WTC Steel Beams Found

[Extra Stout]

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/aerial_precollapse1.jpg
Like that?

[Lance]

If all you Bush lovers would let go of his sac for one minute you might want to ask why they only released only a few stills on the Pentagon attack and not the actual video.

Wouldn't that shut you and the 99% of the nation up if they would just do that?
I wonder why they won't ,better yet I wonder what Chug lumper and his blind sheep have to say.

[ChumpDumper]

What makes you think all security cameras take full motion video?

Next you'll be asking for HiDef.

[Lance]

What makes you think all security cameras take full motion video?

Next you'll be asking for HiDef.
That is just ignorant and if you don't see that then your a lost case.

They must take some sort of motion if 15 minutes later the FBI is asking the near by gas station and hotels to give up their footage.

Besides your a narrow minded one sided stubborn fool why am I even talking to you?

[ChumpDumper]

Then must take some sort of motion if 15 minutes later the FBI is asking the near by gas station and hotles to give up thier fotage.Where are all those gas station attendants and hoteliers these days? Where are their websites? Did they say they were watching cruise missle footage? What about the dozens of eyewitness accounts saying it was indeed and American Airlines jet? Were they all in on the conspiracy?

[ChumpDumper]

That is just ignorantWhy is it ignorant? Don't you know how digital security cameras work?

[01Snake]

I know "The Truth" but I'm not telling.

[ChumpDumper]

No shit.

Why don't any of these guys have the balls to say how they think everything really happened?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Where are all those gas station attendants and hoteliers these days? Where are their websites? Did they say they were watching cruise missle footage? What about the dozens of eyewitness accounts saying it was indeed and American Airlines jet? Were they all in on the conspiracy?First of all, why is the quote from lance on your post #265 mispelled from the original? do you actually type this out and not use the quote button? I didn't see an edit on Lance's post #264. Anyway. Just an observation. Now to the point at hand. He mentions the missing video tape from the hotels and gas stations. Do you have an explanation for these not being released or kept under wraps? I really don't care about the workers. Only the tapes.

[ChumpDumper]

First of all, why is the quote from lance on your post #265 mispelled from the original? do you actually type this out and not use the quote button? I didn't see an edit on Lance's post #264. Anyway. Just an observation.If you edit your post within a certain amount of time like a minute, the editing isn't noted in the post.
Now to the point at hand. He mentions the missing video tape from the hotels and gas stations. Do you have an explanation for these not being released or kept under wraps? I really don't care about the workers. Only the tapes.The workers would have to give them the tapes, wouldn't they? And at least one account claims the workers at one place were watching their tape over and over again. Well, did they say they were watching a cruise missle or a plane?

And again -- what do you and all the other missile believers say about all the eyewitness accounts that say it was a passenger jet? An American Airlines passenger jet? A Boeing 757 American Airlines passenger jet?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

And again -- what do you and all the other missile believers say about all the eyewitness accounts that say it was a passenger jet? An American Airlines passenger jet? A Boeing 757 American Airlines passenger jet? I've never said or posted that it was a missle. All I've said and posted was what I've seen shook me. It's pretty much the same way you've drawn your own conclusion. Why is what I've read and seen not trustworthy, but your sources our. I'm not putting up or down your thoughts or mine. I'm just seeing what people think about this topic and why they make fun of people who don't think like them. Unless you were there at the scene you really can't say you're right...........or wrong.

[I am Tom]

Chunk Drinker has to be pulling our legs there is no one that ignorant to come up with 1/2 the shit he posts.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/IMAG0246-small.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/outside-small.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

And please, please explain to me why the conspirators would have to resort to using a multimillion dollar cruise missle they somehow obtained and launched from, what, a submarine? a battle cruiser? a B-52? some other enormous and even more expensive piece of equipment -- when they had gotten three passenger jets for the other jobs -- one that crashed in the middle of nowhere where no one could mistake it for a cruise missile?

[ChumpDumper]

Chunk Drinker has to be pulling our legs there is no one that ignorant to come up with 1/2 the shit he posts.I couldn't help but notice you haven't said what you think really happened and why.

Coward.

[ChumpDumper]

I've never said or posted that it was a missle. All I've said and posted was what I've seen shook me. It's pretty much the same way you've drawn your own conclusion. Why is what I've read and seen not trustworthy, but your sources our. I'm not putting up or down your thoughts or mine. I'm just seeing what people think about this topic and why they make fun of people who don't think like them. Unless you were there at the scene you really can't say you're right...........or wrong.I can listen to the people who were at the scene.

They are right.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

And please, please explain to me why the conspirators would have to resort to using a multimillion dollar cruise missle they somehow obtained and launched from, what, a submarine? a battle cruiser? a B-52? some other enormous and even more expensive piece of equipment -- when they had gotten three passenger jets for the other jobs -- one that crashed in the middle of nowhere where no one could mistake it for a cruise missile?your not reading what I'm posting. I don't know what hit the damn Pentagon. I've never said or posted what I thought hit the Pentagon. Funny you should bring up the one that crashed in the middle of nowhere. There was wreckage at that site and it left a pretty good mark in the ground. Why wasn't this mark on the lawn before it hit like Tim Timmerman it did?

[I am Tom]

I can listen to the people who were at the scene.

They are right.


Then what about the maintenance man who heard many explosions in the basement of the WTC? you seem to cheery pick who you want to use as an eye witness.

[I am Tom]

your not reading what I'm posting. I don't know what hit the damn Pentagon. I've never said or posted what I thought hit the Pentagon. Funny you should bring up the one that crashed in the middle of nowhere. There was wreckage at that site and it left a pretty good mark in the ground. Why wasn't this mark on the lawn before it hit like Tim Timmerman it did?


Dude give it up and do what mouse said just talk to those who actually saw the Movie In plane site Talking to this Chump fool is worthless, he does not read what you post.

[ChumpDumper]

your not reading what I'm posting. I don't know what hit the damn Pentagon. I've never said or posted what I thought hit the Pentagon. Funny you should bring up the one that crashed in the middle of nowhere. There was wreckage at that site and it left a pretty good mark in the ground. Why wasn't this mark on the lawn before it hit like Tim Timmerman it did?Because it didn't explode and didn't stay on the ground. There are varying accounts saying it hit lights, the helipad, a generator or nothing -- most likely depedent on the witnesses point of view. Given the impact point which started at the second floor, it's clear the plane didn't skid all the way into the building. If it hit the ground or the helipad or a generator somewhere, it went up again. Remember most of the accounts say the plane was powering up before the impact.

[ChumpDumper]

Then what about the maintenance man who heard many explosions in the basement of the WTC? you seem to cheery pick who you want to use as an eye witness.There could be explosions almost anywhere in the towers since the the impact of the planes could have spread fuel and flames almost anywhere in the buildings through the central conduits and elevator shafts. The French filmakers who recorded the first plane impact reported flames from the elevator shafts killing people on the ground floor.

[FromWayDowntown]

Mouse must have some sort of commission deal with the producers of In plane site to justify the repeated references to a film that even nbadan admits has been debunked. When your source has been refuted by a noted conspiracy theorist who knows the truth but can't be bothered to disclose it, the only real justification for continuing to pimp that source (other than sheer ignorance) must be some sort of self-interest.

[FromWayDowntown]

There could be explosions almost anywhere in the towers since the the impact of the planes could have spread fuel and flames almost anywhere in the buildings through the central conduits and elevator shafts. The French filmakers who recorded the first plane impact reported flames from the elevator shafts killing people on the ground floor.

Don't bother them with things like plausible sources for transmission of fire and fuels to feed fire-related explosions.

I mean, really -- anyone who's spent as much time studying physics and engineering as our conspiracy-oriented friends knows that fire can't travel down elevator shafts.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Cool. I found In Plane Sight on Demonoid. There's no seeders though. It's showing that it'll complete in 2 days. Oh well.

[ChumpDumper]

It's on google video -- along with the debunking video. There are links to both back in the thread.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Chump, Do you believe the Warren Commission?

[ChumpDumper]

What does that have to do with 9/11?

[ChumpDumper]

I'll say this -- every assassination and attempted assassination of a US president was done by a lone nut.

Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Roosevelt, Ford, Reagan -- why would Kennedy be any different? Because Oliver Stone said so?

[ChumpDumper]

Hey guys, remember when I asked the conspiracy theorists what they thought really happened?

[Spurminator]

There was no John Wilkes Booth. The Lincoln assassination was planned and executed by the Neo-Whigs.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

What does that have to do with 9/11?
Why are you so cowardly that you can't bring yourself say what you think?

I ask you guys a direct question and I get nothing.

You are pathetic.

[mookie2001]

chump youre labeling people who dont believe official the story as conspiracy theorists, are you also saying to have unanswered questions about the actual physics, fire, damage, construction, steel melting temps, and the COLLAPSE of the towers, you must believe in some sort of "theory", it doesnt make much sense. Youre not going to get someone to lay out the entire plot until we get some of the hundreds of questions and coincidences answered and explained. to start at square 1 you have to assume NO theory

[Viva Las Espuelas]

The Lincoln assassination was planned and executed by the Neo-Whigs. Chump. There were witnessess to this

[ChumpDumper]

chump youre labeling people who dont believe official the story as conspiracy theoristsWhat should I label them? Nobody says what they think.
are you also saying to have unanswered questions about the actual physics, fire, damage, construction, steel melting temps, and the COLLAPSE of the towers, you must believe in some sort of "theory", it doesnt make much sense.What do you believe? I believe steel doesn't have to melt to fail and I believe some things in buildings can burn hotter than jet fuel.
Youre not going to get someone to lay out the entire plot until we get some of the hundreds of questions and coincidences answered and explained.I don't get that. Half-baked opinions are the lifeblood of SpursTalk. If you don't believe the official story, whatever evidence you think you have must point somewhere else. I want to know where that somewhere is.

[ChumpDumper]

Chump. There were witnessess to thisVIVA. I didn't write that.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

VIVA. I didn't write that.
Where are all those gas station attendants and hoteliers these days? Where are their websites? Did they say they were watching cruise missle footage? What about the dozens of eyewitness accounts saying it was indeed and American Airlines jet? Were they all in on the conspiracy?

[ChumpDumper]

Why were you quoting Spurminator?

Do you know when to use quotes?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Why were you quoting Spurminator?
It was you I was quoting. #265.

[ChumpDumper]

No, you quoted Spurminator and addressed me as if I wrote what he said. Do you want a link to six posts ago?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

No, you quoted Spurminator and addressed me as if I wrote what he said. Do you want a link to six posts ago?look at post #265

[ChumpDumper]

Look at post #292.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Look at post #292.That is what i'm leading up to. Are you going to answer me on the Warren Commission?

[ChumpDumper]

Already did. Sure the investigation was a cluster fuck, but no one can even give me much of a reason to believe a conspiracy in that case either.

[01Snake]

Look at post #292.

Its a God Damn conspiracy!

[ChumpDumper]

Its a God Damn conspiracy!I'll say, all these guys will say anything and everything except what they believe. I don't get it.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Already did. Sure the investigation was a cluster fuck, but no one can even give me much of a reason to believe a conspiracy in that case either.So that's a no?

[ChumpDumper]

So that's a no?What's the question?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

What's the question?i give up with you. you're making my 'roids flare up. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smibang.gif

[01Snake]

What's the question?

Who's on first?

[ChumpDumper]

:lol If you couldn't tell, I believe the basic conclusions of the Warren Commision, though it was as much of a hack job as all the previous handling of the Kennedy assassination was.

Your turn. What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[01Snake]

http://ifaab.tripod.com/images/Animations/cat_chases_tail.gif

[1369]

Back and to the left
Back and to the left
Back and to the left
Back and to the left

[01Snake]

Back and to the left
Back and to the left
Back and to the left
Back and to the left

BAHAHAHA

So there was a second Spitter??

[Viva Las Espuelas]

http://media.funlol.com/content/img/0363.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Why do you refuse to say what you think?

What the hell is wrong with you people?

[Dan Rather]

Cool. I found In Plane Sight on Demonoid. There's no seeders though. It's showing that it'll complete in 2 days. Oh well.

BitLord and eMule have many seeders.

[ChumpDumper]

WTF? You can download it from Google Video and watch it on their player in five minutes.

[Party Girl]

This Chump Dumper guy has talent he really knows how to push buttons.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

BitLord and eMule have many seeders.Those are Bit Torrent Clients. Where are the torrents?

[=RTM=]

Quote:


Originally Posted by VIVA_LAS_ESPUELAS



Cool. I found In Plane Sight on Demonoid. There's no seeders though. It's showing that it'll complete in 2 days. Oh well.

That is not that slow, I waited 5 days to see Blood Diamond

Let me know when you see the movie I have a few questions about it. Your going to like the film they seem to be very open minded and they don't try to bash anyone or talk about things that are not true in some sort of way.

[=RTM=]

Those are Bit Torrent Clients. Where are the torrents?

You want the links?

Chump has a point about you can just watch them with Google

http://video.google.com/videosearch?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&q=In%20plane%20sight&btnG=Google+Search&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv

[=RTM=]

WTF? You can download it from Google Video and watch it on their player in five minutes.


That shit does not take 5 minutes and if your PC was that fast? you would be working for NORAD.

[dirk4mvp.]

WTF? You can download it from Google Video and watch it on their player in five minutes.


Then why have you not seen the film yet?

[Phenomanul]

Though there are many serious questions and mysteries yet to be answered on the tragic events of September 11, 2001.... there are also many 9/11 conspiracy arguments which have been shreddred to bits... and by actual experts (Civil engineers, Mechanical engineers, Fire Chiefs, Physicists, Metallurgical gurus, Architects, etc...).

I don't understand why many of the conspiracy theorists continue to use those flawed arguments and then expect serious responses in return. In fact, many of the conspiracy arguments that initially surfaced were rash conclusions based on analyses of limited evidence, or from contextual opinions relayed from 'eye-witness' accounts - some more credible than others. They were hardly thought out, or 'irrefutable'... so even when it appears that much thought went into the formulation of an argument... key engineering principles are ignored (blatantly or ignorantly - you decide). The continued use of those arguments therefore deflates their movement and detracts our attention away from the more important issues at hand.

[ChumpDumper]

That shit does not take 5 minutes and if your PC was that fast? you would be working for NORAD.Ten, and I've got cheap ass DSL.
Then why have you not seen the film yet?I saw it, then saw the video I linked that blew it out of the water in thirty seconds and read a couple of more sites that finished it off.

Done and done.

So, what do you think happened?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Though there are many serious questions and mysteries yet to be answered on the tragic events of September 11, 2001.... there are also many 9/11 conspiracy arguments which have been shreddred to bits... and by actual experts (Civil engineers, Mechanical engineers, Fire Chiefs, Physicists, Metallurgical gurus, Architects, etc...).

I don't understand why many of the conspiracy theorists continue to use those flawed arguments and then expect serious responses in return. In fact, many of the conspiracy arguments that initially surfaced were rash conclusions based on analyses of limited evidence, or from contextual opinions relayed from 'eye-witness' accounts - some more credible than others. They were hardly thought out, or 'irrefutable'... so even when it appears that much thought went into the formulation of an argument... key engineering principles are ignored (blatantly or ignorantly - you decide). The continued use of those arguments therefore deflates their movement and detracts our attention away from the more important issues at hand.



So lets just ask the original hegamboa: Do you think building seven collapsed the way the government told us it collapsed, or do you think otherwise?

[Nbadan]

9/11 Truth: What Happened to WTC Building 7 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=0DoibU5njEM)

[Nbadan]

The Science of WTC 7 Collapse (http://youtube.com/watch?v=zh5V1i-1NQ0)

[ChumpDumper]

Why would anyone give a shit about the other buildings surrounding WTC7 and therefore desire to control the collapse so carefully? Why haven't any of the firemen who "knew" the building was going to be imploded come forward since then? Furthermore, all anyone would have to do is damage it so it would be condemned to get the insurance money -- the debris and the fires took care of that.

And from where did Silverstien launch his cruise missile at the Pentagon? His yacht?

[PixelPusher]

The Science of WTC 7 Collapse (http://youtube.com/watch?v=zh5V1i-1NQ0)

Once again, the next 9/11 conspiracy theorist I meet who has a degree in structural engineering will be the first.

[ChumpDumper]

Gee, I wonder why no one in the M$M got the story from the firemen there.

Oh wait -- they did.


I just remember that's when I started seeing
all the guys coming in from home, all the guys from the
company and we actually -- everybody from this house, we
stuck together and we actually from there, a little
bit of time, maybe an hour or so, they actually started
telling us to go here, go there. They moved us from one spot,
they moved us on to Vesey again. Because then they were
worried about -- we actually searched the Verizon building,
because there was reports of fires in there. Basically our
whole house searched that building.

They told us to get out of there because they were
worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it,
coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon
building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom
corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over
to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up.
Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was
tremendous, tremendous fires going on.

Finally they pulled us out. They said all right,
get out of that building because that 7, they were really
worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they
regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and
West Street. They put everybody back in there.

Finally it did come down. From there - this is much
later on in the day, because every day we were
so worried about that building we didn't really want to
get people close. They were trying to limit the amount
of people that were in there. Finally it did come down.
That's when they let the guys go in. I just remember we
started searching around all the rigs.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt

Wait, there's more!
The most important operational decision to be made that
afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade
Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey
between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very
heavy fire on many floors and I [not Silverstien????] ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we
had to give up some rescue operations that were going on
at the time and back the people away far enough so that if
7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more
people.

We continued to operate on what we could from
that distance and approximately an hour and a half after
that order was giver., at 5:30 in the afternoon, World
Trade Center collapsed completely
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt

Not done yet!
Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Ryan_William.txt

Had enough? I knew you didn't.
A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

Funny how none of them mentions the building was going to be brought down by explosives.

[Nbadan]

You want firemen who witnessed explosions before the collapse?

What Happened To Building 7? Part 2 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=ADugN3k8QCk)

The whole video is interesting, but go to 5.35 for firemen and secondary explosions

[ChumpDumper]

Gee, high rise buildings on fire for hours, that have electrical transformers and diesel backup generators in them -- Nothing could possibly explode in there, could it?

[ChumpDumper]

Thank God you got a Theology professor as an expert on building demolition.

[Nbadan]

I won't even go into the mathematical improbability of 3 building collapsing a near free fall speed. Believe what you want, but there is a greater probability of Dubya's surge working in Iraq than the manner in which these building collapsed happening without a demolition, even if they did sustain enough structural damage.

[sabar]

How are all the armchair scientists doing today?
Still pretending that you can apply "common sense" to structural engineering to create elaborate conspiracy theories eh?

Where's the Bad Astronomy (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html) version of 9/11? You know, written by someone that actually knows what they are talking about?

I could stand in front of a video camera and pretend I know what I'm talking about too. I could go to google.com and type in "melting point of steel" then type "structural fire burning temperature" and bam, instant conspiracy theory. Of course I know structural engineering is much much more complex and involves heavy physics and high end calculus to actually determine these things.

But of course, being logical makes too much sense now a days.

[ChumpDumper]

Ok, Dan. You obviously believe all three buildings were brought down by controlled explosions after being hit by jets and burning anywhere from one to seven hours. At least one building was brought down with advance warning and full cooperation of the New York Fire Department and Police Departments, since they got all their men out of the way before the third building fell but not the first two when a few hundred died just to make it look real.

All for a fat insurance settlement for a guy who still pays $10 million a month rent for a hole in the ground. How will he buy more cruise missiles to lob at the Pentagon from his submarine?

Is this what you really believe?

[sabar]

No one is going to hear the impossible logistics of the whole thing. The amount of people you would have to keep quiet so this whole thing doesn't get uncovered is massive.

What happened to the people that saw the plane fly into the pentagon? The FBI dragged them off and killed them and their families? Where did this cruise missile come from? The government played off a pilot, and covered up an entire attack mission that would involve 20-30 people? Or did they all die too? The people in the administration? I know there's party loyalty, but the turnover rate is rather high for many positions in bureacracy. Are they all dead too? The government shut them all up? What about the sheer logistics of rigging up 3 buildings with explosives with not a single person finding out? What about when K-9 units come through checking for explosives every once in a while? Or did this all get rigged up overnight? With no one noticing? The explosives had to come from somewhere -- where are the financial records from the company this stuff from obtained from?

Sorry, this whole this is so unbelievable. There's a reason that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

[Nbadan]

Ok, Dan. You obviously believe all three buildings were brought down by controlled explosions after being hit by jets and burning anywhere from one to seven hours. At least one building was brought down with advance warning and full cooperation of the New York Fire Department and Police Departments, since they got all their men out of the way before the third building fell but not the first two when a few hundred died just to make it look real.

All for a fat insurance settlement for a guy who still pays $10 million a month rent for a hole in the ground. How will he buy more cruise missiles to lob at the Pentagon from his submarine?

Is this what you really believe?

Well, I believe science, and in this case science dictates that the probability of those three buildings falling the way they did without some help is very, very low. Could it have happened? sure, but I wouldn't put any money on it.

[ChumpDumper]

What do you put your money on, Dan?

What do you think really happpened?

[Nbadan]

What do you put your money on, Dan?

What do you think really happpened?


God, we've already been through this. and I put my money in precious metals.

Plutomium, paladium and gold.

[PixelPusher]

Well, I believe science, and in this case science dictates that the probability of those three buildings falling the way they did without some help is very, very low. Could it have happened? sure, but I wouldn't put any money on it.
Too bad science doesn't believe you back.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

[Nbadan]

Too bad science doesn't believe you back.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

That Pm article has been debunked forward and back. Try again.

[sabar]

Well, I believe science, and in this case science dictates that the probability of those three buildings falling the way they did without some help is very, very low. Could it have happened? sure, but I wouldn't put any money on it.

Both the NIST and the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE don't believe you back.

Who is more credible in the area of building collapses? Civic engineers? Or the average eye-witness?

Civic engineers or these people?

* 49% of Americans could not find New York State on a map
* 51% could not locate Pennsylvania
* 69% could not find Massachusetts
* 30% could not locate the Pacific Ocean
* 56% could not locate India
* 63% of Americans could not find England on a map.
* 16% of Americans could find Sweden
* 80% can't name their Senators

The same people that can't read maps or know current events are the basis of a massive conspiracy theory. Sorry, but the average layperson is, well, dumb.

[sabar]

Need sleep so I'm leaving with these

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77pentaToC.html
http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.32.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2001/09/12/AR2005033108366.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/sep01/attack.html

Are these all fake? All these eyewitness accounts? This many people mistook a cruise missile for an aircraft?

[Nbadan]

PM is owned by the Hearst corporation, a large, mostly-republican newspaper conglomerate....


We assembled a team of reporters and researchers, including professional fact checkers and the editors of PM, and methodically analyzed all 16 conspiracy claims. We interviewed scores of engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of the investigative teams who have held the wreckage of the attacks in their own hands. We pored over photography, maps, blueprints, aviation logs and transcripts. In every single instance, we found that the facts used by the conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies were mistaken, misunderstood, or deliberately falsified.

