Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

[jaydeehess]

Do you accept that fire can collapse steel framed buildings?

Bah Humbug!

Steel conducts heat away faster than an office fire can supply it.

 

[triforcharity]

I understood your point. You said an in sane amount of variables right?

No, you're not. What I am saying is this.

To get a building to fall down like you would with a controlled demolition, you would need to account for all the variables I listed, plus many many more.

My point is building 7 fell just the way you would want it to fall.

So, you'd WANT parts of the building to collapse onto the roof of another building? You'd also want other parts to crash into the sides of two others?

Remind me never to hire you to do demo work.

So those in sane amount of variables all had to be in place on that day.

No, what I am saying is that if I wanted to demo a building, I would need to take into account all of the variables. Meaning, I would have to calculate what the fire would do if the wind shifted 10 degrees to the south. Then I would have to calculate how the fire would burn with the wind shifted to the south. Then, I would need to know that at 1:15pm, the wind in going to shift 10 more degrees to the south, and increase in speed.

It's impossible to account for that much inaccuracy. I couldn't predict what it would do. If my calculations are off, then the building either falls the wrong direction, or doesn't fall at all, or only partially collapses, etc.

Too many variables that cannot be accounted for.

 

[jaydeehess]

No, you're not. What I am saying is this.

To get a building to fall down like you would with a controlled demolition, you would need to account for all the variables I listed, plus many many more.

.

You see its a matter of the conspiracy theorists saying one thing and meaning another. 'The building fell neatly into its own footprint', for instance. Well obviously no it did not but what they mean is it very nearly fell into its own footprint (+/- a few city blocks)

In this case we have that WTC 7 fell exactly as one would want in a CD except no, it did not, since it quite obviously impacted a couple of other buildings. Something that would be taboo in a real CD. What the conspiracy people mean is that WTC 7 fell almost like a controlled demolition. By which they mean that the portion of the building that was still upright after the core failed and collapsed and above the level at which total horizontal failure occured, fell almost as one single piece and that this went downwards. Basically a partially controlled demolition. However, what is the single most important force in any collapse no matter the cause? Gravity! No matter the cause of failure that initiates a collapse, its gravity which drives it, always! No matter the cause then gravity will always drive material DOWNWARDS. WTC 7 went,,,, downwards. What was left of it after the core failed and collapsed and caused complete failure at about the level of the top of the pre-existing Con-ed building, all began moving downwards within a few seconds. Led, of course, by the portion at the 'kink' between east and west portions, which just happens to coincide with the eastern extent of the core and the eastern extent of the Con-ed building.

Same goes for the 'WTC 7 came down in 6 seconds" when in fact its collapse took 16 to 20 seconds. What they mean is that once all the internal core had failed and there was a failure across one whole floor, FROM then on it only took 6.6 seconds for the rest to come down.


IMO:
The perimeter of the south of WTC 7 was already badly compromised with the SW corner column not even in existance anymore all the way up to (IIRC) the 11th floor. The destruction of the core leaves all the mass of the south side with almost no support at all.

The internal core collapse caused failure of the northern most columns under the cantilever trusses which held the mass of the 40 storeys above the old Con-ed structure. Without these the northern part of the building is resting on columns not designed for such a load. This causes a complete failure of these columns below the 8th (IIRC) floor and forcing the north wall below the 8th floor outwards as the north side tilts southward with the core failure.

The portion of the building east of the Con-ed structure gets pulled in (west and south) by the collapse of the western portion and it has lost its western columns which were part of the core.

So the eastern portion begins by being pulled west but its lower floors are still intact and as the lower floors of the western portion crush and the lower north wall of it push outwards, the eastern portion is twisted CCW about 30 degrees and as floor beams twist and snap, its momentum carries it around and it ends up to the NE, impacting the Fitterman building.

The collapse of the western portion is led by the failure of the pre-damaged south side which pulls the western portion to the south, and over WTC 6.

 

[tmd2_1]

So you are saying that Boeing knows something about this supposed 'pod' that they are withholding because it would get them in trouble but that Boeing does not know that it has anything at all to do with a conspiracy to fly a large aircraft into the towers that does not match the commonly accepted narritive of what occured on 9/11. If Boeing has such knowledge and is with holding it then they are in-on-the-cover-up are they not?

.

You must have missed it then.





Sorry to hear you care some.

Listen you want to believe that's a fairing...fine. That's your business.
Boeing had nothing to do with it. NIST would be an organization I would charge with a cover up. Statements like our fires don't resemble what was visually seen (paraphrasing it) not Boeing. There put in a horrible position maybe they couldn't determine what it was and gave the answer they give I don't know. To my knowledge they were not apart of an official investigation (unlike NIST) and were just trying to answer questions. Boeing (like the NYPD and FDNY..or whatever organization people thing I am accusing) had nothing to do with it. This is the last I will say on this subject.

 

[TJM]

There put in a horrible position

What "Horrible position" do you speak of?

 

[tmd2_1]

I answered this ridiculous question already.



Actually the NIST FEA indicates otherwise. Tell me, has Jones or Gage conducted anything similar or just made unsubstantiated pronouncements like you do?


The part of the perimeter and facade above the failure floor fell somewhat 'intact' Of course the interior core volume was in tatters having failed earlier and the supposedly 'intact' upper portion of the building had distinctive kink in it that was visible from roofline to below the level visible in the videos and the part to the east of that kink fell generally to the NE while the part west of that kink fell generally to the south.

Yeah, other than that it came down 'intact'.

Give me a break!



So you are disavowing the possibility of thermate in the underground being responsible for the heat over several weeks, or not?



I don't know. Does it or does it not mean there was thermate in the underground supplying heat to the debris? If it points that way then why would it be preferentially underground and not visible burning on the top of the debris pile? How much thermate would be required for it to continue supplying heat for weeks or months?
Surely those who do subscribe to thermate in the debris have addressed these striking anomolies in their contentions, right?

Here you can read Jones's paper on the topic. http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf

You want to know why I think WTC 7 was a CD? They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so a video must be worth much more than that. So here's a bunch of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&feature=fvwrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukO3hENZ9zA&feature=related

 

[TexasJack]

To my knowledge they were not apart of an official investigation (unlike NIST) and were just trying to answer questions.

Well, if they were not apart of it according to you, then they must have been a part of it. So, therefore, like NIST, they're covering up. I'm glad we have that cleared up.

 

[TJM]

Here you can read Jones's paper on the topic. http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf

You want to know why I think WTC 7 was a CD? They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so a video must be worth much more than that. So here's a bunch of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp4GI&feature=fvwrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukO3hENZ9zA&feature=related

Another multiple linkbarf? Can't you speak for yourself?

 

[jaydeehess]

Listen you want to believe that's a fairing...fine. That's your business.
Boeing had nothing to do with it. ..... There put in a horrible position maybe they couldn't determine what it was and gave the answer they give I don't know. To my knowledge they were not apart of an official investigation (unlike NIST) and were just trying to answer questions. Boeing (like the NYPD and FDNY..or whatever organization people thing I am accusing) had nothing to do with it. This is the last I will say on this subject.

What "Horrible position" do you speak of?

AJM asks succinctly what I was getting at above. A point you have yet to even come close top addressing other than to simply re-state that Boeing was in a bad position.

EXACTLY how are they in a 'horrible position"?

Obviously if this is a regular Boeing 767 and the photo quality is enough for them to reconcile the 'pod' with a normal part of the aircraft, they would know what it is.
If they look at it and cannot reconcile it with a regular Boeing 767 profile then how does this put them in a 'horrible position"? With whom?

 

[jaydeehess]

Actually the NIST FEA indicates otherwise. Tell me, has Jones or Gage conducted anything similar or just made unsubstantiated pronouncements like you do?

Here you can read Jones's paper on the topic. http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf

So they answer to has he done an FEA or other similar research is, No, he hasn't.

The part of the perimeter and facade above the failure floor fell somewhat 'intact' Of course the interior core volume was in tatters having failed earlier and the supposedly 'intact' upper portion of the building had distinctive kink in it that was visible from roofline to below the level visible in the videos and the part to the east of that kink fell generally to the NE while the part west of that kink fell generally to the south.

Yeah, other than that it came down 'intact'.

You want to know why I think WTC 7 was a CD? They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so a video must be worth much more than that. So here's a bunch of them.
{links to videos that all here have seen dozens of times}

In other words you agree with me in that other than the fact that the entire core of the structure had previously failed and collapsed and other than the fact that there had been a complete failure at a low floor out of sight of the cameras, and other than the fact that the remaining structure consisting of what was left between core and perimeter was kinked about 1/3 of the way from its eastern limit, from roofline to below what the camera could see, it came down 'intact'.

So you are disavowing the possibility of thermate in the underground being responsible for the heat over several weeks, or not?

Unanswered.

I don't know. Does it or does it not mean there was thermate in the underground supplying heat to the debris? If it points that way then why would it be preferentially underground and not visible burning on the top of the debris pile? How much thermate would be required for it to continue supplying heat for weeks or months?
Surely those who do subscribe to thermate in the debris have addressed these striking anomolies in their contentions, right?

Unanswered

Its these last two that would seem to run counter to Jones' contention of thermate being found. Here we have underground heat, supposedly an anomoloy. We have Jones doing research that suggests the prersence of thermate and thus the contention that the supposedly anomolous heat in the underground backing up the claim that the research found thermate.
However if this supposedly anomolous underground heat is the result of thermate burning then one MUST address the points I listed above.
Why is it that this thermate is only burning underground and not on the surface?
How can thermate which burns out very quickly account for weeks and weeks of heat?

Jones does not brush these questions aside. He pretends they don't exist!

 

[tmd2_1]

So they answer to has he done an FEA or other similar research is, No, he hasn't.




In other words you agree with me in that other than the fact that the entire core of the structure had previously failed and collapsed and other than the fact that there had been a complete failure at a low floor out of sight of the cameras, and other than the fact that the remaining structure consisting of what was left between core and perimeter was kinked about 1/3 of the way from its eastern limit, from roofline to below what the camera could see, it came down 'intact'.






Unanswered.



Unanswered

Its these last two that would seem to run counter to Jones' contention of thermate being found. Here we have underground heat, supposedly an anomoloy. We have Jones doing research that suggests the prersence of thermate and thus the contention that the supposedly anomolous heat in the underground backing up the claim that the research found thermate.
However if this supposedly anomolous underground heat is the result of thermate burning then one MUST address the points I listed above.
Why is it that this thermate is only burning underground and not on the surface?
How can thermate which burns out very quickly account for weeks and weeks of heat?

Jones does not brush these questions aside. He pretends they don't exist!

Yes Jones hasn't, but you've got a lot of nerve touting NIST around. You saw this video right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY Their model is a disgrace (that may not be a strong enough word for it) at one point they have the sides of the building almost touching each other. Something that clearly did not even come close to happening. I would be embarrassed to show that model, but I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you right?

WTC 7 to me resembles a classic CD, that is all I can really say to that.

Thermate. I told you I'm not sure what to make of it. I know something was burning hot enough to keep the top of the pile hot enough o melt aluminum on Sept 16th. Why it kept burning if it did? I don't have an easy answer for you, it could have been some un-reacted thermate, but as I said I don't have an easy answer. As far as not finding it on top of the pile, I'm not sure what we found or not, as the evidence was taken away in record time.

 

[EventHorizon]

WTC 7 to me resembles a classic CD, that is all I can really say to that.

You are an expert in CD I take it?

 

[Animal]

Yes Jones hasn't, but you've got a lot of nerve touting NIST around. You saw this video right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY Their model is a disgrace (that may not be a strong enough word for it) at one point they have the sides of the building almost touching each other. Something that clearly did not even come close to happening. I would be embarrassed to show that model, but I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you right?

I would be embarrassed to constantly display such ignorance. The model was of the building framing, Not of the building facade.

WTC 7 to me resembles a classic CD, that is all I can really say to that.

Argument by ignorance noted.

Thermate. I told you I'm not sure what to make of it. I know something was burning hot enough to keep the top of the pile hot enough o melt aluminum on Sept 16th. Why it kept burning if it did? I don't have an easy answer for you, it could have been some un-reacted thermate, but as I said I don't have an easy answer. As far as not finding it on top of the pile, I'm not sure what we found or not, as the evidence was taken away in record time.

Argument from willfull ignorance noted.

 

[Edx]

Boeing had nothing to do with it. .

Except you think they are covering up the truth, so how are they not by definition in on the coverup?

 

[Edx]

Thermate. I told you I'm not sure what to make of it. I know something was burning hot enough to keep the top of the pile hot enough o melt aluminum on Sept 16th. Why it kept burning if it did?

For the same reason a landfill fire keeps burning. We went over that pages and pages ago, apparently you have a short or selective memory. I also gave you plenty of reports from people reporting molten steel and molten metal, so we know molten metal is common in normal fires as well.

But despite perfectly understandable reasons for why the pile was hot and why molten metals were there you choose the LEAST likeliest scenario and theorise about a material that does not behave like any material known to man. Sure, you'll call it thermite, but we know thermite doesnt work the way you guys claim it works. To you thermite is whatever you need it to be and has whatever properties you need it to have at any moment.

As far as not finding it on top of the pile, I'm not sure what we found or not, as the evidence was taken away in record time.

Please expand for us where you think the debris was taken and what happened to it. Btw, if you do you'll be implicating many more hundreds in this conspiracy of yours. Of course you wont realise it, like with Boeing who have "nothing to do with it yet" are covering up the "pod" on the plane at the same exact time. This conspiracy of yours contains millions of people you just refuse to accept thats exactly what your arguments require.

 

[triforcharity]

Thermate. I told you I'm not sure what to make of it. I know something was burning hot enough to keep the top of the pile hot enough o melt aluminum on Sept 16th.

I can have newspaper made to be hot enough to melt aluminum.

Why it kept burning if it did?

Thermi*te doesn't do long time. Vietnamese hookers do. Not ther*te.

I don't have an easy answer for you, it could have been some un-reacted thermate, but as I said I don't have an easy answer.

You don't have any answer. You have bull **** made up by frauds.

As far as not finding it on top of the pile, I'm not sure what we found or not, as the evidence was taken away in record time.

Citation needed for the "taken away in record time" lie.

 

[Sunstealer]

Show me a video of thermite or thermate burning for more than 10 minutes.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Looks to me there's reasonable doubt about CD. Therefore, I'll throw out CD from the possibilities list without hesitation. (I threw it out a long time ago)

 

[tmd2_1]

For the same reason a landfill fire keeps burning. We went over that pages and pages ago, apparently you have a short or selective memory. I also gave you plenty of reports from people reporting molten steel and molten metal, so we know molten metal is common in normal fires as well.

But despite perfectly understandable reasons for why the pile was hot and why molten metals were there you choose the LEAST likeliest scenario and theorise about a material that does not behave like any material known to man. Sure, you'll call it thermite, but we know thermite doesnt work the way you guys claim it works. To you thermite is whatever you need it to be and has whatever properties you need it to have at any moment.



Please expand for us where you think the debris was taken and what happened to it. Btw, if you do you'll be implicating many more hundreds in this conspiracy of yours. Of course you wont realise it, like with Boeing who have "nothing to do with it yet" are covering up the "pod" on the plane at the same exact time. This conspiracy of yours contains millions of people you just refuse to accept thats exactly what your arguments require.

I told him about landfill fires several posts ago. He kept asking questions. I don't know when and if the Molten steel was found. If the steel was still liquid weeks later it could have been un-reacted thermite. Perhaps the reports of molten steel weeks later were more like appendix C of the FEMA report. It wasn't in it's liquid form.

Thermite to me is only one possibility. You however are stuck with one and one scenario, and must jump through hoops to defend it.

Here is the best site with info on where the steel went.


http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

 

[TheRedWorm]

No. Just no.