Controlled demolition: disinfo?

by **Qutb** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:19 pm

The <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/letters.html" target="top">letters</a> section of the Nova site is also interesting. Regarding the "angle clips": <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Thanks for a great program. I was very interested in the analysis of the connection between the trusses and the columns and the bolt sizes used, and I have a follow-up question for Dr. Eagar or one of the people on the program. From the beginning, I noticed one thing I have not yet seen addressed: There is no bending or damage evident at the connections between the three-story high columns and the ones above which rest on them. I am referring to the four holes visible in the horizontal plate forming the base of each column in the groups of three. If these columns had been fully welded to the one above, or used significantly stronger bolts, would the outside columns been more able to resist the penetration of the plane, and would they also have not "unzipped" as fast during the collapse? I expected to see some distortion or damage to the holes if the connection had been as strong as the column itself, which appears to have enormous resistance to shear and bending. Instead, these preassemblies of columns appeared to be almost intact when found, at least with regard to bending away from vertical. The bases and holes look intact. Could they also have used relatively weak bolts? I assume bolts were used since there are openings in each column just above the top and bottom of the column, maybe to allow wrenches. Anonymous Dr. Eagar responds: This is a very perceptive question. One of my faculty colleagues pointed this out to me a few days after Sept. 11. It turns out that the connection between the column sections was only tack welded; well, maybe a bit bigger than a tack weld, but they were not continuously welded. These joints are in compression, so the weld is not load-bearing—unless the floor joist connections give way, which is what happened during the fire. The welds were only needed to hold the pieces together during steel erection. In service these welds were not really needed. It is true that a continuously welded piece of structural steel should bend before it breaks. The column sections were not continuously welded, so they did not have the weld strength to bend the steel before the partial welds broke. That is why you do not see the sections twisted and distorted as much as if they had been welded. Does this mean the building was defectively designed? I do not think so, because once continuous welds started to bend, the building would have been done for anyway. Even with the weaker partial welds, the primary loads in the columns were still compressive, and the distortions that popped these partial welds represented a building in a serious state of distress. Maybe the buliding might have survived a few more minutes with continuous welds, but there is no reason to conclude that the building would have withstood the entire fire without collapse if continuous welds had been present.<hr></blockquote> Regarding a similar collapse in 1967: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Regarding the comment that this was the first failure of a modern steel building due to fire, see my letter to the San Jose Mercury News below: In view of the report issued on the collapse of the World Trade Center, I think a lot can be learned from an earlier disaster. In 1967, the largest convention center in the U.S., Chicago's McCormick Place, collapsed. The cause was a relatively small fire that started on the convention floor. The heat generated from the fire caused thermal distortions of the steel structure, which led to huge thermal stresses in the support and roof trusses. This was due to the non-uniform expansion of the beams and their rigid connections. The entire building was pulled down, internally, by these forces. As a result of a study of the collapse, many changes were made to the design and materials used in convention centers built since that time. Larry Cooper, D.Sc. San Jose, California [The 1967 collapse was also mentioned in the Walls & Ceilings article] <hr></blockquote> Regarding WTC7: <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Ever since analyses of the collapse of the twin towers began to appear, I have been troubled by the omission of a most relevant piece of evidence. Dr. Eagar alludes to it in his first sentence but never follows up. My problem is: If the towers came down as a result of the crash-related structural damage, obliteration of fireproofing, and burning fuel, then why did the 47-story Building 7, which was not hit, also fall some hours later? It apparently failed as the result of a common fire. Now that is scary, because it suggests that all tall buildings are likewise vulnerable. Will someone please explain that? Bill Denton Mempis, Tennessee Dr. Eagar responds: I was also curious about Building 7 when it was described to me. I told the person who described it that there must have been another source of fuel in that building. It turns out there was. Building 7 contained the New York City Emergency Management Control Station, and as a result, it had three tanks of diesel fuel holding tens of thousands of gallons to run their emergency electric generators. What we learn from this is not to store tens of thousands of gallons of fuel in high-rise buildings. Fortunately, most high-rises do not have such huge fuel storage facilities. <hr></blockquote> Regarding some other "discrepancies": <blockquote>Quote:<hr>After carefully reviewing your interview with Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT, I felt compelled to ask a few questions regarding a number of issues in reference to his explanation. If NOVA would re-examine the photos of the jet impact of the South Tower, they could readily see that most of the jet fuel of that aircraft burned outside of the tower. The aircraft collided with the tower at a trajectory that passes through only the corner of the tower. This path would mean that the aircraft did not have any contact with the