Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Recommended Posts

I see DEBRIS ON TOP OF HOLE . NO PROOF HOLE CAUSED BY DEBRIS. RE your post #7

10_2newbldg6study.jpg

11build6cnncoll.jpg

WTCinsertendbuildingsix.jpg

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see DEBRIS ON TOP OF HOLE . NO PROOF HOLE CAUSED BY DEBRIS. RE your post #7

You love strawmen don’t you? You claimed for a 2nd time that “LOOKS LIKE HOLE ,NOT DEBRIS AREA.”(sic) and you posted Jack’s claim that there was no debris in the building, thanks for demonstrating his incompetence. The other “studies” you posted prove the same:

- the image in the 1st was taken in the afternoon the shadows are pointing east,

- the video still identified as being from 9:04 in the 2nd “study” was actually taken shortly after the collapse of the South Tower, the building is no longer there, there’s nothing but a dust cloud,

- there is no visible damage to WTC 6 in the Biggart photos taken during the first collapse, this jibes with Ondrovic’s recollection that the building’s lobby was still there and was occupied by men dressed like Park Rangers at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no visible damage to WTC 6 in the Biggart photos taken during the first collapse // END COLBY

Gee that damage to building is proof to me. Gaal

===============================

the image in the 1st was taken in the afternoon the shadows are pointing east,

NOPE AM PHOTO. NO REAL SHADOWS TO SEE . Was the dust cleared up by the PM ???

NO DUST IN STREET > GOLLY I think the paragraph in the Jack White study is in English.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Biggart photo looks like damage.

=======================================

SEPT 12 - February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero

In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:

Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003]

William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002, pp. 32]

Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. [sEAU News, 10/2001 ]

Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.” [Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, 2001]

Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminds him of a volcano. [National Environmental Health Association, 9/2003, pp. 40 ]

Paramedic Lee Turner arrives at the World Trade Center site on September 12 as a member of a federal urban search and rescue squad. While at Ground Zero, he goes “down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground.” There he reportedly sees, “in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow—molten metal dripping from a beam.” [uS News and World Report, 9/12/2002]

According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6: “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.” [National Guard Magazine, 12/2001]

New York firefighters recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [New York Post, 3/3/2004]

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.” [Knight Ridder, 5/29/2002]

Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Utah, later will claim this molten metal is “direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite,” used to deliberately bring down the WTC towers. [MSNBC, 11/16/2005] He will say that without explosives, a falling building would have “insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.” [Deseret Morning News, 11/10/2005] There is no mention whatsoever of the molten metal in the official reports by FEMA, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission. [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005 ] But Dr. Frank Gayle, who leads the steel forensics aspects of NIST’s investigation of the WTC collapses, is quoted as saying: “Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it didn’t, the steel did not melt.” [ABC News 7 (New York), 2/7/2004] As well as the reports of molten metal, data collected by NASA in the days after 9/11 finds dozens of “hot spots” (some over 1,300 degrees) at Ground Zero (see September 16-23, 2001).

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no visible damage to WTC 6 in the Biggart photos taken during the first collapse // END COLBY

Gee that damage to building is proof to me. Gaal

===============================

There is no visible damage in those photos, Jack White mistook glare on the metallic façade for curtains

the image in the 1st was taken in the afternoon the shadows are pointing east,

NOPE AM PHOTO. NO REAL SHADOWS TO SEE . Was the dust cleared up by the PM ???

NO DUST IN STREET > GOLLY I think the paragraph in the Jack White study is in English.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes, Jack wrote that in plain English but was wrong. As I told you this came up years ago. The foreground of the photo shows an area about 1000 feet WNW of and around the corner from the closest point of where the North Tower once stood, the winds blew the dust ESE. Don’t see any shadows? Take a look at the extinguisher and other equipment in the lower left corner and the direct sun on the west and south façades of the Telephone Building. Note that the while most of the West façade is in sun the part ENE of the part that juts out is in shade.

995feetcrop.jpg

jackscrapuncropped3.jpg

Biggart photo looks like damage.

=======================================

Only to CTs

SEPT 12 - February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero

In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center:

Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003]

William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, “in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [Langewiesche, 2002, pp. 32

Changing the subject again? What does this have to do with the supposed explosion of WTC 6?

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GAPING HOLE IN VESYEY STREET FACE OF BUILDING 6 BEFORE THE EITHER TOWER FELL

Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003]

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One Thing Wrong and A Lot of Things Right

Posted by John-Michael P. Talboo

http://911debunkers....ings-right.html

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The beam that fell too fast...

Posted by ScootleRoyale

http://911debunkers....l-too-fast.html

I’ve long said that you intentionally divert threads, I’m in good company.

I would like to file a formal complaint that Mike Rago has - five times, stepped on my Valkyrie thread posts - without good reason, and if he continues to do so, after I have politely requested him to stop - I would like to have him placed on moderation so that his posts will be read by moderators before they can be seen to prevent him from engaging further in this childish behavior.

I agree this is a problem with this Forum. Steven Gaal also does this. If you remember, Tim Gratz used to do this. It is a difficult one to deal with. Is it bad enough to put them on moderation? I would be interested in what other members think about this.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243&st=315&p=260337&hl=gaalentry260337

Once again you’re posting stuff that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, the collapse of WTC 6. I won’t reply to such intentional derails except brief comments. You already started a thread about Grabbe’s idiotic comments, you should have posted the 1st part of your post there. The 2nd part is fundamentally flawed. There was no reason to calculate from the TOP of 1 WTC since the column probably came from the impact zone, the bottom of which was over 70 meters below the roofline. Free fall time? About 5.6 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GAPING HOLE IN VESYEY STREET FACE OF BUILDING 6 BEFORE THE EITHER TOWER FELL

Obviously you meant Vesey St. get back to us with evidence of your claim.

Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003]

Still irrelevant and addressed in an earlier post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PART 1 (DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKERS)

Addressing his fourth stated goal, which relates to the third, Grabbe writes:

Finally, I challenge Le and Bazant's statement at the beginning of their paper where they say "All the objections of the proponents of the controlled-demolition hypothesis have been shown invalid." In particular, that is not correct in their response to the recent comment by Bjorkman (Bjorkman, 2010; Bazant et al, 2010). Commentor Bjorkman challenges the validity of the 1D model based on observations, as well as on an earlier critique by MacQueen and Szamboti (2009). Bjorkman states that equations are not needed to see from observations that Le and Bazant's model is wrong. Le and Bazant disagree with that, responding that equations are vital. However, questions of the collapse of the Towers are at least 2D because of important features observed in the horizontal direction. Le and Bazant's 1D gravitational equations for that analysis are not adequate, and they cannot counter Bjorkman's objection unless they present a quantative model of the Tower that is at least 2D in their equations of motion.

As to observations being sufficient to disprove the Bazant model, blog contributor Steve Weathers, included the following picture in his partial repost of Bjorkman's page, "WTC 1 - The Obvious Case Against the Collapse/Crush Down Hypothesis - Debunking the Conspiracy Theories of Prof. Bazant and NIST." Steve notes that, "There is no upper block crushing the lower sections- it's been obliterated. Furthermore gravity alone will not cause the debris to be thrown out laterally as is seen. Where is that pile-driving mass ? It does not exist. The building here is being ripped apart by forces other than gravity."

WTC%5B1%5D.jpg

Furthermore, Bjorkman provides the following:

WT7floor.jpg

Fig. 5 - from [2] - Upper part C roof line downward displacement versus time. The curve is very smooth. If Upper part C had really "crushed down" 9 or 13 intact storeys below into Part B - Rubble/debris, the curve should be staggered! The smooth curve suggests that Upper part C is simply removed in a computer animation.

Scootle affirmed the above point by making speed-time graphs of the motion of four different verinage demolitions, where the columns on the central floors are weakened to crush the bottom section. The first three were tracked at an angle, however, he notes that "in all three cases there's an initial acceleration and then upon impact the acceleration abruptly ceases and a deceleration trend begins. This is exactly what we would expect using basic physics and common sense." The fourth was tracked from a great frontal view:

And here's an After Effects speed-time plot...

verinage.png

Can't get much clearer than that really!
Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PART 2 (DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKERS)

In comparison Scootle mapped out the North Tower and provided the following:

nttrazx.jpg

Three points were tracked. This was a bit more difficult because of the smoke. The graph below is of all three tracks together.

ntrax.png

I think that's pretty clear! Just like
and
, my tracks have produced a reasonably straight line. For at least two seconds the north tower accelerated constantly, further proof of the lack of jolt.

The three [four] Verinage demolitions are perhaps the closest real-world examples we have for comparison to the North Tower, and they clearly behave differently. The fact remains that what happened to the north tower was unprecedented, regardless of how much you wanna
!

Bazant et al. did author a Closure, which Bjorkman called "the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history" in his response. Is he right? Well, his response also included a challenge that puts his money where his mouth is, offering 10,000 Euro to anyone who can "come up with some other type of structure that really can collapse from top down," when the mass of part C is 1/9 the mass of part A.

challxx3.jpg

If his opponents cannot find a way to collect the money offered, then it is certainly possible that they have written "the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history." Here is the only attempt I'm aware of thus far:

PART 3 (DEBUNKING THE DEBUNKERS) below post #26

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PART 3

As Bjorkman noted, "A heavy disc on a pin that breaks the weak fastenings of other discs to same pin is not a collapse of anything. The only things broken are the weak fastenings while the discs and the pin remain intact, the discs having displaced a little.

This experiment with concrete blocks is much more representative:

Even this egg experiment is more representative than the first above:

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the others towers were brought down by demolition ,this promotes the argument WTC 6 was done likewise.......important words in BOLD red below.

Shortly Before 10:28 a.m. September 11, 2001: Ground Shakes Prior to North Tower Collapse

Some witnesses feel the ground shaking just before the north WTC tower starts collapsing:

childbullet.gif Fire Patrolman Paul Curran is in front of the US Customs House (WTC 6), next to the North Tower. He says, “all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet.… The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing.” [City of New York, 12/18/2001]

childbullet.gif EMS Lieutenant Bradley Mann is heading toward the EMS staging area on Vesey Street. He’d felt the ground shaking prior to the first collapse (see Shortly Before 9:59 a.m. September 11, 2001). He says, “The ground shook again, and we heard another terrible noise and the next thing we knew the second tower was coming down.” [City of New York, 11/7/2001]

childbullet.gif Jay Jonas is actually inside the North Tower, on its fourth floor. Seconds before the collapse he feels “a tremendous vibration and shaking; the floor began waving.” [Providence Journal, 9/11/2002]

Edited by Steven Gaal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the others towers were brought down by demolition ,this promotes the argument WTC 6 was done likewise.......important words in BOLD red below.

In other words 'nothing', by that "logic" almost any aspect of 9/11 is relevant on any thread about any aspect of what happened that day. This rather is yet another example of you blatantly attempting to hijack a thread; something that John Simkin noted you have a tendency to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×