"Frontline" Equivalent in Canada Examines the "Unofficial Story" of 9/11

Originally posted by RipCurl
before 9/11 it was never considered safe to do a top down demolition (by the way, top down demolitions are done by hydraulics, not explosives).

Not all top down demolitions are done with hydraulics.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

You have now joined the ranks of Blanchard in mine and everyone's eyes here. i.e. No credibility.

demolition doesn't ALWAYS use explosives.

Really? Wowe, yoiu edumicated mi todae. [/sarcasm]

Truthers always equate demolitions to the use of explosives in order to destroy a building

Is this what "truthers" do now? And here I thought I was a "truther"?

p.s. Please don't try and dictate to me what I think because you have lumped me in with a crowd.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by Nutter]

Don't you love it when people come along and lump you into a massive group of people and tell you what you believe without even asking first?

Originally posted by Nutter

Really? Wowe, yoiu edumicated mi todae. [/sarcasm]

Yes you need and "edumacation" since you cant even get it demolition right. Demolition in its very definition means to destroy. It doesn't specifically mean that the use of explosives have to use.

The most common form of demolition actually only involves excavators, hoes and wrecking balls.


Implosions are rarely used due to their cost, time and safety factors that need to be involved. Also ordinances of the city where the building is, may not allow implosions to be done (due to other buildings in the area, noise, etc)

Is this what "truthers" do now? And here I thought I was a "truther"?

p.s. Please don't try and dictate to me what I think because you have lumped me in with a crowd.

If you believe that the WTC towers were brought down by explosives/thermite/thermate, you are a truther.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Don't you love it when people come along and lump you into a massive group of people and tell you what you believe without even asking first?

if you buy into any one of the lies of 911 truthers and repeat them as fact, you are a truther.

Originally posted by RipCurl
if you buy into any one of the lies of 911 truthers and repeat them as fact, you are a truther.

I love these kinds of conversations. Anyone who backs the federal government as it continues these war crimes reminiscent of Nazi Germany, is a fascist. I guess that makes you a fascist. So I'm a "truther," and you're a fascist. Sounds fair enough to me.

Originally posted by RipCurl
Yes you need and "edumacation" since you cant even get it demolition right. Demolition in its very definition means to destroy. It doesn't specifically mean that the use of explosives have to use.

The most common form of demolition actually only involves excavators, hoes and wrecking balls.


Implosions are rarely used due to their cost, time and safety factors that need to be involved. Also ordinances of the city where the building is, may not allow implosions to be done (due to other buildings in the area, noise, etc)

When did I ever state that all demolitions need to be executed with explosives?

Let's keep the strawmen at home please.

If you believe that the WTC towers were brought down by explosives/thermite/thermate, you are a truther.

Ah, so just searching for the truth of the matter doesn't make a "truther", but believing in a conspiracy makes me a "truther". Gotcha.

Originally posted by Nutter
When did I ever state that all demolitions need to be executed with explosives?

I never stated such a thing either, yet according to RipCurl, that's apparently what I believe, too.

Have you noticed how one-way this "discussion" is? We are basically being told what we believe, and then attacked for claims we never made.

Already there is no hope for an intelligent discussion with RipCurl.

Originally posted by bsbray11

I never stated such a thing either, yet according to RipCurl, that's apparently what I believe, too.

Have you noticed how one-way this "discussion" is? We are basically being told what we believe, and then attacked for claims we never made.

Already there is no hope for an intelligent discussion with RipCurl.

I apologize for categorizing you and nutter with the 911 truth movement, who has used demolitions to equal explosives (seeing that every claim I've come across, that's what they claim).


Could you provide your assessment of what caused the towers to collapse that doesn't use Thermite/Thermate or explosives (since no evidence of either were found). I've yet to meet anyone who can provide an alternative theory that matches the physical evidence of that day.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by RipCurl]

Originally posted by RipCurl
I apologize for categorizing you and nutter with the 911 truth movement, who has used demolitions to equal explosives (seeing that every claim I've come across, that's what they claim).

