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: 1104
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
Comments (1-54) not displayed.
.
.
.
#55. To: innieway (#52)
So the FDNY were being Chicken Little in calling the placement of the tanks there a pending disaster?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Make up your minds - is Bush a puppet or puppet master? I say puppet.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Lying is a dangerous game. There are too many veriables that work to undermine deception that is this complex and that has so many elements to it. There is no way the explosions that happened at ground and below ground level should have happened. Physics is a science that makes nonsense out of the delayed as in a vacuum fall of building seven and the documented facts known about the fall of the twin towers. The fairy tale is debunked, ok? Get over it. It is only standing now because of momentum and that is aided by the unspeakable horror in the ramifications involved with people in power being capible of such acts. The science investigated and written about is undeniable. 9 11 is an inside job, and our critical task is to pierce the veil of people hanging on to the implausible notion that it wasn't because of the ramifications of that being so. They know that the longer it takes to accomplish this, the easier it is for them to escape punishment and accountibility for their actions in conducting these false flag operations. Time gives them the opening to try to block and hide enough of the facts concerning who what where and why of who did this to preserve the integrity of the shadow government that did this and other nasty things like murder JFK. I predict that the Internet and other tools that gave unexpected windfalls to rallying researchers and activists with their facts and evidence together quickly enough and with damning force to pierce this deception as well as it has been pierced will be attacked to try to neutralize this advantage. To these people the lesson learned was not that what they did was evil, criminal or wrong, but that certain things must be bullied, suppressed and destroyed to make the next operation far more seamless with far better plausible denial in it to protect the guilty better.
What do you mean? He is a puppet, but one who is allowed to believe he controlled his own strings and destiny. If this were not so, he would not be motivated enough in his task of being a puppet to be a good one.
From what I saw from the classroom video Bush looked like he was blindsided. If not blindsided by 9/11 then by the scale.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Nah, he looked like he was hearing what he expected to hear. The only time I've seen him caught off guard was when he was asked in a Rose Garden press conference about the 9 11 conspiracy question and he kept repeating himself about there, "is a time for politics" and seemed to suffer from a thousand yard stare one would expect someone feeling some guilt would have when caught off guard. Not only that, why oh why would he lie about seeing a TV with a commercial broadcast showing a tower collapsing when the only way he could have done so in that time frame is if it was later viewing footage from cameras prepositioned by those who did this? He sure can't keep his facts straight, can he?
The correct temperature should be 500c to 600c. If you're basing your argument on that much lower temperature, and if my providing proof that it is wrong will help you see the light, I will find the proof.
Depends on how they defined disaster. I deisel fire in a fully occupied office building could be a disaster, yes. But the threat to life would not have been from collapse, but from heat and smoke.
so let me get this straight, I can put my turkey in a 165 degree oven for an hour and dinner is done? Come on schmuck, you are being more ignorant than your usual self. Even if heating it to 600 degrees could weaken the steal sufficiently enough to collapse the building, that would mean that all of the steel supports would have had to been heated to 600 degrees THROUGH AND THROUGH This would take TIME. Look at the turkey, to cook it thoroughly, it must reach an internal temp of 165. That means that you cook it in an oven at a minimum of 325 for many hours In order to heat the steel to a weakened temp of 600 degrees, you would need a fire much hotter than the desired temp, the cooler the temp, the more time it would take for that heat to get the steel to that dangerous temp. Just as with a turkey, you are cooking it at an average minimum of double the desired safe eating temperature for hours until the deepest tissue of the bird reaches that safe eating temperature. It would take TIME for this steel to reach this weakened state, and it would have to happen in all of the floors of BOTH the towers in order for the rubble to be nothing but a mangled melted mess. Just for a good laugh, I would LOVE to hear your explanation of the molten metal in the basement
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
This from the MOST closed-minded individual I have had the opportunity to converse with on this forum?!?!?!
