The Truth about 911 gutting the disinformation, LETS GET IT ON

[Esperanto]

http://www.wanttoknow.info/020812ap

here is an AP article that says there was 67 scrambles between June 2000-Sept 2001.

 

[russ_watters]

The building seven was burning for seven hours before it collapse at 5:30 p.m. People were evacuated an hour or two before. That's how mild the fires were.

So, you're saying that you'd set up a command center in a buring building? Personally, I wouldn't, but ok... In any case, that isn't really evidence of anything.

here is an AP article that says there was 67 scrambles between June 2000-Sept 2001.

Thank you. As you can see, it was sloppilly written. What it says is:

From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.

Since the comparisons don't match up, there are two possible assumptions: either she's comparing scrambles in 2000 to scrambles and diverts in 2001-2, or she meant scrambles or diverts for the second one. Since the first option would mean a discontinuity in the comparison, rendering it meaningless, she must have meant scrambles or diverts for the second one as well.

In fact, the article you quoted is the original - she updated the article the next day and it has 70 more words in it. Its quite possible that she clarified it (though I'm not willing to buy it to find out).

In fact, the entire point of the article is that they weren't capable of adequately dealing with 9/11, and plenty of evidence is given to back that up. Its ironic that these conspiracy theory sites are paraphrasing an article that argues the opposite of what they want to believe.

 

[brewnog]

This thread has got out of hand in less than two pages. I personally find this topic of interest. However, such discussion usually breaks down pretty quickly, since those who are quick to dismiss the official explanations are just as quick to dismiss input from knowledgeable engineers who have no vested interest in supporting the US government.

Would those who are challenging the official explanation please state their key arguments, and where these have been addressed by others, their thoughts on the comments based upon them?

 

[Sub-Zer0]

I used the term "word salad" in the previous thread, and I'll use it again. Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of nothing there, Sub_Zero. If you want a discussion, we'll take these things one at a time: pick your one strongest point and argue it.

How about the the-buildings-fell-at-freefall-speeds point...? That's my personal favorite...

Lot's of NOTHING? Are you really serious mate? The government is feeding you a story that's composed of nothing but garbage, it's completely debunkable by their own evidence, on a myriad of points, tons of points actually, and you accept their basless arguments at defending themselves w/ pure quakery (i.e. the rididiculous PM debunking straw man exercise.) Well let's do it, I've layed out the case, attack it.

 

[Sub-Zer0]

Okay, I'll take the first crack at this. Alright, let's say the government was responsible for the attacks. Then why did they bother putting explosives in the towers and crashing a plane into it? Even if a plane crash wasn't capable of destroying the towers, why have a plane hit it AND put bombs in it? Wouldn't a plane crashing into a building prompt just as much vigor against terrorism even if it didn't bring the entire building down?

What's more likely, a shadowy group with enormous gains to profit from attacks blowing up the buildings for reasons we don't quite undersand, or the laws of physics being ignored, or impossible time constraints in which it takes to wire buildings w/ explosives being achieved?

 

[russ_watters]

Well let's do it, I've layed out the case, attack it.

Sorry, I'm not going to write a book in response to your flood. Pick your one strongest/favorite argument and explain it in your own words.

 

[Sub-Zer0]

Although it can be said that having the 2 largest towers actually collapsing could be a better motivator for war in the publics mind... why in gods name would they intentionally collapse the other WTC buildings as well? If there was a conspiracy, it would have made no sense to bring down the other smaller towers as well for many reasons. 1) No one will notice htem compared to the 2 largest tower to add to the "effect". 2) Why wait 8 hours for the rest? Thats 8 whole hours that more and more cameras and people and experts can arrive on the scene to see signs of a controlled demolition on the smaller tower (7 i believe) if it did occur.

Building Seven is the NY offices of the CIA, the FBI, The office of emergancy managment, ect. Assueming 9/11 was an inside job, building seven would be the ideal location to oversea the entire opperation. It's also noteworthy to mention that global hawk unmanned aircraft systems had been in existence for years before 9/11, so destroying building seven would essentically be destroying the evidence of it being an inside job although many other finger prints of this were left in other areas. It's impossible for us to know all of the reasons why these buildings were demolished and why the particular timing was incorporated as such. However the visual, and forensic knowledge, is much more powerful than whatever these guys were thinking when they demolished the building. First of all, are you saying that building seven was not demolished? Establish what your argument is, and we'll go from there

 

[Sub-Zer0]

No its not, its total lies or ignorance. Everything he said about the engineering aspects were 100% debunked BS. He shows 0 understanding of engineering and how the military works... or hell, how the entire government works. He says the CIA is suppose to be on watch for stock trades (I wonder what the SEC does all day)

Just because someone can deunk something it does not mean it was not true, it just means you believed what they told you. Data and be distored and manipulated, how much science do you think is behinde ADD? Don't switch off the thinking process. Aside from the towers, demolition, and engineering information there have been at least 200 aritcles written by separate journalists that massively conflict w/ the offical line we have been fed. Do you discount all of that as well?

 

[Sub-Zer0]

I don't see an argument anywhere in that post, Rude Boi MC - do you have one or is namecalling all there is? If I don't know what I'm talking about, show us why you think that. And for my part, I'll assume that you're serious about all this. No, first you examine the victim and the scene to determine if a crime even took place. This is a big part of the problem with conspiracy theory - you start with an assumption about the crime and jump straight to the suspects. But oops... the crime didn't happen the way you wanted it to, so your suspects are, well, suspect. So again, make an argument as to why you think the WTC was felled by explosives. And by "why", I don't mean the motive, I mean what evidence is there that it was felled by explosives. Again, if I can make a suggestion, my favorite bit of evidence is the speed at which it collapsed. Would you like to discuss that piece of evidence? If so, lay out a case for what that piece of evidence shows.

Esperanto, one of the problems with conspiracy theory sites is they copy and paste each other's material. As a result, there really isn't any confirmation, just regurgitation. For example, that August 9, 2002 news release from the FAA is probably talking about intercepts from September of 2001 to June of 2002, but since none of the conspiracy theory sites have/link a copy of the news release, we can't check to be sure. Heck, its even possible it was made up by one of the conspiracy theory sites and the others just keep regurgitating it because they want to believe it.

Regarding Payne Stewart's plane, the http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm is available online, so there is no need for 3rd party accounts. A careful read shows it was, indeed, an hour and 19 minutes, not just 19 minutes for the intercept. A careless conspiracy theorist missed the fact that the plane moved from the eastern to the central time zone.

Also, the intercepting planes were not part of a combat unit, they were part of a flight-test unit. So it took an hour and 19 minutes for the intercept, and then only from unarmed planes because they were the closest at the time (already airborne on a training/test flight). Makes the difficulty of an armed intercept on 9/11 a lot clearer, doesn't it? Um, you find it curious that Guiliani didn't set up headquarters in a burning building? And he was right: the buildings did withstand the impact!

A crime did not take place on 9/11? What would you call the brutal murder on 3000 people? Of course a crime took place, are debate rests on who the culprit of it was.

The towers being demolished is supportable by enormous amounts of information, why should we only concentrate on little aspect of it.

I will ask you again, what do you believe happened w/ Building Seven, I need to establish where you are on that, it's hard to respond to every single thing
that everyone is saying. so let's go point by point, I guess were talking about the towers in relation to demolition charges so let's stay on that.

