Jet fuel can't melt steel. (But it sure can weaken it)

[Jim K Global Moderator]

4 hours ago, HawkMan said:

So your response after several people telling you your argument is wrong, how and why it's wrong and explaining it to you. is to REPEAT the same exact statement, with NOTHING to back it up..

 

*sigh

 

yeah, go believe what you want, also the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese and the sun orbits the earth. The same arguments you use to claim your side in this can be used to "prove" these statements. also the same stataments are used to disprove them as to disprove your cliams here, logic, physics and physical proof. 

oh...slow down now and leave the moon out of this.  Everyone should know the moon is a big ball of tyrolean grey cheese.   

 

but no...I've given up on trying to argue with monkeylove.  It has become apparent that he/she refuses to acknowledge several posters reasonings...and exactly what you put in your first sentence here.

[mudslag]

5 hours ago, monkeylove said:

No, they didn't. Read the report and the news article shared earlier.

 

Refer to the report explaining what those pieces represent.

 

 

 

Let's go over this real slow so you can follow along. You posted the following in response to Dot Matrix's post talking about pancaking.

 

On 3/2/2016 at 10:03 AM, monkeylove said:

The only way to prove that is to examine the steel debris. Unfortunately, only a fraction of it was kept for documentation, and most was sold as scrap:

 

http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-6875/403_apd.pdf

 

 

So what does YOUR link say, well let's start with the D.1 Introduction...

 

Quote

WTC steel data collection efforts were undertaken by the Building Performance Study (BPS) Team and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) to identify significant steel pieces from WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7 for further study. The methods used to identify and document steel pieces are presented, as well as a spreadsheet that documents the data for steel pieces inspected at various sites from October 2001 through March 2002. 

 

Notice the larger bold red part of that introduction. To identify steel pieces from WTC 1, 2, 5 and 7. Pieces from four different buildings. Not just the two main towers but building 5 and 7 as well. Notice the next bolden part after that, stating that the pieces were documented for the spreadsheet at the later half of this same report. 

 

Let's go to D.3 Methods next.

 

Quote

Engineers identified steel members that would be considered for evaluation or tests relative to the fire and structural response of the WTC buildings. Pieces that were measured and determined to be significant were marked to be saved, and arrangements were made to have them moved to a safe location where they would not be processed (cut up and shipped). Some pieces were not saved, but samples, called coupons, were cut from them and saved for future studies. 
 

 

So pieces were identified for testing and evaluation purposes relating to the fire and structural response of again all four buildings. Pieces that met their specifications were marked and saved. Seems pretty simple, it suggests that they had to go through a number of pieces to figure out what ones would work for their needs. In this case that related to this report. 

 

D.3.1 Identifying and Saving Pieces

 

Quote

As shown in Figure D-4, the engineers searched through unsorted piles of steel for pieces from WTC 1 and WTC 2 impact areas and from WTC 5 and WTC 7. They also checked for pieces of steel exposed to fire. Specifically, the engineers looked for the following types of steel members:

• Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft.
• Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were above the impact zone.
• Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7.
• Connections from WTC 1, 2, and 7, such as seat connections, single shear plates, and column splices.
• Bolts from WTC 1, 2, and 7 that were exposed to fire, fractured, and/or that appeared undamaged.
• Floor trusses, including stiffeners, seats, and other components.
• Any piece that, in the engineer's professional opinion, might be useful for evaluation. When there was any doubt about a particular piece, the piece was kept while more information was gathered. A conservative approach was taken to avoid having important pieces processed in salvage yard operations.

The engineers were able to identify many pieces by their markings. Each piece of steel was originally stenciled in white or yellow with information telling where it came from and where it was going. A sample of the markings can be seen in Figure D-5. 

