QUOTE (newton+Mar 27 2006, 05:32 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 27 2006, 05:05 AM)
Reasonwhy...
Thanks for starting that new thread. Excellent move.
the point of posting is to keep a volume of text which speaks truth in the publicly searchable domain of hypertext.
mutiple hits with the exact same content are ignored.
unique statements are a 'weak force', lol.
the controlled demo video was very educational. thanks again, newtonnjd.
isn't it murderous(as opposed to 'funny'), foxx, how as soon as one spamachine is diverted, common sense kicks in?
Oh, let me guess, now I'm christopher right. HEHEHE! You gotta love these guys.
A refutation that Silverstein meant demolition when he said "pull it" does not in any way refute the argument that WTC 7 was brought down by CD.
Your being dishonest. You know there is more than just Silverstein clearing up the "Pull it" quote.
Why are you being dishonest? Does your theory need dishonesty to work?
This is a very odd but typical attack of a simple statement of fact. Am I to gather that your theory requires this type of behavior? My claim is that a refutation of Silverstein's "pull it" statement is not a refutation of CD and I would stand by that. I could expound further by adding that the asymmentric damage and fires do not explain the symetric, virtual free fall collapse of WTC 7 in just the manner expected by CD. The firefighter's comments that they "thought" the building was going to collapse is not an analysis or explanation of how and why it actually did collapse in the manner it did. There is quite a bit more work to it than that or else we would have seen the NIST report on it long ago.
A refutation that Silverstein meant demolition when he said "pull it" does not in any way refute the argument that WTC 7 was brought down by CD.
Your being dishonest. You know there is more than just Silverstein clearing up the "Pull it" quote.
Why are you being dishonest? Does your theory need dishonesty to work?
This is a very odd but typical attack of a simple statement of fact. Am I to gather that your theory requires this type of behavior? My claim is that a refutation of Silverstein's "pull it" statement is not a refutation of CD and I would stand by that. I could expound further by adding that the asymmentric damage and fires do not explain the symetric, virtual free fall collapse of WTC 7 in just the manner expected by CD. The firefighter's comments that they "thought" the building was going to collapse is not an analysis or explanation of how and why it actually did collapse in the manner it did. There is quite a bit more work to it than that or else we would have seen the NIST report on it long ago.
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation. If I did give only the Silverstein refutation then I would agree with you as well. The FACT which you typically over looked was all the other evidence I presented. The Pee Wee Herman "I know you are, what am I" response doesn't apply here.
I gave the argument before which I'm sure you heard but here it goes again...
If the supports were taken out by the impact of the building, fire and subsequent collapse of the penthouse just as a CD would have taken them out on the lower floors, why would you predict any other kind of collapse?
1) WTC debris hits building 7 creating a gaping hole 20 stories high in the center of the south side. This impact ALONE tilts the building so much even a laymen policeman thinks the building doesn't look right. They put a transit on the building which confirms what they see.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.htm
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
2) The fire continues to weaken the remaining supports where load was transfered.
3) The fire goes unchecked for 6 hours. (An increadible performance for a building which was just hit by another building I might add)
4) The fire weakens the already weakened steel enough to collapse the penthouse which removes even more lower supports. The fireman saying they heard creaking and saw buckling is evidence for this.
5) Loads transfers yet again to other remaining supports which are quickly overloaded.
6) Building falls somewhat like a CD because the lower supports were removed somewhat like a CD would have done. These supports were removed over time and proof of this is the firemans quotes saying the building didn't "look straight" and "didn’t look right" just by looking at it. This was hours before the building actually fell. They also heard creaking and saw buckling. This once again, doesn't look like a bomb blew up because bombs don't cause slow, increasing damage over time.
A refutation that Silverstein meant demolition when he said "pull it" does not in any way refute the argument that WTC 7 was brought down by CD.
Your being dishonest. You know there is more than just Silverstein clearing up the "Pull it" quote.
Why are you being dishonest? Does your theory need dishonesty to work?
This is a very odd but typical attack of a simple statement of fact. Am I to gather that your theory requires this type of behavior? My claim is that a refutation of Silverstein's "pull it" statement is not a refutation of CD and I would stand by that. I could expound further by adding that the asymmentric damage and fires do not explain the symetric, virtual free fall collapse of WTC 7 in just the manner expected by CD. The firefighter's comments that they "thought" the building was going to collapse is not an analysis or explanation of how and why it actually did collapse in the manner it did. There is quite a bit more work to it than that or else we would have seen the NIST report on it long ago.
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation. If I did give only the Silverstein refutation then I would agree with you as well. The FACT which you typically over looked was all the other evidence I presented. The Pee Wee Herman "I know you are, what am I" response doesn't apply here.
I gave the argument before which I'm sure you heard but here it goes again...
If the supports were taken out by the impact of the building, fire and subsequent collapse of the penthouse just as a CD would have taken them out on the lower floors, why would you predict any other kind of collapse?
1) WTC debris hits building 7 creating a gaping hole 20 stories high in the center of the south side. This impact ALONE tilts the building so much even a laymen policeman thinks the building doesn't look right. They put a transit on the building which confirms what they see.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.htm
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
2) The fire continues to weaken the remaining supports where load was transfered.
3) The fire goes unchecked for 6 hours. (An increadible performance for a building which was just hit by another building I might add)
4) The fire weakens the already weakened steel enough to collapse the penthouse which removes even more lower supports. The fireman saying they heard creaking and saw buckling is evidence for this.
5) Loads transfers yet again to other remaining supports which are quickly overloaded.
6) Building falls somewhat like a CD because the lower supports were removed somewhat like a CD would have done. These supports were removed over time and proof of this is the firemans quotes saying the building didn't "look straight" and "didn’t look right" just by looking at it. This was hours before the building actually fell. They also heard creaking and saw buckling. This once again, doesn't look like a bomb blew up because bombs don't cause slow, increasing damage over time.
Diveting, Dismissing, Denying.
Why don't you and YID, from your observations of the collapse footage, tell us what makes this different from a CD? Please show us which characteristics are different. The lights are a little sketchy. If a truck has no lights it is still a truck.
Just imagine what secret stuff the military has developed which we know nothing about (as yet), and I have long thought that conventional explosives can not provide for all the characteristics of the phenomena that we saw...
Here is an example of military technology. The military claims it is to take out ICBM's.
Airborne Laser given a reprieve — and challenging development schedule
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11961673/
Why don't you and YID, from your observations of the collapse footage, tell us what makes this different from a CD? Please show us which characteristics are different. The lights are a little sketchy. If a truck has no lights it is still a truck.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, I have to use large font for you...
This once again, doesn't look like a bomb blew up because bombs don't cause slow, increasing damage over time.
HEHE!
Shill, why are you "Diverting, Dismissing, Denying." what I wrote?
Why don't you and YID, from your observations of the collapse footage, tell us what makes this different from a CD? Please show us which characteristics are different. The lights are a little sketchy. If a truck has no lights it is still a truck.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, I have to use large font for you...
This once again, doesn't look like a bomb blew up because bombs don't cause slow, increasing damage over time.
HEHE!
Shill, why are you "Diverting, Dismissing, Denying." what I wrote?
I'm here for ya baby! But again,
Why don't you and YID, from your observations of the collapse footage, tell us what makes this different from a CD? Please show us which characteristics are different. The lights are a little sketchy. If a truck has no lights it is still a truck.
Nope, just simply ignoring you until I happened to notice my name(or rather the name you use for me)
Nope, just simply ignoring you until I happened to notice my name(or rather the name you use for me)
Quote:..."yes my position is that this firefighter never mentions anything about the conditions above the 78th floor, the lowest impact floor. Am I incorrect in that?"
Yes you are correct there, Yid. As he was reporting from the 78th floor (moments before the unexpected collapse), he did NOT reach the higher floors before his life was terminated by circumstances unforseen by him.
Good, we are in agreement. Then suppose that the next time one of your compatriots brings up this quote and uses it to determine that the fires were small perhaps you will correct them.
Taking the easy way out was not my point. See below.
Taking the easy way out was not my point. See below.
It doesn't matter WHO first brought up a certain topic... (my understanding is that we each have a choice as to which topic to respond to). Also, please note that I am NOT any kind of 'moderator' so my preferences regarding topics have no bearing whatsoever on the thread. Like you... I'm just a poster here, and have no influence on what the 'rules' should be. Please don't imply that I have sway over what anyone else posts. These threads are made up of individuals who do NOT see anyone else as their 'leader' ...
Quote: - I have , on many occasions complained about non-science issues being brought up here. I have been told that they are relevant and that I am just trying to shut down debate, that I am a lover of secrets. This time I instead went with it and now you and others are weeping that I am attacking straw men. Too bad so sad, your comrades made that bed and now you and others are avoiding laying on it.
You are copping-out, YID. Non-science issues will always overlap on these threads... so what? If YOU, wish to be an objective scientific observer / responder it is easy enough to 'blink-out' the 'fluff', and address the real issues... is it NOT ???
As I said THIS time I chose to run with it. The non-science nonsense was getting too much so I ran with it to illustrate just how ridiculous it really is. See below.
So again you simply refuse to admit that there is absolutely no relevance or significance to this. You seem to subscribe to the idea that there may in fact be some mysterious occult significance here.
I thought that my pointing out that subscribing to such nonsense makes the poster a laughing stock would suffice. Apparently I ascribe too much intelligence to some people.
So again you simply refuse to admit that there is absolutely no relevance or significance to this. You seem to subscribe to the idea that there may in fact be some mysterious occult significance here.
I thought that my pointing out that subscribing to such nonsense makes the poster a laughing stock would suffice. Apparently I ascribe too much intelligence to some people.
I don't wish to argue with you on your above perspective... but perhaps after resting over the weekend, you might consider making some kind of response to the NIST photos (I provided in my earlier post) which do NOT show 'raging infernos' on the floors above the 78th (reached by NYFD) ???
This subject has been discussed so many times here and elsewhere by others, that my re-iterating it isn't necessary. As pointed out many times , there is a search feature on this and other forums and I know you know how to use them. Is this just you wishing to get me, who was not in on refuting your argument re the fires, to comment on it? If so why?
Thanks for starting that new thread. Excellent move.
the point of posting is to keep a volume of text which speaks truth in the publicly searchable domain of hypertext.
mutiple hits with the exact same content are ignored.
unique statements are a 'weak force', lol.
the controlled demo video was very educational. thanks again, newtonnjd.
isn't it murderous(as opposed to 'funny'), foxx, how as soon as one spamachine is diverted, common sense kicks in?
Oh, let me guess, now I'm christopher right. HEHEHE! You gotta love these guys.
HEHEHE!!!
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 04:49 AM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 27 2006, 04:16 AM)
A refutation that Silverstein meant demolition when he said "pull it" does not in any way refute the argument that WTC 7 was brought down by CD.
Your being dishonest. You know there is more than just Silverstein clearing up the "Pull it" quote.
Why are you being dishonest? Does your theory need dishonesty to work?
This is a very odd but typical attack of a simple statement of fact. Am I to gather that your theory requires this type of behavior? My claim is that a refutation of Silverstein's "pull it" statement is not a refutation of CD and I would stand by that. I could expound further by adding that the asymmentric damage and fires do not explain the symetric, virtual free fall collapse of WTC 7 in just the manner expected by CD. The firefighter's comments that they "thought" the building was going to collapse is not an analysis or explanation of how and why it actually did collapse in the manner it did. There is quite a bit more work to it than that or else we would have seen the NIST report on it long ago.
QUOTE (HEH!+Mar 27 2006, 05:44 AM)
HEH!
well, like i said before, {size=18]i don't argue with 'people'[/size], i argue wih arguments.
well, like i said before, {size=18]i don't argue with 'people'[/size], i argue wih arguments.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 27 2006, 04:18 AM)
Good points Steve52.
.
.
.
I think we should be careful in suggesting 'normal' explosives such as RDX and C-4 were responsible, (although they may have been partially utilized). You disappeared for a while while discussions were advancing along the lines of more likely 'explosives' as thermobaric weapons, as well as 'superthermite'. Some new evidence has been uncovered regarding the potential of this 'superthermite' which utilizes nanotechnology to produce superfine aluminum powder which makes the 'superthermite' incendiary bombs more powerful and more 'controllable' that regular thermite (or thermate / diasite).
One of the 'problems' with RDX, C-4 and other types of conventional explosives (used in conventional controlled demolitions) is the very short heat productions of these. The heat is almost instantly generated and then quickly dissipated / changed to other forms of energy. For any explosive to fit the scenario it must create a huge heat 'reservoir' which could not only fuel the 'pyroclastic' expansion of the dust clouds, but also be transferred to the underground fires which caused rivers of molten steel beneath GZ...
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
Thermite (especially 'Superthermite') fits the parameters of what was observed related to the underground fires...
Continuing to burn even though a 'lake' of water was applied to it... Thermite will be fueled in many cases by applying water because a thermite fire can suck the oxygen out of water thereby extending it's burn rate (in compressed conditions where normally there is not a high oxygen content or source). Another 'flag' is the use of PyroCool which was eventually tried and succeeded in reducing the fires. Pre-2001 the main buyer of pyrocool was the military, which used it to extinguish incendiary fires such as napalm and thermite-based tank-busting grenades / rockets. Personally I find it VERY coincidental that the underground fires resisted ALL fire-fighting efforts at GZ until Pyrocool was applied...
http://www.pyrocool.org/news.htm
As I previously mentioned 'superthermite' fit's nicely with the observed circumstances... more info on superthemite can be found here...
http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/w...105,318,p1.html
And a special casing for this type of bomb is described in the links below...
.
.
.
Just some things to think about
What fox is saying is, think about something other than RDX and conventional explosives, something real impossible like thermobaric.
With concrete in close proximity to RDX, the concrete powder created will be heated to extremes, to the point where silicates and iron are bonded. Those particles will rise rapidly and release heat.
There was super thermite in the 1st level basement, but that is known for burning faster rather than slower so the notion of thermite still in existence after the initial burn is ludicrous. Molten steel in those quantities is plenty enough to account for what was seen.
.
.
.
I think we should be careful in suggesting 'normal' explosives such as RDX and C-4 were responsible, (although they may have been partially utilized). You disappeared for a while while discussions were advancing along the lines of more likely 'explosives' as thermobaric weapons, as well as 'superthermite'. Some new evidence has been uncovered regarding the potential of this 'superthermite' which utilizes nanotechnology to produce superfine aluminum powder which makes the 'superthermite' incendiary bombs more powerful and more 'controllable' that regular thermite (or thermate / diasite).
One of the 'problems' with RDX, C-4 and other types of conventional explosives (used in conventional controlled demolitions) is the very short heat productions of these. The heat is almost instantly generated and then quickly dissipated / changed to other forms of energy. For any explosive to fit the scenario it must create a huge heat 'reservoir' which could not only fuel the 'pyroclastic' expansion of the dust clouds, but also be transferred to the underground fires which caused rivers of molten steel beneath GZ...
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
Thermite (especially 'Superthermite') fits the parameters of what was observed related to the underground fires...
Continuing to burn even though a 'lake' of water was applied to it... Thermite will be fueled in many cases by applying water because a thermite fire can suck the oxygen out of water thereby extending it's burn rate (in compressed conditions where normally there is not a high oxygen content or source). Another 'flag' is the use of PyroCool which was eventually tried and succeeded in reducing the fires. Pre-2001 the main buyer of pyrocool was the military, which used it to extinguish incendiary fires such as napalm and thermite-based tank-busting grenades / rockets. Personally I find it VERY coincidental that the underground fires resisted ALL fire-fighting efforts at GZ until Pyrocool was applied...
http://www.pyrocool.org/news.htm
As I previously mentioned 'superthermite' fit's nicely with the observed circumstances... more info on superthemite can be found here...
http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/w...105,318,p1.html
And a special casing for this type of bomb is described in the links below...
.
.
.
Just some things to think about
What fox is saying is, think about something other than RDX and conventional explosives, something real impossible like thermobaric.
With concrete in close proximity to RDX, the concrete powder created will be heated to extremes, to the point where silicates and iron are bonded. Those particles will rise rapidly and release heat.
There was super thermite in the 1st level basement, but that is known for burning faster rather than slower so the notion of thermite still in existence after the initial burn is ludicrous. Molten steel in those quantities is plenty enough to account for what was seen.
As a sidenote about the spire and other columns, they are seen more clearly in the video below that was posted earlier. From the north and northeast it has the appearance of disappearing in dust. A number of the columns are seen more clearly as they fall down in the northwest video below. That should put to rest contentions that it somehow evaporated or turned to dust.
I'm referring to columns here, not the 'you know what'.
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
I'm referring to columns here, not the 'you know what'.
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 27 2006, 05:55 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 04:49 AM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 27 2006, 04:16 AM)
A refutation that Silverstein meant demolition when he said "pull it" does not in any way refute the argument that WTC 7 was brought down by CD.
Your being dishonest. You know there is more than just Silverstein clearing up the "Pull it" quote.
Why are you being dishonest? Does your theory need dishonesty to work?
This is a very odd but typical attack of a simple statement of fact. Am I to gather that your theory requires this type of behavior? My claim is that a refutation of Silverstein's "pull it" statement is not a refutation of CD and I would stand by that. I could expound further by adding that the asymmentric damage and fires do not explain the symetric, virtual free fall collapse of WTC 7 in just the manner expected by CD. The firefighter's comments that they "thought" the building was going to collapse is not an analysis or explanation of how and why it actually did collapse in the manner it did. There is quite a bit more work to it than that or else we would have seen the NIST report on it long ago.
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation. If I did give only the Silverstein refutation then I would agree with you as well. The FACT which you typically over looked was all the other evidence I presented. The Pee Wee Herman "I know you are, what am I" response doesn't apply here.
I gave the argument before which I'm sure you heard but here it goes again...
If the supports were taken out by the impact of the building, fire and subsequent collapse of the penthouse just as a CD would have taken them out on the lower floors, why would you predict any other kind of collapse?
1) WTC debris hits building 7 creating a gaping hole 20 stories high in the center of the south side. This impact ALONE tilts the building so much even a laymen policeman thinks the building doesn't look right. They put a transit on the building which confirms what they see.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.htm
QUOTE
Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see. |
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
2) The fire continues to weaken the remaining supports where load was transfered.
3) The fire goes unchecked for 6 hours. (An increadible performance for a building which was just hit by another building I might add)
4) The fire weakens the already weakened steel enough to collapse the penthouse which removes even more lower supports. The fireman saying they heard creaking and saw buckling is evidence for this.
5) Loads transfers yet again to other remaining supports which are quickly overloaded.
6) Building falls somewhat like a CD because the lower supports were removed somewhat like a CD would have done. These supports were removed over time and proof of this is the firemans quotes saying the building didn't "look straight" and "didn’t look right" just by looking at it. This was hours before the building actually fell. They also heard creaking and saw buckling. This once again, doesn't look like a bomb blew up because bombs don't cause slow, increasing damage over time.
Foxx sees a tube in a tube design without a concrete core in the Madrid building much like Christopher sees a concrete core in the WTC. 
- Landmark 29-floor tower on Madrid skyline remained standing despite a 26-hour, multiple-floor fire.
- Despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse.
- The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors.
- The building was in the process of refurbishment and fireproofing to modern standards when the fire occurred; some fireproofing was being provided on the steel perimeter columns.
- NIST's interim report on the World Trade Center disaster recommends the inclusion of 'strong points' within the building frame design - the Madrid Windsor - Building's strong points were its two concrete 'technical' floors and the concrete core system enabling the building to survive complete burnout.
- This case study is an example of the excellent performance of a concrete frame designed using traditional methods and subjected to an intense fire. It also highlights the risks when active fire protection measures fail or are not included in steel frame construction.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
This building was not hit by another building. Also the floors that DID callapse, did so after only 4 hours, not 26. The first steel to collapse was the east side of the 21st floor which was only 1:30 from the time the fire begain.
I think reasonwhy needs to start a thread called "Did the Madrid tower have a concrete core?" Heh!
- Despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse.
- The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors.
- The building was in the process of refurbishment and fireproofing to modern standards when the fire occurred; some fireproofing was being provided on the steel perimeter columns.
- NIST's interim report on the World Trade Center disaster recommends the inclusion of 'strong points' within the building frame design - the Madrid Windsor - Building's strong points were its two concrete 'technical' floors and the concrete core system enabling the building to survive complete burnout.
- This case study is an example of the excellent performance of a concrete frame designed using traditional methods and subjected to an intense fire. It also highlights the risks when active fire protection measures fail or are not included in steel frame construction.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
This building was not hit by another building. Also the floors that DID callapse, did so after only 4 hours, not 26. The first steel to collapse was the east side of the 21st floor which was only 1:30 from the time the fire begain.
I think reasonwhy needs to start a thread called "Did the Madrid tower have a concrete core?" Heh!
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 02:02 PM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 27 2006, 05:55 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 04:49 AM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 27 2006, 04:16 AM)
A refutation that Silverstein meant demolition when he said "pull it" does not in any way refute the argument that WTC 7 was brought down by CD.
Your being dishonest. You know there is more than just Silverstein clearing up the "Pull it" quote.
Why are you being dishonest? Does your theory need dishonesty to work?
This is a very odd but typical attack of a simple statement of fact. Am I to gather that your theory requires this type of behavior? My claim is that a refutation of Silverstein's "pull it" statement is not a refutation of CD and I would stand by that. I could expound further by adding that the asymmentric damage and fires do not explain the symetric, virtual free fall collapse of WTC 7 in just the manner expected by CD. The firefighter's comments that they "thought" the building was going to collapse is not an analysis or explanation of how and why it actually did collapse in the manner it did. There is quite a bit more work to it than that or else we would have seen the NIST report on it long ago.
YOU attacked ME by saying all I gave was a Silverstein refutation. If I did give only the Silverstein refutation then I would agree with you as well. The FACT which you typically over looked was all the other evidence I presented. The Pee Wee Herman "I know you are, what am I" response doesn't apply here.
I gave the argument before which I'm sure you heard but here it goes again...
If the supports were taken out by the impact of the building, fire and subsequent collapse of the penthouse just as a CD would have taken them out on the lower floors, why would you predict any other kind of collapse?
1) WTC debris hits building 7 creating a gaping hole 20 stories high in the center of the south side. This impact ALONE tilts the building so much even a laymen policeman thinks the building doesn't look right. They put a transit on the building which confirms what they see.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.htm
QUOTE
Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see. |
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
2) The fire continues to weaken the remaining supports where load was transfered.
3) The fire goes unchecked for 6 hours. (An increadible performance for a building which was just hit by another building I might add)
4) The fire weakens the already weakened steel enough to collapse the penthouse which removes even more lower supports. The fireman saying they heard creaking and saw buckling is evidence for this.
5) Loads transfers yet again to other remaining supports which are quickly overloaded.
6) Building falls somewhat like a CD because the lower supports were removed somewhat like a CD would have done. These supports were removed over time and proof of this is the firemans quotes saying the building didn't "look straight" and "didn’t look right" just by looking at it. This was hours before the building actually fell. They also heard creaking and saw buckling. This once again, doesn't look like a bomb blew up because bombs don't cause slow, increasing damage over time.
Diveting, Dismissing, Denying.
Diverting, Dismissing, Denying.
These also had there lower supports 'taken out'.
These also had there lower supports 'taken out'.
QUOTE
6) Building falls somewhat like a CD because the lower supports were removed somewhat like a CD would have done. These supports were removed over time and proof of this is the firemans quotes saying the building didn't "look straight" and "didn’t look right" just by looking at it. This was hours before the building actually fell. They also heard creaking and saw buckling. This once again, doesn't look like a bomb blew up because bombs don't cause slow, increasing damage over time.
Why don't you and YID, from your observations of the collapse footage, tell us what makes this different from a CD? Please show us which characteristics are different. The lights are a little sketchy. If a truck has no lights it is still a truck.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 26 2006, 08:18 PM)
Just imagine what secret stuff the military has developed which we know nothing about (as yet), and I have long thought that conventional explosives can not provide for all the characteristics of the phenomena that we saw...
Here is an example of military technology. The military claims it is to take out ICBM's.
Airborne Laser given a reprieve — and challenging development schedule
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11961673/
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 27 2006, 04:54 PM)
Diverting, Dismissing, Denying.
These also had there lower supports 'taken out'.
You must have not seen this...
But Jones and others making this claim know very well these buildings are not built like the towers. Most of the buildings they point to are steel reinforced concrete buildings. Others are constructed with a steel web evenly distributed throughout the building. These buildings are not a "tube in a tube" design. The towers were steel without concrete. The towers perimeter steel walls were held in place by the trusses and those trusses were connected to the perimeter columns by small bolts. They also weren't hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour.
The PBS special did a good job of explaining the difference between the towers construction and these other building conspiracy theorist like to point to. Most steel buildings have a web of steel like this...
The towers had most of the steel in this web on it's skin to save office space. Like this...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.h3.jpg
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
The towers and building 7 were essentially bolted together like an erector set. No concrete was used to create a ridged block and the steel webbing was pushed to the outer walls.
It is an absurdity to expect these buildings to perform the same during a collapse. This is why it's the first time in history these buildings fell as they did. It's the first time in history buildings constructed like this collapsed.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/firsttime.htm
These also had there lower supports 'taken out'.
You must have not seen this...
But Jones and others making this claim know very well these buildings are not built like the towers. Most of the buildings they point to are steel reinforced concrete buildings. Others are constructed with a steel web evenly distributed throughout the building. These buildings are not a "tube in a tube" design. The towers were steel without concrete. The towers perimeter steel walls were held in place by the trusses and those trusses were connected to the perimeter columns by small bolts. They also weren't hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour.
The PBS special did a good job of explaining the difference between the towers construction and these other building conspiracy theorist like to point to. Most steel buildings have a web of steel like this...
The towers had most of the steel in this web on it's skin to save office space. Like this...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.h3.jpg
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
The towers and building 7 were essentially bolted together like an erector set. No concrete was used to create a ridged block and the steel webbing was pushed to the outer walls.
It is an absurdity to expect these buildings to perform the same during a collapse. This is why it's the first time in history these buildings fell as they did. It's the first time in history buildings constructed like this collapsed.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/firsttime.htm
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 27 2006, 05:00 PM)
QUOTE
6) Building falls somewhat like a CD because the lower supports were removed somewhat like a CD would have done. These supports were removed over time and proof of this is the firemans quotes saying the building didn't "look straight" and "didn’t look right" just by looking at it. This was hours before the building actually fell. They also heard creaking and saw buckling. This once again, doesn't look like a bomb blew up because bombs don't cause slow, increasing damage over time.
Why don't you and YID, from your observations of the collapse footage, tell us what makes this different from a CD? Please show us which characteristics are different. The lights are a little sketchy. If a truck has no lights it is still a truck.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, I have to use large font for you...
This once again, doesn't look like a bomb blew up because bombs don't cause slow, increasing damage over time.
HEHE!
Shill, why are you "Diverting, Dismissing, Denying." what I wrote?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 05:35 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 27 2006, 05:00 PM)
QUOTE
6) Building falls somewhat like a CD because the lower supports were removed somewhat like a CD would have done. These supports were removed over time and proof of this is the firemans quotes saying the building didn't "look straight" and "didn’t look right" just by looking at it. This was hours before the building actually fell. They also heard creaking and saw buckling. This once again, doesn't look like a bomb blew up because bombs don't cause slow, increasing damage over time.
Why don't you and YID, from your observations of the collapse footage, tell us what makes this different from a CD? Please show us which characteristics are different. The lights are a little sketchy. If a truck has no lights it is still a truck.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, I have to use large font for you...
This once again, doesn't look like a bomb blew up because bombs don't cause slow, increasing damage over time.
HEHE!
Shill, why are you "Diverting, Dismissing, Denying." what I wrote?
I'm here for ya baby! But again,
Why don't you and YID, from your observations of the collapse footage, tell us what makes this different from a CD? Please show us which characteristics are different. The lights are a little sketchy. If a truck has no lights it is still a truck.
Fox
You may be correct about the exact types of bombs that were used, as I admit I have little knowledge in advanced chemistry and I certainly have no way of knowing what the latest toys are in the governments bag of tricks.
When I say RDX or C-4 it's more like an example of the types of bombs that have been used in control demolition, however you're probably correct that the government and/or it's hired killers may have used much more advanced types of explosives.
I also confess that you, Metemars, Gordon and several others, have much more in depth knowledge on these matters than I do, so I wouldn't want to prematurely state I know what types of explosives were used.
I had to use the chess analogy on the previous pages to illustrate something that I feel is relevant regarding this physics board.
I'm about a C or maybe B rated chess player. I'm probably one of the better players on the block, however an "A" player would kick my butt, and then an Expert would totally wipe me out, then a Master is even higher than that, and a senior Master, which has a chess rating of 2400 and above would totally destroy me blind folded.
My little brother has been a senior master for just over 20 years and there is no competition. Even though I taught him to play, he just got better and better at it, while I lost interest and couldn't commit 10 - 12 hours of my life every day to studying the game, however I know the basics.
And my point is, that even though I'm not a master, I know that white always moves first, (not to be racist, but in chess) and I know all the directions and rules of the pieces. I understand many of the strategies, but most importantly all of the main rules. Another words, if the top rated grandmaster in the world tried to tell me that bishops move vertical and horizontal, and rooks move diagonal, I would know for absolute certain the HE WAS WRONG.
Just as I'm not a PHD in physics, nor even an expert in the field, I do know some of the most basic, elementary laws of gravity and mathematics, and like a chess game, I understand the obvious and when someone is trying to PULL A FAST ONE.
So structural engineers and others, and maybe even people like common sense can kick my butt on the laws of physics, and maybe even Arthur knows more about science than I do, however I know enough about the basics, that they can't BS me, no matter how much they try.
Bishops move diagonal, there are 64 squares on a chess board, and explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings, these are the most basic of truths and facts that I know and understand, because I saw the evidence of what happened on 9/11, and I don't need to be a rocket scientist to know the advanced physics involved. I'll leave the more advanced, in depth complicated issues up to you guys, who have more knowledge in these fields.
However, if anyone tries to tell me that there are only 30 squares on a chess board, or rooks move diagonal, even if their a chess grandmaster, I'll know they're lying, just as I know that if anyone says explosives weren't used to bring down the WTC complex is lying as well, no matter how many PHD's they have.
You may be correct about the exact types of bombs that were used, as I admit I have little knowledge in advanced chemistry and I certainly have no way of knowing what the latest toys are in the governments bag of tricks.
When I say RDX or C-4 it's more like an example of the types of bombs that have been used in control demolition, however you're probably correct that the government and/or it's hired killers may have used much more advanced types of explosives.
I also confess that you, Metemars, Gordon and several others, have much more in depth knowledge on these matters than I do, so I wouldn't want to prematurely state I know what types of explosives were used.
I had to use the chess analogy on the previous pages to illustrate something that I feel is relevant regarding this physics board.
I'm about a C or maybe B rated chess player. I'm probably one of the better players on the block, however an "A" player would kick my butt, and then an Expert would totally wipe me out, then a Master is even higher than that, and a senior Master, which has a chess rating of 2400 and above would totally destroy me blind folded.
My little brother has been a senior master for just over 20 years and there is no competition. Even though I taught him to play, he just got better and better at it, while I lost interest and couldn't commit 10 - 12 hours of my life every day to studying the game, however I know the basics.
And my point is, that even though I'm not a master, I know that white always moves first, (not to be racist, but in chess) and I know all the directions and rules of the pieces. I understand many of the strategies, but most importantly all of the main rules. Another words, if the top rated grandmaster in the world tried to tell me that bishops move vertical and horizontal, and rooks move diagonal, I would know for absolute certain the HE WAS WRONG.
Just as I'm not a PHD in physics, nor even an expert in the field, I do know some of the most basic, elementary laws of gravity and mathematics, and like a chess game, I understand the obvious and when someone is trying to PULL A FAST ONE.
So structural engineers and others, and maybe even people like common sense can kick my butt on the laws of physics, and maybe even Arthur knows more about science than I do, however I know enough about the basics, that they can't BS me, no matter how much they try.
Bishops move diagonal, there are 64 squares on a chess board, and explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings, these are the most basic of truths and facts that I know and understand, because I saw the evidence of what happened on 9/11, and I don't need to be a rocket scientist to know the advanced physics involved. I'll leave the more advanced, in depth complicated issues up to you guys, who have more knowledge in these fields.
However, if anyone tries to tell me that there are only 30 squares on a chess board, or rooks move diagonal, even if their a chess grandmaster, I'll know they're lying, just as I know that if anyone says explosives weren't used to bring down the WTC complex is lying as well, no matter how many PHD's they have.
QUOTE
QUOTE
posted by Yid
Awww, Fox, I tend to have you on ignore. You remember ignore don't you.
Sorry I did not read your post.
Ahhh yes, YID... I also have used the 'ignore' function, so, I forgive you for not addressing the facts I presented - you were just 'caught-up' in other issues - right?
posted by Yid
Awww, Fox, I tend to have you on ignore. You remember ignore don't you.
Sorry I did not read your post.
Ahhh yes, YID... I also have used the 'ignore' function, so, I forgive you for not addressing the facts I presented - you were just 'caught-up' in other issues - right?
