Debating 9/11 - Ironic split from: Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

[Tony Szamboti]

NIST? I am using the chief engineer on the WTC and you have bogus information in your paper. Please, if you want to talk about NIST go to the NIST threads, but this is about facts, and you got them wrong and ignore real facts and use hearsay. Hearsay stuff is your paper, and you round it out with political junk.

BTW, repeating the junk from others you are trying to prove wrong, and using the errors they have, magnify your errors and prove you are not able to get the facts straight.

So you know that NIST saw that white paper and that it said the towers would survive an impact by a large jet liner (Boeing 707 or DC-8) moving at 600 MPH. It was NIST who said it, not some newspaper reporter as you have claimed in the past, but you still say it is hearsay.

John Skilling also said that there would be a horrendous fire, due to the aircraft impact, but that the analysis said the building would still be there. Is that hearsay also?

[beachnut]

So you know that NIST saw that white paper and that it said the towers would survive an impact by a large jet liner (Boeing 707 or DC-8) moving at 600 MPH. It was NIST who said it, not some newspaper reporter as you have claimed in the past, but you still say it is hearsay.

John Skilling also said that there would be a horrendous fire, due to the aircraft impact, but that the analysis said the building would still be there. Is that hearsay also?
NO, there is no white paper with 600 mph in it. The authors of the places where the 600 mph is used, placed the 600 mph by mistake.

John Skilling never said 600 mph. You can not produce a single quote by John with 600 mph. The idiots who publish 600 mph added the speed because they are too stupid to understand flying. Sorry, you need to be an engineer and get some facts.

The study speed was slow moving lost in the fog aircraft, low on fuel. You have failed to correct what real engineers and real research will show you. I hope you did not go to GaTech.

NIST did not see any white paper with 600 mph. You can not read and understand. I have seen what you are talking about, but using NIST and making up 600 mph is still an error. Sad, you fail to refute what I have posted on the slow speed impact.

Due to the fact the impact was based on a slow moving aircraft; the energy of impact on 9/11 was 7 to 11 time greater for flights 11 and 175 vs the design impact to survive an aircraft as found from the chief engineer of the WTC. The number one man proves you wrong.

And your debate with Gravy is already lost, you have been proven to have a paper filled with bs, and Gravy's work is filled with facts. Why are you unable to correct your errors? And why are you unable to use facts to support any of your conclusions in your paper?

[ConspiRaider]

So you know that NIST saw that white paper and that it said the towers would survive an impact by a large jet liner (Boeing 707 or DC-8) moving at 600 MPH. It was NIST who said it, not some newspaper reporter as you have claimed in the past, but you still say it is hearsay.

John Skilling also said that there would be a horrendous fire, due to the aircraft impact, but that the analysis said the building would still be there. Is that hearsay also?
You are reaching, big time. Grasping at anything.

Explain to me why an airliner under realistic circumstances - ANY AIRLINER - would be traveling at 600 miles per hour over Manhattan Island at one thousand feet? If such a white paper was done back then in the 1960s - it was to cover the possibility of an airliner attempting to land - not one used as a terrorist missile. Such as the bomber that hit the Empire State Building. Nothing lands at 600 mph - try about one third that number, or less.

Are you actually trying to compare a DC-8 with a 767? What the hell is that all about? That's like comparing a Pinto to a Humvee.

Fact is, NOTHING was done as a pretest to simulate what happened on 9/11 to the towers. Zip. Those impacts were never-before-happened-in-the-history-of-the-Earth events.

[Tony Szamboti]

You are reaching, big time. Grasping at anything.

Explain to me why an airliner under realistic circumstances - ANY AIRLINER - would be traveling at 600 miles per hour over Manhattan Island at one thousand feet? If such a white paper was done back then in the 1960s - it was to cover the possibility of an airliner attempting to land - not one used as a terrorist missile. Such as the bomber that hit the Empire State Building. Nothing lands at 600 mph - try about one third that number, or less.

Are you actually trying to compare a DC-8 with a 767? What the hell is that all about? That's like comparing a Pinto to a Humvee.

Fact is, NOTHING was done as a pretest to simulate what happened on 9/11 to the towers. Zip. Those impacts were never-before-happened-in-the-history-of-the-Earth events.

Did the towers survive the 500 MPH impacts of the airliners? Yes.

What did NIST say would have happened if the fireproofing was not allegedly shorn off? They said the buildings would still be standing.

What physical evidence is there for high steel temperatures in the fire affected areas? None.

The buildings should not have collapsed and that is the conclusion I come to in my paper based on the physical evidence and the design of the buildings.


I rest my case. It is some of you guys who are the real fantastists. Do you park your magic carpet in the garage at night or do you take it with you when you go to sleep?

[Bell]

Due to the fact the impact was based on a slow moving aircraft; the energy of impact on 9/11 was 7 to 11 time greater for flights 11 and 175 vs the design impact to survive an aircraft as found from the chief engineer of the WTC. The number one man proves you wrong.

And yet, the towers did not collapse!

[DGM]

Did the towers survive the 500 MPH impacts of the airliners? Yes.

What did NIST say would have happened if the fireproofing was not allegedly shorn off? They said the buildings would still be standing.

What physical evidence is there for high steel temperatures in the fire affected areas? None.

The buildings should not have collapsed and that is the conclusion I come to in my paper based on the physical evidence and the design of the buildings.


I rest my case. It is some of you guys who are the real fantastists. Do you park your magic carpet in the garage at night or do you take it with you when you go to sleep?
Care to show the pages on your high temp claim? Yes we all know what NIST section you cherry picked.

[Tony Szamboti]

Care to show the pages on your high temp claim? Yes we all know what NIST section you cherry picked.

On the contrary, you need to show that there is physical evidence for high steel temperatures. It has already been reported that there was none.

[DGM]

On the contrary, you need to show that there is physical evidence for high steel temperatures. It has already been reported that there was none.
By whom?

[A W Smith]

I'm sorry Tony. are you about to make a claim that there is no proof that the fireproofing was disturbed? human bodies. furniture, walls, steel office furniture was shattered yet spray on fireproofing the consistency of stale cake remained undisturbed? and you claim to be an engineer? we have seen photographic documentation of entire sections of floors sagging. What do you think caused that? I know I'm asking the wrong person.

[ConspiRaider]

Did the towers survive the 500 MPH impacts of the airliners? Yes.


Oh. All righty. See cuz I look at the skyline of Manhattan today and I don't see the towers so naturally I just assumed they did NOT survive the airliner impacts. Sorry. Sorry everyone, I just get... carried away, sorry.

The buildings should not have collapsed and that is the conclusion I come to in my paper based on the physical evidence and the design of the buildings.

Oh. Okay. So if the buildings should not have collapsed based on those two giant airliners hitting them, why then you must have some idea on the reasons they DID collapse. And that is?

I rest my case. It is some of you guys who are the real fantastists. Do you park your magic carpet in the garage at night or do you take it with you when you go to sleep?

