lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 22, 2005 11:38:47 GMT -4
When did I ever say that there had been "numerous independent investigations ". Most [if not all] of the data is freely available, as are the reports conclusions. Hundreds if not thousands of witness's accounts can be found in newspapers, others are available on video, there are dozens if not hundreds of photos and video 'tapes' of what happened. What do you want, that they would allow any CT nut who asked for it access to the Fresh Kills landfill? There are thousands of civil engineers and architects in America* and many more around the world who all have access to the publicly available information described above The stance is sustainable because none of them back your "theories" * "the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) represents more than 137,500 members of the civil engineering profession worldwide"
www.asce.org/inside/profile.cfm
I assume that most members are American and overseas would be offset by American engineers who are not members. So I imagine that there are well over a million civil engineers and architects worldwide. There isn't even a proverbial "one in a million" CT nut who agrees with you!!! blue text added in edit
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 22, 2005 14:11:05 GMT -4
But the extensive FEMA/NIST report is publicly available as are the supporting research. The preliminary findings were released a while ago and the basic thesis that steel weakened by fires coupled with the damage caused by the impacts caused the buildings to pancake. The ASCE endorsed these studies. So far no civil engineers or architects have done so
I said the evidence has not been made available, not their reports!
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 22, 2005 14:17:08 GMT -4
What exactly are your qualifications to say the findings are obviously wrong, when no a single person with the appropriate expertise has done so?
The reports don't consider into account what caused molten steel in all three basements, for one example. They don't even mention having procured any of it for samples of evidence. Why not?
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 22, 2005 15:36:57 GMT -4
I haven't studied the reports at length, but I would not be surprised to find many things they didn't mention (such as the pall of finely pulverized concrete dust across several blocks) or sample (same), as those things are both typical to large fire/collapses and well understood by their target audience. The only reason to single out the molten pools for special mention and extensive study is the suggestion made by non-engineers that thermite residue or evidence of metal-destroying death rays would somehow be concentrated in only this material.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 22, 2005 17:45:50 GMT -4
But the extensive FEMA/NIST report is publicly available as are the supporting research. The preliminary findings were released a while ago and the basic thesis that steel weakened by fires coupled with the damage caused by the impacts caused the buildings to pancake. The ASCE endorsed these studies. So far no civil engineers or architects have done soI said the evidence has not been made available, not their reports! 1] But if the conclusions are so inherently wrong one would have expected one of the millions of [or Million plus] civil engineers and architects in the world to question them based on the available evidence. I have read about government officials and political leaders from countries hostile to the US saying "It was an 'inside job' '", but not yet of any engineers from those or any other countries doing so. 2] I mentioned some of the evidence that was available. 3] What evidence is being withheld and from whom? Just because NIST doesn't want to turn steel recovered from ground zero over to Alex Jones or Tom Flocco is not sign of a cover up. 4] Do you have any reason to believe the steel didn't reach 600 C? 5] Stop 'cherry picking' and address all questions raised
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 22, 2005 17:50:36 GMT -4
What exactly are your qualifications to say the findings are obviously wrong, when no a single person with the appropriate expertise has done so?The reports don't consider into account what caused molten steel in all three basements, for one example. They don't even mention having procured any of it for samples of evidence. Why not? 1] Your reply didn't answer my question. 2] What proof or evidence is there that there was molten steel in the basement? 3] How does your theory better explain the molten steel? 4] If the molten steel was such a 'smoking gun' why wasn't it surreptitiously removed by FEMA?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 22, 2005 20:56:06 GMT -4
witnesses. firefighters, rescue workers I don't think there any restriction on people going into firehouses etc to interview these people
I just imagined one of those conspiracy whackjobs barging into an FDNY firehouse and pestering them to support his "theory".
Heh heh heh heh. What a pleasant image.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 23, 2005 4:21:22 GMT -4
many things they didn't mention (such as the pall of finely pulverized concrete dust across several blocks) or sample (same), as those things are both typical to large fire/collapses and well understood by their target audience. The only reason to single out the molten pools for special mention and extensive study is the suggestion made by non-engineers that thermite residue or evidence of metal-destroying death rays would somehow be concentrated in only this material.I would like to see examples - but they don't exist. The three collapses all on 9/11 are unique in more than one way. Look at Ch.5 of the FEMA report - itself stating in the first paragraph... "Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire protected steel buildings" Hardly a "well understood" event!! The pulverization of 800,000 cubic yards of concrete into a fine dust with particles in the range of 10 to 100 microns - happens quite often in such events, no doubt. Molten pools of steel in all three basements...oh, well, nothing unusual there! No need to put such trivialities in the reports - they'll only muddy the waters.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 23, 2005 4:41:42 GMT -4
1] But if the conclusions are so inherently wrong one would have expected one of the millions of [or Million plus] civil engineers and architects in the world to question them based on the available evidence. I have read about government officials and political leaders from countries hostile to the US saying "It was an 'inside job' '", but not yet of any engineers from those or any other countries doing so.
2] I mentioned some of the evidence that was available.
3] What evidence is being withheld and from whom? Just because NIST doesn't want to turn steel recovered from ground zero over to Alex Jones or Tom Flocco is not sign of a cover up.
4] Do you have any reason to believe the steel didn't reach 600 C?
5] Stop 'cherry picking' and address all questions raised
1. There are many physics professionals who doubt the story, and they are certainly qualified to refute the official account. That they are at least, if not more, qualified than either civil engineers or architects can viably be argued.
2. What evidence is available for independent study?
3. All the steel, concrete particulates, all the debris that they didn't quickly ship off to China, the videotapes from three private sources (Citgo gas station, Sheraton Hotel, and one other) that were confiscated by the Gov't, as well as undoubtedly the many Pentagon cameras/videos recordings. Allthe flight recordings, ATC recordings, etc. The "reconstructed" 757 from the Pentagon (Flight 77), in an FBI hangar (or is it - first they claimed it was "vaporized").
And, my all-time favorite.....the one that wins the prize for gullability in belief of the "official" story......yes, the two passports of the hijackers, found lying beside each other within a block or two of the ground zero debris!!
4. Yes, there isn't any samples of steel they found that reached over 600C. If there was any, they certainly would have collected it, to better support their theory.
5. I don;t "cherry-pick", except when they're in-season!
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 23, 2005 4:48:25 GMT -4
What proof or evidence is there that there was molten steel in the basement
How does your theory better explain the molten steel?
If the molten steel was such a 'smoking gun' why wasn't it surreptitiously removed by FEMA?
I've covered all this in the main 9/11 thread, please read through it, I hate having to repeat posts.for late-comers to the discussions. Then if you have any questions, I'll address them. FEMA may well have preferred no reports of the molten steel, but the site was not a small one, and many workers and reporters were within the area.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 23, 2005 4:55:53 GMT -4
I just imagined one of those conspiracy whackjobs barging into an FDNY firehouse and pestering them to support his "theory".
Heh heh heh heh. What a pleasant image.Yes, anyone could be labelled a "conspiracy whackjob" for eating up the official fairytale of the "Magic Passports" found at Ground Zero, but I don't wish to resort to name-calling. It doesn't lead to a mature debate of the issue. As for the firefighters, I've already cited several who do believe explosives were involved in the towers collapses. So, I wouldn't want to go in there and spout off about how they were wrong - that their co-workers and friends shouldn't have gone in the buildings, because they should have known that the fires were sure to cause the collapses at any second.
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Oct 23, 2005 20:18:26 GMT -4
There are probably a few firefighters who really do believe that explosives were used, despite the fact that there is no evidence of explosives used; that there is no credible way that demolition charges were planted; and that there is a credible mechanism for the tower collapses from impact damage and fire together. What you won't find is any support among demolition experts and real structural engineers for the claim that the buildings were brought down with demoltion charges.
I don't know about the passports, and I don't really care. I'm not interested in another 50 pages of your attempts to spread FUD and disregard actual evidence. I know enough about physics, engineering, aviation, and, yes, firefighting to see just how vaporous the PCT's basic claims are and how poor their understanding of these fields are.
I already said why I wasn't sticking around in the neverending 9/11 thread. I'm out of this thread, too, for the same reasons - I can have my fill of someone blithely restating reality in their terms ("the fires were sure to...", conveniently tossing aside the impact damage) with margamatix on Apollo hoax threads.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 24, 2005 1:03:54 GMT -4
1] 1. There are many physics professionals who doubt the story, and they are certainly qualified to refute the official account. That they are at least, if not more, qualified than either civil engineers or architects can viably be argued.
2. What evidence is available for independent study?
3. All the steel, concrete particulates, all the debris that they didn't quickly ship off to China, the videotapes from three private sources (Citgo gas station, Sheraton Hotel, and one other) that were confiscated by the Gov't, as well as undoubtedly the many Pentagon cameras/videos recordings. Allthe flight recordings, ATC recordings, etc. The "reconstructed" 757 from the Pentagon (Flight 77), in an FBI hangar (or is it - first they claimed it was "vaporized").
And, my all-time favorite.....the one that wins the prize for gullability in belief of the "official" story......yes, the two passports of the hijackers, found lying beside each other within a block or two of the ground zero debris!!
4. Yes, there isn't any samples of steel they found that reached over 600C. If there was any, they certainly would have collected it, to better support their theory.
5. I don;t "cherry-pick", except when they're in-season! 1] Many is a bit of an exaggeration, several would be more accurate. Most if not all specialize in unrelated areas of physics. In any case civil and structural engineers and architects are the only ones qualified to look at the specifics. Physicists don't design buildings and other structures, engineers and architects do. When a structure collapses or otherwise fails, physicists aren't called into investigate. I'm pretty sure that the basic physics that went into the WTC has been known since Newton, new material technology [esp in steel and concrete] opened up new possibilities. Who is better qualified to determine how much load a column can bear etc? 2. Already answered 3. i] Aren't we talking about the WTC? Most of what you mention relates to the Pentagon. ii] You didn't answer the 2nd part of my question who has been denied access to this evidence? Any one with standing or qualifications? iii] as long as not a single qualified professional has questioned there findings why should they turn over 'evidence' to a bunch of CT nuts. iv] as for the passports see below 4. Where in the report does it say that? If they are part of a cover up and no outsiders have access to the samples why wouldn't they say they found such samples? 5. You haven't answered all my questions.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Oct 24, 2005 1:21:00 GMT -4
Notice how smoothly this thread diverted from any kind of observation of the relationship of the belief patterns mentioned in the thread title, to a rehash of the same material turbonium presented in page one of the dedicated 9-11 thread?
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Oct 24, 2005 1:26:11 GMT -4
i] I've never heard this before do you have any evidence not from CT cites?
ii] Ok so the CIA and the MIBH [Men in Black Helicopters] pull off an incredibly elaborate and almost perfect crime. They plant explosives in the 2 largest office buildings in the world and bring them down in a controlled demolition disguised to look like a progressive collapse etc. etc etc. but they are bumbling as to plant two passports next to each other?
IF its true that they were found close together it would almost seem to indicate that there wasn't plot. Coicidences happen
I live in Brazil. I used to live in another city called Salvador. While living there I was party to an amazing coincidence.
I lived near and during most of my free time hung out a beach called Porto da Barra which is quite small about 150 meters [500 feet] long. The people I hung out with were a group of Brazilians and foreigners. Two of my best friends were an American named Randy and a Lebanese/French/American guy name Alain. Randy when excited would often start to babble incoherently.
One day he came up to me going on about the chin up bars, and when he was a dishwasher when he was an undergrad at U. of Indiana. It turns out that he ran into Bob a friend of his from when they were students in Bloomington 12 years earlier, they had not seen or had contact with each other since. Bob had been in Salvador for about two weeks. But the coincidences didn't stop there.
-At the time only [about] 20 Americans lived in Salvador and not many American tourists visited there, esp. White people like Bob [the majority were Africa-Americans]
-Randy had been living in Salvador and hanging out at the same beach for 10 years, Bob had been visiting Salvador and hanging out at the same beach for 5 - 6 weeks every year for the previous 9 years. Randy also spent most of his free time at the beach, Bob who was on vacation spent almost all his time on the beach. But they had never run into each other before then.
-Randy owned a bar for a few months, Bob drank there a few times.
-Every time he visited Bob stayed in the same apartment. That apartment was in the building, I'd been living in for about 6 months . There are hundreds of apt. buildings in the neighborhood. My father and sister stayed there when they visited me. I tried to rent that apartment for myself but the owner refused because she wanted to keep it available for Bob when he visited every summer [winter in the Northern Hemisphere]. Bob talked to my wife and played with daughter in the lobby a few times [before he ran into Randy]. Randy had come to visit me several times since Bob arrived.
-Having just broken up with his girlfriend Randy was staying with Alain. Alain lived next door to Bob's girlfriend. Alain and Randy frequently met her in the hallway and elevator. Bob had been over to his girlfriend's apt several times since he got there.
|
|