This sounds impressive, but the article provides no evidence to back up these claims. It provides no footnotes to source its many assertions, and despite the scores of experts listed in its final section, the article cites only a few "experts," who would themselves likely be suspects if normal criminal justice procedures were used to investigate the crime.

[ChumpDumper]

That Pm article has been debunked forward and back. Try again.Debunked by whom?

And why is all this stuff falling faster than the building itself?
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/images/terror.2.jpg

Cruise missiles?

And yes, you are a coward for not saying what you believe.

[Nbadan]

Both the NIST and the Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE don't believe you back.

Who is more credible in the area of building collapses? Civic engineers? Or the average eye-witness?

Civic engineers or these people?

* 49% of Americans could not find New York State on a map
* 51% could not locate Pennsylvania
* 69% could not find Massachusetts
* 30% could not locate the Pacific Ocean
* 56% could not locate India
* 63% of Americans could not find England on a map.
* 16% of Americans could find Sweden
* 80% can't name their Senators

The same people that can't read maps or know current events are the basis of a massive conspiracy theory. Sorry, but the average layperson is, well, dumb.


because government agencies like NIST and JEM could never be compromised.

:rolleyes

9/11 Truth: The Bogus NIST Report & The Lingering Questions (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5euZtUSxRjY)

[Nbadan]

9/11 Truth: FEMA & NIST's "Pancake Theory" is a Lie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pn4ltRSTF8&mode=related&search=)

[Nbadan]

9/11 Truth: Thermite & The Case for Controlled Demolition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd1-Dp_-7WI&mode=related&search=)

[Nbadan]

and finally for tonight: 9/11 Truth: Explosive Force & Volcano-Style Pyroclastic Flow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qDB40lkZrk&mode=related&search=)

[ChumpDumper]

What do you think really happened?

[Zombie.]

Though there are many serious questions and mysteries yet to be answered on the tragic events of September 11, 2001.

Name some!





.
.. there are also many 9/11 conspiracy arguments which have been shreddred to bits...
Which ones?



and by actual experts (Civil engineers, Mechanical engineers, Fire Chiefs, Physicists, Metallurgical gurus, Architects, etc...).

There are just as many experts saying the exzact opposite. In fact the man who was in charge of testing the metal beams when the WTC was built tried to warn the 911 commission they where off on what temperature steel starts to melt and they did not want to hear from him and he lost his job that month,


I don't understand why many of the conspiracy theorists continue to use those flawed arguments and then expect serious responses in return. In fact, many of the conspiracy arguments that initially surfaced were rash conclusions based on analyses of limited evidence, or from contextual opinions relayed from 'eye-witness' accounts - some more credible than others. They were hardly thought out, or 'irrefutable'... so even when it appears that much thought went into the formulation of an argument... key engineering principles are ignored (blatantly or ignorantly - you decide). The continued use of those arguments therefore deflates their movement and detracts our attention away from the more important issues at hand.


Until you answers some questions your just telling us what we already know.

You see I can sound like Chump Dumper also.

[=RTM=]

What do you think really happened?

Who is going to say anything when they will be accused of wearing Tin foil hats and are compared to Carlos Mancias?

You all did a great job ruining what could have been a great debate that may have had the potential of educating many.

[ChumpDumper]

Who is going to say anything when they will be accused of wearing Tin foil hats and are compared to Carlos Mancias?Ok, I'll just call you a coward then.
You all did a great job ruining what could have been a great debate that may have had the potential of educating many.I'm going to do all of you the greatest service in this thread.


Loose Change 2nd Edition (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=Loose+Change)

Loose Change 2nd Edition Viewer's Guide (http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html)

Read the latter while watching the former, then I'll accuse you of doing neither and never tell you what I believe because I'm sensitive like that.

:dramaquee

[Hungry farmer]

I have been a lurker at this site for two years, and I have never seen so much bullshit in all my life!

[01Snake]

I have been a lurker at this site for two years, and I have never seen so much bullshit in all my life!

Wow! Thanks for letting us know. Now get back to lurking. :lol

[Phenomanul]

Name some!

Did any of the terrorists pack undectectable plastic explosives in their checked in luggage that would amplify the initial impact blast?

To what extent was the protective fire-proof insulation that was installed around the steel beams in the WTC (back in the 70's no less) rendered useless as a result of the plane impact?

Did the blast of 1993 and the subsequent repairs to the structure affect the outcome of 9/11?

Did the hijackers even know that their plans would cause the WTC towers to collapse? Did they plan on it? Did they purposefully aim toward the central concrete-reinforced steel shafts?




Which ones?



For one, the whole logic that I'm supposed to swallow that our government used planes in the WTC site and then turned around to use a missile for the Pentagon.

1) The supposed evidence of a 'pod' under the plane.
Concepts ignored: general design of the aircraft, general understanding of shadows as a result of said design attributes.

2) The supposed flash of light 'prior' to impact that was used as an argument to suggest that something was fired into the building.
Concepts ignored: an understanding of the curvature of the plane's fuselage and the reflecting tendencies of a convex surface.

3) The argument that steel needs to melt to cause a collapse.
Concepts ignored: Steel only needs to be softened to lose its strength. The elastic modulus of the anistropic steel is inversely proportional to temperature due to the diminished density of the steel at elevated temperatures and due to the oxidation of its carbon content - an 'additive' that is added to steel at production mills in order to increase its strength. This oxidative mechanism readily occurs at temperatures >950 degrees Fahrenheit. Weeping butresses simply can't support the weight loads they were designed for.

4) The whole concept that buildings must fall in accordance with the accelaration due to gravity and that slower accelarations 'irrefutably' suggest a controlled demolition.
Concepts ignored: The earth also applies equal counteracting forces to the building. The weight of the falling structure eventually takes over in this scenario but its collapse velocity is initially delayed by counteracting forces running along the vertical axis of the columns in the building. Not to mention that a large chunk of the energy that was lost in the collapse does not get applied to the z vector, it also gets displaced across the x, and y vectorial planes.





There are just as many experts saying the exzact opposite. In fact the man who was in charge of testing the metal beams when the WTC was built tried to warn the 911 commission they where off on what temperature steel starts to melt and they did not want to hear from him and he lost his job that month,


See above, the steel does not have to melt. I would have fired said 'expert' myself for such a blatant disregard to the essential principles that govern his field.



Until you answers some questions you're just telling us what we already know.

You see I can sound like Chump Dumper also.

I can't answer certain questions without having been exposed to first hand evidence or data surrounding the event (such as wreckage material, or extensive review of controversial footage as analyzed from multiple angles).

What I do know is that some conspiracy allegations simply don't have any scientific credence on which to stand on. The supposed 'irrefutable' evidence is actually quite refutable - those conspiracists just don't want to listen to logic. Somehow I'm to believe that 'I'm in on it' too if I disagree with them... that's simply absurd.

Do I believe that a cover-up of other implicitly related items occurred? To that I would say yes... but by now you have to understand that this is how our government operates. The premise that our government orchestrated the tragedy, however, is highly insulting and preposterous.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Do I believe that a cover-up of other implicitly related items occurred? To that I would say yes... but by now you have to understand that this is how our government operates.I agree with that. The only attack that I have difficult thouroghly accepting is the one on the Pentagon.


The premise that our government orchestrated the tragedy, however, is highly insulting and preposterous.This is a world where black is not always black and white is not always white. There's too many gray areas. Why isn't all the data and evidence not made to the public. Take JFK for instance. The days of Ozzie and Harriet are far from over.

[johnsmith]

This thread is fucking hilarious. Well, except for whenever Mouse posts.

[Extra Stout]

There are just as many experts saying the exzact opposite. In fact the man who was in charge of testing the metal beams when the WTC was built tried to warn the 911 commission they where off on what temperature steel starts to melt and they did not want to hear from him and he lost his job that month,
No, that man actually was not in charge of testing the metal beams. He worked in the water testing department. And he was fired for running his mouth off about a field he knew nothing about.

[clambake]

The softened steel couldn't support the weight above it. This cannot be argued.

[01Snake]

The softened steel couldn't support the weight above it. This cannot be argued.

It appears some cannot grasp this.

[FromWayDowntown]

The softened steel couldn't support the weight above it. This cannot be argued.

That it can't be refuted scientifically doesn't mean that it can't be argued.

Pardon my scoffing at things like "mathematical improbabilities." I'm not sure that mathematical calculations concerning material failures and the impact of same on large vertical structures ever accounted for the dynamics occuring when large jet planes loaded with highly-flammable fuel fly at ridiculous velocities into such structures and the resulting fallout on buildings in close proximity, which are struck by flaming debris and compromised.

[Dick Van Dyke]

Then why is this the first steel frame building in the history of the world to melt?

[01Snake]

Then way is this the first building in the history of the world to melt?

Somehow I missed seeing the building actually melt. Did it end up just puddle on the ground?

[mookie2001]

Marvin Bush like coincidence

[Dan Rather]

Anyone who thinks jet fuel can soften steel is borderline retard.

[Star Player]

This thread is fucking hilarious. Well, except for whenever Mouse posts.


Your man love stalking of mouse is getting old, let it go brah!

[1369]

Anyone who thinks jet fuel can soften steel is borderline retard.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e368/junkinessblog/fred-durst-009.jpg

Keep trollin', trollin', trollin'...

[Ricardo Romo]

When I was in the service many times we used jet fuel in our heaters that were made from steel not one time did any of them get soft. Some of you have your heads so far up your ass's it's a wonder how you can all breath.

[Extra Stout]

Anyone who thinks jet fuel can soften steel is borderline retard.Anyone who thinks Microsoft Word was available in 1970 is a retard.

[clambake]

Un huh, how many jet engines melt when jet fuel is used to power them?

[johnsmith]

Your man love stalking of mouse is getting old, let it go brah!

Your unbelievable amount of user names is getting old, get a job............brah.

[Extra Stout]

When I was in the service many times we used jet fuel in our heaters that were made from steel not one time did any of them get soft. Some of you have your heads so far up your ass's it's a wonder how you can all breath.
And my car uses fuel from oil just like jet fuel and it is made out of steel and yet my car has never gotten soft and collapsed on the way for me to take the GED which I failed.

[Extra Stout]

Un huh, how many jet engines melt when jet fuel is used to power them?
Thank you, you just proved it was a conspiracy by George W. Bush, the neocons, and the oil companies. They rigged the missiles with special jet fuel that melts steel.

PIZZZZZZOOOOOWWWWWWNNNNNNEEDDDDDD!!!!!!!

[Ricardo Romo]

THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report into collapse of the WTC towers, estimates that about 3,500 gallons of jet fuel burnt within each of the towers. Imagine that this entire quantity of jet fuel was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat. With these ideal assumptions we calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached.


"The Boeing 767 is capable of carrying up to 23,980 gallons of fuel and it is estimated that, at the time of impact, each aircraft had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board (compiled from Government sources)."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

"If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.

Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the impact (with the aircraft going from 500 or 600 mph to zero) would have throughly mixed the fuel that entered the building with the limited amount of air available within. In fact, it is likely that all the fuel was turned into a flammable mist. However, for sake of argument we will assume that 3,500 gallons of the jet fuel did in fact form a pool fire. This means that it burnt according to reactions (2) and (3). Also note that the flammable mist would have burnt according to reactions (2) and (3), as the quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited.

Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:

Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.

Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:

CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs about 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 3,500 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 3,500 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel

will release 10,850 x 44,000,000 = 477,400,000,000 Joules of energy.

This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:

39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.

Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C]
Nitrogen 1,038
Water Vapor 1,690
Carbon Dioxide 845
Lightweight Concrete 800
Steel 450

Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:

39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,
97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,
349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,
1,400,000 x 800 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 800) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,330 + 82,327,505 + 362,967,840 + 225,000,000 + 1,120,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) Joules.

Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 477,400,000,000 Joules, we have that

1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) = 477,400,000,000
1,857,653,675 x T - 46,441,341,875 = 477,400,000,000

Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F).

So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.

Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.

"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."

Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Conclusion:

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?

[=RTM=]

Your unbelievable amount of user names is getting old, get a job............brah.


At least I don't use them to stalk other men. If you want my cock so bad?
be a man and PM me.

[Little Devil]

At least I don't use them to stalk other men. If you want my cock so bad?
be a man and PM me.


Pw3nd X 1,000.000 :lmao

[clambake]

FEMA failed to mention that each passenger was forced to eat C-4 as their in-flight meal.

[johnsmith.]

At least I don't use them to stalk other men. If you want my cock so bad?
be a man and PM me.


Check your PMs!

[Booty Call]

Check your PMs!

:lol



johnsmith don't hit on all the men save some cock for me! :bang

[clambake]

I think if we keep this thread going, we can find the answers.

Here's a question. In the phone calls from the passengers before impact, they all said that the turist were wielding box cutters.

So, where are all these boxes?

[Victor Newman]

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html


Logo
The following article appears in the journal JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 8-11.

Feature: Special Report
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso
OTHER ARTICLES IN THE WTC SERIES

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation by Thomas Eagar and Christopher Musso

Better Materials Can Reduce the Threat from Terrorism by Toni G. Maréchaux

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7 by J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.

News & Update
There have been numerous reports detailing the cause of the World Trade Center Tower collapse on September 11, 2001. Most have provided qualitative explanations; however, simple quantitative analyses show that some common conclusions are incorrect; for example, the steel could not melt in these flames and there was more structural damage than merely softening of the steel at elevated temperatures. Some guidelines for improvements in future structures are presented.

INTRODUCTION

The collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on September 11, 2001, was as sudden as it was dramatic; the complete destruction of such massive buildings shocked nearly everyone. Immediately afterward and even today, there is widespread speculation that the buildings were structurally deficient, that the steel columns melted, or that the fire suppression equipment failed to operate. In order to separate the fact from the fiction, we have attempted to quantify various details of the collapse.

The major events include the following:

* The airplane impact with damage to the columns.
* The ensuing fire with loss of steel strength and distortion (Figure 1).
* The collapse, which generally occurred inward without significant tipping (Figure 2).

Each will be discussed separately, but initially it is useful to review the overall design of the towers.
THE DESIGN

The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight and involved modular construction methods in order to accelerate the schedule and to reduce the costs.

To a structural engineer, a skyscraper is modeled as a large cantilever vertical column. Each tower was 64 m square, standing 411 m above street level and 21 m below grade. This produces a height-to-width ratio of 6.8. The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t, but wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design. The building is a huge sail that must resist a 225 km/h hurricane. It was designed to resist a wind load of 2 kPa—a total of lateral load of 5,000 t.

In order to make each tower capable of withstanding this wind load, the architects selected a lightweight “perimeter tube” design consisting of 244 exterior columns of 36 cm square steel box section on 100 cm centers (see Figure 3). This permitted windows more than one-half meter wide. Inside this outer tube there was a 27 m × 40 m core, which was designed to support the weight of the tower. It also housed the elevators, the stairwells, and the mechanical risers and utilities. Web joists 80 cm tall connected the core to the perimeter at each story. Concrete slabs were poured over these joists to form the floors. In essence, the building is an egg-crate construction that is about 95 percent air, explaining why the rubble after the collapse was only a few stories high.
Figure 1
Figure 1. Flames and debris exploded from the World Trade Center south tower immediately after the airplane’s impact. The black smoke indicates a fuel-rich fire (Getty Images).
Figure 2
Figure 2. As the heat of the fire intensified, the joints on the most severely burned floors gave way, causing the perimeter wall columns to bow outward and the floors above them to fall. The buildings collapsed within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km/h (Getty Images).

The egg-crate construction made a redundant structure (i.e., if one or two columns were lost, the loads would shift into adjacent columns and the building would remain standing). Prior to the World Trade Center with its lightweight perimeter tube design, most tall buildings contained huge columns on 5 m centers and contained massive amounts of masonry carrying some of the structural load. The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure; however, its 244 perimeter columns made it “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.1
THE AIRLINE IMPACT

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse (Figure 4).
THE FIRE

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.

In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.
Figure 3
Figure 3. A cutaway view of WTC structure.
Figure 4--Web Link
Figure 4. A graphic illustration, from the USA Today newspaper web site, of the World Trade Center points of impact. Click on the image above to access the actual USA Today feature.

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
THE COLLAPSE

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Unscaled schematic of WTC floor joints and attachment to columns.
WAS THE WTC DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED?

The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature). Further information about the design of the WTC can be found on the World Wide Web.5–8
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE

The clean-up of the World Trade Center will take many months. After all, 1,000,000 t of rubble will require 20,000 to 30,000 truckloads to haul away the material. The asbestos fire insulation makes the task hazardous for those working nearby. Interestingly, the approximately 300,000 t of steel is fully recyclable and represents only one day’s production of the U.S. steel industry. Separation of the stone and concrete is a common matter for modern steel shredders. The land-filling of 700,000 t of concrete and stone rubble is more problematic. However, the volume is equivalent to six football fields, 6–9 m deep, so it is manageable.

There will undoubtedly be a number of changes in the building codes as a result of the WTC catastrophe. For example, emergency communication systems need to be upgraded to speed up the notice for evacuation and the safest paths of egress. Emergency illumination systems, separate from the normal building lighting, are already on the drawing boards as a result of lessons learned from the WTC bombing in 1993. There will certainly be better fire protection of structural members. Protection from smoke inhalation, energy-absorbing materials, and redundant means of egress will all be considered.

A basic engineering assessment of the design of the World Trade Center dispels many of the myths about its collapse. First, the perimeter tube design of the towers protected them from failing upon impact. The outer columns were engineered to stiffen the towers in heavy wind, and they protected the inner core, which held the gravity load. Removal of some of the outer columns alone could not bring the building down. Furthermore, because of the stiffness of the perimeter design, it was impossible for the aircraft impact to topple the building.

However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.

It would be impractical to design buildings to withstand the fuel load induced by a burning commercial airliner. Instead of saving the building, engineers and officials should focus on saving the lives of those inside by designing better safety and evacuation systems.

As scientists and engineers, we must not succumb to speculative thinking when a tragedy such as this occurs. Quantitative reasoning can help sort fact from fiction, and can help us learn from this unfortunate disaster. As Lord Kelvin said,

“I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”

We will move forward from the WTC tragedy and we will engineer better and safer buildings in the future based, in part, on the lessons learned at the WTC. The reason the WTC collapse stirs our emotions so deeply is because it was an intentional attack on innocent people. It is easier to accept natural or unintentional tragedies; it is the intentional loss of life that makes us fear that some people have lost their humanity.

References

1. Presentation on WTC Collapse, Civil Engineering Department, MIT, Cambridge, MA (October 3, 2001).
2. D. Drysdale, An Introduction to Fire Dynamics (New York: Wiley Interscience, 1985), pp. 134–140.
3. A.E. Cote, ed., Fire Protection Handbook 17th Edition (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1992), pp. 10–67.
4. A.E. Cote, ed., Fire Protection Handbook 17th Edition (Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1992), pp. 6-62 to 6-70.
5. Steven Ashley, “When the Twin Towers Fell,” Scientific American Online (October 9, 2001); www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc/
6. Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou, “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis,” J. Engineering Mechanics ASCE, (September 28, 2001), also www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/
7. Timothy Wilkinson, “World Trade Centre–New York—Some Engineering Aspects” (October 25, 2001), Univ. Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering; www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm.
8. G. Charles Clifton, “Collapse of the World Trade Centers,” CAD Headlines, tenlinks.com (October 8, 2001); www.tenlinks.com/NEWS/special/wtc/clifton/p1.htm.

Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and Christopher Musso, graduate research student, are at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

For more information, contact T.W. Eagar, MIT, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room 4-136, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139-4301; (617) 253-3229; fax (617) 252-1773; e-mail [email protected].

[Suns Fan]

I think if we keep this thread going, we can find the answers.


Not me. I'm here to watch johnsmith get ass raped by mouse :lol

[Extra Stout]

:lmao No, that is not how one calculates an adiabatic flame temperature. It would be better to consult a chemist or chemical engineer for such calculations, rather than somebody who got a C in high school chemistry and likes conspiracy theories.

[Tampon]

FACT: Steel melts at 2800 degrees F.


FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800º to 1500ºF, not hot enough to melt steel (2750ºF).


NEXT?



9/11 Terror
Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!
Part II
by J. McMichael
[email protected]

Part I was formerly (but no longer) available at
http://world.care2.com/jmcmichael/files/index.html
but remains available on this Serendipity site here.

Some people have written to me (or commented publicly) that the collapse of the World Trade Center was a perfectly normal event caused by the heat of the fire.

Let me recall a few details to the reader's attention before answering that statement.

Citing structural engineer Chris Wise, the BBC web page stated that steel supports in the WTC reached 1500 degrees Fahrenheit and melted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm). That is of course not correct, and I provided a link to an on-line chemistry chart to show that steel melts closer to 2800 degrees F.

Note that the statement (that the WTC steel melted) is not mine: The statement comes from the BBC page, citing Chris Wise, and from others on television.

The critics have pointed out that steel does not MELT at 1500 F, but it does soften and lose its strength, enough to cause the towers to collapse. We are asked to believe, as one Australian put it, that steel supports turn to licorice when heated in a fire.

Corus Steel is a trans-national corporation that markets structural steel (http://www.corusconstruction.com/). One graph on their web page shows the diminishing strength of steel as it is heated. http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm

Note that structural steel at 550 degrees C (1022 F) has 60% of the strength of steel at normal temperatures. This weakening of steel when heated is supposedly responsible for the catastrophic collapse of the towers. The statement generates three questions to be answered in order to determine whether this phenomenon could cause the collapse of the World Trade Center:

1. How much strength would the steel have to lose for the WTC to collapse?

2. What temperature would the steel have to reach to occasion this loss of strength?

3. What was the temperature of the fire in the WTC; i.e., did it reach the critically weakening temperature?
Question 1:

In the original article, I cited my own experience that a support device must be capable of bearing three times the maximum load that would ever be applied.

It turns out that this rule-of-thumb is applicable only to dynamic loads, not static (structural) loads of commercial buildings. Since then, I have been informed by a commercial structural engineer that the standard ratio for static loads is five, not three. That is, if a bridge is rated to carry 1 ton, it should be capable of bearing 5 tons without collapsing at the time the bridge is built.

Going back to the fire at the WTC, we can see that reducing the steel structure to 60% its rated strength should NOT have weakened it to catastrophic collapse, because at 60% it would still support three times the rated load. The steel structure would have to be reduced to 20% of its rated strength to collapse.

Thus, even if the fire had heated the steel to 550 degrees C (1022 F), that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.
Question 2:

The Corus page on fire vs. steel supports (http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm) shows that the steel would have to be heated to about 720 degrees C (1320 F) to weaken the steel to 20% of its cool strength.

The text on that page discusses another change in the steel above 550 degrees C (1022 F): It looses elasticity and becomes plastic. Elasticity means that when the steel is bent, it returns to its original shape; it springs back. Plasticity means that the steel is permanently deformed and does not spring back to the original shape.

Springing back or not, our only concern with this page is to determine the point on the graph where the steel would be weakened to 20% its original strength, and that point is 720 degrees C (1320 F).

For steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F) is an important threshold, however, and we should not be glib with it. If a steel tower were heated to 550 C, loss of elasticity could mean that the tower would not spring back to the original shape after a gust of wind, and a series of buffets might cause the tower to fail -- if the strain exceeded the reduced strength of the hot steel.
Question 3:

Now let us make a guess on the actual heat of the fire.

Fortunately, a number of studies have been done under very similar conditions. In Europe, multi-storied "car parks" are often built of steel, and the possibility of vehicle fire is a distinct possibility. A parked vehicle, loaded with gasoline, diesel, tires, engine oil, engine tar, upholstery, hydraulic fluid, etc. can cause a fire that seems very hot. A number of other vehicles could be parked close to the burning one, and they too could catch fire, with a general conflagration. Any number of cars could contain almost any household items from shopping, etc.

These materials are similar to the materials we would expect in the burning offices of the WTC: jet fuel (which is a refined kerosene, very similar to the diesel used in some European cars), oil, upholstery, etc.

A summary of the results of these studies is published on the Corus page. Go to http://www.corusconstruction.com/ and click on "Fire". Individual articles are listed across the top of the window. The fourth article, "Fire in Car Parks," discusses the temperatures of "any fires that are likely to occur" in a car park (http://www.corusconstruction.com/carparks/cp006.htm) [this web page is now at http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_137.htm].

Presumably, one car could catch fire and inflame other cars parked closely nearby. As explained below, "The maximum temperatures reached [in actual test fires] in open sided car parks in four countries" was 360 degrees C (680 F), and structural steel has "sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur."

Here is the relevant paragraph, complete: "Steel-framed car parks have been rigorously fire tested in a number of countries (Table 3). These tests demonstrate that most unprotected steel in open sided steel-framed car parks has sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur. Table 3 lists the maximum temperatures reached in open sided car park tests in four countries. These can be compared with the characteristic failure temperatures for beams carrying insulating floor slabs and columns of 620 [degrees] C and 550 [degrees] C respectively."

Note that the description does not limit the duration of the fire. From this it does not appear to matter whether the fire burned all week or just for two hours. No mention is made, as some people have suggested (from erroneous interpretation of other graphs involving time), that prolonged heat brings about progressive weakening of steel.

Here is the data from Corus' Table 3 (beams are horizontal members, columns are vertical):
Full scale fire tests Maximum measured steel temperature
Country Beam Column
UK 275 C (527 F) 360 C (680 F)
Japan 245 C (473 F) 242 C (467 F)
USA 226 C (438 F) -
Australia 340 C (644 F) 320 C (608 F)

A fire in a steel car park is a very imprecise event, and the heating of the steel supports varied widely in the tests. The temperature of (horizontal) beams varied from 226 C in the USA to 340 C in Australia; and the temperature of (vertical) columns varied from 242 C in Japan to 360 C in the UK. None of the steel was protected with the thermal insulation that is commonly used in office buildings, including the WTC.

To my mind, this is definitive answer: the maximum temperature in the unprotected steel supports in those test fires was 360 degrees C (680 F), and that is a long way from the first critical threshold in structural steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F).

Some may argue that there was much more fuel involved in the WTC events that in a car park. There was also much more steel involved, the support columns were more massive, and they were protected with insulation.

I think the case is made: The fire did not weaken the WTC structure sufficiently to cause the collapse of the towers.

— J. McMichael

Detailed information of the construction World Trade Center (with many photographs) can be found at http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html

This article was copied from
http://world.care2.com/jmcmichael/files/carpark.html

The World Trade Center Demolition
and the So-Called War on Terrorism
Serendipity Home Page

[clambake]

As much as I like this thread, I'm going to put an end to a significant portion.

Years ago, I played the roll of town blacksmith in episodes of Gunsmoke (by the way, Kitty was a man). Even though the fire pit was fake, my director assured me that heated steel would bend. Now, If you can't trust your director, then find another line of work.

[Pokey]

As much as I like this thread, I'm going to put an end to a significant portion.

Years ago, I played the roll of town blacksmith in episodes of Gunsmoke (by the way, Kitty was a man). Even though the fire pit was fake, my director assured me that heated steel would bend. Now, If you can't trust your director, then find another line of work.


:lmao

[Extra Stout]

Mouse is right. Every other time a skyscraper, whose load is borne by the exoskeleton of the building rather than thick columns running through the middle as in older buildings, like for example the Empire State Building, has had a Boeing 767 puncture a big chunk of the load-bearing exterior while flying through at 500 miles an hour, then had a huge internal fire to weaken the remaining members, that skyscraper has survived.

[=RTM=]

Thin steel like a sword, or a butter knife does not need heat to bend. That type of steel does not go into building a frame structure to support many offices.

The bottom-line is, Even if the Bush salad tossers were right about the top beams melting from the jet fuel? It would not explain way the beams on the lower floors were sheared off at a 90% angle. you can only cut steel beams at a 90% angle using thermal shape charges.

That's why the steel was shipped off out of NY in a hurry and inspectors where told to stay away so no one was able to test for residue of explosives.

I can't wait till they find some shit on the new beams they located many in here will have to eat crow or find a new screen name from embarrassment alone.

[Extra Stout]

Another way steel can be sheared off that way is if the upper floors of a skyscraper pancake down on it.

[01Snake]

I can't wait till they find some shit on the new beams they located many in here will have to eat crow or find a new screen name from embarrassment alone.

Don't hold your breath.

[=RTM=]

This is how many of the steel beams should have looked like.

http://static.flickr.com/62/205708636_83b42da385_m.jpg

This is how many were found before they were shipped off in a hurry.


Notice the melted thermate around the sheared off beam in the picture

http://www.piratenews.org/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.piratenews.org/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.piratenews.org/index2.html&h=485&w=400&sz=52&hl=en&start=36&tbnid=1-Hzuk9y53GPWM:&tbnh=129&tbnw=106&prev=/images%3Fq%3DWTC%2Bsteel%2B%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D 20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

[=RTM=]

Another way steel can be sheared off that way is if the upper floors of a skyscraper pancake down on it.

You keep telling yourself that bro.
Besides how will we know that if a Steel building has never collapsed?

[=RTM=]

Here I even circled it for Chump and his blind followers.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/blind-assholes.jpg

[Crookshanks]

Okay, let's set aside the arguments of whether the steel melted or softened or just collapsed from fright. Have you conspiracy nuts ever watched a show on how they do controlled demolitions?

I watched one where they were demolishing old casinos in Vegas. Controlled demolitions are an exact science! They have to examine blueprints to determine where to place the explosives and use exact calculations to determine the order of the explosions. It took DAYS to place the explosives and wire them to the detonators - and this was in an EMPTY building with the explosives in PLAIN SIGHT!!!

Now, how did "they" accomplish this with not just one, not two, but THREE buildings without being found out? And where was the guy (or guys) that hit the detonator? And, considering the minutia of debris found intact (pictures, wallets, etc.), why wasn't there ANY evidence of the explosives devices? :wtf

There are just too many variables and WAY TOO MANY people who would have to be involved in a plot of this magnitude - someone would have blabbed by now - think of the money and fame they would have! There's absolutely no way this could have been pulled off!

[=RTM=]

http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/blg7.comp1a.jpg


Originally Posted by stallion4
And so? Controlled Demolitions Inc, the largest demolition company in the world has gone on record to say that the term "pull" is a controlled demolition term meaning to "pull down" a building.

Here's what Larry Silverstein, the person who signed the lease to the WTC complex just six weeks before 9/11, said about Building 7:

http://media.santabanta.com/newsite/newsmaker/images/silverstein.jpg


Larry Silverstein

“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CahEva8zQas

Silverstein is lying. He never got a call from the fire department commander asking him what the fire department should do. His statement about that is absurd on its face.

Just what exactly are you trying to say here? Pull yourself together for a minute and THINK about it. Are you saying this man who recently purchased this building was somehow in charge of demolishing it? And further, was the fire department in on it as well? Please try to follow the logic here, it makes NO SENSE.

Quote:
The "it" in "Pull it" is referring to the building, WTC7.

"Pull" is a known demolition term -period. He goes on to say "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”

So after the building was "pulled" they then watched the building "collapse", exactly like a controlled demolition using explosives.

Here we see stallion demonstrating a remarkable understanding of the english language. When one thing in a sentance comes before the next, we can assume the first thing preceded the 2nd thing. Brilliant!

You state that "Pull" is a known demolition term. Why can't you admit that it does not mean "explode" or "detonate"??? You just had it pointed out that experts disagreed with you. When I say the word "transmission" it is reasonable to assume I'm talking about a device used to aid the transfer of power from a car's engine to it's drivetrain. However: transmission is also used in radio terminology. To assume one over the other, when you have experts that point out you are wrong, is ludicrous. You are not thinking clearly.

Quote:
We have witnesses who heard, saw, and felt explosions seconds before the building fell, which is consistent with controlled demolition using explosives.

It's also consistent with collapse due to massive damage.

Quote:
We have video taped evidence of the building falling exactly the way a building falls during controlled demolition using explosives.

Why is it that the vast majority of people disagree with you? Including experts? Why are we still going over this?

Quote:
We also have photographic evidence that the building's steel columns were "cut" using explosives.

We even have audio taped evidence of explosions occurring before WTC7 falls down, which is consistent with controlled demolition using explosives.

You have no such evidence of the building columns being cut before the collapse.

Loud noises before collapse would be expected, as things are breaking and giving way inside. Please think before you post.

Quote:
And we have several experts who agree that WTC7 fell down because there were explosives planted in the building.

Do I have to debunk yet another set of your 'experts'? I've done it on many of these threads already, and you never respond, so it hardly seems worth it.

Quote:
As far as ImplosionWorld.com, they've been pushing the company line for some time, which also makes them suspect for possibly participating in the 9/11 cover-up -- and once the 9/11 criminals are brought to justice, all persons who helped them cover-up their crime will be dealt with.

Someone who is an expert in the field, disagrees with you, and because of that you accuse them of being involved in the coverup?!?!?! Is this making any sense? I can't wait to hear your reasons behind this....

Quote:
And funny you should mention ImplosionWorld.com, because Danny Jowenko the demo expert who said WTC7 was indeed a "Controlled Demolition" using explosives, is mentioned on their website as being one of their contributors. And Jowenko has explained that he'd never even heard of WTC7 before he was asked about it during an television interview (2006), so it seems like ImplosionWorld.com didn't consult everyone in the demo world, including experts that they listed on their website.

Interesting. That to definately confirms that implosionworld.com was and is part of the conspiracy. Because they failed to consult a Dutch expert who had very little knowledge of the events as they happened. That makes perfect sense.

Quote:
Once again, this is what Controlled Demolition expert Danny Jowenko has stated about Building 7:

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

"This is controlled demolition."

"A team of experts did this."

"This is professional work, without any doubt."

Aren't you being a bit dishonest here? Why don't you post the entire thing? Jowenko says that he does NOT think WTC1 and 2 look like controlled demolitions. But of course you won't mention that, because you like to pick and chose. Then he says that WTC7 does, and was shocked when they tell him it happened on 9/11. He had no idea! That's how informed an individual he was.

I've seen the unedited interview with him, and in it he offers several speculations why the building may have been demolished. One of those was that because there was a fire in the building, steel in it is weakened and perhaps the owner thought it was too expensive to replace it. And he thought this footage was from some other date.

Before they give him additional info, he's sure it's CD. When they tell him the building fell on 9/11, he starts to doubt, and tries to figure out the number of people needed to do it that quickly.
Then they tell him the building burned all the way to the end, and his doubts increase: "that's strange", "I have no explanation for it"

When the reporter asked him about the "squibs", Jowenko at first said it was possible they were caused by explosives but immediately changed his opinion and said that it doesn't make any sense to plant explosives that high under the circumstances and that the "squibs" must have been the result of something else.


