WTC Challenge

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Howard you opened this can of worms and you keep refering to a government report.

The point of this thread was to illustrate the fact that NIST had released a draft report of the findings of their three year investigation, and to point out that there was a comment period available for public response to that report. I challenged those who disagreed with the report to submit comments to NIST.



It does not appear that anyone did. (The comment period is now over, BTW).

That is like asking the accused to provide all the evidence.

You notions of jurisprudence are somewhat odd. Just who is accusing who of what? Do you seriously believe that all of the scientists and engineers at NIST are “in on it?”

However, I were to accept your analogy (which I don’t), I would counter that your rejection of the NIST report is akin to not allowing an accused to present evidence in his defense. And it definitely seems that you have presumed guilt beforehand.

Why dont you answer some of the questions, like how the molten steel got there,

Well I believe that I have. A number of times. But since you insist,
There is no definitive evidence of molten steel in the elevator pits. There is, however, evidence that there was molten aluminum as a result of the fires. There in no conclusive evidence that if there was molten metal in the pits that it was definitively steel and not aluminum or even a eutectic mixture of steel and aluminum (which has a lower melting point than pure steel or aluminum alone.).

why the steel was not held long enough to do a proper investigation.

There are tons of steel samples still being held in a warehouse. Do you honestly think that hey would hang on to the entire building?

There is more investigation in a normal aircraft accident than the amount they did at WTC.

That is because they usually don’t know why an airplane crashes. They know why they crashed on 9/11.

How about the fact that the black boxes were never made public.

That has nothing to do with the original subject of this thread.

Why after all of this finger pointing they do not provide the security footage from the pentagon, that would lay to rest a lot of speculation. They have every inch of a retail mall parking lot covered by camera, you dont think that the Pentagon lawn had every inch covered? Why did the airforce stand down and not intercept anything, even after hours of highjacked aircraft flying around, knowing that flight 77 was headed to DC, and they didnt scramble the F-16's sitting on the tarmac 15 miles away, that are there to protect the seat of the Fed Gov?

This thread is not about the pentagon.

This whole thing is so obvious any real scrutiny would make it come down like a house of cards. I dont think you are a naive, so what is your motivation?

My motivation is that most of the so-called evidence is based on misunderstanding of basic principles of science and engineering.
If you correct those misunderstandings, then the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory starts to crumble away.

No Howard it is not mis-understandings. It is the fact that there is way to much strange oddities on 911. If it was aluminum, how the heck did that melt? If jet fuel, that does not burn as high a temperture as gasoline melted it then why hasnt it melted my aluminum engine block, and dont tell me that it is because of the water cooling, because my off-road motorcycle has one too. Also how do you get that much aluminum in a high rise building? That is a very expensive alloy and used in lightweight applications, ar as in an engine block to keep it from warping under high temperatures. Another thing to ponder is the report of people fearing they would drown in a sub-level elevator from all the water going down the shafts from the fire suppression system that was working in the building.

Just one of the points hear there are to many for me to take the time with, let alone copy and past peice from your post like you did with mine. How does a person justify taking so much time to do something as anal-minded as that?

Please do not put so much importance in someone elses opinion to take such measures as to copy paste like you so often do. Just MHO

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
No Howard it is not mis-understandings. It is the fact that there is way to much strange oddities on 911. If it was aluminum, how the heck did that melt? If jet fuel, that does not burn as high a temperture as gasoline melted it then why hasnt it melted my aluminum engine block, and dont tell me that it is because of the water cooling, because my off-road motorcycle has one too.

And I bet it has cooling fins on the side as well.

What would happen if you were to plug up the cooling fins on your bike.




BTW, I don’t think that you understand the difference between heat and temperature.

Also how do you get that much aluminum in a high rise building?

Easy, you fly an aircraft into it.

That is a very expensive alloy and used in lightweight applications, ar as in an engine block to keep it from warping under high temperatures.

or, in the case of the WTC towers, aluminum was used to cover the entire exterior of the building (except the windows, of course).

Another thing to ponder is the report of people fearing they would drown in a sub-level elevator from all the water going down the shafts from the fire suppression system that was working in the building.

The risers were severed when the plane destroyed the stairwells.

Just one of the points hear there are to many for me to take the time with, let alone copy and past peice from your post like you did with mine. How does a person justify taking so much time to do something as anal-minded as that?

you accused me of ridiculinig people in the crop circle thread, yet you can’t resist slinging an insult here, can you?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

or, in the case of the WTC towers, aluminum was used to cover the entire exterior of the building (except the windows, of course).

What prt of the outside of the building was melted? I am sure most of that did not get touched by your magic blast furnace level of heat source, jet fuel.

The risers were severed when the plane destroyed the stairwells.

That has to do with water going down the elevator shafts? You cant have it both ways either the water and the jet fuel gets down there, or niether one gets there.

Crop circle thread?




[edit on 8-8-2005 by LoneGunMan]

WOW...Howard the MAN

Y'r a very smart and logical thinker man...much apprieciated that y'r here

Otherwise they would chew me apart (esp. my great writing skills)

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

Three year investigation? Bwa ha ha ha! How in the world can you call that an investigation Roark? It's a report, parroting the seriously lacking Official Story of the collapses, and at best can be construed as conjecture. The Warren Commission did a better job of explaining the impossible.

How do you heat 40 steel columns so evenly that they all give way at the exact same time?

You don't have to.. You just heat some columns so much, that the collapse begings. The structure of WTC 7 makes it fall as sawn. It couln't have leaned, because steel structures can't stand forcers that are required the building to tilt.

quote:
The risers were severed when the plane destroyed the stairwells.


"That has to do with water going down the elevator shafts? You cant have it both ways either the water and the jet fuel gets down there, or niether one gets there."

You would def. have water from the Fire Hose Cabinets....they are always full of water and under pressure...so when the plain would hit the building it would "cut" the Standpipe Risers ....not only the Fire Hose Cabinets but regular Domestic water and not t'a mention the Sprinkler Standpipes. So water would def. travel down the shafts, stairs etc. etc. and the jet fuel would also travel down...they may not nec. go down the same shafts either.
Please note there is always a "scupper" drain at the bottom of elevator shafts but it would be a 4" diameter pipe and most likley get "clogged" with debry, so could def. see the elevator shaft at the bottom get full and dam fast 2.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

neither howard 'the man'(i agree with you, sven, howard IS 'the man') nor the lame and lean report has offered any solid explanantion for the near free fall collapse of WTC7.
there is a great deal of 'oh, this is what MUST have happened, according to the available data'.

there is no anaylsis of how a assymetrically damaged tower instantly translates energy to all supporting beams at the base in such a manner that the tower falls down perfectly straight. they didn't even address the collapse. they simply documented some fires, and then documented a description of the collapse. there is NOTHING in the report to account for the manner of the collapse.
absolutely nothing.

p.s. thanks to everyone on 'my' side who has the prowess and knowledge to use the shift key.

And to add Insult to Injury, the Bu#es are still stonewalling...
www.truthout.org...

Lets' go thru' this......

"neither howard 'the man' (i agree with you, sven, howard IS 'the man')"
(Just trying t'a prase Howard for his thinking, I always prase people...esp. when it's obviouse Guess having kid's kind'a make me do it

nor the lame and lean report has offered any solid explanantion for the near free fall collapse of WTC7.
(I've never said that about WTC7....that one is a bit more ...hmm.....let me see that one again)

there is a great deal of 'oh, this is what MUST have happened, according to the available data'.
(But has this not been address before.....NO ONE know'z...you nor I [or even Howard]....none of use can poss. know "all" what happened and for us all great thinkers here we would need some real "go-roos" in Structural Design at the kitchen table [and guess min. 2 of em']...to discuss this ....
no ? yes ?

"there is no anaylsis of how a assymetrically damaged tower instantly translates energy to all supporting beams at the base in such a manner that the tower falls down perfectly straight. they didn't even address the collapse,"
(ok....got me there....lost me and have no real solid understanding of structural designs and the effects of the planes, fire etc.)

they simply documented some fires, and then documented a description of the collapse. there is NOTHING in the report to account for the manner of the collapse. absolutely nothing.
(assuming y'r typing about WT1 & 2.....Why would the report NEED to go into great more detail....we all know what happend and saw it in countless movies)

Like mentioned before we need some Structural Engineers here.....

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

"And to add Insult to Injury, the Bu#es are still stonewalling..."
www.truthout.org...

Y'r link is not nec. related....more to the side of what the goverment (White House) is doing about anti-terror....seems some people are ticked they are not involved....and Bush is gon'a bring it out at the Anniversity (bring him a bit more out'ta nev. on the polls)

Plus kind'a feel better knowing he's keeping it quite better less people know...hate t'a have the other side getting th'r hands on it.....and I'm not nec. for Bush ....but it's kind'a wierd I trust him with that....guess his Cowboy wayz' if very Father figure...esp. to Anti-Terror and watch over the Ranch.

Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

Originally posted by svenglezz
Like mentioned before we need some Structural Engineers here.....
Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

So what would happen if a "structural engineer", let's say a very highly qualified one, told you "The only way those buildings could have collapsed the way they did was with planted explosives."?

Would you, first off, believe him?

Would you suddenly see the light and agree there is a possibility it was controlled?

Would you start to think for yourself?

Or would you dismiss the structural engineers claim, 'cause you can't wrap your mind around the reality of your government?

Or would you except what the engineer says because he's a self professed "expert", and start parroting the theories of the opposition?

Or would you think for yourself, and express your own views on the WTC problem?


I'm seriously interested in your answers Sven, I'd like to know, then maybe I can decide once and for all if you're really 8 yrs old, you're just a Troll, or you are a dis-info agent.

AP&F...

"Think for yourself, it could do wonders for the Human Race"

"I designed it for a 707 to hit it," Lee Robertson, the WTC project's structural engineer said. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity of more than 23,000 gallons, comparable to the 767's 23,980-gallon fuel capacity, and has a higher cruise speed.

Sources


[edit on 2005-8-8 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
"I designed it for a 707 to hit it," Lee Robertson, the WTC project's structural engineer said. The Boeing 707 has a fuel capacity of more than 23,000 gallons, comparable to the 767's 23,980-gallon fuel capacity, and has a higher cruise speed.

There you go Sven, thankyou WCIP!!

I look forward to your answers Sven...

[edit on 8/8/2005 by ANOK]

The standard answers, rotated as rebuttals to each appear, are:

a) He never said that.

b) The 767 is a little bit heavier, so that makes all the difference.

c) He meant for a plane that was lost in fog and flying slower.

or

d) He could never have anticipated the damage from the collision of a plane, and from the subsequent fires.

Note that in order to support option "d", one must also support the premise that Robertson, being the head structural engineer for one of the most important projects in the world, and the guy who engineered the very buildings in question...doesn't know what he is talking about. The fact that this is in direct contradiction to the "only structural engineers are qualified to comment" assertion made by the very same people doesn't seem to cause any logic problems for them. Just like Orwell said...Doublethink. Which also applies quite prevasively to the whole 9-11 fiasco and the psychological denial exhibited by the supporters of the lie.

en.wikipedia.org...
the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (pages 176-177)

As Orwell explains in the book, the Party could not protect its iron grip on power without degrading its people and exposing them to constant propaganda. Yet knowledge of this brutality and deception, even within the Party itself could lead to disgusted collapse of the state from within, as the Soviet Union later fell in the late 20th century. For this reason, Orwell’s idealized government used a complex system of "reality control". Though the novel is most famous for its pervasive surveillance of daily life, reality control meant that the population could be controlled and manipulated merely through the alteration of everyday language and thought. Newspeak was the method for controlling thought through language; Doublethink was the method of controlling thought directly.

Doublethink was a form of trained, willful blindness to contradictions in a system of beliefs. In the case of Winston Smith, Orwell's protagonist, it meant being able to work at the Ministry of Truth deleting uncomfortable facts from public records, and then believing in the new history which he himself had written.

