Anomolies at ground zero

[firecoins]

Do you mind? The adults are talking.

I'm never having kids if this is what i'll have to put up with.
again, the "kids" have asked a legit question that you seem to be avoiding.

[realitybites]

I have explained this.
"UH-UH!" is not an explanation.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thanks for linking to something in which NIST admits it couldn't get a floor assembly to collapse, even after 2 hours of exposure.

Please do not move the goalposts. Is the referenced NIST .pdf the fireproofing to which you referred?

[Garb]

Do you mind? The adults are talking.

I'm never having kids if this is what i'll have to put up with.

Do you mind? I asked a serious question.


Try NOT to sidestep this time.

[Docker]

no, you haven't. You said NIST hasn't done realistic tests. Of course they have been peer reviewed by other scientists.

Are you a scientist? Its a simple question but you haven't answered.

I for instance have a B.A. in Economics. I am not an engineer. What is your backround?

Your BA in economics is perfect background for you to assess NISTs work.

I have read the threads I was pointed to regarding pdoherty. The modus operandi of people on here is just to accuse CTers of lying if they claim to have a degree. So I shall not be commenting. If I mention any qualifications I will be told i'm lying. Correct?

[defaultdotxbe]

Are you implying that desks burning for 56 minutes could cause global collapse in one of the greatest engineering triumphs in history?
desks burning x (number of desks on a floor) x (4 floors) + plane impacts(140 tons)(500mph) = global collapse

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Your signature is nice. Why don't you show it to the brave ground zero workers who are now dying. Thanks for pissing on graves before they have even been dug.

If you feel Garb's signature is in violation of the forum rules of conduct, then feel free to report it to the moderators. Discussing it is not relevant to this thread.

[Docker]

Do you mind? I asked a serious question.


Try NOT to sidestep this time.


Look we will take you to McDonalds later. Daddy's busy with grown up talk. Play on your nintendo.

[Augustine]

Are you implying that desks burning for 56 minutes could cause global collapse in one of the greatest engineering triumphs in history?

This has been noted by every engineer: the impact of the planes alone would not have brought about the collapse of the towers; the fire alone if the fireproofing had not been dislodged by the impact of the planes would not have brought about the collapse of the towers; however, the combination of impact and fire was certainly enough to cause local collapse of one floor, and mathematically, once one floor failed completely (and nearly simultaneously), collapse would progress and accelerate to total global collapse.

A little more nuanced than what your "soundbite" purports to say...

[firecoins]

Your BA in economics is perfect background for you to assess NISTs work.

I have read the threads I was pointed to regarding pdoherty. The modus operandi of people on here is just to accuse CTers of lying if they claim to have a degree. So I shall not be commenting. If I mention any qualifications I will be told i'm lying. Correct?
No it isn't correct. I went to NYU. Graduated December 2000 in Economics. I was required to take science classes. What is your backround? Why you can't you answer your backround? Is it because you have no legit backround in any type of science?

[Docker]

desks burning x (number of desks on a floor) x (4 floors) + plane impacts(140 tons)(500mph) = global collapse

If the plane impacts are relevent they would have collapsed soon after.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The fuel burned off in 20 minutes and reached temperatures nowhere near hot enough to weaken the steel.

NIST know this, which is why they have to make things up, like fireproofing being blown off and fiddling with parameters on the computer tests.

Sources to substantiate these two claims?

[firecoins]

Docker what is your backround? Simple question. And don't lie!

[Docker]

No it isn't correct. I went to NYU. Graduated December 2000 in Economics. I was required to take science classes. What is your backround? Why you can't you answer your backround? Is it because you have no legit backround in any type of science?

I don't need a background in science if my detractors have a background in economics.

I will not be revealing my qualifications after seeing how that will be treated.

I suspect I have far more scientific knowledge than you.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Your BA in economics is perfect background for you to assess NISTs work.

I have read the threads I was pointed to regarding pdoherty. The modus operandi of people on here is just to accuse CTers of lying if they claim to have a degree. So I shall not be commenting. If I mention any qualifications I will be told i'm lying. Correct?

That is not correct. pdoherty used his/her claim to a degree as an appeal to authority in substantiating his/her claims; then failed to provide evidence that such a claim had merit.

[firecoins]

If the plane impacts are relevent they would have collapsed soon after.
no. It was a combination of plane and fire. Neither one by themselves would have done it.

[DavidJames]

Your BA in economics is perfect background for you to assess NISTs work.

I have read the threads I was pointed to regarding pdoherty. The modus operandi of people on here is just to accuse CTers of lying if they claim to have a degree. So I shall not be commenting. If I mention any qualifications I will be told i'm lying. Correct?You don't have to mention your qualifications because it's clear based on your complete disinterest in providing intelligent debate sourced with credible analysis that you have no qualifications and are simply an anonymous no nothing internet blowhard.

Of course you could prove me wrong by

1. Making a claim
2. Provide details behind your analysis.
3. Providing source(s) for your analysis.

So far in 230+ posts, all you've done is the first one, over and over again. No details, not analysis, no sources, just diarrhea like claims.

Prove me wrong.

[Docker]

Docker what is your backround? Simple question. And don't lie!

I am not obliged to give this information. It is irrelevant here.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Look we will take you to McDonalds later. Daddy's busy with grown up talk. Play on your nintendo.

Please attack the argument, not the poster.

[realitybites]

If the plane impacts are relevent they would have collapsed soon after.
Good God. ARE you Alex Jones? I saw him at Ground Zero and you argue just like him. Too bad bullhorns fall on deaf ears in an internet forum.

[firecoins]

I don't need a background in science if my detractors have a background in economics.

I will not be revealing my qualifications after seeing how that will be treated.

I suspect I have far more scientific knowledge than you.
No your making claims. you need to back them up. you havent provided any backround or backed up any claims.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If the plane impacts are relevent they would have collapsed soon after.

Please cite your work, or other's work, substantiating this claim. How long is "soon after"?

[firecoins]

I am not obliged to give this information. It is irrelevant here.
no its very relevant

[Docker]

no. It was a combination of plane and fire. Neither one by themselves would have done it.

Wrong. NIST claims that both together would not have done it, absent the fireproofing being removed which they have shown no evidence of.

[Garb]

I am not obliged to give this information. It is irrelevant here.

Seems pretty relevant to me.

If you have the credentials to support your claims it will help your case. Well?

[Horatius]

If the plane impacts are relevent they would have collapsed soon after.

You don't think that physically destroying a significant percentage of the main supports of a building, thus placing a greater than normal load on the remaining supports, is relevant to why it collapsed?

This is quite possible the dumbest thing I've seen yet, and I've seen the Star Wars Death Ray thread.....

[T.A.M.]

Contents of a typical office building:

Carpet
Furniture
Computers
Paper/Books
Gypsum Wallboard
Concrete
Rubber, Plastics
Copper, Iron, Aluminum

Here is an interesting article.

http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html#1.1

TAM

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Wrong. NIST claims that both together would not have done it, absent the fireproofing being removed which they have shown no evidence of.

Can you please cite the page(s) of the report that make this claim?

[firecoins]

If you have no backround you wish to discuss, provide someone who does that can back them up.

[Docker]

No your making claims. you need to back them up. you havent provided any backround or backed up any claims.

How does my education back anything up?

[Docker]

Seems pretty relevant to me.

If you have the credentials to support your claims it will help your case. Well?

It would do no such thing, it will simply allow you to say I am lying. So I wont bother.

Are you prepared to reveal your myriad of relevant qualifications?

[luvhumility]

The fuel burned off in 20 minutes and reached temperatures nowhere near hot enough to weaken the steel.

NIST know this, which is why they have to make things up, like fireproofing being blown off and fiddling with parameters on the computer tests.


Docker, IMHO the first statement is not really true. The second is a subjective blast at the NIST. Pls lets try and argue just the science. I will attach 2 photos of the N tower burning AS IT COLLAPSES! So the 1/2 hour ONLY fire theory is proven via video to be incorrect...they were burning the whole time. Remeber all that smoke? smoke=fire, usually, right? see photos. The one poto just before collapse shows FIRE! The second as the collapse occurs blows the fire outside the building. Pretty hrad to argue the fires were not burinig at the time of collapse.

lh

[Augustine]

Wrong. NIST claims that both together would not have done it, absent the fireproofing being removed which they have shown no evidence of.

Are you asserting that NO FIREPROOFING was knocked off by the plane impact? If not, what percentage of fireproofing are you claiming was knocked off by the plane impact? Please be clear.

Asking again:
What was the internal temperature in the impacted floors IN YOUR ANALYSIS?

What parameters precisely did NIST "fiddle with"? How were the values wrong and what should they have been IN YOUR ANALYSIS?

[firecoins]

How does my education back anything up?
your questioning a bunch of scientistist and engineers and their tests which have been peer reviewed by other scientists and engineers. You implied knew better. What puts you in a postition to do so? If not you, who's opinion are you using ? Why am I to believe you over these scientific authorities?

[Garb]

It would do no such thing, it will simply allow you to say I am lying. So I wont bother.

Are you prepared to reveal your myriad of relevant qualifications?

Well with the way you are acting I doubt you would have these credentials anyhow.

And either way you still haven't cited any sources or backed up your arguments with evidence. So it doesn't matter.

And I don't have to reveal anything because I haven't made any wild accusations.

[firecoins]

It would do no such thing, it will simply allow you to say I am lying. So I wont bother.

Are you prepared to reveal your myriad of relevant qualifications?
I am saying you lying now. I don't need yout backround to say that.

[Docker]

Docker, IMHO the first statement is not really true. The second is a subjective blast at the NIST. Pls lets try and argue just the science. I will attach 2 photos of the N tower burning AS IT COLLAPSES! So the 1/2 hour ONLY fire theory is proven via video to be incorrect...they were burning the whole time. Remeber all that smoke? smoke=fire, usually, right? see photos. The one poto just before collapse shows FIRE! The second as the collapse occurs blows the fire outside the building. Pretty hrad to argue the fires were not burinig at the time of collapse.

lh

Straw man. I said the fuel burned off, not the fires were out.

Firemen reached the impact zone and reported minor fires that they could put out.

I think I shall accept a professional firemans analysis over yours.

[Docker]

I am saying you lying now. I don't need yout backround to say that.

Say what you like.

[Garb]

Straw man. I said the fuel burned off, not the fires were out.

Firemen reached the impact zone and reported minor fires that they could put out.

I think I shall accept a professional firemans analysis over yours.

Source please...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Relevant NIST section regarding fire protection/suppression to the discussion at hand:

2.1.3 Fire Protection
The fire safety of a building is provided by a system of interdependent fire protection features, including suppression systems, detection systems, notification devices, smoke management systems, and passive systems such as compartmentation and structural protection. The failure of any of these fire protection systems will impact the effectiveness of the other systems in the building.

2.1.3.1 Passive Protection
In WTC 1, structural elements up to the 39th floor were originally protected from fire with a sprayapplied product containing asbestos (Nicholson, et al. 1980). These asbestos-containing materials were later abated inside the building, either through encapsulation or replacement. On all other floors and throughout WTC 2, a spray-applied, asbestos-free mineral fiber material was used. Each element of the steel floor trusses was protected with spray-applied material. The specific material used was a low-density, factory-mixed product consisting of manufactured inorganic fibers, proprietary cement-type binders, and other additives in low
concentrations to promote wetting, set, and dust control. Air setting, hydraulic setting, and ceramic setting binders were added in varying quantities and combinations or singly at the site, depending on the particular application and weather conditions. Finally, water was added at the nozzle of the spray gun as the material was sprayed onto the member to be protected. The average thickness of spray-applied fireproofing on the trusses was 3/4 inch. In the mid-1990s, a decision was made to upgrade the fire protection by applying additional material onto the trusses so as to increase fireproofing thickness to 1-1/2 inches. The fireproofing upgrade was applied to individual floors as they became vacant. By September 11, 2001, a total of 31 stories had been upgraded, including the entire impact zone in WTC 1 (floors 94–98), but only the 78th floor in the impact zone in WTC 2 (floors 78–84).

Spandrels and girders were specified to have sufficient protection to achieve a 3-hour rating. Except for the interior face of perimeter columns between spandrels, which were protected with a plaster material, sprayapplied materials similar to those used on the floor systems were used. The thickness of protection on spandrels and girders varied, with the more massive steel column sections receiving reduced fireproofing thickness relative to the thinner elements.

The primary vertical compartmentation was provided by the floor slabs that were cast flush against the spandrel beams at the exterior wall, providing separation between floors at the building perimeter. After a fire in 1975, vertical penetrations for cabling and plumbing were sealed with fire-resistant material. At stair and elevator shafts, separation was provided by a wall system constructed of metal studs and two layers of 5/8-inch thick gypsum board on the exterior and one layer of 5/8-inch thick gypsum board on the interior. These assemblies provided a 2-hour rating. Horizontal compartmentation varied throughout the complex. Some
separating walls ran from slab to slab, while others extended only up to the suspended ceiling. A report by the New York Board of Fire Underwriters (NYBFU) titled One World Trade Center Fire, February 13, 1975 (NYBFU 1975) presents a detailed discussion of the compartmentation features of the building at that time.

2.1.3.2 Suppression
When originally constructed, the two towers were not provided with automatic fire sprinkler protection. However, such protection was installed as a retrofit circa 1990, and automatic sprinklers covered nearly 100 percent of WTC 1 and WTC 2 at the time of the September 11 attacks. In addition, each building had standpipes running through each of its three stairways. A 1.5-inch hose line and a cabinet containing two airpressurized water (APW) extinguishers were also present at each floor in each stairway.

The primary water supply was provided by a dedicated fire yard main that looped around most of the complex. This yard main was supplied directly from the municipal water supply. Two remotely located highpressure, multi-stage, 750-gallons per minute (gpm) electrical fire pumps took suction from the New York City municipal water supply and produced the required operating pressures for the yard main.

Each tower had three electrical fire pumps that provided additional pressure for the standpipes. One pump, located on the 7th floor, received the discharge from the yard main fire pumps and moved it up to the 41st floor, where a second 750-gpm fire pump pushed it up to a third pump on the 75th floor. Each fire pump produced sufficient pressure to supply water to the pump two stages up from it in the event that any one pump should fail.

Several 5,000-gallon storage tanks, filled from the domestic water system, provided a secondary water supply. Tanks on the 41st, 75th, and 110th floors provided water directly to a standpipe system. A tank on the 20th floor supplied water directly to the yard main. Numerous Fire Department of New York (FDNY) connections were located around the complex to allow the fire department to boost water pressure in the buildings.

[Docker]

Well with the way you are acting I doubt you would have these credentials anyhow.

And either way you still haven't cited any sources or backed up your arguments with evidence. So it doesn't matter.

And I don't have to reveal anything because I haven't made any wild accusations.

Exactly, It doesn't matter. Now what are your qualifications?

[Donal]

Straw man. I said the fuel burned off, not the fires were out.

Firemen reached the impact zone and reported minor fires that they could put out.

I think I shall accept a professional firemans analysis over yours.

So, the periodical about fire sciences that is written by members of the FDNY would be considered a good source by you?

[firecoins]

Straw man. I said the fuel burned off, not the fires were out.

Firemen reached the impact zone and reported minor fires that they could put out.

I think I shall accept a professional firemans analysis over yours.
you don't seem to think ongoing fires were a problem. You don't think commercial airliners crashing at high speeds were a problem. And you don't think NIST tests were good enough. Your opinion is valid because of...?

[DavidJames]

Straw man. I said the fuel burned off, not the fires were out.

Firemen reached the impact zone and reported minor fires that they could put out.

I think I shall accept a professional firemans analysis over yours.Did you do any research into this? If so, you will be able to answer the following question.

On which floor did the fireman report the "minor fires".

[realitybites]

JREFer: Docker, what are your qualifications?

Docker: No! No! You'll call me a liar. What are YOUR qualifications?

JREFer: It would help to possibly substantiate some of your wilder claims if we knew your background.

Docker: I'll never tell! NEVER!! You hear me?!?!?! I'll never talk!! You can't make me!! What are YOUR qualifications?!?!?!

JREFer: You're missing the point. You claim NIST has it all wrong, so it would help us continue this debate if we were aware of scientific pedigree.

Docker: WHAT ARE YOU DEAF!?!?! I. AM. NOT. TELLING!!!!

... And so on and so forth.

[Docker]

Source please...

Everybody knows the source I am citing. I am not going to redo your inadequate research for you.

[Garb]

Exactly, It doesn't matter. Now what are your qualifications?

Like I said I haven't made any outlandish claims. Now you have, and haven't done anything to prove them except with your own opinions.

[firecoins]

Say what you like.
I am!

[Docker]

Did you do any research into this? If so, you will be able to answer the following question.

On which floor did the fireman report the "minor fires".

78th floor. Ladder 15. "2 isolated pockets of fire"

[Docker]

I am!

Well everyones a winner!

[Garb]

Everybody knows the source I am citing. I am not going to redo your inadequate research for you.

Oh really, everyone in the world knows the exact quote and exact source.

Oh, and it isn't my research.

[uk_dave]

I am not obliged to give this information. It is irrelevant here.

Gotta be pdoherty

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Relevant section of the NIST report regarding fire progression:

2.2.1.2 Fire Development
It is estimated, based on information compiled from Government sources, that each aircraft contained about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel upon impact into the buildings. A review of photographic and video records show that the aircraft fully entered the buildings prior to any visual evidence of flames at the exteriors of the buildings. This suggests that, as the aircraft crashed into and plowed across the buildings, they distributed jet fuel throughout the impact area to form a flammable “cloud.” Ignition of this cloud resulted in a rapid pressure rise, expelling a fuel rich mixture from the impact area into shafts and through other openings
caused by the crashes, resulting in dramatic fireballs.

Although only limited video footage is available that shows the crash of American Airlines Flight 11 into WTC 1 and the ensuing fireballs, extensive video records of the impact of United Airlines Flight 175 into WTC 2 are available. These videos show that three fireballs emanated from WTC 2 on the south, east, and west faces. The fireballs grew slowly, reaching their full size after about 2 seconds. The diameters of the fireballs were greater than 200 feet, exceeding the width of the building. Such fireballs were formed when the expelled jet fuel dispersed and flames traveled through the resulting fuel/air mixture. Experimentally
based correlations for similar fireballs (Zalosh 1995) were used to estimate the amount of fuel consumed.

The precise size of the fireballs and their exact shapes are not well defined; therefore, there is some uncertainty associated with estimates of the amount of fuel consumed by these effects. Calculations indicate that between 1,000 and 3,000 gallons of jet fuel were likely consumed in this manner. Barring additional information, it is reasonable to assume that an approximately similar amount of jet fuel was consumed by fireballs as the aircraft struck WTC 1.

Although dramatic, these fireballs did not explode or generate a shock wave. If an explosion or detonation had occurred, the expansion of the burning gasses would have taken place in microseconds, not the 2 seconds observed. Therefore, although there were some overpressures, it is unlikely that the fireballs, being external to the buildings, would have resulted in significant structural damage. It is not known whether the windows that were broken shortly after impact were broken by these external overpressures, overpressures
internal to the building, the heat of the fire, or flying debris. The first arriving firefighters observed that the windows of WTC 1 were broken out at the Concourse level. This breakage was most likely caused by overpressure in the elevator shafts. Damage to the walls of the
elevator shafts was also observed as low as the 23rd floor, presumably as a result of the overpressures developed by the burning of the vapor cloud on the impact floors.

If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then approximately 4,000 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed. The jet fuel in the aerosol would have burned out as fast as the flame could spread through it, igniting almost every combustible on the floors involved. Fuel that fell to the floor and
did not flow out of the building would have burned as a pool or spill fire at the point where it came to rest.

The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes (SFPE 1995) provided sufficient air for combustion was available. In reality, the jet fuel would have been distributed over multiple floors, and some would have been transported to other locations. Some would have been absorbed by carpeting or other furnishings, consumed in the flash fire in the aerosol, expelled and consumed externally in the fireballs, or flowed away from the fire floors. Accounting for these factors, it is believed that almost all of the jet fuel that remained on the impact floors was consumed in the first few minutes of the fire.

As the jet fuel burned, the resulting heat ignited office contents throughout a major portion of several of the impact floors, as well as combustible material within the aircraft itself.
A limited amount of physical evidence about the fires is available in the form of videos and still photographs of the buildings and the smoke plume generated soon after the initial attack. Estimates of the buoyant energy in the plume were obtained by plotting the rise of the smoke plume, which is governed by buoyancy in the vertical direction and by the wind in the horizontal direction. Using the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) fire model, Fire Dynamics Simulator Ver. 1 (FDS1), fire scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (Rehm, et al. 2002) were able to mathematically approximate the size of fires required to produce such a smoke plume. As input to this model, an estimate of the openings available to provide ventilation for the fires was obtained from an examination of photographs taken of the damaged tower. Meteorological data on wind velocity and atmospheric temperatures were provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) based on reports from the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS). The information used weather monitoring instruments onboard three aircraft that departed from LaGuardia and Newark airports between 7:15 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on September 11, 2001. The wind speed at heights equal to the upper stories of the towers was in the range of 10–20 mph. The outside temperatures over the height of the building were 20–21 °C (68–70 °F).

The modeling suggests a peak total rate of fire energy output on the order of 3–5 trillion Btu/hr, around 1–1.5 gigawatts (GW), for each of the two towers. From one third to one half of this energy flowed out of the structures. This vented energy was the force that drove the external smoke plume. The vented energy and accompanying smoke from both towers combined into a single plume. The energy output from each of the two buildings is similar to the power output of a commercial power generating station. The modeling also suggests ceiling gas temperatures of 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), with an estimated confidence of plus
or minus 100 °C (200 °F) or about 900–1,100 °C (1,600–2,000 °F). A major portion of the uncertainty in these estimates is due to the scarcity of data regarding the initial conditions within the building and how the aircraft impact changed the geometry and fuel loading. Temperatures may have been as high as 900–1,100 °C (1,700–2,000 °F) in some areas and 400–800 °C (800–1,500 °F) in others.

The viability of a 3–5 trillion Btu/hr (1–1.15 GW) fire depends on the fuel and air supply. The surface area of office contents needed to support such a fire ranges from about 30,000–50,000 square feet, depending on the composition and final arrangement of the contents and the fuel loading present. Given the typical occupied area of a floor as approximately 30,000 square feet, it can be seen that simultaneous fire involvement of an area equal to 1–2 entire floors can produce such a fire. Fuel loads are typically described in terms of the equivalent weight of wood. Fuel loads in office-type occupancies typically range from about 4–12 psf, with the mean slightly less than 8 psf (Culver 1977). File rooms, libraries, and similar concentrations of paper materials have significantly higher concentrations of fuel. At the burning rate necessary to yield these fires, a fuel load of about 5 psf would be required to provide sufficient fuel to maintain the fire at full force for an hour, and twice that quantity to maintain it for 2 hours. The air needed to support combustion would be on the order of 600,000–1,000,000 cubic feet per minute.

Air supply to support the fires was primarily provided by openings in the exterior walls that were created by the aircraft impacts and fireballs, as well as by additional window breakage from the ensuing heat of the fires. Table 2.1 lists the estimated exterior wall openings used in these calculations. Although the table shows the openings on a floor-by-floor basis, several of the openings, particularly in the area of impact, actually spanned several floors (see Figure 2-17).

Sometimes, interior shafts in burning high-rise buildings also deliver significant quantities of air to a fire, through a phenomenon known as “stack effect,” which is created when differences between the ambient exterior air temperatures and the air temperatures inside the building result in differential air pressures, drawing air up through the shafts to the fire area. Because outside and inside temperatures appear to have been virtually the same on September 11, this stack effect was not expected to be strong in this case.

Based on photographic evidence, the fire burned as a distributed collection of large but separate fires with significant temperature variations from space to space, depending on the type and arrangement of combustible material present and the available air for combustion in each particular space. Consequently, the temperature and related incident heat flux to the structural elements varied with both time and location. This information is not currently available, but could be modeled with advanced CFD fire models.

Damage caused by the aircraft impacts is believed to have disrupted the sprinkler and fire standpipe systems, preventing effective operation of either the manual or automatic suppression systems. Even if these systems had not been compromised by the impacts, they would likely have been ineffective. It is believed that the initial flash fires of jet fuel would have opened so many sprinkler heads that the systems would have quickly depressurized and been unable to effectively deliver water to the large area of fire involvement. Further, the initial spread of fires was so extensive as to make occupant use of small hose streams ineffective.

[firecoins]

78th floor. Ladder 15. "2 isolated pockets of fire"
http://www.scripting.com/images/wtcBurningFromEsb.gif
2 pockets of fire. 1 in WTC 1 and 1 in WTC 2.

[Docker]

Gotta be pdoherty

I have already been accused of being killtown. It's amazing that you call CTs paranoid.

[Docker]

Oh really, everyone in the world knows the exact quote and exact source.

Oh, and it isn't my research.

Thanks for admitting you have done no research. You not very good at this are you.

[Garb]

I have already been accused of being killtown. It's amazing that you call CTs paranoid.

We are making guesses based on evidence.


You should try it some time.

[luvhumility]

Straw man. I said the fuel burned off, not the fires were out.

Firemen reached the impact zone and reported minor fires that they could put out.

I think I shall accept a professional firemans analysis over yours.

Ok, fair enough... to be specific you meant to say the "jet fuel" burned off, but not all the "fuel"... there was still plenty of other fuel (.e.g other combustables) to burn. After all that initial structural destruction to the outer columns I am suprised they held up that long.

Throw in all that intense heat over a half ++ hour and the collapse does not totally suprise me. At that point the towers were structurally vulnerable. Even one major 3-5 ton beam falling could have triggered the collapses. IMHO.

lh

[Docker]

If you think I am an unqualified nutjob making outrageous claims then don't waste your time talking to me.

[DavidJames]

Gotta be pdohertyThat was my belief yesterday.

[Garb]

Thanks for admitting you have done no research. You not very good at this are you.

Thank you for side-stepping once again.

Why should I disagree with NIST's report (which I have read) when you can't prove anything against it?

[Docker]

We are making guesses based on evidence.


You should try it some time.

Exactly thats all your doing, guessing. Stop guessing how the towers collapsed.

[uk_dave]

I have already been accused of being killtown. It's amazing that you call CTs paranoid.

Hey, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck....

quack! quack!

[realitybites]

78th floor. Ladder 15. "2 isolated pockets of fire"

Care to answer these questions concerning those two pockets of fire? From Debunking 9/11 (http://www.debunking911.com/fire.htm):
Orio Palmer was in the South Staircase (Adam) on the South Tower which was not damaged because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it.

It’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires on a floor where only a wing tip entered. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote.

The 78th floor was a sky lobby which didn’t have much office furniture to catch fire. If there were two small fires on the 78th floor where just a wing tip entered, what must the 81st floor be like where the nose of the aircraft hit?

If there were small fires on the 78th floor just before collapse, does that mean the 78th floor never had larger fires?

If he was in the staircase which is in the core, how would he know the perimeter columns were about to get pulled in?

If he did see the building was about to collapse, why would they predict he would get on the radio instead of take immediate action to save his life?

Why do they think the visibility from the smoke of two small fires were such that he could see to the four corners of the building?

Why are they using this quote as a ruler by which to measure the whole building?

Ya' see that blue text Dock? That's called a "link".

[Garb]

Exactly thats all your doing, guessing. Stop guessing how the towers collapsed.

WRONG. We aren't guessing because we have evidence to support our claims on how the towers collapsed.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Docker,

Are you planning on providing objective, verifiable evidence to support your assertions, or are you approaching this as an exercise in speculative thinking?

[Docker]

Thank you for side-stepping once again.

Why should I disagree with NIST's report (which I have read) when you can't prove anything against it?#

I agree with NISTs report. I think it's brave of them to admit they don'y know why it collapsed and had to make up evidence.

You have read the whole report, All 10,000 pages?

[LashL]

Contents of a typical office building:

Carpet
Furniture
Computers
Paper/Books
Gypsum Wallboard
Concrete
Rubber, Plastics
Copper, Iron, Aluminum

Here is an interesting article.

http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html#1.1

TAM

TAM, that's a useful site. Thanks for posting it.

[Docker]

WRONG. We aren't guessing because we have evidence to support our claims on how the towers collapsed.

Care to show me this evidence?

[uk_dave]

Docker,

Are you planning on providing objective, verifiable evidence to support your assertions, or are you approaching this as an exercise in speculative thinking?

awwww c'mon.... altogether now.....

"He's Just Asking Questions!"

based upon no ability to comprehend the answers.

[Garb]

#

I agree with NISTs report. I think it's brave of them to admit they don'y know why it collapsed and had to make up evidence.

You have read the whole report, All 10,000 pages?

I don't remember them ever saying they made up evidence, strawman.

Wanna prove it?

[luvhumility]

this about sums it up, taken from AW's post:
The modeling suggests a peak total rate of fire energy output on the order of 3–5 trillion Btu/hr, around 1–1.5 gigawatts (GW), for each of the two towers. From one third to one half of this energy flowed out of the structures. This vented energy was the force that drove the external smoke plume. The vented energy and accompanying smoke from both towers combined into a single plume. The energy output from each of the two buildings is similar to the power output of a commercial power generating station. The modeling also suggests ceiling gas temperatures of 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), with an estimated confidence of plus
or minus 100 °C (200 °F) or about 900–1,100 °C (1,600–2,000 °F). A major portion of the uncertainty in these estimates is due to the scarcity of data regarding the initial conditions within the building and how the aircraft impact changed the geometry and fuel loading. Temperatures may have been as high as 900–1,100 °C (1,700–2,000 °F) in some areas and 400–800 °C (800–1,500 °F) in others.

[Docker]

I don't remember them ever saying they made up evidence, strawman.

Wanna prove it?

Have you read all 10,00 pages, yes or no?

[MikeW]

78 was the lowest floor to have fires. A couple of isolated fires is more or less what you'd expect them to say. See the temperature maps at the bottom of http://www.911myths.com/html/no_wtc2_inferno_.html to see what conditions are estimated to have been like, in the NIST fire models, immediately above.

[uk_dave]

So, let's say the scientific consensus is that smoking can cause lung cancer.

And let's say someone who smokes, dies of lung cancer.

Can we say that smoking killed that person?

[firecoins]

1 fireman on his own reached the 78th floor using an elevator tha tbrok soon after. Called in lots of dead bodies and that there 2 fires on this floor. What about the floors above 78? He hadn't checked them yet? Of course he was alone and other firefighters were well below him using stairs to carry up to 100lbs of equipment each. How do I know this?

1. It is in the 9/11 commission report.

2. Fire chiefs reported it.

3. It has been in several documentaries not claiming conspiracy with comments by other firefighters

[DavidJames]

78th floor. Ladder 15. "2 isolated pockets of fire"
Good.

Now tell me where the plane struck the tower?

[luvhumility]

I've worked on thermal reactors that produced 1000°C+ temps!!!
THAT IS VERY HOT!!!! OUCH@@@!!!!!!!!!! :(

[Garb]

Have you read all 10,00 pages, yes or no?

Are you going to prove your many outlandish claims?

[Docker]

Are you going to prove your many outlandish claims?

Stop side stepping. Have you read all 10,000 pages?

I asked you to show me your evidence for why the towers collapsed, you ignored the post.

[Garb]

Stop side stepping. Have you read all 10,000 pages?

I asked you to show me your evidence for why the towers collapsed, you ignored the post.

Well, a plane hit the towers. That severely damaged the structural supports and fire from the jet fuel weakened the steel. Then the weight was too much and it collapsed.

Oh and the fireproofing was knocked off.

[Docker]

Well, a plane hit the towers. That severely damaged the structural supports and fire from the jet fuel weakened the steel. Then the weight was too much and it collapsed.

Speculating much?

Very scientific analysis, by the way.

Have you read all 10,000 pages?

[firecoins]

http://www.bravestmemorial.com/html/members/bucca_ronald_fm_sctfad.html
I believe this is the firefighter from the 78floor.

[defaultdotxbe]

Everybody knows the source I am citing. I am not going to redo your inadequate research for you.
yes, "2 isolated pockets of fire" the NIST temperature model actually shows this as well

the 78th was only impacted by the wingtip, and was a skylounge so there were fewer combustibles, the worst fires were on the floors above

[Arus808]

Stop side stepping. Have you read all 10,000 pages?
Odd, that's what you've been doing since first posting here;
make an outlandish claim
we ask for proof/evidence/source of why you are claiming such
then you answer with "im not going to do your homework for you" or "I've already stated the proof in another thread" or "I dont have to provide proof" or "I dont have a source".

So who is sidestepping? Not us.

I asked you to show me your evidence for why the towers collapsed, you ignored the post.
NISt, FEMA, and the 9/11 commssion.
plus the reports from several firefighters
a report from a controlled demolitionist
a report from engineers and had them published via the ASCE website.

What's your evidence?

None that i"ve seen thus far.

[chipmunk stew]

Stop side stepping.
:hit:

[DavidJames]

I asked you to show me your evidence for why the towers collapsed, you ignored the post.Here is a link to the relevant portion. Please provide your detailed, sourced, analysis of the issues you have the report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf

[firecoins]

Stop side stepping. Have you read all 10,000 pages?

I asked you to show me your evidence for why the towers collapsed, you ignored the post.
You have made claims but can't back them up and now you demand other people to do it. :rolleyes:

[Garb]

Speculating much?

Very scientific analysis, by the way.

Have you read all 10,000 pages?

Well it is kind of common knowledge that a plane hit the towers and that this plane didn't dissapear out of thin air.

What if I didn't? Does this prove your claims ture then?

[kookbreaker]

Firemen reached the impact zone and reported minor fires that they could put out.

I think I shall accept a professional firemans analysis over yours.

When what the firemen said resembles what you claim, then you may have a point.

The fact is: The firemen who reported 'minor fires' (actually they said they needed two engines, hardly 'minor') were bot at the impact point. It was doubtful if any firemen got to that point.

So what the firemen said was accurate. What is not accurate is where you claim they were.

http://www.911myths.com/html/no_wtc2_inferno_.html

[Docker]

Well it is kind of common knowledge that a plane hit the towers and that this plane didn't dissapear out of thin air.

What if I didn't? Does this prove your claims ture then?

So you haven't read it despite claiming that you have.

[Garb]

So you haven't read it despite claiming that you have.

Alright, I'll retract that statement.

We are all still waiting on you to do the same.

[Docker]

When what the firemen said resembles what you claim, then you may have a point.

The fact is: The firemen who reported 'minor fires' (actually they said they needed two engines, hardly 'minor') were bot at the impact point. It was doubtful if any firemen got to that point.

So what the firemen said was accurate. What is not accurate is where you claim they were.

http://www.911myths.com/html/no_wtc2_inferno_.html

They said two lines not two engines.

[Arus808]

So you haven't read it despite claiming that you have.

I love how you put words into peoples mouths.

[Docker]

Alright, I'll retract that statement.

We are all still waiting on you to do the same.

Retraact your lie you mean. So I am supposed to listen to a man that lies about the sources he has read?

[kookbreaker]

So you haven't read it despite claiming that you have.

This is true. But moot. The point you evaded was that the they were only on the 78th floor. Not the impact point.

I take it that you concede that they were not where you claim they were?

[Docker]

I love how you put words into peoples mouths.

he has now admitted he hasn't read it.

[Arus808]

Retraact your lie you mean. So I am supposed to listen to a man that lies about the sources he has read?


are we supposed to listen to someone that has never provided evidence, and sources, or facts about the claims they make.

Seemingly, if we provide evidence of what we claim, we are now liars, but when you make a claim without evidence, you want us to believe you.

[Donal]

What is a "line" in firefighting terms?

[kookbreaker]

Retraact your lie you mean. So I am supposed to listen to a man that lies about the sources he has read?

You'll do anything to avoid answering a question, won't you?

[Garb]

Retraact your lie you mean. So I am supposed to listen to a man that lies about the sources he has read?

Yes, you are much more credible, a man who lies about everything he says and doesn't cite his sources...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

They said two lines not two engines.

The link provided says:

9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm

In this context, Battalion Seven Chief appears to be using "engines" and "lines" interchangeably. Is this correct?

[Arus808]

he has now admitted he hasn't read it.

and you haven't either. so what makes you so special? your both liars...cool.


I've read about half of the report *(only the sections that i was interested in, and re-reading to read other sections when I feel the need to prove something). Not everyone has sat down and read the whole thing. You didn't even read one page. Garb could have read three pages;; that's more than you did.

[kookbreaker]

he has now admitted he hasn't read it.

So what are your sources?

[Docker]

What is a "line" in firefighting terms?

A hose.

[Docker]

and you haven't either. so what makes you so special? your both liars...cool.


I've read about half of the report *(only the sections that i was interested in, and re-reading to read other sections when I feel the need to prove something). Not everyone has sat down and read the whole thing. You didn't even read one page. Garb could have read three pages;; that's more than you did.

Rofl

[Donal]

so, they would need two hoses. Assuming, of course, you are correct. (My brother has been FDNY for the last 15 years. I'll ask him about their jargon later)

Do you know how many men it takes to handle a hose?

[Arus808]

A hose.

false. please dont comment on things you dont have any clue as to what they mean.

btw, it has several meanings when used in firefighting. Its determined on the situation, the kind of fire they are fighting and the context its used in.

[Docker]

Yes, you are much more credible, a man who lies about everything he says and doesn't cite his sources...

You have admitted you lied. Thus, you have admitted you argue with people without even looking at the evidence you cite.

Now could you name one lie that I have told?

[firecoins]

he reached the 78th floor. He did not anaylize the 79th and up.

Of course the building collpased. So he didn't fully realize the full damage.

[Arus808]

Do you know how many men it takes to handle a hose?

about 4-5..I can ask my friend. She just fought her first 2 story structure fire the other day.

[kookbreaker]

You have admitted you lied. Thus, you have admitted you argue with people without even looking at the evidence you cite.

Now could you name one lie that I have told?

What are your sources?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

false. please dont comment on things you dont have any clue as to what they mean.

btw, it has several meanings when used in firefighting. Its determined on the situation, the kind of fire they are fighting and the context its used in.

To be fair, can you source this please?

[LashL]

Do you even know what "isolated pockets of fire" means in firefighter lingo, Docker?

[firecoins]

You have admitted you lied. Thus, you have admitted you argue with people without even looking at the evidence you cite.

Now could you name one lie that I have told?
what is your backround to disagree with the NIST report, firefighting and structural damage?

[Garb]

You have admitted you lied. Thus, you have admitted you argue with people without even looking at the evidence you cite.

Now could you name one lie that I have told?

1 lie in a moot point. Big deal. And that isn't admitting to arguing with people without looking at the evidence. That is what you do.

Well the point is that these cars were not near the towers, they werent hit by anything and didn't catch fire.

First page, second post in this thread. Didn't have to look very long did i?

[Arus808]

To be fair, can you source this please?

Im waiting on getting my friend on IM. She just graduated from teh fire academy and is on the 180 day probation period as she gains experience (she's about 90 days into it now). however, since she is green, Im sure she has the technical jargon still fresh in her mind.

[Docker]

1 lie in a moot point. Big deal. And that isn't admitting to arguing with people without looking at the evidence. That is what you do.



First page, second post in this thread. Didn't have to look very long did i?

That was not a lie. That is what I had been told about those cars. If it isn't true that doesn't make me a liar. I believed it to be true.

[Garb]

That was not a lie. That is what I had been told about those cars. If it isn't true that doesn't make me a liar. I believed it to be true.

Well you put it out here as fact so then you are being a liar. If you don't want to be accused of that do your research.

[Augustine]

Docker, I will ask again my three questions which you have never answered. If you are attempting to argue from any intelligent perspective, these should be very simple and easy to answer.