central support structure as it traversed the building. With a shared trajectory, the 23,000 gallons of jet fuel would spew out and away from the tower. Jet fuel burns very quickly and at low temperature. It is highly unlikely that there was sufficient fire within the tower to create enough heat to affect the steel. If this is so, wouldn't Dr. Eagar's explanations be incomplete to say the least? The magazine Fire Engineering, a respected journal of firefighting for 125 years, which publishes studies of catastrophic fires, criticized the American Society of Civil Engineers and FEMA investigations as "a half-baked farce." Fire Engineering editor WiIliam A. Manning wrote in the January issue: "...the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers." Why such disparity in opinion within the ranks of the fire-engineering community? The immense clouds of dust and apparent disintegration of the 425,000 cubic yards of concrete of the World Trade Center cause me to question the MIT account of events. Describing the ruins, television evangelist Dr. Robert Schuller said that "...there was not a single block of concrete in that rubble." One observer described the scene "as if some high-energy disintegration beam or laser had been focused on the towers and pulverized the concrete into minute particles of ash and dust." The 110-ten-story World Trade Center reduced to dust by jet fuel? Dr. Michael Baden, New York state's chief forensic pathologist and an expert in pathology, said in September that most of the victims' bodies should be identifiable, because the fires had not reached the 3200°F for 30 minutes neccessary to incinerate a body. At a November press conference, Dr. Charles Hirsch, the chief medical examiner, told grieving relatives that many bodies had been "vaporized." Are we to believe that the people killed on 9/11 were "vaporized" at 1700° F? The steel and concrete ruins of the World Trade Center burned for more than three months, despite a nearly constant spray of water. The fires were reported extinguished on December 19. Three months to extinguish a low-degree fire? These questions and many, many more need to be adressed so that total accountability is achieved. Would NOVA not agree? Peter Dwight Kent, Ohio Dr. Eagar responds: It is not clear if Mr. Dwight is arguing that the fires were very hot or if he thinks it was much cooler than has been reported. It is also not clear whether he thinks that the fuel from the airplanes persisted for a long time or whether he thinks it was all consumed in a few moments upon impact. Should I also infer that there is some mystery fuel that burned for three months or some defect in the concrete that caused it to crumble into dust? Thus I am unable to respond directly to his questions because I do not understand what his questions are. Nevertheless, let me note that it would be impossible for all the fuel to burn within a few moments. Oxygen is required to burn fuel. If a liquid is vaporized—as it must be in order for the oxygen to mix with the fuel and for combustion to occur—the vapor occupies about 500 times the volume of the liquid. Thus, if the jet fuel was consumed mostly in the first few moments, three things must be present. First, there would have been a fireball of fuel 500 times as large as the liquid fuel multiplied by 5 times as much air as the oxygen required (because air is only 20 percent oxygen) or a fireball 2,500 times the volume of the liquid fuel that was consumed. While there was a fireball, it was not anywhere near this large. Second, there would need to be a source of the heat of vaporization to vaporize the fuel. This is what limits the rate of burning of most liquids, i.e., the heat necessary to vaporize the unburnt fuel. Third, the heat generated by this rapid burning would have to go someplace. If one calculates the amount of energy contained in 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, it is a tremendous amount. This relates again to the size of the fireball, which was much too small to represent 10,000 gallons of fuel. In fact, the initial fireball probably was not more than ten percent of the available fuel. Plus, what caused all the black smoke for the next few hours if all the fuel was consumed in the first few moments? No, scientifically, there was a great excess of fuel, and it burned for hours and even months. As for whether the aircraft harmed the central core during the first impact, there is no need to assume that the central core was damaged. While the central core did bear much of the gravity load of the building, the load borne by the outer perimeter walls was not insignificant. Since it was the coupling between the core and the perimeter that I and many other engineers believe was the cause of the final collapse, it does not matter whether the initial impact damaged the central core or not. It was the fire that brought the building down, not the airplane impact. Finally, the references to the rubble and dust and the vaporizations of the human remains appear to be hyperbole made without scientific foundation. I suspect that none of these statements are backed by scientific evidence but were emotional outbursts made in order to impress and/or incite people. I would warn people not to take all statements they read at face value. You will find many inconsistencies, as some people are less than precise in their terminology. It is necessary to collect as much hard data as possible and use that to develop a description that makes sense to yourself. As one person said, "If you can't explain something, it is likely that you do not understand it." There are many who do not understand what happened at the World Trade Center who happily offer accounts without any evidence to support their statements. Be wary of those who speak without any quantitative evidence to support their science. <hr></blockquote> Qutb means "axis," "pole," "the center," which contains the periphery or is present in it. The qutb is a spiritual being, or function, which can reside in a human being or several human beings or a moment. It is the elusive mystery of how the divine gets delegated into the manifest world and obviously cannot be defined.

