Plane tickets... How did the Hijackers obtain?

[Caper]

Debating a truther.... I have looked around on 9/11 myths there was a bit on the Boston Globe obtainng manifests... But there are some points I can't find info on. Anyway here is the post. Not the first time I've come across it, but I want a detailed response. Thank you.

There is no documented record of the alleged 9/11 terrorists making plane reservations. If they did, there would be a "record locator", complete with details.
There is no documented record of the alleged 9/11 terrorists buying or using tickets. (IDs required)
There is no hard-copy of a single printed ticket copy.
There is no evidence of the alleged 9-11 terrorists on any of the passenger manifests, with all legitimate passengers being accounted for.
There is no record of the alleged 9-11 terrorists in the autopsies.
There is not so much as a suggestion that the purported 9-11 terrorists had the requisite piloting skills—rather, the contrary.
There is no documentation (per the head of FBI Mueller) to link the alleged 9-11 terrorists to the events of the day.
At least seven of the purported 9-11 terrorists are known to still be alive in the Middle East with no questions being asked.

Go ahead and prove this wrong.
Until then, go right ahead and believe the FBI's ********.

[jsiv]

I do believe all those things exist. People have even posted the manifests and pilot's certifications here before.

The problem with the conspiracy kooks is that unless the President has personally mailed them a signed copy of all the evidence, it doesn't exist. And if he has, it was faked anyway.

It's the biggest non-argument ever. Even if Bush and the Jews did 9/11, all those things would still exist. It's not hard to just fake a piece of paper. Why wouldn't the conspirators do that?

Infact, if some record is missing, that's more likely just proof that the official government conclusion is true, as there is little chance the faksters would screw up that badly.

[boloboffin]

The Moussaoui indictment has a lot of this information.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/moussaouiindictment.htm

[Gravy]

Please bookmark 911myths.com. Here's the hijacker page, which will cover identification, flight manifests, piloting skills, DNA, "still alive" claims, etc. http://www.911myths.com/html/hijackers.html

More on hijacker piloting issues (the Commission report goes into great detail about the extensive pilot training, including Hani Hanjour passing a difficult certification course, after which the instructor thought he may have had been trained by a military pilot. Not quite the bumbling fool we're led to believe. All of the hijackers rented private planes for practice multiple times, and 4 of the 5 hijackers who were pilots had had time on commercial large jet simulators.)

A Boeing Pilot and Instructor on the skill needed to do what the hijacker pilots did (PDF) – Go (http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf)

Salon.com: "Ask the Pilot" takes on 9/11 conspiracy theorists – Go (http://salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/index_np.html)

A Boeing 757/767 Avionics Technician (Apathoid" here) on the "Remote Takeover" theory – Go (http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf)



Please also bookmark the 9/11 Commission report: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

This may be helpful:
Search the 9/11 Commission Report with results clustered by paragraph. (http://vivisimo.com/html/911)


From section 7.4 (Numbers after sentences indicate footnotes. Always read the footnotes in the Commission report. That's where much of the useful information is!):

Perhaps most significant, however, was the purchase of plane tickets for September 11. On August 23, Atta again flew to Newark, probably to meet with Hazmi and select flights. All 19 tickets were booked and purchased between August 25 and September 5. 171

...

Moving to Departure Positions
In the days just before 9/11, the hijackers returned leftover funds to al Qaeda and assembled in their departure cities. They sent the excess funds by wire transfer to Hawsawi in the UAE, about $26,000 altogether.188

The hijackers targeting American Airlines Flight 77, to depart from Dulles, migrated from New Jersey to Laurel, Maryland, about 20 miles from Washington, D.C. They stayed in a motel during the first week in September and spent time working out at a gym. On the final night before the attacks, they lodged at a hotel in Herndon, Virginia, close to the airport.189

Further north, the hijackers targeting United Airlines Flight 93, to depart from Newark, gathered in that city from their base in Florida on September 7. Just after midnight on September 8-9, Jarrah received a speeding ticket in Maryland as he headed north on I-95. He joined the rest of his team at their hotel.190

Atta was still busy coordinating the teams. On September 7, he flew from Fort Lauderdale to Baltimore, presumably to meet with the Flight 77 team in Laurel. On September 9, he flew from Baltimore to Boston. By then, Shehhi had arrived there, and Atta was seen with him at his hotel. The next day, Atta picked up Omari at another hotel, and the two drove to Portland, Maine, for reasons that remain unknown. In the early morning hours of September 11, they boarded a commuter flight to Boston to connect to American Airlines Flight 11.The two spent their last night pursuing ordinary activities: making ATM withdrawals, eating pizza, and shopping at a convenience store. Their three fellow hijackers for Flight 11 stayed together in a hotel in Newton, Massachusetts, just outside of Boston. 191

Shehhi and his team targeting United Airlines Flight 175 from Logan Airport spent their last hours at two Boston hotels.192 The plan that started with a proposal by KSM in 1996 had evolved to overcome numerous obstacles. Now 19 men waited in nondescript hotel rooms to board four flights the next morning.Remember to read those footnotes!

See Chapter 1 for the continuation of the story: hijacker activities on 9/11.

Mohammed Atta's AA check-in agent in Maine speaks on Oprah: http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200509/20050912/slide_20050912_101.jhtml


An interesting sidenote to the DNA issue that most conspiracists don't know:

The only two brothers who died at the Pentagon on 9/11 were hijackers Nawaf and Salem al-Hamzi. Remains of two brothers were identified by DNA: "The DNA results strengthened the hypothesis that two of the terrorists were brothers, as indicated by other evidence. Two of the terrorist STR profiles aboard the AA Flight 77 gave a sibling index greater than 500. To further test the hypothesis of maternal relatedness, AFDIL sequenced the HVI and HVII regions of mtDNA for these individuals. The sequences generated did match in HVI and HVII, which is consistent with a maternal relationship between the two men." http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/strbase/pub_pres/Edson2004.pdf (p. 83)


See the site linked in my signature for many more links to accurate info and debunking sites.

[MikeW]

Go to
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

Search the page for the word "Chronology" and you'll find details for several of the hijackers that detail when, where and how they bought their tickets.

There is no evidence of the alleged 9-11 terrorists on any of the passenger manifests, with all legitimate passengers being accounted for.
See the Boston Globe, as you point out. Also the passenger lists I obtained: http://www.911myths.com/html/the_passengers.html

There is no record of the alleged 9-11 terrorists in the autopsies.
That's the Thomas Olmsted garbage. He received a list of people from Flight 77 identified by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. The hijackers weren't on it, so he said that's evidence they weren't on the plane. In reality it just means they weren't identified by the AFIP, because there were no DNA samples from relatives at the time. See http://www.911myths.com/html/autopsy_list.html

It doesn't help you now, but in a month or two this will all be a LOT easier to find, once the site's reorganised. Real-life work keeps getting in the way, but eventually I will get it sorted...

[Big Les]

You know, maybe I don't get out enough, or maybe the people I know and meet just don't give enough of a monkey's about either 9/11 or conspiracy theories, but I've been sorely disappointed in my opportunities for laying the debunking smack-down in real life. I've only been able to try it twice; once with a friend, once with a colleague. Both were obviously just expressing their suspicion and dislike of US foreign policy, and didn't really care whether what they were saying was true or not.

In seriousness, this is obviously a good thing, as it might suggest that all but the most casual "Bush=Satan" CTists in the UK are confined to teh intarwebz.

[Revolutionary91]

Isn't 911myths the site that has major contributions from an AIDS denier who believes in lots of CTs and doesn't know what hit the pentagon?

[kookbreaker]

Isn't 911myths the site that has major contributions from an AIDS denier who believes in lots of CTs and doesn't know what hit the pentagon?

Ladies and Gentlemen, this has been a performance of 'Troofer Desperation' in E minor.

[FatesWebb]

Please bookmark 911myths . com. Here's the hijacker page, which will cover identification, flight manifests, piloting skills, DNA, "still alive" claims, etc. www . 911myths . com hxxl hijackers . hxxl

More on hijacker piloting issues (the Commission report goes into great detail about the extensive pilot training, including Hani Hanjour passing a difficult certification course, after which the instructor thought he may have had been trained by a military pilot. Not quite the bumbling fool we're led to believe. All of the hijackers rented private planes for practice multiple times, and 4 of the 5 hijackers who were pilots had had time on commercial large jet simulators.)

A Boeing Pilot and Instructor on the skill needed to do what the hijacker pilots did (PDF) – =" www . 911myths . com Another_Expert . pdf"]Go

Salon . com: "Ask the Pilot" takes on 9 11 conspiracy theorists – ="http: salon . com tech col smith 2006 05 19 askthepilot186 index_np . hxxl"]Go

A Boeing 757 767 Avionics Technician (Apathoid" here) on the "Remote Takeover" theory – =" www . 911myths . com Remote_Takeover . pdf"]Go



Please also bookmark the 9 11 Commission report: www . 9-11commission . gov report index . htm

This may be helpful:
="http: vivisimo . com hxxl 911"]Search the 9 11 Commission Report with results clustered by paragraph.


From section 7.4 (Numbers after sentences indicate footnotes. Always read the footnotes in the Commission report. That's where much of the useful information is!):

Remember to read those footnotes!

See Chapter 1 for the continuation of the story: hijacker activities on 9 11.

Mohammed Atta's AA check-in agent in Maine speaks on Oprah: http: www2.oprah . com tows slide 200509 20050912 slide_20050912_101.jhxxl


An interesting sidenote to the DNA issue that most conspiracists don't know:

The only two brothers who died at the Pentagon on 9 11 were hijackers Nawaf and Salem al-Hamzi. Remains of two brothers were identified by DNA: "The DNA results strengthened the hypothesis that two of the terrorists were brothers, as indicated by other evidence. Two of the terrorist STR profiles aboard the AA Flight 77 gave a sibling index greater than 500. To further test the hypothesis of maternal relatedness, AFDIL sequenced the HVI and HVII regions of mtDNA for these individuals. The sequences generated did match in HVI and HVII, which is consistent with a maternal relationship between the two men." www . cstl.nist . gov div831 strbase pub_pres Edson2004 . pdf (p. 83)


See the site linked in my signature for many more links to accurate info and debunking sites.

9 11 Myths site, just that myths. Debunked here.

(forgive the hacked out urls, this site will not allow me to post urls.

The 9 11 self proclaimed debunkers love to quote this site called 9 11 myths www . 911myths . com but I will now prove that the title 9 11 myths is actually a good name for the site, because what they have published is a myth when it comes to debunking the so called conspiracy theories

The site basically admits that it has no answer for the explosive force, and even goes against the fema reports official numbers basically calling fema a liar, and still can not explain it.
= www . 911myths . com hxxl explosive_force . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl explosive_force . hxxl

see myths... it tries to use science it cannot even explain and doesnt even know who wrote it up as well. and admits that pieces weighing hundreds of tons were expelled from the wtc at over 35 miles per hour vertically...
nice debunk NOT! it didnt debunk it, because it cannot debunk it, because it is impossible....
then it attempt to attack the collapse times
= www . 911myths . com hxxl freefall . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl freefall . hxxl

but it goes against the fema report, the 911 commission report the videos and the seismic evidence in the process. and STILL it is explaining it at 14 seconds which is STILL IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES! so basically it goes against the official story AGAIN, and still doesnt succeed in debunking the point.

lets move on, molten steel... we have seen pictures of this steel, heard the testimony, seen video, and even satellite imagry... so we know it existed... but wait the myth site attempts to debunk the molten metal by claiming it didnt exist. then they basically admit there was molten metal, and try to explain it because hydrocarbons can reach 1800F they say... but what they are not being honest about is this is impossible unless the perfect mixture of fuel and oxygen is provided, such as in a pre mixed mixture, you know like in a torch. where you have to set the oxygen and the fuel to get the blue flame... all of this is still irrellivent because even at 1800 steel wont melt, and it would take a lot longer than we had.... = www . 911myths . com hxxl wtc_molten_steel . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl wtc_molten_steel . hxxl

so this time they have resorted to denying what we know is proven, and bending the laws of physics to debunk the molten metal. clearly disinformation tactics.
ok lets look at this one, they are claiming that giuliani had foreknowledge of the attacks.. = www . 911myths . com hxxl giuliani_and_the_wtc_warning . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl giulia...tc_warning . hxxl

WHICH HE ADMITS TO ON VIDEO. so they dont try and say he doesnt. but what they are leaving out of the story, is he was in wtc7, and was told to leave it before the first building collapsed, that he was TOLD the buildings were going to collapse, and he has admited to that. so if he was told that 10 minutes before the first tower did collapse, then why wre over 300 firemen not also told?
here is another point they just flat out admit is true....
= www . 911myths . com hxxl stratesec . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl stratesec . hxxl

why is the site called myths if it really doesnt debunk anything????????
another they admit is true
= www . 911myths . com hxxl burlingame_and_mascal . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl burlingame_and_mascal . hxxl

another one they have to admit, and dont really debunk. why bother..
= www . 911myths . com hxxl pentagon_rings_and_the_exit_ho . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl pentag...he_exit_ho . hxxl

you will also notice that a lot of the daming evidence of the pentagon is simply LEFT OUT of thier analysis...
here they hope you dont read the page...
= www . 911myths . com hxxl 93_landed_in_cleveland . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl 93_lan..._cleveland . hxxl

they say there was a retraction, but if you read the page, it doesnt say the whole story was retracted, ACTUALLY the retraction was the source, and A MORE CREDIBLE SOURCE WAS THE CORRECTION, SOME DEBUNKING THAT IS!!! IS THIS A DEBUNKING SITE OR A CONSPIRACY SITE?????
then there is this,
= www . 911myths . com hxxl war_games_cover_for_9-11 . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl war_ga...r_for_9-11 . hxxl

and they ask you where is the evidence for the war games, guess they dont watch CNN or check out congress and senate hearings. because this has been talked about in testimony on the senate floor. kinda debunks thier debunking... also they fail to mention that vigilent guardian was a war game on 9 11 01 that even included the VERY SAME TARGETS and FLYING PLANES INTO SAID TARGETS. of course why would they want to talk about that? the senate has already covered that.... another failed debunking, and leaving out of valuable information hoping that you dont actually know the truth, or watch cspan.....

[T.A.M.]

Isn't 911myths the site that has major contributions from an AIDS denier who believes in lots of CTs and doesn't know what hit the pentagon?

lol...?Major contributions?

His scientific work stands on its own, unlike that of the twoofer gods (Jones, Woods, etc...). What his beliefs are on other issues, or his opinions on other aspects of 9/11, while wrong, do not hamper his work.

And your above comments, ARE, an ad hominem attack.

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

TAM, this forum is full of dismissals of Jones because he wrote the Jesus paper and was involved in cold fusion. Gravys wtc7 paper even sees a need to mention that Jones is a mormon. Glass houses....

[Revolutionary91]

My favourite bit on 911myths is where they say that even if the ISI wired money to the hijackers then we shouldnt be concerned lol

[The Doc]

Isn't 911myths the site that has major contributions from an AIDS denier who believes in lots of CTs and doesn't know what hit the pentagon?

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present you a textbook example of an argument ad hominem.

[Dave Rogers]

Isn't 911myths the site that has major contributions from an AIDS denier who believes in lots of CTs and doesn't know what hit the pentagon?

Yes. And even he can't find any evidence for controlled demolition.

Dave

[T.A.M.]

Oh, arent you precious...

9 11 Myths site, just that myths. Debunked here.

(forgive the hacked out urls, this site will not allow me to post urls.

The 9 11 self proclaimed debunkers love to quote this site called 9 11 myths www . 911myths . com but I will now prove that the title 9 11 myths is actually a good name for the site, because what they have published is a myth when it comes to debunking the so called conspiracy theories

The site basically admits that it has no answer for the explosive force, and even goes against the fema reports official numbers basically calling fema a liar, and still can not explain it.
= www . 911myths . com hxxl explosive_force . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl explosive_force . hxxl


The author of the site is not a physicist or engineer. He is a fact collecter. FEMA was an early report, with inadequate investigation, and inadequate funding. It is superceded in every way by NIST.




see myths... it tries to use science it cannot even explain and doesnt even know who wrote it up as well. and admits that pieces weighing hundreds of tons were expelled from the wtc at over 35 miles per hour vertically...
nice debunk NOT! it didnt debunk it, because it cannot debunk it, because it is impossible....
then it attempt to attack the collapse times
= www . 911myths . com hxxl freefall . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl freefall . hxxl

Stating the above does not make it so, nor do the links. Please post your reasoning for the above statement, or retract it.



but it goes against the fema report, the 911 commission report the videos and the seismic evidence in the process. and STILL it is explaining it at 14 seconds which is STILL IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES! so basically it goes against the official story AGAIN, and still doesnt succeed in debunking the point.

Is there anything in this long opinion piece that has any kind of EVIDENCE to back up their claims, or am in for more of "they are wrong cause I said they are wrong"?



lets move on, molten steel... we have seen pictures of this steel, heard the testimony, seen video, and even satellite imagry... so we know it existed...


I challenge you to provide one image or video that shows definitively that there was Molten STEEL at GZ.



but wait the myth site attempts to debunk the molten metal by claiming it didnt exist. then they basically admit there was molten metal, and try to explain it because hydrocarbons can reach 1800F they say... but what they are not being honest about is this is impossible unless the perfect mixture of fuel and oxygen is provided, such as in a pre mixed mixture, you know like in a torch. where you have to set the oxygen and the fuel to get the blue flame... all of this is still irrellivent because even at 1800 steel wont melt, and it would take a lot longer than we had.... = www . 911myths . com hxxl wtc_molten_steel . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl wtc_molten_steel . hxxl

The whole point is missed, the key is that the metal you see at GZ, molten, is not likely STEEL, so the whole temperature being not reached arguement is BUNK.



so this time they have resorted to denying what we know is proven, and bending the laws of physics to debunk the molten metal. clearly disinformation tactics.
ok lets look at this one, they are claiming that giuliani had foreknowledge of the attacks.. = www . 911myths . com hxxl giuliani_and_the_wtc_warning . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl giulia...tc_warning . hxxl

WHICH HE ADMITS TO ON VIDEO. so they dont try and say he doesnt. but what they are leaving out of the story, is he was in wtc7, and was told to leave it before the first building collapsed, that he was TOLD the buildings were going to collapse, and he has admited to that. so if he was told that 10 minutes before the first tower did collapse, then why wre over 300 firemen not also told?

Got any links for this, or do we just take the word of the author here (which obviously, like this entire diatribe, you have plagerized without giving credit in the form of the authors name or a link)?




here is another point they just flat out admit is true....
= www . 911myths . com hxxl stratesec . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl stratesec . hxxl

why is the site called myths if it really doesnt debunk anything????????
another they admit is true
= www . 911myths . com hxxl burlingame_and_mascal . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl burlingame_and_mascal . hxxl

another one they have to admit, and dont really debunk. why bother..
= www . 911myths . com hxxl pentagon_rings_and_the_exit_ho . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl pentag...he_exit_ho . hxxl

you will also notice that a lot of the daming evidence of the pentagon is simply LEFT OUT of thier analysis...
here they hope you dont read the page...
= www . 911myths . com hxxl 93_landed_in_cleveland . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl 93_lan..._cleveland . hxxl

they say there was a retraction, but if you read the page, it doesnt say the whole story was retracted, ACTUALLY the retraction was the source, and A MORE CREDIBLE SOURCE WAS THE CORRECTION, SOME DEBUNKING THAT IS!!! IS THIS A DEBUNKING SITE OR A CONSPIRACY SITE?????
then there is this,
= www . 911myths . com hxxl war_games_cover_for_9-11 . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl war_ga...r_for_9-11 . hxxl

and they ask you where is the evidence for the war games, guess they dont watch CNN or check out congress and senate hearings. because this has been talked about in testimony on the senate floor. kinda debunks thier debunking... also they fail to mention that vigilent guardian was a war game on 9 11 01 that even included the VERY SAME TARGETS and FLYING PLANES INTO SAID TARGETS. of course why would they want to talk about that? the senate has already covered that.... another failed debunking, and leaving out of valuable information hoping that you dont actually know the truth, or watch cspan.....


I have to run, so I will leave the rest of the post above, old and almost embarrassing for a truther in 2007 to post, to other people.

Pathetic

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

TAM, this forum is full of dismissals of Jones because he wrote the Jesus paper and was involved in cold fusion. Gravys wtc7 paper even sees a need to mention that Jones is a mormon. Glass houses....

my name is not gravy, and find a post where I say Jones work is invalid BECAUSE he is a mormon, or even imply it.

Thanks

TAM:)

[kookbreaker]

9 11 Myths site, just that myths. Debunked here.

:roll:


(forgive the hacked out urls, this site will not allow me to post urls.

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica ][size=3]The 9 11 self proclaimed debunkers love to quote this site called 9 11 myths www . 911myths . com but I will now prove that the title 9 11 myths is actually a good name for the site, because what they have published is a myth when it comes to debunking the so called conspiracy theories


:roll:


The site basically admits that it has no answer for the explosive force, and even goes against the fema reports official numbers basically calling fema a liar, and still can not explain it.
= www . 911myths . com hxxl explosive_force . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl explosive_force . hxxl


I can't figure out what page they are talking about, and the rebunking here is pure assertion.


see myths... it tries to use science it cannot even explain and doesnt even know who wrote it up as well. and admits that pieces weighing hundreds of tons were expelled from the wtc at over 35 miles per hour vertically...
nice debunk NOT! it didnt debunk it, because it cannot debunk it, because it is impossible....


HEre's a hint, FatesWebb, see that last sentence? That's called an unsupported assertion. There's no reason for debris obtaining horizontal force in a collapse of this magniftude to be 'impossible'.

Rebunking failed.


then it attempt to attack the collapse times
= www . 911myths . com hxxl freefall . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl freefall . hxxl

but it goes against the fema report, the 911 commission report the videos and the seismic evidence in the process. and STILL it is explaining it at 14 seconds which is STILL IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES! so basically it goes against the official story AGAIN, and still doesnt succeed in debunking the point.


The second to last sentence is, again, an unsupported assertion. Building collapses of 14 seconds are certainly possible without explosives. Structural failure is a structural failure.

Rebunking failed.


lets move on, molten steel... we have seen pictures of this steel, heard the testimony, seen video, and even satellite imagry... so we know it existed...


We have? Really? I've heard testimony, certainly. Pictures? I've seen maybe one of steel that was certainly not molten. Satellite imagry? Sorry bucko, this must be that thermal chart that CTers misread the temperatures completely.


but wait the myth site attempts to debunk the molten metal by claiming it didnt exist. then they basically admit there was molten metal, and try to explain it because hydrocarbons can reach 1800F they say... but what they are not being honest about is this is impossible unless the perfect mixture of fuel and oxygen is provided, such as in a pre mixed mixture, you know like in a torch.


Support for this assertion?


where you have to set the oxygen and the fuel to get the blue flame... all of this is still irrellivent because even at 1800 steel wont melt, and it would take a lot longer than we had.... = www . 911myths . com hxxl wtc_molten_steel . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl wtc_molten_steel . hxxl


1800 might not melt steel, but not all metal is steel. A point that escaped this rebunker. Failed.


so this time they have resorted to denying what we know is proven, and bending the laws of physics to debunk the molten metal. clearly disinformation tactics.


Wrong again.


ok lets look at this one, they are claiming that giuliani had foreknowledge of the attacks.. = www . 911myths . com hxxl giuliani_and_the_wtc_warning . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl giulia...tc_warning . hxxl


Uh, wrong. The initial claim is that he had forewarning of the collapse. Not the attacks.


WHICH HE ADMITS TO ON VIDEO. so they dont try and say he doesnt. but what they are leaving out of the story, is he was in wtc7, and was told to leave it before the first building collapsed, that he was TOLD the buildings were going to collapse, and he has admited to that. so if he was told that 10 minutes before the first tower did collapse, then why wre over 300 firemen not also told?


This really shows how clueless the rebunker is. Many efforts were made to get the firefighters out of the buildings, but the firefighters were not about the abandon the 3000 people still in there.

Rebunking completely failed, made the myth even worse.


here is another point they just flat out admit is true....
= www . 911myths . com hxxl stratesec . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl stratesec . hxxl


That's a funny definition of 'flat out admit is true'. 911myths destroys the whole concept that Marvin Bush could have anything to do with 911 security.

That's just sad. This is the worst rebunking since they tried to claim that the PM article was 'debunked' by admitting everything PM said was true, but that they were all 'strawmen'.

Alright, I've had enough of this. The broken links are hard to put together. This rebunker has very poor English and comprehension skills.

That was a complete flop Factswebb.

[kookbreaker]

TAM, this forum is full of dismissals of Jones because he wrote the Jesus paper and was involved in cold fusion. Gravys wtc7 paper even sees a need to mention that Jones is a mormon. Glass houses....

Wrong again, Rev. If you go back to the original posts on his paper you will see it is torn apart because it is terrible physics and horrible engineering. We questioned how a professor could make so many assumptions and terrible mistakes.

A little research turned up the wacky papers he had written. We did not use it to debunk his paper, that was already done. The Jeebus stuff just confirmed that Jones was not all there.

These days we just shorthand it. Jones is nutty.

[kookbreaker]

My favourite bit on 911myths is where they say that even if the ISI wired money to the hijackers then we shouldnt be concerned lol

Ladies and Gentlement, if you want further proof that you cannot trust troofers to summarize anything because they'll screw it up completely, here it is.

What Rev didn't want to do was give you a link so you can see the long synopsys here! (http://www.911myths.com/html/pakistan_s_isi_link_to_9_11_fu.html)

Because if you read what was written, you might find that Rev is wrong. Again.

[FatesWebb]

Oh, arent you precious...



The author of the site is not a physicist or engineer. He is a fact collecter. FEMA was an early report, with inadequate investigation, and inadequate funding. It is superceded in every way by NIST.





Stating the above does not make it so, nor do the links. Please post your reasoning for the above statement, or retract it.




Is there anything in this long opinion piece that has any kind of EVIDENCE to back up their claims, or am in for more of "they are wrong cause I said they are wrong"?




I challenge you to provide one image or video that shows definitively that there was Molten STEEL at GZ.




The whole point is missed, the key is that the metal you see at GZ, molten, is not likely STEEL, so the whole temperature being not reached arguement is BUNK.




Got any links for this, or do we just take the word of the author here (which obviously, like this entire diatribe, you have plagerized without giving credit in the form of the authors name or a link)?




I have to run, so I will leave the rest of the post above, old and almost embarrassing for a truther in 2007 to post, to other people.

Pathetic

TAM:)

ok your reply is coming, it appears that you are questioning the collapse times, and the molten metal. I will post answers with links in 4 posts so that I can post links....

[kookbreaker]

ok your reply is coming, it appears that you are questioning the collapse times, and the molten metal. I will post answers with links in 4 posts so that I can post links....

Remember that proof by unsupported assertion is not proof at all.

[FatesWebb]

:roll:



:roll:



I can't figure out what page they are talking about, and the rebunking here is pure assertion.



HEre's a hint, FatesWebb, see that last sentence? That's called an unsupported assertion. There's no reason for debris obtaining horizontal force in a collapse of this magniftude to be 'impossible'.

Rebunking failed.



The second to last sentence is, again, an unsupported assertion. Building collapses of 14 seconds are certainly possible without explosives. Structural failure is a structural failure.

Rebunking failed.



We have? Really? I've heard testimony, certainly. Pictures? I've seen maybe one of steel that was certainly not molten. Satellite imagry? Sorry bucko, this must be that thermal chart that CTers misread the temperatures completely.



Support for this assertion?



1800 might not melt steel, but not all metal is steel. A point that escaped this rebunker. Failed.



Wrong again.



Uh, wrong. The initial claim is that he had forewarning of the collapse. Not the attacks.



This really shows how clueless the rebunker is. Many efforts were made to get the firefighters out of the buildings, but the firefighters were not about the abandon the 3000 people still in there.

Rebunking completely failed, made the myth even worse.



That's a funny definition of 'flat out admit is true'. 911myths destroys the whole concept that Marvin Bush could have anything to do with 911 security.

That's just sad. This is the worst rebunking since they tried to claim that the PM article was 'debunked' by admitting everything PM said was true, but that they were all 'strawmen'.

Alright, I've had enough of this. The broken links are hard to put together. This rebunker has very poor English and comprehension skills.

That was a complete flop Factswebb.

I disagree but we can have this argument, the only real point you made is that buildings can collapse in 14 seconds, but here I can easily prove you wrong. sure buildings can, but not those buildings.

The formula for distance and time is:

s=½at²

Where:

s = distance in feet
a = gravitational constant: 32 ft/sec²
t = time in seconds.

The videos and seismic records show that the time of one structure's destruction was approximately 8.4 seconds though the complete settling of the building lasted slightly longer, perhaps as long as 12 seconds, but not long enough to account for anything but explosives.

s = ½ * 32 * 8.5²
s = 1156 feet

However, WTC 1 (the north tower) had a roof height of 1,368 feet. WTC 2 (the south tower) was nearly as tall, with a roof height of 1,362 feet. Each floor was therefore approximately 12.5 feet.

It is therefore proven that the towers' structures were destroyed at very close to free fall speed, perhaps faster since there is air resistance to consider. Impossible without explosives.

[jaydeehess]

TAM, this forum is full of dismissals of Jones because he wrote the Jesus paper and was involved in cold fusion. Gravys wtc7 paper even sees a need to mention that Jones is a mormon. Glass houses....

,, and it is just fine to point such things out IMHO as it is for you to point out that one contributor to that website believes in other conspiracies.

Now explain to me how his believing in other conspiracies bolsters your opinion that 9/11 was in fact a government/NWO conspiracy?

[FatesWebb]

Remember that proof by unsupported assertion is not proof at all.

I plan on supporting my assertion, however you have not supported yours at all yet, you simply and quite lazily said bs.

[MikeW]

My favourite bit on 911myths is where they say that even if the ISI wired money to the hijackers then we shouldnt be concerned lol
Do you really think deceptively misrepresenting what I said will somehow make my arguments go away? Here's a hint: it won't. In fact it just proves the point I'm making on the site. The inside job movement is dishonest to the core, from top to bottom.

[FatesWebb]

My favourite bit on 911myths is where they say that even if the ISI wired money to the hijackers then we shouldnt be concerned lol
thanks!

[FatesWebb]

Oh, arent you precious...



The author of the site is not a physicist or engineer. He is a fact collecter. FEMA was an early report, with inadequate investigation, and inadequate funding. It is superceded in every way by NIST.





Stating the above does not make it so, nor do the links. Please post your reasoning for the above statement, or retract it.




Is there anything in this long opinion piece that has any kind of EVIDENCE to back up their claims, or am in for more of "they are wrong cause I said they are wrong"?




I challenge you to provide one image or video that shows definitively that there was Molten STEEL at GZ.




The whole point is missed, the key is that the metal you see at GZ, molten, is not likely STEEL, so the whole temperature being not reached arguement is BUNK.




Got any links for this, or do we just take the word of the author here (which obviously, like this entire diatribe, you have plagerized without giving credit in the form of the authors name or a link)?




I have to run, so I will leave the rest of the post above, old and almost embarrassing for a truther in 2007 to post, to other people.

Pathetic

TAM:)
ok so you question the FEMA investigations official numbers for collapse time?

Oh, arent you precious...



The author of the site is not a physicist or engineer. He is a fact collecter. FEMA was an early report, with inadequate investigation, and inadequate funding. It is superceded in every way by NIST.





Stating the above does not make it so, nor do the links. Please post your reasoning for the above statement, or retract it.




Is there anything in this long opinion piece that has any kind of EVIDENCE to back up their claims, or am in for more of "they are wrong cause I said they are wrong"?




I challenge you to provide one image or video that shows definitively that there was Molten STEEL at GZ.




The whole point is missed, the key is that the metal you see at GZ, molten, is not likely STEEL, so the whole temperature being not reached arguement is BUNK.




Got any links for this, or do we just take the word of the author here (which obviously, like this entire diatribe, you have plagerized without giving credit in the form of the authors name or a link)?




I have to run, so I will leave the rest of the post above, old and almost embarrassing for a truther in 2007 to post, to other people.

Pathetic

TAM:)

sure Ill argue this with you and kookbreaker, it appears that you are questioning the collapse times? so here are the sources. first you also attack the fema report, so while you advocate the official story you defy the official reports...

My collapse duration of 8 and 10 seconds, came FROM THE FEMA REPORT, AND THE 9/11 report.... and seismic data, proven in videos at http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...980438587461603 1:25:58, 1:04:56 1:13:30 and 1:38:11 or by checking the reports yourself.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf
Fema Report: Chapter 1 1-10 Table 1.1 Timeline of major events
TIMELINE OF MAJOR EVENTS:
Start time: 9:59:04 EDT: signal duration 10 seconds: WTC2 Began collapsing after 56 minutes, 10 seconds.

Start time: 9:59:04 EDT: signal duration 8 seconds: WTC1 Began collapsing after 102 minutes, 5 seconds.

then it does go on and say "based on seismic recordings made by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University."

http://img121.imagevenue.com/loc312/th_95055_FemaCollapseTimes_122_312lo.JPG (http://img121.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=95055_FemaCollapseTimes_122_312lo.JP G)
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report,
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf we are told, in the government's complete and final report of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast. See for yourself:

http://www.911blimp.net/videos/TooFast1stCollapse.mov
http://www.911blimp.net/videos/TooFast1stCollapse.rm

also you have the seismic data:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/graph2-lg.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/911/seismicEW.jpg

data from:http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

Date Origin Time (UTC) Magnitude (Richter scale) Time (EDT) Dominant Period Signal Duration Remark
09/11/2001 13:59:04±1 2.1 09:59:04 0.8 sec 10 seconds first collapse
09/11/2001 14:28:31±1 2.3 10:28:31 0.9 sec 8 seconds second collapse

[Revolutionary91]

Do you really think deceptively misrepresenting what I said will somehow make my arguments go away? Here's a hint: it won't. In fact it just proves the point I'm making on the site. The inside job movement is dishonest to the core, from top to bottom.

And even if Sheikh funded Atta, and Ahmad ordered this, and he did so as a matter of ISI policy, and the US pressured Pakistan to have Ahmad removed, that still doesn’t show they were covering up a “CIA link”. In fact it can be argued it’s just as, if not more likely to be the US quietly trying to ensure that Pakistan was more likely to cooperate in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

If this happened then you dont think theres a problem MikeW.

[Dave Rogers]

I disagree but we can have this argument, the only real point you made is that buildings can collapse in 14 seconds, but here I can easily prove you wrong.

[...]

It is therefore proven that the towers' structures were destroyed at very close to free fall speed, perhaps faster since there is air resistance to consider. Impossible without explosives.

Totally incoherent. You've shown that the buildings couldn't have collapsed in 8.4 seconds, not that they couldn't have collapsed in 14 seconds. Videos and seismic records combined show collapse times in the range 13-16 seconds. A 14 second collapse time equates to a fall of 3,136 feet, or more than twice the height of either tower.

As for your final comment, would you mind telling us how explosives can make a building fall faster than free fall, so we can all laugh?

Dave

[jaydeehess]

I disagree but we can have this argument, the only real point you made is that buildings can collapse in 14 seconds, but here I can easily prove you wrong. sure buildings can, but not those buildings.

The formula for distance and time is:

s=½at²

Where:

s = distance in feet
a = gravitational constant: 32 ft/sec²
t = time in seconds.

The videos and seismic records show that the time of one structure's destruction was approximately 8.4 seconds though the complete settling of the building lasted slightly longer, perhaps as long as 12 seconds, but not long enough to account for anything but explosives.

s = ½ * 32 * 8.5²
s = 1156 feet

However, WTC 1 (the north tower) had a roof height of 1,368 feet. WTC 2 (the south tower) was nearly as tall, with a roof height of 1,362 feet. Each floor was therefore approximately 12.5 feet.

It is therefore proven that the towers' structures were destroyed at very close to free fall speed, perhaps faster since there is air resistance to consider. Impossible without explosives.

Umm, fatesweb, using your figures you have the building collapsing at a rate greater than free fall which is impossible using explosives or not. quite obviously something is then very wrong here unless you are making the claim that there were rocket motors strapped onto the hat truss to drive the collapse faster than the force due to gravity could possibly do it.

You are using the seismic data. Let's look at the seismic data for another building collapse, that of WTC 7. the seismic data there shows the collapse taking 16 seconds whereas the oft cited collapse time by the CT crowd is 6.6 seconds. Why is the seismic data good enough for use in the collapse of the towers but not for WTC 7?

In fact the seismic data is not great for pin pointing exact times for such events.

Your own calculations point out that the time of 8.5 seconds simply cannot be correct.

[kookbreaker]

I disagree but we can have this argument, the only real point you made is that buildings can collapse in 14 seconds, but here I can easily prove you wrong. sure buildings can, but not those buildings.

The formula for distance and time is:

s=½at²

Where:

s = distance in feet
a = gravitational constant: 32 ft/sec²
t = time in seconds.

The videos and seismic records show that the time of one structure's destruction was approximately 8.4 seconds


Stop right there. There is the error in your calculation. Seismic records do not show such a thing, and video of the collapse gives longer times.

Furthermore, the assertion your cut 'n paste arguement made is that 14 seconds was 'impossible'. And as proof you try to bring out figures using 8.4 seconds. That is dishonest.

It also shows that you have not read the 911myths page, where the effectively display their reasons for the longer (and more reasonable) times.


though the complete settling of the building lasted slightly longer, perhaps as long as 12 seconds, but not long enough to account for anything but explosives.


s = ½ * 32 * 8.5²
s = 1156 feet

However, WTC 1 (the north tower) had a roof height of 1,368 feet. WTC 2 (the south tower) was nearly as tall, with a roof height of 1,362 feet. Each floor was therefore approximately 12.5 feet.

It is therefore proven that the towers' structures were destroyed at very close to free fall speed, perhaps faster since there is air resistance to consider. Impossible without explosives.

This is an example of 'Garbage in = Garbage out'. The 8.5 second figure is just plain wrong. Even if explosives were used, the building could not fall faster than free-fall. Explosives are not rocket engines strapped to the tops of the buildings. To a rational person, that should have been proof that your measurements were wrong, but somehow in trootherland this becomes proof of explosives.

[Dave Rogers]

TIMELINE OF MAJOR EVENTS:
Start time: 9:59:04 EDT: signal duration 10 seconds: WTC2 Began collapsing after 56 minutes, 10 seconds.

Start time: 9:59:04 EDT: signal duration 8 seconds: WTC1 Began collapsing after 102 minutes, 5 seconds.


Here's a clue: can you tell the difference between the words "signal duration" and the words "collapse duration"?

Dave

[jaydeehess]

1362 feet drop in free fall would be a time of 9.22 seconds
Fatesweb is apparently incapable of manipulating the equation to arrive at that.

[funk de fino]

I plan on supporting my assertion, however you have not supported yours at all yet, you simply and quite lazily said bs.

oh boy, you are going to get your bum well and truly tickled on this one

yesterdays arguments come flying around again just like flares

dont say you were not warned cut and paste boy

[MikeW]

see myths... it tries to use science it cannot even explain and doesnt even know who wrote it up as well. and admits that pieces weighing hundreds of tons were expelled from the wtc at over 35 miles per hour vertically...nice debunk NOT! it didnt debunk it, because it cannot debunk it, because it is impossible....
Unsupported assetion.

then it attempt to attack the collapse times
= www . 911myths . com hxxl freefall . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl freefall . hxxl but it goes against the fema report, the 911 commission report the videos and the seismic evidence in the process. and STILL it is explaining it at 14 seconds which is STILL IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES!
Unsupported assertion.

lets move on, molten steel... we have seen pictures of this steel, heard the testimony, seen video, and even satellite imagry... so we know it existed... but wait the myth site attempts to debunk the molten metal by claiming it didnt exist.
There's no proof whatsoever of molten steel. The satellite imagery shows temperatures within the range of a fire only.

then they basically admit there was molten metal, and try to explain it because hydrocarbons can reach 1800F they say... but what they are not being honest about is this is impossible unless the perfect mixture of fuel and oxygen is provided, such as in a pre mixed mixture, you know like in a torch. where you have to set the oxygen and the fuel to get the blue flame... all of this is still irrellivent because even at 1800 steel wont melt, and it would take a lot longer than we had....
Take it up with Manchester University and the other sources I provide. They note that even a smouldering fire reaches this temperature. Oh, and there's no need for melted steel. Pointless straw man.

WHICH HE ADMITS TO ON VIDEO. so they dont try and say he doesnt. but what they are leaving out of the story, is he was in wtc7, and was told to leave it before the first building collapsed, that he was TOLD the buildings were going to collapse, and he has admited to that. so if he was told that 10 minutes before the first tower did collapse, then why wre over 300 firemen not also told?
He wasn't in WTC7.

here is another point they just flat out admit is true....
= www . 911myths . com hxxl stratesec . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl stratesec . hxxl
You can't read, can you?

why is the site called myths if it really doesnt debunk anything????????
another they admit is true
= www . 911myths . com hxxl burlingame_and_mascal . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl burlingame_and_mascal . hxxl
Wrong again.

another one they have to admit, and dont really debunk. why bother..
= www . 911myths . com hxxl pentagon_rings_and_the_exit_ho . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl pentag...he_exit_ho . hxxl
And again.

you will also notice that a lot of the daming evidence of the pentagon is simply LEFT OUT of thier analysis...
You will notice that I have the courage to point people to many other conspiracy sites for alternative viewpoints. In fact frequently I insist visitors go read them. That's because I want people to discover all points of view, unlike frauds like Alex Jones.

here they hope you dont read the page...
= www . 911myths . com hxxl 93_landed_in_cleveland . hxxl www . 911myths . com hxxl 93_lan..._cleveland . hxxl
Snip incompetent drivel...

they fail to mention that vigilent guardian was a war game on 9 11 01 that even included the VERY SAME TARGETS and FLYING PLANES INTO SAID TARGETS. of course why would they want to talk about that? the senate has already covered that.... another failed debunking, and leaving out of valuable information hoping that you dont actually know the truth, or watch cspan.....
I leave that out because it isn't true, and I'm smart enough to spot Alex Jones when he's saying things that aren't true. Which is actually quite easy.

Well, what a masterful debunking you gave me there... But that's okay. When I see people so keen to attack me, but so totally unable to do so, it says I'm heading in the right direction. So thanks! You've given me a little more motivation to get back to work on the new site. Where I'll soon be exposing even more lies than I do already.

[jaydeehess]

Furthermore if something took 14 seconds to fall 1362 feet
then its average acelleration was 13.9 feet per second2 or just 43% that of the acelleration due to gravity.

Perhaps Fatesweb can explain what happened to the other 57% of the force due to gravity that was on the building as it fell.

[twinstead]

Gotta love The YouTube GenerationTM and their crack investigative ability.

[Revolutionary91]

MikeW do you not see a problem with the quote I posted?

[funk de fino]

If this happened then you dont think theres a problem MikeW.

that quote does not say anything about "shouldnt be concerned" which is what you claimed short stuff

false claims again, just like your myspace page saying you are 17?

[FatesWebb]

Totally incoherent. You've shown that the buildings couldn't have collapsed in 8.4 seconds, not that they couldn't have collapsed in 14 seconds. Videos and seismic records combined show collapse times in the range 13-16 seconds. A 14 second collapse time equates to a fall of 3,136 feet, or more than twice the height of either tower.

As for your final comment, would you mind telling us how explosives can make a building fall faster than free fall, so we can all laugh?

Dave

If you watch the videos you can clearly see the top 30 floors turn to dust. since dust doesn't add to the seismic records, or even the perceived collapse in videos, it does not affect our collapse times which were gathered from them. therefore it does not add to perceived collapse times. Also explosives are able to propel as well as create a vacuum, which if you read my post again it mentions air resistance when making the faster than claim.

however you have clearly stated it is not possible, so you do agree then it is not possible. since I have already posted the evidence of the actual collapse times being 9 and 12 seconds you have to admit something is wrong.

finally while you make claim of a 14 second collapse time, which can be dis proven, and already has in this thread, and which also defies the 9/11 commission, the FEMA reports the seismic evidence, and the videos already posted in this thread, but you also claim 14 seconds is possible, and I say yes it is if all resistance is removed, however with the very resistance in place that held the buildings up for decades, it is not possible even that fast.

[jaydeehess]

Gotta love The YouTube GenerationTM and their crack investigative ability.

What I love about FW is that in posting;
The videos and seismic records show that the time of one structure's destruction was approximately 8.4 seconds though the complete settling of the building lasted slightly longer, perhaps as long as 12 seconds, but not long enough to account for anything but explosives.

s = ½ * 32 * 8.5²
s = 1156 feet

However, WTC 1 (the north tower) had a roof height of 1,368 feet. WTC 2 (the south tower) was nearly as tall, with a roof height of 1,362 feet.

He thought that he was being so very clever when it is patently obvious that he has no clue how to do anything but basic arithmatic. It is illustrative of his lack of algebraic skill and of his lack of understanding of basic physics to boot.
One must draw the conclusion that he believes the shinola he has been fed simply because he wants to believe it and not because he has the ability to discern its veracity.

[FatesWebb]

now I have people deleting my posts, I guess the point was too well proven?

[slyjoe]

So another game of Whack-a-Mole comes around. Should it be renamed to Whack-a-Liar?

[Dave Rogers]

If you watch the videos you can clearly see the top 30 floors turn to dust. since dust doesn't add to the seismic records, or even the perceived collapse in videos, it does not affect our collapse times which were gathered from them. therefore it does not add to perceived collapse times. Also explosives are able to propel as well as create a vacuum, which if you read my post again it mentions air resistance when making the faster than claim.

however you have clearly stated it is not possible, so you do agree then it is not possible. since I have already posted the evidence of the actual collapse times being 9 and 12 seconds you have to admit something is wrong.

finally while you make claim of a 14 second collapse time, which can be dis proven, and already has in this thread, and which also defies the 9/11 commission, the FEMA reports the seismic evidence, and the videos already posted in this thread, but you also claim 14 seconds is possible, and I say yes it is if all resistance is removed, however with the very resistance in place that held the buildings up for decades, it is not possible even that fast.

What was the length limit on Stundies?

Dave

[jaydeehess]

realy, what was deleted?

[FatesWebb]

Unsupported assetion.


There's no proof whatsoever of molten steel. The satellite imagery shows temperatures within the range of a fire only.

He wasn't in WTC7.

I leave that out because it isn't true, and I'm smart enough to spot Alex Jones when he's saying things that aren't true. Which is actually quite easy.

Well, what a masterful debunking you gave me there... But that's okay. When I see people so keen to attack me, but so totally unable to do so, it says I'm heading in the right direction. So thanks! You've given me a little more motivation to get back to work on the new site. Where I'll soon be exposing even more lies than I do already.

the satellite imagery shows temperatures WELL ABOVE that of any fire, he SAID he was in wtc7 in the video on ABC, and They discussed the war games in congress televised on cspan. need I continue to prove my points? maybe we should start a new thread on 911myths inaccuracies?

If I show the above assertions by myself are true will the site be revised?

[FatesWebb]

realy, what was deleted?

the entire post was, which I posted it again just below my claim of deleted posts.

[funk de fino]

i'm leaving this inane drivel to someone else

explosives propel and create a vacumn so it is possible for the towers to fall faster than freefall?

too funny

[Alt+F4]

Isn't 911myths the site that has major contributions from an AIDS denier who believes in lots of CTs and doesn't know what hit the pentagon?

My gosh, you're a hypocrite. On another thread you said that it didn't matter if The American Free Press was a neo-Nazi front as long as they told the "truth".

Please tell me your school opens before Labor Day.

[twinstead]

the entire post was, which I posted it again just below my claim of deleted posts.

Dude. I just looked on page 1 and the first post was there, in all its brilliant glory...

Perhaps you could answer the issues we have with it instead of reposting it

[HyJinX]

the entire post was, which I posted it again just below my claim of deleted posts.

That's funny...I see it clear as day on PAGE 1 of this thread.

You do know there's a page 1 right?

[Dave Rogers]

the entire post was, which I posted it again just below my claim of deleted posts.

You do realise, don't you, that this thread is now on page 2? And that the post you claim was deleted is still there on page 1? And that you can't see it if you only look at page 2?

Dave

ETA: Rats, not quite quick enough.

[funk de fino]

this is the funniest truther so far

keep him going i think i may pee myself

[HyJinX]

You do realise, dion't you, that this thread is now on page 2? And that the post you claim was deleted is still there on page 1? And that you can't see it if you only look at page 2?

Dave

And we're supposed to trust his calculations regarding a very complex collapse of a 110-story building? :rolleyes:

[FatesWebb]

Dude. I just looked on page 1 and the first post was there, in all its brilliant glory...

Perhaps you could answer the issues we have with it instead of reposting it

it wasnt there, now it is back...

[FatesWebb]

You do realise, don't you, that this thread is now on page 2? And that the post you claim was deleted is still there on page 1? And that you can't see it if you only look at page 2?

Dave

ETA: Rats, not quite quick enough.
actually I am showing 50 posts per page, so I am still only on page 1, but thanks

[HyJinX]

it wasnt there, now it is back...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[FatesWebb]

And we're supposed to trust his calculations regarding a very complex collapse of a 110-story building? :rolleyes:

here we go... instead of arguing the points, attack me... whats that called again? oh yeah ad-hominem attack

[T.A.M.]

Fates:

1. Please read my post again. I did not address the collapse times, so do not assume I DISAGREE with them. The part of your post I addressed delt with FEMA issues, I merely made the statements that the owner of 9/11 myths is not a scientist or engineer, and that the NIST report is the final word, as of todays date, on the WTC collapse. It added to FEMA, and changed things where further study indicated a change was needed.

Oh, and by the way, insults are not the same as an ad hominem...

eg.
Insult: TAM is a moron.
Ad hom: Because TAM is a moron, his arguement is invalid.

Got the difference?

TAM:)

[HyJinX]

Other's have shown you wrong already. There's nothing to argue.

You lied about your post being deleted. Any credibility you had was destroyed by that.

[Revolutionary91]

His post did disappear and come back.

[MikeW]

Let's start here.

the satellite imagery shows temperatures WELL ABOVE that of any fire

Where? http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

[Revolutionary91]

TAM is a moron.



Dont be so hard on yourself.

[jaydeehess]

If you watch the videos you can clearly see the top 30 floors turn to dust. since dust doesn't add to the seismic records, or even the perceived collapse in videos, it does not affect our collapse times which were gathered from them. therefore it does not add to perceived collapse times. Also explosives are able to propel as well as create a vacuum, which if you read my post again it mentions air resistance when making the faster than claim.


wow, just wow.

Where to begin?

Let's start with explosives. If explosives impart a force on a floor they also impart a force on the ceiling thus in equal measure they slow the desent of the upper block by the same amount by which they may quicken the lower block. But that would be for explosives sitting on the floor.
Explosives in the columns would be designed to sever the columns and that is a horizontal force and once again any vertical forces would be equal upward and downward.
Explosives within the flooring would shatter the flooring and result again in equal up and dow forces.

I defy you to come up with a explosive plan that would have a building collapsing faster than gravity could cause a bowling ball to fall from the roof.
Please show your math.

Now the upper dust section.
That section, the upper block of 30 stories, contains a set amount of mass. drop that mass in any form and it will make a big thump. In order for that mass to have been slowed by air resistance enough to slow it to the point of not making a big thump we should be able to see that huge cloud of dust slowing as air resistance causes it particles to reach terminal velocity very quickly. Instead we see realtively little dust following the collapse point and we see the vast bulk of the building reach the ground very quickly. this means therefore that the vast bulk of that 30 stories was not floating down to earth but rather that it was contained in the mass that went thump.

Drive down a dirt road on a dry summer day and then stop and note how long it takes your dust to settle. That is a small amount of dust that manages to completely obscure your vision past it and it contains material as dense or greater than the dust of the collapses of the towers.

Please now also give your calculations on the amount of explosive energy required to turn the entire upper 30 stories to dust particles small enough to reach terminal velocity that will result in their not impacting the ground with enough force to register on the seismagraph.

[jaydeehess]

the entire post was, which I posted it again just below my claim of deleted posts.

I still see your identical post on page 1 of this thread.

ETA, I see that others have pointed this out.

[Revolutionary91]

I notice MikeW is too embarrassed to comment on the quote I posted.

[FatesWebb]

Fates:

1. Please read my post again. I did not address the collapse times, so do not assume I DISAGREE with them. The part of your post I addressed delt with FEMA issues, I merely made the statements that the owner of 9/11 myths is not a scientist or engineer, and that the NIST report is the final word, as of todays date, on the WTC collapse. It added to FEMA, and changed things where further study indicated a change was needed.

Oh, and by the way, insults are not the same as an ad hominem...

eg.
Insult: TAM is a moron.
Ad hom: Because TAM is a moron, his arguement is invalid.

Got the difference?

TAM:)

But NIST did not study the collapse at all, only the initiation of the collapse, and they did not claim any collapse times at all either. so if as you say it added onto the FEMA report, then it didn't change the points which we are discussing, the collapse times.

[FatesWebb]

His post did disappear and come back.

thanks, now they are calling me a liar, but I have absolutely no reason to lie about that...

[Dave Rogers]

But NIST did not study the collapse at all, only the initiation of the collapse, and they did not claim any collapse times at all either. so if as you say it added onto the FEMA report, then it didn't change the points which we are discussing, the collapse times.

FEMA didn't claim the collapse times were equal to the signal duration of the seismic signals. These signals were determined to have been caused by the falling mass hitting the ground, so rather than measuring the duration of the collapse they are in effect a timestamp for the end of the collapse. That's why those 8 second and 10 second numbers are not, in fact, the collapse times. Where you get 8.4 seconds from, I have no idea.

Dave

[MikeW]

If this happened then you dont think theres a problem MikeW.
Your representation of what I said previously was:

even if the ISI wired money to the hijackers then we shouldnt be concerned lol

What I actually wrote was quite clearly saying that even if the ISI wired money to the hijackers, it doesn't prove any link to the CIA, as some people try to do:

Even if this funding was the official policy of the ISI, that doesn’t automatically imply a link to the CIA. India blame the ISI for funding and organising terrorism in Kashmir, for instance, but they don’t somehow assume that the CIA must be linked to that: they recognise that the ISI is an independent organisation. The argument that “the ISI and CIA have worked together therefore the CIA will probably have known what Ahmad was doing” is a stretch, to say the least.

And even if Sheikh funded Atta, and Ahmad ordered this, and he did so as a matter of ISI policy, and the US pressured Pakistan to have Ahmad removed, that still doesn’t show they were covering up a “CIA link”. In fact it can be argued it’s just as, if not more likely to be the US quietly trying to ensure that Pakistan was more likely to cooperate in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. (Quietly being a necessity, as Musharraf being publicly told what to do wouldn’t gain him much support in Pakistan).

In our view we’re a long way from any “damning link” here, then, although you should read at least the links in the above “Balance” section to make your own mind up. As you do, though, keep in mind the various links in the chain that need to be proved here, and assess for yourself how well an author covers each one.

You misrepresented what I said, rather then deal with the arguments I was making.

[Revolutionary91]

thanks, now they are calling me a liar, but I have absolutely no reason to lie about that...

Don't let them bother you. Just keep presenting evidence and don't let them provoke you into attacking them. They will report you and try to get you banned. If they attack you then reoport them using the little red triangle under the post.

[HyJinX]

thanks, now they are calling me a liar, but I have absolutely no reason to lie about that...

"THEY" are not calling you liar...I'M calling you a liar. I've never once seen or heard of posts disappearing, only to reappear seconds later, on this forum. Ever. You claimed to have had that experience...which is a lie. You simply claimed that it was deleted, when in fact, you simply could not locate it.

It never disappeared and reappeared. You should have simply said "oops, I was wrong...it was there and I just couldn't find it right away."

You lied. Period.

[MikeW]

I notice MikeW is too embarrassed to comment on the quote I posted.
Don't flatter yourself - I just went out for half an hour.

[Alt+F4]

Don't let them bother you. Just keep presenting evidence and don't let them provoke you into attacking them. They will report you and try to get you banned. If they attack you then reoport them using the little red triangle under the post.

You're gonna present some evidence? Real evidence? We all await.

[twinstead]

Let's stop right here and clarify where you got the 8.4 seconds from, FatesWebb, so we can all be on the same sheet of music.

[FatesWebb]

Let's start here.



Where? http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

here

Table 1 Thermal Hot Spot Data
Location Temperature Area
Hot Spot N Latitude W Longitude (Kelvin) % FOV sq meter
A 40o 42' 47.18" 74o 00' 41.43" 1000 15 0.56
B 40o 42' 47.14" 74o 00' 43.53" 830 2 0.08
C 40o 42' 42.89" 74o 00' 48.88" 900 20 0.8
D 40o 42' 41.99" 74o 00' 46.94" 790 20 0.8
E 40o 42' 40.58" 74o 00' 50.15" 710 10 0.4
F 40o 42' 38.74" 74o 00' 46.70" 700 10 0.4
G 40o 42' 39.94" 74o 00' 45.37" 1020 1 0.04
H 40o 42' 38.60" 74o 00' 43.51" 820 2 0.08

1020 K = 1376.6 ºF by the way.

and that was sept 16 and 23rd which is quite a while after 9/11

the jet fuel in the wtc at the very most could have reached 490 F so why was it over 1300 F a week later?

[jaydeehess]

His post did disappear and come back.

well it came back too fast for me to have seen it occur. Point of fact is that it is now still there and that everything there is also posted elsewhere in this forum so delteing it could hardly be due to his being so very clever that he had to be silenced.

then again silencing dissenting views is not commonplace on this forum. That is the pervue of LC and PfT

[HyJinX]

Sorry for the derail. Enough about the "missing" post. Back to your regularly scheduled debate.

[FatesWebb]

wow, just wow.

Where to begin?

Let's start with explosives. If explosives impart a force on a floor they also impart a force on the ceiling thus in equal measure they slow the desent of the upper block by the same amount by which they may quicken the lower block. But that would be for explosives sitting on the floor.
Explosives in the columns would be designed to sever the columns and that is a horizontal force and once again any vertical forces would be equal upward and downward.
Explosives within the flooring would shatter the flooring and result again in equal up and dow forces.

I defy you to come up with a explosive plan that would have a building collapsing faster than gravity could cause a bowling ball to fall from the roof.
Please show your math.

Now the upper dust section.
That section, the upper block of 30 stories, contains a set amount of mass. drop that mass in any form and it will make a big thump. In order for that mass to have been slowed by air resistance enough to slow it to the point of not making a big thump we should be able to see that huge cloud of dust slowing as air resistance causes it particles to reach terminal velocity very quickly. Instead we see realtively little dust following the collapse point and we see the vast bulk of the building reach the ground very quickly. this means therefore that the vast bulk of that 30 stories was not floating down to earth but rather that it was contained in the mass that went thump.

Drive down a dirt road on a dry summer day and then stop and note how long it takes your dust to settle. That is a small amount of dust that manages to completely obscure your vision past it and it contains material as dense or greater than the dust of the collapses of the towers.

Please now also give your calculations on the amount of explosive energy required to turn the entire upper 30 stories to dust particles small enough to reach terminal velocity that will result in their not impacting the ground with enough force to register on the seismagraph.

so now you are asking me to show that explosive can do what you are claiming happened without them? do you not see the irony, in claiming it is impossible to carry out with explosives what you also claim occurred without explosives?

14tons of explosives.

care to argue with this study?
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276245.shtml

[twinstead]

the jet fuel in the wtc at the very most could have reached 490 F so why was it over 1300 F a week later?

So an oven can never reach a temperature greater than what was used to start it?

[FatesWebb]

FEMA didn't claim the collapse times were equal to the signal duration of the seismic signals. These signals were determined to have been caused by the falling mass hitting the ground, so rather than measuring the duration of the collapse they are in effect a timestamp for the end of the collapse. That's why those 8 second and 10 second numbers are not, in fact, the collapse times. Where you get 8.4 seconds from, I have no idea.

Dave

but if you watch the videos and count for yourselves then the time matches femas claim..

[RedIbis]

What I actually wrote was quite clearly saying that even if the ISI wired money to the hijackers, it doesn't prove any link to the CIA, as some people try to do:


.

Who facilitated the transfer of funds from Saad Sheikh to Mohammad Atta?

And where was this person on 9/11? Do you have the account of his activities in DC before, during, and after 9/11? Or do you not consider it important to follow the money?

[funk de fino]

I notice MikeW is too embarrassed to comment on the quote I posted.

Is that the quote which does not say what you claimed it did?

very dishonest again shortstuff

fateswebb may be mistaken about his post but you are definately a liar about this quote from the site

How does it feel?

[jaydeehess]

here

Table 1 Thermal Hot Spot Data
Location Temperature Area
Hot Spot N Latitude W Longitude (Kelvin) % FOV sq meter
A 40o 42' 47.18" 74o 00' 41.43" 1000 15 0.56
B 40o 42' 47.14" 74o 00' 43.53" 830 2 0.08
C 40o 42' 42.89" 74o 00' 48.88" 900 20 0.8
D 40o 42' 41.99" 74o 00' 46.94" 790 20 0.8
E 40o 42' 40.58" 74o 00' 50.15" 710 10 0.4
F 40o 42' 38.74" 74o 00' 46.70" 700 10 0.4
G 40o 42' 39.94" 74o 00' 45.37" 1020 1 0.04
H 40o 42' 38.60" 74o 00' 43.51" 820 2 0.08

1020 K = 1376.6 ºF by the way.

and that was sept 16 and 23rd which is quite a while after 9/11

the jet fuel in the wtc at the very most could have reached 490 F so why was it over 1300 F a week later?

How about you explain why it was so hot.
Thermite perhaps?

[MikeW]

1020 K = 1376.6 ºF by the way.
Which is within the range of a normal fire.

and that was sept 16 and 23rd which is quite a while after 9/11
You're avoiding pointing out the line that "By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16". No sign of molten steel here, especially for weeks longer.

the jet fuel in the wtc at the very most could have reached 490 F so why was it over 1300 F a week later?
Who, apart from people setting up straw men, says jet fuel was burning a week later? The rest of us think there was plenty of other debris in the pile to burn.

[Dave Rogers]

1020 K = 1376.6 ºF by the way.

Or 747ºC, somewhat below the 1500+ºC required to liquefy structural steel.

the jet fuel in the wtc at the very most could have reached 490 F so why was it over 1300 F a week later?

Because there was stuff burning in the rubble pile that generated heat by combustion faster than it could escape by conduction; that much is indisputable. There is no other way that such high temperatures could have persisted for a week if the only heat input was during the collapse. The question is, what was burning? There was a lot of combustible material in the WTC debris, including furniture, office paper and computer parts, and this would have been easily capable of burning slowly to create this sort of temperature.

What it could not have been is explosives or thermite. Neither of these can burn slowly, as their combustion reaction does not depend on an external source of oxygen and cannot therefore be slowed by imposing an oxygen deficiency. The high temperatures in the rubble pile do not, therefore, support any controlled demolition hypothesis in any way.

Dave

[FatesWebb]

Your representation of what I said previously was:



What I actually wrote was quite clearly saying that even if the ISI wired money to the hijackers, it doesn't prove any link to the CIA, as some people try to do:


To be more specific it was Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, who wired the money, who was also was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees on 9/11/01 when the attack occurred.

[FatesWebb]

Let's stop right here and clarify where you got the 8.4 seconds from, FatesWebb, so we can all be on the same sheet of music.

in is in the very post that disappeared then reappeared on page 1 (the long post with links and pictures...

[lkhllywd]

here

1020 K = 1376.6 ºF by the way.

and that was sept 16 and 23rd which is quite a while after 9/11

the jet fuel in the wtc at the very most could have reached 490 F so why was it over 1300 F a week later?


Because flammable things (and WTC 1 & 2 were loaded with all manner of flammable things) continued to burn after the collapse.

[Dave Rogers]

but if you watch the videos and count for yourselves then the time matches femas claim..

(1) If you watch the videos, the last seconds of the collapse are obscured by dust, so it isn't possible to determine the duration however well you count.

(2) What "femas claim" is that? Did you read the bit about signal duration not being equal to collapse duration?

Dave

[FatesWebb]

So an oven can never reach a temperature greater than what was used to start it?

An over uses a perfect mixture of gas and oxygen to achieve those temperatures. It is not something that naturally occurs...

And still yet even with the perfect mixture there were temperatures noted even higher than would have been possible.

however the black smoke barreling out of the wtc, and the living people waving peering out of the hole, show it was not even 490..

[funk de fino]

but if you watch the videos and count for yourselves then the time matches femas claim..


very scientific, present that in court

1000, 2000, 3000, 4000..............

poor effort after being wrong again about femas claims

[MikeW]

Who facilitated the transfer of funds from Saad Sheikh to Mohammad Atta?

And where was this person on 9/11? Do you have the account of his activities in DC before, during, and after 9/11? Or do you not consider it important to follow the money?
There's very little evidence to show the transfer happened, even less to show Ahmed was behind it, none whatsoever to confirm that he did so on behalf of the ISI, nor that the US therefore knew about or had any involvement in it. And that's the truth of it, no matter how deceptively authors like Nafeez Ahmed present their sources.

[funk de fino]

An over uses a perfect mixture of gas and oxygen to achieve those temperatures. It is not something that naturally occurs...

And still yet even with the perfect mixture there were temperatures noted even higher than would have been possible.

however the black smoke barreling out of the wtc, and the living people waving peering out of the hole, show it was not even 490..

not if its an electric oven

what does black smoke show sunshine?

what floors were those people on?

[FatesWebb]

How about you explain why it was so hot.
Thermite perhaps?

normally I would prefer to showing that the official explanation is no accurate. I can show it was impossible without explosives or thermite, or thermate even as you say, but why should I speculate further?

[MikeW]

To be more specific it was Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, who wired the money
You need to read up on the material. The claim under dispute is that Saeed Sheikh wired the money "on the orders" of Mahmoud Ahmad, not that Ahmad wired it himself.

[twinstead]

An over uses a perfect mixture of gas and oxygen to achieve those temperatures. It is not something that naturally occurs...

And still yet even with the perfect mixture there were temperatures noted even higher than would have been possible.

however the black smoke barreling out of the wtc, and the living people waving peering out of the hole, show it was not even 490..

BTW, What color is the smoke in a raging tire fire?

[T.A.M.]

Fates:

don't listen to Rev. He has made almost 500 posts, of which about 70-80% are void of legitimate content, full of snarky comments, quips, and ad homs. He has yet to be banned, and the only yellow card I have seen him recieve was for insinuating my wife was a pig.

As for your comments, I will tell you once again, my initial remarks were not ABOUT THE COLLAPSE TIMES, they were statements explaining, IN GENERAL TERMS, that NIST is now considered the paper of finality, at present, for the investigation of the WTCs. There were errors in the FEMA report which NIST changed, corrected, or improved upon.

If you want my comment on the collapse times, first of all, to use the seismic data alone is inadequate in terms of collapse. There may have been a considerable amount of the collapse that may have not been detected with the seismic data. I think a combination of examining the video evidence, along with the seismic data is the most accurate approach.

TAM:)

[twinstead]

And, answer the question FatesWeb: how do YOU explain the higher temperature?

[jaydeehess]

so now you are asking me to show that explosive can do what you are claiming happened without them? do you not see the irony, in claiming it is impossible to carry out with explosives what you also claim occurred without explosives?

14tons of explosives.

care to argue with this study?
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/12/276245.shtml


No, I am asking you to show that explosives could do what you said they did.
Can you show me in that article where is states that 14 tons of explosives could turn the entire upper 30 stories into dust particles such that one need not consider the fall from the top of the building.

The collapse time was NOT 8.5 seconds that is the issue.

as for the article you really should read the comments below that illustrate that the calculations are vastly in error and that the article itself is a plagerism of Hoffman's paper.

Hoffman had calculated that there was only 10% of the energy required to do what he calculated had been done. Unfortunatly though that results in much more than 16 tons of HE even if the explosive force could be coupled to the structure so as to be 100% efficient in delivering that force to structural components.

[FatesWebb]

Which is within the range of a normal fire.


You're avoiding pointing out the line that "By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16". No sign of molten steel here, especially for weeks longer.


