2nd raid of Vick's property going on right now...

[Fozzy4 0]

I looked in wikipedia under @sshole and it mentioned you. Get real you bird brain idiot. You deserve a lashing for this trash.

 

Interesting. You obviously didn't read any of it, which means you're content to swallow whatever trash the government feeds you, with never so much as a second thought. You probably believed Tom Ridge when he told you you could save yourself from a chemical attack with duct tape and sheets of plastic. Or perhaps you think hiding under your desk in an air raid drill is going to save you from a nuclear strike? If you don't question what you're told, how can you possibly establish its validity? Things aren't true just because people say they are, and in fact most of the time the government has plenty of incentive to tell you lies. If you're not looking for them, you're getting fooled, and at that point it's YOU who clearly are the bird brain idiot. Wake up and use your brain a little, I promise it's an exciting alternative to the mindlessness you're obviously living.

[famousb 11]

Interesting. You obviously didn't read any of it, which means you're content to swallow whatever trash the government feeds you, with never so much as a second thought. You probably believed Tom Ridge when he told you you could save yourself from a chemical attack with duct tape and sheets of plastic. Or perhaps you think hiding under your desk in an air raid drill is going to save you from a nuclear strike? If you don't question what you're told, how can you possibly establish its validity? Things aren't true just because people say they are, and in fact most of the time the government has plenty of incentive to tell you lies. If you're not looking for them, you're getting fooled, and at that point it's YOU who clearly are the bird brain idiot. Wake up and use your brain a little, I promise it's an exciting alternative to the mindlessness you're obviously living.

 

did you question the fact that someone told you jet fuel CAN'T burn hot enough to melt steel?? i mean, unless you tested it out for yourself, you're just believing someone else's propaganda that you choose to say is right... so you're simply contradicting your own stance...

 

HTH.

[Me_2006 14]

So Michael Vick was behind 9/11?

 

Or what the hell is the point of all these insults?

[pronghorn3 0]

Interesting. You obviously didn't read any of it, which means you're content to swallow whatever trash the government feeds you, with never so much as a second thought. You probably believed Tom Ridge when he told you you could save yourself from a chemical attack with duct tape and sheets of plastic. Or perhaps you think hiding under your desk in an air raid drill is going to save you from a nuclear strike? If you don't question what you're told, how can you possibly establish its validity? Things aren't true just because people say they are, and in fact most of the time the government has plenty of incentive to tell you lies. If you're not looking for them, you're getting fooled, and at that point it's YOU who clearly are the bird brain idiot. Wake up and use your brain a little, I promise it's an exciting alternative to the mindlessness you're obviously living.

 

 

I’ll believe almost anything, especially from you Batman.

[bigdev 0]

The feds got a bone to pick with Ronny boy!

[murf74 461]

did you question the fact that someone told you jet fuel CAN'T burn hot enough to melt steel?? i mean, unless you tested it out for yourself, you're just believing someone else's propaganda that you choose to say is right... so you're simply contradicting your own stance...

 

HTH.

 

Fozzybear should really consult Engineers, not Michael Moore

 

 

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

 

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

 

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

 

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=4

[FlaHawker 24]

did you question the fact that someone told you jet fuel CAN'T burn hot enough to melt steel?? i mean, unless you tested it out for yourself, you're just believing someone else's propaganda that you choose to say is right... so you're simply contradicting your own stance...

 

HTH.

Do you go to Cuba for surgery too?

[Captian America 0]

Fozzybear should really consult Engineers, not Michael Moore

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

 

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

 

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

 

 

Back in July 28,1945 the Empire State Building was hit by a ten ton B-25 Bomber, the majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building 18 feet wide and 20 feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairways all the way down to the 75th floor. The building didn't go down and was repaired after about 3 months. Don't you think engineers who designed taller buildings since this incident would have considered the possibility of a plane crashing into them? Would they not have designed them to withstand the impact and the possiblity of a fuel explosion and subsequent fire? You can debate Towers 1 and 2 all you want, but explain to me how Tower 7 about a block away goes down in flames around 5:30 that day without even being hit by a plane. What I and many people didn't realize was that there were 7 towers damaged yet towers 1 and 2 went straight down and did not crash into them. As for the pentagon why wasn't there any part of a plane lying around after the crash? There was no tail fin, no wing parts, engine parts or anything. Since I was lied to about the Kennedy assassination I question things and research them, I suggest that you do the same and avoid being a drone and being spoonfed and believing what people want you to believe.

 

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=4

[Captian America 0]

Fozzybear should really consult Engineers, not Michael Moore

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

 

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

 

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

 

Back on July 28, 1945 the Empire State building was hit by a ten ton B-25 Bomber, The plane crashed into the 79th floor causing the high-octane fuel to explode and run down the side of the building and flames burning throughout the hall ways and stair ways down to the 75th floor. Yet this did not cause the building to fall and it was repaired in three months. Now I ask you, don't you think engineers would consider the possibility of a plane crashing and the consquences when they design a taller building? As for office furniture and carpeting, paper and ect. don't houses have these in them? Keep in mind a sky scraper isn't made out of wood so there would be no wooden floors supporting the structure to burn so all we have to burn here is paper, pictures some furniture and carpeting and we are suppose to believe that with jet fuel can bring down a building. You can debate Towers 1 and 2 all you want but explain to me how Tower 7 about a block away goes down in flames around 5:30 later that day when Towers 5 and 6 just had fire damage and didn't go down. How was seven towers damaged or collasped when we all saw Towers 1 and 2 go straight down like a controlled explosion and not fall into the other buildings which may have created a domino affect. I was lied to about the Kennedy assassination by our goverment and since I do not beleve everything that I'm told, but research facts myself (Fool me once, shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me ). For America's sake be a leader and think for yourself don't be a drone and let someone else tell you what they want you to think. How many times have yow watched someone give a speech and the commentator after the speech will try to tell you what the speech was about and you sit there and think did we watch the same thing?

 

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=4

[Fozzy4 0]

Fozzybear should really consult Engineers, not Michael Moore

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

 

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

 

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

 

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=4

 

This fails entirely to account for the increased quality of the materials used in the WTC, not to mention the bulk of findings in the NIST report. Read this: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2...07animation.htm

 

Some notable points: no fires at the temperatures you're talking about lasted more than 20 minutes (by the government's own admission), when many hours at those temperatures are required to soften the steel enough for collapse. Many higher ups in the company who supplied the materials have gone on record certifying the inspection and quality of the materials used, and no one has ever called those statements into question. The temperatures you mention could be sufficient, but the timeframe is not. Firefighters before the collapse reported small fires easily under control, not raging infernos capable of crippling the steel structure of the building. That would mean the steel was already cooling and re-hardening, not further being compromised. The time when such hot-burning fires were being sustained was long in the past when the buildings collapsed, indicating that no fire could have been the cause.

 

Also noteworthy are the numerous widespread accounts of molten metal at the base of the building after the structure fell. We have already established that jet fuel nor an office fire can burn hot enough to actually make molten steel... so how can one explain the presence of molten steel in the wreckage? It is not possible without some unaccounted element coming into play, and it would have to be something that actually COULD melt steel. Nothing normally in the building can accomplish that feat, nor can jet fuel or anything on the planes, so it must be some other source causing this molten steel in the wreckage. Some sort of demolitions charges are most likely, though there are other options of course. None that anyone has presented works with the government version of what happened at all, though.

[famousb 11]

This fails entirely to account for the increased quality of the materials used in the WTC, not to mention the bulk of findings in the NIST report. Read this: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2...07animation.htm

 

Some notable points: no fires at the temperatures you're talking about lasted more than 20 minutes (by the government's own admission), when many hours at those temperatures are required to soften the steel enough for collapse. Many higher ups in the company who supplied the materials have gone on record certifying the inspection and quality of the materials used, and no one has ever called those statements into question. The temperatures you mention could be sufficient, but the timeframe is not. Firefighters before the collapse reported small fires easily under control, not raging infernos capable of crippling the steel structure of the building. That would mean the steel was already cooling and re-hardening, not further being compromised. The time when such hot-burning fires were being sustained was long in the past when the buildings collapsed, indicating that no fire could have been the cause.

 

Also noteworthy are the numerous widespread accounts of molten metal at the base of the building after the structure fell. We have already established that jet fuel nor an office fire can burn hot enough to actually make molten steel... so how can one explain the presence of molten steel in the wreckage? It is not possible without some unaccounted element coming into play, and it would have to be something that actually COULD melt steel. Nothing normally in the building can accomplish that feat, nor can jet fuel or anything on the planes, so it must be some other source causing this molten steel in the wreckage. Some sort of demolitions charges are most likely, though there are other options of course. None that anyone has presented works with the government version of what happened at all, though.

do you honestly believe structural steel was the only metal used in the buildings?? there are plenty of other metals that melt at a much lower point that could easily form pools of molten metal...

 

and i'd love to see some direct quotes to these conspiracy theory sources, or professional opinions...

[Captian America 0]

do you honestly believe structural steel was the only metal used in the buildings?? there are plenty of other metals that melt at a much lower point that could easily form pools of molten metal...

 

and i'd love to see some direct quotes to these conspiracy theory sources, or professional opinions...

 

If we are to believe your theory that the planes crashing into them brought the towers down then explain to us why the Empire State Building didn't go down in 1945 when it was hit by a B25 Bomber and the fuel exploded and went from the 79th floor to the 75th floor. I'm sure they had office furniture, pictures, paper and carpeting that was burning yet it did not collaspe. Take time to google Physics911,by Scientific Panel Investigating 9/11/2001. Click on read it's very interesting.

[murf74 461]

Also noteworthy are the numerous widespread accounts of molten metal at the base of the building after the structure fell. We have already established that jet fuel nor an office fire can burn hot enough to actually make molten steel... so how can one explain the presence of molten steel in the wreckage? It is not possible without some unaccounted element coming into play, and it would have to be something that actually COULD melt steel. Nothing normally in the building can accomplish that feat, nor can jet fuel or anything on the planes, so it must be some other source causing this molten steel in the wreckage. Some sort of demolitions charges are most likely, though there are other options of course. None that anyone has presented works with the government version of what happened at all, though.

 

Demolition charges melting steel but jet fuel doesn't? Umm, please explain. I don't believe demolitions melt metal to bring down a building.

 

Where did you get your engineering degree?

 

So much of what you say makes absolutely no sense to anyone with a technical background. For instance, you think a time frame is enough to keep the building upright. I got news for you buddy, time is not a factor if your material has lost 50% or is down to 10% of it's original strength. Even if it was only for a second, your structure is compromised.

 

Let's put it in Fozzybear terms, if the most weight you could hold over your head was 300 lbs (I know Liberals rarely can hold more than the weight of a cup of coffee over their head, but let's play along) and all of the sudden your arm strength was lessened by 50% for just 1 second, what do you think would happen? What do you think would happen if your arm strength was reduced to 10% as one engineer I quoted has figured?

 

And as far as steel losing it's strength and regaining it when it cools. That would totally depend on the temperatures, time it was at that temperature, rate of cooling and type/grade of material. Factors too numerous are involved for you to simply state the material re-hardened. Some materials will permanently lose their strength properties when heated above a certain temperature. So coming to room temperature doesn't necessarily bring the material properties back to their original values. But that doesn't even matter since as my Fozzybear example has shown, if the strength dropped to 10%, there is just nothing that would have kept that building up even if it was at 10% strength for a second or 2. You don't have to melt metal in order for that metal to fail in design. You know things do fail for strength of material reasons.

 

You should really read all 7 or so pages of that link I posted you where each of your UFO theories is torn apart.

 

It's funny that you think the only bipartisan thing our government has done in the past 8 years is agree to blow up the WTC and kill thousands of people. And then cover it up for the rest of eternity. Somehow I can't see Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and George Bush getting together and coming up with this master plan. Not to mention who in the world would volunteer to pilot a suicide mission on behalf of the government? So not only is the House, Senate, White House, CIA in on it, so are the airlines from the pilots to the CEO's who agreed to this plan.

[FlaHawker 24]

 

Somehow I can't see Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and George Bush getting together and coming up with this master plan.

They have. It's called Shamnesty..errr Amnesty for illegal dirtbags from Mexico.

[murf74 461]

They have. It's called Shamnesty..errr Amnesty for illegal dirtbags from Mexico.

 

Yeah, but that gives perceived benefits for both parties (votes).

 

I don't know what could possibly be in it for Pelosi to stay quiet on the plot to blow up WTC, or that little girly man Kucinich who wants to impeach everyone. He would be running with this. What have they had 300 investigations since they took Congress (approx 100 days), but no investigation on the WTC. I mean Dan Rather would be a perfectly willing partner to start making, (oops I mean finding) documents that proves Bush did it.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

...and the larger WTC buildings were destroyed by demolitions explosives. Go watch the film footage on wikipedia in the 9/11 conspiracy theory article. You can see blasts happening below the line where the rubble is falling, and they are a known feature of planned demolitions. There is also the intuitive evidence that buildings do not fall straight down when hit by airplanes - they should topple over, being weakened primarily on the impact side. That the buildings fell straight down and destroyed virtually no other buildings at all in the process strongly indicates a planned demolition. Also, it is a known fact that jet fuel (nor anything else in the WTC buildings) cannot burn hot enough to melt the high-grade steel the building structure was made of, contrary to what the US government claims. There is no way that planes hitting them brought those buildings down.

 

If you want further evidence of the scam, I cite the fact that the government claims to have retrieved ID from one of the terrorists at the site. All important evidence, bodies, black boxes, etc are apparently burned beyond recognition, and jet fuel purportedly burned hot enough to melt high-grade steel, yet I am supposed to believe that a paper (or maybe plastic? I don't recall) ID somehow survived the inferno that so conveniently consumed absolutely everything else? No friggin way. Either other things survived, or the passport couldn't, but there's not a chance that what we've been told can actually be true.

 

 

Guy, you have your "facts" so twisted I don't even know where to start. Well yes actually I do, for starters you should try to do some simple fact finding on non-conspiracy sites.

 

1) Your "squibs" are nothing more than compressed air seeking the path of least resistance. Note, that none of the dust plumes appear until after the collapse initiates. That is completely opposite of a "controlled demolition"

Also note that both towers collapses initiate at the impact zone and travel down, that is not standard of any "controlled demolition" .

 

2) The WTC towers are far to tall and far to heavy to fall over sideways, It has been shown through computer modeling that they could theoretically sway out of their own footprint, say from a 300 mph wind, and still not fall over sideways like a tree. They destroyed SEVERAL buildings when they collapsed, including WTC 7

 

 

3)Structural steel develops elasticity, plasticity and creep far before its melting point. If you want to subscribe to the Rosie Odonell school of mechanical engineering and claim that "fire can't melt steel" and "no steel structure has ever been brought down by fire" then you have just proclaimed your vast ignorance on the subject to everyone. The US government never claimed any steel melted, you did. try actually reading the NIST report.

 

4)Small flammable items routinely survive crashes the fact you try to use this as some sort of "proof" is laughable.

[surferskin 31]

it's true that jet fuel can't destroy structural metal BUT you know what can? the jaws of a pitbull. vick is obviously the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

 

osama bin liden <<< michael vick

[Captian America 0]

Demolition charges melting steel but jet fuel doesn't? Umm, please explain. I don't believe demolitions melt metal to bring down a building.

 

Where did you get your engineering degree?

 

So much of what you say makes absolutely no sense to anyone with a technical background. For instance, you think a time frame is enough to keep the building upright. I got news for you buddy, time is not a factor if your material has lost 50% or is down to 10% of it's original strength. Even if it was only for a second, your structure is compromised.

 

Let's put it in Fozzybear terms, if the most weight you could hold over your head was 300 lbs (I know Liberals rarely can hold more than the weight of a cup of coffee over their head, but let's play along) and all of the sudden your arm strength was lessened by 50% for just 1 second, what do you think would happen? What do you think would happen if your arm strength was reduced to 10% as one engineer I quoted has figured?

 

And as far as steel losing it's strength and regaining it when it cools. That would totally depend on the

temperatures, time it was at that temperature, rate of cooling and type/grade of material. Factors too numerous are involved for you to simply state the material re-hardened. Some materials will permanently lose their strength properties when heated above a certain temperature. So coming to room tedoesn't necessarily bring the material properties back to their original values. But that doesn't even matter since as my Fozzybear example has shown, if the strength dropped to 10%, there is just nothing that would have kept that building up even if it was at 10% strength for a second or 2. You don't have to melt metal in order for that metal to fail in design. You know things do fail for strength of material reasons.

 

You should really read all 7 or so pages of that link I posted you where each of your UFO theories is torn apart.

 

It's funny that you think the only bipartisan thing our government has done in the past 8 years is agree to blow up the WTC and kill thousands of people. And then cover it up for the rest of eternity. Somehow I can't see Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and George Bush getting together and coming up with this master plan. Not to mention who in the world would volunteer to pilot a suicide mission on behalf of the government? So not only is the House, Senate, White House, CIA in on it, so are the airlines from the pilots to the CEO's who agreed to this plan.

 

A conspiracy does not have to envolve everybody or it wouldn't be a conspiracy. Could you see Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield coming up with it? Do you realize that the Patriot Act a bill that contains 1,200 pages was signed into law on October 26, 2001 just 45 days after 9-11. How would a bill that large be drafted to be voted on in such a short time unless it was already to go. You should read the link Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating 9/11/2001. Question authority I don't care if your Republican or Democrat and you will learn more by investigating facts for yourself and not what they want you to know. Warning though once you do you will probably get red flaged. The House and Senate didn't need to know anything. Why would airline pilots or CEOs be involed. If a terriost cell was involed they would be willing to die for their cause.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

This fails entirely to account for the increased quality of the materials used in the WTC, not to mention the bulk of findings in the NIST report. Read this: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2...07animation.htm

 

Some notable points: no fires at the temperatures you're talking about lasted more than 20 minutes (by the government's own admission), when many hours at those temperatures are required to soften the steel enough for collapse. Many higher ups in the company who supplied the materials have gone on record certifying the inspection and quality of the materials used, and no one has ever called those statements into question. The temperatures you mention could be sufficient, but the timeframe is not. Firefighters before the collapse reported small fires easily under control, not raging infernos capable of crippling the steel structure of the building. That would mean the steel was already cooling and re-hardening, not further being compromised. The time when such hot-burning fires were being sustained was long in the past when the buildings collapsed, indicating that no fire could have been the cause.

 

Also noteworthy are the numerous widespread accounts of molten metal at the base of the building after the structure fell. We have already established that jet fuel nor an office fire can burn hot enough to actually make molten steel... so how can one explain the presence of molten steel in the wreckage? It is not possible without some unaccounted element coming into play, and it would have to be something that actually COULD melt steel. Nothing normally in the building can accomplish that feat, nor can jet fuel or anything on the planes, so it must be some other source causing this molten steel in the wreckage. Some sort of demolitions charges are most likely, though there are other options of course. None that anyone has presented works with the government version of what happened at all, though.

 

"Many higher ups in the company who supplied the materials have gone on record certifying the inspection and quality of the materials used, and no one has ever called those statements into question."

 

1) Kevin Ryan, a former water specialist for UL, made erroneous claims that the steel was UL certified, that is entirely false and Ryan was dismissed from his job for making false claims. UL does not certify structural steel, they certify whole intact assemblies. One person does not = many.

 

"Firefighters before the collapse reported small fires easily under control, not raging infernos capable of crippling the steel structure of the building."

 

2) The firemen you are citing, were the only ones to reach the very bottom of the impacted floors. They are describing the situation they see in that one area. This is in no way indicative of the overall conditions that would be far worse above them. These particular firemen all died in the collapse.

But if you want to take the position that the fires were not really that hot, then answer the following. Why were hundreds jumping to their death? Why does the law require fireproofing to be applied to all structural steel to protect against normal hydrocarbon fires? If they are concerned what a normal hydrocarbon fire can do to structural steel, what do you propose will happen if the building is impacted by a jet airliner at 500 MPH and induces thousands of gallons of jet fuel into the scenario?

 

"Also noteworthy are the numerous widespread accounts of molten metal at the base of the building after the structure fell."

 

3) Your "numerous widespread accounts" are actually not numerous at all. You cannot provide any concrete substantiation that A) It is steel. It is in a molten state. C) It happened prior to collapse and was not a result of cooking in the debris pile for weeks.

 

"Some sort of demolitions charges are most likely, though there are other options of course."

 

4) Why would demolition charges, thermite, or thermate cause such high temperatures in the rubble weeks after the collapses? Quite simply, they wont. The rubble pile was a well insulated oven fed by building contents and sustained by underground diesel tanks and wind. Furthermore any molton or red hot materials would be far more likely to have come from the extended heat sources in the debris pile than from the relatively short duration of the pre-collapse fires.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

If we are to believe your theory that the planes crashing into them brought the towers down then explain to us why the Empire State Building didn't go down in 1945 when it was hit by a B25 Bomber and the fuel exploded and went from the 79th floor to the 75th floor. I'm sure they had office furniture, pictures, paper and carpeting that was burning yet it did not collaspe. Take time to google Physics911,by Scientific Panel Investigating 9/11/2001. Click on read it's very interesting.

 

 

Was the B25 going approximately 500 MPH? Was the Empire State building a tube in tube design? Where the weights even remotely similar? No, No and No.

 

http://www.911myths.com/html/empire_state_b-25.html

"The maximum weight of a B-25 ranged from 27,100 lb to a limit of 41,800 lb, for instance (see www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/b25mitchell.html). A 767-200 ranges from 179,080 lbs (empty) to 395,000 lb (maximum takeoff load) (www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/b767), and FEMA said the 9/11 planes had “an estimated gross weight of 274000 pounds” ( http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf )."

 

"Less structural damage meant no real issues in terms of supporting the load of the building above (which was constructed entirely differently from the WTC anyway). The considerably reduced fuel load meant fire was less of an issue, and the blaze that did arise was brought under control without much difficulty"

 

"At first glance it might look like the B-25 crash has some relevance to 9/11, then, but the facts say otherwise. The two events bear very little comparison, and it should be no surprise that they also had such very different outcomes."

 

 

Tower 7 a block away went down around 5:30 on 9-11 yet it was not struck by anything and towers 5 and 6 between both towers 1 & 2 and tower 7 were damage but did not go down.

 

Tower 7 was dammaged severely by falling debris from the North tower. It is well documented. Firemen where aware of the structural deformity is was displaying and observed a budge in its corner as well as a massive gaping channel in one side. 7 was built over a electrical substation and had a unique truss span design on its lower floors. That made it a likely mechanism for collapse after 7+ hours of unchecked fires and severe structural damage from the North towers collapse. NIST's WTC 7 report is supposed to be complete sometime towards the end of the year.

 

Several views of WTC 7 impact damage:

 

 

NIST Status Update on World Trade Center 7 Investigation:

 

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

 

"A team of scientists and engineers at the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that is investigating the collapse of New York City's World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) building expects to release its draft report for public comment by the end of the year. WTC 7 was a 47-story office building adjacent to the WTC towers (WTC 1 and 2) that collapsed following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. WTC 7 collapsed later that afternoon.

 

NIST's investigation of WTC 7 includes an extremely complex analysis that incorporates detailed information about the building's structure and construction, as well as data about fires, damage sustained from falling WTC 1 debris and other technical factors to determine its probable collapse sequence.

 

"We are proceeding as quickly as possible while rigorously testing and evaluating a wide range of scenarios to reach the most definitive conclusion possible," said Shyam Sunder, WTC lead investigator for NIST. "The WTC 7 investigation is in some respects just as challenging, if not more so, than the study of the towers. However, the current study does benefit greatly from the significant technological advances achieved and lessons learned from our work on the towers."

 

The NIST investigation team initially worked simultaneously on both the WTC towers and WTC 7 collapses. In June 2004, the team shifted to full-time study of the towers to develop needed simulation methods and other research tools and to expedite completion of the WTC towers report. Work resumed on the WTC 7 study in October 2005.

 

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

 

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

 

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, as the large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

 

Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

 

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

 

Updated information with the specific date for the public release of the NIST team's draft report will be posted on the WTC investigation Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov."

[pronghorn3 0]

The government went through all this shat to organize an elaborate conspiracy, but forgot to plant nukes in Iraq?

[murf74 461]

The government went through all this shat to organize an elaborate conspiracy, but forgot to plant nukes in Iraq?

 

Or even a single vial of smallpox or the common cold or something.....

[Pinto 0]

...If you want to subscribe to the Rosie Odonell school of mechanical engineering and claim that "fire can't melt steel" and "no steel structure has ever been brought down by fire" then you have just proclaimed your vast ignorance on the subject to everyone.

 

Good post overall, but why did you have to bring that dog into this conversation? She's a real bi tch.

 

 

 

it's true that jet fuel can't destroy structural metal BUT you know what can? the jaws of a pitbull. vick is obviously the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

 

osama bin liden <<< michael vick

 

I thought Cartman proved Kyle was behind 9-11.

[murf74 461]

A conspiracy does not have to envolve everybody or it wouldn't be a conspiracy. Could you see Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield coming up with it? Do you realize that the Patriot Act a bill that contains 1,200 pages was signed into law on October 26, 2001 just 45 days after 9-11. How would a bill that large be drafted to be voted on in such a short time unless it was already to go. You should read the link Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating 9/11/2001. Question authority I don't care if your Republican or Democrat and you will learn more by investigating facts for yourself and not what they want you to know. Warning though once you do you will probably get red flaged. The House and Senate didn't need to know anything. Why would airline pilots or CEOs be involed. If a terriost cell was involed they would be willing to die for their cause.

 

 

So Bush and Cheney worked with Al Qaeda to destroy WTC.....oh this is just too good.

 

You mean the Patriot Act that was passed by both the House and Senate? This conspiracy is deep....it goes thru all partys.

 

Again, your Liberal friends in Congress have had 300 invesigations almost all of which involve White House activities....yet none involved Bush blowing up the WTC... Give it up there is nothing there.

[Pinto 0]

A conspiracy does not have to envolve everybody or it wouldn't be a conspiracy. Could you see Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield coming up with it? Do you realize that the Patriot Act a bill that contains 1,200 pages was signed into law on October 26, 2001 just 45 days after 9-11. How would a bill that large be drafted to be voted on in such a short time unless it was already to go. You should read the link Physics911, by Scientific Panel Investigating 9/11/2001. Question authority I don't care if your Republican or Democrat and you will learn more by investigating facts for yourself and not what they want you to know. Warning though once you do you will probably get red flaged. The House and Senate didn't need to know anything. Why would airline pilots or CEOs be involed. If a terriost cell was involed they would be willing to die for their cause.

 

Here's some common sense for you:

 

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

[Fozzy4 0]

Demolition charges melting steel but jet fuel doesn't? Umm, please explain. I don't believe demolitions melt metal to bring down a building.

 

Not as the primary means, no - it would be a secondary consequence of the charges. Primarily they blow the structure apart, however explosive devices are easily capable of generating the necessary energy to melt steel due to the excessive amounts of energy they can release. This would especially be the case if the full energy of the blasts were directed toward the building's internal structure, again a common practice in demolitions. It is done to minimize the footprint the building falls into - a non-directed charge could send chunks of building in every direction, which is obviously not desirable when trying to minimize damage to surrounding structures.

 

Where did you get your engineering degree?

 

At Penn State University, actually. Where did you get yours?

 

So much of what you say makes absolutely no sense to anyone with a technical background. For instance, you think a time frame is enough to keep the building upright. I got news for you buddy, time is not a factor if your material has lost 50% or is down to 10% of it's original strength. Even if it was only for a second, your structure is compromised.

 

This is entirely ignorant. The problem with your logic is that fires burning at the appropriate temperature do not heat the steel to the same temperature for quite some time. If you have any scientific background at all you know that it takes time to transfer energy from one source to another, and as it's quite obvious that steel itself does not burn, there is a considerable amount of time required for whatever else IS burning to transfer that energy to the steel. The argument is not that steel will keep its structural integrity if it is at the given temperatures, it is that those temperatures could not have been reached by the steel in the 20 minutes or so any given area would have been at an appropriate temperature. Also, the steel in the WTC is known to have been fireproofed, which should prevent any amount of fire from being able to do any significant structural damage at all to the building.

 

There is also the fact that if the steel was compromised as much as you say, the building would've collapsed at the point where the steel lost its integrity. The firefighters reported fires entirely under control when the buildings collapsed, which is entirely inconsistent with the idea that the structure first was compromised at that time. If the steel was as hot as you claim when the fires were raging, the building would have been compromised earlier and it would have fallen earlier. There is little question that steel weakened to 10% should have immediately collapsed under the burden of the building - yet this clearly did not happen. The descriptions of the fires at the point when the buildings did fall entirely rules out the structure being compromised at that point, as those fires were not hot enough nor widespread enough to cause widespread failure of the steel at that time. This leaves no scientific explanation for how the buildings could have fallen when they did, as the fire that is the claimed reason for the structure failing was long since under control at that point, and obviously not supporting these ~1900 F temeratures any longer.

 

The NIST report also delves into the state of the structural materials, and found that not even one steel column of the structure showed evidence of having reached 600 C (which is ~1100 F). Only 3 of 18 columns looked at could even show evidence of reaching 250 C (482 F). The evidence from the columns lends a great deal of support to the notion that the steel was not sufficiently weakened by fire to be structurally compromised since there is no evidence of sufficient temperatures being reached, and these findings directly refute the notion that fire caused the collapse.

 

Let's put it in Fozzybear terms, if the most weight you could hold over your head was 300 lbs (I know Liberals rarely can hold more than the weight of a cup of coffee over their head, but let's play along) and all of the sudden your arm strength was lessened by 50% for just 1 second, what do you think would happen? What do you think would happen if your arm strength was reduced to 10% as one engineer I quoted has figured?

 

I find it amusing that you think you are in a position to talk down to me. You have still failed to address any of the concerns I've raised about the government version of the story, or to adequately support that version of what happened in any way. You believe it because you are inclined to do so, not because there is evidence that it is what happened. On the other hand, my viewpoint is formed from thinking and investigation, not simply what I have heard. As I said before, that someone tells you something is not sufficient reason to believe it.

 

You should really read all 7 or so pages of that link I posted you where each of your UFO theories is torn apart.

 

Funny, I never said anything about UFOs.

 

It's funny that you think the only bipartisan thing our government has done in the past 8 years is agree to blow up the WTC and kill thousands of people. And then cover it up for the rest of eternity. Somehow I can't see Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and George Bush getting together and coming up with this master plan. Not to mention who in the world would volunteer to pilot a suicide mission on behalf of the government? So not only is the House, Senate, White House, CIA in on it, so are the airlines from the pilots to the CEO's who agreed to this plan.

 

I never said I think it's the only bipartisan thing our government has done, either. You might try reading what I write so you'll actually know what I said.

 

As to the motivation, are you familiar with the Patriot Act? It was signed into law not long after 9/11, and is by far the most privacy- and personal-rights-invasive piece of legislation ever passed in this country. Did you know that under the Patriot Act, if the government calls you a terrorist, you can be held without trial, interrogated, and basically have no rights at all? The government has no burden to give any evidence you are a terrorist, either, for it to apply. The country wasn't in a state of mind where such a thing could be accomplished, at least not until 9/11. It took an event like that to get the public to freely surrender their rights in fear. Then there's the war on terror that followed right on the heels of 9/11. Really, it's just a term to rally people behind, to gather support for resource-grabbing. Every time we fight in the Middle East, the ultimate goal is getting our hands on oil. In this case, the restructuring of Iraq is leading to the people of Iraq getting control of its oil resources, as opposed to the government institution that currently oversees it. If this happens, it will allow American oil companies to move in on the oil market there, something which is currently only blocked by the government's control over the resources. This is all taking place under the guise of helping the Iraqi people share in their country's wealth.

 

As to what the government is capable of, who here is familiar with Pearl Harbor? Well, it is common knowledge now that our government did in fact receive a declaration of war from Japan in the day preceding the attack, and simply chose not to warn Pearl Harbor about it. The thinking at the time was that we needed a traumatic event to align the people behind the war effort - the government knew we needed to be in the war, but public opinion was not backing that course of action. So, the government buried the declaration of war and allowed ~2000 American soldiers to die in the ensuing "surprise attack." Had they warned Pearl Harbor and went public with the announcement, we would certainly have still been at war with Japan, but it is also possible opinion would not have shifted far enough to involve us in the European campaign. Given that possibility, the government chose to sacrifice Pearl Harbor in order to further its goals.

 

In light of that, does it really seem far fetched that the government might sacrifice a similar number of its population in the WTC in order to pass the patriot act and rally support for a second war in the Middle East? This citizen doesn't think it's a stretch at all.

 

1) Your "squibs" are nothing more than compressed air seeking the path of least resistance. Note, that none of the dust plumes appear until after the collapse initiates. That is completely opposite of a "controlled demolition"

Also note that both towers collapses initiate at the impact zone and travel down, that is not standard of any "controlled demolition" .

 

What is compressed air doing dozens of floors below the collapse area? Surely you can't expect me to believe that air disturbed by the collapse is travellng consistently through dozens of floors to find the path of least resistance and finally exit the building far below where it is collapsing. Compressed air of that nature would be exiting much closer to the collapse - this must be something else.

 

2) The WTC towers are far to tall and far to heavy to fall over sideways, It has been shown through computer modeling that they could theoretically sway out of their own footprint, say from a 300 mph wind, and still not fall over sideways like a tree. They destroyed SEVERAL buildings when they collapsed, including WTC 7

 

This has been demonstrated... when the buildings are completely intact. If you wreck the supports exclusively on one side of the building, for instance from a plane hitting it, all of that data goes right out the window.

 

3)Structural steel develops elasticity, plasticity and creep far before its melting point. If you want to subscribe to the Rosie Odonell school of mechanical engineering and claim that "fire can't melt steel" and "no steel structure has ever been brought down by fire" then you have just proclaimed your vast ignorance on the subject to everyone. The US government never claimed any steel melted, you did. try actually reading the NIST report.

 

Read my argument above to the other guy on this same matter, then try again. My arguments are quite a lot better than you make them out to be, and not nearly as simplistic, either.

[murf74 461]

 

At Penn State University, actually. Where did you get yours?

 

It took an event like that to get the public to freely surrender their rights in fear. Then there's the war on terror that followed right on the heels of 9/11. Really, it's just a term to rally people behind, to gather support for resource-grabbing.

 

FYI, I am an engineer and design products made from all types of steel. I deal with extreme pressures and temperatures. To flat out think a plane that big, going that fast carrying that much fuel couldn't bring down that building is ignoring all things you learn when you get your engineering education.

 

Out of curiousity, what is your area of engineering expertise and are you employed by someone other than moveon.org? You really don't sound like an engineer at all. You talk in very general terms like you are reading from talking points, perhaps talking points you got from your employer, moveon.org.

 

And now I am totally confused. First you said the heat generated from jet fuel wasn't high enough to melt steel (eluding that there had to be another source for the steel failures such as a demolition).

 

Also noteworthy are the numerous widespread accounts of molten metal at the base of the building after the structure fell. We have already established that jet fuel nor an office fire can burn hot enough to actually make molten steel... so how can one explain the presence of molten steel in the wreckage? It is not possible without some unaccounted element coming into play, and it would have to be something that actually COULD melt steel. Nothing normally in the building can accomplish that feat, nor can jet fuel or anything on the planes, so it must be some other source causing this molten steel in the wreckage. Some sort of demolitions charges are most likely, though there are other options of course. None that anyone has presented works with the government version of what happened at all, though.

 

Now you are saying the beams didn't even get hot.

 

The NIST report also delves into the state of the structural materials, and found that not even one steel column of the structure showed evidence of having reached 600 C (which is ~1100 F). Only 3 of 18 columns looked at could even show evidence of reaching 250 C (482 F). The evidence from the columns lends a great deal of support to the notion that the steel was not sufficiently weakened by fire to be structurally compromised since there is no evidence of sufficient temperatures being reached, and these findings directly refute the notion that fire caused the collapse.

 

Change your story again and I may throw up from all the dizziness.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

What is compressed air doing dozens of floors below the collapse area? Surely you can't expect me to believe that air disturbed by the collapse is travellng consistently through dozens of floors to find the path of least resistance and finally exit the building far below where it is collapsing. Compressed air of that nature would be exiting much closer to the collapse - this must be something else.

 

 

It is "following the path of least resistance" Via, ductwork, stairwells, elevator shafts, and structural deformities.

 

It is not the only air escaping, it is only the air well below the collapses that is getting trapped between floors and/or pushed either down or out. You can see plenty more of it escaping in every other direction. Where do you suppose the air below is escaping Fuzzy? It is illogical to try to say they are demolition squibs when they 1) don't appear to be going off in any discernible sequence. 2) Are the same color and density of the other plumes of compresses air dust. 3) it is not initiating a larger explosive device. I could go into far more on the subject. I am not wasting a lot of time with you due to your inability to rationally accept the ]blatantly obvious. It is pure idiocy to take your position for numerous reasons.

 

 

"This has been demonstrated... when the buildings are completely intact. If you wreck the supports exclusively on one side of the building, for instance from a plane hitting it, all of that data goes right out the window."

 

No.... Gravity does not take any time off. Hundreds of thousands of tons of statically designed building material is not going to stay conjoined when it gets very far out of plumb. Period. This was evident when the top of the WTC listed to the side 21 degrees before it succumbed to gravity and came straight down. Quite simply the entire building, or section that was tipping, would have to structurally stay intact to make your scenario plausible.

 

 

Read my argument above to the other guy on this same matter, then try again. My arguments are quite a lot better than you make them out to be, and not nearly as simplistic, either.

 

Your arguments are rather sophomoric and simplistic. Furthermore you are basing your views on many claims off of erroneous information. Your inability to even fact check much of this is rather telling.

[OakHeadFootball 1]

The firefighters reported fires entirely under control when the buildings collapsed

 

False claim. You are intentionally wording this to misconstrue the point. One group of firemen, the ones who reached the very bottom of the collapse zone reported they could knock down the flames in that area only, no one made it any farther up, where the fire would logically travel. Furthermore video footage directly refutes this with complete certainty.

 

as those fires were not hot enough nor widespread enough to cause widespread failure of the steel at that time. This leaves no scientific explanation for how the buildings could have fallen when they did, as the fire that is the claimed reason for the structure failing was long since under control at that point

 

By "under control" do you mean unchecked fires that have not even been reached nor attempted to be extinguished? You don't need wide spread failure, you need only one part of an already overburdened structural assembly to fail.

 

The NIST report also delves into the state of the structural materials, and found that not even one steel column of the structure showed evidence of having reached 600 C (which is ~1100 F). Only 3 of 18 columns looked at could even show evidence of reaching 250 C (482 F). The evidence from the columns lends a great deal of support to the notion that the steel was not sufficiently weakened by fire to be structurally compromised since there is no evidence of sufficient temperatures being reached, and these findings directly refute the notion that fire caused the collapse.

 

GridIron, I assume.

[FlaHawker 24]

So Bush and Cheney worked with Al Qaeda to destroy WTC.....oh this is just too good.

 

You mean the Patriot Act that was passed by both the House and Senate? This conspiracy is deep....it goes thru all partys.

 

Again, your Liberal friends in Congress have had 300 invesigations almost all of which involve White House activities....yet none involved Bush blowing up the WTC... Give it up there is nothing there.

I think global warming brought down the towers. Just ask Al Gore

[Pinto 0]

You were pretty much ripping on people and insulting them in defense of Aaron Brooks making the probowl as a Raider in 2006. I mean, I'm no expert in mental retardation but this would seem to qualify.

 

Here's a test for you. Go look in a mirror. Look for the following:

1. Are you drooling?

2. Are you wearing a helmet?

3. Are you wearing spong bob squarepants pajamas in an adult size?

4. Did you at one time believe that Aaron Brooks would make the probowl as a 2006 Oakland Raider?

 

If the answer to any of theses is yes, you might be retarded.

hth

 

So, Fozzy, did you draft Brooks last year?

[Captian America 0]

Not as the primary means, no - it would be a secondary consequence of the charges. Primarily they blow the structure apart, however explosive devices are easily capable of generating the necessary energy to melt steel due to the excessive amounts of energy they can release. This would especially be the case if the full energy of the blasts were directed toward the building's internal structure, again a common practice in demolitions. It is done to minimize the footprint the building falls into - a non-directed charge could send chunks of building in every direction, which is obviously not desirable when trying to minimize damage to surrounding structures.

At Penn State University, actually. Where did you get yours?

This is entirely ignorant. The problem with your logic is that fires burning at the appropriate temperature do not heat the steel to the same temperature for quite some time. If you have any scientific background at all you know that it takes time to transfer energy from one source to another, and as it's quite obvious that steel itself does not burn, there is a considerable amount of time required for whatever else IS burning to transfer that energy to the steel. The argument is not that steel will keep its structural integrity if it is at the given temperatures, it is that those temperatures could not have been reached by the steel in the 20 minutes or so any given area would have been at an appropriate temperature. Also, the steel in the WTC is known to have been fireproofed, which should prevent any amount of fire from being able to do any significant structural damage at all to the building.

 

There is also the fact that if the steel was compromised as much as you say, the building would've collapsed at the point where the steel lost its integrity. The firefighters reported fires entirely under control when the buildings collapsed, which is entirely inconsistent with the idea that the structure first was compromised at that time. If the steel was as hot as you claim when the fires were raging, the building would have been compromised earlier and it would have fallen earlier. There is little question that steel weakened to 10% should have immediately collapsed under the burden of the building - yet this clearly did not happen. The descriptions of the fires at the point when the buildings did fall entirely rules out the structure being compromised at that point, as those fires were not hot enough nor widespread enough to cause widespread failure of the steel at that time. This leaves no scientific explanation for how the buildings could have fallen when they did, as the fire that is the claimed reason for the structure failing was long since under control at that point, and obviously not supporting these ~1900 F temeratures any longer.

 

The NIST report also delves into the state of the structural materials, and found that not even one steel column of the structure showed evidence of having reached 600 C (which is ~1100 F). Only 3 of 18 columns looked at could even show evidence of reaching 250 C (482 F). The evidence from the columns lends a great deal of support to the notion that the steel was not sufficiently weakened by fire to be structurally compromised since there is no evidence of sufficient temperatures being reached, and these findings directly refute the notion that fire caused the collapse.

I find it amusing that you think you are in a position to talk down to me. You have still failed to address any of the concerns I've raised about the government version of the story, or to adequately support that version of what happened in any way. You believe it because you are inclined to do so, not because there is evidence that it is what happened. On the other hand, my viewpoint is formed from thinking and investigation, not simply what I have heard. As I said before, that someone tells you something is not sufficient reason to believe it.

Funny, I never said anything about UFOs.

I never said I think it's the only bipartisan thing our government has done, either. You might try reading what I write so you'll actually know what I said.

 

As to the motivation, are you familiar with the Patriot Act? It was signed into law not long after 9/11, and is by far the most privacy- and personal-rights-invasive piece of legislation ever passed in this country. Did you know that under the Patriot Act, if the government calls you a terrorist, you can be held without trial, interrogated, and basically have no rights at all? The government has no burden to give any evidence you are a terrorist, either, for it to apply. The country wasn't in a state of mind where such a thing could be accomplished, at least not until 9/11. It took an event like that to get the public to freely surrender their rights in fear. Then there's the war on terror that followed right on the heels of 9/11. Really, it's just a term to rally people behind, to gather support for resource-grabbing. Every time we fight in the Middle East, the ultimate goal is getting our hands on oil. In this case, the restructuring of Iraq is leading to the people of Iraq getting control of its oil resources, as opposed to the government institution that currently oversees it. If this happens, it will allow American oil companies to move in on the oil market there, something which is currently only blocked by the government's control over the resources. This is all taking place under the guise of helping the Iraqi people share in their country's wealth.

 

As to what the government is capable of, who here is familiar with Pearl Harbor? Well, it is common knowledge now that our government did in fact receive a declaration of war from Japan in the day preceding the attack, and simply chose not to warn Pearl Harbor about it. The thinking at the time was that we needed a traumatic event to align the people behind the war effort - the government knew we needed to be in the war, but public opinion was not backing that course of action. So, the government buried the declaration of war and allowed ~2000 American soldiers to die in the ensuing "surprise attack." Had they warned Pearl Harbor and went public with the announcement, we would certainly have still been at war with Japan, but it is also possible opinion would not have shifted far enough to involve us in the European campaign. Given that possibility, the government chose to sacrifice Pearl Harbor in order to further its goals.

 

In light of that, does it really seem far fetched that the government might sacrifice a similar number of its population in the WTC in order to pass the patriot act and rally support for a second war in the Middle East? This citizen doesn't think it's a stretch at all.

What is compressed air doing dozens of floors below the collapse area? Surely you can't expect me to believe that air disturbed by the collapse is travellng consistently through dozens of floors to find the path of least resistance and finally exit the building far below where it is collapsing. Compressed air of that nature would be exiting much closer to the collapse - this must be something else.

This has been demonstrated... when the buildings are completely intact. If you wreck the supports exclusively on one side of the building, for instance from a plane hitting it, all of that data goes right out the window.

Read my argument above to the other guy on this same matter, then try again. My arguments are quite a lot better than you make them out to be, and not nearly as simplistic, either.

 

Fozzy it's no use you can't make a blind man see. Thank God there are people out there like you that seek the truth. It's funny they want you to read their links but when you present proof with links like Physics911 they won't bother to read it because it proves the lies their being fed are nothing but lies. Now they try to tell me that with all the new engineering that the Towers were not built as well as the Empire State Building.

Yet the fire in the Empire State Building was burning from the 79th floor where the plane crashed down to the 75th floor and still it did not collapse. Keep up the good work with people like you out there America will remain free.

[Fozzy4 0]

And now I am totally confused. First you said the heat generated from jet fuel wasn't high enough to melt steel (eluding that there had to be another source for the steel failures such as a demolition).

Now you are saying the beams didn't even get hot.

Change your story again and I may throw up from all the dizziness.

 

In case you missed it, they're not mutually exclusive ideas. The NIST report was probing into the materials in the area where the fires supposedly compromised the structure, and found no evidence that any temperatures near those required were ever reached by steel in the area. That bears no relevance on whether or not jet fuel can melt steel, unless you know of some previously undiscovered link between NIST reports and the melting points of alloys, or course.

 

I'm not changing my story, as you claim, but rather revealing more of it as the need arises. If I tried to say everything about 9/11 all at once, it would result in a document far too lengthy to make a suitable message board post.

 

It is illogical to try to say they are demolition squibs when they 1) don't appear to be going off in any discernible sequence.

 

The explanation you give is decidedly much harder to swallow. The theory that such strong ejections of gas are from escaping air goes hand in hand with the piston theory, where-by floors are said to have pancaked downward on top of each other, forcing air out in these eruptions. This theory if full of holes as evidenced on the 911research.wtc7.net site:

 

"There are several problems with this explanation, which we designate the piston theory.

 

* The squibs contain thick dust of a light color, apparently from crushed concrete and gypsum. But these materials would not have been crushed until the pancaking floors above impacted the floor emitting the squib. Thus the dust would not be produced until the air was already squeezed out, so there was no source of the dust for the squib.

* The squibs emerge from the facade 10 to 20 floors below the exploding rubble cloud inside of which the tower is disintegrating. The thick clouds appear to contain the pulverized concerete of the floor slabs, which was the only concrete component of the tower. But the piston theory requires that the floors have already pancaked down to the level of the squib, making them unavailable for the production of the concrete dust more than 10 floors above.

* The piston theory requires a rather orderly pancaking of the floor diaphragms within the intact sleeve of the perimeter wall. Such a process should have left a stack of floor diaphragms at the tower's base at the end of the collapse. But there was no such stack. In fact, it is difficult to find recognizable pieces of floor slabs of any size in Ground Zero photographs.

* The North Tower exhibits three distinct sets of squibs at different elevations of the building. Each set is visible as two distinct squibs on the same floor, one emerging from about the horizontal center of each of the tower's two visible faces. This pattern is is far too focused and symmetric to be explained by the piston theory, which would produce similar pressures across each floor and over successive floors.

* The pancaking of floors within the perimeter wall would have created underpressures in the region above the top pancaking floor. But we seen no evidence of dust being sucked back into the tower."

 

Please address that myriad of problems with the official account of 9/11.

 

2) Are the same color and density of the other plumes of compresses air dust.

 

You probably didn't realize it, but that point is actually hurtful to your case. See above - it is one of the primary sticking points, the fact that the clouds appear identical, and therefore both must contain pulverized concrete, which is not possible if floors were pancaking. Those floors are the only significant source of concrete in the structure, and if pancaking cannot be in both place at once to create concrete clouds.

 

3) it is not initiating a larger explosive device. I could go into far more on the subject. I am not wasting a lot of time with you due to your inability to rationally accept the ]blatantly obvious. It is pure idiocy to take your position for numerous reasons.

 

If things are so blatantly obvious and you have such numerous reasons why my viewpoint is ill-conceived and untenable, why have you intentionally avoided giving any of them? I have made quite pointed arguments throughout, and the best you can muster is "you're wrong, obviously, so I don't have to explain why." Now who sounds foolish?

 

Your arguments are rather sophomoric and simplistic. Furthermore you are basing your views on many claims off of erroneous information. Your inability to even fact check much of this is rather telling.

 

I have cited as a primary source the NIST report that others are trying to use to prop up the government's version of what happened. If it's credible for others to use, it's plenty credible for me to use in supporting the opposition. The NIST report does not lose its credibility just because I site things in it that damage the official version of 9/11.

 

The firefighters reported fires entirely under control when the buildings collapsed

 

False claim. You are intentionally wording this to misconstrue the point. One group of firemen, the ones who reached the very bottom of the collapse zone reported they could knock down the flames in that area only, no one made it any farther up, where the fire would logically travel. Furthermore video footage directly refutes this with complete certainty.

 

Does it really? Every video I can find near the time of collapse shows intense dark choking smoke pouring out of the buildings, a feature not of raging hot-burning fires, but rather of oxygen-deprived low-temperature fires. In contrast, there is no evidence at all that fires were widespread at that point, nor that they were still burning hot, both of which are necessary for your theory. The NIST report itself concludes that 20 minutes is the most such hot-burning fires could be sustained by office materials in the towers. The plane hit the South tower (the first to fall) at 9:03 AM, but it did not collapse until 9:58 AM, 55 minutes later. How, then, did the fire accomplish that feat, if its hottest moments were 35 minutes in the past? One is forced to assume that if the building were going to collapse from the fire, it would have done so just after that first 20 minutes, when the initial burst of jet fuel had ignited the hot-burning office fires which had at that point had 20 minutes to work on the steel. Once those fires began to subside (as NIST and visual evidence of the towers both confirm should and did happen) the energy to weaken the steel would have subsided with it. If the South tower was going to collapse from fire, it should have been 35 minutes earlier than when it actually went down.

[murf74 461]

yep agreed Arnie, I'm done.

[ArnieBragg 2]

lock this shite up Mike!