TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Could the goverment have people on their payroll to post in forums like these?
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 »

quote:

Originally posted by atbell go over the studies that have been carried out by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Here is the link: http://www.asce.org/asce.cfm If you find problems in thier analysis of the destruction in 9/11 please feel free to write a quick thread about it and PM me so I can take a look at which parts of thier calculations you feel are flawed.

Ah, yes. So, I take their calculus over the law of physics? Maybe I should check out what happened during 'This Week in Washington' while I'm surfing the page. LOL

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Well in, ********. Well. In.

Copycat

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov The burden of proof is always on alternate hypotheses... have you ever taken a science course? A law course? A logic course?

Actually, not exactly. In formal debate, the burden of proof is on the proposition and the only thing the opposition is required to do is demonstrate their arguments are flawed or at least not strong enough to support the proposition laid forth. The more interesting thing though is that either stance being the 'proposition' is entirely dependent on the syntactic phrasing of the topic. Logic has nothing to do with it. Logic is neutral.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Copycat

He's just so darned agreeable, I simply cannot help myself.

quote:

Please stop talking about 9/11 until you've spent the time to go over the studies that have been carried out by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Here is the link:

The ASCE was limited by their research. They did not have access to all the information to base a final conclusion.

Firefighter Mag Raps 9/11 Probe


"A respected firefighting trade magazine with ties to the city Fire Department is calling for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. A signed editorial in the January issue of Fire Engineering magazine says the current investigation is "a half-baked farce." The piece by Bill Manning, editor of the 125-year-old monthly that frequently publishes technical studies of major fires, also says the steel from the site should be preserved so investigators can examine what caused the collapse. "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happy Land social club fire? ... That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center," the editorial says. "The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." Fire Engineering counted FDNY Deputy Chief Raymond Downey, the department's chief structural expert, among its senior advisers. Downey was killed in the Sept. 11 attack. John Jay College's fire engineering expert, Prof. Glenn Corbett, serves as the magazine's technical editor.

A group of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, with backing from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has been studying some aspects of the collapse. But Manning and others say that probe has not looked at all aspects of the disaster and has had limited access to documents and other evidence. A growing number of fire protection engineers have theorized that "the structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers," the editorial stated. A FEMA spokesman, John Czwartacki, said agency officials had not yet seen the editorial and declined to comment. Norida Torriente, a spokeswoman for the American Society of Civil Engineers, described her group's study as a "beginning" and "not a definitive work." Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has joined a group of relatives of firefighters who died in the attack in calling for a blue-ribbon panel to study the collapse. "We have to learn from incidents through investigation to determine what types of codes should be in place and what are the best practices for high-rise construction," Manning told the Daily News. "The World Trade Center is not the only lightweight, core construction high-rise in the U.S. It's a typical method of construction."

NY TIMES
City Had Been Warned of Fuel Tank at 7 World Trade Center-December 20, 2001

"Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes. The 6,000-gallon tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground floor and near several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in the event of a power failure. Although the city made some design changes to address the concerns - moving a fuel pipe that would have run from the tank up an elevator shaft, for example - it left the tank in place. But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called "disaster."



NY TIMES
December 25, 2001 THE TOWERS

Experts Urging Broader Inquiry in Towers' Fall "In calling for a new investigation, some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made in the chaotic aftermath of the collapses: the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. That may have cost investigators some of their most direct physical evidence with which to try to piece together an answer. Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three- day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation...Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments..."This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied," said one team member who asked not to be identified. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press. "FEMA is controlling everything," the team member said...Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer, an associate professor in the fire protection engineering department at the University of Maryland, said he believed the decision could ultimately compromise any investigation of the collapses. "I find the speed with which potentially important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling," Dr. Mowrer said.

and this,

Fire Engineering magazine is the 125-year-old paper-of-record of the fire engineering community. Bill Manning, editor-in-chief, wrote an Editor�s Opinion in the January, 2002 edition. His editorial, $elling Out the Investigation, pointed out that destruction of evidence � the hurried removal of rubble which should be examined by investigators � is illegal. He also issued a �call to action�. To quote excerpts:

"For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions � is on the slow boat to China �"

"I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall."

"Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the �official investigation� blessed by FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a "half baked farce" [emphasis mine] that may have already been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members � described by one close source as a �tourist trip� � no one�s checking evidence for anything."

"The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately."

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Ah, yes. So, I take their calculus over the law of physics? Maybe I should check out what happened during 'This Week in Washington' while I'm surfing the page. LOL Find more videos like this on www.truveo.com. You guys are all wrong. 100%.