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
Listen, Yid speaker - I don't insult you using Yiddish so don't insult me back with that language. It depends on the thickness of the steel - the thicker the steel or the thicker the insulation the slower it heats to the critical temperature. If a chair has four legs and you cut off one leg can you sit on it without falling over? Especially if you are heavy?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Not really. I don't try and avoid people I disagree with - I like hearing other views. Even debating other views. Close minded to me has to do with people not wanting to hear other opinions or have their views challenged. I welcome challenges to my views. I find it intellectually stimulating. The person that suggested I be placed on ignore because I disagree on this point are the types that are close minded - wanting only to hear views that match their own - very George Bush like thinking don't you think?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Here's one: Notice, it is 500C to 600C not F. Oh, here's another one: Structural steel does not easily melt, but it will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. And another: Should I keep going? What is interesting is that even NIST admits that most of the steel they examined had not seen temperatures in excess of 250C and the pieces that did see 500C to 600C only saw that temperature for a very short time: Accept for an instant the totality of the demolition. How does it significantly affect the questions of who and why. It doesn't, the questions unanswered remain the same. The impact of a plane may affect the structural integrity of the steel. If it was a complete US op, then why the hell not plant some evidence pointing directly to Saddam and Iraq.
Pearl Harbor was not planned by the USA but I can certainly see the President/Admirality allowing it to happen once they found out about it and to be shocked that instead of the attack happening far away in the Pacific it happened in Pearl on a scale they did not imagine?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
If a chair has 300 perimeter legs and you cut 30 of them, and 47 interior legs and you cut 10 of them, can you sit on it without falling?
I stand corrected. FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks." "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat. But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. "The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You built your whole case on 500-600f. Now that it has been proven to be false, have you seen the light?
That is excellent!!
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
Robert Stinnet Day of Deception - WWII vet, friend of Poppy details Captain Jack McCollum's plan to make the Japanese economy scream and to force them into certain courses of action creating a cassus belli for the US. Much like Carter and Zbig used Brezhnev's Doctrine to trap the Soviets into moving into Afghanistan.
The world is full of Architects/engineers of high rise buildings and bridges - many of them are not Americans or Westerners and or live in other countries not on good terms with the USA - not one has doubted the thesis that the fires and crash weakened the buildings so much they crashed. If an Indian engineer of repute came out for your thesis I would hop on board with you.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I believe that "the person" was trying to point out that though, yes, you often debate people, you rarely respect anyone else's view, and VERY RARELY post a view that is credible. You seem to only debate, everything. I do not wish to put words into any else's keyboard, but that is my take on it, and also my personal opinion.
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
Why do you need an engineer? Just read the NIST report. They examined .25 to .5% of the steel, 3 pieces from the affected floors, determined that none of them saw temperatures in excess of 500c for any significant time, and concluded that intense heat from fire caused the collapse. It doesn't get any shoddier than that, does it? All one has to do is read that to determine the entire report is garbage. It becomes painfully obvious that the fix is in, doesn't it? NIST also admits that they never tested for explosive residue. NEVER! How does one investigate the cause of the catastrophic collapse of 3 buildings, an unprecedented event in the history of mankind, and not even bother to test for explosive residue, unless the fix is in? I would think that a person would have to be incurably brainwashed, or part of the "fix" to believe the official fairy tale, given the above facts.
What is credible? Demolition charges on every floor Going off in a Rube Goldberg like way?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Why don't you need one?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I believe that your chair comparison has already been addressed (and may I add very well addressed, thank you Critter!) But even if there were enough "legs off the chair" to make it fall, why are there none of these supports intact. The vast majority all bent or broken. We all know that the entire building was not ablaze, so not every beam in the beam in the building was weakened by fire. How then did these supports get so distorted without the use of explosives. Listen Greek master, once again you talk yourself in circles. You told us that "heat is the deciding factor not time." Thank you for supporting my point!
