Guest Tom Scully Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Peter is also a moderator. If it is his belief that a post is in violation of forum rules or requires editing, he has the power to do that. Also, if he feels that editing a post might make the post more legible, etc, then he can also do that. In the later case, he might be asked to explain what changes were made if the poster felt that an explanation was needed.A reminder to all Mods: if we take a moderation action, please try to record it in the Moderator Actions thread at the top of the page. This is not compulsory, but done as an action in accountability for all Forum users. While yes I can, I have edited no posts, made no other actions - other than two warnings - both of which were heeded. So, don't know what the discussion is about. That's not correct Peter. The Forum has recorded your actions: I don't know what you did, but you did edit a post. The post in question is: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=168887 Evan, I'm hoping this may shed some light on what happened, related to this edit attributed to Peter. When it happened, you were apparently merging the thread while I was attempting an edit of the post in question. Suddenly, my edit and the screen I was using to attempt it, vanished and when I got back to where I thought it was, in my own browser, the post appeared as we see it now, with my changes gone, and the sentence attributed to Peter, appearing at the bottom of my post, instead. Matthew, News stories referring to the engine core pictured at the landfill describe it as coming from the Flight 11 B-767, equipped with GE engines. FEMA's report and Popular Mechanics only talk about the Murray St. engine, from Flight 175, manufactured by P&W. There is also an NY Times article describing a Flight 11 engine as stored inside a building at the landfill. Other news articles claim very little of either aircraft was recovered. It would be a nice addition to this thread if someone could post any reference to an engine recovered from flight 11 included in a government published document. I think it is important to note that none of the evidence at the WTC crime scene, or at the landfill was secured, from the beginning of the investigation and recovery, and that the FBI admitted that there was no policy to instruct the public or those engaged in recovery work that removing items from the WTC site or from the landfill as keepsakes, or for any other personal or private business purpose, was prohibited, or a possible criminal act.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Tom, Sorry about that! You can normally see if someone is posting in a thread (their name, at the bottom of the page, appears in italics) but I didn't actually check when I was merging. My apologies. Re: Peter's editing. Peter may not have actually changed anything, but the software records that he went into edit mode on that post, and then hit the save / complete edit button. Since Peter says he didn't do any editing, I suspect he just accidentally hit the edit button on your post (perhaps thinking it was his post) and instead of canceling out, he hit complete edit. When you have these new controls, it's easy to make a mistake like that! Peter: if you do make an edit on a post, give a warning, etc, on this sub-forum, could you record your action in the MODERATOR'S ACTIONS thread at the top of the page. You use your MODERATION OPTIONS at the bottom left of the page, select OPEN THIS TOPIC, then select GO. You can then post in the thread. When you have finished, select CLOSE THIS TOPIC from the MODERATION OPTIONS and hit GO to close the thread again. I sort of got lazy and didn't fill it out when an action was taken, but a couple of people have asked that it be used again. That way everyone can see if any moderation actions were taken, and why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2009/0...00005860485.txt Smoke still billowed from the twisted wreckage beneath the collapsed Nine Mile Road bridge on Thursday as police investigated the spectacular, fiery crash that has closed I-75 indefinitely. The driver of the gas tanker that exploded has been identified as Michael St. John, 44, of Armada. The driver of the car believed to have caused the accident may face charges and his insurance company could be asked to foot road repair bills, officials said. On the service drive Thursday, demolition crews set out Dumpsters to haul away metal, concrete and the charred remains of a tanker truck, produce sem-truck and passenger car that crashed about 8:10 p.m. Wednesday. State police reported the explosive accident happened after the driver of a car on northbound I-75 lost control of his vehicle, drifted across two lanes of traffic and struck the tanker. The driver of the car, Saied Haidarian-Shahri, 27, of Clawson, may face charges when state police submit their investigation for review to Oakland County prosecutors next week, said Michigan State Police Lt. Shannon Sims. "He is the one who lost control of his vehicle and caused the accident," Sims said of the car's driver. State police said the cab of the fuel tanker separated from the fuel tank after it was struck and jackknifed. "The cab detached and hit the center median and the fuel tanker hit the roadway and exploded," Sims said. Police said the driver of a Meijer semi-truck on northbound I-75 saw the accident and came to a complete stop beneath the Nine Mile Road bridge and abandoned his vehicle. The drivers of the tanker and Meijer truck were transported to the hospital with minor injuries and released, Sims said. The Meijer truck