BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: cookster
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 02:13 PM

Hey Peace, why don't ya check your messages?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 02:12 PM

I think you need to find some alternate grounds to choose between Mr. Ryan and NIST.

Mr. Ryan is hardly my only source, robomatic. There are literally hundreds of people who, like him, are blowing the whistle. Many of them have backgrounds that are very easy to verify. I presented Mr. Ryan as only one example. I can provide more of them here.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 02:11 PM

Ya see, there goes Robomatic, an otherwise intelligent, erudite, friendly and perspicacious fellow with whom I have had a good on-line friendship for years. He adroitly avoids the questions about 9/11 and writes the answers instead. Yet, when the smoke settles, he and I will still be friends. Besides, he's living in 23 hours of daylight about now, so I will send him the tinfoil for his windows that I don't need for my hat.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,sooo sweet
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 02:08 PM

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 02:07 PM

Do you know how one might check out Mr. Ryan's background, robomatic?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 02:04 PM

Okay here's some more alternatives:

Someone up on that restaurant at Elevation 101 sneezed real hard at just the right place.
Reason the other one came down - sympathetic reverberations (and a second bloody 767).

Tuning fork effect. Whenever two tall towers are placed next to each other over a common foundation, they vibrate at a fundamental frequency. At some point this results in catastrophic weakness at nodal points. Given the slightest provocation, someon falling over, a dropped pen, a dropped call, a 767 flying into the side of the building, a collapse will ensue.

It's a little discussed fact, but there are quantum effects registerecd on objects when they are looked at. While the quantum effects are not cumulative, the effect of staring at something and drawing a focus on it have reciprocal effects. So it wasn't really the 767 jet airplanes flying into the WTC towers which brought them down, but the act of all of the people looking, staring, photographing, tuning in on, them that broke the camel's back. We ourselves brought down the World Trade Center.

When the bloody great 767's hit the buildings, a lot of people were rendered extremely nervous and before they hit the stairwells, many o them went to the bathroom. The water pressure rose and fell precipitously with thousands of synchronous flushes and many pipes were brought to the bursting point, critically weakening them and putting the added burden on the steel structure, which would otherwise have withstood the crash of the 767s and fire following.

Monster almost invisible ants, the result of too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (Aided by the impact of two heavy fuel laden Boeing 767 jet aircraft).

Higher than normal gravity waves (they were temporary, too). Gravity follows large aircraft as they cross the sky overhead, or, in this case, fly into high rise buildings.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 01:53 PM

Good line. LOL.

Part of the problem is that there are sites that offer 'evidence' that just isn't very good. Problem we run into is (and has been) that sites offer speculation as proof and we do on occasion look like idiots. (Well, many people, but not you or me!)

Are you aware of sites that are class acts? For and/or against our position? Serious question there, sooo sweet.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,sooo sweet
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 01:44 PM

And that's why Canada remains a dominion.

Meanwhile, we're trying to figure out how the laws of Newtonian physics were suspended on 9/11. Foolstroupe has offered an interesting new theory. He says the towers actually burned for years before falling. And somewhere back there beardedbruce said the towers fell from rust.

I think we're getting somewhere at last.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 01:10 PM

And to show you waht kind of person she is, I expect if she reads this she'll message me and tell me politely to clean up my language. And of course I'll say, "Yes ma'am."

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 01:07 PM

Ebbie is a gem. Period.

Congress didn't cover up 9/11. They got the same snowjob the rest of us got. Also, the buildings fell in 6 and 6.5 seconds respectively--if what I read on a site is so. The question that needs asking is why there seemed to be squib charges that blew as the buildings were falling. Various videos show puffs of 'smoke' when the towers were coming down.

Much about 9/11 has been (IMO) clouded in secrecy. Why were the building re-insured shortly before the planes hit? Where was the friggin' wreckage on the lawn at the Pentagon? Why has so little been heard about or from the families of the people who died in the crashes?

Yelling at people doesn't change anything. Despite that I agree with much of what you say, your remarks about Ebbie really piss me off, sooo sweet. She is one of the nicest people to post on Mudcat. Considered in what she says, open and honest. Please stick to the subject--9/11.

That there was and is a coverup has been something I've held to for years now. It's not a new thing to me. I've been told I waer a tinfoil hat and had the odd asshole post about aliens, etc. So fuckin' what? Let it go, OK, and please be polite to my friend.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 12:58 PM

CarolC:

I took a look at the website you are drawing your information from. It looks polished and intelligently set up. The main quesion to me is whether Mr. Ryan is as he presents himself and whether what he says is true is true. He is contradicting information of UL and NIST and therefore the question comes up as to who or whom to believe.

He presents himself as a 'whistleblower' and maintains that got him fired. I am unclear on that.

I don't necessarily believe that simply because an organization with a bunch of capital letters, UL or NIST, comes out with a polished representation of the truth that that IS the truth, but I admit it is commonly how most of us arrive at our opinions when 'the authorities' explain 'em to us. And I (think I) know better than to believe authorites simply because they are authorites and even when they are well intentioned.

So I appreciate your link to Mr. Ryan and it helps me understand where you are getting your doubtful inclinations from. There is no objective reason for you to believe me over Mr. Ryan. However, I think you need to find some alternate grounds to choose between Mr. Ryan and NIST.

I have had experience with honest to God protected by the courts whistle blowers (long story). Being protected by the courts, they actually maintained their positions within the companies they blew the whistle on. Other whistle blowers left their positions and satisfied themselves with working on the outside looking in and howling wildly. It's not terribly efficient, but it's the price we pay for allowing everybody to have an opinion, and occasionally positive things come out of it. In the case I'm personally familiar with there were no great revelations of turn-the-tables misconduct, what was revealed was a great deal of benign neglect. As often happens, the big upward career moves were made by the non-involved.

Getting back to WTC, the Nova show that I saw, and that is referenced in Mr. Ryan's article, was pretty convincing. The big disjunction between what it presented and what Mr. Ryan maintains is that he says there was no evidence that any of the insulation was blown off the structural metal or that any of the metal was heated beyond 500 deg F. I think there should be evidence that proves one side or the other to be wrong.

From my own unrelated observations I've seen the results of trailer fires which only serves to supplement my belief that there is a lot of combustible stuff in a metal framework which can get very hot very quickly.

Mr. Ryan's web site claims that all the metal was recycled. The Nova program showed experts going through piles of WTC wreckage to find and mark and recover for analysis structural metal from the collision area. Obviously the great majority of wreckage would not be necessary to hang onto, and I'm sure most of it was recycled or used as landfill.

There is a website with the NIST story of what happened with WTC7 but I'm sure you can easily find it if you want to.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,sooo sweet
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 12:57 PM

So stove burners have to be replaced every 30 years? Or every couple of years? How many years did the towers burn?

As far as Ebbie, CarolC, I've found her intransigence to be a good thing. For whatever reason, she refuses to publicly acknowledge the obvious.   And that's good. She is the howling wind that the shouted truth needs to overcome. I think she poses as a hardhead just to stimulate debate. She gives people a chance to state and restate the obvious fact that 19 men with boxcutters didn't go from Cessna classes to trick flying of passenger jets, get NORAD and the FAA to drop the ball over and over for an hour and a half, then get congress to cover up the whole affair with a whitewash.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 10:11 AM

Scale computer model, Foolestroupe? Where did the article saying anything about 'scale' in reference to the computer model?

If you people put half the level of scrutiny into the 'official' whitewash as you pretend to put into the whistle blowers' accounts, the 'War on Terror' would be over by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 02:56 AM

"used the computer model, which also didn't produce the desired result until they changed the parameters beyond anything that would have been considered realistic under the circumstances"

Competent engineers know that "scale models often don't"

For instance aircraft nodel enthusiasts know that scale models of full size planes often won't fly. They need serious modification (not to scale) to make then fly and cbe ontrolable in the air.

Would those who claim to know better than us experienced 'naysayers' please explain why? :-P

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 02:26 AM

Were those buildings steel I beam construction, foolestroup?

After the physical tests didn't produce the desired result, they used the computer model, which also didn't produce the desired result until they changed the parameters beyond anything that would have been considered realistic under the circumstances, and then, and only then, did the computer model result resemble the conclusion they had already reached prior to any testing having been done.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 02:17 AM

200!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 02:13 AM

If you look up some very old 'Private Eye' you will foind reprints of newspaper accoutns of full scale buildings built in that era in that style where the wall supports were moved by pressure impacts and the floors pancaked. There was a lot of fuss and in future buildings teh walls and floors had to be tied together strongly.

'Models' do not always behave the same way as full scale - all engineers are taught that, and also the many reasons why, Since you claim to know all that stuff better than us, you can easily tell us all now...

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 01:59 AM

A little bit more from Kevin Ryan (same webpage as my previous link)...


In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."15

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 01:47 AM

I see now that I remembered incorrectly about what Ebbie said. This is what she said in a previous thread, and I guess her point in bringing up human nature in this thread is the same...

As others have also said, the thing that keeps me from swallowing the froth is the sheer numbers needed to be silent. That is not the nature of the beast that I know.


Nevertheless, the Tuskegee experiment example is still perfectly appropriate, since 40 years of being silent would involve a lot of people (including high level members of the government). If it were not in the nature of the beast Ebbie knows for large numbers of people to remain silent, it wouldn't have taken 40 years for the first whistle blower to blow the whistle on Tuskegee.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 01:32 AM

"why don't the burners on my stovetop buckle and sag and collapse?"

They do - I have replaced them on my mothers 30 year old stove.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 01:32 AM

The words of one of the whistle blowers, Kevin Ryan, formerly of Underwriters Laboratories (until they fired him for being a whistle blower)...


By the time UL tested the floor assembly models in August of that year, I had been promoted to the top management job in my division, Environmental Health Laboratories, overseeing all company functions. Two months later, NIST released an official update that included the floor test results, as well as Frank Gayle's results, in which steel temperatures were predicted. These results clearly invalidated the major theories of collapse, because pancaking could not occur without floor collapse and steel does not turn to licorice at the temperatures discussed.

After reviewing this update, I sent a letter directly to Dr. Gayle at NIST. In this letter, I referred to my experiences at UL and asked for more information on the WTC investigation and NIST's soon-to-be-published conclusions. NIST had planned at the time to release its final report in December, with time allowed for public comment. After I allowed my letter to become public,22 this date was moved to January 2005, and then nothing was heard from NIST for several months.

Other than UL's involvement in testing the steel components, the facts I stated had all been reported publicly, but when I put them together plainly, they were considered outrageous. Five days after I sent my letter, I was fired by UL for doing so. The company made a few brief statements in an attempt to discredit me, then quickly began to make it clear that its relationship with the government, perhaps due to its tax-exempt status, was more important than its commitment to public safety.

For example, in spite of Tom Chapin's previous statements, UL suggested that it had played only a "limited" role in the investigation. Despite what our CEO, Loring Knoblauch, had written and copied to several executives, UL said there was "no evidence" that any firm had tested the steel used in the WTC buildings.23 In doing so, UL implied that its CEO not only had fabricated this story about testing the WTC steel but had also spoken and written about it for several years without anyone in the company correcting him. As I see it, the only other option was that the company claiming to be our "Public Safety Guardian" was lying to us about the most important safety issue of our lives.