So is "truther" a technical word, or does it just mean whatever you say it means? Who gets to decide? Is there an authority here? I know I never call myself a "truther." I've even made threads proclaiming that I have never associated myself with such a term. Only people like YOU have tried to force that association on me repeatedly. So I take it that it means pretty much whatever you want it to mean, eh fascist?

Could you provide your assessment of what caused the towers to collapse that doesn't use Thermite/Thermate or explosives (since no evidence of either were found). I've yet to meet anyone who can provide an alternative theory that matches the physical evidence of that day.

I actually make it a point that it was never my responsibility to give you or anyone else the full story of what happened on 9/11. I'm a taxpaying citizen that is dissatisfied with the explanations given so far, which also have no good evidence going for them.

If you would like to present evidence to me, since you are apparently the one with all the correct answers, while I am not, I am all ears for your case.

Originally posted by bsbray11


So is "truther" a technical word, or does it just mean whatever you say it means? Who gets to decide? Is there an authority here? I know I never call myself a "truther." I've even made threads proclaiming that I have never associated myself with such a term. Only people like YOU have tried to force that association on me repeatedly. So I take it that it means pretty much whatever you want it to mean, eh fascist?

Sorry, but my definition comes from when I see someone repeat the lies of the 911 Truth movement. If you dont agree to this definition, then that is where we have to disagree.

which also have no good evidence going for them.

Could you point out what "no good evidence" means?

If you would like to present evidence to me, since you are apparently the one with all the correct answers, while I am not, I am all ears for your case.

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Originally posted by RipCurl

which also have no good evidence going for them.

Could you point out what "no good evidence" means?

How about any evidence at all? What have you got for me at all, champ?

If you would like to present evidence to me, since you are apparently the one with all the correct answers, while I am not, I am all ears for your case.

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Since we're already talking about the Twin Towers, why don't you provide evidence that the towers actually came down from fires and impact damages alone?


Btw -- I am aware of the FEMA and NIST reports, so if you're going to post those in response, FEMA was unable to reach a specific conclusion anyway, but for the NIST report I would like to see the specific data favoring their initiation hypothesis.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

How about any evidence at all? What have you got for me at all, champ?

Well, you have to specifically state what evidence you are looking for. Im not about to sift through thousands of pages just to post them all.

What specifically are you looking for?

If you would like to present evidence to me, since you are apparently the one with all the correct answers, while I am not, I am all ears for your case.

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

Since we're already talking about the Twin Towers, why don't you provide evidence that the towers actually came down from fires and impact damages alone?



Btw -- I am aware of the FEMA and NIST reports, so if you're going to post those in response, FEMA was unable to reach a specific conclusion anyway, but for the NIST report I would like to see the specific data favoring their initiation hypothesis.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by bsbray11]

Besides NISt and FEMA, here is a list of other reports :



Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)



[edit on 30-11-2009 by RipCurl]

reply to post by RipCurl


Nice list, but you didn't satisfy my request.

I was asking specifically for positive evidence that establishes that the buildings came down from fire and impact damages alone. What specific evidence can you show me to that effect? If you're going to post papers, at least show what the papers proved (and how they were able to prove). I have seen and read many different papers from Bazant to Greening and all the rest of them. Show me what you are seeing that specifically proves it was impacts and fires alone.


I don't expect you to dig through 10,000 pages of reports, but I expect you to know what exactly was proven, and how.

You similarly shouldn't expect me to go digging through 10,000 pages of reports to find something, either, when you can't even locate it yourself and you're the one claiming that such evidence exists in the first place. So surely you must know where it's at and have seen it before.

[edit on 30-11-2009 by bsbray11]

Other reports:

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.


Performance based structural fire engineering for modern building design
Rini, D., Lamont, S. 2008 Proceedings of the 2008 Structures Congress - Structures Congress 2008: Crossing the Borders 314

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I
Irfanoglu, A., Hoffmann, C.M. 2008 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 22 (1),

Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events
Cherepanov, G.P. 2008 Materials Science 44 (4), pp. 489-499

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

Fire load in a steel building design
Razdolsky, L. 2008 Proceedings of the 4th International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, ISEC-4 - Innovations in Structural Engineering and Construction 2, pp. 1163-1167

he structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

More reading material:

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551



Many of these scientists, fire experts, engineers and architects had access to the same evidence that NIST had.

