Real 9-11 Research

[Wild Cobra]

fipduck;

Galileo is perfectly aware about the force of gravity.

The force of 75 times the static force is not large enough to collapse the building. Oh, wow! 75 is a big number! It must be enough to collapse the building!!

When are you going to explain to me why your calculations are not in the NIST report?
Are you saying that WTC 1 and 2 were deisgned to hold 7500% of their mass?

[Galileo]

Are you saying that WTC 1 and 2 were deisgned to hold 7500% of their mass?

No, I am not saying that.

You are confused.

A kinetic force from a fall lasts only a short duration.

A static force from a mass above lasts for a much longer duration.

WTC 1 and WTC 2 can withstand a short-term force that is 7500% of their weight, but not a continuous force of that magnitude.

[Wild Cobra]

Sorry, there were no fires in the lobby. Go back and read the NIST report.

Maybe there weren't fires. There is still the debris and impact. Maybe they were looters or police and fire instead? I haven't read any of these reports for almost 2 years. I do not have 100% recall. The lobby was damaged however.



Nor were the exterior windows of the lobby broken.

That is a flat out lie. I have seen a photo showing damade.



Do you debunkers just make stuff up?

No. This is a realistic plauseable explainations with the known facts. It is your conspiracy theories which are made up.

Where is your explosive evidence?

If you want 100% unrefutable facts, then I challenge you to stick with them as well.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you talk in circles?

You said the planes should have set off the explosives.

Getting senile?

How do you know they were commercial explosives?
No, I was providing a senario that would support you conspiracy theory, in which I questioned why would they be set off after the plane didn't hit. If it was interpreted otherwise, that wasn't my intent.

[Wild Cobra]

Sorry, I have a degree in mathematics, which has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.

OK then, disprove Random...



And I am a former officer of the Libertarian Party, not a liberal.

That explains allot. As you know, there are several varieties of libertarians. I have yet to meet a liberatrian party official that wasn't a total whacho. You guys give us real liberatarians a bad name, like president Bush and senator McCain gives the republican party a bad name. That's why I normally refer to myself as a conservative. That's why I am registered as "not affiliated."

[Wild Cobra]

No, I am not saying that.

You are confused.

A kinetic force from a fall lasts only a short duration.

A static force from a mass above lasts for a much longer duration.

WTC 1 and WTC 2 can withstand a short-term force that is 7500% of their weight, but not a continuous force of that magnitude.
Bzzzzz...

wrong answer.

7500% is far to great of a number for kinetic energy unless that energy is 100% directed strait through the strongest angle of the structure. Any angular deviation, with the applied vector forces, wipe such a number out of consideration.

What you imply is the same physics that allow a paper straw to be put through a potato. If not done just right, the straw collapses, often not even making a mark on the potato.

[ChumpDumper]

I have a degree in mathematicsHow many floors do you count in this building?


http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/landmark.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Sorry, I have a degree in mathematics, which has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.

And I am a former officer of the Libertarian Party, not a liberal.

Sorry again.

You are a pinhead.

...and I have a degree in german, so it shouldn't be too hard for you to show how my math was wrong.

Man braucht nicht Zaubertricks, nur etwas besonderes einfach, ob du ehrlich ein Matematiksdiplom hast.

I am a simple shill after all.

[RandomGuy]

No, I was providing a senario that would support you conspiracy theory, in which I questioned why would they be set off after the plane didn't hit. If it was interpreted otherwise, that wasn't my intent.

Ask him to name what kind of explosive can survive an 800 degree fire and/or an impact from a jetliner.

Then ask him how many people it took to wire the 220 stories of the WTC towers, and how they managed to conceal the cuts through the drywall and conduits required to place the explosives.

Then ask him if someone smart enough to wire such a building, knowing that the people who ordered the "demolition" were willing to kill tens of thousands of people, would really believe that they would not be "tidied up" as a loose end after it was all over.

There are a lot of questions that he won't answer.

Which is funny, because if he ever does get his trial they are precisely the kinds of questions that would be brought up in a courtroom.

[RandomGuy]

Ask him to name what kind of explosive can survive an 800 degree fire and/or an impact from a jetliner.

Then ask him how many people it took to wire the 220 stories of the WTC towers, and how they managed to conceal the cuts through the drywall and conduits required to place the explosives.

Then ask him if someone smart enough to wire such a building, knowing that the people who ordered the "demolition" were willing to kill tens of thousands of people, would really believe that they would not be "tidied up" as a loose end after it was all over.

There are a lot of questions that he won't answer.

Which is funny, because if he ever does get his trial they are precisely the kinds of questions that would be brought up in a courtroom.

"Gee, your honor, I don't really know what kind of explosives could withstand raging fires for a half hour, I don't really know how the explosives got there, and I can't really tell you who actually performed the work, but YOU KNOW THEY DID IT."

:lol

[Galileo]

Bzzzzz...

wrong answer.

7500% is far to great of a number for kinetic energy unless that energy is 100% directed strait through the strongest angle of the structure. Any angular deviation, with the applied vector forces, wipe such a number out of consideration.

What you imply is the same physics that allow a paper straw to be put through a potato. If not done just right, the straw collapses, often not even making a mark on the potato.

7500% is your number, not my number. You introduced it.

You also make my other point; if the top portion of the WTC were dropped several feet onto the lower portion, the top would not impact its entire force onto the lower, but deflect away and then fall to the ground.

Are you actually trying to make logical arguments? If not, what is your point, simply to waste people's time?

[RandomGuy]

7500% is your number, not my number. You introduced it.

You also make my other point; if the top portion of the WTC were dropped several feet onto the lower portion, the top would not impact its entire force onto the lower, but deflect away and then fall to the ground.

Are you actually trying to make logical arguments? If not, what is your point, simply to waste people's time?

You have yet to tell me what force would cause that portion of the building to deflect away, just like that rock moving off to the side after hitting the tin can.

[RandomGuy]

PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m

Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.

SOOOO

The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.

Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.

They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.

Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.

Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:


v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing. :rolleyes

STILL FURTHER

Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.

IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.

Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)

What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.

[Extra Stout]

Pffft... RG has his "calculations." How do we know Isaac Newton isn't part of the conspiracy? That "apple" story sounds awfully specious.

[RandomGuy]

One thing that physics challenged conspiracy dorks miss about this is that the equation was for a body starting AT REST.

If the portion under the falling mass doesn't stop it instantly and collapses itself, you then have to figure the momentum for an object with a starting velocity, increased mass AND further accelerated downward by the force of gravity.

[RandomGuy]

Pffft... RG has his "calculations." How do we know Isaac Newton isn't part of the conspiracy? That "apple" story sounds awfully specious.

But the Bush family owns the companies that publish textbooks. They're in on it too... :lol

[RandomGuy]

v2 = v02 + 2a(x − x0)

x-x0 is the distance factor, v0 being the starting velocity, a=g= gravity acceleration

soooo

One floor is roughly 3 meters.

let's assume that the floor can fully absorb one 75th of the momentum/velocity, so

12 minus 1/75th of 12 equals... 11.84

11.84 squared is... 140

so substitute that bit in there and you get

v2= 140+(2)9.8(3)=198.99, or hell, just to keep decimals out, we'll round v2 up to 199

The sqaure root of 199 is 14.1

The ending velocity of the moving mass is about 14.1 meters per second.

Oops. This is still faster than it was before it hit the first floor.

[RandomGuy]

Now we can substitute the new velocity back into the Kinetic energy (momentum) equation:

ke= 199*.5*m=ke=99m

Oops.

Here is the part that Gal will now have to contend with.

The remaining structure can still only stop about 1.2m

soooo

At 99m, you now have 82 times enough kenetic energy to crush the underlying structure, if the mass holds constant.

Let's be realistic and assume that some part of the mass DOES fall off to the side.

Hell, let's assume that 95% of the falling mass now falls off to the side.

Factor that into the KE equation

99(m*.05)

Since math boy seems to be unable to do math, I will not bother asking him how much this equals and simply spell it out.

4.97m=ke.

That means that the mass that is left still has FIVE FUCKING TIMES the force (dynamic)of the entire mass when that mass was held at zero velocity (static)

Meaning:

Even if 95% of the mass then falls away and is not available to crush the remaining building, you STILL have about 4 times enough energy to collapse the building.

[RandomGuy]

Further still,

Consider the implications of that 4.97m=ke.

Let's say that the force was static and not dynamic.

That means that at the instant of contact, that 5% mass applied the same force as 4.97 times 31 (floors).

The means that it applied the same amount of force as a hundred and fifty story building held at rest at the point of impact.

To imply this wasn't enough force to collapse the building is to imply that the building could have easily been more than TWICE as tall.

Perhaps Gal knows about some 220 story buildings that I don't... ;)

[Galileo]

How many floors do you count in this building?


http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/landmark.jpg

which building? The one on the right or the left?

[Galileo]

That is a flat out lie. I have seen a photo showing damade.



I already posted the photo of the exterior windows of the lobby of WTC 7 a few pages back. No photos showing these windows broken exist. You are stone cold liar.

[Galileo]

OK then, disprove Random...


That explains allot. As you know, there are several varieties of libertarians. I have yet to meet a liberatrian party official that wasn't a total whacho. You guys give us real liberatarians a bad name, like president Bush and senator McCain gives the republican party a bad name. That's why I normally refer to myself as a conservative. That's why I am registered as "not affiliated."

people like you give conservatives a bad name. That's why I register Libertarian. Most conservatives I hear on the radio or this blog are total wackos.

[Galileo]

"Gee, your honor, I don't really know what kind of explosives could withstand raging fires for a half hour, I don't really know how the explosives got there, and I can't really tell you who actually performed the work, but YOU KNOW THEY DID IT."

:lol

I already told you that some of the explosives went off early. We have hundreds of reports of explosions from the towers. Are you really that stupid or do you just have a short memory?

I've already told you how the explosives got there. This was an inside job. That means and employee of the security company had the explosives brought in.

Please explain to me how bin Laden could sneak the explosives past security?

How did bin Laden turn off the alarm systems in WTC 7?

[Galileo]

[QUOTE=RandomGuy]

Then ask him how many people it took to wire the 220 stories of the WTC towers, and how they managed to conceal the cuts through the drywall and conduits required to place the explosives.

[QUOTE]

Most of the explosives were placed next to the core columns next to the elevator shafts, rows 5, 6, 9, and 10 of the core. There isn't drywall there, so please explain to me why you are bringing up drywall besides the fact that you're an idiot?

Also, where do you get the idea that 220 stories must be wired to bring down the building? Are you now admitting that explosives are required to bring it down?

[Galileo]

But the Bush family owns the companies that publish textbooks. They're in on it too... :lol

you're the racist who thinks all the Arabs and Muslims are in on it, and want them bombed back to the stone age.

[Galileo]

Now we can substitute the new velocity back into the Kinetic energy (momentum) equation:

ke= 199*.5*m=ke=99m

Oops.

Here is the part that Gal will now have to contend with.

The remaining structure can still only stop about 1.2m

soooo

At 99m, you now have 82 times enough kenetic energy to crush the underlying structure, if the mass holds constant.

Let's be realistic and assume that some part of the mass DOES fall off to the side.

Hell, let's assume that 95% of the falling mass now falls off to the side.

Factor that into the KE equation

99(m*.05)

Since math boy seems to be unable to do math, I will not bother asking him how much this equals and simply spell it out.

4.97m=ke.

That means that the mass that is left still has FIVE FUCKING TIMES the force (dynamic)of the entire mass when that mass was held at zero velocity (static)

Meaning:

Even if 95% of the mass then falls away and is not available to crush the remaining building, you STILL have about 4 times enough energy to collapse the building.

you have several errors.

First of all, the top floors of the towers are less massive than the lower floors.

Another problem; WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane, dumbshit.

You need to re-do everything and then try again.

[DarrinS]

I'm starting to get the feeling I've been had. I really don't think Galileo believes this crap. I think he's just trolling and having a good time at our expense.


Because no one can possibly be that dumb.


TROLL! NO SOUP FOR YOU! Now, GTFO! :ihit

[Galileo]

I'm starting to get the feeling I've been had. I really don't think Galileo believes this crap. I think he's just trolling and having a good time at our expense.


Because no one can possibly be that dumb.


TROLL! NO SOUP FOR YOU! Now, GTFO! :ihit

not a troll.

a disinfo CIA mole shill plant

[Homeland Security]

Galileo, would you mind sharing your full name, address, and Social Security number?

Actually, don't bother. I can go look it up in the server.

[Galileo]

Galileo, would you mind sharing your full name, address, and Social Security number?

Actually, don't bother. I can go look it up in the server.

last name is Galilei.

Address:

Via Santa Maria, 26 Pisa I-56126 - Italy
http://www.anitalyattraction.com/italy-attractions-mp/house-of-galileo.htm

We don't have SS#'s in Italy, sorry.

[RandomGuy]

you have several errors.

First of all, the top floors of the towers are less massive than the lower floors.

Another problem; WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane, dumbshit.

You need to re-do everything and then try again.

Irrelevant to the ultimate calculation, dipstick.

Whether the upper floors weighed one pound or a million pounds, the structure below was designed to bear that weight, plus a bit for safety.

The design parameter is based on the weight of the what the structure above it will weigh.

So in terms of mass, m, the structure below it was designed to hold some multiple of m.

So basically you called my math wrong and can't tell me why.

You don't have a theory, you have dogma. The dogma of the Church of the Holy Conspiracy according to you.

This dogma cannot be questioned, and any pesky science that gets in the way MUST BE a lie.

You sound EXACTLY like the "creationist scientists" who ignore the mountain of evidence that points to evolution and simply wave your arms and say "God did it."

You ignore any logical, scientifically based argument about your religion, just like they do. Congratulations.

[RandomGuy]

I'm starting to get the feeling I've been had. I really don't think Galileo believes this crap. I think he's just trolling and having a good time at our expense.


Because no one can possibly be that dumb.


TROLL! NO SOUP FOR YOU! Now, GTFO! :ihit

Nope, there are actually idiots out there who genuinely believe this steamy pile of dung. Gal might be among them, it is hard to say.

He is pretty convincing because he, like most of the twoofers, has mostly abandoned the "WTC towers were a controlled demolition" bit and started hanging his hat the on irrelevant WTC7.

Prove them wrong in one way, and they simply find some other pile of poo to throw at the wall to see if it sticks.

BOOOORINNNNGGGG.

[ChumpDumper]

which building? The one on the right or the left?The gray one in the middle with the lighter-colored fire escape going up the side and the busted digital clock on top.


http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/landmark.jpg

[Galileo]

Irrelevant to the ultimate calculation, dipstick.

Whether the upper floors weighed one pound or a million pounds, the structure below was designed to bear that weight, plus a bit for safety.

The design parameter is based on the weight of the what the structure above it will weigh.

So in terms of mass, m, the structure below it was designed to hold some multiple of m.

So basically you called my math wrong and can't tell me why.

You don't have a theory, you have dogma. The dogma of the Church of the Holy Conspiracy according to you.

This dogma cannot be questioned, and any pesky science that gets in the way MUST BE a lie.

You sound EXACTLY like the "creationist scientists" who ignore the mountain of evidence that points to evolution and simply wave your arms and say "God did it."

You ignore any logical, scientifically based argument about your religion, just like they do. Congratulations.

the upper portion of WTC 7 didn't fall onto the lower portion.

I know, I know, you believe in the 5th plane conspiracy theory.

[ChumpDumper]

the upper portion of WTC 7 didn't fall onto the lower portion.Actually the mechanical penthouses did fall into the rest of the building. Pretty heavy.

[Galileo]

Actually the mechanical penthouses did fall into the rest of the building. Pretty heavy.

the puny little east penthouse took down WTC 7, eh?

What brought down the east penthouse?

[ChumpDumper]

the puny little east penthouse took down WTC 7, eh?How much do you think that weighs?


What brought down the east penthouse?The failure of one or more vertical columns and probably one of the transfer trusses.

[Galileo]

The failure of one or more vertical columns.

core columns or perimeter columns?

[ChumpDumper]

core columns or perimeter columns?Could have been either or both.

[ChumpDumper]

The gray one in the middle with the lighter-colored fire escape going up the side and the busted digital clock on top.


http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/landmark.jpgHow many floors?

[Galileo]

Could have been either or both.

perimeter columns don't make buildings implode.

and there's no oxygen for fires in the core.

so you have a double-loser.

[ChumpDumper]

perimeter columns don't make buildings implode.combined with other failures, it sure could.


and there's no oxygen for fires in the core.How did people breathe in the core for 18 years? Scuba tanks?

[ChumpDumper]

The gray one in the middle with the lighter-colored fire escape going up the side and the busted digital clock on top.


http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/landmark.jpgHow many floors?

[Galileo]

How many floors?

I'd estimate at least 30 floors, but no more than 65.

[Galileo]

[QUOTE=ChumpDumper]combined with other failures, it sure could.

QUOTE]

there weren't any other failures except those in your mind.

[ChumpDumper]

I'd estimate at least 30 floors, but no more than 65.You can't be any more specific than that?

With all your mathematics training?


How many floors?

[ChumpDumper]

there weren't any other failures except those in your mind.Said the math major who can't count.

[Galileo]

You can't be any more specific than that?

With all your mathematics training?


How many floors?

That tower is not in the NISt report, as far as I can tell.

Why did the east penthouse of WTC 7 fall, if no fires were above floor 13?

[DarrinS]

That tower is not in the NISt report, as far as I can tell.

Why did the east penthouse of WTC 7 fall, if no fires were above floor 13?


I know you're just trolling, but I already posted a very good article on the subject -- this one by professional engineers, not by a hippie computer hacker. http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

[ChumpDumper]

That tower is not in the NISt report, as far as I can tell.You're the one who posted a video of it.

How many floors?


Why did the east penthouse of WTC 7 fall, if no fires were above floor 13?If some floors and vertical columns fail below that, it could certainly affect the building above.

How many floors in this picture of the building from your video?


http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/landmark.jpg

[Galileo]

I know you're just trolling, but I already posted a very good article on the subject -- this one by professional engineers, not by a hippie computer hacker. http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

your article sucks.

First of all, its just a bunch of couldas, shouldas wouldas. it is not a scientific paper. Whoever wrote it should be stripped of all their credentials.

The first problem is that office fires don't burn hot enough to affect steel framed buildings.

Second, there is no explanation of how column # 79 failed.

Third, if column # 79 failed, the rest of the building would hold it up. You'd need to knock out 25 columns to make this building fall.

The paper does describe where to put explosives if you want to take it down.

[Galileo]

You're the one who posted a video of it.

How many floors?

If some floors and vertical columns fail below that, it could certainly affect the building above.

How many floors in this picture of the building from your video?


http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/landmark.jpg

Is this your WTC 8?

hate to say it, but there is no WTC 8.

What does this have to do with WTC 7?

[Galileo]

How many floors?

hey, I just figured out how this building fell down:

1) it had a unique contruction.

2) the other side may have suffered extreme damage from flying saucers.

3) a garbage can on the 25th floor caught fire. This fire spread to the kitchen. Then column # 13 failed, bad luck, and the building went down.

:ttiwwp:

[ChumpDumper]

Is this your WTC 8?

hate to say it, but there is no WTC 8.

What does this have to do with WTC 7?You posted a video of its demolition and claimed it was 64 floors high.


Chumper;

FYI

Here is a 64 floor building being demolished. The talles is not 33 floors as you claim.

Controlled Demolition
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8378726085939575248&q=controlled+demolition+-WTC+-9%2F11+-conspiracy+-truth&total=330&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

The twin towers were demolished in non-standard fashion, as they started the collapse from near, but not exactly, where the planes hit, in an attempt to disguise the controlled demolition.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2330356&postcount=573

I posted a picture of the same building before its demolition and I'm asking you how many floors this building has:



http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/landmark.jpg

How many floors?

[Galileo]

How many floors of WTC 7 had fires after 3 PM?

[ChumpDumper]

You posted a video of its demolition and claimed it was 64 floors high.



http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2330356&postcount=573

I posted a picture of the same building before its demolition and I'm asking you how many floors this building has:



http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/landmark.jpg

How many floors? I have a policy where I don't discuss the technical aspects of WTC 7, until the Fort Worth Landmark Tower is resolved.

Sorry.

:-(

[Galileo]

I have a policy where I don't discuss the technical aspects of WTC 7, until the Fort Worth Landmark Tower is resolved.

Sorry.

:-(

you're quite the clever fellow. Now I know why you believe conspiracy theories.

[ChumpDumper]

So how many floors?

[Galileo]

So how many floors?

the same number as the Lakers longest winning streak.

[Galileo]

Preposterous quote from Osama bin Laden:

"Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building"

This quotation from the Fatty bin Laden video is even more preposterous than the idea that Atta would bring his will with him on a airplane suicide mission!

[Wild Cobra]

If WTC 7 fell in 8.2 seconds instead of 6.6 seconds, how would that refute controlled demolition?

It doesn't. It shows the inaccuracy of the 'truthers.'



How did four fires after 3PM on the north face of WTC 7 at floors 7, 8, 12, and 13, cause the east Penthouse on the roof to collapse?

There was structural damage too. Besides, the fires started well before 3 PM.



WTC 7 fell in 6.6 seconds.

I replayed the CBS video and others I have saved. It does take about 6.6 seconds before WTC 7 appears collapse from the ground. However, the initial roof collapse isn't seen, and the 6.6 seconds is after it isn't visible any longer, behind other buildings. The CBS video from the helicopter best shows the collapse, clearly more than 7 seconds before no more is seen falling behind the other buildings and lost in the debris cloud. Besides, there are still at least 7 floors unseen in any of the videos.


7500% is your number, not my number. You introduced it.

No I didn't, it was a discussion between you and Random.

Oh wait... I get it... Your math skills are at such a low level that you don't know that "75 times" is the same as 7500%... Right?



You also make my other point; if the top portion of the WTC were dropped several feet onto the lower portion, the top would not impact its entire force onto the lower, but deflect away and then fall to the ground.

Even though buildings are mostly hollow? Silly me. I thought in just took up some of that hollow space.


I already posted the photo of the exterior windows of the lobby of WTC 7 a few pages back. No photos showing these windows broken exist. You are stone cold liar.
It took some time, but I found the south face damage. This same file gives a timeframe of some of the breaking windows. Source file is:

Appendix L (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf):

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/promenadeandbridge-edit.jpg

The photo is after WTC-1 collapse and before WTC-7 collapse. Here is an aerial view showing the location for reference:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Complexview-edit.jpg

Notice first of all how you said WTC-6 was in the way of debris causing damage to the lower floors, yet I see a clear path from WTC-1 to WTC-7. See how short WTC-6 is compared to 1 & 7?

You continue to make incorrect statements.

Now this drawing is from the same PDF file. It shows how a single column can bring down other columns:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Bendingcolumns.jpg

Here are a photo's showing the face of WTC-7 before 9/11 clearly showing the Promenade and Pedestrian Bridge:

http://www.debunking911.com/7wtc_lrg.jpg

[RandomGuy]

PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m

Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.

SOOOO

The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.

Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.

They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.

Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.

Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:


v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing. :rolleyes

STILL FURTHER

Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.

IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.

Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)

What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.

[RandomGuy]

One thing that physics challenged conspiracy dorks miss about this is that the equation was for a body starting AT REST.

If the portion under the falling mass doesn't stop it instantly and collapses itself, you then have to figure the momentum for an object with a starting velocity, increased mass AND further accelerated downward by the force of gravity.

[RandomGuy]

v2 = v02 + 2a(x − x0)

x-x0 is the distance factor, v0 being the starting velocity, a=g= gravity acceleration

soooo

One floor is roughly 3 meters.

let's assume that the floor can fully absorb one 75th of the momentum/velocity, so

12 minus 1/75th of 12 equals... 11.84

11.84 squared is... 140

so substitute that bit in there and you get

v2= 140+(2)9.8(3)=198.99, or hell, just to keep decimals out, we'll round v2 up to 199

The sqaure root of 199 is 14.1

The ending velocity of the moving mass is about 14.1 meters per second.