Actually I had a kennel custom-built for my magic carpet out in the backyard, in the shape of a sheep (that's what I started with for the magic carpet, a sheep's fleece). Wait a minute. A kennel is for a doggie. Okay, so let's call my structure a sheepel, then. Don't worry, I'll be starting a web business whereby I draw up the plans for the sheepel so's anyone can buy them and build their very own! And it's a GREEN sheepel, made from all-natural mud.

[beachnut]

Did the towers survive the 500 MPH impacts of the airliners? Yes.

What did NIST say would have happened if the fireproofing was not allegedly shorn off? They said the buildings would still be standing.

The buildings should not have collapsed and that is the conclusion I come to in my paper based on the physical evidence and the design of the buildings.


You have hearsay bs in your paper, no facts..

BTW the aircraft destroyed the buildings, without the high speed impact there would be no destroyed buildings. Did I miss where the impacts knocked out key structures, and fire systems? NO, did you, yes. I call buildings falling hours after impacts, a failure due to aircraft impacts at high speed.

You must understand a slow speed impact would have only had localized damage and small fires. High speed impacts had massive multi-floor damage and massive fires; and destroyed most of the fireproofing due to the impact of aircraft. Darn, you are still not using that engineering stink they tried to give you in school; maybe your engineering stuff is hearsay too?

You should have taken some systems engineering courses, and you would see the high speed impacts would have destroyed the WTC. Now if you understood the chief engineer of the WTC you would understand the impact designed done for the WTC was slow speed aircraft low on fuel and the tower could survive a bunch of those. Now please use your engineering skills to slip back to reality and rational thinking. Stop being a drone for 9/11 truth and use some facts. (failed peer review by me, and I am only a MSEE, and been an engineer for 34 years; I think we could put together a peer review for you if you would fix your errors.)

[Bell]

Oh. All righty. See cuz I look at the skyline of Manhattan today and I don't see the towers so naturally I just assumed they did NOT survive the airliner impacts. Sorry. Sorry everyone, I just get... carried away, sorry.

Oh. Okay. So if the buildings should not have collapsed based on those two giant airliners hitting them, why then you must have some idea on the reasons they DID collapse. And that is?

Actually, the towers DID survive the impacts. The combination of damage AND the fires however...

[ConspiRaider]

Actually, the towers DID survive the impacts. The combination of damage AND the fires however...
Hey Bell -

Well... To be perfectly critical, the towers did NOT survive the impacts. You take away the impacts, the towers are still gracing Lower Manhattan today.

Naturally they did not immediately fall over a second or two after impact. But that's nitpicking.

There was a particularly disappointing sequel to the great flick, The Guns of Navarone, called Force 10 from Navarone. The sequel had big budget, big stars - but it fell short, somehow. Maybe you saw it too.

Anyway there's this scene in Force 10 I sometimes think about when the tower collapses are being discussed. It's when the Big Dam is rigged to blow with explosives. Harrison Ford and Robert Shaw rig it, light it, the stuff goes off. Everyone expects the big explosion, the dam collapsing, havoc and turmoil and so forth. But the dam remains standing, as if nothing happened. Across the river, Miller is unperturbed. No worries. Carl Weathers eventually vents his irritation that it didn't work. But Miller is calm. When prodded by Weathers, he says something to the effect: "Just give it time, it'll work." And of course, slowly, it does.

When the turd-hole ass-faces planned the WTC events, they were counting on big heavy object; high speed; and lots of volatile explosive fuel. Combined, it all worked. Yes, it took one hour for one collapse, one hour and forty minutes for the other. But: The towers were each impacted by a fuel-laden, fast-moving giant airliner. Neither survived.

[A W Smith]

Tony why are you derailing your own thread to quote passages out of the troother hymnal? You said this was between you and mark Roberts. yet here you are. Continuing to debate the same old worn out fantasies. re: no evidence for high temperature steel. Towers designed for 600 mph impact. etc.

here is a snippet of notes taken during a conference shortly after sept 11 2001 that Leslie Robertson attended. you might be familiar with him? he was the lead engineer for the WTC project. Note the 707- 180 mph mention.

[Bell]

Hey Bell -

Well... To be perfectly critical, the towers did NOT survive the impacts. You take away the impacts, the towers are still gracing Lower Manhattan today.

Naturally they did not immediately fall over a second or two after impact. But that's nitpicking.

<snip>

The reason I brought it up is because many/all troofers say the towers where designed to withstand a 707 impact, but still collapsed. Les Robinson however has stated that - to the best of his knowledge - the impact of feul/fire was not considered in the calculations. In that regard, the claim that the towers could withstand the impact is correct. They withstood much more even than was calculated. But indeed that's nitpicking, but with a good reason :)

[DGM]

On the contrary, you need to show that there is physical evidence for high steel temperatures. It has already been reported that there was none.
Tony:
Who reported that there was no high steel temp.?

[TjW]

So you know that NIST saw that white paper and that it said the towers would survive an impact by a large jet liner (Boeing 707 or DC-8) moving at 600 MPH. It was NIST who said it, not some newspaper reporter as you have claimed in the past, but you still say it is hearsay.

John Skilling also said that there would be a horrendous fire, due to the aircraft impact, but that the analysis said the building would still be there. Is that hearsay also?

Yes, NIST certainly admitted that a white paper existed. I think it was very fair of them to present that fact. That does not constitute endorsement of its conclusions. I will agree, if pressed, that Mein Kampf exists. That does not mean that I agree with it.

NIST also said that the analysis from which the white paper made its conclusions was not available to NIST. If you have that analysis, you might have something to argue about. Then, too, it could simply be that the analysis was wrong.

My own opinion, and I do not present this as fact, is that an analysis was done of the low-speed case. A press release was needed to deal with anti-WTC publicity. The analysis results were available to a PR firm, and "An impact by a 600 mph airplane", which is true and sounds impressive, though it is irrelevant, got wordsmithed into "A 600 mph impact by an airplane", which is not true, though quite relevant.

It has been pointed out over and over again that fire modeling forty years ago was quite primitive by today's standards.

[ConspiRaider]

The reason I brought it up is because many/all troofers say the towers where designed to withstand a 707 impact, but still collapsed. Les Robinson however has stated that - to the best of his knowledge - the impact of feul/fire was not considered in the calculations. In that regard, the claim that the towers could withstand the impact is correct. They withstood much more even than was calculated. But indeed that's nitpicking, but with a good reason :)
Roger that, B.

And even so: Studies of that nature are so terribly theoretical and hypothetical, even at best. Even if everything was factored in as far as airliner size, projected results of fuel fire, structural integrity and so forth: Still so many unknowns, and conditions that are absolutely impossible to test out. Reminds me of that suspension bridge that was constructed - and then it's rippling and swaying until it finally collapses. They forgot about the wind effects, or underestimated it.

[Hokulele]

Roger that, B.

