Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[Mr. Jones]

Not once, in any of your quotes or linked articles was there any indication the the towers were designed to withstand fires as a result of jet impacts.

The only thing they design for was the actual impact force.

Period.

I have repeatedly asked you to quote where they said they designed for fires and you haven't even come close.

If you want to defy your own common sense logic again, have at it.
The fact is he was quoted as taking into consideration plane crashes, and the article I linked explains that.
Plane crashes almost 100% of the time involve a fiery explosion, that these experts in their field somehow didn't consider that in any type of analysis is insane, but in fact your assumptions are proven wrong as the link below will show that indeed it was part of their analysis . What exactly was done has been debated, and Robertson claims he can't find his work on it, when he was arguing with the port authority several years ago.


He is quoted ( Skilling) as saying their analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fires from the plane.
Article from 1993-
The Seattle Times: Search Results

Here's the exact quote from the article.

Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Do you see that bolded part of the quote? The analysis was of the impact, not the ensuing fires. I guess you left that part out for a reason? One can only guess. Furthermore, Robertsson states that they did no such study about the fire's affect on the steel.

To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

Your assumption that somehow these men did not take into account the fires caused by such impacts is plain wrong, as the articles posted claim they did. What was done to facilitate safety in a fire at the WTC is documented throughout its history in many places.
From sprinklers to fireproofing, to ventilation.
These are considerations that came from the analysis, and were implemented as time went on. These are facts, and why you would doubt that is beyond comprehension.
I pointed out the actual audio of this from Mr. Robertson, and the articles, while also admitting that anything on paper is missing, according to Robertson.
From what I have been studying, the best fire protection is the use of structural steel itself, for its properties have withstood the test of time concerning fires.

The biggest question that to this day are in debate from many of these experts, and others, is what caused the actual collapse initiation, and the mechanics of the collapse, and its progression.
There are theories from both sides, and what I consider enough credible points made from independent experts to warrant a new investigation.
I have repeatedly said I am no expert in this field, but I have read enough to come to my own conclusion, mainly that it is still partially unexplained, while trying to take the totality of 9-11 into consideration.
We can argue this shit all day and night for days, but until these things are allowed in an independent non political inquiry it is useless.
The main problem is the unwillingness to admit that credible counter views and arguments do in fact exist, and that has been proven.

 

[Rationalist1016]

"From what I have been studying, the best fire protection is the use of structural steel itself, for its properties have withstood the test of time concerning fires."

I can't imagine a more incorrect statement than that! If steel itself is so impervious to fire.......why would they bother "FIREPROOFING" it? For some reason, conspiracy buffs seem to think that steel is un-bendable, un-breakable, ect.. There are plenty of examples of steel constructed buildings that had a structural failure do to fire alone. And that is with the fireproofing intact.
The "Delft University of Technology" & the "Windsor Building" are two examples of this. No the entire building didn't collapse. But there construction was vastly different than that of the twin towers. Not to mention that they weren't slammed into by large planes.

 

[eots]

"From what I have been studying, the best fire protection is the use of structural steel itself, for its properties have withstood the test of time concerning fires."

I can't imagine a more incorrect statement than that! If steel itself is so impervious to fire.......why would they bother "FIREPROOFING" it? For some reason, conspiracy buffs seem to think that steel is un-bendable, un-breakable, ect.. There are plenty of examples of steel constructed buildings that had a structural failure do to fire alone. And that is with the fireproofing intact.
The "Delft University of Technology" & the "Windsor Building" are two examples of this. No the entire building didn't collapse. But there construction was vastly different than that of the twin towers. Not to mention that they weren't slammed into by large planes.

"The WTC 7 is the first known instance of a hi -rise building collapsing primarily due to fire"...NIST



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8]YouTube - ‪Bad Ass Skyscraper Fires and Destruction!! Awesome!!‬‏[/ame]


parts of a building failing after burning for days like a roman candle does not even come close

 

[eots]

"From what I have been studying, the best fire protection is the use of structural steel itself, for its properties have withstood the test of time concerning fires."