My experiences give a taste for the delicate nature of our critical turning point. But to keep our focus, we should examine what NIST did with the results of its physical tests, which had failed to support its conclusions. Did NIST perform more tests, at least to prove its key argument that much of the fireproofing on the steel in the Twin Towers popped off due to the impact of the airliners? No, it did not. Instead, NIST put together a black box computer model that would spit out the right answers. This black box model was driven by initial parameters that could be tweaked. When the parameters that had initially been considered "realistic" did not generate results that "compared to observed events," NIST scientists performed their final analysis using another set of parameters they called "more severe."24 When they were finished, their model produced video graphics that would enable anyone to see the buildings collapse without having to follow a train of logic to get there.

Tom Chapin of UL was one of those doomed to make public comments in support of NIST's final report. His comments were innocuous enough but he did hint at something of value. "The effect of scale of test assemblies...," Chapin said, "requires more investigation."25 This may be the closest thing to a straightforward statement that we will ever see from UL on the matter. But it seems clear enough that results showing zero floor collapse, when scaled-up from the floor panels to a few floors, would still result in zero floor collapse. Perhaps a more direct version of Chapin's comment might be that test results negating predetermined conclusions should not be used to prove them.

Other than the video, NIST left us with only some vague statements about a few sagging floors suddenly destroying two hundred super-strong perimeter columns and forty core columns. But since sagging floors do not weigh more than non-sagging floors, it is difficult to see how this might occur, especially so uniformly. NIST claimed the perimeter columns saw increased loads of between 0 and 25% due to the damage, but it never reconciled this with the original claim that these columns could resist 2000% increases in live load. And the outward-buckling theory, suggested by Thornton, was changed again to inward buckling---apparently the forces involved were never well defined. Additionally, NIST suggested that the documents that would support testing of the steel components, along with documents containing Skilling's jet-fuel-fire analysis, could not be found.26

Ultimately, NIST failed to give any explanation for the dynamics of the towers as they fell, about how and why they dropped like rocks in free-fall. For both buildings, NIST simply stated that "once the upper building section began to move downwards . . ., global collapse ensued," as if just saying so was enough.27 As for WTC7, NIST as of yet has not elaborated on its "working collapse hypothesis," which was vaguely presented in June 2004.28 The bottom line is that, after more than four years, it is still impossible for the government even to begin to explain the primary events that drive this War on Terrorism.

http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,sooo sweet
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 01:31 AM

Thank you mr robomatic. Now could you please use your reason to tell me why my stove burners don't melt?

Bertrand Russel said, "Education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. . . . Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible." This is happening. You zomboids are the result of brainwashing programs. Turn off your TVs. Watch the Zapruder film without the narrator telling you the shot to the forehead was Oswald's final bullet hitting from the rear. Watch the towers blow up and collapse in an impossible ten seconds without the narrator telling you "the fires did their work."

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 12:51 AM

CarolC you wrote:
Do you really think, robomatic, that being severely damaged on one side can account for a perfect free fall speed demolition that we saw with building 7? If you can't apply the 'science' that the NOVA people are trying to use for the other two buildings, how can you possibly believe that it fell for any reason other than controlled demolition?

CarolC: I think you are misinterpreting my last message. I think one can apply the laws of physics to the motions of all the participants in the events of 911. I find the Nova article and their website to be perfectly clear and convincing. The fact that I don't know anything about WTC7 is an example of the limits of my knowledge, which doesn't imply that it can't be explained by the NIST in some other venue. I simply haven't studied the matter.

so sweet is utterly unconvincing. Unless you can put together some assemblage of facts indicating the towers fell by something other than the NIST conclusion, I don't find this thread going anywhere.

One interesting side note which I'm pretty sure I've mentioned earlier. In the Summer of '01 the writer/ producer behind "X-Files" aired the first episode of "The Lone Gunmen" where one of the heroes finds himself on an airliner being remote flown into the World Trade Center!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: robomatic
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 12:37 AM

so sweet writted:
The government owns the media.

No It doesn't


Nova and PBS are government-funded bullshit.