And even so: Studies of that nature are so terribly theoretical and hypothetical, even at best. Even if everything was factored in as far as airliner size, projected results of fuel fire, structural integrity and so forth: Still so many unknowns, and conditions that are absolutely impossible to test out. Reminds me of that suspension bridge that was constructed - and then it's rippling and swaying until it finally collapses. They forgot about the wind effects, or underestimated it.


Tacoma Narrows.

[Dr Adequate]

What does NIST say would have happened if the fireproofing hadn't been allegedly stripped off?

Does NIST make the statement that the February 3, 1964 white paper says a large commercial aircraft moving at 600 MPH?
And it is at this point that you stop debating about where you'd like to debate if anyone would let you debate there, and start debating in a place where you can debate.

---

P.S: Note to moderators --- if realcddeal is now going to post about substantive issues, the point at which he made that post would be the ideal point to split the thread.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony:
Who reported that there was no high steel temp.?

NIST reported it with the results of their microstructure testing.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony why are you derailing your own thread to quote passages out of the troother hymnal? You said this was between you and mark Roberts. yet here you are. Continuing to debate the same old worn out fantasies. re: no evidence for high temperature steel. Towers designed for 600 mph impact. etc.

here is a snippet of notes taken during a conference shortly after sept 11 2001 that Leslie Robertson attended. you might be familiar with him? he was the lead engineer for the WTC project. Note the 707- 180 mph mention.

I am not derailing. A fellow by the name of Beachnut brought this up.

The NIST attested to February 3, 1964 white paper which says 600 MPH trumps Leslie Robertson's recollections hands down and you know it.

[jsfisher]

NIST reported it with the results of their microstructure testing.

Just to be clear, NIST found no evidence in the steel samples it tested of temperatures exceeding 600ºC for 15 minutes. Whereas 600ºC may not be considered a high temperature by some, it is more than enough to weaken steel beyond the point of a collapsing structure.

[Tony Szamboti]

Just to be clear, NIST found no evidence in the steel samples it tested of temperatures exceeding 600ºC for 15 minutes. Whereas 600ºC may not be considered a high temperature by some, it is more than enough to weaken steel beyond the point of a collapsing structure.


You either forgot to mention or don't realize that only 3 of the pieces out of the 170 they tested showed signs of having experienced 600 degrees C. At 600 degrees C the steel loses half of its strength and these few pieces at 600 degrees C were all perimeter steel, which was designed with a factor of safety of 5.00 considering gravity loads only.

None of the central core samples they tested exceeded 250 degrees C, where steel doesn't lose any strength.

So where is the physical evidence that the steel was weakened to the point of collapse?

When he spoke about it a couple of months ago, Dr. James Quintiere, the former head of NIST Fire Science division for 19 years and now a University of Maryland professor, also mentioned his concern about the lack of physical evidence for high enough steel temperatures to weaken the steel and cause collapse. He was upset that it seemed there had been a good bit of lawyering and less scientific work than he would have liked concerning the WTC report. He said he wished someone would peer review the NIST report because of these issues, and that we should all be conspiracy theorists in the right way. That is that we should not accept this report on face value as there are serious questions.

[twinstead]

We don't see you convincing anybody who understands this stuff that you are right, so why should we buy it?

This is my position in a nutshell. I am a layman. Even if I don't understand an argument, if it is not compelling to people who are experts in relevant fields, then I must assume it is crap.

What else can I do?

[beachnut]

I am not derailing. A fellow by the name of Beachnut brought this up.

The NIST attested to February 3, 1964 white paper which says 600 MPH trumps Leslie Robertson's recollections hands down and you know it.
Not one person can supply an engineer who worked on the WTC that said the building would withstand a hit from a 707 doing 600 mph. I can tell you many reasons why the impact study was on a slow moving aircraft in the fog, and not based on some terrorist flying planes past their placard speed. This is based on facts not bs from news sources or CT web sites. Sorry, but you are still wrong.

Robertson is the chief engineer, and you can never produce any quote from anyone on the WTC building team who said 600 mph. BTW, a 707 top speed at 700 feet is 355 KCAS, else Boeing removes the warranty.

I have looked up all your sources for 600 mph, and that number was added by a third party, not Skilling, not Robertson, not anyone with any first hand knowledge. Wrong you are still, and evermore.

Please try to find the real stuff next time you try to do a paper, you have flunked a peer review by this engineer, and I only have 34 years experience as an engineer.

Mark's work does not need a peer review, your work does.

[jsfisher]

You either forgot to mention or don't realize that...

No, I am just responding to your misleading claims. You made the base claim regarding high temperatures; I offered some perspective. Now, if you'd like to make another claim for discussion, do so, but don't accuse me of an omission that you yourself made, not me.

[jsfisher]

None of the central core samples they tested exceeded 250 degrees C, where steel doesn't lose any strength.

Yet another grossly misleading statement. NIST tested exactly 2 core columns specimens for paint cracking due to thermal expansion. This was the test used in the 250ºC determination.

Care to explain to the home audience why NIST tested only 2 specimens? Come on, it's not complicated.

[Tony Szamboti]

This is my position in a nutshell. I am a layman. Even if I don't understand an argument, if it is not compelling to people who are experts in relevant fields, then I must assume it is crap.

What else can I do?

Educate yourself and become an independent thinker. None of us should rely on whether the "experts" have taken an opinion or not. Most people, even if they are experts, haven't yet looked into what occurred on 911. I can tell you that you should read what Dr. James Quintiere said about the NIST report. Look at all of the facts from various viewpoints. You don't sound stupid. Use your own experience and intuition.

[DGM]

You either forgot to mention or don't realize that only 3 of the pieces out of the 170 they tested showed signs of having experienced 600 degrees C. At 600 degrees C the steel loses half of its strength and these few pieces at 600 degrees C were all perimeter steel, which was designed with a factor of safety of 5.00 considering gravity loads only.

None of the central core samples they tested exceeded 250 degrees C, where steel doesn't lose any strength.

So where is the physical evidence that the steel was weakened to the point of collapse?

When he spoke about it a couple of months ago, Dr. James Quintiere, the former head of NIST Fire Science division for 19 years and now a University of Maryland professor, also mentioned his concern about the lack of physical evidence for high enough steel temperatures to weaken the steel and cause collapse. He was upset that it seemed there had been a good bit of lawyering and less scientific work than he would have liked concerning the WTC report. He said he wished someone would peer review the NIST report because of these issues, and that we should all be conspiracy theorists in the right way. That is that we should not accept this report on face value as there are serious questions.
Care to tell us what Dr. James Quintiere has to say about the controlled demolition theories?

[Tony Szamboti]

Care to tell us what Dr. James Quintiere has to say about the controlled demolition theories?

Don't you wonder what he meant when he said we should all become conspiracy theorists in the right way. While he did not endorse controlled demolition he was certainly saying that he had major problems with the NIST report and that we should be questioning it.

Doesn't it cause you pause that NIST only got 1% of the steel to test? It did to Dr. Quintiere.

Doesn't it cause you pause that NIST found no physical evidence of high steel temperatures on over 97% of the steel they tested? It did to Dr. Quintiere.

