portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

9.11 investigation

Architect vs. Blacksmith: Viral 9/11 Truth-Debunking Blacksmith Gets It All Wrong

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvuKUmK9eB0

In the words of Trenton Tye (aka The Blacksmith), why don't these dumb things die?

"The truth is, before 9/11 [collapse of WTC towers in New York City], the term global collapse didn't even exist. Buildings survived fires, plane crashes, earthquakes, terrorist attacks, botched demolitions and even nuclear explosions. Never, before or after 9/11, have we seen such catastrophic failures."

Jet fuel fires reach temperatures of around 1,500°F only under optimal conditions. In open air conditions like the WTC buildings, they burn at around 600°F. Even according to the government agency that investigated the disaster, there is no evidence that any of the steel was heated to the point where it would lose its strength.

There have been literally hundreds of hotter, larger, longer-lasting fires in steel-frame high-rises over the last century, and never has one caused the total collapse of a building. Tye's simplistic logic implies that many of these infernos should have led to a total collapse. Of course, none has — and that also goes for the three steel-frame high-rises that were destroyed on 9/11.
For the undying 9/11 MORONIC STEEL = AIR ARGUMENT

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvuKUmK9eB0

Published on Jan 26, 2016

In the words of Trenton Tye (aka The Blacksmith), why don't these dumb things die?
Tye's video:  link to youtu.be

Viral 9/11 Truth-Debunking Blacksmith Gets It All Wrong —
Debunker Debunked: Blacksmith Unwittingly Proves Controlled Demolition-AE911Truth Statement

homepage: homepage: http://www.ae911truth.org/news/248-news-media-events-debunker-debunked-blacksmith.html


Easy for you you to do the experiment at home 27.Jan.2016 06:22

Mike Novack

And could cost only about $10-20 for materials.

a) Go to a store that sells stuff for wood stove. Buy a stove thermometer. They read up above 600F (because that is just the high end of "normal". Because their magnet will fail to be magnetic above ~900F they usually don;t go higher than that. But you can actually use that property in the experiment. You could get a couple short lengths of angle iron, drill, so you can bolt into a structure that can stand upright with a high part a few inches above the ground (you can put the thermometer there. If it falls off, got above about 1000F.

b) Get a quart of so of lamp oil if there isn't a place near you that sells kerosene. This is a close approximation of jet fuel.

c) Put a pile of rags rags under and around that little stand with the thermometer. Build up a circular dike of earth around it so kerosene won't flow off.

d) Pour on the kerosene leaving about a teaspoon. Wrap a bit of rag on the end of a 4-5' stick and dip in that little bit of kerosene. Light that, and use this "torch" to ignite the kerosene soaked rags sticking out of the little lake.

What happens? Did the thermometer peak at or below 600F? Or did the thermometer get so hot it fell off.

Mike, what is the point of your pointless 'experiment' (again) ? 27.Jan.2016 19:05

_

MN, you have yet again posted something irrelevant to not only what occurred in the WTC tower buildings on 9/11 but also, what the original post here was about (a direct response to the cyber-popular "Debunker Blacksmith" of recent YouTube fame).


Also Mike —

Kerosene / jet fuel had _nothing_ to do with the official explanations for collapses of the WTC towers.


NIST's official reports on both the WTC 1 and 2 main towers, and the (belatedly submitted) WTC Building 7 collapse have all concluded that _office fires_ were the cause of 'steel weakening' and 'resultant collapses'.

Office fires, Mike.

the "jet fuel melts _____ " joke/internet meme/whatever is a complete trolling (recently exemplified by millions of "Debunker Blacksmith" YouTube views) distraction from not only 1) the Official U.S. Government Scientific Conclusion as to what caused the collapses of the WTC towers in NYC that day, but also 2) what actually did happen (still not fully explained...) on 11 September 2001.


i.e. / TLDR:
Never mind 'jet fuel' with regard to 11 September 2001 in NYC.







References / further reading —


WTC 7: Fires Fuelled By Office Furnishings
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/02/429214.shtml


9/11: The End Of The Road For NIST
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/11/428499.shtml


How Science Died At The World Trade Center
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/02/429213.shtml

[BRIEF EXCERPT ONLY below, click above link to read and/or comment-respond to full article]
---
NIST performed no physical experiments to support its conclusions on WTC Building 7. Its primary conclusion, that a few steel floor beams experienced linear thermal expansion thereby shearing many structural connections, could have easily been confirmed through physical testing but no such testing was performed. Moreover, other scientists had performed such tests in the past but since the results did not support NIST's conclusions, those results were ignored (see peer-review comments below).

The results of experiments were ignored or contradicted in the conclusions:

For the Twin Towers, steel temperature tests performed on the few steel samples saved suggested that the steel reached only about 500 degrees Fahrenheit. This is more than one thousand degrees below the temperature needed to soften steel and make it malleable—a key requirement of NIST's hypothesis. NIST responded by exaggerating temperatures in its computer model.

Another key requirement of NIST's explanation for the Twin Towers was that floor assemblies had sagged severely under thermal stress. Floor model tests conducted by my former company Underwriters Laboratories showed that the floor assemblies would sag only 3 to 4 inches, even after removal of all fireproofing and exposure to much higher temperatures than existed in the buildings. NIST responded by exaggerating the results—claiming up to 42-inches worth of floor assembly sagging in its computer model.

After criticism of its draft report in April 2005, NIST quietly inserted a short description of shotgun tests conducted to evaluate fireproofing loss in the towers. These results also failed to support NIST's conclusions because the shotgun blasts were not reflective of the distribution or trajectories of the aircraft debris. Additionally, the tests suggested that the energy required to "widely dislodge" fireproofing over five, acre-wide floors—required by NIST's findings—was simply not available.

There was no peer review and public comments from peers were ignored:

NIST published its own WTC reports and therefore its work was not subject to peer-review as is the case for all legitimate science. The people and companies involved in the NIST investigation were either government employees or contractors dependent on government work and were therefore not objective participants.

In terms of indirect peer-review, the international building construction community has made no changes to building construction standards in response to NIST's officially cited root causes for the WTC destruction. Furthermore, no existing buildings have been retrofitted to ensure that they do not fail from those alleged causes.
---

The point of the experiment (and maybe the REAL secret being suppresed) 28.Jan.2016 04:47

Mike Novack

The experiment was suggested because of ....

"Jet fuel fires reach temperatures of around 1,500°F only under optimal conditions. In open air conditions like the WTC buildings, they burn at around 600°F. Even according to the government agency that investigated the disaster, there is no evidence that any of the steel was heated to the point where it would lose its strength."

If in the little experiment I suggested you saw temperatures go well above 600F, then "In open air conditions ......they burn at around 600°F" is wrong, no?

But how about exploring what MIGHT be the real truth being hidden

"There have been literally hundreds of hotter, larger, longer-lasting fires in steel-frame high-rises over the last century, and never has one caused the total collapse of a building. Tye's simplistic logic implies that many of these infernos should have led to a total collapse. Of course, none has — and that also goes for the three steel-frame high-rises that were destroyed on 9/11."

Uh, maybe something different about all those previous fires. Maybe those were all in buildings where the insulation around the beams was old fashioned asbestos plaster which used to be used. Maybe 9/11 was the first example of impact followed by fire in a building where the beams were insulated with the non-asbestos insulation now being used. Besides being insulating, asbestos is a fibrous mineral and so added tensile strength to the insulation the used to used. So even when shattered by impact, tends to stay in place held together by the fibers. Maybe THAT is the secret, that the new stuff doesn't work against impact followed by fire.

Of course 28.Jan.2016 12:13

Garth

"MN, you have yet again posted something irrelevant to not only what occurred in the WTC tower buildings on 9/11 but also, what the original post here was about (a direct response to the cyber-popular "Debunker Blacksmith" of recent YouTube fame). "

Indeed, reality is irrelevant to the 9-11 conspiracy theorists. That is about the only truth I have seen from so-called truthers.

But please, don't forget to note the racist subtext of these "theories": people with brown skin are too stupid to have done this.

" Uh, maybe something different about all those previous fires " 28.Jan.2016 18:04

_

Mike Novack wrote:
---
" Maybe 9/11 was the first example of impact followed by fire in a building where the beams were insulated "
---


Mike —

As has been repeatedly been pointed out to you (and others), speculative theories of yours such as
[QUOTE]: "impact followed by fire"

simply do not matter.

Why does your continual speculation not matter?

Because NIST has already ruled definitively in their official report on the matters of collapses of World Trade Center towers 1 and 2, and Building 7.

The cause of those collapses was "office fires".


Not only this, but the NIST reports on World Trade Center towers 1 and 2, have also concluded that the airliner impacts themselves had no bearing on the resultant collapses of the buildings, purported "weakening" of their structures.

Furthermore, your speculative "impact followed by fire" has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the collapse of Building 7 which was not struck by an aircraft.

In any case, the main anomalies with the NIST explanations for the WTC towers (all 3 buildings') collapses in New York City that day is the rapid velocity (near to perfect freefall) with which the buildings collapsed. As though all structural members from the top of the buildings downward had been completely and instantaneously removed.

it's nothing to do with the "difference of previous fires" (only 'difference' being that on 2001-09-11 three skyscrapers collapsed entirely into their own footprints at freefall speed due to NIST's official report conclusion of 'office fires' which has never-before-or-after occurred in skyscraper construction or structural engineering history), "jet fuel", or other memes.

Your further attempts, Mike Novack, to extend and prolong speculation with (pathetic...) "tends to stay in place held together by the fibers" [whatever the **** that is supposed to mean] is, well..... not even worthy of comment.








p.s. Garth 28.Jan.2016 12:13, is the seventh time a charm? Naah...

Garth 'racist subtext of these "theories"' has been wholly exposed and debunked here before:

Troll Garth has _absolutely NOTHING_ left 26.Dec.2015 14:29
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/12/431300.shtml#445071

RE: " Brown people are too stupid to have done this " 22.Feb.2015 18:53
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/02/429231.shtml#441321

Further to the " Brown people did / didn't / couldn't do it " 22.Feb.2015 19:25
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/02/429231.shtml#441326

" racist assumption that people with brown skin are too stupid to have done this " 28.Jul.2015 05:57
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/07/430151.shtml#443684

" Confused "
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/09/430474.shtml#443973
and
" racist tenant [sic] " 06.Dec.2015 05:50
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2015/12/431161.shtml#444933