by **michael meiring** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 6:20 pm

One is left to wonder why these government paychecked institutions of investigations such as NIST just completly left out testimony from william rodriguez, regarding explosions coming from the basement of the towers, 3 seconds after the first impact hundreds of floors above, explosions that tore flesh from the face and torso of victims? One is also left to ponder why the government payed NIST included no testimony from firefighters regarding the fire is out, no danger of collapse, followed by firefighters eyewitness accounts of explosions going off all over the building? One is also left to ponder all the other evidence so conviently left out contradicting the official versions of fantasy spoon fed to the massess? Yet one thing one first notices about NIST is every single wacko theory supporting their 'investigation' is included, we have everything from pancake and syrup to sausauge skin theory with these government investigations. Lets play the conspiracy game for a few seconds. If the government itself perpetrated 9/11, is it beyond reasonable doubt that they would hold an 'investigation' by government payed investigators/institutions to exonerate themselves? Remember the riechstag fire, the government tricked the people into a war, the government at the time also produced 'evidence' to point the finger of blame away from themselves?

by **Qutb** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 6:33 pm

From <a href="http://www.implosionworld.com/dyk3.html" target="top">implosionworld.com</a>: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In the United States and Europe, support columns in most buildings are constructed of either steel 'H-beams' or concrete (with steel reinforcing bars). Some buildings actually have both. DID YOU KNOW that these two types of support columns require two completely different types of explosives to cause their 'failure'? Concrete columns are generally easier to destroy, and usually require a small amount of conventional dynamite packed into specially drilled holes. Steel beams, however, require a very high-velocity explosive to perform a 'cutting' action through the steel. A specialized explosive called RDX, made famous by NASA’s space program, is used to perform this task. This copper-encased explosive is physically attached to the beam, and upon detonation 'slices' at an incredible 27,000 feet per second. A small amount of conventional dynamite is also attached to the beam to 'kick' it out of place so the structure will fall uniformly, in a direction predesignated by the blaster.<hr></blockquote> <img src="http://www.implosionworld.com/img/dyk31.jpg" style="border:0;"/>Concrete <img src="http://www.implosionworld.com/img/dyk32.jpg" style="border:0;"/>Steel --------------- Some examples of CD "puffs": <img src="http://www.implosionworld.com/img/record/hudson.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.implosionworld.com/img/record/bow-vallet.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.implosionworld.com/img/record/sears.jpg" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.implosionworld.com/img/gallery/SEARS.gif" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.implosionworld.com/img/gallery/ELIZABETH.gif" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.implosionworld.com/img/gallery/RIDGEARC.gif" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.implosionworld.com/img/gallery/PENNDOT.gif" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.implosionworld.com/img/gallery/hollander.gif" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.implosionworld.com/img/gallery/blackburn.gif" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.implosionworld.com/img/gallery/scudder4.gif" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.implosionworld.com/img/gallery/hayes14.gif" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.implosionworld.com/img/gallery/WOLVERINE.gif" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.implosionworld.com/img/gallery/MILITARY.gif" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.implosionworld.com/img/gallery/BOWVALLEY.gif" style="border:0;"/> <img src="http://www.implosionworld.com/img/recent/winnipeg.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

by **Qutb** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 7:59 pm

Regarding squibs and puffs: It is clear that the collapses of both WTC1&2 are initiated at the floor that suffered the most damage and received the most jet fuel - the crash zone. Which indicates that the cause of collapse initiation is structural damage combined with the weakening of steel strength due to heat. Following the onset, the collapse is progressive - one floor after the other. The pressure wave generated as the air is compressed is indeed explosive and explains the explosive ejection of dust etc. I'm not quite sure what caused the few puffs that are seen a few floors below the collapsing floor, but they don't seem to have any impact on the floor they are ejected from - each floor collapses as it is hit by the collapsing structure, no sooner. Regarding Rodriguez and the alleged explosion in the basement - I still don't understand how an explosion in the basement which occurs before the planes hit can contribute to a collapse which happens an hour or more later, and which is initiated in the crash zone closer to the top of the buildings. And I'm sorry, but I would like to see this story checked out by someone else than the less-than-discerning Greg Szymanski, Alex Jones, Bollyn etc. I'm not doubting Rodriguez is a hero, but the people most eager to report on that story about the explosion in the basement are frankly con-men. According to Rodriguez, two other witnesses have been interviewed by Colombian television, and this is allegedly a transcript: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>David’s Story Standing in front of a freight elevator on sub level 1 near the office where Rodriguez and 14 others were huddled together when the explosion erupted below, David said in the taped interview: “That day I was in the basement in sub-level 1 sometime after 8:30am. Everything happened so fast, everything moved so fast. The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot. “I threw myself onto the floor, covered my face because I felt like I was burned. I sat there for a couple of seconds on the floor and felt like I was going to die, saying to myself ‘God, please give me strength.’” Although severely burned on his face, arms and hands with skin hanging from his body like pieces of cloth, David picked himself up, running for help to the office were Rodriguez and others were gathered. “When I went in, I told them it was an explosion,” said David, who was then helped out of the WTC by Rodriguez and eventually taken by ambulance to New York Hospital. “When people looked at me with my skin hanging, they started crying but I heard others say ‘OK, good, good, you made it alive.”<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2005/130705claimbombs.htm" target="top">Propaganda Matrix</a> But explosion doesn't equal bomb, and how can we be sure it really happend just before, and not just after the plane hit? Regarding elevators: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>USA TODAY estimates that at least 200 people died inside World Trade Center elevators, the biggest elevator catastrophe in history. Some people plunged to their deaths after elevator cables were destroyed by the hijacked jets that crashed into the buildings. Others burned to death as flames shot down shafts. (...) Elevator shafts worked like chimneys, funneling unbearable smoke to floors above the crashes. The shafts also channeled burning jet fuel throughout both towers. Fire moved not only up and down but also side to side, from shaft to shaft, unleashing explosions in elevator lobbies and in restrooms next to the shafts. (...) Most deaths occurred in the express elevators in both towers that went from the lobbies to the 78th floors and in the elevators near the top floors of the buildings. Sixty-four of the twin towers' 198 elevators had cables that ran through the floors devastated by the hijacked hijacked planes, and the cables were likely destroyed. Forty-eight of these 64 elevators had no known survivors. Even in the elevators where people escaped — mostly because the doors happened to be open at the moment of impact — they left behind a large number of people who were burned to death or were killed when the buildings collapsed. The loss of life was almost complete inside the south tower's 10 giant express elevators, which were shuttling evacuees from the 78th floor to the ground floor after the north tower was hit. Only four people survived. The four survivors — two each from adjacent elevators — were in elevators that plunged and were stopped by the emergency brakes 6 to 10 feet above the lobby floor. About 40 people died in those two elevators. Doomed passengers called loved ones from two other south tower express elevators stuck near the 12th floor in one case and the 19th floor in another. The express elevators in the north tower had eight survivors in two elevators. In the other eight express elevators, nobody is known to have lived. People who escaped from elevators high in the buildings saw people left behind burn to death and some elevators plunge to the ground.<hr></blockquote> <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm" target="top">USA Today</a> Rodriguez claims the explosion he experienced occurred "seconds" before the plane hit. How can he be so sure about that? He was in the basement. Isn't it conceivable that it was burning jet fuel that had found its way down the elevator shaft? IF there was a bomb in the basement, my guess is it was an attempt - by whoever, and covered up for whatever reason - to bring down the towers right away, which failed, just like it did in 1993.