[ConspiRaider]

Educate yourself and become an independent thinker. None of us should rely on whether the "experts" have taken an opinion or not. Most people, even if they are experts, haven't yet looked into what occurred on 911. I can tell you that you should read what Dr. James Quintiere said about the NIST report. Look at all of the facts from various viewpoints. You don't sound stupid. Use your own experience and intuition.
Would you consider this Quintiere person an expert? And if so, why should we listen to anything he and/or she says? You just said we should rely on our own experience and intuition.

You still haven't answered my question - or maybe I missed it. Very simple. If the impacts and their aftereffects did not collapse the towers - what did, in your non-expert opinion and intuition?

[Tony Szamboti]

Yet another grossly misleading statement. NIST tested exactly 2 core columns specimens for paint cracking due to thermal expansion. This was the test used in the 250ºC determination.

Care to explain to the home audience why NIST tested only 2 specimens? Come on, it's not complicated.

They also did microstructure testing and the paint doesn't need to be there for that. Nice try. So why did they only test 2 core column specimens?

[WildCat]

None of the central core samples they tested exceeded 250 degrees C, where steel doesn't lose any strength.
You clearly do not understand the NIST Report. I don't think their collapse scenario relied upon the core columns reaching high temperatures. In fact, photographs show the core columns standing a few seconds after the rest of the building collapsed around them.

You're really an engineer? I'm just a dumb home repair guy and I can figure this stuff out...

[DGM]

Don't you wonder what he meant when he said we should all become conspiracy theorists in the right way. While he did not endorse controlled demolition he was certainly saying that he had major problems with the NIST report and that we should be questioning it.

Doesn't it cause you pause that NIST only got 1% of the steel to test? It did to Dr. Quintiere.

Doesn't it cause you pause that NIST found no physical evidence of high steel temperatures on over 97% of the steel they tested? It did to Dr. Quintiere.
Don't care to answer my question? Answering a question with a question is so childish.

[ConspiRaider]

You clearly do not understand the NIST Report. I don't think itheir collapse scenario relied upon the core columns reaching high temperatures. In fact, photographs show the core columns standing a few seconds after the rest of the building collapsed around them.

You're really an engineer? I'm just a dumb home repair guy and I can figure this stuff out...
Actually Cat, you are NOT a dumb home repair guy. Even this Quintiere expert guy witness would have to conclude that your designed bathroom is an architectural showpiece! :)

[Tony Szamboti]

Would you consider this Quintiere person an expert? And if so, why should we listen to anything he and/or she says? You just said we should rely on our own experience and intuition.

You still haven't answered my question - or maybe I missed it. Very simple. If the impacts and their aftereffects did not collapse the towers - what did, in your non-expert opinion and intuition?



I said you should look at things from various viewpoints to come to your own conclusions and not to just rely on the opinions of experts. Yes, I do think Dr. Quintiere is an expert in his field. However, he also encourage thinking for ourselves and to question.

I have already made my opinion abudantly clear. I do believe the towers and Bldg. 7 were brought down with explosives and incendiaries and that the aircraft impacts were causal ruses to blame outsiders to justify the use of the U.S. military to remove the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq for oil.

[WildCat]

I do believe the towers and Bldg. 7 were brought down with explosives and incendiaries and that the aircraft impacts were causal ruses to blame outsiders to justify the use of the U.S. military to remove the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq for oil.
And there's just as much oil in Aghanistan as there were bombs in the WTC buildings!

[Calcas]

I do believe the towers and Bldg. 7 were brought down with explosives and incendiaries...

Now we're getting somewhere.

What evidence do you have to offer other than motive, etc. How could it have been accomplished?

Actually, you should start a new thread since this one is about Mark.

BTW, I thought you weren't going to debate this here. What changed your mind?

[T.A.M.]

ah but dont forget the magic pipeline...lol

TAM:)

[Tony Szamboti]

You clearly do not understand the NIST Report. I don't think their collapse scenario relied upon the core columns reaching high temperatures. In fact, photographs show the core columns standing a few seconds after the rest of the building collapsed around them.

You're really an engineer? I'm just a dumb home repair guy and I can figure this stuff out...

The NIST report claims that the core columns were sagging due to plasticity and creep. Now how could they claim that if they also don't claim that the temperatures were high enough to drop the modulus of elasticity?

The core columns you see standing were the interior or weakest core columns. Doesn't that cause you to question what happened to the exterior core columns, which were the strongest?

You apparently haven't figured anything out yet but I'm glad you don't suffer from a lack of self esteem.

[Tony Szamboti]

Now we're getting somewhere.

What evidence do you have to offer other than motive, etc. How could it have been accomplished?

Actually, you should start a new thread since this one is about Mark.

BTW, I thought you weren't going to debate this here. What changed your mind?


There is evidence for means, motive, and opportunity. Don't forget that the company which handled security for the WTC, Securacom, was bought by the Kuwaiti American co. in the mid 1990's and they installed Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker on the board and then installed a new security system. That is means and opportunity since it could be used as a cover for installing other things. I also would like to know the details of how a small elevator company like Ace Elevator Co. beat out the designer of the twin tower elevator system Otis Elevator Corp. for the maintenance contract, also in the mid 1990's. I would also like to know how much other work other than the twin towers Ace had during the time they had the contract for the twin towers. Core columns were accessible in an unseen way from the elevator shafts. It was reported in USA Today that the Ace mechanics left both buildings right after the second plane hit. Otis' mechanics did not do that in the 1993 bombing. They stayed to help people stuck in elevators.

You could say I like to talk about this issue as it is important to all of us.

[ConspiRaider]

I have already made my opinion abudantly clear. I do believe the towers and Bldg. 7 were brought down with explosives and incendiaries and that the aircraft impacts were causal ruses to blame outsiders to justify the use of the U.S. military to remove the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq for oil.
I see. Well, seems like an ironclad explanation. Airtight, even.

A question on the "rusers". On the day these phony hijacker plans were drawn up, do you think that maybe the conspirators didn't have their Wheaties that morning?

No I was just wondering because to me - my intuition tells me that if you wish to justify the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq by staging a "terrist" attack - you'd make the "terrists" all Afghanis and Iraqis. Right? Even stupid people aren't that dumb. So instead the "rusers" make 15 of the 19 Saudis, or ex-Saudis. And this makes sense - HOW?

[WildCat]

The NIST report claims that the core columns were sagging due to plasticity and creep.
No, the trusses connecting the core columns to the exterior columns sagged from the heat. This pulled the exterior columns inward. And the photographic evidence for the inward pulling of the exterior columns is indisputable. What sort of bombs pulls columns towards an explosion, I wonder?

[Tony Szamboti]

And there's just as much oil in Aghanistan as there were bombs in the WTC buildings!

I guess you forgot about the pipeline to the Caspian area that needs to go through Afghanistan. You know the one that Unocal wanted the Taliban to vacate the contract they had with the Bridas company from Argentina to build.

[Tony Szamboti]

No, the trusses connecting the core columns to the exterior columns sagged from the heat. This pulled the exterior columns inward. And the photographic evidence for the inward pulling of the exterior columns is indisputable. What sort of bombs pulls columns towards an explosion, I wonder?

One hint for you is to wonder how if the exterior core columns were destroyed could the inward bowing of the perimeter columns occur.

[WildCat]

I guess you forgot about the pipeline to the Caspian area that needs to go through Afghanistan. You know the one that Unocal wanted the Taliban to vacate the contract they had with the Bridas company from Argentina to build.
So now Unocal has a pipeline in Afghanistan?

[WildCat]

You sound like you need to read the NIST report.
What kind of bomb can pull a column towards it Tony?

[ConspiRaider]

What kind of bomb can pull a column towards it Tony?
I think it's called a Hoover bomb, Cat, looks like a canister vacuum cleaner. It explodes (or is it implodes?), and then pulls everything in. With the crevice attachment, you get more suck.

[Disbelief]

Why do you continue derailing your own thread Real? Why are you engaging in debate here with others, but will not do so with Gravy in a moderated thread?

[T.A.M.]

I guess you forgot about the pipeline to the Caspian area that needs to go through Afghanistan. You know the one that Unocal wanted the Taliban to vacate the contract they had with the Bridas company from Argentina to build.

SO do I get the Million Dollars? My reference to the Pipeline before realcddeal, was sort of implying that he would bring this up...and he did.

TAM;)

[Calcas]

Why do you continue derailing your own thread Real? Why are you engaging in debate here with others, but will not do so with Gravy in a moderated thread?

I agree.

I requested earlier that he start a new thread...

[ConspiRaider]

SO do I get the Million Dollars? My reference to the Pipeline before realcddeal, was sort of implying that he would bring this up...and he did.

TAM;)
I vote yes, Doc. I'm a gonna run go tell J Randi that you get the prize for Remote Piping.

[Tony Szamboti]

I see. Well, seems like an ironclad explanation. Airtight, even.

A question on the "rusers". On the day these phony hijacker plans were drawn up, do you think that maybe the conspirators didn't have their Wheaties that morning?

No I was just wondering because to me - my intuition tells me that if you wish to justify the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq by staging a "terrist" attack - you'd make the "terrists" all Afghanis and Iraqis. Right? Even stupid people aren't that dumb. So instead the "rusers" make 15 of the 19 Saudis, or ex-Saudis. And this makes sense - HOW?

This was a dilemma for me also until I learned what the Able Danger program was all about. I now believe the Saudis were actually agents working with people here in the Able Danger program. In reality they were used as patsies like Lee Harvey Oswald, who it is well documented was a low level intelligence agent. I don't think they knew they were going to die.

[Tony Szamboti]

I agree.

I requested earlier that he start a new thread...

You are right I should start a new thread. In answer to why I won't debate Mark Roberts (Gravy) here is that he appears to be disingenuous and it seems can only be dealt with a debate off of this forum which he uses to his advantage.

I will end my posts on this thread here so I will not be answering here any longer.

[ConspiRaider]

This was a dilemma for me also until I learned what the Able Danger program was all about. I now believe the Saudis were actually agents working with people here in the Able Danger program. In reality they were used as patsies like Lee Harvey Oswald, who it is well documented was a low level intelligence agent. I don't think they knew they were going to die.
So it's all about levels? As in, low level intelligence agents don't know they are going to die, but high level agents do? I think I'd rather not know, personally. I think right before my annual review, I'd start screwing up in small ways, here and there, to avoid getting that glowing review and the inevitable promotion to a Higher Level. I really don't want to know when "they" are going to off me in some world-shaking cause.

[jsfisher]

They also did microstructure testing and the paint doesn't need to be there for that. Nice try.

And again you try to mislead. How consistent of you. Yes, NIST did microstructure testing, but there the exposed temperature limit was 600 degrees, not the 250 degrees you are trying to imply. There is nothing in the NIST findings to support your claims or innuendo the steel didn't get hot enough for the eventual collapse of the towers.

So why did they only test 2 core column specimens?

You read the NIST report, didn't you? It's right there in black and white.

[tsig]

There is evidence for means, motive, and opportunity. Don't forget that the company which handled security for the WTC, Securacom, was bought by the Kuwaiti American co. in the mid 1990's and they installed Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker on the board and then installed a new security system. That is means and opportunity since it could be used as a cover for installing other things. I also would like to know the details of how a small elevator company like Ace Elevator Co. beat out the designer of the twin tower elevator system Otis Elevator Corp. for the maintenance contract, also in the mid 1990's. I would also like to know how much other work other than the twin towers Ace had during the time they had the contract for the twin towers. Core columns were accessible in an unseen way from the elevator shafts. It was reported in USA Today that the Ace mechanics left both buildings right after the second plane hit. Otis' mechanics did not do that in the 1993 bombing. They stayed to help people stuck in elevators.

You could say I like to talk about this issue as it is important to all of us.

So the Ace Elevator guys moonlight as explosives experts?

Why don't you do some work and find out your own answers?

[Mr.Herbert]

It was reported in USA Today that the Ace mechanics left both buildings right after the second plane hit. Otis' mechanics did not do that in the 1993 bombing. They stayed to help people stuck in elevators.

Did you read the entire article?
On Sept. 11, the elevator mechanics — many of the same men involved in the rescues in 1993 — left the buildings after the second jet struck, nearly an hour before the first building collapsed.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/usat-mechanics.htm

It appears that many of mechanics that were working for Otis, accepted positions with ACE after they took over the contract.

[tsig]

I think it's called a Hoover bomb, Cat, looks like a canister vacuum cleaner. It explodes (or is it implodes?), and then pulls everything in. With the crevice attachment, you get more suck.

A Suck-A-Bomb?

[Architect]

According to Gravy, since Rodriguez is a liar and a denialist, then of course it must have been jet fuel in the elevator shafts which caused the explosion he heard. There are no other options.



(cough) not a real word (cough)

[jhunter1163]

Don't forget that the company which handled security for the WTC, Securacom, was bought by the Kuwaiti American co. in the mid 1990's and they installed Marvin Bush and Wirt Walker on the board.

Didn't they get uninstalled in 2000?

[Tony Szamboti]

Did you read the entire article?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/usat-mechanics.htm

It appears that many of mechanics that were working for Otis, accepted positions with ACE after they took over the contract.


Yes, I read the entire article.

While the ACE supervisor said they followed their own procedures in leaving after the second plane hit the South Tower, Port Authority procedures required them to stay and help firefighters and police. The fact that some of them were former Otis mechanics doesn't mean anything. You don't know who was running ACE elevator and how it could have been infiltrated and somehow involved. They weren't all former Otis employees were they?

[Tony Szamboti]

[QUOTE=jhunter1163;3056661]Didn't they get uninstalled in 2000?[/QUOTE

Only Marvin Bush. Wirt Walker was still on Securacom's board until January 2002. The security system was installed in the late 1990's. Who can say that any other work couldn't be done at the same time.

[jhunter1163]

You don't know who was running ACE elevator and how it could have been infiltrated and somehow involved. They weren't all former Otis employees were they?

Do you even read what you post? You're talking about government infiltration of an elevator company.

I spit my Coke on my monitor when I read that. I mean, I've read some paranoiac rantings before, but that takes the cake.

[Mr.Herbert]

McDeal you said Otis' mechanics did not do that in the 1993 bombing



So ,are you saying that some of the newer mechanics were actually practicing demolition workers?...

In all the buildings where I have been the facilities director, if one mechanic sees another placing a bomb in the hoistways, they may say something.

Since all buildings are required by state law (yes the Port Authoirty too) to have annual state inspections, I would find it hard for them to conceal bombs within the hoistways from inspectors.

[Mancman]

Only Marvin Bush. Wirt Walker was still on Securacom's board until January 2002. The security system was installed in the late 1990's. Who can say that any other work couldn't be done at the same time.

Prove Wirt Walker is related to the Bush family.

[ConspiRaider]

Didn't they get uninstalled in 2000?
Yep. However, I must caution you that implying such a fact has anything to do with anything can be construed as shill-like behavior.

Because as Gravy indicated, although Manhattan does NOT have one third of all elevators, it DOES have one third of all elevator operators in the world. They are currently on 12s and 12s. That's 12 minutes on, 12 days off.

Now what do you think they do on those 12 days off? Hmmmmm? Idle hands do the devil's work. And so it is inevitable that these restless elevator operators would spend their off time installing vacuum-cleaner suck bombs in the cavernous elevator shafts of the WTC. I mean, wouldn't you? See?

[Newtons Bit]

One hint for you is to wonder how if the exterior core columns were destroyed could the inward bowing of the perimeter columns occur.

You really don't get this mechanism do you? Two things contributed to the inward pulling of the perimeter columns:

1) Core column damage. When a core column is severed the trusses carry the load that is on the column. The trusses cannot carry this in bending, as they are simply supported by the columns. The core column drops and the trusses rotate and the top chords extend to a maximum of 3% strain. I'm using 3% as it is the limit strain that A36 steel can undergo and because it lowers the amount of horizontal load in the system compared to less strain. What's left is a column being held up by trusses that are now tension only elements and connected to an exterior column on one end and a interior column on the other.

We can do a quick check and see how far it should drop. Since it's a right triangle,
drop^2 = 1.03^2 - 1.0^2
drop = 0.247

If the total length between the supporting column and the failed core column is 60ft, then the total drop is 14 ft. Which is about one floor-to-floor height. From this, we can tell that there was enough residual strength in the trusses to not have to undergo 3% strain.

We can also calculate how much thrust, or inwards pulling this creates on the exterior column. Simply calculated, it's 1/0.247 times the vertical load, or 4.04 times the vertical load of the core column. That's a lot of force. A truss that has less strain has less deflection but also puts more load on the outwards columns.

In addition to this, the concrete slab cracks due to large deflections. This has an added bonus of severely weakening all other trusses on that floor. They will undergo large deflections and most likely fail in bending before the fire is taken into account. This has an added bonus of removing the lateral support to the exterior columns. These exterior columns now have an unsupported length of 28'8" rather than the original 14'4". My engineering intuition tells me that there is no way a 16x16 tube (which is approximately what the exterior columns) with an unbraced length of 28'8" will be able to carry this load.

2) The fires cause no damaged trusses to yield. They deflect and become tension only members. Similar to the above, horizontal load is generated from this deflection that is at least 4 times the original gravity load.

This should be pretty simple for an engineer such as yourself to figure out.

[RedIbis]

(cough) not a real word (cough)

(cough) better tell Gravy.(cough)

I hadn't heard of it either until I started seeing it around here.

[e^n]

The NIST report claims that the core columns were sagging due to plasticity and creep. Now how could they claim that if they also don't claim that the temperatures were high enough to drop the modulus of elasticity?

Could you please be more specific about which columns NIST simulated as having 'steel weakening' temperatures (ie enough to affect YM by an appreciable amount) vs which they have actually tested? I was unaware there were any contradictions between their simulation and the steel testing results?

[Architect]

You really don't get this mechanism do you? Two things contributed to the inward pulling of the perimeter columns:

1) Core column damage. When a core column is severed the trusses carry the load that is on the column. The trusses cannot carry this in bending, as they are simply supported by the columns. The core column drops and the trusses rotate and the top chords extend to a maximum of 3% strain. I'm using 3% as it is the limit strain that A36 steel can undergo and because it lowers the amount of horizontal load in the system compared to less strain. What's left is a column being held up by trusses that are now tension only elements and connected to an exterior column on one end and a interior column on the other.

We can do a quick check and see how far it should drop. Since it's a right triangle,
drop^2 = 1.03^2 - 1.0^2
drop = 0.247

If the total length between the supporting column and the failed core column is 60ft, then the total drop is 14 ft. Which is about one floor-to-floor height. From this, we can tell that there was enough residual strength in the trusses to not have to undergo 3% strain.

We can also calculate how much thrust, or inwards pulling this creates on the exterior column. Simply calculated, it's 1/0.247 times the vertical load, or 4.04 times the vertical load of the core column. That's a lot of force. A truss that has less strain has less deflection but also puts more load on the outwards columns.

In addition to this, the concrete slab cracks due to large deflections. This has an added bonus of severely weakening all other trusses on that floor. They will undergo large deflections and most likely fail in bending before the fire is taken into account. This has an added bonus of removing the lateral support to the exterior columns. These exterior columns now have an unsupported length of 28'8" rather than the original 14'4". My engineering intuition tells me that there is no way a 16x16 tube (which is approximately what the exterior columns) with an unbraced length of 28'8" will be able to carry this load.

2) The fires cause no damaged trusses to yield. They deflect and become tension only members. Similar to the above, horizontal load is generated from this deflection that is at least 4 times the original gravity load.

This should be pretty simple for an engineer such as yourself to figure out.

Jings, this is just like a design team meeting.....



....well, except for the imperial crap, obviously

[Corsair 115]

Explain to me why an airliner under realistic circumstances - ANY AIRLINER - would be traveling at 600 miles per hour over Manhattan Island at one thousand feet?The above is a very important point which realcddeal still has yet to address. Why on earth would the designers of a building design it to withstand situations that are vastly out of the range of what one might expect to be a realistic scenario when the buildings were first designed?

[technoextreme]

So you know that NIST saw that white paper and that it said the towers would survive an impact by a large jet liner (Boeing 707 or DC-8) moving at 600 MPH. It was NIST who said it, not some newspaper reporter as you have claimed in the past, but you still say it is hearsay.

John Skilling also said that there would be a horrendous fire, due to the aircraft impact, but that the analysis said the building would still be there. Is that hearsay also?
Actually this is a lie. The NIST says they have never seen that white paper and propbably never will. All we have is circumstantial evidence that some type of calculations were done. Without the paper and anyalsis we can not prove anything either way. It's just an irrelevant piece of information because all it is now an anecdote.

[A W Smith]

Jings, this is just like a design team meeting.....



....well, except for the imperial crap, obviously

We like our modules of four :D
hey! they got metric gyp bd over there?

[Architect]

The above is a very important point which realcddeal still has yet to address. Why on earth would the designers of a building design it to withstand situations that are vastly out of the range of what one might expect to be a realistic scenario when the buildings were first designed?

The recognised term is "reasonable risk" or, in some countries, "credible risk". Aircraft impacts were not considered such and the designers' acceptance (or otherwise) of such a scenario was a matter for them alone. Moreover because the risk had not been recognised and thus reflected in building standards, there was not a design benchmark and caution must be exercised in considering any claims as to adequacy (or otherwise).

Following both the Oklahoma Bombing and the WTC attack, the Eurocode has been revised to place limits on progressive collapse (inasmuch as can be reasonably modelled) and review redundancy requirements.

[Architect]

We like our modules of four :D
hey! they got metric gyp bd over there?

I assume you know fine that standard thickness is 12.5mm then? ;)

[Plantfoam]

No, the trusses connecting the core columns to the exterior columns sagged from the heat. This pulled the exterior columns inward. And the photographic evidence for the inward pulling of the exterior columns is indisputable. What sort of bombs pulls columns towards an explosion, I wonder?

I think we just inadvertently gave birth to the 9/11 miniature black hole theory:boggled:

[A W Smith]

I assume you know fine that standard thickness is 12.5mm then? ;)


yeah I tend to overdrive the screws in a failed attempt to make it an even 12 :D

[Cl1mh4224rd]

One hint for you is to wonder how if the exterior core columns were destroyed could the inward bowing of the perimeter columns occur.


Uhh... Most, if not all, of the bowing occurred either opposite the point of impact or perpendicular to it. Damaged or destroyed core columns wouldn't even come into play.

[jhunter1163]

Yep. However, I must caution you that implying such a fact has anything to do with anything can be construed as shill-like behavior.

Because as Gravy indicated, although Manhattan does NOT have one third of all elevators, it DOES have one third of all elevator operators in the world. They are currently on 12s and 12s. That's 12 minutes on, 12 days off.

Now what do you think they do on those 12 days off? Hmmmmm? Idle hands do the devil's work. And so it is inevitable that these restless elevator operators would spend their off time installing vacuum-cleaner suck bombs in the cavernous elevator shafts of the WTC. I mean, wouldn't you? See?

Well, if it was me, I'd spend my 12 days off wooing Violeta McWhifferkugel, but that's just me.

[Dave Rogers]

You either forgot to mention or don't realize that only 3 of the pieces out of the 170 they tested showed signs of having experienced 600 degrees C.

While we're talking about things people forgot to mention, did you forget to mention that none of the core samples NIST analysed were from the floors where the highest fire temperatures were predicted, and did you also forget to mention that the temperatures determined from NIST's testing were in good agreement with the predictions of their thermal model? You see, if you didn't remember to say those things, you'd be suggesting that NIST's own analysis didn't agree with its own modelling results, and that might be considered a very misleading suggestion given that in fact they agreed very well.

Dave

[Architect]

yeah I tend to overdrive the screws in a failed attempt to make it an even 12 :D

Just a minute, are you working on one of my sites............:p

[twinstead]

Educate yourself and become an independent thinker. None of us should rely on whether the "experts" have taken an opinion or not. Most people, even if they are experts, haven't yet looked into what occurred on 911. I can tell you that you should read what Dr. James Quintiere said about the NIST report. Look at all of the facts from various viewpoints. You don't sound stupid. Use your own experience and intuition.

Get real, sir. I have NO hope of trying to understand the collapse using 'experience and intuition'.

Explain to me why the world's experts are against you. Do you imply that the only reason why the world's experts don't come out against the government is because they "haven't looked into it"?

I don't go to my daughters' school janitor for medical advice. I go a doctor. And if I am told something by a non doctor that is denied categorically by the vast majority of the world's doctors I perk my ears up. Is it simply because they haven't looked into it? Who knows. That's why I actually ASK THE EXPERTS WHAT THEY THINK. Don't you?

Your movement could care less what experts think. Unless they are one of the very few who support you, then you are all over them.

[peteweaver]

So you know that NIST saw that white paper and that it said the towers would survive an impact by a large jet liner (Boeing 707 or DC-8) moving at 600 MPH. It was NIST who said it, not some newspaper reporter as you have claimed in the past, but you still say it is hearsay.

John Skilling also said that there would be a horrendous fire, due to the aircraft impact, but that the analysis said the building would still be there. Is that hearsay also?

The towers were not designed to withstand a 600mph impact, they were designed to withstand a 180 mph impact.

Conspiracy theorists have widely exaggerated the specification.

Here's what Leslie E Robertson had to say about it :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/leslie_robertson/

The towers were designed to cope with the scenario of an airliner getting lost in fog and accidentally crashing whilst coming into land. Planes coming into land fly at 180mph or less, because their undercarriage is lowered.

At 600mph the kinetic energy transfer is much greater, and so a lot more structural damage would be caused.

Also, the effect of fuel load was not considered.

And the WTC's are not the first structures to have failed.
In Austria, snow caused the roof of a much more modern structure to fail and that resulted in many deaths. In China, a shopping mall collapsed, despite the fact that it had not been designed to do so.

At a pink floyd concert in earls court a stand collapsed injuring 96 people
http://www.brain-damage.co.uk/concerts/pink-floyd-1994-earls-court-seating-collapse-report-2.html

That was not designed to do that, but it wasn't a conspiracy which caused it to fail.

[Quad4_72]

Now we're getting somewhere.

What evidence do you have to offer other than motive, etc. How could it have been accomplished?



My guess would be that his evidence consists of his poor recall of a History channel presentation that he saw a few years ago...

[Bell]

In China, a shopping mall collapsed, despite the fact that it had not been designed to do so.

I think you are talking about the Sampoong Department Store (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampoong_Department_Store_collapse) in Seoul?

[LashL]

While the ACE supervisor said they followed their own procedures in leaving after the second plane hit the South Tower, Port Authority procedures required them to stay and help firefighters and police.

From the article you linked, it appears that they followed protocol by going to the fire command center in the south tower after the first plane hit the north tower, but then left in the widespread pandemonium that is described after the second plane hit the south tower. This doesn't seem unreasonable in the circumstances. They are not firefighters, police officers, or EMTs, and had they stayed, they would likely have died.

The fact that some of them were former Otis mechanics doesn't mean anything.

Then why did you make a point of insinuating that the ACE mechanics on site in 2001 were different people than the Otis mechanics in 1993 and insinuating that had Otis mechanics been there in 2001, they would not have left? They did leave, and many of them were the very same people who were there in 1993.

You don't know who was running ACE elevator and how it could have been infiltrated and somehow involved.

