This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

[beachnut]

Hey yall,

Now, each building crumbles into it's own footprint.

What do you define as it's own footprint?

I would have to say two 1 acre buildings falling over 19 acres is not it's own footprint. (that is 10 times it's own footprint)

I then have to tell you that you are wrong before you start.

You have a problem with research. You are just repeating your CT friends, you sound exactly like Loose Change, or Docker.

So when is all this real evidence showing up here for us to see? You do have something new I hope, do you?

 

[Horatius]

I know, but the last post by 28th Kingdom really confirmed it for me.

I just want my props, is all! It was the slagging off of Loose Change that nailed it for me. Classic tell, he really needs to work on that.

 

[beachnut]

If anyone here can present me with hard data...which proves HOW a fire, can completely destroy the core steel columns of WTC 1 & 2 you will convert me to your club. That's really all you have to do. Prove to me, how the core columns of these two buildings...crumbled, when even a pancake collapse would NOT bring down the core columns...which were one of the unique features of the WTC when they were built.

There is a PBS special with a computer animation of the floors pancaking on the WTC 1 & 2. And guess what...even their simulation shows the steel cores still standing. Whoopsie.

The fire did not destroy the steel. The fire weakened the steel.

Next question.

 

[R.Mackey]

Oh this is hard. Just looking at the impact, it is equal to a ton of TNT, check it out bet I am within a few hundred pounds of TNT on flight 11 and 175

The I saw the buildings fall, they released 248 tons of TNT energy each as they fell to the ground some part moving at over 200 mph.

For what it's worth, the plane impacts were each approximately equivalent to 750 kg (0.75 tons) of TNT, and the collapses released approximately 160 tons of TNT equivalent. Each.

The stored chemical energy (viz. fires) totaled around fifty times this much.

Puts it in perspective, huh?

 

[kookbreaker]

Hey yall,

Okay...see, I hate doing stuff like this...but anyway. So everyone here are critical-thinkers, who analyze hard data and stuff right? And, everyone has analyzed the actual data of the 9/11 event for themselves, right? You're not just reading some 'experts' take on things, and simply adopting their views as your own, right? Because, hopefully that's not what critical-thinkers do.

You are misrepresenting the use of experts. When people first started implying that CD was used the bring the towers down, I sought out the opinions of structural experts. What I found was that the vast, vast, vast majority of experts in this country and in others were of the opinion that the impact and fires caused the collapse, not any explosives.

As if that were not enough, the experts comments about the events that led up to the collpase made sense as well. A simple bit of research led me to mulitple graphs showing the weakening of steel when heated.

So, wipe out the official story. You don't have any idea why the buildings collapsed. You don't know about hijackers...or OBL or false flags...or anything. The only thing you know is that planes flew into two buildings. So, firstly, did they collapse on impact? No. WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane.

Ohhh-kay.

Now, each building crumbles into it's own footprint.

WRONG!

Okay, so in the documented history of steel-structured skyscapers like the WTC towers...there has NEVER (I'm just letting you know, so you don't have to look it up) There has NEVER been a steel-structured skyscraper, that has COMPLETELY collapsed into it's footprint by virtue of a FIRE.

Think you added enough qualifications there? Sorry bucko, but plenty of steel framed buildings have collapsed from fire. Maybe not any skyscrapers(if you ignore the steel portion of the Madrid Hilton) but then again Skyscrapers are fairly rare in comparison to the numbers of buildikngs in the world, steel framed skyscrapers an ever smaller subset, and steel framed skyscrapers that have faced uncontrolled fires an even smaller subset...in fact you could probably count the number on one hand.

Hopefully, that is a fact you would research while trying to deduce exactly what brought down the three towers.

Hopefully, you would realise how irrelvant a lack of overspecialized pretext is in your research.

Okay, so now...that you're armed with that nugget of information...you might ask, "Well what else could cause the collapse?" Hmmmmm, well according to most reporters, including Dan Rather, Peter Jennings...and others...one of their first instincts was to say, it looked like a controlled demolition.

First instincts, maybe, but the fact is none of the buildings,m when examined closely, show any real resemblance. They have no real 'squibs' of explosives, no sound, and in the case of 1 & 2 they start way up in the building.

(video tape of them saying this) That's interesting...see, at this point, they still don't know what's going on i.e. they haven't been FED the official story - this is the frame of mind I'm trying to get you to work from.

We see where you are going with this.

So now, we have two options.

No, we don't. You have made a false dilema by using your overspecialized prequalification to improperly try to remove legitimate answers.

It's either a controlled demolition or the three buildings collapsed because of fires. Well, the reason I originally said that WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun...is because it wasn't hit by a plane, so you can't use that (plane impacts) to dispel the controlled demolition theory since WTC 7 collapsed just the same as WTC 1 & 2.

However, WTC7 as has been pointed out to you, was hit large amounts of debris from WTC 1 & 2, and burned for much longer.

So with all of your critical thinking and analyzes...you will conclude, that although a steel-structured skyscraper had never collapsed due to a fire in the history of the world....that three of them just happened to do that on the very same day in the same event? Odds of that happening?

1 in 1.

Well, you must not be a very prolific critical-thinker...because, once you clear out all of the, "Well, the government would never do that...It would be all over the news etc." from your analysis...there is NO WAY, that anyone could weigh all the data about the actual collapses of the three buildings...and say that, yes...FIRE is what brought them all down.

You must analyze the facts of the collapses...without influence or persuasion from thoughts of who did it, or why they did it.

And you must look away from stupid qualifiers like 'No steel framed skyscraper ever fell from fire before'.

Here's a thing for you to answer: Why did the Philadelphia Fire Department abandon internal firefighing efforts in the Meridian Plaza fire?

Answer that for me.

 

[beachnut]

I just want my props, is all! It was the slagging off of Loose Change that nailed it for me. Classic tell, he really needs to work on that.

you did say it first

 

[stateofgrace]

Hey yall,

So now, we have two options. It's either a controlled demolition or the three buildings collapsed because of fires. Well, the reason I originally said that WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun...is because it wasn't hit by a plane, so you can't use that (plane impacts) to dispel the controlled demolition theory since WTC 7 collapsed just the same as WTC 1 & 2.

So with all of your critical thinking and analyzes...you will conclude, that although a steel-structured skyscraper had never collapsed due to a fire in the history of the world....that three of them just happened to do that on the very same day in the same event? Odds of that happening? Well, you must not be a very prolific critical-thinker...because, once you clear out all of the, "Well, the government would never do that...It would be all over the news etc." from your analysis...there is NO WAY, that anyone could weigh all the data about the actual collapses of the three buildings...and say that, yes...FIRE is what brought them all down.

You must analyze the facts of the collapses...without influence or persuasion from thoughts of who did it, or why they did it.

You forgot the bit about the planes. Remember those big ones that were travelling very fast and hit the two tall buildings. You also forgot the bit about one of the tall buildings spewing thousands of tons of debris onto the other building.

 

[Horatius]

If anyone here can present me with hard data...which proves HOW a fire, can completely destroy the core steel columns of WTC 1 & 2 you will convert me to your club. That's really all you have to do. Prove to me, how the core columns of these two buildings...crumbled, when even a pancake collapse would NOT bring down the core columns...which were one of the unique features of the WTC when they were built.

There is a PBS special with a computer animation of the floors pancaking on the WTC 1 & 2. And guess what...even their simulation shows the steel cores still standing. Whoopsie.

So, that's a yes on ignoring my other post? Come on, you came in here acting all cool, letting us know if we'd just play your game by your rules, we'd all fall all over ourselves rushing to become 9/11 believers. So now, I'm willing to play by your rules, so let's see it. What have you got, sock-boy?

Or am I going to have to kitten you?

 

[beachnut]

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

the doc

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

the pdg

WTC7 the stuff,

 

[maccy]

Question 1: Is it possible to prove whether or not (irrefutably) that in the history of the world...a steel-structured building has collapsed as a direct result of a fire? I know we've all heard that this has never happened before 9/11, but is it possible to prove that statement true or false - without a shadow of doubt? And if we can prove whether or not that statement is true, than please give your answer - yay or nay, and present your evidence.

I'll repeat, again, a couple of problems with this question:

NIST are not claiming that WTC7 collapsed solely due to fire, there was also structural damage caused by falling debris.

Previous occurrences of building collapse are only relevant in so far as they share features with the building collapse you are studying. Each collapse is unique. Aside from the structural damage already mentioned, relevant factors that mark WTC7 as different from a number of other buildings include:

1. the cantilevered design that used steel trusses to transfer load from the columns above floor 7 to the columns that had been constructed when the con ed substation was built.

2. the diesel fuel tanks and distribution system

3. the hours that the fire wasn't fought before collapse.

Lastly, if something has never happened before, it doesn't mean it will never happen.

As far as buildings that have collapsed due to fire, here are some examples:

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are
examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and
spray on material. The Meridian Plaza didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters
evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other
steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition
center. It, like the WTC, used long steel trusses to create a large open space without
columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire
protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steelconstructed
McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after
the start of a small electrical fire."
http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/24ae78779d768010VgnVCM100000f932a

The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame
buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of
construction materials, not only steel." Wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's
Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's
steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of
one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.
http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm

About 2 years later the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed building that partially
collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse entirely due to the resulting fire.
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-068.pdf

The Kader Toy Factory also collapsed due to fires. It had a steel frame.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/kade-m16.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kader_Toy_Factory

You can find more examples here, at the bottom of the page:
http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Many Deniers seem to “forget” the two planes, or the construction style of the buildings.
Some even dare compare a concrete building to a steel-frame building.

source: http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/fst/FST-D1.pdf pp 8-9

I recommend the whole document.

 

[Firestone]

If anyone here can present me with hard data...which proves HOW a fire, can completely destroy the core steel columns of WTC 1 & 2 you will convert me to your club. That's really all you have to do. Prove to me, how the core columns of these two buildings...crumbled, when even a pancake collapse would NOT bring down the core columns...which were one of the unique features of the WTC when they were built.

I don't know who claims that "the fire completely destroyed the core steel columns of WTC 1 & 2".

But please read this, and then come back with arguments against this study, if you don't agree with it.

 

[beachnut]

I do not think you want to present any facts do you 28thKingdom?

Try looking at this before you make up you mind;

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

the doc

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

the pdg

WTC7 the stuff,

 

[John Blonn]

Hey 28th kingdom, you wrote this in your response:

"You're not just reading some 'experts' take on things, and simply adopting their views as your own, right? Because, hopefully that's not what critical-thinkers do."

What is the role of the experts in determining what happened in large scale events? Do you believe that anyone, regardless of education, training, or skills, can pronounce on complex phenomena like massive, energetic, explosive collisions and massive collapses? At what point are our "opinions" of how an event happened worthless in the face of what experts in a field say?

 

[beachnut]

If anyone here can present me with hard data...which proves HOW a fire, can completely destroy the core steel columns of WTC 1 & 2 you will convert me to your club. That's really all you have to do. Prove to me, how the core columns of these two buildings...crumbled, when even a pancake collapse would NOT bring down the core columns...which were one of the unique features of the WTC when they were built.

There is a PBS special with a computer animation of the floors pancaking on the WTC 1 & 2. And guess what...even their simulation shows the steel cores still standing. Whoopsie.

Where do you come up with this junk?

The core could not stand on its own, a simple wind would bring down the core. The core was not designed for lateral loads. The exterior is the unique design to make the WTC strong enough to withstand high winds, the winds of a hurricane.

But the core did take over 30 seconds to come down all the way.

 

[maccy]

Hey yall,

Okay...see, I hate doing stuff like this...but anyway. So everyone here are critical-thinkers, who analyze hard data and stuff right? And, everyone has analyzed the actual data of the 9/11 event for themselves, right? You're not just reading some 'experts' take on things, and simply adopting their views as your own, right? Because, hopefully that's not what critical-thinkers do.

The NIST account makes sense to me. As does this briefer version:

http://www.counterpunch.org/darkfire11282006.html

Which appears in Counterpunch a pretty far-left publication.

I see no positive evidence for controlled demolition - no series of loud explosions before the collapses, no flashes. I also think that secretly planting the explosives in the run-up to 9/11 is impossible.

If your argument is that NIST deliberately published a false report to cover up the truth, consider this:

Ummm, huh?

So the hundreds of NIST scientists involved in producing the WTC reports decide to spend all of their available time making up numbers to fit a thesis the administrators have told them is correct, but they know is false. Throwing their professional careers and reputations to the wind, they support a theory intended to cover up a mass murder plot by the federal government for which they have no culpability. They're motivated to do so because, well, they're all evil people who enjoy murder, and want to take every opportunity to stick it to the American people. They're also all fiercely loyal to the Bush Administration because they respect him as an intellectual.

But then someone realizes that they need to contract some of the work out in order to make the research more credible. So they contact dozens of agencies, researchers, professionals and experts in both the US and Canada. Hey, it might have been easier to keep all of the data in house, but no one will know as long as NIST has the final word on the matter.

So NIST holds numerous public forums and scientific conferences where they present the data to the public. They publish a draft report and subject it to the Washington Editorial Review Bord (WERB) so that numerous independent researchers can review the work. No one finds any errors because they were paid by the administration not to find any.

The researchers, meanwhile, are proud that they could do their part to support the war in Iraq that they all so desperately wanted. I don't know if you realize this, but most scientists are overwhelmingly fundamentalist, right-wing conservatives, so they have no problem with the wholesale murder of their fellow citizens as well as the numerous citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, they've been paid off pretty heavily. But fortunately, none of them retired and left NIST to go buy million dollar homes in Georgetown or Alexandria. Talk about a red flag to the IRS!


Is that what you really believe? People who've spent 10, 20 or 30 years producing credible scientific research are willing to drop everything, fabricate some data, and use it to support the murder of their fellow citizens? Why do conspiracy theorists have to demonize NIST in such a way?

 

[28th Kingdom]

Use of, "Pull," referring to CD:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/kingdome4.html

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqMode=1&reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20050317195824

As is stated...Pull refers to the fact that the building is actually pulled in on itself. This is a video of Larry Silverstein - The lease holder of WTC 7. Um, the guy who made over 3 billion dollars on 9/11. He tried to get 7 billion, saying it was two attacks...but I think the insurance won that case, and only gave him 3billion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

 

[ConspiRaider]

28th Kingdom, acknowledge.

This is Red Leader of ConspiRaider Squadron 49 on your six, requesting that you bail out of your damaged CT-15 aircraft, sir. We have been shadowing your aircraft for quite some time and are alarmed at the amount of damage you have sustained. Please click your mike twice to acknowledge, sir. Thank you.

Your left wing is shredded, sir, and your tail is in flames. The right wing is no longer visible. To blow the canopy please follow these instructions:

1. Sit down.
2. Put the cap back on the Jim Beam.
3. Do not sit in the lotus position, you will not be meditating.
4. Ease out the clutch, put the CT-15 in neutral.
5. Search for a suitable landing location.
6. For you - not the CT-15. It's toast.
7. Look for a large looped handle.
8. I realize you are looped, sir.
9. Place your right hand around loop, think of England.
10. "Pull it."

Please click your mike twice to acknowledge, CT-15.

Thank you and good luck.

Red Leader, ConspiRaider Squadron 49, out.

 

[kookbreaker]

Use of, "Pull," referring to CD:
As is stated...Pull refers to the fact that the building is actually pulled in on itself.

Nope.

Assertion Seven, point 2.

You are wrong.

 

[332nd]

Use of, "Pull," referring to CD:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/kingdome4.html

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqMode=1&reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20050317195824

As is stated...Pull refers to the fact that the building is actually pulled in on itself. This is a video of Larry Silverstein - The lease holder of WTC 7. Um, the guy who made over 3 billion dollars on 9/11. He tried to get 7 billion, saying it was two attacks...but I think the insurance won that case, and only gave him 3billion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk

Yes "pull" is used to describe dragging a building down with cables. I didn't see that happen to WTC 7 though.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Nope.

Assertion Seven, point 2.

You are wrong.

Why do so many people take the above report as the holy grail for what happened to the buildings? For one, it says that no seismograph detected the explosions..and we know that's a COMPLETE lie. There were several seismographs in the area that picked up the vibrations from the explosions.