[Split]Fireproofing, Steel and NIST - split from: [Merged]LCFC Errors / Loose Chang

[Malmoesoldier]

Something struck me as unusual during the Kevin Ryan interview. They show them making the model for the floors and all of that, but there is one problem. They had the fireproofing still in tact, although all throughout the floors of the impact zone the fireproofing was knocked off.

Just something i spotted.

NIST has no evidence that the fireproofing was knocked off.

WTC had 8cm fireproofing. one of the floor models only had 1cm fireproofing. it takes 1-2 hours for the fireproofing to be destroyed. The floor models UL did where 700 Celsius under 210 min. Maybe your "debunking" sites didnt tell you that?. So yes the floor models survived hotter and longer fires then those in the towers without collapsing.

And its funny how noboy mentions that NIST only had 236 pieces of steel to investigate from WTC1 and WTC2. And 0 pieces of steel from WTC7.

The first day in historry a skyscraper collapses because of fire 3 does it in the same day. and all the evidence gets destoyed. you dont find that suspicious? :confused: please show me the law allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

[Disbelief]

NIST has no evidence that the fireproofing was knocked off.

WTC had 8cm fireproofing. one of the floor models only had 1cm fireproofing. it takes 1-2 hours for the fireproofing to be destroyed. The floor models UL did where 700 Celsius under 210 min. Maybe your "debunking" sites didnt tell you that?. So yes the floor models survived hotter and longer fires then those in the towers without collapsing.

And its funny how noboy mentions that NIST only had 236 pieces of steel to investigate from WTC1 and WTC2. And 0 pieces of steel from WTC7.

The first day in historry a skyscraper collapses because of fire 3 does it in the same day. and all the evidence gets destoyed. you dont find that suspicious? :confused: please show me the law allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.


Please use the search function. Your questions are answered many times over here. Welcome to the forum.

[uk_dave]

Welcome to the forum.

NIST has no evidence that the fireproofing was knocked off.

There's no evidence to suggest that the fireproofing survived the impact either. But if you put aside your 'truther' preconception that anything other than the official account must be true, then it would be a logical assumption that an impact sufficient to damage and destroy structural steel members is perfectly capable of damaging and destroying non-structural fireproofing.


WTC had 8cm fireproofing. one of the floor models only had 1cm fireproofing. it takes 1-2 hours for the fireproofing to be destroyed. The floor models UL did where 700 Celsius under 210 min. Maybe your "debunking" sites didnt tell you that?. So yes the floor models survived hotter and longer fires then those in the towers without collapsing.

It may well take 1-2 hours for the fireproofing to be destroyed by FIRE. What does this have to do with thin sections of steel (the floor trusses) being left exposed to fire once the plane impact damaged/destroyed that very same fireproofing?


And its funny how noboy mentions that NIST only had 236 pieces of steel to investigate from WTC1 and WTC2. And 0 pieces of steel from WTC7.

Anything for a laugh.

No one died in wtc7. No one was buried under wtc7.
Wtc 7 was, however, a major hindrance to the recovery of victims from the pile.

If only they'd known on the day that six years later the lack of steel from wtc7 would be the holy grail for those desperate to believe that there is a conspiracy afoot.


The first day in historry a skyscraper collapses because of fire 3 does it in the same day. and all the evidence gets destoyed. you dont find that

How many times in history have passenger aircraft been flown...oh well, you know the drill.

[MetalliSociety]

From NIST:

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

Bolding mine.

[Mangoose]

NIST has no evidence that the fireproofing was knocked off.


Yes they did, they published quite a few pre-collapse pictures of steel members without fireproofing, where the red Tnemec undercoat is visible.

[Malmoesoldier]

I have no problem with people that are skeptic but it makes me laugh when people try to explain the collapse with the NIST report. the NIST report is ony speculation not fact. NIST has not been able to explain the collapse because of the destruction of the steel. they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. And they have refused to release the computer model showing the collapse. time to demand a new investigation.

[MetalliSociety]

And what do you get you info. from if you don't mind me asking.

[16.5]

"WTC had 8cm fireproofing."

BWHAHAHAHA! It seems like somebody needs a lesson on "as designed" and "as built."

Former Union Insulator.

[tsig]

"WTC had 8cm fireproofing."

BWHAHAHAHA! It seems like somebody needs a lesson on "as designed" and "as built."

Former Union Insulator.

We are talking to people who have never touched a tool.

[Brainache]

We are talking to people who have never touched a tool.


...er...

Nah I won't do that joke. Too easy.

[Malmoesoldier]

"WTC had 8cm fireproofing."

BWHAHAHAHA! It seems like somebody needs a lesson on "as designed" and "as built."

Former Union Insulator.

WTC had 3.25 inches fireproofing. NCSTAR 1-6A, figure A-60, p 241.

We are talking to people who have never touched a tool.

Im talking to a guy that doesn't understand the NIST report.

[Malmoesoldier]

Inspection of the temperature charts in NIST NCSTAR 1-5 (p. 112-127) reveals that, for WTC 1, the core areas of stories 92 to 99 (which spans the plane impact area and within which is the presumed collapse initiation region) had cooled down substantially prior to collapse. The core area was hottest at the 30- and 45- minute readings, yet collapse did not occur until 102 minutes had elapsed, by which time the environment of the core had dropped to be mainly in the range 100°C to 600°C.
Roughly half the area is shown in shades of blue, indicating temperatures no higher than 150°C. If the temperature of the columns was still rising at the time of collapse, the column temperature would have been no higher than the environment temperature and the steel would obviously be far too strong to collapse. If the temperature of the columns was falling at the time of collapse, the columns had already survived the period when the steel was hottest. In this case, given that steel regains strength as it cools, it is clear that core collapse due to heat had become impossible.
The charts depicting the temperature of the columns (p. 144-157) confirm that the steel had become too cold to collapse. The highest core column temperatures are shown for stories 95, 96 and 97. On these floors the highest column temperatures were achieved at about 50 minutes and cooling occurred thereafter. We also see the perimeter columns were cool at collapse: most of the perimeter and core columns are depicted in blue and green, indicating temperatures ranging from 150°C to 350°C. At these temperatures the column steel would have from about 80% to 90% of its normal yield strength, according to NIST's chart (NIST NCSTAR 1-3, P. 111). At this strength, given the built in safety factor, approximately every second column could be removed and the tower would still stand.
The hat truss and most of the perimeter, including four corners, were intact, forming a rigid structure, which would prevent the core from leaning, thus all core columns would have to give way simultaneously for collapse to occur. Clearly some additional factor was necessary to bring about collapse.

[twinstead]

Malmoesoldier do you think you are the only one who understands the NIST report?

[Malmoesoldier]

Malmoesoldier do you think you are the only one who understands the NIST report?

No but ALOT of people tries to explain the collapse with the NIST report. When in fact the NIST report dont explains the collapse.

[Gravy]

Helo, Malmoesoldier. Welcome to the forums.

WTC had 3.25 inches fireproofing. NCSTAR 1-6A, figure A-60, p 241.That's incorrect. You're referring to two sections of add-on insulation in a region that covered a portion of the north tower, after it was decided to increase truss insulation to 1.5 inches minimum when new construction was done. Of course you know which tower fell first.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790473a3b61bcfed.jpg

Im talking to a guy that doesn't understand the NIST report.Be careful there, okay?

[Gravy]

No but ALOT of people tries to explain the collapse with the NIST report. When in fact the NIST report dont explains the collapse.Yes, it does. If you believe they got it wrong, start a new thread, present your case, and be specific. Be sure not to misrepresent what's in the report: you will not fool us.

You'll probably want to use the forum search function first. We've been discussing these things for a long time.

[Disbelief]

Roughly half the area is shown in shades of blue, indicating temperatures no higher than 150°C. If the temperature of the columns was still rising at the time of collapse, the column temperature would have been no higher than the environment temperature and the steel would obviously be far too strong to collapse. If the temperature of the columns was falling at the time of collapse, the columns had already survived the period when the steel was hottest. In this case, given that steel regains strength as it cools, it is clear that core collapse due to heat had become impossible.

What makes you think that the steel regained it's strength as it cooled? Why would it not become more brittle, so fracture would be more likely? I am not saying this is right, but hardening steel by heat makes it more durable, but more brittle.

[Malmoesoldier]

Gravy. The floor models had less fireproofing then WTC, therefore NIST cannot argue that ASTM E119 tests were meant to show how important the fire proofing was in preventing building collapse.

And no NIST cant explain the collapse. You should know that.

the NIST report is ony speculation not fact. NIST has not been able to explain the collapse because of the destruction of the steel. they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. And they have refused to release the computer model showing the collapse. time to demand a new investigation.

[TerryUK]

Why would it not become more brittle, so fracture would be more likely? I am not saying this is right, but hardening steel by heat makes it more durable, but more brittle.

That wouldn't happen because the steel in question is a pretty low carbon steel - it can't get brittle by that heating.
Heat hardening would only apply to high carbon types of steel.

But in any case, the effect would be rather to anneal the steel rather than harden it, because we're talking about a slow cooling from red heat to a lower temp. This is a good way to reduce those stresses in the steel...

[DGM]

That wouldn't happen because the steel in question is a pretty low carbon steel - it can't get brittle by that heating.
Heat hardening would only apply to high carbon types of steel.

But in any case, the effect would be rather to anneal the steel rather than harden it, because we're talking about a slow cooling from red heat to a lower temp. This is a good way to reduce those stresses in the steel...
Your right. The big issue here is the expansion and contraction. The trusses would not deal with this well.

[Disbelief]

That wouldn't happen because the steel in question is a pretty low carbon steel - it can't get brittle by that heating.
Heat hardening would only apply to high carbon types of steel.

But in any case, the effect would be rather to anneal the steel rather than harden it, because we're talking about a slow cooling from red heat to a lower temp. This is a good way to reduce those stresses in the steel...

This would be true for the large beams, but what about the bolts?

[TerryUK]

This would be true for the large beams, but what about the bolts?

Ok, the bolts may be high-tensile and therefor more susceptible to heat in terms of hardening, but what I mentioned earlier would still apply.

The cooling would have to be fairly rapid to make them "brittle".
Remember that any bolts would be in tight contact with a larger mass, and from a thermal point of view, that would prevent the fast cooling needed to cause any embrittlement.

The bolts could lose some tensile strength however, under certain circumstances.

[R.Mackey]

Gravy. The floor models had less fireproofing then WTC, therefore NIST cannot argue that ASTM E119 tests were meant to show how important the fire proofing was in preventing building collapse.

NIST doesn't argue this. NCSTAR1-5B and 1-5G are the primary places where NIST shows this. As we've explained to dozens like you, the purpose of the NCSTAR1-6B ASTM E119 tests was to see if the design as-built would have been certifiable. You can't extrapolate the as-built, fireproofing-intact performance to the performance of the fire floors post-impact. We've seen people try it plenty of times, but it's nonsense. Totally different tests.


And no NIST cant explain the collapse. You should know that.


They not only can, they do. See NCSTAR1-6D.


the NIST report is ony speculation not fact. NIST has not been able to explain the collapse because of the destruction of the steel. they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. And they have refused to release the computer model showing the collapse. time to demand a new investigation.

Not a single thing you've written above is correct. We've also seen these mistakes over and over again. I humbly suggest you try the Search function.

[Slayhamlet]

No but ALOT of people tries to explain the collapse with the NIST report. When in fact the NIST report dont explains the collapse.

No. Just because they didn't model the collapse (something which can't be done with any degree of accuracy) doesn't mean they didn't explain why the collapse initiated.

[Malmoesoldier]

Not a single thing you've written above is correct. We've also seen these mistakes over and over again. I humbly suggest you try the Search function.

Everything is correct. you have obviously dont read the NIST report.

There is no evidence that the support columns reached higher then 600 C. And there is no evidence that the core columns reached higher then 250 C.

And no they have NOT released the computer model that shows the collapse.

something more you want to lie about?.

[Undesired Walrus]

Everything is correct. you have obviously dont read the NIST report.

There is no evidence that the support columns reached higher then 600 C. And there is no evidence that the core columns reached higher then 250 C.


On the other hand, there is loads and loads of evidence bombs were planted throughout the building isn't there?

Why do you think people jumped out of their office building?

[Malmoesoldier]

On the other hand, there is loads and loads of evidence bombs were planted throughout the building isn't there?

Why do you think people jumped out of their office building?

Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?.

There are many witnesses of bombs and one witness of a countdown of WTC7. The government never lies right? thats why we dont need a new investigation because we can trust the goverment... thats why its not suspicious at all when they destroy the evidence and witnesses said they heard bombs and countdowns. If you dont know your government read some history.

[twinstead]

Everything is correct. you have obviously dont read the NIST report.

There is no evidence that the support columns reached higher then 600 C. And there is no evidence that the core columns reached higher then 250 C.

And no they have NOT released the computer model that shows the collapse.

something more you want to lie about?.

Wow. All I'll say is you better hope that you know the NIST report inside and out and as well as the authors themselves if you want to debate R.Mackey on the subject.

Just making sure you're prepared.

[twinstead]

Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?.

There are many witnesses of bombs and one witness of a countdown of WTC7. The government never lies right? thats why we dont need a new investigation because we can trust the goverment... thats why its not suspicious at all when they destroy the evidence and witnesses said they heard bombs and countdowns. If you dont know your government read some history.

We need an investigation because we can't trust the government? Is that your only motivation? Do you think that there is NO evidence that supports the official story about 911 except what the government tells us?

Some people like actual evidence. You should leave your political bias at the door in this situation. Few of us support Bush, and NONE of us always trusts the government.

Get to know the forum before you make generalizations like that.

[Hyperviolet]

Wow. All I'll say is you better hope that you know the NIST report inside and out and as well as the authors themselves if you want to debate R.Mackey on the subject.

Just making sure you're prepared.

I chuckled at his naivety.

[SDC]

Everything is correct. you have obviously dont read the NIST report.

There is no evidence that the support columns reached higher then 600 C. And there is no evidence that the core columns reached higher then 250 C.

And no they have NOT released the computer model that shows the collapse.

something more you want to lie about?.

"Malmo" (the o has an umlaut, so it can be spelled "Malmoe" in English) presumably refers to the city in Sweden. His/ her writing is interesting. It waffles between poor English grammar ("you have obviously don't") and colloquial; the last sentence ("something more..."), for example, is quite a colloquial English phrase.

Here are a couple of guesses by me.

1/ He/ she is in fact Swedish, and cannot read the technical language of the NIST report, and therefore is cribbing from other Truthers' texts.

2/ He/ she is in fact not Swedish, and is a native speaker of English in some variety, but has assumed a foreign (non-English speaking, non-US, UK, Canadian, Australian etc.) identity for some reason. Actually this guess also allows for inability to read the technical language, along with cribbing.

My 2 cents. I've seen the same strange sort of English with other Truthers here, particularly from Germany and Scandinavia (or claiming to be from there). Perhaps I'm wrong. When I was a kid English was nowhere near as close to a "universal" language as it has become.

[Undesired Walrus]

Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?.

There are many witnesses of bombs and one witness of a countdown of WTC7.

Did any see a bomb? Or did they just hear explosions? Tell me, why does explosions=bombs?


If you dont know your government read some history.

Your government is not my government. America is not the centre of the world.

May you be blessed with mercy upon your impatience my brother.

[Malmoesoldier]

Wow. All I'll say is you better hope that you know the NIST report inside and out and as well as the authors themselves if you want to debate R.Mackey on the subject.

Just making sure you're prepared.

Please show me the evidence that the core reached higher temp then 250C and that the support columns reached higher then 600C. NIST only had 236 pieces of steel to investigate and NO steel had higher temp then what i just mention

[funk de fino]

Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?.

There are many witnesses of bombs and one witness of a countdown of WTC7.

The government never lies right? thats why we dont need a new investigation because we can trust the goverment...

thats why its not suspicious at all when they destroy the evidence

witnesses said they heard bombs and countdowns.

If you dont know your government read some history.

Care to name some they should have looked at?

No, there was not

The government did not do all the investigations

No, the government did nothing of the sort

They were wrong, they did not

My government had nothing to do with 911

[funk de fino]

... thats why its not suspicious at all when they destroy the evidence and witnesses said they heard bombs and countdowns. If you dont know your government read some history.

NIST only had 236 pieces of steel to investigate

Oh dear, a contradiction already, not doing too good are we?

Investigators had total access to all the steel they wanted IIRC

[funk de fino]

Please show me the evidence that the core reached higher temp then 250C and that the support columns reached higher then 600C. NIST only had 236 pieces of steel to investigate and NO steel had higher temp then what i just mention

How high do temperatures get in normal house or office fires?

How long did the massive fires in the Towers burn for?

[Malmoesoldier]

Care to name some they should have looked at?

No, there was not

The government did not do all the investigations

No, the government did nothing of the sort

They were wrong, they did not

My government had nothing to do with 911

No offcourse all the witnesses was wrong.. NIST only had 236 pices of steel to investigate from WTC1 and WTC2. And 0 pieces of steel from WTC7. All the other steel was recycled. So yes they did destroy the evidence

They also sign an agreement that has prevented the sharing of research results...

gop.science.house.gov/hot/wtc/charter.htm


"Uncertainty as a result of the confidential nature of the BPAT study: The confidential nature of the BPAT study may prevent the timely discovery of potential gaps in the investigation, which may never be filled if important, but ephemeral evidence, such as memories or home videotapes, are lost. The confidentiality agreement that FEMA requires its BPAT members to sign has frustrated the efforts of independent researchers to understand the collapse, who are unsure if their work is complementary to, or duplicative of, that of the BPAT team. In addition, the agreement has prevented the sharing of research results and the ordinary scientific give-and-take that otherwise allows scientists and engineers to winnow ideas and strengthen results. (....). Others fear that the BPAT’s silence on the scope of its report may allow critical aspects of the picture to be missed, and that, by the time the report is released and any such gaps are discovered, the trail of evidence that could provide answers may have grown cold."

This was also mentioned in an article of the New York Times, where it's said that "Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press."

911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/urge_inquiry.html

[funk de fino]

No offcourse all the witnesses was wrong..

Yes, look back through the posts on this site you will find the bunk about the countdown being totally false. Explosions do not always equal bombs, you will see this posted quite a lot as well. Show me one witness who says they specifically saw and heard a bomb going off while you are at it.

Show me a video or let me hear a recording of any of these explosions you may have a case. Just one will do.

NIST only had 236 pices of steel to investigate from WTC1 and WTC2. And 0 pieces of steel from WTC7. All the other steel was recycled. So yes they did destroy the evidence

You repeat your contradiction and then repeat the mistake about the government destroying the evidence, they did not destroy the evidence

The steel was taken somewhere else first, I will let you find it mr researcher, its on this site

All the steel was not recycled, I seen some 2004 when I was in New York


They also sign an agreement that has prevented the sharing of research results...

This was also mentioned in an article of the New York Times, where it's said that "Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press."


That is about FEMA, I thought you were posting about NIST

English is not your first language is it? Another one of those European truthers a bit behind the times IMO

[Brainster]

Can we get a separate thread for this NIST/Malmoesoldier derail?

The Jason Bermas show from yesterday (11/13) can be downloaded in RM format at the Usenet Newsgroup alt.binaries.sounds.radio.misc. You may find it interesting, as Jason talks a lot about the reactions to the movie, starting with some of my comments at SLC. I am sure he will go on to JREF before long.

Justin Martell comes on to talk about an exchange he had with Gravy.

[16.5]

"WTC had 3.25 inches fireproofing. NCSTAR 1-6A, figure A-60, p 241."

"Im talking to a guy that doesn't understand the NIST report."

Are ya dim lad? Yes, NIST used that theoretical figure, and I'm telling you as someone who installed insulation for years, the liklihood that there was that much insulation is as about as likely as a Twoofer looking objectively at the facts. Moreover, before you have an accident that NIST made an error, I'm telling you that NIST used a very conservative figure in its analysis.

You still don't understand as designed and as built do you?

[Malmoesoldier]

The steel was taken somewhere else first, I will let you find it mr researcher, its on this site

All the steel was not recycled, I seen some 2004 when I was in New York

They had no access to the steel and it was recycled quick. but lets say they had access, the steel with the highest temp was still 600C for support columns and 250C for core columns. then its even more proof that the towers shouldnt have collapsed, if they had access to all the steel and couldn't find any with higher temp. But we know the government destroyed the evidence very quick.

From page 8-12 911proof.com/NIST%20DQA%20Petition%20Appeal.pdf

In the original Request, the Requesters challenged NIST’s computer model steel temperatures of 700°C and higher in light of the WTC Report’s statement that NIST’s physical tests on the recovered steel samples “show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600°C for any significant time,” and “limited exposure if any above 250°C” (See NCSTAR 1-3, p. xli) (emphasis added). In the Response, NIST suggests that the steel samples saved were intended only for “determining the quality of the steel and, in combination with published literature, for determining mechanical properties as
input to models of building performance.” However, in NIST’s Progress Report of May, 2003 (p. 30), the analysis of recovered steel was explained as a much more involved process, and the goals of the intended analyses were much broader: NIST has catalogued 235 pieces of World Trade Center steel as of March 28, 2003. This includes a database with photographic records and member markings. These pieces represent a small fraction of the enormous amount of steel examined at the various salvage yards where the steel was sent as the WTC site was cleared. In addition, NIST has examined additional steel stored by the Port Authority at JFK airport and has transported 12 specimens to NIST. NIST believes that this collection of steel from the WTC towers is adequate for purposes of the investigation.
The NIST analysis of recovered WTC steel includes:

• collection and cataloging of the structural steel;
• documenting failure mechanisms and damage based on visual observations;
• determining the metallurgical and mechanical properties of steel, weldments, and connections for use in analyzing baseline structural performance, aircraft impact damage, and thermalstructural response to the fires until collapse initiation;
• estimating the maximum temperature reached by available steel;
and
• comparing measured steel properties with applicable material specifications.

The steel in NIST’s possession includes 28 perimeter column panels for
which locations have been identified in the towers, several from the
impact zones; and 11 core columns for which locations have been
identified in the towers, including two from the impact zones.”
NIST also has samples of core columns (wide flange and built-up box
columns) of two grades of steel. Ninety-nine percent of the core columns
were fabricated from these two grades of steel. These statements from the May 2003 progress report were reaffirmed in the December 2003 progress report. (See NIST Special Publication 1000-4, available at wtc.nist.gov/media/PublicUpdateFinal.pdf). Therein, NIST states that it “has in its possession about 236 pieces of WTC Steel”. (See id at p.8) Additionally, “[r]egions of impact and fire damage were emphasized in the selection of steel for the Investigation.” (Id.) “NIST has samples of all 14 grades of steel used in the exterior column-spandrel panels. It also has samples of two grades of steel used for the core columns (wide flange
and built-up box columns) that represent steel used to fabricate 99 percent of the core columns. Most importantly, “NIST believes that this collection of steel from the WTC Towers is adequate for purposes of the Investigation,” which included estimating the maximum temperature reached by the steel. (See id.) (emphasis in original). From these progress reports by NIST, as well as other facts, the Requesters can understand the following:

1. Although the steel samples saved for testing were of limited quantity, an
“enormous amount” of the WTC steel was examined either for or by NIST, and
the samples selected were chosen for their identified importance in the
investigation.

2. Contrary to NIST’s current statement, “estimating the maximum temperature reached by available steel” was stated to be a primary objective of the investigation of the recovered steel samples. This stated objective was repeated in NIST’s December 2003 progress report.

3. Contrary to NIST’s current statement, “documenting failure mechanisms and
damage based on visual observations” was a primary objective of the
investigation. This stated objective was repeated in NIST’s December 2003
progress report.

4. When this sifting and sorting of steel originally occurred, NIST believed “that this collection of steel from the WTC towers [was] adequate for purposes of the
investigation.”

5. In NIST’s December 2003 progress report (p. 8), it was stated that “Regions of impact and fire damage were emphasized in the selection of steel for the Investigation.”

This means that in December 2003 it appears that NIST believed it had adequate samples of steel available to perform physical tests and “estimat[e] the maximum temperature reached by available steel.” Furthermore, the Response also states that “While NIST did not find evidence that any of the recovered core columns experienced temperatures in excess of 250 °C, it is not possible to extrapolate from such a small sample size to state that none of the core columns on the fire affected floors reached temperatures in excess of 250 °C.” NIST’s response here is not satisfactory for the following reasons:

1. It is clear, from NIST’s earlier progress reports, that the steel samples used in the steel temperature analyses were taken from a much larger sample, and represented those areas of the buildings which had experienced significant fire and damage.

2. NIST has not shown any evidence that the steel available to the investigation team was of a “small sample size”. In fact, the 11 core column samples saved could be reasonably seen as representing as much as 23% of the total (47) core columns. Without a detailed explanation from NIST as to how the samples were saved from the larger amount examined, and how the calculation of 1% was performed, the public cannot validate NIST’s new claim that the samples were insufficient to accomplish the original stated objectives, including the maximum steel temperature determination.

3. As with NIST’s new statements about the floor tests, noted above, the Requesters must now ask – Why did NIST perform the steel temperature tests, including the paint deformation test and the tests of steel microstructure, if the results would not be used in the final analyses? Will the American public be refunded the money spent on these tests?

4. The paint deformation test that NIST performed, and that resulted in the 250 °C value discussed, appears to be a measure of the surface temperature of the steel samples tested. NIST provides no explanation for how such a surface temperature result could have been extrapolated to provide meaningful data about the temperature of large masses of core columns, floor assemblies and exterior columns in the WTC towers. In order to validate NIST’s new claim that the test results cannot be extrapolated to provide meaningful information, the details of the intended extrapolation protocol must be provided for public use. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how a surface temperature of 250°C could be extrapolated in such a way that the inner temperature of the steel could ever have been greater than 250°C.

5. In November of 2004, one of the Requesters sent a letter to Dr. Frank Gayle of NIST, asking for information on the steel temperature tests performed, and the conclusions drawn from the results of those tests. This letter was never answered, but the October 2004 NIST WTC presentation, on which the letter was based, repeatedly stated that large quantities of the steel in the towers had “softened”. After receiving this letter, NIST delayed their report and removed the word “softened” from throughout their descriptions of the collapse initiation sequences. These facts indicate that NIST did not have any plan for extrapolating the results of steel temperature tests, and have never had a scientific basis for the claims made in the NIST WTC report about steel temperatures.

[Malmoesoldier]

NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

911proof.com/NIST.pdf

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation: prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/210807_b_NIST.htm

[Arus808]

NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

911proof.com/NIST.pdf



Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation: prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/210807_b_NIST.htm

boy talk about cherry picking their statements.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

911proof.com/NIST.pdf



Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation: prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/210807_b_NIST.htm
The Search button is your friend.

ETA: Oh, and why, in post 285, are you referencing the May 2003 NIST update?

[16.5]

"NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable"

Yeah, there is about 100 posts in a thread about the No Planers complete fabrication of that statement. Search.

By the way, can we split this thread jack into some other place?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

. . .
By the way, can we split this thread jack into some other place?
/dev/null ?

[Alt+F4]

There are many witnesses of bombs and one witness of a countdown of WTC7. The government never lies right? thats why we dont need a new investigation because we can trust the goverment... thats why its not suspicious at all when they destroy the evidence and witnesses said they heard bombs and countdowns. If you dont know your government read some history.

There were many witnesses that said they heard bombs, there are no witnessess that say they SAW bombs.

As for the government lying, well then according to your logic the FBI was lying when they said they had no evidence against OBL. They were lying and have tons of evidence against him.

[funk de fino]

They had no access to the steel and it was recycled quick. but lets say they had access, the steel with the highest temp was still 600C for support columns and 250C for core columns. then its even more proof that the towers shouldnt have collapsed, if they had access to all the steel and couldn't find any with higher temp. But we know the government destroyed the evidence very quick.


They had access to the steel.

Why lie? The government did not destroy it.

They did not destroy it all as you said, I saw some in 2004. There was still steel on the site in 2002. How quick is very quick?

Your own quote even lets you see how much they had to investigate.

Contradict yourself much?

[Malmoesoldier]

They had access to the steel.

Why lie? The government did not destroy it.

They did not destroy it all as you said, I saw some in 2004. There was still steel on the site in 2002. How quick is very quick?

Your own quote even lets you see how much they had to investigate.

Contradict yourself much?

WOW they got 236 pices. and 0 pices from WTC7. You dont know what you are talking about. There are some steel in the JFK hanger still maybe but almost everything got destroyed. Read everything you need to know about it here (Everything is backed up with real sources): loosechange-911.blogspot.com/2007/02/wtc-evidence-obstruction.html

And like i said if they investigated all the steel, then we have more PROOF that the towers shouldnt have collapsed. Sorry if this information doesn't fit your believe stystem of how the world works and if it scares you ;).

[Arus808]

WOW they got 236 pices. and 0 pices from WTC7.

You dont know what you are talking about. 0 pieces from WtC7? are you dreaming? What do you think NIST is doing right now? They have yet to release their WTC 7 report. Care to tell us they are going to release a report without seeing the sTEEL from the towers (all three?)

And again. NIST HAD ACCESS TO ALL THE STEEL. They chose to ONLY test a few to get the information they needed.

Do you honestly believe they only saw 236 pieces of steel? you're delirious.



There are some steel in the JFK hanger still maybe but almost everything got destroyed. Read everything you need to know about it here (Everything is backed up with real sources): loosechange-911.blogspot.com/2007/02/wtc-evidence-obstruction.html

Loosechange is not a real source. its the culmination of stupid upon stupid with more lies and stupidity.
care to use REAL sources. Start with newspapers and magazines.

And FYI, not all the steel was destroyed. Fresh Kills Landfill got most of it, JFK has more, and a few went to build the new USS NEw york and only about 10% was sold to foreign countries as scrap metal.

And like i said if they investigated all the steel, then we have more PROOF that the towers shouldnt have collapsed. Sorry if this information doesn't fit your believe stystem of how the world works and if it scares you ;).

please. even in a fire investigation, the FIRE investigators do not EXAMINE each piece of lumber in a house fire. They look at the burn patterns and determine the way the fire burned to determine what was affected by teh fire.

You need to talk to fire investigators and REAL scientists.

[Malmoesoldier]

You dont know what you are talking about. 0 pieces from WtC7? are you dreaming? What do you think NIST is doing right now? They have yet to release their WTC 7 report. Care to tell us they are going to release a report without seeing the sTEEL from the towers (all three?)

And again. NIST HAD ACCESS TO ALL THE STEEL. They chose to ONLY test a few to get the information they needed.

Do you honestly believe they only saw 236 pieces of steel? you're delirious.





Loosechange is not a real source. its the culmination of stupid upon stupid with more lies and stupidity.
care to use REAL sources. Start with newspapers and magazines.

And FYI, not all the steel was destroyed. Fresh Kills Landfill got most of it, JFK has more, and a few went to build the new USS NEw york and only about 10% was sold to foreign countries as scrap metal.



please. even in a fire investigation, the FIRE investigators do not EXAMINE each piece of lumber in a house fire. They look at the burn patterns and determine the way the fire burned to determine what was affected by teh fire.

You need to talk to fire investigators and REAL scientists.


Yes 0 pices and thats why NIST will NEVER be abel to explain the collapse of WTC7

"No steel was recovered from WTC 7." Page 4. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

Jonathan Barnett, PhD "Normally when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item -- photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of tower 7." Video interview with him from history channel here: http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=58

And NIST still has NO evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. So please stop your BS.

And NO NIST did NOT have access to all the steel. Only Dr. Corley is saying that, everyone else has a different story.

Did you even read the website? it isnt LOOSE CHANGE that claims stuff they give real sources like this one http://gop.science.house.gov/hot/wtc/charter.htm

[Tbone]

To go off on a slight tangent... Malmoesoldier, you say that NIST has never released their "cmoputer models" for the WTC collapse. This may ot may not be true, but out of curiosty, what do you think their computer models actually are?

[DGM]

Yes 0 pices and thats why NIST will NEVER be abel to explain the collapse of WTC7

Page 4. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

Jonathan Barnett, PhD "Normally when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item -- photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of tower 7." Video interview with him from history channel here: http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=58

And NIST still has NO evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. So please stop your BS.

And NO NIST did NOT have access to all the steel. Only Dr. Corley is saying that, everyone else has a different story.

Did you even read the website? it isnt LOOSE CHANGE that claims stuff they give real sources like this one http://gop.science.house.gov/hot/wtc/charter.htm
Have you ever actually read that last link? Did you read any of the follow-ups. Or don't the "loose change" boys want you to do that?

Try reading this NIST report itself sometime. It's clear you haven't.

[Malmoesoldier]

Have you ever actually read that last link? Did you read any of the follow-ups. Or don't the "loose change" boys want you to do that?

Try reading this NIST report itself sometime. It's clear you haven't.

I dont see any sources in your post that proves NIST had any steel from WTC7. Like NIST says "No steel was recovered from WTC 7."

Why even post if you cant give me a source that proves otherwise

[Arus808]

why do you even post , if you do not bother to read the reports themselves. The answers are there; you are simply ignoring them.

[JCM]

even in a fire investigation, the FIRE investigators do not EXAMINE each piece of lumber in a house fire. They look at the burn patterns and determine the way the fire burned to determine what was affected by teh fire.

"Normally when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item -- photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element.

So which is it; "do not EXAMINE each piece" or "photographing every beam, you look at each element" ? Or are we comparing apples (fire investigation) and oranges (investigation into structural failure)? Or I am misunderstanding something?

Also looked at that gop.science.house.gov link and saw
Determine technically, why and how the buildings collapsed (WTC 1 and 2, and possibly WTC 7)
Are they stating it might be possible they won't be able to determine technically, why and how WTC 7 collapsed?

[Malmoesoldier]

why do you even post , if you do not bother to read the reports themselves. The answers are there; you are simply ignoring them.

YOU ARE THE ONE IGNORING THINGS. i just showed you EVIDENCE that they have NO steel from WTC7. just admitt you where wrong and stop acting like a kid.

So which is it; "do not EXAMINE each piece" or "photographing every beam, you look at each element" ? Or are we comparing apples (fire investigation) and oranges (investigation into structural failure)? Or I am misunderstanding something?

Also looked at that gop.science.house.gov link and saw

Are they stating it might be possible they won't be able to determine technically, why and how WTC 7 collapsed?

No offcourse you photograph every beam, and look at each element. Its just Arus808 that doesn't know what he is talking about. And yes that is what they are saying, if you dont have any steel evidence, how can you do an real investigation? you cant. No wonder why the report of WTC7 takes this long lol.

[SDC]

Yoohoo, Malmo, your colloquial English is starting to show through! Please settle on a persona; a native or non-native speaker of English. It matters; it has something to do with honest representation of oneself.

[Malmoesoldier]

Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality.
Page 114: http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

Sorry for my english i am from sweden

[Malmoesoldier]

why do you even post , if you do not bother to read the reports themselves. The answers are there; you are simply ignoring them.

[edited]

Please do not derail or "kitten" the thread.

[JCM]

Yoohoo, Malmo, your colloquial English is starting to show through! Please settle on a persona; a native or non-native speaker of English. It matters; it has something to do with honest representation of oneself.
Are you implying he is me? Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Who are you saying he is?

[Lennart Hyland]

Woho my first post!! and probably my last :p

Well I just want to give some information about Malmoesoldier. Yes he is swedish though he exceptionaly fails in the swedish langauge too, as me and the other debunkers seen on the swedish flashback forum.

The most time he debated that NIST cant show that the temperature went over 200 degrees and that NIST cant be used as evidence it is only speculations. And yes he is far more crazy than that...he also thinks that the US government implants mircoships in your head and things like that.

Anyways I'm out of here! (Might be back later :blush: )

[Malmoesoldier]

Woho my first post!! and probably my last :p

Well I just want to give some information about Malmoesoldier. Yes he is swedish though he exceptionaly fails in the swedish langauge too, as me and the other debunkers seen on the swedish flashback forum.

The most time he debated that NIST cant show that the temperature went over 200 degrees and that NIST cant be used as evidence it is only speculations. And yes he is far more crazy than that...he also thinks that the US government implants mircoships in your head and things like that.

Anyways I'm out of here! (Might be back later :blush: )

LOL. are you 12 years old?. "And yes he is far more crazy than that" why didnt you show a source that NIST found higher temps? because they didnt and you cant do it. now go back to your mothers basement and play WoW.

It was al-qaida that destroyed all the steel evidence from WTC 1-2-7 too right?. Or was it giuliani and NIST investigator Richard Tomasetti ??

[Gravy]

Malmoe, since you have no idea what you are talking about, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the information in the "Steel Recycling and Inspection" section on this page (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerocleanup%2Cfreshkillssortingopera).

Feel free to ask questions when you've read it all.

[Malmoesoldier]

Malmoe, since you have no idea what you are talking about, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the information in the "Steel Recycling and Inspection" section on this page (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/groundzerocleanup%2Cfreshkillssortingopera).

Feel free to ask questions when you've read it all.

Gravy since you have no idea what you are talking about, i suggest that you read this site: http://loosechange-911.blogspot.com/2007/02/wtc-evidence-obstruction.html

Feel free to ask questions when you've read it all.

And it is nothing wrong/suspicious with destroying all the evidence so they never will be abel to explain the collapse of WTC7 right?. there was no place to store the steel so they had to destroy it?. lol

[Panoply_Prefect]

Oh, dear. First HEIWA came over to this board, now Malmoesoldier... This will be interesting (and in the meantime, I'll just re-read the last time you wen't about the NIST report)

Welcome anyhoo.

[Lennart Hyland]

Oh, dear. First HEIWA came over to this board, now Malmoesoldier... This will be interesting (and in the meantime, I'll just re-read the last time you wen't about the NIST report)

Welcome anyhoo.

I think its great that they are here :D This place have more engineers and other wise guys than flashback ;)

[e^n]

And it is nothing wrong/suspicious with destroying all the evidence so they never will be abel to explain the collapse of WTC7 right?. there was no place to store the steel so they had to destroy it?. lol

Who's 'they'?

[Zorglub]

I dont see any sources in your post that proves NIST had any steel from WTC7. Like NIST says "No steel was recovered from WTC 7."

Why even post if you cant give me a source that proves otherwise

Yohoo malmoe. Awake and aware as always I see. Our mutual friends Joe Schmoe And JeffJeffity Jeff says "hello". Any facts you need clarified ...they'll be glad to help you out.

[Panoply_Prefect]

And they have refused to release the computer model showing the collapse.

What model would that be?

Also on temperatures, the single column sample lableled K-16, as I understand it, reached just below temperature level A1 ((A1. ~727ºc). This sample is from the same piece FEMA looked at and stated in their report:


It is possible and likely, however, that even if grain boundary melting did not occur, substantial penetration by a solid state diffusion mechanism would have occurred as evidenced by the high concentration of sulfides in the grain interiors near the oxide layer. Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700–800 °C (1,290–1,470 °F).


Also floor truss sample C-115 reached a temperature above the A3 line ( I think A3 is somewhere around 800 degrees celsius).

NIST writes:


Five samples of the NIST inventory were identified from visual inspection as having unique physical damage that may have been related to elevated temperature exposure. Three were perimeter columns (from panels K-1 and K-2 and a single column K-16), and two were truss materials (C-115 and C-131). As these samples were distinctive among the entire group, an in-depth investigation of their damage features was conducted (...)


And on the sample issue, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it NIST spent 18 months sifting through debris to find as good samples as were possible:


Within weeks of the destruction of the WTC, contractors of New York City had begun cutting up and removing the debris from the site. Members of the FEMA-sponsored and ASCE-led Building Performance Assessment Team, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York, and Professor A. Astaneh-Asl of the University of California, Berkeley, CA, with support from the National Science Foundation, had begun work to identify and collect WTC structural steel from various recycling yard where the steel was taken during the clean-up effort. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority) also collected structural steel elements for future exhibits and memorials.

Over a period of 18 months, 236 pieces of steel were shipped to the NIST campus, starting about six months before NIST launched its Investigation.


ASCE also testified:


There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures.

[Malmoesoldier]

Who's 'they'?

NIST.

So, who made the decision to quickly transport the remaining structural steel to scrap yards?

"In one testy exchange, Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., asked the panel of witnesses who was leading the investigation and three people raised their hands." http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/3/7_APcodes.html

From the HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE - HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 6, 2002, Serial No. 107–46:


Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. And we are welcoming, as a guest in the Committee, but an interested guest, Mr. Crowley of New York.

Mr. CROWLEY. (...) I have a number of questions that I think I would address to Mr. Shea, Dr. Corley, and Dr. Bement firstly. And one, can any one of you gentlemen tell me who was in charge of amassing the steel and other debris as a result from the attack of September 11 on the WTC?

Mr. SHEA. I am not sure I understand fully your question, but——

Mr. CROWLEY. In other words, who—what entity was in charge of collecting the material?

Mr. SHEA. FEMA commissioned the Building Performance Assessment Team, and it was that team, led by Dr. Corley, that would have embraced that responsibility.

Mr. CROWLEY. Did they determine which debris would be sold off as scrap? And if not, who did?

Mr. SHEA. I will—yeah, I will defer to Dr. Corley on that.

Dr. CORLEY. No. We did not determine that. That was determined, I understand, by the City of New York. We——

Mr. CROWLEY. When did you—when did you become aware that the steel from the World Trade Center was being sold off?

Dr. CORLEY. I think it was on the order of a week or so before we arrived on site, on October the 5th, I believe it was.

Mr. CROWLEY. So they were—they—in other words, the city was selling or was disposing of material within two weeks of the actual event, or was it prior to that?

Dr. CORLEY. It may have been prior to that. I am not sure when the first decision was made on that. But I didn't find out—we didn't find out about it until then.

Mr. CROWLEY. Were you disturbed by that—by finding that out? Were you disturbed to find out that the city was actually disposing of or selling off that material?

Dr. CORLEY. We had previously indicated that we definitely wanted to see the steel and select quantities that were——

Mr. CROWLEY. Did you or did FEMA or any other entity actually ask or tell the City of New York to cease and desist from disposing of that material?

Dr. CORLEY. As far as the team is concerned, we made it known that we needed steel. And I don't have any knowledge that anyone had the authority even to ask them to cease and desist.

Mr. CROWLEY. So no one even asked them politely to stop selling what, in all likelihood, could be evidence? (....)

But I do believe that conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day with this. They are going to make the Warren Commission look like a walk in the park. And that is unfortunate not only for the Members of Congress who are trying to work on this issue, but for all the families out there that are listening very carefully to what we are talking about today, what these experts are saying. And I just think there is so much that has been lost in these last six months that we can never go back and retrieve. And that is not only unfortunate, it is borderline criminal.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yeah.

Mr. CROWLEY. And I will yield back with that, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Crowley. And the whole purpose of this hearing is to get as much information as we can so that we can be very prudent and very thorough in our analysis and make the appropriate recommendations. Let me point out, in response to your line of questioning, the decision was made by the City of New York to dispose of the material before the BPAT team was even onsite. And I understand fully what the City of New York was doing. Their first interest was the search and rescue operation and they had to get the debris out of the way. And it had a BPAT team, but on site, they would have immediately said, you know, we need this. This is evidence. We need this. This is very important, so get it out of site obviously. We don't want to hamper the research—rescue operation.

But at one time, they were even talking about dumping it into the sea to build a new reef for fish. But, in any event, it just points up to the fact that the material should have been saved. And had there been a timely response of a BPAT team, had we had a protocol in place to get people onsite, we know who is in charge and when, someone would have said that. Source http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0.htm



"The team of investigators - comprised of officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers - did not even get access to the site until October, a month after the attack.

They testified they never asked the city of New York not to recycle tons of steel that some experts say could hold vital clues about why the twin towers fell. And the team, which has no subpoena power, did not get access to the trade center blueprints from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey until four months after the collapse and only then after being forced to sign a form agreeing not to testify against the Port Authority." http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/3/7_APcodes.html


"In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. " http://gop.science.house.gov/hot/wtc/charter.htm


Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.“


"The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately."
"Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall."


Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.“ http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225

So we know that NIST will never be able to explain the collapse of WTC7 because of the destruction of the evidence (NIST also doesn't explain the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?). This is criminal and giuliani should be in jail.

[RedIbis]

NIST.

So, who made the decision to quickly transport the remaining structural steel to scrap yards?

http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/3/7_APcodes.html

From the HEARING BEFORE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE - HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 6, 2002, Serial No. 107–46:




http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/3/7_APcodes.html


http://gop.science.house.gov/hot/wtc/charter.htm








http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225

So we know that NIST will never be able to explain the collapse of WTC7 because of the destruction of the evidence (NIST also doesn't explain the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?). This is criminal and giuliani should be in jail.

Malme,
This is a good post and the transcripts speak for themselves. What you will not get here is any admittance that the spoliation of the steel is a criminal act and suggests willful obstruction of justice. The implications of this are lost on most on this forum, and what you'll get instead is every possible excuse or some semi plausible explanation that flies in the face of reason. The evidence was destroyed. Period.

A word of advice: if you want to stick around for awhile, avoid all cat fights, pi**ing matches and never use the same ad hominem tactics that will inevitably be used on you. That's the way it works around here.
Your friend, Jeff, uh I mean RedIbis

[Malmoesoldier]

What model would that be?

Also on temperatures, the single column sample lableled K-16, as I understand it, reached just below temperature level A1 ((A1. ~727ºc). This sample is from the same piece FEMA looked at and stated in their report:



Also floor truss sample C-115 reached a temperature above the A3 line ( I think A3 is somewhere around 800 degrees celsius).

NIST writes:



And on the sample issue, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it NIST spent 18 months sifting through debris to find as good samples as were possible:



ASCE also testified:

The samples you are talking about doesn't show temperatures of 700-800C like NIST themselves admits. speculation and fact is two different things.


Please read again to understand the „logic“ of Dr. Corley:

„At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures“

Ever heard of something similar relayed to a crime scene? Ever heard that the FBI would say. „No, we don't need full access to a car that was used in a crime, because it makes no significant difference in the understanding of the structure of the car.“? What is this man talking about? Of course you need to have access to EVERY piece in a crime scene. And of course it's a crime to remove and destroy pieces of a crime scene before investigators have examined them. And to say that it makes no difference to understand the performance of the structure makes only sense when the conclusion (plane crash + fires) is actually made before the investigation even begins. If you take an alternative explanation into consideration, like explosives, would it also make no significant difference to having access to each piece of steel?

"At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures" Now we know that it would have a significant difference. Because NIST will never be able to explain the collapse of WTC7.

See how others are faced with going to prison for 10 and 15 years for taking away debris of the Space Shattle Columbia with the intent to keep it up: Consequences of Stealing Space Shuttle Debris http://www.collectspace.com/resources/flown_stealingdream.html --- See also http://www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2003/04/25/NewsInBrief/Four-Face.Trial.For.Looting.Columbia.Shuttle.Debris-513708.shtml?norewrite200701011413&sourcedomain=www.thebatt.com -- http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-020503a.html

Think of it: people who remove debris and keep it are threatened with prison for many years and to pay up to 500.000 $ . People who remove and destroy debris from a crime scene of mass-murder are punished with ....nothing....or with the position of the major of NYC (Bloomberg)!

And We've already seen that his statement about having full access is just not true.

[T.A.M.]

Malme,
This is a good post and the transcripts speak for themselves. What you will not get here is any admittance that the spoliation of the steel is a criminal act and suggests willful obstruction of justice. The implications of this are lost on most on this forum, and what you'll get instead is every possible excuse or some semi plausible explanation that flies in the face of reason. The evidence was destroyed. Period.

A word of advice: if you want to stick around for awhile, avoid all cat fights, pi**ing matches and never use the same ad hominem tactics that will inevitably be used on you. That's the way it works around here.
Your friend, Jeff, uh I mean RedIbis

Red:

The spoilation of the Steel is ONLY A CRIMINAL ACT, if it was removed prior to the completion of the forensic/criminal investigation.

Have you got proof that someone in the criminal investigation of this event complained that the evidence was removed prior to completion of the FORENSIC/CRIMINAL Investigation? If not, then what is your point?