Oops. This is still faster than it was before it hit the first floor.

[RandomGuy]

Now we can substitute the new velocity back into the Kinetic energy (momentum) equation:

ke= 199*.5*m=ke=99m

Oops.

Here is the part that Gal will now have to contend with.

The remaining structure can still only stop about 1.2m

soooo

At 99m, you now have 82 times enough kenetic energy to crush the underlying structure, if the mass holds constant.

Let's be realistic and assume that some part of the mass DOES fall off to the side.

Hell, let's assume that 95% of the falling mass now falls off to the side.

Factor that into the KE equation

99(m*.05)

Since math boy seems to be unable to do math, I will not bother asking him how much this equals and simply spell it out.

4.97m=ke.

That means that the mass that is left still has FIVE FUCKING TIMES the force (dynamic)of the entire mass when that mass was held at zero velocity (static)

Meaning:

Even if 95% of the mass then falls away and is not available to crush the remaining building, you STILL have about 4 times enough energy to collapse the building.

[RandomGuy]

NIST never released the calculations, because they do not support their theory.

Your math doesn't explain why an object falling into the WTC would not deflect off to the side.

The force you cite, 75 times the static force, is not enough to destroy the entire building, only to crush the top part of it.

As the top portion hits the lower portion, it decelerates from resisitance. You claim it accelerates. Acceleration only occurs to the chunks that did deflect away and met only air resistance.

75 times the static force is completely sufficient to crush the ENTIRE building.

That "top" part of the building was only designed to resist 1.2 times the static force of the top part of the building you dipstick.

the acceleration of gravity is a contant and acts on EVERYTHING. It does not stop because an object is at rest, if it did you would simply float off into space, you physics-challenged mental midget.

[Galileo]

75 times the static force is completely sufficient to crush the ENTIRE building.

That "top" part of the building was only designed to resist 1.2 times the static force of the top part of the building you dipstick.



Your facts are wrong, and not even the goverment scientists accept them.

NIST will not release their calculations similar to yours to the public because they indicate the building would not collapse.

[Galileo]

There was structural damage too. Besides, the fires started well before 3 PM.





There was no structural damage from debris near the east penthouse, nor near column # 79. This is all in the NIST report

The explosion around 9:30 AM was near column # 79 and is evidence of an inside job.

The fires before 3PM are not relevant. Steel conducts heat well, so a 500 degree F fire at 3PM will be cooled down to 200 or less a few hours later. NIST is aware of this if you read the report, instead of just making the same things up again.

[ChumpDumper]

How would a 9:30 AM explosion bring down a building after 5:20 PM?

[Galileo]

How would a 9:30 AM explosion bring down a building after 5:20 PM?

It didn't.

How would a building collapse at 10:30 bring down a building after 5:20?

[ChumpDumper]

It didn't.So explosions didn't bring down WTC7!

End of thread.

[Yonivore]

It didn't.

How would a building collapse at 10:30 bring down a building after 5:20?
By discharging a sufficient mass of debris into the side of that building, weakening the structure to the point it suffered a catastrophic failure approximately 6 hours and 50 minutes later?

[ChumpDumper]

By discharging a sufficient mass of debris into the side of that buildingAnd starting the fires that burned uncontrolled.

[Yonivore]

There was no structural damage from debris near the east penthouse, nor near column # 79. This is all in the NIST report

The explosion around 9:30 AM was near column # 79 and is evidence of an inside job.

The fires before 3PM are not relevant. Steel conducts heat well, so a 500 degree F fire at 3PM will be cooled down to 200 or less a few hours later. NIST is aware of this if you read the report, instead of just making the same things up again.
I guess you believe an insult at one point in an interconnected structure, such as a skyscraper, cannot transmit kinetic energy to other parts of the same structure...possibly damaging portions of the structure in those distant locations?

Ever play croquet?

[Yonivore]

And starting the fires that burned uncontrolled.
And that.

[ChumpDumper]

Early damage from fire and debris cold have caused floor systems to fail, exposing several floors worth of one or more of the vertical columns with no lateral bracing. That could have made that section of column much more vulnerable to a later uncontrolled fire.

It's not that difficult to follow.

[Galileo]

So explosions didn't bring down WTC7!

End of thread.

The explosion didn't bring down WTC 7 at 9:30.

Explosions brought it down at 5:21.

The explosion at 9:30 AM weakened the structure.

[Galileo]

I guess you believe an insult at one point in an interconnected structure, such as a skyscraper, cannot transmit kinetic energy to other parts of the same structure...possibly damaging portions of the structure in those distant locations?

Ever play croquet?

Look at the NISt report. There is no debris damage anywhere near the east penthouse.

The report lists where the damage was, niot just where the debris hit.

You have no evidence that the debris affected the east penthouse, you're just speculating.

[Galileo]

Early damage from fire and debris cold have caused floor systems to fail, exposing several floors worth of one or more of the vertical columns with no lateral bracing. That could have made that section of column much more vulnerable to a later uncontrolled fire.

It's not that difficult to follow.

What about the damage for the explosionat 9:30 AM? How does that factor into your equation?

if you were actually trying to show how the building really fell, including the huge exploision at 9:30 AM.

If you are just trying to ram your theory down our throats, then just ignore the explosion.

Barry Jennings said it was a huge explosion.

Who set off this exploision?

[Yonivore]

Look at the NISt report. There is no debris damage anywhere near the east penthouse.
There is also no mention of a controlled demolition.


The report lists where the damage was, niot just where the debris hit.
In their defense, the report contains information on damage compiled from eyewitness reports. After all, there was no opportunity to conduct a detailed inspection of the damage prior to the collapse. In other words, it was a best guess.


You have no evidence that the debris affected the east penthouse, you're just speculating.
And you have no evidence of a controlled demolition beyond speculation based on your own visual perception of a video...which, considering your ability to count the floors of a building from a photo, doesn't instill a whole lot of confidence.

On the other hand, applying know physical principals to the mechanisms involved in the September 11 attacks can explain the collapse of WTC 7.

Granted, they are competing theories but, of which, there is more physical evidence supporting the theory with which I agree than the one with which you agree. Way more.

And, finally, your theory depends on a conspiracy so vast, there would undoubtedly be evidence of prior activity conducted in preparation of September 11. There is none.

[Yonivore]

What about the damage for the explosionat 9:30 AM? How does that factor into your equation?

if you were actually trying to show how the building really fell, including the huge exploision at 9:30 AM.

If you are just trying to ram your theory down our throats, then just ignore the explosion.

Barry Jennings said it was a huge explosion.

Who set off this exploision?
Okay, forget croquet. Have you ever thrown a baseball through a window?

[Galileo]

Okay, forget croquet. Have you ever thrown a baseball through a window?

have you ever knocked down a haystack with a needle?

:idiot

[Galileo]

There is also no mention of a controlled demolition.


In their defense, the report contains information on damage compiled from eyewitness reports. After all, there was no opportunity to conduct a detailed inspection of the damage prior to the collapse. In other words, it was a best guess.


And you have no evidence of a controlled demolition beyond speculation based on your own visual perception of a video...which, considering your ability to count the floors of a building from a photo, doesn't instill a whole lot of confidence.

On the other hand, applying know physical principals to the mechanisms involved in the September 11 attacks can explain the collapse of WTC 7.

Granted, they are competing theories but, of which, there is more physical evidence supporting the theory with which I agree than the one with which you agree. Way more.

And, finally, your theory depends on a conspiracy so vast, there would undoubtedly be evidence of prior activity conducted in preparation of September 11. There is none.

there's evidence that column # 79 was damaged by an explosion at 9:30 AM. There's no evidence it was damaged by debris or fire, only speculation.

[Yonivore]

have you ever knocked down a haystack with a needle?

:idiot
Strands of hay aren't physically affixed to one another. The kinetic energy isn't transferred in the same manner as when the components of a structure are connected.

I won't even get into the poor, and fatally flawed, analogy of a needle into a haystack vs. hundreds of tons of debris into the side of a building.

Next stupid assertion?

[Yonivore]

there's evidence that column # 79 was damaged by an explosion at 9:30 AM. There's no evidence it was damaged by debris or fire, only speculation.
What's your point? Things in burning buildings sometimes explode.

[Galileo]

What's your point? Things in burning buildings sometimes explode.

WTC 7 wasn't burning at 9:30 AM. Do you just make things up in your effort to defend mass murder?

[Yonivore]

WTC 7 wasn't burning at 9:30 AM. Do you just make things up in your effort to defend mass murder?
I've never stated it was burning at 9:30. I have no idea whether it was or wasn't.

You asked a question and I answered. Something in the building could have been burning without there being any evidence from the exterior.

Care to clarify the "haystack theory" for us?

[Galileo]

I've never stated it was burning at 9:30. I have no idea whether it was or wasn't.

You asked a question and I answered. Something in the building could have been burning without there being any evidence from the exterior.

Care to clarify the "haystack theory" for us?

we've got some strong evidence here of what might have brought down WTC 7. There was a huge exploision at around 9:30 that was near the critical area where the building failed. There is no evidence this explosion happened from natural causes, so it looks like arson, especially since the alarms were turned off at 6:47 AM that morning, and the owner of the building said "pull it!"

:owned

[Yonivore]

we've got some strong evidence here of what might have brought down WTC 7. There was a huge exploision at around 9:30 that was near the critical area where the building failed. There is no evidence this explosion happened from natural causes, so it looks like arson, especially since the alarms were turned off at 6:47 AM that morning, and the owner of the building said "pull it!"

:owned
Okay, since I'm not a WTC 7 conspiracist, I've listened to plausible explanations of the things you mention and moved on. Wasn't there some type fuel tank in the vicinity of the reported explosion? And, didn't the explanation of the use of the term "pull it" come from someone who also uses that term -- in a firefighter context to mean -- Get the fuck out!

I seem to recall there being a report of a fuel tank, of some type, that was fed by a basement line. I also recall the report on the "pull it" comment.

Obviously you weren't satisfied. Oh well.

[Galileo]

Okay, since I'm not a WTC 7 conspiracist, I've listened to plausible explanations of the things you mention and moved on. Wasn't there some type fuel tank in the vicinity of the reported explosion? And, didn't the explanation of the use of the term "pull it" come from someone who also uses that term -- in a firefighter context to mean -- Get the fuck out!

I seem to recall there being a report of a fuel tank, of some type, that was fed by a basement line. I also recall the report on the "pull it" comment.

Obviously you weren't satisfied. Oh well.

was column # 79 in on your conspiracy?

[Yonivore]

was column # 79 in on your conspiracy?
I don't have a conspiracy.

A lot of debris was ejected by the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses. That an adjacent building was compromised enough to suffer a failure comes as no surprise to anyone, except you, apparently.

[Galileo]

I don't have a conspiracy.

A lot of debris was ejected by the WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapses. That an adjacent building was compromised enough to suffer a failure comes as no surprise to anyone, except you, apparently.

There's no evidence the building was compromised, you are just making that up.

There is evidence that a huge explosion alomost killed Berry Jennings at 9:30 AM.

[ChumpDumper]

What about the damage for the explosionat 9:30 AM? How does that factor into your equation?

if you were actually trying to show how the building really fell, including the huge exploision at 9:30 AM.

If you are just trying to ram your theory down our throats, then just ignore the explosion.

Barry Jennings said it was a huge explosion.

Who set off this exploision?Plenty of things can sound like explosions that aren't.

OTOH it could very well have been an explosion. There were several electric transformers in WTC7 that could make a pretty big bang. Could even weaken a floor system which fits in nicely with the theory I wrote earlier.

So thanks for reinforcing my theory. You are making this so easy.

[Galileo]

Plenty of things can sound like explosions that aren't.

OTOH it could very well have been an explosion. There were several electric transformers in WTC7 that could make a pretty big bang. Could even weaken a floor system which fits in nicely with the theory I wrote earlier.

So thanks for reinforcing my theory. You are making this so easy.

dude, Barry Jennings was almost killed by the explosion.

