Just wanted to share this Vid. 911/truth

Originally posted by Six Sigma
No, they are not skyscrapers. But, these examples prove that steel FAILS!

You forgot to say "locally". Steel fails locally. Your examples aren't indicative or comparable to any of the WTC buildings.

Hell, the McCormick fire wasn't even a building collapse, it was a roof collapse. It's hilarious the kinds of things you will pull out of your hat to create doubt. Won't work though, nice try.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I'm necessarily going to accept his word that the collapse caused significant damage to the building over your armchair estimate.

It has nothing to do with "my" estimate. You're twisting words. NIST stated the damage to WTC 7 wasn't significant enough to have any bearing on the collapse. Therefore, there was not significant damage.

So, you can take your faith from NIST or any eyewitness. I'm pretty sure Barry Jennings stated both towers were standing when he looked outside, so any damage he saw was from internal explosives going off anyway.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Engineers seem to disagree with you:

Robert Berhinig, 1967: “steel frame buildings can collapse as a result of… fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel.”

One person is not "engineerS" with an "s". And yes steel frame buildings have collapsed from fire. Steel-structured highrises have not, and cannot collapse totally and completely from fire. The only chance of that happening is if the building was completely on fire from the very top to the very bottom for hours and hours.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

You forgot to say "locally". Steel fails locally. Your examples aren't indicative or comparable to any of the WTC buildings.

You will have to find me two other skyscrapers that were hit be two speeding planes intentionally. Then another one that was on fire on multiple floors for several hours without firefighting.

Hell, the McCormick fire wasn't even a building collapse, it was a roof collapse.

It's hilarious the kinds of things you will pull out of your hat to create doubt. Won't work though, nice try.

Your reading comprehension is something to be desired. You actually quoted what I said! Try reading it again... (Steel Fails)

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Did you see my post? I was hoping you might let me know what you think. Here, it ended up as the last post on page 1:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Varemia


I was not (and still am not) interested in wasting my time watching that video. There are witnesses, including credible first responders, to the explosions in WTC 7 (and the towers for that matter).

Explosions, near free-fall speeds, flashes, ejections, straight down. The only thing in the world that describes all of the above is controlled demolition. And no video or explanation can describe anything except controlled demolition.

We don't have to waste any more time on this subject.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by Varemia

 

I was not (and still am not) interested in wasting my time watching that video. There are witnesses, including credible first responders, to the explosions in WTC 7 (and the towers for that matter).

Explosions, near free-fall speeds, flashes, ejections, straight down. The only thing in the world that describes all of the above is controlled demolition. And no video or explanation can describe anything except controlled demolition.

We don't have to waste any more time on this subject.

What the hell? Dude, it's one freakin minute. You're willing to watch 15 minutes of music-filled A&E rhetoric, but you won't watch 1 minute of a simulation done by NIST which proves that the collapse would behave differently given damage?

You are supposed to DENY ignorance, not bathe in it. Watch the damn video.

www.youtube.com...

Here, I'll even embed it:

reply to post by Varemia


I've been researching 9/11 for a very long time. I've seen this video before. There's nothing you can show me that I don't already know. What was NIST's explanation for the explosions and booms coming from WTC 7 (or the towers for that matter)? Their explanation was: they don't exist.

That's despite the numerous audio and visual media to the contrary. Then there's the numerous witnesses that have to be lying or all mistaken for NIST to be accurate.

Besides, everything you post from NIST is a theory. Nothing is factual. It's not a fact that three WTC buildings came down by fire. It's a theory. And a non-provable one at that.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by Varemia

 

I've been researching 9/11 for a very long time. I've seen this video before. There's nothing you can show me that I don't already know. What was NIST's explanation for the explosions and booms coming from WTC 7 (or the towers for that matter)? Their explanation was: they don't exist.

That's despite the numerous audio and visual media to the contrary. Then there's the numerous witnesses that have to be lying or all mistaken for NIST to be accurate.

Besides, everything you post from NIST is a theory. Nothing is factual. It's not a fact that three WTC buildings came down by fire. It's a theory. And a non-provable one at that.

Actually, NIST acknowledged that there were booms, but they could not find any sounds which were of a high enough decibel to be determined conclusively to be explosives.

We'll just have to disagree on this then. It's very obvious that very different things count as evidence for both of us. We also seem to have a fundamentally different way of looking at the way physical objects interact with each other, something which ought to be universal, considering that it is physics, but I guess in the mind of the beholder, physics are malleable.

Originally posted by Varemia
I guess in the mind of the beholder, physics are malleable.

And that's unfortunate. In some peoples' minds, it's normal to think random fires moving through a building can somehow cause every single support column in the entire building to fail at the same time to cause it to collapse at free-fall, perfectly straight down.

Then in other peoples' minds, we know that explosives is the only thing in the world that has ever caused such a thing to happen. The evidence for explosives is:

The flashes.

Puffs or ejections of dust/debris.

The timed booms.

All of the above have only ever been associated with controlled demolitions, on top of what I mentioned earlier that no building has ever collapsed perfectly straight down at free-fall unless it was a controlled demolition.

The evidence is all there. But some peoples' minds have a different set of physics that allows them to ignore all of the above and contend that for the first and only time in history, random office fires have accomplished all of the actions and signs of controlled demolitions.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Varemia
I guess in the mind of the beholder, physics are malleable.

And that's unfortunate. In some peoples' minds, it's normal to think random fires moving through a building can somehow cause every single support column in the entire building to fail at the same time to cause it to collapse at free-fall, perfectly straight down.

Then in other peoples' minds, we know that explosives is the only thing in the world that has ever caused such a thing to happen. The evidence for explosives is:

The flashes.

Puffs or ejections of dust/debris.

The timed booms.

You know that's all rhetoric and interpretation.

The supports could all fail at a single point simultaneously in the case of a buckling. This is likely to have happened given the damage to WTC 7.

Glass allows flashes, collapsing interior allows ejections, and the booms could have easily been the building collapsing inside before the final global collapse.

It's all about the way you look at it, and it is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

reply to post by Six Sigma


This is why OS'ers lack any credibility:

In 1997 the large Sound Theatre in Pennsylvania collapsed...steel.

In 1967, the very large steel-framed McCormick Center in Chicago collapsed in 30 minutes

1n 1997 -Three four-story-high steel framed buildings at the Kadel Toy Factory in Singapore collapsed.

The Mumbai High North Oil Platform, constructed of steel and seven stories high, completely collapsed after burning for two hours.

Interstate 580 overpass near San Francisco, supported only by steel beams, collapsed due to the heat of a gasoline fire after nineteen minutes.

June 2007 Sofa SuperStore Charleston SC.- Collapsed due to a fire.

WTC 5 had a partial collapse of four floors on 911.

Sound Theatre in Pennsylvania www.usfa.dhs.gov... (Partial collapse)

McCormick Center in Chicago 911research.wtc7.net... (Partial collapse)

"Kadel Toy Factory in Singapore" should be "Kader toy factory in Thailand". Shoddy research, but it does seem to have collapsed. It is hard to find anything but one picture of this, but from what I can tell this appears to have more like a a stack of single story warehouse collapses (warehouses filled with combustibles) than a single global failure.

Mumbai High North Oil Platform. www.npchse.net... Gas fueled fire in heavy seas... (this is reaching a bit isn't it?)

Interstate 580 overpass near San Francisco, I am not even go look up an example featuring a single story structure with likely a single point of failure.

Sofa SuperStore Charleston SC was a W-A-R-E-H-O-U-S-E. www.cdc.gov... (see photo 9, steel storage racks did not collapse. Just a curiosity)

WTC 5 had a partial collapse... had a partial collapse, partial collapse, partial... What is the key word in that sentence again?

Originally posted by Darkwing01

This is why OS'ers lack any credibility:

Einstein... did you read what I posted? Oh, wait...cherry picking is what truthers do best. The list I posted was that STEEL FAILS when subjected to extreme heat.

Three questions I ask truthers and seldom get answers:

1- Why is it required that steel is insulted with fire resistant materials?

2- If you were on the 30th floor of a skyscraper and found that floors 50 - 56 were on fire, would you feel safe where you are?

reply to post by Six Sigma


Insulation....to prevent buckling. NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT STEEL DOES NOT FAIL WITH EXTREME HEAT! DROP IT.

Steel buckles and creates PARTIAL collapses NEVER a full implosion collapse. If you look at failed demos ,as in this video www.youtube.com... , this is what these towers would have looked like collapsing. Except that the top probably would have continued leaning and fell.

Here's some more clips of single floor collapses and how they react.

www.youtube.com...

For a STRAIGHT DOWN collapse EVER single floor needs to be blown in the proper order.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
One person is not "engineerS" with an "s". And yes steel frame buildings have collapsed from fire. Steel-structured highrises have not, and cannot collapse totally and completely from fire. The only chance of that happening is if the building was completely on fire from the very top to the very bottom for hours and hours.

He was only one example. This man, Mr. Berhinig is the associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer.. Unlike truther water chemist, Mr. Kevin Ryan. Mr. Berhing disagrees with you. So do many other Engineers.The following is a list of Engineers that have put their names on Peer Reviewed articles pertaining to the WTC.

Single Point of Failure- How the Loss of One Column May Have Lead to the Collapse of WTC-7.
Ramon Gilsanze P.E. / S.E. & Willa Ng
www.structuremag.org...

Resistance to Collapse
Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Cambridge University Engineer Dr. Keith A. Seffen
www.eng.cam.ac.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...


Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science Northwestern University

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).
Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE)
Archives of Applied Mechanics
Studi i Ricerche
SIAM News
(yes, lots of hootin and hollarin from truther about this paper. Yet, almost 10 years and not a single professional peer reviewed rebuttal.)

www-math.mit.edu...

Here are the folks on the editorial board of the above published paper:

Editor:

Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
[email protected]
ceae.colorado.edu...

Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma mpge.ou.edu...
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts www.ecs.umass.edu...
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
kudu.ucsd.edu...
Henri Gavin, Duke University
www.cee.duke.edu...
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
www.ce.umn.edu...
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
whitepages.tuwien.ac.at...
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
lambros.ce.ust.hk...
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
www.engin.umich.edu...
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
www.civil.upatras.gr...
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
www.ucalgary.ca...
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
www.uic.edu...
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
www.bygg.ntnu.no...
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
www.pubs.asce.org...
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
www.cee.lsu.edu...
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
ceae.colorado.edu...

This is the Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee

Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
home.olemiss.edu...
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
www.its.caltech.edu...
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
ame-www.usc.edu...
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
www.eas.caltech.edu...
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
cee.mit.edu...
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Brannigan, F.L.

Peer Reviewed Articles Pertaining to the WTC:
"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.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

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.

I am amazed how many buy into this story,shows how gullible the general public is,boy I'd love to get the list and start selling swamp land in Florida,I'd be one rich dude

reply to post by Six Sigma


Fancy list one meet fancy list two...mine has more names than yours neener neener

www2.ae911truth.org...&Names-TO-PRINT.pd

link doesn't work and I'm not about to list 1,000 eng/arch

Originally posted by Vardoger
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

Fancy list one meet fancy list two...mine has more names than yours neener neener

www2.ae911truth.org...&Names-TO-PRINT.pd

link doesn't work and I'm not about to list 1,000 eng/arch

edit on 8-9-2011 by Vardoger because: cannot embed pdf as of yet.

My list, is of Engineers that have submitted and or edited peer reviewed papers that were published in journals that pertain to the collapses at the WTC.

Can you please list the Engineers from that website that have submitted articles that support their claims regarding the WTC?

Thank you.

Most, if not all of those peer reviewed studies where done in 2001/2002. The FACTS we have now are way beyond what was assumed directly after, as more and more is being let out from behind the NIST doors.

Please find a present day, up to date, peer review study done in support of the offical NIST story.

The list I provided is of only 1,000 names. Names of professionals demanding that the official story be reviewed and a new investigation be done. What has the government to lose (except everything) for a non governmental investigation. Oh right, most of the official data is held under wraps do to "national security". They must protect us from ourselves remember. We can"t even access the steel columns stored in warehouses because of national security....not to mention the black box's which have been photographed! except that officially they don't exist.

Clearly they are in it for the TRILLIONS to be gained from being a truther.