I can't imagine a more incorrect statement than that! If steel itself is so impervious to fire.......why would they bother "FIREPROOFING" it? For some reason, conspiracy buffs seem to think that steel is un-bendable, un-breakable, ect.. There are plenty of examples of steel constructed buildings that had a structural failure do to fire alone. And that is with the fireproofing intact.
The "Delft University of Technology" & the "Windsor Building" are two examples of this. No the entire building didn't collapse. But there construction was vastly different than that of the twin towers. Not to mention that they weren't slammed into by large planes.

wtc 7 as not hit by any plane and damage was determined not to be a significant factor in the collapse...could you please explain the vast difference in construction between wtc 7 and all the fully engaged building fires that did not suffer a progressive collapse ? are you claiming something in the design of wtc 7 is at fault ? or is inherently vulnerable to fire compared to other to fire buildings....could you provide a link to this information ?

 

[Rationalist1016]

No, WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. But it was hit by a significant amount of falling debris from the North Tower collapse. The south side of WTC 7 was badly damaged. That coupled with the fires & the inability of the FDNY to fight those fires is what brought that building down. There is no reason to think that the construction of that building was at fault. Although it's construction did have one unique feature in that it was constructed over the Con Ed power substation. You can go to "911myths.com" and find the information that I am referring to.

All I am saying, is that it is illogical to assume that after being hit by a falling building and being on fire for at least five hours, the building would need to be "brought down" by some other factor.

 

[Gamolon]

If you want to defy your own common sense logic again, have at it.
The fact is he was quoted as taking into consideration plane crashes, and the article I linked explains that.
Plane crashes almost 100% of the time involve a fiery explosion, that these experts in their field somehow didn't consider that in any type of analysis is insane, but in fact your assumptions are proven wrong as the link below will show that indeed it was part of their analysis . What exactly was done has been debated, and Robertson claims he can't find his work on it, when he was arguing with the port authority several years ago.


He is quoted ( Skilling) as saying their analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fires from the plane.
Article from 1993-
The Seattle Times: Search Results

Here's the exact quote from the article.


Do you see that bolded part of the quote? The analysis was of the impact, not the ensuing fires. I guess you left that part out for a reason? One can only guess. Furthermore, Robertsson states that they did no such study about the fire's affect on the steel.

To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

Your assumption that somehow these men did not take into account the fires caused by such impacts is plain wrong, as the articles posted claim they did. What was done to facilitate safety in a fire at the WTC is documented throughout its history in many places.
From sprinklers to fireproofing, to ventilation.
These are considerations that came from the analysis, and were implemented as time went on. These are facts, and why you would doubt that is beyond comprehension.
I pointed out the actual audio of this from Mr. Robertson, and the articles, while also admitting that anything on paper is missing, according to Robertson.
From what I have been studying, the best fire protection is the use of structural steel itself, for its properties have withstood the test of time concerning fires.

The biggest question that to this day are in debate from many of these experts, and others, is what caused the actual collapse initiation, and the mechanics of the collapse, and its progression.
There are theories from both sides, and what I consider enough credible points made from independent experts to warrant a new investigation.
I have repeatedly said I am no expert in this field, but I have read enough to come to my own conclusion, mainly that it is still partially unexplained, while trying to take the totality of 9-11 into consideration.
We can argue this shit all day and night for days, but until these things are allowed in an independent non political inquiry it is useless.
The main problem is the unwillingness to admit that credible counter views and arguments do in fact exist, and that has been proven.

Read the part of your above statement that I quoted. These are not mechanisms designed into the steel structure to compensate for or prevent structural collapse due to fire. Which is what I have been saying all along and you have just proven for us here today.

Robertson further proves my point by his quote.

 

[eots]

No, WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. But it was hit by a significant amount of falling debris from the North Tower collapse. The south side of WTC 7 was badly damaged. That coupled with the fires & the inability of the FDNY to fight those fires is what brought that building down.

what part of damage played no significant role in the collapse do you not understand ?