 

[Sub-Zer0]

Debunk this, and I will rebuttal





Bombs in the Towers


http://www.prisonplanet.tv/images/may2004/050504collapse.jpg

___ This next part is important, because it's hardcore vissual evidence of government involvement in 9/11 and is nearly impossible to deny.

Building seven, first of all, was the third building to collapse within the World Trade Center Complex. According to the government’s official story, building seven was destroyed from fire, along with buildings one and two.

Videos Show Building 7's 6.5 second symmetrical collapse

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/SMALL_wtc-7_1_.gif

First of all it’s important to say that fire has never once brought a steel structure down. Out of 100 uncontrolled fires in the last 50 years NEVER has fire collapsed a steel building, only earthquakes and explosives have been able to flatten these modern structures.

So, why is building seven so significant? It’s important because building seven collapsed without being struck by an airplane or anything else, almost as if it were the wind that knocked it over.

Several videos have been salvaged which show building seven's collapse and shocking evidence has surfaced from scrutiny.

http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg
http://wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse.mpg
http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg

You see, building seven DECENTEGRATED INTO RUBBLE in a vertical symmetrical fashion in 6.5 seconds. If building seven was taken down by an aircraft impact (even though it was not) it would have thrown back horizontally, transferring the energy away from the airplane impacts. And if it was fire, eventhough the flames would have had to have burnt exponentically hotter for a much longer time, we would have seen the structure reduced into liquid metal, and the streets would be a river of flame. But this building simply fell straight to the ground and crumbled.

I need to explain something about controlled demolition. First of all, when buildings are demolished the explosives are placed in the central column, so the structure falls inwards and does not damage other surrounding buildings. So they only way the building can fall like this or fall period is through the use of explosives.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema_report.html

“Each of the following videos shows the entire visible portion of the building falling with a vertical precision otherwise seen only in controlled demolition. Moreover, they show that the collapse took only about 6.5 seconds from start to finish. That rate of fall is within a second of the time it would take an object to fall from the building's roof with no air resistance”

BUT, building seven is even more important because the offical story of building seven collapse is because it was damaged from fire, HOWEVER, Larry Silverstine the owner of buildings one, two, and seven, got on televiosn on America Rebuilds on PBS, and slipped up, ADMITTING, THAT HE BLEW UP BUILDING SEVEN, He Said "WE PULLED THE BUILDING!" Here's the video from the PBS documentary.

http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV

Here's another clip where a demolitions expert describes "PULL IT" As a controlled demolition.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit2.mp3

NOW, it's extremely important to mention that rigging buildins with explosives is a tiresom and very time consuming process, and to properly plant explosives in amathematicaly harmonious fasion to create a smooth symetrical drop. Actually it would take weeks to prepare for the demolition. So not only does Larry Silverstine, the owner of the complex admit to blowing up building seven, But building seven COULD NOT have been demolished on such short notice. Weeks of demolitions planning does not jive well with Osama's surprise attack. In fact it's impossible.

Another particularly important part of this is to note that Towers one, two, and seven have all of the 10 chartecteristics of a controlled demolition, a building collapseing from fire and plane impact damage having one of the charecteristics of controlled demolition is astronomically rare, the chances of this damage haveing all 10 charecteristics of a controlled demolition and not being a controlled demolition is next to nil. These charecteristics are.

1. Each collapse occurred at virtually free fall speed;
2. Each building collapsed straight down, for the most part onto its own footprint;
3. Virtually all the concrete was turned into very fine dust;
4. In the case of the Twin Towers, the dust was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more;
5. The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air;
6. Videos of the collapses reveal "demolition waves", meaning "confluent rows of small explosions";
7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long;
8. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings;
9. Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions);
10.Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in "hot spots" that remained for months.?

Source:

Professor David Ray Griffin
http://www.rbnlive.com/absentia_trial.html

Good lookin to Dem Bruce Lee Stylez, and his MIGHTY nine eleven thread right here

 

[brewnog]

You're like a stuck record. Do you mind if I reduce the size of your sensationalist headlines when I quote you, especially since you've posted much of it twice, rather than responding to requests to pick a single point for discussion? Cheers.

First of all it’s important to say that fire has never once brought a steel structure down. Out of 100 uncontrolled fires in the last 50 years NEVER has fire collapsed a steel building, only earthquakes and explosives have been able to flatten these modern structures.

So what? Just because it's never happened before doesn't mean that it's impossible. How many other buildings have you seen which were hit with airliners full of aviation fuel, which collapsed differently? No? Oh well.

You see, building seven DECENTEGRATED INTO RUBBLE in a vertical symmetrical fashion in 6.5 seconds. If building seven was taken down by an aircraft impact (even though it was not) it would have thrown back horizontally, transferring the energy away from the airplane impacts. And if it was fire, eventhough the flames would have had to have burnt exponentically hotter for a much longer time, we would have seen the structure reduced into liquid metal, and the streets would be a river of flame. But this building simply fell straight to the ground and crumbled.

Nonsense. Metal does not have to be reduced to liquid for it to lose its strength. Why do you think we heat metal until it's red hot before forming it? Molten metal has absolutely nothing to do with the failure of structural steel. Under heat, a building will collapse long before the steel has had a chance to even think about melting.

I need to explain something about controlled demolition. First of all, when buildings are demolished the explosives are placed in the central column, so the structure falls inwards and does not damage other surrounding buildings. So they only way the building can fall like this or fall period is through the use of explosives.

This is incredibly poor logic. That's like saying "My cow is brown. Therefore, if something is brown, it is a cow". Not only do you need to read up on some basic materials science and structural engineering, some logic would help too.

“Each of the following videos shows the entire visible portion of the building falling with a vertical precision otherwise seen only in controlled demolition. Moreover, they show that the collapse took only about 6.5 seconds from start to finish. That rate of fall is within a second of the time it would take an object to fall from the building's roof with no air resistance”

I'll leave this one to Russ, it's his favourite.

NOW, it's extremely important to mention that rigging buildins with explosives is a tiresom and very time consuming process, and to properly plant explosives in amathematicaly harmonious fasion to create a smooth symetrical drop. Actually it would take weeks to prepare for the demolition. So not only does Larry Silverstine, the owner of the complex admit to blowing up building seven, But building seven COULD NOT have been demolished on such short notice. Weeks of demolitions planning does not jive well with Osama's surprise attack. In fact it's impossible.

Right. One of the questions you could ask yourself here is "how come nobody noticed these buildings being prepared for controlled demolition?".

1. Each collapse occurred at virtually free fall speed;
2. Each building collapsed straight down, for the most part onto its own footprint;
3. Virtually all the concrete was turned into very fine dust;
4. In the case of the Twin Towers, the dust was blown out horizontally for 200 feet or more;
5. The collapses were total, leaving no steel columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air;
6. Videos of the collapses reveal "demolition waves", meaning "confluent rows of small explosions";
7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long;
8. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings;
9. Each collapse was associated with detectable seismic vibrations (suggestive of underground explosions);
10.Each collapse produced molten steel (which would be produced by explosives), resulting in "hot spots" that remained for months.?

My answer to all of those is "so what?".

Perhaps you'd like to predict just how a building would be expected to fall if hit earlier than afternoon by an airliner, which then burst into flames for a while. No? Thought not. That's why you're not a structural engineer.

If you're the one who's saying that people should not accept the given explanation, and should question what's being spoon-fed to them by the media, perhaps you would like to do the same, and at least think about some of the more ludicrous arguments in favour of your case.

 

[Evo]

First of all it’s important to say that fire has never once brought a steel structure down. Out of 100 uncontrolled fires in the last 50 years NEVER has fire collapsed a steel building, only earthquakes and explosives have been able to flatten these modern structures.

Please post a list of all buildings that had a large airliner full of fuel crash into them and that did not collapse so we can compare that data to the WTC airline crashes.

Without this data, you have no argument.

 

[Esperanto]

Why are the people defending the official story hiding behind "Well ur not a structural engineer"?

Okay, YOU tell me what caused wtc 1 and 2 to collapse.

And here's one of your engineers you like to prop up and parade around saying airplanes can't take down the wtc one and two.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm

Quote:
here is an AP article that says there was 67 scrambles between June 2000-Sept 2001.

Thank you. As you can see, it was sloppilly written. What it says is:
Quote:
From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.

Since the comparisons don't match up, there are two possible assumptions: either she's comparing scrambles in 2000 to scrambles and diverts in 2001-2, or she meant scrambles or diverts for the second one. Since the first option would mean a discontinuity in the comparison, rendering it meaningless, she must have meant scrambles or diverts for the second one as well.

In fact, the article you quoted is the original - she updated the article the next day and it has 70 more words in it. Its quite possible that she clarified it (though I'm not willing to buy it to find out).

In fact, the entire point of the article is that they weren't capable of adequately dealing with 9/11, and plenty of evidence is given to back that up. Its ironic that these conspiracy theory sites are paraphrasing an article that argues the opposite of what they want to believe.

What do you mean "she meant scrambles or diverts for the second one"? Does anyone else here believe she is saying something other than that 67 planes scrambled from Sept 2000 to June 2001 and 462 scrambled from Sept. 11 2001 to June 2002? Who cares if she is ignoring the months between June and September 2001? The point is, the Popular Mechanics hitpiece was in direct contradiction.

But whatever, let's just focus on building 7 when Larry Silverstein said he blew it up and FEMA said "... I don't know"

Answer now!

 

[Sub-Zer0]

You're like a stuck record. Do you mind if I reduce the size of your sensationalist headlines when I quote you, especially since you've posted much of it twice, rather than responding to requests to pick a single point for discussion? Cheers.

So what? Just because it's never happened before doesn't mean that it's impossible. How many other buildings have you seen which were hit with airliners full of aviation fuel, which collapsed differently? No? Oh well.

Ok, I didn't say it was impossible for fire to bring down a building, however steel does not melt until it reaches 3000 degress of temperature, Steel does not weaken or beomce able till be molded until 2000 degrees. Most of the Jet fuel exploded outside of the building, and the fires in the WTC did not even burn for an hour, an top of all of that, the firemen who were ordered to shread their audio feeds from the firefighters on the scene of the WTC, who later rebeled and released them, the firefighter in the building that collapses says "We have two isolated pockets of fire, we should be able to knock it down with two lines."

How can an hellfire inferno which the governments story depends on existing to legitmize their claims, how can a hellfire such as that be described as "two isolated pockets of fire."

The answer is, it can't be, this fireman is telling his team that these fires are almost out, and he's calling for more firemen to be brought up the stairs to put out the "two isolated pockets of fire", interestingly he's not concerend with the strucutral integrity of this building at all.

The maximum tempeture a hydrocarbon fire can reach is 825 deg C (1,520 deg F), which is not enough to make the steel forgible or bend, and the fire fighters inside the building already have indicicated that the fires were quite sporadic, and not spread through the entire building.


Here's the links to the engineering information, on steel melting tempetures which I presented.

http://ajh-knives.com/metals.html

http://topsoil.nserl.purdue.edu/nserlweb/safetywebsite/SOPs/Oxy-Acetylene%20Torch.html
http://newjersey.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/8328.shtml

Not only that but the Jet Fuel would have all burnt up in any time span anywhere from 30 secconds to two minutes.

Not only that, there was a MUCH hotter fire in the WTC in 1975, which did nothing to damage the structure of the building.

Not only that, but the WTC project manager, an engineer said that the towers were designed withstand having several fully loaded boeing 707's crash
into it.

http://freepressinternational.com/wtc_manager56.wmv

Let's assume you still buy the fire explanation, well look at the Windsor building in Madrid Spain.

Monday, 14 February, 2005: Hotel Windsor Fire In Madrid Burns far more fiercely far longer (24 hours) than building 7 or the Towers and does Not Collapse.

http://colt.cache.el-mundo.net/documentos/2005/02/windsor/album2/img/01.jpg

http://reopen911.org/images/02.jpg

http://colt.cache.el-mundo.net/documentos/2005/02/windsor/album1/img/01.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40827000/jpg/_40827205_3shellafp203c.jpg

After this intense 24 hour fire storm, the Windor building held strong, not if the support pillars melted to despite the fact that the intensity and length was exponentially greater than the WTC buildings fires, in fact they don't even compare.

Because steel will not melt or weaken at that tempeture.

Nonsense. Metal does not have to be reduced to liquid for it to lose its strength. Why do you think we heat metal until it's red hot before forming it? Molten metal has absolutely nothing to do with the failure of structural steel. Under heat, a building will collapse long before the steel has had a chance to even think about melting.[/i]

Well the orignal press reports ALL claimed that MELTING STEEL had cause the towers to collapse which had independent invesitagtors taking another look. Since all of our refutation of the original information, they have changed there story to say the steel WEAKENED rather than MELTED, that's an interesting fact in and of it self, however I think I've prooved my point about the WTC steel.

Here's a press report that states it did melt, kind of makes you wonderr how much research was actually put into this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm

This is incredibly poor logic. That's like saying "My cow is brown. Therefore, if something is brown, it is a cow". Not only do you need to read up on some basic materials science and structural engineering, some logic would help too.[/i]

LOL, perhaps you need to reread the post, THIS IS NOT LOGIC, or reasoning, this my friend is fact, simple fact about the inner workings of how controlled demolition is pulled off. I think you need to study how buildings are blown up, and perhaps even study up on what the defintion of the word "logic" is, but I don't believe on attacking the messanger as you do, so I will move on to this. But that, was a very pathetic point, it didn't even make sense.

Right. One of the questions you could ask yourself here is "how come nobody noticed these buildings being prepared for controlled demolition?"..[/i]

Or perhaps we could ask, how could a building just fall down on it's own? I'm sure it's much easier to make a building fall down on it's own without the use of explosives than it is to say wire the building when no one is there, Larry Silverstine already admitted that the building was "pulled" the term for controlled demolition. I mean that's ridiculous, your saying it's easier to break the laws of physics than it is to wire a building with explosives when no one is looking. This is simmilar to watching the statue of liberty crumble to dust, and saying "there couldn't have been explosives in there because they just couldn't have gotten them in there."

Even the hard-core engineering degress for hire who will say anything they are told to admit that seven was demolished, there's no way around it, and Silverstine admitted it, watch the video for christ sake.

And there's articles about all sorts of drills in seven which had went on before 9/11 where specif parts of the building had been closed off for extended periods of time.

My answer to all of those is "so what?".

Perhaps you'd like to predict just how a building would be expected to fall if hit earlier than afternoon by an airliner, which then burst into flames for a while. No? Thought not. That's why you're not a structural engineer.

If you're the one who's saying that people should not accept the given explanation, and should question what's being spoon-fed to them by the media, perhaps you would like to do the same, and at least think about some of the more ludicrous arguments in favour of your case?"..[/i]

Man, you're quite venomous indeed, ludicrous arguments? Not nearly as ludicris as the points you seem to think are so much more important, Forsenic information always trumps logic, because we never know what people are thinking but we can almost always count on the laws of physics to remain the same. Let's just take a stab at a few of these.

First of all the symetrical collapse is exactly what controlled demolition does, it's a very neat a mathetmatically calculated process, given the fact that it takes weeks to plan this precise and calculated collapse, what are the chances 19 arabic idiots fly into the building and make the collapse exactly like a controlled demolition.

Not only that but nearly every square inch of the building was pulverized into dust particles, litterall turned into nothing but debrist, this wasan't done from the plane impact because the towers still stood an hour after the boeing slammed into the tower, Fire would not desentegrate metal IT WOULD MELT IT, and the fires would have had to be spread evenly throughout the enitre support structures of the building to weaken it in this way, however that aside, it would not have pulverized the concerete explain this. or show me any time when fire has pulverized concerete. So what about this ? haha I thought not.

I could keep at this all day, but I've got to go for now. Be back, pz

 

[Entropy]

So I would suggest that you take a deep breath, sit back and consider that you’ve been lied to by the Bush Administration and mass media

Sure, I accept that the Administration and the media lies to me, hell I hear it all the time on TV, they're not good enough at lying to pull something like 9/11 off. But the fact is that the evidence, even if you ignore evidence presented by the government and the media, is still overwhelming against you're arguement.

What's more likely, a shadowy group with enormous gains to profit from attacks blowing up the buildings for reasons we don't quite undersand, or the laws of physics being ignored, or impossible time constraints in which it takes to wire buildings w/ explosives being achieved?

You failed to understand my point. Why would the government plant bombs in the building AND fly a plane into it? A plane being flown into a building by terrorists would have still be enough to show how vulnerable the US was to attacks and achieve just what the government "suppostively" wanted.

How and Osama Bin Ladin, part of that "shadowy" group that wanted to blow up the WTC for reasons we don't know, has been determined to destroy the WTC for the last 10 years! It's no secret! And the reason he wanted to destroy them was because he hates the US and it's ALLIES! What better place to strike than the WORLD trade center?

You see, building seven DECENTEGRATED INTO RUBBLE in a vertical symmetrical fashion in 6.5 seconds.

How fast was it suppost to fall? Do the math. Things accelerate in Earth's gravity at 9.8 m/s^2. Are you saying that the government was also involved in changing the Earth's gravity so the towers would fall faster?

And if it was fire, eventhough the flames would have had to have burnt exponentically hotter for a much longer time, we would have seen the structure reduced into liquid metal, and the streets would be a river of flame. But this building simply fell straight to the ground and crumbled.

WRONG. Steel (like the steel in the WTC) loses 90% of it's strength at 1000F. 1000F isn't very hot for fire, especially fire from jet fuel. Think I can get my fireplace hotter than that.

 

[0m3ga]

Brewnog

you said "So what? Just because it's never happened before doesn't mean that it's impossible. How many other buildings have you seen which were hit with airliners full of aviation fuel, which collapsed differently? No? Oh well."

so what your saying is you would judge it by what happened in the past if this had happened...but then wen sum1 said that because controlled demolition brought down building like this before so its possibe it did now you said

"This is incredibly poor logic. That's like saying "My cow is brown. Therefore, if something is brown, it is a cow". Not only do you need to read up on some basic materials science and structural engineering, some logic would help too."

it just seems to me like your contradicting yourself no?

 

[Entropy]

The maximum tempeture a hydrocarbon fire can reach is 825 deg C (1,520 deg F), which is not enough to make the steel forgible or bend, and the fire fighters inside the building already have indicicated that the fires were quite sporadic, and not spread through the entire building.

It doesn't need to melt! It already has several floors of weight bearing down on it. By you're logic, if the building lost 50% of it's integerity it would still stand.

Sure you can't "forge" it or "bend" it with a person hammering it by hand. But the pressures from several floors it's support will bend and break it.

 

[brewnog]

Ok, I didn't say it was impossible for fire to bring down a building, however steel does not melt until it reaches 3000 degress of temperature, Steel does not weaken or beomce able till be molded until 2000 degrees.

This just isn't true. I'll let it slide for now.

How can an hellfire inferno which the governments story depends on existing to legitmize their claims, how can a hellfire such as that be described as "two isolated pockets of fire."

Perhaps the one fireman who saw these two pockets of fire wasn't actually at the area where there was a burning airliner present? I'm sorry, I fail to see how an airliner slamming into a building at (what, 300kts? 400kts?) only produces two isolated pockets of fire. Just because the chap saw these fires does not mean that they were the only fires present in the entire building.

The answer is, it can't be, this fireman is telling his team that these fires are almost out, and he's calling for more firemen to be brought up the stairs to put out the "two isolated pockets of fire", interestingly he's not concerend with the strucutral integrity of this building at all.

The maximum tempeture a hydrocarbon fire can reach is 825 deg C (1,520 deg F), which is not enough to make the steel forgible or bend, and the fire fighters inside the building already have indicicated that the fires were quite sporadic, and not spread through the entire building.

Can I please have links to the source you've got which tells you that temperatures of 825 Celsius will not affect the yield, or ultimate tensile strengths of whatever kind of steel you think these buildings were made out of?

Here's the links to the engineering information, on steel melting tempetures which I presented.

http://ajh-knives.com/metals.html

This link is for blade steel, and is completely unrelated.

http://topsoil.nserl.purdue.edu/nserlweb/safetywebsite/SOPs/Oxy-Acetylene%20Torch.html

This is a link describing how an Oxy-acetylane torch works. Completely unrelated.

http://newjersey.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/8328.shtml

This is another "no building has collapsed from fire, therefore the WTC was blown up" conspiracy site.

Not only that but the Jet Fuel would have all burnt up in any time span anywhere from 30 secconds to two minutes.

Urrm, what?! Assuming this were true, are you naive enough to think that this would still just cause two, isolated fires?

Not only that, there was a MUCH hotter fire in the WTC in 1975, which did nothing to damage the structure of the building.

Hotter in temperature? So what, I could get a hotter temperature out of a welding torch on the ground floor of the WTC. Do you recognise the difference between temperature, and the amount of energy being released into a building? No?

Not only that, but the WTC project manager, an engineer said that the towers were designed withstand having several fully loaded boeing 707's crash
into it.

We saw on our televisions that the WTC was capable of withstanding the impact of several fully loaded airliners crashing into it. What's your point?

Let's assume you still buy the fire explanation, well look at the Windsor building in Madrid Spain.

Monday, 14 February, 2005: Hotel Windsor Fire In Madrid Burns far more fiercely far longer (24 hours) than building 7 or the Towers and does Not Collapse.

Chalk and cheese mate, chalk and cheese.

Well the orignal press reports ALL claimed that MELTING STEEL had cause the towers to collapse which had independent invesitagtors taking another look. Since all of our refutation of the original information, they have changed there story to say the steel WEAKENED rather than MELTED, that's an interesting fact in and of it self, however I think I've prooved my point about the WTC steel.

I rarely pay attention to press reports. I do, however, know two things. The first is that the press will dumb things down so that they sound more exciting, and so that the average Joe will understand them. After all, reports on the yield stress response to temperature of mild steel does not make for front-page reading. The second thing is a big surprise: Steel weakens with temperature! You have proved absolutely nothing, except for your lack of knowledge about the effects of elevated temperatures on structural materials.

LOL, perhaps you need to reread the post, THIS IS NOT LOGIC, or reasoning, this my friend is fact, simple fact about the inner workings of how controlled demolition is pulled off. I think you need to study how buildings are blown up, and perhaps even study up on what the defintion of the word "logic" is, but I don't believe on attacking the messanger as you do, so I will move on to this. But that, was a very pathetic point, it didn't even make sense.

I've re-read it. I don't see how saying "controlled demolitions look like this. The WTC collapse looks like this. Therefore, the WTC was a controlled demolition" shows anything other than a complete lack of understanding of logic, without even looking at anything in an engineering context. Sorry if you thought I was making a personal remark though, no offence intended.

Man, you're quite venomous indeed, ludicrous arguments? Not nearly as ludicris as the points you seem to think are so much more important, Forsenic information always trumps logic, because we never know what people are thinking but we can almost always count on the laws of physics to remain the same. Let's just take a stab at a few of these.

Sorry about the venom! This discussion just wasn't going anywhere, and I would have preferred to see a few well-thought-out points, rather than a load of posting from conspiracy sites.

Here we go:

First of all the symetrical collapse is exactly what controlled demolition does, it's a very neat a mathetmatically calculated process, given the fact that it takes weeks to plan this precise and calculated collapse, what are the chances 19 arabic idiots fly into the building and make the collapse exactly like a controlled demolition.

I'll accept that controlled demolitions do look similar to the WTC collapse. However, how many buildings have you seen collapse through other means? The weeks of preparation are generally to ensure that the buildings don't collapse on anything else, since that would be a disaster. That doesn't mean it takes weeks to make a building collapse straight down.

Think of it this way, let's make it simple. The planes entered the building at what, 2/3? 3/4 the way up? After they'd come to a rest, and weakened the steel, what forces were acting on that section of the building? That's right, the weight of dozens of storeys acting from above, all trying to go downward. Not left, not right, but downwards. Gravity tends to act in this manner.

Not only that but nearly every square inch of the building was pulverized into dust particles, litterall turned into nothing but debrist, this wasan't done from the plane impact because the towers still stood an hour after the boeing slammed into the tower, Fire would not desentegrate metal IT WOULD MELT IT, and the fires would have had to be spread evenly throughout the enitre support structures of the building to weaken it in this way, however that aside, it would not have pulverized the concerete explain this. or show me any time when fire has pulverized concerete. So what about this ? haha I thought not.

Again, under what circumstances have you seen concrete, plasterboard, insulation, plaster, brickwork, whatever being dropped from several hundred feet onto the floor? Why are people surprised that the debris is dust? And no, the fire would not melt most of the steel; it would have failed long before that.

Can't really be bothered with this any more.

 

[Kemal]

Steel does not weaken or beomce able till be molded until 2000 degrees.

Wrong. Steel only retains about 50% of its strength and stiffness at 1100 F, according to Facts for Steel Buildings number 1: Fire by the American Institute of Steel Construction, 2003.

 

[Pengwuino]

Just because someone can deunk something it does not mean it was not true, it just means you believed what they told you.

Actually, if I, and others prove that your data is wrong, that means you are wrong because you are now using illogical information.

Data and be distored and manipulated, how much science do you think is behinde ADD? Don't switch off the thinking process. Aside from the towers, demolition, and engineering information there have been at least 200 aritcles written by separate journalists that massively conflict w/ the offical line we have been fed. Do you discount all of that as well?

Data can be distorted and manipulated? I didn't know decades of structural engineering resources can all single handedly be changed so that its properties no longer are the same as they use to be. Please present these articles from structural engineers with the contradictory facts (Yes, structural engineers because most journalists know about as about engineering as a 10 year old knows about cars)

Looks like these people are obsessed over the idea that steel MUST melt before a building collapses. What about every other building failure in history? Did the metals all melt into streams of death that covered the street like you assume would have to happen for them to melt? I love seeing the "proof" that airliners can't bring down towers. They show them hitting like... one is about 30 stories high and hit near the top, another hit a real WTC-like tower but at about 7 stories from the top, and another was another short tower hit near hte top, pfff. You try to tell them how engineering works and how metallurgy works and they just deny it all the way and think that personal experience and "eye-witness" testimony is the #1 top priority in all cases.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Ok Sub_Zero. There's a lot here that I don't have time to go through at the moment but I'll be back later. So in response to your claims about the demolition of the building...

I think Brewnog toughed on this but tell me: what other way is the building supposed to collapse. Explain to me where is states in teh laws of physics that a building in such a situation would come down in any other fashion. You mentioned at one point that planes crashing into the building would lend it a sideways momentum that would bring it down horizontally? First off the buildings didn't go down as they were hit by the planes so the momentum of the planes had already been absorbed and disapated long before the building even came down. Secondly perhaps you might want to do a bit of math considering the weight and force applied by the plane hitting the side of the building and the amount of weight that would need to be moved in order to make the building topple horizontally. With out even doing the math I could already tell you it's not going to happen. This just goes to show even more so that there is little other way the building could have collapsed. Try figuring out the amount of force needed to make that much weight and inertia topple in any other fashion for any reason what so ever.

 

[outsider]

this is almost as bad as the right wing KKK stuff...

 

[Pengwuino]

this is almost as bad as the right wing KKK stuff...

Well everyone has their nut-cases. Best to deepfry them and feed them to cows

 

[Esperanto]

How fast was it suppost to fall? Do the math. Things accelerate in Earth's gravity at 9.8 m/s^2. Are you saying that the government was also involved in changing the Earth's gravity so the towers would fall faster?

If the buildings did not fall one or two hours after the crashes, they should not have fallen due to the impact. What he is saying is that the government used explosives so the buildings collapsed with very little resistance other than air resistance.

WRONG. Steel (like the steel in the WTC) loses 90% of it's strength at 1000F. 1000F isn't very hot for fire, especially fire from jet fuel. Think I can get my fireplace hotter than that.

And weakened steel caused the first two wtc's to collapse nearly at freefall rate?

Perhaps the one fireman who saw these two pockets of fire wasn't actually at the area where there was a burning airliner present? I'm sorry, I fail to see how an airliner slamming into a building at (what, 300kts? 400kts?) only produces two isolated pockets of fire. Just because the chap saw these fires does not mean that they were the only fires present in the entire building.

The airplanes blew up really fast consuming most of the fuel. After 10 or 15 seconds at most the fireballs get much smaller.

Can I please have links to the source you've got which tells you that temperatures of 825 Celsius will not affect the yield, or ultimate tensile strengths of whatever kind of steel you think these buildings were made out of?

Tell me, please, how fire disintegrates steel.

Urrm, what?! Assuming this were true, are you naive enough to think that this would still just cause two, isolated fires?

Picture evidence shows the fires were really weak, people were standing where the planes made holes.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/still-alive.jpg

Quote:
Let's assume you still buy the fire explanation, well look at the Windsor building in Madrid Spain.

Monday, 14 February, 2005: Hotel Windsor Fire In Madrid Burns far more fiercely far longer (24 hours) than building 7 or the Towers and does Not Collapse.




Chalk and cheese mate, chalk and cheese.

So the Windsor hotel in Madrid burned entirely and at a much higher temperature than the WTC one and two yet didn't fall and that means nothing to you? It's tempting to make a comment on America's structural engineers if Spain's are so superior.

I rarely pay attention to press reports. I do, however, know two things. The first is that the press will dumb things down so that they sound more exciting, and so that the average Joe will understand them. After all, reports on the yield stress response to temperature of mild steel does not make for front-page reading. The second thing is a big surprise: Steel weakens with temperature! You have proved absolutely nothing, except for your lack of knowledge about the effects of elevated temperatures on structural materials.

Fire still does not turn steel to dust.

I've re-read it. I don't see how saying "controlled demolitions look like this. The WTC collapse looks like this. Therefore, the WTC was a controlled demolition" shows anything other than a complete lack of understanding of logic, without even looking at anything in an engineering context. Sorry if you thought I was making a personal remark though, no offence intended.

Hey, all you have to do is prove fire makes buildings collapse at near freefall levels.

I'll accept that controlled demolitions do look similar to the WTC collapse. However, how many buildings have you seen collapse through other means? The weeks of preparation are generally to ensure that the buildings don't collapse on anything else, since that would be a disaster. That doesn't mean it takes weeks to make a building collapse straight down.

the buildings caved in. if it's not demolition then it's intelligent, steel pillar seeking and detonating fire.

Again, under what circumstances have you seen concrete, plasterboard, insulation, plaster, brickwork, whatever being dropped from several hundred feet onto the floor? Why are people surprised that the debris is dust? And no, the fire would not melt most of the steel; it would have failed long before that.

I will drop some conrete and if it turns to dust... mwahaha you are so silly.

Actually, if I, and others prove that your data is wrong, that means you are wrong because you are now using illogical information.

http://img23.exs.cx/img23/1848/cnn911poll_update6.jpg

Ok Sub_Zero. There's a lot here that I don't have time to go through at the moment but I'll be back later. So in response to your claims about the demolition of the building...

I think Brewnog toughed on this but tell me: what other way is the building supposed to collapse. Explain to me where is states in teh laws of physics that a building in such a situation would come down in any other fashion. You mentioned at one point that planes crashing into the building would lend it a sideways momentum that would bring it down horizontally? First off the buildings didn't go down as they were hit by the planes so the momentum of the planes had already been absorbed and disapated long before the building even came down. Secondly perhaps you might want to do a bit of math considering the weight and force applied by the plane hitting the side of the building and the amount of weight that would need to be moved in order to make the building topple horizontally. With out even doing the math I could already tell you it's not going to happen. This just goes to show even more so that there is little other way the building could have collapsed. Try figuring out the amount of force needed to make that much weight and inertia topple in any other fashion for any reason what so ever.

He did not say the buildings should have toppled horizontally. OK?

 

[Pengwuino]

If the buildings did not fall one or two hours after the crashes, they should not have fallen due to the impact. What he is saying is that the government used explosives so the buildings collapsed with very little resistance other than air resistance.

Technically, if the building did not fall INSTANTLY, then they should not have fallen due to the impact. But unfortunately, the impact did not cause the collapse. The energy released by the fuel weakened the steel enough over a period of time to make the ... god knows how many millions of pounds of building above the impact points to fracture the steel at the impact site and make it fall.

Also, what no one seems to want to point out is that in order to demolish a building, it takes months to plan out and bring down a building. You have to set the charges in a way that the building would come down correctly, wire it all up, etc etc. You can't just run in, throw in a crate of dynamite and set it off (and of course, steel buildings require extra procedures to down them)

And weakened steel caused the first two wtc's to collapse nearly at freefall rate?

Ok one thing I really have to ask. If there was a controlled explosion demolition... how exactly is that suppose to change the rate at which the buliding collapses? You can subscribe to two theories, both of which are rediculous

1) bombs went off from inside the airplane (or well, it was on-board). How would this change the rate at which it fell? It wouldnt, it would fall at the exact same rate it would if the official story is correct.

2) The building was fully imploded so that the bottom levels fell at the same time the upper levels did. This would be at almost exactly free-fall. Problems. One, how would you wire the ENTIRE tower for implosion without anyone knowing? Two, if every level did have charges in it or anywhere near all of them, we would have seen the entire wtc seemingly explode. Every eye-witness and every video shows that absolutely nothing was happening on the lower levels when the towers started falling. There would be very noticable flashes of light coming out of the levels if it was demolished.

Or of course, you can subscribe to the 3rd option, the offical story, where magically, millions of pounds of steel on the upper floors decided that it was not going to be slowed down by a few support bars. Once one floor gives, that's it, there's no chance its staying up. Its like making a human pyramid and then dropping a car on it. That car is coming down and nothings going to slow it down. Russ also pointed out in another thread that the air would have been pushed out of the actual levels so quickly that the impulse would have been insignificant.

The airplanes blew up really fast consuming most of the fuel. After 10 or 15 seconds at most the fireballs get much smaller.

Completely incorrect. We're talking about an airplane with an 11,000 gallon fuel capacity. Very few forces in nature are going to be consuming hundreds or gallons of fuel per second. Also, "fireballs got much smaller". Irrelevant. What you see does not matter. I know people who have seen "UFOs" but that does not mean they actually saw aliens. Personal experience is on the lower-rungs of scientific debate. I might as well tell everyone I believe in God because i saw Mary's face in my popsicle.

Tell me, please, how fire disintegrates steel.

Again, another problem with the conspiracy theorists lack of knowledge. No one has stated that steel needed to be melted in order for teh building to collapse except for the conspiracy theorists themselves. A basic basic basic understanding of physics or engineering will tell you that by simply heating a piece of metal, you are effectively reducing its ability to hold a load. It does NOT need to melt for it to give way. Every engineer on this planet agrees with that, every test agrees with it, you are wrong, deal with it.

Picture evidence shows the fires were really weak, people were standing where the planes made holes.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/04/still-alive.jpg

Thats nice. Show a photo saying the fires are weak and then show a grainy badly positioned picture as proof. Nice.

So the Windsor hotel in Madrid burned entirely and at a much higher temperature than the WTC one and two yet didn't fall and that means nothing to you? It's tempting to make a comment on America's structural engineers if Spain's are so superior.

http://colt.cache.el-mundo.net/fotografia/2005/02/incendio_windsor/img/inc5.jpg

Notice how only the TOP floors burnt. If you would take the time to even consider what we have been telling you since the start of this argument, you would realize that the WTC fell because of the WEIGHT of the upper floors. Notice how the top floors at that OFFICE BUILDING were the ones on fire. There are no floors above it to collapse on the weakened structure.

Hey, all you have to do is prove fire makes buildings collapse at near freefall levels.