was driven by Jody Cicero, 38, of Monroe. Hazel Park police said they found Haidarian-Shahri as he was leaving the scene on foot and brought him to their station where he was questioned by state police. He has had his driver's license for only a couple of months, according to the Michigan Secretary of State's office. All three drivers were interviewed and their statements will be compared with results of the accident reconstruction. More details about the cause of the fiery crash could be released Monday, Sims said. Miracle nobody killed On Thursday morning, the blackened tanker was flipped on its side north of the fallen bridge, which flattened almost all of the Meijer produce truck. A couple feet of the truck was left intact over strewn lettuce and fruit a few yards from the burned passenger car facing toward the southeast. As he surveyed the damage, Fire Chief Ray DeWalt still couldn't believe no one was seriously hurt when the tanker filled with more than 9,000 gallons of gasoline and 4,000 gallons of diesel fuel rolled over and caught fire. "It's amazing no one suffered more than minor injuries," DeWalt said. "It may have just been a matter of timing. If this happened three hours earlier during rush hour who knows what would have happened." Firefighters from Ferndale, Madison Heights and Royal Oak were the first to the scene Wednesday night and doused the blaze with water and foam until about 2:30 a.m. Thursday. Agencies from as far west as Bloomfield delivered five-gallon jugs of foam to keep the suppression effort going. DeWalt said the mutual aid plan was implemented without a hitch. "The outcome was as best as I could expect," he said. Hazel Park City Manager Ed Klobucher credited first responders from Hazel Park and the region for helping with the city's second major incident. "I'm extremely proud of my city employees," Klobucher said. "We started the day with a house explosion (one person severely burned) and ended it with a catastrophic fire that collapsed a bridge. It was an incredible inferno and I'm thankful we had all hands on deck. It's a miracle there weren't any fatalities." Flames shot into the air almost as high as the nine-story Days Inn next to the freeway, Klobucher said. The black plume of smoke could be seen for miles. Gary Reid of Hazel Park got a close look. He was buying a soft drink from the Exxon gas station when he heard what he thought was a crash involving five to 10 vehicles. "I saw fire shoot up instantly from under the bridge," Reid said. "You could feel the heat." He ran over and said he saw the tanker rolled sideways. "The car exploded when I was over there," Reid said. "It was really loud." He figured the eastern half of the bridge collapsed about an hour later. "There was a big thump and it felt like a minor earthquake," Reid said. Hazel Park Fire Lt. Bill Anderson said the hours long fire from the tanker explosion was the biggest he has seen in his 25 years as a firefighter. "The bridge was still up when I got there," he said. "And then it just went down, boom, from all that heat." He estimated the massive fire burned at temperatures of up to 2,400 degrees Fahrenheit, twice the temperature at which steel fails and twists. The 13,000 gallons of fuel feeding the fire sent black oily smoke 200 feet into the air, where it blew with a northeast wind, Anderson said. "In a way it was spectacular looking," he said. Bridge may be rebuilt by Thanksgiving Just a year after the Nine Mile Road overpass connecting east and west Hazel Park was rebuilt, a crane and other equipment returned Thursday to demolish it. Although half of the five-lane bridge still stood over the southbound lanes, the entire structure is being razed as part of an $84,000 bid awarded Thursday morning to Posen Construction Co., according to Rob Morosi, spokesman for the Michigan Department of Transportation. "The heat from the fire compromised the strength of the steel beams," Morosi said of the decision to tear down the remaining part of the bridge. The overpass will be rebuilt for $1-2 million, possibly by Thanksgiving, he said. Klobucher said residents waited at least seven years for the deteriorating bridge to be renovated in 2008. They kept up a steady stream of complaints to the state about being able to look down holes to the freeway below. "It was the poster child for bad bridges," Klobucher said. "We fought to have it fixed and now it's in the middle of I-75." If a driver is determined to be the cause of the bridge's collapse, the state can seek reimbursement from the insurer. "When we obtain the police report we'll turn it over to the attorney general and they will represent the department to recoup the financial loss," Morosi said. Machines that break concrete were being used at the accident scene Thursday afternoon. By the end of the weekend, debris should be removed and the road should be cleaned up, Morosi said. "Then we can determine the fix on the pavement," he said. "It's too early to say when we can reopen the freeway, but we are working diligently on that for the public." About 160,000 motorists a day used that stretch of I-75. They are being detoured around closures at Eight Mile Road and I-696 indefinitely. "The X factor will be the condition of the pavement," said Morosi, adding the aftermath of the crash could be worse. "We can replace an overpass and a road, but not a life. When there aren't any fatalities, it's a very fortunate accident." Comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) In August, 2008, just 71 months after the total collapse of 49 Stories tall WTC 7 in lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001, NIST issued a finale report claiming that the cause of the collapse was heat damage to steel structural components from sporadic fires buring on several floors througout the building, fueled solely by "ordinay combustible office contents", the term ordinary building fires was used in the NIST report. The government claims and photographic evidence supports the premise that WTC towers 1 and 2 were impacted, near center, by large passenger airliners laden with nearly full tanks of jet fuel, flying into the two towers upper flloors at speeds in excess of 300 mph, before either of those two towers collapsed. The story of the interstate highway bridge fire and collpase does not approximate the conditions prior to or contributing to the collapses of any of the three major WTC towers. If starting the thread topic here is motivated by the influence of your opinion of what happened on 9/11 at the WTC , I don't understand if or why you are connecting the collapses of the WTC towers with this I-75 bridge fire, because there doesn't seem to me to be any closely comparable conditions in the damage that is said to have contributed to or causes the collapses. NIST tells us that WTC collapsed from "ordinay fires" and not from any other structural comprises or injuries. You've posted about a collapse caused by an intense and catastrophic, extremely well fueled petroleum fed fire, coming in the aftermath of explosion. Edited July 17, 2009 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 (edited) In August, 2008, just 71 months after the total collapse of 49 Stories tall WTC 7 in lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001, NIST issued a finale report claiming that the cause of the collapse was heat damage to steel structural components from sporadic fires buring on several floors througout the building, fueled solely by "ordinay combustible office contents", the term ordinary building fires was used in the NIST report.The government claims and photographic evidence supports the premise that WTC towers 1 and 2 were impacted, near center, by large passenger airliners laden with nearly full tanks of jet fuel, flying into the two towers upper flloors at speeds in excess of 300 mph, before either of those two towers collapsed. The story of the interstate highway bridge fire and collpase does not approximate the conditions prior to or contributing to the collapses of any of the three major WTC towers. If starting the thread topic here is motivated by the influence of your opinion of what happened on 9/11 at the WTC , I don't understand if or why you are connecting the collapses of the WTC towers with this I-75 bridge fire, because there doesn't seem to me to be any closely comparable conditions in the damage that is said to have contributed to or causes the collapses. NIST tells us that WTC collapsed from "ordinay fires" and not from any other structural comprises or injuries. You've posted about a collapse caused by an intense and catastrophic, extremely well fueled petroleum fed fire, coming in the aftermath of explosion. Blah blah blah. Sorry but the the fires in Twin towers were an extremely well fed petro fire, which ignited even more combustable material. Anyone who denys a similarity between the structural steel failures of the bridge and be towers must be a total moron. Edited July 18, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 (edited) In August, 2008, just 71 months after the total collapse of 49 Stories tall WTC 7 in lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001, NIST issued a finale report claiming that the cause of the collapse was heat damage to steel structural components from sporadic fires buring on several floors througout the building, fueled solely by "ordinay combustible office contents", the term ordinary building fires was used in the NIST report.The government claims and photographic evidence supports the premise that WTC towers 1 and 2 were impacted, near center, by large passenger airliners laden with nearly full tanks of jet fuel, flying into the two towers upper flloors at speeds in excess of 300 mph, before either of those two towers collapsed. The story of the interstate highway bridge fire and collpase does not approximate the conditions prior to or contributing to the collapses of any of the three major WTC towers. If starting the thread topic here is motivated by the influence of your opinion of what happened on 9/11 at the WTC , I don't understand if or why you are connecting the collapses of the WTC towers with this I-75 bridge fire, because there doesn't seem to me to be any closely comparable conditions in the damage that is said to have contributed to or causes the collapses. NIST tells us that WTC collapsed from "ordinay fires" and not from any other structural comprises or injuries. You've posted about a collapse caused by an intense and catastrophic, extremely well fueled petroleum fed fire, coming in the aftermath of explosion. Blah blah blah. Sorry but the the fires in Twin towers were an extremely well fed petro fire, which ignited even more combustable material. Anyone who denys a similarity between the structural steel failures of the bridge and be towers must be a total moron. No "Blah blah blah.", please...this isn't resembling a brawl in one of the photo analysis "discussions" over on JFK Debate.....yet." Did you even bother to read my post? In it I describe WTC 7 as a 49 stories tall steel framed tower NIST says collapsed as a result of ordinary building fires...no petroleum fed fires. Again....WTC 1 and 2 sustained alleged critical damage to key core strucutural components