Guest Steve Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:47:47 -0400, Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote: >Ned Flanders wrote: >> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message >> news:ev5a03$c8c$1@panix5.panix.com... >> >> <chomp> >> >>>> Cite for the steel guy. >> >> >> Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to. > >I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening. > >> I understand that his company were responsible for >> certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly >> not the case for WTC 7. > >The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building >was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers. > >No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise. No one with any brains even suggests that it was mysterious. >> However building regulations require >> the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the >> same or similar high tensile structural steel. >> > >Just so. The gymnastics of the fire theory are prodigious, and strain >credulity. Despite all the handwaving about a diesel fuel leak and >fire, there is no evidence to prove that this actually happened, not to >mention the fact that the collapse began on the opposite side of the >building, nearly a block away. > >Frankly, after the presentation, which included the testimony of janitor >William Rodriguez, the last man to escape the doomed WTC 1, I was >shaken. It's time to demand the truth, let the chips fall where they may. > >9/11 = INSIDE JOB > inside your head, maybe..... Quote
Guest Steve Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:59:11 +1000, "Ned Flanders" <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote: > >"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message >news:57r6olF2e8lsnU1@mid.individual.net... > > > <chomp> > > >> > Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to. >> >> I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening. >> >> > I understand that his company were responsible for >> > certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly >> > not the case for WTC 7. >> >> The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building >> was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers. >> >> No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise. > > >There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers. >Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel. <LOL> not melt, just make them bend enough.... >> > However building regulations require >> > the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the >> > same or similar high tensile structural steel. >> > >> >> Just so. The gymnastics of the fire theory are prodigious, and strain >> credulity. Despite all the handwaving about a diesel fuel leak and >> fire, there is no evidence to prove that this actually happened, not to >> mention the fact that the collapse began on the opposite side of the >> building, nearly a block away. >> >> Frankly, after the presentation, which included the testimony of janitor >> William Rodriguez, the last man to escape the doomed WTC 1, I was >> shaken. It's time to demand the truth, let the chips fall where they may. >> >> 9/11 = INSIDE JOB > >Well said. > Quote
Guest Steve Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 14:06:34 +1000, "Ned Flanders" <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote: ><cut n paste from http://wtc7.net/ > > > and why has the media >remained silent? It as to do with not wanting to look like a bunch of idiots... Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 In article <wlYRh.1892$SK3.856@trnddc03>, David Morgan \(MAMS\) <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote: > >"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message... > >> >They frequently leave out parts that make it clear that the >> >guy/gal's use of "explosion", etc was followed by text that makes it >> >clear that it was just 500,000 tons of stuff falling around him. > >Wow... is this ever a shill, bullsh t, assertion. I note that you never say that any of my examples are false. You deleted the documented examples i dug up. Thank you for giving me an excuse to post them again so even more of the lurkers can see what bullshit the truth movement is. Always check Truthie quotes for NY firemem in the official transcripts. The Truthies have a habit of deleating firemem s words that show their claims are lies. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html Always ask Truthies for citations to undedited source material. Be suspect of any specific claim until the citation can be verified. There is a pattern and practice of some people in the "Truth Movement" committing fraud and a huge echo chamber of people mindlessly repeating things. I check quotes, That's how I came across this crap. There is zero effort by the Truthies to fact check and correct their own material. The worst are the alleged "peer reviewed" sites. They contain fraudlent quotes by NYFD/EMS personel that can be shown to differ from the public record. One of the steps in peer review is fact checking. Examples; From many Truthy site; http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html It was like a professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'." - NYC Paramedic Daniel Rivera The Truthies edited Rivera's text to make it clear what he saw. Here it is. Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN A: THAT NOISE IT WAS NOISE Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR WHAT DID YOU SEE A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR POP POP POP POP POP THAVS EXACTLY WHAT BECAUSE THOUGHT IT WASTHAT WHEN HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE THAVS WHEN SAWTHE BUILDING COMING DOWN Q: WHAT DID YOU DO A: RUN MOST OF THE PEOPLE RAN INTO THE http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110035.PDF If you think the NYT site lies, I can put you in touch with Rivera'a union rep and you can accuse him of saying things he didn't say, maybe to his face. Here is the page of official testimony for about 500 first responders. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html You can check lots of trythy quotes here, and if the Truty site says something different, it's not impossible to contact any of them and verify quote. I first came across these fraud edited NYFD quotes on Jones' "peer reviewed" 911 site. (there are more misleadingly edited quotes there). One task of peer review is fact checking. It's clear that the site is bullshit. That's enough of the fine people in NYFD and EMS. Here are more; ------------------------------------------------------------ Many sites have quotes similar to this; Danielle O'Brien commenting on how air traffic controllers thought Flight 77 was a military plane based on its maneuverability; http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html but it leaves out the end of the statement, "... you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." My point isn't that the quote is goldplate accurate, it's that the Truthies have edited pertenant info out, not told us, and not given URLs to sources. ---------------------------------------------------------- Loose Change quotes the coroner, Wally Miller, as seeing no bodies or blood the day of Flight 93's crash; over the next several weeks Miller goes on to identify 12 passengers "using mostly dental records."[31] http://www.postgazette.com/headlines/20011003crash1003p3.asp ------------------------------------------------------ There are quotes like thisinterview of chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard focusing on the weaknesses of Hani Hanjour's flying skills when he took Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. "He could not fly at all. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html It fails to clarify Bernard's expert opinion on Hanjour's ability to hit the Pentagon. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it." http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nynewsday_sep23.html ------------------------- http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html --------- My favorite example of how these conspiracy theorists such as the guys behind Loose Change selectively edit information in order to get the desired conclusion is the CNN interview with the guy outside the Pentagon right after the plane hit. The guy said (and I'm paraphrasing) "It was a red and blue plane, clearly a United Jet, and it crashed into the side of the Pentagon. It looked like a missile when it was coming toward the building and there was a giant explosion when I saw the plane hit the building." The conspiracy theorists edit out everything except for "It looked like a missile" and use that as absolute proof that a missile and not a plane hit the Pentagon. ----------- I've been asking for months about where this 35 seconds of video came from. I'd like to know what the Truthies edited out, given the above. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287 ----------- -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 In article <46186048$0$22073$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, Ned Flanders <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote: > >"Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message >news:86DRh.383$3P3.281@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > > >> And the guy who got fired ? >> Who was he ? > > >Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to. >I understand that his company were responsible for >certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly >not the case for WTC 7. >However building regulations require >the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the >same or similar high tensile structural steel. > OK. I remember. He said the fact that UL didn't "certify" the steel at WTC and that this was in some way part of the conspiracy. The fact is that UL doesn't certify any steel. As an employee of a subsidiary of UL, he was fired for what sounds to me like a legit reason; making public errouneous statements about his employeer. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 In article <46182343$0$22073$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, Ned Flanders <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote: > >"Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message >news:ev86jm$326$1@panix5.panix.com... > ><snip> > >> That's a fine sentiment, but start from the fact, true so far, that >> there is nobody in the world with appropriate expertise that says that >> explosives/thermite/thermate explain who WTC1/2/7 collapsed and that a >> 757 hit the Pentagon. >> >> Feel free to indict and impeach the Bush administration for their lies >> and war, but base the case on what they did, and the public record, >> not bullshit. > >Agreed. >But there are way too many anomalies concerning 9/11 to ignore. >Please feel free to dismiss them all, and believe whatever you want. name some of these "anomalies. 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists A useful guide by Donna Ferentes 1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc. 2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length. 3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make. 4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth. 5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account. 6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same. 7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot. 8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist. 9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely. 10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question. A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore. Wikipedia: conspiracy theory guide 1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence; Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence. 2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact; Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience. 3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions; Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals. 4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators; Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person. 5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators; May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc. 6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning; Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones. 7. Appeals to 'common sense'; Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena. 8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies; Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument. 9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review; Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge. 10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science; At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts. 11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities; Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving. 12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative; When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.' -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 In article <2RYRh.644$vo2.352@trnddc01>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm mumbled > > "Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> ... > > > Hey, learn how to read headers and get the quotes right. > > > Sorry Steve... I don't see a number of people's posts due to > the filtering of brain-dead shill. I was responding to Dykes via > your quote of him, and I cut the wrong attribution... my bad. Kind of dishonest of you to filter someone and then try to respond to them. -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 In article <wlYRh.1892$SK3.856@trnddc03>, findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm mumbled > > 110 stories.... 11 seconds. > Yup, them particle accelerators we shot at them from orbit sure worked.. -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 In article <46186048$0$22073$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit mumbled > > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message > news:86DRh.383$3P3.281@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > > > > And the guy who got fired ? > > Who was he ? > > > Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to. > I understand that his company were responsible for > certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly > not the case for WTC 7. > However building regulations require > the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the > same or similar high tensile structural steel. Looks like someone who attempted to speak for his employer when no authorised and got fired for it. -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 In article <57r6olF2e8lsnU1@mid.individual.net>, Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote: >Ned Flanders wrote: >> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message >> news:ev5a03$c8c$1@panix5.panix.com... >> >> <chomp> >> >>>> Cite for the steel guy. >> >> >> Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to. > >I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening. > >> I understand that his company were responsible for >> certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly >> not the case for WTC 7. > >The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building >was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers. > >No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise. "No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise." Bullshit. The fires weren't "small". There were major. NYFD couldn't fight them becuase there was no water in the fire hydrant systemn, most of NYFD's trucks were destroyed, and a couple hundred firemen were dead. It's funny that Trtuthie videos never show the south side of WTC7, which was on fire, big-time. Here's one: The FDNY Deputy Chief on-scene that day, Peter Hayden, repeatedly used the term "pull" when talking about "pulling everybody back" and to pull the firefighters from the building. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html Note he also says that the building was severely damaged and eveloped a "large body of fire". He further states that they knew around 2pm that it was going to collapse, which is hours before it fell. In terms of demolition, "pull" involves attaching cables to the building and literally pulling it down with heavy equipment. It's what they did with the remains of building 6 days after the attack. It's nowhere near what happened with building 7 on the day of the attack. All evidence points to the fact that WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition, but simply another victim of severe structural damage and fire, just like the towers. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 In article <46186757$0$16554$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, Ned Flanders <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote: > >"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message >news:57r6olF2e8lsnU1@mid.individual.net... > > > <chomp> > > >> > Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to. >> >> I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening. >> >> > I understand that his company were responsible for >> > certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly >> > not the case for WTC 7. >> >> The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building >> was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers. >> >> No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise. > > >There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers. >Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel. > > >> > However building regulations require >> > the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the >> > same or similar high tensile structural steel. >> > >> >> Just so. The gymnastics of the fire theory are prodigious, and strain >> credulity. Despite all the handwaving about a diesel fuel leak and >> fire, there is no evidence to prove that this actually happened, not to >> mention the fact that the collapse began on the opposite side of the >> building, nearly a block away. >> >> Frankly, after the presentation, which included the testimony of janitor >> William Rodriguez, the last man to escape the doomed WTC 1, I was >> shaken. It's time to demand the truth, let the chips fall where they may. >> >> 9/11 = INSIDE JOB > >Well said. > > The fires weren't "small". There were major. NYFD couldn't fight them becuase there was no water in the hydrant systemn, most of NYFD's trucks were destroyed, and a couple hundred firemen were dead. It's funny that Trtuthie videos never show the south side of WTC7, which was on fire, big-time. Here's one: The FDNY Deputy Chief on-scene that day, Peter Hayden, repeatedly used the term "pull" when talking about "pulling everybody back" and to pull the firefighters from the building. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html Note he also says that the building was severely damaged and eveloped a "large body of fire". He further states that they knew around 2pm that it was going to collapse, which is hours before it fell. In terms of demolition, "pull" involves attaching cables to the building and literally pulling it down with heavy equipment. It's what they did with the remains of building 6 days after the attack. It's nowhere near what happened with building 7 on the day of the attack. All evidence points to the fact that WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition, but simply another victim of severe structural damage and fire, just like the towers. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 In article <46186911$0$5745$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, Ned Flanders <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote: ><cut n paste from http://wtc7.net/ > > >Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, >2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, >but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. "the governemt" never said anything. Lots of people speaking for lots of agencies have. NIST and professional engineering publications. See links, below for a few. You are welcome to comment on these claims. You are NOT welcome to deny that they exist. It's typical of the "Truth Movement" to lie by trying to believe that there is no public record for the events of 9/11. If they were honest, they's point to the public record and show how it's wrong or incomplete. No. They claim, a million times, that there is no public record. > The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the >crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in >May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed. Cite something that supprts that claim that is NOT on a Truthie website. please. > >Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most >mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media >remained silent? Becuase there was nearly a half a million tons of the stuff and the vast majority was not interesting. They kepts lots of bits for later analysis; See http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-2873.html http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC%20Response%20Presentation%2011122002%20text.pdf Steel was inspected as it was being shipped out, as mentioned in this clip; "NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY).who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards (Item 13 from http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) Other links http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recoverhttp://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#metal http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#micro http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1 http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 In article <e8ih13hvlek965312oh0fegsl5ovs4s1vt@4ax.com>, Steve <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote: >On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:59:11 +1000, "Ned Flanders" ><iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote: > >> >>"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message >>news:57r6olF2e8lsnU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> >> <chomp> >> >> >>> > Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to. >>> >>> I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening. >>> >>> > I understand that his company were responsible for >>> > certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly >>> > not the case for WTC 7. >>> >>> The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building >>> was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers. >>> >>> No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise. >> >> >>There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers. >>Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel. > ><LOL> not melt, just make them bend enough.... > And expand (about 6 inches per 100 ft @ 500C) which puts tremendous stress on the rest ofteh structure. The sustained heat (6 hours) also cooks the strenght out of any concrete. > The fires weren't "small". There were major. NYFD couldn't fight them becuase there was no water in the fire hydrant systemn, most of NYFD's trucks were destroyed, and a couple hundred firemen were dead. It's funny that Trtuthie videos never show the south side of WTC7, which was on fire, big-time. Here's one: The FDNY Deputy Chief on-scene that day, Peter Hayden, repeatedly used the term "pull" when talking about "pulling everybody back" and to pull the firefighters from the building. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html Note he also says that the building was severely damaged and eveloped a "large body of fire". He further states that they knew around 2pm that it was going to collapse, which is hours before it fell. In terms of demolition, "pull" involves attaching cables to the building and literally pulling it down with heavy equipment. It's what they did with the remains of building 6 days after the attack. It's nowhere near what happened with building 7 on the day of the attack. All evidence points to the fact that WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition, but simply another victim of severe structural damage and fire, just like the towers. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 In article <57r6olF2e8lsnU1@mid.individual.net>, Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote: >Ned Flanders wrote: >> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message >> news:ev5a03$c8c$1@panix5.panix.com... >> >> <chomp> >> >>>> Cite for the steel guy. >> >> >> Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to. > >I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening. Did he tell you that he was fired for Making Shit Up, in public about his employer? > >> I understand that his company were responsible for >> certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly >> not the case for WTC 7. > Well, you are missunderstood. UL doesn't set standards for steel. ASTM does. http://www.key-to-steel.com/Articles/Art23.htm Sorry to puncture your belief system. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Tankfixer Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 In article <evb2sh$m3i$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com mumbled > In article <e8ih13hvlek965312oh0fegsl5ovs4s1vt@4ax.com>, > Steve <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote: > >On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:59:11 +1000, "Ned Flanders" > ><iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote: > > > >> > >>"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message > >>news:57r6olF2e8lsnU1@mid.individual.net... > >> > >> > >> <chomp> > >> > >> > >>> > Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to. > >>> > >>> I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening. > >>> > >>> > I understand that his company were responsible for > >>> > certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly > >>> > not the case for WTC 7. > >>> > >>> The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building > >>> was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers. > >>> > >>> No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise. > >> > >> > >>There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers. > >>Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel. > > > ><LOL> not melt, just make them bend enough.... > > > > And expand (about 6 inches per 100 ft @ 500C) which puts tremendous > stress on the rest ofteh structure. I would suggest the failure point was not the beams but the bolts hlding them together... -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." Quote
Guest Al Dykes Posted April 8, 2007 Posted April 8, 2007 In article <PV9Sh.135664$_73.88991@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote: >In article <evb2sh$m3i$1@panix5.panix.com>, adykes@panix.com mumbled >> In article <e8ih13hvlek965312oh0fegsl5ovs4s1vt@4ax.com>, >> Steve <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote: >> >On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:59:11 +1000, "Ned Flanders" >> ><iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >>"Defendario" <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote in message >> >>news:57r6olF2e8lsnU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> >> >> >> >> <chomp> >> >> >> >> >> >>> > Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to. >> >>> >> >>> I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening. >> >>> >> >>> > I understand that his company were responsible for >> >>> > certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly >> >>> > not the case for WTC 7. >> >>> >> >>> The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building >> >>> was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers. >> >>> >> >>> No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise. >> >> >> >> >> >>There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers. >> >>Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel. >> > >> ><LOL> not melt, just make them bend enough.... >> > >> >> And expand (about 6 inches per 100 ft @ 500C) which puts tremendous >> stress on the rest ofteh structure. > >I would suggest the failure point was not the beams but the bolts hlding >them together... > IOW, the joints. I've made reference to joint failure in several places and NIST pubs have pictures of same for WTC1/2. You are correct that it is the bolt that fails, and it is LOUD when that happens. I used to hang out in a metalurgy lab where they did tensile strenght tests to descruction. Same thing. -- a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001 Quote
Guest Defendario Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Steve wrote: > On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:47:47 -0400, Defendario > <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote: > >> Ned Flanders wrote: >>> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message >>> news:ev5a03$c8c$1@panix5.panix.com... >>> >>> <chomp> >>> >>>>> Cite for the steel guy. >>> >>> Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to. >> I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening. >> >>> I understand that his company were responsible for >>> certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly >>> not the case for WTC 7. >> The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building >> was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers. >> >> No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise. > > No one with any brains even suggests that it was mysterious. > Your ad hom bomb is ignored, shill. >>> However building regulations require >>> the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the >>> same or similar high tensile structural steel. >>> >> Just so. The gymnastics of the fire theory are prodigious, and strain >> credulity. Despite all the handwaving about a diesel fuel leak and >> fire, there is no evidence to prove that this actually happened, not to >> mention the fact that the collapse began on the opposite side of the >> building, nearly a block away. >> >> Frankly, after the presentation, which included the testimony of janitor >> William Rodriguez, the last man to escape the doomed WTC 1, I was >> shaken. It's time to demand the truth, let the chips fall where they may. >> >> 9/11 = INSIDE JOB >> > > inside your head, maybe..... > IOW, you have nothing. PLONK Quote
Guest Steve Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 21:00:17 -0400, Defendario <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote: >Steve wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:47:47 -0400, Defendario >> <Defendario@netscape.com> wrote: >> >>> Ned Flanders wrote: >>>> "Al Dykes" <adykes@panix.com> wrote in message >>>> news:ev5a03$c8c$1@panix5.panix.com... >>>> >>>> <chomp> >>>> >>>>>> Cite for the steel guy. >>>> >>>> Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to. >>> I listened to him speak today. It was very enlightening. >>> >>>> I understand that his company were responsible for >>>> certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly >>>> not the case for WTC 7. >>> The collapse of WTC 7 is far more problematical though. The building >>> was designed to be considerably sturdier than the overdesigned Towers. >>> >>> No one has yet offered an explanation/model for its mysterious demise. >> >> No one with any brains even suggests that it was mysterious. >> > >Your ad hom bomb is ignored, shill. hey, that's cool.. I hope you don't mind, but I'm still laughing over your use of the word,"mysterious." I do understand, however, how things that appear quite ordinary to us normal people can appear pretty mysterious to people like yourself. >>>> However building regulations require >>>> the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the >>>> same or similar high tensile structural steel. >>>> >>> Just so. The gymnastics of the fire theory are prodigious, and strain >>> credulity. Despite all the handwaving about a diesel fuel leak and >>> fire, there is no evidence to prove that this actually happened, not to >>> mention the fact that the collapse began on the opposite side of the >>> building, nearly a block away. >>> >>> Frankly, after the presentation, which included the testimony of janitor >>> William Rodriguez, the last man to escape the doomed WTC 1, I was >>> shaken. It's time to demand the truth, let the chips fall where they may. >>> >>> 9/11 = INSIDE JOB >>> >> >> inside your head, maybe..... >> > >IOW, you have nothing. Irony anyone? > PLONK > <LOL> ...and with that, the loon thrust his head even deeper into it's own ass. Quote
Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 "Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message news:e8ih13hvlek965312oh0fegsl5ovs4s1vt@4ax.com... > On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:59:11 +1000, "Ned Flanders" > <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote: > > > >There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers. > >Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel. > <LOL> not melt, just make them bend enough.... That sort of seems to reflect the issue here, now doesn't it Steve? If there had been some "bending" and toppling, and a few sections of the undamaged structural grade steel remaining erect, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Quote
Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 "Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> sputtered forth in message... > No one with any brains even suggests that it was mysterious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11 http://www.answers.com/topic/researchers-questioning-the-official-account-of-9-11 I think the issue is the number of people who apparently don't have enough brains to see that it was not only suspicious, but intentional. Quote
Guest Steve Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:22:47 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote: > >"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message news:e8ih13hvlek965312oh0fegsl5ovs4s1vt@4ax.com... > >> On Sun, 8 Apr 2007 13:59:11 +1000, "Ned Flanders" >> <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote: >> > >> >There are plenty of usenet shills that have ~all~ the answers. >> >Despite the fact that diesel fires wont melt high tensile steel. > >> <LOL> not melt, just make them bend enough.... > >That sort of seems to reflect the issue here, now doesn't it Steve? >If there had been some "bending" and toppling, and a few sections >of the undamaged structural grade steel remaining erect, we probably >wouldn't be having this conversation. > > Bending of structural steel in a building can bring it down, you silly jackass. Quote
Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 "Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message news:964j13ll3f62hc1pj2db25lhgebnkko2b0@4ax.com... > <LOL> ...and with that, the loon thrust his head even deeper into > it's own ass. Unless you offer something besides personal attacks and insults, you're short lived on these lists. No one has the time to deal with the children who are too inexperienced to use their brains. "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison Quote
Guest Steve Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:25:08 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote: > >"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> sputtered forth in message... > >> No one with any brains even suggests that it was mysterious. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11 > >http://www.answers.com/topic/researchers-questioning-the-official-account-of-9-11 > > >I think the issue is the number of people who apparently don't have >enough brains to see that it was not only suspicious, but intentional. > I think the issue is that a few of you loons have silly fantasies.... BTW, Wikipedia isn't a good source...any loon can edit it.... Quote
Guest David Morgan \(MAMS\) Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 "Ned Flanders" <iknowitsonlyrocknroll@butilikeit> wrote in message news:46186048$0$22073$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Tankfixer" <paul.carrier@us.army.m> wrote in message > news:86DRh.383$3P3.281@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > > > > And the guy who got fired ? > > Who was he ? > > > Kevin Ryan was the guy I am referring to. > I understand that his company were responsible for > certifying the steel used in the twin towers, possibly > not the case for WTC 7. > However building regulations require > the same/similar regulations and WTC7 would have had the > same or similar high tensile structural steel. I am aghast that there are apparently adults living in this word who not only do not understand structural grade steel alloys, but some even think that they can burn or bend at the behest of a little kerosene and office furniture. Eliminating the Impossible: http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_sheila_s_060329_9_2f11____eliminating_.htm Quote
Guest Steve Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:28:09 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <findme@m-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote: > >"Steve" <stevencanyon@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message news:964j13ll3f62hc1pj2db25lhgebnkko2b0@4ax.com... > >> <LOL> ...and with that, the loon thrust his head even deeper into >> it's own ass. > > >Unless you offer something besides personal attacks and insults, >you're short lived on these lists. <ROTLMAO> I've been around laughing at you loons for a very long time.... > No one has the time to deal with >the children who are too inexperienced to use their brains. > Unless you offer something besides loony fantasies and unsupported, illogical rhetoric, you're going to get laughed at.... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.