Nope, just simply ignoring you until I happened to notice my name(or rather the name you use for me)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE posted by Yid Awww, Fox, I tend to have you on ignore. You remember ignore don't you. Sorry I did not read your post. Ahhh yes, YID... I also have used the 'ignore' function, so, I forgive you for not addressing the facts I presented - you were just 'caught-up' in other issues - right? |
Nope, just simply ignoring you until I happened to notice my name(or rather the name you use for me)
Quote:..."yes my position is that this firefighter never mentions anything about the conditions above the 78th floor, the lowest impact floor. Am I incorrect in that?"
Yes you are correct there, Yid. As he was reporting from the 78th floor (moments before the unexpected collapse), he did NOT reach the higher floors before his life was terminated by circumstances unforseen by him.
Good, we are in agreement. Then suppose that the next time one of your compatriots brings up this quote and uses it to determine that the fires were small perhaps you will correct them.
QUOTE
"I have been speaking to the Charlie Sheen and paper money subjects specifically because I have addressed all the other issues before(with the exception of the Landmark which I also did address and will further address later)".
OK, great... when do you expect to address my previous posts of the factual evidence related to the 'alleged' infernos burning on floors above his position (and which I provided graphic photo-documentary evidence of...) ?
Quote: "I see that you are completely ignoring the fact that I did not bring up either Charlie Sheen or folding money. Others did. I am now being attacked for addressing two new issues on this thread. If you don't want non-physics issues brought into the discussion then perhaps those who bring them up should be told to stay on topic by you and others who those posters might listen to.
Pfftttt... get real, Yid. I was not 'attacking you' for not responding... I merely pointed out that you had a choice of which topics to respond to, and you chose the 'easiest'.
I don't blame you for taking the easy way out.
OK, great... when do you expect to address my previous posts of the factual evidence related to the 'alleged' infernos burning on floors above his position (and which I provided graphic photo-documentary evidence of...) ?
Quote: "I see that you are completely ignoring the fact that I did not bring up either Charlie Sheen or folding money. Others did. I am now being attacked for addressing two new issues on this thread. If you don't want non-physics issues brought into the discussion then perhaps those who bring them up should be told to stay on topic by you and others who those posters might listen to.
Pfftttt... get real, Yid. I was not 'attacking you' for not responding... I merely pointed out that you had a choice of which topics to respond to, and you chose the 'easiest'.
I don't blame you for taking the easy way out.
Taking the easy way out was not my point. See below.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "I have been speaking to the Charlie Sheen and paper money subjects specifically because I have addressed all the other issues before(with the exception of the Landmark which I also did address and will further address later)". OK, great... when do you expect to address my previous posts of the factual evidence related to the 'alleged' infernos burning on floors above his position (and which I provided graphic photo-documentary evidence of...) ? Quote: "I see that you are completely ignoring the fact that I did not bring up either Charlie Sheen or folding money. Others did. I am now being attacked for addressing two new issues on this thread. If you don't want non-physics issues brought into the discussion then perhaps those who bring them up should be told to stay on topic by you and others who those posters might listen to. Pfftttt... get real, Yid. I was not 'attacking you' for not responding... I merely pointed out that you had a choice of which topics to respond to, and you chose the 'easiest'. I don't blame you for taking the easy way out. |
Taking the easy way out was not my point. See below.
It doesn't matter WHO first brought up a certain topic... (my understanding is that we each have a choice as to which topic to respond to). Also, please note that I am NOT any kind of 'moderator' so my preferences regarding topics have no bearing whatsoever on the thread. Like you... I'm just a poster here, and have no influence on what the 'rules' should be. Please don't imply that I have sway over what anyone else posts. These threads are made up of individuals who do NOT see anyone else as their 'leader' ...
Quote: - I have , on many occasions complained about non-science issues being brought up here. I have been told that they are relevant and that I am just trying to shut down debate, that I am a lover of secrets. This time I instead went with it and now you and others are weeping that I am attacking straw men. Too bad so sad, your comrades made that bed and now you and others are avoiding laying on it.
You are copping-out, YID. Non-science issues will always overlap on these threads... so what? If YOU, wish to be an objective scientific observer / responder it is easy enough to 'blink-out' the 'fluff', and address the real issues... is it NOT ???
As I said THIS time I chose to run with it. The non-science nonsense was getting too much so I ran with it to illustrate just how ridiculous it really is. See below.
QUOTE
Personally, I don't have a problem in assimilating the folding money thingie... it's an oddity... it's a fact... what can I say?... however (as you claim to be MORE Interested in material sciences aspects) why not leave those 'mysterious' aspects aside... and address the real-world (material sciences aspects --- as I presented)?
Quote: "As far as I am concerned the issue of the folding money is settled. It is no more than the human brain's propensity to attempt to make sense of patterns by comparing them with experiences. It is completely irrelevant and bears absolutely no significance to the issue of 9/11. Good night and thanks for playing the Woo-Woo game.
Quote: "As far as I am concerned the issue of the folding money is settled. It is no more than the human brain's propensity to attempt to make sense of patterns by comparing them with experiences. It is completely irrelevant and bears absolutely no significance to the issue of 9/11. Good night and thanks for playing the Woo-Woo game.
So again you simply refuse to admit that there is absolutely no relevance or significance to this. You seem to subscribe to the idea that there may in fact be some mysterious occult significance here.
I thought that my pointing out that subscribing to such nonsense makes the poster a laughing stock would suffice. Apparently I ascribe too much intelligence to some people.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Personally, I don't have a problem in assimilating the folding money thingie... it's an oddity... it's a fact... what can I say?... however (as you claim to be MORE Interested in material sciences aspects) why not leave those 'mysterious' aspects aside... and address the real-world (material sciences aspects --- as I presented)? Quote: "As far as I am concerned the issue of the folding money is settled. It is no more than the human brain's propensity to attempt to make sense of patterns by comparing them with experiences. It is completely irrelevant and bears absolutely no significance to the issue of 9/11. Good night and thanks for playing the Woo-Woo game. |
So again you simply refuse to admit that there is absolutely no relevance or significance to this. You seem to subscribe to the idea that there may in fact be some mysterious occult significance here.
I thought that my pointing out that subscribing to such nonsense makes the poster a laughing stock would suffice. Apparently I ascribe too much intelligence to some people.
I don't wish to argue with you on your above perspective... but perhaps after resting over the weekend, you might consider making some kind of response to the NIST photos (I provided in my earlier post) which do NOT show 'raging infernos' on the floors above the 78th (reached by NYFD) ???
This subject has been discussed so many times here and elsewhere by others, that my re-iterating it isn't necessary. As pointed out many times , there is a search feature on this and other forums and I know you know how to use them. Is this just you wishing to get me, who was not in on refuting your argument re the fires, to comment on it? If so why?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 05:32 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 27 2006, 04:54 PM)
Diverting, Dismissing, Denying.
These also had there lower supports 'taken out'.
You must have not seen this...
But Jones and others making this claim know very well these buildings are not built like the towers. Most of the buildings they point to are steel reinforced concrete buildings. Others are constructed with a steel web evenly distributed throughout the building. These buildings are not a "tube in a tube" design. The towers were steel without concrete. The towers perimeter steel walls were held in place by the trusses and those trusses were connected to the perimeter columns by small bolts. They also weren't hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour.
The PBS special did a good job of explaining the difference between the towers construction and these other building conspiracy theorist like to point to. Most steel buildings have a web of steel like this...
The towers had most of the steel in this web on it's skin to save office space. Like this...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.h3.jpg
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
The towers and building 7 were essentially bolted together like an erector set. No concrete was used to create a ridged block and the steel webbing was pushed to the outer walls.
It is an absurdity to expect these buildings to perform the same during a collapse. This is why it's the first time in history these buildings fell as they did. It's the first time in history buildings constructed like this collapsed.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/firsttime.htm
If an image of any of this in the core could produced during demo, this post would make sense. Since it cannot, this post is senseless misinformation. Unless you support lies.
A refutation that Silverstein meant demolition when he said "pull it" does not in any way refute the argument that WTC 7 was brought down by CD.
Your being dishonest. You know there is more than just Silverstein clearing up the "Pull it" quote.
Why are you being dishonest? Does your theory need dishonesty to work?
This is a very odd but typical attack of a simple statement of fact. Am I to gather that your theory requires this type of behavior? My claim is that a refutation of Silverstein's "pull it" statement is not a refutation of CD and I would stand by that. I could expound further by adding that the asymmentric damage and fires do not explain the symetric, virtual free fall collapse of WTC 7 in just the manner expected by CD. The firefighter's comments that they "thought" the building was going to collapse is not an analysis or explanation of how and why it actually did collapse in the manner it did. There is quite a bit more work to it than that or else we would have seen the NIST report on it long ago.
This is testimony,
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
more valuable than any a court in this land would allow. This is OUR information from US, the people.
No page, except
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
actually provides an feasable definition of exactly HOW a demolition appearing just as we saw, could be done.
We're talking free fall and pulverization. Two profound factors of the WTC. It also addresses very reasonably, from a technical as well as behavioral perspective, the impossible impact/fall sequence, additionally providing an explnation for flight 93's wandering around. No other page is comprehensive to all these factors or even provides a feasable way to create free fall.
These also had there lower supports 'taken out'.
You must have not seen this...
But Jones and others making this claim know very well these buildings are not built like the towers. Most of the buildings they point to are steel reinforced concrete buildings. Others are constructed with a steel web evenly distributed throughout the building. These buildings are not a "tube in a tube" design. The towers were steel without concrete. The towers perimeter steel walls were held in place by the trusses and those trusses were connected to the perimeter columns by small bolts. They also weren't hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour.
The PBS special did a good job of explaining the difference between the towers construction and these other building conspiracy theorist like to point to. Most steel buildings have a web of steel like this...
The towers had most of the steel in this web on it's skin to save office space. Like this...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7.h3.jpg
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
The towers and building 7 were essentially bolted together like an erector set. No concrete was used to create a ridged block and the steel webbing was pushed to the outer walls.
It is an absurdity to expect these buildings to perform the same during a collapse. This is why it's the first time in history these buildings fell as they did. It's the first time in history buildings constructed like this collapsed.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/firsttime.htm
If an image of any of this in the core could produced during demo, this post would make sense. Since it cannot, this post is senseless misinformation. Unless you support lies.
yesdidit,
No matter how much scientific gobbledygook, you can't change the most basic and elementary laws of physics and...
gravity
No matter how much scientific gobbledygook, you can't change the most basic and elementary laws of physics and...
gravity
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 25 2006, 04:26 PM)
lenbrazil, it's over, you lost the debate
The speed of the colapse "Slash"
The towers fell at virtual free fall speed [color=red]"Slash"
Wow, steve52, two points for you.
Except that there are both the same point and that the speed of the collapse has never been shown to be beyond that which a gravity collapse would generate.
I bet you think that cutting the grass and mowing the lawn are two separate jobs around the house as well.
The speed of the colapse "Slash"
The towers fell at virtual free fall speed [color=red]"Slash"
Wow, steve52, two points for you.
Except that there are both the same point and that the speed of the collapse has never been shown to be beyond that which a gravity collapse would generate.
I bet you think that cutting the grass and mowing the lawn are two separate jobs around the house as well.
Common sense - why are you posting here? You should be a busy man right now, working with NIST on their WTC7 report, because you seem to know exactly how the collapse happened. Dr Sunder says he doesn't know, so he could sure use your help! Have you contacted him yet?
(And no, I am not ignoring your actual arguments, I only have a few minutes to post during lunch break)
(And no, I am not ignoring your actual arguments, I only have a few minutes to post during lunch break)
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 27 2006, 06:41 PM)
yesdidit,
No matter how much scientific gobbledygook, you can't change the most basic and elementary laws of physics and...
gravity
Wow, a first. steve52 actually understands that gravity works straight downwards.Next thing we know he will have taken a course in high school physics.
No matter how much scientific gobbledygook, you can't change the most basic and elementary laws of physics and...
gravity
Wow, a first. steve52 actually understands that gravity works straight downwards.Next thing we know he will have taken a course in high school physics.
If we are still on the Landmark v. WTC 7 collapses, I believe that newtonnjd commented something along the line that CD use on some central columns would explain the fall of WTC 7. I brought up the preliminary explanation that NIST published.
Seems then that newtonnjd and NIST are in agreement that damage to central columns would account for the collapse as seen.
We also have witness testimony about the condition of WTC 7 starting just after WTC 1 fell. That testimony gives us that the building was considered unstable right from that point on.
We also have the photos of fires throughout the building and pictures of some of the impact damage done to the building.
There are no facts in evidence that explosives were used to damage WTC 7. No one saw any explosives being loaded into the building, no one saw any explosives going off (ala the Landmark for instance).
Given those facts in evidence it stands to reason that the damage to the columns that eventually led to the collapse of WTC7 was done by the impact damage and the subsequent fires.
Seems then that newtonnjd and NIST are in agreement that damage to central columns would account for the collapse as seen.
We also have witness testimony about the condition of WTC 7 starting just after WTC 1 fell. That testimony gives us that the building was considered unstable right from that point on.
We also have the photos of fires throughout the building and pictures of some of the impact damage done to the building.
There are no facts in evidence that explosives were used to damage WTC 7. No one saw any explosives being loaded into the building, no one saw any explosives going off (ala the Landmark for instance).
Given those facts in evidence it stands to reason that the damage to the columns that eventually led to the collapse of WTC7 was done by the impact damage and the subsequent fires.
Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?
Yes 83% 44816 votes
No 17% 9106 votes
Total: 53922 votes
http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.exclude.html
Yes 83% 44816 votes
No 17% 9106 votes
Total: 53922 votes
http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.exclude.html
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 27 2006, 05:55 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 04:49 AM)
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 27 2006, 04:16 AM)
A refutation that Silverstein meant demolition when he said "pull it" does not in any way refute the argument that WTC 7 was brought down by CD.
Your being dishonest. You know there is more than just Silverstein clearing up the "Pull it" quote.
Why are you being dishonest? Does your theory need dishonesty to work?
This is a very odd but typical attack of a simple statement of fact. Am I to gather that your theory requires this type of behavior? My claim is that a refutation of Silverstein's "pull it" statement is not a refutation of CD and I would stand by that. I could expound further by adding that the asymmentric damage and fires do not explain the symetric, virtual free fall collapse of WTC 7 in just the manner expected by CD. The firefighter's comments that they "thought" the building was going to collapse is not an analysis or explanation of how and why it actually did collapse in the manner it did. There is quite a bit more work to it than that or else we would have seen the NIST report on it long ago.
This is testimony,
http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpg
more valuable than any a court in this land would allow. This is OUR information from US, the people.
No page, except
http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html
actually provides an feasable definition of exactly HOW a demolition appearing just as we saw, could be done.
We're talking free fall and pulverization. Two profound factors of the WTC. It also addresses very reasonably, from a technical as well as behavioral perspective, the impossible impact/fall sequence, additionally providing an explnation for flight 93's wandering around. No other page is comprehensive to all these factors or even provides a feasable way to create free fall.
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 27 2006, 06:41 PM)
yesdidit,
No matter how much scientific gobbledygook, you can't change the most basic and elementary laws of physics and...
gravity
ouch!
painful memories.
No matter how much scientific gobbledygook, you can't change the most basic and elementary laws of physics and...
gravity
ouch!
painful memories.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 27 2006, 06:55 PM)
If we are still on the Landmark v. WTC 7 collapses, I believe that newtonnjd commented something along the line that CD use on some central columns would explain the fall of WTC 7. I brought up the preliminary explanation that NIST published.
Seems then that newtonnjd and NIST are in agreement that damage to central columns would account for the collapse as seen.
We also have witness testimony about the condition of WTC 7 starting just after WTC 1 fell. That testimony gives us that the building was considered unstable right from that point on.
We also have the photos of fires throughout the building and pictures of some of the impact damage done to the building.
There are no facts in evidence that explosives were used to damage WTC 7. No one saw any explosives being loaded into the building, no one saw any explosives going off (ala the Landmark for instance).
Given those facts in evidence it stands to reason that the damage to the columns that eventually led to the collapse of WTC7 was done by the impact damage and the subsequent fires.
You're arguments are weaker and weaker. We know how the Landmark towers were brought down. How did the WTC 7, collapse in the same manner using the fire hypothesis? Because they said so, isn't convincing me.
Seems then that newtonnjd and NIST are in agreement that damage to central columns would account for the collapse as seen.
We also have witness testimony about the condition of WTC 7 starting just after WTC 1 fell. That testimony gives us that the building was considered unstable right from that point on.
We also have the photos of fires throughout the building and pictures of some of the impact damage done to the building.
There are no facts in evidence that explosives were used to damage WTC 7. No one saw any explosives being loaded into the building, no one saw any explosives going off (ala the Landmark for instance).
Given those facts in evidence it stands to reason that the damage to the columns that eventually led to the collapse of WTC7 was done by the impact damage and the subsequent fires.
You're arguments are weaker and weaker. We know how the Landmark towers were brought down. How did the WTC 7, collapse in the same manner using the fire hypothesis? Because they said so, isn't convincing me.
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 27 2006, 07:43 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 27 2006, 06:55 PM)
If we are still on the Landmark v. WTC 7 collapses, I believe that newtonnjd commented something along the line that CD use on some central columns would explain the fall of WTC 7. I brought up the preliminary explanation that NIST published.
Seems then that newtonnjd and NIST are in agreement that damage to central columns would account for the collapse as seen.
We also have witness testimony about the condition of WTC 7 starting just after WTC 1 fell. That testimony gives us that the building was considered unstable right from that point on.
We also have the photos of fires throughout the building and pictures of some of the impact damage done to the building.
There are no facts in evidence that explosives were used to damage WTC 7. No one saw any explosives being loaded into the building, no one saw any explosives going off (ala the Landmark for instance).
Given those facts in evidence it stands to reason that the damage to the columns that eventually led to the collapse of WTC7 was done by the impact damage and the subsequent fires.
You're arguments are weaker and weaker. We know how the Landmark towers were brought down. How did the WTC 7, collapse in the same manner using the fire hypothesis? Because they said so, isn't convincing me.
Weaker and weaker, yes, .......... in fact an understatement. It is common knowledge that many parts of the privately owned structure underwent extensive remodeling.
You don't just "place" thermite. You must get contact with the metal, hence, remodel.
Hey, Rome wasn't built in a day, I'm still excited about knowing that 2 + 2 = 4
But even guys and girls who still use training wheels know that highrise buildings can't collapse at virtual free fall speed, unless the resistance factor is taken away.
Hey, Rome wasn't built in a day, I'm still excited about knowing that 2 + 2 = 4
But even guys and girls who still use training wheels know that highrise buildings can't collapse at virtual free fall speed, unless the resistance factor is taken away.
= 75 millisecond delay per floors and 300 millisecond delays for 40 foot sections of the cast core.
Interior box columns severd with built in high explosive floor design and shearing, imploding gas plane, making square cuts in columns at floors where set.
And sometimes 2 + 2 = 22
Why don't you and YID, from your observations of the collapse footage, tell us what makes this different from a CD? Please show us which characteristics are different. The lights are a little sketchy. If a truck has no lights it is still a truck.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, I have to use large font for you...
This once again, doesn't look like a bomb blew up because bombs don't cause slow, increasing damage over time.
HEHE!
Shill, why are you "Diverting, Dismissing, Denying." what I wrote?
I'm here for ya baby! But again,
Why don't you and YID, from your observations of the collapse footage, tell us what makes this different from a CD? Please show us which characteristics are different. The lights are a little sketchy. If a truck has no lights it is still a truck.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, I have to use large font for you...
This once again, doesn't look like a bomb blew up because bombs don't cause slow, increasing damage over time.
HEHE!
Shill, why are you "Diverting, Dismissing, Denying." what I wrote?
Seems then that newtonnjd and NIST are in agreement that damage to central columns would account for the collapse as seen.
We also have witness testimony about the condition of WTC 7 starting just after WTC 1 fell. That testimony gives us that the building was considered unstable right from that point on.
We also have the photos of fires throughout the building and pictures of some of the impact damage done to the building.
There are no facts in evidence that explosives were used to damage WTC 7. No one saw any explosives being loaded into the building, no one saw any explosives going off (ala the Landmark for instance).
Given those facts in evidence it stands to reason that the damage to the columns that eventually led to the collapse of WTC7 was done by the impact damage and the subsequent fires.
You're arguments are weaker and weaker. We know how the Landmark towers were brought down. How did the WTC 7, collapse in the same manner using the fire hypothesis? Because they said so, isn't convincing me.
Weaker and weaker, yes, .......... in fact an understatement. It is common knowledge that many parts of the privately owned structure underwent extensive remodeling.
You don't just "place" thermite. You must get contact with the metal, hence, remodel.
QUOTE
Yesdidit
Wow, a first. steve52 actually understands that gravity works straight downwards.Next thing we know he will have taken a course in high school physics.
Wow, a first. steve52 actually understands that gravity works straight downwards.Next thing we know he will have taken a course in high school physics.
Hey, Rome wasn't built in a day, I'm still excited about knowing that 2 + 2 = 4
But even guys and girls who still use training wheels know that highrise buildings can't collapse at virtual free fall speed, unless the resistance factor is taken away.
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 27 2006, 08:22 PM)
QUOTE
Yesdidit
Wow, a first. steve52 actually understands that gravity works straight downwards.Next thing we know he will have taken a course in high school physics.
Wow, a first. steve52 actually understands that gravity works straight downwards.Next thing we know he will have taken a course in high school physics.
Hey, Rome wasn't built in a day, I'm still excited about knowing that 2 + 2 = 4
But even guys and girls who still use training wheels know that highrise buildings can't collapse at virtual free fall speed, unless the resistance factor is taken away.
= 75 millisecond delay per floors and 300 millisecond delays for 40 foot sections of the cast core.
Interior box columns severd with built in high explosive floor design and shearing, imploding gas plane, making square cuts in columns at floors where set.
And sometimes 2 + 2 = 22
LET'S READ AND FIND OUT:
In an action filed in September 2002, the Port Authority was sued by Con Edison and its insurers for $314 million for the destruction of a Con Edison substation at 7 World Trade Center.
The substation was built at Washington and Barclay streets in 1970 to provide electricity to the World Trade Center and the surrounding area. In 1983, 7 World Trade Center was built on top of and adjacent to the substation and in 1999 New York City constructed its emergency "command bunker" on the 23rd floor of the building.
To accommodate a potential shortage of fuel and a loss of power, and to keep the command bunker running in an emergency, a series of diesel fuel tanks and electricity generators were installed in the building.
The collapse of the south and north towers of the World Trade Center within 29 minutes of one another triggered a fire at 7 World Trade Center and the explosion of the diesel tanks, which plaintiffs charge was the reason the building collapsed on Sept. 11.
The suit alleges that Con Edison's substation as well as its equipment and other facilities on site would have sustained merely "minor damage" had the Port Authority chosen to adhere to fire codes. Simply locating the diesel tanks in the building was negligent, the suit charges, adding that the tanks were also improperly located and constructed.
The lawsuit, filed by Ganet, Kallmann, Antin & Robinson, also charges that "the Port Authority did not apply, interpret and enforce safe engineering practices and standards commonly known and utilized in high-rise office buildings throughout the City and State of New York."
The individual wrongful-death actions filed by Speiser Krause and other firms follow filing of notice of intent to sue the Port Authority by more than 1,000 families.
CASE CLOSED............
NF
In an action filed in September 2002, the Port Authority was sued by Con Edison and its insurers for $314 million for the destruction of a Con Edison substation at 7 World Trade Center.
The substation was built at Washington and Barclay streets in 1970 to provide electricity to the World Trade Center and the surrounding area. In 1983, 7 World Trade Center was built on top of and adjacent to the substation and in 1999 New York City constructed its emergency "command bunker" on the 23rd floor of the building.
To accommodate a potential shortage of fuel and a loss of power, and to keep the command bunker running in an emergency, a series of diesel fuel tanks and electricity generators were installed in the building.
The collapse of the south and north towers of the World Trade Center within 29 minutes of one another triggered a fire at 7 World Trade Center and the explosion of the diesel tanks, which plaintiffs charge was the reason the building collapsed on Sept. 11.
The suit alleges that Con Edison's substation as well as its equipment and other facilities on site would have sustained merely "minor damage" had the Port Authority chosen to adhere to fire codes. Simply locating the diesel tanks in the building was negligent, the suit charges, adding that the tanks were also improperly located and constructed.
The lawsuit, filed by Ganet, Kallmann, Antin & Robinson, also charges that "the Port Authority did not apply, interpret and enforce safe engineering practices and standards commonly known and utilized in high-rise office buildings throughout the City and State of New York."
The individual wrongful-death actions filed by Speiser Krause and other firms follow filing of notice of intent to sue the Port Authority by more than 1,000 families.
CASE CLOSED............
NF
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 27 2006, 06:04 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 05:35 PM)
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 27 2006, 05:00 PM)
QUOTE
6) Building falls somewhat like a CD because the lower supports were removed somewhat like a CD would have done. These supports were removed over time and proof of this is the firemans quotes saying the building didn't "look straight" and "didn’t look right" just by looking at it. This was hours before the building actually fell. They also heard creaking and saw buckling. This once again, doesn't look like a bomb blew up because bombs don't cause slow, increasing damage over time.
Why don't you and YID, from your observations of the collapse footage, tell us what makes this different from a CD? Please show us which characteristics are different. The lights are a little sketchy. If a truck has no lights it is still a truck.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, I have to use large font for you...
This once again, doesn't look like a bomb blew up because bombs don't cause slow, increasing damage over time.
HEHE!
Shill, why are you "Diverting, Dismissing, Denying." what I wrote?
I'm here for ya baby! But again,
Why don't you and YID, from your observations of the collapse footage, tell us what makes this different from a CD? Please show us which characteristics are different. The lights are a little sketchy. If a truck has no lights it is still a truck.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, I have to use large font for you...
This once again, doesn't look like a bomb blew up because bombs don't cause slow, increasing damage over time.
HEHE!
Shill, why are you "Diverting, Dismissing, Denying." what I wrote?
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 27 2006, 01:12 PM)
LET'S READ AND FIND OUT:
In an action filed in September 2002, the Port Authority was sued by Con Edison and its insurers for $314 million for the destruction of a Con Edison substation at 7 World Trade Center.
The substation was built at Washington and Barclay streets in 1970 to provide electricity to the World Trade Center and the surrounding area. In 1983, 7 World Trade Center was built on top of and adjacent to the substation and in 1999 New York City constructed its emergency "command bunker" on the 23rd floor of the building.
To accommodate a potential shortage of fuel and a loss of power, and to keep the command bunker running in an emergency, a series of diesel fuel tanks and electricity generators were installed in the building.
The collapse of the south and north towers of the World Trade Center within 29 minutes of one another triggered a fire at 7 World Trade Center and the explosion of the diesel tanks, which plaintiffs charge was the reason the building collapsed on Sept. 11.
The suit alleges that Con Edison's substation as well as its equipment and other facilities on site would have sustained merely "minor damage" had the Port Authority chosen to adhere to fire codes. Simply locating the diesel tanks in the building was negligent, the suit charges, adding that the tanks were also improperly located and constructed.
The lawsuit, filed by Ganet, Kallmann, Antin & Robinson, also charges that "the Port Authority did not apply, interpret and enforce safe engineering practices and standards commonly known and utilized in high-rise office buildings throughout the City and State of New York."
The individual wrongful-death actions filed by Speiser Krause and other firms follow filing of notice of intent to sue the Port Authority by more than 1,000 families.
CASE CLOSED............
NF
I think everyone would appreciate if you listed references and the point you are trying to make or prove. You can state whatever you want when filling a lawsuit.
In an action filed in September 2002, the Port Authority was sued by Con Edison and its insurers for $314 million for the destruction of a Con Edison substation at 7 World Trade Center.
The substation was built at Washington and Barclay streets in 1970 to provide electricity to the World Trade Center and the surrounding area. In 1983, 7 World Trade Center was built on top of and adjacent to the substation and in 1999 New York City constructed its emergency "command bunker" on the 23rd floor of the building.
To accommodate a potential shortage of fuel and a loss of power, and to keep the command bunker running in an emergency, a series of diesel fuel tanks and electricity generators were installed in the building.
The collapse of the south and north towers of the World Trade Center within 29 minutes of one another triggered a fire at 7 World Trade Center and the explosion of the diesel tanks, which plaintiffs charge was the reason the building collapsed on Sept. 11.
The suit alleges that Con Edison's substation as well as its equipment and other facilities on site would have sustained merely "minor damage" had the Port Authority chosen to adhere to fire codes. Simply locating the diesel tanks in the building was negligent, the suit charges, adding that the tanks were also improperly located and constructed.
The lawsuit, filed by Ganet, Kallmann, Antin & Robinson, also charges that "the Port Authority did not apply, interpret and enforce safe engineering practices and standards commonly known and utilized in high-rise office buildings throughout the City and State of New York."
The individual wrongful-death actions filed by Speiser Krause and other firms follow filing of notice of intent to sue the Port Authority by more than 1,000 families.
CASE CLOSED............
NF
I think everyone would appreciate if you listed references and the point you are trying to make or prove. You can state whatever you want when filling a lawsuit.
Lets get some facts straight here regarding the comparison between the Edificio Windsor (Spain) and the WTC (NY) FIRES & Collapses.
'Non-sense' (and other tin-hats), I note... seem to pick and choose 'alleged facts' and pope-ishly pronounce such as 'truth' without giving references to where he gets the 'information' from. He culls chosen quotes to only such as seems to support his nonsense.
It is true that the Windsor suffered a COMPLETE burnout above the second floor, over the course of 18 - 20 hours. This complete gutting of the building occured - not only in the areas of the collapse above the 17th floor, but also on all floors right down to the second story. It is misleading to state that the strength (to resist collapse BELOW the 17th floor) was due to a 'technical concrete floor'.
A 'technical' floor is another term for a 'mechanical floor' where services and equipment is housed. Just to be clear - in building terminology a 'technical floor' is the same thing as a 'mechanical' floor.
As a mechanical floor will house much of the heavy equipment required to service the building... in a 'tube designed building' the mechanical floors are NOT simple truss floors but are constructed of heavy steel beams usually overlaid by a steel-reinforced concrete floor, as opposed to the 'lightweight' concrete floors utilized in the truss floor levels.
The important design criteria related to the mechanical floors, is NOT in the concrete floor itself, but rather in the massive steel beam framework which underlies the concrete floor. It is NOT (as implied by 'No-common-sense') the concrete which arrested the further collapse beyond the 17th floor of the Madrid Windsor, but rather the massive steel beams which supported that floor.
'Non-sensical' further compounds his misinformation in his above statement by claiming that "the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse.
This statement is made from the perspective of an orator who is speaking well outside his empirical knowledge of the words he has chosen.
The "passive fire resistance" relates to 'fire-proofing' applied to steel beams... either in the form of sprayed on coatings OR concrete applications. It is a misnomer to state that the Madrid Windsor had a "concrete core".
The 'core' of the Windsor was constructed of steel-reinforced concrete columns (as opposed to steel columns - like in the WTC towers).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/madr_collapse.jpg
These steel-reinforced concrete columns aided in keeping the core of the building from collapsing, but were NOT instrumental in keeping the ENTIRE building from collapsing - ONLY the core section in the fire-zone above the 17th floor.
Even this is not absolutely correct, because a section of the northern part of the concrete core columns also collapsed, due to concrete spalling. There were no concrete walls in the core of madrid Windsor (as is obvious from the photo above).
So, again 'Non-Sense' (either through a lack of engineering knowledge OR deliberate misinformation) obfuscates the meaning of the words he has chosen.
It is true that the Windsor suffered a COMPLETE burnout above the second floor, over the course of 18 - 20 hours. This complete gutting of the building occured - not only in the areas of the collapse above the 17th floor, but also on all floors right down to the second story. It is misleading to state that the strength (to resist collapse BELOW the 17th floor) was due to a 'technical concrete floor'.
A 'technical' floor is another term for a 'mechanical floor' where services and equipment is housed. Just to be clear - in building terminology a 'technical floor' is the same thing as a 'mechanical' floor.
As a mechanical floor will house much of the heavy equipment required to service the building... in a 'tube designed building' the mechanical floors are NOT simple truss floors but are constructed of heavy steel beams usually overlaid by a steel-reinforced concrete floor, as opposed to the 'lightweight' concrete floors utilized in the truss floor levels.
The important design criteria related to the mechanical floors, is NOT in the concrete floor itself, but rather in the massive steel beam framework which underlies the concrete floor. It is NOT (as implied by 'No-common-sense') the concrete which arrested the further collapse beyond the 17th floor of the Madrid Windsor, but rather the massive steel beams which supported that floor.
'Non-sensical' further compounds his misinformation in his above statement by claiming that "the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse.
This statement is made from the perspective of an orator who is speaking well outside his empirical knowledge of the words he has chosen.
The "passive fire resistance" relates to 'fire-proofing' applied to steel beams... either in the form of sprayed on coatings OR concrete applications. It is a misnomer to state that the Madrid Windsor had a "concrete core".
The 'core' of the Windsor was constructed of steel-reinforced concrete columns (as opposed to steel columns - like in the WTC towers).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/madr_collapse.jpg
These steel-reinforced concrete columns aided in keeping the core of the building from collapsing, but were NOT instrumental in keeping the ENTIRE building from collapsing - ONLY the core section in the fire-zone above the 17th floor.
Even this is not absolutely correct, because a section of the northern part of the concrete core columns also collapsed, due to concrete spalling. There were no concrete walls in the core of madrid Windsor (as is obvious from the photo above).