[Yonivore]

There's no evidence the building was compromised, you are just making that up.
It's no more made up than your controlled demolition theory. Besides, two airliners had just crashed into the very tall buildings next door. WTC 2 was struck on the side opposite the one facing WTC 7 and, as we have all seen in videos, much debris -- including airplane engines -- flew out the other side, in the general direction of Church and Vesey streets. What's not to say a large piece of debris penetrated WTC 7 and caused the trigger that led to an explosion? It's, at least, as plausible as believing there was some kind of conspiracy to bring down WTC 7.


There is evidence that a huge explosion alomost killed Berry Jennings at 9:30 AM.
And? Just because you hear hoofbeats, don't automatically assume there are zebras stampeding.

[Yonivore]

dude, Barry Jennings was almost killed by the explosion.
He did say, on the other hand...well, "OTOH." Why is it significant that Barry Jennings was the almost killed?

I don't think anyone is discounting the possibility of an explosion in WTC 7 at 9:30 but, there are a myriad of possibilities over what may have caused the explosion. Some of which would require the acceptance of coincidence; some, the acceptance of cause and effect; and, others -- like you -- the belief in stupid conspiracies.

You still haven't explained (and, if you did, I'm sorry; I missed it.) why it was necessary to destroy WTC 7.

[Galileo]

It's no more made up than your controlled demolition theory. Besides, two airliners had just crashed into the very tall buildings next door. WTC 2 was struck on the side opposite the one facing WTC 7 and, as we have all seen in videos, much debris -- including airplane engines -- flew out the other side, in the general direction of Church and Vesey streets. What's to say a large piece of debris penetrated WTC 7 and caused the trigger that led to an explosion? It's, at least, as plausible as believing there was some kind of conspiracy to bring down WTC 7.


And? Just because you hear hoofbeats, don't automatically assume there are zebras stampeding.

That's my point.

Two giant airplanes flew into the twin Towers and dumped out jet fuel.

No plane hit WTC 7. No jet fuel. And the building is too far away from WTC 1 for debris from a gavitational collapse to hit WTC 7, so its safe.

Then they did a countdown at the site before it was demolished.

[Galileo]

It's no more made up than your controlled demolition theory. Besides, two airliners had just crashed into the very tall buildings next door. WTC 2 was struck on the side opposite the one facing WTC 7 and, as we have all seen in videos, much debris -- including airplane engines -- flew out the other side, in the general direction of Church and Vesey streets. What's not to say a large piece of debris penetrated WTC 7 and caused the trigger that led to an explosion? It's, at least, as plausible as believing there was some kind of conspiracy to bring down WTC 7.


And? Just because you hear hoofbeats, don't automatically assume there are zebras stampeding.

The explosion occurred before WTC 1 or WTC 2 fell. Next.

[Yonivore]

The explosion occurred before WTC 1 or WTC 2 fell. Next.
But after WTC 1 and WTC 2 were struck by the planes. You obviously didn't read, or didn't understand, my post.

[Galileo]

But after WTC 1 and WTC 2 were struck by the planes. You obviously didn't read, or didn't understand, my post.

Explain what happened to WTC 7, without telling me what coulda happened. What DID happen?

[DarrinS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

[Galileo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkZMQAC95kI

you've now joined the good guys?

That's good.

Let's party!

:elephant :clap :madrun :hungry: :downspin: :dizzy

[DarrinS]

The Jackalope (Lepus-temperamentalus) is one of the rarest animals in the world. A cross between an extinct pygmy-deer and a species of killer-rabbit, they are extremely shy unless approached. None have ever been captured alive and this rare photo shows a mighty buck about to strike.

Known by the ancients as "deerbunnies", it wasn't until the early 1960's that the modern more fearsome "jackalope" name was adopted.

It is written that you can extract a Jackalope's milk as it sleeps belly up at night. The milk is belived to be medicinal and can be used for a variety of afflictions. The truth is these creatures are aggressive and unpredictable, and should not be provoked for any reason!

The goverment wants you to believe they aren't real, but there are many who believe. The evidence is mounting!


http://jeffareid.net/misc/jackalope.jpg

[Yonivore]

Explain what happened to WTC 7, without telling me what coulda happened. What DID happen?
It collapsed.

[Galileo]

The Jackalope (Lepus-temperamentalus) is one of the rarest animals in the world. A cross between an extinct pygmy-deer and a species of killer-rabbit, they are extremely shy unless approached. None have ever been captured alive and this rare photo shows a mighty buck about to strike.

Known by the ancients as "deerbunnies", it wasn't until the early 1960's that the modern more fearsome "jackalope" name was adopted.

It is written that you can extract a Jackalope's milk as it sleeps belly up at night. The milk is belived to be medicinal and can be used for a variety of afflictions. The truth is these creatures are aggressive and unpredictable, and should not be provoked for any reason!

The goverment wants you to believe they aren't real, but there are many who believe. The evidence is mounting!


http://jeffareid.net/misc/jackalope.jpg

Killer Rabbit
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5673413950817551632&q=monty+python+rabbit&total=214&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

[Galileo]

It collapsed.

we all know that. WHat explains it?

[Wild Cobra]

There's no evidence the building was compromised, you are just making that up.
The evidence is better than your conspiracy theory.

Where is the physical explosive residue evidence?

In such a conspiracy, someone would have squeaked.


There is evidence that a huge explosion alomost killed Berry Jennings at 9:30 AM.

An explosion from what? Did someone put an egg in the microwave?



Two giant airplanes flew into the twin Towers and dumped out jet fuel.

Why would they do that? Wasn't the burning fuel part of the cover to bring down the towers?



No plane hit WTC 7. No jet fuel. And the building is too far away from WTC 1 for debris from a gavitational collapse to hit WTC 7, so its safe.

Why do you ignore clear evidence posted by others? I have posted a photo showing clear damage to WTC-6. There was clear debris in front of WTC-7 with the other photo I posted. Are you saying the acceleration of steel beams being dislodged from more than 60 storeys up don't have enough kinetic energy to do serious damage?

If WTC-1 was too far away, how do we have several clear undisputable photos of the SW corner of WTC-7 with floors 8 to 18 cleaved off?



Then they did a countdown at the site before it was demolished.
Where is this evidence other than someone making it up.

You have these laughable theories. We have plausible theories. It is true we don't know 100% what happened. Such a complete conclusion may never occur. Anyone with a scientific mind who understands materials and physics can understand why the theory of damage and fire is the most reasonable. Don't forget like Chump has repeatedly pointed out, the structure of WTC-7 was not typical. The lower floors trussing around the sub station was a weak point. It is very reasonable to expect power transformers to explode too.

Hey Galileo...

How about an opinion of how the top of this building was damaged. It is at least twice as far away from WTC-1 as WTC-7 was. Please explain the damage in the circle I added, and how WTC-7 is too far away:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Wtc7onfire-edit.jpg

[Yonivore]

we all know that. WHat explains it?
Structural failure.

[Galileo]

The evidence is better than your conspiracy theory.

Where is the physical explosive residue evidence?

In such a conspiracy, someone would have squeaked.


An explosion from what? Did someone put an egg in the microwave?


Why would they do that? Wasn't the burning fuel part of the cover to bring down the towers?

Why do you ignore clear evidence posted by others? I have posted a photo showing clear damage to WTC-6. There was clear debris in front of WTC-7 with the other photo I posted. Are you saying the acceleration of steel beams being dislodged from more than 60 storeys up don't have enough kinetic energy to do serious damage?

If WTC-1 was too far away, how do we have several clear undisputable photos of the SW corner of WTC-7 with floors 8 to 18 cleaved off?


Where is this evidence other than someone making it up.

You have these laughable theories. We have plausible theories. It is true we don't know 100% what happened. Such a complete conclusion may never occur. Anyone with a scientific mind who understands materials and physics can understand why the theory of damage and fire is the most reasonable. Don't forget like Chump has repeatedly pointed out, the structure of WTC-7 was not typical. The lower floors trussing around the sub station was a weak point. It is very reasonable to expect power transformers to explode too.

Hey Galileo...

How about an opinion of how the top of this building was damaged. It is at least twice as far away from WTC-1 as WTC-7 was. Please explain the damage in the circle I added, and how WTC-7 is too far away:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Wtc7onfire-edit.jpg

The little chunk has nothing to do with the collapse and is already mentioned in the NISt report.

That chunk could have been caused by explosives planted inside WTC 7.

You outta learn that the construction of WTC 7 was unusually assymetrical, so a natural collapse would be assymetric.

Partially evaporated steel columns were found in the rubble which is a byproduct of explosives, as well as the heat spots found.

Blowing up a vacant building is not a conspiracy, no one was killed.

What is your obsession with conspiracy theories? You're a nut.

WTC 7 was too far away for gravity to throw object, so you have provided additional proof of explosives in WTC 1.

The explosion in WTC 7 was from an explosive.

[Galileo]

Structural failure.

what casued the structural failure? All buildings that collapse have structural failure.

[Wild Cobra]

have you ever knocked down a haystack with a needle?

:idiot
Let's get real, like a paper straw through a potato...

[Wild Cobra]

The little chunk has nothing to do with the collapse and is already mentioned in the NISt report.

That chunk could have been caused by explosives planted inside WTC 7.

The report doesn't theorize any such thing. Explain why we see no hole from the north side of WTC-7 to do that then.



You outta learn that the construction of WTC 7 was unusually assymetrical, so a natural collapse would be assymetric.

Did I say it would be either symmetrical or asymmetrical? No. It was very unusual, especially because of the substation it was built over. The foundation isn't even consistent.



Partially evaporated steel columns were found in the rubble which is a byproduct of explosives, as well as the heat spots found.

That alone is no evidence. There has to be residues of specific chemicals in specific ratios to support explosives. This is how forensics know what types of explosives are used.

Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy? Energy turns to heat, and if any steel was melted or (very unlikely) vaporized, this is the most likely reason why. Energy in an impact causes heat.

Heat spots are also a known byproduct of a collapse. Water exasperates the heat! With the heat as it already is, the steel oxidizes, in effect, it burns, hydrogen is released, and more chemical reactions occur.



Blowing up a vacant building is not a conspiracy, no one was killed.

It wouldn't be murder, but it is still a conspiracy. Still, there is absolutely no evidence of an explosive demolition.



What is your obsession with conspiracy theories? You're a nut.

I see you're looking into a mirror.



WTC 7 was too far away for gravity to throw object, so you have provided additional proof of explosives in WTC 1.

Gravity only provided the Z axis vector force. The X and Y axis forces are because moving objects change direction with collisions. Forces other than explosions provide the answer just as easily.

Ever play billiards? You theory would suggest all the balls go the same direction. Hit one ball with the stick, when it hits another, the ball travels the same direction. Right?

Have you ever stepped on anything and not have it shoot off side-ways?

My God. Why am I wasting my time with someone who has no comprehension of physics?



The explosion in WTC 7 was from an explosive.

There is no evidence. If you know something the NIST doesn't, then please show them your evidence.

Wait... I understand now... You are one of the criminals who helped plant the explosives, right? That's how you know it happened that way and how you know they are covering up the truth, right?

[Galileo]

The report doesn't theorize any such thing. Explain why we see no hole from the north side of WTC-7 to do that then.


Did I say it would be either symmetrical or asymmetrical? No. It was very unusual, especially because of the substation it was built over. The foundation isn't even consistent.


That alone is no evidence. There has to be residues of specific chemicals in specific ratios to support explosives. This is how forensics know what types of explosives are used.

Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy? Energy turns to heat, and if any steel was melted or (very unlikely) vaporized, this is the most likely reason why. Energy in an impact causes heat.

Heat spots are also a known byproduct of a collapse. Water exasperates the heat! With the heat as it already is, the steel oxidizes, in effect, it burns, hydrogen is released, and more chemical reactions occur.


It wouldn't be murder, but it is still a conspiracy. Still, there is absolutely no evidence of an explosive demolition.


I see you're looking into a mirror.


Gravity only provided the Z axis vector force. The X and Y axis forces are because moving objects change direction with collisions. Forces other than explosions provide the answer just as easily.

Ever play billiards? You theory would suggest all the balls go the same direction. Hit one ball with the stick, when it hits another, the ball travels the same direction. Right?

Have you ever stepped on anything and not have it shoot off side-ways?

My God. Why am I wasting my time with someone who has no comprehension of physics?


There is no evidence. If you know something the NIST doesn't, then please show them your evidence.

Wait... I understand now... You are one of the criminals who helped plant the explosives, right? That's how you know it happened that way and how you know they are covering up the truth, right?

The Architects and Engneers for 9/11 Truth have already determined that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. The evidence proved it. They proved WTC 7 did not fall from fire or flying debris.

Since you are neither an architect or engineer, you are not qualified on this topic. I will take the rational road and defer to the findings of 300 experts.

I am also an expert. I am Galileo Galilei, the founder of science, and I have determined that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition as well. You should listen to experts and keep your crazy (and dangerous) ideas to yourself.

[Wild Cobra]

The Architects and Engneers for 9/11 Truth have already determined that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. The evidence proved it. They proved WTC 7 did not fall from fire or flying debris.

They didn't prove anything. Show me their work, and I'll bet I can provide more than reasonable doubt concerning their work.



Since you are neither an architect or engineer, you are not qualified on this topic. I will take the rational road and defer to the findings of 300 experts.

I have an uncle who is a retired civil engineer for San Francisco. He designed large structured. He finds these truther theories not worthy of more than laughter.



I am also an expert. I am Galileo Galilei, the founder of science, and I have determined that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition as well. You should listen to experts and keep your crazy (and dangerous) ideas to yourself.

A bit narcissistic? Delusional?

[Galileo]

They didn't prove anything. Show me their work, and I'll bet I can provide more than reasonable doubt concerning their work.



You are not a qualified expert, so no, I'm not providing it. They have already determined that WTC 7 was imploded by explosives, so your opinion doesn't matter.

[Yonivore]

what casued the structural failure? All buildings that collapse have structural failure.
Ah! On that; I and all sane people in the world disagree with you and all the nutjobs.

Show the me official report that says a controlled explosion brought down WTC 7.

As I, and the prevailing theory, have stated. WTC 7 was hit by WTC 1's debris and that caused sufficient damage, along with a raging fire that burned all day, to bring it down.

[Yonivore]

I am also an expert. I am Galileo Galilei, the founder of science, and I have determined that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition as well. You should listen to experts and keep your crazy (and dangerous) ideas to yourself.
And there you have it.

[Yonivore]

A bit narcissistic? Delusional?
How 'bout, CRAZY?

[Galileo]

Ah! On that; I and all sane people in the world disagree with you and all the nutjobs.

Show the me official report that says a controlled explosion brought down WTC 7.

As I, and the prevailing theory, have stated. WTC 7 was hit by WTC 1's debris and that caused sufficient damage, along with a raging fire that burned all day, to bring it down.

WTC 7 did not have a raging fire nor sufficient damage from debris for it to fall.

The NSIT report shows the locations of the fires in WTC 7. Nowhere does it say the fires were raging.

NIST has ruled out debris damage as a cause of collapse.

Like a typical conspiracy nut, you simply make things up to satisfy your urges.

[Yonivore]

WTC 7 did not have a raging fire nor sufficient damage from debris for it to fall.

The NSIT report shows the locations of the fires in WTC 7. Nowhere does it say the fires were raging.

NIST has ruled out debris damage as a cause of collapse.

Like a typical conspiracy nut, you simply make things up to satisfy your urges.
So, direct me to your official report that says a controlled explosion brought down WTC 7.

I hope the below animated gif can be seen. And, if so, Gal, tell me why that penthouse disappears into the roof and where, is all that fucking smoke coming from?

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8056/wtc7penthousekinkin6.gif

[Wild Cobra]

You are not a qualified expert, so no, I'm not providing it. They have already determined that WTC 7 was imploded by explosives, so your opinion doesn't matter.
Just point me to your source. If there is a large file, point me to pages and quotes as well.

[Nbadan]

WTC 7 did not have a raging fire nor sufficient damage from debris for it to fall.

The NSIT report shows the locations of the fires in WTC 7. Nowhere does it say the fires were raging.

NIST has ruled out debris damage as a cause of collapse.

Like a typical conspiracy nut, you simply make things up to satisfy your urges.


Nice stuff Galileo, I have tried to explain to the 911 faithers that in order for WTC7 to have collapsed anywhere near the way it did, the first 6 floors including the basements would have to have been completely ingulfed in flames....really hot flames...and no one has ever provided any evidence that this was the case....as you mentioned before, even NIST has ruled out structural damage as the main cause of the collapse...

....keep up the good work confounding the 911 faith-movement...

[ChumpDumper]

Nice stuff Galileo, I have tried to explain to the 911 faithers that in order for WTC7 to have collapsed anywhere near the way it did, the first 6 floors including the basements would have to have been completely ingulfed in flames....really hot flamesNot really, but nice try.

At least this guy had a half baked theory about what happened on 9/11.

What do you think really happened on 9/11, dan?

[Nbadan]

Not really, but nice try.


Well, then, you must have the answer....why don't you tell us?

[Nbadan]

ctqEndNmaFk

[ChumpDumper]

Well, then, you must have the answer....why don't you tell us?I'm sure you've already read all the NIST reports. No need for me to reinvent the wheel.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, then, you must have the answer....why don't you tell us?Why don't you tell us what you think really happened on 9/11?

[dimsah]

BRAVO!!! This thread has been like a symphony. Thoroughly entertaining.
I will recommend it to others.

[xrayzebra]

damnit, I keep telling you they are still there, David Copperfield,
has it under his cloak of invisibility. He will reveal them at some
future date, yet to be determined. And it was all at Bush's request.

[Galileo]

Nice stuff Galileo, I have tried to explain to the 911 faithers that in order for WTC7 to have collapsed anywhere near the way it did, the first 6 floors including the basements would have to have been completely ingulfed in flames....really hot flames...and no one has ever provided any evidence that this was the case....as you mentioned before, even NIST has ruled out structural damage as the main cause of the collapse...

....keep up the good work confounding the 911 faith-movement...

You're welcome, Nbadan;

I found the best way to come to the truth on 9/11, is to start with looking at some of the most basic fundamental claims by the 9/11 truth movement. This is what I did almost 2 years ago. Then I checked debunking forums and websites to see if the claims were refuted.

As to WTC 7, which I remember seeing fall on 9/11 (but forgot about), no debunking claim is even remotely plausible.

[ChumpDumper]

What I'll never understand is that twoofers are suggesting the government is beyond corrupt and perpetrated 9/11, but they are content to just sit around, post on the internets and sell DVDs and T-shirts.

If this is their reaction to the biggest betrayal and power grab in American history, they don't deserve to have their country back.

[Galileo]

Which 9/11 debunker can answer this:

If Jesus didn't didn't really rise again from the dead for our sins, how come no one in on the vast conspiracy has talked?

[Yonivore]

Which 9/11 debunker can answer this:

If Jesus didn't didn't really rise again from the dead for our sins, how come no one in on the vast conspiracy has talked?
Because He did rise from the dead.

Next silly questions?

[ChumpDumper]

Which 9/11 debunker can answer this:

If Jesus didn't didn't really rise again from the dead for our sins, how come no one in on the vast conspiracy has talked?Which 9/11 twoofer can answer this:

If the if you think the government planned an executed 9/11, they the hell are you sitting on your ass posting on a message board?

[Galileo]

Because He did rise from the dead.

Next silly questions?

you believe in the supernatural, no wonder you can't see the truth about 9/11.

[Galileo]

Which 9/11 twoofer can answer this:

If the if you think the government planned an executed 9/11, they the hell are you sitting on your ass posting on a message board?

Because Jesus will protect me?

[lefty]

The WTC towers fell in what was obviously a controlled demolition. The largest, messiest, deadliest, most witnessed, most mismanaged, most ill-timed, most poorly executed, and most uncontrolled controlled demolition in history.

This is why all the companies located in the WTC gave a day off to their employees before 9/11, so they could install explosives.

[ChumpDumper]

Because Jesus will protect me?No, seriously.

What are you doing about what you say the government did on 9/11?

[Galileo]

No, seriously.

What are you doing about what you say the government did on 9/11?

We have strength in numbers.

What are they gonna do, exterminate 36% on the US population who knows the truth?

These people's days are numbered, all the evidence is on the Internet. Within 5 years, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld will all face their own Nuremberg trials.

[smeagol]

We have strength in numbers.

What are they gonna do, exterminate 36% on the US population who knows the truth?

These people's days are numbered, all the evidence is on the Internet. Within 5 years, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld will all face their own Nuremberg trials.
Are you posting from a mental instiution?

[Galileo]

Are you posting from a mental instiution?

Do you believe the virgin Mary was really a virgin? Wouldn't somebody have talked by now?

[ChumpDumper]

We have strength in numbers.To do what? Play World of Warcraft?


What are they gonna do, exterminate 36% on the US population who knows the truth?Why not?


These people's days are numbered, all the evidence is on the Internet. Within 5 years, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld will all face their own Nuremberg trials.Or they'll just retire and make millions on the lecture circuit while you guys make hundreds selling each other DVDs and T-shirts.

On the internet.

In other words, you haven't done a damn thing. You don't believe your own bullshit.

[Galileo]

To do what? Play World of Warcraft?

Why not?

Or they'll just retire and make millions on the lecture circuit while you guys make hundreds selling each other DVDs and T-shirts.

On the internet.

In other words, you haven't done a damn thing. You don't believe your own bullshit.

maybe the devil planted the bombs in WTC 7. I think Satan himself could sneak past Marvin Bush and the security guards.

[Wild Cobra]

Which 9/11 debunker can answer this:

If Jesus didn't didn't really rise again from the dead for our sins, how come no one in on the vast conspiracy has talked?
Maybe he had a twin brother?

[Wild Cobra]

you believe in the supernatural, no wonder you can't see the truth about 9/11.
The supernatural is real. I'm sorry you haven't had any experiences.

[Wild Cobra]

Galileo, I'm still waiting for a link that offers proof.

[Galileo]

The supernatural is real. I'm sorry you haven't had any experiences.

what scientific evidence do you have of the supernatural?

If you believe in the supernatural, why should anyone listen to your debate about 9/11?

[Wild Cobra]

[
Do you believe the virgin Mary was really a virgin? Wouldn't somebody have talked by now?
We don't know. She could have been artificially inseminated. Then there is the incorrect translation. Without looking it up, I believe the Greek word translated to virgin was simply used as a way of saying unmarried.

[ChumpDumper]

maybe the devil planted the bombs in WTC 7. I think Satan himself could sneak past Marvin Bush and the security guards.So what have you personally done to combat the government after you think it planned and executed 9/11?

[Galileo]

So what have you personally done to combat the government after you think it planned and executed 9/11?

Mostly by posting the truth about 9/11 on www.spurstalk.com, where the truth can reach a wide, well-educated audience.

I am also mentioned in the footnotes of Dr. David Ray Griffin's latest book, 9/11 Contradictions.

[smeagol]

Mostly by posting the truth about 9/11 on www.spurstalk.com, where the truth can reach a wide, well-educated audience.

I am also mentioned in the footnotes of Dr. David Ray Griffin's latest book, 9/11 Contradictions.

:wow

Way to go, soldier . . . !

[ChumpDumper]

So, posting on the internets and helping a guy sell a book.

Amazing.

[Galileo]

So, posting on the internets and helping a guy sell a book.

Amazing.

Not sure I've helped sell the book, maybe a few copies. I bought one. It contains the truth about 9/11.

The truth shall set you free.

[ChumpDumper]

A truth so devastating you aren't really doing anything about it.

[Galileo]

A truth so devastating you aren't really doing anything about it.

I've been assigned the pivital role of neutralizing Chumpdumper, a key obstacle to the truth.

Once Chumpdumper is out of the way, the path to the truth will be opened.

[ChumpDumper]

I've been assigned the pivital role of neutralizing Chumpdumper, a key obstacle to the truth.

Once Chumpdumper is out of the way, the path to the truth will be opened.You should probably work on not lying first. That will help much more.

[smeagol]

I've been assigned the pivital role of neutralizing Chumpdumper, a key obstacle to the truth.

Once Chumpdumper is out of the way, the path to the truth will be opened.


That's easy:

Just remind him that he once said he would prefer Hedo Turkoglu over Manu Ginobili :lmao

It pretty much goes downhill from there . . . :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Hedo's playing pretty well.

[Wild Cobra]

what scientific evidence do you have of the supernatural?

I only have personal experience.



If you believe in the supernatural, why should anyone listen to your debate about 9/11?

Anyone who believes in religion believes in the supernatural. Shouldn't you ask why an atheist should believe a person of faith?

So... you are an Atheist!

What is the source of the proof that there were explosives used?

How many times must I ask?

You said it was proved. Where?

[xrayzebra]

Hedo's playing pretty well.

And how many is he scoring a game? Man you just wont
admit when you are outgunned.

[xrayzebra]

Let me see if I got this right. Bush came into office on Jan 20th.
And the government (Bush blew up the WTC) on September 11th.
That is just a little over seven months, am I not correct. Now during
that seven months period, they studied the towers, found all the key
load bearing beams, moved the crews, equipment and explosives in to bring them down. No one noticed any unusual activity
during this whole seven month period. No one noticed anyone
carrying a load of explosives, jack hammers and all the crew
needed to execute this disaster. Have I got all the right. The
government was also able to coordinate getting all the aircraft
hijacked by someone and no one was really on the planes and
no one made any phone calls, well maybe a couple. Now this
all was caused by a President and his administration that couldn't
figure out a hole in the ground from their rearend. I am a little
old and hard headed, but I am missing something, somewhere.
Especially since I know someone on a personal basis that was
in one of the WTC towers when both planes flew into the towers
and they witnessed the second one personally. Anyone care to
simplify this all for me? I want to tell my friend that they don't
know jack about what happened that day.

[Wild Cobra]

I've been assigned the pivital role of neutralizing Chumpdumper, a key obstacle to the truth.

Once Chumpdumper is out of the way, the path to the truth will be opened.
Good luck. He's obviously far more intelligent than you are. I've had some rather interesting exchanges with him myself.

You will lose bad...

[ChumpDumper]

I am also mentioned in the footnotes of Dr. David Ray Griffin's latest book, 9/11 Contradictions.The theologian?

How can you support someone who believes in the supernatural?

[Galileo]

Let me see if I got this right. Bush came into office on Jan 20th.
And the government (Bush blew up the WTC) on September 11th.
That is just a little over seven months, am I not correct. Now during
that seven months period, they studied the towers, found all the key
load bearing beams, moved the crews, equipment and explosives in to bring them down. No one noticed any unusual activity
during this whole seven month period. No one noticed anyone
carrying a load of explosives, jack hammers and all the crew
needed to execute this disaster. Have I got all the right. The
government was also able to coordinate getting all the aircraft
hijacked by someone and no one was really on the planes and
no one made any phone calls, well maybe a couple. Now this
all was caused by a President and his administration that couldn't
figure out a hole in the ground from their rearend. I am a little
old and hard headed, but I am missing something, somewhere.
Especially since I know someone on a personal basis that was
in one of the WTC towers when both planes flew into the towers
and they witnessed the second one personally. Anyone care to
simplify this all for me? I want to tell my friend that they don't
know jack about what happened that day.

It was 9 months later, not 7 months. The Romans added in July and August for Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar, otherwise you would have been correct.

Military grade explosives were placed in the Twin Towers every third floor on the core columns next to the elevator shafts. his was rows 5, 6, 9, and 10, the most massive of the core columns.

This was done within in a few days of 9/11.

It was an inside job, the security firm was compromised.

You are confusing an inside job with an outside job.

It is easier to pull off an inside job than an outside job, and you need fewer people to do it.

[RandomGuy]

We have strength in numbers.

What are they gonna do, exterminate 36% on the US population who knows the truth?

These people's days are numbered, all the evidence is on the Internet. Within 5 years, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld will all face their own Nuremberg trials.

Translation:

I can't be wrong because thousands of people believe my theories. But you can be wrong even though hundreds of millions believe you, because we all know there are millions of stupid people in the world.

[ChumpDumper]

Military grade explosives were placed in the Twin Towers every third floor on the core columns next to the elevator shafts.If that's true why did the core remain standing after the main collapse?

[RandomGuy]

Somehow orchestrating the hijacking of multiple airliners to have them crash at explosive-rigged sites was more effective than just setting off the explosives by themselves in the first place.

[RandomGuy]

The rigged explosives in the upper floors of WTC2 were powerful enough to collapse a skyscraper, but not powerful enough to instantly kill Kevin Cosgrove, on floor 105, who was talking on the phone with a fire dispatcher and managed to blurt out three words between the time of the "explosion" and the collapse that killed him.

[RandomGuy]

Our service men and women chose not to shoot down the planes or protect the Pentagon and WTC because they were part of the conspiracy, and they're not speaking out because they've been bought off. Better still, NORAD actually sent the remote-controlled aircraft into their targets.

[RandomGuy]

When some eyewitnesses at the WTC describe a really big noise as an "explosion," we should believe them, and not our own eyes that saw floors pancaking on each other, ejecting debris out the windows. And we should believe their assessment of the "explosions" because, you know, of their experience discriminating between the sounds of some of the tallest skyscrapers in the world collapsing and explosions 80 stories up.

[RandomGuy]

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

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

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

http://www.911myths.com/html/911_infighting_links.html

[Galileo]

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

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

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

http://www.911myths.com/html/911_infighting_links.html

You've got me mixed up with someone else, sorry.

[Galileo]

Translation:

I can't be wrong because thousands of people believe my theories. But you can be wrong even though hundreds of millions believe you, because we all know there are millions of stupid people in the world.


You didn't read the whole post, or what I was responding to.

The initial poster was arguing that I would be executed by the vast conspiracy.

[Galileo]

If that's true why did the core remain standing after the main collapse?

rows 7 and 8 remained standing for about 30 seconds after the rest of the core fell.

The charges were on rows 5, 6, 9, and 10.

[Galileo]

Somehow orchestrating the hijacking of multiple airliners to have them crash at explosive-rigged sites was more effective than just setting off the explosives by themselves in the first place.

not as exciting without the plane crashes.

Not as scary without crazy Arabs with boxcutters.

That's why.

You made a pretty stupid point.

[RandomGuy]

You didn't read the whole post, or what I was responding to.

The initial poster was arguing that I would be executed by the vast conspiracy.

Because if they were willing to kill 20,000+ people in the towers, they would have a lot of qualms about killing people in the "truth" movement.

Reading your posts is like being bukkakked with stupid.

[RandomGuy]

rows 7 and 8 remained standing for about 30 seconds after the rest of the core fell.

The charges were on rows 5, 6, 9, and 10.

You still haven't told me what type of explosive can withstand an 800 degree fire and not cook off instantly.

[Galileo]

The rigged explosives in the upper floors of WTC2 were powerful enough to collapse a skyscraper, but not powerful enough to instantly kill Kevin Cosgrove, on floor 105, who was talking on the phone with a fire dispatcher and managed to blurt out three words between the time of the "explosion" and the collapse that killed him.

Cosgrove was above the point where the collapse began. Your point makes no sense. The rumble you hear on the tape is the explosion from below the point where the plane hit, that is just below the 80th floor.

[Galileo]

Our service men and women chose not to shoot down the planes or protect the Pentagon and WTC because they were part of the conspiracy, and they're not speaking out because they've been bought off. Better still, NORAD actually sent the remote-controlled aircraft into their targets.

That's a stupid insult to say that about our servicemen. NORAD was confused because 18 military exercises involving hijacked planes were going on at exactly the same time as the real hijackings.

You're right, the real hijacked planes were remote-contolled into the WTC.

[Galileo]

When some eyewitnesses at the WTC describe a really big noise as an "explosion," we should believe them, and not our own eyes that saw floors pancaking on each other, ejecting debris out the windows. And we should believe their assessment of the "explosions" because, you know, of their experience discriminating between the sounds of some of the tallest skyscrapers in the world collapsing and explosions 80 stories up.

Most of the reported explosions occurred long before the towers collapsed.

Next.

[Galileo]

Because if they were willing to kill 20,000+ people in the towers, they would have a lot of qualms about killing people in the "truth" movement.

Reading your posts is like being bukkakked with stupid.

They are also willing to kill 600,000 people in the Middle East.

They haven't got me yet, that's why I use a fake name here.

They did not kill 20,000 people in the towers, they were only willing to kill about 3000. I have already explained this before.

[ChumpDumper]

rows 7 and 8 remained standing for about 30 seconds after the rest of the core fell.

The charges were on rows 5, 6, 9, and 10.Really?

Point them out in a picture.

[Galileo]

You still haven't told me what type of explosive can withstand an 800 degree fire and not cook off instantly.

Most of the explosives were below the points hit by the planes.

Most were also in the core. Some explosives may have gone off early upon the initial impact at the time we saw the giant fireball.

We have already gone over all the explosions int he WTC. First you argue there couldn't be any explosions, then you argue there had to be some. As a typical debunker, you argue in circles. The truth is not your object.

[ChumpDumper]

They are also willing to kill 600,000 people in the Middle East.

They haven't got me yet, that's why I use a fake name here.I doubt you are masking your IP address.


They did not kill 20,000 people in the towers, they were only willing to kill about 3000. I have already explained this before.Not really. 3000 -- 20,000 -- 600,000 --what does that matter?

[Galileo]

Really?

Point them out in a picture.

This video shows it. If you care about the truth, you'll have to invest a little time.

Gordon Ross analyses the destruction of the World Trade Center
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4801566025292753615&q=gordon+ross&total=207&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[Galileo]

I doubt you are masking your IP address.

Not really. 3000 -- 20,000 -- 600,000 --what does that matter?

minimization of causalties is a factor for consideration military operations, especially among the Western democracies.

It does matter.

9/11 was designed to have about the same number of causalties as the battle of Antietam and Pearl Harbor.

[Wild Cobra]

Hey Galileo, why wont you supply a source that proves explosions?

[Galileo]

Hey Galileo, why wont you supply a source that proves explosions?

Is that a rhetorical question?

The Ultimate Con - 911
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3996900289299723693&q=ultimate+con&total=616&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

[ChumpDumper]

This video shows it. If you care about the truth, you'll have to invest a little time.

Gordon Ross analyses the destruction of the World Trade Center
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4801566025292753615&q=gordon+ross&total=207&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0No, show me a picture. Invest the time to show me.

[ChumpDumper]

minimization of causalties is a factor for consideration military operations, especially among the Western democracies.

It does matter.Not really. Once you're going to kill Americans, more is better.


9/11 was designed to have about the same number of causalties as the battle of Antietam and Pearl Harbor.Not really.

[ChumpDumper]

You're right, the real hijacked planes were remote-contolled into the WTC.:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

I am also mentioned in the footnotes of Dr. David Ray Griffin's latest book, 9/11 Contradictions.The theologian?

How can you support someone who believes in the supernatural?

[smeagol]

Hedo's playing pretty well.
He is.

So is Beno (or was).

The problem is, in Spurs unis, they both sucked . . .

[Galileo]

No, show me a picture. Invest the time to show me.

Its about 10 minutes in, maybe 5. Shows a chart of the rows of core columns, then shows the core columns still standing after collapse.

you can also try to google:

wtc spire

[ChumpDumper]

He is.

So is Beno (or was).

The problem is, in Spurs unis, they both sucked . . .Eh, Hedo only got a year. Beno had three.

[ChumpDumper]

Its about 10 minutes in, maybe 5. Shows a chart of the rows of core columns, then shows the core columns still standing after collapse.

you can also try to google:

wtc spireA chart?

Made by the guy with the fake PhD you lied about?

Please.

[Galileo]

WTC 7 was spooked!

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Galileo]

:lmao

do you doubt the technology of our trillion dollar military? You fool you. Perchance yoiv hard of Operations Northwoods, eh chap?

[Galileo]

Not really. Once you're going to kill Americans, more is better.

Not really.

why is more than 3000 better?

[ChumpDumper]

do you doubt the technology of our trillion dollar military? You fool you. Perchance yoiv hard of Operations Northwoods, eh chap?Yeah, that plan was never put into action either.

Sorry, false flag makes no sense -- the neocons would have made Saddam directly responsible and not even bothered invading and occupying Afghanistan for years. They also would have already renewed their invasion plan of Iraq long before 9/11.

Proposing Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld planned and ordered 9/11 requires them to be competent enough to do so in less than eight months. It's simply impossible.

[ChumpDumper]

why is more than 3000 better?Why wouldn't it be?

[Galileo]

Why wouldn't it be?

they didn't want to kill any more people than nescessary, to achieve their imperial goals. I've already explained this before. Do my words go in one ear and out the other, pray tell?

[Galileo]

Yeah, that plan was never put into action either.

Sorry, false flag makes no sense -- the neocons would have made Saddam directly responsible and not even bothered invading and occupying Afghanistan for years. They also would have already renewed their invasion plan of Iraq long before 9/11.

Proposing Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld planned and ordered 9/11 requires them to be competent enough to do so in less than eight months. It's simply impossible.

False flags go back to the Roman Empire.

Before the Empire gobled up another province, they always claimed some legions were jumped by a band of aggressive barbarians. It was a pretext.

[ChumpDumper]

they didn't want to kill any more people than nescessary, to achieve their imperial goals. I've already explained this before. Do my words go in one ear and out the other, pray tell?Nah, I don't read every post. More is always better. This is America.

To follow your "logic" it would have been better to not bring all the buildings of the trade center down and ruin the infrastructure of lower Manhattan and a major financial center, not hit the Pentagon at all and completely leave out the fourth plane.

[ChumpDumper]

False flags go back to the Roman Empire.

Before the Empire gobled up another province, they always claimed some legions were jumped by a band of aggressive barbarians. It was a pretext.Except this wasn't one. This bunch of guys couldn't have pulled it off in the first place and wouldn't have pulled it off this way if they could.

[smeagol]

Eh, Hedo only got a year. Beno had three.
Yes. And in one year he sucked (especially in the playoffs). Could not hit a fucking shot when it counted.

But don't let me distract you.

Continue waxing loony's ass.

It's entertaining . . . :spin

[ChumpDumper]

Yes. And in one year he sucked (especially in the playoffs). Could not hit a fucking shot when it counted.Like Horry his first season....


But don't let me distract you.

Continue waxing loony's ass.

It's entertaining . . . :spinToo easy, really.

[smeagol]

Like Horry his first season....

Too easy, really.
Go watch the game, goddammitt!

[Galileo]

Nah, I don't read every post. More is always better. This is America.

To follow your "logic" it would have been better to not bring all the buildings of the trade center down and ruin the infrastructure of lower Manhattan and a major financial center, not hit the Pentagon at all and completely leave out the fourth plane.

You're not following my logic. A false flag military operation will kill people. But 9/11 was clean with low casualties and good results.

They wanted the WTC totally destoyed, though.

The 4th plane was shot down, it might have been a fuck up. Something was supposed to hit WTC 7, you know.

But it could have been FL23 or another hijacked plane that was supposed to do that.

According to the FAA, at least 11 other planes were hijacked on 9/11.

[Yonivore]

You're not following my logic. A false flag military operation will kill people. But 9/11 was clean with low casualties and good results.
Cleaner than what? Low casualties compared to what?


They wanted the WTC totally destoyed, though.
Why?


The 4th plane was shot down, it might have been a fuck up.
Source?


Something was supposed to hit WTC 7, you know.
No, I don't know...please source this claim.


But it could have been FL23 or another hijacked plane that was supposed to do that.
Do tell.


According to the FAA, at least 11 other planes were hijacked on 9/11.
According to the FAA, things were pretty confusing for awhile and all but the four flights that crashed were eventually identified as not being hijacked.

[ChumpDumper]

You're not following my logic.There is no logic to follow.

[Wild Cobra]

Perchance yoiv hard of Operations Northwoods, eh chap?
A plan never executed, and wasn't going to have any casualties either.

Those of us in this forum and others over the years have heard of it. You're comparing apples and oranges.


I've already explained this before. Do my words go in one ear and out the other, pray tell?
Your opinions don't count because you never back it up with any credible evidence.

It's simple.

You can say it as many times as you like. We don't believe you without good evidence.



The 4th plane was shot down, it might have been a fuck up. Something was supposed to hit WTC 7, you know.

No, we don't know. Most of us believe Flight 93's objective was another target in DC. The White House, or Capitol.



But it could have been FL23 or another hijacked plane that was supposed to do that.

You keep bringing up Flight 23. Which one was that? Any evidence?



According to the FAA, at least 11 other planes were hijacked on 9/11.

As I recall, several plans were unaccounted for when the facts of the four hijackings starting being known. That number may have been 11, but that doesn't mean they were hijacked. My understanding is all flights ended up being accounted for, with only the four hijackings.

Again, evidence?

[Wild Cobra]

Is that a rhetorical question?

The Ultimate Con - 911
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3996900289299723693&q=ultimate+con&total=616&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
That is not evidence. It's opinions and hearsay.

[Nbadan]

http://static.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/terrorist-watch-list.thumbnail.png... Number of individuals on the FBI’s “Terrorist Watch List” as of 11:48 Pacific Time this morning. According to the ACLU, the watch list includes fourteen 9/11 hijackers who are known to be dead

[RandomGuy]

Hey Galileo, why wont you supply a source that proves explosions?

There were 22 electrical substations in each building, if memory serves.

A skyscraper uses a massive amount of electricity and transformers will explode if shorted.

There are also the snapping sounds involved in any collapse that also "sound" like explosions.

None of this actually involves explosives.

I doubt your average, panicked office worker or emergency responder has heard enough or, for that matter, COULD hear enough explosions to be able to tell between a transformer blowing and a stick of dynamite.

I have no doubt whatsoever that people heard explosions during the collapse of two massive skyscrapers. That is relatively easy to prove with eyewitness accounts.

What CANNOT be proven is that any of those sounds actually involved explosives.

I have actually personally witnessed a controlled demolition from about a block away. It was FUCKING LOUD, and it was simply a half-finished 4 story structure.

The problem for the twoofers, is that if two 110 story skyscrapers were demolished using explosives, the sharp reports of the explosives required would have carried for miles. We're not talking about the dull rumble of a gravity collapse, we're talking about TONS of explosives.

The other problem is that for any demolition, the ejection speed of debris involved would have been THOUSANDS of feet per second. The very thing that "proves" that explosives must have been used, i.e. the sturdiness of the core columns, works against them here. Any explosive required to cut through those "really strong" support columns would have had to eject debris such as broken glass over an area of about 10 square miles.

The twoofers own "scientific" papers also can't find this debris, and point out to "squibs" ejecting things at about 160 meters per second (if memory serves), about what one would expect from simple air compression as debris fell down elevator shafts, and increased to overpressure at the bottom of those shafts. Recall that the bulidings required a lot of elevators, some of which were "local" and had bottom points well up above ground.

[RandomGuy]

There were 22 electrical substations in each building, if memory serves.

A skyscraper uses a massive amount of electricity and transformers will explode if shorted.

There are also the snapping sounds involved in any collapse that also "sound" like explosions.

None of this actually involves explosives.

I doubt your average, panicked office worker or emergency responder has heard enough or, for that matter, COULD hear enough explosions to be able to tell between a transformer blowing and a stick of dynamite.

I have no doubt whatsoever that people heard explosions during the collapse of two massive skyscrapers. That is relatively easy to prove with eyewitness accounts.

What CANNOT be proven is that any of those sounds actually involved explosives.

I have actually personally witnessed a controlled demolition from about a block away. It was FUCKING LOUD, and it was simply a half-finished 4 story structure.

The problem for the twoofers, is that if two 110 story skyscrapers were demolished using explosives, the sharp reports of the explosives required would have carried for miles. We're not talking about the dull rumble of a gravity collapse, we're talking about TONS of explosives.

The other problem is that for any demolition, the ejection speed of debris involved would have been THOUSANDS of feet per second. The very thing that "proves" that explosives must have been used, i.e. the sturdiness of the core columns, works against them here. Any explosive required to cut through those "really strong" support columns would have had to eject debris such as broken glass over an area of about 10 square miles.

The twoofers own "scientific" papers also can't find this debris, and point out to "squibs" ejecting things at about 160 meters per second (if memory serves), about what one would expect from simple air compression as debris fell down elevator shafts, and increased to overpressure at the bottom of those shafts. Recall that the bulidings required a lot of elevators, some of which were "local" and had bottom points well up above ground.


Yet another problem with the "explosives" theory, is that no one has ever been able to plausibly explain how the explosives at the impact point 1) survived the collision of the jets, and 2) didn't go off immediately or burn off during the fires.

Explosives do not react well to be exposed to 500-900 degree fires.

Twoofers like to say that the collapse of the towers "looked like" a controlled demolition, but that is because they don't know what controlled demolitions really look like, and they are simply using what they have seen in movies as a point of reference.

[RandomGuy]

Something was supposed to hit WTC 7, you know.




WOW :wow

To be able to prove this statement you must have read the operations plan for the whole thing.

Can I see it?




...unless of course you are talking out your ass again.

[RandomGuy]

Most of the explosives were below the points hit by the planes.

Most were also in the core. Some explosives may have gone off early upon the initial impact at the time we saw the giant fireball.

We have already gone over all the explosions int he WTC. First you argue there couldn't be any explosions, then you argue there had to be some. As a typical debunker, you argue in circles. The truth is not your object.

I have never said that there couldn't be explosives. Find a quote from me that says this.

If the explosives, or most of them, were below the impact points, then why did the collapse of both buildings start at the impact points?

You still haven't disproven my math, math-boy. Feel free.

It's simple algebra.

[Galileo]

A plan never executed, and wasn't going to have any casualties either.



Have you ever read the criminal codes on conspiracies? Its not relevant whether they are ever carried out. To be guilty, you must plan the conspiracy, as the courts have ruled.

What is your point on Operation Northwoods?

[ChumpDumper]

Have you ever read the criminal codes on conspiracies? Its not relevant whether they are ever carried out. To be guilty, you must plan the conspiracy, as the courts have ruled.
9/11 wasn't a conspiracy as I've stated many times here in this forum.

[Galileo]

That is not evidence. It's opinions and hearsay.

Eyewitness testimony is evidence and is admissible in court.

[Galileo]

Yet another problem with the "explosives" theory, is that no one has ever been able to plausibly explain how the explosives at the impact point 1) survived the collision of the jets, and 2) didn't go off immediately or burn off during the fires.

Explosives do not react well to be exposed to 500-900 degree fires.

Twoofers like to say that the collapse of the towers "looked like" a controlled demolition, but that is because they don't know what controlled demolitions really look like, and they are simply using what they have seen in movies as a point of reference.

The only real problem you have with the explosives theory, is that you don't believe Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would kill people.

[RandomGuy]

The only real problem you have with the explosives theory, is that you don't believe Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would kill people.

I fully believe they would kill people. I also fully believe they are not competant enough to pull it off. I mean, really, Rumsfeld a master evil genius? :lol

The problem I have with the explosives theory is that the available evidence indicates a simple gravity-fed collapse due to fire and damage.

The whole controlled demolition theory can't answer a lot of questions. When I ask honest questions and point out logical flaws, just as would happen in any good trial, people like you simply go "you know they did it" and wave their arms.

[RandomGuy]

Eyewitness testimony is evidence and is admissible in court.

What is admissable:

"I heard something that sounded like an explosion" (statement of fact)

What is not admissable:

"I heard a bomb." (statement of opinion, unless you physically saw an explosive device)

There is a difference that you seem not to grasp.

[Galileo]

What is admissable:

"I heard something that sounded like an explosion" (statement of fact)

What is not admissable:

"I heard a bomb." (statement of opinion, unless you physically saw an explosive device)

There is a difference that you seem not to grasp.

