Wtc 7

[michaelr]

Have you ever asked someone "what about WTC 7". I have and I usually get "what about it?". Ever ask people how many buildings fell at the WTC, I have and they usually say two. So here is my question to you, why did WTC7 collapse, and why is it not in the 9-11 cover up, whoops 9-11 commission report? I guess thats two questions, oh well.

[USMC the Almighty]

So here is my question to you, why did WTC7 collapse

I'm certainly not an engineer, so I'll leave it up to the experts:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

To some extent we really have to take the word of the firefighters who went
in there and reported back that the building was in danger of collapse. They were inside. That almost makes the issue/resolution trivially self-evident: the fire fighters were afraid the fires would make it collapse - it collapsed - so the firefighters were probably right that it collapsed due to the fires.

The sad thing is that without 100% undeniable proof of what happened, interviews, photos and the like will always be questioned and fuel the conspiracy theorists.

[michaelr]

I'm certainly not an engineer, so I'll leave it up to the experts:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

To some extent we really have to take the word of the firefighters who went
in there and reported back that the building was in danger of collapse. They were inside. That almost makes the issue/resolution trivially self-evident: the fire fighters were afraid the fires would make it collapse - it collapsed - so the firefighters were probably right that it collapsed due to the fires.

The sad thing is that without 100% undeniable proof of what happened, interviews, photos and the like will always be questioned and fuel the conspiracy theorists.

Don't you fin it odd that it is not mentioned in the 9-11 commision report? How did the fires get so hot. Do you know that untill 9-11-01 a steel framed building never collapesed. 8 hours of fire, hell I've burnd my wood stove for 8 weeks, I still own it.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/docs/interstate_fire_lg.gifThis photo shows the First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles. Iklim Ltd. described the damage as follows: "In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans."

[USMC the Almighty]

So you didn't even bother to click the link?

[vyo476]

Don't you fin it odd that it is not mentioned in the 9-11 commision report?

Although not a main point, 7 WTC is mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The reason it didn't get as much play is obvious: the building wasn't directly attacked on 9/11 and collapsed only as a result of the Towers collapsing.


How did the fires get so hot. Do you know that untill 9-11-01 a steel framed building never collapesed. 8 hours of fire, hell I've burnd my wood stove for 8 weeks, I still own it.


It wasn't just fire that brought down 7 WTC, it was also structural damage from falling debris. And anyway, I doubt your wood stove burns anywhere near as hot as jet fuel.


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/docs/interstate_fire_lg.gifThis photo shows the First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles. Iklim Ltd. described the damage as follows: "In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans."

Once again...no jet fuel involved. The Aon Center fire was an internal blaze that was neither as hot as the fires burning on 9/11 nor was it accompanied by massive amounts of falling debris.

Modern buildings are built to withstand normal fires. They are not built to withstand airplanes hitting them, nor are they built to withstand having burning skyscrapers dropped on them. The collapse of 7 WTC is hardly surprising.

As for watching the collapse itself, yes, it does resemble a controlled demolition. However, the videos that I can find of 7 WTC fail to capture a specific collapse point - that is, the floor where the structural damage was finally too much and the structure collapsed, resulting in the "free fall" of the building.

Watch the videos of the Towers collapsing and, if you look closely enough, you can see which floor the collapse starts on. Look above that floor and you can see that the floors above the collapse remain intact as they fall. Were it possible to see that point in any of the 7 WTC videos we probably wouldn't be entertaining all these conspiracy theories about it.

So, according the evidence videos presented, we can't conclusively state that 7 WTC was felled by controlled demolition (and, in all fairness, we can't conclusively state that 7 WTC was felled by fire and falling debris). So, let's look at the "W's" of the situation: When, where, what, why, who and how.

When: Controlled demolitions take a lot of time to set up. Non load-baring walls are generally removed and charges have to be set into the walls on all floors - that's how they make sure the buildings fall straight. When did whoever was behind the "cover-up" have time to remove walls and set charges? Seems that there'd be a lot of people out there who would have seen it happening if it was going on for a couple of weeks, or even a couple of days, leading up to 9/11.

Where: Pretty self-explanatory.

What: Possibly the main debate: was it falling debris and fire that brought down 7 WTC or were explosives used in a controlled demolition?

In order to get to the heart of the issue I went looking through a couple of Demolition websites. Here's a tidbit from Controlled Demolition, Inc, the people who brought down what remained of the Murrah Building after McVeigh's attack on it:

Preparation operations for the implosion were more sophisticated than those required for a "normal implosion operation." When a structure is imploded, the contractor relies on the structural integrity of the building being demolished to assist in the control of the fall of the structure. In the case of the Murrah Building, the structural integrity of the building had been compromised by the terrorist blast, therefore, reconstructive operations had to be conducted to augment the structural integrity of the building in order to control its fall away from the adjacent parking garage.

In other words, in order to bring the building down safely, they needed to augment its weakened structure before imploding it. The same would have been true of 7 WTC - even if the contention that all the falling debris from the Towers wasn't enough to bring down 7 WTC, there still would have been significant structural damage to the building and they would have had to augment its structural integrity before attempting a controlled demolition. Otherwise it could not have been a controlled demolition.

In addition, 7 WTC had a very strange structural makeup. The building was built on an old electrical substation that was designed with a foundation that would allow a building to be built on top of it someday. The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a building covering a significantly larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built. Between floors 5 and 7, the building had a system of transfer trusses and girders to transfer load to the smaller-sized foundation. In other words, take out enough of floors 5-7 and you destabilize the base of the building.

Why: Why would anyone conspire to destroy 7 WTC anyway? To examine this, we must look at two things: who benefits and who loses.

First off, who was there? From Wikipedia:

At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq. ft. (64% of the building) including floors 28–45.[14][6] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft).[14] Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft), and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft).[14] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management, NAIC Securities, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group, Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[14] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared floor #25 with the IRS.[6] Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as well as the bottom 6 floors and part of floor #7.[6][15]

About what you'd expect from a large office building: financial institutions and a few government offices. A much more in-depth analysis than I have time for here would be required to really look into who our government might have had a grudge against on that list.

What about benefits? If anyone knows of any beneficiaries of the collapse of 7 WTC I'd love to know who they are.

Who: Another question that makes the controlled demolition theory a tough swallow: who did it? This applies to all facets of the theory. Who masterminded the whole thing? Who administered and organized the plot? Who set the charges and prepared the building for demolition? Who has been paid to present false evidence as true about the collapse? As the questions mount it becomes apparent that for the controlled demolition theory to be true there would have had to be hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of conspirators involved.

How:Refer to everything above. Everything from the unlikelihood of demolition experts assessing 7 WTC and setting it up for demolition without anyone noticing to the necessity of a strong structure not present in 7 WTC on 9/11 for demolition to the lack of a reason for destroying the building to the sheer size of the conspiracy were it true makes the controlled demolition theory extremely unlikely. Possible, yes. Likely, no. Remember, neither theory is fully proven - therefore it makes logical sense to go with the most logical, well-supported theory: 7 WTC collapsed on 9/11 as a result of falling debris and fire.

[Abraxis Axis]

Have you ever asked someone "what about WTC 7". I have and I usually get "what about it?". Ever ask people how many buildings fell at the WTC, I have and they usually say two. So here is my question to you, why did WTC7 collapse, and why is it not in the 9-11 cover up, whoops 9-11 commission report? I guess thats two questions, oh well.

ahhhh dont bother

youll find the same brainwashing here you have found everywhere else


blind support of the "official theory" and the same tired de-bunking website thats been around the world 876 time

[vyo476]

ahhhh dont bother

youll find the same brainwashing here you have found everywhere else


blind support of the "official theory" and the same tired de-bunking website thats been around the world 876 time

So did you just ignore everything I wrote above, or are you simply not open-minded enough to debate your beliefs?

[Abraxis Axis]

no such thing as debate here id call it Ambush

[vyo476]

no such thing as debate here id call it Ambush

I've posted a number of things here about my views. If it's an invitation you need, here it is: Please discuss how and where the specific points I've raised are inaccurate. Cite examples where necessary. You may, if you wish, ask me to cite my sources, but that could take a while as there's a fairly long list.

[Abraxis Axis]

I didnt say you were wrong anywhere did i?

[vyo476]

I didnt say you were wrong anywhere did i?

No. You didn't.

Now, would you like to debate the points?

[Abraxis Axis]

Actually NO

Im not wanting to "DEBATE" wtc7 or 9-11 I am more than willing to enter discussions about it but spare me the "DEBATE" side of it as i see no point in DEBATING something that the facts are still not set in stone

I didnt place these posts in the DEBATES section? why must EVERYTHING here be a DEBATE? have you ever heard of political discussion?

[vyo476]

Actually NO

Im not wanting to "DEBATE" wtc7 or 9-11 I am more than willing to enter discussions about it but spare me the "DEBATE" side of it as i see no point in DEBATING something that the facts are still not set in stone

I didnt place these posts in the DEBATES section? why must EVERYTHING here be a DEBATE? have you ever heard of political discussion?

Fine, discussion then. Are you going to respond to what I posted or not?

[Abraxis Axis]

Although not a main point, 7 WTC is mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The reason it didn't get as much play is obvious: the building wasn't directly attacked on 9/11 and collapsed only as a result of the Towers collapsing.
Th reason it didnt get the play is they DONT have an explanation as to why it fell. They have Theories but NONE of them have been proven Neither the NIST or FEMA had the official "REASON" that the building collapsed Both official entities issues INCONCLUSIVE statements concerning building seven


It wasn't just fire that brought down 7 WTC, it was also structural damage from falling debris. And anyway, I doubt your wood stove burns anywhere near as hot as jet fuel.

ahhhh there it is that same smug matter of factly "dosent burn as hot as JET Fuel....as if Jet fuel contained some magical high powered Burning capability.....its KEROSENE chap ......plain ole KEROSENE refined a bit more than the stuff you buy in the stores for your heaters and lamps...........

