• 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.

Please help...

OMGturt1es

Graduate Poster
OMGturt1es
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
1,028
Location
Elk Grove, California.
another 911 vid that will be shown in my city. i will be around this time. i've already started debunking the video. i just found out about this. the video will be shown on thursday. i have a lot that i have to do between now and then! i can dedicate about 5-6 more hours toward this.

what i need are references that i can cite that contain specific information. i generally know about all these topics, as i've researched them in the past, but i don't have the sources memorized, nor the specifics contain therein. i recently bought a new laptop, and didn't save all my favorites (i did this on purpose, as my last list was massive and unorganized), so i'm starting from scratch-- kind of.

i'll be editing this post with topics for which i am requesting further information. i know many of us have certain topics "at hand" with which we are very familiar. hopefully this can significantly cut down on the time i must spend.

here's the list (incomplete):

WTC 1 & 2

1. have steel buildings collapsed due to fire prior to 9/11?
2. was fireproofing knocked off steel from the impact?
3. how hot did the fires get, and what is our evdience? (specifically regarding paint chip analysis)
4. should we see stacked floors due to the "pancake collpase"? (a picture of squashed floors would be nice)
5. pools of molten metal? (i have a bit for this already, but i'm thinking of leaving this out. i'll only address it if time allows.)

that's it for now. i'm going to watch this video all the way through. i'll edit my post, and supply you all with links. i'll start working on the documentation tomorrow at ~ 5-6 PM. so please, if you can post, please do so by then!

as i said, i have very limited time right now, but i want to get something ready. i'm going to build off of this document as well, as there appears to be a 911 truth event in the next couple weeks at my university.

thanks ahead of time,
take care,
anthony.
 
Last edited:
Hey Anthony :)

OMGturt1es said:
3. how hot did the fires get, and what is our evdience? (specifically regarding paint chip analysis)
Click to expand...

This is from the NIST FAQ, but it gives you the sections of the report you'll find the evidence in. I have bolded these sections for you :)

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers? In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.
Click to expand...

4. should we see stacked floors due to the "pancake collpase"? (a picture of squashed floors would be nice)
Click to expand...

The World Trade Center collapse wasn't a "pure" pancake collapse. Some sections of the building did pancake, as can be seen in these photos.

http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=35

Keep in mind though, the building collapse did not initiate in a pancake fashion (one floor falling, causing all floors to fall). Don't forget to mention that. This is the biggest straw man 9/11 CTists try out. "The official story is that the building pancaked". Wrong, it did not :)

5. pools of molten metal? (i have a bit for this already, but i'm thinking of leaving this out. i'll only address it if time allows.)
Click to expand...

The Twin Towers were covered in aluminum facades and two airplanes built from aluminum hit these towers. Aluminum melts at 600°F approx. Fires at ground zero underneath the rubble were reported at temperatures high enough to melt aluminum.

There is no evidence that the "molten metal" below ground zero was steel.

as i said, i have very limited time right now, but i want to get something ready. i'm going to build off of this document as well, as there appears to be a 911 truth event in the next couple weeks at my university.

thanks ahead of time,
take care,
anthony.
Click to expand...

I don't know how helpful I was, but it should get you on the right track :)

Good luck!
Shane.
 
OMGturt1es said:
4. should we see stacked floors due to the "pancake collpase"? (a picture of squashed floors would be nice)
Click to expand...

We also have to keep in mind the enormous height and mass of the towers, and the amount of energy released during the collapse. It would be impossible to have stacked floors after going through the collapse of that nature. There is a difference between a 5 floor building collapse and a 110 floor WTC collapse.
 
thanks guys. i'll update this list very soon.

those links are perfect, doc. that's what i'm looking for. have you any links for the aluminum?

i can debunk this stuff pretty easily on my own, but i want links, and i don't have them handy. it can take awhile to track this stuff down. the important thing is that this document is properly cited, so that these folk KNOW i'm not just some crazy ******* making **** up.

thanks again, and i'll update in the next hour or so...
 
ref said:
We also have to keep in mind the enormous height and mass of the towers, and the amount of energy released during the collapse. It would be impossible to have stacked floors after going through the collapse of that nature. There is a difference between a 5 floor building collapse and a 110 floor WTC collapse.
Click to expand...

We should also consider the 6 storey basement. The remains of the floorslabs would surely have ended up down there, thus no stack would be visible above the ground anyway.
 
