See other 9/11 Articles
Title: WTC 7 is 9/11 Key
Source:
http://www.republic-news.org
URL Source: http://www.republic-news.org/archiv ... epub/154_kevin_potvin_9-11.htm
Published: Jan 9, 2007
Author: Kevin Potvin
Post Date: 2007-01-09 07:38:50 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 992
Comments: 95
Current Issue • January 4 to January 18, 2007 • No 154 9-11 WTC 7 is 9/11 key Those who poo-poo alternative theories about 9-11 should adopt the methods of science and try to explain what happened to the building that was not hit by a plane By Kevin Potvin You decide how much it's worth to you: By Kevin Potvin We’ve just witnessed, if not participated in, a massive conspiracy. Tens of millions of people every winter conspire in a flat out lie to fool millions more of society’s most gullible members when they all agree to keep silent about the truth about Santa Clause. Sure, you're laughing, that’s a funny example of a conspiracy, but there it is: those who deny there could possibly be massive conspiracies involving thousands of people or even millions, are wrong. Hannah Arendt, among so many others, wrote about how the German people were swept up in a conspiracy of lies about how the Jews among them were not human, and so deserved to be exterminated. When professional standing, personal prestige, working incomes, even ordinary, seldom-examined personal belief systems, are at stake, millions will engage in the common telling of lies if they find it necessary to do so to sustain their place in life. According to authors like Arendt, they don't even necessarily know they are telling lies. The conspiracy of 9-11 and the related conspiracy of its cover-up can never be compared to either Santa Claus or to the Holocaust. But these examples can serve to show that many people can be involved in a conspiracy, that many can be motivated to do so by base, ordinary concerns, and that many may not even be consciously aware of their participation in a conspiracy. For obvious reasons, the realization and admission by anyone with official authority to speak on the matter that some arm of the US government was responsible for the crimes of 9-11 would involve so much destruction of belief systems, not to mention security, incomes, and reputations, that blind instinct dictates the official version be upheld. Popular Mechanics magazine some time ago published a special issue that purported to destroy all versions of events of 9-11 besides the official version. Last week, the editor of the magazine wrote a newspaper editorial documenting the results: hilarious and disturbing attacks on him and his magazine by the so-called conspiracy theory industry. But what if, after launching its investigation, the magazine’s editors found that 9-11 was in fact an inside job, and reported this. Where do you think the scientists who made that conclusion, and the magazine's editorial staff who reported it, would be today? When we see the level of vitriol leveled at any questioning of the official version of events that creeps into mainstream media, with accusations of anti-patriotism, treason, and anti-Semitism, it is no surprise few mainstream newspapers will touch 9-11 conspiracies. The lack of reporting on alternative versions of 9-11 in the mainstream press is no evidence of their weaknesses. If anything, the lack of mention of strong alternative theories, except to laugh at the least plausible of them, attests to their strengths. In a book called Hitler's Scientists, we find personal diaries where German scientists caught up in Third Reich politics express serious misgivings about their work, misgivings that were nowhere evident in their published work, some of it very crucial to horrifying medical experimentation, mass murder systems, and nuclear science the Nazis were carrying out. Scientists who were sure there was nothing but dangerous hubris to Nazi theories about racial intelligence and other pillars of Third Reich philosophy nonetheless signed off on published documents extolling the virtues of those "scientific" claims. This was not some backward savage place, but the leading educated and scientific nation on the planet. Those who ask, How is it all those engineers, metallurgists, physicists and material scientists who produced both the Popular Mechanics 9-11 issue, as well as the official US government 9-11 report, could get it all so fundamentally wrong, need only remind themselves of the broad popular, as well as corporate and scholarly support, the Nazi regime engineered in Germany. 9-11 is an event that registers nowhere on the scale of something like Nazi Germany and its Holocaust. But that is a fact that makes the 9-11 conspiracy an easier thing to imagine than Germany in the 1930s. The basic known facts of 9-11 need to be reviewed, beginning with the most beguiling of them all: World Trade Center building number seven fell straight down later on that fateful day but registers in mainstream media as almost a forgotten footnote. This building was the same square footage of one of the towers, half their height but twice their footprint. It was huge, one of the biggest buildings in the world, and it was not struck by a plane nor badly hit by debris from the falling towers. It may have had a diesel fire on its lowest floors, a fire that could never burn hot enough to make the steel frame of the building melt. Yet the building fell down as though every one of its steel columns, back to front and side to side in this massive building, melted and collapsed all at once. The official Congressional investigation, as well as Popular Mechanics, simply said of building seven's collapse that