Here's what I posted the last time Rosie's nonsense was posted here:
She starts out by claiming that "ALL" the steel was removed and shipped off to "Canada" ... er ... "China", "right away". She says there is no metal to test. That is absolutely false. Hundreds of structural engineers and other investigators had plenty of time to visit the WTC site and see the steel insitu, before the steel was removed. Then it went to Fresh Kill where again they got to examine it and retain those samples they considered important to understanding what happened. And tens of thousands of pieces of steel are still being retained for historical purposes and future studies. Rosie is either uninformed or a partisan liar.
Next, in the video, she says that WTC 7 "got hit by nothing". She's either uninformed or a liar. It got hit by significant amounts of debris from the collapse of the towers. That debris ripped a huge hole out of the south side of building. According to the firemen who where on the scene, a 20 story high hole.
Then she claims there were "pools of molten steel" under all three buildings. Well I challenge you to name a single eyewitness who has actually and verifiably used the word "pool" to describe what they saw. I challenge you to name a single expert in fire or steel who says finding molten steel was impossible given the circumstances. I challenge you to tell us what kept any steel that was molten, molten for over 6 weeks after the collapse. Rosie seems to think it was bombs. Show me how that might work.
Next, she claims it took the towers "9 seconds" to fall and that is the same as "free-fall". Well her claim is FALSE. From numerous credible sources (including actual videos of the collapse which one can time) one can learn that the towers actually took about 15 seconds to collapse. One can look at hundreds of still images of the collapses and immediately see that there was debris free-falling much faster than the collapsing level of the towers were descending. She surely has to have seen these images. So Rosie is either a liar or hasn't bothered to apply the least bit of thought to interpreting what she saw or the least bit of energy into investigating the issue.
So not only do professionals in the areas of structures, demolition, materials, fire or macro-world physics NOT agree with Rosie. The facts of the matter don't either. All she is really doing is hurting the effort to find out what really happened on 9/11. There are good questions to ask but if *truthers* make no effort to stop idiots like Rosie from muddying the water with nonsense and lies, you will never find the truth. People like her are the *truth* movement's worst enemy.
And in anticipation of nolu_chan's "notice", let me add:
: Truth Movement members almost seem unable to post articles that aren't deceptive or contain outright lies about what happened to the WTC structures and the Pentagon. And they seem to have particular trouble dealing with visual materials that prove their claims false. Why is that?
They continue to claim the towers collapsed in 10 seconds when video clearly shows they took 15 seconds to collapse. They continue to claim the entrance hole in the Pentagon was less than 20 feet across when photos convincingly prove it was closer to 90 feet. They continue to make an assortment of similar, demonstrably false claims despite all efforts to get them to change their ways.
Why can't *truthers* face the truth? They (and we) will never find out what really happened on 9/11, if they can't do that. Because a *Truth Movement* cannot be founded on disinformation and outright lies. That should be obvious to all. But apparently they can't see that either. It is sad.
Actually I didnt.. my point being arguing every jot and tittle wasnt my point in posting this .. so you have no clue what I meant .. so I did not prove you 'point'
The Ground Zero site where the World Trade Center towers once stood was the focus of the visit by Prof. David Blockley and Dr Keith Eaton to New York, on the first leg of their North American tour. They discussed developments on the site with Pablo Lopez and Andrew Pontecorvo of Mueser Rutledge.
Dr Eaton said: ‘We were given a fascinating insight into what had been happening at the site. Our hosts, under the firm’s principal engineer George Tamaro (F), had been constantly involved at Ground Zero for several months. They had been called in as foundation engineers within a week of 11 September, and had spent several months examining the stability of the debris and the diaphragm wall all around the site, commonly known as the “bathtub” They had been key individuals in advising on the excavation of the site, with a great deal of care being needed before debris could be removed in order to maintain the stability of the original slurry walls.
‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ he continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. Other images explained the concerns of the New Jersey authorities over the PATH train tunnels (which had linked the WTC site to New Jersey across the Hudson River). These tunnels were leaking after the disaster, and might have allowed a tremendous amount of water to flood through into New Jersey. A 10m mass concrete plug was placed in the tunnels, just in case.
Ground Zero General Manager, Peter Rinaldi of the New York Port Authority (the owners of the site) joined them for a visit to view Ground Zero and explained what is currently happening. Dr Eaton said: ‘He too had been closely involved for the past 11 months, and clearly these engineers are continuing to play a vital part of all the ongoing operations – and will continue to do so over the next couple of years’.
At a meeting with Les Robertson, the principal structural engineering designer of the World Trade Center towers, and his senior partner Saw- Teen See, at their offices close to Ground Zero, some of their key projects were discussed, including an amazing new tall building in Shanghai. ‘We naturally discussed aspects of the World Trade Center towers, and the effects it had had on Les and the practice’ said Dr Eaton. ‘It was very sobering, and poignant, to see the view from Les’s office, where the twin towers once stood.’