There is no reason to think that the construction of that building was at fault. Although it's construction did have one unique feature in that it was constructed over the Con Ed power substation. You can go to "911myths.com" and find the information that I am referring to.

if the design did not contribute to the collapse that is irrelevant

All I am saying, is that it is illogical to assume that after being hit by a falling building and being on fire for at least five hours, the building would need to be "brought down" by some other factor

all I am saying is NIST determined damage played no significant role in the collapse and that the WTC 7 was first hi-rise building in history to collapse due to fire and the failure of column 79 for any reason would have initiated the collapse sequence...so if you are going to support the official theory you should at least know what it is

 

[Mr. Jones]

Here's the exact quote from the article.


Do you see that bolded part of the quote? The analysis was of the impact, not the ensuing fires. I guess you left that part out for a reason? One can only guess. Furthermore, Robertsson states that they did no such study about the fire's affect on the steel.

Your assumption that somehow these men did not take into account the fires caused by such impacts is plain wrong, as the articles posted claim they did. What was done to facilitate safety in a fire at the WTC is documented throughout its history in many places.
From sprinklers to fireproofing, to ventilation.
These are considerations that came from the analysis, and were implemented as time went on. These are facts, and why you would doubt that is beyond comprehension.
I pointed out the actual audio of this from Mr. Robertson, and the articles, while also admitting that anything on paper is missing, according to Robertson.
From what I have been studying, the best fire protection is the use of structural steel itself, for its properties have withstood the test of time concerning fires.

The biggest question that to this day are in debate from many of these experts, and others, is what caused the actual collapse initiation, and the mechanics of the collapse, and its progression.
There are theories from both sides, and what I consider enough credible points made from independent experts to warrant a new investigation.
I have repeatedly said I am no expert in this field, but I have read enough to come to my own conclusion, mainly that it is still partially unexplained, while trying to take the totality of 9-11 into consideration.
We can argue this shit all day and night for days, but until these things are allowed in an independent non political inquiry it is useless.
The main problem is the unwillingness to admit that credible counter views and arguments do in fact exist, and that has been proven.

Read the part of your above statement that I quoted. These are not mechanisms designed into the steel structure to compensate for or prevent structural collapse due to fire. Which is what I have been saying all along and you have just proven for us here today.

Robertson further proves my point by his quote.

I never implied of any such "mechanisms designed into the steel".
I mentioned that such fires were considered in their analysis. Reread the entire exchange if you want, but I never made any such assertions, and you trying to create a strawman about it is not working, as is your false presumption that I ever claimed to know more about structural engineering then you do.
However, I do doubt that you are more qualified then any of the men who have commented on the WTC, linked to in this thread that have actual connections to the construction of the complex.

If you claim to know so much about it, then I will look forward to your written paper with your theory about it.

 

[Rationalist1016]

When did I say that I support the "official story"? I am just voicing my opinion on what I think happened based on what I have read and watched. I would assume that is what most people do. Read and listen to reports and testimony from witnesses about what happened that day. Then make up their own mind on what they believe. After conversing with you for this short time, I am convinced that is not how you operate. You have a set agenda, no information that is contrary to your understanding is valued.

 

[eots]

When did I say that I support the "official story"? I am just voicing my opinion on what I think happened based on what I have read and watched. I would assume that is what most people do

.

sadly that is most likely true people base there opinions on misinformation
from sources like 9/11 myths and poular mechanics instead of the official report

Read and listen to reports and testimony from witnesses about what happened that day. Then make up their own mind on what they believe.
After conversing with you for this short time, I am convinced that is not how you operate. You have a set agenda, no information that is contrary to your understanding is valued

so what your saying is you have listened to some witnesses and have formed the opinion that NIST failed to correctly determine the collapse sequence

 

[Mr. Jones]

"From what I have been studying, the best fire protection is the use of structural steel itself, for its properties have withstood the test of time concerning fires."

I can't imagine a more incorrect statement than that! If steel itself is so impervious to fire.......why would they bother "FIREPROOFING" it? For some reason, conspiracy buffs seem to think that steel is un-bendable, un-breakable, ect.. There are plenty of examples of steel constructed buildings that had a structural failure do to fire alone. And that is with the fireproofing intact.
The "Delft University of Technology" & the "Windsor Building" are two examples of this. No the entire building didn't collapse. But there construction was vastly different than that of the twin towers. Not to mention that they weren't slammed into by large planes.

So what better base construction material that is more impervious to fire damage can you think of to use in the design of a building?
No one here is claiming it is totally indestructible, and neither do the people designing and building them. Why do YOU think they spray on fire retardant?..Because it is such a shitty construction material??
Structural "failure" do to fire has been shown to be very disproportionate, and not such a sequential event as was witnessed at the WTC towers and building 7, nor in as little amount of time.

Regardless, according to the engineers and designers analysis, verified by their own statements, the WTC towers were indeed designed to withstand plane impacts, and they knew fires were part of it, and there is much debate from both camps concerning their demise.
The main argument concerning the WTC collapses, IMO, are the intensity of the fires and the initiation of the collapses, and whether the kinetic energy should have been delayed or even halted by the counter forces of the undamaged and more robust lower parts of the buildings.
The 9-11 commission excepts collapse times of about 10 secs. whereas others suggest a more reasonable time to full collapse would be like 30 to 40 secs.

 

[Rationalist1016]

When did I say that I support the "official story"? I am just voicing my opinion on what I think happened based on what I have read and watched. I would assume that is what most people do

.

sadly that is most likely true people base there opinions on misinformation
from sources like 9/11 myths and poular mechanics instead of the official report

Read and listen to reports and testimony from witnesses about what happened that day. Then make up their own mind on what they believe.
After conversing with you for this short time, I am convinced that is not how you operate. You have a set agenda, no information that is contrary to your understanding is valued

so what your saying is you have listened to some witnesses and have formed the opinion that NIST failed to correctly determine the collapse sequence

And what you are saying is that the "Official Report" is wrong? And that "911myths" & "popular mechanics", which support the official story, is wrong? But YOU know what happened?
You say that most people base their opinion on misinformation. Who is determining what is the misinformation? There are multiple theories about what happened. Obviously, only one of them, is in fact, correct. I have heard all of the theories and heard all of the reasons those theories are correct. The only one that is "logical", is the one that most rational people believe. The so-called "Official" version. You can throw around all the half-cocked ideas you want, when there is any REAL proof of any of it, I would change my opinion.

 

[Mr. Jones]

sadly that is most likely true people base there opinions on misinformation
from sources like 9/11 myths and poular mechanics instead of the official report

9-11 Myths= Release date: November 27, 2007

First of all, could you briefly introduce yourself.

I’m Mike Williams. I worked as a software engineer for many years, but didn’t have much luck in my choice of employer: both were successful, but bought out by competitors and closed down! I’d started doing freelance writing a year or two before my second redundancy, so decided to see if I could make a living at that, instead. I’m not always as disciplined or as good at time management as I should be, but I don’t miss the commuting or the pointless business meetings, and overall it’s been a good decision.
And people make fun and try to discredit the credentials of A&E signatories? Does Mike Williams know more about buildings then say Gage?

I would rather read what real experts say about 9-11 instead of someone who is not an expert in any of the fields that are relevant to the topic, and is dedicated to being an OCT disinformation specialist. Popular Mechanics so called debunking is full of strawman arguments.
The one thing Williams states on his site about counter OCT sites and opinions, that can also be applied to the OCT is--
"Many of the “facts” we read were distorted, or simply wrong. Quotes were routinely taken out of context. Relevant information was often ignored. And much of this could be discovered with a minimum of online research."

I suggest reading as much as you can from BOTH sides.

 

[Triton]

No, the OCT is right.


A building fell on it

 

[eots]

.

sadly that is most likely true people base there opinions on misinformation
from sources like 9/11 myths and poular mechanics instead of the official report

so what your saying is you have listened to some witnesses and have formed the opinion that NIST failed to correctly determine the collapse sequence

And what you are saying is that the "Official Report" is wrong? And that "911myths" & "popular mechanics", which support the official story, is wrong? But YOU know what happened?

9/11 myths and popular mechanics like yourself has often been in contradiction to the NIST final report
..I do not believe either have provided reasonable explanations

]You say that most people base their opinion on misinformation. Who is determining what is the misinformation? There are multiple theories about what happened. Obviously, only one of them, is in fact, correct. I have heard all of the theories and heard all of the reasons those theories are correct. The only one that is "logical", is the one that most rational people believe. The so-called "Official" version. You can throw around all the half-cocked ideas you want, when there is any REAL proof of any of it, I would change my opininon]

but you were just in contradiction with the official theory and yet did not even seem to know what it was in any detail

 

[Rationalist1016]

.

sadly that is most likely true people base there opinions on misinformation
from sources like 9/11 myths and poular mechanics instead of the official report







9/11 myths and popular mechanics like yourself has often been in contradiction to the NIST final report
..I do not believe either have provided reasonable explanations



but you were just in contradiction with the official theory and yet did not even seem to know what it was in any detail

So, can I ask, what do you believe happened? You obviously don't believe the official account. What was the "evidence" that you saw that convinced you that the government is lying?

 

[eots]

I believe explosives are a more likely scenario...the list of what convinced me the investigative bodies were involved in a cover -up is a lengthy other than the nature of the collapses , the fact the top level FBI..CIA..9/11 commission members..NIST engineers have risk career and reputation to go on record to call the commission report and the NIST report cover-ups is one and the fact there is a complete media black out of this fact in favor of loose change or Rosie ODonald is yet another


Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

 

[eots]

I believe explosives are a more likely scenario...the list of what convinced me the investigative bodies were involved in a cover -up is a lengthy other than the nature of the collapses , the fact the top level FBI..CIA..9/11 commission members..NIST engineers have risk career and reputation to go on record to call the commission report and the NIST report cover-ups is one and the fact there is a complete media black out of this fact in favor of loose change or Rosie ODonald is yet another


Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

 

[Rat in the Hat]

No, WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. But it was hit by a significant amount of falling debris from the North Tower collapse. The south side of WTC 7 was badly damaged. That coupled with the fires & the inability of the FDNY to fight those fires is what brought that building down.

what part of damage played no significant role in the collapse do you not understand ?




if the design did not contribute to the collapse that is irrelevant

All I am saying, is that it is illogical to assume that after being hit by a falling building and being on fire for at least five hours, the building would need to be "brought down" by some other factor

all I am saying is NIST determined damage played no significant role in the collapse and that the WTC 7 was first hi-rise building in history to collapse due to fire and the failure of column 79 for any reason would have initiated the collapse sequence...so if you are going to support the official theory you should at least know what it is

what part of damage initiated the fires do you not understand?

and please give us your complete theory on what happened that day. from the time of the first plane impact, to WTC7's collapse. and give us names of who did what, and when.

let's see if at least one person can give a complete narrative of what the government did to cause the deaths of 3000 of our fellow citizens.

 

[eots]

what part of damage played no significant role in the collapse do you not understand ?




if the design did not contribute to the collapse that is irrelevant





all I am saying is NIST determined damage played no significant role in the collapse and that the WTC 7 was first hi-rise building in history to collapse due to fire and the failure of column 79 for any reason would have initiated the collapse sequence...so if you are going to support the official theory you should at least know what it is

what part of damage initiated the fires do you not understand?

I understand that completely ..I also understand according to the NIST theory
that any similar fire regardless of how it was ignited would have created the same result...

and please give us your complete theory on what happened that day. from the time of the first plane impact, to WTC7's collapse. and give us names of who did what, and when.

let's see if at least one person can give a complete narrative of what the government did to cause the deaths of 3000 of our fellow citizens.

how could anyone do that without a real investigation with full authority ,full disclosure and subpoena powers ?