Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tree99

  1. Tree99

    How Hot?

    Can I ask the members of this forum to look at the link below and have a rough guess as to how hot the temperature would have been for this person to be able to stand where she is? http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html I don't wish to upset 'Cap'n Refsmmat' with this one.
  2. 'insane_alien' I've had a look at the pictures you provided, but I don't think they do much to advance this debate. As has been stated above, the witness reports are not made on the basis of photos or videos from the net, but are instead first hand accounts. However, this link talks a little more about the colour and texture of the molten material which was exhumed from the debris pile: http://www.gieis.uni.cc/evidence/part1/index.html Anyway, I'll have a go at trying to select the picture that best looks like molten steel, so my choice is this one: http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...ien_2006/5.jpg I could of course be wrong, as molten steel could appear in a number of different colours indicating different temperatures, while still being molten. Also, and I probably shouldn't be encouraging you, but I do appreciate your humour with the last picture, I actually laughed out loud with that one, honestly, very funny.
  3. A slight correction 'insane_alien' to describe the official conspiracy nuts... Because they know that no matter how much evidence is put forward, there will always be a group of crazies who still believe there was no cover-up because NIST is part of 'the establishment'. Those people are never convinced, they would argue that all fire trucks are luminous purple and spray fire everywhere and run on molten lava. It is pointless to debate with these people as they just do not want to know. Although I still think we should debate with you, even if you do believe fire trucks run on molten lava and spray fire everywhere.
  4. Thanks 'bascule' I will pass that message on to NIST in the hope that they will engage in evidence-based debate which the 'conspiracy theorists' have so long called for.
  5. It has to make you wonder though doesn't it. If NIST is so confident in the conclusions of their investigation, then why do they refuse to enter in to scientific debate with those engineers and physicists who do not agree with their conclusions. If they have nothing to hide and can 'debunk' all the theories of controlled demolition, then why not do so? If the 'conspiracy theorists' are talking nothing but complete crap, then NIST should relish the opportunity to completely debunk these theories, but instead they refuse to do so time and time again. You would of thought that it should be the 'conspiracy theorists' who would not want to enter in to debate, not the other way around. Quoting Dr Steven Jones This is a little own goalish don't you think. As scientists and students of science, if someone was to challenge a paper or piece of analysis of yours, and you believed 100% that you were correct and the challenger was wrong, you would be quite happy to debate that challenge. How much faith would you have in the conclusions of fellow scientists if they refused to allow anyone to challenge and debate those conclusions, what sort of a scientific community would we have? Just think about this, NIST has had countless opportunity's to debate this in an open scientific manner, but they will not, they will never debate it. If NIST is correct in its analysis, what do they have to fear?
  6. 'insane_alien' for clarity it may be a little less confussing if you try looking at it this way. What was the cause or causes of the buildings failure after the collapse had been initiated? IF, in the actual event, the collapse had stopped after the initiation of collapse, then we could say fine, NIST has examined the cause or causes of failure for that part of the building in which failure occurred. But the reality is the buildings collapsed entirely, so the mandate has to explain what the cause or causes of failure were that allowed the collapse to continue through global collapse. The building does not just fail once in one location, it fails throughout the building, multiple times and multiple locations, so the NCST act absolutely requires that we know the technical causes of these failures.
  7. The late Robin Cook wrote: "Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by Western security agencies. Throughout the 80s, he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians." Al-Qaida, in the context of a terrorist term, only came in to existence after 9/11.
  8. According to your logic 'insane_alien' there did'nt need to be any investigations at all, you would ask that we should simply be happy that we observed two planes hit the towers and then they fell down. Cause and effect explained purley on the observations of the human eye. And to suggest that explaining the colapse of the towers would be a "waste of resources" is ridiculous. Three structures collapsed completly that day, and you don't think it's important to know how those collpases were propegated? Explanation of global collapse validates the hypothesis put forward for the initiation of collapse. So this includes explaining how the building failed globaly, not just stating how it was initiated, as this does not describe the cause of the rest of the buildings faliure. If it had said "establish the faliure of the floors where the planes had impacted" then that would be what NIST has given us, but this would not explain how the rest of the building failed.
