WROOOOOOOONG- May 29 2002: As the last steel column of the demolished World Trade Center was removed Tuesday, construction workers at the site were honored for their work there since September 11th. http://www.wndu.com/news/052002/news_14322.php "There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures". www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm
You're right, they don't work anymore. Maybe because it's such old news that what's the point of keeping it active. LMAO.... But anyways, these show that they did, indeed have plenty of time to look at the steel - YOU just don't believe it.. BTW - that one link was to the House of Reps..... so I HARDLY think it's biased, etc..... And what does "do you another link" mean?
how dare you request working links. non-working links are proof that their evidence was so strong, they no longer need it.
btw we both did him wrong. later on in the tape he had to stop several times because he was so shocked about what happened to the people who trusted the officals, helped and got intoxicated. this sarcasm with the woman is the way he is dealing with events he can barely stand. good trading to you too.
dear dpt you quoted NIST: "Seven major factors led to the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2; Structural damage from the aircraft impact; Large amount of jet fuel sprayed into the building interior, that ignited widespread fires over several floors; Dislodging of SFRM from structural members due to the aircraft impact, that enabled rapid heating of the unprotected structural steel; Open plan of the impact floors and the breaking of the partition walls by the impact debris that resulted in increased ventilatio; Weakened core columns that increased the load on perimeter walls; Sagging floors that led to pull-in forces on the perimeter columns; and Bowed perimeter columns that had a reduced capacity to carry loads." twice? within an hour? and some hours later due to other "seven major factors" building seven? you as a scientist have no single cell of doubt about these accumulation of coincidences? i must concede that i still do ... if i had to call for for occam i would think he said, "if it looks like controlled demolition take that as the assumption and prove the opposite". (i know i am abusing old will'em and that it looks like planes did it and so forth, nevertheless i think the demolition route was never really considered seriously.)
i dont have time to reply to all the posts here but will do as soon as i can. dpt u are wrong on several accounts, will talk to u later. have a good 1 all.
Lets focus here. I do believe someone may have said "independent bodies had ample time to inspect the metal." But that is a meaningless statement. The fact remains there is no metal analysis from ground zero. Period. DW
Why not twice? Two planes did hit the buildings within less than an hour. Twice seems no less likely than once, given that two planes did actually hit. Why do you say coincidences? All the factors are quite conceivable, given that two planes did hit the buildings. That it happened twice would not raise any doubt in my mind, if the mechanism looks possible. What would raise doubt is if the mechanism is definitively shown to be impossible, or the facts are definitively shown to be other than as reported. Once two towers went down in a relatively uncontrolled fashion, it doesn't seem remarkable to me, either, that other nearby buildings could have been badly damaged, enough to cause subsequent collapse. I suspect that the collapse mechanism for building 7 could be closely related to that for the towers. I can see that some of the necessary conditions may be there: structural damage due to falling debris, as well as fire. But of course, there's no official story as yet, about building 7. If the basic mechanism works, and all of the necessary conditions for it to work are present, then it will happen each and every time. If it doesn't work, or some of the conditions are absent it's a different matter. But in any case, whatever the mechanism was for the collapse of building 7, it's certainly reasonable to suppose that it was related to that for the collapse of 1 and 2. Fair enough. Doubt, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. I don't have complete certainty about all details of the collapse, but I find the proposed mechanism fairly convincing given my understanding. So I see the `coincidences' more as an inevitable progression, following from the nature of the impacts and fire. Everybody abuses William of Ockham He said not to multiply entities beyond what is necessary. Most people forget the escape clause ... if the entities are necessary, you are allowed to multiply them. The whole question in applying the razor is to determine when it is necessary to multiplty entities. One case in which you are allowed to is a case in which the entities are clearly actually present. That it could have been a controlled demolition was certainly at least considered. It may be fair to say that it wasn't considered very seriously: I'm not going to argue with your opinion on that. It may be fair to say that there are flaws in the NIST study, I won't argue with that either. It's a matter of opinion. Supporting evidence for the controlled demolition theory in the form of trace amounts of explosives, that I would expect should be pretty easy to find, is simply missing. The most I've seen so far is reports of unidentified molten materials and hot steel, found days after the collapse, at ground zero, rumours about sulphates, and statements about `evaporated steel.' Now it can be claimed that all of that evidence was covered up, or spirited away to China or some such. But that really does require multiplying entities: that's why this is called a conspiracy theory. As a general rule, conspiracy theories become more unlikely to be true, as the number of required conspirators becomes larger. Personally, I think that this would have to be a very large conspiracy, so large that it strains credulity. That's where I begin to think that it's likely correct to apply the razor. Does it mean I have complete certainty about what happened? Certainly not. I'll remain open to hearing new evidence that might prove convincing.