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: 993
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
Just seems to me a little odd that it takes an additional 600° F on TOP of the first 600° F and keep that 1200° F temp for an hour just to relieve an additional 15% of the internal stresses in steel (and even higher temp/time for alloys). Something in this equation doesn't quite pan out... Look, you're saying the important questions concerning 9/11 are WHO and WHY. I'm inclined to agree with you on that. BUT, as long as there is viability in the "official story" concerning the collapses, then it can be argued that there is viability in the whole damned story. If you want to get the majority of people to "wake up" to the truth and question the why and who of the "official story", you first need to be able to show holes in the story. And the best way to get that process started is to show holes in the "official" collapse theory. The pictures I've posted here of 3, 4, 5, and 6 all seem to show very contradictory evidence to the "official collapse story". All I know for a certainty in my life is what I've personally witnessed and done. And my personal experiences dictate that those building collapses didn't happen for the reasons stated in the "official story".
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
http://good- times.webshots.com/photo/1433433334063851566drYzwk
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You have yet to provide a link so your claim can be authenticated - maybe you misunderstood?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Gremlins. That's your answer. Pyromaniac Gremlins.
There 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.
#41. To: Destro (#37)
What does that have to do with 600degreesF needed to reduce steel to 75% of its strength?
#42. To: Kamala, innieway (#36)
I don't see any wet noodle steel girders that collapsed.
#43. To: innieway (#41)
Just seems to me a little odd that it takes an additional 600° F on TOP of the first 600° F and keep that 1200° F temp
#44. To: innieway (#34)
These seem to me to be rational questions, to which I have yet to see a rational answer.
 | This country's priorities are all fucked up. |
#45. To: Destro (#40) (Edited)
Anyone who thinks a finite amount of burning jet fuel would collapse these buildings in the manner the collapsed is either living in La La land, or has a vested interest in keeping the truth concealed. If the towers had pancaked, they would have fallen slower, not have been pulverized into concrete dust and gases that turned into roaring pyroclastic flows, and the strong structural steel in the cores of the building would have stood. This demolition was done with carefully placed charges that cut the steel and vaporized the very material of these buildings into super heated gas and dust. The Bush administration knew these attacks were coming and used them and the chaos and potential plausible denial they created to mask and to try to hide their work in indertaking this false flag operation. So, were you one of the men in the buildings 'rolling out new computer conduit' before the demolition? Were you one of the men creating the noise in vacant floors and spreading the light concrete dust on everything people coming to work noticed for the first time in the buildings histories the weeks before this power play was engaged? Just curious, mind you.
#46. To: Ferret Mike (#45) (Edited)
They will if a crashed airplane A) Weakens the superstructure of a building designed like that and B) the fuel fire caused subsidiary fires to burn on their own - evidenced by the fact that the rubble pile was still smoldering for days.
Anyone who thinks a finite amount of burning jet fuel would collapse these buildings in the manner the collapsed is either living in La La land, or has a vested interest in keeping the truth concealed.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#47. To: Ferret Mike, swarthyguy (#45)
Yea, you got me, it was I Destro and Cobra Commander working in tandem that day..... 9/11 truther thinking on display - 'nuff said.
So, were you one of the men in the buildings 'rolling out new computer conduit' before the demolition? Were you one of the men creating the noise in vacant floors and spreading the light concrete dust on everything people coming to work noticed for the first time in the buildings histories the weeks before this power play was engaged?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#48. To: Destro (#43)
You have yet to provide a link so your claim can be authenticated - maybe you misunderstood? My bad. I guess I did misunderstand, since this is what you said: Anyhow, here is a link to some engineering fundamentals...
Just seems to me a little odd that it takes an additional 600° F on TOP of the first 600° F and keep that 1200° F temp
What does that have to do with 600degreesF needed to reduce steel to 75% of its strength?
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
#49. To: Destro (#46)
Except all evidence is that all fire in the structures was lacking heat and oxygen and was nowhere near reacting the temperature range to cause these very well designed, over engineered with heavily redundant strenght buildings to collapse. The steel was cut at the bottom with charges before the charges were detonated in the upper parts of the buildings. There is just flat no way to get jet fuel and burning carpet and paper to pulverize a building so profoundly it turns to dust blowing out hundreds of feet from the building's foot print to fall as if there is no resistance to the collapse. If it was a chain reaction pancaking collapse of falling floors overwhelming the structure below them, the collapse would have been far slower, and the uneffected core steel structure would have still swayed in the air above the debris. There was too much of the sort of smoke generated by oxygen starvation and too many signs of abating heat and fire to believe the sort of 9 11 fairy tale you seem for some reason to be fond of.
"They will if they A) Weaken the superstructure of a building designed like that and B) the fuel fire caused subsidiary fires to burn on their own - evidenced by the fact that the rubble pile was still smoldering for days."
#50. To: Destro (#27)
IMO, the emphasis and obsession with the mechanics of the act detracts from the actual actors and their motivations. The real question is the level of US knowledge and culpability. 119 has transcended facts and is now in the realm of faith. One thing is for sure, apart from lively net discussions, out in the real world it's a non issue. Hell, I tried to engage some people last night in looking at what might be our pending attack on Iran. You can guess how far that got.
#51. To: swarthyguy (#50)
The destruction of the WTC complex center was a windfall finantially for the owners who faced huge bills upgrading and modernizing the place with no guarantees they would cure the vacancy problems. It was a win for those who wanted files and evidence destroyed in Building 7. It was a win for the Bush Administration with a president who believes there must be a limit to freedom and Americans must be tempered into a population accepting of war and conflict to extend American hegemony in the world at large. The explosions taking these buildings and so many lives was just so much an exercise of priming the pump with an event that would be the catalyst for the sort of change the henchmen conducting these operations wanted. That is the bottom lie; that Nine Eleven is undeniably and quite obviously and inside job.