Who, apart from people setting up straw men, says jet fuel was burning a week later? The rest of us think there was plenty of other debris in the pile to burn.

the jet fuel, and or the other debris as you say could not have reached a maximum of 490 Degrees F which this is an over estimate. this is assuming that all of the reported fuel burned inside of 1 floor of the building. *we saw a lot of it burn outside of it* **also to compromise the building the heat would have to have not only been greater than that but more wider spread.

The buildings were ASTM-E119 certified. this means the fire would not have been able to have spread very far.

firefighters said weeks later that they saw molten metal, like a foundry, there are pictures of it as well as video. their boots literally melted off of their feet in minutes.

[T.A.M.]

normally I would prefer to showing that the official explanation is no accurate. I can show it was impossible without explosives or thermite, or thermate even as you say, but why should I speculate further?

Please do. To do so requires scientific, REPEATABLE calculations that take into account all variables within the collapse scenario, and the end result must prove that the collapse WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES was a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

I await your proof.

TAM:)

[funk de fino]

firefighters said weeks later that they saw molten metal, like a foundry, there are pictures of it as well as video. their boots literally melted off of their feet in minutes.

ok then show us those pictures but before you do beware you are going to make a schoolboy error

[twinstead]

normally I would prefer to showing that the official explanation is no accurate. I can show it was impossible without explosives or thermite, or thermate even as you say, but why should I speculate further?

True, because you certainly have speculated enough already...

The point is why bring up the elevated temperature measured later when it can in no way be considered evidence of explosives?

[FatesWebb]

Or 747ºC, somewhat below the 1500+ºC required to liquefy structural steel.



Because there was stuff burning in the rubble pile that generated heat by combustion faster than it could escape by conduction; that much is indisputable. There is no other way that such high temperatures could have persisted for a week if the only heat input was during the collapse. The question is, what was burning? There was a lot of combustible material in the WTC debris, including furniture, office paper and computer parts, and this would have been easily capable of burning slowly to create this sort of temperature.

What it could not have been is explosives or thermite. Neither of these can burn slowly, as their combustion reaction does not depend on an external source of oxygen and cannot therefore be slowed by imposing an oxygen deficiency. The high temperatures in the rubble pile do not, therefore, support any controlled demolition hypothesis in any way.

Dave

dave, the debris which had water being poured onto it, would not have reached that high of a temperature...

on the other hand were thermite, thermate, or something else to have melted metal, and it were under the debris pile, as reported by firemen, then it could have easily taken that long to cool.

[T.A.M.]

the jet fuel, and or the other debris as you say could not have reached a maximum of 490 Degrees F

Wrong, please prove this is so, or retract it.


which this is an over estimate. this is assuming that all of the reported fuel burned inside of 1 floor of the building. *we saw a lot of it burn outside of it* **also to compromise the building the heat would have to have not only been greater than that but more wider spread.

Wrong, prove this is so, with scientific calculations or references, or retract it please.


The buildings were ASTM-E119 certified. this means the fire would not have been able to have spread very far.

Wrong, prove this is so (with science) or retract it please.


firefighters said weeks later that they saw molten metal, like a foundry, there are pictures of it as well as video. their boots literally melted off of their feet in minutes.

I have no doubt there was molten metal, such as ALUMINUM, and possibly COPPER, at GZ. Show me one piece of SCIENTIFIC PROOF there was MOLTEN STEEL.

Thanks in advance,

TAM:)

[FatesWebb]

Please do. To do so requires scientific, REPEATABLE calculations that take into account all variables within the collapse scenario, and the end result must prove that the collapse WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES was a PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

I await your proof.

TAM:)

actually to show that the resistance was removed from the building in a proactive manner all you have to do is analyze the collapse duration, and see it was at a free fall pace. this shows that explosives or something else had to have been in play to do the proactive removal of resistance.

8 and 12 seconds.

[twinstead]

The buildings were ASTM-E119 certified. this means the fire would not have been able to have spread very far.


Oh, my...:boggled:

[MikeW]

the jet fuel, and or the other debris as you say could not have reached a maximum of 490 Degrees F which this is an over estimate.
Unsupported assertion. Please, show me some evidence that an office fire could not have reached 490 F.

this is assuming that all of the reported fuel burned inside of 1 floor of the building. *we saw a lot of it burn outside of it* **also to compromise the building the heat would have to have not only been greater than that but more wider spread.
What are you talking about? These are conditions in the collapse pile, not the intact towers.

The buildings were ASTM-E119 certified. this means the fire would not have been able to have spread very far.
Go look up what ASTM-E119 is, then tell me how that affects the temperature of an office fire.

firefighters said weeks later that they saw molten metal, like a foundry, there are pictures of it as well as video. their boots literally melted off of their feet in minutes.

Who has ever proven that this was molten steel?

[twinstead]

actually to show that the resistance was removed from the building in a proactive manner all you have to do is analyze the collapse duration, and see it was at a free fall pace. this shows that explosives or something else had to have been in play to do the proactive removal of resistance.

8 and 12 seconds.

A lot of smart people have written peer-reviewed papers explaining just how this could happen without explosives. You should bring it up to them; they are going to kick themselves for making that mistake.

[FatesWebb]

ok then show us those pictures but before you do beware you are going to make a schoolboy error

do you believe these heros?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X5F5PttzJY

like lava like a volcano? or are these heros lying?

[Dave Rogers]

dave, the debris which had water being poured onto it, would not have reached that high of a temperature...

on the other hand were thermite, thermate, or something else to have melted metal, and it were under the debris pile, as reported by firemen, then it could have easily taken that long to cool.

Why, doesn't water cool melted metal too?

As for ASTM-E119, what does it specify concerning the fire retardant properties of structures after total collapse?

As for the person standing in the hole in the tower, what does this have to do with the temperatures a week after the collapse?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

8 and 12 seconds.

Do you mean 8 and 12 seconds, or 8 and 10 seconds, or 8.4 seconds? And have you noticed yet that the FEMA report doesn't say what the collapse duration was?

Dave

[FatesWebb]

Wrong, please prove this is so, or retract it.



Wrong, prove this is so, with scientific calculations or references, or retract it please.



Wrong, prove this is so (with science) or retract it please.



I have no doubt there was molten metal, such as ALUMINUM, and possibly COPPER, at GZ. Show me one piece of SCIENTIFIC PROOF there was MOLTEN STEEL.

Thanks in advance,

TAM:)


here is the proof of the temperatures in a scientific study as requested...
THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WTC *LINK*

Posted By: September 11 2001
Date: 23, February 03, at 10:34 p.m.

THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

Imagine that the entire quantity of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.


"The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

What we propose to do, is to pretend that the entire 10,000 gallons of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanations are lies.

Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 10,000 gallons weighs 10,000 x 3.1 = 31,000 kgs.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

Reaction (1) only occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center the collision would have mixed the fuel with the limited amount of air available within the building, quite well, but the combustion would still have been mainly a combination of reactions (2) and (3) as the quantity of oxygen was quite restricted.

Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:
Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.

Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:
CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ? 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ? 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 10,000 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel
will release 31,000 x 44,000,000 = 1,364,000,000,000 Joules of energy.

This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:
39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.
Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C]
Concrete 3,300
Steel 450
Nitrogen 1,038
Water Vapor 1,690
Carbon Dioxide 845

Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:
39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,
97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,
349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,
1,400,000 x 3,300 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 3,300) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,300 + 82,327,500 + 362,968,000 + 225,000,000 + 4,620,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 5,357,650,000 x (T - 25) Joules.

Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 1,364,000,000,000 Joules, we have that

5,357,650,000 x (T - 25) = 1,364,000,000,000
5,357,650,000 x T - 133,941,000,000 = 1,364,000,000,000

Therefore T = (1,364,000,000,000 + 133,941,000,000)/5,357,650,000 = 280° C (536° F).

So, if we assume a typical office fire at the WTC, then the jet fuel could have only added 280 - 25 = 255° C (at the very most) to the temperature of the fire.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire quantity of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction.

We have found that it is impossible the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor beyond 280° C (536° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?

http://www.nerdcities.com/guardian

and here is the astm-e119 certification of the wtc. which it was upgraded to after the first fire there.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_fire_resistance_data.htm

[twinstead]

FatesWebb you DO realize that we have debated every single point you have brought up a thousand times before? I hope you don't think this is all new to us and we are scrambling to explain your 'slam-dunk' evidence.

[FatesWebb]

Do you mean 8 and 12 seconds, or 8 and 10 seconds, or 8.4 seconds? And have you noticed yet that the FEMA report doesn't say what the collapse duration was?

Dave

the fema report says what the duration of the collapse events is, and I already posted a link to it as well as a screenshot of it. but really, why not just COUNT FOR YOURSELF?? while watching a video? don't trust yourself?

[lkhllywd]

The buildings were ASTM-E119 certified. this means the fire would not have been able to have spread very far.

For an education in how fireproofing was employed in WTC 1 & 2, and how irrelevant it became after the planes hit, please read the book 102 Minutes.

And regarding the "impossibility" of the fires reaching 1020 degrees Kelvin...do you ever independently verify anything? Google temperature+house+fire, or temperature+office+fire and you'll find hundreds of independent sources that prove you wrong.

[FatesWebb]

FatesWebb you DO realize that we have debated every single point you have brought up a thousand times before? I hope you don't think this is all new to us and we are scrambling to explain your 'slam-dunk' evidence.

hah then why has not one point I have brought up here been debunked yet? you guys are so experienced, why no explanations? sure you have had some weak attempts, but really you haven't had anything much at all. I seeing it as 5 of you on one of me, and I am winning the debate hands down.

[Dave Rogers]

the fema report says what the duration of the collapse events is,

No it doesn't, it says what the duration of the seismic signals is. The seismic signals started when the falling mass began to hit the ground.

and I already posted a link to it as well as a screenshot of it.

Which doesn't say what the collapse time is, it says what the duration of the seismic signals is.

but really, why not just COUNT FOR YOURSELF?? while watching a video? don't trust yourself?

Because you can't see, from the videos, when the collapse finishes, because there's an enormous dust cloud that covers everything up, so there's no way to determine when to stop counting. This really isn't complicated.

Dave

[Alareth]

thanks, now they are calling me a liar, but I have absolutely no reason to lie about that...


Please bear in mind that posts on this forum will not be deleted, moved, edited, or any other form of moderation without disclosure from the moderation team. If a post is actioned you will be notified with the reason.

[lkhllywd]

hah then why has not one point I have brought up here been debunked yet? you guys are so experienced, why no explanations? .

I see.

So, that Googling house+fire+temperature thing...did you do it?

[Dave Rogers]

We have found that it is impossible the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor beyond 280° C (536° F).

Assuming this is reliable, how hot then could the steel have got?

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

So your numbers suggest that a temperature in the region of 1080-1180ºC was feasible in the WTC fires, which is a great deal hotter than the NIST modelling determined, and easily hot enough to have weakened the steel.

Dave

[twinstead]

hah then why has not one point I have brought up here been debunked yet? you guys are so experienced, why no explanations? sure you have had some weak attempts, but really you haven't had anything much at all. I seeing it as 5 of you on one of me, and I am winning the debate hands down.

Ah, that game. All you have to do is characterize responses that you don't want to deal with as 'weak'. Interesting. And familiar. Are you sure you don't mean 'sensible'? .

Perhaps we are sick and tired of debating the same crap over and over and over and over again every time some ideologue reads a couple conspiracy websites and watches Loose Change on YouTube and comes on here spewing his smoking-gun, rock-solid evidence that 911 was an inside job.

It gets old. Why don't you just contact the nearest law enforcement agency or media outlet, anywhere in the world, and lay out your 'inconvertible evidence'.

I'm sure there's a reporter who is willing to risk his life for the Nobel Prize that is sure to come blowing the lid off this conspiracy.

So, what are you waiting for? You are 100% sure your evidence is unimpeachable, right? I mean, you have reduced even the vaunted JREFers to weak arguments, right?

[FatesWebb]

No, I am asking you to show that explosives could do what you said they did.
Can you show me in that article where is states that 14 tons of explosives could turn the entire upper 30 stories into dust particles such that one need not consider the fall from the top of the building.

The collapse time was NOT 8.5 seconds that is the issue.

as for the article you really should read the comments below that illustrate that the calculations are vastly in error and that the article itself is a plagerism of Hoffman's paper.

Hoffman had calculated that there was only 10% of the energy required to do what he calculated had been done. Unfortunatly though that results in much more than 16 tons of HE even if the explosive force could be coupled to the structure so as to be 100% efficient in delivering that force to structural components.

so you defy fema, and the 9/11 commission reports? and the videos, and seismic evidence?

what then, sir, is your collapse time, so we can call them and tell them that they need to change it..

changing the videos will be a bit tough though

As I said I am only using the official numbers, which can be confirmed by watching the videos yourself

[FatesWebb]

Because you can't see, from the videos, when the collapse finishes, because there's an enormous dust cloud that covers everything up, so there's no way to determine when to stop counting. This really isn't complicated.

Dave

so you think it fell almost to the ground in 7 seconds and then sat suspended for a period of time before completely falling? this is a desperate explanation, for which I will have to disagree. you can see it pretty much collapse and all logic says it did..

including the audio in the one video that has it.

[The Pig]

Collapse starts 13 seconds in, still collapsing at 32 seconds; so the collapse took 19 seconds at least. Right Fates?
Bavn4T26jcw

[FatesWebb]

Assuming this is reliable, how hot then could the steel have got?


Dave

the steel cores, being intertwined would have acted much like a computer heat-sync which dissipates the heat throughout the structure.

[twinstead]

the steel cores, being intertwined would have acted much like a computer heat-sync which dissipates the heat throughout the structure.

Oh my. Can you explain this further?