no known theory explains it, and moved on. The best explanation, assuming we wish to have at least one, is to theorize that it was brought down by controlled demolition. And that means it must have been pre-wired to be brought down, and who would or could do that but someone with regular access, such as members of the many US government overt and covert agencies that maintained offices in this very building? And of course, a plan and the means to bring down building seven presupposes foreknowledge of 9-11 as a whole, and foreknowledge means participation. It is the fate of building seven that has generated most of the legitimate questioning of the official version of events of 9-11, and it was that incessant questioning that lead to both the official Congressional investigation and the special issue of Popular Mechanics magazine. Yet both investigations, after clouding the issue with brain-numbing detailed examination of the fate of the two towers, completely passed over and ignored questions about building seven. Five-and-a-half years later, the controlled demolition theory still remains the best theory about why building seven collapsed. Every scientist always goes with the best theory available on any phenomenon, and never accepts no theory at all. Every good scientist does, anyway. You decide how much it's worth to you:
Poster Comment: The bottom line is no changes in skyscraper fire codes have been passed. Highrises would be upgraded and retro fitted if there was this dire flaw. Fire has never resulted in a complete collapse of a structual steel highrise. The steel used in these buildings is massive and the PSI ratings are from 36,000-100,000. There never has been even a failure of a single primary vertical girder. Ever.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala, swarthyguy (#0)
I don't know any sky-rise that had 100K of Diesel fuel in storage tanks inside a building either that was cited by the fire dept as a potential fire hazard. Google 'Bob Herbert + Giuliani + "skybox bunker". The real key to 9/11 is the vast connections of American intel had and still has with jihadi organizations around the world. The men who carried out 9/11 were veterans of CIA backed jihadi armies in Bosnia, Kosovo and Chechnya and other places where pipeline routes and jihad campaigns overlap. Why did the govts intel mask the 9/11 cell (which they knew of and a few of these men were known CIA assets in the Bosnian war) and allow them to operate freely in the USA for so long? Did the American intel community want the 9/11 cell to succeed? Or were they blindsided by their own assets double crossing them and created this 'blowback'? Those are the real questions. The article above is designed to focus attention away from the scenario I mentioned and get people stuck on the honey trap that is the multiple 9/11 truth theories.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
That building came down straight uniformly in a classic controlled demolition. If those storgae tanks - in the basement- ruptured- burst- caught on fire and burned for hours (burning uniformly throughout the building apparently as well)- there is no way it would produce that sort of structural collpase. Buidlings in Pakistan and Turkey- high rise apartment blocks 10 and 15 stories- built with the shoddiest of materials and with nary an eye to any sort of safety concerns- collapsed less perfectly than did building 7 after suffering massive earthquakes. They pancacked imperfectly upon themselves- many then caught on fire and still never completely collapsed. I am not challenging your facts as to the "real story" of 9/11 - but Building Seven SCREAMS controlled demolition.
Burky, don't waste your time. Myself and others have beat that poster absolutely senseless on this topic. Here is just one thread. http://freedom4um.com/cgi- bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=39766
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Blowback is a bitch. My personal view is that the scale of the attacks were a surprise to an extent, but not completely as the preponderance of evidence shows. The Pentagon via Able Danger may have stumbled upon an op being run. Others knew, as evinced by Hugo Chavez's taunting of Bush by calling him Mr. Danger. An attack was expected and probably allowed to happen with an acceptable casualty count in the few hundreds. Intel ops being circles within circles, we were taken by surprise but not totally. The standdown of air assets, the timing of the OP - when multiple exercises were being run, while many aircraft were in Alaska on training exercies, not to mention the damn date - 9FUCKING11, is that symbolic or what, especially when the rest of the world uses a DDMMYY nomenclature instead of the American MMDDYY. As far as all the ballyhoo about demos and whatnot, you are correct in that it diverts attention from the motivations and the actual players, by causing all sorts of scenarios to be floated about the buildings. There are issues; Bush's brother being on the board of Stratsec, responsible for WTC security, the power outages the weekend before, strange men walking around the building. But all that fades compared to the connections to previous jihads approved by the US - Afghanistan, Kashmir, Chechnya and the Balkans. The coverup worked. The 911 community gets caught up in the mechanics of the act, falling for the trap of chasing various geese, wild or not. Anyway, as i've said before, it's more a question of faith and belief than however it transpired. It's history, and as such, concerning most Americans view on history, it's pretty much irrelevant now. The CoverUp worked.
