Our vision is to provide a home to sincere 9/11 researchers free from biased moderation and abusive tirades from other members.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which only gives you access to view the discussions. New registration has been suspended.
I have to ask if this sounds like the thinking of a rational scientist or a New Age Nostradamus?
Meanwhile, Jones now has NOTHING at all to say about the XRD and FTIR analysis of the red/gray chips he said he was working on over 8 months ago.
Dr. G wrote:However, Jones' present behavior does tend to suggest that he is either a disinformation specialist or a deluded egotist .... But perhaps the TRUTH is that everyone (NIST, Jones, Wood, etc ...) is working for the US construction industry, (one way or another).
Demolition theories are a nice diversion when the building design and construction are the REAL problems.
Dr. G wrote:TS:
There are many photos of failed column splices that suggest that many bolts were missing and probably never installed on the exterior columns.
Many of the welds for the core columns appear to be "tack" welds that were not particularly strong.
The fact that so many columns found in the rubble pile were completely straight or only slightly bent shows that most of them failed at the splices. Thus the great strength of the massive core columns was bypassed by relatively weak lateral forces - clearly a poor design.
Fireproofing was poorly applied; was falling off at many locations, and was not applied at all to the underside of the floorpans except through inadvertent over-spraying.
The use of gypsum wallboard instead of concrete in the core was a serious design weakness that caused terrible problems by blocking many of the stairwells when entire panels were knocked off the walls. A concrete core would probably have saved both Towers.
The Towers were loaded with PVC insulation that is highly inflammable, releases very corrosive HCl gas at relatively low temperatures, and should have been replaced with modern fire-retardant wiring.
The Towers were obviously prone to disproportionate collapse in the event of asymmetric damage. Never trust a truss!
All of this was covered up by NIST and is ignored by Truthers who are apparently more determined to invent a sinister CD plot than look at basic design and construction issues....
Dr. G wrote:Prof. Steven Jones. Funny, no one appears to want to talk about THAT!
(Sounds to me like NIST were playing that game where you keep removing sticks from a structure until it collapses ...)
So, for all three buildings, NIST has proposed mechanisms for collapse initiation that lead to total structural failure
but who knows whether or not the buildings actually behaved in the way NIST claims.
NIST found a way to collapse WTC 7 from just ONE COLUMN failure!
Which goes to show you: if you only think INSIDE the box, your answer will be ..... a box.
Dr. G wrote:Femr2:
You personally may not care what Jones has to say about 9/11, but he is undeniably one of the most admired and quoted "leaders" of the 9/11 "Truth Movement".
As for your point that I appear to be ignoring 9/11 research not performed by NIST, this is not so.
I think NIST missed a lot of issues that are important to the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7, but NIST have issued the mighty and formidable NIST REPORTS on 1, 2 and 7 that are, whether you like it or not, the benchmarks of research on this topic.
Any internet forum poster that thinks he or she can change the world because they disagree with NIST better start submitting papers to journals showing in scientific terms where NIST went wrong and offering better collapse theories.
Now if proponents of such alternative theories start talking about pre-planted explosives they better have plenty of evidence for this, .... and this segues nicely back to our good Professor Jones and his nanothermite....
Dr G wrote:However, Jones' present behavior does tend to suggest that he is either a disinformation specialist or a deluded egotist ....
Dr. G wrote:Yes, the constant perimeter-floor-core connection strength is a very important design consideration - as someone who does collapse calculations surely knows. I would like to see these factors evaluated compared to buckling and crushing.
The possible omission of perimeter column bolts also needs to be considered.
When you look at photos of failed perimeter column splices you see many examples of column ends with pristine bolt holes, (together with examples of severely gouged bolt holes!)
Could it be that, because of weak column connections (bolts and welds), the Towers were inherently unstable when subjected to relatively minor lateral forces caused by the aircraft impacts?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest