Remembering 9/11

[eznutz]

You do realize your jerking Hillary signature video was faked, right?


In other words "trust me, I don't lie"? LOL.

Of course I'm going to check. I have no expertise in chemical reactions, structural steel, etc., but the advantage of working for a large international engineering company is I have access to many experienced experts and I just spoke to one of our chemical engineers. He's only has a MSc and has only worked with alloys for 25 years and doesn't believe in aliens so I'm obviously taking his opinion with a grain of salt. I was going to verify with a PHD, but I was worried he would figure out I was fact-checking 9/11 conspiracy theory and he'd laugh me out of the office. I only have a Masters and I don't work in R&D and you know what PHDs can be like, they look down on us.



Geesh. Turns out you are wrong.

1) Sulphur can be found in various concentrations in any steel. Modern refining process are very efficient at removing almost all of it (a certain amount is desirable), but older mills (i.e. 43 years ago when the WTC was built) were less efficient. The WTC steel absolutely would have has Sulphur in it. Did your study consider that?

2) Sulfidation is a natural occurring process that can occur at lower temperatures and over time, especially at joints where dissimilar materials containing sulphur are in contact, includes different steels. <-- I believe the metal analyzed in your study were at joints where different steels were in contact for 40+ years?

3) Sulfidation can be accelerated under higher temperatures (at low as 500F, given sufficient time) and especially in "poisoned environments". For example in a prolonged high temperature fire where there is high-sulphur diesel oil present or lots of sulphur bearing materials (gypsum). <-- Geesh, that EXACTLY describes WTC7 doesn't it?

4) Where did you get your 1800 number from?? Oxidation and sulfidation is a known problem in superheaters, heat exchangers, coal gasification systems, gas turbines and carbon baking furnaces at temperatures as low as 500C and more typically 750C. Sulfidation is a big problem in mines and becomes a serious problem at 650C

5) During the actual collapse to the WTC structure, much, much higher pressures and temperatures were reached which would have accelerated oxidation and sulfidation . After the collapse the debris pile continued to generate heat and pressure for weeks. Both environments would have been sulphur poisoned from all the gypsum, aluminum and glass.

6) The sulphur concentrations found in the steel in your study were not that high. Questions for you:
- What would a normal sulphur level be in a 43 year old sample of structural steel. (we can even ignore all the points above) How much higher was the concentrations in your report (I already have an answer ready for you).
- What would be a reasonable level of sulphur be in a steel sample that was just burned through by Thermate? <-- in case you haven't clued in yet, this is where your theory gets BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER. I guess you will now argue they didn't test an actual piece of steel that was burned through by Thermate, but if that's the case, your team doesn't really have anything do they?


I haven't researched Bazant's theory, but gotta be honest, you haven't demonstrated much credibility. If you are in the industry, can you please let us know what you've been involved with building so I can avoid those structures.

If your disputing that temperatures never reached the point to cause oxidation and sulfidation and melt the steel, then post your paper disputing it.
here's the report that explictly states the tempertures were 1800 degreees. http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf

The paper I posted demonstrates that Bazant used erroneous inputs to calculate his equation.
With the correct inputs using NIST's own data, the paper proves that building could not have fallen on it's own.

And here is the raw video I used to make my sig .gif, the only manipulation was me making a 2 second gif out of a 11 second video.
She freaks out (spaz attack) over a micro phone and tries to play it off

 

[eznutz]

I haven't researched Bazant's theory, but gotta be honest, you haven't demonstrated much credibility. If you are in the industry, can you please let us know what you've been involved with building so I can avoid those structures.

I'm not in the industry, but I can do math.
And here is something else for you, earlier you referenced a http://www.911myths.com/ website.
They mention "Leslie Robertson" saying he has no recollection of molten metal at WTC, so your site purports to debunk this as a "conspiracy theory"
Here is video of Les talking about the molten metal, which NIST denied even existed.

Looks like your side should do a better job of getting your stories straight

 

[fuji]

watch the point of the tower in slow motion it falls first, the center cant be seen any other way so how are you so sure the center support wasn't first to go?

If the center was the first to go the whole tower would have fallen as a whole, like a controlled demolition. Instead the bottom remained fixed in place while the top fell onto it. It's evident in almost every YouTube video.

You can see that the collapse occurred at the impact floor, with all the floors above falling onto motionless floors below.

While there are lots of facts that prove the conspiracy theory false THIS is one everybody can see with their own eyes.

 

[huckfinn]

Here's another theory....Conclusive Evidence the 9/11 Planes were NOT REAL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUoqwUVOxHE

I personally believe it was a terrorist act, and the planes collision with the building is what led to their failure.

 

[fuji]

Here's another theory....Conclusive Evidence the 9/11 Planes were NOT REAL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUoqwUVOxHE

I personally believe it was a terrorist act, and the planes collision with the building is what led to their failure.

Up thread is an account by an eyewitness who was one of the only people to survive from the impact floor. He saw the plane hit the building and saw plane debris on his floor while he fled.

Others on his floor also survived the impact, but made the mistake of fleeing up to fresh air. He fled down through the smoke and got out.

Anyway, he gives a first hand account of witnessing the plane hit.

There are of course millions who saw the second plane hit including hundreds of thousands who saw it with their own eyes: by that time everyone was watching.

 

[huckfinn]

Up thread is an account by an eyewitness who was one of the only people to survive from the impact floor. He saw the plane hit the building and saw plane debris on his floor while he fled.

Others on his floor also survived the impact, but made the mistake of fleeing up to fresh air. He fled down through the smoke and got out.

Anyway, he gives a first hand account of witnessing the plane hit.

There are of course millions who saw the second plane hit including hundreds of thousands who saw it with their own eyes: by that time everyone was watching.

Agreed....I posted it because it is interesting how many theories are out there on this subject.

As I mentioned, I believe it was a terrorist act, and the planes collision caused the buildings to fall.

 

[eznutz]

Here's another theory....Conclusive Evidence the 9/11 Planes were NOT REAL

Here's another theory... Cheney, Bandar Bush, Larry Silverstein & a few fat cats on Wall St. decided to get rich, they all had foreknowledge of the attack.
They all knew who, what, when, where & how. Larry Silverstein buys his $2 billion insurance policy and has his buildings prepped for demolition.
The fat cats on Wall St. shorted the airline stock of the carriers used that day, AA & Delta. They made $millions (perhaps $billions when you add up other positions in oil/guns/gold) Cheney took control of NORAD that day and issued his famous stand down order. (his company Hallibuton would go on to make $billions)
Bandar Bush controlled the terrorist team and was their money man, he also managed (with Cheney's help) to get Bin Laden family members out of America while US airspace was closed. All they needed was an excuse to make it look like the buildings fell by themselves (so Silverstein could collect his insurance) and this is where Bazant enters the picture. He drops a paper that explains how the buildings fell on their own (2 days after they collapsed) and they have been selling the story ever since.

I realize a few people here have an aversion to anything other than the official story, but the University of Waterloo is an institution I trust.
https://uwaterloo911.wordpress.com/academic-papers-on-911/

and the over 200 scholars who have written papers backing it up.
http://stj911.org/blog/papers/

The only thing that scares the TPTB is if Trump wins and he keeps his promise to re-open the investigation, the first step is to prove the fallibility of Bazant's equation (which the Szuladzinski paper does) Once that is done, some people on here are going to have their reality's shattered.

 

[Promo]

If your disputing that temperatures never reached the point to cause oxidation and sulfidation and melt the steel, then post your paper disputing it.
here's the report that explictly states the tempertures were 1800 degreees. http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-8452/403_apc.pdf

C'mon! At this point either you are backpeddling or you have no idea what you are talking about.

You stated:

"Only THERMATE can account for the sulfur found in the samples."

You were dead wrong and I proved proof of that.

Then you stated:

You can only achieve oxidation and sulfidation at extreme temperatures (+1800 degrees) (then you stated the building fire did not get that hot and therefore implying that the only explanation is the use of Thermate

Again, you are dead wrong again and and I provided proof of that. Why would I be disputing whether the temperature reached 1800 or not, when I provided proof oxidation and sulfidation can occur at temperatures 1/3 to 1/2 of that.

In summary, your conspiracy theory that Thermate was used to demolish the towers and the proof you have been provided has been utterly discredited.

The paper I posted demonstrates that Bazant used erroneous inputs to calculate his equation.
With the correct inputs using NIST's own data, the paper proves that building could not have fallen on it's own.

I stated "I haven't researched Bazant's theory, but gotta be honest, you haven't demonstrated much credibility."

And here is the raw video I used to make my sig .gif, the only manipulation was me making a 2 second gif out of a 11 second video.
She freaks out (spaz attack) over a micro phone and tries to play it off

So you took a doctored video and doctored it some more. Pathetic.

Is this what you do with all you evidence - fake it?

 

[huckfinn]

So wouldn't it have been a whole lot easier to drive a truck full of explosives into the underground or main lobby of the building.

Don't say it wouldn't work, as you could pack a steak or transport truck with enough powerful explosives to bring the buildings down.....and, you could still use the same people that flew the planes to make it look like an attack. It would have also been far easier to plant the explosives closer to the ground.

