9/11

Riverwind · February 27, 2007

why wouldn't he say that if that's what he actually meant, you dont think he could of redone the scene, or the interview if it wasn't what he meant?

People mispeak themselves all of the time. In many cases, the slip of the tongue is not noticed because the the listeners understand what the speaker intended to say.

PolyNewbie · February 27, 2007

Riverwind:As you can see the NIST report indicates that the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel of the floor trusses and cause them to bend.

I understand that heat weakens steel. I just don't understand how this particular quantity of heat in the steel with these loads would cause the building to fail. There is too much of an overbuild factor - its at least 6 everywhere to withstand fire and hurricanes. With any kind of reasonable safetly factor this just doesn't add up.

The fire only caused the steel to lose half of its strength, of course the building steel is designed to hold up the building even if half of its strength is gone. We know from the 1975 fire that burned hotter and lasted much longer that fire isn't enough. When you look at the structural damage it is less than 25 % of the support.

Riverwind · February 27, 2007

I understand that heat weakens steel. I just don't understand how this particular quantity of heat in the steel with these loads would cause the building to fail. There is too much of an overbuild factor - its at least 6 everywhere to withstand fire and hurricanes. With any kind of reasonable safetly factor this just doesn't add up.

We are talking about the trusses that hold up the floor, not the vertical columns that held up the building. So your 6x build factor does not apply. These trusses depended on fire insulation which was knocked off by the jet impact. The NIST conducted a number of simulations and tests that demonstrated that these trusses would sag when exposed to the conditions that existed on 9/11 if their fire insulation was not intact. There was no jet impact in 1975 so the fire insulation protected the floor trusses as it was designed to do.

The NIST report is quite complete and offers a reasonable explaination for why the WTC towers collapsed. Anyone who wants to can look at the report here: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/#draft.

The cole's notes version can be found here: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

PolyNewbie · February 27, 2007

Riverwind:The NIST conducted a number of simulations and tests that demonstrated that these trusses would sag when exposed to the conditions that existed on 9/11 if their fire insulation was not intact.

Kevin Ryan got fired for reading these test results and going public saying that the tests showed the building would have stood even with temps of 2000 deg C. They didn't say why he was wrong they just fired him.

I wonder why the floors didn't sag in 1975 when the fire burned more intensely and hotter.

Wilber · February 27, 2007

You are not a CD expert and not a pilot, so did this "fact" come from your rectum ?
Of course its possible to know where the planes would hit. They can put bombs down chimneys.

I'm not a CD expert but I am a pilot and licensed aircraft maintenance engineer who spent 5 years flying the type in question. While technically it would not be impossible to modify the aircraft so control could be removed from the pilots and flown remotely, it would be a major modification involving integrated flight control, navigation and autopilot systems taking days of down time to install, not something you could do surreptitiously during the night and something that would involve a lot of people, likely including the aircraft and systems manufacturers. Even if it could be physically done, I can't imagine that you could get that many people involved in the murder of thousands of their fellow citizens and not have it leak out.

Riverwind · February 27, 2007

Kevin Ryan got fired for reading these test results and going public saying that the tests showed the building would have stood even with temps of 2000 deg C. They didn't say why he was wrong they just fired him.

He was fired because he had no business making public statements on behalf of UL that were factually incorrect. NIST conducted many tests and simulations to validate their hypothesis. The test that Ryan talked about was only one of many and he was in no position to evaluate the significance of the results.

You can read the complete details of their NIST experiments here: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5BDraft.pdf

If you read through that report you will see that NIST did many experiments that were designed to measure the behavior of steel under various conditions. These experiments provided the data that was used in their computer simulations. It is not possible to build a small scale test platform that would truly replicate conditions inside the towers. That is why NIST used this approach and that is why the small scale test that Ryan reported on means nothing.

PolyNewbie · February 27, 2007

He was fired because he had no business making public statements on behalf of UL that were factually incorrect. NIST conducted many tests and simulations to validate their hypothesis. The test that Ryan talked about was only one of many and he was in no position to evaluate the significance of the results.

He makes it sound so simple - tests at 2000 deg C for several hours and no sagging. hmmmm.

So you don't think he was fired because he spoke out ?

You don't think the prior knowledge of this video posted means anything ?

Donald Rumsfeld accidently admitting that '93 was shot down doesn't mean anything ?

Larry Silverstein saying the building collapsed was just another concidence ?

It is not possible to build a small scale test platform that would truly replicate conditions inside the towers.

Yes it is. But Ryan details tests of full size sections.

That is why NIST used this approach and that is why the small scale test that Ryan reported on means nothing.

I wonder why they bothered doing it. Maybe you could do some consulting for them and straighten them out on these things.

Riverwind · February 28, 2007

He makes it sound so simple - tests at 2000 deg C for several hours and no sagging. hmmmm.

You are completely misrepresenting what Ryan said. Here is his letter: http://www.rense.com/general59/ul.htm

He makes no claims regarding the exact test setup used. He only claims that all of the steel was "certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F (1000degC) for several hours". Where does he say that the UL tested 'full size sections' of anything that remotely resembled the conditions in the WTC?

So you don't think he was fired because he spoke out ?

He was an idiot that made incorrect public statements and he claimed to represent the UL while he was making these statements. Perfectly reasonable grounds for a swift termination. He, of course, wants to paint himself as 'whistleblower' that was terminated for 'exposing wrongdoing'. However, I don't see any evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of UL in his letter - just bad science and false claims.

He would likely still have a job today if he wrote his letter as a private individual instead of trying to using his employer's reputation to advance his personal agenda.

PolyNewbie · February 28, 2007

He makes no claims regarding the exact test setup used. He only claims that all of the steel was "certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F (1000degC) for several hours". Where does he say that the UL tested 'full size sections' of anything that remotely resembled the conditions in the WTC?

Ryan himself clears this up on an interview on Guns & Butter. Page 3 of 17 in the archives. They have a few interviews with Ryan on this site. Guns & Butter is one of the best sites on the web for 911 interviews of eye witnesses and experts. They also have Hoffman interviews on this site.

Riverwind, do you think that there is any significance to the fact that the above video link shows that the BBC had foreknowledge of this event (wtc7 collapse)? What is your expert opinion on this ?

Riverwind · February 28, 2007

Ryan himself clears this up on an interview on Guns & Butter. Page 3 of 17 in the archives. They have a few interviews with Ryan on this site. Guns & Butter is one of the best sites on the web for 911 interviews of eye witnesses and experts. They also have Hoffman interviews on this site.

He can make whatever claim he wants regarding the test setup in an audio interview but his claims mean nothing unless he provides documentation allows people to double check his facts. The only documentation he has provided is that letter and that is not particularily compelling.

For example, the ASTM E119 tests that he references in the letter are generally done with the fire proofing insulation applied. The NIST tests confirms that the floor trusses would have withstood the heat if the fireproofing insulation was intact, however, NIST believes that the impact of the plane knocked the insulation off the trusses and exposed them to direct heat from the flames. As a result, tests conducted with fire proofing insulation applied do not provide any useful information when it comes to understanding why the towers collapsed.

Here is a good reference that explains more about the ASTM E119 test: http://www.structuremag.org/archives/2007/...tices-Feb07.pdf

Note the picture of the sagging steel beams. That picture alone is proof that steel trusses can sag when exposed to heat from building fires.

Riverwind, do you think that there is any significance to the fact that the above video link shows that the BBC had foreknowledge of this event (wtc7 collapse)?

People speaking live on camera make mistakes. They will sometimes say rediculous things that they know are not remotely true. If you want to make the case that they 'accidently' spoke the truth then you need to support that claim with concrete evidence. Trying to use these statements as 'evidence' in themselves simply demonstrates how weak your case is.

PolyNewbie · February 28, 2007

Riverwind:Trying to use these statements as 'evidence' in themselves simply demonstrates how weak your case is.

So the demonstration of prior knowledge by the BCC means nothing. I had to be an error, just like when Silverstein said "..pull the building..." he meant "pull the firefighters". Interesting.

I sure am glad we have an expert like you to clear these things up.

Riverwind · February 28, 2007

So the demonstration of prior knowledge by the BCC means nothing. I had to be an error, just like when Silverstein said "..pull the building..." he meant "pull the firefighters".

Any sane person will come to the same conclusion. In any case, your transparent attempt to change the topic once you run out of counter arguments is amusing. Why don't you send an e-mail and ask Ryan to explain that picture of sagging trusses caused by burning office furniture?

GostHacked · February 28, 2007

That BBC video showing the WTC 7 collapsing before it happened looks fake to me.

The angle of the sun on her face in relation to everything else, and it looks like a green screen in the back. It does not look real.

This BBC video can be ignored as evidence for 'inside job' .... it proves nothing.

PolyNewbie · February 28, 2007

The BBC says they lost the tape. If that were the case they would have known the tape was faked and exposed that. There is another CNN clip showing the same thing but done an hour before.

See Jones Report: BBC & CNN prior knowledge of wtc 7 collapse.

Remember there was no one inside the building and they didn't bother putting out the two small fires. Many fireman & police have said they were going to "take it down".

Plus it looks like a perfectly executed textbook conventional controlled demolition. There is nothing about this collapse that doesn't look like a perfectly executed conventional controlled demolition.

Enron records were destroyed and the ongoing investigation ened. The Pentagon was hit where the trillions that went missing were being investigated. See Seven Hours In September.

Means, motive & opportunity have been demonstrated for showing 911 was an inside job. There are piles of circumstantial evidence and direct indisputable physical evidence of controlled demolition in all three buildings that cannot be explained in any other way except by some self proclaimed experts on the internet who can't even do basic free body diagrams and don't know the difference between Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics..

Even the FEMA repoort acknowledges that the official version of wtc7 collapse has only a very low probability of occurance.

Riverwind · February 28, 2007

The BBC says they lost the tape. If that were the case they would have known the tape was faked and exposed that.

The BBC has had a strong anti-war, anti-Bush editorial position for years. Its desire to undermine the war on terror lead to a scandal which is documented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry The BBC chair resigned as a result of this scandal.

There is no way an organization like BBC would have surpressed proof of a planned demolition of WTC7. It is unlikely that the loss of the incriminating tapes would have stopped the BBC from reporting the story anyways since its reporters would know who provided them with the 'information' in the first place.

Personally, these tapes actually undermine your case for a demolition of WTC7 because if there was any shred of real evidence then the BBC would have followed it up. The fact that the BBC claims that there is no story strongly indicates that there is no story.

Even the FEMA repoort acknowledges that the official version of wtc7 collapse has only a very low probability of occurance.

There is no 'official' story on what happened to WTC7 - NIST is still investigating.

PolyNewbie · February 28, 2007

The fact that the BBC claims that there is no story strongly indicates that there is no story.

The government loves you. Go back to sleep.

Are you suggesting that the tape was faked or that it was an accident ? What about the CNN report ?

You don't think that the media having foreknowledge of this event is significant then ?

Its desire to undermine the war on terror lead to a scandal which is documented here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Inquiry The BBC chair resigned as a result of this scandal.

So you admit that there are efforts to manage BBC and that the CEO resigned after poo poo ing the war on terror but still don't think they would be pressured to cover up 911.

PolyNewbie · February 28, 2007

Riverwind:In any case, your transparent attempt to change the topic once you run out of counter arguments is amusing.

I don't recall doing this but its something you keep saying. I don't see any basis for it but its not something that would be beneath you.

Riverwind · February 28, 2007

Are you suggesting that the tape was faked or that it was an accident ? What about the CNN report ?

Two possibilities:

1) The truthies have the timelines wrong and the tapes actually were taken after the collapse.

2) The news outfits were pretaping a number of scenarios so they could be the first to report if one of the them happened.

Newspapers often prepare stories in advance even if they don't know what the outcome will be. Many will have editorials on the results of elections written before the polls close. Some times the pre-written editorials get released early and cause some embarrassment for the media outlet involved. If BBC and CNN were pretaping news scenarios then they would likely deny it to avoid embarrassment. If they really had foreknowledge because someone told them then they would have reported the story because they would be be scared of looking bad if another media outlet beat them to it.

So you admit that there are efforts to manage BBC and that the CEO resigned after poo poo ing the war on terror but still don't think they would be pressured to cover up 911.

Try actually reading what the scandal is about before you make claims about the reason for the resignation. The BBC chair resigned because shoddy journalism practices played a role in the death of a man. The fact that the BBC was willing to engage in such practices in 2003 demonstrates that the BBC was under no pressure to supress information. For this reason, it is rediculous to suggest that the BBC would have supressed information about WTC7.

If you want to believe that then I get a great deal on some beachfront property in Nevada.

PolyNewbie · February 28, 2007

Riverwind: (two possibilities) 1) The truthies have the timelines wrong and the tapes actually were taken after the collapse.
2) The news outfits were pretaping a number of scenarios so they could be the first to report if one of the them happened.

(1) isn't true because the tapes show building 7 standing in the background.

(2) interesting. It really seems to me that they were scripted because both CNN & the BBC made the same error. Both tapes show wtc 7 standing in the back ground. Would they put building 7 in the background in a tape where they said it was collapsed.

If (2) is true then why did they broadcast it before the building collapsed ?

I think there is only one possibility: preknowledge of the event.

Are you a professional government apologist Riverwind ? You are partly guilty of a crime when you cover it up.

Canadian Blue · February 28, 2007

I'm just wondering, are all of the people who have common sense and don't believe in tinfoil conspiracy theories considered government apologists?

Riverwind · February 28, 2007

I think there is only one possibility: preknowledge of the event.

Gawd, you are an idiot. Listen CNN video - they are SPECULATING that the the building MIGHT collapse. They don't claim to know for sure that building WILL collapse. I remember hearing similar news reports on the same day and they provided more detail. In the reports I heard they claimed that WTC7 was severely damaged and firefighters were concerned that it could collapse and they were evaculating people from the area.

All of this is perfectly consistant with a collapse that was caused severe structural damage and out of control fires.

PolyNewbie · March 1, 2007

Gawd, you are an idiot. Listen CNN video - they are SPECULATING that the the building MIGHT collapse. They don't claim to know for sure that building WILL collapse.

Listen again to how he changes is story to speculation. This was not speculation it was a fast acting coverup after Brown realized 7 was still standing.

Listen to the BBC report.

PolyNewbie · March 1, 2007

CanadianBlue:I'm just wondering, are all of the people who have common sense and don't believe in tinfoil conspiracy theories considered government apologists?

Government apologists are spooks working for the government. The Pentagon invests 4.5 billion dollars to pay your salaries. Why else would you be argueing here when you think my theories are rediculous ?

If someone is standing ona street corner claiming to be Tinkerbell or Jesus Christ do you go over and stand there and try and convince them they are wrong ?

Canadian Blue · March 1, 2007

If I'm a spook I'd hope to good that I would be getting paid more than $30,000 a year.

Do you honestly believe that we are a bunch of spooks?

PolyNewbie · March 1, 2007

CanadianBlue:Do you honestly believe that we are a bunch of spooks?

Many of you are, the rest are just hockey pucks. So if I was standing on a corner saying I was Jesus Christ would you spend all this time convincing me that I wasn't ?

If the 911 truthies are so rediculous, why do you participate in this thread ?