What are you a physicist now? I'll take the opinion of professional and learned engineers any day over yours..

The professionals had limited resources to work with.

Explosion at WTC Complex


Despite the fact that the horrible events of Sept. 11 occurred in broad daylight and were widely photographed, significant aspects of the attacks have been completely suppressed by a media blackout.

Exclusive to American Free Press
By Christopher Bollyn

A massive explosion, witnessed by millions of television viewers on CNN, evidently devastated World Trade Center 6, the eight-story U.S. Customs building, although no national newspaper, other than American Free Press, has written a word about it.

Before the smoke had cleared from around the stricken South Tower, a mysterious explosion shot 550 feet into the air above the U.S. Customs House at WTC 6.

The unexplained blast occurred between the burning North Tower and the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building, known as WTC 7, immediately after United Airlines Flight 175 smashed into the South Tower, at about 9:03 a.m.

The explosion at WTC 6 was shown afterward on CNN. But because it was not broadcast as it happened there has been some confusion about when it actually occurred.

The large amount of smoke seen cascading around the South Tower in the video led some observers to mistake the blast for a dust cloud from the subsequent collapse of the tower.

TIMING CONFIRMED

American Free Press contacted CNN to determine exactly when the footage was filmed.

CNN�s Public Affairs Department confirmed that the explosion shown in the footage occurred immediately after the second plane had crashed into the South Tower. When asked if the footage was taken at 9:04 a.m., the CNN archivist said �that�s correct.�

When asked if CNN could offer any explanation about what might have caused the blast that soared higher than the 47-story WTC 7 in the foreground, the archivist said: �We can�t figure it out.�

The affected space between WTC 7 and the North Tower was occupied by the Customs House building, also known as WTC 6. The building housed the offices of 760 employees of the Customs Service, a part of Treasury. Other federal
agencies had offices in the building, including the Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Labor, and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. They did not return calls to AFP about the matter.

A spokesman for the Export-Import Bank of the United States, which had an office with four employees on the sixth floor of the Customs House, confirmed the time of the explosion and told AFP that the employees had survived and been relocated. One private company, Eastco Building Services, Inc., reportedly leased space in the building.

Some 800 workers from WTC 6 were safely evacuated within 12 minutes of the first plane hitting the North Tower at about 8:46 a.m., according to a Sept. 18 Washington Post article by Stephen Barr.

The Barr piece is the only known article published about WTC 6. However, Barr failed to mention the explosion that apparently devastated the building just minutes after the workers had escaped with their lives.

AVOIDING THE SUBJECT

Although the Customs House apparently exploded at 9:04 a.m., the government-sponsored investigation was steered away from looking into what had actually happened.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency funded an investigation by the American Society of Civil Engineers. However, investigators were reportedly blocked from the building by an order from the New York City�s Department.
of Design and Construction .

Kenneth Holden is commissioner of the DDC, having been appointed by the former mayor, Rudolph Giuliani on Dec. 7, 1999.

Regarding the investigation of WTC 4, 5, and 6, FEMA�s �Building Performance� report says, �WTC 5 was the only building accessible for observation.� But, it adds, �the observations, findings, and recommendations are assumed to be applicable to all three buildings.�

A spokesman for FEMA told AFP that because the building was considered by DDC to be �very dangerous,� there was �no data collection� from WTC 6.

Dr. Gene Corley, one of the engineers who led the investigation, told AFP that concerns about loose gold bullion and cash prevented investigators from entering WTC 4.

The FEMA report says, �The buildings [4,5,6] responded as expected to the impact loadings.� Although the report says, �most of the central part of WTC 6 suffered collapse on all floors,� it adds, �damage was consistent with the observed impact load.�

The Customs House had a huge crater in its center. Corley told AFP that he had not seen the CNN photos before and called them �interesting.�

Corley, like other experts, thought the damage at WTC 6 was caused by the collapse of the North Tower. However, not one of the experts could recall seeing the CNN footage before.

A spokesman for the Customs Service told AFP, �It did not blow up. When the tower collapsed it caved in.�

Corley said he had not seen the photos of the extremely high-speed missile-like object seen streaking toward WTC 6 from behind the North Tower as the second plane hit the South Tower.

He noted that parts of the plane�s landing gear and an engine passed through the South Tower, and landed several blocks away.