from the impact of high speed, large airliners, followed by brief, petroleum fueled explosions and fires. You cannot compare this bridge collapse example to any of the three major collapses at WTC. Two towers impacted by huge, high speed airliners, nearly dead center in each upper floor impact, followed by very brief explosions and fires in comparison to your bridge fire and collpase. Third tower, WTC 7....no petroleum fed fires according to NIST's determination...in NIST's August 2008 report. From your bridge fire article: .....On the service drive Thursday, demolition crews set out Dumpsters to haul away metal, concrete and the charred remains of a tanker truck, produce sem-truck and passenger car that crashed about 8:10 p.m. Wednesday.........Firefighters from Ferndale, Madison Heights and Royal Oak were the first to the scene Wednesday night and doused the blaze with water and foam until about 2:30 a.m. Thursday. Agencies from as far west as Bloomfield delivered five-gallon jugs of foam to keep the suppression effort going...... ....Hazel Park Fire Lt. Bill Anderson said the hours long fire from the tanker explosion was the biggest he has seen in his 25 years as a firefighter...... http://jalopnik.com/5316090/detroit-i+75-b...se-mega+gallery....The accident occured around 8:15 PM when the tanker reportedly got tangled up with a car and another semi truck. The tanker ended up across the freeway underneath the 9 Mile road over pass where it exploded, sending a massive column of black smoke skyward. The fire went on for hours and, eventually, the newly finished bridge overhead collapsed. Amazingly, nobody was seriously injured in the incident.... Fires in WTC North were burned out within an hour and WTC South collapsed less than an hour after the airliner impacted it. WTC 7, according to NIST, experienced no petroleum fed fires and was not compromized structurally by debris strikes from the other two taller towers..... Edited July 18, 2009 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 This was hardly the 1st time a steel structure has failed due to steel previous examples include: The Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania(1) The McCormick Center in Chicago (1) A Toy factory in Bangkok (2) A few other small buildings (1) A highway over pass in Oakland CA (3) The perimter columns of the Torre Windsor (Madrid) See: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=143656 Though it didn’t collapse fire fighting was called of in the Meridian Tower in Phiily because the FD and a structural engineer feared it would. Despite the fact its fireproofing was intact, only a few years old and of a superior type to that used on the impact floors trusses were damaged by NIST tells us that WTC collapsed from "ordinay fires" and not from any other structural comprises or injuries. You obviously didn’t read the NIST report You cannot compare this bridge collapse example to any of the three major collapses at WTC. Two towers impacted by huge, high speed airliners, nearly dead center in each upper floor impact, followed by very brief explosions and fires in comparison to your bridge fire and collpase. The towers being impacted by the planes is of course an aggravating factor unseen in the bridge collapse. You truncated the quote from Lt. Anderson Hazel Park Fire Lt. Bill Anderson said the hours long fire from the tanker explosion was the biggest he has seen in his 25 years as a firefighter. "The bridge was still up when I got there," he said. "And then it just went down, boom, from all that heat." Though he did say so specifically it makes it sound like the bridge collapsed shortly aftyer he arrived. Such a scenario is confirmed by 2nd witness Gary Reid of Hazel Park got a close look. He was buying a soft drink from the Exxon gas station when he heard what he thought was a crash involving five to 10 vehicles. "I saw fire shoot up instantly from under the bridge," Reid said. "You could feel the heat." He ran over and said he saw the tanker rolled sideways. "The car exploded when I was over there," Reid said. "It was really loud." He figured the eastern half of the bridge collapsed about an hour later. You do realize the fire could have (as seems to be the case) continued to burn after the bridge collapsed? WTC 7 as a 49 stories tall steel framed tower NIST says collapsed as a result of ordinary building fires...no petroleum fed fires Office content fires would burn as hot or hotter than petrolium ones, even in the towers the jet fuel is believed to have burned off after a few minutes. Fires in WTC North were burned out within an hour and WTC South collapsed less than an hour after the airliner impacted it. Please provide evidence for your claim the “fires in WTC North were burned out within an hour”. One of the "inside jobbers" main arguments is that the WTC fires produced black smoke supposedly a sign of a weak fire but that is the same color smoke reported from the bridge collapse. Another difference between the bridge and the WTC towers was that the former’s beams were obviously more robust than the 1 1/2” (3.8 cm) diameter hollow tubes that the Twin Tower’s floor trusses were made from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 In August, 2008, just 71 months after the total collapse of 49 Stories tall WTC 7 in lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001, NIST issued a finale report claiming that the cause of the collapse was heat damage to steel structural components from sporadic fires buring on several floors througout the building, fueled solely by "ordinay combustible office contents", the term ordinary building fires was used in the NIST report.The government claims and photographic evidence supports the premise that WTC towers 1 and 2 were impacted, near center, by large passenger airliners laden with nearly full tanks of jet fuel, flying into the two towers upper flloors at speeds in excess of 300 mph, before either of those two towers collapsed. The story of the interstate highway bridge fire and collpase does not approximate the conditions prior to or contributing to the collapses of any of the three major WTC towers. If starting the thread topic here is motivated by the influence of your opinion of what happened on 9/11 at the WTC , I don't understand if or why you are connecting the collapses of the WTC towers with this I-75 bridge fire, because there doesn't seem to me to be any closely comparable conditions in the damage that is said to have contributed to or causes the collapses. NIST tells us that WTC collapsed from "ordinay fires" and not from any other structural comprises or injuries. You've posted about a collapse caused by an intense and catastrophic, extremely well fueled petroleum fed fire, coming in the aftermath of explosion. Blah blah blah. Sorry but the the fires in Twin towers were an extremely well fed petro fire, which ignited even more combustable material. Anyone who denys a similarity between the structural steel failures of the bridge and be towers must be a total moron. No "Blah blah blah.", please...this isn't resembling a brawl in one of the photo analysis "discussions" over on JFK Debate.....yet." Did you even bother to read my post? In it I describe WTC 7 as a 49 stories tall steel framed tower NIST says collapsed as a result of ordinary building fires...no petroleum fed fires. Again....WTC 1 and 2 sustained alleged critical damage to key core strucutural components from the impact of high speed, large airliners, followed by brief, petroleum fueled explosions and fires. You cannot compare this bridge collapse example to any of the three major collapses at WTC. Two towers impacted by huge, high speed airliners, nearly dead center in each upper floor impact, followed by very brief explosions and fires in comparison to your bridge fire and collpase. Third tower, WTC 7....no petroleum fed fires according to NIST's determination...in NIST's August 2008 report. From your bridge fire article: .....On the service drive Thursday, demolition crews set out Dumpsters to haul away metal, concrete and the charred remains of a tanker truck, produce sem-truck and passenger car that crashed about 8:10 p.m. Wednesday.........Firefighters from Ferndale, Madison Heights and Royal Oak were the first to the scene Wednesday night and doused the blaze with water and foam until about 2:30 a.m. Thursday. Agencies from as far west as Bloomfield delivered five-gallon jugs of foam to keep the suppression effort going...... ....Hazel Park Fire Lt. Bill Anderson said the hours long fire from the tanker explosion was the biggest he has seen in his 25 years as a firefighter...... http://jalopnik.com/5316090/detroit-i+75-b...se-mega+gallery....The accident occured around 8:15 PM when the tanker reportedly got tangled up with a car and another semi truck. The tanker ended up across the freeway underneath the 9 Mile road over pass where it exploded, sending a massive column of black smoke skyward. The fire went on for hours and, eventually, the newly finished bridge overhead collapsed. Amazingly, nobody was seriously injured in the incident.... Fires in WTC North were burned out within an hour and WTC South collapsed less than an hour after the airliner impacted it. WTC 7, according to NIST, experienced no petroleum fed fires and was not compromized structurally by debris strikes from the other two taller towers..... Of course I read your post, and my statement still stands. Anyone who denys a similarity between the structural steel failures of the bridge and be towers must be a total moron. If the shoe fits, wear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Some claim that a BIRD flies in front of the camera in the video. I just did this analysis. You decide what is shown. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 What is the official explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 LOL - How does 'I don't what this is' qualify as "analysis"? Get back to us when you've found the actual video clip, its not a helicopter or even a bird, a plane or Superman. It's debris from flight 175, probablly the engine core you're so obsessed with, ejected from the South Tower. The clip is in the opening credits of a famous truther "documentary" perhaps "9/11 Mysteries" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) I have to disagree Len, watch the video, it's not debris: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksi-_3g_BGo It's clearly an object close to the camera, most likely a bird. Edited July 28, 2009 by Kevin M. West Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Yep, that looked like a bird. What about this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I have to disagree Len, watch the video, it's not debris:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksi-_3g_BGo It's clearly an object close to the camera, most likely a bird. What species of bird is disk shaped without wings, and has FIVE LIGHTS around its oval rim? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Yep, that looked like a bird.What about this one? No idea, pointing a handheld camera at a screen and then uploading the results to youtube doesn't exactly result in a clear image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now