So are you going to admit that you are being dishonest here?

Quote:
And here is what Structural Analysis experts have recently said about Building 7:

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" says Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH*. And also Jörg Schneider, another Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH, interprets the small number of existing videos as indices that "WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by explosives".


Bold is mine.

So they weren’t there, carried out no tests, spoke to no witnesses and have not read a single document on it, but have seen a video and drawn their conclusion, way to go.

Quote:
The building was destroyed using explosives -period. Anyone who can't see that is either lying or in denial.

That is a huge insult to the large number of victims, experts involved in the investigation, firefighters, police officers, etc, who don't support your theory.

Since you like videos so much, try this:
In another video clip, Ashleigh Banfield of MSNBC is interviewing a woman when WTC 7 collapses in the background. Banfield: "This is it!" Newsman Brian Williams: "What we've been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened. We've been watching number 7 World Trade, which was part of the ancillary damage of the explosion and collapse of the other two." Watch it here: http://tinyurl.com/o58sa

Wow so this newscaster must have been in on it as well!

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we'll head back to the command post. 

– Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/eofwh

And him!

Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse. 



Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the col-lapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety. 



Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?

Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn't want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn't even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn't know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o'clock or so, but we had every-body backed away by then. –Deputy Chief Peter Hayden http://tinyurl.com/zwtrs

And him!

The next thing I did was we saw a fire starting to show at windows in 7 World Trade Center, decided to go in and try and see if there was anybody in the building and/or put out the fires, and we did a search from floor to floor of 7 World Trade Center passing fire on floors 3, 7, 9. The standpipes had no water. We tried to extinguish a few fires with cans. When we got to 11, there was just too much smoke and we decided that, without water, if we went any higher, we'd be on fool's mission.

So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. –Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler http://tinyurl.com/q2eb6

And him!

I remember at that time also they were worried about Building 7 because when the second tower came down, they were worried about parts of -- actually, when the first tower came down, they were worried about parts of Building 7 collapsing, so I remember getting into Building 7 and searching. –Firefighter Anthony Salerno http://tinyurl.com/lzj4t

And him!

That was another problem, to wait for building seven to come down, because that was unsecure. It was about 5:30 that building came down. –Paremedic Steven Pilla http://tinyurl.com/odgdp

And him!

[clambake]

After my role on Gunsmoke ended with the series cancellation, I was forced to accept a service industry position at the WTC.

That, my friend, is the laundry chute.

[Spurminator]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/blind-assholes.jpg


Wait a second...

That firefighter looks HUGE in that photo! Look at it...

http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/1561/blindrevisedvh1.jpg

His shoulder width is WIDER than the beam to the right of him! Surely this tower was not supported by beams that were thinner than an average sized man!

Could it be that this was a staged photo in front of a small-scale model of the demolished building?

[=RTM=]

Okay, Have you conspiracy nuts

That's where you lost me as subject for any intelligent debate.

[Spurminator]

And why is he not wearing protective goggles??

[1369]

What is "thermate"?

[=RTM=]

Wait a second...

Could it be that this was a staged photo ?


Now even pictures are not good enough? Your really reaching out there for answers aren't you?

Besides how thick are the metal legs to that chair that is supporting your fat ass off the floor?

Give it up bro you can't argue with the facts, you need to get off the Chump band wagon and make your move to the side of reality of what really took place and save what little is left of your reputation as a smart man.
After all, at the end of all this shit the truth will finally set you free.

[mookie2001]

thermIte or super thermite

[=RTM=]

Steel from collapsed building

http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_photos/0a/06/20060908054809990009


Steel from tower one WTC after charges were used.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87970.jpg


You still don't get it?

[1369]

http://www.piratenews.org/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg

The "melted thermate" is actually slag from what I would say was an arc gouger (instead of an oxy-acetylene cutting torch, the steel is too thick) used to cut off that beam.

I don't think that incendiary weapons can make precise cuts like that.

[johnsmith]

http://www.piratenews.org/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg

The "melted thermate" is actually slag from what I would say was an arc gouger (instead of an oxy-acetylene cutting torch, the steel is too thick) used to cut off that beam.

I don't think that incendiary weapons can make precise cuts like that.


Quick Mouse, change usernames so you can argue this point.

[clambake]

That's not a steel beam. It's Pucksitawny Phil's summer home.

[=RTM=]

Jet fule can only burn for so long, But Thermal heat can last for weeks as shown in this picture,

WTC Thermal Imagery

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/911/images/lg-map-therm1.jpg

[clambake]

Pretty

[Spurminator]

Now even pictures are not good enough? Your really reaching out there for answers aren't you?

Besides how thick are the metal legs to that chair that is supporting your fat ass off the floor?

Give it up bro you can't argue with the facts, you need to get off the Chump band wagon and make your move to the side of reality of what really took place and save what little is left of your reputation as a smart man.
After all, at the end of all this shit the truth will finally set you free.


What are you talking about? I'm totally with you, man.

Not only do I believe that 9/11 was executed by people within our own government, I believe that those same people executed a viral "Conspiracy Theory" campaign of bloggers and videos in order to give the Sheeple of this country someone to point fingers and laugh at, distracting them while the Government and Media's coordinated Superplot goes undetected and their shameful crimes unpunished.

All told, in my estimation there are approximately 47 people in this country who are not "in" on the whole thing. You and I are two of those people.

Keep fighting the good fight, Soldiers of Truth!

[Geddy Lee]

:tu

Yeah! What Spurminator said!

[Johnny Cakes]

I'm with the Spurm and the Mouse.

[=RTM=]

Thermal charges are needed to cut through steel. Demolition experts have been using them for years to demolish steel frame buildings. The heat is so hot it takes sometimes months to cool off as shown in this photo.


http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/wtc.r09.usgs.thermal.icon.jpg

The fire was so hot for 4 weeks firemen had to change out their boots ever 8 hours.

also Thermal heat produces a white smoke that was visible a month after 9/11 and many firemen today suffer from breathing it in.

[1369]

Thermal charges are needed to cut through steel.

No Mouse, they are not.

Things like dynamite, C4, Semtex, Datasheet and TNT are used to cut through steel.

Thermite grenades do not cut steel, they melt holes in it.

[01Snake]

What I've gathered from my in-depth analysis of all the info about 9-11 is this:

Chuck Norris did it. Only one man has the skill needed to pull off such a feat.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm coming around to the position of Truth -- in fact, the conclusion that I draw from the satellite heat imagery is that the source of the Helotes mulch fire is undoubtedly explosives planted by the federal government. After all, a simple fire wouldn't burn on for weeks or months, regardless of how many fuel sources might exist.

The Helotes mulch fire must be still another vast conspiracy. Why aren't more people asking questions about that?

[Phenomanul]

THE JET FUEL; HOW HOT DID IT HEAT
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER?

.......

Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F).

So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.

Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.

"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."

Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Conclusion:

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?

Funny how this facade of 'combustion chemistry' fails to adequately justify the combustible value of wood, plastic, and other items in the building itself... I'll tell you this however... I work in a production unit that generates kerosene and jet fuel... and it burns much, much hotter than the 540 degrees Fahrenheit suggested by this calculation.

I can't believe someone would go completely out of their way to fabricate this fuzzy math full of supposedly generous assumptions and then not even get close to the actual BTU value of Jet Fuel A.

[=RTM=]

No Mouse, they are not.

Things like dynamite, C4, Semtex, Datasheet and TNT are used to cut through steel.

Termite grenades do not cut steel, they melt holes in it.

You have never seen the government use Thermite before?
and you call yourself ex military?

Your a disgrace to all the prior service members.


Below military Thermite belt.

http://www.maxpedition.com/image/misc_image/sample_thermite.gif

http://www.airsoftatlanta.com/images/thermite_bl_gif.jpg

Workers at WTC find many Thermite hot spots still burning weeks after 9/11

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1855000/images/_1858491_wtc300.jpg



The following photos show how Thermite Burns for weeks.
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2006/04/16/hotslag.jpg



Check out the Chump Dumper type meltdowns going on in this forum.


http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/04/06/18136191.php

[FromWayDowntown]

And clearly, thermite is at play these days in Helotes, too. That's the only possible explanation for a fire burning that long.

[Phenomanul]

Here I even circled it for Chump and his blind followers.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/blind-assholes.jpg


Wait... so we didn't cut any beams during the rescue efforts?

It's all in the context.

[=RTM=]

Wait... so we didn't cut any beams during the rescue efforts?

It's all in the context.

That picture is hours old do you know when they actually started using machinery to rescue people? or are you pulling a Chump Dumper and trying to bait us with stupidity?

[1369]

You have never seen the government use Thermite before?
and you call yourself ex military?

Your a disgrace to all the prior service members.


Below military Thermite belt.

http://www.maxpedition.com/image/misc_image/sample_thermite.gif

http://www.airsoftatlanta.com/images/thermite_bl_gif.jpg

Workers at WTC find many Thermite hot spots still burning weeks after 9/11

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1855000/images/_1858491_wtc300.jpg



The following photos show how Thermite Burns for weeks.
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2006/04/16/hotslag.jpg



Check out the Chump Dumper type meltdowns going on in this forum.


http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/04/06/18136191.php

Now you're just being silly Mouse. (http://www.maxpedition.com/product/product_vp_thermite.htm)

Cool product line though. Thanks for the link.

[FromWayDowntown]

That picture is hours old do you know when they actually started using machinery to rescue people? or are you pulling a Chump Dumper and trying to bait us with stupidity?

Where's your proof of that assertion? or should we just take your word for it. My recollection is that Ground Zero looked to be mostly in that condition for several weeks after 9/11.

If you have proof that the photo was taken on 9/11 or 9/12, I'd be surprised.

[Phenomanul]

That picture is hours old do you know when they actually started using machinery to rescue people? or are you pulling a Chump Dumper and trying to bait us with stupidity?


I don't know how you could assert that either way.... that is all I was saying.

edit: FWD beat me to it.

[Nbadan]

What I've gathered from my in-depth analysis of all the info about 9-11 is this:

Chuck Norris did it. Only one man has the skill needed to pull off such a feat.


Chuck Norris is the man. Norris went to the Virgin Islands once, now they're just called the Islands.

:hat

[Lebowski Brickowski]

Someone finally hijacked this thread. Chuck Norris to the rescue!

[Crookshanks]

What I've gathered from my in-depth analysis of all the info about 9-11 is this:

Chuck Norris did it. Only one man has the skill needed to pull off such a feat.
Maybe he had some help from MacGuyver - he knows how to make bombs out of chewing gum, string, and leftover truck parts! :spin

[ChumpDumper]

Why is mouse posting stuff that argues both sides of the issue?

Why is he so afraid to say what he believed happened?

[Extra Stout]

Why is mouse posting stuff that argues both sides of the issue?

Why is he so afraid to say what he believed happened?
How do I know you aren't part of the conspiracy? ChumpDumper is an anagram for CD HUMMER PUP, which sounds vaguely military to me.

[Nbadan]

CD HUMMER PUP

chump is a cross-dresser?

[=RTM=]

Where's your proof of that assertion? or should we just take your word for it. My recollection is that Ground Zero looked to be mostly in that condition for several weeks after 9/11.

If you have proof that the photo was taken on 9/11 or 9/12, I'd be surprised.


It does not matter if it was Sept 4th they did not bring out the cutting torches till the 5th, Does anyone here actually do any research before you respond?

[=RTM=]

Why is mouse posting stuff that argues both sides of the issue?

Why is he so afraid to say what he believed happened?

Because I am Fair and balanced and I want more facts before I give my personal opinion, Something you should practice.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol What more do you want me to do? I watched In Plane Sight and Loose Change and read a bit on the internets and concluded that those two films are not terribly interested in actual truth. In fact, it suits their makers just fine if the whole truth is NEVER known. They'll be able to make a loose change off of this indefinitely.

I have an open mind, but I have a very low BS tolerance level. These conspiracists aren't convincing in the least.

[Phenomanul]

It does not matter if it was Sept 4th they did not bring out the cutting torches till the 5th, Does anyone here actually do any research before you respond?


So I'm to believe that firemen brought out the cutting torches 6 days before the actual attack on the 11th... I see. Kind of odd in that context.

[TheBlueVan]

as an interesting side note about the burning jet fuel, i was watching one of those "most extreme video" shows and an 18 wheeler carrying jet fuel crashed into the base of a steel bridge. the voice over says "jet fuel burns at ___" i dont remember the number but it was pretty high. anyways, the bridge, after about 15 minutes, collapsed.

the melting point of steel is really high, but the point at which steel fails (ie loses half its strength) is actually pretty low. i learned that in a freshman material science engineering classes. jesus people, stop trying to manufacture something

the WTC was designed in the 70s to be safe from the planes flying in the 70s

[ChumpDumper]

Planes flying in the 70s at approach speeds after dumping their fuel.

[Kimmy]

Chump Dumper give it a rest and try to find out what really happened to Anna!

[ChumpDumper]

Silverstein hit her with a cruise missle.

[Lance]

This Chump Dumper guy is making chumps out of all of you :lol

[smeagol]

Has Mouse answered Chump's question yet?

I thought so . . .

[ChumpDumper]

I still can't believe that these guys have absolutely no opnion about what they think actually happened that day.

[mookie2001]

thats what I call theories

[ChumpDumper]

What's your theory?

[smeagol]

thats what I call theories
Chickenshit

[mookie2001]

I think there were explosives and/or thermite in the building, i dont know who put them there, the floors didnt stack up on top of one other, you can see a yellow white liquid coming out of the towers, its not molten steel, its not molten aluminum, its not office materials, they removed all the steel and destroyed the evidence within two weeks. Flight 93 is a complete mystery because there were no bodies and if you look at the pictures of the crash site, its unlike any plane crash ive ever seen, it looks like they dumped trash in a big hole. Flight 93 was also reported to have landed in cleveland ohio

[Extra Stout]

mookie is going to be the star of the upcoming CBS hit CSI: Victoria.

[ChumpDumper]

I think there were explosives and/or thermite in the buildingI think varying combinations of fire and structural damage caused the collapse of the WTC buildings.
Flight 93 is a complete mystery because there were no bodiesThere were plenty of body parts which were used for identification.
Flight 93 was also reported to have landed in cleveland ohioIt was confused with an AA jet that did land there.

[Extra Stout]

You know in like 2011, mookie, Nbadan, mouse, and turambar's dog are going to corner Osama bin Laden in a subway tunnel somewhere, and mookie is going to pull Osama's mask off, and it will be Ken Lay underneath, and he'll say, "And I would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!"

[ChumpDumper]

You know, if I thought the government was behind all this, I'd be doing alot more than just putting bad voiceovers and cheesy ambient music to old news clips on the internets.

[Extra Stout]

You know, if I thought the government was behind all this, I'd be doing alot more than just putting bad voiceovers and cheesy ambient music to old news clips on the internets.
If I really thought the government was behind it, I would be involved in some kind of resistance.

[ChumpDumper]

Something besides posting YouTube links?

[Extra Stout]

Something besides posting YouTube links?
It's really very brave of them. They are risking... um...

[mookie2001]

what government are yall fucking talking about?, I didnt say anything about any government

[PixelPusher]

I love how this thread is the only thing going on in the political forum right now...it's the 90 year old man driving 15mph on a single lane highway.

[mookie2001]

its 18 pages because the case is so simple and open and shut

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I still can't believe that these guys have absolutely no opnion about what they think actually happened that day.


As for the WTC I think the planes crashing into the buildings carried reactants that combined with materials already planted the buildings (forgot the names) that instantly reacted to melt through the steel, making the buildings collapsed.

I think the building 7 was a blatant controlled demolition.

[ChumpDumper]

what government are yall fucking talking about?, I didnt say anything about any governmentSo what are you saying?

[mookie2001]

yall automatically jump to the fact that i think it was our government, just like yall I dont know who it was

[ChumpDumper]

As for the WTC I think the planes crashing into the buildings carried reactants that combined with materials already planted the buildings (forgot the names) that instantly reacted to melt through the steel, making the buildings collapsed.I think the structural damage caused by the impact and the fires fueled by jet fuel and insulation and other combustables weakened the steel enough to cause a collapse.
I think the building 7 was a blatant controlled demolition.I think debris from the north tower collapse caused major structural damage and fires in WTC 7. Those fires were fueled in part by thousands of gallons of diesel fuel that circulated throughout the building. Explosions could have occured when storage tanks or supply lines ignited or electric transformers blew. The fire and the debris damage and explosions were enough to bring WTC 7 down, especially if the truss system over the ConEd substation was damaged.

[ChumpDumper]

yall automatically jump to the fact that i think it was our government, just like yall I dont know who it wasIt was a group of terrorists who hijacked four planes.

[mookie2001]

yeah a group of unidentified men, with unknown affiliation crashed into the towers in a plane I got that

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I think the structural damage caused by the impact and the fires fueled by jet fuel and insulation and other combustables weakened the steel enough to cause a collapse.I think debris from the north tower collapse caused major structural damage and fires in WTC 7. Those fires were fueled in part by thousands of gallons of diesel fuel that circulated throughout the building. Explosions could have occured when storage tanks or supply lines ignited or electric transformers blew. The fire and the debris damage and explosions were enough to bring WTC 7 down, especially if the truss system over the ConEd substation was damaged.



Your opinion for number 1 is just as plausible as mine, but I think your opinion for building 7 is slightly more implausible than mine, due to other buildings being closer that suffered no significant damage. Also the insurance policy taken out on building 7, just too many coincidences.

[ChumpDumper]

yeah a group of unidentified men, with unknown affiliation crashed into the towers in a plane I got thatThey were identified.

[mookie2001]

not officially

[ChumpDumper]

Your opinion for number 1 is just as plausible as mine, but I think your opinion for building 7 is slightly more implausible than mine, due to other buildings being closer that suffered no significant damage.Which ones? WTC 5 and 6 and the hotel got clobbered.
Also the insurance policy taken out on building 7, just too many coincidences.Since Silverstein has had to pay $10 million a month for a hole in the ground, how exactly does he come out ahead when he was leasing about 90% of the available space in the WTC?

[ChumpDumper]

See you guys in a few hours. Feel free to tell me what you think happened.

[ChumpDumper]

not officiallyYes, officially.

[mookie2001]

who identified them officially?

[Lance]

First you dick puppets ask us what we think happened. then when we do, you have the nerved to say this shit?



You know in like 2011, mookie, Nbadan, mouse, and turambar's dog are going to corner Osama bin Laden in a subway tunnel somewhere, and mookie is going to pull Osama's mask off, and it will be Ken Lay underneath, and he'll say, "And I would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you meddling kids!"

No wonder mouse stop responding.

[cornbread]

I just finished watching "In Plane Site" and this post is not a critique of the 9/11 conspiracy theory, it's just some of my opinions on the film.

I liked how the narrator started out the film with an objective, "you decide for yourself" tone. That did not last long though. He used a forceful type of rhetoric like "It's clear that flash was not from box cutter wielding terrorists" or "it's clear that we are not being told the truth." I thought I get to decide for myself? Most of claims were followed by statements that forced an assumption of truth.

The biggest problem that I had with the film is the same problem I had with Loose Change; the evidence seemed to be cherry-picked. Not one single piece of evidence that might go against the film's thesis was examined. For example, they showed one witness saying the 2nd plane that hit WTC had no windows. Another woman screamed that it wasn't a Continental airplane. Weren't there hundreds of other eyewitnesses who claimed the contrary? If the film is seeking truth then it should show both sides. There were numerous other examples of this I'm too tired type them.

There is also the issue of the Pentagon. The film showed very few pictures of the actual crash-site and the pictures shown only supported the thesis. There were no pictures of the crash victims or workers carrying away pieces of the plane. How can I decide for myself when the evidence is so limited? When examining the logistics of the plane crashing into the Pentagon, they never examined the idea that landing gear is the heaviest and densest part of an airplane. My question would be, how does that play into the crash? This segment did have a strong piece of evidence (or reason for concern) which was the question of the other surveillance cameras. I have always wondered why no other footage has been released of the Pentagon crash. It's a pertinent question.

I try my hardest to look at theories like this with an open mind but films like "In Plane Site" make it very difficult for me. The lack of objectivity offends me because it seems like somebody is trying to manipulate me. This film did not feel nearly as manipulative as "Loose Change" but it was still very flawed in its pursuit of truth, IMHO.

[=RTM=]

ok now tell us what the film did show as far as unanswered questions, after all you claim to be this non bias person I am sure the film pointed out at least one thing you agree with, If not your just like Chump you see and hear what you want.


I have the film right here you want me to show the scene where they are picking up pieces of aircraft? I don't think you give the film any credit.
And you also talk about the film by Loose change like it's all lies.

besides if you knew anything about 9/11 you wouldn't wait till this topic was made to watch a film that is years old. Go watch the movie why the towers fell and get back to me with your Thumbs up take. :wakeup

[cornbread]

This segment did have a strong piece of evidence (or reason for concern) which was the question of the other surveillance cameras. I have always wondered why no other footage has been released of the Pentagon crash. It's a pertinent question.

[=RTM=]

How about the part where they talk about the plane that hit the pentagon was coming from the other side of the building and it would be an Impossible feat to have turned around and level off at that speed with a commercial airliner?

How about the part where they show explosions happening below the twin towers as they fell?


You left out many parts of the movie but that is your choice to beak it down as you see fit. unlike Chump I respect your analysis.

[cornbread]

Like I posted earlier, I'm not critiquing the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I haven't done the research to do so. But I have seen both of these films and I just have problems with the way arguments are presented. Both films do raise important questions though.

[=RTM=]

Well put all movies aside for a moment, I wanted your honest opinion about this picture,

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/blind-assholes.jpg

[=RTM=]

Also you notice the white smoke that comes from Thermite gas?

why is it when you Google Thermite charges you get the WTC websites?

Put all tin foil hat jokes aside. there is something we are not being told.

[cornbread]

I took the time to skim through this thread earlier today and noticed this picture. This is one of the more intriguing pieces of evidence that I've seen yet. It does appear to be a very clean break on the beam.

[=RTM=]

I took the time to skim through this thread earlier today and noticed this picture. This is one of the more intriguing pieces of evidence that I've seen yet. It does appear to be a very clean break on the beam.


Do you not see the run off from melted steel? Have you ever seen Thermite in person? I have back in 1981 at Ft. Bragg NC we used it to penetrate Russian tanks in a weapons demonstration for the Secretary of defense, That shit burned for 3 weeks. And we watered it 24 / 7

[cornbread]

I noticed that too. At least from this angle, the 2 beams to the right don't seem to have any run off though.

[=RTM=]

I noticed that too. At least from this angle, the 2 beams to the right don't seem to have any run off though.


Do you know how many steel beams were in the WTC? You must remember this was not some hotel in Vegas that was being demolished this was a building that they had to go in their undetected, did you not see the part of the film where the maintenance man said they closed off parts of the WTC and he was not allowed to enter? Did you not see the part where they stop using bomb sniffing dogs two weeks before the attack? What are you looking for a sign that reads Joe blow demolition construction site was here? Do you need to see DNA to know Jesus was here?

It's obvious your set in your ways so I will file you under the Chump Dumper head in the sand crowd.

[ChumpDumper]

Go watch the movie why the towers fell and get back to me with your Thumbs up take.:lmao

How many fucking movies are you going to demand we watch?

Both movies have been "updated" -- as far as i can tell they have had the most ridiculous claims removed -- why should I be worried about their "truths" being corrupted by time?
How about the part where they talk about the plane that hit the pentagon was coming from the other side of the building and it would be an Impossible feat to have turned around and level off at that speed with a commercial airliner?Who says it? Actual airline pilots? Folks with the flight path trcked on radar?
Also you notice the white smoke that comes from Thermite gas?If you can prove that white smoke only comes from Thermite gas and nothing else on the face of the earth, then you are truly onto something. For example, when the Pope is chosen the cardinals explode some Thermite in their fireplace since that's the only way to make white smoke. Now the Vatican is in on 9/11!
That shit burned for 3 weeks. And we watered it 24 / 7So shouldn't it be burning in that picture that was taken a week before 9/11 according to you?

[ChumpDumper]

Do you know how many steel beams were in the WTC? You must remember this was not some hotel in Vegas that was being demolished this was a building that they had to go in their undetected, did you not see the part of the film where the maintenance man said they closed off parts of the WTC and he was not allowed to enter?Yeah, could have entered at any time -- he said he was afraid to enter. He was so concerned about it he told -- well, no one.
Did you not see the part where they stop using bomb sniffing dogs two weeks before the attack?Because they had a bomb threat at that time and they didn't find anything. if you can find a link that says bomb sniffing dogs were permanently employed at WTC in the years before 9/11, I might believe you.

[=RTM=]

:lmao

How many fucking movies are you going to demand we watch?




The movie on why the towers fell shows all about heat , gravity, and steel structures, they do not point fingers or get all high on Bush juice like yourself.

They mealy show how if the building pancaked like they say in all the documentaries that the core steel beams would stay in tacked .
They show how many 30 plus year engineers who where silenced when they wanted to review the 911 report before it was published.

They just show the inconsistency's with what the Government and kool-aid drinkers like yourself try to force down our throats. I felt it would be a great movie for him to watch and for me to ask questions. Something you do in a civilized debate.

In no way I had intended to have to deal with your non stop meth induced stalking in the process. That was an obvious over site on my part, and for that I apologize.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/mouse-hypno.gif

[=RTM=]

Yeah, could have entered at any time -- he said he was afraid to enter. He was so concerned about it he told -- well, no one.Because they had a bomb threat at that time and they didn't find anything. if you can find a link that says bomb sniffing dogs were permanently employed at WTC in the years before 9/11, I might believe you.


The Bomb sniffing dogs were implemented after the first attack on the WTC as common procedure. My point was they were asked to not have them two weeks prior to the 9/11 attack. If you did your homework you would know that already. Or did you forget the WTC was attacked once before?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/mouse-stars.gif

[=RTM=]

Who says it? Actual airline pilots? Folks with the flight path trcked on radar?

Radar paths are recorded on discs, They show the path of the airline 2 mintues prior to it hitting the pentagon. If you doubt their records you need to take that up with them and Norad.






For example, when the Pope is chosen the cardinals explode some Thermite in their fireplace since that's the only way to make white smoke. Now the Vatican is in on 9/11!

If I knew you were going to use comedy in your 9/11 assessment I would have not took the time to reply in the first place. I don't take 9/11 and the lives lost as punch line like you and your homo side kick friend johnsmith and I would appreciated you not do it any further, show some respect for the lives lost that day.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/mouse-swirl.gif

[ChumpDumper]

The Bomb sniffing dogs were implemented after the first attack on the WTC as common procedure.How common?

Every day since the first attack?
My point was they were asked to not have them two weeks prior to the 9/11 attack. If you did your homework you would know that already.I did already know that. There was a bomb threat that they checked out that proved to be false. And of course, any controlled demolition of the three WTC towers would have required months of planning and setup, not two weeks -- and the dogs and bomb squads were there every other day leading up to those two weeks, right? Now your homework is to find anything that says bomb-sniffing dogs were a permanent fixture required to search the building every day in both towers for eight years after the basement bombing, which will prove you to be both right and wrong.

[=RTM=]

How common?

Every day since the first attack?I did already know that. There was a bomb threat that they checked out that proved to be false. And of course, any controlled demolition of the three WTC towers would have required months of planning and setup, not two weeks -- and the dogs and bomb squads were there every other day leading up to those two weeks, right? Now your homework is to find anything that says bomb-sniffing dogs were a permanent fixture required to search the building every day in both towers for eight years after the basement bombing, which will prove you to be both right and wrong.

If you think it takes weeks of planing to take down a building then your head is further up your ass than I previous expected. all you need is an angry red neck,5 hours and a Ryder truck full of Fertilizer or did you forget about that Other Government building that was bombed? Certain floors of the WTC were off limits to even the maintenance crew and in fact one floor had no elevator access.
A week before the WTC attack the power along with the security cameras were turned off. I supposed you have some sort of explanation for that
that also involves the Pope.

You grasping at straws and I have to start breakfast. Get back to me when you have done some more Goggling and your ready to be proven wrong again.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/mouse.gif

[ChumpDumper]

If you think it takes weeks of planing to take down a building then your head is further up your ass than I previous expected. all you need is an angry red neck,5 hours and a Ryder truck full of Fertilizer or did you forget about that Other Government building that was bombed?Not a controlled demolition. If you are saying there was a Ryder truck seventy floors up in one of the towers, I really want to hear that theory.
Certain floors of the WTC were off limits to even the maintenance crewNot according to the guy in the movie you told me to watch -- he just said he was afraid. Why are you lying about the movie you told me to watch?
A week before the WTC attack the power along with the security cameras were turned off.That was one guy talking about one office in one tower, and there was wiring work scheduled. Why is he the only one? If ALL the cameras and ALL the electricity was turned off to ALL the big money tenants who occupied 90% of the WTC, wouldn't we have heard from them? If every blown-out window is a demolition squib, then we know exactly where they were placed and the Loose Change guys can interview everyone who worked on those floors. Why haven't they done that?
You grasping at strawsI'm still waiting for your proof that bomb-sniffing dogs worked in both towers every day for eight years. Surely the Loose Change guys were all over that one.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, turns out there was a full time bomb sniffing dog that wasn't pulled from duty before 9/11!

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/america.remembers/stories/heroes/lim.html

And he worked in the parking garage. So now you need a theory about how all that Thermite got past the dog that was there. Good luck!

[1369]

Do you not see the run off from melted steel? Have you ever seen Thermite in person? I have back in 1981 at Ft. Bragg NC we used it to penetrate Russian tanks in a weapons demonstration for the Secretary of defense, That shit burned for 3 weeks. And we watered it 24 / 7

*cough*majortrollbullshit*cough*

[johnsmith]

I don't take 9/11 and the lives lost as punch line like you and your homo side kick friend johnsmith and I would appreciated you not do it any further, show some respect for the lives lost that day.



Gosh, you really took it hard when I pointed out what a waste of a human being you are and how you are clearly not a very funny comedian or you wouldn't have to spend so much time on this site.

I mean, I wasn't here for four pages of this thread and you're still mentioning me. Get over it ya damn burnt out 80's hipster douche bag.

[01Snake]

Chump FTW

[Crookshanks]

You know Chump, you've posted some things in other threads that annoyed me greatly; but I have to say that I really admire your tenacity in this thread! I've really enjoyed reading your comments and seeing you knock the props out from under mouse and others time and time again!

Now, a question for all those who believe in this 9/11 conspiracy - Let's say all the circumstances, facts, and evidence are EXACTLY the same, but the President is named Al Gore instead of George W. Bush - do you still believe the government is so evil that it would conspire to cause 9/11?

[clambake]

I think he's trying to sell you a load he wouldn't buy himself.

Me thinks he duth protest too much.

[Extra Stout]

You know Chump, you've posted some things in other threads that annoyed me greatly; but I have to say that I really admire your tenacity in this thread! I've really enjoyed reading your comments and seeing you knock the props out from under mouse and others time and time again!

Now, a question for all those who believe in this 9/11 conspiracy - Let's say all the circumstances, facts, and evidence are EXACTLY the same, but the President is named Al Gore instead of George W. Bush - do you still believe the government is so evil that it would conspire to cause 9/11?
How do we know Al Gore ISN'T involved in the conspiracy? His father knew something about Operation Northwoods

[cornbread]

Do you know how many steel beams were in the WTC? You must remember this was not some hotel in Vegas that was being demolished this was a building that they had to go in their undetected, did you not see the part of the film where the maintenance man said they closed off parts of the WTC and he was not allowed to enter? Did you not see the part where they stop using bomb sniffing dogs two weeks before the attack? What are you looking for a sign that reads Joe blow demolition construction site was here? Do you need to see DNA to know Jesus was here?

It's obvious your set in your ways so I will file you under the Chump Dumper head in the sand crowd.


You know what man, I just pointed out one detail that could raise a question. But you want me to take your evidence as gospel because you're a guy on the internet who claims to have worked at Ft. Bragg back in '81. Excuse me for thinking about things before subscribing to them. I point out one detail about a piece of evidence and you insult me. Well fuck you man. I'll get my information elsewhere from people who are mature enough to have a conversation. I don't have time to deal with arrogant assholes like you.

You're the reason why people don't take your "movement" seriously.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[mookie2001]

chump why wont you answer my question


who

officially

indentified

the

911

hijackers?

[ChumpDumper]

The

F

B

I.

And if you're saying they didn't get a DNA match -- how could they? Their families weren't exaclty stepping forward to provide control samples.

[mookie2001]

link?, they dont even have their real names, real DOBs, and if you go by the FBIs IDs then 7 to 9 of them are still alive

[Extra Stout]

link?, they dont even have their real names, real DOBs, and if you go by the FBIs IDs then 7 to 9 of them are still alive
And living happily in Cleveland, apparently. I hear Mohammed Atta is a fixture at Cavs games.

[ChumpDumper]

if you go by the FBIs IDs then 7 to 9 of them are still aliveThoroughly disproven. If you Google my name, you get a children's book author -- and my name isn't all that common. Yes, from Morrocco to Iraq, there are a few Arabs that have the same name. I'd believe Loose Change more if they bothered to follow the FBI's work after the month of September 2001 -- but that's just another thing they can't be bring themselves to do while they are busy showing up at movie premieres and selling T-shirts.

[Extra Stout]

Thoroughly disproven. If you Google my name, you get a children's book author --False. I found no children's book author named ChumpDumper. You are involved in the coverup.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

[mookie2001]

still cant confirm their real names or dates of birth. which is what we would call identification

[Extra Stout]

still cant confirm their real names or dates of birth. which is what we would call identification
So we can't find these people, but even if they could, it's unlikley they could fly planes so well, but you know who IS a trained pilot? A trained fighter pilot?

George W. Bush

QED.

[ChumpDumper]

Too bad we couldn't interrogate the tiny charred bits of them at Gitmo.

[mookie2001]

weak, no one said anything about Bush

[Extra Stout]

Too bad we couldn't interrogate the tiny charred bits of them at Gitmo.
Pfffft. Sure we could. Ever heard of Jack Bauer?

[ChumpDumper]

Look, every one of these so-called investigative documentaries have such huge, unforgiveably awful lies and willful fabrications in them it's obvious they are not interested in anything resembling truth. They don't pass the smell test -- they don't pass any test of credibility at all and anyone trying to pass their farces of investigations off as serious are too lazy to execute the few mouse clicks necessary to completely destroy their lies.

It's a goddam waste of time and a distraction from the real issues that we have been facing and will continue to face in this decade.