 

[frankcastle]

You do realize your jerking Hillary signature video was faked, right?


In other words "trust me, I don't lie"? LOL.

Of course I'm going to check. I have no expertise in chemical reactions, structural steel, etc., but the advantage of working for a large international engineering company is I have access to many experienced experts and I just spoke to one of our chemical engineers. He's only has a MSc and has only worked with alloys for 25 years and doesn't believe in aliens so I'm obviously taking his opinion with a grain of salt. I was going to verify with a PHD, but I was worried he would figure out I was fact-checking 9/11 conspiracy theory and he'd laugh me out of the office. I only have a Masters and I don't work in R&D and you know what PHDs can be like, they look down on us.



Geesh. Turns out you are wrong.

1) Sulphur can be found in various concentrations in any steel. Modern refining process are very efficient at removing almost all of it (a certain amount is desirable), but older mills (i.e. 43 years ago when the WTC was built) were less efficient. The WTC steel absolutely would have has Sulphur in it. Did your study consider that?

2) Sulfidation is a natural occurring process that can occur at lower temperatures and over time, especially at joints where dissimilar materials containing sulphur are in contact, includes different steels. <-- I believe the metal analyzed in your study were at joints where different steels were in contact for 40+ years?

3) Sulfidation can be accelerated under higher temperatures (at low as 500F, given sufficient time) and especially in "poisoned environments". For example in a prolonged high temperature fire where there is high-sulphur diesel oil present or lots of sulphur bearing materials (gypsum). <-- Geesh, that EXACTLY describes WTC7 doesn't it?

4) Where did you get your 1800 number from?? Oxidation and sulfidation is a known problem in superheaters, heat exchangers, coal gasification systems, gas turbines and carbon baking furnaces at temperatures as low as 500C and more typically 750C. Sulfidation is a big problem in mines and becomes a serious problem at 650C

5) During the actual collapse to the WTC structure, much, much higher pressures and temperatures were reached which would have accelerated oxidation and sulfidation . After the collapse the debris pile continued to generate heat and pressure for weeks. Both environments would have been sulphur poisoned from all the gypsum, aluminum and glass.

6) The sulphur concentrations found in the steel in your study were not that high. Questions for you:
- What would a normal sulphur level be in a 43 year old sample of structural steel. (we can even ignore all the points above) How much higher was the concentrations in your report (I already have an answer ready for you).
- What would be a reasonable level of sulphur be in a steel sample that was just burned through by Thermate? <-- in case you haven't clued in yet, this is where your theory gets BLOWN OUT OF THE WATER. I guess you will now argue they didn't test an actual piece of steel that was burned through by Thermate, but if that's the case, your team doesn't really have anything do they?


I haven't researched Bazant's theory, but gotta be honest, you haven't demonstrated much credibility. If you are in the industry, can you please let us know what you've been involved with building so I can avoid those structures.

Sulfur is also found in the air. It can be a precursor for acid rain. In short it is very easy for high temperatures plus sulfur in the air to result in it combining with the metal.

 

[Promo]

I'm not in the industry, but I can do math.

BULLSHIT. "doing the math" and understanding the science are two entirely different things. T-boy used to read wikipedia all the time, but he never UNDERSTOOD anything he read.

Same applies to your material so far. All of your theories in this thread have been discredited. They were discredited because your core statements were fundamentally wrong. Your statements are wrong because you don't understand the science (or you are bullshitting us).

And here is something else for you, earlier you referenced a http://www.911myths.com/ website.

Stop your CRAP! I did not reference that video. This is some crap video you dug up and are now probably taking out of context (like you have several times in this thread). I'll bet if I bother to take the time, I can discredit this claim of yours too.

I know exactly what you are doing. You go to conspiracy sites, seek out a paper with super complex language and math and post it to TERB claiming it supports your theories and hoping the rest of all will be so impressed with it's complexity that we won't question it. Well, it looks like a whole bunch of us Terbites have caught-on and are questioning your BS.

 

[basketcase]

.... Funny how engineers who don't share your opinion are quacks but all others who do are intellectually superior. ...

You do realize that the 1700 'Engineers and Architects' represent less than 0.01% of Americans in their fields right? Why is it that the other 99.99% of American Engineers and Architects are unable to see the 'truth'?

The quacks in the truther posts are people who have staked their professional reputation on things that are clearly outside their area of specialization. If I am going to write a paper or speak at a conference it sure as hell will be in my area of work. And I'm not going to waste my time or money at a conference unless the speakers are people who are experts in the precise field they're discussing.


p.s. Do you think that the significant damage to WTC7 caused by falling debris might have had something to do with it?