These objects, however, had a distinctly different trajectory from the streaking missile-like object. Another investigator, Jonathan Barnett, told AFP, �The debris from Tower 2 hit Building 5, not 6.�

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton What are you a physicist now? I'll take the opinion of professional and learned engineers any day over yours..

?.. I understand the concept(s) behind physics, just as you should be able to.

If not, ask an architect, or maybe an engineer.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} ?.. I understand the concept(s) behind physics, just as you should be able to.

Do you? You're the one pretending there aren't any calculations involved with the laws of physics. Mocking calculus is a very poor way to boost your physics credentials, considering that those laws exist only as literary interpretations of differential equations.

ASCE was called out in 2002.


$elling Out the Investigation


Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

Maybe we should live and work in planes. That way, if disaster strikes, we will at least be sure that a thorough investigation will help find ways to increase safety for our survivors.

As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.

Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.

Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.

To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance.

The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.

The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.

Firefighters, this is your call to action. Visit WTC "Investigation"?: A Call to Action, then contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately.


http://www.fireengineering.com/sear...l?keywords=ASCE

^^

You have to subscribe but the articles are more than worth their weight in gold.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Do you? You're the one pretending there aren't any calculations involved with the laws of physics. Mocking calculus is a very poor way to boost your physics credentials, considering that those laws exist only as literary interpretations of differential equations.

I'm not mocking calculus, I'm inferring that it's an unnecessary element confusion when all you need to understand is:

[a] and [b]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
----------

Will never fall at the same rate.

Where A) represents an object with the path of greatest resistance, and B) represents the path of least resistance.

Get it?

So your theory of what happened is that there are articles questioning the due process of the investigation?

That's hardly a theory at all.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov So your theory of what happened is that there are articles questioning the due process of the investigation? That's hardly a theory at all.

Are you daft? I hate resorting to questioning someone's intelligence, but you're leading me to believe that you are incapable of thinking for yourself.

Even those on the Commission have come forward stating they didn't have enough time or resources to do a proper investigation.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} I'm not mocking calculus, I'm inferring that it's an unnecessary element confusion when all you need to understand is: [a] and [b] [ ] [ ] [ ] ---------- Will never fall at the same rate. Where A) represents an object with the path of greatest resistance, and B) represents the path of least resistance. Get it?

That's a stupendously simplistic assertion. What was the acceleration of the falling object? The momentum? The resistance put forth by the stationary object? Did both towers fall at the same acceleration rate?

Are we even sure that both objects A. and B. fell at the same rate? What base level of acceleration are you basing this on? I've seen no evidence to suggest that the towers accelerated in their descent at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2, but would love the opportunity to look at data that suggests that kind of free fall.

In both cases video evidence suggests the building fell from the top down... are you disputing this?

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Are you daft? I hate resorting to questioning someone's intelligence, but you're leading me to believe that you are incapable of thinking for yourself. Even those on the Commission have come forward stating they didn't have enough time or resources to do a proper investigation.

Great, so suppose I accept this as fact (which I do). What's the alternative hypothesis? Just because they didn't do as thorough an analysis as possible doesn't mean that they're wrong (which I don't believe they are).

I know a few people who were on the Commission, and I don't see any reason to question their conclusions based on what I've heard about their investigation from them - would they have liked to do a more detailed analysis? Sure. Do they think the fundamental premise of their findings are false? Not a chance.

Which is why I'm asking for two things from you:

1. Why is their premise false? Simply stating that the investigation could have been more thorough is like saying "Congress could have spent more time debating H.R. 1054." It doesn't necessarily change the outcome.

2. What is your alternative account of events? What happened on 9/11, and what is your support for that argument?

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} ?.. I understand the concept(s) behind physics, just as you should be able to. If not, ask an architect, or maybe an engineer. http://www.ae911truth.org/

You may understand physics, but you have no authority (like a physics degree) to expound on the physics of the twin towers collapse without sourcing your points.

But by all means, state your case, and source your arguments to an expert, if you want to have a rational debate....I already asked colorut, and he politely declined...

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Do you? You're the one pretending there aren't any calculations involved with the laws of physics. Mocking calculus is a very poor way to boost your physics credentials, considering that those laws exist only as literary interpretations of differential equations.

Yes, and I've done a fair bit of Physics both in secondary school and college. Which is why the pancake theory is beyond retarded to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov That's a stupendously simplistic assertion. What was the acceleration of the falling object? The momentum? The resistance put forth by the stationary object? Did both towers fall at the same acceleration rate? Are we even sure that both objects A. and B. fell at the same rate? What base level of acceleration are you basing this on? I've seen no evidence to suggest that the towers accelerated in their descent at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2, but would love the opportunity to look at data that suggests that kind of free fall. In both cases video evidence suggests the building fell from the top down... are you disputing this?

