforcharity]

.

Planes have never crashed into buildings and set them on fire? That's not true. But what does it matter anyway? It was the fire according to NIST not the plane impacts that knocked the buildings down and no plane crashed into WTC-7.


That is not what I said. I said planes had not been flown into a building at ~500 MPH before. Read the quote.

Obviously, the NIST report on 1&2 WTC was never read by you, as that is NOT what they claim at all. The two are mutually INCLUSIVE. Meaning without one, you cannot have the other. Sorry about your delision.


.
My friends that I cheer huh? Yeah right. lol Do you remember who was caught cheering on 9/11? Sivan Kurzberg and his friends that's who.

Yes. I realize that. How was that interrogation?

[Grizzly Bear]

That is wrong and I cited why it was wrong just like I was asked to.
I have a better source than you do:
"Composite decking is designed to work together with the concrete floor topping to make a stiff, lightweight, economical deck. The metal decking serves as a tensile reinforcing for the concrete, to which it bonds by means of special rib patterns in the sheet metal or by small steel rods or wire fabric welded to the tops of the corrugations."

Composite construction is often carried beyond the step of decking to include the beams of the floor. This application related to installing shear studs to implement a strong shear connection to the composite system. The concrete adds resistance to compressive forces for the steel member. This essentially takes advantage of the unused strength of the concrete topping that has to be present in the construction anyway.

Source: Allen, Edward, Joseph Iano. Fundamentals of Building Construction 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2004
Chapter 11, page 410-411 will give you the full excerpt of source content. I think I was honestly unclear. The concrete on its own is not a structural component, it only works because the steel structure that comprises the floor frame gives it tensile strength and the concrete in turn, gives the structural steel component added rigidity. The word composite is extremely important. It is not a load bearing element contrary to what MM's claim implies. Rather it provides rigidity that increases the load bearing capacity of the truss & decking. Hence why comparing to a building such as Madrid's Windsor tower is DOA.

[Sivan Kurzberg]

That is not what I said. I said planes had not been flown into a building at ~500 MPH before. Read the quote.

Obviously, the NIST report on 1&2 WTC was never read by you, as that is NOT what they claim at all. The two are mutually INCLUSIVE. Meaning without one, you cannot have the other. Sorry about your delision.

My delison? No plane crashed into WTC-7 at even 30 MPH so it doesn't matter. In fact it's not even the reason NIST claims the buildings collapsed. If NIST had told you the towers collapsed because of thermal expansion admit it, it would have been good enough for you. Too bad they didn't brainstorm that excuse back when they wrote their collapse initiation report on the towers. It could have saved a lot of time and money.

Yes. I realize that. How was that interrogation?

Do you not realize I am not a fan of Kurzberg?

[excaza]

My delison? No plane crashed into WTC-7 at even 30 MPH so it doesn't matter. In fact it's not even the reason NIST claims the buildings collapsed. If NIST had told you the towers collapsed because of thermal expansion admit it, it would have been good enough for you. Too bad they didn't brainstorm that excuse back when they wrote their collapse initiation report on the towers. It could have saved a lot of time and money.

Ok, where is your report on how the towers collapsed? I would like to read it. Particularly the parts showing the evidence for CD.

[Sivan Kurzberg]

I have a better source than you do:
"Composite decking is designed to work together with the concrete floor topping to make a stiff, lightweight, economical deck. The metal decking serves as a tensile reinforcing for the concrete, to which it bonds by means of special rib patterns in the sheet metal or by small steel rods or wire fabric welded to the tops of the corrugations."

Composite construction is often carried beyond the step of decking to include the beams of the floor. This application related to installing shear studs to implement a strong shear connection to the composite system. The concrete adds resistance to compressive forces for the steel member. This essentially takes advantage of the unused strength of the concrete topping that has to be present in the construction anyway.

Source: Allen, Edward, Joseph Iano. Fundamentals of Building Construction 4th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2004
Chapter 11, page 410-411 will give you the full excerpt of source content. I think I was honestly unclear. The concrete on its own is not a structural component, it only works because the steel structure that comprises the floor frame gives it tensile strength and the concrete in turn, gives the structural steel component added rigidity. The word composite is extremely important. It is not a load bearing element contrary to what MM's claim implies. Rather it provides rigidity that increases the load bearing capacity of the truss & decking. Hence why comparing to a building such as Madrid's Windsor tower is DOA.

The concrete in the towers wasn't on its own. So what's your point?

Saying the concrete wasn't structural is wrong. Face it.

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Ok, where is your report on how the towers collapsed? I would like to read it. Particularly the parts showing the evidence for CD.

Never said I wrote one. How about you? Did you write the NIST report?

[excaza]

Never said I wrote one.

Well then, what are you using as evidence to counter the NIST report? I would like to read it.

How about you?Did you write the NIST report?
Relevance?

[T.A.M.]

I believe most of the concrete in the towers, was in the floors...structural in the sense of holding people up, but I am not sure (plead ignorance) on whether they contributed signficantly to the support of the building standing up...I doubt it.

TAM:)

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Well then, what are you using as evidence to counter the NIST report? I would like to read it.

I linked it. Go back in this tread and find it if you're really interested.

Relevance?

You asked me if I wrote something. I'm asking if you did.

[excaza]

I believe most of the concrete in the towers, was in the floors...structural in the sense of holding people up, but I am not sure (plead ignorance) on whether they contributed signficantly to the support of the building standing up...I doubt it.

TAM:)

The floors provided torsional rigidity, as would any floor spanning the interior of a box, I'm not sure how that's relevant to the vertical loads.

You asked me if I wrote something. I'm asking if you did.
If you have evidence showing NIST is wrong, wouldn't you want to send it to NIST? I'm not the one saying the NIST report is wrong. Would you like me to send a letter to NIST telling them that?

[Sivan Kurzberg]

I believe most of the concrete in the towers, was in the floors...structural in the sense of holding people up, but I am not sure (plead ignorance) on whether they contributed signficantly to the support of the building standing up...I doubt it.

TAM:)

This was answered. You would be wrong.

[triforcharity]

My delison? No plane crashed into WTC-7 at even 30 MPH so it doesn't matter. In fact it's not even the reason NIST claims the buildings collapsed. If NIST had told you the towers collapsed because of thermal expansion admit it, it would have been good enough for you. Too bad they didn't brainstorm that excuse back when they wrote their collapse initiation report on the towers. It could have saved a lot of time and money.


Correct. No plane did crash into 7WTC.

The NIST says that a combination of a 767's impact damage, and the ensuing fires, caused the collapse of 1&2 WTC. Your reading for comprehension sucks.

If NIST had said thermal expansion in 1&2, I would be suspicious, considering damage and huge fires that were never extinguished, and never subsided.


Do you not realize I am not a fan of Kurzberg?

Right, that is why you use his name as your SN? Excellent! I hate the Yankees, should I change my name to "Yankees"? This makes NO sense whatsoever.

[Sivan Kurzberg]

The floors provided torsional rigidity, as would any floor spanning the interior of a box, I'm not sure how that's relevant to the vertical loads.

Providing rigidity is structural.

If you have evidence showing NIST is wrong, wouldn't you want to send it to NIST? I'm not the one saying the NIST report is wrong. Would you like me to send a letter to NIST telling them that?

Write all the letters you like. You wouldn't be the first.