Irrelevant. Since we're telling you this for the 10,000th time, I hope you do listen this time. It was NOT the fire alone that brought the building down. The fire weakened the structure and the top floors of the buildings fell and the rest of the building was not going to stop some 15 or so stories from falling. Like my human pyramid example, the pyramid was not designed to have huge masses falling ontop of it just like the floors below the impact point were not built to survive the top 15 or so floors from falling onto them. They were not oging to stop it and you are going to experience near freefall speeds. Again, of course, you need to prove to us exactly how controlled demolitions were going to accomplish free-fall speeds as OPPOSED to why the official story would NOT accomplish free-fall speed.

the buildings caved in. if it's not demolition then it's intelligent, steel pillar seeking and detonating fire.

That makes absolutely no sense

http://img23.exs.cx/img23/1848/cnn911poll_update6.jpg

Ok you got us, a public opinion poll trumps every and all scientific study done. Hey did you know a majority of Europeans think the US faked the moon landings? Yah, exactly, your point is rather stupid, I am glad you agree.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

He did not say the buildings should have toppled horizontally. OK?

Then maybe it was someone else. Regardless the point remains; What way were the buildings supposed to collapse other than straight down into themselves? If he's not here and you or someone else wants to take up the argument by all means please explain to me what other fashion they should have fallen in? And don't give me any narrow minded bs about nothing being able to take them down besides explosives or an earthquake. I don't care which one of you said it originally, it's bs and I'm not buying it.

If the buildings did not fall one or two hours after the crashes, they should not have fallen due to the impact. What he is saying is that the government used explosives so the buildings collapsed with very little resistance other than air resistance.
----------------------
And weakened steel caused the first two wtc's to collapse nearly at freefall rate?

And what speed should it have fallen at? We're talking about a building here not geological erosion or a slab of something melting away. And no one except the conspiracy people and ill informed reports have ever stated that the metal melted.

Tell me, please, how fire disintegrates steel.

Tell me please who ever stated that the steel was disintegrated? And if you believe that it was please explain how anything involved in the destruction of the building accomplished that.

So the Windsor hotel in Madrid burned entirely and at a much higher temperature than the WTC one and two yet didn't fall and that means nothing to you? It's tempting to make a comment on America's structural engineers if Spain's are so superior.

If you have read up on this much I'm sure that you have heard it was admitted that not all of the structural elements in the building were up to snuff.

Fire still does not turn steel to dust.

Again, who aside from conspiracy theorists believes this happened?

Hey, all you have to do is prove fire makes buildings collapse at near freefall levels.

I assume you've watched the videos? If not there are plenty of links to them in this thread alone.

the buildings caved in. if it's not demolition then it's intelligent, steel pillar seeking and detonating fire.

Again how else should it have collapsed? When you have a structure that is mostly empty space inside where do you think everything is going to go when it collapses?

I will drop some conrete and if it turns to dust... mwahaha you are so silly.

Perhaps if we applied several tons of force to your person you may begin to understand how some concrete may have been crushed into fine dust?

 

[Entropy]

Tell me, please, how fire disintegrates steel.

The fire didn't do that. The energy from the building falling down did. The hundreds of thousands of tons of material falling from that height has a ton of energy. Enough energy to melt and disintegrates steel.

 

[Sub-Zer0]

Please post a list of all buildings that had a large airliner full of fuel crash into them and that did not collapse so we can compare that data to the WTC airline crashes.

Without this data, you have no argument.

THe project manager already said in the video I posted that he designed the towers to sustain multiple boeing impacts, And we know how fire reacts in buildings.

 

[Pengwuino]

Whoa whoa whoa, big deception going on here. He said that they decided to pull teh building "and then we watched the building collapse". He DID NOT say that they actually did go in and set the explosives (of course, this would have taken many hours if not days to actually do). He simply said they made a decision, the building collapsed. You must be fooled into ASSUMING they actually went in and took it down.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would like to pause to see if any of our skeptics see any valid points. I think it was Brewnog who indicated that he has an interest in this but is frustrated with the present discussion. If we do find any agreement, then perhaps we could proceed on those issues.

Do you see any credible issues here or not? All skeptics, please chime in.

 

[Esperanto]

2) The building was fully imploded so that the bottom levels fell at the same time the upper levels did. This would be at almost exactly free-fall. Problems. One, how would you wire the ENTIRE tower for implosion without anyone knowing? Two, if every level did have charges in it or anywhere near all of them, we would have seen the entire wtc seemingly explode. Every eye-witness and every video shows that absolutely nothing was happening on the lower levels when the towers started falling. There would be very noticable flashes of light coming out of the levels if it was demolished.

http://reopen911.org/pictures_and_videos.htm#1

This video shows explosions going off. There's stuff flying horizontally pretty far as the building collapses btw.

Or of course, you can subscribe to the 3rd option, the offical story, where magically, millions of pounds of steel on the upper floors decided that it was not going to be slowed down by a few support bars.

Ahem, who am I going to believe, Francis DeMartini WTC Construction Manager when he says a jetliner going through one of the two wtc's is like putting a pencil through a screen netting, or you with your "few support bars"?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/141104designedtotake.htm

Completely incorrect. We're talking about an airplane with an 11,000 gallon fuel capacity. Very few forces in nature are going to be consuming hundreds or gallons of fuel per second. Also, "fireballs got much smaller". Irrelevant. What you see does not matter. I know people who have seen "UFOs" but that does not mean they actually saw aliens. Personal experience is on the lower-rungs of scientific debate. I might as well tell everyone I believe in God because i saw Mary's face in my popsicle.

http://reopen911.org/pictures_and_videos.htm#1

Tell me how many seconds you think it took for the fireball to go away in this clip then.

Again, another problem with the conspiracy theorists lack of knowledge. No one has stated that steel needed to be melted in order for teh building to collapse except for the conspiracy theorists themselves. A basic basic basic understanding of physics or engineering will tell you that by simply heating a piece of metal, you are effectively reducing its ability to hold a load. It does NOT need to melt for it to give way. Every engineer on this planet agrees with that, every test agrees with it, you are wrong, deal with it.

There was disintegrated steel. So I repeat, Tell me, please, how fire disintegrates steel.

Thats nice. Show a photo saying the fires are weak and then show a grainy badly positioned picture as proof. Nice.

Look at the first video I gave on this post. you got some newscaster telling you there are people standing there.

Again, of course, you need to prove to us exactly how controlled demolitions were going to accomplish free-fall speeds as OPPOSED to why the official story would NOT accomplish free-fall speed.

You can blow up the support at the center, and you won't see debris flying upwards, but you still have a mushrooming effect as you can see from the clip of the south tower falling. Btw, who here thinks steel landing on steel (like FEMA says in their pancake theory, just in case you try to attribute this idea to me) will still fall at the same rate as freefall?

That makes absolutely no sense

:)

Ok you got us, a public opinion poll trumps every and all scientific study done. Hey did you know a majority of Europeans think the US faked the moon landings? Yah, exactly, your point is rather stupid, I am glad you agree.

No, but I was hoping to appeal to your conformist mentality.

Then maybe it was someone else. Regardless the point remains; What way were the buildings supposed to collapse other than straight down into themselves? If he's not here and you or someone else wants to take up the argument by all means please explain to me what other fashion they should have fallen in? And don't give me any narrow minded bs about nothing being able to take them down besides explosives or an earthquake. I don't care which one of you said it originally, it's bs and I'm not buying it.

Okay, tell me about a steel building that was destroyed by something other than explosives or earthquakes, then I'll tell you how buildings are supposed to collapse other than straight down.

And what speed should it have fallen at? We're talking about a building here not geological erosion or a slab of something melting away. And no one except the conspiracy people and ill informed reports have ever stated that the metal melted.

When you drop a dog on a dog, does not the falling dog decelerate? When you drop a pancake on a pancake and that pancake drops on another pancake, isn't there resistance?

Tell me please who ever stated that the steel was disintegrated? And if you believe that it was please explain how anything involved in the destruction of the building accomplished that.

The conspiracy theorists said concrete, steel, whatever disintegrated.

The actual site of the destruction of the Twin Towers is now called “Ground Zero.” It does, in fact, look like a scene of death and destruction from some of the most horrific bombing raids from WWII. Rescue and recovery workers I spoke with described their efforts to penetrate and remove the wreckage. Much of the steel is still hot, and for the most part, the more than seven stories of rubble above ground is just pulverized concrete and twisted steel. Yet as of my visit, the workers held out hope for a miracle of finding someone still alive. The spirit of the workers on site and all the related support personnel was powerful, and I made a pledge to do all that I could to support their efforts.

http://www.house.gov/defazio/AtGroundZero.htm

If you have read up on this much I'm sure that you have heard it was admitted that not all of the structural elements in the building were up to snuff.

What? You mean the 9/11 Commission Report denying the existence of the towers' core columns?

The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was “a hollow steel shaft”---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the “pancake theory” of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=96206

Again, who aside from conspiracy theorists believes this happened?

The conspiracy theorists believe everything was blown to bits, just look at pictures of ground zero.

I assume you've watched the videos? If not there are plenty of links to them in this thread alone.

You deny them falling at near freefall rate?

Again how else should it have collapsed? When you have a structure that is mostly empty space inside where do you think everything is going to go when it collapses?

Empty space? Okay, let's toss out the core structure why not you people are ignoring everything else.

Perhaps if we applied several tons of force to your person you may begin to understand how some concrete may have been crushed into fine dust?

You think dropping concrete a few thousand feet will atomize it?

Whoa whoa whoa, big deception going on here. He said that they decided to pull teh building "and then we watched the building collapse". He DID NOT say that they actually did go in and set the explosives (of course, this would have taken many hours if not days to actually do). He simply said they made a decision, the building collapsed. You must be fooled into ASSUMING they actually went in and took it down.

He said they PULLED it. Demolition term for demolishing.

Ok Ivan. Larry said he blew up 7. Fema said they don't know what happened. Good luck!

 

[Pengwuino]

THe project manager already said in the video I posted that he designed the towers to sustain multiple boeing impacts, And we know how fire reacts in buildings.

I remember the manager being interviewed before. Yes he said htey could sustain IMPACTS but not fires. As we all know, fire in a building will weaken the structure.

And WHOA WHOA WHOA. Ok...

http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg

Listen to it closely. Rather says they REMIND HIM of buildings that are demolished with explosives.

Now you are bringing up blatantly false information...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Please stop posting or I'll lock the thread. I want to see where we stand.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would like to pause to see if any of our skeptics see any valid points. I think it was Brewnog who indicated that he has an interest in this but is frustrated with the present discussion. If we do find any agreement, then perhaps we could proceed on those issues.

Do you see any credible issues here or not? All skeptics, please chime in.

Save your arguments for a bit here.

I will assume that no response means that you're not sure.

 

[Sub-Zer0]

Sure, I accept that the Administration and the media lies to me, hell I hear it all the time on TV, they're not good enough at lying to pull something like 9/11 off. But the fact is that the evidence, even if you ignore evidence presented by the government and the media, is still overwhelming against you're arguement.

That's called spin, when you tell a lie you pepper it in truth, most of the population lives in a disinformation matrix, and there are enough paid liars w/ University degrees hanging on the wall to try to silence and discredit the people who bring the truth.

For example, did you know vaccines have a mercury perservative in them which has irrefutable been linked to autism?

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0616-31.htm

How about Depleted Uranium, the true culprit of Gulf War Syndrome, cause seven to ten the birth deffects, and tripple the cancer rates in Iraq? Did you know about that?

http://www.cadu.org.uk/info/index.htm

The globalists who really run our government, and Britian, and France, and Isreal, and no doubt many others which I'm not positive about, have the potencial to pull off 9/11 easily. There's a war being waged on humanity, are you going to let them take all of our liberty away on a pack of lies?

There's hardly ANY evidence for the offical line, I don't see your evidence most of the data is distorted or omited, there' are at least 20 witnesses who heard bombs explosions, over five fire fighters saying that, people in the basment saying that, they reported explosives on three differen't news cats direcly after 9/11, and that's not all the forensic evidence. And I haven't even gotten into building seven, so I think you have this backwards buddy, there's a TON, amazing, incredible amount of evidence on the side of it being some sort of state sponsored event. The fire explanations are VERY far fetched.

What do you think happened in the Windsor building, why didn't it collapse, and the towers fires were almost out, they burned for like 20 minutes, and would have started cooling afterwards.

You failed to understand my point. Why would the government plant bombs in the building AND fly a plane into it? A plane being flown into a building by terrorists would have still be enough to show how vulnerable the US was to attacks and achieve just what the government "suppostively" wanted..

There's NO way for anyone who was not in the opperation to know what, however, there's no way fire caused it to fall, the fires were not even bad.

How and Osama Bin Ladin, part of that "shadowy" group that wanted to blow up the WTC for reasons we don't know, has been determined to destroy the WTC for the last 10 years! It's no secret! And the reason he wanted to destroy them was because he hates the US and it's ALLIES! What better place to strike than the WORLD trade center?..

Is this a point? You know Bin Laden was a CIA asset for many years, right? BEsides that, there were tons and tons of warnings of 9/11 before the event, did you see that in my threaD? Did you read it? Yes, why would you make this point then. IT's obvious that without any of this evidence, they allowed 9/11 to happen at the bare minimum.

How fast was it suppost to fall? Do the math. Things accelerate in Earth's gravity at 9.8 m/s^2. Are you saying that the government was also involved in changing the Earth's gravity so the towers would fall faster??..

LOL, NO! I'm saying the entire central Colum would have to be destroyed to achieve this, And it would have to be the column in the center to achieve a symetrical straight vertical collapse, PLEASE do some research on controlled demolition of sky scrapers, It's not easy to make a building fall down symetrically. are you saying the fire burned at the exact same tempeture all throughout the vertical column, that's what is required to make this happen, aand the flames could not have heated the steel up in the short amount of time before it collapsed. Do some research on Controlled Demoliton, and get back w/ me, you'll see I'm right, tho cognitive dissonence comes into play, and you may not accept it.

WRONG. Steel (like the steel in the WTC) loses 90% of it's strength at 1000F. 1000F isn't very hot for fire, especially fire from jet fuel. Think I can get my fireplace hotter than that.??..

Where's your link for that buddy? I proivded engineering links for everything I posted, and I don't trust any article that has anything to do w/ 9/11, so get a link to support this that has nothing to do w/ 9/11, most of mine don't and I am right, When blacksmiths forge steel, they heat it up to 2000 degress. Did you click the link?

And btw Jet fuel only burns for 30 secconds to two minutes, so I don't think it was the jet fuel. And steel cna easily withstand 1000 degrees of tempeture bring me a credible non-911 link that says otherwise.