[FatesWebb]

Collapse starts 13 seconds in, still collapsing at 32 seconds; so the collapse took 19 seconds at least. Right Fates?
Bavn4T26jcw

hmm, first off this video seems to be slowed down a bit, but the collapse in this particular video appears to take about 15 seconds. however if you compare this video to countless others it is inconsistant with the others, as well as with the seismic evidence and the 9/11 commission reports, and the fema reports. shall I start posting videos to prove this point?

[kookbreaker]

here is the proof of the temperatures in a scientific study as requested...
THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WTC *LINK*

Posted By: September 11 2001
Date: 23, February 03, at 10:34 p.m.

THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

Imagine that the entire quantity of jet fuel from the aircraft was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.


I want to point out that this entire 'paper' makes the laughable mistake of not including any of the flammable materials in the building. It pours out loads of calculations based solely on the idea that only the jet fuel burned in the WTC and that was the only thing contributing to the heat of the system.

This is of course, completely wrong and this entire paper, calculations and all, is a pure strawman. The NIST report is full of data on how much fuel there is in the 'average' office to burn. I believe both FEMA and NIST state that the jet fuel was burned off after 10 minutes. After that, it was all office fire which the history of firefighting and engineering have shown can produce plenty hot temperatures.

This is like calculating how hot your burger will get by measuring the lighter fluid you put on the coals, while ignoring the coals themselves.

I am amazed this is being put up as evidence in any way. Its stunning that so much effort was put into being stupid.

[FatesWebb]

Oh my. Can you explain this further?

sure, hold onto a steel rod from one end, and then heat up the opposite end of the rod, the heat will go through the rod, and you will soon have to drop it because you side got too hot.... heat is spread throughout steel, not concentrated..

[kookbreaker]

the steel cores, being intertwined would have acted much like a computer heat-sync which dissipates the heat throughout the structure.

That is not the way steel conducts heat. Talk to a blacksmith. When he heats a section of metal to glowing hot, does he have to make the entire peice of metal glowing hot? No!

[FatesWebb]

I want to point out that this entire 'paper' makes the laughable mistake of not including any of the flammable materials in the building. It pours out loads of calculations based solely on the idea that only the jet fuel burned in the WTC and that was the only thing contributing to the heat of the system.

This is of course, completely wrong and this entire paper, calculations and all, is a pure strawman. The NIST report is full of data on how much fuel there is in the 'average' office to burn. I believe both FEMA and NIST state that the jet fuel was burned off after 10 minutes. After that, it was all office fire which the history of firefighting and engineering have shown can produce plenty hot temperatures.

This is like calculating how hot your burger will get by measuring the lighter fluid you put on the coals, while ignoring the coals themselves.

I am amazed this is being put up as evidence in any way. Its stunning that so much effort was put into being stupid.

really we all know that the contents of a steel building isnt enough to allow it to collapse...

http://www.lmc.ep.usp.br/People/Valdir/imagens/fire/Madrid_Windsor.jpg

I mean first it was astm-e119, second most fire was out after 15 seconds, and third, it didn't collapse the first time it had a fire which was before it was astm-e119 and the fire actually burned for 18 hours.

[Arus808]

^^ you just demonstrated your ignorance on the subject.

[kookbreaker]

sure, hold onto a steel rod from one end, and then heat up the opposite end of the rod, the heat will go through the rod, and you will soon have to drop it because you side got too hot.... heat is spread throughout steel, not concentrated..

/mode = Stan

Really?! (http://www.artthrob.co.za/03dec/images/blacksmith01a.jpg)

/mode

[Dave Rogers]

so you think it fell almost to the ground in 7 seconds and then sat suspended for a period of time before completely falling? this is a desperate explanation,

No, it's a strawman.

Dave

[kookbreaker]

really we all know that the contents of a steel building isnt enough to allow it to collapse...


Actually, 'we' know nothing of the sort.


http://www.lmc.ep.usp.br/People/Valdir/imagens/fire/Madrid_Windsor.jpg


Why do you try to make this claim, whilst showing a picture of a buildings whose Steel portion collapsed from the fire? (http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095)

[FatesWebb]

ok since you guys haven't really answered any of my questions I am going to throw some more out there...

we know that the concrete was pulverized, right? ok, so then pulverization takes time!!! also think about this. you cannot use energy to accomplish 2 different tasks, the energy is "expended" on the first task. If you could use energy to accomplish 2 different tasks, then you would have what is called a perpetual motion machine. Ok, so we know the amount of time it takes to drop an object from any said height. we can do the experiment without air resistance, only because we know that it will only increase the amount of time for collapse. also the amount of time would be insignificant.

ok, so in a pancake collapse, which is what everyone seems to be saying was the case... then when one floor hits another floor then it would be paused some, and IT IS PROVEN IT WAS PAUSED SOME, by the pulverization of concrete. you cannot just pulverize concrete easily... it TAKES TIME which would slow the collapse time from the freefall pace.

think of the old time record players that you could stack like 5 records on and play them in order.... (ok showing my age) if you were to collapse the first record, it would fall on the second one, and it may not even collapse, or it may wait a second and then collapse.... but it pauses. not only that it doesn't pulverize the second record, which if it did or could somehow that would take even longer...

so now think about how there are 110 floors, imagine if this pause were only one second, then imagine how that adds up to 110 seconds, plus the initial freefall pace of 10 seconds = 120 seconds... now also think about this... in order for it to fall at all, especially THAT FAST 120 seconds... then the weakest points would be the points that failed... now imagine how the 47 inner core NOT HOLLOW steel supports which were interconnected to each other fell down?? the weakest spots were the parts that connected the floor to the steel core supports.. not the supports themselves.

so why did the weakest parts of the structure not break? instead of the STRONGEST PARTS??

and HOW DID IT DO IT SO FAST, so now in that 12 seconds we have

1) the freefall collapse time of 12 seconds
+
2) the pulverization of all of the concrete
+
3) the pancaking of floors 110 of them
+
4) the breaking of the structure at the strongest, not the weakest points.
+
5) the complete pulverization of the largest chunks that should have been left over by gravity. since there was nothing left to demolish them at the end of collapse (the top floors)

So my point is even if a gravity fueled collapse, and even if there were enough potential energy to cause this collapse. It would still be impossible at 12 seconds or even 24 seconds. much less 9 seconds.... Not to mention it isn't even possible in the first place...

[kookbreaker]

ok since you guys haven't really answered any of my questions I am going to throw some more out there...


Actually, we have. You just are not paying attention.


we know that the concrete was pulverized, right?

Wrong.

[Arus808]

ok since you guys haven't really answered any of my questions I am going to throw some more out there...

they have. and you are showing that you are ignoring the answers given.

THis is where you are showing your dishonesty.


the rest of your questions will be ignored until you acknowledge that you have been answered.

[Alareth]

we know that the concrete was pulverized, right?


No, no we don't. Because it wasn't.

[FatesWebb]

Actually, 'we' know nothing of the sort.

[/URL]

then why didnt the wtc collapse the first time when it was on fire for 18 hours before it was upgraded to ASTM-E119 certification?

[Reality Believer]

Just a comment from the peanut gallery. This thread has derailed into a complete train wreck from the intent of the original post. The newbies have been allowed to run amok and the senior members have allowed it. The moderators can't be everywhere at all times.

If someone has a new theme to present, how about starting a new thread?

[The Pig]

hmm, first off this video seems to be slowed down a bit, but the collapse in this particular video appears to take about 15 seconds. however if you compare this video to countless others it is inconsistant with the others, as well as with the seismic evidence and the 9/11 commission reports, and the fema reports. shall I start posting videos to prove this point?
Not about 15 seconds, at least 19 seconds; or can you show me where my timings are off? It doesn't seem slowed down to me. We hear talking and screaming and see people running; all in apparent real-time.

Have you demonstrated that the seismic evidence shows the entire collapse? If you have a video which shows a collapse time of 8.4 seconds, I'd like to see it. Go ahead.

[twinstead]

then why didnt the wtc collapse the first time when it was on fire for 18 hours before it was upgraded to ASTM-E119 certification?

Maybe it had something to do with the plane impact?

[twinstead]

Just a comment from the peanut gallery. This thread has derailed into a complete train wreck from the intent of the original post. The newbies have been allowed to run amok and the senior members have allowed it. The moderators can't be everywhere at all times.

If someone has a new theme to present, how about starting a new thread?

I agree, but what would the new thread be called? "A thread about all the stuff concerning the WTC that has already been discussed a thousand times"?

[FatesWebb]

No, no we don't. Because it wasn't.

so the epa report that all of the dust in Manhattan consisted of concrete, they lied? concrete pulverized to 50 micron. so now you guys defy the epa as well?

[FatesWebb]

Not about 15 seconds, at least 19 seconds; or can you show me where my timings are off? It doesn't seem slowed down to me. We hear talking and screaming and see people running; all in apparent real-time.

Have you demonstrated that the seismic evidence shows the entire collapse? If you have a video which shows a collapse time of 8.4 seconds, I'd like to see it. Go ahead.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3762231166802308548

at about 00:06:04 the pyroclastic flow is seen overtaking manhattan, and at 00:23:13 it begins to flow onto the hudson river. This is caused by the sever heat in the collapse, which is WAY OVER what was possible with jet fuel.

again you see the same pyroclastic flow at 38:28 for the collapse of the second tower. 39:10 is has completely taken over everything.
00:48:44 - the video proves the freefall collapse theory

1:04:56 again it proves the freefall collapse. this time with wtc7.

1:07:49 shows more volcanic like activity, due to explosive energy.
1:08:31 - 1:11:10 discusses pyroclastic flows. It mentions that it is a ground hugging avalanche of hot gas and debris. would require explosive energy.



at 1:11:30 it shows the video FROM WITHIN the pyroclastic flow.

1:13:30 and 1:38:11 again it proves the freefall with wtc7 this time it using basic science to prove it.

1:20:50 it shows upward explosions, which obviously would require explosive energy to occur. this creates a upward 45 degree trajectory path for debris(1:22:18), as documented in the video this is clearly impossible without explosives. also it shows debris being shot far 600 ft away from the building.

1:25:32 shows debris ejected 600 ft through the air.

My collapse duration of 8 and 10 seconds, came FROM THE FEMA REPORT.... seismic data,proven at 1:25:58 or by checking the report yourself.

1:33:55 discusses the inertia defeated by explosives observation.

[Dave Rogers]

ok, so in a pancake collapse, which is what everyone seems to be saying was the case... then when one floor hits another floor then it would be paused some, and IT IS PROVEN IT WAS PAUSED SOME, by the pulverization of concrete. you cannot just pulverize concrete easily... it TAKES TIME which would slow the collapse time from the freefall pace.

This calculation has been done, both by members of the truth movement and by Frank Greening, who is hardly the most anti-conspiracist of researchers. What gets amusing is seeing some of the mental gymnastics resorted to by members of the truth movement when they get perfectly reasonable collapse times that agree with the observed times of 13-16 seconds (for a reference within the truth movement, see http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/times.html). One paper (sorry, I don't have the reference) handwaves away its own results by saying that actually the collapse would take much longer, with no justification. Another (http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/ProfKuttlerWTC1CollapseTimeCalculations.pdf) seems to claim that a collapsed steel girder has between one third and one half the strength of an undamaged girder, even after it has broken. There is a general failure to cast any doubt on the collapse times, which is one reason the focus of the truth movement has shifted towards WTC7; the collapse time of the Twin Towers is an embarrassment.

Anyway, have fun everyone, I'm off on holiday for a week or so. Don't let them start the revolution without me.

Dave

[Arus808]

You have a funny definition of "pulverize"

http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/3379/wtcrubblety1.jpghttp://img131.imageshack.us/img131/2365/wtcblacklabrubblexv9.jpg http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/6872/wtc4femasleepycurllo7.jpg
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/2508/24912507mi4.jpg
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/594/24912509mn3.jpg


damn, if the concrete had "pulverized" then these Looney Tunes characters shouldn't have been left nearly intact, from the Warner Bros. Store that was in the WTC tower.

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/9569/24929073ey8.jpg

[Brainster]

Yet another thread derailed onto every topic possible.

[T.A.M.]

Fates:

I am not an engineer, and I can guess you are not either.

A rebuttal to your entire reply to me, can be found in the latest paper from BAZANT AND GREENING. Read it, tell me where they are wrong, and get back to me.

TAM:)

[Revolutionary91]

Fates:

I am not an engineer, and I can guess you are not either.

A rebuttal to your entire reply to me, can be found in the latest paper from BAZANT AND GREENING. Read it, tell me where they are wrong, and get back to me.

TAM:)

Could you just give us a brief synopsis? I'd hate to think you were just posting a paper you didnt understand.

BTW, isn't Greening athe man that holds all kinds of ridiculous views including that aids is manmade?

[kookbreaker]

then why didnt the wtc collapse the first time when it was on fire for 18 hours before it was upgraded to ASTM-E119 certification?

Because the fire was smaller, spread like a 'normal' fire (normal fires do not start completely over several floors at once. Had less fuel to work with (office density and office flammables were much lower in the 1970's), had firefighting efforts that reached it.

But most importantly, the fireproofing on the steel was intact. It had not been knocked off by the impact of the plane.

BTW, what the heck do you mean 'upgraded to ASTM-E119 certification'? Are you saying they replaced the steel? And ASTM-E119 is a baseline for testing building materials, not a certification!

[Reality Believer]

I agree, but what would the new thread be called? "A thread about all the stuff concerning the WTC that has already been discussed a thousand times"?

It just seems that the debunking hounds run after every truther rabbit that runs instead of self moderating the thread. Point out that a neatly run forum has some basic etiquette, and that means searching first for your answer, staying on topic and starting new thread for new topics.

That is just my opinion of course, I could be wrong.

[funk de fino]

do you believe these heros?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X5F5PttzJY

like lava like a volcano? or are these heros lying?

no, they are mistaken it was not molten steel it was molten metal if it was anything

now show the pictures you said existed

[FatesWebb]

Because the fire was smaller, spread like a 'normal' fire (normal fires do not start completely over several floors at once. Had less fuel to work with (office density and office flammables were much lower in the 1970's), had firefighting efforts that reached it.

