Gaffney takes on the 9/11 Commission

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

This leaves it up to us.

You mean Messiah gaff-o.

There's a name for folks who think they're protecting us from our inevitable destruction at the hands of dark and sinister forces.

Adolf Hitler.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by tomk

And all of these events, which happened in 2002 & later, somehow worked their way back thru time to change the events of & people responsible for 9/11/2001 ... how?

Tom,

I am out the door to work -- so I'll start with this short one.

If you check the 2002 report by the Joint Inquiry -- the first 9/11 investigation by the Joint Intelligence Committee -- you'll find that the CIA refused to release any budgetary information or internal CIA reports about the agency's counter terrorism ops for the period before 9/11.

Curiously, this important admission is found in the report's final appendix.

We also learned from Farmer's new book that the CIA's counter terrorism program was part of its covert ops section -- not its intelligence gathering section. Kind of curious. But it fits.

We already knew that CIA chief G Tenet lied through his teeth to the 9/11 Commission. This was revealed by Phil Shenon in his book about the commission.

You add this up -- and it stinks to heaven. More later...

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Was the "negligence" just an accident, or was it deliberate?

I believe it was that same myopic institutionalism that cause Carter's hostage rescue mission in Iran to fail. The various institutions (in this case, the CIA and FBI) allowed their petty, institutional jealousies to override the safety of the nation, and they refused to work together. As Lawrence Wright pointed out in The Looming Towers, these two institutions have different missions. The CIA knew that if they turn over the names of these guys to the FBI, the FBI immediatly picks them up and begins questioning them and tracking all their connections. The CIA would prefer to simply watch them and see where they lead, maybe to Bin Laden himself. Of course, they aren't allowed, by law, to track somebody within the U.S. They also know that once these two guys were picked up, their intellignce value would have been diminished because all their contacts would have disengaged.

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Get real! You are quibbling over details.

Well if this is such an inconsequential detail then why do you persist in repeating a falsehood over and over?

Could it be you are doing it intentionally to exaggerate the significance of your evidence? 170 samples vs 21 samples. Sounds like you're trying to bolster a case with false information. Hmmmm...

[Obushma]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I believe it was that same myopic institutionalism that cause Carter's hostage rescue mission in Iran to fail. The various institutions (in this case, the CIA and FBI) allowed their petty, institutional jealousies to override the safety of the nation, and they refused to work together. As Lawrence Wright pointed out in The Looming Towers, these two institutions have different missions. The CIA knew that if they turn over the names of these guys to the FBI, the FBI immediatly picks them up and begins questioning them and tracking all their connections. The CIA would prefer to simply watch them and see where they lead, maybe to Bin Laden himself. Of course, they aren't allowed, by law, to track somebody within the U.S. They also know that once these two guys were picked up, their intellignce value would have been diminished because all their contacts would have disengaged.

Well, if that's not a government cover-up, I don't know what is.

That is the problem, there are a lot of people (myself included) that do not believe the official explanation of what happened on 9-11. Now, does that mean I believe the government bombed the towers, no. It does mean the government was involved in the gross negligence in the death of over 3,000 Americans and those people should be held accountable.

[tomk]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Tom,

I am out the door to work -- so I'll start with this short one.

If you check the 2002 report by the Joint Inquiry -- the first 9/11 investigation by the Joint Intelligence Committee -- you'll find that the CIA refused to release any budgetary information or internal CIA reports about the agency's counter terrorism ops for the period before 9/11.

Curiously, this important admission is found in the report's final appendix.

We also learned from Farmer's new book that the CIA's counter terrorism program was part of its covert ops section -- not its intelligence gathering section. Kind of curious. But it fits.

We already knew that CIA chief G Tenet lied through his teeth to the 9/11 Commission. This was revealed by Phil Shenon in his book about the commission.

You add this up -- and it stinks to heaven. More later...

Allow me to be clear.

I don't care much about the politicians.

I give lots of credence to the police, the fire fighters, the FBI, the military, and the country's intelligence community (CIA/NSA/etc.).

I know that the last ones aren't particularly popular with you kids. Tough. Those guys provide a service to this country every bit as valuable, & necessary, as the fire fighters & police. And you have the same spectrum of performance as everywhere: a few doing stellar work, most doing their job diligently & honestly (if not spectacularly), a few real screw-ups, and a tiny percentage of out-right criminals.

But the guys at the top are - to the 98th percentile - not criminals. They are bureaucrats & politicians. Which means that their principle assets are connections & CYA survival skills.

So I don't give a rat's butt about the 9/11 Commission Report (except for the details of the FBI's Penttbom program). The 9/11 Commission Report was produced by a bunch of politicians & lawyers. You can fully expect that their principle interests were protecting themselves & their parties. WGASA.

The NIST Report is completely different. Unlike the 911 Commission Report, it's got engineering in it. Objective information that, if they tried to fudge the analysis, every competent engineer in that field in the world would know instantly.

Engineers (by & large) hate politics. It is the opposite of everything that we admire: all perception & no substance. People dwelling is stupid social absolutes ("liberals good, conservatives bad", or vice versa) when engineers know that it's all subjective perception. And then being so stupid with objective issues (that have one right answer) as to, for example, "allow the possibility that fuel cells or battery power or gasohol will reduce oil imports", when engineers know that this is nonsense.

Engineers admire 2 things: competence & correct answers.

I care about the correct answers to the engineering questions.

And we don't give a crap where that leads. If there were the SLIGHTEST evidence that 9/11 was a controlled demolition, by anybody, including Bush & Cheney, I'd be the FIRST one in line at the White House gate with a torch & a pitchfork. If there ever emerges the slightest indication that someone had word ahead of time of any actionable intel (not "something is gonna happen sometime, somewhere ...", but rather "here are the names & they are planning to hijack some planes sometime in the next month"), then I'll be the first calling for their public exposure & disgrace. (I don't think that there are likely any laws against incompetence.)

If someone actually collaborated, then exposure, trial & execution.

I am 100% sure that the NIST Report engineers (most of whom were from academia & industry, not NIST) felt the same way. Someone had attacked our country. No matter who they were, these guys were going to do their job with care & competence, and let the chips fall where they may. If they had discovered & exposed some collaboration on ANYONE's part, they would have been heroes for doing that. As far as I am concerned, they are heroes for serving this country & doing a first rate job.

Which is precisely why your idiotic & baseless accusations piss me off.

And I am also 100% certain that they knew from the start that they had zero hope of falsifying anything & getting away with it. That is NOT how real science & engineering works. Anyone with knowledge would be able to expose them. And that would be the end of their reputations & careers.

But, from an engineering POV, there is nothing. Not one thing. I've listened to the TM arguments carefully. I've actively looked for something, anything that holds water. There is nothing. The assertions are so brain-dead stupid, so monumentally idiotic, that you ought to be humiliated to be taken in by them. It's worse, much more stupid, than "alien abductions with anal probes".

And look at your "experts".

1. Crazies: Judy Wood & her Space Beams. Deagle & his underground cities & attack baboons. And there aren't any more engineering experts in the TM.

2. Incompetents: Richard Gage. (The real field of expertise for this issue is structural engineering, not architecture. But competent architects know enough to listen to the structural engineers. Gage does not.)

3. Amateurs: Tony Szamboti (antenna mountings) & Gordon Ross (auto engineer). Steven Jones. (This AIN'T physics, it's engineering.) DRG (theology), Fetzer (philosophy), Harrit (photochemistry), Hoffman (computer graphics), Legge (Chemistry), Chandler (high school physics). The list goes on like that.

4. Lazies: Oh, there are a couple of structural & mechanical engineers that signed up with ae911t. Who say they believe that the US gubbamint dunnit. But then, in an incredible display of laziness & lack of patriotism, have in 9 years done absolutely zippo. And you have a couple of wet-behind-the-ears baby engineers, who went thru this in their Young&Stupid college years. When all adults & authority figures are evil & stupid. They have produced NOTHING. Not one peer reviewed paper (which is how scientists & engineers communicate with each other.) And how your ideas get judged within the profession.

And now, (first I've heard of in the TM), Cherepanov, with his fracture waves. The only thing that I've heard of from him is a letter in reply to a Bazant paper. A comment is not a paper. Tell him to get writing, get his work thru peer review, and then published. THEN we'll see how well received it is from the community. It'll get savaged. And you don't need a PhD in metallurgy to know that.

You don't know metals. You don't understand how far off-base his suggestion is. Suggesting brittle (or quasi-brittle) fracture waves in a material as ductile & tough as A36 Structural Steel makes as much sense as proposing that Venus (at ~500°F) is covered with a layer of ice. Ice just doesn't work like that. Neither does A36. The proof that it doesn't is encyclopedic and about 60 years of experience with the metal. (100 years experience if you consider all mild steels.) If it did, then every mild, low carbon steel would be as brittle as glass. It just ain't so.

I hope your self-respect is worth the book sales. With these baseless, vile accusations, you've got my contempt the old fashioned way: you earned it.


Tom

[tomk]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Tom,

I am out the door to work -- so I'll start with this short one.

If you check the 2002 report by the Joint Inquiry -- the first 9/11 investigation by the Joint Intelligence Committee -- you'll find that the CIA refused to release any budgetary information or internal CIA reports about the agency's counter terrorism ops for the period before 9/11.

Curiously, this important admission is found in the report's final appendix.

We also learned from Farmer's new book that the CIA's counter terrorism program was part of its covert ops section -- not its intelligence gathering section. Kind of curious. But it fits.

We already knew that CIA chief G Tenet lied through his teeth to the 9/11 Commission. This was revealed by Phil Shenon in his book about the commission.

You add this up -- and it stinks to heaven. More later...

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my question. Allow me to phrase it more plainly & more intelligibly:

"And all of these events (mentioned in your previous post), which happened in 2002 & later, somehow worked their way back thru time to change the events of & people responsible for 9/11/2001 ... how?"

[Aside: Do you ever answer simple questions with simple answers?]

WRT: the CIA's budget. That is an institutionally secretive organization. I strongly suspect that they keep their budget info classified.

What aspect of their budget has the slightest bearing on the question "Who was responsible for 9/11?"

What aspect of their choosing to not disclose their budgets to a panel of people who would have published that info do you find surprising?

Are you at all familiar with the Church Commission and its impact on the US intelligence agencies?


Tom

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by ThyNatural

Well, if that's not a government cover-up, I don't know what is.

That is the problem, there are a lot of people (myself included) that do not believe the official explanation of what happened on 9-11. Now, does that mean I believe the government bombed the towers, no. It does mean the government was involved in the gross negligence in the death of over 3,000 Americans and those people should be held accountable.

At the very least, it was a case of gross negligence.

It is also a fact that Team Smirk & Sneer lied about what they knew prior to the attacks, e.g., "no one could have predicted that they (terrorists) would use aircraft as missiles," etc.

[mhgaffney]

Tom,

I read through your responses -- expecting to find something to respond to.

But your attack is so vacuous -- mostly personal attacks. There's very little of substance in there. But I do have a few thoughts.

You still ignore the eyewitness accounts from WTC-2 . People were in the impact zone and reported back. It's obvious why you ignore their testimony. You ignore them for the same reason NIST ignored them! The people who saw the fires in the impact zone reported something very different from your propaganda. They reported small isolated fires.

