• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debunk This

imstellar28

Scholar
I
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
115
covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/09/great-must-read-but-loooooong-and-very.html


Seems pretty solid to me, can anyone provide some reasons as to whats wrong with it?
 
Okay, I waded through most of it. It's typical truther cherry-picking of data, invented safety factors, and failure to understand NIST's conclusions. This passage is extraordinary:
However, it does not matter what temperature the columns heated. It could have been 1100 C, 1500 C, pick a temperature. It also does not matter if the columns bowed. They could have twisted, bent, fatigued, expanded, shortened, changed properties, or whatever. The columns could have lost their safety factor. They could have lost ALL their fire-proofing. It does not matter. The fact is those columns were able to handle the FULL building load during fire when they were at their weakest state.
Click to expand...
Er, until they failed. And okay, I accept your challenge. I pick 1500 C. Oops, that didn't end well for you, did it?

Further, here's the south side of the north tower – where collapse commenced – 5 minutes before collapse.

8790461136f07c80d.jpg


And here's the north side of the north tower, as collapse commences.

8790461136f0a2ed4.jpg


The fires hadn't quite burned out, had they?

I'd also like to point out this gem:

There was no detectable fatiguing or bending of perimeter columns prior to collapse. What one sees is a motionless building rigidly retaining its shape, then suddenly goes into catastrophic, out-of-control collapse. There is no in-between state that would be typical of steel in fire.
Click to expand...

This person is going to be so embarrassed when the NIST report photos are published in Braille.
 
Last edited:
However, it does not matter what temperature the columns heated. It could have been 1100 C, 1500 C, pick a temperature. It also does not matter if the columns bowed. They could have twisted, bent, fatigued, expanded, shortened, changed properties, or whatever. The columns could have lost their safety factor. They could have lost ALL their fire-proofing. It does not matter. The fact is those columns were able to handle the FULL building load during fire when they were at their weakest state.
Click to expand...

You know, that just doesn't make any sense. At all. Essentially the author is saying that yield failures, stressing, deformation, and weakening would not cause collapse.

Which is a bit like saying rain can't make you wet.

It's lunacy.
 
"It's typical truther cherry-picking of data"
what did he leave out?

"invented safety factors"
what are the real safety factors?

"and failure to understand NIST's conclusions. "
what is the proper understanding?



Do you think the investigation was conducted in a scientifically sound manner regardless of the real cause?
 
"You just needed to read the comments to see the 'faster than gravity' part."


All properly designed building implosions fall faster than gravity because they are "pulled" downward by vacuum. You don't think things can fall faster than gravity? Throw a ball into the ground.
 
imstellar28 said:
covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/09/great-must-read-but-loooooong-and-very.html


Seems pretty solid to me, can anyone provide some reasons as to whats wrong with it?
Click to expand...

It constantly states that 'only XX% of Floor X was on fire when collapse began' or 'only XX% was burning at the same time'.

It's irrelevant. If a fire caused trusses to sag and then burnt out, the trusses would cool down, retract back to their original length (pulling the columns in), but would not regain their original shape, thus the columns would still be left without lateral support. Once the damage is done, it is done, it will not heal itself.

It also states:
# There was no detectable fatiguing or bending of perimeter columns prior to collapse. What one sees is a motionless building rigidly retaining its shape, then suddenly goes into catastrophic, out-of-control collapse. There is no in-between state that would be typical of steel in fire.
Click to expand...

Which is total garbage. There are numerous photos of the walls of the WTC towers bowing inward, and floorslabs sagging. The bowing was also reported by an NYPD helicopter.

The page even mentions the bowing and brings out the same old crap:
it cannot be determined beyond speculation that the steel columns were "bowed" and not be an aberration, such as optical distortion from fire and heat, from picture enhancement, or from the aluminum facade covering the columns. In these pictures and others there are places where the aluminum facade has been removed exposing the steel columns underneath. The exposed steel columns are ALL straight. If exposed steel columns were straight, how can it be asserted that deformed aluminum facade is an irrefutable indicator of bent columns? This is nonscientific.
Click to expand...

Yes it can be determined. We have videos of the bowing wall (albeit in WTC2) folding inwards. It was most certainly not an optical illusion.

The comments about the aluminum facade are pure bunk as well. It would not be possible for the aluminum facade to bow inward 5 feet with the columns still standing straight, the facade was directly attached to the columns.
 
"Who is Wayne Trumpman?"

The president of Uganda, a engineer with 25 years experience, a person who was running out of the world trade center, a member of the demo crew who planted the bombs. Who cares who he is, what does that have to do with his arguments? Just because your a structural engineer or governmental researcher doesn't make what you say true.
 
All designs are built with safety factors--ie 1, 2, 3 etc.

A safety factor of 2 would mean it can withstand loads 200% greater than are to be expected.
 
imstellar28 said:
"You just needed to read the comments to see the 'faster than gravity' part."


All properly designed building implosions fall faster than gravity because they are "pulled" downward by vacuum. You don't think things can fall faster than gravity? Throw a ball into the ground.
Click to expand...


So you're saying that the explosion was of sufficient magnitude that it displaced a large enough quantity of air to exert substantial additional force on the structure and hence lead to a collapse speed in excess of 9.8s-2 (or thereby).

I'd like you to think REALLY carefully before answering that.
 
"Which is total garbage. There are numerous photos of the walls of the WTC towers bowing inward, and floorslabs sagging. The bowing was also reported by an NYPD helicopter."

He addresses this in the article, did you read it?
 
imstellar28 said:
"You just needed to read the comments to see the 'faster than gravity' part."


All properly designed building implosions fall faster than gravity because they are "pulled" downward by vacuum. You don't think things can fall faster than gravity? Throw a ball into the ground.
Click to expand...
You didn't just say that, did you?
Building implosions don't cause a vacuum. They blow out the supports, and gravity does the rest.
Is there anyone in the truth movement that has any knowledge of ANYTHING? AT ALL?
 
imstellar28 said:
"Who is Wayne Trumpman?"

The president of Uganda, a engineer with 25 years experience, a person who was running out of the world trade center, a member of the demo crew who planted the bombs. Who cares who he is, what does that have to do with his arguments? Just because your a structural engineer or governmental researcher doesn't make what you say true.
Click to expand...


P'doh?
 
Article claims:

"There was no significant pause in collapse when the upper floors impacted floor 97, then floor 96."

Simple science (12/13x100) tells us that the top 13 floors would retain 92% of their original velocity after striking floor 97.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom