Originally posted by maxella1
reply to post by Varemia
It burned for 7 hours, which is plenty of time to work through even intact fireproofing.
In what textbook did you find this "fact"?
The 1968 New York City building code – the code that the towers were intended but not required to meet when they were built – required a two-hour fire rating for the floor system.
Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119  goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.
Originally posted by NIcon
In all my time on this board I think perhaps this is by far the lamest discussion tactic I've seen in these online discussions. Am I to be told next that "I'm really not interested in the truth" ?
But to the point, in fact, I can insinuate anything I want based upon what I've seen, read and heard. I've shown more in my last few posts about the basis of my reasoning than Mr. Hamburger has shown in all his interviews, videos and papers over the last 11 years about his change of belief of "charges in the buildings".
In fact, if I were so inclined, I could actually draw a conclusion based upon what I've seen, read and heard. Is not what a person says and does considered "evidence"? (And there's more pieces to the puzzle.)
However, I am open to countering arguments, but all I've gotten in return is a "water cooler conversation" (metaphorically speaking) or Bazant came up with a theory earlier.
Just to clarify, I'm not questioning his competence as a person in general, an engineer in general, or ultimately as a forensic engineer in general. What I'm questioning is strictly his competence in his role in the 911 investigation. Nothing more than that.
My opinion as of now is that we all "fall down on the job" at sometime or another.
Originally posted by maxella1
I did not, but reasonable suspicion is enough to consider them as people of interest which is enough to have them questioned...
example: A drive by shooting, no weapon found on scene. A few people in the crowd describe to others the exact caliber gun used... Would it be reasonable to have them questioned or should that be considered a lucky guess?
We are just going in circles here and I'm not in the mood for that today... I got nothing new to add especially when no matter what is shown to you, you respond withjust not the most obvious.
it could be anything
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
We're talking about America here. Our country has interfered in so many countries, you'd be hard-pressed to find one that DOESN'T have a reason to want to hurt us.
And the causes for this mindset are simple: our leaders are greedy and deluded. We have power, and we think that gives us a right. From there, it's all speculation - but the fact remains that too many questions have gone unanswered for too long, and if it had been a U.S. citizen to blame, the government would have extracted every detail by force.
But when the table is turned, that's not the way it goes down, is it? The government is allowed to keep its secrets, but we're not. And that's partially the cause for my suspicions, personally. The lack of accountability.
Originally posted by ANOK
And I suppose in your mind that means after two hours of fire the building will automatically completely collapse into it's footprint?
The two hours simply means a particular component has to survive two hours of a temperature specified by the test requirements. I believe it's 1700°C but don't quote me on it, just going by memory.
Originally posted by TheMindWar
I know the truth. So do thousands of others. I am fine and can handle it. So whats your point?
The CIA, FBI and other inteligence services did 9/11 with political backing from Cheney and Bush, and large corporate intelligence backing including Isreali Mossad.
Haldeman: That the way to handle this now is for us to have Walters call Pat Gray and just say, “Stay the hell out of this…this is ah, business here we don’t want you to go any further on it.” That’s not an unusual development,…
Nixon: Um huh.
Haldeman: …and, uh, that would take care of it.
Nixon: What about Pat Gray, ah, you mean he doesn’t want to?
Haldeman: Pat does want to. He doesn’t know how to, and he doesn’t have, he doesn’t have any basis for doing it. Given this, he will then have the basis. He’ll call Mark Felt in, and the two of them …and Mark Felt wants to cooperate because…
Originally posted by NIcon
Oh come on, exponent, you left out the most important part of what I said, i.e. "based upon what I've seen, read and heard." And I've shown what I've seen, read, and heard, which is more than just cute stories about my workaday world. I've provided words right from Mr. Hamburger's mouth. And I believe when the guy that was "commissioned to perform a postmortem on the World Trade Center's collapse" speaks to a newspaper or gives a lecture at a university about the World Trade Center that it is in a PROFESSIONAL context. He wasn't speaking as a "stay at home dad" or about "how men over 50 handle a mid-age crisis." Was he?
You definitely can stop me if you were to give me more than a "water cooler conversation" with a co-worker. But let's take a closer look at your "plausible" analogy. If Mr. Hamburger was convinced merely by idle chatter and that was proven, I would then condemn him as the worst forensic investigator of all time. Why? Because he was the one to do the investigating, yet he was swayed by idle chatter from a colleague, not by verifying the facts of the case.
You asked what kind of counter arguments I expect... well I've been asking for them continuously. But here it is again rephrased, what verified facts existed 8 days after the event that could have convinced Mr. Hamburger that "no bombs had been detonated"? Was 8 days sufficient time to draw any conclusions? According to you "All it would take is a water cooler conversation the day after 911 to be informed no bombs had exploded." Please enlighten me with all the facts that were floating around the water cooler on September 12th, 2001.
But here's another plausible explanation, just to counter your plausible explanation, based on historical record rather than a personal recollection of co-workers:
That's all it takes for a cover up. I'm not saying that's what happened, but it is also a plausible scenario since it happened only 8 days after the event, before Mr. Hamburger's investigation began.
So, do you have anything other than "All it would take is a water cooler conversation the day after 911 to be informed no bombs had exploded."?
There's a technique you're using here and I think unconsciously. You've select a piece of 'special knowledge' to identify the suspects. You assume that 'regular joes' will not have the facility to identify the calibre of weapon fired and so the existence of knowledge of the weapon calibre is reasonable suspicion.
However, this does not apply in the case of the WTC. What was being described is exactly what appeared in front of them, without any recourse to special knowledge or anything other than what a 'regular joe' could and would see and know. There's no reasonable suspicion because they have done nothing but describe what they see.
If you want to arrest and question people for describing what they see on 911, then surely your first priority should be to arrest those who talk about flashes and similar to get a more detailed understanding of their claim, not people who describe no interesting features at all.
The fact is that wanting to question people because they described the collapse, but wanting to assume that controlled demolition explosives just must have been in place because one person says they saw windows blowing out in a specific fashion is extremely biased. It's so biased that hopefully this post will show any casual reader the different standards of evidence you are using.
If you answer nothing else in this post, please answer me as to the level of evidence you feel is required to present a 'controlled demolition'
''FEMA is controlling everything,'' the team member said. ''It sounds funny, but just give us the money and let us do it, and get the politics out of it.''