Fire, steel, and 911.

[Anti-sophist]

I know you all hate REAL video evidence...but this is rather nice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

A bunch of policemen and firefighters...saying. That WTC 7 is about to BLOW UP! Okay, they said it many times...I don't know how you can misconstrue those words. They actually said, BLOW UP. How did they know it was bout to BLOW UP? What are the psychic?

OKAY, now...that in NO WAY implies that the firefighters or policemen are in on the act.

That is _EXACTLY_ what you are implying. Please do not slap me in the face and then tell me it's a tickle.

You are disgraceful.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I know you all hate REAL video evidence...but this is rather nice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

A bunch of policemen and firefighters...saying. That WTC 7 is about to BLOW UP! Okay, they said it many times...I don't know how you can misconstrue those words. They actually said, BLOW UP. How did they know it was bout to BLOW UP? What are the psychic?

OKAY, now...that in NO WAY implies that the firefighters or policemen are in on the act. Please, don't take it that way again. I'm sure they got a radio in from someone who simply told them what's going on...and to clear out the area. I'm sure these guys didn't even think anything of it at this point and with all the day's chaos already around them...but looking back...how the heck can you predict that a building is going to come down, when it wasn't hit by a plane, and it didn't have any noticeable burning fires...just large clouds of black smoke? Why must we deny so much evidence...for the mere benefit of some magical THEORY that NIST put out...which leaves only questions and no definitive answers.

it was the firefighters who reported large fires on multiple floors and severe damage to the building, noticable leaning fo the structure, and the kink on the roofline, id say thats how they knew it was coming down

if there was absolutely no indication it was going to collapse why didnt any of the firefighters find it odd when they were ordered to clear out? why isnt the truth movement chock full of GZ responders?

 

[WildCat]

I know you all hate REAL video evidence...but this is rather nice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vr5TxKTMRx0

A bunch of policemen and firefighters...saying. That WTC 7 is about to BLOW UP! Okay, they said it many times...I don't know how you can misconstrue those words. They actually said, BLOW UP. How did they know it was bout to BLOW UP? What are the psychic?

Thanks for confirming that you think the FDNY and police were in on the conspiracy. Have you confronted them w/ this "explosive" evidence? Or better yet, contacted a prosecutor w/ this proof?

 

[stateofgrace]

Well, that's easy. The planes hit one side of the buildings...so if one side of the buildings' internal/external infrastructure were to give out, due to excessive heat/melted steel - whatever....than the other side could potentially fall over to that damaged side...since the damaged side, wouldn't theoretically have any support to bear the weight of the building directly above the damaged spots. Pretty common sense stuff, eh.

Please explain the difference between a working load and a maximum working load.

Please explain the difference between a dynamic and a static weight.

Please explain which parts of the Towers took the weight of the floor spaces.

Please explain how floor trusses that braced the external support structure to the cores would not collapse when a massive dynamic weight is dropped on them.

Please take some basic physics lessons.

Incidentally I’ve seen the famous MIT engineers lecture and never laughed so much as an electrical engineer tries desperately to prove, well nothing. If it is the same video and you want a good laugh look at the part where he explains all about the collapse of WTC 1. He shows a video, any guesses which Tower he shows?

 

[28th Kingdom]

You've been shown photos like this

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7smokemajor.jpg

a number of times, and continue to ignore them.

Why?

Sir,

I addressed this already. Lots of smoke doesn't equal lots of fire. If there was lots of fire, than we would be able to see it from the outside, you know like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KFCNMS5W3o

So, please...post a pic or vid of the largest fire you can see from within WTC 7. I can't believe you keep showing pics of smoke...and are like...LOOK at how big this fire is. Really? I see big smoke...I don't see big fire.

And to others...I am directly addresses everything I reply to. I am making compelling points...and it is bothering you...nothing I can do about that. The truth will set you free.

 

[Bell]

Is this turning into another Christopera thread?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Sir,

I addressed this already. Lots of smoke doesn't equal lots of fire.

so then where was all the smoke coming from? lots of peopel with cigars?

So, please...post a pic or vid of the largest fire you can see from within WTC 7. I can't believe you keep showing pics of smoke...and are like...LOOK at how big this fire is. Really? I see big smoke...I don't see big fire.

firefighters reported fires on multiple floors in addition to the severe damage tot he south side, is there any reason not to truth them?

 

[WildCat]

Sir,

I addressed this already. Lots of smoke doesn't equal lots of fire. If there was lots of fire, than we would be able to see it from the outside, you know like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KFCNMS5W3o

Perhaps they don't look alike because one video was shot at night, and another on a bright cloudless sunny day?

Do you think you've made a valid point about anything here so far?

 

[rwguinn]

I couldn't find anything about fireproofing in the NIST interim report, I'm sure that the draft version of the final report will mention, though.

This is what the FEMA report had to say:

from section 5.3.3 of http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

NB this document is copy protected so I had to copy the quote from a manually typed copy here: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/archive/fema_403.html

A relevant section of the interim NIST report:

from section L3.2 of the NIST WTC7 Interim Report http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Guys, guys!-and gals:
Steel does not burn, per se. The "fireproofing" is merely a form of insulating and dispersing heat to keep the temperature rise down so that the structure does not weaken below a certain point.
a 2-hour rating means that the stuff will insulate/reflect enough that the steel will not reach some critical temperature (probably in the neighborhood of a 600 degree differential between the ambient environment and steel temperature) for at least 2 hours.
That's all it means...

 

[Horatius]

Perhaps they don't look alike beause one video was shot at night, and another on a bright cloudless sunny day?

Do you think you've made a valid point about anything here so ar?

Oh, and did you notice the sudden and complete collapse of the steel structure? Thanks for debunking that whole, "Steel structures can't collapse due to fires" thing.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Okay,

You know what? I'm gonna leave this forum now...because, honestly this is scary. I mean literally...this is starting to frighten me. Oh wow. For you not to be able to deduce my statements about the fireman saying the building is going to blow up...and the fact that IT IN NO WAY implies, the firemen actually knows who is responsible for the bombing...I mean, I can't and won't debate people who....I can't even finish that sentence. I'm just literally shaken...by some of you. You almost make me wanna cry.

FDNY and NYPD...are the biggest heros of 9/11....without question...and don't you ever try to twist my words to state otherwise. I am utterly disturbed at the piranha like nature I have encountered on this site. It's unreal...and I simply can't take it any longer. I tried my best...and lord knows...I have been very civil...and endured a lot of harsh words for doing absolutely nothing to you people...besides trying to hold a debate...

I don't know what to say...the viciousness here...is unbearable. I don't wanna be a part of this anymore...because it doesn't feel good or right.

Thanks to all who have participated...but I must leave now...

Godspeed.

 

[Anti-sophist]

It's amazing to me that you can accuse the firefighters of being complicit in the conspiracy of 9/11 and have foreknowledge of a controlled demolition, and then propose to us that you are not implying they are involved.

That's just utterly disgraceful. You are intellectually dishonest.

 

[WildCat]

Okay,

You know what? I'm gonna leave this forum now...

Buh-bye.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

For you not to be able to deduce my statements about the fireman saying the building is going to blow up...and the fact that IT IN NO WAY implies, the firemen actually knows who is responsible for the bombing

i agree it doesnt indicate they who who is responsible for the bombing, however, it does indicae they know the building was intentionally demolished and did not collapse, and they are now knowingly (and willingly) keeping silent about it

how is that not complicity?

 

[NickUK]

edited

 

[maccy]

Guys, guys!-and gals:
Steel does not burn, per se. The "fireproofing" is merely a form of insulating and dispersing heat to keep the temperature rise down so that the structure does not weaken below a certain point.
a 2-hour rating means that the stuff will insulate/reflect enough that the steel will not reach some critical temperature (probably in the neighborhood of a 600 degree differential between the ambient environment and steel temperature) for at least 2 hours.
That's all it means...

That's what I assumed it meant. I just couldn't see in the interim NIST report any indication that they had yet calculated the effect of the insulation over the period of the fire or come to any conclusion about how well it was applied or if it was damaged. Particularly as some people were suggesting that problems with fireproofing contributed to the collapse and I'm really not sure if this is true or not.

What seemed clear to me though, was that if you combine the FEMA information about the fireproofing with the NIST information about the steel it seems feasible that fire could have significantly weakened the structure over the period that it was burning.

 

[milesalpha]

Okay,

You know what? I'm gonna leave this forum now...because, honestly this is scary. I mean literally...this is starting to frighten me. Oh wow. For you not to be able to deduce my statements about the fireman saying the building is going to blow up...and the fact that IT IN NO WAY implies, the firemen actually knows who is responsible for the bombing...I mean, I can't and won't debate people who....I can't even finish that sentence. I'm just literally shaken...by some of you. You almost make me wanna cry.

FDNY and NYPD...are the biggest heros of 9/11....without question...and don't you ever try to twist my words to state otherwise. I am utterly disturbed at the piranha like nature I have encountered on this site. It's unreal...and I simply can't take it any longer. I tried my best...and lord knows...I have been very civil...and endured a lot of harsh words for doing absolutely nothing to you people...besides trying to hold a debate...

I don't know what to say...the viciousness here...is unbearable. I don't wanna be a part of this anymore...because it doesn't feel good or right.

Thanks to all who have participated...but I must leave now...

Godspeed.

Quite the little drama queen. Why not simply admit you are not making any headway by posting youtube videos over and over?
A closing thought, you claim you were making compelling arguments. In a debate, you don't decide that, the audience and (if there is one) moderator decide that. I have a feeling this audience has not found you very compelling, comical perhaps, but not compelling.

And thanks for once again demonstrating that this is not a matter of academic research to you, it is your religion.

 

[uk_dave]

Man in crowd IV: He's gone! He's been taken up!

All the crowd, pointing at the sky: Ooh! He's been taken up!

Gourd man, shouting at the sky: Eighteen!

Man in crowd III: No, there he is.

Crowd: Ooh!

http://www.intriguing.com/mp/_scripts/briafilm.asp

 

[~enigma~]

Here's what gets me...it seems that one of the favorite arguments on here, is to say, "Well if it's a CD, than why do virtually ALL of the experts agree with NIST's theory?"

Well, it's not like I've ever agreed with that

And you are not an expert.

originally FEMA is the one who coughed up the pancake theory but I think NIST rejected that, and so has everyone else in the last few years. So what has replaced this theory?

If you read the responses you were givin in your other thread you would know someone said it is the waffle theory. I don't understand. If you did your research and are an expert as you claim, why didn't you know that?

I asked everyone here just to tell me how NIST explains the way the core columns, which are vertical beams, could simply telescope down on themselves...I said, just explain that one thing, and I will shut up...and, the weird thing is that no one could give me any idea of what NIST had to say about that.

You were given a link to the NIST report. You need us to read it for you? Do you also need us to wipe your ass?

We CT on the other hand, have countless scientific evidence, explaining why the collapses (according to the official reports) DEFIED certain laws of physics.

CT=woowoo, use the correct terminology. List the exact physical laws that the collaoses defied. We don't want a list of your irrational ideas of what were defied but the laws themselves.

I will state again...I simply cannot believe all of you consider yourselves skeptics...when you buy so much into these, "leap of faith," theories

Leap of faith? You mean by examining something scientifically and coming to a reproducable conclusion is a leap of faith yet accepting Stevenm Jones conclusion of preplanted charges is not a leap of faith nor is accepting Judy Wood's beam weapon? You need an optoanalectomy.

the rebuttal I receive is something like, "It's not our job to prove our theory, but you have to prove your theory."

Like it or not that is the way it is and the way it will always be. Do you have any evidence or are you just pissing in the wind? If you have evidence, take the government to court and stop wasting your time on an internet forum.

Well, at some point, didn't someone have to prove the official theory to you, or did you just blindly swallow it without question and merit? So the official story, needs not explain itself?

You are a cynical idiot. I can't speak for anybody here besides myself and in my case no I did not blindly believe any story. I heard it and what I could verify scientifically I believe. What you are advocating though is reinventing the wheel.

I'm just asking for a very specific bit of info, and no one wants to supply me with it. How does NIST explain the sequential collapse of the core columns?

You were givin the link to NIST's report. Read it and wipe your own ass.

You're saying...you don't need that information in order for you to BUY the official story?

Who said that?

This improbable telescoping of the core columns doesn't even raise questions from you?

Are those your words? How critical are we thinking[/quote]We are thinking fine. You on the other hand are in serious need of a brain transplant.

Straight out denying common sense and laws of physics...

Once again I ask you to list the laws of physics that we are denying.

 

[~enigma~]

Sir,

I'm not sure what kind of logic you're trying to use

Quick change of the topic from wtc 7 to the towers. you must have drank Alex Jones' koolaid.