by **Byrne** » Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:46 pm

at it again Qutb. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Dr. Eagar responds:<hr></blockquote> That would be Thomas Eagar, Professor of Materials Engineering & Engineering Systems at MIT, who was nominated to serve on a National Research Council committee on Homeland Security. Mr Eagar also undertook a two-year sabbatical in 1984-1985 as liaison scientist at the US Office of Naval Research in Tokyo. Eagar also co-directs MIT's year-old P-STEP program, a risk management venture focused on solving environmental and ethical dilemmas through industry changes. After a spot of research into Dr Eager (sorry Eager), I found the following: From <a href="http://web.mit.edu/ctpid/www/i10/impact10_prof.html" target="top">web.mit.edu/ctpid/www/i10/impact10_prof.html</a>, a few questions...By Patricia Proven Q. What development do you anticipate in P-STEP? We've put out some feelers. We can't point to any new projects yet. It's at a standstill until there is a more pressing need to address environmental problems ???!!!??!?!?!! Q. What has P-STEP accomplished in the past year? We've had a workshop and produced a white paper. We've had a few projects funded, but not as many as we'd like.(i.e the answer is F**K ALL, I got loads of dosh from lending my name to the WTC collapse cover up). Industry is not stepping up to fund the projects. The government is no longer putting any pressure on the industries and the industries are backing off. Many people have a political agenda and the hardest part is getting them to listen to one another in a rational rather than emotional way Q. What intrigues you about materials science?Materials are used in our everyday lives and have significant impact on everything we do, whether it's the production of energy, national security, or new technology. It's a field that allows you to be involved in virtually everything, and I like that. Q. Can you remember a turning point in your research career? The turning point in my research career came in 1980 when the Navy gave me $400,000 so I could do whatever I wanted to do. But I was responsible to somebody for it. I had to show what I had done was of value to the Navy. +++++++++ I have been away (in Spain) for 6 days. Upon my return I find that Qutb is back to his old tricks........& Xymphora is not what s/he was (& posting 4 long articles per day to bury the comments on his abominable WTC & Pentagon analysis). Reading through the No planes thrtead has caused me to lose faith in the integrity of a poster I thought was intelligent & considered. His espousing of oilempire's views on the Pentagone (yep I went to the site & I thought, why go to all this trouble to counter what is essentially in his view, a nonsense theory). Snippets of eye-witness testimonies do not count for jack shit. & where is the photo? I think the current political events in the USA & the culmination of a number of discussions that have been ongoing & have now come to a head, leads me to believe that plants are put in place & they suddenly spring up on this & other forum boards at opportune times. When THEY are rattled.

by **Iroquois** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:17 am

Thanks, Byrne, for that excellent bit of research. Qutb asked... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Is there one single individual who has any relevant experience (structural engineering, controlled demolition, or something related) who supports the controlled demolition theory? Someone with a name and verifiable credentials? I asked the same question in the Democratic Underground 9/11 forum, and I'm eagerly awaiting a reply.<hr></blockquote> This is from Kevin Ryan, who sacrificed his career at the Underwriters Laboratories in taking the position he did on this issue. (Contrast that with the fate of Dr. Eager) Rather than arguing for controlled demolition specificially (and yes, there are some problems with that theory if you are looking for evidence of traditional CD) he just responds to a specific, but critical, problem with the 10/19/04 report by the NIST. More important, is what he says in a following, more public, letter. I'll post that next. The URL that I got this from is: <a href="http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php">www.septembereleventh.org...1-ryan.php</a> --- The collapse of the WTC by Kevin Ryan Underwriters Laboratories Thursday, Nov 11, 2004 The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance. Dr. Gayle, Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly. As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel. There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory." We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse. This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company. There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”. Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel. 1. <a href="http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html">www.boulderweekly.com/arc...story.html</a> 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. <a href="http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf">wtc.nist.gov/media/P3Mech...fSteel.pdf</a> 4. <a href="http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php">www.voicesofsept11.org/ar...082703.php</a> 5. <a href="http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf">wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTAC...04WEB2.pdf</a> (pg 11) 6. <a href="http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf">www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf...Sleyne.pdf</a> Kevin Ryan Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

by **michael meiring** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:34 am

Whenever qutb posts super long articles, you can be sure its pushing some government paychecked article/angle. instead of just posting the link, it will be copied and pasted to fudge some anomoly in a recent posting down the board. If you publicy question the official conspiracy theory, you seem to lose your job and get harassed, if you toe the pancake and syrup official theory you get all the promotions etc.

by **Iroquois** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 12:50 am

nomo said... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>That's why it's troublesome that the NIST report does not include any analysis of the collapses themselves. Eagar sounds quite believable to me, so it baffles me why they didn't call on him or others to explain that part. Of course, that by itself still doesn't prove that it was controlled demolition. And maybe it was left out so that we could argue the case in perpetuity, never making progress.<hr></blockquote> This is pretty much in line with my theory about the totality of the official version of the 9/11 attacks. It's not just that there are numerous problems with nearly every aspect of the official story, its that every effort to come up with an alternate conspiracy theory runs aground from the apparent contradictions in the reported facts. In fact, I think its that very tapestry of incoherent threads that most perfectly proves that it was a massively complex and ingeniously orchestrated operation likely using techniques and technologies not known to the general public. If 9/11 was trully the work of 19 Arab zealots armed with box knives, intelligent people would not still be scratching their heads four years later trying to figure out, even in the most general terms, what happened that day. Arguments over some of the more complicated (compromised?) aspects of the crime, like the Pentagon attack, I am for now resigned to stay away from. As for the collapse of the towers, however, I am and probably forever will be of the opinion that any intelligent and objective person is capable of seeing the collapses themselves are the result of deliberate design, as opposed to random factors like those sited in the FEMA and NIST reports. At least that's what I have been trying to say in my previous posts. Kevin Ryan said it much better... from: <a href="http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-06-10-RyanPersonalDecision.php">www.septembereleventh.org...cision.php</a> --- A Personal Decision by Kevin Ryan Unanswered Questions.org Friday, Jun 10, 2005 Link to Original Have you ever found yourself caught between several hundred million people and their most cherished lies? After writing a letter to a government scientist, pleading with him to clarify a report of his work, I found myself in just that situation. The letter was circulated on the internet and for a brief time I became a reluctant celebrity. Of course I stand behind what I wrote, although it was originally intended as a personal message, not an open letter. Since many have asked for clarification, here is my message to all. [For background to Kevin Ryan's personal story see… UQ Wire: Underwriter Speaks Out On WTC Study & UQ Wire: 9/11 Whistleblower Kevin Ryan Fired - UQ Wire Editor.] To me, the report in question represents a decision point, not just for the US, but for humanity as a whole. We're at a point where we must decide if we will live consciously, or literally give up our entire reality for a thin veneer of lies. In the US these lies include cheap propaganda that passes for journalism, police-state measures that promise security, and mountains of debt that paint a picture of wealth. Additionally we've adopted many implicit self-deceptions, like the idea that we'll always enjoy a limitless share of the world's resources, no matter where these are located or who might disagree. All people lie to themselves. It's one of the most important things we have yet to accept about our own nature. We lie to ourselves to justify our past actions, to protect our self-image, and to promote ourselves relative to others. This lying is at the root of many of our problems (e.g. nationalism and racism). Until we see this, and strive to understand if not control it, the resulting problems will continue unchecked and the outcome will be certain. Any organism or society that makes self-deception its modus operandi will make many bad, and ultimately fatal, decisions. The day will come when we are collectively fooling ourselves in such a way that we essentially trade everything we have for what's behind our fantasy curtain. It appears that day is near. The official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a key part of our current self-deception. More importantly, this story may be our last chance to see just how critical our situation is so that we can all stop, and begin working together to solve the real problems we face. These problems, for the US and the world as a whole, amount to a growing storm of factors including environmental changes, resource depletion, and growth in resource usage.[1,2] Undoubtedly the secret Energy Taskforce report of May 2001 would verify this, and help us to understand that our government is responding to some of these threats with a carefully laid out plan. This plan assumes that people cannot rise above their own natural, ego-based self-deception, and therefore few of us will survive the coming storm. In essence, they're betting against us. Anyone who honestly looks at the evidence has difficulty finding anything in the official story of 9/11 that is believable. It's not just one or two strange twists or holes in the story, the whole thing is bogus from start to end.[3] In my previous job I was in a position to question one part, the collapse of three tall buildings due to fire. But this isn't really a chemistry or engineering problem, and may be best approached initially through statistics. The three WTC buildings in question weren't all designed the same way and weren't all hit by airplanes. The only thing they seemed to have in common were relatively small and manageable fires, as indicated by the work of firefighters right up to the moment of collapse. From the government's report we know that only a small percentage of the supporting columns in each of the first two buildings were severed, and that the jet fuel burned off in just a few minutes. To follow the latest 'leading hypothesis', what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so that the highly dubious 'progressive global collapse' theory could be born? I wouldn't even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced collapse would all occur on the same day? Let's say it's one in a million. Considering just these few points we're looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction). How convenient that our miraculous result, combined with several other trains of similarly unlikely events, gives us reason to invade the few most strategically important lands for the production of oil and natural gas. As I said, this is not about chemistry or engineering. Our continued dependence on this highly improbable story means that we have a desperate need to believe it. It is, in fact, a psychology problem. Solving the problem is a personal challenge, and involves at least three-steps. First, we have to admit we were wrong, and that we were fooled. This is not easy for most people, but congratulations to the neo-cons for noticing that their political opponents seem to be least able to admit they were wrong on any significant issue. Secondly, we have to see that terrorism is actually much worse than we feared because the terrorists are in charge. Such a pause on a national scale would be dramatic to say the least. If we get to the third step we begin to realize the scope of change necessary to move forward in a conscious manner. Obviously the US government must be substantially changed and/or forgiven. New cooperative, multinational agreements would need to be implemented immediately.[4] If you make it through step one and care enough about people to work for step three, you may face ridicule and isolation. You may lose your income and some friends, but if we continue down the same path there's a real chance you're going to lose those anyway. On the upside you may be able to hold on to some sense of integrity. The only thing you can be certain of is that we're all in this together. No matter how you voted, what credentials or positions you hold, or what faith you have in people, you will face the consequences of our collective self-deceptions. Now is the time for each of us to decide between a stormy reality and what's behind the fantasy curtain. FOOTNOTES: 1. <a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php">www.energybulletin.net/primer.php</a> 2. <a href="http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2005/05/12/">www.worldwatch.org/press/...005/05/12/</a> 3. <a href="http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2005-05-22-571pglie.php">www.septembereleventh.org...1pglie.php</a> 4. <a href="http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/UppsalaProtocol.html">www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/Upp...tocol.html</a>