The numbers I gave were straight out of the NIST Report. They are not my numbers.

The numbers for factor of safety given at the top of this thread are the correct numbers. You have not disputed them. You can't -- because they are right. Instead of disputing them, you dismiss them as "irrelevant."

But how can the reserve capacity of the columns be irrelevant? (Are you serious?)

The other numbers I gave are also straight out of the NIST Report. According to NIST, the WTC averaged only 4 pounds of fuel/square foot in the outer offices. This is their number. According to FEMA this average is at the low end for high rise buildings -- not even enough fuel to sustain a continuous fire over many hours.

Also -- according to NIST - the fuel in the core was "Negligible."

So you are talking garbage when you tell us there was plenty of fuel. Do you deny that fuel is a limiting factor of the intensity and duration of a fire?

I cited four engineers who disagree with you -- and you dismiss them all with a casual wave of your arm - as idiots or incompetent. I could cite many more engineers who also disagree with you. No doubt, you would respond the same way. Everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot or incompetent.

More garbage, Tom.

You are in a tough spot. You are making a very improbable case. Never had a steel frame tower collapsed before 9/11 due to fire. Never has one, since. Yet, we are supposed to believe that on this day three of them did just that.

Since there were no past cases -- you are making an extraordinary claim. It was Carl Sagan, who said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." So WHERE is the extraordinary evidence?

THERE AIN'T NONE. It's that simple. All we have heard from you is techno babble about tilt and creep. Speculation about fuel that was not there - and unproved theories about free fall.

But let us focus on WTC-7 -- where there was no impact. No chance for tilt or creep.

And BTW, even NIST admitted at the unveiling of its final report on WTC-7 that the damage from the nearby collapses was not a factor. You don't know this?

NIST also admitted that the diesel fuel was not responsible. (In fact, much of the diesel fuel was recovered -- pumped out during the clean up.)

If you don't believe me -- check it for yourself here:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/r...wtc082108.html

Also -- your characterization of the fires in WTC-7 is more garbage. Even FEMA concluded in its 2002 report that the "best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.."

I think Cherepanov is correct. WTC 7 is the key to unraveling 9/11. If WTC-7 was a demolition -- then so were the twin towers.

So let's forget about creep and tilt -- and talk about WTC-7.

MHG

[Spider]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

I proved him wrong by pointing out the facts in the NIST report. I never claimed I wrote the report, gathered the data, inspected the site, etc.

But fine, allow me to rephrase: "I referred Gaffney to the section in the NIST report that contradicts his statement and thereby demonstrated that his claim is false." Happy?

very ..............

[The Lone Bolt]

Gaff, that last post was classic trooferism. Tom addressed half of the points you brought up several times, yet no matter how ofter he explains it to you you are either incapable of getting it or are in deep denial, so you continue to shovel out the same BS over and over.

I'll bet that if Tom gives you the same rebuttals yet again you'll still act like they don't exist. Just like the "170 samples" that you continued to repeat even after I showed you that you were wrong. You just don't want to hear it. You cling to your TM beliefs as if your life depended on it.

Do you learn this in Troofer School?

[mhgaffney]

hey Bolt,

I'm trying to get you to use your brain. The reason I must repeat is because your expert Tom keeps doing it. He continues to insist that the jet fuel was a big deal.

Apparently, he did not read the NIST Report. Here is what NIST says about the jet fuel:

3.2 BUILDING COMBUSTIBLES
3.2.1 Nature of Combustibles
While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf page 50

So if the jet fuel was burned up within a few minutes -- this is no where near enough time to weaken enormous steel columns. You can't get there from here. Now do you understand? You can't have it both ways.

OK. So let's talk about the fuel level in the WTC core. Here is what NIST said:

...based on discussions with people who had been in the towers, the team assumed that the fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible.

Apparently your expert does not understand the meaning of the word "negligible.". Here is Webster's definition:

adj. so small or unimportant as to be safely disregarded.

So, can we agree that "negligible" means extremely small or insignificant? I hope so!

Given negligible fuels in the core -- do you think this might explain why NIST was unable to show that even one location on the sample core columns had been heated to 250 C? Not even one. Don't take my word for it. Here is the passage from the NIST Report:

Two of the core columns with as-built locations in the fire-affected floors were examined for paint cracking. The few areas with sufficient paint for analysis did not show mud cracking patterns, indicating the columns did not exceed 250 °C.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf page 101

Then, of course, NIST does the old two step. They complain that their sample was too small. But the fact remains -- NIST produced zero evidence that any of the core columns had been weakened by fire.

Your expert says I do not understand the NIST Report. But I've just given you the verbatim passages to back up my position. If you can read the English language you should be able to get this.

MHG

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by tomk

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my question. Allow me to phrase it more plainly & more intelligibly:

"And all of these events (mentioned in your previous post), which happened in 2002 & later, somehow worked their way back thru time to change the events of & people responsible for 9/11/2001 ... how?"

[Aside: Do you ever answer simple questions with simple answers?]

WRT: the CIA's budget. That is an institutionally secretive organization. I strongly suspect that they keep their budget info classified.

What aspect of their budget has the slightest bearing on the question "Who was responsible for 9/11?"

What aspect of their choosing to not disclose their budgets to a panel of people who would have published that info do you find surprising?

Are you at all familiar with the Church Commission and its impact on the US intelligence agencies?


Tom

I'm going to respond to the final question. The Church hearings and the Pike hearings in the 1970s gave us a glimpse of the criminal behavior of the CIA. We did not get the full story -- only a glimpse. But that glimpse was a shocker. It was a story of death squads, smear campaigns, overthrowing foreign governments, disinfo, etc that so sickened our nation that Congress responded -- and tried to fix the problem. They set up two new committees to do oversight of the CIA. I believe this happened in 1979 -- thereabouts.

Which was how the Senate and House Intelligence Committees came to be born. They were given the authority and mandate to oversee the CIA. So you think this solved the problems? No way.

The CIA is all about deception. They simply found ways to evade the committees. In fact,one of the members of the 9/11 Commission, Slade Gordon (R-WA) had formerly been on the Senate Intelligence Committee. But Gordon quit out of frustration. Why? Because, as he said, "I never felt I was being told anything I that I hadn't learned in the Washington Post.."

In a word -- the oversight is a joke. The truth is that the CIA is out of control -- and has been since 1949. It exists outside the US Constitution -- and has run amok -- undermining our democratic institutions.

Those are the facts.

[tomk]

Gaffney,

Unbelievable.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

You still ignore the eyewitness accounts from WTC-2 . People were in the impact zone and reported back. It's obvious why you ignore their testimony. You ignore them for the same reason NIST ignored them! The people who saw the fires in the impact zone reported something very different from your propaganda. They reported small isolated fires.

Of course the people who reported back reported "survivable for human beings" fires where they were. Which means "less than about 140°F".
THEY SURVIVED to file their reports.
Those who were in "unsurvivable for human beings" fire conditions seem to have been a little negligent in submitting their paperwork.

By the way, you are the one that is ignoring 99% of the reports on the fire conditions on those floors. You are cherry picking about 2 or 3 reports. I am including ALL 200 or more "reports" on the conditions.

Please listen carefully. This is important.

We have over 200 additional reports that you are ignoring. These reports were filed promptly on 9/11. They were filed with the fire fighters & first responders, who - to a man - have stated that, as long as they draw breath, they will NEVER forget those reports.

Over 200 clear, concise, unmistakeable reports on the fire conditions on those floors were filed by poor souls who walked to the ledge outside their window and stepped off into 1000' of empty space.

I spent over 15 years rock climbing in Yosemite Valley & Tahquitz Peak (in Southern California). I know, up close & personal, the sensation of standing on a tiny ledge, on a vertical wall, 1000' in the air. Every time I think of those poor people, it sends a shiver down my spine.

Now, I would like you to explain to me, YOU HEARTLESS DICK, why you choose to ignore those 200+ reports, plus the reports of dozens of people crying on the phone because they couldn't get out & couldn't stand the heat, plus the evidence of the other 500 - 800 innocent people who were cooked in place as they sat at their desks.

Please explain this to me. Please do not ignore this point.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The numbers I gave were straight out of the NIST Report. They are not my numbers.

They were the numbers that YOU cherry-picked. And assigned to them meaning that is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to NIST's precise conclusions.

You repeat, Rainman-like, "NIST did 170 tests on 21 steel columns recovered from the WTC. Only three spots out of 170 spots on those columns had been heated to 250 C. None had been exposed to temperatures over 600 C.
None of the core columns tested had been exposed to temperatures greater than 250 C.."

You ignore the facts:
1. NIST intentionally gathered most of their samples AWAY from "fire floors".
2. NIST explicitly states that those numbers do not represent the upper limits of temperature to which structural components were exposed.
3. NIST DOES list, explicitly, the temperature to which it claims core columns, peripheral columns & floor trusses were exposed.

NIST NCSTAR1-5G.

NIST's temperature claims are summarized in Fig 12-2, pg. 256 & 12-5 pg. 264.

WTC1


WTC2


Look REALLY carefully. Do you see all those yellow, orange & red dots? Those are temps from 600°C - 900°C.

I'll just give you the maximums that NIST states.
WTC1
Perimeter columns: pg. 257. Max temp: 796°C.
Core columns: pg. 258. Max temp: 938°C.

WTC2
Perimeter columns: pg. 265. Max temp: 845°C.
Core columns: pg. 266. Max temp: 817°C.
Floor Trusses: pg 267. Max temp: 921°C.

This is what "NIST says" the columns temps were.

Don't lie by implying that the sampling was a random sampling of the fire floors.
Don't lie by implying a max temp of "oh, around 250°C".

Why are you reduced to lying, Mark?

No need to answer. It is clear to me, it is clear to everyone, that you are reduced to using cherry-picked, quote mined, intentionally misleading statements PRECISELY BECAUSE none of the data - when examined objectively & competently - supports your crappola.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The numbers for factor of safety given at the top of this thread are the correct numbers. You have not disputed them. You can't -- because they are right. Instead of disputing them, you dismiss them as "irrelevant."
But how can the reserve capacity of the columns be irrelevant? (Are you serious?)

Because (for the FIFTH time, for the "special" people in class) the PUBLISHED Factor of Safety (closely related to the Demand-to-Capacity Ration) REQUIRES the "as built, undamaged" building. It is DEFINED ONLY for the "as built" building.

As soon as you damage the building, remove some of the lateral supports for the columns, and change the stresses from "pure axial compression" to "compression plus bending", THEN the DCR changes. It has to be recomputed. And the "as built" DCR becomes meaningless, irrelevant, a "thing of the past".

And NIST lists (for the non-stupid, anyway) the changes in DCRs.

HERE they are. Notice that they are DIFFERENT from the "as built" DCRs.

As built DCR (WTC1)


After impact DCR (WTC1)


Just before collapse DCR (WTC1)


Did you notice that they CHANGED?
Funny thing, Mark. When structures are about to collapse, they DO NOT CARE what the stress levels were "ten minutes ago", or "an hour ago", or "yesterday". They care about the stress levels (& DCRs) are "right now".

Am I going too fast for you, here?

Has it sunk in yet why "the 'as built' DCRs are irrelevant to the collapse mechanisms"?

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The other numbers I gave are also straight out of the NIST Report. According to NIST, the WTC averaged only 4 pounds of fuel/square foot in the outer offices. This is their number. According to FEMA this average is at the low end for high rise buildings -- not even enough fuel to sustain a continuous fire over many hours.

Friggin' moron.

OK, Mark. You got me.

Even tho several experts (such as Dr. James Quintiere) claim that NIST drastically underestimated fuel loads...

Originally Posted by Dr. Q

NIST used 4 lb/ft2 (19.5 kg/m2) in their analysis of WTC 1, and presumably did the same for WTC 2. Typical office fuel loads range from 24 to 100 kg kg/m2 [wood equivalent] and average roughly 60 kg/m2.15 The NIST value is low over this range. Based on an analysis ... we reached about 300,000 lbs. or 9.7 psf [44 kg/m2].

Even tho their criterion (that the fire would not have travelled as fast as it did at higher fuel loads) for underestimating those loads was flawed ...

[Aside]
Do you REALLY doubt that spraying a tanker truck's worth of diesel fuel into a building might pick up the pace of a fire spread. Maybe just a tad?

Do you REALLY doubt that the 120 ton, 500 mph jet passing thru the building might "adjust" the desks & paper locations (maybe just a tad?), so that you could have lower fuel loads in some areas, allowing fast spread, even tho the fuel load was normal before the "intrusion" of the B767?

[/Aside]

... even considering the above, I'll give you 4 psf. Which translates into 160,000 pounds (i.e., 80 TONS) of fuel per floor.

Do you not understand that the temperatures that NIST reported for the columns were the direct result from their models using the 4 psf fuel loads that they assumed

Do you not understand that 4 psf PRODUCES column temps of 700C°, 800°C, 900°C & higher?

How clueless are you?

And I will also concede that, with 80 tons of fuel per floor, the fire most likely could NOT have raged, "at full force for many hours".

Too bad that we'll never know, because they collapsed too quickly, eh?

Are you REALLY so brain-dead that you think "... couldn't have raged for many hours" is a compelling argument?

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Also -- according to NIST - the fuel in the core was "Negligible."

Da plane, Mark. Da plane!

Da models, Mark. Da models!
(NIST used 4 psf. They used "negligible fuel in the core. They got 900°C.)

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

So you are talking garbage when you tell us there was plenty of fuel. Do you deny that fuel is a limiting factor of the intensity and duration of a fire?

I did not say that there was "plenty of fuel".

NIST says that "with 4 psf, there was sufficient fuel to bring the core temps up to 500°C - 900°C."

Dr. Quintiere says "NIST underestimated the fuel loads by over a factor of 2".

NIST says that the DCR was > 1 for several columns. Which means the stress levels exceeded yield strength.

NIST says that the creep in the columns was excessive. Tilt of the upper section confirms this beyond any doubt.

Drs. Zeng, Tan & Huang have experimental data proving that "structural steel columns under a sustained load of 50% to 70% of their cold strength collapse when heated to 250° C."

Drs. Bazant & Cedolin have shown that "at temperature (of) 250°C, if the column load is raised from 0.3Pt to 0.9Pt [tk note: ie., DCR = 0.9], the critical time of creep buckling gets shortened from 2400 hours to 1 hour."
[Note that, at 100 minutes after impact, 15 of WTC1's core columns had DCRs ≥ 0.9, and another 9 were severed.]

Are you capable of reading, verifying for yourself and comprehending the implications of these pieces of critical data?

Is ANY of this sinking into your thick skull?

Nah, didn't think so...

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I cited four engineers who disagree with you -- and you dismiss them all with a casual wave of your arm - as idiots or incompetent.

You'll forgive me.
The only engineers that I recall you mentioning were Zdenek Bazant, John Skilling, Tony Szamboti & Genady Cherepanov.

And now, you're reduced to simply lying.
I did not "dismiss anybody with a casual wave of my arm".

Bazant agrees with me.

But perhaps you aren't bright enough to understand that.

Skilling would too, if he were alive. In regards to his comment about "designed to survive a jet impact", I gave you a DETAILED explanation - one instantly recognizable as true by any Mechanical or Structural Engineer who career has spanned the era of slide rules to supercomputers (as mine has) - as to why this story can not possibly be true. That was not "hand waving".

But evidently you aren't bright enough to understand the explanation.

Szamboti: I explained PRECISELY why his theory of the "missing jolt" can not possibly be true. (It requires the columns to hit square after 1, 2 & 3 stories of fall, which is physically impossible.)

But evidently you aren't bright enough to understand the explanation.

Cherepanov: I explained PRECISELY why his theory of a brittle fracture wave can not possibly be true. (It requires brittle fracture. No evidence was seen in the columns of brittle fracture. Plus 100 years of experience with low carbon mild steel tells us that it does NOT fail in this way.)

But evidently you aren't bright enough to understand the explanation.

Mark, the sad fact that you aren't bright enough to understand the rather simple, trivial explanations that I've provided does NOT mean that I've "hand waved away" the issues.

The fact that you continue to repeat the same debunked, completely erroneous assertions after their errors have been explained in detail DOES prove that you have "brain-waved" them away.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I could cite many more engineers who also disagree with you. No doubt, you would respond the same way.

Be my guest.

List your engineers.

But we'll stick with the cream of the crop, if you don't mind. In order to eliminate the inconsequential & incompetent, please list ONLY ones that have:

1. published their work
2. in peer reviewed publications
3. studies that pertain to the events of 9/11.
4. have a demonstrated background and experience in the field of study that pertains to their 9/11 publication.

I'll provide you my list of 200+ PhD's, PEs etc. that meet those requirements JUST AS SOON as you have published your list.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot or incompetent.