For example, a given piece might be marked, "PONYA WTC 213.00 236B4-9 558 35 TONS." Translated, this meant the column was destined for the Port of New York Authority's World Trade Center as part of contract number 213.00. Its actual piece number was 236B, and it was to be used between floors 4 and 9 in tower B (WTC 2). Its derrick division number was 558, which determined which crane would lift it onto the building and the order in which it was to be erected. Other markings might include the name of the iron works or shipping instructions to those responsible for railway transportation (Gillespie 1999). 

 

This part should be self-explanatory.

 

D.4 Data collected

 

Quote

The steel data are compiled in a spreadsheet that includes data from each of the four salvage yards visited by the SEAoNY and WTC BPS Team engineers (the spreadsheet is presented at the end of this appendix). The data are organized according to the salvage yard where each steel piece was examined. The data include the piece identification mark that was sprayed on the piece, the measured dimensions, a brief description of the piece indicating why the piece was selected for further evaluation, information identifying photographs and/or video taken, and the status of any coupon taken. Pieces that were searched for and inspected include perimeter or core columns near the impact area of WTC 1 or WTC 2, burnt pieces from WTC 7, and connection pieces from WTC 5 (see Figures D-12 through D-18). 

The steel pieces range in size from fasteners inches in length and weighing a couple of ounces to column pieces up to 36 feet long and weighing several tons. As of March 15, 2002, a total of 156 steel pieces (not including most of the fasteners and other smaller pieces) had been inspected. In addition, seven pieces were set aside from Ground Zero with assistance from the DDC. 

It is important to note that the quality of the pieces, rather than the number of pieces, is significant to this study. Not all of these pieces were kept for further study. This is because:

• some pieces were later determined not to be relevant to understanding building damage;
• once a coupon was taken, the full piece was discarded; and
• pieces were accidentally processed in salvage yard operations before they were removed from the yards for further study.

 

So now we know where we can find the info relating to the pieces found and what is said about them.

 

 

D.5 Conclusions and future works

 

Quote

The ongoing volunteer effort of the SEAoNY engineers is securing WTC steel pieces that will provide physical evidence for studies on WTC building performance. As of March 15, 2002, seventeen engineers, visiting four salvage yards, have identified approximately 150 pieces. Pieces have been identified that are from WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7. Documentary photographs and videos have been taken and coupons collected. 

Future studies are expected based on the pieces and data collected. Coupons have been collected for metallurgical tests to determine the temperatures to which they were subjected and their steel characteristics. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is currently conducting environmental tests, abating asbestos as necessary, and shipping available pieces to its Gaithersburg, MD, facility for storage and further study. As of May 2002, a total of 41 steel pieces had been shipped to NIST. 

 

Again these are pieces from WTC 1,2,5 and 7. So let's look at a few spreadsheets to get a better understanding of what it all means. Here are the first 3 sheets.

 

 

 

So as you can see, not only did they collect pieces from four different buildings but they collected pieces from all different parts of the buildings, from different floors to beams and bolts. So when you quoted and responded to Dot Matrix's post with this report, you failed to understand what this report actually was about. Which in reality isn't about the pancaking but about as it says in the introduction, a building performance study. Not only about the whole building in general but about 2 others, WTC 5 and 7.  

 

It should also be noted that this report does not even remotely delve into the pancaking effect or the direct cause of collapse. Remember you posted this link in response to the subject of pancaking, for which this report truly isn't about.

 

So now it's on you to backup what ever disagreements you have with any of this with actual work on your own part. Just dismissing this without backing it up shows how weak your argument truly is. It's time for you to put up. 

Edited March 14, 2016 by mudslag

[monkeylove]

18 hours ago, FloatingFatMan said:

Why do you need such proof? What will it tell you if you do get it? What business is it of your anyway, and why do you even care?  You're not an analyst, or an expert, or have anything whatsoever to do with the investigation, so really, what and how they've analysed the evidence is no business of yours. Clearly, you're convinced there is more going on here than meets the eye, so what will you get out of such proof, either way?

To show that there was a proper investigation, which is the only point that I've been making.

 

Also, analyzed what evidence? Much of it was destroyed. That's why had to focus on videos and simulations.

 

[monkeylove]

18 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Do you know what I do when/if I get memory error on a computer ? I check the memory sticks. Not the HDD, not the CPU, not the PSU, not the case.  IF the memory somehow proves to not be the issue, THEN I work on other thigns in a logical manner (though in this case it's fair to say it's going to be the motherboard if it's not the memory sticks thesmevles but eh...) 

 

No, you, unlike many many others have not proven a thing in this thread. 

And what happens when you destroy the memory sticks before deciding to check them?

 

[monkeylove]

18 hours ago, HawkMan said:

they.... did... 

 

as we've explained and proven to you tens of times already....

No, they didn't. I proved that in my second post. See for yourself.

 

[monkeylove]

18 hours ago, theyarecomingforyou said:

One cannot apply 'common sense' to structural engineering and the physics behind it and expect to come to an informed conclusion. The whole point is that expertise is required to examine the evidence, to investigate and determine the cause. One small detail could change the entire outcome of the investigation yet you're applying only a superficial analysis without any rigorous scrutiny. You have no interest in the truth, only in justifying your belief.

 

Personally I don't dismiss the possibility it was a conspiracy but none of the evidence presented so far supports that. It is far more likely that the United States' belligerent foreign policy pushed Osama Bin Laden to retaliate in the most effective way he could conceive. As for investigation of the debris, the sheer volume makes analysing it all unworkable and the cause is usually determined by relatively small amounts of wreckage - human error is to blame for the rest, as investigators simply aren't trained to deal with a situation like that. Afterwards the attack was hijacked for political gain but that's to be expected from politicians.

How do you "examine the evidence" when much of it is destroyed?

 

[Ian W]

13 hours ago, mudslag said:

[snip]

This is very thorough, and while I know it does not concern me, I hate to see you put so much effort into something that is—or will be—just completely disregarded because it is not in agreement with the other person's views.

[monkeylove]

15 hours ago, mudslag said:

 

 

Again you're making the claim for which you have yet to backup. What you've posted does not support your claim. The report posted shows exactly what those pieces represent further down the report. Either you are to incompetent to understand what the report is about or you're in denial. 

Read the report carefully. Only 131 engineers went through 350,000 tons of steel debris in a course of 57 days. There was no attempt to bring in more investigators, to extend the period for data gathering (what was the reason for having the debris destroyed hastily?), or even to sort the debris prior to examination. And that's 156 pieces in from several buildings and planes.

 

Worse, out of 156 pieces, only 41 were kept. Only samples from 19 were used, 45 left at the yards, and the rest discarded.

 

[monkeylove]

15 hours ago, jjkusaf said:

oh...slow down now and leave the moon out of this.  Everyone should know the moon is a big ball of tyrolean grey cheese.   

 

but no...I've given up on trying to argue with monkeylove.  It has become apparent that he/she refuses to acknowledge several posters reasonings...and exactly what you put in your first sentence here.

What "reasonings" are those? One claimed that the debris was not destroyed. Another claimed that most of the debris was examined. A third argued that given these two claims, the little evidence that was kept is sufficient. I countered all of these.

 

No answers regarding why the debris was hastily destroyed.

 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

8 hours ago, monkeylove said:

What "reasonings" are those? One claimed that the debris was not destroyed. Another claimed that most of the debris was examined. A third argued that given these two claims, the little evidence that was kept is sufficient. I countered all of these.

 

No answers regarding why the debris was hastily destroyed.

 

I think Ian's post works well as a response to you....

8 hours ago, Ian W said:

This is very thorough, and while I know it does not concern me, I hate to see you put so much effort into something that is—or will be—just completely disregarded because it is not in agreement with the other person's views.

 

/done

 

Edit:

 

@Ian W...and you were right!  (looking at the post below this one).  All that work mudslag put into his post only to be disregarded by way of "blah...steel destroyed"

[monkeylove]

14 hours ago, mudslag said:

 

 

Let's go over this real slow so you can follow along. You posted the following in response to Dot Matrix's post talking about pancaking.