"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. Massive steel girders were sandwiched in with crushed concrete. Someone told us that they weighed 1,000 pounds a foot. The collapse left them all blackened and twisted. They are among the few recognizable items in the rubble. You find scant evidence of the hundreds of offices that were once part of the twin towers. Most the furniture and equipment was pounded into dust. -----
It's very interesting that a few of the "squibs" or "powerful debris ejections" are right in the reinforced mechanical floors. They also appear elsewhere from 10 stories to 40 stories ahead of the explosive detonation belt.
Forget NIST's pancake, piston or pile driver theories. Here is a good quote about the kind of "science" carried out by NIST. Even though is isn't refering to NIST. It's perfect.
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
Michael Crichton
One look at the videos shows that their is no mass pile driving anything. All that is left is air, dust and debris that has been blown. Most of the mass/debris is outside of the building.
Recently, one of the darlings of the skeptic movement, Dr Frank Greening has come out and been highly critical of NIST. While he isn't on board with the explosive theory, he has downgraded the NIST report to nothing more than another theory, and not the explanation.
One look at the videos shows that their is no mass pile driving anything. All that is left is air, dust and debris that has been blown. Most of the mass/debris is outside of the building.
Seems that now Kamala thinks the *Truth Movement* has been wrong the whole time they claimed the one sign of proof of a controlled demolition is that the towers collapsed into their own footprint. Now, all of a sudden, the videos show that "most of the mass/debris is outside the building." ROTFLOL!
Recently, one of the darlings of the skeptic movement, Dr Frank Greening has come out and been highly critical of NIST. While he isn't on board with the explosive theory, he has downgraded the NIST report to nothing more than another theory, and not the explanation.
You are right. Dr Greening is definitely NOT on board with the explosive theory ... or the microwave beam theory ... or the thermite bombs theory ... or the mini-nuke theory ... or the pod theory ... or the missile theory ... or the holographic planes-weren't- really-there theory. But he also isn't entirely pleased with NIST's efforts to deduce what happened either. And I have no problem with that view.
In fact, here is what he recently stated in a letter to JREF (http://mujca.com/jarry.htm ): "The model I based my calculation on was indeed quite crude, so I have endeavored to improve it by including the effects of variable column strength and mass shedding. I tested the improved model and found that the towers always exhibited a self-sustaining collapse for realistic values of the various input parameters."
In case you don't know, what he is saying is contrary to the continued claims of many in the *truth* community that the collapse would not have been self sustaining but would have require input via additional bombs all the way up and down the towers. Indeed, anyone who claims there were squibs seen in the video must believe that. Anyone who claims the tower could not have collapsed in even 15 seconds must believe that. Well, Dr Greening clearly does NOT.
Dr Greening goes on to say in that letter,
***********
"Nevertheless, while my model appeared to show that a gravity driven collapse of the Twin Towers was physically possible, I still had some doubts about collapse initiation. These doubts stemmed from the fact that my model assumes that the upper block of floors above the impact zone descends one storey under free fall, thereby providing more than enough energy to destroy the columns supporting the floor below and initiate a progressive collapse.
But did the collapse of each tower really begin with such a single floor failure? I studied the appropriate sections of the NIST Report seeking an answer to this question. It soon became apparent that the tipping of the upper section of each tower was a key feature of the collapse. Thus I began studying the tipping of WTC 1 & 2 and ultimately wrote two articles on this topic that were posted on 911Myths.
The research described in these articles showed that WTC 1 required almost 2 meters of downward displacement in the upper section of the building to initiate collapse. This is about two times the downward displacement required for the collapse of WTC 2, and six times NIST’s estimate of Dd(WTC 2) of about 30 cm based on its finite element computer model. In contrast, a simple energy analysis of the collapse shows that NIST’s small downward displacements lead to inferred collapse energies that are too low to be acceptable – we know the Twin Towers would not collapse that easily. Further, the geometry of a “Leaning WTC Tower” with an asymmetric downward displacement of 30 cm implies a tilt angle of less than ½ degree. Remarkably, however, NIST suggest that tilt angles before collapse initiation were more than 4° for WTC 1 & 2. Thus the NIST Final Report first underestimates the downward displacements within the Twin Towers, only to later overestimate the initial tilt angles to justify the collapse."
************
Now did you catch that last part? Dr Greening is right that there are inconsistencies in the NIST report related to the tilt. He says their calculations indicate a downward displacement on one side of the building of 30 cm which implies a tilt angle of less than 1/2 degree. But videos and photos do in fact show quite clearly that the angle was far more than 1/2 degree before the collapse of the rest of the floors began. What that means is that NISTs global structural models UNDERCOMPUTE the damage done to the structure by the impact and fires. The real world case tilted MORE than even their models say it did. And I have no problem with the notion that NIST's models undercomputed the damage done to and response of the structures. But Greening is still saying the overall behavior in NIST's models is quite consistent with what was actually observed. Whereas, what the *Truth Movement* claims happened ... IS NOT. So I'm curious as to why you would think Dr Greening is someone for your side to champion.
Dr Greening continues:
***********
"A close look at the failure of WTC 2 shows that the collapse began with a tilting or rotational motion of the upper section of the Tower about a “hinge” at the 80th floor. This rotational motion, which commenced at a tilt angle ~ 2°, was caused by an almost instantaneous multi-column failure that eliminated the structural support on one side of WTC 2 near the impact zone. Once set in motion, the upper block moved with a nearly “free” rotational trajectory of a body pivoting under the constant force of gravity. This behavior was sustained at tilt angles up to about 20°. Thereafter the motion of the block changed somewhat although the suggestion that the tilting suddenly stopped is not correct. What appears to happen is that the upper section was continuously crushed near the 80th floor by its own momentum so that the rotation was no longer that of a rigid body. Eventually the "hinge" at the northeast corner failed and the descending block took on a more vertical motion. Interestingly, once the hinge failed, and the pivot became frictionless, the motion of the center of gravity is predicted to become vertical, causing a shift in the rotational axis, as observed."
************
Now in case you don't know, that is still essentially what NIST said happened and again contrary to what the *Truth Movement* claims happened. Dr Greening is not someone you should be holding up as an example to promote your views, Mark. He fundamentally disagrees with the claims you make and theories you espouse.
Dr Greening continues ...
************
"For most of 2006 I switched my attention to two important aspects of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2: the pulverization of concrete and the sustained high temperatures of the rubble pile. First, I carried out an energy balance analysis of the collapse of WTC 1 that included the energy consumed in crushing concrete on one floor (234 MJ) and compared this to other contributions to the energy dissipated by the collapse. As expected, the plastic strain energy dissipated by the buckling of columns (284 MJ) was confirmed to be the largest drain on the kinetic energy driving the collapse, but the energy to pulverize the concrete was clearly an important additional energy sink. However, I also concluded that such energy sinks should be summed over two WTC floors per impact to allow for the simultaneous destruction of the uppermost floor of the lower fixed section, and the lowest floor of the descending section. Such an assumption leads to an energy decrement that still assures a self-sustaining progressive collapse of WTC 1 if the input kinetic energy is derived from a one-storey free fall of the upper block- a condition that must be modified in a tipping scenario."
***********
Now if you read the above carefully, you will see that Greening says the NIST scenario does successfully account for pulverization of the concrete AND sustained collapse ... again, in direct contradiction to what the *experts* and followers of the *truth* movement claim. So thanks for bringing Dr Greening into this conversation.
Finally, Dr Greening wrote:
**************
"The sustained high temperatures of the rubble pile proved to be more problematic. The NIST Report indicates that about 100 tonnes of burning material and smoldering “embers”, at 500 - 700° C, fell into the rubble pile when the Twin Towers collapsed. Propagation of smoldering combustion within the rubble pile was sustained by the indigenous supply of live load “fuel”- consisting of office furniture, paper, textiles and plastic materials - and oxygen. Setting aside the issue of oxygen availability, let us consider how long the available fuel could last. The heat flux of a smoldering fire is typically ~ 8 kW/m2 from which we may calculate the average fuel consumption rate within the rubble pile. NIST estimate that there was initially about 50,000 kg of combustible material on each floor of WTC 1 & 2. If we assume that material from about 5 floors was consumed before the Towers collapsed, about 5,250,000 kg of “fuel” was initially available within the rubble from each Tower. It is a simple matter to show that this fuel would be able to sustain the rubble pile fires for no more than about 30 days. However, it was not until December 19th 2001, or 100 days after 9/11, that the Governor of New York, George Pataki, officially declared the WTC fires to be totally extinguished. We are left wondering what “stoked” the rubble pile fires beyond the expected 30 days."
**************
Now first, note that Dr Greening is NOT saying the remnants of thermite bombs or undetonated thermite bombs fell into the rubble. He's simply saying that based on his estimates, the fire could not have sustained itself for 100 days so another explanation is needed.
However, his estimate has considerable uncertainty built into it.
First, the estimate of combustibles on each floor is a just an estimate. It might easily have been 20 or 30 percent more combustibles on average than what NIST concluded, especially if the fires got hot enough to cause items that otherwise might not burn to burn. And it isn't just tonnage that is important. It is the nature of the material in terms of how much heat is generated by those fires.
Second, he does NOT know how fast the fires were burning the material in the rubble pile with ANY degree of accuracy. He says the heat flux in a smoldering file is typically ~ 8 kW/m2. That is nothing more than a wag as far as applying it to the WTC site. It could just as easily have been twice or three times as much or half or a third that amount. And whether it can keep certain material molten for a given period also depends on how the combustibles are dispersed. There will be variations and some areas will end up with more than others. There could easily have been regions with two to three times as much combustibles as other regions. Perhaps that is why some areas still had molten metal months later but others did not. Also, very fine particles can create an insulating blanket, retaining the heat generated inside the rubble pile for much longer than he might have guessed. And, as Greening himself pointed out, the rubble pile contained all the materials needed for thermite like reactions to take place.
In short, I don't think you can for one minute claim that Dr Greening is in your camp, Mark, or that his speculations about what kept the fires going are anything more than rough speculation at this point. But he is right that someone at NIST should have looked at this since this is mighty interesting, if nothing else.