As for your bolded parts, The mods are pretty good ad dealing with this regardless of who is to blame. If you don't report it, it will continue. The mods do not watch over the forums like Zeus or Apollo from the heavens.

TAM:)

[Panoply_Prefect]

The samples you are talking about doesn't show temperatures of 700-800C like NIST themselves admits. speculation and fact is two different things.


Yes they did and no they did not admit that:


p. 231 NISTNCSTAR 1-3C
Single Column K-16
(...)
While analysis of sample K-16 yielded no revelations on the collapse mechanism for the buildings the changes in web material as a result of high temperature corrosion exposure were interesting.
(...)
The spheroidization was most likely a result of extended exposure of the steel in this region to temperatures just below the lower critical temperature (A1. ~727ºc).

(...)
Assuming that the original microstructure in this area was similar to that found in fig. 6-22a, the re-distribution of pearlite and larger ferrite grain size would imply significant changes in the microstructure that could only been achieved through austenitizing of the steel. Concomitantely, this would suggest that temperatures were much higher in this portion of the plate than found at the base of the column. With the average weight percent carbon in the material at 0.16, the plate temperature would have to exceed 830ºc (above the upper critical temperature [A3])
(...)
Instead, it appears that at some point in this sample's history, it reached a relatively high temperature (above the A3 line) (...)


And again, what model is it you are claiming NIST is withholding?

[RedIbis]

Red:

The spoilation of the Steel is ONLY A CRIMINAL ACT, if it was removed prior to the completion of the forensic/criminal investigation.

Have you got proof that someone in the criminal investigation of this event complained that the evidence was removed prior to completion of the FORENSIC/CRIMINAL Investigation? If not, then what is your point?

As for your bolded parts, The mods are pretty good ad dealing with this regardless of who is to blame. If you don't report it, it will continue. The mods do not watch over the forums like Zeus or Apollo from the heavens.

TAM:)

Reread Malmo's quotes, please.

[Panoply_Prefect]

I would say that the text on Firehouse.com is indicative of authorties and organisations facing a situation they've never anticipated nor planned for:


There are no clear lines of authority as to who in the federal government is to conduct an investigation of a building failure,'' said Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y.
(...)
And there was obvious confusion about who was in charge. In one testy exchange, Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., asked the panel of witnesses who was leading the investigation and three people raised their hands.
(...)
Robert Shea, FEMA's acting administrator of federal insurance and mitigation, testified ``there are many things that in hindsight we would have done differently.''

Same goes for the House Committee on Science link:


1. What have we learned about how the federal government investigates catastrophic building collapses, and are any changes warranted?
(...)
Though many of the individuals who have participated in the WTC building performance investigation are architects and engineers with experience investigating other structural collapses – including those resulting from natural causes as well as terrorist attacks – nothing had prepared these investigators for a disaster of this magnitude and complexity
(...)
No clear authority and the absence of an effective protocol for how the building performance investigators should conduct and coordinate their investigation with the concurrent search and rescue efforts, as well as any criminal investigation


And nothing in those texts indicates anything even remotely connected to a conspiracy to cover up the secret planting of demolition devices in the WTC.

To the contrary, if you follow the link on the Fire Engineering site, to their call for an investigation, it reads:


Yes, it was the terrorist pilots who slammed two jetliners into the Twin Towers. It was the ensuing fire, however, that brought the towers down. Make no mistake about it: This high-rise collapse was no "fluke." The temperatures experienced and heat release rates achieved at the World Trade Center could be seen in future high-rise fires.
If anything those texts are indicative of how much work was (and is?) needed for the authorities to better handle such an incident the next time. It very much resembles the way swedish authorites reacted during and after the Tsunami hit Thailand in -04. Or the Estonia catastrophy for that matter.


Its very possible that NIST et al could have found better samples, I have no idea, they themselves doesn't seem to think so. However that on the other hand doesn't mean there were bombs planed in the towers.

[Shrinker]

Redibis, the quotes seem to refer only to building performace investigations, not criminal investigations.

[Apollo20]

Malmoesoldier:

Greetings!

First of all I can see the JREfers are using their usual distract-and-derail tactics. Glad to see you are not letting it bother you! But criticizing your english is certainly hitting below the belt. And, as usual, the condescension from the usual JREFers is so palpable and so contrived ... These tactics are always used when someone makes a valid point about the inadequacy of the NIST Report.

And Malmoesoldier, you DO make a very good point concerning the fact that the steel must have been well past its highest temperature at most locations in WTC 1 & 2 at the time of their collapse. In all NIST's tests the workstation fires burned with any kind of intensity for no more than 30 minutes. And its is a simple matter to show that a fuel load of 20 kg/m^2 cannot feed a workstation fire for 50 minutes! NIST is totally out to lunch on that one!

P.S. I think it would be a good idea for NIST scientists to be sent on some refresher courses in which they are forced to read pre-9/11 NIST Reports such as NIST-GCR-96-697........

[WildCat]

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225

Always old news with the troofers! Malmo, you do realize this was before the NIST investigation was commissioned, don't you? I think you'll find that Bill Manning et al are quite satisfied that the NIST investigation was thorough and their questions have been answered to their satisfaction.

In fact, an investigation such as NIST provided was exactly what Manning was calling for.

Perhaps you should join the rest of us in 2007 and stop living in 2001 and 2002?

[WildCat]

:words:
Don't forget Frank - there is no evidence that a 767 travelling 450 mph and exploding into a building can dislodge spray-on fireproofing! In fact, it's well-known that spray-on fireproofing is stronger than steel, I hear they're going to just build the next generation of skyscrapers with spray-on fireproofing alone! Woo woo!

[T.A.M.]

Malmoesoldier:

Greetings!

First of all I can see the JREfers are using their usual distract-and-derail tactics. Glad to see you are not letting it bother you! But criticizing your english is certainly hitting below the belt. And, as usual, the condescension from the usual JREFers is so palpable and so contrived ... These tactics are always used when someone makes a valid point about the inadequacy of the NIST Report.

And Malmoesoldier, you DO make a very good point concerning the fact that the steel must have been well past its highest temperature at most locations in WTC 1 & 2 at the time of their collapse. In all NIST's tests the workstation fires burned with any kind of intensity for no more than 30 minutes. And its is a simple matter to show that a fuel load of 20 kg/m^2 cannot feed a workstation fire for 50 minutes! NIST is totally out to lunch on that one!

P.S. I think it would be a good idea for NIST scientists to be sent on some refresher courses in which they are forced to read pre-9/11 NIST Reports such as NIST-GCR-96-697........

Can we please stick to the facts, to paraphrase your comments in other threads...

Malmoe, stick with Dr. Greening...as long as you are against the NIST report, he will back you regardless of what you say.

TAM;)

[FactCheck]

But there IS evidence the fireproofing was knocked off...

http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/impact.htm

Not only is there no evidence that the fireproofing was knocked off but there is also evidence the so called truth movement is LYING to you.

http://www.jod911.com

[Malmoesoldier]

I would say that the text on Firehouse.com is indicative of authorties and organisations facing a situation they've never anticipated nor planned for:

Same goes for the House Committee on Science link:

And nothing in those texts indicates anything even remotely connected to a conspiracy to cover up the secret planting of demolition devices in the WTC.

To the contrary, if you follow the link on the Fire Engineering site, to their call for an investigation, it reads:

If anything those texts are indicative of how much work was (and is?) needed for the authorities to better handle such an incident the next time. It very much resembles the way swedish authorites reacted during and after the Tsunami hit Thailand in -04. Or the Estonia catastrophy for that matter.


Its very possible that NIST et al could have found better samples, I have no idea, they themselves doesn't seem to think so. However that on the other hand doesn't mean there were bombs planed in the towers.

* Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire

* Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)

Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600C
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

"And nothing in those texts indicates anything even remotely connected to a conspiracy to cover up the secret planting of demolition devices in the WTC."

If they wanted to cover up bombs in WTC, what would they do?. Destroy the evidence maybe?, i think so. And they did!. And thats why NIST will NEVER be able to explain the collapse of WTC7. What are you saying, that they had NO place to store the steel?. lol

The government never lies, everything is fine, go back to sleep.

But there IS evidence the fireproofing was knocked off...

http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/impact.htm

Not only is there no evidence that the fireproofing was knocked off but there is also evidence the so called truth movement is LYING to you.

http://www.jod911.com

I am sure some fireproofing was knocked off, but there is NO evidence that all the fireproofing NIST is saying was knocked off.

those of us who have actually followed NIST's investigation know that they could not produce any "robust criteria" to establish that fireproofing was lost through forces of vibration. Instead, NIST performed a shotgun test to see if the fireproofing could have been lost through shearing forces. The shotgun test not only failed to support NIST's pre-determined conclusions, as was the case for all of their other physical tests, but it actually proved that the fireproofing could not have been sheared off because too much energy would be needed.

[Alt+F4]

If they wanted to cover up bombs in WTC, what would they do?. Destroy the evidence maybe?, i think so. And they did!

So what about members of the NYPD and FDNY who had experience with bombs? Were they in on this destruction of evidence while working on the pile? If they did see evidence of bombs in the rubble why didn't they speak up about it?

Why don't you call up some of the nice men and women of the NYPD Bomb Squad and talk to them about your accusations of a coverup regarding 9/11 bombs.

[Lennart Hyland]

those of us who have actually followed NIST's investigation know that they could not produce any "robust criteria" to establish that fireproofing was lost through forces of vibration. Instead, NIST performed a shotgun test to see if the fireproofing could have been lost through shearing forces. The shotgun test not only failed to support NIST's pre-determined conclusions, as was the case for all of their other physical tests, but it actually proved that the fireproofing could not have been sheared off because too much energy would be needed.

Malmoe, if you want to use Kevin Ryans words please make sure you use quoatations. Otherwise it only makes you look dumb.

And btw...since you now just ctrl+c and ctrl+v that last couple of sentences I guess you have actully no idea what you are talking about.

EDIT: Sorry I need atleast 15 posts to post a link.

[WildCat]

* Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire
Ruling out thermite, yes?

* Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)
Once again, ruling out thermite, correct?

Of course, they only tested parts whose placement in the intact structure could be determined. And paint burns off at higher temps so there's nothing to test then is there?

those of us who have actually followed NIST's investigation know that they could not produce any "robust criteria" to establish that fireproofing was lost through forces of vibration. Instead, NIST performed a shotgun test to see if the fireproofing could have been lost through shearing forces. The shotgun test not only failed to support NIST's pre-determined conclusions, as was the case for all of their other physical tests, but it actually proved that the fireproofing could not have been sheared off because too much energy would be needed.
It takes very little energy to knock off fireproofing, in fact it had been falling off on its own years earlier.

[Max Photon]

[snip]

And Malmoesoldier, you DO make a very good point concerning the fact that the steel must have been well past its highest temperature at most locations in WTC 1 & 2 at the time of their collapse. In all NIST's tests the workstation fires burned with any kind of intensity for no more than 30 minutes. And its is a simple matter to show that a fuel load of 20 kg/m^2 cannot feed a workstation fire for 50 minutes! NIST is totally out to lunch on that one!




Greetings Malmoesoldier,

I have a thread that puts forth a model - MAX-MIHOP - that says that thermite was planted inside box columns, and at other steel connections, not to cut or melt, but to heat the steel to its critical temperature, to induce collapse.

Thermite Was Placed In Box-Columns and Spandrel Splice Gaps to Heat-Weaken WTC Steel. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87336)

As NIST says:

"All steels lose strength with increasing temperature. By 600 °C, most structural steels have lost more than half their strength. At intermediate temperatures the strength is independent of time, but above 500 °C, creep, or time-dependent deformation, further reduces the load-carrying capability..." (NIST Metallurgy Division Publications - NISTIR 7248)


Also note that thermite can account for the fuel deficit seen for the corner fire at WTC2 81/NE.


Cheers!

Max

* * *

[Malmoesoldier]

So what about members of the NYPD and FDNY who had experience with bombs? Were they in on this destruction of evidence while working on the pile? If they did see evidence of bombs in the rubble why didn't they speak up about it?

Why don't you call up some of the nice men and women of the NYPD Bomb Squad and talk to them about your accusations of a coverup regarding 9/11 bombs.

There was not much steel to look at when they arrived ;)

Ruling out thermite, yes?


Once again, ruling out thermite, correct?

Of course, they only tested parts whose placement in the intact structure could be determined. And paint burns off at higher temps so there's nothing to test then is there?


It takes very little energy to knock off fireproofing, in fact it had been falling off on its own years earlier.

Ruling out thermite?. Offcourse not, they only had 236 pices to look at. I WONDER WHY.

"It takes very little energy to knock off fireproofing" Whatever duude. lol

[Lennart Hyland]

"It takes very little energy to knock off fireproofing" Whatever duude. lol

Yeah ofcourse you couldnt argue about that. Because you dont know anything about energy since you just copied what Kevin Ryan wrote.

[Malmoesoldier]

Yeah ofcourse you couldnt argue about that. Because you dont know anything about energy since you just copied what Kevin Ryan wrote.

You are the one that doesn't know anything about the NIST investigation. Kevin ryan speaks the truth. Read the NIST report about the shotgun test. And if you want to post a link dont use www and http

Greetings Max Photon. your thread looks interesting i will read it later.

[Alt+F4]

There was not much steel to look at when they arrived ;)

Members of the FDNY and NYPD were working the pile from the minute after the buildings collapsed. By December 2001 about 600,000 tons of debris and steel had been removed from the site, and that was only half what was there.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you saying that those who worked the pile in the days/weeks/months after 9/11 didn't come across tons of steel or do you think all the steel was quickly removed from the site?

A few weeks after 9/11 a man at my school who had buddies in the FDNY brought a piece of twisted WTC steel to work. I found it upsetting to look at, but the point is that WTC steel was never under any sort of "lock down". Removing it from the site was easy enough.

Linky:
http://www.griefnet.org/usamemorial/gnmemorial13.html

[Lennart Hyland]

You are the one that doesn't know anything about the NIST investigation. Kevin ryan speaks the truth. Read the NIST report about the shotgun test. And if you want to post a link dont use www and http

Ah ok thx. And if you want to post a quote make sure you use the " " marks...

[Panoply_Prefect]

* Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire

* Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)


http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf


Thats odd, perhaps I'm misinterpreting something here, its hard since you dont provide any directions as to what part of the pdf you are using to make your claims, but it says about the results from microstructure tests in that pdf (p 180):

These results provide some confirmation of the thermal modeling of the structures, since none of the samples were from zones where such heating was predicted.


Also, it says that of the samples from the core columns, half of them (2) didn't have sufficient paint to analyze, possibly because of exposure to high temperatures and the other half had minimal paint left. And on the same page as mentioned above it says, regarding paint cracking test:


Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees celsius during the fires or after the collapse.
But you just said that paint tests showed no temperature above 250 degrees? Or did you just mean "most" samples?

What gives?

NIST did find samples of steel that had reached a temperature above 600 degrees celsius. If you want to dismiss those as having no relevance, fine, please do so, but you can hardly deny that NIST did put them into their report. I gave you the exact page where they did so. Ill do it again:


p. 231 NISTNCSTAR 1-3C
Single Column K-16
(...)
While analysis of sample K-16 yielded no revelations on the collapse mechanism for the buildings the changes in web material as a result of high temperature corrosion exposure were interesting.
(...)
The spheroidization was most likely a result of extended exposure of the steel in this region to temperatures just below the lower critical temperature (A1. ~727ºc).

(...)
Assuming that the original microstructure in this area was similar to that found in fig. 6-22a, the re-distribution of pearlite and larger ferrite grain size would imply significant changes in the microstructure that could only been achieved through austenitizing of the steel. Concomitantely, this would suggest that temperatures were much higher in this portion of the plate than found at the base of the column. With the average weight percent carbon in the material at 0.16, the plate temperature would have to exceed 830ºc (above the upper critical temperature [A3])
(...)
Instead, it appears that at some point in this sample's history, it reached a relatively high temperature (above the A3 line) (...)


And as the last time you brought this up, back in april, its still not clear where you want to go with this. Could you please summarize in a few sentences?


If they wanted to cover up bombs in WTC, what would they do?. Destroy the evidence maybe?


Perhaps. But none of your quotes indicated anything proving that, even remotely.

Lastly, I still wonder what model NIST is witholding.

[R.Mackey]

You are the one that doesn't know anything about the NIST investigation. Kevin ryan speaks the truth. Read the NIST report about the shotgun test. And if you want to post a link dont use www and http

Of the many errors and lies that you've repeated, this is the easiest to refute. I treat this on pages 18-19 of my whitepaper.

Kevin Ryan is lying about there being "insufficient energy." NIST found in its "shotgun tests" (NCSTAR 1-6A, pg. 273) that if debris hitting a flat surface 1 m2 in area had an aggregate impact of 105 to 106 J, it would ring the impacted object hard enough to shake loose all of its SFRM fireproofing.

Kevin Ryan, either through stupidity or sheer deceit, interpreted this statement as saying the SFRM would absorb 106 J per square meter.

Total nonsense. If this was possible, SFRM would be tougher than bulletproof vests. It is not. It is lightweight, crunchy, flakes off at a touch. The very idea of an inch or two of this stopping buckshot dead in its tracks is laughable, but that is precisely the lie that you have swallowed without even stopping to think about it.

Rather than being absorbed, that energy remains, to either damage the surface beneath, or to ricochet and remove still more SFRM.

You have fallen for a con artist. There's no polite way to put it.

[T.A.M.]

Kevin is not only a liar, but he also not very bright. He is nothing more then a repeater of the same tired old truther Canards.

TAM:)

[FactCheck]

High temps in piles of metal are not uncommon. Here is an e-mail I recieved from someone who has seen iron oxidize and burn for months in a pile of steel...

----------------

Hi there

I just went thru your site and it was interesting to say the least, but to the point , my comment is on the use of thermite that supposedly caused the core of the building to remain hot for a long time.

Well here in South Africa we have a company that makes steel and a while ago ( I was still a kid then) a stockpile of steel caught fire ( please note this was basically a dump with everything from fillings to big steel beams, but all metal) and as water would cause a violent reaction they bulldozed it closed with sand (to cut off the O2) it still took 3months for the pile to cool down.

Now I asked some engineers at the time how this was possible, and they told me that metal also burns at certain temps, and that the small fillings most likely caught fire first and then ignited the bigger pieces. Now the same would apply to the WTC. “core fires” as the jet fuel would ignite other flammable materials and start the chain reaction that would cause molten pieces of steel to be found. Thereby debunking the theory of thermite usage.

Just my little comment

--------------------------

http://www.debunking911.com/readers.htm

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

No exotic methods needed...

[Malmoesoldier]

Members of the FDNY and NYPD were working the pile from the minute after the buildings collapsed. By December 2001 about 600,000 tons of debris and steel had been removed from the site, and that was only half what was there.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you saying that those who worked the pile in the days/weeks/months after 9/11 didn't come across tons of steel or do you think all the steel was quickly removed from the site?

A few weeks after 9/11 a man at my school who had buddies in the FDNY brought a piece of twisted WTC steel to work. I found it upsetting to look at, but the point is that WTC steel was never under any sort of "lock down". Removing it from the site was easy enough.

Linky:
http://www.griefnet.org/usamemorial/gnmemorial13.html

FDNY and FBI had no acces to the steel. read what i posted before http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3165852&postcount=71 or http://loosechange-911.blogspot.com/2007/02/wtc-evidence-obstruction.html

"The theft of more than 250 tons of steel from the ruins of the World Trade Centre is being investigated by the FBI and New York police who believe that it was organised by one of the city's Mafia families.

Material from the scene of the September 11 terrorist attack, consisting mainly of steel girders, was discovered earlier this week at three scrapyards, two in New Jersey and one on Long Island.

It appears that the scrap was hauled away by trucks involved in the clear-up operation. But instead of being taken to the FBI-controlled dump on Staten Island where all the material is being stored and sifted it was driven directly to the independently-owned scrapyards.

So far, about 130,000 tons of the debris have been removed."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F09%2F29%2Fwnyc29.x ml

A similiar number has been reported three days later:

"By New York City estimates, debris removal to date has topped more than 115,756 tons." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/eng_005.htm

And we've had already the quote from the Hearing before the Committee, that "a significant amount of steel debris were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. "


Thats odd, perhaps I'm misinterpreting something here, its hard since you dont provide any directions as to what part of the pdf you are using to make your claims, but it says about the results from microstructure tests in that pdf (p 180):


Also, it says that of the samples from the core columns, half of them (2) didn't have sufficient paint to analyze, possibly because of exposure to high temperatures and the other half had minimal paint left.

What gives?

NIST did find samples of steel that had reached a temperature above 600 degrees celsius. If you want to dismiss those as having no relevance, fine, please do so, but you can hardly deny that NIST did put them into their report. I gave you the exact page where they did so. Ill do it again:



And as the last time you brought this up, back in april, its still not clear where you want to go with this. Could you please summarize in a few sentences?



Perhaps. But none of your quotes indicated anything proving that, even remotely.

Lastly, I still wonder what model NIST is witholding.

When they talk about those samples they use these words "It is possible and likely" "were likely to be" "that may have been", that is called speculation. their conclusion was what i quoted.

And my quotes proves without a doubt that they did destroy the steel very quick. If you dont see anything wrong with that i dont know what to say. Giuliani should be in jail. I posted some quotes from NIST about WTC7 before too.

"No steel was recovered from WTC 7."

Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

Jonathan Barnett, PhD "Normally when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item -- photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of tower 7." Video interview with him from history channel here: http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=58

And the model i am talking about is the one that shows the collapse with all the damage.

An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) lends
support to the Requesters’ concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. This article states, in relevant part: World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing toshow computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators. The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings….
University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin
Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural
response. ‘NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the
opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify
any errors in the modeling will be lost,’ he said…. A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. ‘By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,’ he said. ‘The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.’ Parker, Dave (2005). "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005. (emphasis added)

[Alt+F4]

FDNY and FBI had no acces to the steel.

And my quotes proves without a doubt that they did destroy the steel very quick.

Exactly who are "they"? Why didn't any of the dozens of workers at the Fresh Kills Landfill blow the whistle on any of this, after all many of them were professional firefighters?

...acres of misshapen girders and beams from the wreckage of the World Trade Center lie piled up on Staten Island to be cut for scrap and sold. Mound after mound of silvery bits of metal from the buildings wait to be raked through by investigators in jumpsuits who are in search of criminal evidence and human remains.

Linky:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E1D7153DF932A35753C1A9679C8B 63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/S/Sept.%2011,%202001

[Shrinker]

errr...

FBI had no acces to the steel

the FBI-controlled dump on Staten Island where all the material is being stored and sifted

What, did they lose the keys?

[Alt+F4]

So I guess this is how the conspiracy theorists think it went down....

Location: Fresh Kills Landfill, Staten Island, New York
Time: October, 2001

Firefighter Frank: Wow Tom, this heartbreaking work, shifting through all this World Trade Center Debris looking for evidence and body parts.

Firefighter Tom: You're right Frank. Hey, take a look at this piece of steel. I've been a firefighter for 17 years and in my professional opinion this doesn't look like it was twisted by fire alone. I think something else might have been involved.

Firefighter Frank: Shhhhhh! Are you crazy Tom? Yeah, maybe something other than a jet fuel fire did this but if we say anything we might lose our jobs. I just bought a summer home in Boca.

Firefighter Tom: Well maybe we could sneak out some of this steel and get it test independently. I would hate to think someone other than the hijackers did this.

Firefighter Frank: Think about your pension you moron! After all, it was only 343 members of our department that were killed.

[Panoply_Prefect]

When they talk about those samples they use these words "It is possible and likely" "were likely to be" "that may have been", that is called speculation. their conclusion was what i quoted.


Actually no, and we've been through this also. That is the way scientists, as opposed to cult-leaders or religious fanatics, express themselves. Speculation is when someone says "I haven't got the faintest idea, but it might be this that caused it".

And, when you get the time, that model you claimed NIST were withholding.

[Malmoesoldier]

errr...





What, did they lose the keys?

?....

read my quotes how the steel was destroyed quick. why do you think all the steel was destroyed?. it was a cover up.Incivility removed.
Please read your membership agreement, and keep it in mind when posting. Endeavor to remain both civil and polite and remember to attack arguments rather than your fellow posters.

[technoextreme]

?....

read my quotes how the steel was destroyed quick. why do you think all the steel was destroyed?. it was a cover up. edit in line with mod box)
Well he's just proving your argument is wrong. You said the FBI had no access to the steel and then you go and disprove yourself by citing an article about the FBI controlled landfill.
"And yes he is far more crazy than that" why didnt you show a source that NIST found higher temps? because they didnt and you cant do it. now go back to your mothers basement and play WoW.

It's in the NIST report.:) They found evidence at WTC 5 with pictures of steel girders.

[R.Mackey]

?....

read my quotes how the steel was destroyed quick. why do you think all the steel was destroyed?. it was a cover up. edited in line wiht mod box

I've reported your post. I realize you're new here, but this kind of behavior does not advance the argument.

I too do not read into your quoted statements what you read, even ignoring for the moment that you've connected several totally unrelated things -- like the actual theft of ~250 tons, which was caught and corrected -- and "theft" of the entire pile of steel.

NIST was quite unambiguous in claiming that access to steel did not interfere with their investigation of WTC 1 and 2. If there's a coverup, you must believe that they are part of it. Not likely.

[Apollo20]

No, Panoply Prefect, speculation is when NIST claims that the towers collapsed as a result of the loss of thermal insulation on the fire-affecetd floors.

Check out NIST's own discussion of fire severity in NIST GCR-04-872, published in 2004. Here we see fires classified at 9 levels of severity. According to Table 1 in this report, which is based on combustible loading, the WTC fires would be the LEAST severe fires defined by this scale!

[Malmoesoldier]

Actually no, and we've been through this also. That is the way scientists, as opposed to cult-leaders or religious fanatics, express themselves. Speculation is when someone says "I haven't got the faintest idea, but it might be this that caused it".

So you dont know difference between speculation and fact?, fun for you. The NIST report is full of speculations and little fact. many people takes their speculations as fact, because media and television has the power to do so people give words new menings witch they in reality dont have, in otherwords people are being brainwashed.

http://www.neilhague.com/artwork/cybernetic.jpg

I did awsner your question about the model in my post.

The model i am talking about is the one that shows the collapse with all the damage.

An article in the journal New Civil Engineering (NCE) lends
support to the Requesters’ concerns about the NIST analysis of the WTC collapses. This article states, in relevant part: World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing toshow computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators. The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings….
University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin
Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural
response. ‘NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the
opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify
any errors in the modeling will be lost,’ he said…. A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. ‘By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,’ he said. ‘The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.’ Parker, Dave (2005). "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005. (emphasis added)

[Panoply_Prefect]

removed quote in line with mod box

I see you're working on getting banned here as well... :eye-poppi

[Panoply_Prefect]

So you dont know difference between speculation and fact?,

Actually I do. And again, about that model...

[technoextreme]

So you dont know difference between speculation and fact?, fun for you. The NIST report is full of speculations and little fact. many people takes their speculations as fact, because media and television has the power to do so people give words new menings witch they in reality dont have, in otherwords people are being brainwashed.

http://www.neilhague.com/artwork/cybernetic.jpg
At least I don't contradict my own arguments.

[Shrinker]

?....

read my quotes how the steel was destroyed quick. why do you think all the steel was destroyed?. it was a cover up.Incivility removed.
Please read your membership agreement, and keep it in mind when posting. Endeavor to remain both civil and polite and remember to attack arguments rather than your fellow posters.

I don't care about it being destroyed right now. I want you to explain how the FBI had no access to 100,000 tons of steel that was being stored and sifted at a site they were in control of.

[chipmunk stew]

No, Panoply Prefect, speculation is when NIST claims that the towers collapsed as a result of the loss of thermal insulation on the fire-affecetd floors.
For a scientist, you use language very loosely.

[Apollo20]

chipmunk stew:

Oh, so NIST claim that the loss of thermal insulation was NOT a factor in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?

[Panoply_Prefect]

No, Panoply Prefect, speculation is when NIST claims that the towers collapsed as a result of the loss of thermal insulation on the fire-affecetd floors.


Huh? I haven't even posted about thermal insulation. But hey, I'm game:

No Apollo20, speculation is when Judy Wood thinks that sikkred lazers from a Deathstar in outtaspace evaporated the towers. No wait, speculation is when Killtown sees patterns in the smoke coming from the burning towers. No, speculation is when Fetzer puts forth the idea that it was small nukes that brought them down. No, better still, when truther sites post images from the clean-up work as evidence of thermite cuts.

[chipmunk stew]

chipmunk stew:

Oh, so NIST claim that the loss of thermal insulation was NOT a factor in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2?
eh? No, of course not.

Their conclusion, however, is not speculation--it's theory.

I'd think you, as a scientist, would be more careful not to abuse your terms of art in the service of rhetoric.

[Alt+F4]

You said the FBI had no access to the steel and then you go and disprove yourself by citing an article about the FBI controlled landfill.

The conspiracy folks can never figure out what's going on with the FBI. First they say the FBI knew it was an inside job because OBL isn't wanted by the FBI in regard to 9/11. Then they say that the FBI couldn't get access to the steel because they would then expose 9/11 as an inside job.

It seems the conspiracy folks think that half of the FBI is witholding evidence from the other half of the FBI.

[Apollo20]

Well CS you call it a theory,

I call it speculation.....

[Lennart Hyland]

If it was an inside job...wouldnt fixing evidence for Usama being behind the attacks one of the top priorities?

[T.A.M.]

If it was an inside job...wouldnt fixing evidence for Usama being behind the attacks one of the top priorities?

trust me, the complexity of the conspiracy theory involved in explaining why the NWO used Saudis as the hijackers instead of people from Iraq or Afghanistan is beyond our mere mortal comprehension. It requires the superior intellect of a Max Proton, or LastChild or Malmoesoldier, so don't even bother...lol

TAM:)

[chipmunk stew]

Well CS you call it a theory,

I call it speculation.....
Yes, I know. Unfortunately, this is not a case of tomayto/tomahto.

"Speculation" and "theory" have meaning.

[T.A.M.]

Speculation:
Jimmy: Look at that flock of geese flying up there.
Danny: I suspect they are going south for the winter.

Theory:
Based on the seasonal variation of flying routes of Geese, those being toward the south in the autumn months, and to the north in spring, we suggest that Geese are among those birds that migrate south for the winter.

TAM;)

[Malmoesoldier]

I have not seen any information about how much steel from WTC FBI had in their controlled dump on Staten Island, if they had any?. I think the only steel they had was the steel that got sent to NIST. But what i do know is how much steel that got destroyed quick without FBI knowing...

And i think most of the people at NIST are honest folks, but the people that works at NIST aint the ones that gives orders, thats people higher up. And there are very suspicious people like Dr. Corley. Some interesting info about him here (they talk about oklahoma city being an inside job in the text to, dont need to go in to that discussion here, only quoting a guys blogg with some very interesting info)

Let's look closer at Gene Corley. The BPAT team deployed to the WTC site was assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers and is headed by him. He was also the principal investigator in the FEMA study of Oklahoma City's Murrah Federal Office Building. This is of interest, because, according to the official story, the damage was caused by a 5000-pound fertilizer and fuel oil bomb packed into the back of a rented Ryder truck parked on the street in front of the building. But it turned out to be not as simple like that:
Police who arrived on the scene after the bombing discovered several unexploded bombs inside the building. This discovery was widely reported http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=6967199061399980366&q=oklahoma+bombing on local TV news broadcasts and confirmed through testimonies by others http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/bombs/bombs.html.
Explosives expert General Parton revealed in his analysis that the truck bomb alone could not have produced the damage to the building. He notes that, at the distance the truck was parked from the building, the pressure wave of the blast would have been ten times less than what is required to pulverize concrete. See his report, which was submitted to the U.S. Congress and is part of the Congressional Record, here. http://web.archive.org/web/19990826061324/ http://www.myplanet.net/jeffhead/dadmisc/okcbomb.htm
His claims were ignored. Meanwhile Controlled Demolition Inc. was contracted to demolish the rest of the Murrah Building and bury its remains, thus preventing proper forensic examination.

There were also stories about a leaked report prepared by the Pentagon, stating that their two experts working independently of one another came to the same conclusions like General Parton. Source http://web.archive.org/web/19981207060603/http://www.aci.net/kalliste/okcbomb.htm
Note also, that besides Gene Corley, the authors of the official report (http://www.terrorisminfo.mipt.org/pdf/forensicengineering2.pdf) on the Murrah Federal Building, Charles Thornton (from the Thornton-Tomasseti-Group!) and Mete Sozeny, were among the initial team of the WTC and Pentagon investigation. Furthermore, the fourth author on the Murrah Building report was Paul Mlakar, who headed the Pentagon investigation:

QUOTE
"the Pentagon team is headed by Paul Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E., of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi." Source http://gop.science.house.gov/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm

Quoting Kevin Ryan:

QUOTE
"Why do the same five or so individuals turn up in investigations relating to terrorist attack, when, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), there are 1.5 million engineers in the US?" Source http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html

That's a very good question.

Considering that never before steelframed-skyscrapers collapsed due to fire, and that the towers were built to withstand an impact of a boeing (which they obviously did), it's also a good question why Corley was so sure that the towers would collapse , when rescue-workers, firefighters, etc didn't even think of it? Source http://www.sptimes.com/News/091401/Worldandnation/Engineer__Impact_show.shtml
Besides Corley, there were six other authors of the FEMA report who became authors of the NIST report. (Therese McAllister, John Gross, Ronald Hamburger, William Baker, Harold Nelson, Ramon Gilsanz). Isn't it strange, that the collapse explanations offered by both reports are quite different though many of the authors are identical? Even more strange when you think of the Weidlinger Study, commissed by Silverstein for his insurance claim, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html because it was released only five months after the FEMA report. The Weidlinger study blames column - not truss - failure for the collapses.

As failures of truss supports could indicate a design fault, and therefore fail to support the "two occurrances" claimed by Silverstein, the explanation for collapse had to be shifted from the trusses to the columns. Guess who also shifted? Right, Gene Corley (btw. Thornton-Tomasetti Group was also involved in the Weidlinger Study). Source http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021104.asp
Why would the same individual endorse two contradictory theories in their different roles? Apparently for political and economic reasons.

Guess who was allowed into the site? Controlled Demolition, who was also responsible for cleaning up after the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995.

"Allowed into the site?" They were the major cleanup contractor. They are acknowledged as the best in the world. Why mention the OK City bombing? What's that got to do with the WTC? Do you just like things that go boom?" -Screw Loose Change

I think the Screw Loose Change comment speaks for itself, and in some way, this does, too:

"Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s (CDI's) international experience with products of the world’s explosives manufacturers, and the paralleled knowledge of the intentional inducement of progressive collapse, positions our groups perfectly to assess the risk of terrorists activities adjacent to existing structures. Controlled Demolition Incorporated’s in-house explosive and anti-terrorist database provides information necessary to respond to questions raised by the most discerning of clients on an absolutely confidential basis.

Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) has the appropriate experience and expertise to assist Department of Defense (DOD) agencies and contractors in demolition operations on sensitive projects, domestically and internationally. Through the support of our international network of offices and agent relationships, Controlled Demolition Incorporated can respond promptly for defense-related consulting and performance requests on short notice. Controlled Demolition Incorporated (CDI) has the appropriate clearances and internal controls to support federal agencies involved in domestic or foreign investigations which involve the gathering of criminal evidence critical to our precepts of due process."

And they also hired Dr Corley to investigate what happend on the waco siege. And we all know what happend there...

[Malmoesoldier]

Actually I do. And again, about that model...

I awnsered your question about the model two times.

[Panoply_Prefect]

I awnsered your question about the model two times.

Actually no, you have quoted an article talking about a visualization of the collapse itself, not about witheld models:


World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing toshow computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers


So I gather you are talking about a visualization of the collapse, not a specific model? Or am I missing something here?

[R.Mackey]

Explosives expert General Parton revealed in his analysis that the truck bomb alone could not have produced the damage to the building. He notes that, at the distance the truck was parked from the building, the pressure wave of the blast would have been ten times less than what is required to pulverize concrete. See his report, which was submitted to the U.S. Congress and is part of the Congressional Record, here. http://web.archive.org/web/19990826061324/ http://www.myplanet.net/jeffhead/dadmisc/okcbomb.htm
His claims were ignored. Meanwhile Controlled Demolition Inc. was contracted to demolish the rest of the Murrah Building and bury its remains, thus preventing proper forensic examination. (Emphasis added)

This is about the only thing I can find in the post above that isn't pure speculation and well-poisoning -- and it's wrong.

Just because concrete may have a compressive strength of 3,000 psi, for instance, doesn't mean it takes an overpressure of 3,000 psi to damage it. Not even close. You cannot confuse the material properties of concrete with the system response of a building.

No building will stand up to 3,000 psi. Most missile silos won't handle that kind of overpressure.

What will happen instead, at much lower pressures, is that the total force created -- pressure times area -- will cause the building to displace. This will create local stresses that are far higher than the body average, and concrete will fracture as a result.

It also bears pointing out that the "unexploded devices" found afterwards were training dummies, and that we've beat all of these myths, too, to death. But that discussion is wildly off-topic, whereas my correction above may be of some general interest. Suffice to say that (a) General Parton is wrong, (b) we've already discussed this endlessly, and (c) you are simply parroting errors that others made and were corrected on years ago.

[T.A.M.]

So Malmoe, do you feel Gene Corley is part of a Cover Up on 9/11? More specifically, do you feel he knowingly ignored evidence that Explosives were used to bring down the WTCs?

TAM:)

[leftysergeant]

What will happen instead, at much lower pressures, is that the total force created -- pressure times area -- will cause the building to displace. This will create local stresses that are far higher than the body average, and concrete will fracture as a result.

It also bears pointing out that the "unexploded devices" found afterwards were training dummies, and that we've beat all of these myths, too, to death. But that discussion is wildly off-topic, whereas my correction above may be of some general interest. Suffice to say that (a) General Parton is wrong, (b) we've already discussed this endlessly, and (c) you are simply parroting errors that others made and were corrected on years ago.

It is clear that no building is ever likely to be designed to resist being picked up and dropped back on its foundation without breaking at least a few elements. This is, in effect, why the Murrah Building fell so easily. ANFO does not work very well as a cutting charge, compared to C-4 or TNT made into a shaped charge. It is, instead, used to over-pressurize an area, such as the fissures or bore holes in solid rock where the objective is to remove large chunks, as in a marble quarry or such. (It is rarely used in hard-rock mining where the objective is to break the rock into small pieces that can easily be transported out of the tunnels.)

Partin also shows the over-pressurization falling off evenly in all directions, disregarding the fact that this would be slowed under containment, as inside the building. The pulverization on concrete would clearly have been more a result of the collision of concrete elements during collapse. There was not any great deal of concrete dust spread about the area of the Murrah Building.

Add to all of this the fact that Partin's integrity may be questioned, owing to his hostility toward the Clinton Administration. For those of you not familiar with General Partin, he has, since his retirement from the Air Force, worked mostly as an advocate for a fundamentalist Christian organization devoted to spreading the message that Christians are, as Christians, being subjected to unjust persecution world-wide. This leads the group to have on several occassions made comments in their news letter praising the efforts of Jonas Savimbi, an anti-government terrorist relic of the Cold War in Angola.

I trust General Partin about as far as I can engage him with a bowling ball.

So, who to trust? The radical Christian propogandist or a bunch of nerds on the government payroll under two presidents of widely-varying political persuasion? Hmmm....

Pound sand, Partin.

[chipmunk stew]

I have not seen any information about how much steel from WTC FBI had in their controlled dump on Staten Island, if they had any?. I think the only steel they had was the steel that got sent to NIST. But what i do know is how much steel that got destroyed quick without FBI knowing...

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nov03/nyhs112703.htm

A picture of some of the steel at Fresh Kills:
http://www.epa.gov/WTC/pictures/pages/12.htm

[Malmoesoldier]

Actually no, you have quoted an article talking about a visualization of the collapse itself, not about witheld models:



So I gather you are talking about a visualization of the collapse, not a specific model? Or am I missing something here?

My bad. it is the visualization of the collapse i mean.

So Malmoe, do you feel Gene Corley is part of a Cover Up on 9/11? More specifically, do you feel he knowingly ignored evidence that Explosives were used to bring down the WTCs?

TAM:)

I feel that rudy giuliani, Gene Corley, dick chenny, is part of the cover up. I also think some other foreign terrorist is part of the 9-11 attacks (not bin laden), some terrorist that has been used on 9-11 by an much bigger terrorist organisation then themself.

[T.A.M.]

What did Gene Corley have to gain from covering up 9/11?

TAM:)

Edit:

here is a picture, since you may not know what he looks like. You should at least know the face of those you accuse of covering up mass murder.

http://www.ctlgroup.com/files/dynamic_staff_imgs/0131.jpg

[Alferd_Packer]

Maybe he meant Gene Pitney.

[Panoply_Prefect]

My bad. it is the visualization of the collapse i mean.


Ok. I haven't heard of a visualization made by NIST, but then again its a huge report. Care to elaborate?

[Panoply_Prefect]

Ok. I haven't heard of a visualization made by NIST, but then again its a huge report. Care to elaborate?

Guess not then. Figures.

[FactCheck]

The clear evidence the fireproofing would have been knocked off during impact is how clean the steel was on GZ after the collapse. The collapse alone knocked it all off of the whole building. I have yet to see a piece of steel on GZ with any real fireproofing.

http://www.debunking911.com/4166.jpg

I have lots of photos like this and they all show no signs of FP.

[Malmoesoldier]

Ok. I haven't heard of a visualization made by NIST, but then again its a huge report. Care to elaborate?

Everything you need to know is in the quote i wrote. Do a Google search

The clear evidence the fireproofing would have been knocked off during impact is how clean the steel was on GZ after the collapse. The collapse alone knocked it all off of the whole building. I have yet to see a piece of steel on GZ with any real fireproofing.

http://www.debunking911.com/4166.jpg

I have lots of photos like this and they all show no signs of FP.

You cannot compare the collapse of the building with the plane crashing into it. There are no evidence that the fireproofing was knocked off at the impact floor in the places NIST predicts as necessary. Also there is no evidence that the steel would weaken without fireproofing, the floor models didn't come close to collapse, 210 min in 700C, fireproofing only last 1-2 hours, so the floor models most have been in fire without fireproofing a longer time then the WTC fire. They had very little fireproofing in the floor models to. And please understand this sometime, they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have...

Also, WTC7 was not hit by a plane....

And the steel at the upper floors was removed very quick.

"In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site.

http://gop.science.house.gov/hot/wtc/charter.htm

[The Almond]

You cannot compare the collapse of the building with the plane crashing into it. There are no evidence that the fireproofing was knocked off at the impact floor in the places NIST predicts as necessary.

NIST used what I would consider to be an adequate method for determining what fireproofing was stripped off. When 100 tons of shrapnel entered the building at a few hundred miles per hour, NIST estimated that any column whose wallboards were stripped away (compressive strength of about 100 psi), also had fireproofing stripped away (adhesive strength of about 12 psi). NCSTAR 1-6, page L (50) of the executive summary provides a concise explanation of their method.

Also there is no evidence that the steel would weaken without fireproofing,

This statement is demonstrably false.

the floor models didn't come close to collapse, 210 min in 700C, fireproofing only last 1-2 hours, so the floor models most have been in fire without fireproofing a longer time then the WTC fire.

Um, every section of the NCSTAR contains an "executive summary" wherein they describe the collapse scenario. Some models did not predict collapse, but those models also failed to match the observations of the condition of the tower.

They had very little fireproofing in the floor models to. And please understand this sometime, they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have...

The steel acquired validated the model developed by NIST. Were the model too hot, the steel would have tested at a lower temperature than the model predicted. This did not happen.

Also, WTC7 was not hit by a plane....

Indeed, it was hit by a building.

And the steel at the upper floors was removed very quick.

Thanks for your opinion.

[Malmoesoldier]

Thanks for your opinion.

My opinion?. It is a fact. gave you the source to. I know it doesn't fit your belief system so you ignore it, but thats your problem. Do you need your god (television) to tell you things before you can understand it?

What is it you cant understand with "they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have" SHOW me the **** steel, NIST haven't seen it. But you aren't intreseted in facts and evidence maybe? speculation is enough for you to form an opinion on who's guilty?.

And fireproofing only last 1-2 hours so the floor models must have been exposed to fires without fireproofing a longer time then 45min.

the debis falling onto WTC7 knocked off the fireproofing?, thats very likely, or NOT. you can show me the evidence of it when you feel like it to. And its my opinion that they destoyed all the steel from WTC7 to right?.

[uk_dave]

the debis falling onto WTC7 knocked off the fireproofing?, thats very likely, or NOT. you can show me the evidence of it when you feel like it to. And its my opinion that they destoyed all the steel from WTC7 to right?.

The building collapsed. I'd say that was pretty good evidence that the fireproofing had been compromised.

[DGM]

My opinion?. It is a fact. gave you the source to. I know it doesn't fit your belief system so you ignore it, but thats your problem. Do you need your god (television) to tell you things before you can understand it?

What is it you cant understand with "they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have" SHOW me the fu*king steel, NIST haven't seen it. But you aren't intreseted in facts and evidence maybe? speculation is enough for you to form an opinion on who's guilty?.

And fireproofing only last 1-2 hours so the floor models must have been exposed to fires without fireproofing a longer time then 45min.

the debis falling onto WTC7 knocked off the fireproofing?, thats very likely, or NOT. you can show me the evidence of it when you feel like it to. And its my opinion that they destoyed all the steel from WTC7 to right?.
Do you plan to actually read the NIST report someday or are you happy with the condensed interpretation?

[Malmoesoldier]

Do you plan to actually read the NIST report someday or are you happy with the condensed interpretation?

Maybe you should read the report and understand the difference between fact and speculation. when NIST says no core column reached higher then 250C they speak in fact. when they predict temperatures higher then 700C on places they predict as necessary for the collapse to take place it is speculation. Maybe you should turn of the television together with uk dave.

Tell me. Are there any facts sourounding conspiracies that media hasn't talked about, or not?. just a question

[The Almond]

My opinion?. It is a fact. gave you the source to. I know it doesn't fit your belief system so you ignore it, but thats your problem. Do you need your god (television) to tell you things before you can understand it?

I would hope that you could provide a coherent argument. That would allow me to understand it.

What is it you cant understand with "they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have" SHOW me the fu*king steel,
NIST haven't seen it.

The steel they have validated the model they used to analyze the collapse. Do you believe otherwise? Why?

But you aren't intreseted in facts and evidence maybe?

Very much so. Perhaps you could present a few, as it would greatly help your case.

speculation is enough for you to form an opinion on who's guilty?.

Surely not.

And fireproofing only last 1-2 hours so the floor models must have been exposed to fires without fireproofing a longer time then 45min.

Would you care to expand this idea? In it's current form, it makes no sense.

the debis falling onto WTC7 knocked off the fireproofing?

Probably. It also knocked off a large chunk of the building, started numerous fires, etc.

, thats very likely, or NOT. you can show me the evidence of it when you feel like it to. And its my opinion that they destoyed all the steel from WTC7 to right?.

It's your opinion that the recycling of scrap steel proves any type of conspiracy or wrongdoing on the part of the federal, state and local governments involved in the cleanup.

[The Almond]

Maybe you should read the report and understand the difference between fact and speculation. when NIST says no core column reached higher then 250C they speak in fact.

In fact, NIST states that all but three columns tested showed, by virtue of the paint chip analysis method, that their temperatures failed to exceed 250C. I can see how a truther would interpret that as "NO STEEL REACHED 250C," but the rest of use have interpreted it in the spirit in which it was reported. Of the steel that NIST tested, none of it came from an area whose temperature was predicted to exceed 250C. You might also note that only two core columns had enough paint on them to do the paint chip analysis. Do you ever wonder why that might be?

