Explosions on 9/11

[Cyber Gandalf 0]

Chuck Sheen is narrating this new movie...it will open alot of eyes.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

The grill holds what it was designed to hold. The world trade center holds what it was designed to hold. If you put 50 world trade center towers on top of one, yes, it would fail. Was it designed to hold an additional 50 towers? No. The grill was not designed to hold a human being jumping on it. Even if there was no fire in the grill, jumping up and down would still make if fail.

 

The towers did hold the impact of the 747 jet with fuel. They stood and according to NIST would continue to stand forever if wasn't for a 2nd event. What was the 2nd event? They (NIST) assumed fire, and did everything in their report to analyze fire. However the temperatures of the steel were not hot enough to fail. They have collected samples from the world trade centers and the samples revealed that they did not get a temperature hot enough that would cause the steel to fail. Low temperature steel

 

I realize some posters have attempted to say that steel can be at low temperatures and fail, but that needs to be proven. I don't believe it, and I don't think too many others believe that steel can fail when it's at 50 percent strength or above.

 

When Oakhill Football says I underestimated the damage, I did not. I went with the most severe damage cases that NIST used in their report. That means 37 of 47 core columns were standing in the south tower and 41 of 47 core columns were standing in the North tower. Even with this highly speculative most severe number NIST uses, the south tower would have to have at least another 10 columns fail due to fire. The north tower would've needed at least 14 more columns to fail by fire for collapse to ensue.

 

NIST could not, nor should they have had to, sort through 200 thousand tons of structural steel just so you could be satisfied they found a piece that you think got hot enough. The steel from the samples represents .25% to .05% of the total structural steel in the towers. NIST clearly states that the core columns tested are less than 1% of the columns from the fire effected floors and goes on to state the moderate temperature received on some of the columns can no way be indicative of the temperatures reached on the vast majority of columns. It states the same thing with the exterior panels which were less then 3% from fire affected floors.

 

You claim that you understand that the structural steel in the Madrid tower failed due to fire, correct?

You did say "I give you kudos for pointing out the Madrid fire destroying all the steel members"

 

So my question to you is, what leads you to believe that WTC 1 and 2 did not reach the approximate temperatures of the Madrid tower fire? Where the steel clearly failed as seen below.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...rreWindsor1.JPG

 

That aside, you have 2 plausible scenarios. A or B.

 

[A] EXPLOSIVES

 

Evidence of explosives.

(1) Witness accounts of hearing random explosions in the time between the plane impact until well after the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and other buildings.

(2) Video claiming to be "squibs" NIST, among others, claim that this is compressed air following the path of least resistance due to the floors collapsing.

 

Evidence against explosives.

(1) No witness accounts of seeing an explosive device

(2) No witness accounts of explosive devices being installed or placed.

(3) No explosive devices or components found in forensic search. IE: Spent caps, blasting wire, links explosives or explosive residue.

(4) No video footage, pictures, or witness accounts of massive over pressures that are consistent with large explosive devices other than the airliner impacts. No seismic data of large explosives.

(5) No seismic record of explosions consistent with controlled demolition practices.

(6) Building did not collapse consistent with standard controlled demolition practices. IE: Collapsed initiated from the top as opposed to initiating from the bottom.

(6) Numerous experts and scholars in there respective fields, after reviewing available data, claim that the events transpired consistently with the physics involved.

 

FIRE

 

Evidence of fire

(1) There were massive fires. Not debatable.

 

Evidence against fire

(1) NIST did not provide an appropriate sample of structural steel.

(2) Gridirons grill don't melt.

[Sho Nuff 720]

NIST could not, nor should they have had to, sort through 200 thousand tons of structural steel just so you could be satisfied they found a piece that you think got hot enough. The steel from the samples represents .25% to .05% of the total structural steel in the towers. NIST clearly states that the core columns tested are less than 1% of the columns from the fire effected floors and goes on to state the moderate temperature received on some of the columns can no way be indicative of the temperatures reached on the vast majority of columns. It states the same thing with the exterior panels which were less then 3% from fire affected floors.

 

You claim that you understand that the structural steel in the Madrid tower failed due to fire, correct?

You did say "I give you kudos for pointing out the Madrid fire destroying all the steel members"

 

So my question to you is, what leads you to believe that WTC 1 and 2 did not reach the approximate temperatures of the Madrid tower fire? Where the steel clearly failed as seen below.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...rreWindsor1.JPG

 

That aside, you have 2 plausible scenarios. A or B.

 

[A] EXPLOSIVES

 

Evidence of explosives.

(1) Witness accounts of hearing random explosions in the time between the plane impact until well after the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and other buildings.

(2) Video claiming to be "squibs" NIST, among others, claim that this is compressed air following the path of least resistance due to the floors collapsing.

 

Evidence against explosives.

(1) No witness accounts of seeing an explosive device

(2) No witness accounts of explosive devices being installed or placed.

(3) No explosive devices or components found in forensic search. IE: Spent caps, blasting wire, links explosives or explosive residue.

(4) No video footage, pictures, or witness accounts of massive over pressures that are consistent with large explosive devices other than the airliner impacts. No seismic data of large explosives.

(5) No seismic record of explosions consistent with controlled demolition practices.

(6) Building did not collapse consistent with standard controlled demolition practices. IE: Collapsed initiated from the top as opposed to initiating from the bottom.

(6) Numerous experts and scholars in there respective fields, after reviewing available data, claim that the events transpired consistently with the physics involved.

 

FIRE

 

Evidence of fire

(1) There were massive fires. Not debatable.

 

Evidence against fire

(1) NIST did not provide an appropriate sample of structural steel.

(2) Gridirons grill don't melt.

 

 

and again...

[brinett9 0]

i don't know if this was mentioned before, but i just found a report published by japanese metallurgists about the WTC collapse.

 

it's got some good solid test results and analysis.

 

FIRE RESISTANCE OF STEEL FRAMES

Yoshifumi Sakumoto 1, Taro Nishigaki 2, Kenichi Ikeda 3 and Mamoru Kohno 4

 

1 NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION, Tokyo, 100-8071, Japan

2 TAISEI CORPORATION, Yokohama, 245-0051, Japan

3 SHIMIZU CORPORATION, Tokyo, 105-8007, Japan

4 BUILDING RESEARCH INSTITUTE, Tsukuba, 305-0802, Japan

 

But, when such a large-span truss is heated and undergoes thermal expansion, it deforms (deflects) due to constraints on its ends and its individual structural members are subjected to large compression stresses. In addition, a large shearing force acts on the end connections. From these, it is quite likely that the failure temperature of the truss is far lower than the critical temperature for beams (593°C: 1,100F) in the fire test.

 

rink

[Cyber Gandalf 0]

and again...

 

Don't be his buttboy...open your eyes to the t r u t h

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

NIST could not, nor should they have had to, sort through 200 thousand tons of structural steel just so you could be satisfied they found a piece that you think got hot enough. Yes they could've gotten the samples to prove their case. The samples they have disprove their case. To say that they should not have to have samples that prove their claim means you don't think it's important to have evidence at the biggest crime scene in America's history. The steel from the samples represents .25% to .05% of the total structural steel in the towers. NIST clearly states that the core columns tested are less than 1% of the columns from the fire effected floors( Whos fault is this? If they felt they needed more samples they should've gotten them.) and goes on to state the moderate temperature received on some of the columns can no way be indicative of the temperatures reached on the vast majority of columns.(Wow! I guess we should just take their word for it. Some people like proof, not just because NIST says so. The samples they did take do more to disprove their claim. It was their job to get the appropriate amount of samples they needed to make thier case. $21,Million ???? for what?) It states the same thing with the exterior panels which were less then 3% from fire affected floors. The problem is they have no samples that suggest what they say happened.

 

You claim that you understand that the structural steel in the Madrid tower failed due to fire, correct?

You did say "I give you kudos for pointing out the Madrid fire destroying all the steel members"

Yes, and I still give you kudos for finding something that seems to favor the official story more than any other story. I think I found this from 911myths.com. It isn't the strongest evidence but the news article convinced me. Windsor building evidence

So my question to you is, what leads you to believe that WTC 1 and 2 did not reach the approximate temperatures of the Madrid tower fire? Where the steel clearly failed as seen below.

Quite simple actually. The Madrid fire was 26 hours before it burned out. The World trade centers were about 1 hour. Time difference is key when talking about fire exposure on steel. It appeared that the fires were bigger in my opinion in the Windsor Tower and maybe it was because of the ventilation they had in the upper floors due to some refurbishment being done.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...rreWindsor1.JPG

 

That aside, you have 2 plausible scenarios. A or B.

 

[A] EXPLOSIVES

 

Evidence of explosives.

(1) Witness accounts of hearing random explosions in the time between the plane impact until well after the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and other buildings.( I think you missed all the people that heard explosions BEFORE the collapses.)

(2) Video claiming to be "squibs" NIST, among others, claim that this is compressed air following the path of least resistance due to the floors collapsing.( Nist steps on it's foot here, using the pancake theory explanation for squibs when NIST clearly states it does not support the pancake theory. Remember, NIST is supporting the pile driver theory, NOT the pancake theory.)

 

Evidence against explosives.

(1) No witness accounts of seeing an explosive device ( "Secondary devices were seen or heard(I forget which) by the police )

(2) No witness accounts of explosive devices being installed or placed.( The Power down gave them plenty of time to do it secretly.)

(3) No explosive devices or components found in forensic search. IE: Spent caps, blasting wire, links explosives or explosive residue.( We don't know anyone even looked for explosives during the search.)

(4) No video footage, pictures, or witness accounts of massive over pressures that are consistent with large explosive devices other than the airliner impacts. No seismic data of large explosives. ( Columbia University had some records, although I'm unsure of interpretation)

(5) No seismic record of explosions consistent with controlled demolition practices.

(6) Building did not collapse consistent with standard controlled demolition practices. IE: Collapsed initiated from the top as opposed to initiating from the bottom.( That's why is called a controlled demolition not a standard controll demolition. You controll the timing, and everything in the event.)(6) Numerous experts and scholars in there respective fields, after reviewing available data, claim that the events transpired consistently with the physics involved. (Consistent to what? Consistent to the physics involved in demolition?)

 

FIRE

 

Evidence of fire

(1) There were massive fires. Not debatable. (Except I couldn't see any flames when the south tower collapsed. I'd hardly call that "massive".Seemed to me the fire in the South Tower was going out when it collapsed.) Wasn't Oreo Palmer reporting from the South Tower saying that only 2 pockets of fire needed to be put out? I think he was on the 78th floor when he reported that.

Evidence against fire

(1) NIST did not provide an appropriate sample of structural steel. ( Yes, evidence in the form of structural steel samples should support the theory, and their are no steel samples supporting their fire theory.)

(2) Gridirons grill don't melt.

[Sho Nuff 720]

You could not see any flames? You must have seen different video than I have.

 

In one of the last long debates on the topic the same thing was brought up...I linked to several pictures showing major fires and flames....red hot metal shown on the buildings....and a time line.

 

I don't think it matters what Oak or anyone else posts...you will simply deny it and spin as much as you can...as evidenced by your last post Grid. It is pointless to try and debate someone who is in such denial as you who simply will not accept any facts that do not support his opinion. And brings not one fact to the table to support his own opinion.

 

To your points?

People claim they heard explosions...

I have yet to see one single mention of any police claiming they saw any devices...Id love for you to provide a link to back that up, but I will not hold my breath.