  9. 'insane_alien' seeing something happen does not translate into knowing how it happens, we have to be able to explain how it happend and then test that explanation in order to verify it. Running a simulation to the initiation of collapse does not explain how it collapsed, nor does relying on an untested mathematical theory. If your studying a scientific discipline you should understand the importance of this concept better then most. NIST’s mandate was made clear in the NCST Act: to “establish the likely technical cause or causes of the building failure.” See 15 U.S.C. § 7301(b)(2)(A). Implicit in the foregoing section of the NCST Act is that the failure of the entire building must be explained. So I will restate the questions you just dodged: Can anyone explain why NIST should NOT want to run global collapse simulations of WTC 1 & 2 applying Dr Brazant's mathematical model, and why NIST wants to limit the outsourced investigation of WTC7 to floors 8 through to 46?
  10. While everyone is talking about the 'pancaking' collapse, which has been re-dubbed 'progressive' collapse, keep in mind that this hypothesis is completely unproven, since NIST only took it's simulations up to the initiation of collapse. Yes that's right, amazingly the $20 million NIST report did not even attempt to explain the global collapses. They only took their study to the "initiation of collapse". Then we are told "global collapse ensued" as if it could not be otherwise. A couple of quotes from the NIST report Now that's strange. Why would they not want to progress their simulation through to global collapse? surly they would want to test the theory of 'progressive' collapse, is that not in the remit of science, to test theories, demonstrate repeatability? However, instead of producing a full simulation of the global collapse, NIST relies purely on the mathematical hypothesis put forward by Dr Brazant, but without actually verifying the suitability of application of that hypothesis to WTC 1 & 2. That seems very strange. The following two papers discuss the theory put forward by Dr Brazant: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/NISTandDrBazant-SimultaneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf and http://www.911blogger.com/node/9154/print So remember, NIST has no evidence to suggest that the theoretical model of progressive collapse applies to WTC 1 & 2, because this theory has never been simulated under the conditions of WTC 1 & 2. And as for WTC7, nearly 6 years after the collapse the best thing the official reports can do to explain it is to say “The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” Could NIST do any better?...... well, NO is the answer to that. I'll quote this extract from Dr Jones Can anyone explain why NIST should NOT want to run global collapse simulations of WTC 1 & 2 applying Dr Brazant's mathematical model, and why NIST wants to limit the outsourced investigation of WTC7 to floors 8 through to 46?
  11. Temper temper 'Cap'n Refsmmat', I'm not as you imply making 'stupid sarcastic comments' but quoting two individuals who are perhaps the most appropriate people on the planet to call those reports in to question. You will quite happily find this statement in their book 'Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 911 Commission', which was released after the 9/11 Commission was published. So lets back that up with a statement made by Peter Rundlet, Counsel for the 9/11 Commission: You can find this at http://www.thinkprogress.org/2006/09/30/911-meeting/
  12. A very valid point 'Haezed', well lets see what the 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton had to say about the integrity of the information they were given in creating this 'respected' report. Quote, "Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue." Oh dear, I suppose they must be 'conspiracy nuts' too.
  13. Oh come on 'Cap'n Refsmmat', you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar with this one. It's obvious that they are describing heat induced deformation of steel and not molten steel. And 'bascule' we are not talking about molten aluminum, look at this extract again from the FEMA report on examined steel: "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.... Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation." This is not just 'any metal' it's a steel girder. So can you kindly explain how these sorts of temperatures were acheived?
  14. News article: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL OK 'Cap'n Refsmmat' I've had a look at the link which has been provided above citing the melting of an overpass due to a gasoline truck fire, and I think the 'official conspiracy believers' are trying to mislead us on this one. This link http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL is from the San Fransisco Chronicle website. So lets have a look at the references which are made about the structure melting, and by melting we mean steel which has actually turned molten (as in WTC 1,2 & 7), not just steel which has deformed through heat. Quote "Engineers said the green steel frame of the I-580 overpass and the bolts holding the frame together began to melt and bend in the intense heat -- and that movement pulled the roadbed off its supports." This statement makes no mention of the steel turning molten. It notes that the steel "began to melt and bend" and "that movement pulled the roadbed off its supports" but this is describing deformation of steel, the words 'melt and bend' do not represent steel in its molten form. The only other reference is an eye witness, his name is Isaac Rodriguez, a 53-year-old sanitation supervisor who works the graveyard shift at East Bay Municipal Utility District's sewage treatment plant. Quote "It looked like a big slab of plastic because it was melted. It's made of steel and concrete and it was bent at both angles of the pillar." Again, no mention of molten steel, instead the term 'melted' is being used in a context which describes the way the bridge has deformed across its span, not because the steel has actually turned molten. The only thing the bridge collapse example achieves is to blur the line between the scientific definition of molten steel and the media definition of melted steel. You would find that a lot of people would describe steel deformed through heat as having been 'melted' but this should not be mistaken to mean 'molten'. So lets make it clear so we can arrest this type of confusion. In the WTC scenario we are talking about metal which is molten (2750F) not metal which has deformed because of heat and is then described as 'melted'. To conclude, in the bridge collpase scenario we have an ambigous choice of words which actualy describe steel deformation, as oppose to the very accurate description we see made about the WTC steel melting: This extract from the FEMA report on examined WTC steel notes: "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.... Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation."
  15. 'insane_alien' when your analysis is fuelled by alcohol and boredom, and the structure of that analysis is to cherry pick a few paragraphs, then I think I have been quite charitable in labeling it as "amusing". You must admit, you’re not exactly the ideal standard bearer for productive debate if this is the manner in which you conduct your analysis. Anyway, let’s respond to your 'debunking' efforts. To try and keep the size of this post down I will only quote the responses 'insane_alien' gave. When global collapse occurs in roughly 11 seconds, I think it is fairly safe to say that the collapse was 'rapid'. The buildings stood for 56 mins and 102 mins before collapse. Using the term 'incendiaries' in an explosives scenario does not mean jet fuel (rolls eyes). The conclusion at the beginning, again this is 'nit picking' he is simply stating what conclusions have been drawn from the facts, and then goes on to explain the facts. Not exactly the most confident of starts 'insane_alien' We’ve already covered this one. He lists his work as it shows that he has been involved in controversial areas of research before, and has published many papers which have been subjected to peer view. A tried and tested career in scientific study and analysis. How many papers have you published 'insane_alien' in your distinguished career? Since his work is supported by over 100 engineers and architects whose knowledge far exceeds any brief flirtation you may have had on the subject, I don't think you are suitably qualified to call their collective judgment in to question. The last part of your paragraph does well to demonstrate the level of your scientific rigor. and I'm sure our engineers and architects would be fascinated to hear this in depth analysis, they must have missed that bit. It's OK now, 'insane_alien' with the help of alcohol has enlightened us all, nothing to see here, lets pack up and go home. As discussed earlier, this is a mute point and you are trying to create an argument where one does not exist, both sides agree on the speed of collapse time. I can only assume that you hastily skipped over the section of the document that covers material collected from the WTC site. Otherwise you seem to be in general agreement. Indeed, Steven Jones was a professor of physics and Brigham Young University. I don't think we need you to confirm the validity of that part of the document for which you are making this remark. If anything this part of you 'analysis' only helps to demonstrate the poignancy of your SFN statement that "stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast." This is the political method, put out a conclusion and then see what facts you can gather to support that conclusion. 'insane_alien' I will assume that you are not a pilot due to your ill informed statement about the flying abilities of the alleged hijackers. Perhaps you might explain to the pilots at pilotsfor911truth.org that really there was nothing to it. These professional pilots can not believe that individuals with a limited amount of training in single engine sessner planes could achieve the highly skilled flying necessary to guide these planes to their targets, particularly when the people training the alleged hijackers note how poor their flying abilities were. You also seem to misunderstand what is meant by the term 'conspiracy'. If 19 Arabs 'conspired' with Osama Bin Laden to fly jets in to American targets then this is a 'conspiracy', and it remains a 'theory' because no hard evidence has been brought against the so called mastermind of the event. By all means check out the FBI most wanted website, Osama is there, but no reference is made to 9/11. Thus Dr Jones is quite rightfully referring to it as 'the official conspiracy theory'. The only reason why some of the facts have been changed is because the official story has so many holes in it that they are trying to plug those holes with hasty retractions and additions of information, this would happen if you find your 'straw man' theory slowly being pulled apart. Well at least he is considering more then the 1 hypothesis as put forward by the official account. The conspiracy claim, discussed and answered above, both theories are conspiracy theories, so if the official theory wants to try and use a psychological tactic to smear those who put forward a different hypothesis, then I agree, this is wrongly trying to influence the way people view that hypothesis. Let me get this right, your sarcastic comment is laid down because he wants to publish his work in a manner which has served science for the past couple of centuries? I would be more alarmed if this was not his goal. There comes a point at which we have to say 'that is symmetrical enough', no demolition is completely symmetrical, but you can certainly term them as being symmetrical when compared to buildings which collapse without the aid of controlled explosives. You are also wrong to say that one end collapses first. If you had paid a little closer attention to the video, you would notice that the penthouse begins to drop first suggesting the internal columns of the building were severed first, a classic technique used in controlled demolition, as this pulls on the exterior walls of the building helping to