ANZACs and war and stuff

[Katman]

Are you saying that the commission didn't review expert advice about the possible effect of explosives?

The Commission report makes no mention whatsoever of the possibility of explosives being used in the building collapses nor of any investigation of that possibility.

[Hinny]

How did a thread of ANZACs become a debate about 911/
It is because 911, and 77 are in my opinion two recent examples of situations where govts. use circumstances to influence their citizens to the point of accepting the need to go to war.
War is what led to the formation of the ANZACs. The cannon fodder of the Imperial masters.
That the first war was fought because Archduke Franz Ferdinand was killed is unbelievable, and yet, that is the reason given for those millions of people to die.
Gullible elected officials are clearly ready to send our children off to war with as little regard to reason or logical discussion. Witness John Key's recent remarks regarding NZ going to war against North Korea and earlier remarks about being missing in the Invasion of Iraq.
Do we need to gain new RSA members by allowing people like him to commit our children to risk their lives in such or similar circumstances?
Some posters to this thread have stated they would be ready to stand up and fight to defend this country if we were invaded.
I would suggest that is clearly not true.
Looked around at the ethnicity of your fellow travelers on Godzone lately?
We have clearly been invaded and is anyone fighting this invasion? Winston Peters? Lianne Dalziell?
Liking the increase in the value of your house? How do you benefit from that? Rates go up, Insurance goes up. You can't afford to leave and enjoy your profit as the next house will cost you more unless you buy before you sell. (Like for like I'm clearly meaning). Av. house price going up $5,000 a week benefits foreign bankers more than it does home owners. Part of that debt creation that was referred to earlier. Putting us in their pocket deeper and deeper.
Re-allocation of the control and benefits of infrastructure. Some put it more bluntly as theft our assets.
I would suggest that these are the things that wars are fought over. Control of energy, control of money.
We could have control of both of these things very easily. That they are being taken away is treasonous.
Unfortunately the Australia and New Zealand Army Corps are not likely to be going rise against their political masters and so we sit and watch our heritage disappear.
What will be left as our legacy to our children and future generations?
Clearly it is not going to be more than what we inherited.

[Kickaha]

The Commission report makes no mention whatsoever of the possibility of explosives being used in the building collapses nor any investigation of that possibility.

http://www.webcitation.org/5pvOUTcar

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
diagram of composit wtc floor system



NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

[Katman]

All you're doing is quoting a government agency Warwick.

Do you really consider them impartial?

[Katman]

The 911 Commission was supposed to be impartial but as I posted earlier, even the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of that Commission are on record as saying they believe the Commission was "set up to fail".

[Hinny]

Melting what? Actually, with better video resolution you could tell exactly what was melting from the colour and the shape of the flares.

If there's aluminium cladding in the equation then that'll melt at 650c, way way before any steel in the area melts, at 1500c. Are those cladding panels I see there, still?

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/me...als-d_860.html

As for galvanic issues, aluminium is sacrificial to steel, that's why they use it to protect steel boats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_anode

In direct contact with steel the aluminium would be pretty much gone altogether before the steel began to corrode at all. So no, not likely to be a factor.

Edit: In fact if that was molten steel running from the building then how could it be still standing at that point? Steel at 750-800c is about the consistency of play-dough, given any possibly available energy source the thermal budget required to heat it to 1500c from that point would take hours to apply. So it stood for hours with it's main support columns as soft as warm toffee?

Don't really think so.

I was being facetious. Just trying to point out that in reality ludicrous explanations carry as much weight as the official story.
And Thermate will cut through steel faster than a hot knife through butter... as I suspect you know.
Oh! that's right, according to NIST the sulfur required to combine with Ferrous Oxide and Aluminium and thus create Thermate could have come from the gib. board of the wall linings.

If that was not molten steel, what was it?

How was there rivers of molten steel in the rubble weeks later?

In answer to your question - No, the towers did not stand for hours after impact let alone with their 'main support columns as soft as warm toffee'.

Why would the structure fail after the heat source diminished? There was a woman standing in the hole looking out. Can't have been too hot at that point.
Wouldn't the steel set up again once it cooled?
Wouldn't the 10,000 shock absorbers be able to take up the deflection? They were rated to absorb deflections of 3 foot or more and as we know from the video footage there was not that degree of deflection of the outer walls.

[Hinny]

I thought this was good infotainmant for a rainy day.

[Hinny]

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse....

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Given their budget that seems extraordinarily good value service.
How much did the Clinton investigation cost? $40 million? to see if he did in fact have sexual relations with that young woman - Miss Lewinsky.
This one - $600,000. over three years - $200,000 a year -for 85 career experts and 125 private experts and academics. Great value!
Perhaps if they had spent a bit more they may have got a believable report.
Instead by reason of the of the financial and terms of reference restrictions, combined with 411 day delay for the start of the 'investigation', led to a report that has been condemned by academics and practitioners.
As has been stated earlier, even members of the commission said they had been set up to fail.

[Kickaha]

$600,000. over three years - $200,000 a year -for 85 career experts and 125 private experts and academics. Great value!

Where does that figure come from? $16 million is the figure most quoted over three years

These guys must be on the Merkins payroll to
http://www.911myths.com/html/view_from_abroad.html

[scumdog]

Who frikkin cares, I mean even IF there was this so-called govt conspiray re 9/11 &WTC what the hell is a bunch of ding-bats on KB ever going to do about it or make a difference?

You'ld get more traction on the waving thread...

[Hinny]

And Thermate will cut through steel faster than a hot knife through butter... as I suspect you know.
Oh! that's right, according to NIST the sulfur required to combine with Ferrous Oxide and Aluminium and thus create Thermate could have come from the gib. board of the wall linings.
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

If that was not molten steel, what was it?
a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower.
NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers

How was there rivers of molten steel in the rubble weeks later?

NIST investigators and experts who inspected the WTC steel
found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse
The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing

There was a woman standing in the hole looking out. Can't have been too hot at that point.

According to the International Standard ISO/TS 13571, people will be in severe pain within seconds if they are near the radiant heat level generated by a large fire. Thus, it is not surprising that none of the photographs show a person standing in those gaps where there also was a sizable fire.

Lol

excerpts from the NIST report.
I guess that answers all the questions.

[Hinny]

Who frikkin cares, I mean even IF there was this so-called govt conspiray re 9/11 &WTC what the hell is a bunch of ding-bats on KB ever going to do about it or make a difference?

You'ld get more traction on the waving thread...

If we don't question the reasons for war then our kids could be sent to war, on the basis of lies, by dingbats like John Key.
If there is no public debate then there will be no public dissension and they will feel free to do as they please.
I'm sure those hundreds of people , I presumed to be locals, we saw in the video footage of the rebels driving into Tripoli, would not thank John Key for supplying the rebels with our tax dollars to fund their escapades.

[scumdog]

If we don't question the reasons for war then our kids could be sent to war, on the basis of lies, by dingbats like John Key.
If there is no public debate then there will be no public dissension and they will feel free to do as they please.
I'm sure those hundreds of people , I presumed to be locals, we saw in the video footage of the rebels driving into Tripoli, would not thank John Key for supplying the rebels with our tax dollars to fund their escapades.

I seriously doubt pounding keyboards on KB will achieve anything, I'm out of here, happy meaningless posting y'all...

[Katman]

Who frikkin cares, I mean even IF there was this so-called govt conspiray re 9/11 &WTC what the hell is a bunch of ding-bats on KB ever going to do about it or make a difference?

You'ld get more traction on the waving thread...

Now see, that's scary as fuck.

To have a police officer say "so what if it's the biggest cover-up in the history of cover-ups" is mind blowingly fucked up.

You should be fucking ashamed of yourself.

[Akzle]

I seriously doubt pounding keyboards on KB will achieve anything, I'm out of here, happy meaningless posting y'all...

dont let the door hit ya on the way out...