 

Ahhh...the power down gave them...blah blah blah....but you have no evidence do you.

 

Seismic records...the university also stated that what some people took their records to mean...they simply do not. That was straight from their own mouths stating that their records do not show explosions...and as Oak said, nothing consistent with a large scale demolition...which you conveniently ignored that point because it pretty much blows your argument away (as usual)

 

Consistent with the physics involved in the official explanation...quite simply...those that studied it say you are full of it. But why listen to them...you have a video where there is an explosion sound...

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

i don't know if this was mentioned before, but i just found a report published by japanese metallurgists about the WTC collapse.

 

it's got some good solid test results and analysis.

 

FIRE RESISTANCE OF STEEL FRAMES

Yoshifumi Sakumoto 1, Taro Nishigaki 2, Kenichi Ikeda 3 and Mamoru Kohno 4

 

1 NIPPON STEEL CORPORATION, Tokyo, 100-8071, Japan

2 TAISEI CORPORATION, Yokohama, 245-0051, Japan

3 SHIMIZU CORPORATION, Tokyo, 105-8007, Japan

4 BUILDING RESEARCH INSTITUTE, Tsukuba, 305-0802, Japan

rink

 

"But, when such a large-span truss is heated and undergoes thermal expansion, it deforms (deflects) due to constraints on its ends and its individual structural members are subjected to large compression stresses. In addition, a large shearing force acts on the end connections. From these, it is quite likely that the failure temperature of the truss is far lower than the critical temperature for beams (593°C: 1,100F) in the fire test."

 

Interesting report. When this report talks about "a large shearing force acts on the end connections. it is quite likely that the failure temperature of the truss is far lower than the critical temperature for beams (593°C: 1,100F) in the fire test " it is telling us that there was truss failure. Alot of pressure on the end connections as it mentions would indicate that the truss to column connection failed probably by shearing off. This report is analogous with 2 earlier videos; Anatomy of the Collapse & Why the Towers Fell by Nova. This report revisits FEMA's conclusion of the pancake theory. In the Pancake theory, it is critical for the trusses to fail first, then the columns. I think this report supports that. So, although this report speaks of truss failure as the reason for collapse, NIST completely rejects it. NIST says that the core columns buckled and creeped due to heating, thus shortening them. The shortened columns pulled on the sagging trusses that pulled in the exterior columns. Then simultaneous instability occurred with the columns and global collapse ensued.

 

So, how did those core columns get hot enough to buckle when NIST has no steel samples to prove it?

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

 

So, how did those core columns get hot enough to buckle when NIST has no steel samples to prove it?

 

I don't know...I was not inside the structure when it happened taking samples so that some conspiracy nut who will not listen to any facts will be satisfied...

[brinett9 0]

So, how did those core columns get hot enough to buckle when NIST has no steel samples to prove it?

I don't quite follow your logic.

 

Are you saying the lack of steel samples proves the columns only reached a certain temperature?

[Sho Nuff 720]

Grid never saw flames...hmmm...here is a nice pic as one tower collapses...whats that in the other tower?

You got it...flames.

 

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0...collapse-lg.jpg

[brinett9 0]

Grid never saw flames...hmmm...here is a nice pic as one tower collapses...whats that in the other tower?

You got it...flames.

 

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0...collapse-lg.jpg

I think I see a UFO in that picture.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

"Yes they could've gotten the samples to prove their case. The samples they have disprove their case. To say that they should not have to have samples that prove their claim means you don't think it's important to have evidence at the biggest crime scene in America's history. "

 

You are cherry picking 1 small part of a 10 thousand page report and poo-pooing the whole thing because of this one point. The NIST report was not a criminal investigation. That is the FBI's job. If you feel the NIST report is wrong, then you are free to file a RTC with them. They are scientists who use, among other things, scientific method to form a hypothesis, like any good scientists this hypothesis is open to change on the grounds of new evidence. They prefer there findings to be accurate, as it is in their, and the publics, best interest because the things they find get put to use in real world applications that have saved lives.

 

Which begs the question, Why didn't they just fake the test results to show whatever the supposed conspirators need to have a airtight alibi? Seems highly likely they would if someone was coercing them. But they reported there findings accurately and even put a nice little disclaimer into the report saying these small samples of the overall steel in the fire effected areas are a tiny portion and cannot be indicative of the temperatures that were actually present. But you would have them rifle through 200,00 tons of mangled structural steel and microscopically analyze it until every scientist and expert creating the report dies from old age to confirm what they already know.

 

They have many different sources of evidence, to name a few.

Physical samples.

They constructed several mock ups of the fire, jet fuel and all, what temperature did these mock ups reach?

They had several computer simulations of the impacts, fires and collapse. What did the simulations show?

Enough photographic, video, forensic evidence and witness testimony to fill several warehouses. By far more than any other fire or collapse in history. None of which gave then reason enough to pursue "alternate theories" of the collapse.

 

 

"Quite simple actually. The Madrid fire was 26 hours before it burned out. The World trade centers were about 1 hour. Time difference is key when talking about fire exposure on steel. It appeared that the fires were bigger in my opinion in the Windsor Tower and maybe it was because of the ventilation they had in the upper floors due to some refurbishment being done."

 

The WTC towers very well could have burned as long if not longer if they stayed standing. The important part is how long the unprotected steel in the Madrid Tower stayed undamaged. Not how long the fire lasted. The Madrid fire obviously lasted longer because of Madrid's concrete encased steel lower half that held the building up. WTC had no concrete encased steel.

 

Exposure time is certainly not the only factor.

 

From: Presentation on WTC Collapse, Civil Engineering Department, MIT, Cambridge, MA (October 3, 2001)

 

"The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."

 

 

"I think you missed all the people that heard explosions BEFORE the collapses."

 

I can only speculate that you are referring to William Rodriguez the janitor in the basement of WTC as it is the only claim I have heard of explosions before the impact. Rodriquez claim is that he heard an explosion mere seconds before he felt the plane impact. Now given the fact he is in the basement and the fact that sound travels through steel 17 times faster than it does through air it is not inconceivable that he heard an explosion seconds before he somehow knew the plane impacted from the basement. Am I missing some others? Seems to me any accounts of explosions before the impact would would be front page material.

 

"Secondary devices were seen or heard(I forget which) by the police"

 

Citation? If NYPD, FDNY or any other person witnessed a device then it would be front pace material on every single conspiracy website. I have seen no claims of this. If they didn't witness it intact or going off chalk it up as another one of the "explosions" heard during the attacks. much like the title video.

 

"The Power down gave them plenty of time to do it secretly"

 

For comparison sake, The largest building ever brought down with explosives, was 1/3 the size of WTC 1 or 2. This building, The Landmark Towers, took several months of planning and a crew of 12 another month to prep the building and place charges.

 

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20020304145120

"In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 "primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum."

 

And they didn't have to hide the explosives. So multiply those estimates by 6. 2 towers, three times the size of The Landmark, to get an idea of the work and materials involved in wiring the WTC with conventional explosives. In all reality it would be much longer than this estimate. But you think they were able to do this undetected, in a weekend, with WTC employees present. Besides the fact that the whole power down letter had been speculated on as being a hoax.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

 

"We don't know anyone even looked for explosives during the search"

 

We know forensic teams hand searched, raked and sifted through mountains of debris, a little at a time, at ground zero and at fresh kills landfill. They were able to identify small objects such as teeth, but you think they might not notice miles of blasting wire, thousands of spent blasting caps, or any other suspicions looking devices that appear to have exploded? If they had a reason to specifically test for explosive substances they certainly would have.

 

"Consistent to what? Consistent to the physics involved in demolition?"

 

Consistent with jet airliners impacting the WTC towers at approximately 500 MPH and the ensuing damage and fire that resulted. Including the collapse.

 

"Except I couldn't see any flames when the south tower collapsed. I'd hardly call that "massive".Seemed to me the fire in the South Tower was going out when it collapsed.) Wasn't Oreo Palmer reporting from the South Tower saying that only 2 pockets of fire needed to be put out? I think he was on the 78th floor when he reported that."

 

2 pockets of flame on that floor. No one made it any higher where the the severe fire would be expected. You cannot possibly tell me watching any video of the South tower that there is not a massive fire. What were the obvious plumes of smoke? Why were people jumping to escape? Why did the rubble piles cook for weeks?

[wiffleball 4,797]

Excellent. We have a bonehead administration that can't even out a CIA operative in a snarky attempt at 'payback', but they can pull off 9/11, hide the passengers at Guantanamo and never have a single leak.

 

[jets24 6]

Excellent. We have a bonehead administration that can't even out a CIA operative in a snarky attempt at 'payback', but they can pull off 9/11, hide the passengers at Guantanamo and never have a single leak.

 

 

 

A little bit late with this arguement. I stated it on page one and then somebody else stated a similar thing yesterday. Do you actually read these threads or just put your opinion on all of them?

[BMoney 0]

The WTC had fires before...why didn't it collapse then?

 

 

 

youre kidding, right?

 

its people like you who made school so much fun..lowering the grading curve for the rest of science class...

 

if you really think that a normal fire on a floor is the same as a fuel filled 747 ramming the building, you are more clueless than i thought.....

 

this alias jumped the shark 2 years ago.........

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

I think I see a UFO in that picture.

 

 

This is the start of the collapse of the south tower. I only see a real little bit of orange on the right hand side. Before the south tower collapsed, there weren't any flames either. To have "massive fires", you need more flames. But then the word "massive" is subjective and therefore shouldn't really be used at all. If you look at the start of the fire on the south tower, it was larger in the beginning, but then dwindled over time. It appeared to be going out. With all that dust and smoke coming out of the building, it could just as easily be caused by demolition and not fire.

[Sho Nuff 720]

This is the start of the collapse of the south tower. I only see a real little bit of orange on the right hand side. Before the south tower collapsed, there weren't any flames either. To have "massive fires", you need more flames. But then the word "massive" is subjective and therefore shouldn't really be used at all. If you look at the start of the fire on the south tower, it was larger in the beginning, but then dwindled over time. It appeared to be going out. With all that dust and smoke coming out of the building, it could just as easily be caused by demolition and not fire.

 

You are completely and totally full of shiat...there is no other way to say it.

It appeared to be going out only to ridiculous idiots on the internet who want to believe in a conspiracy with no facts to support it...rather than the mounds of evidence that refute basically everything you have tried to bring up.

 

There is absolutely no evidence of demoliton.

 

Here you go...

4 pictures...look at the one on the left...still on fire...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc2exp1.html

[edjr 6,899]

You are completely and totally full of shiat...there is no other way to say it.

It appeared to be going out only to ridiculous idiots on the internet who want to believe in a conspiracy with no facts to support it...rather than the mounds of evidence that refute basically everything you have tried to bring up.

 

There is absolutely no evidence of demoliton.

 

Here you go...

4 pictures...look at the one on the left...still on fire...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc2exp1.html

 

 

Sho Nuff, I would like to thank you for these pictures.

 

I am no longer a non-believer

[supermike80 2,085]

Here ya go ya douchebags:

 

Final Smoking Gun

[brinett9 0]

Here ya go ya douchebags:

 

Final Smoking Gun

As of this writing, there are only two living survivors of the Titanic, and both of them claim to have been babies and too young to remember what happened.

HOW CONVENIENT!!!

 

 

Even though some of the world's richest and most famous passengers were on the ship, not a single video was made of the Titanic sinking.

HOW CONVENIENT!!!

[wiffleball 4,797]

A little bit late with this arguement. I stated it on page one and then somebody else stated a similar thing yesterday. Do you actually read these threads or just put your opinion on all of them?

 

 

I don't see you menton the Plame affair once - memos, getting people fired - Nothing about leaking a CIA agent. Of course people are going to 'state similar things'. Find me a thread where that DOESN'T happen, It's called concurrence. What's with you and he constant ###### attitude?

[parrot 789]

Here ya go ya douchebags:

 

Final Smoking Gun

Maddux rules.

[supermike80 2,085]

More Truth:

An iceberg was blamed for sinking the Titanic. Yeah right. Do they expect us to believe that ice--which is frozen water--is stronger than metal--the stuff they make swords out of? If icebergs are really that tough, then why don't people make boats out of icebergs instead?

[jets24 6]

More Truth:

An iceberg was blamed for sinking the Titanic. Yeah right. Do they expect us to believe that ice--which is frozen water--is stronger than metal--the stuff they make swords out of? If icebergs are really that tough, then why don't people make boats out of icebergs instead?

 

I don't see you menton the Plame affair once - memos, getting people fired - Nothing about leaking a CIA agent. Of course people are going to 'state similar things'. Find me a thread where that DOESN'T happen, It's called concurrence. What's with you and he constant ###### attitude?

 

 

It's either because I wasn't breast fed long enough when I was a baby or because I think you are pretty much an assmeg. Not sure which. I'll be sure and get back to ya.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

"Yes they could've gotten the samples to prove their case. The samples they have disprove their case. To say that they should not have to have samples that prove their claim means you don't think it's important to have evidence at the biggest crime scene in America's history. "

 

You are cherry picking 1 small part of a 10 thousand page report and poo-pooing the whole thing because of this one point.( How is looking at all the steel samples cherry picking? Cases are built on evidence and not the number of pages a report has. The steel samples are very important because it is the crux of NIST's argument. If NIST has steel samples that can make their case, I'd be happy to see them and entertain the possibility of what they say happened as actually happening. But the samples that they took actually disprove their claim on the fire's temperature being hot enough for the steel to fail.) The NIST report was not a criminal investigation. That is the FBI's job.(NIST's job was to find out how the buildings fell and they needed untampered represenitive samples of the steel to make their case. NIST was working with whomever else was at the sight, FBI etc. ) If you feel the NIST report is wrong, then you are free to file a RTC with them. (Yea, alot of good that will do. I'm thinking this is a possible cover up, so how will writing them a note help?) They are scientists who use, among other things, scientific method to form a hypothesis,( This is just outright wrong. NIST had a predetermined conclusion from the get go. They started this investigation trying to form a report that fit the official story of planes and fires knocking down the buildings. That is not using the scientific method.) like any good scientists this hypothesis is open to change on the grounds of new evidence.( Something tells me NIST will be sticking with the predetermined conclusion.) They prefer there findings to be accurate, as it is in their, and the publics, best interest because the things they find get put to use in real world applications that have saved lives.( In general I'd agree with this. But because this is a building report that explains what happened on 9/11, the primary focus, albeit unwritten, was to support the official version of events. It was a predetermined conclusion for sure.)

 

Which begs the question, Why didn't they just fake the test results to show whatever the supposed conspirators need to have a airtight alibi?( Probably because it wouldn't be airtight. It wouldn't be airtight because faking the samples would be too difficult. The director has to make sure the report is going in the direction of supporting the official theory, but faking hard evidence samples might be more difficult than you think. Instead, why not just write a disclaimer into the report saying these small samples of the overall steel in the fire effected areas are a tiny portion and cannot be indicative of the temperatures that were actually present. That way NIST can avoid all that trouble of looking at the evidence.) Seems highly likely they would if someone was coercing them. But they reported there findings accurately and even put a nice little disclaimer into the report saying these small samples of the overall steel in the fire effected areas are a tiny portion and cannot be indicative of the temperatures that were actually present. But you would have them rifle through 200,00 tons of mangled structural steel and microscopically analyze it until every scientist and expert creating the report dies from old age to confirm what they already know. ( It was NIST's responsibility to come up with a represenitive sample of steel that would prove their case. You make it sound like collecting a representive sample of the total steel was not possible unless they spent years doing it. It was NIST who decided that the samples of steel they collected was enough to represent their case. It was NIST who took the 21.5 million dollars of taxpayer money to prove how the buildings fell. It is NIST's own tests on the steel samples that disprove their predetermined conclusion of fires being hot enough to have core columns buckle due to high temperatures. Low temperature steel samples disproving NIST's predetermined conclusion.)

 

They have many different sources of evidence, to name a few.

Physical samples.(These disprove Nist's theory) Physical Samples of low temperature steel

They constructed several mock ups of the fire, jet fuel and all, what temperature did these mock ups reach?( Do you want to discuss any particular one? What was the purpose? I don't think they did enough physical testing. )

They had several computer simulations of the impacts, fires and collapse. What did the simulations show?

( The computer simulations certainly have several question marks involving several of the simulations. I find the computer simulations very difficult to accept because of implausible techniques used in trying to just get the building to collapse rather than looking at realistic situations.) Enough photographic, video, forensic evidence and witness testimony to fill several warehouses.( This is a public investigation. Why can't I see any of the photographs and videos that are filling up a warehouse? Why does the private firm owned by Hearst(sp?), Popular Mechanics get to see the NIST photographs but not me or any other concerned citizen for that matter? Is there other forensic evidence besides the steel samples that disprove their case? There are witness testimonies that go against the official story as well.) By far more than any other fire or collapse in history. None of which gave then reason enough to pursue "alternate theories" of the collapse.( There has never been a building showing all the features of demolition, not be a demolition. Most people would like to see how this hypothesis would stand up to the fire hypothesis. )"Quite simple actually. The Madrid fire was 26 hours before it burned out. The World trade centers were about 1 hour. Time difference is key when talking about fire exposure on steel. It appeared that the fires were bigger in my opinion in the Windsor Tower and maybe it was because of the ventilation they had in the upper floors due to some refurbishment being done."

 

The WTC towers very well could have burned as long if not longer if they stayed standing. ( I don't think so. The Madrid fire had more ventilation at the top of the building due to refurbishing, thus allowing the fire to expand. Things from the top of the Madrid building fell into the window below, giving ventilation below. I'd say without the ventilation, the fires would've burned out in the WTC.)The important part is how long the unprotected steel in the Madrid Tower stayed undamaged. Not how long the fire lasted. The Madrid fire obviously lasted longer because of Madrid's concrete encased steel lower half that held the building up. WTC had no concrete encased steel.

Exposure time is certainly not the only factor.

 

From: Presentation on WTC Collapse, Civil Engineering Department, MIT, Cambridge, MA (October 3, 2001)

 

"The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."

"I think you missed all the people that heard explosions BEFORE the collapses."

 

I can only speculate that you are referring to William Rodriguez the janitor in the basement of WTC as it is the only claim I have heard of explosions before the impact.( You might be right about this being the only claim before IMPACT. But that's not what you said. You said before the COLLAPSES.) Rodriquez claim is that he heard an explosion mere seconds before he felt the plane impact. Now given the fact he is in the basement and the fact that sound travels through steel 17 times faster than it does through air it is not inconceivable that he heard an explosion seconds before he somehow knew the plane impacted from the basement. Am I missing some others? Seems to me any accounts of explosions before the impact would would be front page material. (Seeing you're bringing up William Rodriguez and your allegiance to mainstream press I think you should listen to how ABC doctored up his speech. See William's words get edited even 5 years after, and the presenters fill up the blanks with "the plane"! after William speaks of the explosions!! You know the William Rodriguez story very well.

<<===Check out how ABC changes William's story

 

"Secondary devices were seen or heard(I forget which) by the police"

 

Citation? If NYPD, FDNY or any other person witnessed a device then it would be front pace material on every single conspiracy website. I have seen no claims of this. If they didn't witness it intact or going off chalk it up as another one of the "explosions" heard during the attacks. much like the title video.

 

"The Power down gave them plenty of time to do it secretly"

 

For comparison sake, The largest building ever brought down with explosives, was 1/3 the size of WTC 1 or 2. This building, The Landmark Towers, took several months of planning and a crew of 12 another month to prep the building and place charges.

 

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/defau...=20020304145120

"In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 "primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum."

 

And they didn't have to hide the explosives. So multiply those estimates by 6. 2 towers, three times the size of The Landmark, to get an idea of the work and materials involved in wiring the WTC with conventional explosives. In all reality it would be much longer than this estimate. But you think they were able to do this undetected, in a weekend, with WTC employees present. Besides the fact that the whole power down letter had been speculated on as being a hoax.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

 

Well, the power down was just ONE idea of when the buildings could've been rigged. How about when Silverstein bought the buildings and every room was refurbished. Or maybe it was rigged over time by doing one floor one day, and another floor another day. I don't see this being that difficult of an obstacle to overcome.

 

"We don't know anyone even looked for explosives during the search"

 

We know forensic teams hand searched, raked and sifted through mountains of debris, a little at a time, at ground zero and at fresh kills landfill.( None of them searched for explosives, unless you know otherwise. They were searching for bodies or bones.) There was never a search They were able to identify small objects such as teeth, but you think they might not notice miles of blasting wire, thousands of spent blasting caps, or any other suspicions looking devices that appear to have exploded? (Almost everything pulverized as it exploded. As far as why any demolition stuff not found in the cleanup, just realize that most items like desks, computers, file cabinets, telephones, etc were pulverized beyond recognition. I think items closest to the charges, like blasting caps, etc had a higher chance of being pulverized than something further away.)If they had a reason to specifically test for explosive substances they certainly would have.( And even if they weren't pulverized or destroyed completely, without a specific search for items that could be related to demolition, any wire or small object found might be tossed because it's thought to be part of computer or some other electonical device in the building. How would a person be able to differentiate? There was no search conducted for demolition parts.)

 

"Consistent to what? Consistent to the physics involved in demolition?"

 

Consistent with jet airliners impacting the WTC towers at approximately 500 MPH and the ensuing damage and fire that resulted. Including the collapse.( The intitial main experts that corroborated the buildings to the official story are Gene Corely, Charles Thornton , Paul Mlacker, and Mete Sozin. These are the same guys that gave us the report on the Oklahoma City bombing. Many of the same people(authors) were involved in the Fema report and the Nist report,specifically parts 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7 in NIST yet coming to completely different failure conclusions of the building.)

 

"Except I couldn't see any flames when the south tower collapsed. I'd hardly call that "massive".Seemed to me the fire in the South Tower was going out when it collapsed.) Wasn't Oreo Palmer reporting from the South Tower saying that only 2 pockets of fire needed to be put out? I think he was on the 78th floor when he reported that."

 

2 pockets of flame on that floor. No one made it any higher where the the severe fire would be expected.( You're telling me you don't expect floor 78 to be up in flames seconds before the South tower collapses? By that time, the fire should've spread if it was truly "massive" or in Popular Mechanics "an inferno".) You cannot possibly tell me watching any video of the South tower that there is not a massive fire. ( I know when the plane hit I saw a massive fire. I could see huge flames burning with the jet fuel. But as time went on in the South tower, the flames dwindled. They were no where near what they were when they started. In fact, I don't see any flames right before the south tower collapses. ) What were the obvious plumes of smoke? ( There was smoke from fire, I do see that. However no flames are seen, only black smoke before the collapse.) Why were people jumping to escape? (Some did, some didn't. Why didn't everyone jump? I'd say the ones jumped because of the smoke or fire in the area where they were standing.) Why did the rubble piles cook for weeks?

[jets24 6]

Wow. It's as if you went to the actual Reynolds factory and bought all of the tinfoil they had. Holy Crap!

[brinett9 0]

Wow. It's as if you went to the actual Reynolds factory and bought all of the tinfoil they had. Holy Crap!

you can't even get good tin foil any more.

 

the gubment made them change the formulation.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

More Truth:

An iceberg was blamed for sinking the Titanic. Yeah right. Do they expect us to believe that ice--which is frozen water--is stronger than metal--the stuff they make swords out of? If icebergs are really that tough, then why don't people make boats out of icebergs instead?

[phillybear 366]

Contact is a good movie.

 

Um, NO!!!! Good God, NO!!!!

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'd love to see any evidence. Without evidence, the official story doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

And yet you continue to balance on one toe on the tip of a tin-foil hat hoping for someone to come forth with a shred of evidence to support your bullsqueeze.

 

Why don't you call that great philosopher, and noted structural engineer Charlie Sheen for some support.

 

I can't believe I just wasted the amount of carpel energy I did to respond to one of G-ASS1's rants.

[Uh-huh 0]

I can't believe I just wasted the amount of carpel energy I did to respond to one of G-ASSII's rants.

Hey! It's the Lemming!! And he still can't spell!!!

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

 

 

Considering this is such an atypical response by you, I will take this as your resignation. I respected your efforts up to this point since you made a sincere effort to try to defend the official story. I do understand how psychologically devastating it is even considering that the United States government could somehow be involved. I don't blame anyone for avoiding the issue or brushing it off as nonsense either because of how psychologically bruising it is even to consider. False flag terrorism isn't supposed to exist. It isn't in the history books at school. It's sick. Unfortunately, it might be the case here.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Considering this is such an atypical response by you, I will take this as your resignation. I respected your efforts up to this point since you made a sincere effort to try to defend the official story. I do understand how psychologically devastating it is even considering that the United States government could somehow be involved. I don't blame anyone for avoiding the issue or brushing it off as nonsense either because of how psychologically bruising it is even to consider. False flag terrorism isn't supposed to exist. It isn't in the history books at school. It's sick. Unfortunately, it might be the case here.

 

Resignation to the fact that it does not matter who posts or what they post...you simply will not listen to facts. Your mind is made up...no amount of evidence will ever satisfy you.

 

His efforts? His efforts completely destroyed your arguments.

 

What we brush off is your lame attempts at showing something without evidence at all....then thinking you have shown something.

[GridIronAssassin#1 0]

You are completely and totally full of shiat...there is no other way to say it.

It appeared to be going out only to ridiculous idiots on the internet who want to believe in a conspiracy with no facts to support it...rather than the mounds of evidence that refute basically everything you have tried to bring up.

 

There is absolutely no evidence of demoliton.

 

Here you go...

4 pictures...look at the one on the left...still on fire...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc2exp1.html

 

Seeing you have gone through alot of research to prove the 911 truth movement wrong, I'd like to at least address your efforts.

 

Shonuff, using the four photographs YOU have chosen to make your case for the South Tower collapsing because of jet impact and fire, I'd like you to describe what you see. To be fair, I'll describe what I see first.

 

Photograph one (the one you posted that is furthest to the left) shows just a tinge of orange on the corner of the South Tower but no flames. The amount of smoke that I see is alot less than the North Tower, maybe less than 25% of the total smoke from the North Tower. There is no smoke or fire coming from the far right side of the South tower. Maybe the reason it didn't spread to other side is because there was no ventilation for that to happen on the right side of the building. The small amount of black smoke appearing from the South Tower looks nothing like a raging inferno as described by Popular Mechanics. Where is the massive raging fire? The only smoke and fire that you have shown are coming from where the plane hit the building and the combustibles seem to be just about burnt out. That's why the fire is so small and so local.This photograph one I would expect would show a gargantuan fire blazing hot and tearing up the building, if it was the cause of failure. But where is the fire?

 

Photograph 2 I see dust and debris exploding outward and downward. There is some black smoke up above the tower where the fire used to be.

 

 

Photograph 3 I see no evidence of fire except a small trace of black smoke way up above. The new plumes are of different color and are the result of the building being pulverized. And if NIST is correct, that a pile driver slammed the bottom 3/4 of the building into the ground, where is that top part of the building? Where is the supposed pile driver section? I don't see any of it at all. If you have a pile driver theory, you need to have a pile driver. Guess what? It must be hiding somewhere behind the smoke. That's all NIST can say because there is no evidence of a pile driver.

 

Photograph 4 Some smoke, but now mostly dust clouds. Massive dust clouds are visible. Am I using the word massive correctly here?

 

Shonuff, I don't know if you've ever read the story The Emperor's New Clothes but if not, I'd suggest it.

[What is the deal? 1]

GIA1, You still haven't jumped on your grill yet? Did it hold up?

[Sho Nuff 720]

Seeing you have gone through alot of research to prove the 911 truth movement wrong, I'd like to at least address your efforts.

 

Shonuff, using the four photographs YOU have chosen to make your case for the South Tower collapsing because of jet impact and fire, I'd like you to describe what you see. To be fair, I'll describe what I see first.

 

Photograph one (the one you posted that is furthest to the left) shows just a tinge of orange on the corner of the South Tower but no flames. The amount of smoke that I see is alot less than the North Tower, maybe less than 25% of the total smoke from the North Tower. There is no smoke or fire coming from the far right side of the South tower. Maybe the reason it didn't spread to other side is because there was no ventilation for that to happen on the right side of the building. The small amount of black smoke appearing from the South Tower looks nothing like a raging inferno as described by Popular Mechanics. Where is the massive raging fire? The only smoke and fire that you have shown are coming from where the plane hit the building and the combustibles seem to be just about burnt out. That's why the fire is so small and so local.This photograph one I would expect would show a gargantuan fire blazing hot and tearing up the building, if it was the cause of failure. But where is the fire?