by **Qutb** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:00 pm

Ryan does not have any experience with structural engineering or controlled demolition, so my question still stands. By the way, it's evident which websites Ryan has been surfing... <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.<hr></blockquote> No wonder he was fired. Iroquois said - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>every effort to come up with an alternate conspiracy theory runs aground from the apparent contradictions in the reported facts.<hr></blockquote> That's how science works - theories are revised as new evidence comes to light and as the work progresses. That's not a sign of a cover-up. You see an "effort to come up with an alternative conspiracy theory" because that's what you're looking for and expect. Try to look at NIST's work more objectively, and perhaps you'll se a bunch of people trying to figure out what happened, and more or less succeeding. And I really didn't get the significance of that information about Dr. Eager, except a completely baseless insinuation that he must surely have received a lot of money for saying what he said. On Edit: Ryan worked as laboratory director at Environmental Health Laboratories Inc., which is a subsidiary of Underwriters Laboratories Inc. In other words, his job was not related to certifying steel components. From <a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=kevin_ryan" target="top">Cooperativeresearch</a>: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Days later, Kevin Ryan is fired because, according to a company spokesman, he “expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs” of Underwriters Laboratories. According to Underwriters Laboratories, “there is no evidence” that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers. They also say that Ryan was not involved in any way with their fire protection division, which had conducted testing at NIST's request.<hr></blockquote> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=qutb>Qutb</A> at: 11/1/05 11:13 am

by **michael meiring** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:17 pm

QUTB, Quote, ------------------------------------------------------ That's how science works - theories are revised as new evidence comes to light and as the work progresses. That's not a sign of a cover-up. You see an "effort to come up with an alternative conspiracy theory" because that's what you're looking for and expect. Try to look at NIST's work more objectively, and perhaps you'll se a bunch of people trying to figure out what happened, and more or less succeeding. ------------------------------------------------------- The evidence about explosions in the basement seconds after the planes hit dosant have seem to be given the light of day by these government paychecked NIST 'investigators. When william rodriguez met these NIST people to present anomolous evidence to the official conspiracy version of events, they just stared at him with blank faces, lol. In fact everything which fits their conspiracy theory regarding their pancaked and syrup explanation is put into their report, no matter how wacko it is. Everything which contradits there 'investigation' is convieniently left out. Is this what you mean when you state, '''''''That's how science works - theories are revised as new evidence comes to light and as the work progresses.''''''''''? perhaps you can have a word with NIST government paychecked 'investigators', as they are certainly not investigating all the anomolous contradictory evidence to their hocus pocus explanations?