Through doublethink, the Party was able to not only bomb its own people and tell its citizens that the bombs were sent by the enemy, but all Party members—even the ones that launched the rockets themselves—were able to believe that the bombs were launched from outside.

How much of this do we see going on even here in this very thread from the thread author and his Canadian cheerleader?

Anyway, now that the structural engineer who engineered the buildings has spoken, everyone please give a warm welcome and round of applause to sven, who will be crossing the floor to stand with us on the side of truth. Welcome, sven.



[edit on 2005-8-8 by wecomeinpeace]

The structural engineer like you claim ....what's he saying today why he not on Opra ?

I did mention would like 2 engineers at the Kitchen table


Y'r Canadian friend,
Sven

LOL er er er wait wait, I want 2 structural engineers now, one ain't good enough, my heads too thick for just one to pass through. And he has to have been on opra....

*backs away* I didn't say that, er yes I did, but wait that's not what I meant, I..I...I...I...I er #!!

And don't come back!!:LOL:

freakin TROLL!! And you are 8 aren't you? People like you should be banned for waisting everybody's time, trolling for a reaction. Get a life dude.

(I bet you haven't even read more than the last new post, eh?)

Jp radio - snippet

The buildings were designed around the eventuallity that a plane might fly into the building. A 707.

WTC DESIGNED FOR 707 HIT

Tuesday, 11 September 2001 19:50 (ET)

DETROIT, Sept. 11 (UPI) -- A lead engineer who worked on New York's World Trade Center Towers expressed shock Tuesday that the 110-story landmarks in Lower Manhattan collapsed after each tower was struck by a hijacked passenger jetliner.

Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer, addressed the problem of terrorism on high-rises at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany, last week, Chicago engineer Joseph Burns told the Chicago Tribune.
Burns said Robertson told the conference, "I designed it for a (Boeing)707 to hit it."

So as you can see sven, its not new.

This story was posted on September 11 2001.

~Peace ~

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
The standard answers, rotated as rebuttals to each appear, are:

a) He never said that.

b) The 767 is a little bit heavier, so that makes all the difference.

c) He meant for a plane that was lost in fog and flying slower.

or

d) He could never have anticipated the damage from the collision of a plane, and from the subsequent fires.

Thank you. All of which are valid responses. Here is some more data for you:

But Robertson still had one more set of structural calculations to perform. Lawrence Wien, who was continuing his fight against the towers, had begun to remind New Yorkers publicly of a Saturday morning in July 1945, when a B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, barreled into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. Most of the 14 people who died were incinerated by a fireball created when the plane's fuel ignited, even though the fire was quickly contained. The following year, another plane crashed into the 72-story skyscraper at 40 Wall Street, and yet another one narrowly missed the Empire State Building, terrifying sightseers on the observation deck. Wien and his committee charged that the twin towers, with their broader and higher tops, would represent an even greater risk of midair collision. They ran a nearly full-page ad in The Times with an artist's rendition of a commercial airliner about to ram one of the towers. ''Unfortunately, we rarely recognize how serious these problems are until it's too late to do anything,'' the caption said.

The Port Authority was already trying to line up the thousands of tenants it would need to fill the acres of office space in the towers. Such a frightful vision could not be left unchallenged. Robertson says that he never saw the ad and was ignorant of the political battle behind it. Still, he recalls that he addressed the question of an airplane collision, if only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity. For whatever reason, Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow. Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study.

But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances. There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.

From a New York Times Article, titled “the Height of Ambition,” links to which can be found here toward the bottom of the page.

It is clear, at least from that standpoint, that the notion that the “buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a 707” is not really correct. The buildings were designed to stand up and withstand high winds. As a consequence of this, the design was determined to be robust enough to withstand the loss of some of the support columns as the result of an airplane impact. To state, however that the buildings were specifically designed to withstand this impact is incorrect, however, as this was never part of the design criteria for these buildings. This may seem like a trivial point, but it is not there is a critical difference here. If the building was specifically designed to withstand an aircraft impact, then all of the affects of that impact would have been considered. This was not done. The only calculations that were done were to determine if the buildings would still stand given the loss of a certain percentage of support columns.

Which, by the way, they did.