 

 

 

So what does YOUR link say, well let's start with the D.1 Introduction...

 

 

Notice the larger bold red part of that introduction. To identify steel pieces from WTC 1, 2, 5 and 7. Pieces from four different buildings. Not just the two main towers but building 5 and 7 as well. Notice the next bolden part after that, stating that the pieces were documented for the spreadsheet at the later half of this same report. 

 

Let's go to D.3 Methods next.

 

 

So pieces were identified for testing and evaluation purposes relating to the fire and structural response of again all four buildings. Pieces that met their specifications were marked and saved. Seems pretty simple, it suggests that they had to go through a number of pieces to figure out what ones would work for their needs. In this case that related to this report. 

 

D.3.1 Identifying and Saving Pieces

 

 

This part should be self-explanatory.

 

D.4 Data collected

 

 

So now we know where we can find the info relating to the pieces found and what is said about them.

 

 

D.5 Conclusions and future works

 

 

Again these are pieces from WTC 1,2,5 and 7. So let's look at a few spreadsheets to get a better understanding of what it all means. Here are the first 3 sheets.

 

 

 

So as you can see, not only did they collect pieces from four different buildings but they collected pieces from all different parts of the buildings, from different floors to beams and bolts. So when you quoted and responded to Dot Matrix's post with this report, you failed to understand what this report actually was about. Which in reality isn't about the pancaking but about as it says in the introduction, a building performance study. Not only about the whole building in general but about 2 others, WTC 5 and 7.  

 

It should also be noted that this report does not even remotely delve into the pancaking effect or the direct cause of collapse. Remember you posted this link in response to the subject of pancaking, for which this report truly isn't about.

 

So now it's on you to backup what ever disagreements you have with any of this with actual work on your own part. Just dismissing this without backing it up shows how weak your argument truly is. It's time for you to put up. 

Only 156 pieces from 350,000 tons of unsorted steel debris, by 131 investigators working in less than two months, with only 41 pieces and samples from 19 remaining, and 45 left at the yards and the rest discarded.

 

Does the report explain why, according to one news article mentioned earlier, 80 pct of the debris was not examined? How about the NIST FAQ shared earlier which argues that more than 200 pieces were examined? Any other reports explaining why the steel debris had to be destroyed even as various organizations continued their investigation?

 

 

 

[monkeylove]

21 minutes ago, Ian W said:

This is very thorough, and while I know it does not concern me, I hate to see you put so much effort into something that is—or will be—just completely disregarded because it is not in agreement with the other person's views.

Why only 131 investigators? Why only 57 days? Why was most of the steel debris not examined and destroyed right away? Why were 45 pieces left at the yards? Why was the rest discarded? Why does one FAQ shared earlier refer to another number for the pieces of physical evidence?

 

These questions should be noted because the whole investigation involved a lot more groups, spanned several years, and involved several buildings, planes, and deaths.

 

No wonder we ended up with videos and simulations!

 

[Ian W]

40 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

Why only 131 investigators? Why only 57 days? Why was most of the steel debris not examined and destroyed right away? Why were 45 pieces left at the yards? Why was the rest discarded? Why does one FAQ shared earlier refer to another number for the pieces of physical evidence?

 

These questions should be noted because the whole investigation involved a lot more groups, spanned several years, and involved several buildings, planes, and deaths.

 

No wonder we ended up with videos and simulations!

 

You ask these questions and do not offer, at least as far as I am aware, any statistics that would be sufficient to allay your concerns. How many investigators would have been enough for you? How many days of the investigation? How many pieces of evidence would have been enough for you?

You do not necessarily need to answer these questions, mind you, I've really no interest in getting into the debate again, especially not with someone who completely disregards the posts (and thorough posts!) made because they do not fit with your views.

Either way, perhaps you should rethink where you are posting these questions and also the people you are asking, because I doubt members of a technology forum work for the U.S. government or for the agencies that were involved in the investigation. Further, if your only intent is to persuade other forum members to conform with your viewpoints, it is clearly not working.

[Circaflex]

1 hour ago, monkeylove said:

Only 156 pieces from 350,000 tons of unsorted steel debris, by 131 investigators working in less than two months, with only 41 pieces and samples from 19 remaining, and 45 left at the yards and the rest discarded.

 

Does the report explain why, according to one news article mentioned earlier, 80 pct of the debris was not examined? How about the NIST FAQ shared earlier which argues that more than 200 pieces were examined? Any other reports explaining why the steel debris had to be destroyed even as various organizations continued their investigation?

 

 

 

It's your link, why are you asking us? Why don't you explain it for us?

[HawkMan]

2 hours ago, monkeylove said:

And what happens when you destroy the memory sticks before deciding to check them?

 

Good thing they didn't destroy the memory sticks then....

[HawkMan]

2 hours ago, monkeylove said:

Only 156 pieces from 350,000 tons of unsorted steel debris, by 131 investigators working in less than two months, with only 41 pieces and samples from 19 remaining, and 45 left at the yards and the rest discarded.

 

Does the report explain why, according to one news article mentioned earlier, 80 pct of the debris was not examined? How about the NIST FAQ shared earlier which argues that more than 200 pieces were examined? Any other reports explaining why the steel debris had to be destroyed even as various organizations continued their investigation?

 

 

 

So you basically decided to not read anything he quotes or posted did you ?

[mudslag]

 

2 hours ago, monkeylove said:

Only 156 pieces from 350,000 tons of unsorted steel debris, by 131 investigators working in less than two months, with only 41 pieces and samples from 19 remaining, and 45 left at the yards and the rest discarded.

 

Does the report explain why, according to one news article mentioned earlier, 80 pct of the debris was not examined? How about the NIST FAQ shared earlier which argues that more than 200 pieces were examined? Any other reports explaining why the steel debris had to be destroyed even as various organizations continued their investigation?

 

I tried to simplify the post that even a 6h grader could have understood it. Given that it completely flew over your head, let's try something else. In your mind exactly what does the report you posted represent? 

 

I think it's also worth mentioning that the two news articles you posted earlier don't have anything to do with the report you posted. Im not sure you realize that either. The Telegraph article you posted was published Sep 29th 2001. The Daily news article you posted was published in April 16th 2002. The report you posted, was published Sep 1st 2002. 

 

It's almost as if you trying to change the subject of your argument in mid sentence and only after realizing that you have no clue what you're even arguing about. 

[theyarecomingforyou]

6 hours ago, monkeylove said:

How do you "examine the evidence" when much of it is destroyed?

You don't need to examine all of the evidence. When there's a house fire do you think investigators take every bit of debris for analysis? Of course they don't, because it isn't necessary. The rest of the debris simply confirms what has already been established. What you seem to overlook is that people watched on live TV as the plane crashed into the second tower, as the damage caused the towers to weaken and collapse. The cause was obvious. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence and the conspiracy theorists here have not met that threshold - it's all conjecture and supposition.

 

Conspiracy theorists can't even decide on what the conspiracy is. Some allege the planes didn't even have people on, some allege that missiles were used against the Pentagon, some allege that Jews were responsible and knew to avoid the building on that day, etc. There's a mountain of contradictory claims. Conspiracy theories, like religion, are simply an irrational outlet for people who can't explain the world around them and seek greater meaning.

[monkeylove]

On 3/15/2016 at 0:23 PM, Ian W said:

You ask these questions and do not offer, at least as far as I am aware, any statistics that would be sufficient to allay your concerns. How many investigators would have been enough for you? How many days of the investigation? How many pieces of evidence would have been enough for you?

You do not necessarily need to answer these questions, mind you, I've really no interest in getting into the debate again, especially not with someone who completely disregards the posts (and thorough posts!) made because they do not fit with your views.

Either way, perhaps you should rethink where you are posting these questions and also the people you are asking, because I doubt members of a technology forum work for the U.S. government or for the agencies that were involved in the investigation. Further, if your only intent is to persuade other forum members to conform with your viewpoints, it is clearly not working.

It's incredible that you're asking me for estimates! Shouldn't the investigators be doing that? They mentioned that there was an estimated 350,000 tons of steel debris. Only they had access to such. They could have estimated the total number of pieces by at least leaving the debris at the yards and then sorting and going over them for many months. In fact, that's the only way they would have decided which pieces were suitable!

 

 

 

On 3/15/2016 at 1:12 PM, Circaflex said:

It's your link, why are you asking us? Why don't you explain it for us?

How can I explain "it for" you when most of the debris was destroyed?

 

[Ian W]

Just now, monkeylove said:

It's incredible that you're asking me for estimates! Shouldn't the investigators be doing that? They mentioned that there was an estimated 350,000 tons of steel debris. Only they had access to such. They could have estimated the total number of pieces by at least leaving the debris at the yards and then sorting and going over them for many months. In fact, that's the only way they would have decided which pieces were suitable!

It's incredible that you just completely disregarded my post!

[monkeylove]

On 3/15/2016 at 2:05 PM, HawkMan said:

Good thing they didn't destroy the memory sticks then....

Unfortunately, they destroyed most of them. They didn't even examine 80 percent of them.

 

On 3/15/2016 at 2:07 PM, HawkMan said:

So you basically decided to not read anything he quotes or posted did you ?

I did. Why do you think my post contains more details from the same report? See for yourself.

 

[monkeylove]

On 3/15/2016 at 2:21 PM, mudslag said:

 

 

I tried to simplify the post that even a 6h grader could have understood it. Given that it completely flew over your head, let's try something else. In your mind exactly what does the report you posted represent? 

 

I think it's also worth mentioning that the two news articles you posted earlier don't have anything to do with the report you posted. Im not sure you realize that either. The Telegraph article you posted was published Sep 29th 2001. The Daily news article you posted was published in April 16th 2002. The report you posted, was published Sep 1st 2002. 

 

It's almost as if you trying to change the subject of your argument in mid sentence and only after realizing that you have no clue what you're even arguing about. 

You're not helping yourself in any way. The fact that debris was stolen and that investigators acknowledged that 80 percent of the debris was not examined before the report was published makes matters worse! Or are you claiming that the police and fire experts are not telling the truth?

 

 

 

[monkeylove]

On 3/15/2016 at 6:40 PM, theyarecomingforyou said:

You don't need to examine all of the evidence. When there's a house fire do you think investigators take every bit of debris for analysis? Of course they don't, because it isn't necessary. The rest of the debris simply confirms what has already been established. What you seem to overlook is that people watched on live TV as the plane crashed into the second tower, as the damage caused the towers to weaken and collapse. The cause was obvious. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence and the conspiracy theorists here have not met that threshold - it's all conjecture and supposition.

 

Conspiracy theorists can't even decide on what the conspiracy is. Some allege the planes didn't even have people on, some allege that missiles were used against the Pentagon, some allege that Jews were responsible and knew to avoid the building on that day, etc. There's a mountain of contradictory claims. Conspiracy theories, like religion, are simply an irrational outlet for people who can't explain the world around them and seek greater meaning.

It's the other way round: investigators don't "establish" what happened and look for debris that proves their argument. Rather, they go over as much evidence as possible and then make conclusions from that.

 

[adrynalyne]

3 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

It's the other way round: investigators don't "establish" what happened and look for debris that proves their argument. Rather, they go over as much evidence as possible and then make conclusions from that.

 

Yeah and conspiracy theorists just make crap up to support their ridiculous claims. 

[trag3dy]

 

This guy.

 

He keeps asking other people to prove his case for him and that's just not how things work.

 

I can't help but think he's trolling at this point.