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
Any casual reading of sites questioning the 9/11 official story has structural engineers up the ying yang doubting it. People's Daily Online: Why WTC Steel Towers Collapsed at One Blow - September 20, 2001 “Professor Shi Yongjiu, director of civil engineering department of Qinghua University and an expert on steel structure, guesses that the lower part of the WTC twin towers may got seriously damaged. According to steel structure's mechanical nature, the towers shouldn't collapse as late as an hour later after the planes slammed into. What's more, it should be in a way to topple over gradually instead of crashing down as seen in videotapes. It looks more like a directional blast in doing the job of destruction, so he feels that huge damages must have been done at the lower part of the towers. ... He was surprised that a 40-storied supportive building [WTC 7] beside the towers should collapse 6 hours later... Source: htt p://english.people.com.cn/english/200109/20/eng20010920_80655.html -Matthys Levy, Structural Engineer and Co Author of “Why Buildings Fall Down” "If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened." Video: http://www.freepress international.com/discovery.html More expert opinions: -Judy Wood, PhD (Civil Engineering / Mechanical Engineering) Mechanical Engineering Professor at Clemson University “The Case for Controlled Demolition” http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/mechanical-engineering-professor- from.html -Jerry Russell, PhD (MS in Engineering) “Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC” http: //www.attackonamerica.net/proofofcontrolleddemolitionatwtc.htm -Frank Demartini - Former Harvard Engineering Professor Manager, WTC Construction And Project Management (Died at the WTC on 9-11) January 25, 2001: "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet airliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door,... this intense grid,... and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm -Kevin Ryan – Former Site Manager from Underwriters Labs (UL) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevi n_Ryan On November 11, 2004, Ryan wrote Dr Frank Gayle (NIST), causing his firing from UL. Excerpt: “This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.” http://www.scoop.co.nz/s tories/HL0411/S00177.htm Academic Paper: “Propping Up the War on Terror: Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories” (Scheduled for Publication in “9/11 and the American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out”, Interlink Books, 2006) http:// http://www.sc holarsfor911truth.org/RyanK_PostingVersion.htm March 15, 2006 Lecture: "A 9/11 Whistleblower Examines the Official Conspiracy Theory" Monroe County Public Library, Bloomington, IN One Hour Lecture MP3 34MB: http://news.wfhb.org/mp3/SRO2006 0322.mp3 GWB First Term (2000-2004) Employee: Dr Morgan Reynolds Retired professor of economics at Texas A&M University Former chief economist at US Department of Labor says.... 9/11 = INSIDE JOB http://www.nomoregames.net/ Other Government Insiders Who Say 9/11 Inside Job http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/lost-its-sheen.html -Van Romero, PhD (Physics) - Expert in Explosive Materials and the Effects of Explosions on Buildings Vice President for Research and Economic Development New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology http://infohost.nmt.edu/~red/van.ht ml Explosives Planted in Towers, New Mexico Tech Expert Says Albuquerque Journal, September 14, 2001 ”My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse” "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that” "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points.” Archived Link: http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html -Former Army Sgt. Mark Johnson, Military Demolition Pro "From day one on Sept. 11th, after seeing the footage of the airliner striking the WTC on CNN and seeing explosions happening on lower floors of both towers, I knew right then and there that the towers were purposely being imploded," Source: http://www.arcticbeacon.com/30-Jun-2005.html 4:45 PM stallion4 said... Also see: BYU Physics professor Steven Jones says that pre-positioned explosives brought down the WTC towers and Building 7: Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? http://www.physics.b yu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
And how do you know this and in what context have many of these people not made official statements yet? I know you are not open minded on this question and seem to take delight in ignoring the clear and compelling evidence of a demolition take down. You stay focussed on "wet noodle steel" and make it your mantra, and you sound more like a participant in the logistics in accomplishing the mission enjoying vocariously the frustration many have in presenting obvious facts that many in power have a vested interest in keeping hidden. I know we have little in the way of tools to find those who participated, but I do know arsonists often stay in the crowd to enjoy and watch their work and just love to talk about it afterward, especially to promote a view they feel would keep them safe. You have a disturbing view that Americans are two dimentional, inferior and just asking for a take down and I would like to see a profile of the sort of person that would do the dirty work in this operation. Would I look for someone like you if I were planning ops like these? Perhaps I would, who is to say? Which is why experts should carefully look at questions like this and give us answers to help develop the lines of investigation into this. You say you work with steel, in what capacity? I am not so much interested in demonizing and accusing you directly as I am prompted by uneasiness you stir in me to want to see more forensic work done on this series of horrible crimes such as developing profiles that are useful as tools to try to identify and locate the likely blue collar participants in these operations. Someone did the nuts and bolts of this, and I wonder; how many of these men are frustrated by the desire to boast dispite the obvious need to stay silent about the work they did? You may be totally innocent of participation, but none the less, your approach to this issue raises interesting quetions and issues for me.