Since you seem to think there is something nefarious about ACE, and since you seem to be accusing them of some kind of complicity in mass murder, how about you tell us who was running ACE, and how you think it could have been "infiltrated", and by whom? It is disgraceful to just toss out unsubstantiated accusations of complicity in mass murder against innocent people, you know.

They weren't all former Otis employees were they?

Probably not, since Ace was a competitor to Otis, but so what? What exactly are you accusing them of, and on what basis?

[Tony Szamboti]

From the article you linked, it appears that they followed protocol by going to the fire command center in the south tower after the first plane hit the north tower, but then left in the widespread pandemonium that is described after the second plane hit the south tower. This doesn't seem unreasonable in the circumstances. They are not firefighters, police officers, or EMTs, and had they stayed, they would likely have died.




Then why did you make a point of insinuating that the ACE mechanics on site in 2001 were different people than the Otis mechanics in 1993 and insinuating that had Otis mechanics been there in 2001, they would not have left? They did leave, and many of them were the very same people who were there in 1993.



Since you seem to think there is something nefarious about ACE, and since you seem to be accusing them of some kind of complicity in mass murder, how about you tell us who was running ACE, and how you think it could have been "infiltrated", and by whom? It is disgraceful to just toss out unsubstantiated accusations of complicity in mass murder against innocent people, you know.



Probably not, since Ace was a competitor to Otis, but so what? What exactly are you accusing them of, and on what basis?

I am saying the behaviour was suspicious and should have been investigated. It wasn't. The article did not say they went to the fire station although that is what the Port Authority procedure called for them to do. It says the firefighters went to the elevator communication desk and set it up as a command center. The firefighters had to call the elevator mechanics back and only the two supervisors were coming back.

[LashL]

I am saying the behaviour was suspicious and should have been investigated.

What was suspicious about it?

The article did not say they went to the fire station although that is what the Port Authority procedure called for them to do. It says the firefighters went to the elevator communication desk and set it up as a command center. The firefighters had to call the elevator mechanics back and only the two supervisors were coming back.
[my bolding]

Do you not even read the articles you post yourself? It most certainly does say that they went to the fire command station:

He says ACE followed the Trade Center's emergency plan. After a jet hit the north tower, 81 crewmembers reported to the fire command station in the south tower lobby. Two reported by radio. "We did a head count and were ready to deploy for rescue. The second plane hit. It was chaotic, people screaming and yelling," Baamonde says. "You couldn't get out the front door because debris was falling. There was a mass exodus through the underground of the complex."
The elevator crew joined the underground exodus. The south tower fell about 56 minutes later.ETA: Now, please answer the questions I raised above in response to your prior post. Please do so directly rather than dodging and weaving and changing the subject. You made accusations and insinuations and you have been asked to back them up. Saying "it was suspicious" is not sufficient. Please answer the questions directly.

[A W Smith]

I am saying the behaviour was suspicious and should have been investigated. It wasn't. The article did not say they went to the fire station although that is what the Port Authority procedure called for them to do. It says the firefighters went to the elevator communication desk and set it up as a command center. The firefighters had to call the elevator mechanics back and only the two supervisors were coming back.


suspicious?? your incredible!!! the impacts cut the cables and the elevators were crashing to the ground!!! Do you have any idea what the scene was in the lobbies? What should they have done?? what COULD they have done? They are elevator mechanics not firefighters and EMS workers. best option was to GTFO of the building and run as far away as they could and stay out of the way of the FD and EMS workers.

[eeyore1954]

Don't you wonder what he meant when he said we should all become conspiracy theorists in the right way. While he did not endorse controlled demolition he was certainly saying that he had major problems with the NIST report and that we should be questioning it.

Doesn't it cause you pause that NIST only got 1% of the steel to test? It did to Dr. Quintiere.

Doesn't it cause you pause that NIST found no physical evidence of high steel temperatures on over 97% of the steel they tested? It did to Dr. Quintiere.

This has probably been mentioned to you but I think Dr Quintiere believes the fires were hot enough to have caused the collapse without the removal of the fire proofing
Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/150907_nist_investigate_911.html

[SDC]

Now one is reduced to accusing the elevator companies?? How are the mighty fallen... (no, no, poor phrasing, not the right image...)

What's next, the guys who sold the greasy coffee and stale bagels from the sidewalk carts? Hmm.. Some of them are from Arab countries...

[volatile]

Why is it that whenever one point is refuted, he just randomly picks another one and carries on as if nothing happened?

What was that about a pipeline, RCDD?

[Myriad]

I am saying the behaviour was suspicious and should have been investigated. It wasn't. The article did not say they went to the fire station although that is what the Port Authority procedure called for them to do. It says the firefighters went to the elevator communication desk and set it up as a command center. The firefighters had to call the elevator mechanics back and only the two supervisors were coming back.


You know, there's a reason we call the firefighters and police officers heroes. It's because they stayed in an obviously incredibly dangerous place when ordinary people, people like elevator technicians who probably are not accustomed to anticipating that their lives might be put in danger each time they begin a work day, were trying their best to get out of there.

If the elevator technicians' behavior was suspicious, then please describe what ordinary unsuspicious behavior you would have expected instead. Was the firefighters' and police officers' behavior ordinary? Were there any heroes there, realcddeal?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Corsair 115]

Explain to me why an airliner under realistic circumstances - ANY AIRLINER - would be traveling at 600 miles per hour over Manhattan Island at one thousand feet? ConspiRaider and I are still waiting for you to attempt to answer this, realcddeal.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

(cough) better tell Gravy.(cough)

I hadn't heard of it either until I started seeing it around here.
"denialist" is a word in the vernacular, used, for example, on denalism.com and urbandictionary.com; but is not recognized on m-w.com or wikipedia.com.

So, it falls in to the same category as "googling" did until a few years ago.

[Calcas]

You know, there's a reason we call the firefighters and police officers heroes. It's because they stayed in an obviously incredibly dangerous place when ordinary people, people like elevator technicians who probably are not accustomed to anticipating that their lives might be put in danger each time they begin a work day, were trying their best to get out of there.

If the elevator technicians' behavior was suspicious, then please describe what ordinary unsuspicious behavior you would have expected instead. Was the firefighters' and police officers' behavior ordinary? Were there any heroes there, realcddeal?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Thank you.

I would have ran like hell myself.

My family is too important and my job description doesn't include trying to be a hero.

[Gravy]

What's next, the guys who sold the greasy coffee and stale bagels from the sidewalk carts? Hmm.. Some of them are from Arab countries...From my John Schroeder paper:

Confirmation bias is something we all have to be aware of. That's when we rely on results that fit our theories and discard those that don't. For example, after the fact, you found it suspicious that the Muslim fruit vendor wasn't there on 9/11. But you may not have noticed the other times he wasn't there, because those weren't exceptional days. You also need to consider that he may have been doing what many other people were doing that morning: taking their kids to their first day of school or voting in the Mayoral primary election.