by **Qutb** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:34 pm

Honestly, how much evidence is there that contradicts their explanation? I'm pretty sure the explosion Rodriguez et al. experienced was caused by jet fuel which travelled down the elevator shafts. In any event, even if it was a bomb, it doesn't seem to have contributed to the building's collapse.

by **nomo** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:04 pm

We all pick and choose. -- When all else fails... panic.Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=nomo@rigorousintuition>nomo</A> at: 11/1/05 1:11 pm

by **Byrne** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 4:47 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> Ryan does not have any experience with structural engineering or controlled demolition, so my question still stands <hr></blockquote> Who said that he did have any experience of structural engineering or controlled demolition???? Whose claim are you casting doubt upon? & which question of yours still stands?? He (Ryan)certainly did not claim any such knowledge in the posts by Iroquois, earlier up the thread. OK, it is agreed Qutb, that Ryan did not have any experience with structural engineering or controlled demolition but he, his CEO and his Fire Protection business manager (i.e. his company) were experienced and knowledgeable in certifying steel components to ASTM E119. They would therefore know that compliance with this ASTM Standard would mean that ALL of the steel components used in the construction should have been able to cope with being exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. Underwriters Laboratories confirmed that the steel in the WTC construction met the specifications of ASTM E119-98 - Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials. Ryan also confirmed on behalf of Underwriters Laboratories, that even un-fireproofed steel would not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F - tthat is exactly why Ryan lost his job, whilst Dr Eager-to-please, who has historical links with the US military (including 2 years spent on secondment), is interested in National Security, was once given US$400,000 to spend on whatever he wanted[!?!] as long as whatever he did 'was of value to the navy [military].' EVERY point that is raised by someone, Qutb, you seem to bounce back with pages of quotes in response. Is that what your sabbatical was for when you took the time off? This pattern of your responses is quite revealing.... I don't think that anything would convince you!! What was your response to my previously posted article (reproduced below): <blockquote>Quote:<hr> WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations 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 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 (NCE 22 September 2005). NIST showed detailed computer generated visualisations of both the plane impacts and the development of fires within WTC1 and WTC2 at a recent conference at its Gaithersburg HQ. But the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers were not shown as visualisations. University of Manchester (UK) 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 modelling will be lost,” he said. University of Sheffield professor Roger Plank added that visualisations of the collapses of the towers “would be a very powerful tool to promote the design code changes recommended by NIST.” NIST told NCE this week that it did not believe there is much value in visualising quasi-static processes such as thermal response and load redistribution up to the point of global collapse initiation and has chosen not to develop such visualisations. But it said it would ‘consider’ developing visualisations of its global structural collapse model, although its contract with the finite element analysis subcontractor was now terminated. 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 has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls. This doesn’t mean NIST has got it wrong in principle, but it does mean it would be hard to produce a definitive visualisation from the analysis so far.” See previous post for reference etc.<hr></blockquote>

by **Qutb** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:09 pm

Byrne - <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Ryan also confirmed on behalf of Underwriters Laboratories, that even un-fireproofed steel would not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F<hr></blockquote> Which is irrelevant, because everyone agrees that the steel didn't melt. Ryan's continued insistance on this point makes it difficult to take him seriously. In his letter to NIST's Dr Gayle, Ryan refers to Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, who has apparently claimed that the steel melted. This is of course not correct, but Dr. Brown is not a part of NIST's investigation, so there's no good reason why Ryan chooses to attack this straw man in his letter to Gayle. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>which question of yours still stands??<hr></blockquote> The following: Is there one single individual with any kind of relevant experience and expertise who supports the controlled demolition theory? Or who doesn't support the theory that the towers fell due to fire and damage? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>OK, it is agreed Qutb, that Ryan did not have any experience with structural engineering or controlled demolition but he, his CEO and his Fire Protection business manager (i.e. his company) were experienced and knowledgeable in certifying steel components to ASTM E119. They would therefore know that compliance with this ASTM Standard would mean that ALL of the steel components used in the construction should have been able to cope with being exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. <hr></blockquote> Well, we have to take Ryan's word for this, because according to <a href="http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041124095100856" target="top">UL</a>, there is "no evidence that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers". They deny having tested the steel. "UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman. They also say that Ryan was not involved in any way with their fire protection division, which had conducted testing at NIST's request. Ryan worked with "environmental health". <blockquote>Quote:<hr>This pattern of your responses is quite revealing.... I don't think that anything would convince you!!<hr></blockquote> Actually, you're wrong about that. I started out believing that controlled demolition of the WTC was conceivable, if not terribly likely. However, after having read much more and seen many more video clips, I have now become convinced that there were no explosive charges in the towers, and that they collapsed due to fire combined with the damage from the planes crashing into them. So I can be conviced. But I'm not likely to be impressed by the use of multiple exclamation or question marks. If anyone could show me someone with any relevant experience who supports the controlled demolition theory, or some evidence of explosives, I would be more than interested. By the way, is there anything that would convince the proponents of the CD theory here that their theory is wrong? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What was your response to my previously posted article (reproduced below)<hr></blockquote> NIST's unwillingness to provide a visualization of the collapse indicates that they're not 100% confident they know exactly the sequence of how it happened, in every detail. However, they are "considering developing visualisations of its global structural collapse model, although its contract with the finite element analysis subcontractor is now terminated". I find it difficult to see this as an indication that they're covering up a controlled demolition, if that's what you're suggesting. You can read NIST's "global structural analysis of the response of the WTC towers to impact damage and fire" <a href="http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-6DDraft.pdf" target="top">here</a>.