But most importantly, the fireproofing on the steel was intact. It had not been knocked off by the impact of the plane.

BTW, what the heck do you mean 'upgraded to ASTM-E119 certification'? Are you saying they replaced the steel? And ASTM-E119 is a baseline for testing building materials, not a certification!

astm-e119 is a certification that makes it to where the building does not allow fire to spread across floors.

and there is no proof at all that your assumption that it did just that is true.

there is also no proof that fireproofing was knocked off.

[Dave_46]

<snip>
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

<snip>

I know I've posted this before, more than once, but here goes for our new friend.

Before I retired I worked for Building Research. I witnessed at least one of these tests, the biggest one. Although the building did not collapse, some members failed (in the sense that they sagged severely) to the extent that access to some floors was prohibited after that fire.

I wouldn't call the building a "simulated" eight storey building. It WAS an eight storey building, and its design was very different from the WTC towers.

To conclude, a statement of the blindingly obvious. The structural integrity of that building had not been compromised by being hit by an airliner.

Dave

[FatesWebb]

no, they are mistaken it was not molten steel it was molten metal if it was anything

now show the pictures you said existed

the pictures exist, but tell me, why would it matter the makeup of the "lava" substance? if it is that hot it is that hot.

[FatesWebb]

I know I've posted this before, more than once, but here goes for our new friend.

Before I retired I worked for Building Research. I witnessed at least one of these tests, the biggest one. Although the building did not collapse, some members failed (in the sense that they sagged severely) to the extent that access to some floors was prohibited after that fire.

I wouldn't call the building a "simulated" eight storey building. It WAS an eight storey building, and its design was very different from the WTC towers.

To conclude, a statement of the blindingly obvious. The structural integrity of that building had not been compromised by being hit by an airliner.

Dave

I could point to the construction manager comparison to a pencil and a screen, but if the airliner had compromised the building as such, then why did it wait for hours to collapse?

and why has every person in this thread ignored the fact that even had it collapsed in such a manner the 47 intertwined steel core supports being that they are not the weakest parts would still be standing?

[kookbreaker]

astm-e119 is a certification that makes it to where the building does not allow fire to spread across floors.


Sorry, but your are wrong. It is a test method:

http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/DATABASE.CART/REDLINE_PAGES/E119.htm?E+mystore

"Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials"


and there is no proof at all that your assumption that it did just that is true.


Excuse me? Care to clarify that at all?


there is also no proof that fireproofing was knocked off.

This is idiotic, this is like saying there's no evidence being hit by a speeding train will hurt you. You haven't read the NIST report, have you?

[funk de fino]

the pictures exist, but tell me, why would it matter the makeup of the "lava" substance? if it is that hot it is that hot.

different metals have different melting points

now get the pictures you said existed

[twinstead]

the pictures exist, but tell me, why would it matter the makeup of the "lava" substance? if it is that hot it is that hot.

Tell you what, not only is your material already debunked, but you are employing the most irritating conspiracy theorist tactic of all: you are throwing out question after question after question, not listening to ANY responses (or worse, insulting those who have taken the time to answer by calling those answers 'weak') as if it's an issue of quantity, not quality.

Perhaps you should start a new thread, call it 'FatesWebb's questions about the WTC', and then post your questions one-by-one. Then we will talk about that question. When we have either reached an agreement to disagree, or whatever, you can post the NEXT question.

This scattergun, throw everything against the wall and see what sticks approach is what ignorant children who have already decided what the truth is and are just trying to 'one-up' the grownups do, not real investigators honestly interested in the truth.

You act as if we aren't familiar with your little debate game. I for one am taking my toys out of this thread and going home.

[azazal]

Man, leave the forum for a few months, come back and it's like I went back in time. Since i haven't used these for a bit

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/azazal/Misc/Really.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/azazal/Misc/stupid.jpg

[funk de fino]

Could you just give us a brief synopsis? I'd hate to think you were just posting a paper you didnt understand.

BTW, isn't Greening athe man that holds all kinds of ridiculous views including that aids is manmade?

My synopsis based on evidence in this thread is that you are a LIAR

[Dave_46]

astm-e119 is a certification that makes it to where the building does not allow fire to spread across floors.

<snip>

ASTM E119, if it is anything like the British Standard version is a test standard, detailing how to test building elements for their fire resistance. How these elements of the building are put together can affect the fire performance of the building, and the standard does not cover that. There are very few test furnaces that can test joints between elemens.

The test furnace that I worked on did have that capeability, to a limited extent, but I think this capacity was lost in subsequent modifications after I left that organisation, so it is possible that there is no capacity for this now.

Dave

[funk de fino]

Iand why has every person in this thread ignored the fact that even had it collapsed in such a manner the 47 intertwined steel core supports being that they are not the weakest parts would still be standing?

excuse me?

intertwined?

[Pardalis]

excuse me?

intertwined?

You know, engineering stuff...

[kookbreaker]

and why has every person in this thread ignored the fact that even had it collapsed in such a manner the 47 intertwined steel core supports being that they are not the weakest parts would still be standing?

Will you please, please, please at least read the NIST Executive Summary instead of playing Junior Engineer?

And for the record, it did actually take bit longer for the most of the core to collapse.

From the NIST FAQ


From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

[FatesWebb]

excuse me?

intertwined?

it means "connected together" and rather than answer here, feel free to answer in this new thread, so that we don't continue to hijack this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89556

[jaydeehess]

so you defy fema, and the 9/11 commission reports? and the videos, and seismic evidence?

what then, sir, is your collapse time, so we can call them and tell them that they need to change it..

changing the videos will be a bit tough though

As I said I am only using the official numbers, which can be confirmed by watching the videos yourself


Once again I am asking you to show me where anyone has calculated that 14 tons of explosives reduced the top 30 stories of the tower to dust such that the mass of the top 30 stories would then reach a low terminal velocity and thus not register any impact on the siesmic monitor.

Will you be getting around to backing up your contention anytime soon? So far you have not come even close.


As for the official numbers. The official numbers you cite are the event duration of the seismic readings NOT the collapse. No where does FEMA state that either building fell in 8.5 seconds. In addition I have already pointed out that the seismic record for WTC 7 is 16 seconds in duration and the CT claim is that WTC 7 took 6.6 seconds to collapse. Once again I ask you why it is OK to use the seismic record to time the collapse of the towers but not OK to do so for WTC 7?

For the towers the seismic reading begin when the debris starts hitting the ground, several seconds after the collapse starts IIRC. In WTC 7 we have the building coming apart internally for 10 seconds before the outer walls come down.

[jaydeehess]

the jet fuel, and or the other debris as you say could not have reached a maximum of 490 Degrees F which this is an over estimate. .


Oh for chrissakes FW

http://www.llr.state.sc.us/FREDDIE/4_5th/C1.pdf
Combustible materials may catch fire at ignition temperatures. Heat is needed to start a fire. For many items
found in the home, the combustion temperature is 400 - 600 degrees Fahrenheit.

Even Paper ignites at 451oF and burns at higher temp than that.
Wood burns hotter
Wood composites even hotter
Plastic burns even hotter

[jaydeehess]

it means "connected together" and rather than answer here, feel free to answer in this new thread, so that we don't continue to hijack this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=89556

No, it means twisted together, not connected together. A rope has intertwined strands.

[jaydeehess]

Had the core of the building suddenly and magically been stripped of the outer floors and perimeter columns it could not have stood on its own for very long at all. It would not have had the lateral stability to allow it to do so and would have buckled all on its own.

In the actual collapse though the lateral support was being violently and assymetricaly ripped from the core while the core itself was buffeted by the debris, including multi to sections of upper core columns, falling through it.

[jaydeehess]

really we all know that the contents of a steel building isnt enough to allow it to collapse...

http://www.lmc.ep.usp.br/People/Valdir/imagens/fire/Madrid_Windsor.jpg

I mean first it was astm-e119, second most fire was out after 15 seconds, and third, it didn't collapse the first time it had a fire which was before it was astm-e119 and the fire actually burned for 18 hours.

The Windsor had a concrete core system that withstood the heat and kept the structure from suffering a global collapse. Such was not the case in the WTC buildings.

In the Windsor the steel of the upper floors did indeed utterly fail. Indeed in the picture you post much of the steel visible has already failed and the rest is being held up soley by its connection to the concrete core. The only straight structural members in the photo are the concrete columns visble slightly right of center. Further to the right you see the collapsed steel portions of the upper floors.
In the Windsor the fire started, as all other fires do, on ONE floor and progressed to other floors while in the towers, major fires were started immediatly and concurrently on several floors. That is a situation that have simply never occured before.

[T.A.M.]

Rev: I know you could care less, but I am warning you, so when you do not see me reply to the garbage you are posting, you know why. If you do not begin, in the next few posts, to post something of substance, you will be the second person ever to go on my ignore list. Not because I hate you...i don't. Not because I think you are dumb or stupid...I don't. I just want to read things that are of value, or at least conversational, and your last 100 posts or so, have had neither...

TAM:)

[beachnut]

TAM, this forum is full of dismissals of Jones because he wrote the Jesus paper and was involved in cold fusion. Gravys wtc7 paper even sees a need to mention that Jones is a mormon. Glass houses....
Find some facts in Jones's work and we can talk. Better yet, find anything in 9/11 truth that is backed up with evidence. You should be the one questioning LC video lies.

Thermite Jones and R91, now what, a revolution of what, ignorance?

[beachnut]

really we all know that the contents of a steel building isnt enough to allow it to collapse...

http://www.lmc.ep.usp.br/People/Valdir/imagens/fire/Madrid_Windsor.jpg

I mean first it was astm-e119, second most fire was out after 15 seconds, and third, it didn't collapse the first time it had a fire which was before it was astm-e119 and the fire actually burned for 18 hours.
Hey man, do you really think they bought the tickets in that building?

That building is all messed up the fires started collapsing the steel in an hour, wow. You know where that building is today? Why is the steel all falling apart in this photo. Hey truther, next time use a building with super steel, you are showing how bad steel is in a fire, it is literally falling apart. Sad to see you off topic and posting your own debunking on the strength of steel. Keep up the standard truther self-debunking, it is easier if you present your own rebuttal. Good job.

[Revolutionary91]

Rev: I know you could care less, but I am warning you, so when you do not see me reply to the garbage you are posting, you know why. If you do not begin, in the next few posts, to post something of substance, you will be the second person ever to go on my ignore list. Not because I hate you...i don't. Not because I think you are dumb or stupid...I don't. I just want to read things that are of value, or at least conversational, and your last 100 posts or so, have had neither...

TAM:)

Please put me on ignore. Im requesting it.

[PhantomWolf]

I need some help here, I'm trying to figure out which claim is the funniest. The one were he says the WTC 2 collapse happened in 8.4 secs, the bit were he claimed that the dust clouds were "pyroclastic flows" or the bit where he then pointed out the video from inside said "excessly hot" "pyroclastic flow" without noticing that the people inside seemed tioo be totally unaware of the fact they were in an "excessly hot" "pyroclastic flow" and should be burning to death, lol. It does prove one thing. He can parrot sites well, pity he can't actually think beyond that.

[ktesibios]

the jet fuel in the wtc at the very most could have reached 490 F so why was it over 1300 F a week later?

the jet fuel, and or the other debris as you say could not have reached a maximum of 490 Degrees F which this is an over estimate. this is assuming that all of the reported fuel burned inside of 1 floor of the building.

As part of their testing of the fire dynamics software they proposed to use in modeling the fires in the WTC Towers, NIST built cube farms similar to those known to have been present in the towers, with partitions, desks, chairs, computers, filing cabinets and so on. They instrumented them so that they could measure the rate of heat output, the temperatures at different locations and different heights in the compartment, rate of mass loss (to determine fuel consumption) and other things. These measurements could be compared to the predictions made by an FDS model of the same experimental setup to assess the accuracy of the model. Then they set them on fire and measured all these parameters as functions of time. They did this repeatedly, changing some variables like jet fuel present/not present, cube farm trashed as by the plane impact (they call it "rubbleized")/not trashed, ignition source location... to find out what impact these had on the behavior of the fires.

You can read about these experiments in NIST NCSTAR 1-5 pp. 75-81 (129-135 in the pdf file) or if you want more detail, the entirety of NIST NCSTAR 1-5E is dedicated to these experiments.

So, if your regurgitated claim of a maximum temperature of 490F is correct, how is it that actual measured upper gas layer temperatures greater than 800C (1472F) for significant periods of time, and peak temperatures as high as 1000C (1832F) were repeatedly measured in these experiments?

Remember, these weren't computer simulations, they were real live set-it-on-fire-and-take-its-temperature tests. IMO, that trumps any conspiracist's bogus back-of-the-envelope ciphering you can find on the Web.

[PhantomWolf]

Oh, I knew I'd forgotten one. He seems to be claiming that the fire was only as hot as Jet fuel burns. I guess there wasn't anything else that was flamable on the planes or in the buildings......


BTW Fates, easy question for you. How hot does an O2 generator burn, and how many are located on a 767?

[cloudshipsrule]

FatesWebb,

Learn something:

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire00/PDF/f00136.pdf

Which building contains more fuel for a fire? A two story single family dwelling, or an acre's worth of office space in an occupied office building?

Now go on believing temperatures couldn't have reached beyond the 490 degree F mark inside the WTC's.

[TjW]

Gotta love The YouTube GenerationTM and their crack investigative ability.

I thought that was the crack generationTM and their YouTube investigative ability.

[jaydeehess]

PhantomWolf, I lean towards the idea that the upper 30 stories of the building were blown to dust and so you can ignore the effect on a seismic record of that much mass falling from that high and that is why it could register only 8.4 seconds.

However, given that paper alone will burn hotter than 490oF , his temp claim is right up there.