Oh and Eddivee not only have I beaten you but now is where I kick you when you down.........................You do realise your precious little Kevin Ryan got fired from his position for guess what..........................LYING!!!!!! you couldn't make it up
you have proven nothing ffs what have you proved you copy and pasted 2 little paragraphs that have been debunked now llisten for 2 seconds and this is the last I am giving you because you are heavily outmatched here and its a liberty Demo Characteristics Sudden Onset Straight Down Free Fall Speeds Total Collapse Sliced Steel Pulverisation of concrete Dust Clouds Horizontal ejections Demolition rings Pools Of Molten Steel All visible in in WTC by photographic evidence and eye witness testimony And you are trying to say there is no chance whatsoever of a controlled demolition. Have a good night
He never got fired for lying, he got fired for asking questions he tells you about it at the end of his NIST report so stop bullshiting people who dont know
Oh dear we appear to have gone in circles as anyone looking over this thread will see I have answered these and you know what just for ******s like yourself who never appear to be right here we go again <sigh>: It's the first time in history a steel frame high-rise collapsed It is not the first time a steel structure collapsed by fire It's also the first time in history an airliner rammed into a steel hi-rise building built like the towers (Tube in a Tube design) It's the first time in history a steel framed building built like Building 7 (Con Ed substation in the lower floors and a cantilever column core) was hit by another steel framed building. unprotected steel collapsed within 2 1/2 hours in Madrid fire without being hit by anything They collapsed into their own footprint The floors of the towers fell straight down while the perimeter columns leaned out These buildings could not collapse any other way due to the design of the building. It was not a solid block. The Madrid and Caracas tower fires lasted much longer yet those steel framed buildings never collapsed completely Neither building had the tube in a tube design used at the WTC Unlike the towers, both buildings had their steel columns encased in concrete The steel which was not protected with concrete in the Madrid towers also collapsed early on just like in the towers UL employee (Underwriters Laboratory) Kevin Ryan says UL certified the steel of the towers which did not fail during testing for the NIST UL does not certify steel. They certify assemblies which included fireproofing on the steel Kevin Ryan worked as a water tester and did not have anything to do with the collapse investigation Mr. Ryan was let go from UL because he was making false statements about the company The steel assembly with 1/2 inch fireproofing was rated for only 45 minutes. UL never tested steel assemblies without fireproofing The towers fell at free fall/near free fall speed In every video and photo you can see the perimeter columns far outpacing the collapse. The building took over 12-16 seconds to completely collapse. The actual event was covered by debris so no one can say for sure. One rare video has the south tower collapsing at about 22 seconds. Conspiracy theorists cut their videos out when the perimeter columns hit the ground and not the building. Squibs were seen coming from the buildings Because of the 'tube in a tube' design, each tower was about 95% air. Each story had an acre worth of floor space. The air from each story was compressed during the collapse. The air had to go someplace; out the window space, in staircases, down elevator shafts or other mechanical conduits. The compressed air is called "overpressure". Firemen who survived the collapse in the buildings core felt the overpressure strong enough to push them down the stairs. They called it a "hurricane wind". None of the so called "Squibs" could be seen before the collapse, which is evidence the collapse caused the effect. Explosives were placed in the building during weekend power downs Controlled demolition of much smaller buildings take months. The power down can not be verified by any reliable source. Each floor had about an acre of 3" - 4 " concrete flooring. The sound of that plus office furniture and equipment collapsing on an office below would make a very loud boom. Steel snapping under tension would make a very loud boom. Large transformers exploding in the building would make a very loud boom. Large oil filled transformers exploding from the fire in WTC 7 could account for explosions heard in the building before collapsing Many of the people who said they heard explosions also said they realized it was the building collapsing causing the sound. Even bodies hitting the ground sounded like explosions to some people Scholars" say the collapse of the towers is impossible None of the conspiracy "scholars" have passed a peer reviewed paper in a respected scientific journal saying the collapse of the towers was impossible. Many peer reviewed papers have been passed in respected scientific journals saying the towers collapsed from impact and fire alone. The few scholars who say they are structural engineers and are conspiracy theorists are not working in the field. Dr. Fetzer wrote books on JFK and moon landing conspiracies. Prof. Jones was a physicist who worked on cold fusion and not structural or civil engineering. Prof. Judy Woods was a dental engineer and did not have a job in structural engineering. Dr. Steven Jones says he found evidence of controlled demolition on Ground Zero in the form of Sulfur and Iron Spheres in the dust sample. Sulfur is found in gypsum board Iron Spheres come from flyash found in structural concrete, magnetic printer toner, torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup, aircraft impact, collapse, The iron-rich content of all dust samples was between 0.1 and 1.3%. Not high enough to suggest it came from large amounts of melted steel. Could have been there before collapse created during the construction of of one of the many buildings in NY.
Anyone can copy and paste from popular mechanics Cal, its debunking for dummies. Why did you make up a lie about Kevin Ryan? He got fired for this email. From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI To: [email protected] Date: 11/11/2004 Dr. Gayle, Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly. As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel. There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory." We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high- grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse. This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company. There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter". Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel. 1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf Kevin Ryan Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories South Bend
I'm on my phone, is it the architect saying it or is it someone paraphrasing? As for the Madrid fire, I posted the pictures yesterday. 2 or maybe 3 unoccupied floors were above the area on fire. Whereas there was what 20 odd occupied floors above the area on fire at the WTC, do you not think there would be a bit of a weight difference and so greater amount of force on the girders?
Its the architect himself saying it, the actual footage of the interview. The area on fire in madrid was 10 times that of the wtc at the very least and it was not starved of oxygen. The wieght above causing the building to fall is just not plausible, that goes to the old pancake theory and its easily disproved by free fall speed, there was absolutely no resistance at all in that whole building, how is that possible? How were steel beams fired hundreds of feet? Where was the energy produced naturally for that to happen? Its impossible.
why would the us government send a missile over such a densely populated area like washington when they could just use another plane
Complete nonsense, beams weakened and warped and the weight of the floors above crashed down, the force taking the building down. The Madrid fire was practically at the top of the building with a few unoccupied floors above. Also your forgetting that protection around the WTC girders was destroyed when the plane crashed. This did not happen at the Madrid fire.
Medro, your theory has already been thrown away by NIST, i told you to keep up with the times. Im not forgetting anything, the fireproofing is irrelevant, it was a tiny fire, wether there was fireproofing or not, it does not explain why 50 million welds and bolts gave way in the blink of an eye. The steel at the top was thin, 2 inches thinner than that at the bottom, with that tiny top part giving way, the rest of the building could have withstood 50 times the weight that amounted to. NIST has a new theory medro, keep up. You are pathetic and im away now.
Why do people even compare the fire in Madrid to that in New York? They're not even in the same universe. The only thing they have in common is flames. When you can find a building having undergone the same sort of stress as having a commercial airliner smash into it at 500 mph then we'll talk. And I'm sorry, but the NIST were spot on in their explanations as to why they collapsed. Sagging floors pulled on the columns. This caused the columns to bow inward. Eventually, they were unable to support the weight of the floors above and gave way. This is the reason the South Tower collapsed first despite being hit last. It was carrying twice as much weight as the North Tower. Also, look at the direction in which the buildings fell. Both failed where they were hit, this is obvious to see in the collapse of the South tower. You can even Google pictures of the perimeter columns bowing. Sorry ed, no conspiracy here. Just a nut-job, ie you.
I know Jordan, havent you seen the latest difinitive proof? I proved the collapse was natural and now accept everything that Dick Cheney tells me.
So the footage of the planes hitting the towers was faked, eye witnesses to the planes hitting the towers were planted, and families of passengers supposedly aboard the planes were also planted. Makes sense.
The planes were made of papier mache. It's basically a papist conspiracy. Probably involving the Kennedys.