If you ever do, just read pages 87 to 90 in NCSTAR1.

when they predict temperatures higher then 700C on places they predict as necessary for the collapse to take place it is speculation.
Actually, it is the solution to a series of well defined and calibrated computer models.

[RedIbis]

In fact, NIST states that all but three columns tested showed, by virtue of the paint chip analysis method, that their temperatures failed to exceed 250C. I can see how a truther would interpret that as "NO STEEL REACHED 250C," but the rest of use have interpreted it in the spirit in which it was reported. Of the steel that NIST tested, none of it came from an area whose temperature was predicted to exceed 250C. You might also note that only two core columns had enough paint on them to do the paint chip analysis. Do you ever wonder why that might be?




This always appears to be a poor defense. For one thing, why didn't NIST have access to those samples which came from the areas with predicted temps that exceeded 250C?

Secondly, is there no other way to determine the temperature that a core column experienced besides paint chip analysis? Are we to believe that only steel columns with sufficient paint can be analyzed for the temps they experienced?

[DGM]

Maybe you should read the report and understand the difference between fact and speculation. when NIST says no core column reached higher then 250C they speak in fact. when they predict temperatures higher then 700C on places they predict as necessary for the collapse to take place it is speculation. Maybe you should turn of the television together with uk dave.

This I'll leave alone because it shows your complete ignorance to the NIST report.

Tell me. Are there any facts sourounding conspiracies that media hasn't talked about, or not?. just a question

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Maybe you could rephrase it?

BTW I hardly ever watch TV.

[SDC]

This always appears to be a poor defense. For one thing, why didn't NIST have access to those samples which came from the areas with predicted temps that exceeded 250C?

Secondly, is there no other way to determine the temperature that a core column experienced besides paint chip analysis? Are we to believe that only steel columns with sufficient paint can be analyzed for the temps they experienced?

Would you understand the explanations if you got them? I freely admit that I would not. My credentials, in terms of the liberal arts, are excellent, but I do not pretend to understand science and engineering. Your comments have indicated that you don't either. So why should any qualified people bother to provide explanations which you are not equipped to understand? Theoretically speaking.

[RedIbis]

Would you understand the explanations if you got them? I freely admit that I would not. My credentials, in terms of the liberal arts, are excellent, but I do not pretend to understand science and engineering. Your comments have indicated that you don't either. So why should any qualified people bother to provide explanations which you are not equipped to understand? Theoretically speaking.

These are simple questions. Rather than try and insult me and submitting to the fallacy of appealing to authority, how about trying to answer them.

[phunk]

They did have access to the samples that reached high temps. The problem is, those high temps destroy the identifing marks on the steel, making it impossible to determine exactly where in the building it came from. They only used identifiable steel in their studies.

[SDC]

These are simple questions. Rather than try and insult me and submitting to the fallacy of appealing to authority, how about trying to answer them.

Bazz-fazz. You think those are insults? Those are honest questions and comments on my part; are you qualified to understand? I can talk to my doctor about many areas of my health, in general terms, but when he/ she gets into technical explanations (say, interpreting the MRI's displaying my back problems -- and he/ she says, "Ah, now here we see something!") I have to rely on his/ her expertise, or authority, entirely. To do otherwise would be folly.

"Appeal to authority..." This does not apply when the authority is a real and present one. Many people here can explain and describe why and how things go kaboom. I cannot. Therefore, I look to them for their expertise.

Don't try to bully others with cries of "you insulted me." That's silly.

Anyhow your "simple questions" have been answered any number of times. Use the search function.

[The Almond]

This always appears to be a poor defense. For one thing, why didn't NIST have access to those samples which came from the areas with predicted temps that exceeded 250C?

It's not that NIST did not have access to those samples, it's that:
1) Not all samples had sufficient identifying markers to be identified as to their position in the core. The steel samples selected were chosen in part because they were from exterior panels, which made their identification and the differentiation between pre/post collapse damage easier.
2) Not all of the samples that could be positively identified had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis. Only two core columns had enough paint, and, not surprisingly, they were from areas in the towers that were not predicted to be hotter than 250C.

Secondly, is there no other way to determine the temperature that a core column experienced besides paint chip analysis?

It's a lot more difficult than it sounds. You can use electron probe microanalysis and X-ray diffraction to look at the changes in the structure of the steel before and after heating, but such analyses require a like standard. In other words, in order to use those analysis methods, we would need a piece of steel with the exact same composition and physical characteristics as the WTC steel. Determining the composition to a level necessary for such an analysis would be nearly impossible after the collapse.

The other option is to look for markers and identifiers in the steel a priori. One such marker occurs at about 600C, and none of the steel samples showed damage to this point.

Are we to believe that only steel columns with sufficient paint can be analyzed for the temps they experienced?

The paint chip analysis is useful for three important reasons:
1) It's accuracy can be determined. This means that the effect is consistent within the system, and its error bars are within the range needed for corroboration of the data.
2) Removal of the paint chips, in this instance through delamination due to the expansion of the steel, is easy to distinguish from other types of damage that occurred during the collapse. This is not true for many metallographic techniques.
3) The test can be done on large sections of steel. Microanalysis would not give sufficient sampling to give the statistical accuracy needed for validation.

Again, the purpose of acquiring the steel was to determine, with a high degree of accuracy, it's physical properties, to include thermal expansion and compressive strength. It was not the intention of NIST to use the inputs from what is an extremely qualitative test to determine the actual thermal response of the WTC towers. The truther mantra "no steel above 250C" implies that any of the steel tested was expected to show it, and that's bogus.

[SDC]

Hey, but these are all simple questions. We know this because R.Ibis said so. Don't go dragging complex facts into the case.

In fact, Almond, you are using words with too many syllables of non-Anglo-Saxon derivation. Please stop.

[Malmoesoldier]

I would hope that you could provide a coherent argument. That would allow me to understand it.

The steel they have validated the model they used to analyze the collapse. Do you believe otherwise? Why?

Very much so. Perhaps you could present a few, as it would greatly help your case.

Surely not.

Would you care to expand this idea? In it's current form, it makes no sense.

Probably. It also knocked off a large chunk of the building, started numerous fires, etc.


It's your opinion that the recycling of scrap steel proves any type of conspiracy or wrongdoing on the part of the federal, state and local governments involved in the cleanup.

I dont give a damn about their model, if they dont have evidence (STEEL) the only thing they can do is speculate.

Have you read about the floor model in the NIST report before?. Im not talking about a computer model, real models with wtc steel. And i dont need to expand anything you should understand. 1+1=2 i dont need to explain that do i?. I cant remember reading any details that the fireproofing came off in the NIST report, why not? fireproofing only last 1-2 hours, the model was 210 min with only 0,5 inches fireproofing.

So you dont think it is a crime to remove evidence from a crime scene before the first BPAT team member reached the site. and destroying every pice of steel of a 40-story bulding so NIST wont be able to explain the collapse isnt a crime, ok... And with all the witnesses of countdowns, big explosions, explosions inside WTC7 before the plane crached into the bulding etc. Just a coincidence nothing to worry about. americas government that is controlled from europe has killed more of their own people then the 3000 that died on 9-11. but i guess you havnt read any history and thats why you dont question things.

[The Almond]

I dont give a damn about their model,

That's fine. We all have the option to choose ignorance over rationalism.

if they dont have evidence (STEEL) the only thing they can do is speculate.

In your opinion, perhaps. But I subscribe to a wholly derived form of proof in the form of mathematics. Then again, I, along with the entirety of scientific reasoning though 900 BCE might be wrong.

Have you read about the floor model in the NIST report before?. Im not talking about a computer model, real models with wtc steel.

Though cryptic, you seem to be referring to the ASTM E119 tests that were done to determine the "designed as built" baseline performance for a single truss in a fire environment? That analysis starts on page 141 (Section 6.13) of NCSTAR 1.

Now, in a standard argument, this question would be followed with a statement of some sort, like "That test shows that only Keebler elves could have done it!"

And i dont need to expand anything you should understand.

I can't read your mind. If I don't understand your argument, you could at least have the courtesy to expand your ideas.

1+1=2 i dont need to explain that do i?. I cant remember reading any details that the fireproofing came off in the NIST report, why not?

I would contend that you simply did not read the NCSTAR.

fireproofing only last 1-2 hours, the model was 210 min with only 0,5 inches fireproofing.

Again, what does this have to do with anything? What is your point?

So you dont think it is a crime to remove evidence from a crime scene before the first BPAT team member reached the site. and destroying every pice of steel of a 40-story bulding so NIST wont be able to explain the collapse isnt a crime, ok... And with all the witnesses of countdowns, big explosions, explosions inside WTC7 before the plane crached into the bulding etc. Just a coincidence nothing to worry about. americas government that is controlled from europe has killed more of their own people then the 3000 that died on 9-11. but i guess you havnt read any history and thats why you dont question things.
There is far too much jumping and random topic insertion to bother with a response. Stick to the topic of this thread, please.

[Malmoesoldier]

The Almond. I will say it one more time. the floor models where in 700C in 210 min.

The world is round and 1+1=2. do you understand that at least?.

the WTC fire in 45 min could not have made more damge then the floor model test. This shows that 700C in 210 min dont even damge the steel, the models wasnt CLOSE to collapse, far from. This says alot. And it was criminal for them to destroy the evidence only a real IDIO* will think otherwise. You have done nothing to prove anything, where is your evidence that the building collapsed because of fire and plane damge?, the NIST report have no evidence. you arent interested in evidence and facts.

[Malmoesoldier]

Why did NIST perform the steel temperature tests, including the paint deformation test and the tests of steel microstructure, if the results would not
be used in the final analyses? Will the American public be refunded the money
spent on these tests? The paint deformation test that NIST performed, and that resulted in the 250 °C value discussed, appears to be a measure of the surface temperature of the steel samples tested. NIST provides no explanation for how such a surface temperature result could have been extrapolated to provide meaningful data about the temperature of large masses of core columns, floor assemblies and exterior columns in the WTC towers. In order to validate NIST’s new claim that the test results cannot be extrapolated to provide meaningful information, the details of the intended extrapolation protocol must be provided for public use. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how a surface temperature of 250°C could be extrapolated in such a way that the inner temperature of the steel could ever have been greater
than 250°C. In November of 2004, one of the Requesters sent a letter to Dr. Frank Gayle of NIST, asking for information on the steel temperature tests performed, and the conclusions drawn from the results of those tests. This letter was never answered, but the October 2004 NIST WTC presentation, on which the letter was based, repeatedly stated that large quantities of the steel in the towers had “softened”. After receiving this letter, NIST delayed their report and removed the word “softened” from throughout their descriptions of the collapse initiation sequences. These facts indicate that NIST did not have any plan for extrapolating the results of steel temperature tests, and have never had a scientific basis for the claims made in the NIST WTC report about steel temperatures.

Read the full letter to NIST here: www.911proof.com/NIST%20DQA%20Petition%20Appeal.pdf

[SDC]

The Almond. I will say it one more time. the floor models where in 700C in 210 min.

The world is round and 1+1=2. do you understand that at least?.

the WTC fire in 45 min could not have made more damge then the floor model test. This shows that 700C in 210 min dont even damge the steel, the models wasnt CLOSE to collapse, far from. This says alot. And it was criminal for them to destroy the evidence only a real IDIO* will think otherwise. You have done nothing to prove anything, where is your evidence that the building collapsed because of fire and plane damge?, the NIST report have no evidence. you arent interested in evidence and facts.

Malmoe, could you please have someone -- an English-speaking friend or colleague, perhaps -- put your messages into a more standard, and more easily comprehended, version of English. That will help. Thanks.

[The Almond]

The Almond. I will say it one more time. the floor models where in 700C in 210 min.

Reference? I'm not seeing 700C anywhere in NCSTAR 1.

The world is round and 1+1=2. do you understand that at least?.

I understand that you're attempting to patronize me in a desperate attempt to cover up your ignorance of the subject matter. I can assure you, it's not working.

the WTC fire in 45 min could not have made more damge then the floor model test.

This is ludicrous. The ASTM test was determining the undamaged baseline performance of the towers, not modeling the conditions of the fires to determine the temperature of the steel.

This shows that 700C in 210 min dont even damge the steel

Gee! When adequate fireproofing and standard load conditions are applied to steel, passive fire protection serves to prevent collapse. What a concept!

, the models wasnt CLOSE to collapse, far from. This says alot.

It doesn't say what you think it says. It says that an isolated truss with 1/2" of sprayed on fire insulation with standard load and no damage to the structure will survive the fire. The WTC towers had significant structural damage and stripped fireproofing. That's why they collapsed.

And it was criminal for them to destroy the evidence only a real IDIO* will think otherwise. You have done nothing to prove anything, where is your evidence that the building collapsed because of fire and plane damge?, the NIST report have no evidence. you arent interested in evidence and facts.
The NCSTAR is full of evidence, from eyewitness quotes to photographs to videos to test data and everything necessary to make their case.

[The Almond]

Read the full letter to NIST here: www.911proof.com/NIST%20DQA%20Petition%20Appeal.pdf (http://www.911proof.com/NIST%20DQA%20Petition%20Appeal.pdf)

Might I suggest that, when you decide to quote/post, you add some commentary to it? It will help you make a rational argument.

[funk de fino]

Read the full letter to NIST here: www.911proof.com/NIST%20DQA%20Petition%20Appeal.pdf

Oh dear, I believe you just linked to a letter written by idiots.

They have fooled you. Dont worry though, one day it will become clear, just like the day you found out Darth Vader was Lukes father

[Malmoesoldier]

Page 35. http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/Sunder_WTCTechnicalConference_091305short.pdf

1300F (700C) in 210 min under MAXIMUM LOAD. No collapse, not even close. And the fact that fireproofing only last 1-2hours most mean that the fireproofing came off. I wonder why NIST didnt do or talk about any floor model test without fireproofing.... And again you cant say that anything in the NIST report proves the collapse, because it dont. But hey lets pass new laws that destroys freedom and lets start an illegal war and lets give the military industrial complex billions. And lets ignore the destruction of the steel and all the witnesses on 9-11 of countdowns and explosions.

[The Almond]

Page 35. http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/Sunder_WTCTechnicalConference_091305short.pdf

1300F (700C) in 210 min under MAXIMUM LOAD.

What is maximum load? Does it mean maximum load for the test? How does this load relate to the loading conditions in the WTC towers?

No collapse, not even close.

Was the purpose of the test to determine if the structure collapsed?

And the fact that fireproofing only last 1-2hours most mean that the fireproofing came off.

No, it doesn't.

I wonder why NIST didnt do or talk about any floor model test without fireproofing....

Because that's not in the ASTM E 119 test.

And again you cant say that anything in the NIST report proves the collapse, because it dont.

I can see you've degenerated into just contradiction without argument. Goodbye.

[funk de fino]

Page 35. http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/Sunder_WTCTechnicalConference_091305short.pdf

1300F (700C) in 210 min under MAXIMUM LOAD. No collapse, not even close. And the fact that fireproofing only last 1-2hours most mean that the fireproofing came off. I wonder why NIST didnt do or talk about any floor model test without fireproofing.... And again you cant say that anything in the NIST report proves the collapse, because it dont. But hey lets pass new laws that destroys freedom and lets start an illegal war and lets give the military industrial complex billions. And lets ignore the destruction of the steel and all the witnesses on 9-11 of countdowns and explosions.

Liar

[phunk]

No, the test was to determine the amount of 'sag', it was NOT to emulate the collapse. The test was stopped intentionally before it could collapse, because collapse would damage what they were trying to measure.

[Malmoesoldier]

Liar

Liar?. Have you read in this thread at all?. they DID destroy the steel just read my posts in this thread some pages back. and dont call me a liar you *****nerd.

9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/130907_demolition_countdown.htm

Was the purpose of the test to determine if the structure collapsed?´

It doesn't MATTER what the purpose of the test was, the FACTS are the facts. you people cant understand simple facts, Edited to remove inappropriate remark.

Do not use alternate spelling to get around the auto-censor and do not personalize your argument.

[DGM]

Malmoesoldier;
Quoting the ever changing story of Keven McPadden will make you look more the fool every time.
"We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown."

See he himself says he didn't hear it. At least not until later accounts

[Malmoesoldier]

Malmoesoldier;
Quoting the ever changing story of Keven McPadden will make you look more the fool every time.


See he himself says he didn't hear it. At least not until later accounts

You should work for fox news or something. He said he heard a countdown from 3,2,1.

[DGM]

"I COULDN'T HEAR WHAT IT WAS SAYING"

What part of that don't you understand? That's what he said, is he lying to himself? Read the article you posted. Why do you only see what supports your beliefs?

[chipmunk stew]

Did he just call someone a bleeping nerd?

Okay, let's stop picking on the high school kid.

[Malmoesoldier]

What part of that don't you understand? That's what he said, is he lying to himself? Read the article you posted. Why do you only see what supports your beliefs?

It is you that only can see what supports your beliefs. Did you miss this part from the article? McPadden made it clear that he and onlookers clearly heard "three, two, one" from the radio before the building collapsed

You people are always like this. everyone i talk to, just ignoring everything. its almost impossible to talk to you.

[Redtail]

It is you that only can see what supports your beliefs. Did you miss this part from the article?

You people are always like this. everyone i talk to, just ignoring everything. its almost impossible to talk to you.

So he claims he heard a count down to CD yet no audio equipment in the area picked up the CD charges going off... Come to think about it, how many cameras with audio were around rescue workers before the towers came down?

[e^n]

There are no evidence that the fireproofing was knocked off at the impact floor in the places NIST predicts as necessary.

Let us assume for a second that fireproofing was dislodged, what evidence would you expect to be presented to support this? How could you determine if it was true?

[FactCheck]

You cannot compare the collapse of the building with the plane crashing into it. There are no evidence that the fireproofing was knocked off at the impact floor in the places NIST predicts as necessary. Also there is no evidence that the steel would weaken without fireproofing, the floor models didn't come close to collapse, 210 min in 700C, fireproofing only last 1-2 hours, so the floor models most have been in fire without fireproofing a longer time then the WTC fire. They had very little fireproofing in the floor models to. And please understand this sometime, they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have...

You're right, the impact was MUCH WORSE than the collapse in some repects. You act as though there isn't a LARGE HOLE in the side of the building where STEEL COLUMNS WERE SLICED! Are you suggesting that an airliner at 500 MPH is less of an impact than a free fall??? Some of the columns were STILL STANDING IN THE CORE ON GZ AND HAD NO FIREPROOFING! That means they didn't even FALL!

As for the test you speak of, if you are talking about the UL test then you better look at it again.

http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

The floors DID sag and there WAS fireproofing used in those tests. Those tests have been mischaractorized by the conspiracy crowd as if they were tests to show how the buildings fell. They only wanted to know if the fireproofing was up to code.

You will also see the fireproofing was rated for 45 min with only 1/2" fireproofing. Thats a fact. Now what do you think happens after 45 min? The steel weakens. Now remove the fireproofing all together. Do you think the steel will get weaker or stronger... Why in the WORLD would they have fireproofing with a rating if the steel lasted longer than the rating?

Also, WTC7 was not hit by a plane....

Why do you guys always leave important things out, like HOW LONG IT BURNED. You don't think it's important that steel with fireproofing rated for 2hours saw fires for 6??? Or that it was HIT BY ANOTHER BUILDING. Or that there were large TRANSFORMERS/OIL in the building. Or that it had a CANTILEVER CORE.

And REAL structural engineers have said the weakening of the building from the impact and column 79 at the 7th floor level was all you needed to fail in order to create the collapse we saw the way we saw it.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

When you say WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane you mislead. No one EVER suggested the airliners took the fireproofing away.

The NIST recreated the fires using common office furniture and found 1,100C at the ceiling. Manchester fire also tested hydocarbon fires and had the same results. Those are called CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS which anyone can recreate to prove them wrong. So you can get your "Scholars" together and recreate the results. This time have them send their findings to a REAL RESPECTED scientific journal. Otherwise you have a hand full of people making nothing but statements saying things couldn't have happened the way they did.

6 years and not ONE paper in a respected scientific journal claiming what people like you have been claiming for years. You know why? Because the people making those claims KNOW they're full of it. They don't even try because they KNOW they'd be laughed at.

The core columns had gypsum covering the columns. You expect gypsum to last in a 500 MPH airliner impact. I don't need a video of it to know it wont last. People punch holes in gypsum all the time.

[funk de fino]

Liar?. Have you read in this thread at all?. they DID destroy the steel just read my posts in this thread some pages back. and dont call me a liar you *****nerd.

9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/130907_demolition_countdown.htm


McPadden has posted in this forum you know? He did not hear a countdown he was embellishing his ever changing story. He also lied about his first responder status.

You fall for lies and you repeat them, what a shame a fellow european is so blind to the facts. You have to quote a joke site like Prisonplanet

[Dave Rogers]

I cant remember reading any details that the fireproofing came off in the NIST report, why not?

Gosh, I don't know. Could it have been something to do with them not crashing a plane into it?

Dave

[Malmoesoldier]

McPadden has posted in this forum you know? He did not hear a countdown he was embellishing his ever changing story. He also lied about his first responder status.

You fall for lies and you repeat them, what a shame a fellow european is so blind to the facts. You have to quote a joke site like Prisonplanet

First you lie and say they didn't destroy the steel and now you say he didnt hear a countdown he DID from 3,2,1 read the article and listen to video interviews with him, and what do you mean with "his ever changing story". Prisonplanet a joke site?, they talk about real news not like your god, television. things that prisonplanet talks about is what the elit writes with their own words in books/documents saying how they wanna kill and enslave us, but people like you never read that so you call it a "conspiracy theory". you are the joke and you know nothing about history. They report news like when E. Howard Hunt gave an confession that CIA was involved with the JFK murder. Thats something that should be on the first page in every newspaper but it wasn't.

Gosh, I don't know. Could it have been something to do with them not crashing a plane into it?

Dave

Fireproofing still only lasts 1-2 hours if the floor/building has no damge other then fire. but i was expecting an awnser like that on this forum. lol

Let us assume for a second that fireproofing was dislodged, what evidence would you expect to be presented to support this? How could you determine if it was true?

I would like to see more experiments not just the shotgun test. and it would be good if they could look at the steel from the upper floors but they had no acces to it.

Those tests have been mischaractorized by the conspiracy crowd as if they were tests to show how the buildings fell.

The facts from the test are the facts, get over it. we have a model of the floors with maximum load and 700C fires for 210 min with very little fireproofing (fireproofing only last 1-2 hours so that most mean it came off, why didnt NIST report about it?) and they dont collapse, not even cloase. wow they did sag, how much? only 2 to 4 inches. major joist parts did not sag at all. NIST never the less used 42 inches of sag in their computer models and concluded failure. How fun to play with computer models like that

And do you know why WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition? because it was. thats why nobody was allowed to investigate the steel. And all your talk about WTC 1-2-7 is speculation you have no evidence. But i wish you had, who wants conspiracies like this to take place.

Im sure you are going to vote for rudy giuliani he did a good jobb on 9-11 right, helping to destroy evidence and gives radios that dont work to fire fighters. one time he gave a price to david rockefeller to, might wanna check out who he is, he really doesn't like you ;)

[Dave Rogers]

Fireproofing still only lasts 1-2 hours if the floor/building has no damge other then fire. but i was expecting an awnser like that on this forum.

You're quite sure that that's the meaning of the rating, and not that it retards the time to failure by 1-2 hours in specific conditions? The fact that fireproofing thermally insulates the steel so that it lasts longer does not mean that the fireproofing automatically falls off at the end of the rated time, it just means that the steel takes that much longer to heat up to the temperature of failure. There's no reason for the fireproofing to have physically fallen off.

Dave

[funk de fino]

First you lie and say they didn't destroy the steel
When did they destroy the steel and did they destroy it all?

and now you say he didnt hear a countdown he DID from 3,2,1 read the article and listen to video interviews with him, and what do you mean with "his ever changing story". Prisonplanet a joke site?, they talk about real news not like your god, television.

Go read his posts in this forum. He changed his story, he did not hear a countdown he is lying. You believe lies and you repeat them, how sad. You posted an article from when? This year? His countdown was not mentioned in his earlier interviews or claims.

Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert

this is false, he is not what is claimed in that article, prisonplanet is a joke written by morons who are making fools of stupid people

[funk de fino]

Im sure you are going to vote for rudy giuliani he did a good jobb on 9-11 right, helping to destroy evidence


Nope, cant vote, not American, again you have lied, Giuliani did not help to destroy evidence on 911

and gives radios that dont work to fire fighters.

how did Mcpadden hear the countdown then clever clogs?

[Malmoesoldier]

Nope, cant vote, not American, again you have lied, Giuliani did not help to destroy evidence on 911



how did Mcpadden hear the countdown then clever clogs?

You can find all the info you need about the destruction of the steel in this thread. And giuliani did destroy the steel, the evidence is in this thread stop being ignorant and look some pages back i am not going to write it again.

What is your proof that he isnt what the article claims? do you want me to take your word for it? you just told me that giuliani didn't destroy the steel and that i am a lier when it came out in court that he DID destroy it. And Mcpadden didnt change the story, maybe in your head, if a guy dont tell everything that happen in an interview and in a nother he goes into more detail then he has not CHANGED anything....

And prisonplanet is a site that reports REAL news. you never read their site and again you know nothing about history.

how did Mcpadden hear the countdown then clever clogs?

The fireman had a radio that worked?. lol

Where did i say every fire fighter on 9-11 had a radio that didn't work?.

[CHF]

How sad. Another twoofer falls for McPadden's "I didn't hear the countdown, no wait - I did!"

[Malmoesoldier]

How sad. Another twoofer falls for McPadden's "I didn't hear the countdown, no wait - I did!"

You got it all wrong. He said that he heard a countdown from 3,2,1 but BEFORE that he couldn't tell what they was saying but that it sounded and most likely was a countdown. stop reading propaganda sites trying to debunk stuff, they brainwash people.

And then whe have the witness inside WTC7 that heard explosions before the plane hit the buildings, the damge he described is very intresting to. there are more witnesses inside WTC7 that heard explosions to at floor 8.

[funk de fino]

You got it all wrong. He said that he heard a countdown from 3,2,1 but BEFORE that he couldn't tell what they was saying but that it sounded and most likely was a countdown. stop reading propaganda sites trying to debunk stuff, they brainwash people.

And then whe have the witness inside WTC7 that heard explosions before the plane hit the buildings, the damge he described is very intresting to. there are more witnesses inside WTC7 that heard explosions to at floor 8.

His first claims mentioned no countdown, then 3-2-1 then in the PP article a count from 20 secs down. Which was it? he has changed his story and he lied about being special forces first responder. it is junk

you are lying again, there were no explosions in WTC7 before the planes hit the towers

how many times can you lie in one day?

i read prisonplanet but i am lucky enough to see the lies and smoke and mirrors, you do not, it is not my fault you have been stupid and deceived by the bad people

[funk de fino]

You can find all the info you need about the destruction of the steel in this thread. And giuliani did destroy the steel, the evidence is in this thread stop being ignorant and look some pages back i am not going to write it again.

What is your proof that he isnt what the article claims? do you want me to take your word for it? you just told me that giuliani didn't destroy the steel and that i am a lier when it came out in court that he DID destroy it. And Mcpadden didnt change the story, maybe in your head, if a guy dont tell everything that happen in an interview and in a nother he goes into more detail then he has not CHANGED anything....

And prisonplanet is a site that reports REAL news. you never read their site and again you know nothing about history.



The fireman had a radio that worked?. lol

Where did i say every fire fighter on 9-11 had a radio that didn't work?.


Show me where it was shown in court that Giuliani destroyed the steel

I thought Giuliani was bad because he gave firefighters radios that did not work? Contradict yourself much?

[funk de fino]

malmoe

Go and read this thread in which mcpadden participates and then come back and tell me his story is the same as your claims from PP

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94832&highlight=mcpadden

FDF

[chillzero]

malmoe

Go and read this thread in which mcpadden participates and then come back and tell me his story is the same as your claims from PP

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94832&highlight=mcpadden

FDF

Perhaps any further discussion of McPadden, etc could be continued in that thread, instead of this one?

[funk de fino]

Perhaps any further discussion of McPadden, etc could be continued in that thread, instead of this one?

sounds good to me

[BenBurch]

Malmoesoldier,

Find me ONE credible witness to a countdown. ONE. And don't you dare say McPadden, because I already outed his disgraceful service record and got an admission from him that there was no countdown.

[BenBurch]

Oh, sorry, I posted the previous before I saw the redirect at the end of the thread.

[Malmoesoldier]

Show me where it was shown in court that Giuliani destroyed the steel

I thought Giuliani was bad because he gave firefighters radios that did not work? Contradict yourself much?

I have posted everything about it some pages back like i say...

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Crowley. And the whole purpose of this hearing is to get as much information as we can so that we can be very prudent and very thorough in our analysis and make the appropriate recommendations. Let me point out, in response to your line of questioning, the decision was made by the City of New York to dispose of the material before the BPAT team was even onsite. And I understand fully what the City of New York was doing. Their first interest was the search and rescue operation and they had to get the debris out of the way. And it had a BPAT team, but on site, they would have immediately said, you know, we need this. This is evidence. We need this. This is very important, so get it out of site obviously. We don't want to hamper the research—rescue operation.

But at one time, they were even talking about dumping it into the sea to build a new reef for fish. But, in any event, it just points up to the fact that the material should have been saved. And had there been a timely response of a BPAT team, had we had a protocol in place to get people onsite, we know who is in charge and when, someone would have said that

the City of New York aka Major Giuliani.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0.htm

I thought Giuliani was bad because he gave firefighters radios that did not work? Contradict yourself much?

Do you even understand yourself and what you meant by that comment?. Giuliani gave radios that didnt work to MANY fire fighters but not ALL fire fighters had Giulianis radios.... offcourse he is bad, and i didnt contradict myself.. lol

The last comment i will make about mcpadden. If it is him in the thread, Not every detail pertains to a conversation. Exactly.

you are lying again, there were no explosions in WTC7 before the planes hit the towers There are witnesses of it like i say. have you never heard about it or have you heard about it but thinks he is lying? if so why is he lying and where is the evidence?. they always lie right, every 911 witness.

And prisonplanet reports real news like when E. Howard Hunt gave an confession that CIA was involved with the JFK murder. Thats something that should be on the first page in every newspaper but it wasn't.

[funk de fino]

the City of New York aka Major Giuliani.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0.htm

So it sya the City of new York? Not Giuliani? Strange that, you fail again. I asked for someting that named Giuliani.

Also where does it say it was all taken away and destroyed? It says some was moved before the team got there and some was destroyed. It also says some was kept. It also says steel was inspected at Fresh Kills.

Cherry picking again

Do you even understand yourself and what you meant by that comment?. Giuliani gave radios that didnt work to MANY fire fighters but not ALL fire fighters had Giulianis radios.... offcourse he is bad, and i didnt contradict myself.. lol

That claim is not your first claim, go back and read. You said he gave firefighters radios that did not work. Not some, not all just that he gave them radios that did not work then you tried to claim that one was heard in the later claim. This is even wrong as it was not a firefighters radio. not very good are you?


The last comment i will make about mcpadden. If it is him in the thread,

go to the thread i showed you and post there after reading it first

There are witnesses of it like i say. have you never heard about it or have you heard about it but thinks he is lying? if so why is he lying and where is the evidence?. they always lie right, every 911 witness.

Liar, show me witness statements from someone inside the WTC7 that reported explosions before the planes hit the towers, like you claimed.

In fact start another thread so as to not derail this failure of a thread and show your claims.

[Malmoesoldier]

So it sya the City of new York? Not Giuliani? Strange that, you fail again. I asked for someting that named Giuliani.

Also where does it say it was all taken away and destroyed? It says some was moved before the team got there and some was destroyed. It also says some was kept. It also says steel was inspected at Fresh Kills.

Cherry picking again



That claim is not your first claim, go back and read. You said he gave firefighters radios that did not work. Not some, not all just that he gave them radios that did not work then you tried to claim that one was heard in the later claim. This is even wrong as it was not a firefighters radio. not very good are you?




go to the thread i showed you and post there after reading it first



Liar, show me witness statements from someone inside the WTC7 that reported explosions before the planes hit the towers, like you claimed.

In fact start another thread so as to not derail this failure of a thread and show your claims.

the City of New York aka Major Giuliani. So yes it was Giuliani. what is it you dont understand?. they dont need to name him. And they destroyed about 80% of the steel without any investigation of it. And FBI had no acces to the majority of the steel. Go back some pages in the thread for sources.

Yes i said he gave fire figters radios that didnt work but nowhere did i say that ALL fire fighters had his radios. what is your problem.

Do you call people on the street liers to their face often? if so, do you get knocked out alot?.

WTC7 Security Official Details Explosions Inside Building: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/190607interview.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/190607clips2.mp3

[chipmunk stew]

the City of New York aka Major Giuliani. So yes it was Giuliani. what is it you dont understand?
I don't know how it is where you live, but here in America, our mayors are not dictators or strongmen. Many decisions are made without their consultation or approval.

[DGM]

the City of New York aka Major Giuliani. So yes it was Giuliani. what is it you dont understand?. they dont need to name him. And they destroyed about 80% of the steel without any investigation of it. And FBI had no acces to the majority of the steel. Go back some pages in the thread for sources.

Yes i said he gave fire figters radios that didnt work but nowhere did i say that ALL fire fighters had his radios. what is your problem.

Do you call people on the street liers to their face often? if so, do you get knocked out alot?.

WTC7 Security Official Details Explosions Inside Building: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/190607interview.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/190607clips2.mp3
First Keven McPadden then Barry Jennings. Great investigating there ace.

Did you know the word "Gullible" is not in the dictionary?

Good luck with your "truth" on Prison planet.

[Malmoesoldier]

I don't know how it is where you live, but here in America, our mayors are not dictators or strongmen. Many decisions are made without their consultation or approval.

Here is some interesting info.

The New York City agency that oversees the Ground Zero cleanup operation is the Department of Design and Construction (DDC). The DDC is normally responsible for overseeing municipal construction contracts, such as street repairs and jails. Its two top officials are Kenneth Holden and his lieutenant, Michael Burton

That afternoon, Burton meets Holden and together they begin organizing the cleanup operation. Under Burton’s direction, the team of “unbuilders” subsequently undertakes what journalist William Langewiesche describes in his book "America Ground" as

“the most aggressive possible schedule of demolition and debris removal.”Langewiesche

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0865476756/centerforcoop-20

Yet this appears to go against established procedures. New York’s official emergency plans, which were written before 9/11, in fact require the Department of Sanitation to remove debris after a building collapse.

"That DDC would be in charge of the construction response was never an official charge from Coles or Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. The city's Sanitation Dept. normally handles emergency debris removal, site officials say, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were on their way, as was usual in disasters of this magnitude. "In early January, I realized that no one ever asked me to manage the effort at Ground Zero." Burton remembers. "I just did what I thought had to be done, and it just happened." Adds DDC Commissioner Kenneth Holden: "We were there, no one said ‘no,' so we went ahead." Order out of Chaos - Engineering News-Record, 4/22/2002

http://enr.construction.com/people/people/archives/020422a.asp

This lack of clear responsibility (which makes it difficult to hold someone accountable) was also stated by Langewiesche in his book. According to him, there is no specific moment when Holden and Burton are placed in charge of the Ground Zero cleanup effort.

“Rather, there was a shift of power in their direction that was never quite formalized and, indeed, was unjustified by bureaucratic logic or political considerations.”

Reportedly, at some point, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani made a

“back-room decision to scrap the organization charts, to finesse the city’s own Office of Emergency Management (OEM), and to allow the DDC to proceed.”Langewiesche

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0865476756/centerforcoop-20

Authors and New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton write that Michael Burton,

“who had become the effective czar for the cleanup job, had made it clear that he cared very little about engineering subtleties like the question of why the towers first stood, then collapsed on September 11. ‘We know why they fell,’ he said. ‘Because they flew two planes into the towers.’ But he was deeply immersed in the details of hauling steel out of the debris pile.” Glanz and Lipton, p. 299

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805074287/centerforcoop-20

The prime consultant on the cleanup job was Thornton-Tomasetti Group, Inc., of New York, N.Y., who managed all structural and engineering operations association with the entire WTC cleanup effort. (Source) http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:fSlhCprb2EEJ:www.acec.org/publications/newsreleases/pr021003.pdf+Thornton-Tomasetti+Group+Inc.+wtc+clean+up&hl=de&gl=de&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=firefox-a

It was Mike Burton from the DDC who made the decision to call them in:

"I got a call from Mike Burton at 1 p.m. He said they needed engineering help down there," says Richard Tomasetti, president of structural engineering firm Thornton-Tomasetti Group Inc".Order out of Chaos - Engineering News-Record, 4/22/2002

http://enr.construction.com/people/people/archives/020422a.asp

The same Burton who, according to that report, "could not tell who was part of the DDC effort and who wasn't."

[Disbelief]

And they destroyed about 80% of the steel without any investigation of it. And FBI had no acces to the majority of the steel. Go back some pages in the thread for sources.


You do realize that the steel was taken to Fresh Kills and the FBI was responsible for overseeing the site? How could they have no access when they ran the site?

[chipmunk stew]

So when you say "New York City aka Mayor Giuliani" you're engaging in transparent hyperbole at best; lying at worst.

[Apollo20]

chipmunk stew:

I think if you have read the excellent book "Grand Illusion" by Barrett and Collins, especially chapter 8 entitled Ground Zero, you would have to agree with Malmoesoldier's assessment of Giuliani at least during the weeks and months after 9/11.

[Disbelief]

chipmunk stew:

I think if you have read the excellent book "Grand Illusion" by Barrett and Collins, especially chapter 8 entitled Ground Zero, you would have to agree with Malmoesoldier's assessment of Giuliani at least during the weeks and months after 9/11.

So, are we faulting Guiliani for being a leader? Sometimes, you have to take control and push people to get things done. However, to say that he ordered steel destroyed when he did not have the authority and it is proven that the FBI was responsible for it, is preposterous.

[Malmoesoldier]

You do realize that the steel was taken to Fresh Kills and the FBI was responsible for overseeing the site? How could they have no access when they ran the site?

Please go back in the thread and read the sources. what you are saying isnt true. FBI had NO acces to the majority of the steel. And 80% of the steel was destroyed without any investigation. Most of the steel was removed before the BPAT team was even onsite, at the upper floors where the most important steel to the investigation was, they removed that very quick

[Disbelief]

Please go back in the thread and read the sources. what you are saying isnt true. FBI had NO acces to the majority of the steel. And 80% of the steel was destroyed without any investigation. Most of the steel was even removed before the BPAT team was even onsite.

No, you are incorrect. Instead of posting the links that many here have seen before, why not use the search function. The information that proves you wrong is here, you are just too blinded to see it.

ETA: Here is a thread for you to review. Note, post #57 addresses your claim. Many thanks to Gumboot.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83058&highlight=fresh+kills+fbi+access&page=3

[chipmunk stew]

chipmunk stew:

I think if you have read the excellent book "Grand Illusion" by Barrett and Collins, especially chapter 8 entitled Ground Zero, you would have to agree with Malmoesoldier's assessment of Giuliani at least during the weeks and months after 9/11.
His assessment of Giuliani is that he ordered the destruction of the WTC steel. That's wrong. So no, I don't agree with his assessment of Giuliani.

[Max Photon]

[snip]

NIST only had 236 pices of steel to investigate from WTC1 and WTC2. And 0 pieces of steel from WTC7. All the other steel was recycled. So yes they did destroy the evidence.



Malmoesoldier,

You might add that zero fire-affected perimeter panels were collected from WTC2.

That means 100% of fire-affected perimeter panels from WTC2 were destroyed!

This grotesque spoliation was done to cloak the fact that thermite had been placed inside WTC2 box columns, not to cut, but the heat-weaken the columns.

Simply looking inside fire-affected perimeter columns from WTC2 would have given the whole trick away.


Max

* * *

[BenBurch]

Want some real data on what happened to the steel?

http://www.americanrecycler.com/11wtc.html

[FactCheck]

"The facts from the test are the facts, get over it."

That's what I'm saying...

"we have a model of the floors with maximum load and 700C fires for 210 min with very little fireproofing (fireproofing only last 1-2 hours so that most mean it came off, why didn't NIST report about it?)

Lie and he is the evidence.

http://www.debunking911.com/ULTestResults.jpg

Number 4 shows 1/2" fireproofing and is rated for 3/4 of an hour. Now if 3/4 fireproofing is 2 hours and 1/2 drops down to 3/4 of an hour then NO fireproofing should be MUCH MUCH lower than 3/4. Why doesn't prisonplanet show that? Must be nice to manipulate facts and use it to mislead people. I wouldn't know.


"and they dont collapse, not even cloase. wow they did sag, how much? only 2 to 4 inches. major joist parts did not sag at all. NIST never the less used 42 inches of sag in their computer models and concluded failure. How fun to play with computer models like that"

Now show me the test where they simulated an airliner impact which removed all the fireproofing then heated the steel to those temps. What? You can't because there is none? You mean you can't show me an apples for apples test? You mean all you have are pristine trusses with fireproofing? And this is your evidence!!! Heh!

"And do you know why WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition? because it was."

If falling fast is controlled demolition then the bridge that collapsed recently was also blown up, so no, it didn't look like a controlled demolition. The only thing they have in common is that they fall fast.

"thats why nobody was allowed to investigate the steel."

Do you expect us to create a hanger with the remains of WTC 7 as if it were an airline disaster?

"And all your talk about WTC 1-2-7 is speculation you have no evidence. But i wish you had, who wants conspiracies like this to take place. "

Do YOU have a paper reviewed by a respected scientific journal saying the towers were blown up? There are already more than one scientific paper by RESPECTED scientific journals explaining the collapse. But speculation is all anyone will ever have no matter how many times they investigate it. At least the NIST, MIT and others have the peer review proccess behind theirs.

"Im sure you are going to vote for rudy giuliani he did a good jobb on 9-11 right, helping to destroy evidence and gives radios that dont work to fire fighters. one time he gave a price to david rockefeller to, might wanna check out who he is, he really doesn't like you ;)

I would think you are going to vote for rudy since 9/11 conspiracies help republicans more than anyone else.

I lived in NY when rudd was mayor. I'll cut my finger off before I vote for him. For some of the reasons you gave and more. I'll be voting for Clinton. You know, the waco child killer. The muderer who murdered their own friend... The one who sold missiles to china... What else do you conspiracy theorists say they did? ;)

[Malmoesoldier]

No, you are incorrect. Instead of posting the links that many here have seen before, why not use the search function. The information that proves you wrong is here, you are just too blinded to see it.

ETA: Here is a thread for you to review. Note, post #57 addresses your claim. Many thanks to Gumboot.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83058&highlight=fresh+kills+fbi+access&page=3

Im not blind, i like facts, do you?.

"The theft of more than 250 tons of steel from the ruins of the World Trade Centre is being investigated by the FBI and New York police who believe that it was organised by one of the city's Mafia families.

Material from the scene of the September 11 terrorist attack, consisting mainly of steel girders, was discovered earlier this week at three scrapyards, two in New Jersey and one on Long Island.

It appears that the scrap was hauled away by trucks involved in the clear-up operation. But instead of being taken to the FBI-controlled dump on Staten Island where all the material is being stored and sifted it was driven directly to the independently-owned scrapyards.

So far, about 130,000 tons of the debris have been removed."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F09%2F29%2Fwnyc29.x ml

A similiar number has been reported three days later:

"By New York City estimates, debris removal to date has topped more than 115,756 tons."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/eng_005.htm


Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. And we are welcoming, as a guest in the Committee, but an interested guest, Mr. Crowley of New York.

Mr. CROWLEY. (...) I have a number of questions that I think I would address to Mr. Shea, Dr. Corley, and Dr. Bement firstly. And one, can any one of you gentlemen tell me who was in charge of amassing the steel and other debris as a result from the attack of September 11 on the WTC?

Mr. SHEA. I am not sure I understand fully your question, but——

Mr. CROWLEY. In other words, who—what entity was in charge of collecting the material?

Mr. SHEA. FEMA commissioned the Building Performance Assessment Team, and it was that team, led by Dr. Corley, that would have embraced that responsibility.

Mr. CROWLEY. Did they determine which debris would be sold off as scrap? And if not, who did?

Mr. SHEA. I will—yeah, I will defer to Dr. Corley on that.

Dr. CORLEY. No. We did not determine that. That was determined, I understand, by the City of New York. We——

Mr. CROWLEY. When did you—when did you become aware that the steel from the World Trade Center was being sold off?

Dr. CORLEY. I think it was on the order of a week or so before we arrived on site, on October the 5th, I believe it was.

Mr. CROWLEY. So they were—they—in other words, the city was selling or was disposing of material within two weeks of the actual event, or was it prior to that?

Dr. CORLEY. It may have been prior to that. I am not sure when the first decision was made on that. But I didn't find out—we didn't find out about it until then.

Mr. CROWLEY. Were you disturbed by that—by finding that out? Were you disturbed to find out that the city was actually disposing of or selling off that material?

Dr. CORLEY. We had previously indicated that we definitely wanted to see the steel and select quantities that were——

Mr. CROWLEY. Did you or did FEMA or any other entity actually ask or tell the City of New York to cease and desist from disposing of that material?

Dr. CORLEY. As far as the team is concerned, we made it known that we needed steel. And I don't have any knowledge that anyone had the authority even to ask them to cease and desist.

Mr. CROWLEY. So no one even asked them politely to stop selling what, in all likelihood, could be evidence? (....)

But I do believe that conspiracy theorists are going to have a field day with this. They are going to make the Warren Commission look like a walk in the park. And that is unfortunate not only for the Members of Congress who are trying to work on this issue, but for all the families out there that are listening very carefully to what we are talking about today, what these experts are saying. And I just think there is so much that has been lost in these last six months that we can never go back and retrieve. And that is not only unfortunate, it is borderline criminal.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Yeah.

Mr. CROWLEY. And I will yield back with that, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Crowley. And the whole purpose of this hearing is to get as much information as we can so that we can be very prudent and very thorough in our analysis and make the appropriate recommendations. Let me point out, in response to your line of questioning, the decision was made by the City of New York to dispose of the material before the BPAT team was even onsite. And I understand fully what the City of New York was doing. Their first interest was the search and rescue operation and they had to get the debris out of the way. And it had a BPAT team, but on site, they would have immediately said, you know, we need this. This is evidence. We need this. This is very important, so get it out of site obviously. We don't want to hamper the research—rescue operation.

But at one time, they were even talking about dumping it into the sea to build a new reef for fish. But, in any event, it just points up to the fact that the material should have been saved. And had there been a timely response of a BPAT team, had we had a protocol in place to get people onsite, we know who is in charge and when, someone would have said that. Source

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0.htm

"The team of investigators - comprised of officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers - did not even get access to the site until October, a month after the attack.

They testified they never asked the city of New York not to recycle tons of steel that some experts say could hold vital clues about why the twin towers fell. And the team, which has no subpoena power, did not get access to the trade center blueprints from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey until four months after the collapse and only then after being forced to sign a form agreeing not to testify against the Port Authority."

http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/3/7_APcodes.html

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. (NY Daily News, 4/16/02)

New York authorities' decision to ship the twin towers' scrap to recyclers has raised the anger of victims' families and some engineers who believe the massive girders should be further examined to help determine how the towers collapsed

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm

"In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. "

http://gop.science.house.gov/hot/wtc/charter.htm

"Collection and storage of steel members from the WTC site was not part of the BPS Team efforts sponsored by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)."

http://www.911investigations.net/IMG/pdf/doc-297.pdf?PHPSESSID=5d5e8ca2cea7922e9a09a18d54cb6031

" A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers."

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

"No steel was recovered from WTC 7."