Umm, acceleration is due to gravitational pull between object. Which is the same for any object in free fall on earth, g, which is approximately 9.8 m/s^2. If I remember correctly F = GMm / r^2. The only way to go faster than free fall is to have additional force which would also lead to additional kinetic energy. The only way those building can fall at nearly free fall speed is if every single support beam failed simultaneously, or at least before each successive floor hit the one below it... in fact, it should even be hitting it period if it's to fall at that rate. There is no evidence to support the pancake theory, it's just a theory, and a very bad one.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov That's a stupendously simplistic assertion. What was the acceleration of the falling object? The momentum? The resistance put forth by the stationary object? Did both towers fall at the same acceleration rate? Are we even sure that both objects A. and B. fell at the same rate? What base level of acceleration are you basing this on? I've seen no evidence to suggest that the towers accelerated in their descent at a rate of 9.8 m/s^2, but would love the opportunity to look at data that suggests that kind of free fall. In both cases video evidence suggests the building fell from the top down... are you disputing this?

Sorry, I forgot you were a twat and would require spoon feeding.
When I asserted:

quote:

[a] and [ ] [ ] [ ] ---------- Will never fall at the same rate. Where A) represents an object with the path of greatest resistance, and B) represents the path of least resistance.

I was implying that gravity was at work. If you dropped a brick onto a stack of other bricks, and released a similar brick at the same time without a path of resistance; the second brick would fall to the ground first. E-v-e-r-y time. Aside from 9-11, that is.



This does not look like a collapse from the top down to me.

quote:

[b]Originally posted by shaolin_Z Umm, acceleration is due to gravitational pull between object. Which is the same for any object in free fall on earth, g, which is approximately 9.8 m/s^2. If I remember correctly F = GMm / r^2. The only way to go faster than free fall is to have additional force which would also lead to additional kinetic energy. The only way those building can fall at nearly free fall speed is if every single support beam failed simultaneously, or at least before each successive floor hit the one below it... in fact, it should even be hitting it period if it's to fall at that rate. There is no evidence to support the pancake theory, it's just a theory, and a very bad one.

SHHh. You're making too much sense.

This could easily be explained as the pressure caused by collapsing upper floors being forced out of the floors below, which would cause windows to explode ahead of the collapsing avalanche.

Anyways, who set the explosives? Do you have a whistle blower we could talk to? Because as of now, all you have is pictures and video which neither confirm or deny your argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton This could easily be explained as the pressure caused by collapsing upper floors being forced out of the floors below, which would cause windows to explode ahead of the collapsing avalanche. Anyways, who set the explosives? Do you have a whistle blower we could talk to? Because as of now, all you have is pictures and video which neither confirm or deny your argument.

Could you please elaborate for me whether or not you are invoking the Pancake Theory as a possibility?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Umm, acceleration is due to gravitational pull between object. Which is the same for any object in free fall on earth, g, which is approximately 9.8 m/s^2. If I remember correctly F = GMm / r^2. The only way to go faster than free fall is to have additional force which would also lead to additional kinetic energy. The only way those building can fall at nearly free fall speed is if every single support beam failed simultaneously, or at least before each successive floor hit the one below it... in fact, it should even be hitting it period if it's to fall at that rate. There is no evidence to support the pancake theory, it's just a theory, and a very bad one.

Right, but b.s.e. is operating from the assumption that the towers fell at free-fall speed, yes? I'm merely asking if that's a valid assumption. Is it verifiable that they did indeed fall at that rate?

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} SHHh. You're making too much sense.

We said the exact same thing.

Look, I'm trying to actually have a discussion with you (which is what you wanted, yes? A chance to prove your points are valid?) and you're sitting here calling me a "twat" and insinuating something about my intelligence. If that's how you're going to have an intellectual discussion, then I can see we're clearly wasting our time here.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} Could you please elaborate for me whether or not you are invoking the Pancake Theory as a possibility?

I am invoking the notion that if the air contained in collapsing upper floors is being squeezed into still intact lower floors, it would be completely normal to see windows exploding just in front of the avalanche.

And again, who set the explosives? None of you have ever answered this question. Nor do you have some whistle blower to talk about the demolition. And if there was a demolition, why fly commercial jets into the buildings to begin with?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.