by **Iroquois** » Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:35 pm

Qutb... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Ryan does not have any experience with structural engineering or controlled demolition, so my question still stands.<hr></blockquote> If he's not what you were looking for, that's fine, it's your question. You can set whatever requirements you like. I just thought he might fit within the "or something related" qualification. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> I'd have to say though, regardless of the expertise of the person, without such hard data as the blueprints to the structural components of the towers, such testimony would still be regarded as speculation rather than science. But, we have to work with what we've got. Qutb... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Which is irrelevant, because everyone agrees that the steel didn't melt. Ryan's continued insistance on this point makes it difficult to take him seriously. In his letter to NIST's Dr Gayle, Ryan refers to Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, who has apparently claimed that the steel melted. This is of course not correct, but Dr. Brown is not a part of NIST's investigation, so there's no good reason why Ryan chooses to attack this straw man in his letter to Gayle.<hr></blockquote> Not quite everyone. The following quote is from th American Freepress article at <a href="http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html...">www.americanfreepress.net...c_.html...</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of literally molten steel at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to remove the debris from the site. <hr></blockquote> This is what I meant by "very effort to come up with an alternate conspiracy theory runs aground from the apparent contradictions in the reported facts." Everything from exploding vehicles outside the towers to large I-beams being launched hundreds of feet from a tower that is otherwise falling symmetrically straight down, needs to be explained. Qutb... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>That's how science works - theories are revised as new evidence comes to light and as the work progresses. That's not a sign of a cover-up.<hr></blockquote> I wasn't talking about just evidence of a cover-up but of reported eye-witness acounts, photographs, and video tapes painting a picture that is too complicated for not only the official version to explain, but any theory that I've heard so far: the I-beams being launched hundreds of feet as the towers fell, the woman believed to be Edna Cintron leaning out from the impact hole in the South Tower nearly midway in time between the impact and the collapse, veteran fireman in the south tower claiming to have the fires near the impact site nearly under control minutes before the collapse, cars exploding in the streets at the base of the towers around the time of their collapse, global failures with symmetrical collapses in three different building with different contributing factors, the above mentioned report of molten steel found weeks after the collapse, the pre-descent of the antenna in the WTC1 collapse and the pre-collapse of penthouse in the WTC7 collapse, etc. And, these are just a small sampling of the anomalous bits of evidence related to one aspect of the 9/11 attacks. The totality of these bits combined with all of the other inconsistencies provides, in my mind, better proof for the complicity of a very powerful faction within the US government as well or better than any one specific bit of evidence. Still, controlled demolition of some kind is the only theory that I find likely ties all the above bits related to the collapse of the towers together. Though, it may have been using some unusual techniques if not generally unknown technologies. Or, on the other hand, some of the more difficult pieces may not fit because they are in fact disinformation. To separate those from the rest to my satisfaction, will take more investigation. But, until they are or until a more complete explanation that fits the official story but also explains these anomalies is provided, dismissing any theory contrary to the official one at this point would be, in my opinion, pre-mature. If I was arguing complicity of members of the US government in the attacks in court, on the other hand, I likely would leave controlled demolition out of my case. (I suppose I would anyway, I'm also not a lawyer.) But, as an armchair investigator of government criminal behavior, particularily criminal behavior that is used to justify war and the reduction of civil liberties, I think this is a very hot topic and worthy of much more debate. And for that, I really do appreciate everyone's contributions to this thread. And, I will take another look at the NIST reports. It has been a while since I read the final draft. One thing that struck me at the time, was the apparent absense of the estimates of the temperatures over time of the fires near the impact site inn the south tower. Maybe that, and some of the other gaps in the explanation, will be found in another reading.

Controlled demolition: disinfo?

Re: NOVA

one wonders why

Re: Squibs and puffs

Re: Squibs and puffs

I see you're

Re: Kevin Ryan

Re: Kevin Ryan

Re: Kevin Ryan

Re: Ryan

NIST seem to be picking and choosing what to examine

Re: NIST seem to be picking and choosing what to examine

Re: I see you're

Re: Ryan

Re: Ryan

Re: Controlled Demolition

Who is online