So, again 'Non-Sense' (either through a lack of engineering knowledge OR deliberate misinformation) obfuscates the meaning of the words he has chosen.
more 'pope-ish' BS based upon faulty research of disinformation
The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors.
Not true - as I have pointed out ... also part of the central core collapsed
The fireproofing of perimeter columns (in the Windsor) had ONLY been completed UP TO the 17th floor at the time of the fire and collapse. The perimeter columns above the 17th floor had NOT yet had fire-proofing applied at the time of the fire outbreak.
Conversely, ALL the perimeter columns in the World Trade center DID have fireproofing applied, and ONLY those perimeter columns that were directly impacted by the aircraft possibly had their fire-proofing abraded away during the impact sequence.
Once again, 'Non-Sense' is either ignorant of the true facts... OR is deliberately lying.
The fireproofing of perimeter columns (in the Windsor) had ONLY been completed UP TO the 17th floor at the time of the fire and collapse. The perimeter columns above the 17th floor had NOT yet had fire-proofing applied at the time of the fire outbreak.
Conversely, ALL the perimeter columns in the World Trade center DID have fireproofing applied, and ONLY those perimeter columns that were directly impacted by the aircraft possibly had their fire-proofing abraded away during the impact sequence.
Once again, 'Non-Sense' is either ignorant of the true facts... OR is deliberately lying.
re-inforcement by repetition of lies
NIST's interim report on the World Trade Center disaster recommends the inclusion of 'strong points' within the building frame design - the Madrid Windsor - Building's strong points were its two concrete 'technical' floors and the concrete core system enabling the building to survive complete burnout.
I suppose the fairy tale obfuscators believe that if they repeat the same BS over and over, some may be confused and led away from the truth. I have addressed this BS above.
The concrete center surely would be unbiased in making such claims, and neither would they be trying to capitalize on unfounded comparisons!
It is noteworthy that the "Concrete Center" avoids discussion of concrete spalling in major fires, and also 'forgets' to mention the partial collapse of the concrete core columns in the Madrid fire.
I don't find it 'amazing' that concrete proponents would have an economic agenda in promoting their product... nor that idiots like 'Non-Sense' would repeat such propaganda as they see fit to support their position.
The concrete center surely would be unbiased in making such claims, and neither would they be trying to capitalize on unfounded comparisons!
It is noteworthy that the "Concrete Center" avoids discussion of concrete spalling in major fires, and also 'forgets' to mention the partial collapse of the concrete core columns in the Madrid fire.
I don't find it 'amazing' that concrete proponents would have an economic agenda in promoting their product... nor that idiots like 'Non-Sense' would repeat such propaganda as they see fit to support their position.
This building was not hit by another building. Also the floors that DID callapse, did so after only 4 hours, not 26. The first steel to collapse was the east side of the 21st floor which was only 1:30 from the time the fire begain.
WTC 7 did not suffer a complete burnout for ~ 2O+ hrs. The Windsor did NOT completely collapse into a pile of dust and steel debris - nor did the partial collapse at the Windsor resemble ANYTHING like a controlled demolition.
In short - 'No-Sense' is an idiot, and hasn't got a clue with regards to his unending sophist nonsense (as anyone with a partial brain can tell).
'Non-sense' (and other tin-hats), I note... seem to pick and choose 'alleged facts' and pope-ishly pronounce such as 'truth' without giving references to where he gets the 'information' from. He culls chosen quotes to only such as seems to support his nonsense.
QUOTE
by Non-Sense
Despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse.
Despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse.
It is true that the Windsor suffered a COMPLETE burnout above the second floor, over the course of 18 - 20 hours. This complete gutting of the building occured - not only in the areas of the collapse above the 17th floor, but also on all floors right down to the second story. It is misleading to state that the strength (to resist collapse BELOW the 17th floor) was due to a 'technical concrete floor'.
A 'technical' floor is another term for a 'mechanical floor' where services and equipment is housed. Just to be clear - in building terminology a 'technical floor' is the same thing as a 'mechanical' floor.
As a mechanical floor will house much of the heavy equipment required to service the building... in a 'tube designed building' the mechanical floors are NOT simple truss floors but are constructed of heavy steel beams usually overlaid by a steel-reinforced concrete floor, as opposed to the 'lightweight' concrete floors utilized in the truss floor levels.
The important design criteria related to the mechanical floors, is NOT in the concrete floor itself, but rather in the massive steel beam framework which underlies the concrete floor. It is NOT (as implied by 'No-common-sense') the concrete which arrested the further collapse beyond the 17th floor of the Madrid Windsor, but rather the massive steel beams which supported that floor.
'Non-sensical' further compounds his misinformation in his above statement by claiming that "the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse.
This statement is made from the perspective of an orator who is speaking well outside his empirical knowledge of the words he has chosen.
The "passive fire resistance" relates to 'fire-proofing' applied to steel beams... either in the form of sprayed on coatings OR concrete applications. It is a misnomer to state that the Madrid Windsor had a "concrete core".
The 'core' of the Windsor was constructed of steel-reinforced concrete columns (as opposed to steel columns - like in the WTC towers).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/madr_collapse.jpg
These steel-reinforced concrete columns aided in keeping the core of the building from collapsing, but were NOT instrumental in keeping the ENTIRE building from collapsing - ONLY the core section in the fire-zone above the 17th floor.
Even this is not absolutely correct, because a section of the northern part of the concrete core columns also collapsed, due to concrete spalling. There were no concrete walls in the core of madrid Windsor (as is obvious from the photo above).
So, again 'Non-Sense' (either through a lack of engineering knowledge OR deliberate misinformation) obfuscates the meaning of the words he has chosen.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by Non-Sense Despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse. |
It is true that the Windsor suffered a COMPLETE burnout above the second floor, over the course of 18 - 20 hours. This complete gutting of the building occured - not only in the areas of the collapse above the 17th floor, but also on all floors right down to the second story. It is misleading to state that the strength (to resist collapse BELOW the 17th floor) was due to a 'technical concrete floor'.
A 'technical' floor is another term for a 'mechanical floor' where services and equipment is housed. Just to be clear - in building terminology a 'technical floor' is the same thing as a 'mechanical' floor.
As a mechanical floor will house much of the heavy equipment required to service the building... in a 'tube designed building' the mechanical floors are NOT simple truss floors but are constructed of heavy steel beams usually overlaid by a steel-reinforced concrete floor, as opposed to the 'lightweight' concrete floors utilized in the truss floor levels.
The important design criteria related to the mechanical floors, is NOT in the concrete floor itself, but rather in the massive steel beam framework which underlies the concrete floor. It is NOT (as implied by 'No-common-sense') the concrete which arrested the further collapse beyond the 17th floor of the Madrid Windsor, but rather the massive steel beams which supported that floor.
'Non-sensical' further compounds his misinformation in his above statement by claiming that "the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse.
This statement is made from the perspective of an orator who is speaking well outside his empirical knowledge of the words he has chosen.
The "passive fire resistance" relates to 'fire-proofing' applied to steel beams... either in the form of sprayed on coatings OR concrete applications. It is a misnomer to state that the Madrid Windsor had a "concrete core".
The 'core' of the Windsor was constructed of steel-reinforced concrete columns (as opposed to steel columns - like in the WTC towers).
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/madr_collapse.jpg
These steel-reinforced concrete columns aided in keeping the core of the building from collapsing, but were NOT instrumental in keeping the ENTIRE building from collapsing - ONLY the core section in the fire-zone above the 17th floor.
Even this is not absolutely correct, because a section of the northern part of the concrete core columns also collapsed, due to concrete spalling. There were no concrete walls in the core of madrid Windsor (as is obvious from the photo above).
So, again 'Non-Sense' (either through a lack of engineering knowledge OR deliberate misinformation) obfuscates the meaning of the words he has chosen.
more 'pope-ish' BS based upon faulty research of disinformation
The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors.
Not true - as I have pointed out ... also part of the central core collapsed
QUOTE
more obfuscating disinformation
The building was in the process of refurbishment and fireproofing to modern standards when the fire occurred; some fireproofing was being provided on the steel perimeter columns.
The building was in the process of refurbishment and fireproofing to modern standards when the fire occurred; some fireproofing was being provided on the steel perimeter columns.
The fireproofing of perimeter columns (in the Windsor) had ONLY been completed UP TO the 17th floor at the time of the fire and collapse. The perimeter columns above the 17th floor had NOT yet had fire-proofing applied at the time of the fire outbreak.
Conversely, ALL the perimeter columns in the World Trade center DID have fireproofing applied, and ONLY those perimeter columns that were directly impacted by the aircraft possibly had their fire-proofing abraded away during the impact sequence.
Once again, 'Non-Sense' is either ignorant of the true facts... OR is deliberately lying.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| more obfuscating disinformation The building was in the process of refurbishment and fireproofing to modern standards when the fire occurred; some fireproofing was being provided on the steel perimeter columns. |
The fireproofing of perimeter columns (in the Windsor) had ONLY been completed UP TO the 17th floor at the time of the fire and collapse. The perimeter columns above the 17th floor had NOT yet had fire-proofing applied at the time of the fire outbreak.
Conversely, ALL the perimeter columns in the World Trade center DID have fireproofing applied, and ONLY those perimeter columns that were directly impacted by the aircraft possibly had their fire-proofing abraded away during the impact sequence.
Once again, 'Non-Sense' is either ignorant of the true facts... OR is deliberately lying.
re-inforcement by repetition of lies
NIST's interim report on the World Trade Center disaster recommends the inclusion of 'strong points' within the building frame design - the Madrid Windsor - Building's strong points were its two concrete 'technical' floors and the concrete core system enabling the building to survive complete burnout.
I suppose the fairy tale obfuscators believe that if they repeat the same BS over and over, some may be confused and led away from the truth. I have addressed this BS above.
QUOTE
This case study is an example of the excellent performance of a concrete frame designed using traditional methods and subjected to an intense fire. It also highlights the risks when active fire protection measures fail or are not included in steel frame construction.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
The concrete center surely would be unbiased in making such claims, and neither would they be trying to capitalize on unfounded comparisons!
It is noteworthy that the "Concrete Center" avoids discussion of concrete spalling in major fires, and also 'forgets' to mention the partial collapse of the concrete core columns in the Madrid fire.
I don't find it 'amazing' that concrete proponents would have an economic agenda in promoting their product... nor that idiots like 'Non-Sense' would repeat such propaganda as they see fit to support their position.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This case study is an example of the excellent performance of a concrete frame designed using traditional methods and subjected to an intense fire. It also highlights the risks when active fire protection measures fail or are not included in steel frame construction. http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095 |
The concrete center surely would be unbiased in making such claims, and neither would they be trying to capitalize on unfounded comparisons!
It is noteworthy that the "Concrete Center" avoids discussion of concrete spalling in major fires, and also 'forgets' to mention the partial collapse of the concrete core columns in the Madrid fire.
I don't find it 'amazing' that concrete proponents would have an economic agenda in promoting their product... nor that idiots like 'Non-Sense' would repeat such propaganda as they see fit to support their position.
This building was not hit by another building. Also the floors that DID callapse, did so after only 4 hours, not 26. The first steel to collapse was the east side of the 21st floor which was only 1:30 from the time the fire begain.
WTC 7 did not suffer a complete burnout for ~ 2O+ hrs. The Windsor did NOT completely collapse into a pile of dust and steel debris - nor did the partial collapse at the Windsor resemble ANYTHING like a controlled demolition.
In short - 'No-Sense' is an idiot, and hasn't got a clue with regards to his unending sophist nonsense (as anyone with a partial brain can tell).
I told you foxx, unlike you I never lie...
The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/r...res/default.htm
ConDialogue
Madrid Fire Survey Finds Concrete Performed ‘Extraordinarily Well’
08 March 2006
A survey of the fire damaged structure of the Windsor Tower, Madrid, has concluded that the concrete structure “performed extraordinarily well in a severe fire”. The study, ‘Fire in the Windsor building, Madrid: Survey of the fire resistance and residual bearing capacity of the structure after the fire’ was carried out by the Spanish Instituto Technico de Materiales y Construcciones (INTEMAC). It underlined the need for fireproofing structural steel concluding that the “need for fireproofing of steel members to guarantee their performance in the event of fire was reconfirmed”.
The Windsor Tower fire started on the 21st floor of the 32 storey building in February 2005. The fire quickly spread due to a lack of fire stops between the curtain wall façade and the concrete floor slabs. Designed and built in the 1970s, the tower was built using traditional design methods. Extensive refurbishment was underway at the time of the fire. Ironically, part of the refurbishment programme was to bring the building’s fire standards up-to-date with the installation of active fire prevention and resistance measures.
Structural failure happened with the collapse of the steel perimeter columns which resulted with the floor slabs collapsing as the edge support was taken away. The massive concrete transfer slab at the 20th floor prevented further progressive failure.
http://www.cjconnect.com/article.asp?artic...4&lastestnews=1
The only one who's being a pope here is you. Your obvious projection of your own flawed personality is evident as I'm the only one producing links to evidence which isn't bias pro or con CD. Heh!
The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/r...res/default.htm
ConDialogue
Madrid Fire Survey Finds Concrete Performed ‘Extraordinarily Well’
08 March 2006
A survey of the fire damaged structure of the Windsor Tower, Madrid, has concluded that the concrete structure “performed extraordinarily well in a severe fire”. The study, ‘Fire in the Windsor building, Madrid: Survey of the fire resistance and residual bearing capacity of the structure after the fire’ was carried out by the Spanish Instituto Technico de Materiales y Construcciones (INTEMAC). It underlined the need for fireproofing structural steel concluding that the “need for fireproofing of steel members to guarantee their performance in the event of fire was reconfirmed”.
The Windsor Tower fire started on the 21st floor of the 32 storey building in February 2005. The fire quickly spread due to a lack of fire stops between the curtain wall façade and the concrete floor slabs. Designed and built in the 1970s, the tower was built using traditional design methods. Extensive refurbishment was underway at the time of the fire. Ironically, part of the refurbishment programme was to bring the building’s fire standards up-to-date with the installation of active fire prevention and resistance measures.
Structural failure happened with the collapse of the steel perimeter columns which resulted with the floor slabs collapsing as the edge support was taken away. The massive concrete transfer slab at the 20th floor prevented further progressive failure.
http://www.cjconnect.com/article.asp?artic...4&lastestnews=1
The only one who's being a pope here is you. Your obvious projection of your own flawed personality is evident as I'm the only one producing links to evidence which isn't bias pro or con CD. Heh!
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Mar 27 2006, 07:43 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 27 2006, 06:55 PM)
If we are still on the Landmark v. WTC 7 collapses, I believe that newtonnjd commented something along the line that CD use on some central columns would explain the fall of WTC 7. I brought up the preliminary explanation that NIST published.
Seems then that newtonnjd and NIST are in agreement that damage to central columns would account for the collapse as seen.
We also have witness testimony about the condition of WTC 7 starting just after WTC 1 fell. That testimony gives us that the building was considered unstable right from that point on.
We also have the photos of fires throughout the building and pictures of some of the impact damage done to the building.
There are no facts in evidence that explosives were used to damage WTC 7. No one saw any explosives being loaded into the building, no one saw any explosives going off (ala the Landmark for instance).
Given those facts in evidence it stands to reason that the damage to the columns that eventually led to the collapse of WTC7 was done by the impact damage and the subsequent fires.
You're arguments are weaker and weaker. We know how the Landmark towers were brought down. How did the WTC 7, collapse in the same manner using the fire hypothesis? Because they said so, isn't convincing me.
You then fail to see that your theory about CD is even weaker since it is based soley on , because someone said it was so while at least the NIST hypothysis uses known facts such as damage, building construction and the observed fires.
Seems then that newtonnjd and NIST are in agreement that damage to central columns would account for the collapse as seen.
We also have witness testimony about the condition of WTC 7 starting just after WTC 1 fell. That testimony gives us that the building was considered unstable right from that point on.
We also have the photos of fires throughout the building and pictures of some of the impact damage done to the building.
There are no facts in evidence that explosives were used to damage WTC 7. No one saw any explosives being loaded into the building, no one saw any explosives going off (ala the Landmark for instance).
Given those facts in evidence it stands to reason that the damage to the columns that eventually led to the collapse of WTC7 was done by the impact damage and the subsequent fires.
You're arguments are weaker and weaker. We know how the Landmark towers were brought down. How did the WTC 7, collapse in the same manner using the fire hypothesis? Because they said so, isn't convincing me.
You then fail to see that your theory about CD is even weaker since it is based soley on , because someone said it was so while at least the NIST hypothysis uses known facts such as damage, building construction and the observed fires.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 10:19 PM)
I told you foxx, unlike you I never lie...
The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/r...res/default.htm
ConDialogue
Madrid Fire Survey Finds Concrete Performed ‘Extraordinarily Well’
08 March 2006
A survey of the fire damaged structure of the Windsor Tower, Madrid, has concluded that the concrete structure “performed extraordinarily well in a severe fire”. The study, ‘Fire in the Windsor building, Madrid: Survey of the fire resistance and residual bearing capacity of the structure after the fire’ was carried out by the Spanish Instituto Technico de Materiales y Construcciones (INTEMAC). It underlined the need for fireproofing structural steel concluding that the “need for fireproofing of steel members to guarantee their performance in the event of fire was reconfirmed”.
The Windsor Tower fire started on the 21st floor of the 32 storey building in February 2005. The fire quickly spread due to a lack of fire stops between the curtain wall façade and the concrete floor slabs. Designed and built in the 1970s, the tower was built using traditional design methods. Extensive refurbishment was underway at the time of the fire. Ironically, part of the refurbishment programme was to bring the building’s fire standards up-to-date with the installation of active fire prevention and resistance measures.
Structural failure happened with the collapse of the steel perimeter columns which resulted with the floor slabs collapsing as the edge support was taken away. The massive concrete transfer slab at the 20th floor prevented further progressive failure.
http://www.cjconnect.com/article.asp?artic...4&lastestnews=1
The only one who's being a pope here is you. Your obvious projection of your own flawed personality is evident as I'm the only one producing links to evidence which isn't bias pro or con CD. Heh!
Your alleged points are obfuscatory (at best), and you DO obfuscate (if not lie outright). You are quoting an obvious sales pitch from a concrete promoting site...
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
As I said - they deny / hide the fact that concrete is subject to spalling in major fires, as well as the fact that a portion of the concrete columns in the core region (of the Windsor) also collapsed.
It does not surprise or 'wow' me to read that the article is entirely biased towards 'concrete' as an 'allegedly superior product. Sales promotions tend to do that, ya know. They emphasize certain aspects (which are in their favor) whilst downplaying (not mentioning) other relevant engineering aspects.
These facts remain true (outside of sales pitches)...
Both WTC and Windsor had fireproofing to exterior perimeter columns... (in the case of the Windsor ONLY below the 17th floor - in the case of WTC on ALL floors except where removed by direct aircraft impact). This point supports CD initiating causes in the WTC 'collapse'. Even though the Windsor had 'fireproofing' on exterior columns(below the 17th floor) - the same as WTC ... the difference is that, unlike the WTC... the Madrid building was gutted right to the ground levels, yet did NOT collapse to the ground level... whereas although the WTC also had fire-proofing on exterior columns and DID NOT have an inferno gutting the entire buildings, they DID 'collapse' right to the ground. There is no logic to the comparative aspects in this regard (outside of CD).
The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/r...res/default.htm
ConDialogue
Madrid Fire Survey Finds Concrete Performed ‘Extraordinarily Well’
08 March 2006
A survey of the fire damaged structure of the Windsor Tower, Madrid, has concluded that the concrete structure “performed extraordinarily well in a severe fire”. The study, ‘Fire in the Windsor building, Madrid: Survey of the fire resistance and residual bearing capacity of the structure after the fire’ was carried out by the Spanish Instituto Technico de Materiales y Construcciones (INTEMAC). It underlined the need for fireproofing structural steel concluding that the “need for fireproofing of steel members to guarantee their performance in the event of fire was reconfirmed”.
The Windsor Tower fire started on the 21st floor of the 32 storey building in February 2005. The fire quickly spread due to a lack of fire stops between the curtain wall façade and the concrete floor slabs. Designed and built in the 1970s, the tower was built using traditional design methods. Extensive refurbishment was underway at the time of the fire. Ironically, part of the refurbishment programme was to bring the building’s fire standards up-to-date with the installation of active fire prevention and resistance measures.
Structural failure happened with the collapse of the steel perimeter columns which resulted with the floor slabs collapsing as the edge support was taken away. The massive concrete transfer slab at the 20th floor prevented further progressive failure.
http://www.cjconnect.com/article.asp?artic...4&lastestnews=1
The only one who's being a pope here is you. Your obvious projection of your own flawed personality is evident as I'm the only one producing links to evidence which isn't bias pro or con CD. Heh!
Your alleged points are obfuscatory (at best), and you DO obfuscate (if not lie outright). You are quoting an obvious sales pitch from a concrete promoting site...
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
As I said - they deny / hide the fact that concrete is subject to spalling in major fires, as well as the fact that a portion of the concrete columns in the core region (of the Windsor) also collapsed.
It does not surprise or 'wow' me to read that the article is entirely biased towards 'concrete' as an 'allegedly superior product. Sales promotions tend to do that, ya know. They emphasize certain aspects (which are in their favor) whilst downplaying (not mentioning) other relevant engineering aspects.
These facts remain true (outside of sales pitches)...
Both WTC and Windsor had fireproofing to exterior perimeter columns... (in the case of the Windsor ONLY below the 17th floor - in the case of WTC on ALL floors except where removed by direct aircraft impact). This point supports CD initiating causes in the WTC 'collapse'. Even though the Windsor had 'fireproofing' on exterior columns(below the 17th floor) - the same as WTC ... the difference is that, unlike the WTC... the Madrid building was gutted right to the ground levels, yet did NOT collapse to the ground level... whereas although the WTC also had fire-proofing on exterior columns and DID NOT have an inferno gutting the entire buildings, they DID 'collapse' right to the ground. There is no logic to the comparative aspects in this regard (outside of CD).
Christfoxx, Moron, (I know you like when I call you that. 
) This isn't a concrete company is it...
The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.
On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/r...res/default.htm
That's from...
Professor Colin Bailey - Structural Fire Engineering, University of Manchester. Not a concrete company salesmen, is it moron.
You just made my point. The unprotected steel above the 17th story fell. The first part to fall was 1 hour and 30 minutes after the fire began. It didn't collapse to the ground because it had a concrete core holding everything together. In the case of the WTC the collapse started 1 hour after the fire started but the building was also hit by a 767 at 500 miles an hour and had no concrete core.
Another point you are going to hate is that fire was being fought.
As many as 100 firefighters worked 24 hours to extinguish the blaze in the city's eighth-tallest building, the 32-story Windsor Tower. The fire was said to be the worst in Madrid's history.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/14/spain.block.fire/
) This isn't a concrete company is it...The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.
On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/r...res/default.htm
That's from...
Professor Colin Bailey - Structural Fire Engineering, University of Manchester. Not a concrete company salesmen, is it moron.
QUOTE
in the case of the Windsor ONLY below the 17th floor - in the case of WTC on ALL floors except where removed by direct aircraft impact
You just made my point. The unprotected steel above the 17th story fell. The first part to fall was 1 hour and 30 minutes after the fire began. It didn't collapse to the ground because it had a concrete core holding everything together. In the case of the WTC the collapse started 1 hour after the fire started but the building was also hit by a 767 at 500 miles an hour and had no concrete core.
Another point you are going to hate is that fire was being fought.
As many as 100 firefighters worked 24 hours to extinguish the blaze in the city's eighth-tallest building, the 32-story Windsor Tower. The fire was said to be the worst in Madrid's history.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/14/spain.block.fire/
Again resorting to 28 point text (as IF that somehow defines 'truth')...the Schneibster-ooney posts...
So... wanna explain WHY the WTC perimeter columns BELOW the fire area (even though NOT subjected to fire-weakening buckling) just instantly 'gave up the ghost' as if they had been subjected to a 20 hr steel-buckling inferno? How is that 'comparative' to the Madrid inferno (which DID NOT collapse the lower section - EVEN THOUGH that entire section was fire-ravaged for 15 - 20 hrs)?
You say that even though the 9th floor columns 'buckled' due to heat... the loads were distributed to other structurally sound areas. Why did not the same engineering 're-distribution' of loads occur in sound portions of the WTC towers below the fire which weren't even subjected to fire-weakening aspects?
So... wanna explain WHY the WTC perimeter columns BELOW the fire area (even though NOT subjected to fire-weakening buckling) just instantly 'gave up the ghost' as if they had been subjected to a 20 hr steel-buckling inferno? How is that 'comparative' to the Madrid inferno (which DID NOT collapse the lower section - EVEN THOUGH that entire section was fire-ravaged for 15 - 20 hrs)?
You say that even though the 9th floor columns 'buckled' due to heat... the loads were distributed to other structurally sound areas. Why did not the same engineering 're-distribution' of loads occur in sound portions of the WTC towers below the fire which weren't even subjected to fire-weakening aspects?
On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.
How about explaining WHY the "structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts"... of the {WTC} buildings DID NOT provide overall stability to the towers ???
Maybe you can emphasize your bs response with 100 pt text. That'll surely show what an idiot "I" am
QUOTE
The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.
So... wanna explain WHY the WTC perimeter columns BELOW the fire area (even though NOT subjected to fire-weakening buckling) just instantly 'gave up the ghost' as if they had been subjected to a 20 hr steel-buckling inferno? How is that 'comparative' to the Madrid inferno (which DID NOT collapse the lower section - EVEN THOUGH that entire section was fire-ravaged for 15 - 20 hrs)?
You say that even though the 9th floor columns 'buckled' due to heat... the loads were distributed to other structurally sound areas. Why did not the same engineering 're-distribution' of loads occur in sound portions of the WTC towers below the fire which weren't even subjected to fire-weakening aspects?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn. |
So... wanna explain WHY the WTC perimeter columns BELOW the fire area (even though NOT subjected to fire-weakening buckling) just instantly 'gave up the ghost' as if they had been subjected to a 20 hr steel-buckling inferno? How is that 'comparative' to the Madrid inferno (which DID NOT collapse the lower section - EVEN THOUGH that entire section was fire-ravaged for 15 - 20 hrs)?
You say that even though the 9th floor columns 'buckled' due to heat... the loads were distributed to other structurally sound areas. Why did not the same engineering 're-distribution' of loads occur in sound portions of the WTC towers below the fire which weren't even subjected to fire-weakening aspects?
On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.
How about explaining WHY the "structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts"... of the {WTC} buildings DID NOT provide overall stability to the towers ???
Maybe you can emphasize your bs response with 100 pt text. That'll surely show what an idiot "I" am
Have you ever had a law suit? It's not just a question of making sh*t up like half the jokers on this site do........ And what references do you want anyway? Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics? I think it's obvious what my point is, so you don't have to act dumb unless you really are.
NF
NF
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 27 2006, 10:11 PM)
The 'core' of the Windsor was constructed of steel-reinforced concrete columns (as opposed to steel columns - like in the WTC towers).
There is that disgusting lie that cannot be supported with raw evidence.
Come up with some photos of those columns in situ above ground while part of the 47 core columsn (sic) still stands. Plenty images of towers half or part standing.
There is that disgusting lie that cannot be supported with raw evidence.
Come up with some photos of those columns in situ above ground while part of the 47 core columsn (sic) still stands. Plenty images of towers half or part standing.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 28 2006, 12:33 AM)
Have you ever had a law suit? It's not just a question of making sh*t up like half the jokers on this site do........ And what references do you want anyway? Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics? I think it's obvious what my point is, so you don't have to act dumb unless you really are.
NF
The Fonze strikes again.
I'm sure it's quite obvious to you what YOUR point is...
Can you send out copies of your tin-hat so that you can communicate directly with us and avoid such trivialities as human language & reasoning skills?
NF
The Fonze strikes again.
I'm sure it's quite obvious to you what YOUR point is...
Can you send out copies of your tin-hat so that you can communicate directly with us and avoid such trivialities as human language & reasoning skills?
Keep hand waving christofoxx
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 28 2006, 12:02 AM)
In the case of the WTC the collapse started 1 hour after the fire started but the building was also hit by a 767 at 500 miles an hour and had no concrete core.
Misinformation as disinformation
You have NO raw evidence of a core constructed of steel columns.
Supporting the lies of murderers of innocent Americans is a low thing to do.
Misinformation as disinformation
You have NO raw evidence of a core constructed of steel columns.
Supporting the lies of murderers of innocent Americans is a low thing to do.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 28 2006, 12:50 AM)
Keep hand waving christofoxx
Use that hand to wave at the ten year old children that lost their parents over the 94th floor of WTC 1 that do not know if their parent jumped to avoid being cooked or were ground up in hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete exploding.
Where is your respect for the dead and those that loved them? What about justice? Rights and freedom? YOU HAVE NO RAW EVIDENCE!
EYEWITNESS AT WTC
For me, there were many moving experiences... I will never forget the tens of thousands of bobbing heads stumbling across the East River bridges. Or, the dazzled tattered bleeding blackened crowd walking north from the scene up Broadway, Green, Mercer, 6th Avenue... - that was moving...But above and beyond everything, the one thing I will never forget to my dying day, is the view of the people on the roof and higher floors of the World Trade Center lined up in the windows and on railings. You cannot see their expressions, but it is amazing what a 40 power telescope reveals. They often huddled, probably talked about their chances, and sometimes went back into the building, or maybe, just laid on the floor. But then, some went to the edge, and jumped.
Some jumped in pairs, holding hands. I doubt if they were married or lovers. I think it was just two people, alone, desperate, black, white, oriental, who cares - the telescope didn't allow me to distinguish age and race. They would just pair up and jump. I have thought all day about this. If I were on the roof, and I saw flames on all sides of the building, I would almost certainly jump rather than fry. And if I saw another trembling human alongside of me, I would be much happier holding their hand, and jumping as a pair. Somehow to jump as half of a pair, even if the other half is an ad hoc recent acquaintance, seems to me an infinitely more human way to pass on to the next step, than to take the next step alone.
A follow-up letter (full text here): I did not mention it in the first letter, but it seems to me relevant to something. When a person jumped alone, s/he went to the edge, stopped, looked over, and jumped like you would go into a pool. Those that went in pairs simply came out of a smoky nowhere inside of the building and walked over the edge with no pause, hesitation, or last second spring.
Ray Dougherty, Professor of Linguistics, New York University
Eyewitness
Use that hand to wave at the ten year old children that lost their parents over the 94th floor of WTC 1 that do not know if their parent jumped to avoid being cooked or were ground up in hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete exploding.
Where is your respect for the dead and those that loved them? What about justice? Rights and freedom? YOU HAVE NO RAW EVIDENCE!
EYEWITNESS AT WTC
For me, there were many moving experiences... I will never forget the tens of thousands of bobbing heads stumbling across the East River bridges. Or, the dazzled tattered bleeding blackened crowd walking north from the scene up Broadway, Green, Mercer, 6th Avenue... - that was moving...But above and beyond everything, the one thing I will never forget to my dying day, is the view of the people on the roof and higher floors of the World Trade Center lined up in the windows and on railings. You cannot see their expressions, but it is amazing what a 40 power telescope reveals. They often huddled, probably talked about their chances, and sometimes went back into the building, or maybe, just laid on the floor. But then, some went to the edge, and jumped.
Some jumped in pairs, holding hands. I doubt if they were married or lovers. I think it was just two people, alone, desperate, black, white, oriental, who cares - the telescope didn't allow me to distinguish age and race. They would just pair up and jump. I have thought all day about this. If I were on the roof, and I saw flames on all sides of the building, I would almost certainly jump rather than fry. And if I saw another trembling human alongside of me, I would be much happier holding their hand, and jumping as a pair. Somehow to jump as half of a pair, even if the other half is an ad hoc recent acquaintance, seems to me an infinitely more human way to pass on to the next step, than to take the next step alone.
A follow-up letter (full text here): I did not mention it in the first letter, but it seems to me relevant to something. When a person jumped alone, s/he went to the edge, stopped, looked over, and jumped like you would go into a pool. Those that went in pairs simply came out of a smoky nowhere inside of the building and walked over the edge with no pause, hesitation, or last second spring.
Ray Dougherty, Professor of Linguistics, New York University
Eyewitness
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 28 2006, 12:50 AM)
Keep hand waving christofoxx
Having received no legitimate reponse, I reiterate...
Originally posted by Foxx
Again resorting to 28 point text (as IF that somehow defines 'truth')...the Schneibster-ooney posts...
So... wanna explain WHY the WTC perimeter columns BELOW the fire area (even though NOT subjected to fire-weakening buckling) just instantly 'gave up the ghost' as if they had been subjected to a 20 hr steel-buckling inferno? How is that 'comparative' to the Madrid inferno (which DID NOT collapse the lower section - EVEN THOUGH that entire section was fire-ravaged for 15 - 20 hrs)?
You say that even though the 9th floor columns 'buckled' due to heat... the loads were distributed to other structurally sound areas. Why did not the same engineering 're-distribution' of loads occur in sound portions of the WTC towers below the fire which weren't even subjected to fire-weakening aspects?
So... wanna explain WHY the WTC perimeter columns BELOW the fire area (even though NOT subjected to fire-weakening buckling) just instantly 'gave up the ghost' as if they had been subjected to a 20 hr steel-buckling inferno? How is that 'comparative' to the Madrid inferno (which DID NOT collapse the lower section - EVEN THOUGH that entire section was fire-ravaged for 15 - 20 hrs)?
You say that even though the 9th floor columns 'buckled' due to heat... the loads were distributed to other structurally sound areas. Why did not the same engineering 're-distribution' of loads occur in sound portions of the WTC towers below the fire which weren't even subjected to fire-weakening aspects?
On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.
How about explaining WHY the "structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts"... of the {WTC} buildings DID NOT provide overall stability to the towers ???
Maybe you can emphasize your bs response with 100 pt text. That'll surely show what an idiot "I" am
xxxxxxxxx
Handwaving gifs... ?
Quite an 'intelligent' response... (when seeking to avoid a valid answer)
Having received no legitimate reponse, I reiterate...
Originally posted by Foxx
Again resorting to 28 point text (as IF that somehow defines 'truth')...the Schneibster-ooney posts...
QUOTE
The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.
So... wanna explain WHY the WTC perimeter columns BELOW the fire area (even though NOT subjected to fire-weakening buckling) just instantly 'gave up the ghost' as if they had been subjected to a 20 hr steel-buckling inferno? How is that 'comparative' to the Madrid inferno (which DID NOT collapse the lower section - EVEN THOUGH that entire section was fire-ravaged for 15 - 20 hrs)?
You say that even though the 9th floor columns 'buckled' due to heat... the loads were distributed to other structurally sound areas. Why did not the same engineering 're-distribution' of loads occur in sound portions of the WTC towers below the fire which weren't even subjected to fire-weakening aspects?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn. |
So... wanna explain WHY the WTC perimeter columns BELOW the fire area (even though NOT subjected to fire-weakening buckling) just instantly 'gave up the ghost' as if they had been subjected to a 20 hr steel-buckling inferno? How is that 'comparative' to the Madrid inferno (which DID NOT collapse the lower section - EVEN THOUGH that entire section was fire-ravaged for 15 - 20 hrs)?
You say that even though the 9th floor columns 'buckled' due to heat... the loads were distributed to other structurally sound areas. Why did not the same engineering 're-distribution' of loads occur in sound portions of the WTC towers below the fire which weren't even subjected to fire-weakening aspects?
On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.
How about explaining WHY the "structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts"... of the {WTC} buildings DID NOT provide overall stability to the towers ???
Maybe you can emphasize your bs response with 100 pt text. That'll surely show what an idiot "I" am
xxxxxxxxx
Handwaving gifs... ?
Quite an 'intelligent' response... (when seeking to avoid a valid answer)
Foxx - too easy isn't it?
Common sense - have you called Dr Sunder yet?
It is an absurdity to expect that a building that was constructed to resist collapsing with ease (as any building is), and that was 90% intact, would behave exactly like a building gutted and destoyed by explosives when it fell.
It is an absurdity to expect that a building that was constructed to resist collapsing with ease (as any building is), and that was 90% intact, would behave exactly like a building gutted and destoyed by explosives when it fell.
This once again, doesn't look like a bomb blew up because bombs don't cause slow, increasing damage over time.
The "slow, increasing damage" can still occur leading up to the CD, but do not have to be the cause of the collapse. Even if it was, it would have resulted in a much slower and assymetrical collapse than occured.
Here's some common sense 101 for you - large buildings are constructed to resist gravity EASILY. Take away 10% of the structure, and the remaining 90% is still going to put up a mighty resistance against gravity, not crumble into dust at the same rate as a building with NONE of its structural strength left.
Common sense - have you called Dr Sunder yet?
QUOTE
The towers and building 7 were essentially bolted together like an erector set. No concrete was used to create a ridged block and the steel webbing was pushed to the outer walls.
It is an absurdity to expect these buildings to perform the same during a collapse. This is why it's the first time in history these buildings fell as they did. It's the first time in history buildings constructed like this collapsed
It is an absurdity to expect these buildings to perform the same during a collapse. This is why it's the first time in history these buildings fell as they did. It's the first time in history buildings constructed like this collapsed
It is an absurdity to expect that a building that was constructed to resist collapsing with ease (as any building is), and that was 90% intact, would behave exactly like a building gutted and destoyed by explosives when it fell.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The towers and building 7 were essentially bolted together like an erector set. No concrete was used to create a ridged block and the steel webbing was pushed to the outer walls. It is an absurdity to expect these buildings to perform the same during a collapse. This is why it's the first time in history these buildings fell as they did. It's the first time in history buildings constructed like this collapsed |
It is an absurdity to expect that a building that was constructed to resist collapsing with ease (as any building is), and that was 90% intact, would behave exactly like a building gutted and destoyed by explosives when it fell.
This once again, doesn't look like a bomb blew up because bombs don't cause slow, increasing damage over time.
The "slow, increasing damage" can still occur leading up to the CD, but do not have to be the cause of the collapse. Even if it was, it would have resulted in a much slower and assymetrical collapse than occured.
Here's some common sense 101 for you - large buildings are constructed to resist gravity EASILY. Take away 10% of the structure, and the remaining 90% is still going to put up a mighty resistance against gravity, not crumble into dust at the same rate as a building with NONE of its structural strength left.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 28 2006, 01:14 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 28 2006, 12:50 AM)
Keep hand waving christofoxx
Having received no legitimate reponse, I reiterate...
Originally posted by Foxx
Again resorting to 28 point text (as IF that somehow defines 'truth')...the Schneibster-ooney posts...
So... wanna explain WHY the WTC perimeter columns BELOW the fire area (even though NOT subjected to fire-weakening buckling) just instantly 'gave up the ghost' as if they had been subjected to a 20 hr steel-buckling inferno? How is that 'comparative' to the Madrid inferno (which DID NOT collapse the lower section - EVEN THOUGH that entire section was fire-ravaged for 15 - 20 hrs)?
Handwaving gifs... ?
Quite an 'intelligent' response... (when seeking to avoid a valid answer)
Wassamatta' your disinfo buddy not bouncing back right to revive your "time wasting" and "confusion exercises" rally?
What about those kids that start to choke when somebody asks about their mother?
w t f about them and their need for justice and closure? How about those firefighters that were scaling #1 when it blew? How do their children feel about this country when investigations are blocked, rights lost and illegal war waged on a lie.
So why are you here?
Uhhh, yeah...It seems so to me.
It seems that most of these OCT supporters are shoe store salesmen or cable guys who just have absolutely no clue about resistance and the fact that buildings are designed to provide a minimum of 5 times the maximum expected design loads.
Just NO CLUE at all as to the ramifications of that engineering truth.
Having received no legitimate reponse, I reiterate...
Originally posted by Foxx
Again resorting to 28 point text (as IF that somehow defines 'truth')...the Schneibster-ooney posts...
So... wanna explain WHY the WTC perimeter columns BELOW the fire area (even though NOT subjected to fire-weakening buckling) just instantly 'gave up the ghost' as if they had been subjected to a 20 hr steel-buckling inferno? How is that 'comparative' to the Madrid inferno (which DID NOT collapse the lower section - EVEN THOUGH that entire section was fire-ravaged for 15 - 20 hrs)?
Handwaving gifs... ?
Quite an 'intelligent' response... (when seeking to avoid a valid answer)
Wassamatta' your disinfo buddy not bouncing back right to revive your "time wasting" and "confusion exercises" rally?
What about those kids that start to choke when somebody asks about their mother?
w t f about them and their need for justice and closure? How about those firefighters that were scaling #1 when it blew? How do their children feel about this country when investigations are blocked, rights lost and illegal war waged on a lie.
So why are you here?
QUOTE
Originally posted by newtonnjd
Foxx - too easy isn't it?
Foxx - too easy isn't it?
Uhhh, yeah...It seems so to me.
It seems that most of these OCT supporters are shoe store salesmen or cable guys who just have absolutely no clue about resistance and the fact that buildings are designed to provide a minimum of 5 times the maximum expected design loads.
Just NO CLUE at all as to the ramifications of that engineering truth.
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 28 2006, 01:14 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 28 2006, 12:50 AM)
Keep hand waving christofoxx
Having received no legitimate reponse, I reiterate...
Originally posted by Foxx
Again resorting to 28 point text (as IF that somehow defines 'truth')...the Schneibster-ooney posts...
So... wanna explain WHY the WTC perimeter columns BELOW the fire area (even though NOT subjected to fire-weakening buckling) just instantly 'gave up the ghost' as if they had been subjected to a 20 hr steel-buckling inferno? How is that 'comparative' to the Madrid inferno (which DID NOT collapse the lower section - EVEN THOUGH that entire section was fire-ravaged for 15 - 20 hrs)?
You say that even though the 9th floor columns 'buckled' due to heat... the loads were distributed to other structurally sound areas. Why did not the same engineering 're-distribution' of loads occur in sound portions of the WTC towers below the fire which weren't even subjected to fire-weakening aspects?
So... wanna explain WHY the WTC perimeter columns BELOW the fire area (even though NOT subjected to fire-weakening buckling) just instantly 'gave up the ghost' as if they had been subjected to a 20 hr steel-buckling inferno? How is that 'comparative' to the Madrid inferno (which DID NOT collapse the lower section - EVEN THOUGH that entire section was fire-ravaged for 15 - 20 hrs)?
You say that even though the 9th floor columns 'buckled' due to heat... the loads were distributed to other structurally sound areas. Why did not the same engineering 're-distribution' of loads occur in sound portions of the WTC towers below the fire which weren't even subjected to fire-weakening aspects?
On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.
How about explaining WHY the "structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts"... of the {WTC} buildings DID NOT provide overall stability to the towers ???
Maybe you can emphasize your bs response with 100 pt text. That'll surely show what an idiot "I" am
xxxxxxxxx
Handwaving gifs... ?
Quite an 'intelligent' response... (when seeking to avoid a valid answer)
14 font for the cognitively impaired...
What part of CONCRET CORE ON ONE, NO CONCRETE CORE ON THE OTHER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND...
Having received no legitimate reponse, I reiterate...
Originally posted by Foxx
Again resorting to 28 point text (as IF that somehow defines 'truth')...the Schneibster-ooney posts...
QUOTE
The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.
So... wanna explain WHY the WTC perimeter columns BELOW the fire area (even though NOT subjected to fire-weakening buckling) just instantly 'gave up the ghost' as if they had been subjected to a 20 hr steel-buckling inferno? How is that 'comparative' to the Madrid inferno (which DID NOT collapse the lower section - EVEN THOUGH that entire section was fire-ravaged for 15 - 20 hrs)?
You say that even though the 9th floor columns 'buckled' due to heat... the loads were distributed to other structurally sound areas. Why did not the same engineering 're-distribution' of loads occur in sound portions of the WTC towers below the fire which weren't even subjected to fire-weakening aspects?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn. |
So... wanna explain WHY the WTC perimeter columns BELOW the fire area (even though NOT subjected to fire-weakening buckling) just instantly 'gave up the ghost' as if they had been subjected to a 20 hr steel-buckling inferno? How is that 'comparative' to the Madrid inferno (which DID NOT collapse the lower section - EVEN THOUGH that entire section was fire-ravaged for 15 - 20 hrs)?
You say that even though the 9th floor columns 'buckled' due to heat... the loads were distributed to other structurally sound areas. Why did not the same engineering 're-distribution' of loads occur in sound portions of the WTC towers below the fire which weren't even subjected to fire-weakening aspects?
On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.
How about explaining WHY the "structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts"... of the {WTC} buildings DID NOT provide overall stability to the towers ???
Maybe you can emphasize your bs response with 100 pt text. That'll surely show what an idiot "I" am
xxxxxxxxx
Handwaving gifs... ?
Quite an 'intelligent' response... (when seeking to avoid a valid answer)
14 font for the cognitively impaired...
What part of CONCRET CORE ON ONE, NO CONCRETE CORE ON THE OTHER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND...
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 28 2006, 01:54 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 28 2006, 01:14 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 28 2006, 12:50 AM)
Keep hand waving christofoxx
Having received no legitimate reponse, I reiterate...
Originally posted by Foxx
Again resorting to 28 point text (as IF that somehow defines 'truth')...the Schneibster-ooney posts...
So... wanna explain WHY the WTC perimeter columns BELOW the fire area (even though NOT subjected to fire-weakening buckling) just instantly 'gave up the ghost' as if they had been subjected to a 20 hr steel-buckling inferno? How is that 'comparative' to the Madrid inferno (which DID NOT collapse the lower section - EVEN THOUGH that entire section was fire-ravaged for 15 - 20 hrs)?
You say that even though the 9th floor columns 'buckled' due to heat... the loads were distributed to other structurally sound areas. Why did not the same engineering 're-distribution' of loads occur in sound portions of the WTC towers below the fire which weren't even subjected to fire-weakening aspects?
So... wanna explain WHY the WTC perimeter columns BELOW the fire area (even though NOT subjected to fire-weakening buckling) just instantly 'gave up the ghost' as if they had been subjected to a 20 hr steel-buckling inferno? How is that 'comparative' to the Madrid inferno (which DID NOT collapse the lower section - EVEN THOUGH that entire section was fire-ravaged for 15 - 20 hrs)?
You say that even though the 9th floor columns 'buckled' due to heat... the loads were distributed to other structurally sound areas. Why did not the same engineering 're-distribution' of loads occur in sound portions of the WTC towers below the fire which weren't even subjected to fire-weakening aspects?
On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.
How about explaining WHY the "structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts"... of the {WTC} buildings DID NOT provide overall stability to the towers ???
Maybe you can emphasize your bs response with 100 pt text. That'll surely show what an idiot "I" am
xxxxxxxxx
Handwaving gifs... ?
Quite an 'intelligent' response... (when seeking to avoid a valid answer)
14 font for the cognitively impaired...
What part of CONCRET CORE ON ONE, NO CONCRETE CORE ON THE OTHER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND...
I cannot see that CSpams response addresses foxes comment. That makes the exchange fake.
NO building in the HISTORY OF MAN was built to resist being hit by ANOTHER BUILDING. Show me where building 7 was constructed to withstand having a 20 story hole on the south side? That's just ABSURD!
As for the towers they were NEVER designed to be without fireproofing. Why are you going out of your way to ignore these huge facts? A minimum of critical thinking will get you past this point.
The buildings were made up of small parts. The towers literally came apart at the seams. The other buildings christofoxx mentions have concrete cores or are made of concrete. Another huge piece of the puzzle you refuse to acknowledge.
A 767 at 500 miles an hour hit the buildings which were designed for 707's. The fuel wasn't taken into account either.
These are simple, blatant factors you people never seem to want to acknowledge.
newtonnjd, I was going to treat you differently than the other obvious morons here because you seemed to want to stay on message. Please don't get christofoxx on me.
Are you calling the fireman who KNEW building 7 was going to collase liars? Are they covering for Silvertein or the government? Yes or no.
Having received no legitimate reponse, I reiterate...
Originally posted by Foxx
Again resorting to 28 point text (as IF that somehow defines 'truth')...the Schneibster-ooney posts...
QUOTE
The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.
So... wanna explain WHY the WTC perimeter columns BELOW the fire area (even though NOT subjected to fire-weakening buckling) just instantly 'gave up the ghost' as if they had been subjected to a 20 hr steel-buckling inferno? How is that 'comparative' to the Madrid inferno (which DID NOT collapse the lower section - EVEN THOUGH that entire section was fire-ravaged for 15 - 20 hrs)?
You say that even though the 9th floor columns 'buckled' due to heat... the loads were distributed to other structurally sound areas. Why did not the same engineering 're-distribution' of loads occur in sound portions of the WTC towers below the fire which weren't even subjected to fire-weakening aspects?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn. |
So... wanna explain WHY the WTC perimeter columns BELOW the fire area (even though NOT subjected to fire-weakening buckling) just instantly 'gave up the ghost' as if they had been subjected to a 20 hr steel-buckling inferno? How is that 'comparative' to the Madrid inferno (which DID NOT collapse the lower section - EVEN THOUGH that entire section was fire-ravaged for 15 - 20 hrs)?
You say that even though the 9th floor columns 'buckled' due to heat... the loads were distributed to other structurally sound areas. Why did not the same engineering 're-distribution' of loads occur in sound portions of the WTC towers below the fire which weren't even subjected to fire-weakening aspects?
On the other hand, the reinforced concrete central core, columns, waffle slabs and transfer structures performed very well in such a severe fire. It is clear that the structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts of the building provided the overall stability of the building.
How about explaining WHY the "structural integrity and redundancy of the remaining parts"... of the {WTC} buildings DID NOT provide overall stability to the towers ???
Maybe you can emphasize your bs response with 100 pt text. That'll surely show what an idiot "I" am
xxxxxxxxx
Handwaving gifs... ?
Quite an 'intelligent' response... (when seeking to avoid a valid answer)
14 font for the cognitively impaired...
What part of CONCRET CORE ON ONE, NO CONCRETE CORE ON THE OTHER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND...
I cannot see that CSpams response addresses foxes comment. That makes the exchange fake.
QUOTE
It is an absurdity to expect that a building that was constructed to resist collapsing with ease (as any building is), and that was 90% intact, would behave exactly like a building gutted and destoyed by explosives when it fell.
NO building in the HISTORY OF MAN was built to resist being hit by ANOTHER BUILDING. Show me where building 7 was constructed to withstand having a 20 story hole on the south side? That's just ABSURD!
As for the towers they were NEVER designed to be without fireproofing. Why are you going out of your way to ignore these huge facts? A minimum of critical thinking will get you past this point.
The buildings were made up of small parts. The towers literally came apart at the seams. The other buildings christofoxx mentions have concrete cores or are made of concrete. Another huge piece of the puzzle you refuse to acknowledge.
A 767 at 500 miles an hour hit the buildings which were designed for 707's. The fuel wasn't taken into account either.
These are simple, blatant factors you people never seem to want to acknowledge.
newtonnjd, I was going to treat you differently than the other obvious morons here because you seemed to want to stay on message. Please don't get christofoxx on me.
Are you calling the fireman who KNEW building 7 was going to collase liars? Are they covering for Silvertein or the government? Yes or no.
YID - like len, you have ignored the majority of what I've said. But on we go with what you have managed to produce..
That of course assumes that you know what the speed of a gravity collapse would be. This either requires a real-life example of a gravity collapse from a similar level damage, or accurate modelling of such a collapse. If you can point me to either of these I would be much obliged (hint: don't bother searching NIST for a collapse model)
That of course assumes that you know what the speed of a gravity collapse would be. This either requires a real-life example of a gravity collapse from a similar level damage, or accurate modelling of such a collapse. If you can point me to either of these I would be much obliged (hint: don't bother searching NIST for a collapse model)
If we are still on the Landmark v. WTC 7 collapses, I believe that newtonnjd commented something along the line that CD use on some central columns would explain the fall of WTC 7. I brought up the preliminary explanation that NIST published.
Seems then that newtonnjd and NIST are in agreement that damage to central columns would account for the collapse as seen.
Unless NIST proposed that the central columns were damaged along their entire lengths, then no, we are not in agreement. Perhaps you would care to address the collapse of the Penthouse, which you brought up originally and I argued could only be the result of CD.
It may well have been 'unstable' in one or two places. A jenga tower becomes more and more unstable, but when it goes down it doesn't fall onto its own footprint. And neither would a mostly intact tower with highly assymetric damages.
It may well have been 'unstable' in one or two places. A jenga tower becomes more and more unstable, but when it goes down it doesn't fall onto its own footprint. And neither would a mostly intact tower with highly assymetric damages.
We also have the photos of fires throughout the building and pictures of some of the impact damage done to the building.
The fires were intense in places, but noone can possibly claim they were widespread enough to weaken enough key supports to mimic explosives in a CD. As for the debris damage, I have seen no photos of a "huge 20 story gash" that could have done any real damage to the core columns. Judging by other buildings at similar distances from either tower, the damage should not have been anywhere close to causing a catastrophic global collapse. (Unless you put all your faith in eyewitness testimony of something that would look big to the human eye, but would be relatively minor to the integrity of a 47-story building.)
Well, I should think the planners would have wanted to be rather careful on those two points. Lack of witnesses is not proof that no crime was commited.
Well, I should think the planners would have wanted to be rather careful on those two points. Lack of witnesses is not proof that no crime was commited.
Given those facts in evidence it stands to reason that the damage to the columns that eventually led to the collapse of WTC7 was done by the impact damage and the subsequent fires.
Absolutely not, as I have explained in detail while you continue the delusion that localised, assymetric damage could create the same style of implosion as global, symmetric destruction of all critical support.
Let's do a thought experiment in which the Landmark tower was subjected only to explosives near its base, in particular the explosion that caused it to tilt. This explosion represents the assymetric impact damage entirely on one side of WTC7, and all other explosions near the base approximate WTC7s fire damage. Above the first few floors the building is intact. In this scenario, what would the collapse be like? You guessed it, it would have toppled, because the only way it can go downwards is if the remainder of the structure is disintegrating at the same time.
QUOTE
the speed of the collapse has never been shown to be beyond that which a gravity collapse would generate.
That of course assumes that you know what the speed of a gravity collapse would be. This either requires a real-life example of a gravity collapse from a similar level damage, or accurate modelling of such a collapse. If you can point me to either of these I would be much obliged (hint: don't bother searching NIST for a collapse model)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the speed of the collapse has never been shown to be beyond that which a gravity collapse would generate. |
That of course assumes that you know what the speed of a gravity collapse would be. This either requires a real-life example of a gravity collapse from a similar level damage, or accurate modelling of such a collapse. If you can point me to either of these I would be much obliged (hint: don't bother searching NIST for a collapse model)
If we are still on the Landmark v. WTC 7 collapses, I believe that newtonnjd commented something along the line that CD use on some central columns would explain the fall of WTC 7. I brought up the preliminary explanation that NIST published.
Seems then that newtonnjd and NIST are in agreement that damage to central columns would account for the collapse as seen.
Unless NIST proposed that the central columns were damaged along their entire lengths, then no, we are not in agreement. Perhaps you would care to address the collapse of the Penthouse, which you brought up originally and I argued could only be the result of CD.
QUOTE
We also have witness testimony about the condition of WTC 7 starting just after WTC 1 fell. That testimony gives us that the building was considered unstable right from that point on.
It may well have been 'unstable' in one or two places. A jenga tower becomes more and more unstable, but when it goes down it doesn't fall onto its own footprint. And neither would a mostly intact tower with highly assymetric damages.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We also have witness testimony about the condition of WTC 7 starting just after WTC 1 fell. That testimony gives us that the building was considered unstable right from that point on. |
It may well have been 'unstable' in one or two places. A jenga tower becomes more and more unstable, but when it goes down it doesn't fall onto its own footprint. And neither would a mostly intact tower with highly assymetric damages.
We also have the photos of fires throughout the building and pictures of some of the impact damage done to the building.
The fires were intense in places, but noone can possibly claim they were widespread enough to weaken enough key supports to mimic explosives in a CD. As for the debris damage, I have seen no photos of a "huge 20 story gash" that could have done any real damage to the core columns. Judging by other buildings at similar distances from either tower, the damage should not have been anywhere close to causing a catastrophic global collapse. (Unless you put all your faith in eyewitness testimony of something that would look big to the human eye, but would be relatively minor to the integrity of a 47-story building.)
QUOTE
There are no facts in evidence that explosives were used to damage WTC 7. No one saw any explosives being loaded into the building, no one saw any explosives going off (ala the Landmark for instance).
Well, I should think the planners would have wanted to be rather careful on those two points. Lack of witnesses is not proof that no crime was commited.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There are no facts in evidence that explosives were used to damage WTC 7. No one saw any explosives being loaded into the building, no one saw any explosives going off (ala the Landmark for instance). |
Well, I should think the planners would have wanted to be rather careful on those two points. Lack of witnesses is not proof that no crime was commited.
Given those facts in evidence it stands to reason that the damage to the columns that eventually led to the collapse of WTC7 was done by the impact damage and the subsequent fires.
Absolutely not, as I have explained in detail while you continue the delusion that localised, assymetric damage could create the same style of implosion as global, symmetric destruction of all critical support.
Let's do a thought experiment in which the Landmark tower was subjected only to explosives near its base, in particular the explosion that caused it to tilt. This explosion represents the assymetric impact damage entirely on one side of WTC7, and all other explosions near the base approximate WTC7s fire damage. Above the first few floors the building is intact. In this scenario, what would the collapse be like? You guessed it, it would have toppled, because the only way it can go downwards is if the remainder of the structure is disintegrating at the same time.
Christophera
Even I understand this
Fires didn't make this building fall down
Even I understand this
Fires didn't make this building fall down
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 28 2006, 02:24 AM)
The fires were intense in places, but noone can possibly claim they were widespread enough to weaken enough key supports to mimic explosives in a CD. As for the debris damage, I have seen no photos of a "huge 20 story gash" that could have done any real damage to the core columns. Judging by other buildings at similar distances from either tower, the damage should not have been anywhere close to causing a catastrophic global collapse. (Unless you put all your faith in eyewitness testimony of something that would look big to the human eye, but would be relatively minor to the integrity of a 47-story building.)
Not noone, the fireman themselves...
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there.
Why are you ignoring this? It's the elephant in the room. No, it's the 20 story hole in the room. Is it reasoned debate to just ignore what doesn't fit your world view? I would expect this from christofoxx but was hoping more from you.
And as I've shown before, the impact of the towers hitting builing 7 must have weakened the steel and connections. The building, like the towers were off center. Can you imagine the engery needed to move a 47 story building off center and keep it there? None of this even gives you pause?
Again, why have you not contacted Dr Sunder with this breath-takingly simple explanation of WTC7s demise?
"A building hit it, duh!"
Also, WTC7 was positioned no closer to the towers than several other buildings in the area, and infact, being taller, a smaller fraction of its total volume should have been affected assuming an even spread of debris. By your proclamation about buildings NEVER surviving being hit by another building (which is misleading to begin with as only a small fraction of another building was involved), then several more buildings should have come down on 9/11.
Could you provide the evidence again that this 20 story hole damaged any critical supports inside the building, and didn't simply look 'impressive' to the onlookers.
Again, why have you not contacted Dr Sunder with this breath-takingly simple explanation of WTC7s demise?
"A building hit it, duh!"
Also, WTC7 was positioned no closer to the towers than several other buildings in the area, and infact, being taller, a smaller fraction of its total volume should have been affected assuming an even spread of debris. By your proclamation about buildings NEVER surviving being hit by another building (which is misleading to begin with as only a small fraction of another building was involved), then several more buildings should have come down on 9/11.
Could you provide the evidence again that this 20 story hole damaged any critical supports inside the building, and didn't simply look 'impressive' to the onlookers.
As for the towers they were NEVER designed to be without fireproofing. Why are you going out of your way to ignore these huge facts? A minimum of critical thinking will get you past this point.
At most a tiny % of the fireproofing was removed. Even then, the fires were not infernos, nor did they engulf entire floors, and only at a few points would even non-fireproofed steel experience a prolonged, intense enough fire to weaken to any significant degree.
Of course.. if the buildings had been bound together by thread that WOULD explain it perfectly! They must really have been on a tight budget I guess..
Look, buildings do not just break apart on a whim at the first loss of equilibrium. The lack of basic engineering common sense here is quite shocking. The buildings were STRONG, and that includes being strong against vertically applied forces.
Of course.. if the buildings had been bound together by thread that WOULD explain it perfectly! They must really have been on a tight budget I guess..
Look, buildings do not just break apart on a whim at the first loss of equilibrium. The lack of basic engineering common sense here is quite shocking. The buildings were STRONG, and that includes being strong against vertically applied forces.
A 767 at 500 miles an hour hit the buildings which were designed for 707's. The fuel wasn't taken into account either.
The difference in size is minimal. And an engineer builds with atleast 3 times maximum load strength. It would not be safe building something to resist an airplane impact if the safety margin wasn't atleast 200-300%.
Because firefighters had ample experience of that kind of situation right? The firemen would have been quite within their rights to look at WTC7 and worry about its safety after the unexpected collapses of 1 and 2, and given the total uniqueness of the situation. There is absolutely zero chance that a firefighter could KNOW, with absolute certainty, what would happen in a situation that noone had seen before. After if they did, then it beggars belief that experts with over 4 years and far more information cannot reach the same conclusion. The firemen are probably being honest about their fears on the day, but it simply cannot be taken as reliable given that they would have zero past experience of 47 story buildings sponteneously collapsing.
I see no good reason to continue to feed their paranoia, at this point its hardly more sporting then shooting fish in a barrel and its getting to be on the par with teasing monkeys at the zoo.
Arthur
Arthur,
Were are your axe and bat threatening friends? Remenber, the reasonable ones you would like to hang out with (or most likely work with).
It has been a while since we had a shill go Psycho.
Are you shilling for drug companies now? I assume we are psychotic delusional paranoid because we support the CD theory and not the goverment sponsored OCT . Since the official theory is a conspiracy theory (even Hitler had a trial after the Reichstag Fire so he could label dissenters conspiracy theorists) everyone must need medication (I am sure you can recommend a pharmaceutical company). I would not be surprised if Christophera thinks the lone gunmen did it so in your reality he is the only sane person.
This testimony gives no idea as to how deep the hole was. Though it should be fairly easy to estimate an upper limit based on the velocity curve of the farthest flung debris.
And according to this quote, the fire was only on "several" floors. What does several mean? 5? 10? Certainly you would expect a lot more floors than that to be weakened in a CD, and not just on the face of the building you're observing. So this quote fails. Next..
This testimony gives no idea as to how deep the hole was. Though it should be fairly easy to estimate an upper limit based on the velocity curve of the farthest flung debris.
And according to this quote, the fire was only on "several" floors. What does several mean? 5? 10? Certainly you would expect a lot more floors than that to be weakened in a CD, and not just on the face of the building you're observing. So this quote fails. Next..
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there.
Again, absolutely no information on what proportion of WTC7s volume was affected by the fires. Next..
How exactly does the "edge of the south face" equate to an ENTIRE building being weakened during CD?
Is that the best there is?
How exactly does the "edge of the south face" equate to an ENTIRE building being weakened during CD?
Is that the best there is?
Why are you ignoring this? It's the elephant in the room. No, it's the 20 story hole in the room. Is it reasoned debate to just ignore what doesn't fit your world view? I would expect this from christofoxx but was hoping more from you.
If it was the elephant in the room NIST would have finished up a long time ago. I am not ignoring the hole.. on the contrary, it is one of the reasons a straight down collapse was unlikely. I have not seen any evidence that the hole went deep into the main supports of the building.
Well I'm relatively new here. What page of the thread is that on?
Well I'm relatively new here. What page of the thread is that on?
The building, like the towers were off center. Can you imagine the engery needed to move a 47 story building off center and keep it there? None of this even gives you pause?
I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean all 3 were left tilting by their respective impact damage, I had not heard that before, but if true, I imagine the energy to do this was significantly smaller than the binding energy of the structures.
Not noone, the fireman themselves...
QUOTE
So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. |
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there.
QUOTE
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
Why are you ignoring this? It's the elephant in the room. No, it's the 20 story hole in the room. Is it reasoned debate to just ignore what doesn't fit your world view? I would expect this from christofoxx but was hoping more from you.
And as I've shown before, the impact of the towers hitting builing 7 must have weakened the steel and connections. The building, like the towers were off center. Can you imagine the engery needed to move a 47 story building off center and keep it there? None of this even gives you pause?
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 28 2006, 02:38 AM)
Christophera
Even I understand this
Fires didn't make this building fall down
I get your point.
The most profound aspect is that we don't have government problem, we have a people problem. What you post was known and obvious on 9-12-01.
The lie regarding the structural core has qualities that will resonate with the event.
Even I understand this
Fires didn't make this building fall down
I get your point.
The most profound aspect is that we don't have government problem, we have a people problem. What you post was known and obvious on 9-12-01.
The lie regarding the structural core has qualities that will resonate with the event.
Christophera,
I believe in all fairness and even as far as the government goes "Innocent until proven guilty" But since I've been sitting on the jury of the public court of opinion for over 4 years and have weighed a ton of evidence, from structural engineering, to the actions of Bush, NORAD, the FAA and others I have to say guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
But maybe I am wrong, maybe those Muslims did suspend the laws of physics and reality that day and actually made the resistance factor vanish into thin air at the exact perfect point in time that allowed the buildings to collapse at virtual free fall speed.
And who knows, maybe I'm way off base in being so suspicious and that building 7 COINCIDENTALLY collapsed within about 8 hours in a perfect symmetrical manner, (exactly like control demolished buildings).
I mean I don't really know for sure whether sun and moon really do exist, maybe it's just my imagination.
However to the best of my knowledge and common sense, based upon all the facts that I've seen I'd have to conclude that various people at the top of our government, including the president either sponsored, hired and/or aided and abetted in the attacks.
Call me a wacko conspiracy nut, but I have to try and be honest about what I've observed and therefore I have to conclude they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now as for sentencing, well I'll have to leave that up to the judge.
I believe in all fairness and even as far as the government goes "Innocent until proven guilty" But since I've been sitting on the jury of the public court of opinion for over 4 years and have weighed a ton of evidence, from structural engineering, to the actions of Bush, NORAD, the FAA and others I have to say guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
But maybe I am wrong, maybe those Muslims did suspend the laws of physics and reality that day and actually made the resistance factor vanish into thin air at the exact perfect point in time that allowed the buildings to collapse at virtual free fall speed.
And who knows, maybe I'm way off base in being so suspicious and that building 7 COINCIDENTALLY collapsed within about 8 hours in a perfect symmetrical manner, (exactly like control demolished buildings).
I mean I don't really know for sure whether sun and moon really do exist, maybe it's just my imagination.
However to the best of my knowledge and common sense, based upon all the facts that I've seen I'd have to conclude that various people at the top of our government, including the president either sponsored, hired and/or aided and abetted in the attacks.
Call me a wacko conspiracy nut, but I have to try and be honest about what I've observed and therefore I have to conclude they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now as for sentencing, well I'll have to leave that up to the judge.
QUOTE
NO building in the HISTORY OF MAN was built to resist being hit by ANOTHER BUILDING. Show me where building 7 was constructed to withstand having a 20 story hole on the south side? That's just ABSURD!
Again, why have you not contacted Dr Sunder with this breath-takingly simple explanation of WTC7s demise?
"A building hit it, duh!"
Also, WTC7 was positioned no closer to the towers than several other buildings in the area, and infact, being taller, a smaller fraction of its total volume should have been affected assuming an even spread of debris. By your proclamation about buildings NEVER surviving being hit by another building (which is misleading to begin with as only a small fraction of another building was involved), then several more buildings should have come down on 9/11.
Could you provide the evidence again that this 20 story hole damaged any critical supports inside the building, and didn't simply look 'impressive' to the onlookers.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| NO building in the HISTORY OF MAN was built to resist being hit by ANOTHER BUILDING. Show me where building 7 was constructed to withstand having a 20 story hole on the south side? That's just ABSURD! |
Again, why have you not contacted Dr Sunder with this breath-takingly simple explanation of WTC7s demise?
"A building hit it, duh!"
Also, WTC7 was positioned no closer to the towers than several other buildings in the area, and infact, being taller, a smaller fraction of its total volume should have been affected assuming an even spread of debris. By your proclamation about buildings NEVER surviving being hit by another building (which is misleading to begin with as only a small fraction of another building was involved), then several more buildings should have come down on 9/11.
Could you provide the evidence again that this 20 story hole damaged any critical supports inside the building, and didn't simply look 'impressive' to the onlookers.
As for the towers they were NEVER designed to be without fireproofing. Why are you going out of your way to ignore these huge facts? A minimum of critical thinking will get you past this point.
At most a tiny % of the fireproofing was removed. Even then, the fires were not infernos, nor did they engulf entire floors, and only at a few points would even non-fireproofed steel experience a prolonged, intense enough fire to weaken to any significant degree.
QUOTE
The buildings were made up of small parts. The towers literally came apart at the seams.
Of course.. if the buildings had been bound together by thread that WOULD explain it perfectly! They must really have been on a tight budget I guess..
Look, buildings do not just break apart on a whim at the first loss of equilibrium. The lack of basic engineering common sense here is quite shocking. The buildings were STRONG, and that includes being strong against vertically applied forces.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The buildings were made up of small parts. The towers literally came apart at the seams. |
Of course.. if the buildings had been bound together by thread that WOULD explain it perfectly! They must really have been on a tight budget I guess..
Look, buildings do not just break apart on a whim at the first loss of equilibrium. The lack of basic engineering common sense here is quite shocking. The buildings were STRONG, and that includes being strong against vertically applied forces.
A 767 at 500 miles an hour hit the buildings which were designed for 707's. The fuel wasn't taken into account either.
The difference in size is minimal. And an engineer builds with atleast 3 times maximum load strength. It would not be safe building something to resist an airplane impact if the safety margin wasn't atleast 200-300%.
QUOTE
Are you calling the fireman who KNEW building 7 was going to collase liars? Are they covering for Silvertein or the government? Yes or no.
Because firefighters had ample experience of that kind of situation right? The firemen would have been quite within their rights to look at WTC7 and worry about its safety after the unexpected collapses of 1 and 2, and given the total uniqueness of the situation. There is absolutely zero chance that a firefighter could KNOW, with absolute certainty, what would happen in a situation that noone had seen before. After if they did, then it beggars belief that experts with over 4 years and far more information cannot reach the same conclusion. The firemen are probably being honest about their fears on the day, but it simply cannot be taken as reliable given that they would have zero past experience of 47 story buildings sponteneously collapsing.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 10:45 PM)
Is it reasoned debate to just ignore what doesn't fit your world view? I would expect this from christofoxx but was hoping more from you.
Why?
Clearly anyone who makes a statement like:
is a complete MORON.
So newtonjd joins Foxx, newton, christophera, reasonwhy, steve52 etc as just another psychotic delusional paranoid, whom I suspect medication could help, but unfortunately their condition prevents them from recognizing the depth of their mental dysfunction and thus seeking treatment.
Its why Dr Sunder SIGHED when he was asked if he had read Steven Jones' paper.
He sighed because its SAD to see a good mind go to waste like that.
But arguing with these PSYCHOS is pointless.
600 pages, about 1/2 of which have been patiently pointing out why their proclaimed "truths" are ludicrous, and Foxx et al are just as convinced of CD and tons of thermite today as he was last October.
Which means NO AMOUNT OF FACTUAL INFORMATION will EVER change their mind.
You CAN'T reason with someone who has this type of DELUSION and is also PARANOID.
Your attempt to EXPLAIN REALITY is simply seen as you being part of the Conspiracy.
Its a no win situation.
There is MORE than enough FACTUAL information in this thread such that anyone who is NOT CRAZY and has an open and unbiased mind will see the truth, so there really is no point in continuing this exercise in futility.
I see no good reason to continue to feed their paranoia, at this point its hardly more sporting then shooting fish in a barrel and its getting to be on the par with teasing monkeys at the zoo.
Arthur
Why?
Clearly anyone who makes a statement like:
QUOTE
the collapse of the Penthouse, which you brought up originally and I argued could only be the result of CD.
is a complete MORON.
So newtonjd joins Foxx, newton, christophera, reasonwhy, steve52 etc as just another psychotic delusional paranoid, whom I suspect medication could help, but unfortunately their condition prevents them from recognizing the depth of their mental dysfunction and thus seeking treatment.
Its why Dr Sunder SIGHED when he was asked if he had read Steven Jones' paper.
He sighed because its SAD to see a good mind go to waste like that.
But arguing with these PSYCHOS is pointless.
600 pages, about 1/2 of which have been patiently pointing out why their proclaimed "truths" are ludicrous, and Foxx et al are just as convinced of CD and tons of thermite today as he was last October.
Which means NO AMOUNT OF FACTUAL INFORMATION will EVER change their mind.
You CAN'T reason with someone who has this type of DELUSION and is also PARANOID.
Your attempt to EXPLAIN REALITY is simply seen as you being part of the Conspiracy.
Its a no win situation.
There is MORE than enough FACTUAL information in this thread such that anyone who is NOT CRAZY and has an open and unbiased mind will see the truth, so there really is no point in continuing this exercise in futility.
I see no good reason to continue to feed their paranoia, at this point its hardly more sporting then shooting fish in a barrel and its getting to be on the par with teasing monkeys at the zoo.
Arthur
Arthur - lots of hot air there, not much substance. Instead of reciprocating the personal attack, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are quite capable of proposing your own theory for the collapse of the penthouse.
I will also give you the benefit of the doubt that somewhere in these 600 pages you have explained how localised, assymetric damage to WTC7 caused it fall in exactly the same way as buildings with global, symmetric removal of all critical support. Perhaps you, or someone else, could summarise the post(s) where you did this?
I will also give you the benefit of the doubt that somewhere in these 600 pages you have explained how localised, assymetric damage to WTC7 caused it fall in exactly the same way as buildings with global, symmetric removal of all critical support. Perhaps you, or someone else, could summarise the post(s) where you did this?
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 27 2006, 07:08 PM)
I see no good reason to continue to feed their paranoia, at this point its hardly more sporting then shooting fish in a barrel and its getting to be on the par with teasing monkeys at the zoo.
Arthur
Arthur,
Were are your axe and bat threatening friends? Remenber, the reasonable ones you would like to hang out with (or most likely work with).
It has been a while since we had a shill go Psycho.
QUOTE
So newtonjd joins Foxx, newton, christophera, reasonwhy, steve52 etc as just another psychotic delusional paranoid, whom I suspect medication could help, but unfortunately their condition prevents them from recognizing the depth of their mental dysfunction and thus seeking treatment
Are you shilling for drug companies now? I assume we are psychotic delusional paranoid because we support the CD theory and not the goverment sponsored OCT . Since the official theory is a conspiracy theory (even Hitler had a trial after the Reichstag Fire so he could label dissenters conspiracy theorists) everyone must need medication (I am sure you can recommend a pharmaceutical company
). I would not be surprised if Christophera thinks the lone gunmen did it so in your reality he is the only sane person.
adoucette,
It actually makes a person feel more calm and relaxed when they accept the truth, but it's the guys who hang on to the fairy tale that have to live in fear every day. Remember, it's the fear that Bin Laden's gonna get you that has all these people ruining around like scared little chickens
In reality the people who accept the truth aren't worried about high rise buildings collapsing like building 7 when a few small fires break out, but the people who hold onto the fairy tale must be scared to death.
Can you imagine the fear and panic people have that work in Chicago and other cities with high rise buildings? Every time they see a little puff of smoke it probably scares them to death.
And remember it was that fear and panic that motivated people into wanting to invade Iraq and Aganistan and slaughter 100,000 innocent civillians.
So when you talk about fear and paranoia, try to remember who's who.
It actually makes a person feel more calm and relaxed when they accept the truth, but it's the guys who hang on to the fairy tale that have to live in fear every day. Remember, it's the fear that Bin Laden's gonna get you that has all these people ruining around like scared little chickens
In reality the people who accept the truth aren't worried about high rise buildings collapsing like building 7 when a few small fires break out, but the people who hold onto the fairy tale must be scared to death.
Can you imagine the fear and panic people have that work in Chicago and other cities with high rise buildings? Every time they see a little puff of smoke it probably scares them to death.
And remember it was that fear and panic that motivated people into wanting to invade Iraq and Aganistan and slaughter 100,000 innocent civillians.
So when you talk about fear and paranoia, try to remember who's who.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The fires were intense in places, but noone can possibly claim they were widespread enough to weaken enough key supports to mimic explosives in a CD. Not noone, the fireman themselves... QUOTE So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. |
This testimony gives no idea as to how deep the hole was. Though it should be fairly easy to estimate an upper limit based on the velocity curve of the farthest flung debris.
And according to this quote, the fire was only on "several" floors. What does several mean? 5? 10? Certainly you would expect a lot more floors than that to be weakened in a CD, and not just on the face of the building you're observing. So this quote fails. Next..
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. |
This testimony gives no idea as to how deep the hole was. Though it should be fairly easy to estimate an upper limit based on the velocity curve of the farthest flung debris.
And according to this quote, the fire was only on "several" floors. What does several mean? 5? 10? Certainly you would expect a lot more floors than that to be weakened in a CD, and not just on the face of the building you're observing. So this quote fails. Next..
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there.
Again, absolutely no information on what proportion of WTC7s volume was affected by the fires. Next..
QUOTE
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
How exactly does the "edge of the south face" equate to an ENTIRE building being weakened during CD?
Is that the best there is?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02] |
How exactly does the "edge of the south face" equate to an ENTIRE building being weakened during CD?
Is that the best there is?
Why are you ignoring this? It's the elephant in the room. No, it's the 20 story hole in the room. Is it reasoned debate to just ignore what doesn't fit your world view? I would expect this from christofoxx but was hoping more from you.
If it was the elephant in the room NIST would have finished up a long time ago. I am not ignoring the hole.. on the contrary, it is one of the reasons a straight down collapse was unlikely. I have not seen any evidence that the hole went deep into the main supports of the building.
QUOTE
And as I've shown before, the impact of the towers hitting builing 7 must have weakened the steel and connections.
Well I'm relatively new here. What page of the thread is that on?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And as I've shown before, the impact of the towers hitting builing 7 must have weakened the steel and connections. |
Well I'm relatively new here. What page of the thread is that on?
The building, like the towers were off center. Can you imagine the engery needed to move a 47 story building off center and keep it there? None of this even gives you pause?
I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean all 3 were left tilting by their respective impact damage, I had not heard that before, but if true, I imagine the energy to do this was significantly smaller than the binding energy of the structures.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Mar 27 2006, 07:01 PM)
Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?
Yes 83% 44816 votes
No 17% 9106 votes
Total: 53922 votes
http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.exclude.html
Unfortunately, this is not a scientific poll. Also, there have been efforts made to bias the results, on 911 sites. Finally, the question isn't all that specific: it could refer to MIHOP, LIHOP, or CYA/after the fact, which is sort of par for the course for any beauracracy, after all.
I sincerely doubt that most structural engineers know that WTC7 collapsed within about .5 seconds of free fall time. As for non-structural engineers, the percentage is probably even less.
I'm sorry to rain on the parade, but there's a lot more work to be done.
I will admit, though, that I'm very surprised that the Sheen comments got the air time they did, just like I'm very surprised Dr. Jones appeared on national TV, even if they didn't show the WTC 7 collapse.
So, let's count our blessings, while not forgetting the goal.
Sorry if I sound "preachy"....
Yes 83% 44816 votes
No 17% 9106 votes
Total: 53922 votes
http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.exclude.html
Unfortunately, this is not a scientific poll. Also, there have been efforts made to bias the results, on 911 sites. Finally, the question isn't all that specific: it could refer to MIHOP, LIHOP, or CYA/after the fact, which is sort of par for the course for any beauracracy, after all.
I sincerely doubt that most structural engineers know that WTC7 collapsed within about .5 seconds of free fall time. As for non-structural engineers, the percentage is probably even less.
I'm sorry to rain on the parade, but there's a lot more work to be done.
I will admit, though, that I'm very surprised that the Sheen comments got the air time they did, just like I'm very surprised Dr. Jones appeared on national TV, even if they didn't show the WTC 7 collapse.
So, let's count our blessings, while not forgetting the goal.
Sorry if I sound "preachy"....
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 28 2006, 03:08 AM)
But arguing with these PSYCHOS is pointless.
Arthur
seeing as you've argued so consistently and vehementally with 'us', it says:
a. you engage yourself with pointless endeavors(not exactly sane)
b. 'we' aren't psychos
have it your way at bildeberger king
Arthur
seeing as you've argued so consistently and vehementally with 'us', it says:
a. you engage yourself with pointless endeavors(not exactly sane)
b. 'we' aren't psychos
have it your way at bildeberger king
metamars, I agree about the poll. It makes me frustrated to see people like Alex Jones and David Icke loudly proclaiming "84% of the public now agree with us"..
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 28 2006, 04:29 AM)
metamars, I agree about the poll. It makes me frustrated to see people like Alex Jones and David Icke loudly proclaiming "84% of the public now agree with us"..
Alex Jones often has great guests, he has a very good memory, and I appreciate his zeal (up to a point), but...
1) he often cuts his guests off, and, much worse,
2) he exaggerates or only gives one side of the story.
Claiming that an internet poll that was "evangelistically" promoted says anything significant about the US population as a whole is a joke, and a good example of 2) .
Besides damaging his own credibility by making statements like that, it might give 911 activists the idea that they can relax, because they have already won the "infowar".
From my perspective, suppressing and distorting the truth about 911 is one of many government/media criminal bamboozles*, so the only way to win the infowar permanently is to first replace the media with an honest one, and then replace the government.
But even the more limited notion of letting 911 Truth prevail is far from accomplished.
Isn't Icke the reptilian guy?
* Speaking of which: I overheard a guy at a deli, just last week, tell another customer that he though that we were going to find the WMD in Iraq!! I kid you not. Since I figured it was a total waste of time to inform him that we were no longer even looking for WMD, I didn't bother.
While most Americans aren't so terminally brain-washable (I hope ...), the tremendous effectiveness of the media to inflict even temporary pseudo-realities is a much bigger problem than just reversing the 911 Fairy Tale conditioning.
I'm also convinced that the perpetual lying by the government, which they perpetually get away with (as individuals; the exceptions prove the rule), is psychologically damaging, and certainly demoralizing, to large segments of the population. A loose analogy might be: the effect on one's mental and/or psychological health by a spouse who is a habitual liar, is secretive and duplicitous, and evinces no evidence of concern for the other.
This is a testable hypothesis, which some scientist (e.g., an anthropologist) may want to research.
Alex Jones often has great guests, he has a very good memory, and I appreciate his zeal (up to a point), but...
1) he often cuts his guests off, and, much worse,
2) he exaggerates or only gives one side of the story.
Claiming that an internet poll that was "evangelistically" promoted says anything significant about the US population as a whole is a joke, and a good example of 2) .
Besides damaging his own credibility by making statements like that, it might give 911 activists the idea that they can relax, because they have already won the "infowar".
From my perspective, suppressing and distorting the truth about 911 is one of many government/media criminal bamboozles*, so the only way to win the infowar permanently is to first replace the media with an honest one, and then replace the government.
But even the more limited notion of letting 911 Truth prevail is far from accomplished.
Isn't Icke the reptilian guy?
* Speaking of which: I overheard a guy at a deli, just last week, tell another customer that he though that we were going to find the WMD in Iraq!! I kid you not. Since I figured it was a total waste of time to inform him that we were no longer even looking for WMD, I didn't bother.
While most Americans aren't so terminally brain-washable (I hope ...), the tremendous effectiveness of the media to inflict even temporary pseudo-realities is a much bigger problem than just reversing the 911 Fairy Tale conditioning.
I'm also convinced that the perpetual lying by the government, which they perpetually get away with (as individuals; the exceptions prove the rule), is psychologically damaging, and certainly demoralizing, to large segments of the population. A loose analogy might be: the effect on one's mental and/or psychological health by a spouse who is a habitual liar, is secretive and duplicitous, and evinces no evidence of concern for the other.
This is a testable hypothesis, which some scientist (e.g., an anthropologist) may want to research.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 27 2006, 11:20 PM)
Arthur - lots of hot air there, not much substance. Instead of reciprocating the personal attack, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are quite capable of proposing your own theory for the collapse of the penthouse.
I will also give you the benefit of the doubt that somewhere in these 600 pages you have explained how localised, assymetric damage to WTC7 caused it fall in exactly the same way as buildings with global, symmetric removal of all critical support. Perhaps you, or someone else, could summarise the post(s) where you did this?
Newtonjd, you are obviously quite aware that NOBODY knows exactly why WTC 7 fell.
We might NEVER know.
Unlike the other towers, where we could MODEL the initial damage quite closely and verify the model using an incredible amount of photographic evidence, there IS no initial model of the damage done to WTC 7.
What's more, since it had been largely evacuated prior to the fall of the towers there is almost nothing known about the damage done to it or how it progressed.
What IS clear though is there is NO EVIDENCE of a Controlled Demolition, and to think that explosives and the wiring to set them off could have sat around in that building for hours as it burned out of control is in fact the ranting of a DELUSIONAL PARANOID.
So enjoy another go at your mental masturbation.
I'd stick around and debate you, but as I said, its like teasing monkeys at the zoo, its fun for a while, but they always end up flinging feces.
Arthur
I will also give you the benefit of the doubt that somewhere in these 600 pages you have explained how localised, assymetric damage to WTC7 caused it fall in exactly the same way as buildings with global, symmetric removal of all critical support. Perhaps you, or someone else, could summarise the post(s) where you did this?
Newtonjd, you are obviously quite aware that NOBODY knows exactly why WTC 7 fell.
We might NEVER know.
Unlike the other towers, where we could MODEL the initial damage quite closely and verify the model using an incredible amount of photographic evidence, there IS no initial model of the damage done to WTC 7.
What's more, since it had been largely evacuated prior to the fall of the towers there is almost nothing known about the damage done to it or how it progressed.
What IS clear though is there is NO EVIDENCE of a Controlled Demolition, and to think that explosives and the wiring to set them off could have sat around in that building for hours as it burned out of control is in fact the ranting of a DELUSIONAL PARANOID.
So enjoy another go at your mental masturbation.
I'd stick around and debate you, but as I said, its like teasing monkeys at the zoo, its fun for a while, but they always end up flinging feces.
Arthur
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 28 2006, 02:24 AM)
YID - like len, you have ignored the majority of what I've said. But on we go with what you have managed to produce..
That of course assumes that you know what the speed of a gravity collapse would be. This either requires a real-life example of a gravity collapse from a similar level damage, or accurate modelling of such a collapse. If you can point me to either of these I would be much obliged (hint: don't bother searching NIST for a collapse model)
That of course assumes that you know what the speed of a gravity collapse would be. This either requires a real-life example of a gravity collapse from a similar level damage, or accurate modelling of such a collapse. If you can point me to either of these I would be much obliged (hint: don't bother searching NIST for a collapse model)
If we are still on the Landmark v. WTC 7 collapses, I believe that newtonnjd commented something along the line that CD use on some central columns would explain the fall of WTC 7. I brought up the preliminary explanation that NIST published.
Seems then that newtonnjd and NIST are in agreement that damage to central columns would account for the collapse as seen.
Unless NIST proposed that the central columns were damaged along their entire lengths, then no, we are not in agreement. Perhaps you would care to address the collapse of the Penthouse, which you brought up originally and I argued could only be the result of CD.
It may well have been 'unstable' in one or two places. A jenga tower becomes more and more unstable, but when it goes down it doesn't fall onto its own footprint. And neither would a mostly intact tower with highly assymetric damages.
It may well have been 'unstable' in one or two places. A jenga tower becomes more and more unstable, but when it goes down it doesn't fall onto its own footprint. And neither would a mostly intact tower with highly assymetric damages.
We also have the photos of fires throughout the building and pictures of some of the impact damage done to the building.
The fires were intense in places, but noone can possibly claim they were widespread enough to weaken enough key supports to mimic explosives in a CD. As for the debris damage, I have seen no photos of a "huge 20 story gash" that could have done any real damage to the core columns. Judging by other buildings at similar distances from either tower, the damage should not have been anywhere close to causing a catastrophic global collapse. (Unless you put all your faith in eyewitness testimony of something that would look big to the human eye, but would be relatively minor to the integrity of a 47-story building.)
Well, I should think the planners would have wanted to be rather careful on those two points. Lack of witnesses is not proof that no crime was commited.
Well, I should think the planners would have wanted to be rather careful on those two points. Lack of witnesses is not proof that no crime was commited.
Given those facts in evidence it stands to reason that the damage to the columns that eventually led to the collapse of WTC7 was done by the impact damage and the subsequent fires.
Absolutely not, as I have explained in detail while you continue the delusion that localised, assymetric damage could create the same style of implosion as global, symmetric destruction of all critical support.
Let's do a thought experiment in which the Landmark tower was subjected only to explosives near its base, in particular the explosion that caused it to tilt. This explosion represents the assymetric impact damage entirely on one side of WTC7, and all other explosions near the base approximate WTC7s fire damage. Above the first few floors the building is intact. In this scenario, what would the collapse be like? You guessed it, it would have toppled, because the only way it can go downwards is if the remainder of the structure is disintegrating at the same time.
As for the rate of collapse by gravity, seems you don't have a value for that either.
Seems the whole thing about "they fell too fast" relies on the "near free fall" type of subjective statements.
THIS is your evidence??? Lack of evidence is not evidence. You are apparently operating from a prejudice that CD did occur rather than attempting to use facts in evidence to arrive at a conclusion.
,,, and I get accused of taking the easy way!
I suggested you get back to me when you have read the NIST report on WTC 7. Obvious that you have not yet done so.
QUOTE
the speed of the collapse has never been shown to be beyond that which a gravity collapse would generate.
That of course assumes that you know what the speed of a gravity collapse would be. This either requires a real-life example of a gravity collapse from a similar level damage, or accurate modelling of such a collapse. If you can point me to either of these I would be much obliged (hint: don't bother searching NIST for a collapse model)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the speed of the collapse has never been shown to be beyond that which a gravity collapse would generate. |
That of course assumes that you know what the speed of a gravity collapse would be. This either requires a real-life example of a gravity collapse from a similar level damage, or accurate modelling of such a collapse. If you can point me to either of these I would be much obliged (hint: don't bother searching NIST for a collapse model)
If we are still on the Landmark v. WTC 7 collapses, I believe that newtonnjd commented something along the line that CD use on some central columns would explain the fall of WTC 7. I brought up the preliminary explanation that NIST published.
Seems then that newtonnjd and NIST are in agreement that damage to central columns would account for the collapse as seen.
Unless NIST proposed that the central columns were damaged along their entire lengths, then no, we are not in agreement. Perhaps you would care to address the collapse of the Penthouse, which you brought up originally and I argued could only be the result of CD.
QUOTE
We also have witness testimony about the condition of WTC 7 starting just after WTC 1 fell. That testimony gives us that the building was considered unstable right from that point on.
It may well have been 'unstable' in one or two places. A jenga tower becomes more and more unstable, but when it goes down it doesn't fall onto its own footprint. And neither would a mostly intact tower with highly assymetric damages.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We also have witness testimony about the condition of WTC 7 starting just after WTC 1 fell. That testimony gives us that the building was considered unstable right from that point on. |
It may well have been 'unstable' in one or two places. A jenga tower becomes more and more unstable, but when it goes down it doesn't fall onto its own footprint. And neither would a mostly intact tower with highly assymetric damages.
We also have the photos of fires throughout the building and pictures of some of the impact damage done to the building.
The fires were intense in places, but noone can possibly claim they were widespread enough to weaken enough key supports to mimic explosives in a CD. As for the debris damage, I have seen no photos of a "huge 20 story gash" that could have done any real damage to the core columns. Judging by other buildings at similar distances from either tower, the damage should not have been anywhere close to causing a catastrophic global collapse. (Unless you put all your faith in eyewitness testimony of something that would look big to the human eye, but would be relatively minor to the integrity of a 47-story building.)
QUOTE
There are no facts in evidence that explosives were used to damage WTC 7. No one saw any explosives being loaded into the building, no one saw any explosives going off (ala the Landmark for instance).
Well, I should think the planners would have wanted to be rather careful on those two points. Lack of witnesses is not proof that no crime was commited.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There are no facts in evidence that explosives were used to damage WTC 7. No one saw any explosives being loaded into the building, no one saw any explosives going off (ala the Landmark for instance). |
Well, I should think the planners would have wanted to be rather careful on those two points. Lack of witnesses is not proof that no crime was commited.
Given those facts in evidence it stands to reason that the damage to the columns that eventually led to the collapse of WTC7 was done by the impact damage and the subsequent fires.
Absolutely not, as I have explained in detail while you continue the delusion that localised, assymetric damage could create the same style of implosion as global, symmetric destruction of all critical support.
Let's do a thought experiment in which the Landmark tower was subjected only to explosives near its base, in particular the explosion that caused it to tilt. This explosion represents the assymetric impact damage entirely on one side of WTC7, and all other explosions near the base approximate WTC7s fire damage. Above the first few floors the building is intact. In this scenario, what would the collapse be like? You guessed it, it would have toppled, because the only way it can go downwards is if the remainder of the structure is disintegrating at the same time.
As for the rate of collapse by gravity, seems you don't have a value for that either.
Seems the whole thing about "they fell too fast" relies on the "near free fall" type of subjective statements.
QUOTE
Well, I should think the planners would have wanted to be rather careful on those two points. Lack of witnesses is not proof that no crime was commited.
THIS is your evidence??? Lack of evidence is not evidence. You are apparently operating from a prejudice that CD did occur rather than attempting to use facts in evidence to arrive at a conclusion.
,,, and I get accused of taking the easy way!
I suggested you get back to me when you have read the NIST report on WTC 7. Obvious that you have not yet done so.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 28 2006, 04:15 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 28 2006, 03:08 AM)
But arguing with these PSYCHOS is pointless.
Arthur
seeing as you've argued so consistently and vehementally with 'us', it says:
a. you engage yourself with pointless endeavors(not exactly sane)
b. 'we' aren't psychos
have it your way at bildeberger king
Some people, myself included, simply wish to fight the lies, misinformation and paranoid musings.
Arthur
seeing as you've argued so consistently and vehementally with 'us', it says:
a. you engage yourself with pointless endeavors(not exactly sane)
b. 'we' aren't psychos
have it your way at bildeberger king
Some people, myself included, simply wish to fight the lies, misinformation and paranoid musings.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 28 2006, 04:29 AM)
metamars, I agree about the poll. It makes me frustrated to see people like Alex Jones and David Icke loudly proclaiming "84% of the public now agree with us"..
84% of respondants(who may very well not all be unique persons) to a question on a web page that is very non-specific would be a better description.
84% of respondants(who may very well not all be unique persons) to a question on a web page that is very non-specific would be a better description.
Christophera, you can point out the remants of the concrete core here?
Time for Christophera to spam the thread.
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 28 2006, 01:50 AM)
Some people, myself included, simply wish to fight the lies, misinformation and paranoid musings.
I certainly understand the desire, even though it is quite clear that none of these paranoid fools are receptive to anything that doesn't fit in with their delusions.
I quit trying simply because it seemed obvious that no new info was being posted, and the thread had devolved into ignorant ramblings about how money could be folded to show the towers coming down, thermobaric bombs, C4 impregnated concrete cores etc etc along with a new set of clowns showing up and starting over with the same old tired lies and irrational arguments.
Arthur
I certainly understand the desire, even though it is quite clear that none of these paranoid fools are receptive to anything that doesn't fit in with their delusions.
I quit trying simply because it seemed obvious that no new info was being posted, and the thread had devolved into ignorant ramblings about how money could be folded to show the towers coming down, thermobaric bombs, C4 impregnated concrete cores etc etc along with a new set of clowns showing up and starting over with the same old tired lies and irrational arguments.
Arthur
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 28 2006, 03:04 AM)
Christophera,
I believe in all fairness and even as far as the government goes "Innocent until proven guilty" But since I've been sitting on the jury of the public court of opinion for over 4 years and have weighed a ton of evidence, from structural engineering, to the actions of Bush, NORAD, the FAA and others I have to say guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
But maybe I am wrong, maybe those Muslims did suspend the laws of physics and reality that day and actually made the resistance factor vanish into thin air at the exact perfect point in time that allowed the buildings to collapse at virtual free fall speed.
And who knows, maybe I'm way off base in being so suspicious and that building 7 COINCIDENTALLY collapsed within about 8 hours in a perfect symmetrical manner, (exactly like control demolished buildings).
I mean I don't really know for sure whether sun and moon really do exist, maybe it's just my imagination.
However to the best of my knowledge and common sense, based upon all the facts that I've seen I'd have to conclude that various people at the top of our government, including the president either sponsored, hired and/or aided and abetted in the attacks.
Call me a wacko conspiracy nut, but I have to try and be honest about what I've observed and therefore I have to conclude they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now as for sentencing, well I'll have to leave that up to the judge.
You and I are in full agreement W/regard to a great deal.
The building was demoed. I believed the Muslims were used to make it an excuse for war.
But what is important is that our beliefs compel us to act together for a specific goal that has a potential for maximum effect protecting our republic, rights freedoms and futures.
This movement is fractured by a covert manipulation using technology in an immense over, mis, dis, information scheme without compare. My efforts are to focus on raw evidence and its uses in reverse engineering the event to logical beginnings. Using the evidence we DO have to show a deception having no excuse that easily hides explanation of events and immense reason for a new investigation, a real one.
What is weird is that no one seems to notice the illogic of most posters NOT believing the official account of impacts, fires and collapse, then, not only believing, but fighting in groups FOR the official structural description of the towers core with no raw evidence, ignoring redundant, even robust raw evidence of the concrete core, the most common building material, plus independant engineering accounts describing a core. Oxford university even.
http://concretecore.741.com/
Now that is fooking weird.
I believe in all fairness and even as far as the government goes "Innocent until proven guilty" But since I've been sitting on the jury of the public court of opinion for over 4 years and have weighed a ton of evidence, from structural engineering, to the actions of Bush, NORAD, the FAA and others I have to say guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
But maybe I am wrong, maybe those Muslims did suspend the laws of physics and reality that day and actually made the resistance factor vanish into thin air at the exact perfect point in time that allowed the buildings to collapse at virtual free fall speed.
And who knows, maybe I'm way off base in being so suspicious and that building 7 COINCIDENTALLY collapsed within about 8 hours in a perfect symmetrical manner, (exactly like control demolished buildings).
I mean I don't really know for sure whether sun and moon really do exist, maybe it's just my imagination.
However to the best of my knowledge and common sense, based upon all the facts that I've seen I'd have to conclude that various people at the top of our government, including the president either sponsored, hired and/or aided and abetted in the attacks.
Call me a wacko conspiracy nut, but I have to try and be honest about what I've observed and therefore I have to conclude they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Now as for sentencing, well I'll have to leave that up to the judge.
You and I are in full agreement W/regard to a great deal.
The building was demoed. I believed the Muslims were used to make it an excuse for war.
But what is important is that our beliefs compel us to act together for a specific goal that has a potential for maximum effect protecting our republic, rights freedoms and futures.
This movement is fractured by a covert manipulation using technology in an immense over, mis, dis, information scheme without compare. My efforts are to focus on raw evidence and its uses in reverse engineering the event to logical beginnings. Using the evidence we DO have to show a deception having no excuse that easily hides explanation of events and immense reason for a new investigation, a real one.
What is weird is that no one seems to notice the illogic of most posters NOT believing the official account of impacts, fires and collapse, then, not only believing, but fighting in groups FOR the official structural description of the towers core with no raw evidence, ignoring redundant, even robust raw evidence of the concrete core, the most common building material, plus independant engineering accounts describing a core. Oxford university even.
http://concretecore.741.com/
Now that is fooking weird.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 28 2006, 06:14 AM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 28 2006, 01:50 AM)
Some people, myself included, simply wish to fight the lies, misinformation and paranoid musings.
I certainly understand the desire, even though it is quite clear that none of these paranoid fools are receptive to anything that doesn't fit in with their delusions.
I quit trying simply because it seemed obvious that no new info was being posted, and the thread had devolved into ignorant ramblings about how money could be folded to show the towers coming down, thermobaric bombs, C4 impregnated concrete cores etc etc along with a new set of clowns showing up and starting over with the same old tired lies and irrational arguments.
Arthur
didn't you fook off once or twice already, and common sense and yesitdid, too? didn't you leave us to implode?
disappointed that not only did that not happen, but now there are more people with actual common sense posting here? we may need a fleet of clown cars if this keeps up.
could you just do that again(fook off this thread, that is)? it was really great not being called a fool, a moron, a lunatic and idiot and the rest of it(especially by someone who thinks ANYTHING will stop the plane on the conveyor belt from taking off, LOL! everything would fly into pieces. what a fooking joke you are, dude. you couldn't think your way out of a wet paper bag. planes are pushed by air, and wheel bearings don't transfer much friction. fookin, duh-huh-mmy. no wonder you trust bush and the army of fascists. oh right! you ARE one. what was the subroutine you wrote for diebold again? if 'republican', then "republican", if 'democrat', then 'republican', if "voter deceased", then , "republican", or something to that effect?)
it seems many of the highly vocal protectors of the official lie that have admitted what they do, are all in 'conflict of interest' or 'bias' positions as witnesses and providers of expert testimony.
like 'howard roark'(the avatar name is taken from an ayn rand character from "the fountainhead" -an architect who DEMOS HIS OWN BUILDINGS) at ATS, who has admittedly worked many demolitions and does hazmat clean-ups.
or, like a-ht, who was worried about his job as a public relations guy at NIST, because people like us were uncovering a political scandal. that was funny.
or, arthur, who writes software to steal your vote.
or the pentagon military pilot who closed the thread at 'dynamictruth' when he realised they were talking about the chances the hack pilots had on 911. (snowball's chance in hell, it turns out)
you use the word paranoid too freely. some of us are just pissed.
I certainly understand the desire, even though it is quite clear that none of these paranoid fools are receptive to anything that doesn't fit in with their delusions.
I quit trying simply because it seemed obvious that no new info was being posted, and the thread had devolved into ignorant ramblings about how money could be folded to show the towers coming down, thermobaric bombs, C4 impregnated concrete cores etc etc along with a new set of clowns showing up and starting over with the same old tired lies and irrational arguments.
Arthur
didn't you fook off once or twice already, and common sense and yesitdid, too? didn't you leave us to implode?
disappointed that not only did that not happen, but now there are more people with actual common sense posting here? we may need a fleet of clown cars if this keeps up.
could you just do that again(fook off this thread, that is)? it was really great not being called a fool, a moron, a lunatic and idiot and the rest of it(especially by someone who thinks ANYTHING will stop the plane on the conveyor belt from taking off, LOL! everything would fly into pieces. what a fooking joke you are, dude. you couldn't think your way out of a wet paper bag. planes are pushed by air, and wheel bearings don't transfer much friction. fookin, duh-huh-mmy. no wonder you trust bush and the army of fascists. oh right! you ARE one. what was the subroutine you wrote for diebold again? if 'republican', then "republican", if 'democrat', then 'republican', if "voter deceased", then , "republican", or something to that effect?)
it seems many of the highly vocal protectors of the official lie that have admitted what they do, are all in 'conflict of interest' or 'bias' positions as witnesses and providers of expert testimony.
like 'howard roark'(the avatar name is taken from an ayn rand character from "the fountainhead" -an architect who DEMOS HIS OWN BUILDINGS) at ATS, who has admittedly worked many demolitions and does hazmat clean-ups.
or, like a-ht, who was worried about his job as a public relations guy at NIST, because people like us were uncovering a political scandal. that was funny.
or, arthur, who writes software to steal your vote.
or the pentagon military pilot who closed the thread at 'dynamictruth' when he realised they were talking about the chances the hack pilots had on 911. (snowball's chance in hell, it turns out)
you use the word paranoid too freely. some of us are just pissed.
Christophera,
I agree that there are many groups of people on both sides of the issue that distort the facts for various reasons.
Some people say George Bush made a secret deal with outer space beings to destroy the world and they used ray martian type guns to bring the towers down, and others say bush is the one and only anti-christ who did all these things himself to rule the world.
In my opinion and even according to the scriptures there are many anti-christs, even I act like one myself at times, so little bush is not the one and only.
And it seems to me that this was most likely a group effort of multi-national groups of various people such as the military industrial complex, etc. etc. who have profited enormously through these wars.
The $10 or $20 billion dollar cost of the trade centers were pennies compared to the trillions that may be made in the wars and increase of military spending, homeland security, etc. etc. Not that greed is the only motivating factor, but it's probably a very big one.
But I'm only guessing, as I don't know all the mysteries, however sometimes if you look at historical events you can see patterns of human behavior that people all too often duplicate. The Viet Nam war had some similarities to the current Iraq war, and some estimates were that $147 billion was spent on that one, and those are 1970's dollars.
I've seen reports that estimate the US may spend as much as $2 trillion on the Iraq war, and we know that much of that money will wind up in the profit margins of several corporations, so there's a lot of money to go around.
People think I believe in fantasies because Americans are not capable of doing such crimes as 9/11 to their own people, but they forget about Andrea Yates, who murdered 5 of her own children and all the countless serial murderers who are good old American folks.
Not to say that people from other nations do terrible acts of evil as well, but to say that all American are lily white angels who could never do such things is just down right stupid in my opinion.
But one of the things that shakes people up is thinking that our own president and other top leaders could have done this, because it makes people feel so helpless, like what are they gonna do now? Who are they gonna go to for help when the top guys are corrupt? And this causes a lot of people to completely block out any incoming information that suggests our top leaders could be involved. It's just to scary for some people to consider and so they prefer the other theory, no matter how impossible it sounds.
It's almost like the husband or wife cheating on their spouse syndrome. Some accept it, get real pissed off, maybe get divorced or take other actions, while others live in denial and refuse to believe there spouses would ever do such things.
Even though she sees lipstick on his collar, she chooses to believe he had a flat tire and had to spend the night in a hotel, and that's why he didn't come home all night. And those phone calls that hang up when she answers, well they must be the wrong number, and when her husband does all of these secret things, well she blocks it out of her mind.
So some people are ready, willing and able to accept the hard cold reality of the situation and maybe seek a divorce from our president, whereas others want to live in denial and believe he's the most honest and faithful president of all time.
That's not to say little bush should get all the blame, as I tend to think he was just an actor and that many people behind the scenes really put it together, but he did play his part, and pretended to be our president, even though I'd give him an F- for his part in reading my pet goat while the planes were crashing into the buildings. I though bush could have at least practiced up for that part a little better and acted a little more convincing, because he didn't fool me nor a lot of other people.
I agree that there are many groups of people on both sides of the issue that distort the facts for various reasons.
Some people say George Bush made a secret deal with outer space beings to destroy the world and they used ray martian type guns to bring the towers down, and others say bush is the one and only anti-christ who did all these things himself to rule the world.
In my opinion and even according to the scriptures there are many anti-christs, even I act like one myself at times, so little bush is not the one and only.
And it seems to me that this was most likely a group effort of multi-national groups of various people such as the military industrial complex, etc. etc. who have profited enormously through these wars.
The $10 or $20 billion dollar cost of the trade centers were pennies compared to the trillions that may be made in the wars and increase of military spending, homeland security, etc. etc. Not that greed is the only motivating factor, but it's probably a very big one.
But I'm only guessing, as I don't know all the mysteries, however sometimes if you look at historical events you can see patterns of human behavior that people all too often duplicate. The Viet Nam war had some similarities to the current Iraq war, and some estimates were that $147 billion was spent on that one, and those are 1970's dollars.
I've seen reports that estimate the US may spend as much as $2 trillion on the Iraq war, and we know that much of that money will wind up in the profit margins of several corporations, so there's a lot of money to go around.
People think I believe in fantasies because Americans are not capable of doing such crimes as 9/11 to their own people, but they forget about Andrea Yates, who murdered 5 of her own children and all the countless serial murderers who are good old American folks.
Not to say that people from other nations do terrible acts of evil as well, but to say that all American are lily white angels who could never do such things is just down right stupid in my opinion.
But one of the things that shakes people up is thinking that our own president and other top leaders could have done this, because it makes people feel so helpless, like what are they gonna do now? Who are they gonna go to for help when the top guys are corrupt? And this causes a lot of people to completely block out any incoming information that suggests our top leaders could be involved. It's just to scary for some people to consider and so they prefer the other theory, no matter how impossible it sounds.
It's almost like the husband or wife cheating on their spouse syndrome. Some accept it, get real pissed off, maybe get divorced or take other actions, while others live in denial and refuse to believe there spouses would ever do such things.
Even though she sees lipstick on his collar, she chooses to believe he had a flat tire and had to spend the night in a hotel, and that's why he didn't come home all night. And those phone calls that hang up when she answers, well they must be the wrong number, and when her husband does all of these secret things, well she blocks it out of her mind.
So some people are ready, willing and able to accept the hard cold reality of the situation and maybe seek a divorce from our president, whereas others want to live in denial and believe he's the most honest and faithful president of all time.
That's not to say little bush should get all the blame, as I tend to think he was just an actor and that many people behind the scenes really put it together, but he did play his part, and pretended to be our president, even though I'd give him an F- for his part in reading my pet goat while the planes were crashing into the buildings. I though bush could have at least practiced up for that part a little better and acted a little more convincing, because he didn't fool me nor a lot of other people.
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 28 2006, 07:26 AM)
That's not to say little bush should get all the blame, as I tend to think he was just an actor and that many people behind the scenes really put it together, but he did play his part, and pretended to be our president, even though I'd give him an F- for his part in reading my pet goat while the planes were crashing into the buildings. I though bush could have at least practiced up for that part a little better and acted a little more convincing, because he didn't fool me nor a lot of other people.
hey, not everyone can read upside down. he can't be that stupid!
i like the chalkboard behind him, with the chalked on message, 'reading makes a country strong'. i wonder if bush knows that it really only makes the readers strong. dummies get to ride the coat tails, or maybe when we're talking about satanic death cults, it's the goat tales.
hey, not everyone can read upside down. he can't be that stupid!
i like the chalkboard behind him, with the chalked on message, 'reading makes a country strong'. i wonder if bush knows that it really only makes the readers strong. dummies get to ride the coat tails, or maybe when we're talking about satanic death cults, it's the goat tales.
Newton
Rome wasn't built in a day.
He needs a little more time
Rome wasn't built in a day.
He needs a little more time
QUOTE
Charlie Sheen felt compelled to respond to one of many hit-pieces against him, a column written for the London Guardian and carried by British commonwealth newspapers worldwide. Sheen sent his statement to The Australian newspaper. This is his full statement minus a phone number to his manager so that the paper could confirm its authenticity. This is a direct challenge for them to debate the facts.
Sheen Challenge to Media
I dare you to print this email in it's entirety ...
The mere fact that you did a cut and paste job of the slanderous and idiotic Marine Hyde London Journal piece, speaks volumes about your credibility as a major media entity.
Like so many other mainstream outlets, domestically and abroad, no attention whatsoever is given to the questions I raise or the evidence that stimulated those very questions.
Instead, low-brow idiotic hit pieces are spewed forth in an effort to sway the readers' opinion of the messenger while blatantly disregarding any of the potentially valuable content of the story. It's transparent sandbox propaganda as dated and cheap as the paper it's printed on.
Do a little research on Building Seven. Building Seven lives at the epicenter of my entire debate. Prove yourself worthy of genuine investigative journalism. Look at the video evidence.
Observe the same data I have. Submit a formal request to the Pentagon or the DOD to release video PROOF that flight 77 did exactly as they claim. You will be stonewalled. You will be dismissed unconditionally. If there is nothing to hide - why are they hiding it?
To avoid any confusion - I reiterate:
Building Seven - Pentagon video documentation.
If any portion, or portions of this text is any way deleted or manipulated, you will only confirm what myself and countless others have suspected all along: Media complicity with no interest in the truth.
A CNN poll at the time of this writing currently sits at 84 percent IN SUPPORT of my views.
Say what you must about me - it means nothing.
Yet, if you continue to overlook the hard questions and physical evidence regarding 9/11 - you only confirm what so many of us "Conspiracy Idiots" have suspected all along - The Official Report is, at best, an insulting work of FICTION.
Respectfully,
Charlie Sheen
Sheen Challenge to Media
I dare you to print this email in it's entirety ...
The mere fact that you did a cut and paste job of the slanderous and idiotic Marine Hyde London Journal piece, speaks volumes about your credibility as a major media entity.
Like so many other mainstream outlets, domestically and abroad, no attention whatsoever is given to the questions I raise or the evidence that stimulated those very questions.
Instead, low-brow idiotic hit pieces are spewed forth in an effort to sway the readers' opinion of the messenger while blatantly disregarding any of the potentially valuable content of the story. It's transparent sandbox propaganda as dated and cheap as the paper it's printed on.
Do a little research on Building Seven. Building Seven lives at the epicenter of my entire debate. Prove yourself worthy of genuine investigative journalism. Look at the video evidence.
Observe the same data I have. Submit a formal request to the Pentagon or the DOD to release video PROOF that flight 77 did exactly as they claim. You will be stonewalled. You will be dismissed unconditionally. If there is nothing to hide - why are they hiding it?
To avoid any confusion - I reiterate:
Building Seven - Pentagon video documentation.
If any portion, or portions of this text is any way deleted or manipulated, you will only confirm what myself and countless others have suspected all along: Media complicity with no interest in the truth.
A CNN poll at the time of this writing currently sits at 84 percent IN SUPPORT of my views.
Say what you must about me - it means nothing.
Yet, if you continue to overlook the hard questions and physical evidence regarding 9/11 - you only confirm what so many of us "Conspiracy Idiots" have suspected all along - The Official Report is, at best, an insulting work of FICTION.
Respectfully,
Charlie Sheen
If everybody and their granny knew that WTC 7 was in a precarious state why would the Fire Chief be on the phone to Silverstein and need to be told by him it would be a good idea to pull it?
"It" of course being the firemen.
Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
Can the OCTs offer one, just one, aspect of the ludicrous official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
We in the clown car have at least the knowledge that controlled demolition can explain every aspect whereas the official explanation for WTC 7 is as yet non existant for the simple reason CD CANNOT be considered. What a bind eh.
In the real world -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
"It" of course being the firemen.
Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
Can the OCTs offer one, just one, aspect of the ludicrous official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
We in the clown car have at least the knowledge that controlled demolition can explain every aspect whereas the official explanation for WTC 7 is as yet non existant for the simple reason CD CANNOT be considered. What a bind eh.
In the real world -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
Man, that Arthor is one really smart dude. If you do enough Afghanistan heroin WTC7 no longer looks like a controlled demolition. It takes hours, maybe days to fall. Thank god, we invaded those dudes because it was hard to find heroin before the liberation. When I was clean, I was a delusional paranoid. Now I am a respectable Republican and thinking about running for president.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 27 2006, 03:09 AM)
len, there is quite a lot I've written that you aren't responding to.
That could be true, every time I come back here there's 3 or 4 pages of posts to go through, I might have missed them. If you want to reiterate any points feel free
I was not the person who started comparing the dust clouds. I was replying to Newton. I cited it as a case of a symmetrical collapse.
According to media reports the building collapsed due to various faults tied to poor construction: columns that didn’t use enough rebar, use of ocean sand in the concrete (whose salt content corroded the steel) etc. The building stood for many years until cracks started appearing in some of the columns, a few days later it collapsed.
The photo could be from the demolition of the remaining part but I don’t see any signs of rubble at it’s base. IIRC the part that was demolished was a separate apt. block. It was one of only three pix I could find of the Palace II collapse; the others are even less helpful.
http://www.arcauniversal.com.br/imgupload/...md-23-02-05.jpg
http://construircomprar.com.br/img/palace2.jpg
As to whether it collapsed top to bottom or bottom to top I couldn’t say but the only top to bottom collapses I’ve ever seen were 1 & 2 WTC
A book about the Palace II came out but I didn’t have any luck finding it at local libraries and bookstores. I might get it mail order.
1] Like you said below cases of spontaneous collapse are rare, but then again airliners striking hi-rises at cruise speed are rare too, I know of no other cases. The closest thing was the El Al 747 that crashed into an apt. building in Amsterdam. The entire section it hit collapsed and it was flying sideways (one wing on top the other on the bottom) and probably at low speed. Buildings being hit by other buildings are rare too.
2] The Landmark collapse is not that similar to 7 WTC. The both collapsed because their structures were weakened, similarity is not to be unexpected. Forensic engineering/failure analysis is not as simple as watching a video of a collapse.
1] Like you said below cases of spontaneous collapse are rare, but then again airliners striking hi-rises at cruise speed are rare too, I know of no other cases. The closest thing was the El Al 747 that crashed into an apt. building in Amsterdam. The entire section it hit collapsed and it was flying sideways (one wing on top the other on the bottom) and probably at low speed. Buildings being hit by other buildings are rare too.
2] The Landmark collapse is not that similar to 7 WTC. The both collapsed because their structures were weakened, similarity is not to be unexpected. Forensic engineering/failure analysis is not as simple as watching a video of a collapse.
Intuitively it just isn't reasonable to suggest that a spontaneous collapse should resemble a CD. In one case only a localised part of the structure gives way, in another case energy is added to cause the entire structure to give way. Why are you expecting these two scenarios to be indistinguishable?
Intuition is subjective. As more and more columns failed the remaining ones became more stressed. If they (the remaining columns) were being weakened/further stressed by fire the is no reason to believe the structures didn’t reach a “straw that broke the camel’s back” point. The statements of various witnesses indicates that’s what happened. I would say intuitively the columns of L’Ambiance Plaza, Palace II, and the Areia Branca didn’t fail simultaneously. I would also say intuitively that if intentionally making a building fall in a particular direction is a complicated matter and isn’t as simple as putting all or most or the cutter charges on one side, then it makes sense that “random events” that may have been concentrated to one side would cause a building to collapse straight down rather than to one side.
Since numerous structural engineers have contributed to articles, papers and reports supporting the collapse theory and an even greater number have reviewed them and so far no qualified experts support CD, the burden of proof is on you guys. Show me once case in which a building tipped over or fell over to one side NOT counting cases of CD or earthquakes.
That’s true but it cuts both ways. Mostly against your side. If you don’t have much to compare it to how can you say what the collapses of the WTC buildings should have looked like it they really were gravity driven?
Again intuition is subjective. Often we think intuitively something should be one way but it isn’t. The collapse of the WTC towers involved more kinetic energy by far than any other building collapsed in history. They contained a lot of dust producing materials. Unlike CD’s they had not been stripped before hand. These factors alone could explain the large cloud. Again since cases of spontaneous collapse are rare and no other structure anywhere near the size of the WTC towers has ever been destroyed it’s hard to say esp. using intuition alone to know how much dust to have expected in a spontaneous collapse of the WTC.
No having been stripped 7 WTC should have kicked up a lot more dust than the Landmark. How do you explain that, using your logic that would be an indication CD wasn’t used.
Again intuition is subjective. Often we think intuitively something should be one way but it isn’t. The collapse of the WTC towers involved more kinetic energy by far than any other building collapsed in history. They contained a lot of dust producing materials. Unlike CD’s they had not been stripped before hand. These factors alone could explain the large cloud. Again since cases of spontaneous collapse are rare and no other structure anywhere near the size of the WTC towers has ever been destroyed it’s hard to say esp. using intuition alone to know how much dust to have expected in a spontaneous collapse of the WTC.
No having been stripped 7 WTC should have kicked up a lot more dust than the Landmark. How do you explain that, using your logic that would be an indication CD wasn’t used.
And no the shape of the dust cloud isn't that close to that of the WTC. There is no reason to expect the cloud from one type of collapse to be that different from another any way.
Those two statements are contradictory.
Actually they’re not: 1st sentence i.e. - the clouds don’t look very similar 2nd sentence i.e. - any similarity between dust clouds of a CD and that of one of the WTC buildings is not a sign of foul play.
There no way to make that supposition you want to believe the collapse of the Connecticut building took a long time because that better fits your view of what happened to 7 WTC. There is no way to tell how long the collapse really took it could have been close to free fall speed (under 4 seconds), we have no way of knowing.
As stated above we have no reliable indication of what the collapse time was. IIRC there isn’t even and indication as to how that estimate was made. I don’t think it was a big issue I don’t think a lot of though went into that estimate.
I think Common Sense and YID already did a good job of that. There are numerous eyewitness accounts that the building was unstable and appeared to be on the verge of collapse just before it did.
The difference in size is minimal. And an engineer builds with atleast 3 times maximum load strength. It would not be safe building something to resist an airplane impact if the safety margin wasn't atleast 200-300%.
The towers were DESIGNED to withstand single 707 impacts but the
Titanic was designed to be unsinkable and that terminal at DeGaulle
International Airport was not designed to spontaneously collapse,
this winter several buildings in Europe collapsed due to the weight
of accumulated snow which they presumably had been designed to
withstand.
[NOTE: The rest of this message was cobbled together from previous
posts on other forums]
The impact the towers were designed to survive were very different
from the ones they suffered and they failed to take the plane's fuel
load and resulting fire into account. Leslie Robertson, lead
engineer for the WTC said, "…we were looking at an aircraft not
unlike the Mitchell bomber that ran into the Empire State Building.
We were looking at an aircraft that was lost in the fog, trying to
land. It was a low-flying, slow-flying 707, which was the largest
aircraft of its time...What we didn't look at is what happens to all
that fuel. And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing
so. But for whatever reason we didn't look at that question of what
would happen to the fuel. "
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/filmmore/pt.html
According to the introduction to the NIST report which cites Port
Authority documents they calculated a plane flying at 180 mph.
That make sense, I couldn't find data for 707's but a 737 pilot's
manual advises them to use approach speeds of 135 – 145 KAIS (or
157 – 168 mph) and advises there is a 250 KAIS (290 mph) speed limit
below 10,000 feet (the top of the towers was 1368 feet)
http://www.cadets.net/pac/aircad/trg/CASC/ac_books.pdf pgs 41 - 42
The planes hit the towers at about 430 and 500 mph, 2.4 X and 2.8
faster and thus with 2.4x and 2.8 x the kinetic energy than what the
towers were designed to withstand. (Some people say you need to
square the speed and thus the difference was 5.8x and 7.8x but I
don't know if that is true)
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Cha...III%20Aircraft%
20speed.pdf
The difference in size is minimal. And an engineer builds with atleast 3 times maximum load strength. It would not be safe building something to resist an airplane impact if the safety margin wasn't atleast 200-300%.
The towers were DESIGNED to withstand single 707 impacts but the
Titanic was designed to be unsinkable and that terminal at DeGaulle
International Airport was not designed to spontaneously collapse,
this winter several buildings in Europe collapsed due to the weight
of accumulated snow which they presumably had been designed to
withstand.
[NOTE: The rest of this message was cobbled together from previous
posts on other forums]
The impact the towers were designed to survive were very different
from the ones they suffered and they failed to take the plane's fuel
load and resulting fire into account. Leslie Robertson, lead
engineer for the WTC said, "…we were looking at an aircraft not
unlike the Mitchell bomber that ran into the Empire State Building.
We were looking at an aircraft that was lost in the fog, trying to
land. It was a low-flying, slow-flying 707, which was the largest
aircraft of its time...What we didn't look at is what happens to all
that fuel. And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing
so. But for whatever reason we didn't look at that question of what
would happen to the fuel. "
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/filmmore/pt.html
According to the introduction to the NIST report which cites Port
Authority documents they calculated a plane flying at 180 mph.
That make sense, I couldn't find data for 707's but a 737 pilot's
manual advises them to use approach speeds of 135 – 145 KAIS (or
157 – 168 mph) and advises there is a 250 KAIS (290 mph) speed limit
below 10,000 feet (the top of the towers was 1368 feet)
http://www.cadets.net/pac/aircad/trg/CASC/ac_books.pdf pgs 41 - 42
The planes hit the towers at about 430 and 500 mph, 2.4 X and 2.8
faster and thus with 2.4x and 2.8 x the kinetic energy than what the
towers were designed to withstand. (Some people say you need to
square the speed and thus the difference was 5.8x and 7.8x but I
don't know if that is true)
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Cha...III%20Aircraft%
20speed.pdf
Because firefighters had ample experience of that kind of situation right? The firemen would have been quite within their rights to look at WTC7 and worry about its safety after the unexpected collapses of 1 and 2, and given the total uniqueness of the situation. There is absolutely zero chance that a firefighter could KNOW, with absolute certainty, what would happen in a situation that noone had seen before. After if they did, then it beggars belief that experts with over 4 years and far more information cannot reach the same conclusion. The firemen are probably being honest about their fears on the day, but it simply cannot be taken as reliable given that they would have zero past experience of 47 story buildings sponteneously collapsing.
No because the fireman were at the scene and saw an unstable building with a giant hole in it tilting to one side. To them it was obvious that it was going to collapse. Their observations don't contradict those of the experts. What NIST is still trying to figure out is exactly why thie buildoing became unstable and collapsed. I'm sure it's not news to them that 7 was severly dammaged by rubble from the WTC towers, it was silly of you to suggest that it was, but knowing that and knowing about the fires is not enought to issue a definitive report.
That's right many other steel framed buildings have collapsed due to magical spells put on them, such as the ones in various cartoons and science fiction movies.
But try to remember some of us are more interested in reality and not fantasy.
I totally agree with you on this one, with the exception of where the idiot arguments are coming from because anyone who is honest and has an ounce of intelligence knows that Larry said, "And they decided to pull it, and we watched the towers collapse, (or come down).
And anyone honest with an ounce of intelligence knows that building 7, (that wasn't even hit by a plane) only had a few small fires in it, yet it collapsed in a perfect symmetrical manner, INSTANTANEOUSLY.
But it just goes to show you how dumb the government fairy tale believers really are.
That could be true, every time I come back here there's 3 or 4 pages of posts to go through, I might have missed them. If you want to reiterate any points feel free
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Note that the photo of the Palace II is from the beginning of it's collapse. Corresponding to the 2nd or 3rd still of the CD, the amounts of dust are comparable, if anything the Brazilian building is kicking up more dust. So far I have seen NO evidence that a CD will produce more smoke than a spontaneous collapse. You're basing that conclusion on a single photo of a spontaneous collapse? A collapse for which you don't actually know the cause? (unless I missed it somewhere). Do you even know if this collapse was top-down or bottum-up? If top-down the comparison to CDs is pretty useless. And I see now that shagster questions if the image is even from the initial collapse. |
I was not the person who started comparing the dust clouds. I was replying to Newton. I cited it as a case of a symmetrical collapse.
According to media reports the building collapsed due to various faults tied to poor construction: columns that didn’t use enough rebar, use of ocean sand in the concrete (whose salt content corroded the steel) etc. The building stood for many years until cracks started appearing in some of the columns, a few days later it collapsed.
The photo could be from the demolition of the remaining part but I don’t see any signs of rubble at it’s base. IIRC the part that was demolished was a separate apt. block. It was one of only three pix I could find of the Palace II collapse; the others are even less helpful.
http://www.arcauniversal.com.br/imgupload/...md-23-02-05.jpg
http://construircomprar.com.br/img/palace2.jpg
As to whether it collapsed top to bottom or bottom to top I couldn’t say but the only top to bottom collapses I’ve ever seen were 1 & 2 WTC
A book about the Palace II came out but I didn’t have any luck finding it at local libraries and bookstores. I might get it mail order.
QUOTE
This is an extremely tenuous example you're trying to use. To make a valid point you need a lot more information on spontaneous collapses than you have so far presented. Certainly you have shown nothing that comes close to resembling WTC7, as the Landmark tower does.
1] Like you said below cases of spontaneous collapse are rare, but then again airliners striking hi-rises at cruise speed are rare too, I know of no other cases. The closest thing was the El Al 747 that crashed into an apt. building in Amsterdam. The entire section it hit collapsed and it was flying sideways (one wing on top the other on the bottom) and probably at low speed. Buildings being hit by other buildings are rare too.
2] The Landmark collapse is not that similar to 7 WTC. The both collapsed because their structures were weakened, similarity is not to be unexpected. Forensic engineering/failure analysis is not as simple as watching a video of a collapse.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is an extremely tenuous example you're trying to use. To make a valid point you need a lot more information on spontaneous collapses than you have so far presented. Certainly you have shown nothing that comes close to resembling WTC7, as the Landmark tower does. |
1] Like you said below cases of spontaneous collapse are rare, but then again airliners striking hi-rises at cruise speed are rare too, I know of no other cases. The closest thing was the El Al 747 that crashed into an apt. building in Amsterdam. The entire section it hit collapsed and it was flying sideways (one wing on top the other on the bottom) and probably at low speed. Buildings being hit by other buildings are rare too.
2] The Landmark collapse is not that similar to 7 WTC. The both collapsed because their structures were weakened, similarity is not to be unexpected. Forensic engineering/failure analysis is not as simple as watching a video of a collapse.
Intuitively it just isn't reasonable to suggest that a spontaneous collapse should resemble a CD. In one case only a localised part of the structure gives way, in another case energy is added to cause the entire structure to give way. Why are you expecting these two scenarios to be indistinguishable?
Intuition is subjective. As more and more columns failed the remaining ones became more stressed. If they (the remaining columns) were being weakened/further stressed by fire the is no reason to believe the structures didn’t reach a “straw that broke the camel’s back” point. The statements of various witnesses indicates that’s what happened. I would say intuitively the columns of L’Ambiance Plaza, Palace II, and the Areia Branca didn’t fail simultaneously. I would also say intuitively that if intentionally making a building fall in a particular direction is a complicated matter and isn’t as simple as putting all or most or the cutter charges on one side, then it makes sense that “random events” that may have been concentrated to one side would cause a building to collapse straight down rather than to one side.
Since numerous structural engineers have contributed to articles, papers and reports supporting the collapse theory and an even greater number have reviewed them and so far no qualified experts support CD, the burden of proof is on you guys. Show me once case in which a building tipped over or fell over to one side NOT counting cases of CD or earthquakes.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So far I have seen NO evidence that a CD will produce more smoke than a spontaneous collapse. Well that could be because evidence on spontaneous collapses is extremely sparse! |
That’s true but it cuts both ways. Mostly against your side. If you don’t have much to compare it to how can you say what the collapses of the WTC buildings should have looked like it they really were gravity driven?
QUOTE
Intuitively again, surely a collapse that involves explosive energy is going to produce more dust? Let's imagine two concrete blocks, the first sits on the ground with a small explosive sitting on top of it. The second block is dropped from the roof of a two story building. Which scenario will produce more dust?
Again intuition is subjective. Often we think intuitively something should be one way but it isn’t. The collapse of the WTC towers involved more kinetic energy by far than any other building collapsed in history. They contained a lot of dust producing materials. Unlike CD’s they had not been stripped before hand. These factors alone could explain the large cloud. Again since cases of spontaneous collapse are rare and no other structure anywhere near the size of the WTC towers has ever been destroyed it’s hard to say esp. using intuition alone to know how much dust to have expected in a spontaneous collapse of the WTC.
No having been stripped 7 WTC should have kicked up a lot more dust than the Landmark. How do you explain that, using your logic that would be an indication CD wasn’t used.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Intuitively again, surely a collapse that involves explosive energy is going to produce more dust? Let's imagine two concrete blocks, the first sits on the ground with a small explosive sitting on top of it. The second block is dropped from the roof of a two story building. Which scenario will produce more dust? |
Again intuition is subjective. Often we think intuitively something should be one way but it isn’t. The collapse of the WTC towers involved more kinetic energy by far than any other building collapsed in history. They contained a lot of dust producing materials. Unlike CD’s they had not been stripped before hand. These factors alone could explain the large cloud. Again since cases of spontaneous collapse are rare and no other structure anywhere near the size of the WTC towers has ever been destroyed it’s hard to say esp. using intuition alone to know how much dust to have expected in a spontaneous collapse of the WTC.
No having been stripped 7 WTC should have kicked up a lot more dust than the Landmark. How do you explain that, using your logic that would be an indication CD wasn’t used.
And no the shape of the dust cloud isn't that close to that of the WTC. There is no reason to expect the cloud from one type of collapse to be that different from another any way.
Those two statements are contradictory.
Actually they’re not: 1st sentence i.e. - the clouds don’t look very similar 2nd sentence i.e. - any similarity between dust clouds of a CD and that of one of the WTC buildings is not a sign of foul play.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Newtonnjd - I'm too lazy to search back for your post about the L'Ambiance Plaza but you cited a collapse time of 5 seconds for that building and compared it to 7 WTC. You do realize that that time was only and estimate? That collapse was not captured on video and was unexpected so there was no one hanging out outside with a stop watch to time it. It probably took more than 5 seconds (if you witness a collapse and it comes down quicker than you expected you're likely to underestimate how long it took). Still, if someone estimated 5 seconds, it's unlikely they could have been so far off a collapse time of ~3s, which is what you need to support your arguments. |
There no way to make that supposition you want to believe the collapse of the Connecticut building took a long time because that better fits your view of what happened to 7 WTC. There is no way to tell how long the collapse really took it could have been close to free fall speed (under 4 seconds), we have no way of knowing.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You also said that it unlike the WTC looks the what you'd expect a true pancake collapse to look like, care to elaborate? Obviously the collapse site of an incomplete 18 story "lift slab" building will look very different from those of much larger occupied cental core buildings. I didn't use the word "look". I was talking about the circumstances (i.e. collapse time), not the visuals of the rubble pile. |
As stated above we have no reliable indication of what the collapse time was. IIRC there isn’t even and indication as to how that estimate was made. I don’t think it was a big issue I don’t think a lot of though went into that estimate.
QUOTE
In any case, you are making comparisons to WTC1/2 here when it is the WTC 7 CD that I'm primarily challenging you to debunk.
I think Common Sense and YID already did a good job of that. There are numerous eyewitness accounts that the building was unstable and appeared to be on the verge of collapse just before it did.
QUOTE (brian+Mar 28 2006, 10:31 AM)
If everybody and their granny knew that WTC 7 was in a precarious state why would the Fire Chief be on the phone to Silverstein and need to be told by him it would be a good idea to pull it?
"It" of course being the firemen.
Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
Can the OCTs offer one, just one, aspect of the ludicrous official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
We in the clown car have at least the knowledge that controlled demolition can explain every aspect whereas the official explanation for WTC 7 is as yet non existant for the simple reason CD CANNOT be considered. What a bind eh.
In the real world -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
The cheif could have been telling him more than asking him, it could well be that it's NYFD SOP to consult the owner of a property before giving up firefighting efforts
or he could have been covering his ***. theoreticlly if the fire dep't stopped trying to put the fire out and 7 collapsed he could have sued
also we don't know how aware he was of the situation, it could have gotten worse since his last update.
"It" of course being the firemen.
Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
Can the OCTs offer one, just one, aspect of the ludicrous official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
We in the clown car have at least the knowledge that controlled demolition can explain every aspect whereas the official explanation for WTC 7 is as yet non existant for the simple reason CD CANNOT be considered. What a bind eh.
In the real world -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
The cheif could have been telling him more than asking him, it could well be that it's NYFD SOP to consult the owner of a property before giving up firefighting efforts
or he could have been covering his ***. theoreticlly if the fire dep't stopped trying to put the fire out and 7 collapsed he could have sued
also we don't know how aware he was of the situation, it could have gotten worse since his last update.
QUOTE (Junkie+Mar 28 2006, 02:51 PM)
Man, that Arthor is one really smart dude. If you do enough Afghanistan heroin WTC7 no longer looks like a controlled demolition. It takes hours, maybe days to fall. Thank god, we invaded those dudes because it was hard to find heroin before the liberation. When I was clean, I was a delusional paranoid. Now I am a respectable Republican and thinking about running for president.
Never trust a junkie!!
Never trust a junkie!!
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 28 2006, 03:06 AM)
QUOTE
A 767 at 500 miles an hour hit the buildings which were designed for 707's. The fuel wasn't taken into account either.
The difference in size is minimal. And an engineer builds with atleast 3 times maximum load strength. It would not be safe building something to resist an airplane impact if the safety margin wasn't atleast 200-300%.
The towers were DESIGNED to withstand single 707 impacts but the
Titanic was designed to be unsinkable and that terminal at DeGaulle
International Airport was not designed to spontaneously collapse,
this winter several buildings in Europe collapsed due to the weight
of accumulated snow which they presumably had been designed to
withstand.
[NOTE: The rest of this message was cobbled together from previous
posts on other forums]
The impact the towers were designed to survive were very different
from the ones they suffered and they failed to take the plane's fuel
load and resulting fire into account. Leslie Robertson, lead
engineer for the WTC said, "…we were looking at an aircraft not
unlike the Mitchell bomber that ran into the Empire State Building.
We were looking at an aircraft that was lost in the fog, trying to
land. It was a low-flying, slow-flying 707, which was the largest
aircraft of its time...What we didn't look at is what happens to all
that fuel. And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing
so. But for whatever reason we didn't look at that question of what
would happen to the fuel. "
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/filmmore/pt.html
According to the introduction to the NIST report which cites Port
Authority documents they calculated a plane flying at 180 mph.
That make sense, I couldn't find data for 707's but a 737 pilot's
manual advises them to use approach speeds of 135 – 145 KAIS (or
157 – 168 mph) and advises there is a 250 KAIS (290 mph) speed limit
below 10,000 feet (the top of the towers was 1368 feet)
http://www.cadets.net/pac/aircad/trg/CASC/ac_books.pdf pgs 41 - 42
The planes hit the towers at about 430 and 500 mph, 2.4 X and 2.8
faster and thus with 2.4x and 2.8 x the kinetic energy than what the
towers were designed to withstand. (Some people say you need to
square the speed and thus the difference was 5.8x and 7.8x but I
don't know if that is true)
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Cha...III%20Aircraft%
20speed.pdf
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A 767 at 500 miles an hour hit the buildings which were designed for 707's. The fuel wasn't taken into account either. |
The difference in size is minimal. And an engineer builds with atleast 3 times maximum load strength. It would not be safe building something to resist an airplane impact if the safety margin wasn't atleast 200-300%.
The towers were DESIGNED to withstand single 707 impacts but the
Titanic was designed to be unsinkable and that terminal at DeGaulle
International Airport was not designed to spontaneously collapse,
this winter several buildings in Europe collapsed due to the weight
of accumulated snow which they presumably had been designed to
withstand.
[NOTE: The rest of this message was cobbled together from previous
posts on other forums]
The impact the towers were designed to survive were very different
from the ones they suffered and they failed to take the plane's fuel
load and resulting fire into account. Leslie Robertson, lead
engineer for the WTC said, "…we were looking at an aircraft not
unlike the Mitchell bomber that ran into the Empire State Building.
We were looking at an aircraft that was lost in the fog, trying to
land. It was a low-flying, slow-flying 707, which was the largest
aircraft of its time...What we didn't look at is what happens to all
that fuel. And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing
so. But for whatever reason we didn't look at that question of what
would happen to the fuel. "
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/filmmore/pt.html
According to the introduction to the NIST report which cites Port
Authority documents they calculated a plane flying at 180 mph.
That make sense, I couldn't find data for 707's but a 737 pilot's
manual advises them to use approach speeds of 135 – 145 KAIS (or
157 – 168 mph) and advises there is a 250 KAIS (290 mph) speed limit
below 10,000 feet (the top of the towers was 1368 feet)
http://www.cadets.net/pac/aircad/trg/CASC/ac_books.pdf pgs 41 - 42
The planes hit the towers at about 430 and 500 mph, 2.4 X and 2.8
faster and thus with 2.4x and 2.8 x the kinetic energy than what the
towers were designed to withstand. (Some people say you need to
square the speed and thus the difference was 5.8x and 7.8x but I
don't know if that is true)
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Cha...III%20Aircraft%
20speed.pdf
QUOTE
Are you calling the fireman who KNEW building 7 was going to collase liars? Are they covering for Silvertein or the government? Yes or no.
Because firefighters had ample experience of that kind of situation right? The firemen would have been quite within their rights to look at WTC7 and worry about its safety after the unexpected collapses of 1 and 2, and given the total uniqueness of the situation. There is absolutely zero chance that a firefighter could KNOW, with absolute certainty, what would happen in a situation that noone had seen before. After if they did, then it beggars belief that experts with over 4 years and far more information cannot reach the same conclusion. The firemen are probably being honest about their fears on the day, but it simply cannot be taken as reliable given that they would have zero past experience of 47 story buildings sponteneously collapsing.
No because the fireman were at the scene and saw an unstable building with a giant hole in it tilting to one side. To them it was obvious that it was going to collapse. Their observations don't contradict those of the experts. What NIST is still trying to figure out is exactly why thie buildoing became unstable and collapsed. I'm sure it's not news to them that 7 was severly dammaged by rubble from the WTC towers, it was silly of you to suggest that it was, but knowing that and knowing about the fires is not enought to issue a definitive report.
When Larry said "Pull it" he obviously meant it in the demolition term, like "letter rip" or "pull the switch" or "demolish it" or even more apprapo, consider a guy with his hands on the switch that's rigged up so that it's all ready to go and all you need to do is "PULL THE LEVER DOWN" in order to set it off, "Do it".
"And they gave the order to (PULL IT)
and we watched the building collapse"
But Larry, and the people behind this scam knew that the fairy tale believers are so gullible and dishonest that if he retracted his initial statement "Pull it" and tried to convince people HE DIDN'T MEAN WHAT HE SAID, and then make up some cok-a-mammy story, like he meant to pull the firemen out, that his followers would believe it.
Saying that "Pull it" meant to pull the firemen out has got to be one of the most dishonest and ludicrous pieces of dog pile I've heard in a long time.
But the fairy tale believers eat it up
And that's why I often have to go to the bathroom after reading some of these posts...
"And they gave the order to (PULL IT)
and we watched the building collapse"
But Larry, and the people behind this scam knew that the fairy tale believers are so gullible and dishonest that if he retracted his initial statement "Pull it" and tried to convince people HE DIDN'T MEAN WHAT HE SAID, and then make up some cok-a-mammy story, like he meant to pull the firemen out, that his followers would believe it.
Saying that "Pull it" meant to pull the firemen out has got to be one of the most dishonest and ludicrous pieces of dog pile I've heard in a long time.
But the fairy tale believers eat it up
And that's why I often have to go to the bathroom after reading some of these posts...
Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time
a steel framed building collapsed due to fire.
Some examples are the McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and
Sound Theater in Pennsylvania. The theater was fire protected using
drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly 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 steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in
Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small
electrical fire."
http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/24ae78...nVCM100000f932a
8c0
[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the
WTC collapse theory.]
"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"
http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disast...rmick_fire.html
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
From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ]
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf
On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of
the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and
resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.
pg 6/74
The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for
the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns...
The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.
The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance
building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on
all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-
hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which
was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment,
was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a
height of eight feet.
The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall
to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine
offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central
core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74
The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator
that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the
sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the
stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was
hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead.
The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal
of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved
striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on
protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the
storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireprofing was newer and more
modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If
striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it
imagine the impact of a 767]
pg 16/74
Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500°
F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and
hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into
the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby
fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the
elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in
the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings
pg 17/74
Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the
storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection
during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to
continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal
discoloration and buckling steel.
pg. 21/74
The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area
beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation,
leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.
pg. 26/74
Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered
unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten
minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are
susceptible to damage from construction work.
The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant
extreme caution by firefighters.
pg. 36/74
Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams,
the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and
contribute to building collapse.
pg. 37/74
Other Fires
In February 1991 a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza a 38 story
office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the
same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on it's
steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage authorities were
worried it might collapse.
"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours
of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a
structural engineer and structural damage observed by units
operating in the building led to the belief that there was a
possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged
floors." http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/txt/publications/tr-
049.txt
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/pub...ions/TR-068.pdf
Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in
in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania, December 20, 1991. Killing 4
volunteer firemen
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/pub...ions/TR-061.pdf
Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed
about 20 minutes after fire broke out
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/pub...ions/tr-135.pdf
a steel framed building collapsed due to fire.
Some examples are the McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and
Sound Theater in Pennsylvania. The theater was fire protected using
drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly 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 steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in
Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small
electrical fire."
http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/24ae78...nVCM100000f932a
8c0
[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the
WTC collapse theory.]
"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"
http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/disast...rmick_fire.html
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
From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ]
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf
On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of
the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and
resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.
pg 6/74
The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for
the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns...
The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.
The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance
building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on
all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-
hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which
was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment,
was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a
height of eight feet.
The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall
to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine
offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central
core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74
The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator
that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the
sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the
stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was
hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead.
The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal
of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved
striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on
protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the
storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireprofing was newer and more
modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If
striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it
imagine the impact of a 767]
pg 16/74
Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500°
F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and
hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into
the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby
fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the
elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in
the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings
pg 17/74
Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the
storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection
during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to
continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal
discoloration and buckling steel.
pg. 21/74
The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area
beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation,
leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.
pg. 26/74
Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered
unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten
minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are
susceptible to damage from construction work.
The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant
extreme caution by firefighters.
pg. 36/74
Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams,
the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and
contribute to building collapse.
pg. 37/74
Other Fires
In February 1991 a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza a 38 story
office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the
same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on it's
steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage authorities were
worried it might collapse.
"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours
of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a
structural engineer and structural damage observed by units
operating in the building led to the belief that there was a
possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged
floors." http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/txt/publications/tr-
049.txt
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/pub...ions/TR-068.pdf
Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in
in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania, December 20, 1991. Killing 4
volunteer firemen
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/pub...ions/TR-061.pdf
Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed
about 20 minutes after fire broke out
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/pub...ions/tr-135.pdf
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 28 2006, 04:31 PM)
When Larry said "Pull it" he obviously meant it in the demolition term, like "letter rip" or "pull the switch" or "demolish it" or even more apprapo, consider a guy with his hands on the switch that's rigged up so that it's all ready to go and all you need to do is "PULL THE LEVER DOWN" in order to set it off, "Do it".
What makes it obvious?
Why do you CD proponents normally edit the quote out of context?
Why would he have told the fire chief to pull the building?
Do you think the NYFD "demo'd" the building? If not then he wasn't talking about CD.
Do you think they were in on the CD of the towers too? Then you must think they were complicit in the deaths of hundreds of their comrades and thousands of their fellow citizens.
If they weren't "in on" the CD of the towers wouldn't they have gotten suspicious when asked to secretly demo 7? Why would they cooperate with someone who had just murdered thousands of people?
If he had told the chief to demo 7, would he say this in a TV interview?
According to his quote the decision was made shortly before the collapse, according to your theory it had been made long before.
Do you think the building had already been prepared for demo and explosives planted? If so why would the decision only be made hours after 1 & 2 collapsed. What would they have done if they decided not to demo sent people in to remove the explosives.
If it hadn't been prepped do you think they sent people into a burning building to do so?
If he was in on it for the insurance money wouldn't he have gotten just as much it the building had been declared a total loss. He would have been better off because the insurance would have covered the costs of the demo and it would have been less risky.
The whole bit about Silverstein's quote has to be one of the dumbest arguments coming from the CD camp.
What makes it obvious?
Why do you CD proponents normally edit the quote out of context?
Why would he have told the fire chief to pull the building?
Do you think the NYFD "demo'd" the building? If not then he wasn't talking about CD.
Do you think they were in on the CD of the towers too? Then you must think they were complicit in the deaths of hundreds of their comrades and thousands of their fellow citizens.
If they weren't "in on" the CD of the towers wouldn't they have gotten suspicious when asked to secretly demo 7? Why would they cooperate with someone who had just murdered thousands of people?
If he had told the chief to demo 7, would he say this in a TV interview?
According to his quote the decision was made shortly before the collapse, according to your theory it had been made long before.
Do you think the building had already been prepared for demo and explosives planted? If so why would the decision only be made hours after 1 & 2 collapsed. What would they have done if they decided not to demo sent people in to remove the explosives.
If it hadn't been prepped do you think they sent people into a burning building to do so?
If he was in on it for the insurance money wouldn't he have gotten just as much it the building had been declared a total loss. He would have been better off because the insurance would have covered the costs of the demo and it would have been less risky.
The whole bit about Silverstein's quote has to be one of the dumbest arguments coming from the CD camp.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 28 2006, 03:07 AM)
it was really great not being called a fool, a moron, a lunatic and idiot and the rest of it(especially by someone who thinks ANYTHING will stop the plane on the conveyor belt from taking off, LOL! everything would fly into pieces. what a fooking joke you are, dude. you couldn't think your way out of a wet paper bag. planes are pushed by air, and wheel bearings don't transfer much friction.
So newton, you just played the fool before, now you've taken up LYING as well.
Big surprise.
Thread that newton is lying about.
If you will read for a while you will find newton going on about airplane transmissions.
Arthur
So newton, you just played the fool before, now you've taken up LYING as well.
Big surprise.
Thread that newton is lying about.
If you will read for a while you will find newton going on about airplane transmissions.
Arthur
QUOTE
lenbrazil
Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time
a steel framed building collapsed due to fire.
Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time
a steel framed building collapsed due to fire.
That's right many other steel framed buildings have collapsed due to magical spells put on them, such as the ones in various cartoons and science fiction movies.
But try to remember some of us are more interested in reality and not fantasy.
QUOTE
lenbrazil
The whole bit about Silverstein's quote has to be one of the dumbest arguments coming from the CD camp.
The whole bit about Silverstein's quote has to be one of the dumbest arguments coming from the CD camp.
I totally agree with you on this one, with the exception of where the idiot arguments are coming from because anyone who is honest and has an ounce of intelligence knows that Larry said, "And they decided to pull it, and we watched the towers collapse, (or come down).
And anyone honest with an ounce of intelligence knows that building 7, (that wasn't even hit by a plane) only had a few small fires in it, yet it collapsed in a perfect symmetrical manner, INSTANTANEOUSLY.
But it just goes to show you how dumb the government fairy tale believers really are.
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 28 2006, 03:54 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Mar 28 2006, 10:31 AM)
If everybody and their granny knew that WTC 7 was in a precarious state why would the Fire Chief be on the phone to Silverstein and need to be told by him it would be a good idea to pull it?
"It" of course being the firemen.
Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
Can the OCTs offer one, just one, aspect of the ludicrous official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
We in the clown car have at least the knowledge that controlled demolition can explain every aspect whereas the official explanation for WTC 7 is as yet non existant for the simple reason CD CANNOT be considered. What a bind eh.
In the real world -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
The cheif could have been telling him more than asking him, it could well be that it's NYFD SOP to consult the owner of a property before giving up firefighting efforts
or he could have been covering his ***. theoreticlly if the fire dep't stopped trying to put the fire out and 7 collapsed he could have sued
also we don't know how aware he was of the situation, it could have gotten worse since his last update.
So when everybody and their granny knew that WTC 7 was precarious the Chief left his men in the building whilst he had a blether with Silverstein?
Can the OCTs offer one, just one, aspect of the ludicrous official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
"It" of course being the firemen.
Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:
"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
Can the OCTs offer one, just one, aspect of the ludicrous official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
We in the clown car have at least the knowledge that controlled demolition can explain every aspect whereas the official explanation for WTC 7 is as yet non existant for the simple reason CD CANNOT be considered. What a bind eh.
In the real world -
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Centre was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
The cheif could have been telling him more than asking him, it could well be that it's NYFD SOP to consult the owner of a property before giving up firefighting efforts
or he could have been covering his ***. theoreticlly if the fire dep't stopped trying to put the fire out and 7 collapsed he could have sued
also we don't know how aware he was of the situation, it could have gotten worse since his last update.
So when everybody and their granny knew that WTC 7 was precarious the Chief left his men in the building whilst he had a blether with Silverstein?
Can the OCTs offer one, just one, aspect of the ludicrous official conspiracy theory that hangs together?
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 28 2006, 05:47 PM)
QUOTE (newton+Mar 28 2006, 03:07 AM)
it was really great not being called a fool, a moron, a lunatic and idiot and the rest of it(especially by someone who thinks ANYTHING will stop the plane on the conveyor belt from taking off, LOL! everything would fly into pieces. what a fooking joke you are, dude. you couldn't think your way out of a wet paper bag. planes are pushed by air, and wheel bearings don't transfer much friction.
So newton, you just played the fool before, now you've taken up LYING as well.
Big surprise.
Thread that newton is lying about.
If you will read for a while you will find newton going on about airplane transmissions.
Arthur
there is no such thing as an airplane transmission. that's the whole point, MORON.
but, then, morons like you don't understand ad absurdum arguments or anything else that is not 100% literal.
the plane flies, the wheels turn twice as fast as the airspeed. nothing flies apart from accelerating into infinity, dillweed.
So newton, you just played the fool before, now you've taken up LYING as well.
Big surprise.
Thread that newton is lying about.
If you will read for a while you will find newton going on about airplane transmissions.
Arthur
there is no such thing as an airplane transmission. that's the whole point, MORON.
but, then, morons like you don't understand ad absurdum arguments or anything else that is not 100% literal.
the plane flies, the wheels turn twice as fast as the airspeed. nothing flies apart from accelerating into infinity, dillweed.
newtonnjd, Your flippant and almost childish response to the facts are telling. A clear sign of your frustration with the facts the fireman had to deal with in ground zero. You make it sound like you created a peer reviewed paper in a well respected civil engineering journal saying the WTC 7 could not have collapsed on it's own. You have NOTHING. Make NO mistake about it. You have NOTHING. All you have is a lack of evidence. Clear logical fallacies. "Gee, I don't know why WTC 7 fell like it did so it must have been a bomb..." The absents of evidence isn't evidence. "Gee, the WTC 7 report is late so the building must have been blown up." is also a logical fallacy. "Gee, the WTC 7 report is late so that means the hundreds of people involved in the NIST report is involved in the cover up of the largest mass murder in US history.." another logical fallacy. Gee, we only have the north face with a few fires so the south face must have been the same." Another logical fallacy... The logical fallacies run rampant on the CT side.
Note that I didn't make the claim of any version of the truth here. I only brought up good possibilities given the poor evidence we have on the web. ANYONE who says they hold the truth on WTC 7 is out of their mind. There just isn't enough evidence. When the NIST finishes it's report I'm sure it will have evidence to back up it's claims just as the tower reports did.
We have been over and over this in these threads. I wish people would try to read this thread from the beginning. This thread is 600 pages long and the ALL points have already been addressed. Sure people like you aren't going to agree with them but never the less they have been addressed. It's frustrating to have people come here with there chests puffed out as if they have some new unchallenged evidence when we've hashed this out 5 times all ready.
The answer is very simple.
Other buildings in the area also were hit. The difference is the construction of those buildings. The damage from both towers were evenly spread. But you are assuming columns bolted to each other on the bottom are going to fall straight or even close to straight down. This is IMPOSSBLE. The building peeled like a banana because it's bolts held together long enough to pivot one after another. Something like this...
=/=|\_
/=/>__\
/=>//---\ _
\=>/
=>/
=/
=|
=|
_|
_|
_|
_| <-Floor
=| <-Pancaking floors
The force pushing the perimeter skin is simply the impacts of each acre of concrete floor and steel truss story crashing violently with the floors below. As Arthur pointed out long ago the each impact is like a small meteor. (Cue meteor ejecta animation)
1) Floors pancake onto other floors leaving the perimeter columns standing on their own (For a moment)
2) The building above the falling floors are still on it's way down. It meets the floors on their way down and has no where else to go but to the sides. This debris pushes the already weakened and "Free" columns to the side which are still held together at the spandrels and bottom column connections. The tremendous leverage effect snaps the 4 small bolts moments later. Evidence for this is the fact that almost every column is still intact with signs of bolt/connection failure.
3) Yet more evidence is the fact that the debris cloud widened as it went down. Unless your going to tell me the explosives used got stronger and stronger as they went off.
We have been over and over this in these threads. I wish people would try to read this thread from the beginning. This thread is 600 pages long and the ALL points have already been addressed. Sure people like you aren't going to agree with them but never the less they have been addressed. It's frustrating to have people come here with there chests puffed out as if they have some new unchallenged evidence when we've hashed this out 5 times all ready.
The answer is very simple.
Other buildings in the area also were hit. The difference is the construction of those buildings. The damage from both towers were evenly spread. But you are assuming columns bolted to each other on the bottom are going to fall straight or even close to straight down. This is IMPOSSBLE. The building peeled like a banana because it's bolts held together long enough to pivot one after another. Something like this...
=/=|\_
/=/>__\
/=>//---\ _
\=>/
=>/
=/
=|
=|
_|
_|
_|
_| <-Floor
=| <-Pancaking floors
The force pushing the perimeter skin is simply the impacts of each acre of concrete floor and steel truss story crashing violently with the floors below. As Arthur pointed out long ago the each impact is like a small meteor. (Cue meteor ejecta animation)
1) Floors pancake onto other floors leaving the perimeter columns standing on their own (For a moment)
2) The building above the falling floors are still on it's way down. It meets the floors on their way down and has no where else to go but to the sides. This debris pushes the already weakened and "Free" columns to the side which are still held together at the spandrels and bottom column connections. The tremendous leverage effect snaps the 4 small bolts moments later. Evidence for this is the fact that almost every column is still intact with signs of bolt/connection failure.
3) Yet more evidence is the fact that the debris cloud widened as it went down. Unless your going to tell me the explosives used got stronger and stronger as they went off.
Could you provide the evidence again that this 20 story hole damaged any critical supports inside the building, and didn't simply look 'impressive' to the onlookers.
Is this how you challenge observed evidence? By injecting another logical fallacy? Can you prove a 20 story worth of damage in the location mentioned COULDN'T have brought down the building? How could you and your pencil know more than the trained people on the ground? You think these fireman ran to the internet that day to see if they should have pulled everyone away from the area? Do you think they put transits on building and they don't know how to use them or why they are doing it? COME ON, These are TRAINED BATTALION CHEIFS who are trained to spot possible collapses. They have peoples lives in their hands. Even the laymen officer knew something was very wrong. Yet you second guess them from behind the comfort of a computer monitor. "Gee, if you can't prove the TRAINED BATTALION CHEIFS on the ground knew what they were doing then the building had to be blown up." A said argument.
Here you are just flat WRONG. No doubt your being conned by people like chrisofoxx. The characterization of the fires flies in the face of all the evidence. The fireproofing needed to be removed just in the area which started the collapse. Beyond a doubt, the perimeter columns were being pulled in. WHAT EXPLOSIVE PULLS IN PERIMETER COLUMNS OVER 35 TO 45 MINUTES???
The biggest con is the the perception on the fires. Some of those flames were two stories high yet from the photos they seem small. It's all CT illusion.
Here I show the progression of the fires on the first building to fall.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911//fire.htm
Look at the fire gallery. There are two story flames in some photos. Here is a photo of 4 floors, one on top of the other in flames.
Toward the end the fire does look like it died down a little but that's part of the NIST report. It says the trusses cooled, contracted and pulled in the perimeter columns. Cooling of the trusses my have been the buildings death.
I also want you to speak on why so many CT sites use the fireman's "Two lines" quote the way they do. This is obvious diversion from the fact that ABOVE the 78th floor was where all the fires were. I PROVE this in the fires page. Not to mention that the 78th floor didn't have furnture because it was the sky lobby. This is CLEAR LYING. A verbal slight of hand. "Look at the 78th floor!" as they take away the floors above from view. What do you have to say about that? Just curious...
If your talking about Building 7 you can't be sure of anything behind the building because every photo I've seen has so much smoke pouring out of the south side as to make them useless. All we can do is defer to the people who were there until the NIST makes some more photos available.
But this photo is telling..
With the wind blowing to the east like that, why is there so much smoke coming out the south side? Some of it seems white as if it has plenty of oxygen and fuel.
Here you are just flat WRONG. No doubt your being conned by people like chrisofoxx. The characterization of the fires flies in the face of all the evidence. The fireproofing needed to be removed just in the area which started the collapse. Beyond a doubt, the perimeter columns were being pulled in. WHAT EXPLOSIVE PULLS IN PERIMETER COLUMNS OVER 35 TO 45 MINUTES???
The biggest con is the the perception on the fires. Some of those flames were two stories high yet from the photos they seem small. It's all CT illusion.
Here I show the progression of the fires on the first building to fall.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911//fire.htm
Look at the fire gallery. There are two story flames in some photos. Here is a photo of 4 floors, one on top of the other in flames.
Toward the end the fire does look like it died down a little but that's part of the NIST report. It says the trusses cooled, contracted and pulled in the perimeter columns. Cooling of the trusses my have been the buildings death.
I also want you to speak on why so many CT sites use the fireman's "Two lines" quote the way they do. This is obvious diversion from the fact that ABOVE the 78th floor was where all the fires were. I PROVE this in the fires page. Not to mention that the 78th floor didn't have furnture because it was the sky lobby. This is CLEAR LYING. A verbal slight of hand. "Look at the 78th floor!" as they take away the floors above from view. What do you have to say about that? Just curious...
If your talking about Building 7 you can't be sure of anything behind the building because every photo I've seen has so much smoke pouring out of the south side as to make them useless. All we can do is defer to the people who were there until the NIST makes some more photos available.
But this photo is telling..
With the wind blowing to the east like that, why is there so much smoke coming out the south side? Some of it seems white as if it has plenty of oxygen and fuel.
Look, buildings do not just break apart on a whim at the first loss of equilibrium. The lack of basic engineering common sense here is quite shocking. The buildings were STRONG, and that includes being strong against vertically applied forces.
Your talking straight out of your butt because the designers themselves said the building wasn't going to stand without the floors. The perimeter needed the core and the core needed the perimeter to survive. To put it your way, "The lack of basic engineering common sense here is quite shocking." Do you realize that NOT ONE STRUCURAL ENGINEER or CIVIL ENGINEER ON THE PLANET agrees with you? Why do you think that is? Because you know more than they in building design? I think not... Prove me wrong... Show me ONE Civil or Structural engineer who agrees with you. Use people from countries that hate us if you like.
That's straight out of your butt...
More crap taken straight out of your butt. Show me where they factored in 300% more airliner and impact than a normal 707...
But it wasn't the airliner that took the building down anyway. It was a NUMBER OF FACTORS. You guys always think two dimensionally.
Here is the Probable Collapse Sequence for just one building. Note all the factors involved...
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 1
1.Aircraft Impact Damage:
•Aircraft impact severed a number of exterior columns on the North wall from floors 93 to 98, and the wall section above the impact zone moved downward.
•After breaching the building’s perimeter, the aircraft continuedto penetrate into the building, severing floor framing and core columns at the North side of thecore. Core columns were also damaged toward the center of the core and, to a limited extent on the South side of the core. Fireproofing was damaged from the impact area to the South perimeter wall, primarily through the center of WTC 1 and at least over a third to a half of the core width.
•Aircraft impact severed a single exterior panel at the center ofthe South wall between floors 94 and 96.
•The impact damage to the exterior walls and to the core resultedin redistribution of severed column loads, mostly to the columns adjacent to the impact zones. The hat truss resisted the downward movement of the North wall, and rotated about the East-West axis.
•As a result of the aircraft impact damage, the North and South walls each carried about 7 percent less gravity loads after impact, and the East and West walls each carried about 7 percent more loads. The core carried about 1 percent more gravity loads after impact.
2.Effects of Subsequent Fires and Impact Damaged Fireproofing:A.Thermal Weakening of the Core:
•The undamaged core columns developed high plastic and creep strains over the duration the building stood, since both temperatures and stresses were high in the core area. The plastic and creep strains exceeded thermal expansion in the core columns.
•The shortening of the core columns (due to plasticity and creep)was resisted by the hat truss which unloaded the core over time and redistributed loads to perimeter walls.
•As a result of the thermal weakening (and subsequent to impact and prior to inward bowing of the South wall), the North and South walls each carried about10 percent more gravity loads, and the East and West walls each carried about 25 percentmore loads. The core carried about 20 percent less gravity loads after thermal weakening. B.Thermal Weakening of the Floors:
•Floors 95 to 99 weakened with increasing temperatures over time on the long-span floors and sagged. The floors sagged first and then contracted due to cooling on the North side; fires reached the South side later, the floors sagged, and the seat connections weakened.
•Floor sagging induced inward pull forces on the South wall columns.
•About 20 percent of the connections to the South perimeter wall on floors 97 and 98 failed due to thermal weakening of the vertical supports.C.Thermal Weakening of the South Wall:
•South wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the South wall columns increased with time.
3.Collapse Initiation
•The inward bowing of the South wall induced column instability, which progressed rapidly horizontally across the entire South face.
•The South wall unloaded and tried to redistribute the loads via the hat truss to the thermally weakened core and via the spandrels to the adjacent East and West walls.
•The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled South face) to the South (at least about 8º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the South wall along the adjacent East and West walls.
•The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.
You can't just point to one thing and say "This couldn't have brought down the towers" because you'd be probably right. It's a number of things. All these things have evidence to back them up.
More crap taken straight out of your butt. Show me where they factored in 300% more airliner and impact than a normal 707...
But it wasn't the airliner that took the building down anyway. It was a NUMBER OF FACTORS. You guys always think two dimensionally.
Here is the Probable Collapse Sequence for just one building. Note all the factors involved...
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 1
1.Aircraft Impact Damage:
•Aircraft impact severed a number of exterior columns on the North wall from floors 93 to 98, and the wall section above the impact zone moved downward.
•After breaching the building’s perimeter, the aircraft continuedto penetrate into the building, severing floor framing and core columns at the North side of thecore. Core columns were also damaged toward the center of the core and, to a limited extent on the South side of the core. Fireproofing was damaged from the impact area to the South perimeter wall, primarily through the center of WTC 1 and at least over a third to a half of the core width.
•Aircraft impact severed a single exterior panel at the center ofthe South wall between floors 94 and 96.
•The impact damage to the exterior walls and to the core resultedin redistribution of severed column loads, mostly to the columns adjacent to the impact zones. The hat truss resisted the downward movement of the North wall, and rotated about the East-West axis.
•As a result of the aircraft impact damage, the North and South walls each carried about 7 percent less gravity loads after impact, and the East and West walls each carried about 7 percent more loads. The core carried about 1 percent more gravity loads after impact.
2.Effects of Subsequent Fires and Impact Damaged Fireproofing:A.Thermal Weakening of the Core:
•The undamaged core columns developed high plastic and creep strains over the duration the building stood, since both temperatures and stresses were high in the core area. The plastic and creep strains exceeded thermal expansion in the core columns.
•The shortening of the core columns (due to plasticity and creep)was resisted by the hat truss which unloaded the core over time and redistributed loads to perimeter walls.
•As a result of the thermal weakening (and subsequent to impact and prior to inward bowing of the South wall), the North and South walls each carried about10 percent more gravity loads, and the East and West walls each carried about 25 percentmore loads. The core carried about 20 percent less gravity loads after thermal weakening. B.Thermal Weakening of the Floors:
•Floors 95 to 99 weakened with increasing temperatures over time on the long-span floors and sagged. The floors sagged first and then contracted due to cooling on the North side; fires reached the South side later, the floors sagged, and the seat connections weakened.
•Floor sagging induced inward pull forces on the South wall columns.
•About 20 percent of the connections to the South perimeter wall on floors 97 and 98 failed due to thermal weakening of the vertical supports.C.Thermal Weakening of the South Wall:
•South wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the South wall columns increased with time.
3.Collapse Initiation
•The inward bowing of the South wall induced column instability, which progressed rapidly horizontally across the entire South face.
•The South wall unloaded and tried to redistribute the loads via the hat truss to the thermally weakened core and via the spandrels to the adjacent East and West walls.
•The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled South face) to the South (at least about 8º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the South wall along the adjacent East and West walls.
•The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.
You can't just point to one thing and say "This couldn't have brought down the towers" because you'd be probably right. It's a number of things. All these things have evidence to back them up.
There is absolutely zero chance that a firefighter could KNOW, with absolute certainty, what would happen in a situation that noone had seen before. After if they did, then it beggars belief that experts with over 4 years and far more information cannot reach the same conclusion. The firemen are probably being honest about their fears on the day, but it simply cannot be taken as reliable given that they would have zero past experience of 47 story buildings sponteneously collapsing.
As I said, the NYC fire department trains it's men and women well. It's battalion commanders know how to use a transit. That day was a strange day. I don't expect them to know building 1 & 2 would collapse. There aren't to many buildings like that in the world much less in NY. But even then they thought there was a good possibility of parical collpase. That's with the knowledge they have a typical steel building fires.
But we are talking about a few things with Building 7. The people investigating this are working backward. They aren't on the scene looking at the building buckling and hearing it creak. They aren't looking at the building tilted. They didn't put the transit up to the building. They have to work backward and then AFTER they completed the WTC 1 & 2 reports. So this bullshiit "4 years and no report" is just that. Because you CTers have had 4 years yourself and while there have been a number of peer reviewed papers written in civil engineering journals on the collapse, the best thing you have is a paper peer reviewed by an economy journal. PLEEEEASE!!!
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
Heh!
Note that I didn't make the claim of any version of the truth here. I only brought up good possibilities given the poor evidence we have on the web. ANYONE who says they hold the truth on WTC 7 is out of their mind. There just isn't enough evidence. When the NIST finishes it's report I'm sure it will have evidence to back up it's claims just as the tower reports did.
QUOTE
Also, WTC7 was positioned no closer to the towers than several other buildings in the area
We have been over and over this in these threads. I wish people would try to read this thread from the beginning. This thread is 600 pages long and the ALL points have already been addressed. Sure people like you aren't going to agree with them but never the less they have been addressed. It's frustrating to have people come here with there chests puffed out as if they have some new unchallenged evidence when we've hashed this out 5 times all ready.
The answer is very simple.
Other buildings in the area also were hit. The difference is the construction of those buildings. The damage from both towers were evenly spread. But you are assuming columns bolted to each other on the bottom are going to fall straight or even close to straight down. This is IMPOSSBLE. The building peeled like a banana because it's bolts held together long enough to pivot one after another. Something like this...
=/=|\_
/=/>__\
/=>//---\ _
\=>/
=>/
=/
=|
=|
_|
_|
_|
_| <-Floor
=| <-Pancaking floors
The force pushing the perimeter skin is simply the impacts of each acre of concrete floor and steel truss story crashing violently with the floors below. As Arthur pointed out long ago the each impact is like a small meteor. (Cue meteor ejecta animation)
1) Floors pancake onto other floors leaving the perimeter columns standing on their own (For a moment)
2) The building above the falling floors are still on it's way down. It meets the floors on their way down and has no where else to go but to the sides. This debris pushes the already weakened and "Free" columns to the side which are still held together at the spandrels and bottom column connections. The tremendous leverage effect snaps the 4 small bolts moments later. Evidence for this is the fact that almost every column is still intact with signs of bolt/connection failure.
3) Yet more evidence is the fact that the debris cloud widened as it went down. Unless your going to tell me the explosives used got stronger and stronger as they went off.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also, WTC7 was positioned no closer to the towers than several other buildings in the area |
We have been over and over this in these threads. I wish people would try to read this thread from the beginning. This thread is 600 pages long and the ALL points have already been addressed. Sure people like you aren't going to agree with them but never the less they have been addressed. It's frustrating to have people come here with there chests puffed out as if they have some new unchallenged evidence when we've hashed this out 5 times all ready.
The answer is very simple.
Other buildings in the area also were hit. The difference is the construction of those buildings. The damage from both towers were evenly spread. But you are assuming columns bolted to each other on the bottom are going to fall straight or even close to straight down. This is IMPOSSBLE. The building peeled like a banana because it's bolts held together long enough to pivot one after another. Something like this...
=/=|\_
/=/>__\
/=>//---\ _
\=>/
=>/
=/
=|
=|
_|
_|
_|
_| <-Floor
=| <-Pancaking floors
The force pushing the perimeter skin is simply the impacts of each acre of concrete floor and steel truss story crashing violently with the floors below. As Arthur pointed out long ago the each impact is like a small meteor. (Cue meteor ejecta animation)
1) Floors pancake onto other floors leaving the perimeter columns standing on their own (For a moment)
2) The building above the falling floors are still on it's way down. It meets the floors on their way down and has no where else to go but to the sides. This debris pushes the already weakened and "Free" columns to the side which are still held together at the spandrels and bottom column connections. The tremendous leverage effect snaps the 4 small bolts moments later. Evidence for this is the fact that almost every column is still intact with signs of bolt/connection failure.
3) Yet more evidence is the fact that the debris cloud widened as it went down. Unless your going to tell me the explosives used got stronger and stronger as they went off.
Could you provide the evidence again that this 20 story hole damaged any critical supports inside the building, and didn't simply look 'impressive' to the onlookers.
Is this how you challenge observed evidence? By injecting another logical fallacy? Can you prove a 20 story worth of damage in the location mentioned COULDN'T have brought down the building? How could you and your pencil know more than the trained people on the ground? You think these fireman ran to the internet that day to see if they should have pulled everyone away from the area? Do you think they put transits on building and they don't know how to use them or why they are doing it? COME ON, These are TRAINED BATTALION CHEIFS who are trained to spot possible collapses. They have peoples lives in their hands. Even the laymen officer knew something was very wrong. Yet you second guess them from behind the comfort of a computer monitor. "Gee, if you can't prove the TRAINED BATTALION CHEIFS on the ground knew what they were doing then the building had to be blown up." A said argument.
QUOTE
At most a tiny % of the fireproofing was removed. Even then, the fires were not infernos, nor did they engulf entire floors, and only at a few points would even non-fireproofed steel experience a prolonged, intense enough fire to weaken to any significant degree.
Here you are just flat WRONG. No doubt your being conned by people like chrisofoxx. The characterization of the fires flies in the face of all the evidence. The fireproofing needed to be removed just in the area which started the collapse. Beyond a doubt, the perimeter columns were being pulled in. WHAT EXPLOSIVE PULLS IN PERIMETER COLUMNS OVER 35 TO 45 MINUTES???
The biggest con is the the perception on the fires. Some of those flames were two stories high yet from the photos they seem small. It's all CT illusion.
Here I show the progression of the fires on the first building to fall.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911//fire.htm
Look at the fire gallery. There are two story flames in some photos. Here is a photo of 4 floors, one on top of the other in flames.
Toward the end the fire does look like it died down a little but that's part of the NIST report. It says the trusses cooled, contracted and pulled in the perimeter columns. Cooling of the trusses my have been the buildings death.
I also want you to speak on why so many CT sites use the fireman's "Two lines" quote the way they do. This is obvious diversion from the fact that ABOVE the 78th floor was where all the fires were. I PROVE this in the fires page. Not to mention that the 78th floor didn't have furnture because it was the sky lobby. This is CLEAR LYING. A verbal slight of hand. "Look at the 78th floor!" as they take away the floors above from view. What do you have to say about that? Just curious...
If your talking about Building 7 you can't be sure of anything behind the building because every photo I've seen has so much smoke pouring out of the south side as to make them useless. All we can do is defer to the people who were there until the NIST makes some more photos available.
But this photo is telling..
With the wind blowing to the east like that, why is there so much smoke coming out the south side? Some of it seems white as if it has plenty of oxygen and fuel.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| At most a tiny % of the fireproofing was removed. Even then, the fires were not infernos, nor did they engulf entire floors, and only at a few points would even non-fireproofed steel experience a prolonged, intense enough fire to weaken to any significant degree. |
Here you are just flat WRONG. No doubt your being conned by people like chrisofoxx. The characterization of the fires flies in the face of all the evidence. The fireproofing needed to be removed just in the area which started the collapse. Beyond a doubt, the perimeter columns were being pulled in. WHAT EXPLOSIVE PULLS IN PERIMETER COLUMNS OVER 35 TO 45 MINUTES???
The biggest con is the the perception on the fires. Some of those flames were two stories high yet from the photos they seem small. It's all CT illusion.
Here I show the progression of the fires on the first building to fall.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911//fire.htm
Look at the fire gallery. There are two story flames in some photos. Here is a photo of 4 floors, one on top of the other in flames.
Toward the end the fire does look like it died down a little but that's part of the NIST report. It says the trusses cooled, contracted and pulled in the perimeter columns. Cooling of the trusses my have been the buildings death.
I also want you to speak on why so many CT sites use the fireman's "Two lines" quote the way they do. This is obvious diversion from the fact that ABOVE the 78th floor was where all the fires were. I PROVE this in the fires page. Not to mention that the 78th floor didn't have furnture because it was the sky lobby. This is CLEAR LYING. A verbal slight of hand. "Look at the 78th floor!" as they take away the floors above from view. What do you have to say about that? Just curious...
If your talking about Building 7 you can't be sure of anything behind the building because every photo I've seen has so much smoke pouring out of the south side as to make them useless. All we can do is defer to the people who were there until the NIST makes some more photos available.
But this photo is telling..
With the wind blowing to the east like that, why is there so much smoke coming out the south side? Some of it seems white as if it has plenty of oxygen and fuel.
Look, buildings do not just break apart on a whim at the first loss of equilibrium. The lack of basic engineering common sense here is quite shocking. The buildings were STRONG, and that includes being strong against vertically applied forces.
Your talking straight out of your butt because the designers themselves said the building wasn't going to stand without the floors. The perimeter needed the core and the core needed the perimeter to survive. To put it your way, "The lack of basic engineering common sense here is quite shocking." Do you realize that NOT ONE STRUCURAL ENGINEER or CIVIL ENGINEER ON THE PLANET agrees with you? Why do you think that is? Because you know more than they in building design? I think not...
Prove me wrong... Show me ONE Civil or Structural engineer who agrees with you. Use people from countries that hate us if you like.That's straight out of your butt...
QUOTE
The difference in size is minimal. And an engineer builds with at least 3 times maximum load strength. It would not be safe building something to resist an airplane impact if the safety margin wasn't at least 200-300%.
More crap taken straight out of your butt. Show me where they factored in 300% more airliner and impact than a normal 707...
But it wasn't the airliner that took the building down anyway. It was a NUMBER OF FACTORS. You guys always think two dimensionally.
Here is the Probable Collapse Sequence for just one building. Note all the factors involved...
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 1
1.Aircraft Impact Damage:
•Aircraft impact severed a number of exterior columns on the North wall from floors 93 to 98, and the wall section above the impact zone moved downward.
•After breaching the building’s perimeter, the aircraft continuedto penetrate into the building, severing floor framing and core columns at the North side of thecore. Core columns were also damaged toward the center of the core and, to a limited extent on the South side of the core. Fireproofing was damaged from the impact area to the South perimeter wall, primarily through the center of WTC 1 and at least over a third to a half of the core width.
•Aircraft impact severed a single exterior panel at the center ofthe South wall between floors 94 and 96.
•The impact damage to the exterior walls and to the core resultedin redistribution of severed column loads, mostly to the columns adjacent to the impact zones. The hat truss resisted the downward movement of the North wall, and rotated about the East-West axis.
•As a result of the aircraft impact damage, the North and South walls each carried about 7 percent less gravity loads after impact, and the East and West walls each carried about 7 percent more loads. The core carried about 1 percent more gravity loads after impact.
2.Effects of Subsequent Fires and Impact Damaged Fireproofing:A.Thermal Weakening of the Core:
•The undamaged core columns developed high plastic and creep strains over the duration the building stood, since both temperatures and stresses were high in the core area. The plastic and creep strains exceeded thermal expansion in the core columns.
•The shortening of the core columns (due to plasticity and creep)was resisted by the hat truss which unloaded the core over time and redistributed loads to perimeter walls.
•As a result of the thermal weakening (and subsequent to impact and prior to inward bowing of the South wall), the North and South walls each carried about10 percent more gravity loads, and the East and West walls each carried about 25 percentmore loads. The core carried about 20 percent less gravity loads after thermal weakening. B.Thermal Weakening of the Floors:
•Floors 95 to 99 weakened with increasing temperatures over time on the long-span floors and sagged. The floors sagged first and then contracted due to cooling on the North side; fires reached the South side later, the floors sagged, and the seat connections weakened.
•Floor sagging induced inward pull forces on the South wall columns.
•About 20 percent of the connections to the South perimeter wall on floors 97 and 98 failed due to thermal weakening of the vertical supports.C.Thermal Weakening of the South Wall:
•South wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the South wall columns increased with time.
3.Collapse Initiation
•The inward bowing of the South wall induced column instability, which progressed rapidly horizontally across the entire South face.
•The South wall unloaded and tried to redistribute the loads via the hat truss to the thermally weakened core and via the spandrels to the adjacent East and West walls.
•The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled South face) to the South (at least about 8º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the South wall along the adjacent East and West walls.
•The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.
You can't just point to one thing and say "This couldn't have brought down the towers" because you'd be probably right. It's a number of things. All these things have evidence to back them up.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The difference in size is minimal. And an engineer builds with at least 3 times maximum load strength. It would not be safe building something to resist an airplane impact if the safety margin wasn't at least 200-300%. |
More crap taken straight out of your butt. Show me where they factored in 300% more airliner and impact than a normal 707...
But it wasn't the airliner that took the building down anyway. It was a NUMBER OF FACTORS. You guys always think two dimensionally.
Here is the Probable Collapse Sequence for just one building. Note all the factors involved...
Probable Collapse Sequence for WTC 1
1.Aircraft Impact Damage:
•Aircraft impact severed a number of exterior columns on the North wall from floors 93 to 98, and the wall section above the impact zone moved downward.
•After breaching the building’s perimeter, the aircraft continuedto penetrate into the building, severing floor framing and core columns at the North side of thecore. Core columns were also damaged toward the center of the core and, to a limited extent on the South side of the core. Fireproofing was damaged from the impact area to the South perimeter wall, primarily through the center of WTC 1 and at least over a third to a half of the core width.
•Aircraft impact severed a single exterior panel at the center ofthe South wall between floors 94 and 96.
•The impact damage to the exterior walls and to the core resultedin redistribution of severed column loads, mostly to the columns adjacent to the impact zones. The hat truss resisted the downward movement of the North wall, and rotated about the East-West axis.
•As a result of the aircraft impact damage, the North and South walls each carried about 7 percent less gravity loads after impact, and the East and West walls each carried about 7 percent more loads. The core carried about 1 percent more gravity loads after impact.
2.Effects of Subsequent Fires and Impact Damaged Fireproofing:A.Thermal Weakening of the Core:
•The undamaged core columns developed high plastic and creep strains over the duration the building stood, since both temperatures and stresses were high in the core area. The plastic and creep strains exceeded thermal expansion in the core columns.
•The shortening of the core columns (due to plasticity and creep)was resisted by the hat truss which unloaded the core over time and redistributed loads to perimeter walls.
•As a result of the thermal weakening (and subsequent to impact and prior to inward bowing of the South wall), the North and South walls each carried about10 percent more gravity loads, and the East and West walls each carried about 25 percentmore loads. The core carried about 20 percent less gravity loads after thermal weakening. B.Thermal Weakening of the Floors:
•Floors 95 to 99 weakened with increasing temperatures over time on the long-span floors and sagged. The floors sagged first and then contracted due to cooling on the North side; fires reached the South side later, the floors sagged, and the seat connections weakened.
•Floor sagging induced inward pull forces on the South wall columns.
•About 20 percent of the connections to the South perimeter wall on floors 97 and 98 failed due to thermal weakening of the vertical supports.C.Thermal Weakening of the South Wall:
•South wall columns bowed inward as they were subjected to high temperatures and inward pull forces in addition to axial loads.
•Inward bowing of the South wall columns increased with time.
3.Collapse Initiation
•The inward bowing of the South wall induced column instability, which progressed rapidly horizontally across the entire South face.
•The South wall unloaded and tried to redistribute the loads via the hat truss to the thermally weakened core and via the spandrels to the adjacent East and West walls.
•The entire section of the building above the impact zone began tilting as a rigid block (all four faces; not only the bowed and buckled South face) to the South (at least about 8º) as column instability progressed rapidly from the South wall along the adjacent East and West walls.
•The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued.
You can't just point to one thing and say "This couldn't have brought down the towers" because you'd be probably right. It's a number of things. All these things have evidence to back them up.
There is absolutely zero chance that a firefighter could KNOW, with absolute certainty, what would happen in a situation that noone had seen before. After if they did, then it beggars belief that experts with over 4 years and far more information cannot reach the same conclusion. The firemen are probably being honest about their fears on the day, but it simply cannot be taken as reliable given that they would have zero past experience of 47 story buildings sponteneously collapsing.
As I said, the NYC fire department trains it's men and women well. It's battalion commanders know how to use a transit. That day was a strange day. I don't expect them to know building 1 & 2 would collapse. There aren't to many buildings like that in the world much less in NY. But even then they thought there was a good possibility of parical collpase. That's with the knowledge they have a typical steel building fires.
But we are talking about a few things with Building 7. The people investigating this are working backward. They aren't on the scene looking at the building buckling and hearing it creak. They aren't looking at the building tilted. They didn't put the transit up to the building. They have to work backward and then AFTER they completed the WTC 1 & 2 reports. So this bullshiit "4 years and no report" is just that. Because you CTers have had 4 years yourself and while there have been a number of peer reviewed papers written in civil engineering journals on the collapse, the best thing you have is a paper peer reviewed by an economy journal. PLEEEEASE!!!
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/paper.htm
Heh!
Arthur -
Common sense seems to know exactly why it fell.
Common sense seems to know exactly why it fell.
We might NEVER know.
Oh, I'm sure they'll eventually fudge something that OCTs will claim to be definitive. It's obviously not as easy to fudge this one as 1&2, which is why it's taking much longer.
Yes, and that accurate model didn't lead to collapse with realistic input parameters. The model can't have got that close then.. Nor will they release it along with the rest of the report.. perhaps they don't have much confidence that it could stand up to scrutiny? Nor did they bother to consider anything that happened after collapse initiation. Apparantly "global collapse ensued" is meant to satisfy us about every feature of the way the towers came down. As if the manner in which the intact floors performed is completely irrelevant.
NIST is a joke.
Yes, and that accurate model didn't lead to collapse with realistic input parameters. The model can't have got that close then.. Nor will they release it along with the rest of the report.. perhaps they don't have much confidence that it could stand up to scrutiny? Nor did they bother to consider anything that happened after collapse initiation. Apparantly "global collapse ensued" is meant to satisfy us about every feature of the way the towers came down. As if the manner in which the intact floors performed is completely irrelevant.
NIST is a joke.
What's more, since it had been largely evacuated prior to the fall of the towers there is almost nothing known about the damage done to it or how it progressed.
Which makes observations of a "20 story hole" pretty worthless in terms of judging its severity to the overall structure.
- Collapse close to free-fall speed: evidence that the building's structure offered minimal resistance. This can easily be explained by CD, but so far by no other theory. There is NO evidence to suggest that buildings that spontaneously collapse do so close to free-fall.
- Collapse straight down: As can be seen with the Landmark tower, assymetrical damage will provide a building with angular momentum, even when the entire structure has been weakened. If the same had been done without the rest of the tower being demolished, it would have toppled. There is NO evidence that a structure with localised, assymetric damage will fall straight down.
- The Penthouse: evidence of an internal failure closer to the roof than any of the damage done to the building.
- The pre-collapse explosion: heard on Rick Seigel's recording of the WTC7 collapse.
- Evidence of vapourised steel found in the wreckage.
- Intense, long lasting hot-spots beneath the rubble. (identical to those below the other towers - suggesting a common theme between all three)
- Bowed roof at the beginning of the collapse. A feature seen commonly in CDs. Could be due to another collapse method, but yet another consistency with CD.
- Collapse close to free-fall speed: evidence that the building's structure offered minimal resistance. This can easily be explained by CD, but so far by no other theory. There is NO evidence to suggest that buildings that spontaneously collapse do so close to free-fall.
- Collapse straight down: As can be seen with the Landmark tower, assymetrical damage will provide a building with angular momentum, even when the entire structure has been weakened. If the same had been done without the rest of the tower being demolished, it would have toppled. There is NO evidence that a structure with localised, assymetric damage will fall straight down.
- The Penthouse: evidence of an internal failure closer to the roof than any of the damage done to the building.
- The pre-collapse explosion: heard on Rick Seigel's recording of the WTC7 collapse.
- Evidence of vapourised steel found in the wreckage.
- Intense, long lasting hot-spots beneath the rubble. (identical to those below the other towers - suggesting a common theme between all three)
- Bowed roof at the beginning of the collapse. A feature seen commonly in CDs. Could be due to another collapse method, but yet another consistency with CD.
to think that explosives and the wiring to set them off could have sat around in that building for hours as it burned out of control is in fact the ranting of a DELUSIONAL PARANOID.
No wiring required with radio control, and thermite could not be set off by the fires. If a few of the conventional explosives went off early, who cares - every explosion has a natural explanation according to OCTs.
Interesting. I get called a moron for putting forth a theory for an observed event. Surely, I think, this person must have a good reason - they must have alternate theory that makes more sense. So I ask them to propose this alternative.. and all I get is "Actually, it beats me!".
Remember, some of these people will believe anything
I see you making this proclamation time after time, yet offering absolutely NO evidence to support this proclamation in ANY kind of quantitative way.
Would you care to provide that now?
The perimeter columns only have air resistence. Why isn't the building collapse keeping pace? The only answer is it has more resistance from other things. This is so simple a 2 year old could understand.
Common Sense Posted on Mar 28 2006, 10:50 AM
1) Floors pancake onto other floors leaving the perimeter columns standing on their own (For a moment)
Do these perimeter columns appear to be, momentarily, in a state of repose?????
Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. The NIST report is clear that it only gives a PROBABLE collapse scenario. We WILL never know the exact detail to ANY of the buildings because there is just to much unknown. The key factors like which exact core column was severed or bent during impact is impossible to know. Steel could have twisted in the collapse. That's just a few things impossible to know.
Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. The NIST report is clear that it only gives a PROBABLE collapse scenario. We WILL never know the exact detail to ANY of the buildings because there is just to much unknown. The key factors like which exact core column was severed or bent during impact is impossible to know. Steel could have twisted in the collapse. That's just a few things impossible to know.
NIST is a joke.
First of all I don't buy the NIST doesn't have a collpase model. The only ones saying this are the CTers who could be using old information.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/computermodel.jpg
NO WHERE do I see in the NIST final report that computer models weren't completed. But the fact remains others have created computer models. One such model was commissioned by Silvertein for the court case. The insurance company never found anything wrong with the model. They could have saved 3 billion if they proved it was flawed. They did not.
Logical fallacy. Absence of 100% evidence doesn't equal Bomb. You have to SHOW evidence of a bomb.
But this is why I wished you would have read the thread...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=29884
Logical fallacy. Absence of 100% evidence doesn't equal Bomb. You have to SHOW evidence of a bomb.
But this is why I wished you would have read the thread...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=29884
- The pre-collapse explosion: heard on Rick Seigel's recording of the WTC7 collapse.
We live on earth. Large columns snapping and floors falling make noise...
The sound of steel bolts snapping.
Note the sound of an explosion before it comes down.
Animation of what they heard.
Maybe if we lived in space we wouldn't hear anything before a collpase.
Horseshit
Horseshit
- Intense, long lasting hot-spots beneath the rubble. (identical to those below the other towers - suggesting a common theme between all three)
Another issue we've gone over...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm
I have news for you. The buildings were BUILT with a bowed roof. It housed the hat truss system.
QUOTE
Newtonjd, you are obviously quite aware that NOBODY knows exactly why WTC 7 fell.
Common sense seems to know exactly why it fell.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Newtonjd, you are obviously quite aware that NOBODY knows exactly why WTC 7 fell. |
Common sense seems to know exactly why it fell.
We might NEVER know.
Oh, I'm sure they'll eventually fudge something that OCTs will claim to be definitive. It's obviously not as easy to fudge this one as 1&2, which is why it's taking much longer.
QUOTE
Unlike the other towers, where we could MODEL the initial damage quite closely and verify the model using an incredible amount of photographic evidence, there IS no initial model of the damage done to WTC 7.
Yes, and that accurate model didn't lead to collapse with realistic input parameters. The model can't have got that close then.. Nor will they release it along with the rest of the report.. perhaps they don't have much confidence that it could stand up to scrutiny? Nor did they bother to consider anything that happened after collapse initiation. Apparantly "global collapse ensued" is meant to satisfy us about every feature of the way the towers came down. As if the manner in which the intact floors performed is completely irrelevant.
NIST is a joke.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Unlike the other towers, where we could MODEL the initial damage quite closely and verify the model using an incredible amount of photographic evidence, there IS no initial model of the damage done to WTC 7. |
Yes, and that accurate model didn't lead to collapse with realistic input parameters. The model can't have got that close then.. Nor will they release it along with the rest of the report.. perhaps they don't have much confidence that it could stand up to scrutiny? Nor did they bother to consider anything that happened after collapse initiation. Apparantly "global collapse ensued" is meant to satisfy us about every feature of the way the towers came down. As if the manner in which the intact floors performed is completely irrelevant.
NIST is a joke.
What's more, since it had been largely evacuated prior to the fall of the towers there is almost nothing known about the damage done to it or how it progressed.
Which makes observations of a "20 story hole" pretty worthless in terms of judging its severity to the overall structure.
QUOTE
What IS clear though is there is NO EVIDENCE of a Controlled Demolition
- Collapse close to free-fall speed: evidence that the building's structure offered minimal resistance. This can easily be explained by CD, but so far by no other theory. There is NO evidence to suggest that buildings that spontaneously collapse do so close to free-fall.
- Collapse straight down: As can be seen with the Landmark tower, assymetrical damage will provide a building with angular momentum, even when the entire structure has been weakened. If the same had been done without the rest of the tower being demolished, it would have toppled. There is NO evidence that a structure with localised, assymetric damage will fall straight down.
- The Penthouse: evidence of an internal failure closer to the roof than any of the damage done to the building.
- The pre-collapse explosion: heard on Rick Seigel's recording of the WTC7 collapse.
- Evidence of vapourised steel found in the wreckage.
- Intense, long lasting hot-spots beneath the rubble. (identical to those below the other towers - suggesting a common theme between all three)
- Bowed roof at the beginning of the collapse. A feature seen commonly in CDs. Could be due to another collapse method, but yet another consistency with CD.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What IS clear though is there is NO EVIDENCE of a Controlled Demolition |
- Collapse close to free-fall speed: evidence that the building's structure offered minimal resistance. This can easily be explained by CD, but so far by no other theory. There is NO evidence to suggest that buildings that spontaneously collapse do so close to free-fall.
- Collapse straight down: As can be seen with the Landmark tower, assymetrical damage will provide a building with angular momentum, even when the entire structure has been weakened. If the same had been done without the rest of the tower being demolished, it would have toppled. There is NO evidence that a structure with localised, assymetric damage will fall straight down.
- The Penthouse: evidence of an internal failure closer to the roof than any of the damage done to the building.
- The pre-collapse explosion: heard on Rick Seigel's recording of the WTC7 collapse.
- Evidence of vapourised steel found in the wreckage.
- Intense, long lasting hot-spots beneath the rubble. (identical to those below the other towers - suggesting a common theme between all three)
- Bowed roof at the beginning of the collapse. A feature seen commonly in CDs. Could be due to another collapse method, but yet another consistency with CD.
to think that explosives and the wiring to set them off could have sat around in that building for hours as it burned out of control is in fact the ranting of a DELUSIONAL PARANOID.
No wiring required with radio control, and thermite could not be set off by the fires. If a few of the conventional explosives went off early, who cares - every explosion has a natural explanation according to OCTs.
QUOTE
So enjoy another go at your mental masturbation.
I'd stick around and debate you, but as I said, its like teasing monkeys at the zoo, its fun for a while, but they always end up flinging feces.
I'd stick around and debate you, but as I said, its like teasing monkeys at the zoo, its fun for a while, but they always end up flinging feces.
Interesting. I get called a moron for putting forth a theory for an observed event. Surely, I think, this person must have a good reason - they must have alternate theory that makes more sense. So I ask them to propose this alternative.. and all I get is "Actually, it beats me!".
QUOTE
newton
there is no such thing as an airplane transmission. that's the whole point, MORON
there is no such thing as an airplane transmission. that's the whole point, MORON
Remember, some of these people will believe anything
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 23 2006, 12:23 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Feb 23 2006, 08:17 PM)
QUOTE
by arthur
And YES, I am saying they faced far more resistance than air resistance.
Arthur
And YES, I am saying they faced far more resistance than air resistance.
Arthur
I see you making this proclamation time after time, yet offering absolutely NO evidence to support this proclamation in ANY kind of quantitative way.
Would you care to provide that now?
The perimeter columns only have air resistence. Why isn't the building collapse keeping pace? The only answer is it has more resistance from other things. This is so simple a 2 year old could understand.
Common Sense Posted on Mar 28 2006, 10:50 AM
1) Floors pancake onto other floors leaving the perimeter columns standing on their own (For a moment)
Do these perimeter columns appear to be, momentarily, in a state of repose?????
QUOTE
Oh, I'm sure they'll eventually fudge something that OCTs will claim to be definitive. It's obviously not as easy to fudge this one as 1&2, which is why it's taking much longer.
Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. The NIST report is clear that it only gives a PROBABLE collapse scenario. We WILL never know the exact detail to ANY of the buildings because there is just to much unknown. The key factors like which exact core column was severed or bent during impact is impossible to know. Steel could have twisted in the collapse. That's just a few things impossible to know.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh, I'm sure they'll eventually fudge something that OCTs will claim to be definitive. It's obviously not as easy to fudge this one as 1&2, which is why it's taking much longer. |
Once again you have no idea what you're talking about. The NIST report is clear that it only gives a PROBABLE collapse scenario. We WILL never know the exact detail to ANY of the buildings because there is just to much unknown. The key factors like which exact core column was severed or bent during impact is impossible to know. Steel could have twisted in the collapse. That's just a few things impossible to know.
NIST is a joke.
First of all I don't buy the NIST doesn't have a collpase model. The only ones saying this are the CTers who could be using old information.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/computermodel.jpg
NO WHERE do I see in the NIST final report that computer models weren't completed. But the fact remains others have created computer models. One such model was commissioned by Silvertein for the court case. The insurance company never found anything wrong with the model. They could have saved 3 billion if they proved it was flawed. They did not.
QUOTE
- Collapse close to free-fall speed: evidence that the building's structure offered minimal resistance. This can easily be explained by CD, but so far by no other theory. There is NO evidence to suggest that buildings that spontaneously collapse do so close to free-fall.
Logical fallacy. Absence of 100% evidence doesn't equal Bomb. You have to SHOW evidence of a bomb.
But this is why I wished you would have read the thread...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=29884
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| - Collapse close to free-fall speed: evidence that the building's structure offered minimal resistance. This can easily be explained by CD, but so far by no other theory. There is NO evidence to suggest that buildings that spontaneously collapse do so close to free-fall. |
Logical fallacy. Absence of 100% evidence doesn't equal Bomb. You have to SHOW evidence of a bomb.
But this is why I wished you would have read the thread...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=29884
- The pre-collapse explosion: heard on Rick Seigel's recording of the WTC7 collapse.
We live on earth. Large columns snapping and floors falling make noise...
The sound of steel bolts snapping.
Note the sound of an explosion before it comes down.
Animation of what they heard.
Maybe if we lived in space we wouldn't hear anything before a collpase.
QUOTE
- Evidence of vapourised steel found in the wreckage.
Horseshit
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| - Evidence of vapourised steel found in the wreckage. |
Horseshit
- Intense, long lasting hot-spots beneath the rubble. (identical to those below the other towers - suggesting a common theme between all three)
Another issue we've gone over...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm
QUOTE
- Bowed roof at the beginning of the collapse. A feature seen commonly in CDs. Could be due to another collapse method, but yet another consistency with CD.
I have news for you. The buildings were BUILT with a bowed roof. It housed the hat truss system.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.