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=1worldtradecenter-newyorkcity-ny-usa
- The columns, finished with a silver-colored aluminum alloy, were 18 3/4" wide and set only 22" apart, making the towers appear from afar to have no windows at all.
Click to expand...

If you study the following image:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/nt_hole7.jpg

You'll note the columns at the impact zone are brown, and those on the rest of the building are silver. This is because the aluminum facades have been knocked off at the impact zone, as NIST states.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
E.3.4 Damage to Fireproofing Due to Aircraft Impact
Pre-collapse photographs indicated that, as expected, fire-proofing was removed from pieces struck by the incoming aircraft or debris exiting the far side of the buildings. In addition, the impact caused fireproofing and aluminum facade panels to spall off many perimeter columns which were not directly struck nor severed, but apparently suffered strong accelerations and forces otherwise transmitted through the structure. This indirect damage to the spray-applied fire resistant material (SFRM) was observed on the north and east faces of WTC 2.
Click to expand...

Hope that helps :)

There is a large section on this in the "9/11 Mysteries" guide which is being released on Friday at http://www.911mysteriesguide.com
 
oh oh oh!

it just touched on the fema document authored by barnet regarding the corriosion of a couple samples of steel. it ignored barnet's suggestions of possible sulfur sources, and simply took the part from the future study wherein it was mentioned that no source was known.

how's that for academic honesty?
 
i can't edit my original post any more, so i'll respond with the final list.

===================================================

WTC 1 & 2

1. have steel buildings collapsed due to fire prior to 9/11?
2. was fireproofing knocked off steel from the impact?
3. how hot did the fires get, and what is our evdience? (specifically regarding paint chip analysis)
4. metal tests by frank gayle (project four)?
5. fire not hot enough to melt steel?
6. NIST contracted with Underwriters Labortaries to test steel on fire endurance trueese like WTC towers' (NIST, P. 142) "all four test specimens sustained masimum design load for aprox. 2 hours without collapsing..."?
7. how do you get all beams to fail at the same time, obfuscating the core?
8. [contradiction with #7] core falls last. doesn't tip over. relation to explosives? ("as if entire structure cut")?
9. unusual erosion and barnet?
10. testimony regarding other explosions. seismic data? anything?
11. should we see stacked floors due to the "pancake collpase"? (a picture of squashed floors would be nice)
12. pools of molten metal and their relavence to explosives or thermi/ate.
13. the difference between thermi/ate and explosives.
14. background on crazy steven jones.
15. fema bpat? did they only have "a guided tour" on which to conclude? when was their report released? what was its purpose?
16. kevin ryan and UL certified steel.
17. aircraft impacts and WTC 1 & 2: over engineering to compensate for plane impact vs what happened on 911. (767 vs 707)

WTC 7

1. collapse footprint?
2. does it look like a CD?
3. jets of gas and debris typical of CD?
4. damage (PICS!)
5. what about fuel tanks in WTC 7?

GENERAL:

1. freefall speed of collapses? vs expected collapse time?
2. 10 times the amount of dust explained by collapsing burning building??? WTF??
3. hotspots in debris pile.

===================================================

OK, so, please note a few things:

1. the question marks don't mean that i don't know about the topic. there are only a couple topics here of which i'm not already quite familiar.

2. i need specific sources that deal with these various "issues". i can write up a document in just an hour or so that addresses all of these topics, but i don't have any sources memorized. i need sources!

3. i've striked out those topics for which i already have some good sources. (since purchasing my new laptop, i've slowly begun bookmarking interesting material along the way). that doesn't mean i can't use more sources. the more, the better. i want these people to understand just how much evidence exists!

this video is poorly organized. it seems that it's main argument is that NIST relies on fires that burned hot enough to cause the buildings to collapse. this video claims that paint chip analysis proves that these fires were not hot enough. steven jones claims that explosives were the only mode of explosion consistant with all the evidence (hot spots, molten metal, all the beams collapsing at once, the inner core collapsing and not toppling-- yes, contradictory, i know!--, witness accounts of explosions, no stacked floors, freefall, footprint, etc).

all the over used, crappy, debunked to all hell claims that CD MIHOPs rely on are present. we all can debunk this stuff with our eyes closed, our arms tied behind our backs and a couple gallons of vodka sitting in our collective guts.

what i need are sources! i need to be able to cite my counter arguments. when i talk about the melting point of steel vs. the temperatures at which it loses half its strength, i need a source. the sources aren't that tough to find, but i don't have time! the more you all can help me, the better i can help the folk who are walking into this theatre from being blind sided by 70 minutes of emotional drivel and innacuracies, distortions and lies.

i'll be picking up on this project at sometime between 5 or 6 PM. if you can respond, please do so before then.

thanks much,
anthony.
 
ref said:
Good advertising ;)

Site looks great. But one thing. You say "at which point all the links in the menu on the right will become active". The menu is on the left :D
Click to expand...