If that is what happened, would it not then be credible? At least it seems more logical the fire. Neither one of us knows what happened, but I am relying on common sense and knowledge and research about structural steel. I myself used to work high steel. Granted the largest building that I worked on was 28 stories, but not even the steel used for that could have been brought down in such a fire. I know, I saw one burn when a gas main was broken. for the first 40 minutes there was a constant flow of gas into the building that was burning, it took 14 hours to knock out the flames, and it smoldered for three days after. No one was able to enter it for a couple of days after that. It stood, solid as a rock, none of the actual frame structure even bent, never mind gave way. The beams and girders used in this building were only and inch and a half thick. It was decided that it would be simpler for cleaning and rebuilding purposes to simply tear the building down and start from scratch, then they had to hire a demo crew to blast it with explosives because it was still that strong. Now you can understand why I have a hard time believing that a few hours worth of fire, without continually added accelerant, would be able to heat the four inch steel enough to melt and bend it causing the building to collapse. In my opinion, whoever fabricated this excuse for the buildings collapse was counting on the ignorance of the American people. Thankfully only %40 of the American people are still buying the "official story".
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
NIST was very deceptive in their wording in the report. Probable, maybe, likely, possibly are some of the terms that the report is full of. The above quote from NIST is a typical msleading statement. There is no scientific evidence of steel reaching 500c. NIST uses that number as a top end general number to lead one to think some steel reached that temp. All tests showed 480F-600F physical steel temps. Very typical office fire with air/gas temps of around 900F-1100F.
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
No primary highrise vertical structural steel girder has ever failed from fire. Ever.
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
That is part of the reason it has become so popular for even smaller buildings.
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
The steel used in the towers was rated at 42,000-100,000 psi. The core girders at the base were width 28" by length 52" and 4" thick. Another overlooked aspect is the mechanical floors. These floors were re-enforced not just with the normal web-truss design but had steel girders running horizontal from the perimiter girders to the main core. The towers were basicly 3 complete buildings in one.
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
And just a few fires (compared to the total square footage of the buildings) reduced all of this to a pile of rubble. How sad. Especially since these buildings were specifically designed to withstand a direct hit by an aircraft.
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
With an absence of evidence the simplest explanation is the best alternative. What we are arguing about is if the murder victim was poisoned after he was shot.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
That's fine and dandy when there is a "natural" absence of evidence. But in this case, there was a mountain of evidence, destroyed by one of the possible supsects. That alone should be enough to set off alarms all over the place.
from your link: htt p://english.people.com.cn/english/200109/20/eng20010920_80655.html Professor Wu Huanjia from Qinghua University says in an interview that the big fire must be to blame for softening and melting away the steel, paralyzing and destruction of the towers as mere plane crash is not strong enough to topple the two large tower structures. There were also intrinsic flaws with skyscrapers that had led to the fall of the WTC towers, for such architectural giants must be built of steel, which softens by heat and loses its strength. Of course, refractory coating must be applied when the towers were constructed but you can never expect them to endure such large conflagrations.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Burke - you were in the trenches at Freerepublic over America's war against the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo - why no more mention of the American links to the Balkan jihad groups? The fact that among the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were Bosnian army vets of the CIA jihadi army? And that this fact was concealed? That I was the one that broke this news online based on what was told to me and that true disinfo govt man Hoplite went ballistic over this revelation? Has the fact that the movement for truth has now become fixated on the tower collapse distracted you and others?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You can keep repeating the tired mantra about the noodle limp steel like a broken record all you wish, but we have seen too many markers indicative of thermite and high explosives at work, too many parts of the complex damaged and destroyed by explosions that should not have happened and too many things happen in a timeline that does not match the official story. Nobody is interested in a replay of the official lies of 9 11. The buildings were pulled by the use of high explosives, and it was done to avoid having to spend decades tempering the American mindset for imperialistic war based on the worries of the control of Middle Eastern and Persian Gulf oil resources. It was done to enrich the 'right' people and to 'put limits on freedoms' much as Bush has always had a hard-on to do. You may be stuck in the role of promoting official lies and fairy tales, but the rest of us have moved on to where the real truth of the matter of 9 11 lies. Either come along, or wave bye bye as we leave you in the dust.
When they no longer need to fireproof steel - let me know. When an alternate non demolition explanation can explain away the demolition conspiracy explanation then I can't jump on the bandwagon. Don't fool yourselves - your movement is a non starter. A hookah pipe that the govt uses to distract people the way they used UFOs to hide their black programs.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
The twin towers were incredibly strong with allot of structural redundancy to them. They were build in a highly over engineered fashion as any then cutting edge building is designed on that scale. You have not explained why the inner structure was not left swaying in the wind after the floors allegedly gave way slamming each other like falling dominos at a speed indicating none of the floors below the collapse weight point gave an iota of resistance to the force collapsing them. That inner steel structure was not overburdened with material and the floors would have left them in place. The building was cut at the base by explosives before the take down explosions started making the inner structure fall with everything else. All the evidence and problems with the official story capped with a Warren Commission-like 9 11 Commission reinforcement to the official line leave only one thing possible; that 9 11 was an inside job.
