musti
06-07-2008, 09:43 PM
this is a widely circulated text against 9/11 "conspiracy theories" which i've seen on other forums. i think it would be great if one of the knowledgeable members of the forum could refute these claims. that would really help for the cause. thank you!
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
mynameis
06-07-2008, 10:20 PM
this is a widely circulated text against 9/11 "conspiracy theories" which i've seen on other forums. i think it would be great if one of the knowledgeable members of the forum could refute these claims. that would really help for the cause. thank you!
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
Flaws:
Free-fall speed argument is false.
The entire one hundred and ten-story building collapsed in 8 seconds.
Kerosene Jet Fuel does not burn at this temperature without a catalyst. Most of the fuel was ignited on impact.
jet fuel caused a fire of 1500 to 2000 degrees F which weakened the steel and cause the collapse.
This statement does not take the strength of the core, nor the mesh trusses, cantilevar & girder system arms connected to the core structure for support, which distributes and transfers building weight/support.
Conventional skyscrapers since the 19th century have been built with a skeleton of interior supporting columns that supports the structure. Exterior walls of glass steel or synthetic material do not carry any load.
Can't be proven only speculated.
Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area.
Richard Gage/Architects For Truth & Scholars for 911 Truth, Underwriters Laboratory, NIST, and the manufacturer says this is improbable, but not impossible.
The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses.
This was never proven through computer models; nor was an established time frame for data that takes tension creep, fire, and time as a display graph to show when failure would occur in unprotected steel; nor was there any other data prior to 9/11 given based on the tension creep of unprotected steel in fire.
The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail.
A non-industry term is nonsensical. I have not seen this used in any other piece of writing about the WTC, doesn't mean that it doesn't exists, but sounds like it is going toward building a false positive reinforcement for skeptics. Magical thinking etc...
hollow tube steel
Still awaiting evidence for this about structural steel, thickness for the tension creep, and time ratio prior to 9/11....
Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F.
This is an expert opinion based on experience. I think this is his strongest statement yet.
The fire service believes there is a direct relation of fire resistance to mass of structure. The more mass the more fire resistance.
False positive reinforcement for skeptics. Belief is not scientific. He is not an expert in the field of belief either.
The Empire State Building in my opinion, and most fire chiefs in New York City, is the most fire safe building in America. I believe it would have not collapsed like the WTC towers.
Interesting, but this does not tell us about how the fire acts on structural steel. This is almost like deflection.
. After asbestos was discovered hazardous vermiculite or volcanic rock ash substance was used as a spray-on coating for steel. Outside of the foundation walls and a thin 2 or 3 inches of floors surface, concrete has almost been eliminated from high-rise office building construction. If you look at the WTC rubble at ground zero you see very little concrete and lots of twisted steel.
If this was about fire safety I would bet it makes more sense to an inside person than outside, but those are the weakest points I can see.
christophera
08-07-2008, 08:19 AM
this is a widely circulated text against 9/11 "conspiracy theories" which i've seen on other forums. i think it would be great if one of the knowledgeable members of the forum could refute these claims. that would really help for the cause. thank you!
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
I agree. I would suggest that we create an online petition that would be sent to Vincent Dunn which would be comprised of factors that his analysis do not address or inadequately address.
I would volenteer to make a web page that would be our information page that the petition site would link to to inform prospective petitioners of our issues with Dunns analysis and substantiate that Mr. Dunn MUST be comprehensive with analysis or state on his page the deficiencies the analysis his page has.
If we use this thread to compile issues, I'll review them in relation to Dunns analysis. Others, as mynameis has done, should do the same, then the best and most competent of that is integrated into the info page the petition links to.
We then spread out over the 9-11 message boards of the web and ask people to review the petition and it's information then sign if they agree.