To 9-11 Debunkers

It really doesn't take an on-site construction manager to explain how that kind of construction works and why it's used.

It might be a unique design to building construction but it's not new to engineering. That kind of design is used where light weight, strength and redundancy is required. Making a hole in it will not cause the rest of it to fail (that's the point), which we can see is what happened.

It's pretty silly to think the outer facade damage had anything to do with the buildings complete failure. If you knew 'anything' about engineering swamp you should know that.

Again I'll ask these questions you keep failing to address...

What cause the lack of friction/resistance from undamaged columns?
What caused 600 lbs pieces of facade to be ejected up to 600 ft.?
What pulverized the buildings contents into fine dust?

Simple questions you should know the answers too before you believe anything. The official story doesn't answer these, and many other, problems with the collapses. Why that doesn't bother you? I'm baffled.

Originally posted by ANOK

Again I'll ask these questions you keep failing to address...

What cause the lack of friction/resistance from undamaged columns?
What caused 600 lbs pieces of facade to be ejected up to 600 ft.?
What pulverized the buildings contents into fine dust?

Simple questions you should know the answers too before you believe anything. The official story doesn't answer these, and many other, problems with the collapses. Why that doesn't bother you? I'm baffled.

Those questions have been answered you just choose to not accept the answer. Even though many, top engineers from around the world have agreed with 95% of the official story that answers the only legit question you had (the first one). The other two are kinda common sense, just sit and think about it for a while and maybe you will figure out what many other who have spent far less time investigating have already come to figure out.

[edit on 12-11-2007 by teebigins]

reply to -post by teebigins


No those questions haven't been answered to mine and many others satisfaction. If you believe they have then it just shows you really don't understand the questions to begin with, and are happy with any answer that keeps you from having to face the truth.

No official 9-11 report answers any of the physics problems that contradict their collapse theory, if they did we wouldn't still be here 6 yrs later debating this...

reply to post by ANOK


Those questions will NEVER be answered to your satisfaction, but your paranoid. The questions have been answered by engineers, which have then been concurred by other engineers.

It would take teams of engineers weeks of showing you experimental results and evidence and even then you wouldn't believe. So don't get all uppity with me saying I don't understand your very simple questions, I do and I have gotten the same answers from numerous sources (government and non government). Go back and reread the thread I answered your #1 question on page 6, the first time you asked it. The pdf I linked from MIT-math-dept answers your question.

The only reason we are still debating this is because we are on a conspiracy theory website.

Originally posted by teebigins
The questions have been answered by engineers, which have then been concurred by other engineers.

How many of these engineers had access to ground zero and the evidence.

Oh, that right NIST did not recover any steel from builidng 7 for testing, so no would have access to evidence for testing on the building 7 steel.

wtc.nist.gov...

1) No WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed.

2) No unprocessed, intact floor trusses were recovered or analyzed.

3) No testing for explosives (or sulfidation or other residue of any kind) was performed.

4) Only 12 total core columns were recovered from WTC-1 & WTC-2 combined.

5) Of the recovered core pieces, none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

6) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.

7) No recovered steel showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


This discussion is concerned with wtc 1 and 2, whose collapses have been analyzed by engineers at ground zero.

and 250 degrees C = 487 F, thats pretty hot, the steel didn't have to completely liquefy to begin to take on liquid like properties, and lose strength. As has been repeated SOOOOOOO MANY TIMES!!!

[edit on 12-11-2007 by teebigins]

Originally posted by teebigins
This discussion is concerned with wtc 1 and 2, whose collapses have been analyzed by engineers at ground zero.

If you read my post it states facts about WTC 1 and 2 steel also.

So again i will ask, did all these supposed engineers everyone likes to bring up have access to all the evidence, YES or NO ?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Yes, NIST engineers and scientists did have access to materials on ground zero.

Where they allowed, or did they even want, to go on ground zero the instant it fell to start analysis, of course not.

Originally posted by teebigins
Yes, NIST engineers and scientists did have access to materials on ground zero.

How is that possible when no steel was recovered from builidng 7 by NIST?

Also what about all the opther engineers everyone keeps brining up. Did any of them have access to any evidence?






[edit on 12-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

reply to post by ULTIMA1


No steel was recovered or analyzed at wtc7, that doesn't mean that none was found or that it all disappeared. And again were talking about wtc1 and 2.


And no I don't think that just anyone was allowed to take evidence or look at evidence from that crime scene(ground zero), that would kinda compromise the investigation. BUT some engineers proposed collapse mechanisms before NIST findings and they were about 99% spot on even before the findings.

People always say it couldn't have collapsed its simple physics, yet people who know simple physics and complex physics reached independently the same solution that experiments from NIST backed up.

to truthers




debunking 911

so now a speech is evidence ?



[edit on 12-11-2007 by syrinx high priest]

Originally posted by teebigins
BUT some engineers proposed collapse mechanisms before NIST findings and they were about 99% spot on even before the findings.

People always say it couldn't have collapsed its simple physics, yet people who know simple physics and complex physics reached independently the same solution that experiments from NIST backed up.

Problem is that even NISt contridicted themselves and keep changing their story.


At 1 point they state that it was a commbination of the planes and fires the casued the collapse.

But then they turn around in the same statement and say that the buildings survived the planes impacts and the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel.

They have also changed their story from the towers collapsing from a pancke theory to no pancake theory.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Of course the buildings survived the planes impact(doesn't mean the impact didn't weaken the structure). It stood a while before the building fell, hence further weakening of the structure must have happened (the fire). I see no contradictions, only confusion on your part.

I don't think pancake theory is actually a scientific term, probably something they invented for the layman, they have changed their findings slightly but overall they are the same.

The same general collapse mechanism(derived from NIST and NON-NIST engineers) has stood and still stands and not a single piece of credible peer reviewed evidence to contradict it has been presented from CTers.

That alone should convince anyone reading this that the CTers case is much weaker then the official story. (or you can call it the non official story, since its not only the government that supports it)


[edit on 12-11-2007 by teebigins]

Originally posted by teebigins
Of course the buildings survived the planes impact(doesn't mean the impact didn't weaken the structure).

But the NIST statement was that the building survived the planes impact and woul have kept standing. So that menas the impacts did not weaken the structure to much.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


They did survive the impact, but it was then FURTHER weakened by the fire (which alone may not have caused a collapse). So as you have stated NIST was correct in saying the collapse was a result of a combination of plane impact and fire. No contradictions at all.

[edit on 12-11-2007 by teebigins]

Originally posted by teebigins
The same general collapse mechanism(derived from NIST and NON-NIST engineers) has stood and still stands and not a single piece of credible peer reviewed evidence to contradict it has been presented from CTers.

Please show me one peer reviewed government report. You do know what peer review is right?

reply to post by Griff


So I ask you to show me evidence then instead of getting evidence I get asked the same question I posed.

I don't think I can show you gov peer reviewed papers,because none have been put out, its not the function of the NIST to publish to journals.

But many articles collaborating the official story have been peer reviewed such as...

Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).

then there was the update

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

There are others... NOT ALL PEER REVIEWED!!!

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.


Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.


This is the list from debunking911.com but these are real journal articles that I have seen as I have access to university journal databases.

If anyone would like a copy of these journal articles I would be happy to send them or post the pdfs to a webpage.

Originally posted by teebigins
They did survive the impact, but it was then FURTHER weakened by the fire (which alone may not have caused a collapse). No contradictions at all.

But then NIST aslo states the the fires were not hot enough or last long enough to weaken the steel.

So there could be no combination of plane impact and fire to cause the collapse.

That is a major contridiction.

Originally posted by teebigins
reply to post by ANOK

 

Those questions will NEVER be answered to your satisfaction, but your paranoid.

LOL paranoid about what exactly?

I'm sry but I've yet to see the physics problems explained by anybody.

However they try to explain it they HAVE to ignore so many points to allow their theory to work.

In the simplest terms it is impossible for office fires to get millions of tons of construction steel to globally fail in an hour. You can ask ANY engineer you want, they will not be able to contradict that point. Unless of course they ignore the actual construction of the building, and have to make up claims like fire-proofing was 'knocked off', as if it would make any difference anyway.

Problem is you're are too easily impressed by pages of maths formulas and ignore the simple facts.

Not only is America being dumbed down we are being led to believe that only government supplied 'experts' can know the answers. I'll stand by my claim against any 'expert' no matter how much maths they spew at me. Your 'experts' have agendas to maintain the status quo. The 'experts' that disagree with the official story, i.e. Dr. Jones, are ignored and character assassinated by the official story pedlars. If you are not part of the agenda wouldn't that make you question, just a little bit? Otherwise it's obvious bias, which means obvious agenda to silence the truth.

Originally posted by teebigins
HAve you actually seen this lady?? Watch her totally make a fool of herself in an interview with a physicist, who repeatedly catches her in lies, and attempts to fool the layman.
video.google.com...
Notice how she repeatedly says "numbers, who needs numbers, Just look at pictures... yea real scientific" She even changes her story mid interview when caught in lies.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

*Deep breath*

HAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!

*Fights off tears from laughter*

OMG, Thanks so much for posting that video, that made my night!

Geez, she's a fruitcake! Who the heck makes these people Doctors? We need to seriously take a look at our institutions of higher education for people like this, and oh yah "Dr" Morgan Reynolds, her partner in "truth" who bases an entire calculation around a plane having to overcome the *entire* mass of all the floors it hit just to enter the building!

Boy I sure am glad she's on their side HAHAHAHAA!!!!

It's typical though, they parrot the same things over and over, most of it inane ramblings, like Alex Jones, all he can do is do his DJ thing and try and talk over people hoping that they just give in.

Or the "fresh out of school" loose change boys, who are dosing out "truth" one error filled revision at a time.

Fetzer too, gotta get some laughs outta that guy, here, check out Mark Roberts OWNING him :

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Now, THERE'S a guy I'm glad is on the same side of the fence I am. That's gotta feel great, the "scholar" getting taken to school by a self proclaimed NYC tour guide. He had him so worked up the dude was shaking! HAHA

"You can let go of me now" lol

Go Mark go!