achieve a collapse where virtually all the material falls within the plan area of the building. Your other point about collapse time has been answered above. No, but he is physicist who understands the laws of physics better then most, and so is amply qualified to raise an eyebrow when something does not seem right, not to mention the backing of over a hundred engineering professionals who certainly do know how a building should behave. I think we have cleared up the accuracy of the collapse times. Near free fall speed through the past of most resistance, this should seem very peculiar even to someone with the most basic grasp of physics. This should be obvious to anyone spending a little time watching the video evidence. Failure occurs first at the top of the building (see the penthouse sink first) and then globally across the entire floor plan of the building from the bottom, exactly like a controlled demolition. 'insane_alien' seems not to like this formulae, but gives no alternative, nor does he state why this formulae should not be used in this scenario. Of course, there are many witness testimonies of explosions; we even see 'streamers' appearing from the side of the building just after the initiation of collapse. Your explanation of explosives in demolitions would certainly seem to fit the bill here, how would you suggest that the building can come down in this manner? In a typical demolition det cord do not have to be concealed, this does not mean that it is impossible to conceal this cord. No it does not, but it certainly calls for other more fitting hypothesis to be put forward. On the other hand, explosives would represent a very high probability. If the collpase exhibits all the signs of a controlled demolition then why continue to put forward a hypothesis with low probability? and Answered above, many reports of explosions, and 'streamers' easily identifiable in the video, along with the other obvious characteristics of a controlled demolition. 'insane_alien' you only help to illustrate your lack of knowledge on the subject by insisting that option 1) is the most likely candidate. FEMA suggests that the jet fuel would of burnt off within about 10 mins, this material was noticeable just prior to collapse, some 56 mins after the plane impact. For you to even think that this jet fuel was still lingering around 56 mins later, and in such abundance that it flows out of the building, you only serve to discredit yourself. Perhaps you would like to try again? Oh yes, it could not have been steel because we do not see sparks, extremely thorough job on that one. Could be, but when considered with the other evidence suggesting the use of thermite, the white smoke would certainly be a known characteristic of a thermite reaction. Again, could be, but when considered with the other evidence, thermite becomes a likely candidate. 'insnae_alien' seems to love this notion that highly flammable jet fuel is just lounging around nearly an hour after the plane impact, again this only shows his lack of understanding of the facts, and the little alcohol induced rant at the end about himself and his dad, very scientific. Yes, but the fact remains that it did melt, and we have yet to here a suitable explanation from anyone as to how this occurred, 'theCPE' with his 'blast furnace / kiln' hypothesis is pure nonsense, and fails to take in to account the magnitude of material that was pulverized and ejected laterally away from the centre of collapse and the oxygen restricted conditions of the debris pile. The debris pile was mostly steel, most of the concrete and buildings contents had been pulverized. Dr Jones experiment is purposely kept simple for clarity, what he is doing is demonstrating the melting point of aluminum, and the experiment is perfectly valid for doing this. What this experiment shows is that we can debunk claims which have been made suggesting that the material flowing from the side of the building was aluminum. So 'insane_alien' is suggesting any experiment in which you wish to melt aluminum has to be done in a kerosene soaked inferno, or else the experiment is useless, err O.K 'insane_alien' good luck with that one.
  16. I'm still working at the moment, so I'm limited to just a quick post only. I felt 'theCPE' deserved special attention for his continued determination to disgrace and embarrass himself through this extraordinary display of arrogance. As discussed earlier, the collpase speeds of WTC 1 2 & 7 are a mute point, both 'theCPE' & 'insane_alien' are trying to create an argument where one does not exist, so i will repeat it, yet again, both sides agree on the speed of collapse time. But of course, because I have to wipe your noses for you, here is the response from the FAQ section of the NIST website on collpase times: Quote 6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)? NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A). Although they don't mention WTC7 (since the question does not ask it), we can assume the same method of calculation applies, or perhaps both 'theCPE' and 'insane_alien' would like to tell those at NIST that they got it wrong? You see, even you don't belive the official reports, at least 'the conspiracy theorists' actualy agree with NIST on this one.
  17. Yet we do see that steel was liquefied in all three buildings, so we have to explain how this occurred. No one is arguing that steel begins to lose strength one heated beyond a certain temperature, so I'm not sure what line of debate you are trying to advance by repeating it again. As I stated earlier, a debris pile whose (official account) fuel source is office combustibles starved of oxygen does not do a particular good job of replicating a 'blast furnace'. If you wish to argue that the buildings did not fall in the times given in this thread, then you will not only be arguing against those that do not believe the official account, but you will also be arguing against those that produced the official account, as they fully agree that the collapse times occurred in the times specified here. The collapse times are not in any contention, except for yourself and 'insane_alien'. All I have is a couple of moments to pop my head back in again, so I will address 'insane_alien' a little later on when I have the time to do so.
  18. 'bascule said' "A "hydrocarbon fire" is completely meaningless. Hydrocarbons vary greatly in both composition and properties." Then you will note that the two examples which have been provided (blast furnace & oxy-acetylene torch) are both meaningless since in both circumstances you are talking about a controlled burn. A debris pile which is starved of oxygen can not be likened to either example, so perhaps you would like to think of a more suitable example? Jet fuel does not have the habit of lingering around that long, and would have burnt away within the first few minutes, leaving combustible office materials to provide the heat source. The buildings were specifically designed not to act as a chimney (funnelling air up the stair wells & lift shafts). You will notice that the buildings have 2 distinct bands 1/3 and 2/3 up the building, this is where one set of elevator shafts ends and a new set begins. The designer of the building discusses this in the video provided. 'insane_alien' I can only hope that all people who try to debunk the mounting evidence provide a critique as in depth as yours, very amusing, thanks for that. And to further your point about Dr Steven Jones not being a structural engineer, you may be interested to know that his work is being done in collaboration with the following engineers and architects: http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php This list is by no means complete. But of course, you will no doubt be far better informed about the behaviour of structures then those provided in the following link.
  19. 'bascule' I think it would be a little less embarrassing for you if you were also to provide a critique of the Dr S Jones paper listed a little further up on this page. You'll see what I mean when you read the PDF. It would also appear that you need bringing up to speed on what is meant by a Hydrocarbon fire. See the documentary I provided: http://www.911revisited.com You are assuming too much because you have not viewed the reference material provided. If you enjoy science, you should find it quite interesting.
  20. Thank you 'insane_alien'. I do appreciate you giving up your time.
  21. 'insane_alien' you again seem to be skirting around my point of addressing this from a scientific perspective. Since the above paper is dated May 2007, I fail to see how you could of addressed the assertions made within it. As I have stated, I'm not peddling a conspiracy theory, just asking for an objective scientific critique. If you embrace science, then I see no reason why you can not apply your knowledge to at least counter what Dr Steven Jones is saying in this specific paper. If anything, you seem to be frightened to do so.
  22. I have to say, I find the emotional responses of 'theCPE' & 'insane_alien' a little alarming. I did not expect the science aspect of this to be so upsetting to those with a science eduction. Since you are both unable to offer anything of any substance to reject the paper, I have to assume that you are either incapable of providing a critique due to a lack of suitable knowledge, or, you do not have the thinking discipline to address this from a purely scientific perspective. The general public could be forgiven for responding in such an emotional manner, those with an ample science education can not.
  23. He is talking about fusion for a start in order to give a background of his academic credentials. I was also hoping that you would spend a little longer then 15 minutes considering the paper, and then would respond to the assertions made. As I said before, I would like people to provide a scientific critique, and not to make generalised comments which most people without a science education tend to do.
  24. insane_alien You may find that the following academic paper will help you with that. The PDF Link http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf Again, if you could give me your views.
  25. The documentary deals with both the above suggestions. I think the main point here is that a hydrocarbon fire does not provide sufficient heat to turn steal molten. And if you are suggesting that it turned molten after the buildings collapsed because it was insulated, then you have to keep in mind that it will only heat up to the maximum temperature of a hydrocarbon fire. It won't get any hotter then what the combustible materials will allow. And keep in mind that molten metal was located in the debris piles of WTC 1, 2 & 7, so an adequate explanation for WTC 7 also needs to be supplied. Again I only listed the documentary http://www.911revisited.com so that people could challenge it, not to try and advance a conspiracy theory. I would like to keep this purely science related and would realy appreciate your views on the said documentry.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.