Allow me to explain something.

There is a certain amount of art in engineering. Especially in modeling. But also in design.

But there is no art, no subjectivity, to the fundamental principles. There is ONE right answer. EVERY OTHER answer is wrong.

It is not a "matter of opinion" as to whether the decrease in yield strength or the decrease in modulus at high temperatures is more important to the collapse. There is ONE right answer. (Psssst, Mark. It AIN'T the strength. But you're not bright enough to understand that.)

If you disagree with me as to who is a better painter, Renoir or Picasso, you're not an idiot.
If you disagree with me as to which is the better music, country or rap, you're not an idiot.
If you disagree with me as to whether or not A36 steel creeps at high stress & low temp, yeah, you're an idiot. AND incompetent.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

You are in a tough spot. You are making a very improbable case. Never had a steel frame tower collapsed before 9/11 due to fire. Never has one, since. Yet, we are supposed to believe that on this day three of them did just that.

Oh, Christ on a bicycle. Are we back in 2006 again?

You haven't a clue what you are talking about. LOTS of steel framed structures have collapsed in fires. Why the hell do you think that engineers go to such expense to wrap them in insulation, moe-ron. Ever heard of Dresden? Tokyo? Check out some of the images of the buildings that collapsed from fire alone after the fire-bombings of WWII.

Ever heard of McCormick Place? Kadar Toy Factory? Sight & Sound Theater?

Ever heard of the Windsor Towers In Madrid? EVERY SINGLE uninsulated steel column buckled and/or collapsed. EVERY SINGLE insulated steel column survived. In the SAME FIRE.

Are you bright enough to understand the meaning behind that last statement?

In case you want to check it out: http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pro...es/default.htm

If you want to check out what these Fire Engineering experts say about the WTC towers:
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pro...radeCenter.htm

Tell me that the engineers at University of Manchester are "Bush apologists"...

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

So WHERE is the extraordinary evidence?
THERE AIN'T NONE. It's that simple.

No, Mark. YOU are that simple.

Where is the proof of a shuttle blowing up prior to the Challenger?
According to you, it couldn't possibly happen. Because it's never happened before...

Idiocy.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

All we have heard from you is techno babble about tilt and creep. Speculation about fuel that was not there - and unproved theories about free fall.

Sure, Mark. Because YOU don't understand them, an engineer's comments about engineering are "techno-babble"...

Oh, boy...

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

But let us focus on WTC-7 -- where there was no impact.

"No impact..."?
"No impact", Mark.
"NO" impact, Mark.

Do you know what the work "no" means?

Do you know what you call it if 400 tons of metal & concrete falls onto a building, Mark? It's called "an impact". (Yeah, I know. Engineering "techno-babble".)

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

And BTW, even NIST admitted at the unveiling of its final report on WTC-7 that the damage from the nearby collapses was not a factor. You don't know this?

No, Mark. NIST did not say that "the damage from the collapses was not a factor".

They said that "the structural damage from the collapses was not the precipitating factor in the collapse".

They also said that the damage from the falling debris started the fires in WTC7. This WAS a factor.

It's that "reading with comprehension" thingy again, Mark.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Also -- your characterization of the fires in WTC-7 is more garbage. Even FEMA concluded in its 2002 report that the "best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.."

Ahhhh, we're back in 2002 now, eh Mark?

Did you know that, in 150 AD, medicine thought that there were 4 "humours" that controlled physical health. I guess, according to your pathetic epistemology, this means that this must be the state of modern medicine, eh, Mark?

We can't possibly have learned anything since 150 AD. Or since 2002. Eh, Mark?

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I think Cherepanov is correct.

No. He is wrong. Structural steel does not suffer brittle fractures at room temperatures.

It is an inescapable consequence of his nonsense that the entire towers must have immediately shattered like glass, from the collapse floors to the street level, as soon as the collapse began.

Video evidence PROVES unequivocally that this did not happen.

QED. Cherepanov is wrong.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

If WTC-7 was a demolition -- then so were the twin towers.

I've got a better - and equally "correct" - postulate. You'll love this one, Mark.

We can call it "Tom's Theorem of 9/11 Investigators".

It goes like this: "If you, Mark, are a moe-ron, then ALL truthers are moe-rons."

Whaddaya think?

Markie like?

Tom

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by tomk

It is clear to me, it is clear to everyone, that you are reduced to using cherry-picked, quote mined, intentionally misleading statements PRECISELY BECAUSE none of the data - when examined objectively & competently - supports your crappola.

We've been telling gaff-o exactly that for *years* now.

But don't worry - after you've given up and left, he'll be repeating the same BS on yet another thread for the ump-effing-teenth time...

[tomk]

LMFAO,

Oh my. Just spit coffee all over my keyboard.

I didn't think that you were THIS clueless, Mark...!!

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

hey Bolt,
The reason I must repeat is because your expert Tom keeps doing it. He continues to insist that the jet fuel was a big deal.

Apparently, he did not read the NIST Report.

Don't worry, Mark. I have read the NIST report. Not every page. But every executive summary. And every critical bit of detail about the causes of the collapse.

Two things that are different about our interpretations, Mark:
1. I understand what they are saying.
2. I agree with them. (Not on every single point. But on every significant point.)

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Here is what NIST says about the jet fuel:

3.2 BUILDING COMBUSTIBLES
3.2.1 Nature of Combustibles
While much of the public attention has been focused on the jet fuel, most of this was combusted in only a few minutes.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf page 50

So if the jet fuel was burned up within a few minutes -- this is no where near enough time to weaken enormous steel columns.

And here was the source of the projectile coffee...

Mark, I didn't realize that you confuse "jet fuel" for "fuel load".

NOBODY (except confused truthers, apparently) thinks that NIST says that the jet fuel heated up the columns.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

You can't get there from here. Now do you understand? You can't have it both ways.

You can't get ... where?

You can't get to 'hot columns'? Wanna bet?
Why don't you look at what NIST CLEARLY lists for column temps (see my post above).

You can't get to "high stresses"? Wanna bet?
Check that same post for DCRs.

You can't get to creep? Wanna bet?
Check out Zeng et al, from the reference that I posted.

It appears, Mark, that the ONLY place that you cannot get is "out of Stoopid-ville".

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

OK. So let's talk about the fuel level in the WTC core. Here is what NIST said:

...based on discussions with people who had been in the towers, the team assumed that the fuel loading in the core areas of the focus floors was negligible.

Apparently your expert does not understand the meaning of the word "negligible.". Here is Webster's definition:

adj. so small or unimportant as to be safely disregarded.

So, can we agree that "negligible" means extremely small or insignificant? I hope so!

Given negligible fuels in the core -- do you think this might explain why NIST was unable to show that even one location on the sample core columns had been heated to 250 C? Not even one. Don't take my word for it. Here is the passage from the NIST Report:

Two of the core columns with as-built locations in the fire-affected floors were examined for paint cracking. The few areas with sufficient paint for analysis did not show mud cracking patterns, indicating the columns did not exceed 250 °C.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf page 101

Then, of course, NIST does the old two step. They complain that their sample was too small. But the fact remains -- NIST produced zero evidence that any of the core columns had been weakened by fire.

You are quoting NIST. You are allegedly stating "what NIST says to be true".

And yet, you repeatedly state the opposite of NIST CLEAR, UNEQUIVOCAL statements...?!!

Please show me where NIST states (as you imply) that, as a result of this finding, they have concluded that the core column temperatures did not get above 250°C. You can not. Because they don't say so.

Please show me where NIST says that "they are using the information that they gained from these samples to estimate the temperatures that the core columns achieved in the fire". You can not. Because they don't say so. They never thought this for an instant.

I HAVE shown you where NIST states clearly that their modeling shows that the core temperatures got to 600°C to 900°C.

Do you deny this?

Tell me again: Which one of us doesn't understand the NIST report?

Do you think that the NIST PhDs in Structural Engineering, Heat transfer, FEA Modeling, etc. are so dumb that they would ignore any hard evidence for temps around 250°C, and just arbitrarily pencil in 900°C?

Do you think that you are smart enough to catch these guys in ANY such trickery within their own field of expertise?

Don't bother, Mark. That was rhetorical. I can assure you that you are not.

But others are. And others, like me, are satisfied that these guys did a first rate, honest, honorable job.

Lots of qualified people have objections to fine points. Like Dr. Quintiere. Who thinks they underestimated the fuel loads and the temperatures. And who believes that the building would have come down even without the physical damage. And there is a healthy banter amongst engineers about those fine points.

NO competent engineer that I know of thinks that the towers were blown up.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Your expert says I do not understand the NIST Report. But I've just given you the verbatim passages to back up my position. If you can read the English language you should be able to get this.

You don't understand the NIST report.

You clearly don't understand what a "draft version" of a document is.

You don't understand the sampling plan.
You don't understand the REASONS that they gathered the amounts that they did.
You don't understand why those amounts were adequate for their purposes.
You don't understand why NIST never thought (as you keep implying) that those samples would be the determinant of the estimated temperatures of the various components.

Let me ask the rest of you. Are there any others here who do not yet understand NIST's sampling plan? Have I not explained it in sufficient detail? (Hopefully, you will have read my posting where I quoted NIST's explanation.)

If it is not clear to anyone (except Mark, who seems incapable of understanding), then I will explain it again.

Tom

[tomk]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

I'm going to respond to the final question.

Yeah, I know you are.

The one & only question to which you want to respond.

The other 90% of the post were questions that were just too "inconvenient" for you.

I have addressed, directly, straight on, EVERY SINGLE question (engineering question, I ain't interested in politics) that you've asked.

You've evaded just about every single question that I've asked, Mark.

Why is that?

Tom

[tomk]

Mark,

Let's see if anything has sunk in. Please answer these questions.

What were the maximum temperatures did NIST's modeling say (thermal cases B & D) that the core & peripheral columns hit during the fires?

What were the Demand to Capacity ratios of the core columns before impact?
What were they just after impact?
What were they at 100 minutes for WTC1?

You can find all that info in my posts above.
Or can you?

Just checking to see if your brain still has some functionality to it.

Tom

[The Lone Bolt]

Originally Posted by tomk

Let me ask the rest of you. Are there any others here who do not yet understand NIST's sampling plan? Have I not explained it in sufficient detail? (Hopefully, you will have read my posting where I quoted NIST's explanation.)

If it is not clear to anyone (except Mark, who seems incapable of understanding), then I will explain it again.

Just to be sure, what I gather is NIST only collected what was available. The precise columns that failed on the fire floors (and thus initiated the collapse) would have been near impossible to gather intact (and if they were they would be so severely damaged as to be useless for analysis). Is that correct?

Anyhow, once again a thorough evisceration of Gaffney's claims. Well done sir! Too bad even now I can hear Gaffney somewhere out there, with eyes covered, screaming ICAN'TSEEITICAN'TSEEITICAN'TSEEIT. Then of course he will come back later and claim you never provided anything of "substance" for him to debate.

"Truthers" are odd that way.


BTW Gaff, where's my response to this? http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...&postcount=128

I'd like to hear your explanation of how "massive explosions" could have somehow failed to appear on ANY recording device in the immediate area.

[tomk]

Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt

Just to be sure, what I gather is NIST only collected what was available. The precise columns that failed on the fire floors (and thus initiated the collapse) would have been near impossible to gather intact (and if they were they would be so severely damaged as to be useless for analysis). Is that correct?

I'll give Gaffney a chance to answer.
Once he (to a high probability) has failed to do so, then I'll elaborate.

Tom

[mhgaffney]

Tom,

You bet I will respond.

1. You insult me by telling me I ignored the people who were killed by the fires -- or who jumped to their deaths. I did not ignore them. If you had read the testimony of the WTC 2 survivors -- I gave the link -- you would know that many of the people who survived the impacts but later jumped to their deaths (or died in the collapse) did so because they fled UPSTAIRS instead of following Brain Clark DOWN THE SURVIVING STAIRWELL.

Going down into the smoke may have seemed counter intuitive. Yet, if those people had gone down instead of up - many many more would have survived. As you know heat and smoke rose through the building -- making life impossible at the top. So don't insult me by telling me I'm insensitive to the dead. What an a-hole you are.

2. The mere fact that two people walked through the WTC-2 impact zone and survived -- within minutes of the impact -- shows that your modeling of the WTC core temperatures of 600 - 900 degrees is at worst, total bullsh*t. At a minimum -- this calls into question the extreme core temps you cite.

As you know -- the human body simply cannot survive those temperatures. Yet two people did. Maybe you can explain that one, hey? It's a big problem for your modeling -- and for NIST. No wonder NIST ignored those witnesses. And you accuse me of cherry picking.

3. As for the fuel.

I am not confusing the jet fuel with the fuel loading. I agree with NIST -- that the jet fuel served to spread the fires. The jet fuel may have spread the fires faster -- but this had little overall effect. Because the intensity and duration of the office fires was still determined (and limited) by the amount of fuel already present.

The jet fuel probably speeded up the spread of the fires to other floors, and areas outside the impact zone -- but so what? Outside the impact zone the columns were 100% fire protected.


3. Here are the names of the four engineers: Cherepanov, Zsamboti, Robert Korol (who worked with MacQueen and Zsamboti on the jolt paper) and John Skilling.

As for Skilling, we have the actual interview -- what the man said. Yet, you presume to put words in his mouth and ideas in his head. What an arrogant jerk you are. Big egos don't impress me. I am not impressed by how loud a man can shout -- or how skilled he is in insulting others. What impresses me is the quality of his thoughts.

4. The sampling.

You are a bastard to accuse me of lying. I never claimed it was a random sample. So don't put words in my mouth. Again -- your unbelievable arrogance.

It was NIST's sampling -- not mine. They stated it was adequate to analyze the steel -- then later whined that their sample was too small. How is this my problem?

Their sample was too small because by the time they started their investigation most of the steel had been sent to China. Incredible to me that you fail to acknowledge the significance of this. The WTC site was a crime scene. The destruction of evidence is itself a crime. But you appear none the wiser.

Any claim by NIST about fire temperatures not supported by physical evidence is pure conjecture.

5. When I wrote that "Cherepanov is correct" I was not talking about brittle fracture. Again, you put words in my mouth -- then accuse me of lying. What an a-hole. No, I believe that Cherepanov was correct about a couple of things.

I agree with his opinion that your collapse model is "speculation." For example, the changed demand-capacity ratios you posted above -- are not gospel. They are not proved. Those changed demand-capacity ratios ARE BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT CHANGING CONDITIONS IN THE WTC. If the assumptions are false - - then so are the changed demand-capacity ratios. So where is the physical evidence?

I also agree with Cherepanov when he stated that WTC-7 is the key. Because there was no tilt, no creep, and no exposed columns due to impact. I know I am not qualified to discuss those things -- I don't pretend otherwise. But I'm smart enough to know when I am being scammed.

MHG

[mhgaffney]

Tom,

Some time ago I was contacted by a retired fireman -- with more than 20 years experience. He told me a very instructive thing about building fires -- which is pertinent to the WTC collapse.

He said he worked many fires, including fires in large office buildings and high rises. On a number of occasions he watched buildings collapse due to fire, though not steel frame buildings -- other kinds.

He told me that in every single case the collapses were random and asymmetric. Why is this significant? Because it is in total contrast to what happened on 9/11 at the WTC. In all three cases the collapses were NOT RANDOM - AND NOT ASYMMETRIC.

but orderly and symmetric, which are among the hallmarks of a controlled demolition.

MHG

[mhgaffney]

Tom wrote this about WTC-7 :

The fires were not "minimal". They swept thru the building, unfought, for about 7 hours. With NO sprinkler system below the 10th (IIRC) floor, and a non-functional sprinkler system on the floors above.

Regardless of that, the fires did not have to be huge in order to bring that particular building down. Because of unrecognized design weaknesses.

Long lasting, unfought fires in a 47 story tall skyscraper that was perched on out-riggers above a 4 story power station that they decided to leave in place, while they built the skyscraper around & over it...

Gee, what could ever go wrong with that...?


OK Here is a photo of WTC-7 taken just minutes before it fell. We are looking at the north side of the building. Anyone see any fires? I don't.

[mhgaffney]

Here is another shot of WTC-7. I'm pretty sure this is the east side of the building. One small fire. Big deal.

[mhgaffney]

Here's another shot of WTC-7. This is from the west. Notice, there evidence of one small fire on the west side. Big deal.

Notice also the smoke column to the right (south) side of the building. W*gs has often posted this as proof of major fires on that side of WTC -7.

But his conclusion is extremely dubious. Why? Because the WTC-1 ruin is just out of the photo to the right -- and it was putting out an enormous amount of smoke, which billowed up against WTC-7.

In fact, this is why there are no good shots of WTC-7 from the south.