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

And in a History Channel broadcast, in which WTC7 was a subject, Jonathan Barnett, PhD, had this to say:

"Normally when you have a structural failure, you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item -- photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is in the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of tower 7."

http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=58

"The team FEMA had assembled to investigate the failures -- the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) -- was denied access to the evidence." NY Times, 3/7/02

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/nyt_mismanagementmuddle.html

The Science Committee of the House of Representatives later identified several aspects of the FEMA-controlled operation that prevented the conduct of an adquate investigation:

1.The BPAT did not control the steel:

"No clear authority and the absence of an effective protocol for how the building performance investigators should conduct and coordinate their investigation with the concurrent search and rescue efforts, as well as any criminal investigation: Early confusion over who was in charge of the site and the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence that were destroyed early during the search and rescue effort. In addition, a delay in the deployment of FEMA's BPAT team may have compounded the lack of access to valuable data and artifacts."

2.FEMA required BPAT members to sign confidentiality agreements:

"Uncertainty as a result of the confidential nature of the BPAT study: The confidential nature of the BPAT study may prevent the timely discovery of potential gaps in the investigation, which may never be filled if important, but ephemeral evidence, such as memories or home videotapes, are lost. The confidentiality agreement that FEMA requires its BPAT members to sign has frustrated the efforts of independent researchers to understand the collapse, who are unsure if their work is complementary to, or duplicative of, that of the BPAT team. In addition, the agreement has prevented the sharing of research results and the ordinary scientific give-and-take that otherwise allows scientists and engineers to winnow ideas and strengthen results. (....). Others fear that the BPAT’s silence on the scope of its report may allow critical aspects of the picture to be missed, and that, by the time the report is released and any such gaps are discovered, the trail of evidence that could provide answers may have grown cold "

This was also mentioned in an article of the New York Times, where it's said that

"Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press."

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/urge_inquiry.html

3.The BPAT was not granted access to "pertinent building documents.":

"Difficulty obtaining documents essential to the investigation, including blueprints, design drawings, and maintenance records:The building owners, designers and insurers, prevented independent researchers from gaining access—and delayed the BPAT team in gaining access—to pertinent building documents largely because of liability concerns. The documents are necessary to validate physical and photographic evidence and to develop computer models that can explain why the buildings failed and how similar failures might be avoided in the future."

4. "The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings."

"Uncertainty as to the strategy for completing the investigation and applying the lessons learned: The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings. (Its report is expected to rely largely on audio and video tapes of the event.) Nor does it plan to examine other important issues, such as building evacuation mechanisms. Instead, FEMA has asked the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to take over the investigation. Yet so far, NIST has not released a detailed plan describing how it will take over the investigation, what types of analyses it will conduct, how it will attempt to apply the lessons it learns to try to improve building and fire codes, and how much funding it will require."

http://gop.science.house.gov/hot/wtc/charter.htm

And to the role of the National Science Foundation the Committe has this to say:

"The efforts of NSF-funded researchers were impeded by the same obstacles the BPAT team encountered: an inability to examine the steel, either removed from the site during the early search and rescue work or shipped to recycling plants, and the denial of access to building design, construction and maintenance documents. (...)

To date, the NSF-funded researchers continue to face problems. They continue to be denied access to important building diagrams and blueprints, and so are unable to complete their analyses or develop the computer models necessary to better understand the failure of the buildings structural elements. Perhaps more importantly, without these computer models, engineering researchers will be unable to develop effective mitigation strategies."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp107EbuAM&refer=&r_n=hr530.107&db_id=107&item=&sel=TOC_32867&

Also Bill Manning, editor of "Fire Engineering Magazine", expressed his concerns among the firefighting community over the barring of investigators from the crime scene:

„Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.“

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225

He also condemned the destruction of steel, demanding that

"The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately ." "Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall."

And Manning compared the procedure with past disasters:

„Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.“

And this is from the New York Times,12/25/01 :


"Saying that the current investigation into how and why the twin towers fell on Sept. 11 is inadequate, some of the nation's leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry that could produce the kinds of conclusions vital for skyscrapers and future buildings nationwide.

Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the fire protection engineering department at the University of Maryland, said he believed the decision could ultimately compromise any investigation of the collapses. "I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling."

Experts critical of the current effort, including some of those people who are actually conducting it, cite the lack of meaningful financial support and poor coordination with the agencies cleaning up the disaster site. They point out that the current team of 20 or so investigators has no subpoena power and little staff support and has even been unable to obtain basic information like detailed blueprints of the buildings that collapsed.

...structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidencewith which to try to piece together an answer.

Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/nyt122501.html


On the first anniversary of the attacks, The Times wrote,

"the public knows less about the circumstances of 2,801 deaths at the foot of Manhattan in broad daylight than people in 1912 knew within weeks about the Titanic, which sank in the middle of an ocean in the dead of night." [NYT 7/23/02]

And here are somes testimonies made before the Science Committee of the House of Representatives on March 6 2000:
Congressman Boehlert, Chairman of the Science Committee of the House of representatives:

"I must say that the current investigation- some would argue that 'review' is the more appropriate word- seems to be shrouded in excessive secrecy" and "…valuable evidence has been lost irretrievably, and blueprints were unavailable for months."

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0f.htm

Professor Glenn P. Corbett, John Jay College of Criminal Justice:


"Without an investigative presence, the FEMA-sanctioned assessment team did not have the authority - nor the organizational wherewithal - to ensure that all of the structural steel was thoroughly examined and the crucial steel from the points of impact saved for examination. Only a handful of pieces of steel from the points of impact have been secured to date. In addition, the BPAT studying the collapse has apparently been hampered in accessing building construction documents. These hindrances will have an impact on the BPAT report, due to be released in April. The lack of significant amounts of steel for examination will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make a definitive statement as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse. The collapse of the World Trade Center towers were the largest structural collapses in world history. A disaster of such epic proportions demands that we fully resource a comprehensive, detailed investigation. Instead, we are staffing the BPAT with part-time engineers and scientists on a shoestring budget."

He further noted:

"The steel holds the primary key to understanding the chronology of events and causal factors resulting in the collapse."

http://gop.science.house.gov/hearings/full02/mar06/corbett.htm

In a letter to Mr. Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. Director, Office of Management and Budget, the committee wrote:

"There was unanimity among the witnesses on the need for a comprehensive assessment and research agenda to address evacuation procedures, emergency response, and structural analysis of the site's buildings."

"However, we are concerned that NIST does not have the financial resources to implement its plan. Although NIST has alocated $2 million for its efforts, the FEMA-BPAT has estimated that $40 million would be required to fund a comprehensive study of an event of this magnitude and complexity."

"We have also been troubled by accounts that the BPAT did not have immediate access to the WTC site. As a result, structural steel artifacts were destroyed that may have been important to the investigation. "

www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/letter.pdf

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/nyt_mismanagementmuddle.html

[FactCheck]

And what was their concern?

There are many, many questions to be asked by us about the World Trade Center collapse and its implications on high-rise firefighting across the nation. Some questions are political, many are technical, others are philosophical. Here are a few (in no particular order) to think about.

* Given the typical resources of most fire departments, can we be expected to handle every high-rise fire thrown at us? When was the last time your city manager asked you for a complete list of resources that you need to fight a high-rise fire, including personnel? When was the last time a high-rise building owner asked if you would like him to install a special "firefighter elevator" for your exclusive use during a high-rise fire? When was the last time a building code committee called up a "downtown" battalion chief and asked him what he thought of the unlimited area and height provisions found in all of the model building codes-is it OK if we allow a 400-story building in your battalion, Chief? The bottom line is, Can we really handle high-rise fires adequately? Who are we kidding? Isn't this the "big secret" that Chief Vincent Dunn has been talking about for years?

* Beware the truss! Frank Brannigan has been admonishing us for years about this topic. It has been reported that the World Trade Center floors were supported by lightweight steel trusses, some in excess of 50 feet long. Need we say more?

* Modern sprayed-on steel "fireproofing" did not perform well at the World Trade Center. Haven't we always been leery about these materials? Why do many firefighters say that they would rather fight a high-rise fire in an old building than in a modern one? Isn't it because of the level of fire resistance provided? How much confidence do we have in the ASTM E-119 fire resistance test, whose test criteria were developed in the 1920s? ASTM E-119 is an antiquated test whose criteria for fire resistance do not replicate today's fires.

* The defend-in-place strategy was the wrong strategy at the World Trade Center. Many of those who ignored the directions to "stay where you are" are alive today because they self-evacuated. Do you still use defend-in-place strategies for large high-rise fires? When should you use them, and when should you not?

* We can see live broadcasts from Afghanistan, but we can't communicate via radios in many high-rise buildings. What gives?



http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=130026

Not one word about bombs or explosives. And the NIST report satisfied those concerns.

[Malmoesoldier]

That's what I'm saying...



Lie and he is the evidence.

http://www.debunking911.com/ULTestResults.jpg

Number 4 shows 1/2" fireproofing and is rated for 3/4 of an hour. Now if 3/4 fireproofing is 2 hours and 1/2 drops down to 3/4 of an hour then NO fireproofing should be MUCH MUCH lower than 3/4. Why doesn't prisonplanet show that? Must be nice to manipulate facts and use it to mislead people. I wouldn't know.




Now show me the test where they simulated an airliner impact which removed all the fireproofing then heated the steel to those temps. What? You can't because there is none? You mean you can't show me an apples for apples test? You mean all you have are pristine trusses with fireproofing? And this is your evidence!!! Heh!



If falling fast is controlled demolition then the bridge that collapsed recently was also blown up, so no, it didn't look like a controlled demolition. The only thing they have in common is that they fall fast.



Do you expect us to create a hanger with the remains of WTC 7 as if it were an airline disaster?



Do YOU have a paper reviewed by a respected scientific journal saying the towers were blown up? There are already more than one scientific paper by RESPECTED scientific journals explaining the collapse. But speculation is all anyone will ever have no matter how many times they investigate it. At least the NIST, MIT and others have the peer review proccess behind theirs.



I would think you are going to vote for rudy since 9/11 conspiracies help republicans more than anyone else.

I lived in NY when rudd was mayor. I'll cut my finger off before I vote for him. For some of the reasons you gave and more. I'll be voting for Clinton. You know, the waco child killer. The muderer who murdered their own friend... The one who sold missiles to china... What else do you conspiracy theorists say they did? ;)

What do you want to say with your comments, that i am right? like i am. the facts are the facts, it wasnt just a model it was steel from WTC and it didnt collapse, far from. And then NIST plays with their computer model like it was a game. We should do more experiments like the floor models, not just do one that shows that the towers probably not should have collapsed, why stop there? to afraid of the results? keep going and remove all the fireproofing and put theme under 800C. And NIST didnt use the results, when will the tax payers have their money back?.

But speculation is all anyone will ever have no matter how many times they investigate it

Props that you admits that NIST only will have speculation. but why is that? maybe because they destroyed the steel? i think so.

And are you saying FBI didnt put the house on fire and gased children at waco and destroyed the evidence of the house after it???

[WildCat]

I don't know how it is where you live, but here in America, our mayors are not dictators or strongmen*. Many decisions are made without their consultation or approval.



*except in Chicago
Fixed that for you! :D

[BenBurch]

Fixed that for you! :D

Daley can get away with stuff no other mayor could, true, like the midnight destruction of a whole airport. But he still does not control the city council and so he does not get everything he wants.

[RedIbis]

Im not blind, i like facts, do you?.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F09%2F29%2Fwnyc29.x ml

A similiar number has been reported three days later:



http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/eng_005.htm



http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0.htm



http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/3/7_APcodes.html





http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm



http://gop.science.house.gov/hot/wtc/charter.htm



http://www.911investigations.net/IMG/pdf/doc-297.pdf?PHPSESSID=5d5e8ca2cea7922e9a09a18d54cb6031



http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf



http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf

And in a History Channel broadcast, in which WTC7 was a subject, Jonathan Barnett, PhD, had this to say:



http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=58



http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/nyt_mismanagementmuddle.html

The Science Committee of the House of Representatives later identified several aspects of the FEMA-controlled operation that prevented the conduct of an adquate investigation:

1.The BPAT did not control the steel:



2.FEMA required BPAT members to sign confidentiality agreements:



This was also mentioned in an article of the New York Times, where it's said that



http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/urge_inquiry.html

3.The BPAT was not granted access to "pertinent building documents.":



4. "The BPAT team does not plan, nor does it have sufficient funding, to fully analyze the structural data it collected to determine the reasons for the collapse of the WTC buildings."



http://gop.science.house.gov/hot/wtc/charter.htm

And to the role of the National Science Foundation the Committe has this to say:



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&sid=cp107EbuAM&refer=&r_n=hr530.107&db_id=107&item=&sel=TOC_32867&

Also Bill Manning, editor of "Fire Engineering Magazine", expressed his concerns among the firefighting community over the barring of investigators from the crime scene:



http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225

He also condemned the destruction of steel, demanding that



And Manning compared the procedure with past disasters:



And this is from the New York Times,12/25/01 :




http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2001/nyt122501.html


On the first anniversary of the attacks, The Times wrote,



And here are somes testimonies made before the Science Committee of the House of Representatives on March 6 2000:
Congressman Boehlert, Chairman of the Science Committee of the House of representatives:



http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0f.htm

Professor Glenn P. Corbett, John Jay College of Criminal Justice:



He further noted:



http://gop.science.house.gov/hearings/full02/mar06/corbett.htm

In a letter to Mr. Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. Director, Office of Management and Budget, the committee wrote:



www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/letter.pdf

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/nyt_mismanagementmuddle.html

Excellent work Malmoe.

Unfortunately, you will not receive the deference and appreciation that is afforded to someone such as Gravy for providing extensive research. In fact, I'll bet this won't even be touched. Some of the regulars will put you on ignore for presenting so much research.

For some reason, the "logic" is that unless you can provide the name of the person(s) who ordered the destruction of evidence, all of this is rendered irrelevent. As if the evidence of a murder is only valid after the perpetrator has been identified

[DGM]

Excellent work Malmoe.

Unfortunately, you will not receive the deference and appreciation that is afforded to someone such as Gravy for providing extensive research. In fact, I'll bet this won't even be touched. Some of the regulars will put you on ignore for presenting so much research.

For some reason, the "logic" is that unless you can provide the name of the person(s) who ordered the destruction of evidence, all of this is rendered irrelevent. As if the evidence of a murder is only valid after the perpetrator has been identified
Red;
Did you read all the links. I did (sorry I can't get that life back) it's a [rule 10] pile of cherry picks. He deserves an award alright.

[FactCheck]

Excellent work Malmoe.

Unfortunately, you will not receive the deference and appreciation that is afforded to someone such as Gravy for providing extensive research. In fact, I'll bet this won't even be touched. Some of the regulars will put you on ignore for presenting so much research.

For some reason, the "logic" is that unless you can provide the name of the person(s) who ordered the destruction of evidence, all of this is rendered irrelevent. As if the evidence of a murder is only valid after the perpetrator has been identified

It's irrelevent because:

1 - NONE of the people asking about the scrap metal suggests anyone blew up the buildings.

2 - The feds had nothing to do with the sale. In fact the mayor wanted to stop the sale. It was the scrap metal companies selling the scrap for the oldest reason in the book. Money...

3 - The NIST was CREATED because of those hearings to address their concerns.

4 - After the NIST report was released not one of those people said the loss of the rest of the columns hurt the investigation.

5- Some of those people have come out defending the NIST report like Manning and Glenn P. Corbett of firehouse magazine which PROVES you are deceptively taking their quotes out of context. Glenn Corbett is a PE and was in Penn and Tellers ********. He said you don't know what your talking about.

6 - You can't find ONE of those people suggesting the towers were blown up. Not in 2002 when most of those people were concerned of the scrap metal and not today. Why would they be vocal about the scrap metal and not about the murder of 3000 people??? Their concerns were questions like was the fireproofing up to code and the NIST report answered that question.

So conflating these reports with blowing up the towers makes you no better than Bush. How does it make you feel using the same tactics Bush uses???

[funk de fino]

the City of New York aka Major Giuliani. So yes it was Giuliani. what is it you dont understand?. they dont need to name him. And they destroyed about 80% of the steel without any investigation of it. And FBI had no acces to the majority of the steel. Go back some pages in the thread for sources.

City of New York, not Giuliani. You claimed it was proved in court and it was Giuliani. Its all about accuracy here pal.

Yes i said he gave fire figters radios that didnt work but nowhere did i say that ALL fire fighters had his radios. what is your problem.

How many radios did not work?

Do you call people on the street liers to their face often? if so, do you get knocked out alot?.

I do if they tell lies or repeat stupid lies. No. dont get knocked out. I'm quite a big guy. And most CT liars are little geeks with no balls who do not make these claims in public, even on 911 anniversaries.


WTC7 Security Official Details Explosions Inside Building: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/190607interview.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/190607clips2.mp3

Ah, barry jennings. he has changed and contradicted his story a good few times. There are plenty of threads in here about it. Go read them.

It is all superfluous though because you claimed witnesses to explosions in WTC7 before the planes hit the towers and Jennings does not claim this.

You have to supply these witness or you are indeed a liar?

Just so you dont run away and back away, here is your claim.

And then whe have the witness inside WTC7 that heard explosions before the plane hit the buildings, the damge he described is very intresting to. there are more witnesses inside WTC7 that heard explosions to at floor 8.

[funk de fino]

because we seem to be in cherrypickers month in this thread, I will go with my one for the week.

And I understand fully what the City of New York was doing. Their first interest was the search and rescue operation and they had to get the debris out of the way. And it had a BPAT team, but on site, they would have immediately said, you know, we need this. This is evidence. We need this. This is very important, so get it out of site obviously. We don't want to hamper the research—rescue operation.


malmoe obviously thinks we should have not bothered with the S&R mission.

Firefighters would probably have been a little bit pissed

another little sneaky one eh?

Reportedly, at some point, Mayor Rudolph Giuliani made a



“back-room decision to scrap the organization charts, to finesse the city’s own Office of Emergency Management (OEM), and to allow the DDC to proceed.”Langewiesche


Why not post the full quote from the book? Have you added something that was not there?

[BenBurch]

As somebody who has worked on police and fire radio systems at Motorola (this was in the late 80s, so bear that in mind) I don't think you could have a man-portable radio that even conceivably could work reliably from a stairwell in a steel building.

We call such a structure a Faraday Cage.

Buildings often need to have repeater antennas installed to pull cell phone signals (and before that pager signals) into the building.

[Disbelief]

Excellent work Malmoe.

Unfortunately, you will not receive the deference and appreciation that is afforded to someone such as Gravy for providing extensive research. In fact, I'll bet this won't even be touched. Some of the regulars will put you on ignore for presenting so much research.

For some reason, the "logic" is that unless you can provide the name of the person(s) who ordered the destruction of evidence, all of this is rendered irrelevent. As if the evidence of a murder is only valid after the perpetrator has been identified

Why, because he can cherry pick? Did he (or you for that matter) look at the information in the link I provided? Will you compare this work to Gumboot's, or will you parade how great Malmoe is?

[BenBurch]

Why, because he can cherry pick? Did he (or you for that matter) look at the information in the link I provided? Will you compare this work to Gumboot's, or will you parade how great Malmoe is?

Its because they know that if they learn too much about it, their fairy tale will wither in the light.

[Malmoesoldier]

It's irrelevent because:

1 - NONE of the people asking about the scrap metal suggests anyone blew up the buildings.

2 - The feds had nothing to do with the sale. In fact the mayor wanted to stop the sale. It was the scrap metal companies selling the scrap for the oldest reason in the book. Money...

3 - The NIST was CREATED because of those hearings to address their concerns.

4 - After the NIST report was released not one of those people said the loss of the rest of the columns hurt the investigation.

5- Some of those people have come out defending the NIST report like Manning and Glenn P. Corbett of firehouse magazine which PROVES you are deceptively taking their quotes out of context. Glenn Corbett is a PE and was in Penn and Tellers ********. He said you don't know what your talking about.

6 - You can't find ONE of those people suggesting the towers were blown up. Not in 2002 when most of those people were concerned of the scrap metal and not today. Why would they be vocal about the scrap metal and not about the murder of 3000 people??? Their concerns were questions like was the fireproofing up to code and the NIST report answered that question.

So conflating these reports with blowing up the towers makes you no better than Bush. How does it make you feel using the same tactics Bush uses???

No im not taking their quotes out of context. Im just agreeing with them that they shouldnt have destroyed the evidence from the crime scene. i dont know if they think it is a cover up or not, but thats their problem if they cant see through all the lies and propaganda.

not one of those people said the loss of the rest of the columns hurt the investigation.

Thats because they arent very bright or want to fool you. tell me how will they explain the collapse of WTC7 without any investigation of the steel? they cant do it. so how can they say that it didt hurt the investigation? dumbest thing i have heard in my life. If you want to see the people controlling NIST and working at NIST like something more then humans that cant be wrong, then thats your problem. we have a building that gives all the signs of controlled demolition and witnesses of explosions inside the bulding at floor 8 etc, then why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed. And they say that the collapse of the building because of fire+damage has a little chance of occurring, and they still dont investigates alternative collapse hypotheses.

If it was an inside job and bombs took the buildings down would they remove the steel and destroy it?, i think so. and they did. the reason people like you dont think it is suspicious is because you trust the government the government has no criminals amongst theme so this couldn't have happen. It is allways uneducated people of history that dont question 9-11, everyone i talk to.

Why, because he can cherry pick?

I showed you evidence that steel from the UPPE FLOORS where the most IMPORTANT steel was, where removed before the first BPAT team was onsite.

I showed you that FBI had NO acces to much steel that was sent to other scrapyards.

I showed you that FEMA/NIST etc didnt have acces to the steel and couldn't investigate it and only got some pieces.

I showed you that they had to sign agreements not to talk about information etc.

I showed you that people complained about it.

And you call it cherry picking. I have read the information Gumboot wrote, it has noting to do with this information...

[funk de fino]

I showed you evidence that steel from the UPPE FLOORS where the most IMPORTANT steel was, where removed before the first BPAT team was onsite.

It was mostly on top they had to move it for Search and rescue. what were they supposed to do?

I showed you that FBI had NO acces to much steel that was sent to other scrapyards.

They had no access to some of the steel but full access to the large majority of it

I showed you that FEMA/NIST etc didnt have acces to the steel and couldn't investigate it and only got some pieces.

NIST had access to all the steel they wanted. They have admitted this. Some of it was removed before they could get it but the majority was not. They could have had much more but only used what they took.

I showed you that they had to sign agreements not to talk about information etc.

as they should have IMO


I showed you that people complained about it.

equals what exactly?

And you call it cherry picking. I have read the information Gumboot wrote, it has noting to do with this information...

yes, cherry picking, you are very good at it

[DavidJames]

Thats because they arent very bright or want to fool you.Another example of the arrogance and ignorance of CTists. Only the CTists are smart enough. Never mind they don't have the education, work or have experience in the areas in question. Only they are smart enough to reach the "correct" conclusions. Arrogance and ignorance.

[twinstead]

Arrogance and ignorance.

The absolute WORST combination, IMO.

[funk de fino]

malmoe

The witness to the WTC7 explosions prior to planes hitting the towers please?

rgds

[DGM]

Originally Posted by Malmoesoldier
I showed you evidence that steel from the UPPE FLOORS where the most IMPORTANT steel was, where removed before the first BPAT team was onsite.

Wrong again genius, WTC 7 collapsed from the BOTTOM so that steel was the last to be removed. Your not to good at this research stuff are you.

[Malmoesoldier]

Another example of the arrogance and ignorance of CTists. Only the CTists are smart enough. Never mind they don't have the education, work or have experience in the areas in question. Only they are smart enough to reach the "correct" conclusions. Arrogance and ignorance.

So you are saying that NIST will be able to explain the collapse of WTC7 without any investigation of the steel?, they will be able to prove what happened with evidence?.. Just because you are afraid to deal with reality you dont haft to have the government to tell you what is right and wrong.

It was mostly on top they had to move it for Search and rescue. what were they supposed to do?



They had no access to some of the steel but full access to the large majority of it



NIST had access to all the steel they wanted. They have admitted this. Some of it was removed before they could get it but the majority was not. They could have had much more but only used what they took.



as they should have IMO




equals what exactly?



yes, cherry picking, you are very good at it

What they were supposed to do?... SAVE THE EVIDENCE FROM THE CRIME SCENE. obs i forgot they had no place to store it...

It was very much steel FBI didnt have acces to, you dont haft to place explosives everywhere in the building for them to come down you know... you only need little in the right places. Besides who trusts FBI? i dont trust criminal gangs. but like with every gang there are some good guys but mostly bad guys.

NIST hadn't any acces to the steel from the impact floor where they predicted the hotter fires should have been witch they think made the building collapse.

And no, other independent researchers should have accses to the information they have, it is clear NIST is incompetent for the investigation. investigate alternative collapse hypotheses and dont do tests that gives results that dont support their hypothes, and give the tax payers their money back for the tests results they didnt use. they could have played with their computer model before they did the test instead if they only are going to put in fantasy "results" to their computer models.

Maybe i remember it wrong but he did say he heard the explosions before the towers collapsed. And it is Barry Jennings i am taking about. Read about him in a thread here, didnt see any debunking, just "He most have got the timeline wrong".... i guess his eyes wasnt working either. and the fact that he and others inside WTC7 heard explosions and the damage jennings described is enough for alternative collapse hypotheses.

The key to this information is that the individual testifies this all happened BEFORE either tower collapsed, thus building 7 was at that point completely undamaged from any falling debris or resulting fires. It also means that explosions were witnessed in WTC7 up to eight hours before its collapse at around 5.30pm.

"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."

The individual in a second clip detailed hearing further explosions and then described what he saw when he got down to the lobby:

"It was totally destroyed, it looked like King Kong had been through it and stepped on it and it was so destroyed i didn't know where I was. It was so destroyed that had to take me out through a hole in the wall, a makeshift hole I believe the fire department made to get me out."

Wrong again genius, WTC 7 collapsed from the BOTTOM so that steel was the last to be removed. Your not to good at this research stuff are you.

Where was the important steel in WTC1-2, in the uppe floors. And nobody had acces to the WTC7 steel like Jonathan Barnett said.

[funk de fino]

So you are saying that NIST will be able to explain the collapse of WTC7 without any investigation of the steel?, they will be able to prove what happened with evidence?.. Just because you are afraid to deal with reality you dont haft to have the government to tell you what is right and wrong.

Does damage and fire weaken steel framed buildings? They are not my government and they dont tell me what to believe. I just read more than just crappy PP and Infowars unlike some in this thread.


What they were supposed to do?... SAVE THE EVIDENCE FROM THE CRIME SCENE. obs i forgot they had no place to store it...

Please read and undestand, I know your english is limited. They had to carry out Search and Rescue, they had to move steel and rubble. SOME of the steel was destroyed (not much in the grand scheme of things, even your own quotes show you this earlier in the thread). The FBI had access to the rest.

It was very much steel FBI didnt have acces to, you dont haft to place explosives everywhere in the building for them to come down you know... you only need little in the right places. Besides who trusts FBI? i dont trust criminal gangs. but like with every gang there are some good guys but mostly bad guys.

Not very much, SOME, most was taken to sites and examined. Crimininal gangs? Bias showing much? Are they one of the perps for the day then?

Evidence of the CD explosives at the time of collapse? You need more than a little to take down a building taller than any ever demolished by professional CD companies prior to this. There are other factors that need to be taken into account like when they planted the explosives?

NIST hadn't any acces to the steel from the impact floor where they predicted the hotter fires should have been witch they think made the building collapse.

Apart from the steel taken away and destroyed FEMA had access to any steel from the site they wanted. You are mistaken about fire temps as well. How hot do you think a normal office or house fire gets? I think you mean temp of steel not fires.

And no, other independent researchers should have accses to the information they have, it is clear NIST is incompetent for the investigation. investigate alternative collapse hypotheses and dont do tests that gives results that dont support their hypothes, and give the tax payers their money back for the tests results they didnt use. they could have played with their computer model before they did the test instead if they only are going to put in fantasy "results" to their computer models.

As you say it is a crime scen so they have to secure the evidence therefore you cannot let any tom dick of harry play around in the scene. Do they let this happen in normal murder scenes?


Maybe i remember it wrong but he did say he heard the explosions before the towers collapsed. And it is Barry Jennings i am taking about. Read about him in a thread here, didnt see any debunking, just "He most have got the timeline wrong".... i guess his eyes wasnt working either. and the fact that he and others inside WTC7 heard explosions and the damage jennings described is enough for alternative collapse hypotheses.

1. You are wrong, just admit it you will feel all the better for it.
2. Do you know what time he was taken out the hole in the wall?
3. If he heard explosions loud enough before the towers fell then why did they fall many many hours later and not at the time? When have you ever seen a CD when they explosives go off and the building falls down 6 hours later?

Jennings later story contradicts his original story and I cannot find anything from the other guy who was with him. Can you?

Have you been to the McPadden thread yet? What do you think of him now?

[Malmoesoldier]

Does damage and fire weaken steel framed buildings? They are not my government and they dont tell me what to believe. I just read more than just crappy PP and Infowars unlike some in this thread.




Please read and undestand, I know your english is limited. They had to carry out Search and Rescue, they had to move steel and rubble. SOME of the steel was destroyed (not much in the grand scheme of things, even your own quotes show you this earlier in the thread). The FBI had access to the rest.



Not very much, SOME, most was taken to sites and examined. Crimininal gangs? Bias showing much? Are they one of the perps for the day then?

Evidence of the CD explosives at the time of collapse? You need more than a little to take down a building taller than any ever demolished by professional CD companies prior to this. There are other factors that need to be taken into account like when they planted the explosives?



Apart from the steel taken away and destroyed FEMA had access to any steel from the site they wanted. You are mistaken about fire temps as well. How hot do you think a normal office or house fire gets? I think you mean temp of steel not fires.



As you say it is a crime scen so they have to secure the evidence therefore you cannot let any tom dick of harry play around in the scene. Do they let this happen in normal murder scenes?




1. You are wrong, just admit it you will feel all the better for it.
2. Do you know what time he was taken out the hole in the wall?
3. If he heard explosions loud enough before the towers fell then why did they fall many many hours later and not at the time? When have you ever seen a CD when they explosives go off and the building falls down 6 hours later?

Jennings later story contradicts his original story and I cannot find anything from the other guy who was with him. Can you?

Have you been to the McPadden thread yet? What do you think of him now?

Why didnt they save the steel? the Search and Rescue is no excuse, why destroy the most important steel to the investigation and keep the rest? and NIST had no access to any WTC7 steel.

A couple hundreds tousen tons of steel is much and FBI has a very criminal past working with mafias etc.

And it would only require approximately a thousand pounds of high-energy explosives in each Tower to bring them down in that way.

Yes i mean the steel temp not the air temp. nobody had access to that steel witch was the most important to the investigation.

What i mean was that independent researchers should have access to all their files videos/photos/documents/the visualization of the collapse/steel etc

And Barry and McPadden has no reason to lie. they haven't been debunked in anyway. You gotta report things like that, cant blame PP for it, its good that they report things like that, there are to many unawserd questions sourounding 9-11.

Like McPadden said in that thread, if it is him.. Not every detail pertains to a conversation.



When have you ever seen a CD when they explosives go off and the building falls down 6 hours later?

You can damage a building with a bomb or two then later finish the jobb by letting the rest explode.

[tsig]

Red;
Did you read all the links. I did (sorry I can't get that life back) it's a [rule 10] pile of cherry picks. He deserves an award alright.

Maybe a jar of maraschino cherries?

[DGM]

And Barry and McPadden has no reason to lie. they haven't been debunked in anyway. You gotta report things like that, cant blame PP for it, its good that they report things like that, there are to many unawserd questions sourounding 9-11.

Great research ace. Two people were with Barry Jennings and they don't agree. Also Jennings was interviewed after his rescue and his story has changed. His time line is all wrong.

[BenBurch]

And Barry and McPadden has no reason to lie. they haven't been debunked in anyway. You gotta report things like that, cant blame PP for it, its good that they report things like that, there are to many unawserd questions sourounding 9-11.

Kevin McPadden - His reason to lie? He wanted somebody, anybody, even you filthy "truthers", to like him.

[T.A.M.]

Kevin McPadden - His reason to lie? He wanted somebody, anybody, even you filthy "truthers", to like him.

exactly.

TAM:)

[funk de fino]

Why didnt they save the steel? the Search and Rescue is no excuse, why destroy the most important steel to the investigation and keep the rest? and NIST had no access to any WTC7 steel.

They did save the steel, unfortunately some was destroyed before they got on site. The rest was saved and they were able to look at it


A couple hundreds tousen tons of steel is much and FBI has a very criminal past working with mafias etc.

Source? Bias again.

And it would only require approximately a thousand pounds of high-energy explosives in each Tower to bring them down in that way.

Source? Also when as this 1000 lbs installed in the buildings? You keep flip flopping between Towers and WTC7, stick to one, its easier and will stop you making mistakes

Yes i mean the steel temp not the air temp. nobody had access to that steel witch was the most important to the investigation.

Good, glad you can at least acknowledge a mistake. They had access to steel which had seen those temps they chose not to use it. The reason was they could not identify where it came from. I wonder why that was?


What I mean was that independent researchers should have access to all their files videos/photos/documents/the visualization of the collapse/steel etc

Does this happen in a normal murder case. Some are released (see NIST report), some have not been yet because the report into WTC7 is not finished yet.

And Barry and McPadden has no reason to lie. they haven't been debunked in anyway. You gotta report things like that, cant blame PP for it, its good that they report things like that, there are to many unawserd questions sourounding 9-11.

Like McPadden said in that thread, if it is him..

Thye maybe have no reason to lie but McPadden definitely has lied about his staus as a first responder special forces. He also lied about the countdown. It is all there on video and interviews. He has changed his story and has admitted he lied about his special forces crap.

Jennings was taken out of the building at what time? I think you have forgotten this question? This will tell you why there was damage to the building. I'll give you a clue. Try after the towers had collapsed. A long time after.

He is maybe not lying so much as confused and contradictory. Still wrong though and does not back up your claim

You can damage a building with a bomb or two then later finish the jobb by letting the rest explode.

Oh really, how do you do that and when were the explosives for this installed? This is a joke of a claim. Go to implosionworld.com and look at the video history of building demolitions and tell me when you see this happening. Also tell me how loud the explosions are. If Barry Jenning had been near this explosion it would have killed him.

[BenBurch]

exactly.

TAM:)

You know. TAM, I really have a lot of pity for him. Too many people in this world are cast adrift from social contact and are miserable.

[BenBurch]

The ONLY way 1000 pounds of high explosive could reliably bring down those towers is if they were pre-weakened by torching or sawing at each and every major connection on one or more floors. This would also entail removal of all glass (glass has strength) and interior partition walls and doors. This would include cutting the rails and beams in the elevator supports.

So, Malemute, where are the pictures of the stripped floors?

When were the elevators taken out of service to get cut up?

How did they remove all the debris from the clearing out of the floor?

How many people were involved?

What waste disposal company removed the debris?

How many thousand man-hours did this take?

Where are the bodies of all the hundreds of workmen they would have had to kill to silence them about this? And where are the missing persons report?

Fool.

[DGM]

The ONLY way 1000 pounds of high explosive could reliably bring down those towers is if they were pre-weakened by torching or sawing at each and every major connection on one or more floors. This would also entail removal of all glass (glass has strength) and interior partition walls and doors. This would include cutting the rails and beams in the elevator supports.

So, Malemute, where are the pictures of the stripped floors?

When were the elevators taken out of service to get cut up?

How did they remove all the debris from the clearing out of the floor?

How many people were involved?

What waste disposal company removed the debris?

How many thousand man-hours did this take?

Where are the bodies of all the hundreds of workmen they would have had to kill to silence them about this? And where are the missing persons report?

Fool.
Actually Ben no explosives were needed. The plane impacts and fires did the trick. Any amount of explosives is over kill. All you need is good-ole reliable gravity.

[BenBurch]

Actually Ben no explosives were needed. The plane impacts and fires did the trick. Any amount of explosives is over kill. All you need is good-ole reliable gravity.

*I* know that! I was trying to explain it for others.

Even the claim that there might have been a half-ton of highex installed in the towers to bring them down is ridiculous as the work that had to be done to make that happen without the planes is too great! And the planes could not really be counted on, could they?

[DGM]

*I* know that! I was trying to explain it for others.

Even the claim that there might have been a half-ton of highex installed in the towers to bring them down is ridiculous as the work that had to be done to make that happen without the planes is too great! And the planes could not really be counted on, could they?
I knew where you were going. I just find the explosive amounts argument to be amusing.

I did like LastChild's comment last night about the whole lower mass being destroyed all at once. Now that's denial to the extreme. All videos show the destruction of each floor one at a time (more or less).

[BenBurch]

Until the clouds of dust obscure, yes, and we have no reason to think it changed then.

[ihaunter]

Want to know why you are being accused of cherry-picking these quotes? Well, for starters:

Im not blind, i like facts, do you?.
"The theft of more than 250 tons of steel from the ruins of the World Trade Centre is being investigated by the FBI and New York police who believe that it was organised by one of the city's Mafia families.

Material from the scene of the September 11 terrorist attack, consisting mainly of steel girders, was discovered earlier this week at three scrapyards, two in New Jersey and one on Long Island.

It appears that the scrap was hauled away by trucks involved in the clear-up operation. But instead of being taken to the FBI-controlled dump on Staten Island where all the material is being stored and sifted it was driven directly to the independently-owned scrapyards.

So far, about 130,000 tons of the debris have been removed."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2001%2F09%2F29%2Fwnyc29.x ml

First of all, these were not consecutive statements as you show, but taken from throughout the article with no indication of editing given. This article shows that most of the scrap was brought to Fresh Kills landfill which was under FBI control, that is what the 130,000 tons is referring to. They refer to an estimate of over a million tons total existed at ground zero that would need to be moved. The total amount of scrap stolen, according to this article, over 250 tons. Nowhere near 80%.


A similiar number has been reported three days later:
"By New York City estimates, debris removal to date has topped more than 115,756 tons."



http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/eng_005.htm
[/quote]
Let's try the full paragraph instead of one sentance:
The Corps continues to work on the debris operations plan for consideration by New York City and FEMA. By New York City estimates, debris removal to date has topped more than 115,756 tons. An official estimate of total debris is 1.2 million tons. The Corps has completed its final draft for the USACE piece of the debris operations plan for FEMA approval. Part of the debris challenge is in determining appropriate disposition for the material in terms of identifying what can be recycled, placed in landfills or at offshore disposal areas.
Again, this is a discussion of proper removal of debris to date.


The next long quote (that I won't duplicate to save space) doesn't list any numbers regarding how much was destroyed, does not name Giuliani as the person who ordered it destroyed, doesn't indicate that anyone was prohibited access, and suggests that the reason anything was destroyed was to make the search and rescue operations easier. Doesn't really help your case. In fact one part of it shows an error in your next quote.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0.htm



"The team of investigators - comprised of officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers - did not even get access to the site until October, a month after the attack.

They testified they never asked the city of New York not to recycle tons of steel that some experts say could hold vital clues about why the twin towers fell. And the team, which has no subpoena power, did not get access to the trade center blueprints from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey until four months after the collapse and only then after being forced to sign a form agreeing not to testify against the Port Authority."
http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/3/7_APcodes.html

This one isn't actually cherry picking, it's just that the person being quoted is, at least partially in error. According to your previous quote, it's not that the investigators couldn't get access until a month later, that's just when they arrived. What took them so long? I don't know, but if you want this to support your case, you're going to need more than speculation.

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. (NY Daily News, 4/16/02)
At last, a source for your 80% claim. Unfortunately, I do not have any way to confirm the authenticity of this quote at the moment, and based on your handling of the previous quotes, I'm not inclined to take your word for it. If anyone has access to this particular issue of the NY Daily News who could confirm or deny this quote would be appreciated.

Unfortunately, that is all the time I have to put into this for now. If you want me to address the remainder of your quotes fully, I will do so later. (Tomorrow at the earliest) I did notice that many of the remaining are from 911 CT sites. You may appreciate them for not being "mainstream," but personally, I am usually disappointed by the fact that they rarely cite their sources, and when they do, they tend to be out-of-context cherry picking.

[Malmoesoldier]

Want to know why you are being accused of cherry-picking these quotes? Well, for starters:


First of all, these were not consecutive statements as you show, but taken from throughout the article with no indication of editing given. This article shows that most of the scrap was brought to Fresh Kills landfill which was under FBI control, that is what the 130,000 tons is referring to. They refer to an estimate of over a million tons total existed at ground zero that would need to be moved. The total amount of scrap stolen, according to this article, over 250 tons. Nowhere near 80%.



http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/sept_11/eng_005.htm

Let's try the full paragraph instead of one sentance:

Again, this is a discussion of proper removal of debris to date.


The next long quote (that I won't duplicate to save space) doesn't list any numbers regarding how much was destroyed, does not name Giuliani as the person who ordered it destroyed, doesn't indicate that anyone was prohibited access, and suggests that the reason anything was destroyed was to make the search and rescue operations easier. Doesn't really help your case. In fact one part of it shows an error in your next quote.



This one isn't actually cherry picking, it's just that the person being quoted is, at least partially in error. According to your previous quote, it's not that the investigators couldn't get access until a month later, that's just when they arrived. What took them so long? I don't know, but if you want this to support your case, you're going to need more than speculation.


At last, a source for your 80% claim. Unfortunately, I do not have any way to confirm the authenticity of this quote at the moment, and based on your handling of the previous quotes, I'm not inclined to take your word for it. If anyone has access to this particular issue of the NY Daily News who could confirm or deny this quote would be appreciated.

Unfortunately, that is all the time I have to put into this for now. If you want me to address the remainder of your quotes fully, I will do so later. (Tomorrow at the earliest) I did notice that many of the remaining are from 911 CT sites. You may appreciate them for not being "mainstream," but personally, I am usually disappointed by the fact that they rarely cite their sources, and when they do, they tend to be out-of-context cherry picking.

If you actually read the quotes you will see that they didnt have access to investigate over 80% of the steel and that 80% was destroyed.

Not one source is a 911 site. please read the sites and the quotes before responding. sites like Gravys is real cherry picking.

scrap was hauled away by trucks involved in the clear-up operation, But instead of being taken to the FBI-controlled dump on Staten Island where all the material is being stored and sifted it was driven directly to the independently-owned scrapyards.

We know steel was hauled away to other scrapyards. And it doesnt matter witch scrapyards the steel was sent to anyway, the steel wasnt investigated and it was destroyed.. And if you dont mind being lied to, then you can trust FBI and the government.

All videos show the destruction of each floor one at a time (more or less).

one at a time? and how many seconds did that take?. It was 10 floors every second...

[DGM]

one at a time? and how many seconds did that take?. It was 10 floors every second...


Ignorance is bliss! Did you see the tower disintegrate all at once? Ground floors and lower core lasted much longer than the top. WAKE UP!

[BenBurch]

one at a time? and how many seconds did that take?. It was 10 floors every second...

From the time the lead was brought to bear to failure of the floor was likely no more than a few milliseconds. Metal is brittle under these conditions, and would not deform so much as snap.

[DGM]

From the time the lead was brought to bear to failure of the floor was likely no more than a few milliseconds. Metal is brittle under these conditions, and would not deform so much as snap.
Like most "truthers" he/she also forgets that most of the space is just air. The towers were not a solid block.

[Malmoesoldier]

Like most "truthers" he/she also forgets that most of the space is just air. The towers were not a solid block.

quote

NIST admits that they cant explain the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached. Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explocive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation

Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by the impacted mass.

When an object hits another object, it must slow down. Everyone intuitively understands that you can not walk through walls as if they were not there for the reason that a physical resistance will impede you

You seem pretty convinced what happened after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached, yet you have NO evidence and NIST cant even explain it. seems like NIST cant explain anything, funny how they still are so trustworthy for people like you

[DGM]

quote

NIST admits that they cant explain the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached. Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explocive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation

Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by the impacted mass.

When an object hits another object, it must slow down. Everyone intuitively understands that you can not walk through walls as if they were not there for the reason that a physical resistance will impede you

You seem pretty convinced what happened after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached, yet you have NO evidence and NIST cant even explain it. seems like NIST cant explain anything, funny how they still are so trustworthy for people like you
The delay? There were plenty. Can you detect millisecond delays with the naked eye?

Was NIST expected to explain the collapse itself? STOP YOUR STUPID CHERRY PICKS.

[capracus]

Malmoesoldier, at the time of the 9/11 disaster, there was not an effective investigative policy in place to deal with a building disaster of this scale. The engineering teams assembled to investigate the collapses did not have the necessary authority to accomplish an ideal investigation. As a result, valuable structural evidence was not examined, which led to a less complete understanding of the collapse processes. This does not translate to willful tampering, or concealment of evidence on the part of the government, it merely exposed a flaw in the system. The acknowledgment of this failure of federal building investigation policy, led to the passing of the National Construction Safety Team Act. This act gives NIST the authority to conduct building disaster investigations in a manner similar to the NTSB.

In this context, the act gives NIST and its teams comprehensive investigative authorities to:

access the site of a building disaster;
subpoena evidence;
access key pieces of evidence such as records and documents; and
move and preserve evidence.http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/constructionact.htm
.
If such a policy would have been in place at the time of 9/11, there would be much less fodder for the conspiracy crowd

[Mancman]

Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by the impacted mass.



The delay is in every single video of the event. There was no freefall collapse.

[BenBurch]

NIST admits that they cant explain the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached. Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explocive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation.

That's a bald lie.

[twinstead]

Malmoesoldier now you are making stuff up as you go. It's sad

[twinstead]

NIST admits that they cant explain the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached. Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explocive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation


Other than that being simply not true, explain exactly how can evidence of demolition come after collapse initiation.

Don't you claim that the initiation itself was caused by explosive demolition?

And as an aside, what exactly cased that bowing in the seconds before collapse at the impact points? Implosive demolition?

[T.A.M.]

quote

NIST admits that they cant explain the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached. Quite a confession, since much of the external evidence for explocive demolition typically comes after collapse initiation

Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by the impacted mass.

When an object hits another object, it must slow down. Everyone intuitively understands that you can not walk through walls as if they were not there for the reason that a physical resistance will impede you

You seem pretty convinced what happened after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached, yet you have NO evidence and NIST cant even explain it. seems like NIST cant explain anything, funny how they still are so trustworthy for people like you

1. Have you bothered to read what their goals were, their objectives, what they were TASKED to do?
2. If you have, which of their TASKS were they unable to complete?
3. Take an empty tin can in your hand. Now put another empty can on the table in front of you. Now, raise the tin can in your hand above your head. Now bring the tin can in your hand slamming down onto the one on the table. At what point does your hand and the tin can in it appreciably slow down?

Clunkity Freakin Clunk!!!!

TAM:)

[FactCheck]

You cannot compare the collapse of the building with the plane crashing into it.

Wrong again, I can and did compare it.

There are no evidence that the fireproofing was knocked off at the impact floor in the places NIST predicts as necessary.

You can repeat that lie all you want. I'll just keep proving you're wrong.

http://www.debunking911.com/impact.htm

Also there is no evidence that the steel would weaken without fireproofing,

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=827

http://fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=14&i=183&p=2

http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150

the floor models didn't come close to collapse, 210 min in 700C, fireproofing only last 1-2 hours, so the floor models most have been in fire without fireproofing a longer time then the WTC fire. They had very little fireproofing in the floor models to.

This is why I created my site. Because people like you keep repeating the same distortions over and over. So i repeat the same responce over and over...

http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

"And please understand this sometime, they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have...

But the controlled experiments which are repreducable prove the fires could have reached 1,100C. You can prove them wrong by duplicating it and finding (Heh!) 200C temps.

Also, WTC7 was not hit by a plane....

Which it way it lasted 6 hours instead of 30 min. It would have lasted longer if it were not hit by another building because of two reasons. One is the fires the impact caused (Just like the towers) and two, the structural damage the building fire started out with. (Sam as the towers.)

And the steel at the upper floors was removed very quick.

Typical conspiracy theory logic... They took the steel from the top first so it must be a conspiracy. It can't be that the steel from the top JUST HAPPENED TO BE ON THE TOP OF THE PILE WHCH WOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED FIRST. Or maybe you expect the top to be in the basement of the building with the basement on top of the pile... :jaw-dropp