A stablized fuel that has been dumbed down so that the average person can work with it without blowing themselves up. you could burn Kerosene in an oven for 6 months and it wont melt....what a completly misleading opinion you have shared with us


Structural damage you say? Apparently your unamware of the MANY physical attributes that were in building seven at the time of collapse? yes even damage as described would not have brought the building down the way it did....it MAY have came down..but not in the controlled manner that it did

Once again...no jet fuel involved. The Aon Center fire was an internal blaze that was neither as hot as the fires burning on 9/11 nor was it accompanied by massive amounts of falling debris.
again KEROSENE do you have statistical evidence to support your opinions of the tempratures achieved in the 2 fires you are comparing? or are we dealing in conjecture and opinion? Kerosene needs PERFECT conditions to burn at temps consistent enough to do any real damage the towers did NOT have the "perfect"
qualities needed for this to occur

Not to mention that 75% to 80 % of the Jet Fuel was burned off in the initial fireballs.....and there was NO jet fuel involved at building 7 at all..there were THEORIES on how mauch diesel fuel may or may not have been present in Building seven.


You refer to "Massive amounts of falling debris" where may I ask have you come to this conclusion? there were NO REPORTS to corroborate your theory?there are Varying reports of structural damage ....but they are inconsistent at best . No conclusive evidence supports massive amounts of debris hit building seven


Modern buildings are built to withstand normal fires. They are not built to withstand airplanes hitting them, nor are they built to withstand having burning skyscrapers dropped on them. The collapse of 7 WTC is hardly surprising.


apparently your also Unaware that the world trade centers were in FACT designed to withstand Impacts from commercial airliners much in the manner that they did. It has ben widely accepted by engineers associated with the towers that the general concensus was that they could withstand MULTIPLE hits from commercial aircraft and still stood.


No steel framed structure in history before 9-11 collapsed due to fire..this per fire engineering magazine yet on 9-11 3 buildingd had this happen? there have been several OTHER buildings that have burned HOTTER and far far longer that the towers and they did NOT collapse


Even the towers themselves have had LARGER HOTTER fires BURN FOR HOURS longer than the fires on 9-11. the fires in the towers couldnt have been so bad there many many live people standing in the gashes of the towers..some of them JUMPED due to the INTENSE SMOKE hat was being generated by plenum rated materials in the building as well as other plastics etc

there were NO LARGE fires for any sustained period of time on that morning......modern building are bult to withstand "Normal "fires you say? wow how naive is that statement? you are kidding of course right? what is considered a "Normal" fire? thats again a ludicrous assumption on your part in my opinion





As for watching the collapse itself, yes, it does resemble a controlled demolition. However, the videos that I can find of 7 WTC fail to capture a specific collapse point - that is, the floor where the structural damage was finally too much and the structure collapsed, resulting in the "free fall" of the building.

it resembles one becuase it was one. you have fireman and police on scene BEFORE the collapse MOVING PEOPLE back away from the building telling them its coming down any minute...............

videos of firefighters discussing it being brought down......the owner of the building ADMITTING that they brought it down in order to save lives ....

then you have the time involved in the collapse falling at free fall speeds


Watch the videos of the Towers collapsing and, if you look closely enough, you can see which floor the collapse starts on. Look above that floor and you can see that the floors above the collapse remain intact as they fall. Were it possible to see that point in any of the 7 WTC videos we probably wouldn't be entertaining all these conspiracy theories about it.

very good you have watched closely........now watch closer the amazing thing?...right after what you describe you can see the explosions begin and you can clearly see the top portion right itself before vapourizing

So, according the evidence videos presented, we can't conclusively state that 7 WTC was felled by controlled demolition (and, in all fairness, we can't conclusively state that 7 WTC was felled by fire and falling debris). So, let's look at the "W's" of the situation: When, where, what, why, who and how.

When: Controlled demolitions take a lot of time to set up. Non load-baring walls are generally removed and charges have to be set into the walls on all floors - that's how they make sure the buildings fall straight. When did whoever was behind the "cover-up" have time to remove walls and set charges? Seems that there'd be a lot of people out there who would have seen it happening if it was going on for a couple of weeks, or even a couple of days, leading up to 9/11.

Where: Pretty self-explanatory.

the only self explanatory part is the reported time of collapse 5:33 p.m. or close to that .....

but we have a reporter from BBC who claimed the building had already fallen when it was clearly still standing the backround....

What: Possibly the main debate: was it falling debris and fire that brought down 7 WTC or were explosives used in a controlled demolition?

In order to get to the heart of the issue I went looking through a couple of Demolition websites. Here's a tidbit from Controlled Demolition, Inc, the people who brought down what remained of the Murrah Building after McVeigh's attack on it:

FUNNY Controlled demolition Inc.!!!! thats exactly who was RESPONSIBLE for bringing down the 3 buildings that day.............they were in charge of all post demolition and removal contracts at the WTC site they just Happened to be in new york the morning of 9-11

they as you mentioned ALSO had the demo and removal contracts at the Murrah Federal Building....a strtling co-incidence eh? the federal government used them becuase they are the BEST

they Invented and patented a system called DREXS demolition system in short here is how drexs works.......
you need a building demoed....the physical chrectereistics dictate that there is only enough room to use 36 foot trailers and dumps and there is only a 50 foot margin of error without damaging other structures


DREXS GUARANTEES that NOT ONE PIECE of DEBRIS will be LONGER than 36 feet........and NONE of the building will fall outside of the 50 foot window...all of the structure will fall in the footprint with all pieces 36 feet or less afterwards.....

they are also masters at WIRELESS demolition they are the PIONEERS of this technology...on my side of the coin it was the OWNER of this company that broke the story of MOLTEN pools of metal weeks after the collapse



it is NO coincidence this company was there afterwards to clean up the "mess" that THEY created....



had to continue in another post

[Abraxis Axis]

part two of the response

In other words, in order to bring the building down safely, they needed to augment its weakened structure before imploding it. The same would have been true of 7 WTC - even if the contention that all the falling debris from the Towers wasn't enough to bring down 7 WTC, there still would have been significant structural damage to the building and they would have had to augment its structural integrity before attempting a controlled demolition. Otherwise it could not have been a controlled demolition.


this is all of course based on YOUR THEORY of severe structural damage....which has not at this time determined to be true...building seven as i mentin has many interesting factors in its engineering design and construction.....the ONLY way it fell like it did was by controlled demo not to mention the 6.5 second collapse time diveded by the 47 stories a free fall scenarion indicatin little to NO resistance during the collapse....

do some digging on Building seven and its design and engineering you will discover what i say is true ...as well it had the thickest steel beams ever used in abuildings construction as it straddled a com-ed substation that powered manhattan....the substation is still operational as well!!


In addition, 7 WTC had a very strange structural makeup. The building was built on an old electrical substation that was designed with a foundation that would allow a building to be built on top of it someday. In other words, take out enough of floors 5-7 and you destabilize the base of the building.
ahhh i see you have it partially correct the actual truth of the matter is that the building was built on a cantilever system that helped span the substation and loading dock areas it was also supported by beams sunk to the bedrock spaced throughout the docks and substation areas......what you mention is the INTERIOR design of the building ...it was DESIGNED to be able to REMOVE FLOORS and CHANGE its configuration WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE BUILDINGS ENGINEERING

in other words those floors were designed on PURPOSE to be able to be removed the Official theory sites as you try to imply that this somehow compromised the inegrity of the building.....when in fact it was ENGINEERED into the structure by design


as well the substation was not OLD it helped to power the downtown area as well as the towers it still exists AFTER the demo and removal of debris

Why: Why would anyone conspire to destroy 7 WTC anyway? To examine this, we must look at two things: who benefits and who loses.
why? one thing always rings true in our lifetime....follow the money!! if you follow it you can clearly see that ALL who were probably involved have profited WILDLY by the events that occurred that morning...lets not forget the insider trading that took place that day as well...Silverstien profitted wildy by the collapse of 3 buildings as well a few other tidbit many interesting tenants were in building seven including Gulianis "Command Bunker" Built to with stand Bomblasts Hurricane force wiind attacks by aircraft etc....all of the paper work for scooter libbys trial and the enron debacle were "STORE" in wtc 7............and quite possibly the entire demolition and attcaks were "orchestrated" from this "command bunker".....in short the whys are numerable to GIVE THE PNAC the fuel or the "New Pearl Harbor event" that they mentioned in theyre 2000 report on re-building americas defenses....to move forward with theyre agenda

to galvanize the American public into Unbridled patriotism and un questioning the erosion of ensuing rights......for an excuse to go into the middle east to create even more profit and take us closer to one world government

the question you ask here is LUDICROUS because i could type for the next 9 days and STILL not begin to cover the WHY aspect of this .........of course many of you KNOW this and that why you continually ask for the readers digest version which simply is impossible


First off, who was there? From Wikipedia:



About what you'd expect from a large office building: financial institutions and a few government offices. A much more in-depth analysis than I have time for here would be required to really look into who our government might have had a grudge against on that list.

What about benefits? If anyone knows of any beneficiaries of the collapse of 7 WTC I'd love to know who they are.

Building 7's short list of tenants consisted entirely of government and financial institutions.

* Financial institutions
o Salomon Smith Barney (SSB)
o Standard Chartered Bank
o Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
o First State Management Group
o TT Hartford Insurance Group
o American Express Bank International
o National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
* Government agencies
o Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
o Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
o Department of Defense (DOD)
o Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
o Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
o US Secret Service
o Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

==============================


Who: Another question that makes the controlled demolition theory a tough swallow: who did it? This applies to all facets of the theory. Who masterminded the whole thing? Who administered and organized the plot? Who set the charges and prepared the building for demolition? Who has been paid to present false evidence as true about the collapse? As the questions mount it becomes apparent that for the controlled demolition theory to be true there would have had to be hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of conspirators involved.



many interesting facets are involved here as well........far too many to answer or begin to address in a single post in a message board.....but i can begin the process here.....as i say many facets start with who di the demo?


I as i have stated am in complete confidence in MY MIND that it was Controlled Demolition Inc.....who orchestrated the whole plan? In my opinion this is Work of the PNAC or the NWO whatever youd like to call them.. those promoting Global consitency in government and all other areas....thousands payed to be quite? no on the morning of 9-11 there convienintly were SEVERAL "Training exercises" happening some of which COMPLETLY MIMICKED the attacks from every aspect......

there was confusion in all levels of the operations as people wondered if they were real world ....or exercise ...
as well Chaney was "Acting CIC" during these ops from the underground bunker at the whitehouse.......the flase flag exercises were a MAJOR contributing factor to the silence most people who serve take theyre vows seriously and wouldnt speak openly any how

there have been people who have come out and said what they saw heard or knew.they are all ridiculed scorned and labled NON-AMERICANS

there were NO REAL SCIENTIFIC studies done at the collpase sites and the vast majority of the steel was shipped out of the country almost immediatly the investigators were only allowed a few beams and pieces to sample for theyre conclusions the whole damn thing STINKS the official theory is ROTTEN and only a FOLL in MY OPINION would buy into this CRAP they are feeding Americans

you all should be ASHAMED of yourselves patriotic americans.......BIG DEAL

be an American Patriot thats where its at .............Question what neds to be questioned STAND IN THE FACE OF TYRANNY let the insults and ridicule run off your backs....many are AFRAID of what they may find if the Questions were ever REALLY answered ITS A HARD PILL TO SWALLOW..............................

learn the difference between being a patriotic american or an American Patriot
How:Refer to everything above. Everything from the unlikelihood of demolition experts assessing 7 WTC and setting it up for demolition without anyone noticing to the necessity of a strong structure not present in 7 WTC on 9/11 for demolition to the lack of a reason for destroying the building to the sheer size of the conspiracy were it true makes the controlled demolition theory extremely unlikely. Possible, yes. Likely, no. Remember, neither theory is fully proven - therefore it makes logical sense to go with the most logical, well-supported theory: 7 WTC collapsed on 9/11 as a result of falling debris and fire.

I majorily disagree with your Hypothesis and your reasoning the LOGICAL way to look at this is what I wrote combined with what You wrote .let the readers read learn participate and decide on theyre own Im NOT forcing my ides on anyone nor am i saying im right and your wrong

or vice versa there are FAR FAR to many UN-Answered questions to evein begin to come to a "Logical" conclusion

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Although not a main point, 7 WTC is mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report. The reason it didn't get as much play is obvious: the building wasn't directly attacked on 9/11 and collapsed only as a result of the Towers collapsing.



It wasn't just fire that brought down 7 WTC, it was also structural damage from falling debris. And anyway, I doubt your wood stove burns anywhere near as hot as jet fuel.



Once again...no jet fuel involved. The Aon Center fire was an internal blaze that was neither as hot as the fires burning on 9/11 nor was it accompanied by massive amounts of falling debris.

Modern buildings are built to withstand normal fires. They are not built to withstand airplanes hitting them, nor are they built to withstand having burning skyscrapers dropped on them. The collapse of 7 WTC is hardly surprising.

As for watching the collapse itself, yes, it does resemble a controlled demolition. However, the videos that I can find of 7 WTC fail to capture a specific collapse point - that is, the floor where the structural damage was finally too much and the structure collapsed, resulting in the "free fall" of the building.

Watch the videos of the Towers collapsing and, if you look closely enough, you can see which floor the collapse starts on. Look above that floor and you can see that the floors above the collapse remain intact as they fall. Were it possible to see that point in any of the 7 WTC videos we probably wouldn't be entertaining all these conspiracy theories about it.

So, according the evidence videos presented, we can't conclusively state that 7 WTC was felled by controlled demolition (and, in all fairness, we can't conclusively state that 7 WTC was felled by fire and falling debris). So, let's look at the "W's" of the situation: When, where, what, why, who and how.

When: Controlled demolitions take a lot of time to set up. Non load-baring walls are generally removed and charges have to be set into the walls on all floors - that's how they make sure the buildings fall straight. When did whoever was behind the "cover-up" have time to remove walls and set charges? Seems that there'd be a lot of people out there who would have seen it happening if it was going on for a couple of weeks, or even a couple of days, leading up to 9/11.

Where: Pretty self-explanatory.

What: Possibly the main debate: was it falling debris and fire that brought down 7 WTC or were explosives used in a controlled demolition?

In order to get to the heart of the issue I went looking through a couple of Demolition websites. Here's a tidbit from Controlled Demolition, Inc, the people who brought down what remained of the Murrah Building after McVeigh's attack on it:



In other words, in order to bring the building down safely, they needed to augment its weakened structure before imploding it. The same would have been true of 7 WTC - even if the contention that all the falling debris from the Towers wasn't enough to bring down 7 WTC, there still would have been significant structural damage to the building and they would have had to augment its structural integrity before attempting a controlled demolition. Otherwise it could not have been a controlled demolition.

In addition, 7 WTC had a very strange structural makeup. The building was built on an old electrical substation that was designed with a foundation that would allow a building to be built on top of it someday. In other words, take out enough of floors 5-7 and you destabilize the base of the building.

Why: Why would anyone conspire to destroy 7 WTC anyway? To examine this, we must look at two things: who benefits and who loses.

First off, who was there? From Wikipedia:



About what you'd expect from a large office building: financial institutions and a few government offices. A much more in-depth analysis than I have time for here would be required to really look into who our government might have had a grudge against on that list.

What about benefits? If anyone knows of any beneficiaries of the collapse of 7 WTC I'd love to know who they are.

Who: Another question that makes the controlled demolition theory a tough swallow: who did it? This applies to all facets of the theory. Who masterminded the whole thing? Who administered and organized the plot? Who set the charges and prepared the building for demolition? Who has been paid to present false evidence as true about the collapse? As the questions mount it becomes apparent that for the controlled demolition theory to be true there would have had to be hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of conspirators involved.

How:Refer to everything above. Everything from the unlikelihood of demolition experts assessing 7 WTC and setting it up for demolition without anyone noticing to the necessity of a strong structure not present in 7 WTC on 9/11 for demolition to the lack of a reason for destroying the building to the sheer size of the conspiracy were it true makes the controlled demolition theory extremely unlikely. Possible, yes. Likely, no. Remember, neither theory is fully proven - therefore it makes logical sense to go with the most logical, well-supported theory: 7 WTC collapsed on 9/11 as a result of falling debris and fire.

What falling debris? Nothing major hit Building 7. No major fire in Building 7. All 3 buildings were in basic freefall....like there was no other floors in each others way. Sounds like deliberate demolition to me.

[n0spam4me]

A! see ... http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

enjoy
.

[SW85]

what about it?". Ever ask people how many buildings fell at the WTC, I have and they usually say two. So here is my question to you, why did WTC7 collapse

There was massive damage to the south face of WTC 7 as a result of the collapse of the towers, as well as to the buildings' corners. Flying debris scooped out a pretty massive chunk of the building, something like a quarter of its depth spanning 10 floors. The six- or seven-hour fire that raged throughout the building didn't help. The design was such that each column in the building was carrying a massive load and that the collapse of one tore the whole thing down; if not for the design of the building, it might otherwise have been able to withstand the damage and the fire.

Don't you fin it odd that it is not mentioned in the 9-11 commision report? How did the fires get so hot. Do you know that untill 9-11-01 a steel framed building never collapesed.

Most steel-framed buildings were not designed the way WTC 7 was. The irregular design of these buildings is pretty well known at this point and is widely attributed for the collapse. Internal tresses were designed to transfer unbearable loads to outer columns, which were already almost at capacity anyway and weakened further by several hours of raging infernos.

Also note that most steel-framed buildings have never endured anything more than a normal fire. None were hit by planes, pockmarked by flying debris, and consumed by a fire accelerated by jet fuel for several hours.

8 hours of fire, hell I've burnd my wood stove for 8 weeks, I still own it.

You burned wood in your wood stove, not jet fuel. And I'm fairly sure that at no point in the 8 weeks you burned wood in that stove was it hit by an airplane.

A stablized fuel that has been dumbed down so that the average person can work with it without blowing themselves up. you could burn Kerosene in an oven for 6 months and it wont melt....what a completly misleading opinion you have shared with us

No one ever said the steel melted, fella'. You're just putting words in other people's mouths. Either that or you don't understand material sciences.

Ever been to a Renaissance fair and seen a guy working a forge? He sticks a sword into the forge, which is powered by nothing more than ordinary coals, until its red hot and then hammers the sword into a desirable shape. He does that without benefit of "melting" steel, because it becomes malleable at much, much lower temperatures.

Steel loses half of its strength at about 1100 degrees F; jet fuel can burn up to 1500 degrees F. When, as in this case, the steel in question is supporting an absurdly large load already, you've got a recipe for collapse on your hands.

Structural damage you say? Apparently your unamware of the MANY physical attributes that were in building seven at the time of collapse? yes even damage as described would not have brought the building down the way it did....it MAY have came down..but not in the controlled manner that it did

OK, but the professionals disagree with you.

Not to mention that 75% to 80 % of the Jet Fuel was burned off in the initial fireballs

It burned off in about 10 minutes, true. But that was all that was needed to get the fire going, whereupon it simply fed on combustibles inside the building -- carpets, papers, furniture, etc., not to mention oxygen in the air fed through the big ol' hole the planes plowed through there.

You guys are also forgetting that the initial hit turned the elevator shafts into conduits for burning jet fuel, causing fires to break out all over the building. That's why people were seen running out of the lobby on fire just after the plane hit -- the burning jet fuel sent the elevators slamming to the lobby, spewing the equivalent of burning napalm into the crowds. We are not talking about damage wrought solely to the areas struck by the plane here; it was all over the place.

and there was NO jet fuel involved at building 7 at all..there were THEORIES on how mauch diesel fuel may or may not have been present in Building seven.

Which is probably why it took so much longer for WTC 7 to collapse. It was still on fire, it still suffered massive structural damage, and it still had awkward design problems. It just never got hit with a plane of its own.

You refer to "Massive amounts of falling debris" where may I ask have you come to this conclusion? there were NO REPORTS to corroborate your theory

The NIST reported as much; the building was heavily damaged by debris to an extent far greater than FEMA had initially reported.

apparently your also Unaware that the world trade centers were in FACT designed to withstand Impacts from commercial airliners much in the manner that they did.

They did withstand the impact. You don't actually think the towers fell immediately, did you?

It's worth noting a few things about the initial calculations, which were made when the towers were first erected in the 1960's. First, the calculations were made assuming the tower would be hit with a 707, not a 757. Second, they were made on the assumption that the plane would flying at a low speed with only landing fuel, because it was assumed that a plane would only hit the tower if it became lost in the fog while trying to land, as had happened before with the bomber that hit the Empire State Building in the mid-1940's. They never anticipated that a much larger plane with much more fuel would be crashed deliberately at high speeds into the tower. And Leslie Robertson, the guy who designed the WTCs, is on record saying that those calculations did not take into account the damage wrought by jet fuel-accelerated fires because they did not have the ability to calculate such things at the time.

It is a pretty safe bet that calculations done 40 years ago with inferior technology assuming smaller planes traveling at lower speeds with less fuel and which did not take into account anything beyond the initial impact, is of no use in determining what happened on 9/11. The consensus is that the impact on 9/11 was five to seven times greater than the worst-case-scenario predicted back in the 1960's. And admirably enough each tower stood for an hour or two, anyway.

It has ben widely accepted by engineers associated with the towers that the general concensus was that they could withstand MULTIPLE hits from commercial aircraft and still stood.

So? This doesn't rebut the official story, with which virtually all of the engineering and material sciences community agrees. The towers did withstand the impact of the planes. It wasn't until later that they fell, because they were enduring a multitude of stresses far greater than any the engineers had anticipated.

No steel framed structure in history before 9-11 collapsed due to fire

Duh. No steel-framed structure collapsed on 9/11 due solely to fire. They suffered massive structural damage, as well, as a result of getting hit by planes. We're running in circles here.

there have been several OTHER buildings that have burned HOTTER and far far longer that the towers and they did NOT collapse

Again, they didn't get hit by passenger planes. Fire was not the only force acting on the towers that day.

there were NO LARGE fires for any sustained period of time on that morning......modern building are bult to withstand "Normal "fires you say? wow how naive is that statement? you are kidding of course right? what is considered a "Normal" fire?

One that isn't accelerated by jet fuel sprayed all over the interior of the building.

And yes, there were large fires for quite a sustained period of time. I don't know where you're getting this from. The towers burned long after the jet fuel was exhausted.

videos of firefighters discussing it being brought down......the owner of the building ADMITTING that they brought it down in order to save lives ....

Of WTC 7? No, I'm pretty sure there aren't. They knew beforehand that it was going to collapse because of a telltale bulge in the southwest corner of the building, which is why they moved everyone back -- they knew it was coming down.

Beyond that, I don't think you understand the way controlled demolitions work anyway. You cannot do it quickly, quietly, or without observation.

very good you have watched closely........now watch closer the amazing thing?...right after what you describe you can see the explosions begin and you can clearly see the top portion right itself before vapourizing

I saw no such thing. The closest thing to explosions I when the collapse occurred were pockets of dust and debris in each floor being blasted out through the windows as floors above them pancaked down, but that is merely the physics of displacement at work, not bombs.

the only self explanatory part is the reported time of collapse 5:33 p.m. or close to that .....

but we have a reporter from BBC who claimed the building had already fallen when it was clearly still standing the backround....

They were probably referring to another building and merely got the numbers mixed up. Are you claiming some low-level British reporter is in on the plot now, too?

[SW85]

Continued from above:

they were in charge of all post demolition and removal contracts at the WTC site they just Happened to be in new york the morning of 9-11

If they have a contract there, is that really surprising? Demolitions have to be done quickly, the idea being that you do a controlled demolition now to avoid an unpredictable and potentially dangerous collapse later. It makes sense they are going to have offices in any place where they have contracts to do controlled demolitions.

I have to chuckle to you saying that "they just happened to be in New York" that morning. Businesses are non-corporal entities; they can have offices in multiple places at multiple times. It is possible for a business to exist in New York and Toledo at the same time.

I can't believe you're taking what is, at the very worst case, a mere coincidence (and, as is likely, a simple matter of good business practice) as proof of conspiracy.

they as you mentioned ALSO had the demo and removal contracts at the Murrah Federal Building....a strtling co-incidence eh? the federal government used them becuase they are the BEST

So the company contracted to do work in one place also did work for the same contractors in a different place. This is not even a coincidence, much less a conspiracy. A company contracted to do work is going to do it.

this is all of course based on YOUR THEORY of severe structural damage....which has not at this time determined to be true

Except by experts and professionals, etc. So far as I can tell, the only ones disagreeing are dumpy unemployable thirty-somethings working out of trailers like that unhinged Loose Change fellow.

ahhh i see you have it partially correct the actual truth of the matter is that the building was built on a cantilever system that helped span the substation and loading dock areas it was also supported by beams sunk to the bedrock spaced throughout the docks and substation areas......what you mention is the INTERIOR design of the building ...it was DESIGNED to be able to REMOVE FLOORS and CHANGE its configuration WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE BUILDINGS ENGINEERING

It was not designed to have its interior hollowed out, peppered with debris, and set ablaze for six or seven hours.

NIST's report is fairly clear that extreme damage to one beam could well tear the whole building down. Even if the building is as customizable as you describe, it was likely designed to be taken apart by skilled engineers working careful with proper equipment; it does not mean the building is anymore resistant to being shredded willy-nilly.

all of the paper work for scooter libbys trial and the enron debacle were "STORE" in wtc 7

Wait, are you suggesting WTC 7 was destroyed to erase evidence related to Scooter Libby and Enron?

to galvanize the American public into Unbridled patriotism and un questioning the erosion of ensuing rights......for an excuse to go into the middle east to create even more profit and take us closer to one world government

Profit? How?

What falling debris? Nothing major hit Building 7. No major fire in Building 7. All 3 buildings were in basic freefall....like there was no other floors in each others way. Sounds like deliberate demolition to me.

Again, it suffered extensive damage and burned for close to a third of a day. This is all in the NIST report and is corroborated by eyewitness reports of firefighters on the ground.

Of course it is "like there were no other floors in the way." You can't expect one floor to bear the weight of six -- that's why it's called "pancaking." Each floor collapses beneath the weight of the ones above it and adds to the downward convection of force that collapses the next lowest floor. Derrr.

[n0spam4me]

May I suggest ...
Look at any one of the many pix of the aftermath of the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki and you will see large completely leveled areas where there had been the old style wood structures and scattered about are a few "NEW" type concrete and steel structures that may be totally burned out, but are standing. Given the heat and blast of the ATOMIC BOMB, all of the exclucivly wood structures are gone, but at least the burnt out shells of the "NEW" type steel framed buildings are standing. This to me .. makes a statement and that is that there is something VERY wrong with the "offical" 9/11 report and the explanation of why the WTC buildings "collapsed".

[KeepOurFreedoms]

May I suggest ...
Look at any one of the many pix of the aftermath of the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki and you will see large completely leveled areas where there had been the old style wood structures and scattered about are a few "NEW" type concrete and steel structures that may be totally burned out, but are standing. Given the heat and blast of the ATOMIC BOMB, all of the exclucivly wood structures are gone, but at least the burnt out shells of the "NEW" type steel framed buildings are standing. This to me .. makes a statement and that is that there is something VERY wrong with the "offical" 9/11 report and the explanation of why the WTC buildings "collapsed".

http://www.hiroshima-remembered.com/movies/hiroshimadamage.html

[palerider]

Don't you fin it odd that it is not mentioned in the 9-11 commision report? How did the fires get so hot. Do you know that untill 9-11-01 a steel framed building never collapesed. 8 hours of fire, hell I've burnd my wood stove for 8 weeks, I still own it.
"

How much pressure is your old wood stove under? You do realize that steel under high psi pressure becomes malleable at a much lower temperature than steel under a low psi pressure aren't you? Do you know how much psi pressure the steel beams in the WTC were under? Further. Refer to other steel buildings that have experienced fire. How many of them had airliners flying through their steel structures followed by explosions. Any girders that were broken, or otherwise damaged in the initial impact would have resulted in even more psi pressure upon those that remained intact.

To date, I have not seen a single conspiracy theorist address this issue and unless you add pressure to the heat equation, you don't have a valid equation to work from. Physics is physics and until you can factor that into your conspiracy, you don't have jack.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

How much pressure is your old wood stove under? You do realize that steel under high psi pressure becomes malleable at a much lower temperature than steel under a low psi pressure aren't you? Do you know how much psi pressure the steel beams in the WTC were under? Further. Refer to other steel buildings that have experienced fire. How many of them had airliners flying through their steel structures followed by explosions. Any girders that were broken, or otherwise damaged in the initial impact would have resulted in even more psi pressure upon those that remained intact.

To date, I have not seen a single conspiracy theorist address this issue and unless you add pressure to the heat equation, you don't have a valid equation to work from. Physics is physics and until you can factor that into your conspiracy, you don't have jack.

Madrid's Towering Inferno & The 9/11 Building Collapse Cover-Up

Infowars.com | February 14, 2005

COMMENTARY
A 32-story building burns for more than 24 hours and does not collapse. It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete, despite what we are led to believe, do not typically fall to the ground because of fire, even a protracted fire as witnessed in Madrid. In fact before September 11th, 2001, no building had ever collapsed as a result of fire alone. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing.

[ Click Here for A Video Report from the BBC ]

The media covering this event has been hovering on the edge of its seat, waiting for the building to fall, frequently commenting on the debris falling from the inferno implying that some tumbling sheet rock are an indication of the building's seemingly inevitable downfall. Their headlines reiterate this conclusion: Spanish Skyscraper Fire Subsiding, But Collapse Possible, Fears of collapse as fire ravages huge Madrid office block, Madrid skyscraper collapse feared as inferno rages. Ignoring objectivism, the reports have been clearly skewed to direct the public to belive in the new post-9/11 laws of physics:

"It is clear the structure has been damaged and has suffered high temperatures, and we cannot be certain that a pillar, girder or some other structural element will not collapse," Javier Sanz, fire chief for the Madrid region, told state radio. [read article]

The connection between this event and the collapse of WTC building 7 is impossible to ignore and the media are doing everything in their power to subvert reality and spin this event: All they have to do is remind us its going to collapse over and over again until the next news cycle and the event is forgotten in the back pages of the newspaper. At that point it won't matter if the building actually collapsed or not and the world will keep spinning according to the new post-9/11 laws of physics.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/madrid_towering_inferno.htm

[palerider]

Madrid's Towering Inferno & The 9/11 Building Collapse Cover-Up


I will ask again. How much pressure was on the girders that failed? Temperature has an effect on metal. Temperature plus pressure has an enhanced effect on metal. Pressure can cause metal to fail at much lower temperatures than would be necessary without pressure.

Also, in the madrid fire, the structure remained intact. That is, no part of it was taken out by an airliner crashing through it so no piece had to assume the weight of a piece that had been taken out of the equation.

The bottom line is that if you want to prove that it was something besides the airplanes that took down the buildings, you do it by applied physics. Demonstrate that the heat plus the pressure on the structure plus the additional stress caused by parts of the structure that were taken out by the aircraft were not enough to cause the remaining metal to fail. Do that and you have a case. Fail to do that and you are just another guy walking around in a tin foil hat.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

I will ask again. How much pressure was on the girders that failed? Temperature has an effect on metal. Temperature plus pressure has an enhanced effect on metal. Pressure can cause metal to fail at much lower temperatures than would be necessary without pressure.

Also, in the madrid fire, the structure remained intact. That is, no part of it was taken out by an airliner crashing through it so no piece had to assume the weight of a piece that had been taken out of the equation.

The bottom line is that if you want to prove that it was something besides the airplanes that took down the buildings, you do it by applied physics. Demonstrate that the heat plus the pressure on the structure plus the additional stress caused by parts of the structure that were taken out by the aircraft were not enough to cause the remaining metal to fail. Do that and you have a case. Fail to do that and you are just another guy walking around in a tin foil hat.

The airplane didn't touch the lower part of the building..........why did it fall into its own footprint at freefall speed?


And then there was the Empire State Building that had a plane crash into it......... but it didn't fall into its own footprint............at all.....

http://www.withthecommand.com/2002-Jan/NY-empireplane.html

[palerider]

The airplane didn't touch the lower part of the building..........why did it fall into its own footprint at freefall speed?


And then there was the Empire State Building that had a plane crash into it......... but it didn't fall into its own footprint............at all.....

http://www.withthecommand.com/2002-Jan/NY-empireplane.html

The collapse clearly began at the top. You are dodging. Answer my question. How much pressure was on the metal framework after you account for beams that were destroyed or damaged upon the inital impact. Was, or was not the heat + pressure enough to make the metal malleable? If you can't answer that question with any authority, you are just talking through your tin foil hat.

By the way, have you ever seen a B25? Do you know how big it is compared to the airliner that crashed into the towers. Also note in your article that the damage was confined to one side of the building. The two incidents are not analagous.

[n0spam4me]

However, do check this out
I believe it will answer some of your questions about WTC7

http://www.alexjonesfan.com/richard_gage/

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Enjoy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
the emperor is NAKED!
.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

The collapse clearly began at the top. You are dodging. Answer my question. How much pressure was on the metal framework after you account for beams that were destroyed or damaged upon the inital impact. Was, or was not the heat + pressure enough to make the metal malleable? If you can't answer that question with any authority, you are just talking through your tin foil hat.

By the way, have you ever seen a B25? Do you know how big it is compared to the airliner that crashed into the towers. Also note in your article that the damage was confined to one side of the building. The two incidents are not analagous.

It is really YOU that is dodging. You know there is absolutely no way that 3 buildings could freefall into their own footprint.....especially on the same day within hours of each other. What are you running from?

[USMC the Almighty]

It is really YOU that is dodging.

I've yet to see any of you conspiracy theorists incorporate pressure into your equations. Palerider has been asking you to do this for weeks, what's the problem? Stop dodging.

[palerider]

It is really YOU that is dodging. You know there is absolutely no way that 3 buildings could freefall into their own footprint.....especially on the same day within hours of each other. What are you running from?

Tell me exactly why 3 buildings could not "freefall" (stupid term) into their own footprint within hours. Two of the buildings were identical and suffered nearly identical damage. I would be more surprised if they didn't behave the same. The third building caught fire. The vast majority of buidings that catch fire and continue burning fall in upon themselves. What sort of point are you trying to make?

I am waiting for you to show that the heat + the pressure was not enough to make the metal malleable. When you do that, you have me. Physics is physics. A credible report that shows that there was not enough heat and pressure to cause the metal to fail is all you need. Without it, the glare from your tinfoil hat hurts my eyes.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

I've yet to see any of you conspiracy theorists incorporate pressure into your equations. Palerider has been asking you to do this for weeks, what's the problem? Stop dodging.

I'm a Truth Seeker.........not a conspiracy theorist.

How about you; do you want to know the truth?

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Tell me exactly why 3 buildings could not "freefall" (stupid term) into their own footprint within hours. Two of the buildings were identical and suffered nearly identical damage. I would be more surprised if they didn't behave the same. The third building caught fire. The vast majority of buidings that catch fire and continue burning fall in upon themselves. What sort of point are you trying to make?

I am waiting for you to show that the heat + the pressure was not enough to make the metal malleable. When you do that, you have me. Physics is physics. A credible report that shows that there was not enough heat and pressure to cause the metal to fail is all you need. Without it, the glare from your tinfoil hat hurts my eyes.

Free fall is an excellent term for what happened to the 3 towers. Not enough damage was done to towers 1 & 2 to make them fall.....in any manner. There was no major fire in building 7. The little fire that was there was almost out when it "fell".

I do believe anything I would show you as a credible report, you would deny.

FYI - You can't see any tin foil hats for the sand in your eyes.

[USMC the Almighty]

I'm a Truth Seeker.........not a conspiracy theorist.

So that's what you all are referring to yourselves as these days?

How about you; do you want to know the truth?

I believe I do know the truth.

[palerider]

Free fall is an excellent term for what happened to the 3 towers. Not enough damage was done to towers 1 & 2 to make them fall.....in any manner. There was no major fire in building 7. The little fire that was there was almost out when it "fell".

A passenger airliner flew through the center of the building. By what leap of logic do you determine that there wasn't enough damage done to make them fall?

And the fire was almost out because the available fuel was almost consumed, therefore there was no structure left to support the building.

I do believe anything I would show you as a credible report, you would deny.

I told you what constitutes a credible report. A valid scientific report detailing that the pressure that remained on the supporting beams, plus the heat from the fire and burning aluminum from the fire (buring aluminum greatly enhances a fire's temperature by the way) was not enough to cause the metal to fail. That would constitute a valid report and would be very tough to argue against.

FYI - You can't see any tin foil hats for the sand in your eyes.

I am not the one who believes in fairy tales. I am one who deals in facts. Show me facts or show yourself out the door. If you don't have facts, you don't have anything at all.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

So that's what you all are referring to yourselves as these days?



I believe I do know the truth.

I thought I did too. Keep reading and learning.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

A passenger airliner flew through the center of the building. By what leap of logic do you determine that there wasn't enough damage done to make them fall? You need to study the building structure more.
And the fire was almost out because the available fuel was almost consumed, therefore there was no structure left to support the building. Wrong. The fuel was a fire ball.


I told you what constitutes a credible report. A valid scientific report detailing that the pressure that remained on the supporting beams, plus the heat from the fire and burning aluminum from the fire (buring aluminum greatly enhances a fire's temperature by the way) was not enough to cause the metal to fail. That would constitute a valid report and would be very tough to argue against.



I am not the one who believes in fairy tales. I am one who deals in facts. Show me facts or show yourself out the door. If you don't have facts, you don't have anything at all.
Fairy tales? You really are confused. You don't believe the facts that anyone else shows but you. You are in tunnel vision.

[USMC the Almighty]

He's said that he would be willing to consider your theory if you grounded it in science. He needs to see pressure incorporated into the equation.

[palerider]

Fairy tales? You really are confused. You don't believe the facts that anyone else shows but you. You are in tunnel vision.

I told you what constitutes a valid scientific examination. Unless you can demonstrate that the pressure plus the temperature was not enough to cause the metal to fail, you do not have a case. Without those elements, you are just pusing smoke and mirrors.

It isn't as if I were asking for the moon or something, if there is any validity to your claim it will be found in the physics of heat and pressure.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

I told you what constitutes a valid scientific examination. Unless you can demonstrate that the pressure plus the temperature was not enough to cause the metal to fail, you do not have a case. Without those elements, you are just pusing smoke and mirrors.

It isn't as if I were asking for the moon or something, if there is any validity to your claim it will be found in the physics of heat and pressure.

You have yet to prove that it was hot enough. The fire didn't last long enough for any "real" heat.



How come we can't post pictures here?????

[vyo476]

This is shaping up to be the most circular argument on the forum, and that's saying something.

The only way to really move forward is for someone, anyone, to address this pressure issue.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

This is shaping up to be the most circular argument on the forum, and that's saying something.

The only way to really move forward is for someone, anyone, to address this pressure issue.

What pressure? There was a HUGE gaping hole in each tower.

911 Top 500 Questions
New - Updated
From Nico Haupt
nicohaupt@yahoo.com
http://www.ourDNA.org
5-8-2


911 - THE BASIC QUESTIONS

1. Why didn't jets intercept the airliners since they
had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks?
2. Why did Ashcroft stop flying commercial, citing an
unidentified "threat" in July 2001?
3. Why were there no photos or videos of the Pentagon
plane?
4. Why didn't the Secret Service hustle Dubya out of
the classroom?
5. Where was George H. W. Bush at the time of the
attacks?
6. Why did passengers or crewmembers on three of the
flights all use the term boxcutters?
7. Where are the flight recorders?
8. Why were the FISA warrants discontinued?
9. How did Bush see the first plane crash on live
camera?
10 Why was security meeting scheduled for
9/11cancelled by WTC management on 9/10?
11. How did they come up with the "culprits" so
quickly?
12. How did they find the terrorist's cars at the
airports so quickly?
13. Why did Shrub dissolve the Bin Laden Task Force?
14. Why the strange pattern of debris from Flight 93?
15. Why was no plane seen at the Pentagon?
16. How extensive was the relationship between the
Taliban, the ISI and the CIA?
17. What exactly was the role of Henry Kissinger at
UNOCAL?
18. When was it decided to cancel building a pipeline
from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan?
19. When was the decision made to send the FEMA to New
York?
20. Why did FEMA spokesman Tom Kenney tell Dan Rather
he was in New York on Sept. 10?
21. Why did the FBI in 1996 close the files to
investigate Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington?
22. Why did .Bush stop inquiries into terrorist
connections of the Bin Laden family in early 2001?
23. Who made the decision to have John O'Neill stop
investigating Al-qeada accounts?
24. Who gave the decision to give him a security job
at the World Trade Center?
25. Did John O'Neill meet anyone of the FEMA in the
night of September 10th?
26. What about media reports that hijackers bought
tickets for flights scheduled after Sept. 11?
27. Why did none of the 19 hijackers appeared on the
passenger lists?
28. Why would devout Muslims frequent bars, drink
alcoholic beverages and leave their bibles?
29. Why would the hijackers use credit cards and allow
drivers licenses with photos to be zeroxed?
30. Why did the hijackers force passengers to call
relatives?
31. How did the hijackers change the flight plan
without law enforcement or the military try to stop
them?
32. Which hijacker's passport was found in the WTC
rubble? Who found it and what time?
33. How could the FBI distinguish between "regular"
Muslims and hijacker Muslims on those flights?
34. Why was there not one "innocent" Muslim on board
any of these flights?
35. Did someone go through the passenger lists looking
for Muslim names and label them as hijackers?

MOHAMMED ATTA

36. Did the Florida police provide information that
Atta was searched because of 1)an expired Visa, 2)
driving a car without a license, 3) because of an
incident at Miami Airport?
37. Why did Atta leave his bag at the airport and the
employees didn't put it on board?
38. Who found his bag? How can we be sure it it was
his bag?
39. Why did Atta place a video "how to fly planes", a
uniform and his last will into his bag, knowing that
he would commit suicide?
40. Why did Atta leave his drivers license in a rental
car?
41. When did Atta train on a flight simulator?
42. Did Atta leave the US while in training and then
return?
43. Why did Atta decide to study at Opa Locka, a
famous hub of 6 Navy training bases and includes
government partners like U.S. Coast Guard Air Station,
Police (Miami-Dade) Aviation Unit?
44. Why was Atta allowed to study since he was stopped
by the police for driving without a license and also
for violating his visa?

THE BLACK BOXES AND CRASH VIDEO

45. Why were the Black Boxes never recovered ?
46. Why didn't the FBI release the air traffic
controller's protocols?
47. Why did the FBI not release the Flight Data
Recorder info?
48. Who video-recorded the first plane hitting the
tower? Why did he disappear from the media?

THE HIJACKERS

49. How did the FBI receive a tip from a passenger who
boarded a different plane and reached his destination
safely that he had a confrontation with two ME men at
the Logan airport in Boston?
50. Who tipped the FBI to storm the Westin Hotel in
Boston on September 12th?
51. Where did the photos of all 19 hijackers come
from?
52. How were all hijackers identified just 2 days
after the attack?
53. Why did all 19 names not appear on the passenger
list 2 days after the hijacker list was released?
54. Why do none of the names appear on the passenger
lists UA and AA gave to CNN?
55. How could the hijackers disable the defense
systems?
56. Why did the FBI ignore Bin Laden's family, who
left the United States without further investigation
57. What about the supposed hijackers who are still
alive?
58. Was there a reason to change the list of the
original 19 hijackers?
59. What happened to Ayub Ali Khan and Mohammed Jaweed
Azmath, who have been in jail since
September 2001, because of possession of box cutters
on a train?Who gave the tip to arrest them?
60. Why did it take 4 months before Ramsi Binalschibhs
name was mentioned, since he was a good friend of
Mohammad Atta and lived in his apartment in Hamburg?
61. Why did it take 4 months until December 11 to
charge Zacarias Moussaoui for the 9/11 attacks when
his case was known worldwide for months, but not
mentioned in the American media?
62. Whatever happened with Lotfi Raissi, who was
arrested in UK for teaching the terrorist pilots?
63. What is the current status of the investigation of
Mamoun Darkazanli Import-Export-Company in Hamburg and
Al Taqwa Management Organisation in Lugano?
64. Why was Richard Reid able to enter the Paris
airport twice and who paid for his hotel?
65. Who hired Zacarias Masspoui to learn how to fly
passenger jets in the United States?
66. Why did the FBI or CIA fail to interrogate him
between August and December 2001?

BIN LADEN

67. Did the CIA monitor Bin Laden in 1998 with the
help of 15 Afghan agents, paid $1,000/ month?
68. Where are these agents? Was Johnny "Mike" Spann
one? Was John Walker Lindh one?
69. Is an Afghan agent a member of the ISI? Is an
Afghan agent working for Bin Laden?
70. When was the first time Tenet mentioned the
Al-Quaeda group to any member of the Senate?
71. Why did the Pentagon release a new video version
or translation of the Bin Laden Home video?
72. Why it was released only 8 hours after translation
by the German magazine MONITOR on December ?
73. Why were the four translators prior US-Government
workers?
74. When was the Bin Laden Home Video found and who
found it?
75. Who found the video if Northern Alliance and US
troops had not yet arrived in Kandahar or Jahalabad?
76. Does the timestamp on the Bin Laden video indicate
that it was found two weeks after it was produced?
77. Why was the public not informed who found the
video and when?
78. Why according to MONITOR magazine, were the most
controversial statements translated incorrectly?
79. Why was the video released?
80. Who gave the final decision to release it?
81. Why is the Bin Laden video of June 2001 in which
he praised the attack, available on the Internet?
82. What about Bin Laden's statements on Al-Jazeera in
June 2001 about the bombing of USS Cole, which are
similar to the statements on the November 2001 home
video?
83. Why did Bin Laden state in Umman Magazine in Sept.
2001, that he was not involved in the WTC?
84. Is Bin Laden still on the payroll of the CIA or
ISI?
85. Did the Bin Laden Group Inc. help build ToraBora
with the CIA?
86. What was the purpose of the meeting with General
Pervez Musharraf in May 2001?
87. Why was a statement released that Al-Khalifa bin
Laden, who is not the mother of Bin Laden, had a
telephone call with Bin Laden on September 9, rather
than Alia Ghanem, his mother? Why did Alia Ghanem say
she did not believe he planned the attack? ...........................


http://www.rense.com/general24/t500.htm

[palerider]

Maybe you don't understand the concept of pressure. If I take a piece of steel girder like the support columns in the towers and stand it up and build a fire of equal heat and duration around it, it may or may not distort. We know that the fire from fuel and the building and office materials as a result of the crash were not sufficient to cause the steel to fail. I have not seen any of the consipiracies deal with the fact that burning aluminum greatly increases the temprature of any fire, but that is for later.

OK. I have this piece of steel girder standing up and know that the heat I can produce isn't going to cause it to fail. BUT. What if I put a load on it. If I put my girder between a concrete foundation and a hydraulic press and simulate the weight of the upper floors that it was designed to support and add additional weight that it must bear because its fellow supports were destroyed in the crash, it is going to take less heat and a shorter duration to fatigue the metal and cause it to fail.

Demonstrate to me that the heat and the nominal load on the beams plus the additional load placed on them by the failure of other supports taken out due to the crash were not enough to cause the remaining beams to fail and you have an argument. In your search for this data, be sure that the fact of burning aluminum is also factored in.

Aluminum ignites fairly easily and we have seen it burn freely in other airline crashes. Aluminum, once ignited burns at a temperature of over 5000 degrees. That is about 2/3 the temperature of the surface of the sun while steel begins to deform at temperatures of less than 1500 degrees.

Prove to me that there was not enough heat and pressure to cause the beams to fail.

[dahermit]

...Aluminum ignites fairly easily and we have seen it burn freely in other airline crashes. Aluminum, once ignited burns at a temperature of over 5000 degrees. That is about 2/3 the temperature of the surface of the sun while steel begins to deform at temperatures of less than 1500 degrees.I think that you have confused Magnesium with Aluminum. They are similar in appearance, both very light weight. But, Magnesium burns with an intense bright light, whereas Aluminum just melts. Powdered Magnesium is used in "Thermite" bombs and "flash powder." Did you misspeak?

[political mutt]

It will always be a circular argument with palerider.
He of course on the outward appearance, claims to be the master of all information. He SEEMS, to know everything about everything. He is just very, very clever, at using words that confuse most laymen. That is how he gains his percieved edge at all times. just as here, where he is demanding physics, and highly complicated mathematical equation, from average every day citizens, who post on the internet


This is a safe tact on his part, as 98% of the people here would largely be unable to provide the data he keeps screaming about. Never mind the fact that Even the NIST, and FEMA, dont have those equations, and data he seeks either.....he skims right over that part of it all

I am asking you Mr palerider................how many years do you have working with Air Frames? and How many years working with Powerplants? And aviation jet fuel? Its obvious by your responses, that you have either little, or absolutely NO experience, in these areas. Your expertise lies in the written word,there is absolutely NO-WAY that an aluminum and aluminum substrate airframe was able to "Slice" through the center of the wtc towers PERIOD

If these airframes cannot withstand 150 mph winds and a stand of pine trees without shredding into pieces of aluminum cladding and hundreds of feet of wire and hoses

there is NO physical possibility that they would have sliced through the central support columns of the WTC. you obviously do not understand the importance of the Central parts of these buildings ....you do however understand how to write in circles as has been pointed out this is generally how ALL of you dealings with people here end up

the insults will start soon they always do

this is why ALL conversations will end this way with the palerider it is what he does best talk people in circles by talking above them I would surely like to see your documented proof in which airframes burned freely as you suggest.......you may have experienced some melting but not any fire

seems to me you have skimmed the defenition of thermite and confused its properties with aluminum and aluminum substrates at one time for about 2 years after 9-11 you could go to boeings site and see just what the plane was constructed of and how it was constructed those documents no longer exist

Dahermit is correct Magnesium will burn easily and USED to be used in sub frame assemblies in aircraft due to the rigidty of the material th highly flammable nature was what caused them to remove magnesium from all commercial airframes it is only found now in military aircraft

[palerider]

I think that you have confused Magnesium with Aluminum. They are similar in appearance, both very light weight. But, Magnesium burns with an intense bright light, whereas Aluminum just melts. Powdered Magnesium is used in "Thermite" bombs and "flash powder." Did you misspeak?

No. If I had ment to say magnesium, I would have said magnesium and noted a temperature of about 2900 degrees. Aluminum burns quite easily at the temperatures associated with airline crashes. Ample evidence of this has been seen in previous crashes.

[palerider]

I am asking you Mr palerider................how many years do you have working with Air Frames? and How many years working with Powerplants? And aviation jet fuel?

None. Although I do posess two degrees in the hard sciences and know what I am talking about.


"there is absolutely NO-WAY that an aluminum and aluminum substrate airframe was able to "Slice" through the center of the wtc towers PERIOD"

"there is NO physical possibility that they would have sliced through the central support columns of the WTC."

No way huh? Unlike you, when I don't know a thing, I refer to people whose job it is to know that thing rather than simply make it up as I go. that is the difference between an educated person and a blowhard. In this case, I refer to the engineering department at Purdue University. As you watch this video, pay special attention to the support beams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

[dahermit]

Originally Posted by dahermit
I think that you have confused Magnesium with Aluminum. They are similar in appearance, both very light weight. But, Magnesium burns with an intense bright light, whereas Aluminum just melts. Powdered Magnesium is used in "Thermite" bombs and "flash powder." Did you misspeak?
No. If I had ment to say magnesium, I would have said magnesium and noted a temperature of about 2900 degrees. Aluminum burns quite easily at the temperatures associated with airline crashes. Ample evidence of this has been seen in previous crashes.Having melted Aluminum with a cutting torch, I am still inclined to think that Aluminum does not burn. Would you please provide a citation that indicates that Aluminum does indeed burn?

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Maybe you don't understand the concept of pressure. If I take a piece of steel girder like the support columns in the towers and stand it up and build a fire of equal heat and duration around it, it may or may not distort. We know that the fire from fuel and the building and office materials as a result of the crash were not sufficient to cause the steel to fail. I have not seen any of the consipiracies deal with the fact that burning aluminum greatly increases the temprature of any fire, but that is for later.

OK. I have this piece of steel girder standing up and know that the heat I can produce isn't going to cause it to fail. BUT. What if I put a load on it. If I put my girder between a concrete foundation and a hydraulic press and simulate the weight of the upper floors that it was designed to support and add additional weight that it must bear because its fellow supports were destroyed in the crash, it is going to take less heat and a shorter duration to fatigue the metal and cause it to fail.

Demonstrate to me that the heat and the nominal load on the beams plus the additional load placed on them by the failure of other supports taken out due to the crash were not enough to cause the remaining beams to fail and you have an argument. In your search for this data, be sure that the fact of burning aluminum is also factored in.

Aluminum ignites fairly easily and we have seen it burn freely in other airline crashes. Aluminum, once ignited burns at a temperature of over 5000 degrees. That is about 2/3 the temperature of the surface of the sun while steel begins to deform at temperatures of less than 1500 degrees.

Prove to me that there was not enough heat and pressure to cause the beams to fail.

You prove that there was enough heat. I don't believe there was. Nor do I believe that the planes cut through all the support columns.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

None. Although I do posess two degrees in the hard sciences and know what I am talking about.



No way huh? Unlike you, when I don't know a thing, I refer to people whose job it is to know that thing rather than simply make it up as I go. that is the difference between an educated person and a blowhard. In this case, I refer to the engineering department at Purdue University. As you watch this video, pay special attention to the support beams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

Hello....................that isn't real...........it is a cartoon.

[palerider]

Having melted Aluminum with a cutting torch, I am still inclined to think that Aluminum does not burn. Would you please provide a citation that indicates that Aluminum does indeed burn?

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16246270

Note: Due to the amount of liquid oxygen (LOX) carried on the airliner, the immediate area around the crash would be considered an oxygen rich environment.

http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=japaperimportPre97&gID=23902

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713728655~db=all

http://www.springerlink.com/content/y26263167271p937/

[palerider]

You prove that there was enough heat. I don't believe there was. Nor do I believe that the planes cut through all the support columns.

It makes little difference what you believe. Facts are facts. Go argue with the engineering department at purdue. Of course, they aren't the only ones who have reached the same result.

Aluminum burns more than 2000 degress hotter than the heat necessary to cause the failure of steel under pressure. Add liquid oxygen to the mixture and only a dolt would suggest that there wasn't enough heat to cause the steel to fail.

[palerider]

Hello....................that isn't real...........it is a cartoon.

Jack Herer is a cartoon. Scientific simulations constitute valid science these days. Sorry you missed that.

[dahermit]

Yes, inasmuch as there could have been an oxygen rich environment at the World Trade Center, under that condition, Aluminum would indeed burn as does steel (cutting torch). You are correct in that context.

FYI to those who say the fire at the WTC could not have caused the building to collapse because it would not have been hot enough to melt steel (2700 deg. F), some types of steel due to high carbon content have the property of "hot shortness" which means that the steel will actually crumble when hot. Even if the structural steel was not of the high carbon type, it becomes soft long before it reaches its melting temperature.

[jb_1430]

Not to mention that steel loses half its strength at 1000F.

[Abraxis Axis]

None.
I know what I am talking about.

Fairly well sums this end of things up dosent it?.....................NONE says it ALL I am also telling you as has politico mutt has theres NO way an airframe was able to penetrate the core structure of the towers.......
I AM CURRENTLY in the aviation field



No way huh? Unlike you, when I don't know a thing, I refer to people whose job it is to know that thing rather than simply make it up as I go. that is the difference between an educated person and a blowhard. In this case, I refer to the engineering department at Purdue University. As you watch this video, pay special attention to the support beams.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

OHHHHH you mean you like to provide us with Computer simulations, or "cartoons", as one poster put it,as your theory of some kind of proof to the contrary of what Politico mutt had posted? Interesting cartoon there pale rider, the un-fortunate thing is that it is a total misrepresentation of the core building structure???


Politico illustrated a scenario for you, that was from his "REAL LIFE" experience? Not some simulated computer cartoon. He tells a story of "PINE TREES", shredding aircraft like a cheese grater? And yet you proclaim somehow that the airframe defied the laws of logic, and physics, and plowed through the building, slicing the support columns as it went? Thats plain Bull%hit!!....It wouldn't happen that way, EVER period! I don't give a damn, what your comp gen, simulations shows..... Its a wildly INACCURATE depiction of the columns in the building.

http://algoxy.com/conc/core.html

http://www.european911citizensjury.com/WTC%20-%20construction%20-%20good%20picture.jpg

http://algoxy.com/conc/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg

I also looked at a few of your links about the aluminum thing? The first a link about aluminum "WRAPPING" papers, and aluminum food containers ......nothing about structural aluminum from aircraft burning?

Second link? you have to buy a book to find about aluminum, and its burn characteristics

Obviously, after those 2 lame attempts at answering the questions. I didn't even bother, to see what drivel may have been contained in the other "links"!

[Abraxis Axis]

Jack Herer is a cartoon. Scientific simulations constitute valid science these days. Sorry you missed that.

did you collect your money yet?
F%ck NO you didnt cuz your a loser

[mustardayonnaise]

Even if the plane did slice through the core of the building, why did it fall down like a stack of pancakes and in so many small pieces? Surely the uneven initial pressure from the collapse would have made it fall to one side? Are we really to believe that steel beams running all the way up the centre of the building somehow fell in a sort of concertina-like manner? Exactly on top of themselves like a car aerial?

[palerider]

Yes, inasmuch as there could have been an oxygen rich environment at the World Trade Center, under that condition, Aluminum would indeed burn as does steel (cutting torch). You are correct in that context.

FYI to those who say the fire at the WTC could not have caused the building to collapse because it would not have been hot enough to melt steel (2700 deg. F), some types of steel due to high carbon content have the property of "hot shortness" which means that the steel will actually crumble when hot. Even if the structural steel was not of the high carbon type, it becomes soft long before it reaches its melting temperature.


Thank you. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

[palerider]

did you collect your money yet?
F%ck NO you didnt cuz your a loser

Like I said. Jack is a cartoon. Anyone who seriously references mad magazine in what he presents as a scholarly book simply couldn't be trusted to pay up on a challenge.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Jack Herer is a cartoon. Scientific simulations constitute valid science these days. Sorry you missed that.

Sorry, can't buy into that one. Still waiting for real proof.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

It makes little difference what you believe. Facts are facts. Go argue with the engineering department at purdue. Of course, they aren't the only ones who have reached the same result.

Aluminum burns more than 2000 degress hotter than the heat necessary to cause the failure of steel under pressure. Add liquid oxygen to the mixture and only a dolt would suggest that there wasn't enough heat to cause the steel to fail.

"Because of the widespread use of aluminium alloys in building,
transport, home appliances and offshore structures, it is necessary to
address the issue of aluminium and fire and to answer the question,
'does aluminium burn?'.


The answer is, of course, "No". Each year hundreds of thousands of
tonnes of aluminium scrap are fed into remelt furnaces and heated up
to and beyond the melting point. The aluminium melts when the
temperature exceeds the melting point, it does not burn. If it did,
the recycling of aluminium would not be possible. "

[jb_1430]

Even if the plane did slice through the core of the building, why did it fall down like a stack of pancakes and in so many small pieces? Surely the uneven initial pressure from the collapse would have made it fall to one side? Are we really to believe that steel beams running all the way up the centre of the building somehow fell in a sort of concertina-like manner? Exactly on top of themselves like a car aerial?

Gravity pulls in one direction, straight down. What would be hard to believe is that they fall in any direction other than straight down.
And the top did fall to one side. And then the overwhelming force of gravity almost immediately overcame any forces of deflection to one side.

[DeDampkring]

Like I said. Jack is a cartoon. Anyone who seriously references mad magazine in what he presents as a scholarly book simply couldn't be trusted to pay up on a challenge.

Funny that His Book has sold so, so many copies! And that NO One, has been able to prove any of his book wrong yet. apparently including yourself?
The Emperor Wears No Clothes "is the defenitive book on Marijuana and Hemp prohibition in the United States. Ive read your drivel on this subject. ive never met someone less educated in this area besides you?

[dahermit]

Thank you. You are a gentleman and a scholar.
No one who knows me would ever describe me as such.;)

[mustardayonnaise]

Gravity pulls in one direction, straight down. What would be hard to believe is that they fall in any direction other than straight down.
And the top did fall to one side. And then the overwhelming force of gravity almost immediately overcame any forces of deflection to one side.

err...gravity pulls things to the ground. It doesn't correct the angle of falling objects. Your post makes no sense.


Added: So if the top did fall to one side, the only way it could have fallen back in would be to remove the support from the other side before it was impacted.

[palerider]

"
it does not burn. If it did, the recycling of aluminium would not be possible. "


Was this article too difficult for you to understand? There is a lot of technical language there and you really couldn't be faulted if you didn't understand it all, but my grandson could work out the title.

"Reaction of molten/burning aluminum with liquid oxygen"

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16246270

The work was from American Society for Testing and Materials.

The second link was titled:

"Dynamics of aluminum combustion"

Do you know what combustion means? It is the act or process of burning.

The third link was to an article titled:

"TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS OF ALUMINUM PARTICLES BURNING IN CARBON DIOXIDE "

The fourth was to an article titled:

"Correlating Aluminum Burning Times "

It was written in the Journal of Combustion, Explosion, and Shock waves. These are not Wiki articles, they are bonified scholarly articles. What exactly is wrong with you that you would continue to argue that aluminum doesn't burn in the face of such evidence?

[palerider]

No one who knows me would ever describe me as such.;)

Sorry. I was temporarily overwhelmed with awe at encountering someone who could not only read a scholarly article, but apply it to the issue at hand. I will try to check my jubiliation next time before I respond.:D

[palerider]

Sorry, can't buy into that one. Still waiting for real proof.


It is unfortunate when one gets proof and doesn't even realize it due to personal bias or simple lack of intellectual wattage. Either way, one remains in ignorance.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

It is unfortunate when one gets proof and doesn't even realize it due to personal bias or simple lack of intellectual wattage. Either way, one remains in ignorance.


Good that you can admit your ignorance. You have yet to show proof of anything.

[Rokerijdude11]

Note how he ignores the obvious, and instead chooses to argue miniscule points instead. This is all youll get from the great pale rider . some of you actually see it now the great circle talker palerider.


he has no real argument here . aluminum combustion the second link patsy boy was to a BOOK that could be purchased are you going to buy it for those who wish to read it? no thought not

aluminum oxide and aluminum Dust is used in thermite .....it helps create the reaction along with iron oxide
aluminum aircraft parts, would be hard pressed to set flames to .......this argument he has chosen, directly conflicts with the OT ,that NO thermite was used......thermite is the only way you'd get fire with aluminum as far as i see it......

have fun with the great circle talker......


He is STILL taking "Pot" shots at Jack Herer!!!!

MY what a high level of intellect, and maturity you display eh?

[Coyote]

Good that you can admit your ignorance. You have yet to show proof of anything.

What constitutes real proof?

[Coyote]

I was curious because I thought aluminum burned but I'm a long way from my college intro chemistry courses....but I did find references such as:


http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/oxyreg.html
Most oxygen regulators are made of brass or aluminum. Aluminum and its alloys are more likely to ignite than brass. In standard tests, aluminum can burn vigorously at pressures as low as 25 pounds per square inch (psi), while brass does not burn at pressures below 10,000 psi.

[palerider]

I was curious because I thought aluminum burned but I'm a long way from my college intro chemistry courses....but I did find references such as:


http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/oxyreg.html
Most oxygen regulators are made of brass or aluminum. Aluminum and its alloys are more likely to ignite than brass. In standard tests, aluminum can burn vigorously at pressures as low as 25 pounds per square inch (psi), while brass does not burn at pressures below 10,000 psi.


You aren't so far away that you have forgotten everything you knew. At this point, only a flat earther who reads the likes of jack herer (and believes him) would still deny that aluminum burns.

I am satisfied that there was no conspiracy with regard to the 9/11 attacks and am really not very interested hashing over debunked conspiracy theories. I really just popped in to this thread to push the pretty buttons.

I pushed one and got insult in lieu of actual argument.

I pushed another and got red type AND 8x10 glossy photos with circles and arrows (really just arrows) and a paragraph on the back.....

I pushed another and got a flat earther flatly denying obviously credible scientific evidence in lieu of his personal bias

In short, this is a button rich environment.:D

[Rokerijdude11]

You aren't so far away that you have forgotten everything you knew. At this point, only a flat earther who reads the likes of jack herer (and believes him) would still deny that aluminum burns.

I am satisfied that there was no conspiracy with regard to the 9/11 attacks and am really not very (Capable of)interested hashing over debunked conspiracy theories. I really just popped in to this thread to push the pretty buttons.

I pushed one and got insult in lieu of actual argument.

(SOP for The rider Insultous comment)kettle meet pot

I pushed another and got red type AND 8x10 glossy photos with circles and arrows (really just arrows) and a paragraph on the back.....

(and yet you are incapable of adressing the points)

I pushed another and got a flat earther flatly denying obviously credible scientific evidence in lieu of his personal bias

(where was that?)

In short, this is a button rich environment.:D

Arrogance in its Primest of examples eh? the rider is so smug kiddies

He is STILL taking "Pot" shots at Jack Herer!!!!

MY what a high level of intellect, and maturity you display eh?
__________________

[Rokerijdude11]

funny how he has still chosen to ignore the important parts


pretty much S.O.P. for the rider

[palerider]

funny how he has still chosen to ignore the important parts


pretty much S.O.P. for the rider


There are no important parts in your tin foil hat theories. Aluminum burns and in the presence of liquid oxygen (of which there was a great deal) it burns energetically at 1/3 of the temperature of the sun. Hot enough to cause the supporting beams to fail with 2,000 degrees to spare.

[Rokerijdude11]

he has also YET to display his projected claim of knowing that aluminum has been BURNING FREELY at many airline crashes...........

not a single supportive piece of anything

again SOP for the rider

[Rokerijdude11]

There are no important parts in your tin foil hat theories. Aluminum burns and in the presence of liquid oxygen (of which there was a great deal) it burns energetically at 1/3 of the temperature of the sun. Hot enough to cause the supporting beams to fail with 2,000 degrees to spare.

supportive Proof of a "Great Deal" of liquid oxygyn?
and lets examine the amount of aluminum present shall we? Im very interested in you supportive documentation ......that is if you have any?

yes aluminum also burns well when THERMITE is involved
and of course thats the reality here it isnt aluminum and oxygyn.it was thermate actually a derrivative of thermite which could have used the aluminum to create a firestorm of molten metal

just like the stuff they found a month later buried 12 stories below the rubble......your a slick talker pal ill give ya that im gonna go on a limb here and say you average must be around 85%

thats how many you probably deter with your impressive circular misdirective posting

a worthy adversary to any who see it for what it is

[Rokerijdude11]

As usual the rider claiming that I have provided some sort of "tin foil " hat theory ....i havent projected any theory..............why dont you address the pine trees versus steel column issue? 150 mph winds versus a 500 mph crash?



supportive Proof of a "Great Deal" of liquid oxygyn?
and lets examine the amount of aluminum present shall we? Im very interested in you supportive documentation ......that is if you have any?

yes aluminum also burns well when THERMITE is involved
and of course thats the reality here it isnt aluminum and oxygyn.it was thermate actually a derrivative of thermite which could have used the aluminum to create a firestorm of molten metal

just like the stuff they found a month later buried 12 stories below the rubble......your a slick talker pal ill give ya that im gonna go on a limb here and say you average must be around 85%

thats how many you probably deter with your impressive circular misdirective posting

a worthy adversary to any who see it for what it is

the rider is a hoot

[Coyote]

You aren't so far away that you have forgotten everything you knew. At this point, only a flat earther who reads the likes of jack herer (and believes him) would still deny that aluminum burns.

I am satisfied that there was no conspiracy with regard to the 9/11 attacks and am really not very interested hashing over debunked conspiracy theories. I really just popped in to this thread to push the pretty buttons.

I pushed one and got insult in lieu of actual argument.

I pushed another and got red type AND 8x10 glossy photos with circles and arrows (really just arrows) and a paragraph on the back.....

I pushed another and got a flat earther flatly denying obviously credible scientific evidence in lieu of his personal bias

In short, this is a button rich environment.:D


:D You're a DANGEROUS man with buttons!

[Coyote]

Arrogance in its Primest of examples eh? the rider is so smug kiddies

He is STILL taking "Pot" shots at Jack Herer!!!!

MY what a high level of intellect, and maturity you display eh?
__________________



But this is funny...ya got to admit it's funny:D

[palerider]

:D You're a DANGEROUS man with buttons!

Especially when they are so easily pushed. :cool:

[KeepOurFreedoms]

You aren't so far away that you have forgotten everything you knew. At this point, only a flat earther who reads the likes of jack herer (and believes him) would still deny that aluminum burns.

I am satisfied that there was no conspiracy with regard to the 9/11 attacks and am really not very interested hashing over debunked conspiracy theories. I really just popped in to this thread to push the pretty buttons.

I pushed one and got insult in lieu of actual argument.

I pushed another and got red type AND 8x10 glossy photos with circles and arrows (really just arrows) and a paragraph on the back.....

I pushed another and got a flat earther flatly denying obviously credible scientific evidence in lieu of his personal bias

In short, this is a button rich environment.:D
In other words you totally full of yourself and have nothing useful to say, and we should just ignore you. Got it!!

[Coyote]

In other words you totally full of yourself and have nothing useful to say, and we should just ignore you. Got it!!

You could supply the scientific facts he's asking about...I'm curious...which is truth?

[KeepOurFreedoms]

You could supply the scientific facts he's asking about...I'm curious...which is truth?


I'm still looking for the truth. How about you?

[n0spam4me]

RE: pressure incorporated into the equation....

The buildings had maybe the upper third involved in the aircraft crash & fire, the lower two thirds where as much as untouched by the heat and structural damage caused by the crash. The story is that the upper section of the buildings failed and came down like a hammer blow upon the remaining aprox two thirds of the building and caused it to collapse. I find this VERY difficult to believe. The lower two thirds of the building whould have resisted, (unless of course the "hammer blow" constituted an "irriesistable force" ... )
There is also the "weak link" concept, that is if there had been a sub-standard weld at some point lower down than the cohearant front of destruction seen in all of the videos, said "weak link" would fail and spoil the show. But there was no such "weak link" , and I can not believe that ALL of the welds and joints in both towers and WTC7 where perfect. Can't be done!
I can only conclude, from all of the evidence available, that BOMBS where used to bring down all three buildings, now people can debate if it was "C4" or "mini Hydrogen bombs" ... Thermite/Thermate or whatever, but the sort of damage and the ammount of pulverized concrete, could NOT have been caused by the energy of falling structure and jet-fuel fire.

I think the biggest problem with people not seeing what is here, is the very same thing that had people complementing the Emperor on his fine new robes, (when in fact the Emperor is NAKED!)

sniff,sniff ..... can you smell the burnt Reichstag?
.

[Rokerijdude11]

You could supply the scientific facts he's asking about...I'm curious...which is truth?

why would she? He NEVER supplies what he is asked for this is evident in this thread as well....he has been asked for several things he has yet to provide ANY of them

this tact here asking a normal person such as KOF for complicated scientific formulation is simply a ploy to divert attention. Had Mr Rider had these answers himself he would have Gloated as he posted about them

it leads one to believe if the facts he seeks are even attainable at this time with the information thats Currently availible to the laymen


in short its like asking me to provide you with the facts and associated procedures involved in open heart surgery,including unknown variables.....



hardly a competent tack to be using

do i admit his idiocy is amusing yes i do give it that hes amusing

[Rokerijdude11]

RE: pressure incorporated into the equation....

The buildings had maybe the upper third involved in the aircraft crash & fire, the lower two thirds where as much as untouched by the heat and structural damage caused by the crash. The story is that the upper section of the buildings failed and came down like a hammer blow upon the remaining aprox two thirds of the building and caused it to collapse. I find this VERY difficult to believe. The lower two thirds of the building whould have resisted, (unless of course the "hammer blow" constituted an "irriesistable force" ... )
There is also the "weak link" concept, that is if there had been a sub-standard weld at some point lower down than the cohearant