#52. To: Destro (#41)
Rather than edit that reply, I chose to add to it in another reply. I didn't learn all the things I know getting it from "books". A good deal of what I've learned in my life is from personal experience. IF I had taken the "wisdom from the book" I would never have attempted to weld the diesel tanks without emptying or purging them. FACTS speak for themselves. And the FACTS are: This flies in the face of "doing it by the book". It also flies in the face of the diesel tank theory in 7. And my other real-life experiences (which I have noted in this thread) fly in the face of the whole official story of what caused those collapses.
All I know for a certainty in my life is what I've personally witnessed and done. And my personal experiences dictate that those building collapses didn't happen for the reasons stated in the "official story".
(1) I managed to weld and seal the holes in those tanks, and
(2) I am still alive to tell you that it can be done.
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
#53. To: Ferret Mike, swarthyguy (#51)
I did not see Swarthy or myself doubt the connections between al-Qaeda and the black govt of the USA. In fact, Swarthy and myself implicitly implicate the US govt in the events around 9/11. 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. This disconnect in logic is why I thing the 9/11truther movement has gone from fact finding to presenting dogma as fact. PS: Judging from Bush's stunned silence and almost catatonic state in that classroom that day would it be acceptable to state that there is doubt he was in on it?
It was a win for the Bush Administration
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#54. To: Destro (#53) (Edited)
ROTFLMFAO! Stunned silence? He looked like he was doing as he was told to do, to carry on as if nothing out of the ordinary was happening. Judging by that incriminating lack of reaction, the lie he saw the collapse of a tower on commercial TV a day before it was actually on TV and the way they flew him around trying to hide him while he might still engage in inappropriate and incriminating behavior, I would say you are off the mark by allot. A husband reacting to the murder of his wife the way Bush took the news of 9 11 would have made him a prime suspect in her death. Bush should have reacted like all would expect such a man to react at the death of his wife and shown enotion and a commitment to getting into action immediately. The 'grown-ups' gave Smirk a simple assignment while they did the false flag op and he even screwed that up. That is the fact of the matter. Stunned silence? More like he was capible of another scene like Mike Moore used in his movie where Bush goes right into the statement, "watch this putt" immediately after hearing this news showing graphically how shallow this puppet at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue actually is.
"Judging from Bush's stunned silence and almost catatonic state in that classroom that day would it be acceptable to state that there is doubt he was in on it?"
#55. To: innieway (#52)
So the FDNY were being Chicken Little in calling the placement of the tanks there a pending disaster?
It also flies in the face of the diesel tank theory in 7.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#56. To: Ferret Mike (#54)
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
#57. To: Destro (#53) (Edited)
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.
"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)
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.
"Make up your minds - is Bush a puppet or puppet master? I say puppet."
#59. To: Ferret Mike (#58)
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
#60. To: Destro (#59)
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?
"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)
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.
When they come for your guns, take theirs.
#62. To: Destro (#55)
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 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)
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
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.
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
#64. To: Destro (#25)
This from the MOST closed-minded individual I have had the opportunity to converse with on this forum?!?!?!
This closed minded thinking is disturbing to me.
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
#65. To: ladybug (#63)
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?
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.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#66. To: ladybug, noone222, swarthyguy (#64)
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?
This from the MOST closed-minded individual I have had the opportunity to converse with on this forum?!?!?!
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#67. To: Destro (#38)
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: 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)
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.
#69. To: swarthyguy (#68)
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
#70. To: Destro (#65)
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?
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)
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
#72. To: Destro (#71)
You built your whole case on 500-600f. Now that it has been proven to be false, have you seen the light?
I stand corrected.
When they come for your guns, take theirs.
#73. To: Critter (#70)
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
#74. To: Destro (#69)
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.
#75. To: Critter, swarthyguy (#70)
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.
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?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#76. To: Destro (#66)
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.
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?
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
#77. To: Destro (#75)
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.
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)
What is credible? Demolition charges on every floor Going off in a Rube Goldberg like way?
VERY RARELY post a view that is credible
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#79. To: Critter (#77)
Why don't you need one?
Why do you need an engineer? Just read the NIST report.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#80. To: Destro (#65)
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!
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.
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
#81. To: Destro (#79)
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
#82. To: Destro (#75)
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.
"not one has doubted the thesis that the fires and crash weakened the buildings so much they crashed."
#83. To: Destro (#78)
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".
What is credible? Demolition charges on every floor Going off in a Rube Goldberg like way?
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
#84. To: Critter (#77)
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.
"...3 pieces from the affected floors, determined that none of them saw temperatures in excess of 500c for any significant time..."
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
#85. To: ladybug (#83)
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
#86. To: Kamala (#85)
That is part of the reason it has become so popular for even smaller buildings.
No primary highrise vertical structural steel girder has ever failed from fire. Ever.
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
#87. To: ladybug (#86)
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
#88. To: Kamala (#87)
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.
The towers were basicly 3 complete buildings in one.
"Don't Steal, the government hates competition."
#89. To: ladybug, swarthyguy (#83)
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.
Neither one of us knows what happened,
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#90. To: Destro (#89)
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.
With an absence of evidence the simplest explanation is the best alternative.
When they come for your guns, take theirs.
#91. To: Burkeman1 (#81)
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
#92. To: Burkeman1, swarthyguy (#81) (Edited)
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
#93. To: Destro (#91)
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.
#94. To: Ferret Mike, swarthyguy (#93)
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.
You can keep repeating the tired mantra about the noodle limp steel like a broken record all you wish,
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
#95. To: Destro (#94)
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.
"When they no longer need to fireproof steel - let me know."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest