You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

Guest-accessible forum This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

Politics.523

Topic HomeTopicsForum HomeForumsHomeSearchSettingsHelpExit

9/11 is a Fraud Created by the Government

--------

{Politics.523.4091}: Tom Austin {taustin} Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:03:48 EDT (4 lines)

there is being able to prove something, and there is being able to
understand that something has been proved.    I'm no expert at subatomic
physics, but I don't go around claiming they haven't proven the existence
of a Higgs Boson.

--------

{Politics.523.4092}: Senator Lampoon {yesdeer} Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:30:17 EDT (HTML)

Well gee. Higgs Boson hasn't been witnessed on tv like planes flying into the twin towers was. Ask 100 people if the give a shit about either and find out which is worth a conspiracy.

--------

{Politics.523.4093}: Tom Austin {taustin} Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:02:18 EDT (3 lines)

ask 100 people what a Higgs Boson is, and you will get 97 answers that
he's a reality TV star.   And those same 97 will tell you that reality TV
is reality, and not scripted at all.

--------

{Politics.523.4094}: Elizabeth Costello {lizcostello} Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:39:17 EDT (2 lines)

Why should I look into it?  you didn't.  As I said, if you had there
would have been a link.

--------

{Politics.523.4095}: Tom Austin {taustin} Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:43:26 EDT (2 lines)

I never said you should look into it.   you've already demonstrated that
you wouldn't understand it anyway.  be quiet now, grownups are talking.

--------

{Politics.523.4096}: Elizabeth Costello {lizcostello} Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:51:19 EDT (4 lines)

LOL no one thinks you are a grown-up Tom.  And now that we know you
are a truther, there is no doubt what you are.

Talk to Leland Yee.  He's one of yours.

--------

{Politics.523.4097}: Jay Hoffman {resist} Thu, 10 Apr 2014 22:28:17 EDT (19 lines)

I think Tom was mentioning that he has had decades of engineering
experience and therefore has pertinent knowledge concerning the
strength of skyscrapers and what it would take to demolish them.

Isn't this relevant to understanding what happened on 9/11?

9/11 was the trigger for wars based on lies, torture based on lies and
an adversarial relationship of the government against the people.

Why should the official and often bizarre government version of the
events be assumed to be the truth?

Why should such a stance be so adversarial to the point that
questioning any of the government conspiracy narrative be one in which
those who question are exposed to epithets and scorn?

Why is that those who so often question everything a government does
under one administration have no questions about government when it is
lead by someone they approve of?

--------

{Politics.523.4098}: Elizabeth Costello {lizcostello} Fri, 11 Apr 2014 09:44:48 EDT (3 lines)

Jay,

It would be relevant if he was objective and trustworthy.

--------

{Politics.523.4099}: Senator Lampoon {yesdeer} Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:54:32 EDT (HTML)

An appeal to authority is one of Tom's funniest dodges, especially because he calls others on it.

--------

{Politics.523.4100}: Jay Hoffman {resist} Fri, 11 Apr 2014 12:32:14 EDT (5 lines)

"It would be relevant if he was objective and trustworthy."

That is your subjective response based on  … what?

kettle - black??????

--------

{Politics.523.4101}: Tom Austin {taustin} Fri, 11 Apr 2014 13:15:40 EDT (7 lines)

yeah.  I'm "dodging" by mentioning my credentials.


If you want to engage in a  structural engineering dialog about WTC, bring
it on.    That's my brier patch.   You're free to bring in your own
champion if you (correctly) suspect that you won't be able to keep up once
we get hard-core technical.

--------

{Politics.523.4102}: Elizabeth Costello {lizcostello} Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:10:49 EDT (1 line)

What credentials are those Tom?  What have you actually done?

--------

{Politics.523.4103}: Otis Dill {Otis99} Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:18:14 EDT (18 lines)

As long as you're appealing to authority, the WTC designer Mr Leslie
Robertson said the following about the buildings' design to withstand
plane impact:

The twin towers of the World Trade Center were designed to resist safely
the impacting by the largest aircraft of that time...the intercontinental
version of the Boeing 707.  In no small measure because of the high level
of competence of the men and women of LERA, each of the towers resisted
the impact of an aircraft larger than the 707.  Yes, fire brought down the
towers, but the structural integrity created by the engineers of LERA
allowed perhaps thousands of persons to evacuate the buildings prior to
the fire-induced collapse."

http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/LesRobertson.html

Impact alone due not induce collapse.  The fires and impact combined did,
according to Robertson.  You can't get a higher authority than the WTC
designer.

--------

{Politics.523.4104}: Tonu Aun {tonu} Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:09:49 EDT (2 lines)

Sure you can, Otis, any designer always has some inherent conformation
bias.

--------

{Politics.523.4105}: Jay Hoffman {resist} Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:21:31 EDT (13 lines)

As long as you're appealing to authority, the WTC design certifier
Kevin Ryan said the following about the buildings' design to withstand
plane impact

WTC Construction Certifiers Say Towers Should Have Easily Withstood
Jet Fuel Temperatures


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

>>>…. any designer always has some inherent conformation bias.<<<

aparently

--------

{Politics.523.4106}: Tom Austin {taustin} Fri, 11 Apr 2014 16:45:31 EDT (3 lines)

I told you already, Liz.  I have an engineering degree and 30+ years
professional experience as a mechanical engineer.   I've done everything
from furnaces to hearing aids in that time.

--------

{Politics.523.4107}: Elizabeth Costello {lizcostello} Fri, 11 Apr 2014 20:27:27 EDT (6 lines)

You say that Tom, but it is certainly not evidenced in anything you
post.  How many buildings have you engineered?

Actually I assume none and I don't care.  I just love the fact that
all you guys are truthers.  That just makes my day.  It's the kind of
thing I expect from Richard, but the rest of you?  Amazing.

--------

{Politics.523.4108}: Jay Hoffman {resist} Fri, 11 Apr 2014 20:43:40 EDT (1 line)

If they are truthers Liz must be a liar. I'm fine with that.

--------

{Politics.523.4109}: Otis Dill {Otis99} Sat, 12 Apr 2014 09:38:41 EDT (8 lines)

You are the liar, Jay.

Jay Hoffman: <As long as you're appealing to authority, the WTC design
certifier Kevin Ryan...>

That's not true.  This gentleman is not what you claimed he was. Appealing
to authority is one thing, but lying in order to get there is something
else.

--------

{Politics.523.4110}: Jay Hoffman {resist} Sat, 12 Apr 2014 12:47:14 EDT (14 lines)

As long as you're appealing to authority, the WTC design certifier
of steel components,Kevin Ryan said the following about the buildings'
design to withstand
plane impact

WTC Construction Certifiers Say Towers Should Have Easily Withstood
Jet Fuel Temperatures


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

>>>…. any designer always has some inherent conformation bias.<<<

apparently

--------

{Politics.523.4111}: Otis Di {Otis99} Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:43:53 EDT (27 lines)

Jay Hoffman: <Kevin Ryan said the following about the buildingss' design
to withstand impact:
WTC Construction Certifiers Say Towers Should Have Easily Withstood Jet
Fuel Temperatures>

That is a lie.  Ryan's employer, Underwriter Labs, said nothing of the
sort and were not the WTC certifiers:

From an e-mail to Kevin Ryan, dated 1st December 2003, from J. Thomas
Chapin, UL's General Manager, Fire and Construction:

"UL does not certify structural steel.

......The floor assembly in the World Trade Center was not a UL
tested assembly."

"https://630e7049-a-62cb3a1a-s-
sites.googlegroups.com/site/enigmanwoliaison/55-
5ExhibitCExcerptsfromemailcorresp.pdf?
attachauth=ANoY7crWC7MpxPfzyQVqXHyqGuXQMna-BOKbSScxBe-
q4EiCWOrfvyp017R8x3ykxi72uIwlEy0A_X2CVCqKIrKWU3FXaBL13cYgEZfmAuFN2_86zZowO
rGONj0k2CX_eg3jpxb5Cm9X9jYeEZmh4-ia_847wMlNGBTkJirJm5vjrc0-v7b0FdwD_acKs5-
_oqcwE7nFjvFfci580IAnJ8VHFX8hrJOM2CdW4trxFayCAa-6iVu20heSGKFCo-
HEGdXytbfF8oib&attredirects=0"

If you're going to appeal to authority, at least get the authority right.
How many wrong statements can you make in a single sentence, Jay?

--------

{Politics.523.4112}: {resist} Sun, 13 Apr 2014 01:29:59 EDT (0 lines)
{erased by resist Sun, 13 Apr 2014 01:30:29 EDT}

--------

{Politics.523.4113}: Jay Hoffman {resist} Sun, 13 Apr 2014 01:31:43 EDT (96 lines)

The appeal to authority in my case was the correct one.


Kevin Ryan tested the material assemblies which were given for test
samples which included the structural steel, the fireproofing and the
wallboard being used for the construction of the Twin Towers. Since he
was technically testing the entire assemblies you are technically
correct that he wasn't testing the structural steel minus the other
components. But that is a small point.

Your paper says the following:

Kevin Ryan is/was an underwriter who tests materials too see if they
meet certified requirements.  The Underwriter's Laboratory does not
directly test the structural steel, instead it tests the assemblies
that are constructed with the steel. The assemblies consist of the
steel with the fireproofing and wallboard. The results of the tests
are published in the Fire Resistance Directory. The architect in most
cases then specifies the design in the directory that meets the code
requirement.

"We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on and it did
beautifully.

A lot was learned from the World Trade Center fire, which was in many
ways, the perfect storm, with extremely high temperatures reached
almost immediately and sustained for a very long time.

Yes, the building was designed to withstand the shock of being hit by
a 707.

______________________

That is what he wrote to his colleagues at Underwriter's Laboratory.
In it he mentions the quandary of unexpected very high and sustained
temperatures from the kerosene jet fuel fire.  He didn't confide
further questions to that particular colleague at that time.

However the URL that I posted gives his full response to o Frank Gayle
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Instead of referring to the URL (which you did not critique - possibly
because you did not read it) I will list the important points.


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. He states "What caused the building
to collapse is the airplane fuelburning 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 Browns 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. 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, and support your team's August 2003 update as
detailed by the Associated Press, 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 buildings steel core to "soften and buckle."  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. 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, Im 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.

Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding
the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

--------

{Politics.523.4114}: Otis Dill {Otis99} Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:46:24 EDT (2 lines)

Let me see if I can clear up your authority's confusion.  Fires And the
impact caused the towers to collapse.

--------

{Politics.523.4115}: Jay Hoffman {resist} Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:30:04 EDT (2 lines)

Yes, Kevin Ryan - the authority says your story doesn't add up. So it's
clear you and your crew are confused.

--------

Forum
Topic HomeTopicsForum HomeForumsHomeSearchSettingsHelpExit
Forum Guidelines
Guest-accessible forum This forum allows unregistered guests access to read. You must register to post in this forum.

You are in Guest mode. If you want to post, you'll need to register (we promise it's painless).
Registered users should log in now. (Forgot your password?)

The New Café  Home | Your Hotlist and Directory | Independent Partner Forums |
FAQ | User Guidelines | Privacy Policy