It also flies in the face of the diesel tank theory in 7.
#56. To: Ferret Mike (#54)
#57. To: Destro (#53)
(Edited)
"But I do notice that if you don't buy into the collapse via demolition charges theory that you are giving the US govt a free pass."
#58. To: Destro (#56)
"Make up your minds - is Bush a puppet or puppet master? I say puppet."
#59. To: Ferret Mike (#58)
#60. To: Destro (#59)
"From what I saw from the classroom video Bush looked like he was blindsided. If not blindsided by 9/11 then by the scale."
#61. To: Destro (#38)
When they come for your guns, take theirs.
#62. To: Destro (#55)
So the FDNY were being Chicken Little in calling the placement of the tanks there a pending disaster?
When they come for your guns, take theirs.
#63. To: Destro (#24)
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.
#64. To: Destro (#25)
This closed minded thinking is disturbing to me.
#65. To: ladybug (#63)
Come on schmuck, you are being more ignorant than your usual self. Even if heating it to 600 degrees could weaken the steal sufficiently enough to collapse the building, that would mean that all of the steel supports would have had to been heated to 600 degrees THROUGH AND THROUGH This would take TIME.
#66. To: ladybug, noone222, swarthyguy (#64)
This from the MOST closed-minded individual I have had the opportunity to converse with on this forum?!?!?!
#67. To: Destro (#38)
I don't know what you are talking about facts wise - here is my source:
When they come for your guns, take theirs.
#68. To: Destro (#65)
#69. To: swarthyguy (#68)
#70. To: Destro (#65)
If a chair has four legs and you cut off one leg can you sit on it without falling over?
When they come for your guns, take theirs.
#71. To: Critter (#67)
#72. To: Destro (#71)
I stand corrected.
When they come for your guns, take theirs.
#73. To: Critter (#70)
#74. To: Destro (#69)
#75. To: Critter, swarthyguy (#70)
If a chair has 300 perimeter legs and you cut 30 of them, and 47 interior legs and you cut 10 of them, can you sit on it without falling?
#76. To: Destro (#66)
The person that suggested I be placed on ignore because I disagree on this point are the types that are close minded - wanting only to hear views that match their own - very George Bush like thinking don't you think?
#77. To: Destro (#75)
If an Indian engineer of repute came out for your thesis I would hop on board with you.
When they come for your guns, take theirs.
#78. To: ladybug, swarthyguy (#76)
VERY RARELY post a view that is credible
#79. To: Critter (#77)
Why do you need an engineer? Just read the NIST report.
#80. To: Destro (#65)
If a chair has four legs and you cut off one leg can you sit on it without falling over?
It depends on the thickness of the steel - the thicker the steel or the thicker the insulation the slower it heats to the critical temperature.
#81. To: Destro (#79)
#82. To: Destro (#75)
"not one has doubted the thesis that the fires and crash weakened the buildings so much they crashed."
#83. To: Destro (#78)
What is credible? Demolition charges on every floor Going off in a Rube Goldberg like way?
#84. To: Critter (#77)
"...3 pieces from the affected floors, determined that none of them saw temperatures in excess of 500c for any significant time..."
#85. To: ladybug (#83)
#86. To: Kamala (#85)
No primary highrise vertical structural steel girder has ever failed from fire. Ever.
#87. To: ladybug (#86)
#88. To: Kamala (#87)
The towers were basicly 3 complete buildings in one.
#89. To: ladybug, swarthyguy (#83)
Neither one of us knows what happened,
#90. To: Destro (#89)
With an absence of evidence the simplest explanation is the best alternative.
When they come for your guns, take theirs.
#91. To: Burkeman1 (#81)
#92. To: Burkeman1, swarthyguy (#81)
(Edited)
#93. To: Destro (#91)
#94. To: Ferret Mike, swarthyguy (#93)
You can keep repeating the tired mantra about the noodle limp steel like a broken record all you wish,
#95. To: Destro (#94)
"When they no longer need to fireproof steel - let me know."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest