Reportedly a new FOIA 2010 Video: Firefighters discuss explosions on 9/11

reply to post by plube


But it was mostly the heat distribution and capabilities of the steel that he was analyzing that I found important. That is related to his expertise, no?

Varemia, mate, if you dont accept what is being asserted in this thread, thats fine. You are welcome to your own opinion, just as the rest of us are....

But I honestly do think you need to look deeper into this, assuming you are being sincere.
There are sooo many things that make absolutely no sense whatsoever, that add creedence to people thinking somethings not quite right.
Buildings dont just fall down due to fire.They never have before, or since.Yet on 9/11 3 buildings collapsed(actually two of the three exploded, but thats another nonsense for another time..) from two plane crashes...."officially" because of fire...

Your inbuilt alarm bell should at this point be starting to ring....

You should be thinking how illogical that is...

At the Pentagon we have no plane wreckage at all....that should raise the level of your alarm in your head that little bit more...

Then we see Shanksville likewise minus the plane they told us crashed there....alarm bell, hello!!

And it goes on and on.....

Not hearing these alarm bells means you arent listening Varemia.

To me it sounds deafening.

Ahhh NIST'S "models". The same models which appear nothing like what happened in reality, for all to observe.

www.youtube.com...

NIST who admits "Free Fall" but as a part of a larger collapse "progression"...and given that there 5.4 seconds fitted both their PRE SCRIPTED computer model for collapse as opposed to 3.9.

Their computer modeling didn't allow for a free fall speed and their models didn't match what is plainly in view on video archives.

And when all was said and done "thermal expansion", a completely Novel idea, explains it all away to further tie up loose ends on their pre scripted model.

"World Trade Center 7 collapsed because of fires" ~ Shamy Sunder of NIST

There was a 2 and a half second phase of complete free fall they admit later.

Shammy Sham Sunder first stated that the acceleration was 40% SLOWER than free fall.

Then stated in the NIST draft report that it could not and did not happen at free fall speeds.

Then the final draft report came. NIST admitted to a 2.25 Free Fall period of roughly 105 feet, yet "column failure" and "thermal expansion" explain this according to NIST. Well not exactly, NIST really didn't explain the novelty of the span of time in free fall.

The top half of the building was uniform through most of it's right side, around most of it's columns, all the way through it's descent. The roof line remained level almost the whole way day.

How is that gradual column degradation? The novelty of the whole event defies known physical laws and are replaced with "simulations' and pre scripted models based on no observable evidence.

NIST admittance of Free Fall + Novel "Thermal Expansion" + Fudged descent times and calculations to fit a biased hypothesis = NO NO NO


Oh , and then there's the fact that NIST had contracts for working on SUPER ALLOYS which were resistant to heat and show amazing elasticity and strength....but that's another story.

Originally posted by benoniBuildings dont just fall down due to fire.They never have before, or since.Yet on 9/11 3 buildings collapsed(actually two of the three exploded, but thats another nonsense for another time..) from two plane crashes...."officially" because of fire...

It has already been stated numerous times that it was more than just fire.

At the Pentagon we have no plane wreckage at all....that should raise the level of your alarm in your head that little bit more...

I distinctly remember seeing pictures of the debris, unless you are claiming that the government shot a missile and then shipped plane debris and body parts to the pentagon as a cover-up.

Then we see Shanksville likewise minus the plane they told us crashed there....alarm bell, hello!!

Again, I recall there actually being debris, and that a big thing people were arguing over was how paper debris from the plane made it 8 miles away.

Not hearing these alarm bells means you arent listening Varemia.

To me it sounds deafening.

You may want to get your ears checked.

reply to post by Prove_It_NOW


That was a very misinformed video. They used two different models of collapse that NIST created. One factored in damage and one didn't. The one with the sides folding in was the non-damage from debris one. The one that looked just like the actual collapse was the one that did factor in debris.

There has been no real discrediting going on here. Just illusions.

Sorry for not sticking to the OP's subject of the VIDEO. I tried, but the thread caved into an argument about Building 7 when I was trying to talk about the video. Nobody seemed interested in the video anymore.

I won't join on the derail again.

Thanks for the video.

"It is put together by Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and Christopher Musso, graduate research student, are at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, so these fellows know what they're talking about, eh?"

OK, let's see if Mr. Eager knows what he is talking about. Below is an excerpt taken from his masterpiece:

"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."

90,000 L is the capacity of the fuel tanks on a Boeing 767.

1. How could there be a full capacity of fuel on those floors when the flight was allegedly in the air for 47 minutes and the first hour of flight is when the plane burns the most fuel?

2. How could there be a full capacity of fuel on those floors when it takes only approximately 30,000 L of fuel to fly from Boston to Los Angeles (the alleged scheduled route for Flight 11)? I didn't know airlines were in the business of wasting fuel and money by unnecessarily weighing down their planes with three times as much fuel than is necessary for a flight.

3. How could there be a full capacity of fuel on those floors when a significant amount of fuel burned off during the impact?

You still think Mr. Eager knows what he is talking about, eh? For someone who is an alleged respected individual at such an esteemed engineering University, he seems to be quite the failure in arithmetic and common sense.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


I believe he was speaking in generalities. You notice he wasn't even really using the 90k L in a mathematical fashion, just in a demonstrative one. The main focus was on the fire created by whatever jet fuel there was. He was proving that you can't melt steel with jet fuel.

I really think some of you people ought to criticize your own articles this much. XD

OK, not sincere after all!!

Your a funny guy varemia....not too smart...but you gave me a chuckle!!

Thanks!!

Originally posted by benoni
OK, not sincere after all!!

Your a funny guy varemia....not too smart...but you gave me a chuckle!!

Thanks!!

I don't see what you mean. Why do you laugh instead of find reason and logic that supports your view? At least I'm pulling sources and examining the situation with all the events and not just bits and pieces.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ChordzEven in the case of weakened steel from fire, as you say, would you expect no resistance and free fall?

It is technically not "no" resistance, as I have seen videos that accurately place the fall speed a few seconds slower than free-fall, but yes, I would expect this from buildings of this design. I've seen concrete buildings fall at the same speed when taken down from the top, and the steel structure would essentially act the same under similar forces. The main difference is that instead of the building made of concrete that implodes on itself, the steel ejects in chunks and twists itself like mad on the way down. It's not so much no resistance, as the resistance finding an easier way to relieve itself.

I could so relieve myself on that sort of explanation. Again, let us ask the same request of you... Please provide another example of a steel frame building going down due to external damage and fire at free fall speed based on your assumptions.


I'll make it easy for you... Find any building at least 20 floors high over the last century that's gone down the way we all witnessed (at free fall speed at any time during the decent) outside of demolition of course. I'm more curious now...

those buildings were imploded by shear charges set in exposed columns and were most likely implanted during building inspections or possibly even implanted during construction. there was no way in hell that a single hit from a passenger jet would have had the capability to strike at an upper level in those buildings to bring them down to ground level. the upper part of the building if failed?. would have just slid off in one massive piece.

90% of the fuel was expended on impact, so what little fire was involved, and what little fragments of aluminum were left, had no bearing on the overall support column superstructure. the planes weren't made out of magnesium, so the low melting point of aluminum would have quickly melted and cease burning within minutes. and would have not started any secondary fires.....steel wont liquefy from diesel fuel burning near it , on it, under it, around it. especially when it is 1" thick.. it has absolutely no effect on it other than scorching the paint...lol

i say since the government enjoys wasting our money on stupid #. they should completely reconstruct under supervision by trusted private contractors, one replica trade center. exactly to specification. then fly the same type aircraft into it. then lets see if the results are the same?

it shouldn't matter where the plane hits. i assure you the results wont be the same and that replica wont do anything but make a few noises and smolder for a while.

this is great, actual proof the official story is a lie, now if it was illegal for the government to lie to the people. governments lie all the time, lieing is OK murder is not OK. All this time since 2001 and all that happens is we now have proof of the government lies, I want to see prosecutions for mass murder. When bush and crew go the same way as sadam and crew all this will be effort well spent.

"I believe he was speaking in generalities. You notice he wasn't even really using the 90k L in a mathematical fashion, just in a demonstrative one. The main focus was on the fire created by whatever jet fuel there was. He was proving that you can't melt steel with jet fuel."

An engineer speaking in generalities? Since when? I hope this guy doesn't design building using generalities; I can see him now saying, "don't worry about the mathematical calculations because they are not important. It's inaccurate the generalities that are important.

I don't know how he was speaking, but what I do know is the information he provided is completely inaccurate, which leads me to believe that the remainder of his little rant is just as inaccurate. Why should I trust this guy when it is obvious he has no clue about something as elementary as to how much jet fuel was in the tower.

"I really think some of you people ought to criticize your own articles this much."

I really think some of you people should be careful about basing your conclusions on completely inaccurate "generalities".

"i say since the government enjoys wasting our money on stupid #. they should completely reconstruct under supervision by trusted private contractors, one replica trade center. exactly to specification. then fly the same type aircraft into it. then lets see if the results are the same?

it shouldn't matter where the plane hits. i assure you the results wont be the same and that replica wont do anything but make a few noises and smolder for a while."