Mark, if you use any search engine and look for the 911 Commission Report you will NOT find any mention of Bld 7 in it. The reason is that it is so evident that No. 7 was a controlled demolition and that would lead to the controlled demolition of the other blds. (and we wouldn't want to get involved in that investigation would we?)
"You can not save the Constitution by destroying it."
The 911 Commission wasn't an investigation,it was a cover up. WTC 7 was a classic bottom up, crimp in the middle, squibs firing up the building, demo. This spring, NIST is supposed to release a WTC 7 report. It will be good for some laughs. The lastest spin is somehow, WTC 7 had "heavy" damage. Even though there is no proof of this. There is one witness that claims there was severe damage in the middle 1/3rd of the south face. There is also a report from either 2-6 individuals of early explosions after WTC 1 exploded. Also these people left though the lobby of WTC 7, right where this massive scoop damage would be. Nobody reported any heavy damage in the face/lobby area. This "damage" or "scoop" supposedly "knocked" loose or "scrapped" off the fire insulation, which combined with the diesel fire, resulted in a complete symetrical collapse in 6.5 seconds. Nevermind that any fire in history has never resulted in a complete collapse of a skyscapper, even without fireproofing. Nevermind that WTC 7 was evacuated late morning. Nevermind that Guliani left WTC 7 after WTC 2 exploded and set up at the FEMA site that was in place the day before. Nevermind that WTC 7 alarms/sprinklers were put in "test mode" by "someone" very early that morning, which rendered them shut down. Nevermind that there were no fires seen in WTC 7 until around 3:00pm, and by 5:00, while burning and smokey, WTC wasn't a wild inferno by any close stretch. Nevermind the molten iron found under the rubble which at a minimum would take, 3000 plus degrees. Nevermind the burning hotspots on the surface of 1300 degrees and the 3000 degree hotspots deep in the basements months later. Nevermind that open air diesel fires burn from 900-1100. Just like most conventional hydrocarbon office fires. Nevermind that steel girders recovered from WTC 7 had sulphadated, eutectic formations and had structual steel that was swiss cheese in nature and evaporated. Nevermind that evaporated structual steel would indicate temps of 5100 degrees. I could go on for hours. There is plenty of hard science and evidence that completely destroys the FEMA/SILVERSTEIN/NIST conclusions, which by the way, all three contradict each other, even though some of the same engineers worked on all three. There are a couple valid points in this thread. The people/paper trail isn't as popular as debating the demo evidence above. Both are important. One could take just the people/trail evidence and have enough for criminal/murder indictments. Forget LIHOP/MIHOP. They are the same. Criminal elements in our government, along with domestic and foreign assets, carried out 911. Forget about a worldwide terrorist network. Any large scale event is always government/nation sponsored.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
You don't understand. The 9-11 Truthers aren't interested in facts! Their minds are already made up. Like the nonsense about the buildings falling in "their own footprint." Hey, why didn't these Evil Geniuses make the buildings fall to one side, creating much more death and destruction? They're Evil Geniuses, right, ones who pulled off the most complex conspiracy in the history of the world and disappeared without a trace. Amazing! Shazam!
"We become what we behold. We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." -- Marshall McLuhan, after Alexander Pope and William Blake.
Ah, the birds of a feather, flock together. Little birdies fly away now. Fly-fly, fly-fly.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
They didn't disappear, and were are hardly geniuses. Their comical explanation for the events of that day and the obvious signs that government officials were involved, proves that the top planners and architects of the new Pearl Harbor day were utter morons.
God is always good! It did not fall uniformly - in fact the fiery collapse of the Towers caused a great gash in the side of WTC7 - the WTC was not a standard framed steel building either (box frame construction) so this gash weakened the building's integrity in addition the fuel tanks burst causing diesel fueled inferno to go up the elevator shaft into every floor of the building. The building fell sideways - you can see this because instead of the roof laying on top of the debris you have the side of the building proof of a mostly sideways collapse into the gash. But in any case Swarthy is correct. The cover up linking 9/11 and America's support of the global jihad worked. I bet these 'truthers' don't even think these 19 Arabs/Paki/Muslims (some who fought the Serbs and Russians for the CIA's jihadi armies) were onboard the planes that day. The cover up is actually to portray the 19 Arabs as untrained buffoons when in reality evidence (quickly squashed) indicated that many of them were highly trained men of war. Some lived at an Air Naval base in Florida where there received advanced flight training. That is just one example of how the 'TRUTHERS' helped in the cover up, IMHO. Because they push the notion that these unsophisticated bumbling Arabs could not have been the ones to carry out the attack - ignoring the billions of dollars the USA has spent since the 80s training jihadis in the use of sophisticated weapons and tactics including the use of terrorism as a weapon. Note that I am only discrediting the demolition planted theory. But that is so sweet a bone to the 911truthers they won't let it go and bury it. Read: Car Bombs With Wings: History of the Car Bomb (Part 2): The CIA's Car Bomb University (the 1980s)
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Fuck diesel... It's NOT that volatile. I'm a welder by trade, and I have welded holes in diesel tanks on semis without so much as completely draining the tank - let alone purging it!!! That is NOT something I would do with a GASOLINE tank!!! When welding on a fuel tank, it's the vapors which cause an explosion, NOT the liquid itself. Gasoline vapors will READILY ignite, diesel vapors WILL NOT. In fact, you can't ignite diesel vapors unless they are under extreme compression. That is why diesel engines run at compression ratios in the area of 19:1 as opposed to gas engines running at about 9:1. To cause diesel to burn, you must ignite the liquid itself, and that is not the case with gasoline!!! And while I'm on the topic of fuel/combustion, it's interesting to note that jet fuel is basically kerosene - and has combustion characteristics much closer to diesel than gasoline; hence the liquid itself must be ignited... The massive fireballs we witnessed when the plane struck the tower was the result of the liquid jet fuel itself burning not vapor from the jet fuel; thus the majority of the fuel in the plane was burned almost immediately. This leaves a large hole in the "official story" of jet fuel running down the elevator shaft pooling in the bottom of the buildings and causing explosions.... I have a smudge pot (you know one of those heaters used in the orange groves in FL in the winter) and burn diesel in it. These things are made of very thin metal, something like 20 gauge. You'll notice the lid on the tank has an adjustment mechanism to control the amount of air allowed in. The more air you allow in, the higher and hotter it burns. I've had flames coming out of the top of mine!!! And yet, AFTER YEARS OF USE IT HASN'T EVEN SO MUCH AS DEFORMED THE "CHIMNEY", LET ALONE MELT DOWN OR COLLAPSE!!! I've had the whole "chimney" glowing red!!! Being a welder by trade, I've also worked in the construction industry. One of the very first things that amazed me upon entry into that field was the massiveness of the steel used in the support columns in the construction of buildings. Being young at the time, I didn't even know they made such massive steel!! I'm talking about I-beams that the web (center of the beam) measured 12 fucking feet(!!!), and the flanges (part at each end of the web that forms the "I" shape) were 5 feet across(!!!) - and these damned things were made of steel 4 inches thick!!! Now if a diesel fire won't melt my little 20 gauge smudge pot, how in hell is it gonna melt steel that measures in inches of thickness??? You may PRETEND to have knowledge of metal, structural support in buildings, combustion, and fuels used for combustion but you don't... I was taught experience is the best teacher, and I have real-world experience in these fields. In fact, I once worked a job where we rebuilt a boiler that had exploded. The boilerhouse itself had skin blown of the sides of the building, steel was mangled and twisted, buckstays were blown apart, cement was broken - in short there was massive damage - but guess what? THE BUILDING ITSELF DID NOT COLLAPSE!!!!!
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
you're talking to the guy who said that fire turns steel into wet noodles. ;)
uh huh, right, mr. believer in the lone gun fairytale.
The steel you welded was probably made by the company I work for. If steel beams are so resistant to the effects of fire then why fire proof them?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
So how did this "great gash" get into 7 without doing more damage to 6??? From photo evidence I've seen, this "great gash" wasn't on any floor levels higher up than the rooftop of 6. Can you post photo evidence of this "great gash"? Again, looking at all video of the collapse, it has much more an appearance of falling straight down rather than sideways... Can you post any videos or pics to the contrary??? Again, unlikely - if not impossible (see above post of mine). Having worked in construction, I can state for a fact that elevator shafts are fire-wall sealed for just this reason!!! IF a fire breaks out, the elevator can (and will) act as a chimney by which flames can ascend right up. Elevator shafts are purposely sealed against this event, and it works both ways - fire cannot enter the shaft from the outside, nor can it enter the building from the inside...
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Yes, I can. "The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
After the attacks on the Twin Towers, these fuel tanks broke open and caught fire. Within hours, the building collapsed. The fuel problem with the EOC was evident well before 9/11, however. As the Times reported, "Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank for the mayor’s $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes. "The 6,000-gallon tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground floor and near several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel generators that would supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in the event of a power failure. Although the city made some design changes to address the concerns – moving a fuel pipe that would have run from the tank up an elevator shaft, for example – it left the tank in place. "But the Fire Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position could spread fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it caught fire, could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called ‘disaster.’"
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I know that 3000 degrees will not melt or even singe small, thin aluminum pans.
I'm a little smudge pot short and "stout" a million gallons of diesel can't burn me out ! Destro is a moron ... and a dis-info agent ... bozo his ass !
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
I should add the pans don't change after being in a 3000 degree oven for at least 15 minutes.
Why does your side bring up melting when the issue is structural strength at certain temperature??? - you don't need it to melt - only heat up to around 600F degrees and steel loses 75% of its strength. Which is why whovere What would happen to you if your leg bones lose 75% of their strength? You don't have to have your legs cut off for you to collapse.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I will admit that given a long enough period of time, flame can weaken a steel beam to a point of allowing it to bow under it's own weight... And in fact I have seen this happen too. I once worked a job in a paper mill where a fire started in one of the washers in the bleach plant. The huge industrial "washing machine" (used to was the bleach out of the pulp) was made of fiberglass, and was situated under the roof. This fire raged for over 3 hours, (the sprinkler system failed to put out the fire, and the heat on that floor was too intense to attempt to put it out by means of a fire hose - so they let it burn itself out) spread to the other washers on that floor, and covered approximately 60% of the center of the floor. The beams supporting the ceiling directly above them were rather small by industrial standards (only 8" beams) since they were only supporting the rooftop. They did not have upright supports (columns) in the center of the spans of the beams. Those (unfireproofed) beams DID buckle downward - probably 4 feet in the center. BUT, along with the buckling, there was stretching - to the point that they did not pull the columns (which were considerably heavier) they were attached to out of plumb... The "pancaking" theory is ludicrous. Even if it were possible, the vertical columns would not simply "crush" down with the rest. And even if they did, the impact at each floor would have a slowing effect on the collapse. (Look at multiple vehicle wrecks on icy roads where one rear-ends the car in front of it - thus ramming it into the next and so on. There may be a hundred cars involved, but it stops somewhere, and the further the "domino effect" goes, the less the damage. Granted this example may be horizontal as opposed to vertical; thus taking gravity out of the picture - BUT the force of inertia still applies, and an icy road provides little resistance to the forces of inertia.) The horizontal beams might shear away from the columns, but the columns would stand upright until they had lost support laterally far enough down to tumble sideways. You apparently aren't aware of the strength of steel to forces opposing it vertically. Hell, a 200 lb man can stand on an aluminum beer can without crushing it!!!
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
Not really - as soon as the steel reaches the 500-600F degrees the strength of the steel beam is gone. heat is the deciding factor not time.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Is that not the mindset of the truthers? Very much like the mindset of the bushbots? stick a finger in your ears and lalalalala away all any contrary opinion? Though I am sure Burke does not agree with me on everything he remembers me from the Freerepublic days - so Burke - am I a 'disinfo agent'? If so who do I work for? the CIA? COBRA? This closed minded thinking is disturbing to me.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
not one time have I ever called you a disinfo agent or a shill.
Swarthyguy - you know what I see as the biggest difference between myself and I presume you as well and our fellow posters on this issue (I don't know YT that well so I won't include him but I remember Swarthy from Freerepublic)? While we discount the possibility of demolitions in conjunction with the plane crashes being the scenario behind 9/11 we are open to the possibility. But the other side is TOTALLY against all contrary opinions to their dogma. Rational inquiry does not work that way.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
And I thank you for that (though I should not have to). .
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Surely an oversight !
"They say Justice is blind and I agree ... so much so that she hasn't found her way into a courtroom since 1938" noone222 12-17-06
We have ways of dealing with COBRA agents.
If that's the case, then why are steel components that are stress relieved carried to temperatures of 1200° F, and kept there for a minimum of 1 hour? That is the industry standard recognized as the time/temp necessary to relieve 90% of the internal stresses.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
FYI, Alex has Amira Woods, expert on Africa, particularly Somalia, as his guest right now. I thought you might be interested to hear it. http://www.infowars.com/listen.html
You're not even close. Try about 1200F.
But, even if the 500° F thing IS correct, then to facilitate the pancake theory would mean out of necessity the entire building reaching the necessary 500° temp. Otherwise, the fully intact integrity of the unheated steel would be sufficient to cause a slowing of the collapse upon impact with the resistance met at each subsequent floor. If you apply physics formulas to this scenario you'll find that there is no way to allow for even the most minute resistance at each subsequent floor and still have the entire collapse take place in the less than 11 second time frame in which they happened. Also, if this fire/heat causing the collapse is viable, then why did 4 remain standing? It was apparently hit harder by fire than either 1, 2, or 7: I know - it's because 4 didn't sustain the structural damage to go along with the fire... Well, I'd say 5 and 6 sustained plenty of structural damage, as well as fire, YET they BOTH remained standing: How much "fire" was in 5? You decide: And if the weight of part of the towers was enough to cause a "domino effect" and thus the entire collapse, then why didn't that weight and momentum take down 3: These seem to me to be rational questions, to which I have yet to see a rational answer.
No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer
The 500-600F is wrong and a mis-print. Structual steel loses 50% of its strength at 600C or around 1100-1200 degrees. It still doesn't matter because even highrise fires such as Madrid had air temps of over 2000 and physical steel temps of over 1500. There are photos of the girders glowing. While some horizontal beams collapsed, no primary girders did, and certainly didn't explode into a complete collapsing heap. Weakened structual steel skyscrappers don't collapse, even uninsulated. The UL/NIST tests prove this. You are wasting your keystrokes. Myself and others have beaten this poster so badly in the past on this subject, he is still staggardly hanging around and posting nonsense.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Those are some good photos. 5 is a burnt out husk/shell. WTC 5 burned like a blow-torch. I don't see any wet noodle steel girders that collapsed.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
What does that have to do with 600degreesF needed to reduce steel to 75% of its strength?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Try about 1200F. I don't know what you are talking about facts wise - here is my source: "The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
No it does not, IMHO. Logic dictates that if a section of the steel frame fails in a building with that internal structure design then the building will collapse.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Prove it is a misprint. I showed you my link - you show me yours.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Comments (41 - 95) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThere never has been even a failure of a single primary vertical girder. Ever.
#2. To: Destro (#1)
I don't know any sky-rise that had 100K of Diesel fuel in storage tanks inside a building either that was cited by the fire dept as a potential fire hazard. Google 'Bob Herbert + Giuliani + "skybox bunker".
#3. To: Burkeman1 (#2)
#4. To: Destro (#1)
#5. To: Kamala (#0)
#6. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#5)
#7. To: Destro (#1)
I don't know any sky-rise that had 100K of Diesel fuel in storage tanks inside a building either that was cited by the fire dept as a potential fire hazard. Google 'Bob Herbert + Giuliani + "skybox bunker".
#8. To: YertleTurtle (#7)
#9. To: YertleTurtle (#7)
They're Evil Geniuses, right, ones who pulled off the most complex conspiracy in the history of the world and disappeared without a trace.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#10. To: Burkeman1, Kamala, YertleTurtle, swarthyguy, RickyJ (#2)
(Edited)
#11. To: Destro, YertleTurtle, Kamala, Swarthguy, Burkeman1 (#1)
I don't know any sky-rise that had 100K of Diesel fuel in storage tanks inside a building either that was cited by the fire dept as a potential fire hazard.
#12. To: innieway, Destro (#11)
You may PRETEND to have knowledge of metal, structural support in buildings, combustion, and fuels used for combustion but you don't...
#13. To: YertleTurtle (#7)
You don't understand. The 9-11 Truthers aren't interested in facts!
#14. To: innieway, YertleTurtle, Kamala, Swarthguy, Burkeman1 (#11)
You may PRETEND to have knowledge of metal, structural support in buildings, combustion, and fuels used for combustion but you don't...
#15. To: Destro (#10)
It did not fall uniformly - in fact the fiery collapse of the Towers caused a great gash in the side of WTC7
The building fell sideways
in addition the fuel tanks burst causing diesel fueled inferno to go up the elevator shaft into every floor of the building
#16. To: christine, innieway, YertleTurtle, Kamala, Swarthguy, Burkeman1 (#12)
you're talking to the guy who said that fire turns steel into wet noodles. ;)
#17. To: innieway (#15)
Again, looking at all video of the collapse, it has much more an appearance of falling straight down rather than sideways... Can you post any videos or pics to the contrary???
The above photo is very different than the photos you usually see on conspiracy sites. 
the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north. It's almost as if the buildings last words were "[This] did it!..".
#18. To: innieway (#15)
Elevator shafts are purposely sealed against this event, and it works both ways - fire cannot enter the shaft from the outside, nor can it enter the building from the inside...
#19. To: Destro (#14)
#20. To: innieway (#11)
I have a smudge pot
#21. To: All (#19)
#22. To: Diana (#19)
I know that 3000 degrees will not melt or even singe small, thin aluminum pans.
#23. To: Destro (#14)
If steel beams are so resistant to the effects of fire then why fire proof them?
#24. To: innieway (#23)
(Edited)
will admit that given a long enough period of time,
#25. To: noone222, christine, innieway, YertleTurtle, Kamala, Swarthguy, Burkeman1 (#20)
Destro is a moron ... and a dis-info agent ... bozo his ass !
#26. To: Destro (#25)
#27. To: All, noone222, christine, innieway, YertleTurtle, Kamala, Swarthguy, Burkeman1 (#25)
#28. To: christine (#26)
not one time have I ever called you a disinfo agent or a shill
#29. To: christine (#26)
not one time have I ever called you a disinfo agent or a shill.
#30. To: Destro (#25)
am I a 'disinfo agent'? If so who do I work for? COBRA?
#31. To: Destro (#24)
Not really - as soon as the steel reaches the 500-600F degrees the strength of the steel beam is gone. heat is the deciding factor not time.
#32. To: Destro (#28)
#33. To: Destro (#24)
500-600F
When they come for your guns, take theirs.
#34. To: Destro (#24)
as soon as the steel reaches the 500-600F degrees the strength of the steel beam is gone
#35. To: innieway (#31)
#36. To: innieway (#34)
#37. To: innieway (#31)
#38. To: Critter (#33)
500-600F You're not even close.
#39. To: innieway (#34)
But, even if the 500° F thing IS correct, then to facilitate the pancake theory would mean out of necessity the entire building reaching the necessary 500° temp.
#40. To: Kamala, innieway (#35)
The 500-600F is wrong and a mis-print. Structual steel loses 50% of its strength at 600C or around 1100-1200 degrees. It still doesn't matter because even highrise fires such as Madrid had air temps of over 2000 and physical steel temps of over 1500.
.
.
.