Are you asserting that NO FIREPROOFING was knocked off by the plane impact? If not, what percentage of fireproofing are you claiming was knocked off by the plane impact? Please be clear.

What was the internal temperature in the impacted floors IN YOUR ANALYSIS?

What parameters precisely did NIST "fiddle with"? How were the values wrong and what should they have been IN YOUR ANALYSIS?

[Docker]

Well you put it out here as fact so then you are being a liar. If you don't want to be accused of that do your research.

Talking of research, youv' got a 10,000 page report to read. Get busy.

[kookbreaker]

Talking of research, youv' got a 10,000 page report to read. Get busy.


Have you conceded that the firefighters you claim were 'at the impact point' and 'saw only minor fires' were not actually where you claim?

[realitybites]

Talking of research, youv' got a 10,000 page report to read. Get busy.
So you've read it then? You claim it's all wrong, so you must've. Which pages in particular have the most glaring errors?

[LashL]

I asked my partner, who is a fire captain, about that exchange with Chief Palmer a long time ago.

I gave him the entire exchange and he answered several questions about the meaning of the different terms, etc.

I asked him, among other things, specifically what "lines" and "engines" meant in the context of the exchange.

His response was:

It is quite likely that in this situation, he was requesting two more Pumper (Amerispeak "Engine Company") crews, each bringing a hoseline to assist. "Engine" in this context is short form for "Engine Company", the American version of a Pumper crew (usually 4 men) As I've mentioned before, I spoke with XXXXXXXX at length on this subject, more specifically on 7WTC.

To give you some idea regarding the size of fire two handlines ( the 1 1/2 inch dia. size-38mm) can put out, it would be equivalent to an average sized double garage on fire. So his assessment of the size of fire two handlines could deal with effectively probably (though not neccessarily) was in that size range. There are obviously other factors involved, but they're extraneous to this discussion. If you need a detailed breakdown, I'll be happy to provide it.

Docker, I asked this above but you didn't answer, although I can see that you're busy. So, I'll ask again: Do you even know what the term "isolated pockets of fire" means in firefighter lingo? I do, and I suspect that it doesn't mean what you think it means.

[luvhumility]

I remember when i first came on these boards. I was somewhat subjective, now I am somewhat more carefull to back it up now before I "interject with my opinion". The numbers do help to maintain objectivity!!! (emphasis added)!

lh

[Donal]

So, 8 to 10 more firefighters on top of what he already had there?

[beachnut]

Are you implying that desks burning for 56 minutes could cause global collapse in one of the greatest engineering triumphs in history?

questions, and no answers

zip

did not ever read what the designer said,

the fire did it you failed to check with the guy who was responsible for the unique design of the WTC stucture,

you ask a lot of dumb questions you could look up yourself

have you read nist stuff on 9/11,?

then get to it an when you finish go talk to Robertson

[njslim]

The "isolated pockets of fire" refer to the 78th floor South tower - 2 FDNYer
members, Battalion chief Orio Palmer and Fire Marshall Ron Bucca made it
there. Chief Palmer has served in the district for a number of years before
making chief and was familar with WTC. Bucca after 1993 bombing had
studied building plans (refer Peter Lance book - 1000 years for Revenge (hope got name correct)). FDNY men would carry about 90 lbs of equipment
(bunker gear, SCBA, tools) while climbing stairs. Palmer had found a working
freight elevator which ran to 40th floor, also as chief would only carry 55-60
lbs (only bunker gear + scba, no hose or tools) - also was marathon runner.
Bucca as Marshall would only have bunker gear, no scba, maybe only a coat
Was reserve officer in special forces unit - again very fit. Both men got to
78 - this floor had been hit by wing tip of UAL175, about 150 people were
in it waiting for elevators, this was sky lobby for elevator transfers. Many
killed or injured by debris hurled by impact. Palmer and Bucca were able to
get there. Main impact point and body of fire was from 80 to 83 floors. So
when moonbats start barking about this bring up that most of fire was
several floors above them. FDNY when fighting high raise fires assumes
that hose team can extinguish 2500-3000 sq ft with 2 1/2" line (takes min
of 3 men to handle it). Each floor at WTC was over 40,000 sq ft! Also most
of standpipe risers had been cut by impact - no water!

[stateofgrace]

Define anomaly.

deviation from the normal or common order or form or rule As it has been pointed out by countless cters on countless less times no building has ever collapsed due to fire and as we all know no single 110 story building as ever been hit by a plane at high speed, suffered massive fires and collapsed. It is an anomaly.

Also since there is nothing at all that has even happened on this scale before there is absolute now way of gauging it to anything else. There is nothing to compare it to. It is not as though anybody can say “hey well the last time it happened, there was no damage to the cars that was parked outside”

There are no anomalies at GZ because whatever happened at GZ is unique, it has not happened before; it was a deviation from the normal. There is no baseline to compare events to.

Trying to say this should have happened and this should not have happened, IMO is pointless, unless it happens again. God willing it never will happen again but then the conspirators will have something to compare it to, Until then trying to say that cars or trucks, or whatever should not have been damaged and this and that should not have happened is silly. Because nobody could ever know what would happen when to 110 stories building collapses. They only thing the investigators can try do are put forward suggestions to make sure it never happens again.

You can trust those who investigated, have faith that they have done their best and put forward suggestions that make sense and will prevent loss of life in the future. Or you can wonder why a car got all busted up at GZ.

[beachnut]

Are you implying that desks burning for 56 minutes could cause global collapse in one of the greatest engineering triumphs in history?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2032413&postcount=111

but then you need to ask the

Ask the guy who was the expert on the GETIH, The original structural engineering Leslie E. Robertson

what did the original structural engineering Leslie E. Robertson say

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2032413&postcount=111

The original structural engineering Leslie E. Robertson says it was the fire that killed the WTC

As you are learning NIST did study the WTC floors ability to sustain the original design spec for fire protection, that is what they do when they investigate, before they tell you about how the wallboard and spray on fire proofing was destroyed in a big impact! The impact alone is equal in energy to a TON of TNT, like a 2000 pound bomb.

You are posting as if you are Alex Jones fanning a fire...

[Dave_46]

The fuel burned off in 20 minutes and reached temperatures nowhere near hot enough to weaken the steel.

NIST know this, which is why they have to make things up, like fireproofing being blown off and fiddling with parameters on the computer tests.

Got to disagree about the temperatures.

In the UK the fire resistance test has a variant, which I suspect is also in the ASTM standard, to simulate a hydrocarbon fire. This was known colloquially as a 900-90 fire. This was because it reached 900C in 90sec. This is more than hot enough to weaken steel (half the strength gone at 500-550C). I never got to do one of those tests, I don't think the test furnace I used could heat up that quickly. I did perform many standard temperature/time tests over the nineteen years I did this work.

Dave

[Dog Town]

Hi PD'oh, you are quite active today! I think the A.Jones picture you have at LC is better.

[Docker]

Hi PD'oh, you are quite active today! I think the A.Jones picture you have at LC is better.

Think what you like dog town.

[Pardalis]

Docker, please answer this simple question:

So you've read it then? You claim it's all wrong, so you must've. Which pages in particular have the most glaring errors?

Id' very much like to know what you've found.

[firecoins]

about 4-5..I can ask my friend. She just fought her first 2 story structure fire the other day.
he asked men, not how many women.;)

[firecoins]

So you haven't read it despite claiming that you have.
you haven't backed up a single claim that you have made.

[Blackadder_no]

Strange... I keep having these deja vus...

[gumboot]

Wow... this thread has been busy...

I'll add my two cents ;)

On the matter of the cars...

For whatever reason, in my line of work I have had the experience of setting alight quite a few cars.

I can say with conviction that the fires produced are incredibly unpredictable, as is the resultant damage.

Nothing about the pictures of car fires I have seen seems odd or unlikely to me.

For anyone who does find them odd, I would respectfully suggest they do not have any experience with witnessing car fires.

Onto the collapse mechanism of the towers...

NIST has often cited the loss of fireproofing as a primary factor in the collapse. Severed columns alone would not have produced collapse. Neither would resulting fires.

It was the stripping of the fire proofing that exposed the steel to fatal heat. Someone has linked to a NIST test that demonstrates how well the steel would have resisted collapse had fireproofing been in place.

What hasn't been mentioned is the NIST tests on unprotected steel from the WTC. They found the steel lost critical strength in 20 minutes of flame exposure.

Likewise, the Kader Toy Factory (the world's worst industrial fire), with an unprotected steel frame, collapsed in 15 minutes.

The dislodging of fireproofing is vital in the collapse mechanism.

So.

Are NIST making it up? No. To suggest they are, to me, clearly indicates the person making the claim has not read the NIST report. I did read it. Their report includes pages and pages of photographs of the burning towers, with clearly identifiable exposed steel where the fireproofing had been removed.

(The steel was coated with a dull red primer paint which is easily identifiable in the photographs).

NIST estimate, from extensive photographic evidence, that the removal of fireproofing was extensive and ultimately was what brought the towers down.


Lastly, we have the "extent of the fires" argument.

The 78th Floor fires are cited. First, let's learn a little about what happened on the 78th floor.

As some know, people began evacuating WTC2 when WTC1 was hit. When it was announced WTC2 was safe, some decided to return to their offices. Others continued to evacuate. As you can imagine, the elevators would have been busy.

The 78th floor is one of the sky lobbies. As such, at this moment it was crowded with people. When UA175 hit the WTC the wingtip slammed into the 78th Floor, killing an estimated 50 - 200 people instantly.

How do we know this?

Because people who were waiting for those same elevators on that same floor survived. They lived to tell off the carnage and destruction that occured on that floor.

Of course, fire was not the primary killer. The fuel tanks on a 767 don't extend to the wingtips. And a skylobby does not have as much furniture as other floors. If any jet fuel did find its way into the 78th floor, it would have had little fuel to spread to.

This is in contrast to the upper floors. In a modern office a high percentage of material is made from hydrocarbons. Carpet, furniture, pens, folders, computers, all synthetic. All hydrocarbons. All rich fuel for a hungry fire.

What other evidence is there of the heat?

Well, there's the NYPD helicopter, for a start.