At least they won't have to spend any money on getting a professional to fly this plane. Any boxcutter wielding caveman with zero flying experience will do. Just promise him a few dozen virgins and he's all yours. Heck, it doesn't even matter if he hits the replica tower or not, since the result will still be the same: complete symmetrical global collapse (see Building 7).

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by MilzGatez

 

Did you bother to read the report from ASCE or are one those truthers who simply dismiss anything not
fulfulling your conspiracy fantasy?

[url=http://]http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf[/url

Start with page 23 which describes impact damage

Also aircraft struck several objects before hitting building starting with lamposts along road, trailer mounted generator (right wing), and steam vent (left wing)

Hit at angle of 43 deg with left side sustaining more damage

Again - think this is Looney Tunes Wiley Coyote leaving nice neat hole....

Reality is very different and messy - no nice cookie cutter holes

like I said... NO NIST REPORTS!.... its already been blown apart by those who did the 9/11 commission report. Some admitted to being fishy and half the truth...

So come again , thank you.

And those light lampost would have been knocked down by just by the wings itself going at that speed and also, there would have been evidence on the ground by those lamposts of the Wings part that came off by the force of knocking them down.

Also columns nearest the entry hole would suffer most damage - many were destroyed. Those farther away are bent and twisted by impact - inline with what is expected

Problem is collapse of damaged section 1/2 hr after impact destroyed that section of building

What is problem with Pentagon construction - work had just been completed on this section and offices moving back into area.

You must be blind.... those 2 columns clearly shows they been bent but still intact to the foundation near the impact zone while the others after clearly shows none are bent.. 2nd floor, all are intact.. where's the inline hole you speak of?

Here the pic to help you on your journey to disapprove of what I am saying... like you told me... Pay ATTENTION to details..



Of course it collapse, it just got hit by something.

The problem isssss Work as been done,, Who isnt to say they didnt properly did the job correctly, making it weaker than it should be...Does that section looks reinforced at all? It sure doesnt look like it... the towers were more reinforced then the Pentagon where's the nation heart is...

And why did the "plane" hit a section of the building where work was done at? meaning a very very few people would be in that section, only those who were moving whatever or doing what they had to do were in that section.

isnt the point of being a terrorist is causing property damage and kill many lives as possible? but yet, out of nowhere, they picked a spot where there wasnt many? but of course you wont see it as fishy as I do

So please come again ...

I wonder how many who have been reading this thread and seeing our posts would agree with me or with you..

reply to post by AndrewJay

I pray to god that one day the real people behind this attack will be brought to justice. Steel doesnt burn until 3000 degrees. Jet fuel only burns at 1800.

Steel heated to 1800 F has only 10 % or original strenght, also at that temp steel is plastic and will deform
easily under load......

reply to post by Varemia

Varemia, don't you remember what your father said?

I might even consider believing this if I hadn't already had so much in-depth knowledge from my father about what goes on in the secret government. From him, there are no ETs, there are no gods, and the government will lie to you about everything. He was a mason.

It's rather absurd to believe we're alone in this universe, but your father couldn't be more right when he says the government lies about everything. And I do mean everything.

If this is the way you were raised, why do you have such a hard time acknowledging the fact that 9/11 was an inside job?

After those non-existent Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" that the Bush cabal used to create endless wars, is it really so hard to believe that the PNAC "New Pearl Harbor" neocons like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Pearle, Abrams, etc. are anything but criminal mass-murderers?

reply to post by MilzGatez

like I said... NO NIST REPORTS!.... its already been blown apart by those who did the 9/11 commission report. Some admitted to being fishy and half the truth...

So you admit that because the report doesn't support your conspiracy fantasy just going to ignore it

Brillant truther logic.....!!!!!

I dont recall anything from 911 commission about this report

I suppose you dont feel the same about idiotic conspiracy sites - seem to parrot them very well

So we have report by professional engineers vs crap posted by someone in mommy's basement!

Reason plane struck that section of Pentagon - that was that was direction plane approached from , hijacker had overshoot first approach and had put aircraft into turn to line up again

Rather doubt hijackers had any knowledge of Pentagon renovations - was simply aiming at first part of building
he could see

Originally posted by thedman

At 2:40 you can hear fighter jets flying over...they were in the area well before the Pentagon incident.

reply to post by turbofan

 

You likely hear aircraft all the time as Pentagon is only mile from Regean National Airport.....

What the hell does your reply have to do with hearing fighter jets over Manhattan? These firefighters were in the WTC just before they came down. What is the relevance of how far the Pentagon is from the Reagan Airport???