No they are not

Of course the killers are going to put out PR saying someone else did it. Watch the Nova nonsense, then watch videos of the towers aerosolizing in 10 seconds. Then conclude that Isaac Newton was indeed insane and the jeenyuses at Nova know more than Newton. (do you actually WEAR blinders?)

No I don't wear blinders. I do actually try to use reason, knowledge and evidence to arrive at conclusions. Try it sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,sooo sweet
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 12:12 AM

So, why don't the burners on my stovetop buckle and sag and collapse?

Steel. 47 of the biggest steel core columns on the planet in each tower. Steel support columns around the outsides of the towers. the buildings designed to absorb impact like a pencil going through a screen...weight-bearing just shifts to other supports. And steel, steel, steel.

But say the towers were made of popsicle sticks. How could they have fallen in 10 seconds? One floor falls onto another and encounters resistance, same with the next, the next, etc. Even with popsicle sticks as construction material, it is physically impossible for the collapses to have happened in 10 seconds. Physically impossible. Unless you factor in explosives clearing the way ahead of the collapse area. Blow the floor beneath so no resistance is encountered, and free fall speed can be achieved. That is the only way. You don't need Isaac Newton to remind you of this, you just need to watch the 10-second collapse as concrete and steel is aerosolized, and multi-ton beams are thrown UPWARDS and out hundreds of yards.

Again, someone tell me why the burners on my stove don't collapse.

The 9/11 Truth movement is about to get a HUGE shot in the arm when Cindy Sheehan squares off against Bush's partner-in-crime Nancy Pelosi. I think I've handed out over a thousand tapes and discs about 9/11 now. My favorite lately is to leave them wherever I find Selective Service material. Post offices have little holders full of brochures, so I put my discs in those. "Free Video." 8 hours of 9/11 Truth videos.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 10:53 PM

Right . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 10:50 PM

Be sure to wear orange on July 23rd.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 10:21 PM

I 'think' that most relevant questions have been answered on certain sites.

When there are doubts, no one can possibly answer all the questions posed by those who are dead-set to doubt.

I can't speak for, of course, those who have simply refused to keep repeating the answers over & over, and who keep getting asked new questions the grow from new hypotheticals. ....Plus, there are things which can't BE answered about the exact flow of jet fuel and the exact distribution of debris that hit surrounding buildings...etc.

One can invent an infinite # of questions...but there needs to be 'some' criteria of what questions are truly relevant and not already covered.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 10:11 PM

Right you are, Bill. I was just reading that on a site where the guy who designed the towers talked about them and what he thought caused the collapse. It was as you said. Which brings me back to the beginning of the circle. Why have so many questions gone unanswered?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 10:02 PM

(The design was especially contrived to NOT need super-heavy steel, so they could build that high with minimum weight...it was vaguely similar to a honeycomb structure)

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 09:59 PM

The BBC is confused... maybe some structures were 2ft. square...but they would have been hollow.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 09:57 PM

"The World Trade Center steel was thought to be some of the heaviest, thickest steel ever used in construction. Its outer skeleton comprised of steel beams up to two feet thick. "

From a BBC site.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 09:44 PM

"As I have said before, Ebbie has stated on more than one occasion that it is not possible for 9/11 to have been perpetrated by the US government because for them to have done so would violate her (Ebbie's) beliefs about human nature."

Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 09:31 PM

(1) it wasn't "construction grade steel" It was a special 'box' girder, thinner than the usual 'steel' I-beams in many buildings.
(1b) it didn't 'melt'..it distorted and buckled and sagged.
(2) the south tower was hit lower, and at an angle, compromising more floors and having more weight above it.

Here, against my usual practice for C&P, are the relevant passages.

"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true. "

(*but pretty durned hot...briefly*)

----------------

"Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel."

"It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire."

*so....WHY did it fail? ...read on...Note: much of these 'box column' structure was **DAMAGED**....a simple fire, by itself would not have caused collapse....nor would a plane strike with NO fire.

