Former FDNY Firefighter, Rudy Dent: "Incontrovertible fact (WTC) buildings were brought down."

a reply to: MiguelRCalderon

You know what they say about assumptions right?
Well, you're doing a lot of that.

originally posted by: FlyingFox
"Never in history has a steel frame building come down from fire"


uhh, nevermind the jumbo jet impact and the unparalleled quantity of fuel added.

Never forget that WTC 7 was never hit by a plane, but it surely came down like WTC 1 and 2. Fishy? Hell yea.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

You know what I say about those unsure of themselves or queezy sounding?

They are a waste of time.

originally posted by: ChiefD
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Interesting that there have been no responses yet, but three flags on this.

I don't believe what this man is saying is true. There have been many books out that have debunked these conspiracy theories on 9/11.

There are also books out that prove without a doubt 9-11 was an inside job. Common sense and rules of science say what happened was impossible hence it is all a lie on behalf of the official explanation. I question your logic and reasoning, people have infact responded to this thread.

Tell me fire can melt iron beams.

Not possible apply occams razor , still not possible.

Do you have a bridge and swamp land in florida for sale ?

a reply to: ParasuvO

Well, fools say all sorts of silly things.


And how, praytell, am I unsure of myself?

a reply to: DarthFazer

Didn't melt them.

originally posted by: DarthFazer
Tell me fire can melt iron beams.

Of course it can - but what do melted beams have to do with the WTC?

Aren't there any computer simulations that can pinpoint exactly how the WTC towers fell?

a reply to: flucker

Aren't there any computer simulations that can pinpoint exactly how the WTC towers fell?

only the ones whom authored the official story with the data variables that they refuse to release showing a "brand new never before seen physics phenomenon" they refuse to replicate outside the authors for peer review.

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures.

Shyam Sunder at 2008 NIST technical briefing

they claim new science globally fell WTC7 the 105 vertical feet equal to g. [when kink forms], for the first 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse.


straight to FACT and official story....

without supporting evidence through peer review of that FIRST TIME EVER claim.

Sept. 02 2010
Dear Mr. Bob

This letter serves a the final response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (Log#10-194) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), in which you requested
in connection with its investigation for the technical cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center Tower and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 1,200I:

'1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break element s, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.


2. All input files with connection material properties and all results flies of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities."


NIST is withholding sixty-eight thousand, two hundred and forty-six (68,246) file. These records are currently exempt from disclosure under section (b)(3) of the FOlA., 5 .S.C § 552 (b)(3). Exemption (b)(3) permits an agency to withhold records in an agency's possession which are records that are "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 .S.C552(b», provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for
withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be ...withheld."


The statute underlying the (b)(3) exemption in this case is the at National Construction Safety Team (1 C T) Act, 15 .S.. § 7301 et seq_ Section 12 of the CST Act (ISS_C § 7311) provides that it applies to the activities of 1ST in response to the attacks of September I ), 200 I. Section 7(d) of the NIST Act (15 U.S.C § 7306(d», exempts from disclosure. information received by 1ST in the course of investigations regarding building failures if the Director finds that the disclosure of the information might jeopardize public safety. On July 9 2009 the Director of NIST determined that release of the withheld information might' jeopardize public safety. Therefore, these records are being withheld.
NlST
You have the right to appeal this determination. Such an appeal must be made in writing and received within 30 calendar days of the date on this letter addressed to:

Assistant General Counsel for Administration (Office)
Room 5898-C
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230


Your appeal should include a copy of you original request,a copy of this determination,and a statement of the reason(s) you believe this determination to be in error and why these records should be made fully available 10 you. Both your letter and the envelope in which it is mailed should be prominently marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal.!!
Sincerely,
~:/_/~~A/
( Catherine S. Fletcher Freedom of Information Act Officer

MIGHT jeopardize public safety??????

so, a new unseen phenomenon where fire at ONE end of the building creates conditions for global unified acceleration
equal to g. throughout the ENTIRE building
gee....if this truly is a "public safety issue, would it be in the 'public's interest' to inform them of this catastrophic event so it doesn't occur again.

but no...they keep it a secret...guess they have no public conscience.

a reply to: hellobruce

Of course it can - but what do melted beams have to do with the WTC?

not an open air hydrocarbon fire....as these were, doesn't burn hot enough......never has, never will.

FEMA Appendix C,
Limited Metallurgical Examination.
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the
steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent
intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface
microstructure….. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily
iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a
combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

"steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field"..."severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration"

This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion.......The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown."

the 2005 NIST can and did not mention this as a factor in the collapse.....after all, how can they, these kind of temps are NOT suppose to be there....

so what does NIST do to settle the earlier FEMA investigation.......they lie and claim it comes from a floor that sees NO FIRE...

"as this piece was clearly in a prone position during the corrosive attack and was located no higher than the 53 floor of the building, this degradation phenomenon has no bearing on the weakening of the steel structure or the collapse of the building"NCSTAR1-3C pp.233

pathetic......NO supporting evidence from the initial NIST 2005 scientific investigation of the FIRES PRESENT failing ANY WTC steel to allow collapse to occur...

"No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were sever enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235

no evidence the type of joining methods, materials, or welding procedures used was improper NIST 1-3 p.99

recovered bolts were stronger than typical. NIST 1-2 p.133

"no core column examined showed temp. above 250C" NIST 1-3 6.6.2

NCSTAR1-3 7.7.2 "because no steel was recovered from WTC7,it is not possable to make any statements about it's quality"

....but PLENTY of steel that shows temps that are NOT SUPPOSE to be there....but are.

a reply to: jaffo

These 9-11 conspiracy threads are the worst trash this site has to offer. Pathetic.

how bout you ACTUALLY respond to one of my postings and PROVE it wrong.......all I post are FACTS from the initial 2005 NIST scientific investigation, the 2008 NIST hypothesized claims ignoring their initial science to make up NEW science they refuse to prove through science...and known taught science fundamentals.


so it should be REAL easy to show my post the "trash" you claim it is......

in the real world, we do this by SHOWING.....not "WHY'gning all over the board.

unless it is your job here to lie, then I guess yer sh*t out of luck.

originally posted by: hgfbob
not an open air hydrocarbon fire....as these were, doesn't burn hot enough......never has, never will.

Again, what do melted beams have to do with the WTC - or do you think there were melted beams there?

Fa reply to: Sremmos80

Well as I am out and about and on mobile I will answer your post in full later I will just say your post shows you have NO understaning of the construction of the WTC buildings or how you should look at the collapse physics.

a reply to: hgfbob

Out at the moment so on mobile there is PLENTY of data showing office fires reaching 1000 degrees c , steel doesn't have to melt to loose strength.

Hi all, Sorry just something to throw out there......

If you hear this....

'A plane flew into a building. The building collapsed'

Don't know about the general human populace but I would take it as a perfectly normal reaction to a building being hit by a plane.

I find so many people look far too much into something sometimes. Try to think back as you were a child and for somereason im sure nearly all of us would not find a building collapsing because a jumbo jet hit it odd at all.

Now either there was a conspiracy for all humanity for this event over 2-3 generations in the making (making it before flight itself for people ) or maybe just maybe people cannot accept that a horrible incedent happend which cannot be reversed by truth in which we all try to look for a 'way' that this could have been stopped or prevented

Thats how I see it all, nearly every conspiracy is down to its covering up on an incedent that could have been avoided easily. You never hear a conspiracy story about a child being saved for example. Or at least I havent.

My personal belief was that 9/11 was purely from an American Goverment that needed to go to the middleeast. Its been done before (albiet not the same way) but its something that I know Goverments wont worry about several thousand dead for the benefit of a country. Just look at any war, people die in wars to 'better' the country they are fighting for in many Goverment eyes. But thats my 2cents/pence and bits of change from my pocket

a reply to: flucker

There sure is.

a reply to: hgfbob

MIGHT jeopardize public safety??????

That kinda fits my theories that they are trying sweep a certain amount of corruption under the rug.
Like the regular practice of construction companies cutting corners then bribing building inspectors to pass them.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

poor reading comprehension and non-sequiturs don't make for good discussions..

a reply to: BilboBaggins3

Then why are you here?

originally posted by: Iwinder

originally posted by: VoxVirtus
a reply to: andr3w68

He lacks the years of schooling that it takes to get a degree in engineering. Like the people who say that this was MOST LIKELY not a controlled demolition.

You can't say "OH, he was there, so that makes him infallible in his testimony."

I respect him for his service to the public, and this man is braver that 99% of the population. But I don't think he knows what he is talking about.

But within half an hour or so the MSM was quoting the famous Harley guy that was supposedly just a citizen on the street.

He took the time to explain the "Pancake Theory" to us peons on National news and on every channel.
And I ask this......What were his qualifications that day?

Regards, Iwinder

Interesting how that narrative/lie was conveniently planted in everyone's mind so early on by someone who just knew how it all came down!