Sunday, October 15, 2006

Improbable Collapse Part II

Watched the second ten minutes this time. Some thoughts:

Berger spends the first three minutes or so of this section with some 9-11 Deniers on the march with their retarded "9-11 Was An Inside Job" sign. Then we get a short clip on the construction of the towers. Finally at about 12:30 Steven Jones appears.

He explains that his first reaction was that there must be other examples of fires bringing down steel buildings, but there were no other examples. As usual, the Deniers ignore the impact of the planes and attribute the collapse of the towers solely to the fires. He brings up the Windsor Tower fire in Madrid, and again as usual, he ignores the fact that the steel portion of that building did collapse (as is quite visible in the film clip); it's only the concrete core that survived as you can see in this screen capture:



We get the usual superlatives about how well-designed the buildings were. I'm sure they were, given the enormous expense involved, but of course the intent of telling us this is to increase the "mystery". We get the usual nonsense claim that Underwriter's Laboratories certified the structural steel in the WTC; in fact they did no such thing. We're told that Ryan was fired for "publicly questioning the NIST draft report released in October of 2004. Of course he was actually fired for making false claims in a letter:

But his allegations drew a sharp rebuke from UL, which said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization." The company told The Tribune "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.


There is the usual claim that the buildings were designed to handle the crash of a plane into them. Again, true enough, but the assumption was that this would be a plane flying at a relatively low speed, not the 500+MPH that AA 11 and UA 175 are estimated to have been traveling at when they impacted. The difference is significant. In addition, there is the usual claim that the calculations accounted for the jet fuel, but this has specifically been denied by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer who designed the building, in a TV broadcast in 2002.

James Hoffman opines on the difference in the cruising speed of the 707 and the 767, without bothering to note (again) that the assumption was that any plane that hit the WTC would be lost in fog or darkness and would be traveling well below its cruising speed.

22 Comments:

At 15 October, 2006 18:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James and Pat -

Sorry for the OT post.

I'm trying to set up a "mock trial" of the U.S. government (sort of a structured debate). Do you mind if I announce details and the website here in your comments?

I put notices up on various forums already, this seemed like a logical place to look for participants.

 
At 15 October, 2006 18:33, Blogger Pat said...

Feel free, or better yet email me the details and I'll put up a post highlighting it.

 
At 15 October, 2006 18:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks very much.

I've set up a blog where, hopefully, I can get some CT's to post a "prosecution" of the U.S. Government for specific charges of terrorism (rather than their usual nit-picking of the "official" story).

I'd like to form a "prosecution" team and a "defense" team, to present and debate the evidence (again, with respect to specific charges of terrorism). I wouldn't be participating in the actual debate other than as a moderator.

I'm also looking for any input on how to make this exercise worthwhile and presentable.

You can contact me at ontrial911 (at) hotmail.com if you have input, or if you would like to participate, include your version of an "opening statement" for the defense or prosecution in the body of the email. Thanks in advance, hope to hear from you.

 
At 16 October, 2006 02:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

well played, yet again your best arguments are to call a banner retarded

 
At 16 October, 2006 06:10, Blogger Alex said...

well played, yet again your best arguments are to call a banner retarded

And?

The grass is green, the sky is blue, and the twoofers are retarded. Nothing wrong with stating the obvious, even if it does get repetitive sometimes.

 
At 16 October, 2006 08:19, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

How long did that Madrid fire burn for?

 
At 16 October, 2006 09:31, Blogger shawn said...

How long did that Madrid fire burn for?

Move the goal posts!

 
At 16 October, 2006 11:36, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Burke, that is a great idea! Certainly unoffical but at least we can get a trial of sorts.

Will you be using only the evidence made available to the public? If so isn't that a bit limiting to both sides of the case?

 
At 16 October, 2006 11:37, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Shawn, do you know how long that fire lasted?
I don't that is why I'm asking. ;)

 
At 16 October, 2006 13:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SD-

The evidence would have to be published somewhere credible, yes.

For example:

Expert testimony (from a relevant expert)

Direct quotes (anything quoted accurately by a credible source will not be considered hearsay for the purposes of the mock trial, unless you can get the actual people who said it)

Video/Audio recordings and photographs.

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:44, Blogger Alex said...

Shawn, do you know how long that fire lasted?
I don't that is why I'm asking. ;)


Are you so incompetent that you can't even use Google?

There's ANOTHER problem with you conspiracy nuts. You're constantly asking questions which you could find the answer to on your own with only the tiniest bit of effort. It took me all of 15 seconds to find the answer to your "question".

 
At 17 October, 2006 09:25, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Are you so incompetent that you can't even use Google?
There's ANOTHER problem with you conspiracy nuts. You're constantly asking questions which you could find the answer to on your own with only the tiniest bit of effort. It took me all of 15 seconds to find the answer to your "question".


Alex what is up big guy! Hey bro, to be honest as a mouth breathing retard, err check check, mouth breathing retarded nut.. it is hard to do anything other than argue with you guys! Which isn't hard of course so then how do you define yourself? ;)

Alex, how long did that fire burn?


Burke In your mock trial, which I think is an awesome idea, how do determine credible witnesses?

 
At 17 October, 2006 09:29, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Burke I just thought of something. Isn't it unfair to put the Fed. G on trial? Shouldn't you be putting the accused terrorists on trial? I mean is that what should happen? Considering they weren't put on trial in reality...if they are found not guilty, should the case proceed to the Feds being guilty or some other entity?

 
At 17 October, 2006 09:33, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Burke-Who serves as the jury members?

 
At 17 October, 2006 22:09, Blogger Alex said...

Hey bro, to be honest as a mouth breathing retard, err check check, mouth breathing retarded nut.. it is hard to do anything other than argue with you guys!

Thought so.

Alex, how long did that fire burn?

So not only are you too stupid to use google, you're also too incompetent to click the link I provided?

Wow.

Welcome to the internet. You'll find it's a pretty good resource once you figure out the basics.

 
At 18 October, 2006 07:22, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Alex! Hey man! How is it going? How is your family? Did you have a good weekend?

Oh by the way, you never did answer the question! How long did that fire burn?

 
At 18 October, 2006 07:29, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Alex
Oh hey I came out of my retarded stupor! I just thought you were pointing out the link to Google. I didn't think you actually did the work for me. Thanks bro!

26 hours sure is a long time for a fire to burn isn't it. If I'm not mistaken, that is longer than a day, right? Oh and you could really see how hot that fire was couldn't you?
No wonder firefighters didn't climb those towers to put 'em out like they tried to do with our towers. I guess fires burn hotter in the United States than Spain. Must be the climate, huh?
All without a 'total collapse' also. Imagine that! I guess the Spanish build skyscrappers better than us in the United States.

 
At 18 October, 2006 09:45, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Burke!

Hey I was really going to try to support your move there but apparently someone has bested you. There is already a National 9/11 Debate scheduled. You might want to check it out as the time, place, and stage has been decided. I don't think there is going to be a censor as in your debate but there are going to be monitors.
I would encourage all who support or deny the OS to attend the event.

http://www.teamliberty.net/id278.html


Including a list of participants for the OS and for a different version:
http://www.teamliberty.net/id245.html

It is call out time boys, put your money where your mouth is and get your defense team togther.

 
At 18 October, 2006 09:56, Blogger Alex said...

Well, you couldn't even admit to being wrong about the continued existence of CT's even in the face of undeniable evidence, so I don't really expect you to be able to understand the intricacies of skyscraper design.

If you had demonstrated the slightest desire to learn, I'd make an effort to educate you, but as it is, while I appreciate your efforts to remain civil, I really have no more time to waste on you. Goodbye swinger.

 
At 19 October, 2006 05:31, Blogger Unknown said...

The Madrid building was a step box girder construction and the towers were constructed like no other building in the world with the outer girders being the load bearing members. The Madrid building was also about 30% of the size of the towers and did not have damage to one of the major support structures nor did it have 100000 ton'+ pushing down on the damaged area. It also had a concrete core. If you look at the piks you can see clearly that steel did collapse and bend around the concrete core.
http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm

 
At 19 October, 2006 05:37, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Alex! What is up bro! Hey brother I appreciate your comments. I cleared up the confusion about the continued existence of CTs in an earlier post as I clarified my thinking for you. However, I will accept your graceful bow out. I enjoyed debating with you! Have a wonderful day and I shall see you on the next topic!

 
At 19 October, 2006 09:37, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

did not have damage to one of the major support structures

Is there any evidence that the support collums in the WTC towers suffered major damage or is that speculation? Nevermind I just read the NIST report and viewed the graphic. The damage is an estimate ie. speculation to support a progressive collapse theory. And yes I know that the NIST did not include in their hypothesis of CD in their studies, which in turn violates the Quality Control Act of 2002. Nevermind nothing to see here, move along.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home