 

Photograph 2 I see dust and debris exploding outward and downward. There is some black smoke up above the tower where the fire used to be.

Photograph 3 I see no evidence of fire except a small trace of black smoke way up above. The new plumes are of different color and are the result of the building being pulverized. And if NIST is correct, that a pile driver slammed the bottom 3/4 of the building into the ground, where is that top part of the building? Where is the supposed pile driver section? I don't see any of it at all. If you have a pile driver theory, you need to have a pile driver. Guess what? It must be hiding somewhere behind the smoke. That's all NIST can say because there is no evidence of a pile driver.

 

Photograph 4 Some smoke, but now mostly dust clouds. Massive dust clouds are visible. Am I using the word massive correctly here?

 

Shonuff, I don't know if you've ever read the story The Emperor's New Clothes but if not, I'd suggest it.

 

Effort...actually its taken very little effort to show you are full of it.

 

Actually, my photograph was used for the sole purpose of proving you have no clue what you are talking about as it clearly shows fire in the tower you claimed was no longer on fire. Tinge of Orange? You are seriously deranged if all you see is a tinge. Sorry the flames are not spurting out of the building like in cartoons. Its on fire...despite your idiotic claim otherwise.

 

This is proof that there is no reasoning with you...you will spin things as you see fit...you will claim there is no real fire...then, pictures of fire are shown...and all you claim there is that there is a tinge of orange.

 

and by your posts...and refusal to take any facts into consideration when people refute your claims...there is nothing of your opinion which can be considered a truth movement. You simply believe whatever some website tells you to. Whatever the latest video clip alludes to....you are the true sheep in all of this...yet you will never see that.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

Considering this is such an atypical response by you, I will take this as your resignation. I respected your efforts up to this point since you made a sincere effort to try to defend the official story. I do understand how psychologically devastating it is even considering that the United States government could somehow be involved. I don't blame anyone for avoiding the issue or brushing it off as nonsense either because of how psychologically bruising it is even to consider. False flag terrorism isn't supposed to exist. It isn't in the history books at school. It's sick. Unfortunately, it might be the case here.

 

 

Ohh I could certainly go on and on. I don't quite see it as a competition as you seem to. I think one of the things that you fail to understand is that if there was even semi-sufficient evidence of this situation being a "false flag operation", or an "inside job" many other credible professionals would raise serious issues. But that is not the case. As it is now trying to make such a conclusion requires unprecedented leaps of faith and without more than anecdotal, speculative claims it will never get, nor do it deserve, valid credibility. My motivation is more to preserve the legacy of the true American heroes that, for a day, showed the world what the cost of living in a free society really is than it is to, as brinett said, prove every 18 year old who now holds a degree in metallurgy and physics wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. There will always be gaps, missing data and things that people will be skeptical about. That is just the nature of the situation. That is the nature of science as well. There is nothing stopping anyone from not believing the official story. It is purely a personal decision to take the road you or I have and people who deny the events occurred have the advantage of dismissing evidence at will because they cannot take things at face value. There always has to be more than meets the eye with you guys. Skepticism is good value to have but it is also a double edged sword, if you cannot, or are not willing to accept valid, logical points.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Ohh I could certainly go on and on. I don't quite see it as a competition as you seem to. I think one of the things that you fail to understand is that if there was even semi-sufficient evidence of this situation being a "false flag operation", or an "inside job" many other credible professionals would raise serious issues. But that is not the case. As it is now trying to make such a conclusion requires unprecedented leaps of faith and without more than anecdotal, speculative claims it will never get, nor do it deserve, valid credibility. My motivation is more to preserve the legacy of the true American heroes that, for a day, showed the world what the cost of living in a free society really is than it is to, as brinett said, prove every 18 year old who now holds a degree in metallurgy and physics wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. There will always be gaps, missing data and things that people will be skeptical about. That is just the nature of the situation. That is the nature of science as well. There is nothing stopping anyone from not believing the official story. It is purely a personal decision to take the road you or I have and people who deny the events occurred have the advantage of dismissing evidence at will because they cannot take things at face value. There always has to be more than meets the eye with you guys. Skepticism is good value to have but it is also a double edged sword, if you cannot, or are not willing to accept valid, logical points.

 

Very well said...bolded the part that is most true about those like Gridiron...

[Giants Fan 85]

I still say it was hi-jacked airplaines. Fock .... you wanna make me go into this?

 

Bring back my friend Jeff. OK ... just him ... and we'll all pretend like I made up some story. American flight 111 or whatever it was ... thye first airplane to impact. I think it flew out of Boston. The E-Logic team was all in Newport, MASS.

 

But you can't bring him back.

 

http://www.september11victims.com/septembe...mInfo.asp?ID=60

 

So ... my sad story .... doesn't change. Much as you'd be lead to believe. Lucky I survived, my parents too. My mother was scheduled to fly from Laguardia to Tucson International that morning. American Airlines. Of course that flight never happened. Glad my Mom is a little bit lazy and overslept.

 

Matter of fact, I was at work about 9:35 AM that morning .... called my Mom and said, "Turn on the TV", all the sirens hadn't tipped her off ... wasn't uncommon. Mom said, "What chanel? and I said, "It doesn't matter." Here she and my step-father were, about to fly back to Arizona that day.

 

Of course ... that never happened though. We just survived. Blow me if you want details. I lived through taking the PATH train that morning INTO downtown Manhattan. Was a pretty crazy day. Took a ferry and walked home. Walked from Weehawken to Hoboken to get home.

 

Who was I to complain? I got to go home.