The current site is outdated :)

We've completely redesigned it since :D
 
OMGturt1es said:
4. should we see stacked floors due to the "pancake collpase"? (a picture of squashed floors would be nice)
Click to expand...
hope this helps

concrete1.jpg
 
OMGturt1es said:
does it even matter? same ****, new title.
Click to expand...
Good point. :)

OMGturt1es said:
it's called "Improbable Collapse". if you want to waste 70 minutes of your life, or you think you deserve a 70 minute punishment, i highly recommend it.
Click to expand...
If it weren't for this time-wasting, brain-punishing factor, I'd consider it a useful exercise to catalog a side-by-side comparison of the specific claims made in each of the more popular videos. That way, the next time a screening comes to a debunker's neighborhood, all he has to do is refer to the list to prepare himself for which points he might need to address.

As it is, though, I certainly wouldn't have the stamina to volunteer for the task.
 
I might be able to help on a couple of points (working from memory here).

The question about paint analysis and temperature suggests that the video might be waving the old familiar troofer talking point "the steel samples only reached 250C!".

To put that in context, you first need to find out exactly where in the buildings the steel samples NIST examined for thermal effects on paint came from. For the core column samples, that information is in NCSTAR 1-3, on page 83 of the pdf. For the exterior panel samples it's a couple of pages earlier.

Then you want to look at the illustrations of the column temperatures predicted by the fire dynamics and fire-structure interface models and see just how hot those specific columns were predicted to get on the floors whence the samples came. That information is in NCSTAR 1-5, starting around page 198 of the pdf.

If you do that, it turns out that the temperatures indicated by the state of the paint on the steel samples are congruent with what the models predicted- a fact which increases confidence that where the models predicted higher temperatures for particular columns those predictions are likely to be correct.

There are plots of the change in properties of structural steels with temperature in NCSTAR 1-6, on page 145 of the pdf.

I hope these are helpful.
 
OMGturt1es said:
i can't edit my original post any more, so i'll respond with the final list.
12. pools of molten metal and their relavence to explosives or thermi/ate.
Click to expand...

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

16. kevin ryan and UL certified steel.
Click to expand...

Kevin Ryan misrepresented himself and UL. UL does not certify steel, it set some standards ages ago, but does not certity steel. Kevin Ryan tested water for a sub company of UL and had not right nor expertise speaking on structural steel or UL.
 
Anthony,

A lot of these answers can be found in the NIST FAQ too :)
 
ktes, i had noiticed the "exterior" column wording in the paint chip analysis evidence presented, and i suspected the data was simply cherry picked. thank you for the posting the appropriate pages! that should help me out as well.

doc, i'm sure much of it is posted in the NIST FAQ, and much of it is likely found on 911myths.com, debunking911.com, gravy's loose change guide and even that draft copy of the 911 mysteries guide that you sent me. i just have such limited time that i need direct links. this way, i can download the appropriate pages, and i can take my laptop with me to my lab-- where i've no internet access!-- and complete both my petrology lab and my debunking!

kook, yeah, the UL thing is actually pretty funny, as i recall. do you have any links though? i really want to be able to cite my claims. i want to make sure i'm accurate, and i want to make sure that these people can verify that my evidence is accurate.

macman, thanks for the awesome graphic! that's exactly what i was looking for!

default, awesome graphic as well!

thanks a million guys! keep these coming! the more direct links and graphics the better. my day is going to be packed, and i'm already on no sleep from working on this. should be fun...
 
OMGturt1es said:
doc, i'm sure much of it is posted in the NIST FAQ, and much of it is likely found on 911myths.com, debunking911.com, gravy's loose change guide and even that draft copy of the 911 mysteries guide that you sent me. i just have such limited time that i need direct links. this way, i can download the appropriate pages, and i can take my laptop with me to my lab-- where i've no internet access!-- and complete both my petrology lab and my debunking!
Click to expand...

Cool :)

Just make sure you saved the NIST FAQ onto your laptop and you'll have a lot to go from if you don't have time to gather other sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom