To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Physics Of 9/11 Events - Part 3
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Other Sci-Tech Topics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116

Grumpy
H2O

The fires in WTC 1 and 2

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-5A%20Ch%201-8.pdf

Structural damage and probable collapse sequence Towers 1 and 2

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6D.pdf

WTC 7

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/release...wtc_videos.html

After you have read these, you should realize just how stupid your last post was.

Grumpy cool.gif
WTC control demolished
Grumpy = 100% Perfect example of an ID!OT
Grumpy = 100% Perfect example of an ID!OT
Grumpy = 100% Perfect example of an ID!OT
Grumpy = 100% Perfect example of an ID!OT
Grumpy = 100% Perfect example of an ID!OT
Grumpy = 100% Perfect example of an ID!OT



Minnesotastan said...

I'll add one other point -

Building 7 was not struck by a jetliner. It was about the same size as the Chinese hotel in the photos above. It sustained only minor damage from debris falling from Buildings 1 and 2. It had a fire in one corner of the basement as I recall.

And yet it collapsed vertically in freefall??? I'll hang my hat on Building 7 having been demolished.
February 12, 2009 8:24 AM
H2O
That's it??? After reading it it is the farthest reaching report I have ever read (I have read a few). What a stretch. Every "sign" that gives them their conclusion could have multiple possible causes, most of which would have been more likely the cause. Ex. The puffs of smoke and debris that busted out of the windows before collapse. They imply that shifts in the structural integrity would cause them but it is more likely that as a closed door burns through a difference in pressure suddenly rights itself or an internal wall burning through, or even the fire itself can create strong pressure differences.

But let's be real here. How about something substantial that isn't "gov.com". I trust a government funded investigation into a government involved occurrence less than I trust my daughter with a rabid dog.
buttershug
How do you guys account for the Presidental BJ factor?

A presidend couldn't even get a bj in the privacy of his own office without the world knowing, and you guys think that, that many people could do all the things that would be required for 9/11 to be an inside job and nobody knows the details.

For crying out loud, we even know the dress was blue.
H2O
Wasn't it because the right people just came out and confessed? Do you really expect anyone (concerning the WTC) to come forward and confess that they knew that it was going to happen well in advance of when it did?

A president can't get away with getting a bj yet a known terrorist group got away with such a large operation?

Even though I am firm that the planes could not bring down those buildings, I am still up in the air whether or not there was government and/or some other kind of internal involvement. Who knows, maybe the buildings were demo'ed and the people who planted the explosives were simply members of the terrorist group as well.

If so then the results of a government funded and/or run investigation would be opt to do one of two things....

1. Cover up the government involvement if indeed they were involved
2. Present an out come that rules out anything other than the planes bringing down the buildings. If the people whose jobs it is to know about these things ahead of time were incompetent and dropped the ball then they will minimize just how bad they dropped the ball by covering up everything except what couldn't be covered up and that is the planes themselves hitting the buildings. In short, a PR recovery since people will lose trust/faith/hope in the government currently (at the time) in power.
AlexG
QUOTE
Who knows, maybe the buildings were demo'ed and the people who planted the explosives were simply members of the terrorist group as well.


Have you ever seen a building being wired for controlled demolition? Have you ever seen the explosives being set? There have been quite a few TV shows on controlled demolition, you should catch one.

It's not an inconspicuous process. It's not carried out by men dressed in black in the middle of the night. It's a major undertaking, requiring a lot of the support structures to be laid bare and precisely shaped charges being placed and wired. So how is it that all that work was overlooked?
buttershug
QUOTE (H2O+May 4 2009, 05:28 PM)
Wasn't it because the right people just came out and confessed? Do you really expect anyone (concerning the WTC) to come forward and confess that they knew that it was going to happen well in advance of when it did?

A president can't get away with getting a bj yet a known terrorist group got away with such a large operation?

Yes and yes.

Has anyone even considered how many people would have to be involved with a 9/11 conspiracy? (hundreds if not thousands.)
With that many people someone would have talked by now.
There would have been lots of people that would have been involved not knowing what the big project was.

The terrorist plot would have taken a couple guys with some money knowing what they were doing, and a couple dozen dupes. How is it a large operation? Get flying lessons for four people. Go to a hardware store buy a couple dozen box cutters. Book some airline tickets.
Flying planes into a building is a simple straightforward plan. Planting all the explosives etc. is much more technical.


Eliminate incompetence before you even think about conspiracy.
The competance level of the average person is very low.
Grumpy
AlexG

QUOTE
So how is it that all that work was overlooked?


Invisible Ninja Thermite Fairies???

Buttershug

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
So how is it that all that work was overlooked?


Invisible Ninja Thermite Fairies???

Buttershug

Has anyone even considered how many people would have to be involved with a 9/11 conspiracy? (hundreds if not thousands.)
With that many people someone would have talked by now.


What's the old saying? "Two people can keep a secret, if one of them is dead."

H2O

QUOTE
Do you really expect anyone (concerning the WTC) to come forward and confess that they knew that it was going to happen well in advance of when it did?


Osama Ben Laden did. As buttershug said, four semi-competent pilots, 20 plane tickets and 20 dollars worth of boxcutters. It's not like they couldn't find 20 religious fanatics willing to die for their 72 virgins in Paradise, after all. And WE provided the 125 TON cruise missiles loaded with 50 TONS of flamible jet fuel. And it is a WHOLE LOT easier than smuggling TONS of explosive in and placing them in the exact areas needed, that theory doesn't pass the laugh test.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Do you really expect anyone (concerning the WTC) to come forward and confess that they knew that it was going to happen well in advance of when it did?


Osama Ben Laden did. As buttershug said, four semi-competent pilots, 20 plane tickets and 20 dollars worth of boxcutters. It's not like they couldn't find 20 religious fanatics willing to die for their 72 virgins in Paradise, after all. And WE provided the 125 TON cruise missiles loaded with 50 TONS of flamible jet fuel. And it is a WHOLE LOT easier than smuggling TONS of explosive in and placing them in the exact areas needed, that theory doesn't pass the laugh test.

Even though I am firm that the planes could not bring down those buildings,


Then you are just an ID!OT who has no idea of what you are talking about, the planes and the fires ARE what brought down those buildings. It has happened 100% of the time it has been tried.

QUOTE
2. Present an out come that rules out anything other than the planes bringing down the buildings.


The fires in WTC 1 and 2

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-5A%20Ch%201-8.pdf

Structural damage and probable collapse sequence Towers 1 and 2

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-6D.pdf

WTC 7

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/release...wtc_videos.html

We know why the buildings fell, 19 Islamic extremists drove two 255,000 lb aircraft full of tons of fuel into those buildings at close to 500 mph. The structural damage was originally survivable, but the fires weakened the steel leading to one element after another failing, adding up to total collapse. End of story.

Grumpy cool.gif
newton
how come grumpy can call people "idiot"?
new rules?
[Moderator: Whether used in an all-encompassing sense or a limited sense, labelling someone an idiot is a factual claim. If well-supported by examples of, say, documenting unreasonable statements and why they are unreasonable, it is not a far stretch to attribute the cause of such unreasonable statements to a poster's lack of reasoning skills or the willingness to apply them. Grumpy would make my job more reasonable by admitting to using either a limited sense of "idiot" and/or apologizing and/or attempting to stick to more direct and useful criticisms. But there in fact may be quite frequent circumstances in which a poster could make a positive case for labelling another poster as an idiot in a specific sense as a factual claim -- as moderator, I might find that the use of even such a pejorative term is entirely justified by a poster's history and take action against the offended party. Read the terms of service, which are largely unchanged from when the first thread on this subject was started.]
David B. Benson
newton --- Look back at earlier posts. Anyway, it's a personal opinion:

id⋅i⋅ot
   /ˈɪdiət/ [id-ee-uht]
–noun
1. an utterly foolish or senseless person.
2. Psychology. a person of the lowest order in a former classification of mental retardation, having a mental age of less than three years old and an intelligence quotient under 25.
Origin:
1250–1300; ME < L idiōta < Gk iditēs private person, layman, person lacking skill or expertise, equiv. to idiō- (lengthened var. of idio- idio-, perh. by analogy with stratiōtēs professional soldier, deriv. of stratiá army) + -tēs agent n. suffix

Synonyms:
1. fool, half-wit; imbecile; dolt, dunce, numskull.

from
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idiot
Grumpy
H2O

I should not have called you an id!ot, I should be satisfied to just pointed out your idiocy and left it at that. I'm sorry for the infraction, but you do not know a dang thing about the subject if you can make such statements and actually believe them.

Grumpy cool.gif
rpenner
Thank you.
David B. Benson
H2O --- Here is a good site for you to explore:
http://www.debunking911.com/

rpenner --- Seems to me that then H2O ought to apologize about 5 times to Grumpy for repeatedly calling him an idiot.

Just to be fair, methinks.
newton
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 5 2009, 12:39 AM)
H2O --- Here is a good site for you to explore:
http://www.debunking911.com/

rpenner --- Seems to me that then H2O ought to apologize about 5 times to Grumpy for repeatedly calling him an idiot.

Just to be fair, methinks.

i haven't been following, but, i agree.
if m0r0n isn't allowed, nor should idiot be allowed.
it is hard to stay calm on this particular subject, though.
the sky is falling, and the crush down is unstoppable.
Grumpy
newton

QUOTE
it is hard to stay calm on this particular subject, though.
the sky is falling, and the crush down is unstoppable.


Whoa there, Chicken Little!! The sky is not falling! Terrorist bombings have a long and sordid history, be it the Anarchists of the 19th century or the Islamists of today, yet we still survive. You are more likely to be hit by a car crossing the street than you are to be on the next plane a religious nutjob flies into a building. And before you even start, no, our own government was not in on a plot to destroy those buildings(though an argument could be made that their incompetence made it possible, W and company were incompetent at everything else).

This troother non-sense has gone far enough, the only ones still buying it are non compos mentos who really need protection from themselves, not from the Illuminati.

Grumpy cool.gif
H2O
QUOTE
Seems to me that then H2O ought to apologize about 5 times to Grumpy for repeatedly calling him an idiot


I haven't called anyone an idiot...

On the inconspicuous people planting explosives I remember viewing an online documentary saying that there were people doing work within the buildings bringing in what appeared to be cable (which detcord looks alot like to people who wouldn't know the difference), and they supposedly brought in containers of unknown content. It also stated by interview of people who work there that there were an unusual increase in fire drills and I don't buy for a cent that it was mere coincidence that the owner (I think a new owner) insured against plane impact specifically (though the video said "against terrorist attack") with a bonus payout if both towers were to get hit and not just one. Especially on towers that were supposedly expired (building code out of date) but would have cost billions to repair.

I do see insuring against a plane impact but to have a bonus payout if both towers got hit? And then it happens? Way too big of a coincidence.
Grumpy
H2O

QUOTE
I do see insuring against a plane impact but to have a bonus payout if both towers got hit? And then it happens? Way too big of a coincidence.


It strikes me as prudent, given the terrorist attack in 1993, or did you just convieniently forget that.

Grumpy cool.gif
David B. Benson
H2O --- Apologies, it was that other [edit], WTC control demolished, who six times wrote that about Grumpy.
H2O
QUOTE
H2O --- Apologies, it was that other [edit], WTC control demolished, who six times wrote that about Grumpy.


No problem... biggrin.gif

I figured that was who you meant.

Anyways, To be perfectly honest I do not know enough really. I've read many articles and seen many videos and documentaries. Some say one thing, some say another. Who is right? I don't think we will really ever know the truth (the whole truth) one way or the other.

But out of all that I have read and watched I have come to my own conclusion and the only thing that would convince me otherwise is something that will probably never happen. An experiment.

Start with a concrete base with the same floor area as the towers and so high (100m maybe). Then construct a few floors (20 or 30) as designed in the towers, then top it off with another block of concrete whose mass is to simulate the mass of the remaining tower above impact.

Fully furnish the floors as per. Use the same construction procedures and materials. Then crash into them, remote operated jets.

Let'em burn and see how they fall. IF they fall the same then there ya have it, the planes were capable. If they topple over or not fall at all then obviously something else brought them down.

The entire project would have to be made available to the public eye from start to finish, done by a third party with no bias one way or the other, but would cost quite a bit just to prove or disprove points concerning an event that the majority of people would rather see simply laid to rest for good.
Trippy
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 6 2009, 03:57 AM)
H2O



It strikes me as prudent, given the terrorist attack in 1993, or did you just convieniently forget that.

Grumpy cool.gif

Especially in light of the fact that there was one security expert (Veitnam War Veteran) working for a bank in one of the towers that first correctly predicted that any terrorist attack on the towers would be a truck in through the basement (before 1993) then correctly predicted that with the new security measures in place, the only viable option left was to crash a plane into them.

(He died going back for people).
Alan (ex elevator man)
QUOTE (H2O+May 5 2009, 09:46 AM)
I do see insuring against a plane impact but to have a bonus payout if both towers got hit? And then it happens? Way too big of a coincidence.

1. There was no stipulation that he would be paid double if both towers were attacked.
2. He TRIED to get double by claiming it was two separate attacks (and I tend to agree), but failed. He lost that argument in court.
David B. Benson
H2O --- I provided you with a link to a reliable site (which I aided in assembling).
buttershug
QUOTE (H2O+May 6 2009, 01:41 AM)
But out of all that I have read and watched I have come to my own conclusion and the only thing that would convince me otherwise is something that will probably never happen.  An experiment.

How about a lite version of the experiment?

We could burn a fuel tanker truck under an overpass and see if the overpass collapses.
AlexG
QUOTE (buttershug+May 6 2009, 09:23 PM)
How about a lite version of the experiment?

We could burn a fuel tanker truck under an overpass and see if the overpass collapses.

Been done.

It does.
Grumpy
Bump due to Religious nutbag attack.
WTC control demolished
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

More than 640 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) are calling for a new, independent investigation

These building professionals cite evidence of explosive demolition at all three WTC high-rises on 9/11


http://www.ae911truth.org/

" We have a structural engineer who is also an architect stop by and sign our petition who has worked on 50 to 60 story buildings. He was completely unaware of the free-fall acceleration of building 7 and immediately acknowledged that this implies a controlled demolition. "
AlexG
Has anyone, anywhere ever answered the question of how controlled demolition charges were set and wired without anyone ever being aware of it?
WTC control demolished
[Moderator: Duplicate post removed.

According to the terms of use, posting inappropriate material in the judgement of the moderator is a violation. Posting identical posts is not appropriate to a conversation, and it suggests you need to lower your estimation of your communication skills. May I suggest that you begin with listening to what other people say and not just the parts that fit into your world-view?
]
AlexG
I'll take that as a no.
WTC control demolished
[Moderator: Duplicate post removed.

According to the terms of use, posting inappropriate material in the judgement of the moderator is a violation. Posting identical posts is not appropriate to a conversation, and it suggests you need to lower your estimation of your communication skills. May I suggest that you begin with listening to what other people say and not just the parts that fit into your world-view?
]
H2O
QUOTE
Has anyone, anywhere ever answered the question of how controlled demolition charges were set and wired without anyone ever being aware of it?


I did but the problem was the credibility of the source. It is not without bias. Apparently there were people with closed containers (boxes or some such thing) and spools of what appeared to be cable entering the building. These people made it seem they were installing networking equipment. Something that is not unreasonable at all for buildings such as these.

The video is "Loose Change" and has no doubt been discussed already on here. Even I don't buy everything that the video claims. I remember that it said there was a possibility that the planes were not even passenger planes and that the entire thing was an internal operation with no terrorist involvement. Sorry but just as I don't buy that the planes alone brought down the building, I also don't buy that the planes were some remote operated air crafts or that the pentagon was hit with a cruise missile. Yes, passenger planes were high jacked and yes there was involvement with a terrorist group.

How much involvement and how much (if any) internal involvement there was is open to debate.

There are three levels of involvement and there is a problem with all of them that will make this conspiracy theory remain as such.

1. Total terrorist involvement. You can't hide the obvious. The obvious is that the planes crashed into the buildings and the buildings came crumbling down. Now already this sparks a question...how did this happen without some intelligence agency finding out before it took place? The answer is simple, there was no reason to suspect these people as they got on the planes and they probably received the instructions by mail. With no reason to be watching these people, there is no reason to bug the phones, check their mail, etc. They did the high jacking with utility knives which would be easy to sneak on and would raise no suspicions to acquire. But if they also managed to sneak in explosives by disguising themselves and the equipment as something else (network installation) then this would raise a similar but harder to answer question....How did some intelligence agency not find out about this before it happened? Cause now were talking detcord and high explosives. Were also talking more people being involved and not just the high jackers. So it would be in the governments best interest to cover something like that up so as to not appear totally and utterly incompetent in the eyes of the people. Incompetence like that can be considered criminal

2. Combination of both terrorist and internal. The reasons for covering up any and all things possible to cover up is rather obvious.

3. Complete internal involvement. Again the reasons for covering up any and all things possible to cover up is quite obvious.

Now I believe one of the issues when it comes to not believing that something other than the planes brought down the building is mostly the fault of the obvious occurrence and the uneducated, completely biased media coverage that went along with it. This alone was enough for most people to have their minds made up or at least made up enough not to be persuaded to think any different.

I was sitting in the CFSEME PAT room (Canadian Forces School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering; Personnel Awaiting Training) when someone in a different room came in and said "a plane just ran into one of the WTC buildings" for which most of us thought/said "yeah sure" since this guy was known to be bit of a distasteful joker.

It didn't take long after that people did actually start to question it (perhaps disbelief that it happened in the first place) and not long after that did I go online and begin researching it myself. Only then did I see the videos online of both planes and the towers themselves coming down. I never believed the guy until I heard others say it and I never rushed to the other room to watch the news. I also (at the time) was living in SQ (single quarters aka the shacks) and didn't have a computer or a tv of my own and I wasn't about to go down to the crowded common room to watch the news coverage. About a month later did I get online so I never got to experience the shock factor. So when I started researching into it I was easily persuadable one way or the other and after doing my own research, hearing both sides and seeing the footage without biased new coverage and even more untrustworthy government announcements, I came to my own conclusion. It is for this reason (the reason I came to the conclusion I did) that it is perhaps even harder to persuade me any different then someone whose mind was already made up within the first few hours of the occurrence.

Edit: Just wanted to add

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Has anyone, anywhere ever answered the question of how controlled demolition charges were set and wired without anyone ever being aware of it?


I did but the problem was the credibility of the source. It is not without bias. Apparently there were people with closed containers (boxes or some such thing) and spools of what appeared to be cable entering the building. These people made it seem they were installing networking equipment. Something that is not unreasonable at all for buildings such as these.

The video is "Loose Change" and has no doubt been discussed already on here. Even I don't buy everything that the video claims. I remember that it said there was a possibility that the planes were not even passenger planes and that the entire thing was an internal operation with no terrorist involvement. Sorry but just as I don't buy that the planes alone brought down the building, I also don't buy that the planes were some remote operated air crafts or that the pentagon was hit with a cruise missile. Yes, passenger planes were high jacked and yes there was involvement with a terrorist group.

How much involvement and how much (if any) internal involvement there was is open to debate.

There are three levels of involvement and there is a problem with all of them that will make this conspiracy theory remain as such.

1. Total terrorist involvement. You can't hide the obvious. The obvious is that the planes crashed into the buildings and the buildings came crumbling down. Now already this sparks a question...how did this happen without some intelligence agency finding out before it took place? The answer is simple, there was no reason to suspect these people as they got on the planes and they probably received the instructions by mail. With no reason to be watching these people, there is no reason to bug the phones, check their mail, etc. They did the high jacking with utility knives which would be easy to sneak on and would raise no suspicions to acquire. But if they also managed to sneak in explosives by disguising themselves and the equipment as something else (network installation) then this would raise a similar but harder to answer question....How did some intelligence agency not find out about this before it happened? Cause now were talking detcord and high explosives. Were also talking more people being involved and not just the high jackers. So it would be in the governments best interest to cover something like that up so as to not appear totally and utterly incompetent in the eyes of the people. Incompetence like that can be considered criminal

2. Combination of both terrorist and internal. The reasons for covering up any and all things possible to cover up is rather obvious.

3. Complete internal involvement. Again the reasons for covering up any and all things possible to cover up is quite obvious.

Now I believe one of the issues when it comes to not believing that something other than the planes brought down the building is mostly the fault of the obvious occurrence and the uneducated, completely biased media coverage that went along with it. This alone was enough for most people to have their minds made up or at least made up enough not to be persuaded to think any different.

I was sitting in the CFSEME PAT room (Canadian Forces School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering; Personnel Awaiting Training) when someone in a different room came in and said "a plane just ran into one of the WTC buildings" for which most of us thought/said "yeah sure" since this guy was known to be bit of a distasteful joker.

It didn't take long after that people did actually start to question it (perhaps disbelief that it happened in the first place) and not long after that did I go online and begin researching it myself. Only then did I see the videos online of both planes and the towers themselves coming down. I never believed the guy until I heard others say it and I never rushed to the other room to watch the news. I also (at the time) was living in SQ (single quarters aka the shacks) and didn't have a computer or a tv of my own and I wasn't about to go down to the crowded common room to watch the news coverage. About a month later did I get online so I never got to experience the shock factor. So when I started researching into it I was easily persuadable one way or the other and after doing my own research, hearing both sides and seeing the footage without biased new coverage and even more untrustworthy government announcements, I came to my own conclusion. It is for this reason (the reason I came to the conclusion I did) that it is perhaps even harder to persuade me any different then someone whose mind was already made up within the first few hours of the occurrence.

Edit: Just wanted to add

We could burn a fuel tanker truck under an overpass and see if the overpass collapses.


http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...sa%3DN%26um%3D1

If the overpass collapsed then why would a heavy equipment operator need to "take down" the damaged section. It should already be down and the heavy equipment operator would only need to "clean up" the downed section of overpass.

Why would someone else be standing under it (more of a quest of 'how would') taking pictures of the damaged sections. A picture that doesn't even show fallen chunks although reports state there are some

It caused some chunks to drop, chunk by chunk. It didn't outright collapse nor did what did come down do so all at once. Nor did the vertical support give out.

If anything, this is proof that shows that the WTC should not have collapsed, never mind how it definitely shows that the WTC should never have collapsed the way it did. It definitely shows that tower 7 should never have feel in the same way as towers 1 and 2.
buttershug
QUOTE (H2O+May 9 2009, 06:46 PM)
3.  Complete internal involvement.  Again the reasons for covering up any and all things possible to cover up is quite obvious.

And just as obviously impossible to cover up.

how would anyone go about finding the people to carry it off?
How do you put out feelers for such a project?

And even if they duped people into it, at least some would be so upset that they would spill the beans.


WTC control demolished
If anything, this is proof that shows that the WTC should not have collapsed

I AGREE
AlexG
Comparing an elevated highway with a modern high-rise seems like comparing apples and pork chops. The construction, design, materials and specifications are completely different.
WTC control demolished
QUOTE (buttershug @ May 6 2009, 09:23 PM)
How about a lite version of the experiment?

We could burn a fuel tanker truck under an overpass and see if the overpass collapses.



QUOTE (AlexG+May 7 2009, 05:07 AM)
Been done.

It does.


before you agree with such comparison , now you dont agree anymore
Grumpy
H2O

QUOTE
1. Total terrorist involvement. You can't hide the obvious. The obvious is that the planes crashed into the buildings and the buildings came crumbling down. Now already this sparks a question...how did this happen without some intelligence agency finding out before it took place?


Actually, the Bush administration recieved several warnings from credible sources but, due to their total incompetence and myopia, ignored them.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
1. Total terrorist involvement. You can't hide the obvious. The obvious is that the planes crashed into the buildings and the buildings came crumbling down. Now already this sparks a question...how did this happen without some intelligence agency finding out before it took place?


Actually, the Bush administration recieved several warnings from credible sources but, due to their total incompetence and myopia, ignored them.

But if they also managed to sneak in explosives by disguising themselves and the equipment as something else (network installation) then this would raise a similar but harder to answer question....How did some intelligence agency not find out about this before it happened?


There was no need of explosives, the planes and fires were more than adequite to bring the towers down. In fact, if the planes had hit at the 40th floor, instead of higher up, the buildings would have fallen even quicker(part of the reason Tower 2 fell first was the greater weight of the building above the damaged area, another reason was the assymetric damage).

QUOTE
It definitely shows that tower 7 should never have feel in the same way as towers 1 and 2.


Building 7 took a long time(in relation to the Towers) to fall apart. At 2:00 PM the fire department knew it was going to fall(three hours before it did), due to the damage and fires, and "pulled" everyone from around it. No explosions occurred anywhere in the WTC complex(beyond what can be expected in major fires), no explosive residue was found.

Let's face it, the troothers are dying, there just is no "there" there.

Grumpy cool.gif
H2O
QUOTE
the fire department knew it was going to fall(three hours before it did), due to the damage and fires, and "pulled" everyone from around it.


Then how would you explain the movie "9/11" based on actual events where firefighters were caught unaware in the collapse?

I, in no way, am gonna be able to swallow that building 7 (a 47 floor building) collapsed in the exact same fashion as building 1 and 2 because of debris damage and fire.

Building WTC 6 was between building 1 and 7 while 7 was the farthest from the collapsing buildings. WTC 6, 3, 4, and 5 were closer and the Verizon building was the same distance from tower 1 as tower 7. They too received various amounts of debris damage and experienced fires yet no collapse.

For instance

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch3.htm


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
the fire department knew it was going to fall(three hours before it did), due to the damage and fires, and "pulled" everyone from around it.


Then how would you explain the movie "9/11" based on actual events where firefighters were caught unaware in the collapse?

I, in no way, am gonna be able to swallow that building 7 (a 47 floor building) collapsed in the exact same fashion as building 1 and 2 because of debris damage and fire.

Building WTC 6 was between building 1 and 7 while 7 was the farthest from the collapsing buildings. WTC 6, 3, 4, and 5 were closer and the Verizon building was the same distance from tower 1 as tower 7. They too received various amounts of debris damage and experienced fires yet no collapse.

For instance

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch3.htm


Debris from WTC 2 struck the building with sufficient force to crush approximately 16 stories in the center of the building, as shown in Figure 3-7. In spite of this extensive damage, the collapse did not continue down to the foundations or extend horizontally to the edges of the structure. In fact, the two northernmost bays (approximately 60 feet) remained intact all the way to the roof. A similar, but lesser condition existed in the southern bays. Even in the center of the building, the collapse stopped at approximately the 7th floor. This arrested collapse implies that the structure was sufficiently strong and robust to absorb the energy of the falling debris and collapsed floors, but at the same time the connections between the destroyed and remaining framing were able to break apart without pulling down the rest of the structure. This complex behavior resulted in the survival of large portions of the building following the collapse of WTC 2.


So, OK, a building that merely had it's corner of a few floors clipped went down totally and utterly in a free fall state with a massive part of it falling directly on the hotel (more mass than a plane, and atleast the same velocity) and the hotel did not completely and utterly collapsed like the other three while tower 7 which was much farther away did.

WTC5 recieved more debris damage than tower 7 and had more destructive fires yet, again, no collapse.

WTC6 while almost getting completely destroyed by the collapse of tower 1 didn't. Neither did WTC4
Trippy
QUOTE (H2O+May 10 2009, 01:28 PM)
Then how would you explain the movie "9/11" based on actual events where firefighters were caught unaware in the collapse?

Unless you're deliberately trying to pull a 'Bait-and-Switch' you're going to have to be more specific here.

Which 9/11 movie?

The (TV) movie titled 9/11 released in 2002, starring Robert De Niro and Steve Buscemi, which contains footage from the Lobby of Tower 1, and follows a probie that was in WTC 1?

The 2006 movie titled 9/11: The Twin Towers, which as near as I can tell from the plot synopsis follows the events in WTC1 and WTC2?

Or perhaps you mean the 2006 movie World Trade Center, starring Nicholas Cage which follows the story of a couple of survivors from the South Tower.

None of which have anything to do with, as near as I can tell, WTC 7, which is what, as near as I can tell, you and Grumpy were talking about.

(Hence Bait and Switch - you go from talking about WTC 7, to talking about WTC 1 and WTC 2).

Just as an aside, my vague recollection is that there were some people that got trapped inside WTC 7, including some firemen, but that had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC, and everything to do with the collapse of (I think) WTC 2 - up until that point, WTC 7 was being used as a temporary base of operations.
Trippy
QUOTE (H2O+May 10 2009, 01:28 PM)
Building WTC 6 was between building 1 and 7 while 7 was the farthest from the collapsing buildings.  WTC 6, 3, 4, and 5 were closer and the Verizon building was the same distance from tower 1 as tower 7.  They too received various amounts of debris damage and experienced fires yet no collapse.

WTC 3 experience no collapse?

You're kidding right?

Before:
http://www.empireprojects.com/Marriott-WTC.gif
During:
http://www.jonesreport.com/images/270207_wtc3fig-3-7.jpg
After:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/wtc3_7064.jpg

Conspiracy theorists carry on about WTC 7, the forgotten thrid tower, well, WTC 3 was also reduced to ground level by the events of that day.

WTC 4 - All but one wing destroyed, and it was only a 9 story building to begin with.

I suspect that photographs of its construction might reveal why these builidings seemed to withstand more damage.
H2O
QUOTE
May I suggest that you begin with listening to what other people say and not just the parts that fit into your world-view?


I think a few people than just him are guilty of just that as not only evident on this thread but a few others I have read.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
May I suggest that you begin with listening to what other people say and not just the parts that fit into your world-view?


I think a few people than just him are guilty of just that as not only evident on this thread but a few others I have read.

you mean the 2006 movie World Trade Center, starring Nicholas Cage which follows the story of a couple of survivors from the South Tower.


That one, however I do believe that they were in tower 7.

QUOTE
Just as an aside, my vague recollection is that there were some people that got trapped inside WTC 7, including some firemen, but that had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC, and everything to do with the collapse of (I think) WTC 2 - up until that point, WTC 7 was being used as a temporary base of operations.


That further illustrates my point...The south tower was farther from tower 7 than the north tower.
Trippy
QUOTE (H2O+May 10 2009, 02:56 PM)

QUOTE
May I suggest that you begin with listening to what other people say and not just the parts that fit into your world-view?

I think a few people than just him are guilty of just that as not only evident on this thread but a few others I have read.

If this is supposed to be in response to me, at least do me the courtosey of being honest about what i've said, rather than putting your spinon it.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
May I suggest that you begin with listening to what other people say and not just the parts that fit into your world-view?

I think a few people than just him are guilty of just that as not only evident on this thread but a few others I have read.

If this is supposed to be in response to me, at least do me the courtosey of being honest about what i've said, rather than putting your spinon it.

That one, however I do believe that they were in tower 7.

You believe wrongly
John McLoughlin - the role played by Nicholas Cage, and William Jimeno were on the concurse between Towers 1 and 2 when they were trapped, nothing to do with WTC 7.

QUOTE (H2O+May 10 2009, 02:56 PM)
That further illustrates my point...The south tower was farther from tower 7 than the north tower.

How?
Actually, I got it wrong.
Just did some looking, and it appears that WTC 7 may have been used as the temporary base of operations after the collapse of the SOuth Tower, and it was the collapse of the North tower that did the damage to the lobby, and resulted in its evacuation.
Grumpy
H2O

Point one, Tower 7 DID NOT fall exactly like Towers One and Two. READ THE NIST REPORTS.

Point two, Claiming that one building did not react the same as another means nothing when the buildings have entirely different methods of construction and entirely different patterns of damage or fires.

Point three, NOBODY DIED IN BUILDING SEVEN BECAUSE OF COLLAPSE, NOBODY. The fire department evacuated("pulled" it, in the vernacular) at ~2:00 PM, long after the Twin Towers were a pile of rubble and long before the final collapse. The building was leaning over, had extensive damage to the south face and the fires were spreading and unfought(no water available).

You know, there is a reason steel in buildings MUST have protection from fires. It loses most of it's strength at 800 degrees. The fire protection DELAYS(but does not stop) the temperature rise. This allows those inside a steel building the time to get out. Regulations are in place that specify the amount of time that the building should be able to withstand that heat, usually 2 hours. Spray on fire protection(as used in Towers 1,2 and 7) can do this, IF it is intact(as it was in Tower 7, but not in 1 and 2 in the impact zones). Concrete is much more effective, which is why comparing other buildings like the Windsor Towers is not valid. The steel in the three towers had no masonry(concrete) protection above the ground floor, that is the main reason they collapsed in the fires.

Grumpy cool.gif

christian
Can you explain please Why the smaller penthouse on top of building 7 fell first on itself and later the building seven looks like disintegrated starting from the lowest floors , this fact is very suspicious

The Senator from Texas agree about the demolition of building seven

QUOTE....

Massachusetts Senator's conclusion directly contradicts 9/11 official theory, multi-billion dollar insurance lawsuit



At a recent speaking engagement in Austin Texas, Senator John Kerry responded to a question about WTC Building 7 by concluding that according to his information, the building was brought down as a result of a controlled demolition, directly contradicting the official theory that the structure fell as a result of fire and debris damage.

WTC Building 7 was a 47-story building in the WTC complex that collapsed at 5:20pm on September 11. The building had been structurally reinforced and was not hit by a plane yet collapsed in a uniform implosion within its own footprint in a matter of seconds after sustaining relatively light debris and fire damage following the collapse of the twin towers.

News networks like BBC and CNN were reporting that the building had collapsed before it fell, indicating that the media were being handed a script of events that had yet to even unfold.

Ground zero EMT's, firefighters and police were all told hours in advance to clear a collapse zone for Building 7 as it was going to be "brought down."

Questioned on WTC 7 by members of Austin 9/11 Truth Now at a Book People event in Austin Texas, Kerry responded, "I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things, that they did it in a controlled fashion."



Kerry is basically saying that the building was intentionally demolished to prevent a random collapse from damaging nearby buildings, but that premise has never been explicitly admitted, with officials clinging to the notion that the collapse was expected but was not aided by means of explosive charges, because to admit to a controlled demolition would be to expose foreknowledge of 9/11 itself.

Whether Kerry is basing his response on inside knowledge or hearsay is largely irrelevant, the fact that a sitting United States Senator is openly contradicting the official 9/11 theory as well as a multi-billion dollar insurance lawsuit strikes at the root of the controversy surrounding Building 7.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an accidental event caused by the fall of the twin towers.

EMT's, firefighters and first responders all knew the building was pulled, anyone with an ounce of common sense can watch the videos and understand that building's don't commit suicide - and yet Silverstein, the government, and their propaganda arm Popular Mechanics, are wedded to the myth that the structure fell as a result of fire damage. They are beholden to this explanation because any revision on their behalf would undermine the entire sequence of events on 9/11 and call into question other aspects of the official theory.

Their credibility rests on sweeping the issue of WTC 7 under the rug, which makes it our responsibility to keep beating the Building 7 drum.



Official reports from both NIST and FEMA state that they cannot explain why Building 7 fell, but maintain that it was related to a terrorist attack on the complex on 9/11. However, the FEMA report concludes that, "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

NIST is currently undertaking a study of WTC 7 to determine if bombs or incendiary devices were used to bring down the building.



Controlled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko was shown footage and building schematics of Building 7 by Dutch television and immediately concluded that its collapse was a result of deliberately placed explosives.

Preparing to demolish even a moderate sized building takes weeks of preparation. A building as large as WTC 7, a 47-story skyscraper, must have taken at least as long. Therefore, the idea that the building was demolished in response to fires spread from the twin towers is not a satisfactory response, as the building could not have been set up for unexpected demolition in only a few hours, much less while fires burned inside. All personnel were withdrawn from the area very early, meaning the explosives which can clearly be seen in the videos were placed days or weeks before 9/11.

Kerry was also asked about the research of Dr. Steven Jones, who has tested both samples of steel from the twin towers as well as recovered dust, which have both tested positive for the chemical signature of Thermate, which is used to cut support beams in localized reactions during a controlled demolition.

Kerry stated that he was not aware of the research and is "open to hearing anything based in fact and evidence."

Since John Kerry is a fellow Skull and Bones member with President Bush, allied to the fact that he took a dive despite massive evidence of vote fraud during the 2004 election, we won't hold our breath on the possibility of Kerry being a torch bearer for a new investigation into 9/11, but his conclusion that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished adds substantial weight to a 9/11 enigma that officials are terrified will reach critical mass.
buttershug
QUOTE (christian+May 10 2009, 02:17 PM)
News networks like BBC and CNN were reporting that the building had collapsed before it fell, indicating that the media were being handed a script of events that had yet to even unfold.

No it doesn't.

It's amazing something how badly even the best news sources can screw things up.

Tell them a building was evacuated because it's about to collapse and they will report the building as collapsed.


I've seen bigger distortions in reporting.
H2O
QUOTE
If this is supposed to be in response to me, at least do me the courtosey of being honest about what i've said, rather than putting your spinon it.


Not at all. It is a generic observation among many threads.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
If this is supposed to be in response to me, at least do me the courtosey of being honest about what i've said, rather than putting your spinon it.


Not at all. It is a generic observation among many threads.

Point one, Tower 7 DID NOT fall exactly like Towers One and Two. READ THE NIST REPORTS.


I have read the reports. So what about them? I have read many reports, read many interviews with eye witnesses and watched the videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Looks the same as the first two to me. Also the NIST report states that the collapse was not due to debris damage from either tower and that it was due to fires.

Considering that and watching the video, I laugh at how people would actually think a fire would cause a building to collapse in such a fashion. Despite previous buildings being completely engulfed in flames for hours, and I do recall another building being hit by a plane yet no collapse at all never mind in a free fall fashion. Also WTC 7 was built differently (traditionally) than WTC1 and 2. Also WTC 3, 4, and 5 received way more debris damage and were engulfed in flames yet they only partially collapsed (over time).

Here is another video of WTC7 and how it collapsed like WTC1 and 2 in case the first link messed up.

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

WTC7 wasn't building with a central support "spine" but rather was constructed more traditionally (like other buildings around) because it was not a skyscraper like WTC1 and 2. It could not have "pancaked" or else out of every building that has been on fire at least one other would have collapsed the same way. Statistically that is.

Also, Tower 1 was supposedly responsible for the collapse of building 7 yet Tower 2 was unable to take out the Deutche Bank Building?

http://www.debunking911.com/fig-1-7.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bank_Building
Grumpy
H2O

QUOTE
Looks the same as the first two to me.


"Looks like" to you means nothing. "Looks like" is not the same as "Is like"

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Looks the same as the first two to me.


"Looks like" to you means nothing. "Looks like" is not the same as "Is like"

Also the NIST report states that the collapse was not due to debris damage from either tower and that it was due to fires.

Considering that and watching the video, I laugh at how people would actually think a fire would cause a building to collapse in such a fashion.


You laugh in ignorance, then.

QUOTE
Also WTC 7 was built differently (traditionally) than WTC1 and 2.


And thus you demonstrate your ignorance. WTC 7 was not of "traditional" concrete and steel construction, but had more in common with the "steel frame and diaphram floor" construction of the Twin Towers. Though the details were not identical, they shared similar vulnerabilities to fire due to a complete lack of masonry fireproofing and structure(as detailed in the NIST reports).

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Also WTC 7 was built differently (traditionally) than WTC1 and 2.


And thus you demonstrate your ignorance. WTC 7 was not of "traditional" concrete and steel construction, but had more in common with the "steel frame and diaphram floor" construction of the Twin Towers. Though the details were not identical, they shared similar vulnerabilities to fire due to a complete lack of masonry fireproofing and structure(as detailed in the NIST reports).

Despite previous buildings being completely engulfed in flames for hours, and I do recall another building being hit by a plane yet no collapse at all never mind in a free fall fashion.


Apples and oranges. Previous buildings had concrete fireproofing and were NOT as vulnerable as the WTC.

QUOTE
WTC7 wasn't building with a central support "spine" but rather was constructed more traditionally (like other buildings around) because it was not a skyscraper like WTC1 and 2.


Wrong. The building had a steel frame protected only by spray on fire protection, just like the Twin Towers did. Also, it was built cantilevered over the existing power station, making it vulnerable to the failure of it's steel frame.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
WTC7 wasn't building with a central support "spine" but rather was constructed more traditionally (like other buildings around) because it was not a skyscraper like WTC1 and 2.


Wrong. The building had a steel frame protected only by spray on fire protection, just like the Twin Towers did. Also, it was built cantilevered over the existing power station, making it vulnerable to the failure of it's steel frame.

Also, Tower 1 was supposedly responsible for the collapse of building 7 yet Tower 2 was unable to take out the Deutche Bank Building?


Different buildings, different construction(Deutche Bank was concrete over steel and structural floors), different damage, no fires, different outcomes.

Grumpy cool.gif
H2O
A fire, especially an unevenly displaced fire would cause the building to crumble segments at a time and only where the fire caused weaknesses within the structure. Now they got around this with the pancake theory of tower 1 and 2 where the fire need only weaken the floor's cross beams and once one floor collapsed, the impact took out the next one down (which was weakened) which then took the next and the next. then the outer walls and central core crumbled away as it lost the support of the cross beams.

This could not have happened with building 7. So even if the beams were exposed (which video evidence suggests otherwise) they would have weakened were the fires were and collapsed where the fires were. The videos show a building intact falling which suggests that the bottom gave out from under it. The problem with that is that the debris damage fell upon it from above and the fires began a few floors up.
buttershug
it wasn't just weakness but deformation.

An empty pop can (soda can) can support your wieght as long as it is not dented.
One little dent and it can no longer support your weight.

QUOTE
A fire, especially an unevenly displaced fire would cause the building to crumble segments at a time and only where the fire caused weaknesses within the structure.


What do you base that on?
H2O
QUOTE
An empty pop can (soda can) can support your wieght as long as it is not dented.
One little dent and it can no longer support your weight


It's a good thing that a single can is not a representation of a building or else every building that has burned (some for hours) would have collapsed all at once like building 7.

A single vertical beam would represent a single can. A building would represent multiple cans. Take some cans and form a filled square (6 by 6 should do). Put a flat board and cover them then stand on the board. Take a hammer and start striking the cans from the sides. How many times do you have to strike? How many must be damaged? Even then, do all the remaining cans give out all at once at the same time?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
An empty pop can (soda can) can support your wieght as long as it is not dented.
One little dent and it can no longer support your weight


It's a good thing that a single can is not a representation of a building or else every building that has burned (some for hours) would have collapsed all at once like building 7.

A single vertical beam would represent a single can. A building would represent multiple cans. Take some cans and form a filled square (6 by 6 should do). Put a flat board and cover them then stand on the board. Take a hammer and start striking the cans from the sides. How many times do you have to strike? How many must be damaged? Even then, do all the remaining cans give out all at once at the same time?

What do you base that on?


Every other structure in history that has been on fire.

Also if you compare the twin towers collapse to that of a controlled demolition then you do see about as many differences as similarities. However if you compare building 7 to that of a controlled demolition then you see that they are almost identical. Way more similarities than differences. Actually the number and type of differences between them would be about as much as the difference between two different controlled demolition projects.
Trippy
What's ironic here is that the building didn't fall in 'one piece'.
First the east pent house collapsed (implying that it's supporing structure had given way), then the rest of the building collapsed (hazy on the details, lack the willingness to watch the videos again, but I think it was East Penthouse, West Pent house, building).

I call this Ironic, because I'm sure i've seen conspiracy theorists point to this sequence as proof of controled demolition.

So which is it?

Perhaps you (collective, conspiracy theorists) should sort out between yourselves which order it was, and which order supports your claim before you go announcing it to the world - because to claim that two opposing scenarios support the same thing..?
Grumpy
H2O

QUOTE
A fire, especially an unevenly displaced fire would cause the building to crumble segments at a time and only where the fire caused weaknesses within the structure. Now they got around this with the pancake theory of tower 1 and 2 where the fire need only weaken the floor's cross beams and once one floor collapsed, the impact took out the next one down (which was weakened) which then took the next and the next. then the outer walls and central core crumbled away as it lost the support of the cross beams.


NIST ruled out pancake collapse as the CAUSE, though it did OCCUR AFTER collapse initiation. The cause was the overload of the structure due to damage and fire weakening of the remaining structure. And, once the structure reached it's ability limits, any further weakening results in rapid progressive collapse of the whole structure, not crumbling, we're not talking about dirt or concrete here, but about steel support beams that do not crumble, they buckle. It's becoming obvious that you just don't know what you are talking about

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
A fire, especially an unevenly displaced fire would cause the building to crumble segments at a time and only where the fire caused weaknesses within the structure. Now they got around this with the pancake theory of tower 1 and 2 where the fire need only weaken the floor's cross beams and once one floor collapsed, the impact took out the next one down (which was weakened) which then took the next and the next. then the outer walls and central core crumbled away as it lost the support of the cross beams.


NIST ruled out pancake collapse as the CAUSE, though it did OCCUR AFTER collapse initiation. The cause was the overload of the structure due to damage and fire weakening of the remaining structure. And, once the structure reached it's ability limits, any further weakening results in rapid progressive collapse of the whole structure, not crumbling, we're not talking about dirt or concrete here, but about steel support beams that do not crumble, they buckle. It's becoming obvious that you just don't know what you are talking about

The videos show a building intact falling which suggests that the bottom gave out from under it. The problem with that is that the debris damage fell upon it from above and the fires began a few floors up.


The videos show only the north(undamaged) side of the collapse. The east penthouse going first indicates that the underlying structure had already collapsed under it, the west penthouse going next indicates the collapse spread from east to west across the south face. By the time the north wall fell, the rest of the building had already crumbled. All of which is documented in the NIST reports, read them.

Grumpy cool.gif
H2O
QUOTE
hazy on the details, lack the willingness to watch the videos again, but I think it was East Penthouse, West Pent house, building).


Here is one angle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Here is another

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

The second has a skip in the start that indicates footage cut out. The problem there is if you compare the two, you see that a few seconds worth are cut.

Also it was said that the top penthouse collapsed which is understandable considering chunks of debris did fall from above and received most of the damage. One penthouse and even a few segments of multiple floors collapsing during the ordeal would be expected. The whole building, not likely.

Also compare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

with

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdJTDuYB_h8&feature=related

It's best to line them up and play them at the same time side by side. Very uncanny, kinda creepy.

Although I really like this video, despite how obviously biased it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM&feature=related

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
hazy on the details, lack the willingness to watch the videos again, but I think it was East Penthouse, West Pent house, building).


Here is one angle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Here is another

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

The second has a skip in the start that indicates footage cut out. The problem there is if you compare the two, you see that a few seconds worth are cut.

Also it was said that the top penthouse collapsed which is understandable considering chunks of debris did fall from above and received most of the damage. One penthouse and even a few segments of multiple floors collapsing during the ordeal would be expected. The whole building, not likely.

Also compare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

with

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdJTDuYB_h8&feature=related

It's best to line them up and play them at the same time side by side. Very uncanny, kinda creepy.

Although I really like this video, despite how obviously biased it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM&feature=related

we're not talking about dirt or concrete here, but about steel support beams that do not crumble,


Here is what we get when we blow out most of the bottom floor simulating structural failure at/near ground level.

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

Which is what tower 2 should have done at the midway point.

One is directly on north which then shows that neither side had collapsed before hand. That only leaves one other side (south side) which in the other video (ground level video) shows the Southwest corner intact. This shows that none of the building's sides collapsed.

QUOTE
The east penthouse going first indicates that the underlying structure had already collapsed under it, the west penthouse going next indicates the collapse spread from east to west across the south face. By the time the north wall fell, the rest of the building had already crumbled.


Both videos clearly show that no side fell before the other. There may be a slight and I do mean slight lag between the different sides as they began but such a lag is no different what one would find in controlled demolition videos. Perfect example would be the one I presented for comparison purposes.
Trippy
QUOTE (H2O+May 12 2009, 08:42 AM)

Here is one angle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Here is another

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

The second has a skip in the start that indicates footage cut out. The problem there is if you compare the two, you see that a few seconds worth are cut.

Also it was said that the top penthouse collapsed which is understandable considering chunks of debris did fall from above and received most of the damage. One penthouse and even a few segments of multiple floors collapsing during the ordeal would be expected. The whole building, not likely.

Also compare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

with

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdJTDuYB_h8&feature=related

It's best to line them up and play them at the same time side by side. Very uncanny, kinda creepy.

Although I really like this video, despite how obviously biased it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM&feature=related



Here is what we get when we blow out most of the bottom floor simulating structural failure at/near ground level.

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

Which is what tower 2 should have done at the midway point.

One is directly on north which then shows that neither side had collapsed before hand. That only leaves one other side (south side) which in the other video (ground level video) shows the Southwest corner intact. This shows that none of the building's sides collapsed.



Both videos clearly show that no side fell before the other. There may be a slight and I do mean slight lag between the different sides as they began but such a lag is no different what one would find in controlled demolition videos. Perfect example would be the one I presented for comparison purposes.

What part of "I lack the willingness to watch the videos again" did you have trouble understanding?
It's not because I can't find them.
I know where to find them, and I can probably find them in better quality then they are on Youtube, and I really prefer not to use teriary or quaternary sources.

For the record:
Now you see it: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/0882.jpg/0882-full.jpg
Now you don't: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/0883.jpg/0883-full.jpg

The building collapsed in stages, and you've completely avoided addressing the fact that many conspiracy theorists point to this being evidence of CD.
Timeline:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7Timeli...sekink-full.jpg

The East Penthouse takes 2.2 seconds to be completely submerged.
The West Penthouse begins moving downwards a full seven seconds after the first downward movement of the East Penthouse.
8.2 seconds after the first movement downwards of the east penthouse, global collapse of the building begins (collapse has already taken longer than the free fall time, in fact, ignoring friction due to air, an object could fall about 700 m in this time.
H2O
The building collapsed all at once as the footage shows. It also collapses in the same manner as the comparison video of an actual controlled demolition. As for those very dark, obscure photos. All they show is the penthouse on the top of the building give way. As it should, it took the brunt of the falling debris from tower 1 and was on fire so it was severely weakened. More so than the rest of the building.

Here is a video that is biased the other way...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI&feature=related

Sites claim that the NIST report states that the penthouse collapsed and went through the floor (despite no footage to show this, only that part of it collapsed).

The penthouse sits on top of the building. It is a single level complex and uses lighter materials than the rest of the building. It's collapse could not have resulted in the whole building collapsing. Now also it has been said that the penthouse collapsed in sections. This is believable considering it got rained on by falling debris and was no doubt on fire. That kind of cave in is to be expected and is common in buildings that have been on fire. Other buildings that have been on fire for hours have had floor collapse within them (without a complete demolition of the building as a result).

Now the video starts by showing debris hitting building 7. The size is inconclusive despite the claim that it "looks like a whole section of panels". Well, actually it looks like a billowing cloud with some debris in it just like everywhere else that hit multiple buildings without them collapsing. Now there is a still photo (at 1:37) of the south face and it does show at the top a gouge that doesn't even go half way deep and not even a 1/5 wide. Other than that you can't see beyond the smoke. One would think, however that the piece that hit that would have moved outward away from the building as it fell. It's a simple matter of physics there. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For every push there is an equal and opposite push back. You have a falling piece of WTC1 colliding with the top edge of building 7. The mass of this piece may have been quite large but it isn't when compared to the mass of building 7 also building 7 is supported by the ground while the falling piece is not. The piece impacted the top of the building exerting a force upon the building. The building begins to give way (causing the damage) and also begins to exert and equal force back onto the piece. Momentum continues to carry the piece down but the equal force exerted back onto the piece as a direct result of the piece exerting a force onto the building would cause the piece to get pushed away from the building as it fell. This means that the deep gouge at the top that never even made it half way in, would become shallower and shallower as you followed the damage down. Unfortunately there is no way to tell since smoke covers the evidence.

However the video scrolls down to below the smoke and while searching for the center line (which is not that easy with all the smoke and all the shallow nicks from other (smaller) debris) you do notice it. Although much more shallow than the top. By this time it appears to extend less than a 1/4 into the building and less than 1/6 wide.

The narrator claims a preliminary collapse which is just hot air. No pics or video shows this. He also says that it "took out everything between two of 7's exterior columns". Which sounds much bigger than it really is.

It would only have to gouge a few feet in to do that. It would also mean that those two columns received minimum damage and even if they were taken out completely it still wouldn't have been enough since the building is supported by 81 main vertical supports.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/images/...x4Poster_HR.jpg

While finding that I found this...

QUOTE
“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”


We're supposed to believe that a single support column failure caused the entire building to collapse all at once? There was no 'one side collapsed and pulled the rest down' there. As the videos show (especially the nice clear one taken from ground level), the building came down all at once.

Also it states....

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
“Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,” said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.”


We're supposed to believe that a single support column failure caused the entire building to collapse all at once? There was no 'one side collapsed and pulled the rest down' there. As the videos show (especially the nice clear one taken from ground level), the building came down all at once.

Also it states....

WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.


Such a design allows for x many support column to be taken out and still stand. How big x is depends on where, I am sure, but I can guarantee that it is more than 3 or even 10 for that matter considering there are 81 in total.

Also if the heating of floor beams and girders caused 1 support beam to fail which caused the building to come down and this design is in widespread use. Why haven't we seen other buildings that have burned for hours over more floors in higher temperature flames collapse in the same fashion?

Don't tell me it's because those buildings didn't take debris damage. They already stated in the NIST that is was fire that took the building out.

QUOTE
According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings."


Seems to me this statement says that the fire rating of the beams were higher than the temperature of the fire they were exposed to. Actually it's the same excuse used to explain the start of the pancake effect. Unfortunately this building is designed differently and so they had to blame it on the one beam failure resulting in the rest of the building getting "pulled" down. That is the other 80 beams failed and apparently all at the same time for the building to come down in such unison.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures “hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings."


Seems to me this statement says that the fire rating of the beams were higher than the temperature of the fire they were exposed to. Actually it's the same excuse used to explain the start of the pancake effect. Unfortunately this building is designed differently and so they had to blame it on the one beam failure resulting in the rest of the building getting "pulled" down. That is the other 80 beams failed and apparently all at the same time for the building to come down in such unison.

“while the partial or total collapse of a tall building due to fires is a rare event


Try never before and never since.

QUOTE
operating sprinklers in WTC 7 would likely have prevented its collapse


Just another tidbit that indicates it was fires that brought down the buildings.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
operating sprinklers in WTC 7 would likely have prevented its collapse


Just another tidbit that indicates it was fires that brought down the buildings.

sound level of 130 to 140 decibels at a distance of half a mile


As a former weapons technician who has been on explosive ranges, this one is BS. I've been in structures that were simply enclosures with a mere foot of cinder block separating the inside from the out when c4 (claymores) have been detonated at 200 meters away. Even then it sounded like a thud and the building shook but by that I mean you felt a one time small vibration. In this case the explosives (if there were any) would have been beyond much more different materials (and concrete so some the same) and wouldn't produce any thud at all from half a mile away on a regular day. Never mind a day with so much commotion taking place.

Such devices detonated at different intervals well within the building would make a thud that could easily be mistaken for a wall giving out or a single segment of floor collapsing, if you were in the building. Outside at the evacuated distance with all the commotion on the streets you wouldn't hear a thing.

In any event, the NIST report is the worst thing you can use. Worse than any other biased video, report, etc.

It is a government funded, controlled and run investigation.

I have finally seen the full video which shows the penthouse collapsing. I am more convinced now that the penthouse simply collapsed due to structural damage as not all of it did when the entire building began to fall. Despite claims that it did. I am inclined to believe that a shift in the building (the kind of shift you would get when the foundation is greatly disturbed) or a vibration could have simply been the straw to break the camel's back regarding the penthouse. That is the penthouse was not the cause of the collapse but rather the result of a cause, the same cause that brought down the building.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/release...wtc_videos.html

The simulation shows the building collapsing from east to west (since the north wall was the longer of the two walls parallel to each other). Yet actual footage (included in this video) does not show this to be the case.

Following the link above they have two 3d simulations one with debris damage and one without. They also have the full footage within the first few seconds of the video. The time between the section of penthouse collapse and the collapse of the whole building coincides with the 3d simulation with debris damage but how the outer structure remains intact after the collapse of the penthouse until the collapse of the rest of the building coincides with the 3d simulation without debris damage.

The actual collapse itself doesn't coincide with either 3d simulations. Also both simulations have an eternal collapse that begins on the east side. The actual footage shows no indication of such an occurrence. The most obvious of which is the smoke with such an internal collapse onto the very fires responsible for the smoke. The smoke coming out of the building would have been greatly disturbed and no doubt reinforced with billowing clouds of dirt, ash and other particles of matter kicked out which is common to see in unison with a buildings collapse (the WTC1 and 2 show it quite well). Instead the smoke gets wisped as the building falls taking the source of the smoke with it. The billowing smoke instead is shown coming up from around street level (in a different video).

Too bad, as well, that the 3d simulations stop when they do. I would prefer to see the full thing.
Trippy
QUOTE (H2O+May 12 2009, 03:53 PM)
The building collapsed all at once as the footage shows.

I stopped reading after this initially wrong statement.
The building did not collapse all at once.
Other Conspiracy theorists will, and have argued that the stepwiuse failure of building 7 is the best indication of CD.
AFAIK, the timeline I linked to was based on all the video footage.
First the east pent house collapsed, then the west pent house collapsed, then the rest of the builfing followed.
AlexG
Which is more futile, arguing with conspiracy nuts or arguing with cranks?
MjolnirPants
What's the difference? Conspiracy nuts are just cranks with regards to the social sciences, economics and politics...
Grumpy
H2O

Everything you have posted is wrong, it's been shown to be wrong repeatedly in this long, long thread.

QUOTE
The building collapsed all at once as the footage shows.


Siesmic evidence indicates it took 27 seconds for building 7 to "collapse all at once", only the last seven seconds were visible in those videos. By the time the north curtain wall fell the rest of the building was either already on the ground, or well on it's way. The east penthouse recieved NO damage from the debris from tower 1, in fact only the top of the south wall had any damage at all visible on the roof. The east penthouse dissapeared because the rest of the building fell out from under it.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The building collapsed all at once as the footage shows.


Siesmic evidence indicates it took 27 seconds for building 7 to "collapse all at once", only the last seven seconds were visible in those videos. By the time the north curtain wall fell the rest of the building was either already on the ground, or well on it's way. The east penthouse recieved NO damage from the debris from tower 1, in fact only the top of the south wall had any damage at all visible on the roof. The east penthouse dissapeared because the rest of the building fell out from under it.

Sites claim that the NIST report states that the penthouse collapsed and went through the floor (despite no footage to show this, only that part of it collapsed).


The NIST report does document that. READ IT. I know you say you have, but it is very evident you know nothing about what the only scientific investigation about the events of 911 says.

QUOTE
Well, actually it looks like a billowing cloud with some debris in it just like everywhere else that hit multiple buildings without them collapsing. Now there is a still photo (at 1:37) of the south face and it does show at the top a gouge that doesn't even go half way deep and not even a 1/5 wide. Other than that you can't see beyond the smoke.


Patently false.

User posted image: User posted image

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Well, actually it looks like a billowing cloud with some debris in it just like everywhere else that hit multiple buildings without them collapsing. Now there is a still photo (at 1:37) of the south face and it does show at the top a gouge that doesn't even go half way deep and not even a 1/5 wide. Other than that you can't see beyond the smoke.


Patently false.

User posted image: User posted image

The mass of this piece may have been quite large but it isn't when compared to the mass of building 7 also building 7 is supported by the ground while the falling piece is not.


By that logic a bullet shouldn't be a real problem to a human being, after all, it only weights a half ounce or so, right.

You are a simple man(to put it kindly).

Grumpy cool.gif

H2O
QUOTE
First the east pent house collapsed, then the west pent house collapsed, then the rest of the builfing followed.


Video evidence clearly shows otherwise.

First the east penthouse fell, then the rest of the building. Not only do all the videos show this (including the on the NIST site) but as do the 3d simulations produced by NIST. You refuse to even believe what NIST supports and for that I will not waste my time with you no longer.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
First the east pent house collapsed, then the west pent house collapsed, then the rest of the builfing followed.


Video evidence clearly shows otherwise.

First the east penthouse fell, then the rest of the building. Not only do all the videos show this (including the on the NIST site) but as do the 3d simulations produced by NIST. You refuse to even believe what NIST supports and for that I will not waste my time with you no longer.

By the time the north curtain wall fell the rest of the building was either already on the ground, or well on it's way.


Another who chooses to not only ignore what is plainly evident in the videos on conspiracy sites but also on the NIST site and including the 3d simulations produced by NIST. NIST simulated that the tower collapsed from East to west despite absolutely no indication of so in any of the videos and not from south wall to north wall. If by the time the north wall fell the rest should have already been down then how do you explain the ground level video which is nice a clear video showing the North wall, west wall and south west corner. It clearly shows all of it falling at the same time. Had it fell from east to west then the northeast corner would have started to collapse before the northwest corner. Had the south face come down before the north then the south west corner would have started collapsing before north west corner.

The time is bogus... Even if there was a collapse of floors around the one beam causing it to fail which caused it to collapse and pull the rest of the building down (ignoring the other 80 beams still intact) it would have taken a few seconds longer than it did for the entire building to go down and it would have not gone down uniformly as it clearly does in the videos.

All or at least most of the 80 support columns would had to have been taken out for the building to go down as uniformly as it did. There are videos that show controlled demolitions of building where they detonated one side and worked their way across.

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

So obviously the building didn't collapse at one end and work across pulling the rest down with it or else it would have looked more like the video above.

There is another problem other than the 'believe the first explanation given by the media' and that is the 'deny that the government would fail its people so badly' or 'deny that the government would do such a hideous act'.

QUOTE
By that logic a bullet shouldn't be a real problem to a human being, after all, it only weights a half ounce or so, right.

You are a simple man(to put it kindly).


There is a major difference between a blunt chunk of debris falling at 100 or 200 ft/s (and probably hasn't even reached terminal velocity) and a pointed bullet traveling at 1000 ft/s. There is also a difference between a soft body target and a steel reinforced concrete target. There is also a reason why large hail doesn't penetrate the skull and lodge itself into your brain rather it strikes your head, bounces off and maybe kill you from blunt force trauma. There is also a reason why on mythbusters they busted the myth that bullets fired in the air will fall back to earth and kill those the bullets rain down on. Seriously get real with comments like that one. Your smart enough to know the difference and now you know I am too so who are you trying to fool?

On that I won't waste my time with you either.
Grumpy
H2O

QUOTE
There is a major difference between a blunt chunk of debris falling at 100 or 200 ft/s (and probably hasn't even reached terminal velocity) and a pointed bullet traveling at 1000 ft/s.


KE is KE, whether is is 10s of tons at 200fps or a half ounce at 1000fps.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
There is a major difference between a blunt chunk of debris falling at 100 or 200 ft/s (and probably hasn't even reached terminal velocity) and a pointed bullet traveling at 1000 ft/s.


KE is KE, whether is is 10s of tons at 200fps or a half ounce at 1000fps.

There is also a difference between a soft body target and a steel reinforced concrete target.


Just how many times is it going to take before you correct your erronious assertion??? Here's one more, TOWER 7 WAS NOT A STEEL REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING. There was no structural masonry other than in the floor diaphrams(just like Tower 1 and 2).

Also, there is not as much difference as you imply, The bodt has a skeletal structure that supports non skeletal features, Tower 7 had a steel skeleton that supported non-structural floors.

QUOTE
On that I won't waste my time with you either


You are the one silly enough to make unfounded statements like"Fire couldn't bring down buildings"(then why all the fireproofing?), or "Those buildings were rigged with explosives."(by invisible ninja thermite fairies, I assume), or "Aircraft can't cause skyscrapers to fall"(when the only two times it has been tried, it succeeded in both instances).

Face up to the truth, the troothers never had a leg to stand on, they were a phenominon that has run it's course, it is a dead issue except for the dead heads. What we saw on 911 was exactly what it appeared to be, terrorists employing a 255,000 lb cruise missile to bring down a building. Grow up, get over it, join the real world, get a life. STOP BEING SO DAMNED STUPID.

Grumpy cool.gif
AlexG
Oh, look, a nit I can pick at. biggrin.gif

QUOTE
"Aircraft can't cause skyscrapers to fall"(when the only two times it has been tried, it succeeded in both instances).


Three times, and the first time the building didn't fall.

"At 9:49 am on Saturday, July 28, 1945, a B-25 bomber crashed into the Empire State Building"

Of course, the Empire State Building was hit by a much lighter plane, going much slower, and the building IS a steel frame, concrete construction.
Trippy
QUOTE (H2O+May 13 2009, 01:15 AM)
Video evidence clearly shows otherwise.

First the east penthouse fell, then the rest of the building. Not only do all the videos show this (including the on the NIST site) but as do the 3d simulations produced by NIST. You refuse to even believe what NIST supports and for that I will not waste my time with you no longer.

Take the time to learn to use the quote function, especially if you're going to respond to multiple posts at the same time.

Would this be the same NIST report that had this to say?

QUOTE
The deformed shape of the east penthouse roof shows that the middle fell before the sides (see Fig. L–25), as the whole penthouse drops into the main building (see Fig. L–26). This may imply that support initially remained on the east and west edges of the east penthouse. Therefore, the perimeter columns on the east side of the building which have not already been considered least likely, may be considered less likely locations for collapse initiation.


Did you bother to look at the links i've provided?

Here, check it out for yourself.

The image I linked to earlier was table L-1 from the interim report: http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf
It's on page L27 (31 according to adobe.

The final report: http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf
Table 3-1, page 43 (Page 85 of the PDF).
6 second before the East penthouse disappears, th ebuilding starts vibrating east to west by a couple of inches.
First the supports of the east penthouse gave out. (The east penthouse collapsed)
Then the Buckling spread from east to west because of the loss of lateral support, until...
The West Penthouse disappeared (the west Penthouse collapsed) 9.3 seconds after the east penthouse disappeared.
Then the global collapse began.

It's not me refusing to believe what NIST says, i'm drawing my information from NIST.

Also: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%...pse%20Final.pdf

Note that ALL of my references are NIST.

Where are yours again?
Alan (ex elevator man)
Tripster,
The part of H2O's post I liked the best was...

"The penthouse sits on top of the building. It is a single level complex and uses lighter materials than the rest of the building. It's collapse could not have resulted in the whole building collapsing."

Ehhh, the penthouse is built around the single most heaviest equipment in the whole building... the elevator hoist machines and all the beams holding them up.
Ok, a boiler MIGHT be heavier than any one elevator machine, but NOT all the associated equipment that's under the machine... beams, the car itself, the rails it rides up (and down), the cables, etc.
So yeah "water", if the elevators collapsed there was tremendous structural damage undercutting them to cause it. That means by the time the we see the north wall collapse, there wasn't much building left on the inside.
Trippy
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+May 13 2009, 08:51 AM)
Tripster,
The part of H2O's post I liked the best was...

"The penthouse sits on top of the building. It is a single level complex and uses lighter materials than the rest of the building. It's collapse could not have resulted in the whole building collapsing."

Ehhh, the penthouse is built around the single most heaviest equipment in the whole building... the elevator hoist machines and all the beams holding them up.
Ok, a boiler MIGHT be heavier than any one elevator machine, but NOT all the associated equipment that's under the machine... beams, the car itself, the rails it rides up (and down), the cables, etc.
So yeah "water", if the elevators collapsed there was tremendous structural damage undercutting them to cause it. That means by the time the we see the north wall collapse, there wasn't much building left on the inside.

I seem to recall seeing something about elevators having collapsed or fallen, or having been witnessed to be in that state?

Or am I thinking of something else - I just seem to recall seeing it buried somewhere in the witness testimony used by NIST.

although, I thought this was kind of amusing, in terms of contradictions:
QUOTE (H2O+May 13 2009, 01:15 AM)

You refuse to even believe what NIST supports and for that I will not waste my time with you no longer.


QUOTE (H2O+May 13 2009, 01:15 AM)
NIST simulated that the tower collapsed from East to west despite absolutely no indication of so in any of the videos and not from south wall to north wall.


QUOTE (H2O+May 13 2009, 01:15 AM)
The time is bogus...

buttershug
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+May 12 2009, 08:51 PM)
So yeah "water", if the elevators collapsed there was tremendous structural damage undercutting them to cause it. That means by the time the we see the north wall collapse, there wasn't much building left on the inside.

Hey wait a minute.
If it collapsed like that and someone was videotaping from the outside, wouldn't it look like it was brought down by a demolition team using controlled explosions?

And furthermore if the internal part of the building collapsed first, wouldn't the news teams report on that even before the building was seen to collapse from the outside.


So unless it looked like a controlled demolition and it was reported to have collapsed before the outer part of the building collapsed then I'm not convinced.



(excuse me while I get my tongue out of my cheek)
Alan (ex elevator man)
Another point I forgot to make is... there's always a BANK of elevators, not just one, so multiply the weight under the penthouses by 4 or 6 or even 8. Here's a not very detailed illustration of the equipment in each one. You might note the counterweights (while the car you are riding goes up, the counterweights are on the other end of the cables going down), which weigh 40% more than the car... so if the machine fails, and the governor cable fails, the elevator would actually fall UP. haha K, at the link, scroll to the gearless traction elevator...

gearless elevator equipment
WTC control demolished
Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko Confirms without a doubt WTC-7 Was a "Controlled Demolition"

Controlled Demolitions Expert Danny Jowenko states :

"...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns."

"This is controlled demolition."

"A team of experts did this."

"This is professional work, without any doubt."

For video, click below:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMhUTrBODtA
AlexG
QUOTE (WTC control demolished+May 13 2009, 04:16 PM)
Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko Confirms without a doubt WTC-7 Was a "Controlled Demolition"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMhUTrBODtA

Then Danny Jowenko admits to placing the demolition charges, wiring them up, and setting them off?
WTC control demolished
Structural Experts Say:
"WTC-7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts."link: http://911blogger.com/node/2925

Video clips of World Trade Center Building 7 being demolished using explosives on 9/11/01 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4SejBwgbCw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLnBSyc4ICo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJtlgZXb0Mo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmL9F-TSIes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ewf3zYS-QkA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzLqx_gjBAg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtqcEVrqFNY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BcquyD_DcQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZffxZ40Gqj4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uPfKghBIOY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk




CBS News Anchor, Dan Rather, makes comments after Building 7 falls down:

Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”Video:: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BcquyD_DcQ
WTC control demolished
QUOTE (H2O+May 11 2009, 05:09 PM)


Also if you compare the twin towers collapse to that of a controlled demolition then you do see about as many differences as similarities.  However if you compare building 7 to that of a controlled demolition then you see that they are almost identical.  Way more similarities than differences.  Actually the number and type of differences between them would be about as much as the difference between two different controlled demolition projects.



I Agree cool.gif
AlexG
Statements from conspiracy nuts are good enough proof for me.

BTW, when was the fireproofing and outer structure stripped away from the supporting beams and all these explosives placed and wired in?
WTC control demolished
Wow.... The that Dutch demolition expert's reaction when he finds out what building he's looking at, after saying flat out that it was demolished, is just simply amazing. Propz stallion!




No what this shows is that people have a powerful bias that can override even an expert judgement. He didn’t know building 7 was building 7 before he was told. He said prior to learning what building it was that "it was certainly demolished". Once he did learn though he was like "that can't be". Simply he had a bias on the Towers collapse (like almost everyone who now questions 911 did also before becoming sceptical), and so of course he's going to reject the idea that they were demolished initially. I can guarantee that he's probably now questioning the collapse of the Towers after seeing building 7. And the previous students who also stated that the official theory for the collapse of the Towers is probably correct, I'd bet also probably have a bias that's stopping rational judgment. I have no doubt that their sincere, but those buildings were demolished
Grumpy
WTC control demolished

QUOTE
I have no doubt that their sincere, but those buildings were demolished


By 19 Islamic fundamentalists flying planes into them.

Grumpy cool.gif
buttershug
QUOTE (WTC control demolished+May 13 2009, 10:13 PM)
Wow.... The that Dutch demolition expert's reaction when he finds out what building he's looking at, after saying flat out that it was demolished, is just simply amazing. Propz stallion!




No what this shows is that people have a powerful bias that can override even an expert judgement.

Especially when it's one "expert" contradicting other experts.
And most especially when that expert didn't have all the facts. (like the history of the building)

What it shows is that conspiracy people will swallow any BS that supports their story and ask for more.

Did it even occur to you to ask why a Dutch demolition expert?
And not every American demolition expert.

how many demolition experts had to be interviewed to get one that supports the truthers?

Did you consider that maybe he didn't have enough information from just the video to pass judgement, and is someone that has trouble saying "I don't know".
I've met people that just can't be undecided. If that looked more like a demolition than not maybe they found someone who would say "definitely" and not "probably", or "looks like".
David B. Benson
Bizarro.

IQ?
H2O
I like that 3 part interview. The good thing about it was that it was foreign for obvious reasons. I found a pretty interesting video myself especially knowing that the fires were not burning to their full potential.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ_3z7OAP6k&feature=related

Some may shout jet fuel. laugh.gif I work around the stuff, if it burned that hot uncontrolled then it would melt a turbine engine since it is burned at an optimal fuel/air mix for maximum output.
Trippy
QUOTE (H2O+May 14 2009, 01:54 PM)
Some may shout jet fuel. laugh.gif I work around the stuff, if it burned that hot uncontrolled then it would melt a turbine engine since it is burned at an optimal fuel/air mix for maximum output.

Right.

Because comparing the titanium components of a Jet turbine to structural steel is always valid.
WTC control demolished
None airliner hit Building Seven , therefore this building have been controlled demolished by a team of controlled demolition professionals
H2O
QUOTE
Because comparing the titanium components of a Jet turbine to structural steel is always valid.


The combustion chamber of most turbine engines are steel that is less than a 1/4 inch thick. Steel I can misshape with bare hands.
Grumpy
H2O

QUOTE
The combustion chamber of most turbine engines are steel that is less than a 1/4 inch thick. Steel I can misshape with bare hands.


Superman???

Having worked on J 79s I can safely say your last post was pure BS. Those burn cans can support the weight of a car without the least bit of distortion. Just another example of how you don't know JACK about what you are talking about.

Grumpy cool.gif
buttershug
QUOTE (H2O+May 14 2009, 10:54 AM)

The combustion chamber of most turbine engines are steel that is less than a 1/4 inch thick. Steel I can misshape with bare hands.

You are not imagining 1/4 mm are you?
H2O
QUOTE
Having worked on J 79s I can safely say your last post was pure BS.


As someone who currently works on Bell 412's (CH-146 Griffon) I assure you it is not BS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_412
WTC control demolished
[Moderator: Post infringes on copyright.]
WTC control demolished
[Moderator: Post infringes on copyright.]
AlexG
And when was the fireproofing and interior material removed from the supports and the explosive charges planted and wired?

Oh, sorry, I forgot that that's one of the crucial questions which conspiracy nuts like to ignore.
WTC control demolished
[Moderator: Post was in the format of a press release. Posting press releases is a violation of the terms of service.]
H2O
QUOTE
And when was the fireproofing and interior material removed from the supports and the explosive charges planted and wired?


Actually that would be the difference between a controlled demolition and this...

Fireproofing material would not have to be removed. Explosive charges would simply cut through it all. Anything incendiary such as thermite wouldn't need it removed either to do its job. As for gutting the building, such would involved an actually licensed demolition which is the whole point. The argument is that this was a demolition in disguise. Why? Because they would have had to be disassembled which would have cost millions maybe billions.

This way they get a payout instead.

As for planting in there. It's called slight of hand tactics. People have done for centuries. I could no doubt dig up examples especially during WWII time. You either do it without anyone seeing or you let them see one thing while you are really doing another.
AlexG
QUOTE
Actually that would be the difference between a controlled demolition and this...


But all the conspiracy nuts claim that this was a controlled demolition. Now you're saying it just looked like a controlled demolition. You're also making claims about explosives of which you have no knowledge, and invoking the demolition ninjas to explain how nobody noticed all the explosive charges and wiring being placed.

Same old crap that's been claimed for the last eight years, with no evidence and a lot of conjecture. There's nothing new here.
Trippy
QUOTE (H2O+May 15 2009, 01:06 AM)

As someone who currently works on Bell 412's (CH-146 Griffon) I assure you it is not BS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_412

If this was true, and you're as knowledgable as you claim, you would know that the PT6T-3BE uses cooled Nickle-Titanium super alloy single crystal turbine blades, and so, your contention is false. In fact, Pratt & Whitney were heavily involved in the research involved in manufacturing single crystal air foils, and making the methods cheaper, and the method is also used in the JT9D-7R4, used in the Boeing 767 and the airbus A-310.
H2O
QUOTE
If this was true, and you're as knowledgable as you claim, you would know that the PT6T-3BE uses cooled Nickle-Titanium super alloy single crystal turbine blades, and so, your contention is false.


Hold on let me say it again....

The combustion chamber of most turbine engines are steel that is less than a 1/4 inch thick. Steel I can misshape with bare hands.

I am also well aware of the turbine blades....

Here is a pic that examplifies the cooling property you mentioned. The holes allow compressor air to vent through. They then create a laminar flow of cooler air over the surface to act as an insulator against the hot gasses from the chambers. Though by cooler I mean a few hundred degrees less than what it would be without them.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...urbineBlade.svg

There are multiple needs for the material they use. We're talking blades whose tips travel at a speed barely under supersonic. It must withstand the centrifugal forces under high heat conditions. The other but less important is keeping it light weight. Materials that are heavy are not an aircraft's friend.

Besides I don't get the big deal with titanium when referring to temp anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium

Melting point: 1668 deg C

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
If this was true, and you're as knowledgable as you claim, you would know that the PT6T-3BE uses cooled Nickle-Titanium super alloy single crystal turbine blades, and so, your contention is false.


Hold on let me say it again....

The combustion chamber of most turbine engines are steel that is less than a 1/4 inch thick. Steel I can misshape with bare hands.

I am also well aware of the turbine blades....

Here is a pic that examplifies the cooling property you mentioned. The holes allow compressor air to vent through. They then create a laminar flow of cooler air over the surface to act as an insulator against the hot gasses from the chambers. Though by cooler I mean a few hundred degrees less than what it would be without them.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...urbineBlade.svg

There are multiple needs for the material they use. We're talking blades whose tips travel at a speed barely under supersonic. It must withstand the centrifugal forces under high heat conditions. The other but less important is keeping it light weight. Materials that are heavy are not an aircraft's friend.

Besides I don't get the big deal with titanium when referring to temp anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium

Melting point: 1668 deg C

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel

The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1130 °C. Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1492 °C (2720 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1539 °C (2802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1130 °C (2066 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1315 °C (2400 °F)


So what do we have here, a 300 to 500 deg C difference between compounds? The temperature of jet fuel in open air burning...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

287.5 deg C

Also the ITT (Internal Turbine Temperature) is around 700 to 800 deg C. That is the temperature at those very blades since that is where the probes are located. The flame in the chamber would be a hundred or two degrees hotter.

Nowhere near hot enough to explain the molten mass pouring out of one of the towers just before it collapsed.
Trippy
QUOTE (H2O+May 15 2009, 12:59 PM)
Hold on let me say it again....

The combustion chamber of most turbine engines are steel that is less than a 1/4 inch thick. Steel I can misshape with bare hands.

Let's consider this claim for a minute.
Let's assume that it's true for a minute.

Here's what a PT6T looks like in cross section, and I know it's accurate, because it's on the Pratt & Whitney Canada website.
http://www.pwc.ca/files/images/engineFamil...ion/PT6T_CS.jpg
So if you're actually talking about the combustion chamber, you'll note that it's cooled, and if you're talking about the outer casing visible when you lift the hood (so to speak) you'll notice that that isn't actually the combustion chamber (even though it looks like it should be.

Also, according to the USFAA, the maximum continuous temperature measure interturbine is only 766°C. Now, that's the gas temperature, that's not indicative of the temperature the metal sits at.

So, if indeed, the JT6D does have a steel combustion chamber, as you maintain it does, that actually proves nothing.

For example, the Rolls-Royce Trent
http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/phase-trans/2003/...loys/img024.gif
According to that diagram, the only place it uses steel is in the shaft, the materials in the combustion chamber are composed of Nickel (probably a Nickel alloy).

QUOTE (H2O+May 15 2009, 12:59 PM)
Besides I don't get the big deal with titanium when referring to temp anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium

Melting point: 1668 deg C

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel

So what do we have here, a 300 to 500 deg C difference between compounds?  The temperature of jet fuel in open air burning...

Nice fallacy, now do a comparisson with the materials actually being discussed.
H2O
QUOTE
So if you're actually talking about the combustion chamber, you'll note that it's cooled, and if you're talking about the outer casing visible when you lift the hood (so to speak) you'll notice that that isn't actually the combustion chamber (even though it looks like it should be.


Do not mistake the Blue as being cool. Far from it. All the red and blue in that picture illustrates is that the engine is divided into two sections. The cold section and the hot section. These however are relative terms. Just today I have replace the Bleed Air Valve that is positioned around the 3rd or 4th stage compressor blades.

Now the valve starts in the open position to bleed off pressure and prevent a buildup of too much too soon. Can't get the fuel to self sustain if it keeps getting blown out. Once the flame is lit and the engine reaches a certain %RPM the pressure becomes great enough to close the valve. This means an increase in pressure which means more air to feed the flame at a time it can handle it. Now if the valve didn't close then you would get compressor stall. You would loose your flame. It also serves the purpose of venting off pressure if it becomes too high for whatever reason.

After each ground run we waited ~40 min. Why? because even there the engine is 2 or 3 hundred deg C.

The dimensions in that computer generated pic are not accurate to the real thing. The distance between the chamber and the outer wall, for which the air passes over to get to the holes that are in the chamber wall to feed the flame, is less than an inch, maybe less than 1/2 an inch. One of the reasons for it is to act as an air insulator so that the outer casing doesn't get too hot. If that gets too hot then the engine compartment will gets too hot and there are things there that can handle some temperature but not too much. Don't want the insulation to melt off the wrong wires.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
So if you're actually talking about the combustion chamber, you'll note that it's cooled, and if you're talking about the outer casing visible when you lift the hood (so to speak) you'll notice that that isn't actually the combustion chamber (even though it looks like it should be.


Do not mistake the Blue as being cool. Far from it. All the red and blue in that picture illustrates is that the engine is divided into two sections. The cold section and the hot section. These however are relative terms. Just today I have replace the Bleed Air Valve that is positioned around the 3rd or 4th stage compressor blades.

Now the valve starts in the open position to bleed off pressure and prevent a buildup of too much too soon. Can't get the fuel to self sustain if it keeps getting blown out. Once the flame is lit and the engine reaches a certain %RPM the pressure becomes great enough to close the valve. This means an increase in pressure which means more air to feed the flame at a time it can handle it. Now if the valve didn't close then you would get compressor stall. You would loose your flame. It also serves the purpose of venting off pressure if it becomes too high for whatever reason.

After each ground run we waited ~40 min. Why? because even there the engine is 2 or 3 hundred deg C.

The dimensions in that computer generated pic are not accurate to the real thing. The distance between the chamber and the outer wall, for which the air passes over to get to the holes that are in the chamber wall to feed the flame, is less than an inch, maybe less than 1/2 an inch. One of the reasons for it is to act as an air insulator so that the outer casing doesn't get too hot. If that gets too hot then the engine compartment will gets too hot and there are things there that can handle some temperature but not too much. Don't want the insulation to melt off the wrong wires.

Also, according to the USFAA, the maximum continuous temperature measure interturbine is only 766°C.


As I said, the ITT is around 700 to 800 deg C

QUOTE
Now, that's the gas temperature, that's not indicative of the temperature the metal sits at.


Absolutely correct. The metal is cooler. It's also not indicative of the temperature the ignited fuel in the chamber sits at. That is hotter.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Now, that's the gas temperature, that's not indicative of the temperature the metal sits at.


Absolutely correct. The metal is cooler. It's also not indicative of the temperature the ignited fuel in the chamber sits at. That is hotter.

Nice fallacy, now do a comparisson with the materials actually being discussed.


I did. The structural steel with the temperature it melts at and jet fuel (supposedly the hottest burning substance in the whole mess) with the temperature in burns at uncontrolled.

I will throw you a bone though. Although the chamber is 1/4 inch thick at best, and is surprisingly flimsy. Although it can reach temperatures upward around 800 to 900 deg C. The reason it is so low a temperature when the burning fuel it contains would be a few hundred deg hotter than that, is because of that air you pointed out. But it's not what you think. That is if you think the air surrounding the chamber pulls heat away from the chamber cooling it down. I wanna see if you know why the chamber doesn't reach the point it becomes structurally unsound and possibly even melt.

Also I did some light digging and unless I over looked it, I want to see if you know the reason why nickel alloys are used....
Grumpy
H2O

QUOTE
Nowhere near hot enough to explain the molten mass pouring out of one of the towers just before it collapsed.


You mean the molten lead that came from the UPS in Tower Two??? There was no molten steel found anywhere in the WTC complex, none. No melted beams, no cooled puddles, NADA, NIL, NOTHING. There is aabsolutely no evidence than any steel reached melting temperature. But at 800C steel has lost most of it's strength and will bend like putty.

And, having handled hundreds of burn cans from J 79s(out of F4s), your assertions about deforming them with your bare hands is laughably stupid(oh, I forgot it was you). Never mind.

Grumpy cool.gif
Trippy
QUOTE (H2O+May 15 2009, 02:35 PM)

Do not mistake the Blue as being cool.

I didn't, I'm fully aware that cool is a relative term.

QUOTE (H2O+May 15 2009, 02:35 PM)
After each ground run we waited ~40 min.  Why?  because even there the engine is 2 or 3 hundred deg C.

Right, but 2 or 3 hundred degrees is not the same as 7 or 8 hundred degrees.

QUOTE (H2O+May 15 2009, 02:35 PM)
I did.  The structural steel with the temperature it melts at and jet fuel (supposedly the hottest burning substance in the whole mess) with the temperature in burns at uncontrolled.

Right, but I said compare structural steel with the titanium components of a Jet engine.
You started talking about the JT6D which is a Gas Turbine, that operates on many of the same principles of a jet engine, and then compared the melting point of structure steel with that of pure Titanium, but, the Titanium components of Jet engines are not pure Titanium are they?

QUOTE (H2O+May 15 2009, 02:35 PM)
I wanna see if you know why the chamber doesn't reach the point it becomes structurally unsound and possibly even melt.

My knowledge of avionics is irrelevant.
1. I'm not the one claiming to have a working knowledge of Gas Turbines.
2. You've just proven the point I was making for me, that comparing the events inside WTC7 with the events inside a Jet Engine or Gas turbine, and claiming that because the flimsy steel combustion chamber doesn't melt, the presence of jet fuel in WTC 7 shouldn't have made a difference, is at best fallicous and deceitful when you yourself have just admitted that Jet turbines are designed to prevent their steel components from reaching those sorts of temperatures.
Trippy
I would also hazard that it's probably one of the high T resistant stainless steel alloys that's being used (If we assume you're correct about the use of steel in the PT6T) (for example, T409 and T439 which are used for gas turbine exhaust applications). Alloys which typically have .05% Nickle, and up to 0.75% Titanium (3xC).

Also, equally, it should be considered that at least AFAIK gas turbine combustion chambers divert the air flow entering them into two streams to dilute the heat from the combustion (thus, again, these engines are designed to keep the metal components from ever reaching the 1500 degree temps) - again, illustrating that your comparison was fallicous and deceitful.
H2O
QUOTE
You started talking about the JT6D which is a Gas Turbine, that operates on many of the same principles of a jet engine, and then compared the melting point of structure steel with that of pure Titanium, but, the Titanium components of Jet engines are not pure Titanium are they?


A gas turbine engine IS a jet engine. "Jet engine" is a broad term that covers turbo prop, turbo fan, turbo jet, turbo shaft, etc.

The use of alloys is capable of increasing the melting point by just a few hundred degrees. Don't forget that these things are built as cheaply as possible while maintaining the qualities of safety and reliability.

Also I compared the melting points of structural steel to the open burn temperature of basic jet fuel because there was a big commotion that at such high temperatures (as a result of burning jet fuel) that the beams actually started to melt.

You are very close though. The holes allow the cooler air to flow into the chamber and create a laminar flow over the inside surface. This does two things. One is it helps to insulate the metal from the extreme heat of the controlled burn. The other is it redirects the heat. See if the engine was designed to pull heat from the other side of the chamber and vent it would waste the heat. The turbine blades are designed in such a way and paired up with stationary blades that are designed in such a way as to maintain the speed at which the gas passes through. However the blades do take energy to turn and that energy comes from the gas. The gas cools down as it does the work.

The reason Nickel is used in producing the allows is because the temperature can be brought closer to the melting point while still maintaining its rigidness.

Also you want me to compare the titanium alloys found is jet engines and compare it to what? Structural steel? Why would I do that since the towers did not use any titanium alloys for its structure? You asked me to compare things that were relevant and so I did. I compared the structural steel (something the building was made up of) with jet fuel (something that burned within the building and was supposedly the hottest burning substance there).

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
You started talking about the JT6D which is a Gas Turbine, that operates on many of the same principles of a jet engine, and then compared the melting point of structure steel with that of pure Titanium, but, the Titanium components of Jet engines are not pure Titanium are they?


A gas turbine engine IS a jet engine. "Jet engine" is a broad term that covers turbo prop, turbo fan, turbo jet, turbo shaft, etc.

The use of alloys is capable of increasing the melting point by just a few hundred degrees. Don't forget that these things are built as cheaply as possible while maintaining the qualities of safety and reliability.

Also I compared the melting points of structural steel to the open burn temperature of basic jet fuel because there was a big commotion that at such high temperatures (as a result of burning jet fuel) that the beams actually started to melt.

You are very close though. The holes allow the cooler air to flow into the chamber and create a laminar flow over the inside surface. This does two things. One is it helps to insulate the metal from the extreme heat of the controlled burn. The other is it redirects the heat. See if the engine was designed to pull heat from the other side of the chamber and vent it would waste the heat. The turbine blades are designed in such a way and paired up with stationary blades that are designed in such a way as to maintain the speed at which the gas passes through. However the blades do take energy to turn and that energy comes from the gas. The gas cools down as it does the work.

The reason Nickel is used in producing the allows is because the temperature can be brought closer to the melting point while still maintaining its rigidness.

Also you want me to compare the titanium alloys found is jet engines and compare it to what? Structural steel? Why would I do that since the towers did not use any titanium alloys for its structure? You asked me to compare things that were relevant and so I did. I compared the structural steel (something the building was made up of) with jet fuel (something that burned within the building and was supposedly the hottest burning substance there).

You mean the molten lead that came from the UPS in Tower Two???


Are you talking about the element lead that does not glow like that at all when melted...

http://tommcmahon.typepad.com/photos/uncat...07/16/cast2.jpg
http://www.insidepassage.ca/images/416_molten-lead.jpg
http://www.tenby10.com.au/Portals/0/Seamle...Molten-Lead.jpg

Even though the video clearly showed a material that looked like....

http://www.petit-fritsen.nl/images_2/gietengecompr.jpg
http://www.rimcapital.com.au/Molten%20Meta...ten%20steel.jpg
http://9eleven.info/moltenstreamthermate.jpg

Oops, that third one of molten steel is actually one of the towers.

QUOTE
But at 800C steel has lost most of it's strength and will bend like putty.


You must never have worked with acetylene torches. I don't do it often especially since I transferred trades. I can assure you that steel must be around the 1000 deg C mark before it even begins to soften. By the time it becomes like putty it is close to its melting point.

Also the average building fire, I remember reading somewhere/sometime, is around 650 deg C. However I will say that yes the fires can spike to temperature up around 1100 deg C. But I also know that the time it takes for the heat to affect the steel depends not just on the temperature but the thickness of the metal (mass really) and the time it is exposed to it. To have the liters of glowing molten steel pouring out of the side of the building as shown in the video signifies temperatures well over 1200 deg C.
Grumpy
H2O

Again, not one bit of molten steel was found anywhere in the WTC complex. And steel loses 75% of its ability to withstand loading(it's strength) at 800C. These are just facts, no molten steel, but lots of steel that has lost it's strength.

So WHATEVER that was pouring out of tower 2, it COULD NOT BE molten steel. Other sources could be the tons of aluminum from the aircraft, the tons of lead from the UPSs or a combination of the two and other materials. Got that, Dumbass???

Grumpy cool.gif
H2O
QUOTE
Again, not one bit of molten steel was found anywhere in the WTC complex.


So not only are you in the business of calling people idiots just because they don't agree with YOU. You are also in the business of calling respected people public liars since a link has already been provided that was to a video of a person who held in their hand a sample of molten iron from ground zero. A sample in which test result point to the use of thermite or thermate.

Although it could not be lead it could be aluminum.

But take a good long look at the color of the material.

Then compare it to these charts

Steel
http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/u...Color_Chart.jpg

Aluminum
http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/aluminum/...ics/htchar1.gif

Your talking a metal that has a minimum temperature of 1100 deg C. Considering the short time the towers burned, the amount of material mass and the thermal conductivity of steel where the heat would distribute itself through the beam (going from high to low) the fire would have to be a few hundred (only about 2 or 3 hundred) degrees hotter.

Also your talking a fire that would maybe spike to that temperature with the right conditions.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Again, not one bit of molten steel was found anywhere in the WTC complex.


So not only are you in the business of calling people idiots just because they don't agree with YOU. You are also in the business of calling respected people public liars since a link has already been provided that was to a video of a person who held in their hand a sample of molten iron from ground zero. A sample in which test result point to the use of thermite or thermate.

Although it could not be lead it could be aluminum.

But take a good long look at the color of the material.

Then compare it to these charts

Steel
http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/albums/u...Color_Chart.jpg

Aluminum
http://drjudywood.co.uk/articles/aluminum/...ics/htchar1.gif

Your talking a metal that has a minimum temperature of 1100 deg C. Considering the short time the towers burned, the amount of material mass and the thermal conductivity of steel where the heat would distribute itself through the beam (going from high to low) the fire would have to be a few hundred (only about 2 or 3 hundred) degrees hotter.

Also your talking a fire that would maybe spike to that temperature with the right conditions.

And steel loses 75% of its ability to withstand loading(it's strength) at 800C


Oh really. I'd like a link to go with that one.

I was doing some wood burning but didn't have a kit. So I went with a propane torch and a machinist scriber. The scriber is ~4mm in diameter and narrows to a point. I was able to achieve temperatures around 1000 deg C. I would then use the scriber (holding on using a welder's glove) to burn areas of the wood little by little. Considering the pressure I applied and the temperature I got it too (taking into consideration what you claim there) and the thickness of it, it should have bent right over. Not only did it not bend over, it didn't bend at all. I would have to say it retained 75% of its load bearing properties, not lost.

That's just one personal experience I had. I could come up with more. Another involves an acetylene torch, a bigger piece of steel, a vice and a machinist's hammer (ball peen).
Grumpy
H2O

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/f...rengthcurve.jpg

From one of your own.

Actually I was wrong, at 800C steel loses 90% of its strength.

QUOTE
So not only are you in the business of calling people idiots just because they don't agree with YOU.


I'm not calling you an id!iot, just extremely stupid because you don't agree with the FACTS.

NO STEEL MELTED IN THE 911 FIRES, if your witness was credible(and not another lying troother) it would have been in the NIST reports(as well as all the newspapers). The fires burned plenty hot enough to make steel bend, not nearly hot enough to melt ANY. Any molten metal was either lead or aluminum, both of which were able to melt at those temps.

Grumpy cool.gif
Trippy
QUOTE (H2O+May 16 2009, 06:54 AM)

A gas turbine engine IS a jet engine.  "Jet engine" is a broad term that covers turbo prop, turbo fan, turbo jet, turbo shaft, etc.

No *** sherlock. There are, however, fundamental differences - for example Turbines are designed to extract the useable work from the exhaust before it exits the body of the engines, where a jet engine does it's useable work (or most of it anyway) when the hot gas leaves the body of the engine.

QUOTE (H2O+May 16 2009, 06:54 AM)
Also I compared the melting points of structural steel to the open burn temperature of basic jet fuel because there was a big commotion that at such high temperatures (as a result of burning jet fuel) that the beams actually started to melt.

No. Nobody has ever claimed that any melting occured, except except for conspiracy theorists, the only thing that has been said by anyone else is what any fire service officer already knows, that unprotected steel loses most of its strength at the temperatures involved in most fires (in fact, my understanding is that most fire services will avoid entering a building with the kind of floors that WTC 1&2 have because they're notorious for sagging and collapsing.

QUOTE (H2O+May 16 2009, 06:54 AM)
You are very close though.

As I said, I have no interest in trying to pass your 'test' I was simply pointing out how deceitful you were being with your initial statement. And I'm well aware that the gass cools as it does work - it's kind of mandatory under the laws of thermodynamics.

QUOTE (H2O+May 16 2009, 06:54 AM)
The reason Nickel is used in producing the allows is because the temperature can be brought closer to the melting point while still maintaining its rigidness.

This is what I would have guessed, but as I have said for the third time, I have no interest in playing your stupid games.

QUOTE (H2O+May 16 2009, 06:54 AM)
Also you want me to compare the titanium alloys found is jet engines and compare it to what?  Structural steel?  Why would I do that since the towers did not use any titanium alloys for its structure?  You asked me to compare things that were relevant and so I did.  I compared the structural steel (something the building was made up of) with jet fuel (something that burned within the building and was supposedly the hottest burning substance there).

No, what you did was bullshit.
What you did was compare something that wasn't designed to ever reach a certain temperature, but did, to something that is designed to never reach those sorts of temperatures, but remain in close proximity to them, and then claim that jet fuel has nothing to do with it - this is nothing short of deceitful at best.
You've also completely ignored the fact that the impact would have completely aerosolized at least some of the jet fuel, meaning it would burn, however shortly, at temperatures approaching those in a JT6D, rather than the temperatures experience by pouring some in an aluminium pan and tossing a match at it.

And you're being deceitful now as well.

You said:
QUOTE (H2O+May 14 2009, 01:54 PM)
Some may shout jet fuel.  laugh.gif  I work around the stuff, if it burned that hot uncontrolled then it would melt a turbine engine since it is burned at an optimal fuel/air mix for maximum output.


To which I replied:
QUOTE (Trippy+May 14 2009, 03:27 PM)
Right.

Because comparing the titanium components of a Jet turbine to structural steel is always valid.


Your response was:
QUOTE (H2O+May 14 2009, 10:54 PM)

The combustion chamber of most turbine engines are steel that is less than a 1/4 inch thick.  Steel I can misshape with bare hands.

Which we've established is at best deceitful, because the combustion chambers are also designed to prevent the metal from ever reaching the temperatures that the fuel burns at.

I responded with this:
QUOTE (Trippy+May 15 2009, 10:36 AM)
If this was true, and you're as knowledgable as you claim, you would know that the PT6T-3BE uses cooled Nickle-Titanium super alloy single crystal turbine blades, and so, your contention is false.  In fact, Pratt & Whitney were heavily involved in the research involved in manufacturing single crystal air foils, and making the methods cheaper, and the method is also used in the JT9D-7R4, used in the Boeing 767 and the airbus A-310.


To which you replied with this post, which includes the following:

QUOTE (H2O+May 15 2009, 12:59 PM)

Besides I don't get the big deal with titanium when referring to temp anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium

Melting point: 1668 deg C

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel

So what do we have here, a 300 to 500 deg C difference between compounds?  The temperature of jet fuel in open air burning...


Here, you're clearly comparing the melting point of structural steel to elemental titanium, but what I said was:

QUOTE (Trippy+May 14 2009, 03:27 PM)
Right.

Because comparing the titanium components of a Jet turbine to structural steel is always valid.


But we had already established that the Titanium components I was referring to are NOT in fact elemental Titanium, hence my comment. Again, you're being misleading and deceitful.

QUOTE (H2O+May 16 2009, 06:54 AM)
Are you talking about the element lead that does not glow like that at all when melted...


I'm sick of this statement, at best it's stupid, and deceitful.
Black Body radiation is black body radiation, it doesn't depend on composition.
The fact that lead at or just above it's melting point doesn't glow is irrelevant.
Lead will glow like that if you heat it up to 1100 °C, which you CAN in fact do, because the boiling point of lead is 1749 °C.

All those photos actually prove is that there may have been a hotspot.
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.