Democracy Now! Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanic

Yao Ming Kicks Ass should pull head out of it! (in voice of Frank Costanza)

 

Working in architecture and having done damage assessment at disaster sites I feel obligated to address some of these points.

Steel actually performs very poorly in fire compared to many other building materials and has to be heavily insulated. A heavy timber building will last longer in a fire than a steel buildign with even moderate insulation. The steel doesn't burn but becomes elastic and loses its strength. I've seen first hand where steel has done this on a burned out warehouse building that had almost no insulation on the steel. What happened on the WTC wasn't that the buildings were blown apart but that the insulation on the steel was blown off by the initial explosion of the planes and then the resulting fire caused by burning office fixtures and other materials weakened the suddenly exposed steel structure until there was a systematic failure. This insulation is either drywall or spray on insulation. Take a hammer to the drywall in your house and you will see how easily it is to break. Now imagine a 767 slamming into it and you will understand how the insulation could easily be blown off.

Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane but the explosive release of energy from the collapse of the two towers greatly damaged it and blew off a lot of the protective insulation on the steel allowing it to weaken in the resultant fire but also was critically weakened by the collapse of the buildings including in the foundation.

I'm not familiar with the Winsor building in Madrid but my guess is that it was very well insulated and there wasn't an explosion that caused the insulation to be ripped off.

I've read the American Society of Engineers report and from my understanding is that while the planes were designed to withstand being hit by planes that design was based on a 727 which is a much smaller plane than the 767 more importantly though the designers of the WTC designed them to resist an impact but didn't consider the possibilty of the insulation being blown off and a sustained burn also the contractor that built the WTC also cut back on the insulation as part of cost savings. The structure actually performed admirably in regard to the impact which is why the towers didn't collapse as soon as they were hit but they collapsed at almost exactly the time as steel would be expected to become elastic in a fire like that.

This is the first I've heard of the debris being hauled to China and would like to see some proof on this. The debris from the WTC was hauled to the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island and was investigated. The American Society of Civil Engineers had a team investigating the structural debris as it was brought to Fresh Kills. I know this first hand because I wanted to volunteer for that program but I couldn't get to NYC by the time they filled up.

Of course the easy way to resolve this would be to go to Fresh Kills and look for WTC debris.

 

Let me tell you all something. I worked on the 96th floor of tower one. The floor is a big open space around a core of elevators and then there's the steel superstructure on the outside. the rest is hallow. You can see the sunlight shine through from one end to the other as the sun sets. It's nothing. You can walk into the stair well where we smokes cigs and smell the mica. It was the same smell I smelt for months after the towers were taken down.

I saw the holes. I knew there was nothing there. I looked at it from afar and wondered...what on earth is holding it up? To me, the surprise wasn't that it collapse, it was that it took down the floors beneath it. but then again, is it that surprising under that crushing weight?

There's no way bombs could have been planted without anyone noticing. People go into the stairwell to smoke every day. People wander the areas. Where would you put all that explosive to collapse the builidings?

The towers fell from the planes. Engineers see it. Everyone knows it. The buildings wasn't designed to withstand the impact of 727's plus and ensuing fire. It was one or the other. You didn't see the size of the hole that was left. I knew when I looked at the North Tower that all my friends that were there were dead. There was no question in my mind. It was so enormous.

People who by into these conspiracy theories are sick and insane. They have no abilty to see the truth.

First of all, it takes MANY MANY people to make something like this happen. One of those people are going to talk BEFORE the brown stuff hits the fan. The more people it takes, the more the chance of failure.

To take down the towers, it would have to be too many people. Planes flying into buildings timed with explosives and not a single witness noticing something suspicious?

When I worked there, every box that went into the towers was inspected. Opened. You couldn't bring a box of anything into the towers without someone looking inside of it. Security was already ultratight.

So how do these conspiracy folks work? They need to get a life and start thinking logically, and looking at the facts instead of reading B.S. off the internet.

My favorite conspiracy theory was that no Jews died in the attack. I guess my friends wife was faking all those tears at her husband's funeral...with no body. Clearly it was a lie. Anyone who advocates that no Jews died in the attack is a sick person who clearly has been brainwashed.

 

There are two flaws to all conspiracy theories.

1) They assume the goverment is competent.

2) They assume the goverment can keep a secret.

 

I say this with the utmost respect and sincerety, anyone wants to leave America for good ,you will have my complete blessings.

In fact I will personally drive you to the airport of your choice and kick in a one-way ticket for any destination of your choice. Good luck and God bless!

P.S. It's kind of funny to me that so many people hate America yet they can't wait to cross our borders and have a taste of our way of life. Makes you go hmmmmm...............????????

 

Would you consider doing some reading and study the Popular Mechanics reports and Scientific America reports from a critical analysis?

It would only be fair for you to sort through the disinformation and have a broader perspective.

If you would take the time to carefully review the rebuttals and evidence on this website you could then say that you have carefully looked at both sides of this.

Good analysis looks for conclusive evidence.

If you will carefully read the analysis on this website and reply I will be satisfied you have been honest in your research. Please consider Dr. Steven E. Jones' work along with the rebuttals to the Popular Mechanics arguments.

link

 

I'm really sorry to hear that. That sounds awful.

 

Prayers are with you...

Most tragic event of our lifetime.

 

Sifting Through
Loose Change
The 9-11Research Companion to
LOOSE CHANGE 2ND EDITION
A detailed point-by-point critique of the film using an illustrated transcript
SUMMARY
VOLUME 1: TIMELINE
VOLUME 2: THE PENTAGON
VOLUME 3: THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
VOLUME 4: UNITED FLIGHT 93
VOLUME 5: ODDITIES

Which points have value?
Which don't?
Test Your Knowledge of the Attack
and Your Critical Thinking Skills
Young filmmakers Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe and Jason Bermas created the film Loose Change, which challenges the central dogma of the official story of 9/11. Loose Change covers a great deal of material, moving from one point to another in rapid succession. It presents a long list of claims supporting the conclusion that 9/11 was engineered by insiders, but does so with a mixture of strong and flawed arguments.

The film has become a phenomenon in much the same way that programs like Unsolved Mysteries, X-Files, and The Davinci Code have: it appeals more to emotion than intellect with dramatic narration that taps into the public's anger about being lied to by the media and the Bush administration. Loose Change has recruited an enthusiastic following, many of whom are vehemently opposed to even constructive criticism of the film. In contrast, the filmmakers appear to be willing listen to criticisms, judging from the fact that pod theory, featured in the first version of Loose Change, is absent from the Second Edition.

Because of its flaws, the film is an easy target for debunkers defending the official story that the attack was the work of Islamic fundamentalists. One example is the the very detailed debunking of the entire video entitled 9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide: And debunking of various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, many people -- perhaps a vast majority of Americans -- are likely to dismiss the film's vitally important conclusions because of the many errors it makes along the way. Not surprisingly, Loose Change is being exploited by apologists for the official story to reinforce the stereotype that has long been used to by the mainstream to media to bludgeon the 9/11 Truth Movement: that all challenges to the official story are the product of irrational "conspiracy theorists." Michael Green's essay 'Loose Change' An analysis, which covers the film's first edition, illustrates the problem with its fast-and-loose approach to the facts:

If rotten fish is wrapped in the same package as delicious truffles, few people with good judgment or good taste will attempt to retrieve and salvage the truffles.
This critique addresses the numerous errors in the film by inserting comments after each point in the transcript. (It is interesting that most of these errors are advanced to support 'theories' that the four jetliners -- especially Flight 77 -- did not crash where reported.) It is beyond the scope of this critique to examine what the film does not address. For example, despite its considerable breadth, Loose Change manages to miss many of the starkest anomalies of the official story, such as the total failure of the air defense network and the thorough blasting of the Twin Towers to dust and metallic fragments.

We provide the 9-11 Research Companion to Loose Change 2nd Edition to foster an understanding that, despite its many errors, the film raises questions that urgently demand serious scrutiny. We look to achieve three major objectives:

To help separate substantial claims about the attack from ones without merit
To provide additional resources for readers to explore issues raised by the film
To help the producers of Loose Change to make better future versions of their film

link

 

i need time to look thru this stuff, but i will look thru it. that being said...every argument that has been presented on the side of the conspiracy theory has continued to be very weak and very anecdotal. i haven't read the pop mechanics and scientific american articles on the 9/11 attacks either just so you know.

all i have done is look at the strength of arguments put forth by both sides in this thread and glanced at a few web sites. from that perspective i don't know how you can even look at the conspiracy theories seriously because they are so anecdotal. the non-conspiracy side puts out facts and evidence and the conspiracy side says "well i think i heard something and i can't explain it so it must be xyz even though i really don't even know".

 

I read the pop mechanics but not the scientific american. It was convincing.
I read several rebuttals from respected scientists- equally convincing.

But my own conclusions come from neither. I believe physical evidence is the most easily to construe one way or another.

I am convinced we do not know the truth about 9-11 because of the research done by Michael Ruppert in his book "Crossing the Rubicon".

If you would read this book you will have the very best evidence that the official story on 9-11 is full of holes, lies and misinformation. The Kean Commission was a set up and Dick Cheney is the key player in the operation.

I would gladly send you a copy of the book. It changed my view of politics.

edit- and this from a formerly die hard republican...

9-11 sent me reeling away from the republican party.

 

The Collapse of the WTC Not Caused by Jet Fuel
KEVIN RYAN / Underwriters Laboratories 11nov04
link

The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.



Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html
CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf
http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11)
http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf
Kevin Ryan
Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

source: http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php 16nov04


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Frank W. Gayle is leading the team of experts addressing the steel forensics aspects of NIST's investigation of the World Trade Center collapses. His team is evaluating steel recovered from the WTC site to determine its quality, mechanical properties, and behavior under impact and high temperature conditions.

Dr. Gayle currently serves as Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division in the NIST Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory and as Group Leader for the Division's Materials Structure and Characterization Group. His work at NIST has covered a range of metallurgical research addressing metals characterization and structure-property relationships. He holds several patents and has published over 50 archival research articles.

Dr. Gayle holds a Doctor of Science degree in Metallurgy from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1985). He also earned a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering (1975) and a Master of Science in Materials Science (1976) from Duke University. Dr. Gayle spent 11 years in industry at Pratt & Whitney Aircraft and Reynolds Metals Company in the field of alloy development for aerospace applications prior to coming to NIST.

Position
Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division

Material Science and Engineering Laboratory

Task
Project Leader, Project 3:
Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel

Education
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ph.D., Metallurgy, 1985

source: http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle 16nov04

General Contact Information

NIST Contacts
General Public and Technical Professionals:
NIST World Trade Center Investigation Team
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8610
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610
Phone: (301) 975-6051
Fax: (301) 975-6122
Email: wtc@nist.gov

News Media:
Michael E. Newman
NIST Public and Business Affairs
Phone: (301) 975-3025
Fax: (301) 926-1630
Email: michael.newman@nist.gov

source: http://wtc.nist.gov/contacts/ 16nov04

 

ah, more baseless attempts to link "conspiracy theories" with antisemitism - yawn.

and if you really did have a friend die at the wtc i am sorry to hear that, but you are the same person who lied about your ethnicity to try and bolster your argument in the senator macaca thread, so pardon me if i may be a little suspicious.

 

why did building 7 collapse when it wasnt hit by a plane?

why did norad stand down on 9/11?

why did bush tell us that nobody could have imagined flying planes into buildings when on 9/11/1 the pentagon and cia were running drills wargaming just that?

 

Have you read "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert?

 

It's ok...that was 5 years ago and sometimes I just get emotional about the subject especially conspiracy theories. What a miserable week that was.

 

Thanks...it's all tragedy. All the killing that goes on...if there's one lesson to be taken from 9/11, and just one, I hope it would be that once gone, life is irrecoverable, and should be treated as the most precious thing there is. Our lives, and the lives of people half way around the world.

 

I knew 7 people, two of which were friends. Luckily, our group had flexible work days and most people didn't show up until 9:30...so I was very happy that many of them survived.

Conspiracy therories are a joke. What do you think really happened? Do you think there was more then planes piloted by Al Qaeda members? Do you think Bush pretended to be a moron by reading my pet goat after knowing of the attack. Do you think he was planning on flying to Nebraska that day and looking like a complete coward?

What do people think too down the towers? If it wasn't the fires...then what?

 

actually
The only Conspiracy Theory I give Credence is
They knew it was coming . . and just let it happened

To me. . that is the full extent of it
requires no Real planning . . . It requires not great unmanagable secrecy
It just takes willful blindness and recognition of how useful it would be

Like someone who says let someone touch the hot stove
that they know is hot
because that way they will learn it the lesson more thoroughly
They will learn to listen to what I been telling them

Not saying it happened
but
that is about the only one that has a level of credibility to me

Rocket River

 

from rhester's post #72 -
"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all."

how come other buildings which were much closer to the WTC buildings didnt collapse like building 7? when you look at the video footage, all three buildings free-fell. there was no pancaking. it would seem that if they really fell due to fire that the floors would have been falling on top of each other all the way down rather than the central collapse and seeming free-fall, which is what we see in the videos.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm
A shipment of scrap steel from New York's collapsed World Trade Center will arrive in Shanghai tomorrow, according to media reports. The steel was bought by Shanghai Baosteel Group Corp. and several other domestic mills, which are always eager to buy scrap metal.

Baosteel Group, the nation's largest steel firm, has purchased 50,000 tons of the scrap steel from "Ground Zero," the ruins of the September 11 terrorist attack, at no more than US$120 each ton, according to yesterday's Beijing Youth Daily.

Most of the scrap will be recycled into ingots, but part of the relics will be mold-ed into WTC souvenirs, the paper said.

Another shipment of 10,000 tons of scrap from the WTC arrived in India earlier this month, reported Shanghai Morning Post. The metal will be melted down and recycled into kitchenware and other household items, the paper said.

New York authorities' decision to ship the twin towers' scrap to recyclers has raised the anger of victims' families and some engineers who believe the massive girders should be further examined to help determine how the towers collapsed.