"The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 08:40 PM

All the above is from here and there on the www. But since it don't matter shit to anyone, I didn't bother quoting sources.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 08:39 PM

Melting Point [of construction steel]: 1535.0 °C (1808.15 K, 2795.0 °F)

************************************************************

FEMA itself said that temperatures inside the WTC towers reached 1700-2000 degrees Fahrenheit

************************************************************

But we need to return to the laws of physics once again, for after each airliner crashed into the WTC towers, the great explosions consumed most of the jet fuel within minutes. In a report entitled Jet Fuel: How Hot Did It Heat the World Trade Center that was posted on Hawaii Indymedia, we find this scientific observation: "The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by the fire in less than five minutes."

Of course, other items were also burning, including the cabinets, carpets, walls, paper, and furniture inside the WTC towers. But even then, if all of these items burned with perfect efficiency, the temperature could still not reach that needed to melt steel. Try it sometime. Plus, after the initial blaze, we could see on TV that by 9:03 am – only eighteen minutes after the first tower was struck – most of the fire was reduced to black smoke, thus meaning that it was starved for oxygen and was by now just a smoldering, low-temperature fire – not a continual rip-roaring blaze. What this obviously implies is that liquid fuel doesn't burn hot for long, and it evaporates or boils as it burns.

So, two huge questions remain: (1) what actually made this construction-grade steel melt when it obviously wasn't jet fuel, and (2) how could the South Tower collapse in just 47 minutes – half the time it took for the North Tower to come down – when it had a much smaller fire? Maybe the 9-11 Commission should start finding answers for these questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 08:28 PM

And if the steel had been melted or softened equally in all directions you'd have a case. As it is, you don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: MaineDog
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 08:20 PM

Deg F = (9/5) * Deg C + 32

if deg c = 800 , then Deg F = 1472

Plenty enough to soften steel.

Please do not offend us with the cheap trick of confusing Farenhite
and Centigrade to try to prove that your ridiculous agenda is factual.

If you really want to know the truth, there never were any twin towers anyway, the whole thing is a fabrication. I know this because they were not there in 1968, the last time I was in NYC, and everyone says that they are not there now. Those wierd shapes I saw from the Throgs Neck bridge in 1999 were obviously mirages. My reality is more true than your reality because my beard is longer than yours. QED.


MD

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 07:44 PM

Bill, in order to arrive at the conclusion that my having brought up Tuskegee is a logical fallacy, you first needed to make assumptions about why I brought it up. You illustrated those assumptions in your post in which you described the nature of the point I was trying to make in having brought it up. You and your assumptions were wrong. (Is making assumptions about others' meanings and intentions any kind of logical fallacy, or is it just bad debating technique?)

As I have said before, Ebbie has stated on more than one occasion that it is not possible for 9/11 to have been perpetrated by the US government because for them to have done so would violate her (Ebbie's) beliefs about human nature.

It was not at all a logical fallacy for me to point out that human nature is capable of any sort of cold blooded and cruel behavior, and for me to provide an example of such behavior. Which is why I brought up Tuskegee.

And personal attacks are more than just a logical fallacy. I choose to point them out using the term "ad hominem", but I could just as easily use the term "personal attack". They are not appropriate in any kind of discussion, and they are against the rules here in the Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 07:00 PM

(I used to be able to catagorize fallacies more accurately--I am out of practice...it is not always obvious exactly which one is relevant, as there are often hidden assumptions involved.)

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 06:57 PM

Informal fallacies- #1

generalization

bad analogy

...ummmm

(there are even better pages to illustrate fallacies)

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 06:50 PM

and Carol...I did not SAY Tuskegee was ad hominem. I tried to say that your example was ALSO a logical fallacy..."red herring" is not the technical term, but it makes the point.

Logical fallacy is a completely different thing than ad hominem (personal attack). You feel I made a logical fallacy (I have shown you that I did not), but that is an altogether different thing than calling me insane. And that's what I was referring to when I said "Ad hominem, Ebbie". And it was perfectly reasonable for me to do so. There's no place for personal attacks in any kind of discussion on any subject. Personal attacks are not a substitute for debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 06:40 PM

Carol - the fires were caused by the damage sustained.

How did the fires get into the basement, Ron?

As for me showing evidence of a building collapse, perhaps it would be more appropriate for you to show us an example of a building falling sideways as you are suggesting?

I'm not suggesting they fall sideways. I'm saying that steel I beam construction buildings don't fall due to fire. Prior to 9/11, not one ever has, nor have any since.

Tuskegee is a red herring.

It's not a red herring if someone is saying that human nature makes it impossible to believe that our government could have been complicit. We can see from numerous examples that human nature is capable of pretty much anything.

We all know that the government lies and has always, and will always, conduct nefarious projects in secret. As issue with the WTC is how they could have pulled it off on such a large scale. The involvement would have required thousands, and someone would have talked - as the whistle blower in Tuskegee did.

It took about 40 years for that person to blow the whistle, Ron. How many hundreds, or even thousands of people had to have been involved and keeping silent in those 40 years, including at least one very high level member of the federal administration at the time.

I don't agree that thousands would have needed to know what was going on in order to be involved. Highly compartmentalized operations can be accomplished with relatively few people knowing what's really going on until after the fact. And then, afterwards, the people involved have a stake in keeping things a secret, because they, themselves, have become complicit, even though they may not have known what they were becoming involved in before hand. And we know for a fact that there are numerous people worldwide who make their living conducting black ops and other kinds of covert operations, many of which involve the loss of civilian life. We usually don't ever know what these people do, but sometimes we find out, but not necessarily because the people involved have come forward about what they were doing.

And many, many people have come forward about 9/11, but you can see for yourself how much trouble they can get into for doing it. They are being threatened with all kinds of things for coming forward, by the government and by others. But they are still doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 06:22 PM

Well, regardless the 'side' you take on this, it's plain that the study that was released was flawed. And equally evident that some white-washing went on. Americans are beginning to question the official story. That may have to be good enough for now.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 06:06 PM

So, how did the turtles get in the towers, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 06:04 PM

I have posted 97 times....well, 3-4 anyway....that NO one is claiming steel melted! The guys who wrote the reports did not say steel melted. SOME steel was broken by impact of a jetliner...which also knocked off fireproofing. And the steel was **WEAKENED** by fire, and sagged, and was unable to support loads.....the load was many floors plus the roof ON those damaged supports. The one with the MOST load & damage fell first, even though it was hit last.

and Carol...I did not SAY Tuskegee was ad hominem. I tried to say that your example was ALSO a logical fallacy..."red herring" is not the technical term, but it makes the point.


I give up....it hit me as I was out chopping up some limbs for recycling and mumbling over this...I am fighting turtles all the way down...

Y'all have fun....

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: MaineDog
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 05:38 PM

Steel does not have to melt to become weak. one can easily bend a nail that is heated only to dull red. You can easily get the nail this hot with a simple air-propane torch, (Bernz-o-matic) (?) no oxygen or pressure needed.

I heard a reporter in real time describing the fall of the second tower on my car radio. It was one of the most terrible experiences of in my memory. I don't beleive for a minute that it could have been faked.
It agreed with the tv footage shown later.

MD

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 05:37 PM

Well, the heat theory--steel melted, etc.,--is certainly out to lunch.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 05:35 PM

Peace- I think the confusion is the word "sideways". The word a lot of people have used in these discussions is "topple" - as if the WTC would fall over like a tree. If you look at the photos, it did NOT fall exactly straight downward. You can see a portion of top lean toward the side as it comes down.

It isn't having it both ways, it is having it the way it actually occured.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 05:23 PM

"Moreover, the Final NIST report on the Towers admits:

Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)"