After the 93 WTC bombing, many people were rescued by helicopter from the roof of the building.

On 9/11 the heat coming off the top of the buildings was so severe the NYPD police helicopter could not get near the roof as the engine on their aircraft would overheat.

Later, some short time before collapse, the NYPD police helicopter reported the steel in the building was glowing "red hot".

Not an extensive fire?

Indeed.

-Gumboot

[Mince]

That was not a lie. That is what I had been told about those cars. If it isn't true that doesn't make me a liar. I believed it to be true.


Kind of like a certainly President I once read about. Something about these somethings and this one country.

[LashL]

Docker, I asked this (repeatedly) above but you didn't answer, so I'll ask again: Do you even know what the term "isolated pockets of fire" means in firefighter lingo?

I do, and I suspect that it doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Docker]

Docker, I asked this (repeatedly) above but you didn't answer, so I'll ask again: Do you even know what the term "isolated pockets of fire" means in firefighter lingo?

I do, and I suspect that it doesn't mean what you think it means.

I'm guessing here but I would say it means 2 separate areas of fire that are unlikely to spread.

[realitybites]

Don't bother LashL. He's abandoned this thread.

[Docker]

Don't bother LashL. He's abandoned this thread.

Wrong as usual.

[luvhumility]

gumbooty summed it all up quite well! tnx!!


lh

[kookbreaker]

I'm guessing here but I would say it means 2 separate areas of fire that are unlikely to spread.

Are you admitting your were wrong about the firefighters being at the impact zone? You've been shown you were wrong. Yet theres no retraction from you.

[realitybites]

Wrong as usual.
Whoops. Musta' just been taking a 4 hour dump.

[hellaeon]

A neutron bomb would have killed thousands upon thousands of people instantly. Every single digital camera anywhere near the WTC would have fried itself. The police and news helicopters around the site would have suffered catastrophic system failures.

Need I go on?

-Gumboot

doesnt happen like that in the movies

[LashL]

I'm guessing here but I would say it means 2 separate areas of fire that are unlikely to spread.

At least you admitted (for once) that you were guessing.

But you are wrong (as usual).

Are you beginning to see why it is unwise to leap to conclusions about things that you haven't even the most basic knowledge?

[gumboot]

doesnt happen like that in the movies


Film cameras are mechanical, not electrical... ;)

-Gumboot

[Garb]

doesnt happen like that in the movies

That's always what happens in the movies. What are you talking about?

[LashL]

Whoops. Musta' just been taking a 4 hour dump.

Closer to 6 hours. And he still got it wrong.

[Garb]

Ugh, this thread is still alive?

[Gravy]

Regarding the Orio Palmer radio call, Docker is once again completely uninformed. I haven't read every post, so I apologize if this is repetitive.

I refer you to realitybites' post:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2033951&postcount=314

It's important to remember that the 78th floor skylobby was the lowest point of impact in the south tower, and that it did not contain offices. I've been in that skylobby, and it was mostly marble, glass, stainless steel, escalators, elevator banks, etc. There simply wasn't the fuel available that the other floors had. Numerous people were alive and trapped inthe elevator banks there, and several radio calls for help to rescue them were made.

Next, Palmer's call was made at 9:52, seven minutes before collapse. At that moment, two floors above, the fire was so hot that molten metal dripped from the building. The fire was not "almost out," Docker. It was an inferno.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452f5f4d0bc3a.jpg

[firecoins]

Regarding the Orio Palmer radio call, Docker is once again completely uninformed. I haven't read every post, so I apologize if this is repetitive.

I refer you to realitybites' post:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2033951&postcount=314

It's important to remember that the 78th floor skylobby was the lowest point of impact in the south tower, and that it did not contain offices. I've been in that skylobby, and it was mostly marble, glass, stainless steel, escalators, elevator banks, etc. There simply wasn't the fuel available that the other floors had. Numerous people were alive and trapped inthe elevator banks there, and several radio calls for help to rescue them were made.

Next, Palmer's call was made at 9:52, seven minutes before collapse. At that moment, two floors above, the fire was so hot that molten metal dripped from the building. The fire was not "almost out," Docker. It was an inferno.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452f5f4d0bc3a.jpg

Gravy, once again you have given a well informed answer based on facts. But Docker has a mysterious backround that includes expertise in conjecture and speculation and that as we all know trumps the facts and logic.

[hellaeon]

You are missing the most amazing part. There were people inside those cars and they aren't there now! Where did they go? What technology would make them completely disappear without any blood, torn clothing, nothing, they simply vanished.

Please JREFs tell me what you imagine happened to those people.

Emperor Mings evil RING.

[Docker]

Regarding the Orio Palmer radio call, Docker is once again completely uninformed. I haven't read every post, so I apologize if this is repetitive.

I refer you to realitybites' post:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2033951&postcount=314

It's important to remember that the 78th floor skylobby was the lowest point of impact in the south tower, and that it did not contain offices. I've been in that skylobby, and it was mostly marble, glass, stainless steel, escalators, elevator banks, etc. There simply wasn't the fuel available that the other floors had. Numerous people were alive and trapped inthe elevator banks there, and several radio calls for help to rescue them were made.

Next, Palmer's call was made at 9:52, seven minutes before collapse. At that moment, two floors above, the fire was so hot that molten metal dripped from the building. The fire was not "almost out," Docker. It was an inferno.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452f5f4d0bc3a.jpg



Yes the molten metal is odd. It isn't aluminium and steel doesn't melt at those temperatures

[Docker]

Its like gravy is the pied piper and the rest of the JREFers are the rats of hamlin.

[realitybites]

Yes the molten metal is odd. It isn't aluminium and steel doesn't melt at those temperatures
Source that it's not aluminium?

[LashL]

Regarding the Orio Palmer radio call, Docker is once again completely uninformed. I haven't read every post, so I apologize if this is repetitive.

I refer you to realitybites' post:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2033951&postcount=314

It's important to remember that the 78th floor skylobby was the lowest point of impact in the south tower, and that it did not contain offices. I've been in that skylobby, and it was mostly marble, glass, stainless steel, escalators, elevator banks, etc. There simply wasn't the fuel available that the other floors had. Numerous people were alive and trapped inthe elevator banks there, and several radio calls for help to rescue them were made.

Next, Palmer's call was made at 9:52, seven minutes before collapse. At that moment, two floors above, the fire was so hot that molten metal dripped from the building. The fire was not "almost out," Docker. It was an inferno.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790452f5f4d0bc3a.jpg


Indeed.

But Docker seems to have an aversion to actual facts and evidence.

There were also many people killed on the 78th floor immediately following the initial impact. There are also several first hand accounts by survivors who escaped from the 78th floor. Somehow, I doubt that Docker has read any of them.

[Mince]

Its like gravy is the pied piper and the rest of the JREFers are the rats of hamlin.


Says the Alex Jones worshipper.

[Docker]

Source that it's not aluminium?

Molten aluminium is not that colour in daylight.

[Docker]

Says the Alex Jones worshipper.

I am not a fan of Alex Jones

[realitybites]

Molten aluminium is not that colour in daylight.
Pure molten aluminium maybe. There was a bunch of other stuff that coulda' gotten mixed in with it.

[LashL]

Its like gravy is the pied piper and the rest of the JREFers are the rats of hamlin.

Nonsense. It's quite the contrary. Skeptics here are not like the brainless loons who follow the persona of the day within the "truth" movement, who go about their wilfully blind way without ever seeking out or ascertaining facts or evidence.

The brainless "rats" are people like you who blindly follow the "9/11 was an inside job" mantra and do not bother to engage your brains or to utilize any form of critical thinking skills.

Your hundreds of posts in 2 days, which are nearly all comprised of nothing but mindless nonsense, with no facts, logic or evidence to support your blathering, tend to indicate that you are either incapable of critical thought, or unwilling to even give it a try.

Moreover, unlike CTers, we don't wear matching tee shirts and rally around shouting mindless, stupid slogans on cue like the rats of the "truth" movement do.

People respect Gravy's work precisely because he has actually done countless hours of work researching the facts and evidence and presenting them clearly, in addition to his ability to take on and systematically annihilate the lame and unfounded "arguments" of the lunatics at Ground Zero every weekend.

You are so wrong on all counts that you don't even know you're wrong.

And that is sad, indeed.

[Mince]

I am not a fan of Alex Jones


And I am not a rat of Hamlin.

[Horatius]

Molten aluminium is not that colour in daylight.

So, "Gravy is the pied piper and the rest of the JREFers are the rats of hamlin", and yet, you're the one quoting the exact same BS arguments we've seen for CTist for months now. Couldn't you at least try and make up some new BS?


Say what you will about Christophera, at least he comes up with his own wacky theories.....

[Gravy]

Its like gravy is the pied piper and the rest of the JREFers are the rats of hamlin.No, Docker, it's that I've spent more time on this than anyone else. It makes me very angry when people like you make wild, unfounded claims but are too lazy to research them.

It's Pied Piper of Hamelin. Corrected that for you.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Molten aluminium is not that colour in daylight.

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.
source (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)

[Docker]

No, Docker, it's that I've spent more time on this than anyone else. It makes me very angry when people like you make wild, unfounded claims but are too lazy to research them.

It's Pied Piper of Hamelin. Corrected that for you.

Forgive me boss, i've never seen hamelin written down.

I habe made no outrageous claims. It is you who are making ridiculous claims without any evidence to back them up.

[DavidJames]

Its like gravy is the pied piper and the rest of the JREFers are the rats of hamlin.It's Pied Piper of Hamelin. Corrected that for you.This pretty much says all there really needs to be said about Docker.

[Docker]

So, "Gravy is the pied piper and the rest of the JREFers are the rats of hamlin", and yet, you're the one quoting the exact same BS arguments we've seen for CTist for months now. Couldn't you at least try and make up some new BS?


Say what you will about Christophera, at least he comes up with his own wacky theories.....

Ok, I believe the world trader centre was rigged with explosives when it was first built.

[Oliver]

Ok, I believe the world trader centre was rigged with explosives when it was first built.

Muhawawawa... Okay. What type of core was it?

[kookbreaker]

Ok, I believe the world trader centre was rigged with explosives when it was first built.

Then you are a complete and utter idiot.

What explosives made in the 70's would have a nearly 30 year shelf life?

Where is the detonation mechanism?

Man we haven't heard this looney tune since that guy in the first 'Loose Change' thread.

[stateofgrace]

I habe made no outrageous claims. It is you who are making ridiculous claims without any evidence to back them up.

orly?

Ok, I believe the world trader centre was rigged with explosives when it was first built.

Where is that laughing dog?

[Pardalis]

Ok, I believe the world trader centre was rigged with explosives when it was first built.

So you are saying it was a controlled demotion?

What is your evidence that it was rigged with explosives when it was built?

[Docker]

Muhawawawa... Okay. What type of core was it?

The core was made of July 4th firecrackers held together with elastic bands, they had run out of steel.

[Oliver]

The core was made of July 4th firecrackers held together with elastic bands, they had run out of steel.

Come over and let´s celebrate this here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426&page=152 :D

[Pardalis]

Ok, I believe the world trader centre was rigged with explosives when it was first built.

When did I ever claim it was a controlled demolition?

...

[Oliver]

...

Just because the wtc was build with explosives does not mean that it was used on 9/11. ;)

[hellaeon]

Ok, I believe the world trader centre was rigged with explosives when it was first built.

hahaha wow...long term plan to blow it up. Are you serious? Not this theory again...I have no movies I can reference for it. What type of explosive and what sort of detonation would it need?

hahahaha I think at this point your just trying to stir the pot. I think you have what we call in IT, the 'ID dash TEN T virus'.

[hellaeon]

Although I should be laughing, I will lightly give you the benefit of the doubt as we all should though I know we shouldnt. Stick on topic now - You have a claim - How do you think the explosives came to be added to the construction, what type and how could they be used to detonate the towers 30 or so years later?

[Docker]

Although I should be laughing, I will lightly give you the benefit of the doubt as we all should though I know we shouldnt. Stick on topic now - You have a claim - How do you think the explosives came to be added to the construction, what type and how could they be used to detonate the towers 30 or so years later?

I was joking

[Gravy]

Ok, I believe the world trader centre was rigged with explosives when it was first built.How's the weather in Christopheraville?

[Gravy]

I was jokingUnfortunately, you've given us no reason to believe that. See what happens when you lie all the time?

[Docker]

Unfortunately, you've given us no reason to believe that. See what happens when you lie all the time?

I have told no lies. I have simply offered opinions and evidence.

[Gravy]

It is you who are making ridiculous claims without any evidence to back them up.Name a claim I've made without backing it up. Right now.

[LashL]

I have told no lies. I have simply offered opinions and evidence.

Correction: you've offered opinions and lies, "Docker", but no evidence.

[stateofgrace]

I have told no lies. I have simply offered opinions and evidence.

What evidence?

[Docker]

Name a claim I've made without backing it up. Right now.

You claim that building 7 fell. It is still under investigation so you cannoy claim this. You have also endorsed claims that Rodriguez testimony has changed. Totally unsubstantiated.

[defaultdotxbe]

What evidence?
i think thats a typo, he probably meant to say "offered nothing but opinions AS evidence"

[LashL]

You claim that building 7 fell. It is still under investigation so you cannoy claim this. You have also endorsed claims that Rodriguez testimony has changed. Totally unsubstantiated.

Building 7 did, in fact, fall.

Rodriguez' story did, in fact, change, repeatedly.

Try again.

[Pardalis]

You claim that building 7 fell. It is still under investigation so you cannoy claim this.

It didn't fall? :confused:

[defaultdotxbe]

You claim that building 7 fell. It is still under investigation so you cannoy claim this.
so building 7 is still standing?

just so you know, the one thats there now is a new building 7 :D

[Gravy]

You claim that building 7 fell. It is still under investigation so you cannoy claim this. You have also endorsed claims that Rodriguez testimony has changed. Totally unsubstantiated.Show me exactly where I made these claims. You know, provide your evidence to back them.

[Anti-sophist]

Building 7 did, in fact, fall.


Heh. The investigation is not complete! You cannot claim that!

[luvhumility]

How does my education back anything up?

it doesn't but look here:

Examples of nuclear weapon yields
Comparative fireball diameters for a selection of nuclear weapons. Note that full blast effects would extend many times beyond the fireball itself.
Enlarge
Comparative fireball diameters for a selection of nuclear weapons. Note that full blast effects would extend many times beyond the fireball itself.

In order of increasing yield (most yield figures are approximate):

* Davy Crockett tactical nuclear weapon: variable yield 0.01–1 kt — mass only 23 kg (51 lb), lightest ever deployed by the United States (same warhead as Special Atomic Demolition Munition and GAR-11 Nuclear Falcon missile).
* Hiroshima's "Little Boy" gravity bomb: 12–15 kt — gun type uranium-235 fission bomb (the first of the two nuclear weapons that have been used in warfare).
* Nagasaki's "Fat Man" gravity bomb: 20–22 kt — implosion type plutonium-239 fission bomb (the second of the two nuclear weapons used in warfare).
* W-76 warhead 100 kt (10 of these may be in a MIRVed Trident II missile).
* B61 nuclear bomb: Mod 7 (up to 350 kt), Mod 10 (4 yield options: 0.3 kt, 1.5 kt, 60 kt, and 170 kt), and Mod 11 (undisclosed yield).
* W-87 warhead: 300 kt (10 of these were in a MIRVed LG-118A Peacekeeper).
* W-88 warhead: 475 kt (8 of these may be in a Trident II missile).
* Ivy King device: 500 kt — most powerful pure fission bomb; 60 kg uranium; implosion type.
* B83 nuclear bomb: variable, up to 1.2 Mt; most powerful U.S. weapon in active service.
* B53 nuclear bomb: 9Mt, most powerful US warhead; no longer in active service, but 50 are retained as part of the "Hedge" portion of the Enduring Stockpile; similar to the W-53 warhead that has been used in the Titan II Missile, decommissioned in 1987.
* Castle Bravo device: 15 Mt — most powerful US test.
* EC17/Mk-17, the EC24/Mk-24, and the B41 (Mk-41) (most powerful US weapons ever: 25 Mt; the Mk-17 was also the largest by size and mass: ca. 20 tons; the Mk-41 had a mass of 4800 kg; gravity bombs carried by B-36 bomber (retired by 1957).
* The entire Operation Castle nuclear test series: 48.2 Mt — the highest-yielding test series conducted by the U.S.
* Tsar Bomba device: 50 Mt — USSR, most powerful explosive device ever, mass of 27 short tons (24 metric tons), in its "full" form (i.e. with a depleted uranium tamper instead of one made of lead) it would have been 100 Mt.
* All nuclear testing: 510.4 Mt — total megatonnage expended during all nuclear testing.[1]

As a comparison, the Oklahoma City bombing, using a truck-based fertilizer bomb, was a mere 0.002 kt. Most artificial non-nuclear explosions are considerably smaller than even what are considered to be very small nuclear weapons.

[Docker]

Show me exactly where I made these claims. You know, provide your evidence to back them.

Now you are taking the piss. You wrote a whole paper saying that 7 fell and wasn't demolished.

[Docker]

it doesn't but look here:

Examples of nuclear weapon yields
Comparative fireball diameters for a selection of nuclear weapons. Note that full blast effects would extend many times beyond the fireball itself.
Enlarge
Comparative fireball diameters for a selection of nuclear weapons. Note that full blast effects would extend many times beyond the fireball itself.

In order of increasing yield (most yield figures are approximate):

* Davy Crockett tactical nuclear weapon: variable yield 0.01–1 kt — mass only 23 kg (51 lb), lightest ever deployed by the United States (same warhead as Special Atomic Demolition Munition and GAR-11 Nuclear Falcon missile).
* Hiroshima's "Little Boy" gravity bomb: 12–15 kt — gun type uranium-235 fission bomb (the first of the two nuclear weapons that have been used in warfare).
* Nagasaki's "Fat Man" gravity bomb: 20–22 kt — implosion type plutonium-239 fission bomb (the second of the two nuclear weapons used in warfare).
* W-76 warhead 100 kt (10 of these may be in a MIRVed Trident II missile).
* B61 nuclear bomb: Mod 7 (up to 350 kt), Mod 10 (4 yield options: 0.3 kt, 1.5 kt, 60 kt, and 170 kt), and Mod 11 (undisclosed yield).
* W-87 warhead: 300 kt (10 of these were in a MIRVed LG-118A Peacekeeper).
* W-88 warhead: 475 kt (8 of these may be in a Trident II missile).
* Ivy King device: 500 kt — most powerful pure fission bomb; 60 kg uranium; implosion type.
* B83 nuclear bomb: variable, up to 1.2 Mt; most powerful U.S. weapon in active service.
* B53 nuclear bomb: 9Mt, most powerful US warhead; no longer in active service, but 50 are retained as part of the "Hedge" portion of the Enduring Stockpile; similar to the W-53 warhead that has been used in the Titan II Missile, decommissioned in 1987.
* Castle Bravo device: 15 Mt — most powerful US test.
* EC17/Mk-17, the EC24/Mk-24, and the B41 (Mk-41) (most powerful US weapons ever: 25 Mt; the Mk-17 was also the largest by size and mass: ca. 20 tons; the Mk-41 had a mass of 4800 kg; gravity bombs carried by B-36 bomber (retired by 1957).
* The entire Operation Castle nuclear test series: 48.2 Mt — the highest-yielding test series conducted by the U.S.
* Tsar Bomba device: 50 Mt — USSR, most powerful explosive device ever, mass of 27 short tons (24 metric tons), in its "full" form (i.e. with a depleted uranium tamper instead of one made of lead) it would have been 100 Mt.
* All nuclear testing: 510.4 Mt — total megatonnage expended during all nuclear testing.[1]

As a comparison, the Oklahoma City bombing, using a truck-based fertilizer bomb, was a mere 0.002 kt. Most artificial non-nuclear explosions are considerably smaller than even what are considered to be very small nuclear weapons.

Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb.

[Anti-sophist]

Now you are taking the piss. You wrote a whole paper saying that 7 fell and wasn't demolished.

Are you saying it didn't fall?

[stateofgrace]

You claim that building 7 fell. It is still under investigation so you cannoy claim this.

Even I can answer that one. WTC 7 did fall, so this is not claim it is fact. The reason for the collapse is being investigated by the experts employed by NIST.They will then publish a final report all about what they found out.

(This report you will dismiss, without reading)

[LashL]

Heh. The investigation is not complete! You cannot claim that!

Sometimes I forget that the woos are so woo-like that they need to be carefully guided, step by step, through the facts and evidence that disprove their woodom, but... come on!


;)

[Docker]

Are you saying it didn't fall?

By fall I mean came down due to fire etc rather than blasts.

[gumboot]

Heh. The investigation is not complete! You cannot claim that!


I believe the purpose of the investigation is to determine HOW and WHY it fell, not IF it fell.

Indeed, the entire investigation is initiated on the pretext that WTC7 did indeed fall.

-Gumboot

[Anti-sophist]

I've decided that is quoteworthy. Welcome to my sig.

[defaultdotxbe]

By fall I mean came down due to fire etc rather than blasts.
so does this mean when the investigation is complete you will accept its findings?

[Pardalis]

By fall I mean came down due to fire etc rather than blasts.

Of course you have evidence that it came down by blasts?

[defaultdotxbe]

Of course you have evidence that it came down by blasts?
its still under investigation so he cannoy claim this ;)

[LashL]

Now you are taking the piss. You wrote a whole paper saying that 7 fell and wasn't demolished.

Speaking of taking the piss, did you miss this?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2035483#post2035483

<snip>It's obvious that "Docker" hasn't a clue about any of the subjects that s/he starts threads about, hasn't a clue about any of the subjects about which s/he posts, and that s/he is - to use the Brit vernacular - just taking the piss.

[Gravy]

Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb.
:dl:

Anything else? C'mon, let it all out. You'll feel better.

[Docker]

Of course you have evidence that it came down by blasts?

I never claimed it did. That is one hypothesis NIST is considering. So until they reach conclusions we cant claim to know what happened.

[stateofgrace]

By fall I mean came down due to fire etc rather than blasts.

So in your mindset there is absolutely no other explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 than "blasts"? None whatsoever?

So why should NIST bother investigating it all for you?

[Docker]

:dl:

Anything else? C'mon, let it all out. You'll feel better.

I don't believe it was. Damage was too extensive. Unexploded devices were removed.

[DavidJames]

The people that say I never cite sources are liars. I do if I can and if I can't I make clear it's an opinion.
Then 28 miutes later, this was a post of yours, quoted here in it's entirety.

Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb.

In those 8 words, can you point out either your source, or where you "make clear it's an opinion"

edit to add - 10 minutes later:Unexploded devices were removed.4 words, where is your source or where you "make clear it's an opinion"

[Pardalis]

I never claimed it did. That is one hypothesis NIST is considering. So until they reach conclusions we cant claim to know what happened.

OK, agreed. So we should let this topic rest until the NIST shows its conclusions. Will you agree to not be accusing anyone of complicity in its demolition until we have NIST's report?

Do I have your word, Docker?

[luvhumility]

Incidentally, OKC was not a single truck bomb.

so? it possibly was not... but thats not the point...

are you sure? I probably know what you know...or more, so what fact finding do you have to provide?

lh

[defaultdotxbe]

I never claimed it did. That is one hypothesis NIST is considering. So until they reach conclusions we cant claim to know what happened.
i think the only reason they are considering it is so CTers will shut up

but regardless, if they find it collapsed due to the damage it sustained and the uncrontrolled fires, will you accept that conclusion or will you claim they "fudged the data?"

[Gravy]

You claim that building 7 fell. It is still under investigation so you cannoy claim this. You have also endorsed claims that Rodriguez testimony has changed. Totally unsubstantiated.I'll give you a final chance to prove that you're not a liar. I asked you for evidence to back these claims. Produce it.

[Docker]

Gravy please be bothered to look at the evidence:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/multibla.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/okm.htm

[Docker]

OK, agreed. So we should let this topic rest until the NIST shows its conclusions. Will you agree to not be accusing anyone of complicity in its demolition until we have NIST's report?

Do I have your word, Docker?

Yes , but tell that to gravy who is writing papers saying it collapsed from fire and damage.

[defaultdotxbe]

Gravy please be bothered to look at the evidence:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/multibla.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/PARTIN/okm.htm
lol, even when sourcing seemingly official documentation he still does it through a non-credible website

[Pardalis]

It's a free country.

[Docker]

I'll give you a final chance to prove that you're not a liar. I asked you for evidence to back these claims. Produce it.

You wrote a paper on 7 saying it collapsed due to fire and debris damage.

[Gravy]

I don't believe it was. Damage was too extensive. Unexploded devices were removed.:dl:

Present your evidence, chief. Go right ahead. Think we're not informed?

Docker, do you know what the "unexploded devices" were?

Do you? I'll start another thread so you can elaborate on this claim.

[firecoins]

when do Air Force Generals, active or retired, investigate terror attacks the occur domestically? espically when truck bombs are used?

[Docker]

It's a free country.

So I have to let it rest but gravy doesn't. Hey, sounds fair.

[Gravy]

You wrote a paper on 7 saying it collapsed due to fire and debris damage.You're not even trying to address the other claim? Last chance before proving that you're a liar, once again. Go right ahead, Docker.

[luvhumility]

By fall I mean came down due to fire etc rather than blasts.

gee, Maybe you should run for some political office! You really know how to "GeNeralIze"!

Docker, its about details, details, detailz... those pesky details, especially in the use of language!!! leave out a word... and POOF! you look very ignorant!!

lh

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes , but tell that to gravy who is writing papers saying it collapsed from fire and damage.
is there something wrong with gravy conducting an independent investigation?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes , but tell that to gravy who is writing papers saying it collapsed from fire and damage.

What is wrong with him putting forth his analysis based upon the available evidence? If you do some cursory searching of the forums, you will see that Gravy is quite willing, and speedy, in correcting errors of fact. I have no doubt that if the NIST report on WTC 7 contains information in addition to what he has, or the come to a credible different conclusion that he will adjust his paper accordingly.

[Docker]

when do Air Force Generals, active or retired, investigate terror attacks the occur domestically? espically when truck bombs are used?

Air Force Generals that are explosives experts. There are also numerous news clips showing bomb squad removing bombs. You really do believe anything the government tells you.

Reality check: Governments do bad things

[Docker]

You're not even trying to address the other claim? Last chance before proving that you're a liar, once again. Go right ahead, Docker.

OK I retract the other claim. Now tell me why you're writing papers concluding 7 fell because of fire and damage when NIST is still investigating.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Air Force Generals that are explosives experts. There are also numerous news clips showing bomb squad removing bombs. You really do believe anything the government tells you.

Reality check: Governments do bad things

Though OKC may be worthy of discussion (I would be interested in seeing the clips mentioned), it belongs in a different thread.

[firecoins]

Air Force Generals that are explosives experts. There are also numerous news clips showing bomb squad removing bombs. You really do believe anything the government tells you.

Reality check: Governments do bad things
yes but most of the time they don't do it in secracy.

[Docker]

is there something wrong with gravy conducting an independent investigation?

Yes. He isn't a structural engineer.

[firecoins]

This thread is all over the place. Docker is on to a different topic before he backs anything up legit evidence.

[Pardalis]

So I have to let it rest but gravy doesn't. Hey, sounds fair.

You're the one accusing people of complicity in a major crime, Docker.

And you have not researched it, neither have you shown any evidence.

[Docker]

yes but most of the time they don't do it in secracy.

That's exactly how they do it. Ever heard of National Security? By the way its secrecy. Corrected for you.

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes. He isn't a structural engineer.
but clearly that means nothing to you since the vast majority of structural engineers say WTC1+2 came down due to impact danage and fires

[firecoins]

Yes. He isn't a structural engineer.
are you? I am still waiting.:boxedin:

[Docker]

Though OKC may be worthy of discussion (I would be interested in seeing the clips mentioned), it belongs in a different thread.

And who brought OKC up? Not me.

[Pardalis]

Yes. He isn't a structural engineer.

Are you?

[Docker]

are you? I am still waiting.:boxedin:

No, but then again i'm not conducting an investigation and presenting conclusions before NIST has.

[firecoins]

That's exactly how they do it. Ever heard of National Security? By the way its secrecy. Corrected for you.
China does bad things in the open
North Korea
Iran
Israel
Syria
France
Russia
Sudan
Saddam's Iraq
Soviet Union

I am not buying the super secret easily disprovable conspiracy theory against their own citizens to get support from those very same citizens for war.

[Pardalis]

No, but then again i'm not conducting an investigation and presenting conclusions before NIST has.

No, you're just accusing people randomly of being part of a major crime.

[Docker]

but clearly that means nothing to you since the vast majority of structural engineers say WTC1+2 came down due to impact danage and fires

Please stop side stepping. Gravy is writing papers saying 7 fell due to damage and fire, even though he is not an engineer and NIST have not concluded their inquiry.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes. He isn't a structural engineer.

How can you take fault with Gravy doing his own investigation, based upon his career, when you yourself are making various claims that would require multiple fields of expertise in order to meet the same qualifications to which you are holding Gravy?

[Docker]

No, you're just accusing people randomly of being part of a major crime.

Name one person I have accused.

[Gravy]

I have told no lies.
OK I retract the other claim.
You even lie about lying. Pathetic.

Your OKC thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67011)awaits, Docker. Have at it, with all your evidence.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Please stop side stepping. Gravy is writing papers saying 7 fell due to damage and fire, even though he is not an engineer and NIST have not concluded their inquiry.

Show where he is (1) claiming to be a structural engineer or (2) where he is presenting evidence that would require the expertise of a structural engineer and failing to source one.

[Docker]

How can you take fault with Gravy doing his own investigation, based upon his career, when you yourself are making various claims that would require multiple fields of expertise in order to meet the same qualifications to which you are holding Gravy?

I have written no papers nor have I reached conclusions. I'm doing what gravy should be doing. Waiting for the experts to conclude.