You have a lot of reading to do.

So have you read these reports so that you can show me what they proved and how exactly they proved it, or are you just trying to dazzle me with a list of garbage?

I'm really curious. I want to see what specific evidence has convinced you that it could only have been fires and impact damages alone. A list of names of papers and who authored them doesn't satisfy that request.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by RipCurl

 

Nice list, but you didn't satisfy my request.

im sorry, but most of what you are looking for are written into reports. You will have to read the ones that I've posted to find what you are looking for.

I was asking specifically for positive evidence that establishes that the buildings came down from fire and impact damages alone.

You are over simplifying what happened that day, which is why you are probably not understanding the whole picture.

What specific evidence can you show me to that effect? If you're going to post papers, at least show what the papers proved (and how they were able to prove). I have seen and read many different papers from Bazant to Greening and all the rest of them. Show me what you are seeing that specifically proves it was impacts and fires alone.

Sorry, but Im not going sum up over 40 papers that cover what you are asking for. IF you are even interested in any type of research, you wouldn't be asking for a summary, but diving directly in to look for what you want.

I don't expect you to dig through 10,000 pages of reports, but I expect you to know what exactly was proven, and how.

Read the NIST Report. Read the papers that I've posted. They cover what you want. Simply: Fire, heat, damage and unprotected steel trusses, caused BOWING of the floors within the towers. That bowing pulled in the exterior columns inward. When STEEL looses its strength, it can no longer support the weight its trying to hold up. When the weight exceeds the amount that a weakened steel truss can handle, a cascading event happens. Floors started to collapse onto each other, and floors beneath are now subjected to force that it was never mean to handle. Full collapse occured.

Nothing on this planet earth could have prevented the collapses.

You similarly shouldn't expect me to go digging through 10,000 pages of reports to find something, either, when you can't even locate it yourself and you're the one claiming that such evidence exists in the first place. So surely you must know where it's at and have seen it before.

Nowhere is the answer specifically stated. YOU have to read the entire report to understand why they came ot the conclusions they did. Sorry, but this is not a report that you can have a "cliffs notes" for. You either read the report and come back with specific questions referencing pages and sections you dont understand or we are at a stalemate.

You dont want to read the reports. fine. that unfortunately is your loss.

Originally posted by bsbray11
So have you read these reports so that you can show me what they proved and how exactly they proved it, or are you just trying to dazzle me with a list of garbage?

the fact that you wont even bother in reading the reports or other independent researched papers, shows that you are not willing to even put forth any type of real investigation.

Im sorry, but Im not here to hold people's hands. The papers I've listed cover everything you want. From what Fire can do to steel structures, to the physics of the collapses.

You can pretty much deduce from their titles what the papers cover. REad hte ones that you wish to know more about.

your 'specific' evidence is found in all of them.

Originally posted by RipCurl
the fact that you wont even bother in reading the reports or other independent researched papers, shows that you are not willing to even put forth any type of real investigation.

Look when I signed up on this website.

I have been reading these kinds of papers for years.

I am not going to go through every single paper and painstakingly prove negative by negative, that each paper does not actually prove anything. I have done it plenty enough already on these forums.

If you have read these papers yourself, then surely you must know what the ultimate conclusions are and how they are proven.

If you can't post a single instance of such information, from any of those papers or especially from the NIST report, then you are just showing me what I already know, that there really is no proof in any of those things.

I'm not asking you to hold my hand. I'm asking you to put up, or shut up. You either know what these papers say and what they prove, or you don't. Don't be a hypocrite. Read your freaking papers yourself and show me one instance of a definitive proof that it was fires and planes alone.

These articles may help you understand the effects of Fire on steel:

Madrid Windsor Tower -

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...


Reports on why Fire protection is needed from Construction grade steel:
www.azobuild.com...

EFFECT OF SUPPORT CONDITIONS ON STEEL
BEAMS EXPOSED OF FIRE
www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz...

Cardington Test Fires
www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...



Also you may want to take a trip to your local fire department and get their opinion on the effects of Fire on steel. its a subject they should be familiar with