 

[basketcase]

Some people can't take a hint, the twin towers were a huge liability since they were constructed using asbestos. ...

So now you're claiming that the US government conspired to kill a few thousand of their own people to save money on asbestos repair?

p.s. Asbestos is often not removed from older buildings, just sealed.

 

[basketcase]

watch the point of the tower in slow motion it falls first, the center cant be seen any other way so how are you so sure the center support wasn't first to go?

By the behaviour of the rest of the building. In a controlled demo the building falls inwards. On 9/11 the exterior of the buildings fell outwards.

 

[basketcase]

Here's another theory....Conclusive Evidence the 9/11 Planes were NOT REAL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUoqwUVOxHE

I personally believe it was a terrorist act, and the planes collision with the building is what led to their failure.

I mentioned it before but my fave theory was posted last round of tin foil nuttyness - that the buildings were brought down by two underground nuclear detonations.

 

[danmand]

Here's another theory... Cheney, Bandar Bush, Larry Silverstein & a few fat cats on Wall St. decided to get rich, they all had foreknowledge of the attack.
They all knew who, what, when, where & how. Larry Silverstein buys his $2 billion insurance policy and has his buildings prepped for demolition.
The fat cats on Wall St. shorted the airline stock of the carriers used that day, AA & Delta. They made $millions (perhaps $billions when you add up other positions in oil/guns/gold) Cheney took control of NORAD that day and issued his famous stand down order. (his company Hallibuton would go on to make $billions)
Bandar Bush controlled the terrorist team and was their money man, he also managed (with Cheney's help) to get Bin Laden family members out of America while US airspace was closed. All they needed was an excuse to make it look like the buildings fell by themselves (so Silverstein could collect his insurance) and this is where Bazant enters the picture. He drops a paper that explains how the buildings fell on their own (2 days after they collapsed) and they have been selling the story ever since.

I realize a few people here have an aversion to anything other than the official story, but the University of Waterloo is an institution I trust.
https://uwaterloo911.wordpress.com/academic-papers-on-911/

and the over 200 scholars who have written papers backing it up.
http://stj911.org/blog/papers/

The only thing that scares the TPTB is if Trump wins and he keeps his promise to re-open the investigation, the first step is to prove the fallibility of Bazant's equation (which the Szuladzinski paper does) Once that is done, some people on here are going to have their reality's shattered.

Don't let the usual group of apologists get you down.

 

[basketcase]

Don't let the usual group of apologists get you down.

Don't worry, you're not. I was expecting you to jump into the conspiracy world just because Cheyney and Co are dicks.

 

[basketcase]

...
I realize a few people here have an aversion to anything other than the official story, but the University of Waterloo is an institution I trust.
https://uwaterloo911.wordpress.com/academic-papers-on-911/
...

Did you actuality read anything on that site?

The most recent article listed there on the collapse is clearly arguing against a controlled demolition.

Abstract: The circumstances leading to the collapse of the WTC Towers were described in numerous publications before but quantification of possible mechanisms published so far remains very limited. The basic observation is that columns of a 110-story building were weakened, over a relatively short segment of an upper part of the structure, to a degree where they were unable to support the building above them. As the upper part began to descend, successive buckling of columns caused flattening of the stories below. The process was presumably driven by the action of gravity until a complete destruction of the building. This article concentrates on progressive collapse of the core of the building. Several mechanisms are considered and quantified, to assess whether they offered a plausible explanation. One of the criteria used was whether the potential energy available was sufficient to cause the demolition in the assumed manner. The calculated duration of the event versus the available observation is regarded as the main criterion to qualify the postulated collapse mode. The details presented here are in reference to the North Tower. Some relationships presented here are also useful for a progressive collapse analysis of reinforced concrete structures


p.s. Do realize that it isn't a University of Waterloo site? It is merely a site that links to a bunch of outside papers and the vast majority are about politics, not structural engineering. A bunch of the articles even study the conspiracy theories and their adherents.

 

[fuji]

the University of Waterloo is an institution I trust.
https://uwaterloo911.wordpress.com/academic-papers-on-911/

The University is Waterloo's site is UWaterloo.ca, that is somebody's WordPress blog, which Waterloo would never associate itself with.

You have been refuted a dozen times now. Going and digging out yet another bullshit link and pasting it doesn't save you.

You're done.

 

[frankcastle]

I would strongly caution people against the concept that peer reviewed journals means it is credible.

The peer may not be qualified to completely dissect the paper.

The peer maybe bribed.

The peer might not be rigorous.

The peer might have an agenda.

Scientists have published stuff claiming cigarettes and certain types of foods were safe. Sure that was a long time ago but let's not pretend that can't happen today.