NY's Finest Tour Guide Pokes Major Holes in the CD Theory

Originally posted by Soloist
why in the world should the rack break apart so violently from just the mass of the cue ball hitting it??? Magic perhaps?

It's called force. Which the official story hasn't explained sifficiantly as to how it happened.

reply to post by Taxi-Driver



I understand what you're saying. But, doesn't this make you think about the statements from our leaders that they "couldn't fathom airplanes being used as weapons"? Think about it.

Especially since WWII ended in 1945.

Couldn't fathom it my arse.

Originally posted by Mark Roberts
Don't support these incompetents, frauds, and morons.

Who's suppporting anything?

Let me ask you Mark.

What would happen when an airplane flies into a building. It's core is severed below the impact damage. (We're talking about the WTC towers, just so you know, there will be no goal post changing).

Would it start to fail at the impact zone or the point where the core was severed?

Let's start with baby steps before we get into the bigger picture please. Because I have no problem debating with you. I am a civil/structural engineer. Just as a curiousity, what are your qualifications? What structural drawings have you seen to be so sure in your stance?

Let's start with those questions.

"Beats head against wall..."

I hate this topic so much because some folks seem to be only here to spread their agenda of protecting the lies of 911. Arguing against them seems fruitless, because they aren't even going to try to understand your point of view. But, I can't help but being drawn into the conversation from time to time.

First off, the buildings fell nearly straight down, what the heck else needs to be said? But, for sh**s and giggles lets talk about it more anyway.

-The planes did not fly neatly into the center of the buildings, or in some other opportune place, not helping with such a theory that planes helped create the near straight down collapse of the buildings. One of them blew through a corner. Oh, and get this, there was a building that started to topple to the side, near the top. But, wait, the building started to collapse below this point, neat and straight down, somehow without having to use the pancaking effect from the floors above it. Isn't that interesting. I could stop talking there, because that in itself sais something is wrong with the official story. But, let's press on.

-Why on earth would we have demolition crews if it were that easy to bring down a building in the first place? I've heard such explanations as, "That's the way buildings collapse." What kind of explanation is that? Do you understand how near perfect the situation would have to be to bring three buildings down like that from 2 planes? We are talking about the "perfect fire" here. It spread evenly, and heated all the beems just right, so we could get that nice even collapse. If you have ever lit charcoal, you will know it isn't allways easy to get all the charcoal evenly lit. Crap, if it's that easy, then I'll go into business for myself with a remote control airplane and demolish buildings myself. The collapses should have been very sloppy if it were somehow caused by airplanes and fire alone.

-Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the footage of the third tower, did I not see the sides of the building fall toward the center of the building at the top, and it falls in on itself? This is a sign of demolition.

Troy

If you don't see a problem with the official story, then you aren't looking at the evidence, or you are ignoring it, bottom line.

Troy

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by Taxi-Driver

 

I understand what you're saying. But, doesn't this make you think about the statements from our leaders that they "couldn't fathom airplanes being used as weapons"? Think about it.

Especially since WWII ended in 1945.

Couldn't fathom it my arse.

How many U.S. business men and women were on those Zeros again? I musta missed where Japanese Military Fighter planes were shuttling U.S. citizens during WWII.

Prior to 9/11, Hijackings resulted in the re-routing of the airplane and a series of demands to be met in exchange for the hostages/passengers.

The rules changed instantly on 9/11 and the people in key positions at ATC, NORAD, DOD only had one hour to absorb the stark, new playing field, and make adjustments. It was shocking, confusing, and human beings just like you and me were taken aback...

Originally posted by sigung86
Being a FAIR SKEPTIC, I have to say, after reading this thread... You all are the same kind of warring camp as the UFO family. A large, and largely dysfunctional family, at that.

I wish it was that simple. I've seen a 'ufo' and know for a fact they exist...and not just some random lights in the sky either.

After seeing that, I don't doubt much of anything to be possible.

Originally posted by Soloist
No, I won't leave them out, not ever.

So your saying the NIST, FEMA and all the other reports are wrong that the buildings withstood the planes impacts?

And that these same reports are wrong when they state the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to cause the collapse?

Shall we look at the evidence, even though it seems you do not want to look at the evidence.

wtc.nist.gov...

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached; it cannot distinguish between pre- and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the perimeter column panels ...

Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.

These areas were:

• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector

Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse. Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.

Fahim Sadek, Michael A. Riley, Emil Simiu,
William Fritz, and H.S. Lew
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
U.S. Department of Commerce
[email protected]
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation
of the World Trade Center Disaster
Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft
Impact Damage Analysis
June 22, 2004

The tower maintained its stability with the removal of columns in the
exterior walls and core columns representative of aircraft impact and
also after losing columns in the south wall due to fire effects with some
reserve capacity left, indicating that additional weakening or loss of
other structural members is needed to collapse the tower.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Soloist
No, I won't leave them out, not ever.

So your saying the NIST, FEMA and all the other reports are wrong that the buildings withstood the planes impacts?

And that these same reports are wrong when they state the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to cause the collapse?

So you're saying that both agencies concluded that NEITHER the planes NOR the fire NOR the combination of both brought down the towers?????????????


Why don't we take a look at the statements you keep parroting once they're in context, shall we?

Report

The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal
structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly
impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and
would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the
subsequent multi-floor fires.

Hmm...

In each tower, a different combination of
impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural
collapse.

Wow, that seems to totally contradict everything you just said from the very organization you were using as an example.

As I said earlier I will NOT nor will I EVER just "leave the planes out of it". And believe me everytime I see a 9-11 Denier out there or here attempting to omit that FACT and say it was "just a small office fire" I'm going to call them on it.

Oh, and while I'm at it, since you harped on NIST as your source of confusion about the topic, this is about as plain and clear as it can be said :

The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft
impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September 11,
2001 if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally
dislodged by aircraft impact.

The combined effects! Of aircraft impact and EXTENSIVE (read: not small) fires.

And on the topic at hand:

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC
towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to
September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit
the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the
collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the
initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

There is no way to twist it, it's clear as a bell.

Originally posted by Soloist
There is no way to twist it, it's clear as a bell.

No, its not as clear as a bell. Ther are too many reports stating that the buildings withstood the planes impacts. There are even more reprts that the fires did not burn long enough or get hot enough to casue the collapse.

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

911research.wtc7.net...

Given that the vast majority of the volatile jet fuel was consumed inside five minutes of each crash, the fires subsequently dwindled, limited to the fuels of conventional office fires. The fires in both towers diminished steadily until the South Tower's collapse. Seconds before, the remaining pockets of fire were visible only to the firefighters and victims in the crash zone. A thin veil of black smoke enveloped the tower's top. In the wake of the South Tower's fall new areas of fire appeared in the North Tower.

This summary is supported by simple observations of the extent and brightness of the flames and the color and quantity of smoke, using the available photographic and video evidence.

Visible flames diminished greatly over time. Significant emergence of flames from the building is only seen in a region of the North Tower 10 stories above the impact zone.
South Tower: Virtually no flames were visible at the time of its collapse.
North Tower: Flames were visible in several areas at the time of its collapse. A region of flames on the 105th floor is seen after the South Tower collapse.
The smoke darkened over time. While the fires in both towers emitted light gray smoke during the first few minutes following the impacts, the color of the smoke became darker.
South Tower: Smoke from the fires was black by the time it collapsed. At that time it was only a small fraction of the volume of the smoke from the North Tower.
North Tower: Smoke from the fires had become much darker by the time the South Tower was struck, 17 minutes after the fires were ignited. The smoke was nearly black when the South Tower collapsed. Thereafter the smoke appears to have lightened and emerged from the building at an accelerated rate.


After the fall of the South Tower, the North Tower continued to produce prodigious quantities of smoke, and showed regions of active fires. See photographs.
Dark smoke implies the presence of soot, which is composed of uncombusted hydrocarbons. Soot is produced when a fire is oxygen-starved, or has just been extinguished. Soot also has a high thermal capacity and may act to rob a fire of heat by carrying it away.

There appears to be no evidence of fires within the buildings' cores. It can be assumed that most of the fires were near the perimeters of the towers where broken windows around the crash zone allowed them a supply of air. The cores were an average distance of about 70 feet from the nearest walls, and had much less flammable material than the surrounding offices. The impact gash in the North Tower provided a line of sight to the core. Available photographs and videos show the gash as consistently dark, showing no signs of fire in the building's core.

Also NIST did not do any testing for chemicals or explosives.

wtc.nist.gov...

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

[edit on 17-11-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Soloist
There is no way to twist it, it's clear as a bell.

No, its not as clear as a bell.

Sorry you don't get it then. I shouldn't be surprised you have danced around other points myself and others have made several times.

It is clear as a bell, you cannot have one without the other, a plane hit which caused the fires, period. Of that there is no doubt. You cannot leave one or the other out and claim it couldn't have happened JUST because of that.

Now, if you cannot understand that simple statement then I'm sorry, there is nothing I can do to help your comprehension on the matter.

Originally posted by mazzroth... the saps who nostalgically think the USA was attacked by cave dwellers that day.

Whatever the truth of it all, the 19 hijackers were either university graduates in engineering who had lived in Germany or the US for many years, or born to wealthy Saudi business families. This has been embarrassing & inconvenient to the US gubmint, who would surely have chosen different hijackers - i.e. Iraqis or Iranians - had they had any choice in the matter.

To use inaccurate words like 'cave dwellers' is not likely to endear your conspiracy-belief-system to anyone open-minded enough to consider the evidence and try to get to the real truth. Please consider that posting this kind of misinformation may tend (to some degree) to discredit your posts to other members.

Deny Ignorance.

Originally posted by ANOK

It has been PROVED over and over that the fires could not have possibly cause the global failure we saw. It's been PROVED, and even NIST agree, that the planes impact had no effect on the collapse.

You have obviously not read or studied the NIST report. The report describes in detail the effect the impact of the planes had on the collapse of the building, the exact opposite of your above proclamation. Please read it, before misquoting it.

NIST may leave 1 or 2 open questions re the WTC collapse. You can question the authors' political motives but the engineering expertise is pretty sound.

Sorry but the deliberate misquoting of so many sources by 'truthers' pushing a political agenda is starting to really p*** me off. It just creates fog, and keeps the truth hidden.

...that's why I keep repeating the same thing. There is nothing left to argue

I respectfully suggest that if you feel you need to keep repeating the same thing, your argument is not persuasive. Try posting some evidence which might convince people.

Pity there's so much emotion and proclamation in this debate now, and so little evidence. I really think many posters are not interested in the truth of what happened, they only care about pushing their conspiracy-theory belief-system to serve the tired old conventional anti-establishment political agenda. Consider that if the gubmint did do it, this attitude is exactly what they want to see to ensure 'the movement' never has any cred with Joe Public.

reply to post by Griff



in all fairness though, would you agree that there is just a "little" difference between cutting a chunk of rebar and cutting through 2"+ thick column that measures several feet in perimeter?

when someone can provide me with manufacturers part numbers or even just some tech specs on "thermate cutter charges" ill give it a lot more consideration personally. cuz someone has to make them if they exist yeah? well, ok in fairness i suppose that if it was a TS govt item then it wuold be possible that no one knows they exist.

but, the flipside to that is, while someones done a video showing thermite cutting horizontally through rebar, has anyone done a similar experiment using a structural column? that would be interesting to me.

reply to post by Griff


thing is griff, how many people would hear that and later describe it as "it sounded like an explosion!!" honestly...everyone does it. semi trucks tire blows next to you on the freeway and later on at the bar you tell yer buddies "man, sounded like a bomb went off next to my car".

so, given that most people have never heard a REAL bomb going off, and that humans tend to try to draw comparions to things that they think the people they are talking to will understand (and since we've all grown up on hollywoods version of things, its 'assumed' that when you describe something as a bomb or explosion the person youre talking to will have at least a cursory basis to understand where youre coming from)...is it so far fetched to look at the eyewitness reports of "explosions" on 911 and consider it as a possibility that the people there did NOT hear bombs, but simply heard loud noises?

cuz outside the building demo business, military or bomb squad...how many avg people, or even above avg people that are in law enforcement and Fire services have a real live basis for comparison?



Griff, i honestly hope you dont feel like im picking on you or trying to start anything. i just know that if i discuss points that you raise i can count on a mature discussion, so thanks

Um didn't the president already admit to the people that explosives were used? I remember seeing a thread about that, anyone know if thats right or not? Cause if it is delete this thread.

Originally posted by ANOK
It has been PROVED over and over that the fires could not have possibly cause the global failure we saw. It's been PROVED, and even NIST agree, that the planes impact had no effect on the collapse. But you all want to ignore what's right in front of your eyes and to keep

That's stright up wrong. NOTHING of the sort has been PROVED.

You saying it over and over does NOT make it so.

Mark Roberts has amassed a ton of information and links on 9-11. Check them out here.

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

And, he normally posts at the JREF forum under the name "Gravy." Feel free to come on over and debate anything related to 9-11 there with the best 9-11 debunkers anywhere. I dare you.

forums.randi.org...

Hello everyone,

This is a maddening thread. Most of you are to be commended for maintaining your composure and helping to make it a valuable learning experience.

I started reading convinced in my own mind something more than the planes and fires brought down the towers, and, that something was very odd about WTC7. After viewing Mr. Mark Roberts' video I am still, if not more certain there is more to the story than has been told thus far.

Consider the source, "NY's Finest Tour Guide," Mark Roberts is a well known figure among those who seem to make a living defending the "official" account of 9/11.

For example, this coming January, Mr. Roberts will be a featured speaker at the James - The Amazing - Randi Educational Foundation's "Amazing Meeting 5.5," or the "International Conference on Applied Critical Thinking," (www.randi.org...). This event takes place in Florida, non-members pay $200 for the two day conference; for $250 you get dinner with Randi. This foundation, the "jref," advances "Skepticism and Activism" while claiming to be "an educational resource on the paranormal, pseudoscientific, and the supernatural." I appreciate truth in advertising.


Recently, here in Portland, Oregon, William Rodriguez, was in town to "talk about his experience as a national hero and activist and his doubts about September 11," (wweek.com...).

Here are excerpts from Willamette Week:

Rodriguez was headed in for a regular day of work as a 19-year veteran janitor at the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001, when the first plane crashed into the building. Using his janitorial keys, he helped rescue hundreds of people from the building and was recognized as a national hero for his bravery. But Rodriguez is increasingly skeptical of the official accounts of 9/11, and is touring the country demanding answers.

Now, Rodriguez is touring the country pushing for further investigation of the events . As an advocate for 9/11 families and the Latino community, Rodriguez believes he’s been sent “on a mission” to act as a voice for these communities. “I was given the opportunity to survive and now I’m doing that mission.” And he’s not exactly happy about it: He says “it’s a burden” and he “hates” doing it.

...

Rodriguez will be in Portland on Tuesday, Nov. 6, where he will talk about his experiences and what he plans to do in the future at Berbati’s Pan, 231 SW Ankeny, at 7 pm . Admission $10. Sponored by portland911truthalliance.org.

Digging a little deeper, I found a post on WW by Mr. Roberts himself. More on that later...

Mark Roberts writes on Nov 5th, 2007 5:21pm

Mark Roberts writes on Nov 5th, 2007 5:21pm
Comment 8 | Respond

Rodriguez behaved bravely on 9/11. Unfortunately, since then much of what he has claimed is patently false, his story has completely changed, and he has chosen to spread these falsehoods in the company of extremely disreputable people. See my paper "William Rodriguez: Escape Artist"at 911stories.googlepages.com.
wweek.com...

The truth is Mr. Rodriguez's story has changed, however, not "completely," and he admits it openly:

He says an explosion occurred seven seconds before the first plane hit the towers, and came from below, not above. But when he first began to report this, he described the explosion as a “rumble,” like furniture moving. Today, he remembers it as a “POW!” Rodriguez claims the difference is due to translation errors, but his accounts of the explosion have gotten more and more dramatic over the years.
wweek.com...

"Rumble" or "POW!" big deal. What is a big deal, at least to me and probably some of you, is that first sentence, "an explosion occured," ... "from below, not above."

Rodriguez also previously claimed a large fireball shot through the elevator shaft, exploding through the doors and burning the skin off one man’s body. But three years ago, Rodriguez began to back away from his account, claiming it was impossible for a fireball to have existed. Now, he says he was just going along with the official accounts of the New York fire department. “I was repeating everything as they told me to,” he says. At the time, Rodriguez claims he was being courted by members of the Republican Party , whose names he won’t disclose, to run for political office. “I was going with the official story,” he says. But Rodriguez says that once he started investigating, the story didn’t make sense.
wweek.com...

While we can certainly find fault in going along with any fabrications, Mr. Rodriguez seems to have come to terms with it and certainly isn't hiding his mistake. The reader will have to make their own conclusions.

Many readers already have reached their own conclusions on Mark Rogers. More on that later...

Here are my first thoughts on this video before I get reading this thread and responding (or not).

First, he makes quite a few assumptions, not least, on what the CTers think.

Second, he uses the demolition of the other building as an example of what the WTC collapse should look/sound like but misses a few vital points in so doing:

* The WTC design was UNIQUE ( dictionary.reference.com... ). This is a very important point to remember. The WTC was primarily supported by a central core, and it is this core that would need to be destroyed to cause a collapse. As part of the design, even if some of the steel columns in the core did fail, the external columns were designed to take some of the load. They did this very well.

* Fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel. There is no known example of a collapse of a steel framed building with exception to the WTC.

* The fires in the WTC did not burn hot enough to melt steel: en.wikipedia.org...

Typical temperatures of fires and flames

* Oxyhydrogen flame: 2000 °C or above) (3645 °F) [4]
* Bunsen burner flame: 1300 to 1600 °C (2372 to 2912 °F) [5]
* Blowtorch flame: 1,300 °C (2372 °F) [6]
* Candle flame: 1000 °C (1832 °F)
* Smoldering cigarette:
o Temperature without drawing: side of the lit portion; 400 °C (750 °F); middle of the lit portion: 585 °C (1110 °F)
o Temperature during drawing: middle of the lit portion: 700 °C (1290 °F)
o Always hotter in the middle.

Temperatures of flames by appearance

The temperature of flames with carbon particles emitting light can be assessed by their color:[7]

* Red
o Just visible:977°F (525 °C)
o Dull: 1290 °F (700 °C)
o Cherry, dull: 1470 °F (800 °C)
o Cherry, full: 1650 °F (900 °C)
o Cherry, clear: 1830 °F (1000 °C)
* Orange
o Deep: 2010 °F (1100 °C)
o Clear: 2190 °F (1200 °C)
* White
o Whitish: 2370 °F (1300 °C)
o Bright: 2550 °F (1400 °C)
o Dazzling: 2730 °F (1500 °C)

After the initial fireball of the fuel burning off almost immediately after impact, only smoke was visible (and thick black smoke at that).

Another point is that these fires were concentrated on the floors of the building, not in the core or under the external structure.

We know the steel in the WTC was rated to 3000°F for 6 hours (and we're talking complete immersion in that heat, not spot-heating) before it weakened - the towers fell after little more than an hour.

Whilst I commend the maker of the film to actually attempt some research on the other side of this debate, the odds are against his points being true.

I note also that he only uses anecdotal evidence, and not scientific or factual information. He also completely avoids the subject of the design of the WTC and of the specification of the steel used in its construction.

[edit on 17-11-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

[edit on 17-11-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by Soloist
And on the topic at hand:

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC
towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to
September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit
the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the
collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the
initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

There is no way to twist it, it's clear as a bell.

Hmm. I wonder why "NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC
towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives".

Let's find out. Shall we?

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

wtc.nist.gov...

Straight from the horses mouth.

I'm sorry but you can't use the "no evidence was found" claim when no evidence was even looked for to begin with.