|
|
"Ralph Hertle" <ralph.hertle@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:47C504E8.6070309@verizon.net...
> read more... :
>
>
> Your evaluation is a complete fabrication of lies and mistruths regarding
> the supposed facts and causes of the collapse of the WTC towers that were
> [falsely] reported on the web site,
>
> http://www.ae911truth.org/ .
>
> In the sidebar of the web site the list of supposed causes are every one a
> lie. The facts are not in evidence for each and every numbered item.
>
> For example, in list [B] items:
>
>
> "5. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel
> decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust".
>
> All? That's a lie. Not all the concrete was pulverized. You switch answers
> by saying, "mostly to dust ".
>
> Mid-air? What possible cause is there that was up in mid air and that
> resulted in the pulverization in mid air that you [falsely] claim?
>
> Nor was the steel decking pulverized. That is a lie.
>
> Nor were the filing cabinets pulverized. They may have been dented,
> ripped, and crushed beyond recognition, but they were not pulverized.
>
> Nor were the people pulverized "mostly to dust". Human beings are mostly
> water. At best when made into a pulverized stuff and combined with
> concrete particles the result would be mud, and not dust.
>
>
>
>
> "6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds".
>
> If you are referring to the billowing white clouds that surrounded the
> collapsing floors of the towers, you are right in saying that they were
> massive. In the regions of the flames on the floors prior to the collapse
> there were no "dust clouds", let alone "pyroclastic dust clouds". During
> the plane crash through the building the fireball did not itself produce
> dust clouds. That was caused by the fuel carried by the plane, which was
> carried mostly right through and out of the building where most of it
> burned outside.
>
> The dust clouds were caused by the crushing of the gypsum wallboard that
> was used to construct the interior partitions and shaftwalls, acoustic
> mineral fiber ceiling tiles, mineral fiber fire insulation on steel
> framing and decking from the upper floors, and, also, asbestos fire
> insulation on steel framing and decking from the lower floors. The amount
> gypsum in terms of weight was far greater than the fire insulation and
> tiles. The failures of the floor beam connectors caused the collapsing of
> the floor beam and concrete floor decking structures; and the air between
> the floors was forced laterally where it carried nearly everything that
> wasn't bolted down to the outside walls and beyond. Most of the dust
> clouds were not due to wallboard heating; that was only on the fire
> floors. Most of the gypsum partitions in the buildings were not involved
> in fire, and even then the temperatures for the wallboard, except in the
> areas of intense heat, would not have been that high due to the insulating
> properties of the material. The grayness of the white dust was due to
> shadows and the presence of other materials, e.g., paper, paint, or steel
> studs. The white gypsum reflects most of the heat and only absorbs heat at
> a slow rate. That's why they use it.
>
> The dust clouds were not "pyroclastic". The dust of crushed gypsum was
> airborne as in a fluidized bed apparatus, and any hot particles would have
> been mixed in with surrounding particles. No pyroclastic flows were
> reported, and that is the fluid-like flow of hot materials. The dust
> clouds were airborne and not primarily fluid.
>
> Your citing of the web site implies a strong advocacy of the near total
> amount of lies and falsehoods that were presented.
>
> The site, furthermore, used nearly every one of the main fallacies of
> logic in existence.
>
> The main appeal was the attempt to get the reader to accept lies on faith,
> that is, without facts and evidence, instead of relying upon the reasoning
> mind of the reader to correctly evaluate the facts.
>
> The second appeal was to gain the confidence of the reader and to get him
> to join into a consensus regarding the lies presented. The reader was
> being conned into accepting the false premises and into joining the
> consensus. Ultimately, it is the consensus of feelings, according to that
> strongly Platonic way of thinking, that represents the truth, and not
> reason, facts and independent judgment by the unfooled individual.
>
> Additionally, the reader is supposed to accept the sob-story as a reason
> to accept and further the consensus. That is the fallacy of the appeal to
> emotion, for example.
>
> All engineers and architects who supported or endorsed that web site
> should be viewed with extreme, and I mean extreme, skepticism due to the
> lies and fallacies presented on the site. That evidence of support for
> lies and lack of reason is hardly evidence leading to competent
> professional practice.
>
> Regarding the website, the reader should be highly skeptical. If someone
> wants to learn what happened, ask a licensed professional engineer, civil
> engineer, fire protection engineer, or structural engineer. Get out all
> the questions you may wish, and test the replies against the rational
> answers of the other engineers. Social consensus has nothing whatsoever to
> do with the truth. Social consensus is not, itself, a fact, Get the
> facts - not the lies.
>
>
> Ralph Hertle
>
A good reply, but they prefer to believe their gurus. What should be further
investigated is why the government missed the signs that this was about to
happen. Of course nothing but those planes brought down the three towers as
a simple forensic review shows. Shortly after the 2nd plane hit, as we were
watching the TV, I told my wife that the buildings would fall. I knew enough
about steel to understand its reaction to reletively mild heating.
EDS[color=darkred]
>
>
>
> Midex wrote:
|
|