All this is evidence. The witness would say "I heard what sounded like a bomb", which is what many witnesses said. Then you can cross-examine.

There are about 300 witnesses to explosions on the record.

Many of the witnesses do have expertise regarding bombs, for example, firemen and police officers.



Facts are

[Galileo]

I fully believe they would kill people. I also fully believe they are not competant enough to pull it off. I mean, really, Rumsfeld a master evil genius? :lol

The problem I have with the explosives theory is that the available evidence indicates a simple gravity-fed collapse due to fire and damage.

The whole controlled demolition theory can't answer a lot of questions. When I ask honest questions and point out logical flaws, just as would happen in any good trial, people like you simply go "you know they did it" and wave their arms.

Bush was competent enough to get elected president of the United States, twice. Part of being competent is delegating power to the right people.

The rest of your posting makes no sense.

[smeagol]

All this is evidence. The witness would say "I heard what sounded like a bomb", which is what many witnesses said. Then you can cross-examine.

I've bolded the part of the statement you should concentrate on.

[Galileo]

I've bolded the part of the statement you should concentrate on.

bombs sound like bombs.

[ChumpDumper]

Bush was competent enough to get elected president of the United States, twice. Part of being competent is delegating power to the right people.Who?

Cheney?

Rumsfeld?

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

bombs sound like bombs.So do other things.

[RandomGuy]

All this is evidence. The witness would say "I heard what sounded like a bomb", which is what many witnesses said. Then you can cross-examine.

There are about 300 witnesses to explosions on the record.

Many of the witnesses do have expertise regarding bombs, for example, firemen and police officers.



Since you put it in terms of a trial, but then I would do exactly as I have done here.

I would present a very plausible alternative explanation, in the form of transformers blowing, as well as the sounds of a massive collapse.

In the end, you have no eyewitness testimony to say that they saw explosive devices, do you?

In the end, based on this evidence, you do not have enough conclusive proof one way or the other.

So, we would then move on to the next bits.

You say that the building was too strong to collapse, I provide simple physics to disprove that point.

You say that no steel framed building has ever collapsed from a fire, and I ask how that applies to a building damaged by the impact of a jetliner.

The "case" of evidence you could present in a courtroom would be laughable.

[RandomGuy]

bombs sound like bombs.

For you to be able to logically prove that, when someone hears something that sounds like a bomb, it MUST be a bomb.

If one can find ONE instance, like say, a blown transformer, or a fuel tank exploding, or simple mechanical failure of structural members, then you CANNOT logically conclude that it was a bomb.

You can logically conclude that it was possibly a bomb, just as you can logically conclude it was possibly a host of other things.

The "sounds like a bomb" only suggests a possiblity that must be proven some other, more conclusive way.

You have not done that yet.

[Galileo]

Since you put it in terms of a trial, but then I would do exactly as I have done here.

I would present a very plausible alternative explanation, in the form of transformers blowing, as well as the sounds of a massive collapse.

In the end, you have no eyewitness testimony to say that they saw explosive devices, do you?

In the end, based on this evidence, you do not have enough conclusive proof one way or the other.

So, we would then move on to the next bits.

You say that the building was too strong to collapse, I provide simple physics to disprove that point.

You say that no steel framed building has ever collapsed from a fire, and I ask how that applies to a building damaged by the impact of a jetliner.

The "case" of evidence you could present in a courtroom would be laughable.

there aren't any witnesse who said they heard what sounded like a transformer blowing up, most of the witnesses were not near the transformers, and bombs could have blown up the transformers, so you have a very weak argument.

[Galileo]

Who?

Cheney?

Rumsfeld?

:lol

matters

[ChumpDumper]

matters?

[RandomGuy]

there aren't any witnesse who said they heard what sounded like a transformer blowing up, most of the witnesses were not near the transformers, and bombs could have blown up the transformers, so you have a very weak argument.

Nobody ever says, when they hear ANY explosion "oh it sounded just like a transformer blowing up".

Such is not the stuff of popular imagination.

Do you have any eyewitness accounts of visible explosive devices?

(1st time this question is asked)

[Galileo]

For you to be able to logically prove that, when someone hears something that sounds like a bomb, it MUST be a bomb.

If one can find ONE instance, like say, a blown transformer, or a fuel tank exploding, or simple mechanical failure of structural members, then you CANNOT logically conclude that it was a bomb.

You can logically conclude that it was possibly a bomb, just as you can logically conclude it was possibly a host of other things.

The "sounds like a bomb" only suggests a possiblity that must be proven some other, more conclusive way.

You have not done that yet.

you are confusing an absolute logical proof like in mathematics, with reasonable inferences.

We have 300 witnesses who heard explosions, many of the witnesses having expertise. If you can place all the witnesses near transformers, you might have the beginning of a case.

[Galileo]

?

that's Whitewater sarcasm.

[ChumpDumper]

that's Whitewater sarcasm.I would try to change the subject too if I were you.

[Galileo]

Nobody ever says, when they hear ANY explosion "oh it sounded just like a transformer blowing up".

Such is not the stuff of popular imagination.

Do you have any eyewitness accounts of visible explosive devices?

If you had a jury and paraded 300 firemen and police officers in front of them with their eyewitness testimony about exploisions, and then brought in expert witnesses to explain that this was caused by bombs, and then had your lawyer make the same argument, you can bet the jury will believe that bombs were in the buildings

[ChumpDumper]

Which expert?

The theologian or the fake PhD.?

[RandomGuy]

you are confusing an absolute logical proof like in mathematics, with reasonable inferences.

We have 300 witnesses who heard explosions, many of the witnesses having expertise. If you can place all the witnesses near transformers, you might have the beginning of a case.

Each building had 22 or so, if memory serves from the article that I read.

Electrical Fire Hurts 6 at Trade Center
Published: July 24, 1992
An air-conditioning transformer five stories below the World Trade Center caught fire after an explosion last night, the authorities said. Six people were injured, none of them seriously, but the 110-story twin towers did not have to be evacuated, the authorities said.
The fire was first reported at 10:02 P.M. in a 13,000-volt transformer in the Trade Center's refrigeration plant, which provides air conditioning and ventilation for the complex, the Fire Department and the Port Authority said. The electrical fire, which went to three alarms, was brought under control at 11:24 P.M., said a Fire Department official, Lieutenant Erick Weekes.

February 26, 1993. It started like most other days. A 4 A.M. wake up, coffee and a buttered roll while driving to work at the Manhattan Central Office. At 12:18 P.M., lunch was being served when we received a call via a street alarm box at the corner of West & Liberty Streets. At the same time Engine Company 10, whose quarters are across the street from the World Trade Center, called us via radio and reported a possible transformer vault explosion on West Street near the Trade Center.

Transformer vault (also called manhole) explosions are fairly common place in Manhattan, especially during wet weather. They're highly visible and normally generate numerous telephone calls to the Central Office. We didn't think this one was going to be any different. When Engine 10 advised us by radio they had a working fire in the Trade Center, we thought the transformer vault was located within the basement of the complex. Not a routine event, but still,it's only a transformer vault we thought.

The Trade Center was never designed for the amount of emergency power necessary for all those trading floors they have there," Calabro said. "Tenants would come in and need emergency power, and it was not available."

To solve that problem, E-J Electric set four generators on the roof of Tower 5, which was nine stories, as opposed to the 110-story Towers 1 and 2. E-J then ran high-voltage feeder cable to Towers 1, 2, 4 and 5, installed three substations and distributed power to the tenants.

"We pulled 6,000 feet of high-voltage feeder cable from the roof of Tower 5, through the building, down through the concourse, through the parking garages and to the roof of Tower 1 and 2," Calabro said.

Current standard tenant power capacity is 6W up to 10W per usable square foot depending on location. The World Trade Center's electricity supply is segmented for greater reliability and safety. Eight dedicated 13,800-V feeders divide into 23 building substations. On-floor electrical distribution is routed via at least two electrical closets per floor, each with separate high- and low-voltage bus ducts for tenant-dedicated use."

Here are the sources of the above quotes, with references (http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm)

Astonishingly enough, if you click on the link you can also see a very stark example of how the 9-11 "truth" movement lies to you.

[RandomGuy]

If you had a jury and paraded 300 firemen and police officers in front of them with their eyewitness testimony about exploisions, and then brought in expert witnesses to explain that this was caused by bombs, and then had your lawyer make the same argument, you can bet the jury will believe that bombs were in the buildings

Do you have any eyewitness accounts of visible explosive devices?

(2nd time this question is asked)

rHFUNf2P6cc
8guzGKtmfN4
abd_dMcOjNo
IykWbUVDWL8
7HMQOX3h7ZI

[Galileo]

Do you have any eyewitness accounts of visible explosive devices?

DON'T NEED THEM TO DEMONSTRATE EXPLOSIVES.

DO YOU HAVE ANY EYEWITNESSES TO TRANSFORMERS BLOWING THEMSELVES UP WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES?

[ChumpDumper]

DON'T NEED THEM TO DEMONSTRATE EXPLOSIVES.

DO YOU HAVE ANY EYEWITNESSES TO TRANSFORMERS BLOWING THEMSELVES UP WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES?Don't need them to demonstrate a much more plausible explanation for explosions. The transformers were indeed there. There is no doubt of that whatsoever.

[Galileo]

Each building had 22 or so, if memory serves from the article that I read.

Electrical Fire Hurts 6 at Trade Center
Published: July 24, 1992
An air-conditioning transformer five stories below the World Trade Center caught fire after an explosion last night, the authorities said. Six people were injured, none of them seriously, but the 110-story twin towers did not have to be evacuated, the authorities said.
The fire was first reported at 10:02 P.M. in a 13,000-volt transformer in the Trade Center's refrigeration plant, which provides air conditioning and ventilation for the complex, the Fire Department and the Port Authority said. The electrical fire, which went to three alarms, was brought under control at 11:24 P.M., said a Fire Department official, Lieutenant Erick Weekes.

February 26, 1993. It started like most other days. A 4 A.M. wake up, coffee and a buttered roll while driving to work at the Manhattan Central Office. At 12:18 P.M., lunch was being served when we received a call via a street alarm box at the corner of West & Liberty Streets. At the same time Engine Company 10, whose quarters are across the street from the World Trade Center, called us via radio and reported a possible transformer vault explosion on West Street near the Trade Center.

Transformer vault (also called manhole) explosions are fairly common place in Manhattan, especially during wet weather. They're highly visible and normally generate numerous telephone calls to the Central Office. We didn't think this one was going to be any different. When Engine 10 advised us by radio they had a working fire in the Trade Center, we thought the transformer vault was located within the basement of the complex. Not a routine event, but still,it's only a transformer vault we thought.

The Trade Center was never designed for the amount of emergency power necessary for all those trading floors they have there," Calabro said. "Tenants would come in and need emergency power, and it was not available."

To solve that problem, E-J Electric set four generators on the roof of Tower 5, which was nine stories, as opposed to the 110-story Towers 1 and 2. E-J then ran high-voltage feeder cable to Towers 1, 2, 4 and 5, installed three substations and distributed power to the tenants.

"We pulled 6,000 feet of high-voltage feeder cable from the roof of Tower 5, through the building, down through the concourse, through the parking garages and to the roof of Tower 1 and 2," Calabro said.

Current standard tenant power capacity is 6W up to 10W per usable square foot depending on location. The World Trade Center's electricity supply is segmented for greater reliability and safety. Eight dedicated 13,800-V feeders divide into 23 building substations. On-floor electrical distribution is routed via at least two electrical closets per floor, each with separate high- and low-voltage bus ducts for tenant-dedicated use."

Here are the sources of the above quotes, with references (http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm)

Astonishingly enough, if you click on the link you can also see a very stark example of how the 9-11 "truth" movement lies to you.

This doesn't prove anything.

It doesn't even assert anything.

There is zero evidence that any transformers blew up. Do you have even one witness who went into a room where transformers were and saw it blown up?

Nadda.

[ChumpDumper]

This doesn't prove anything.

It doesn't even assert anything.Neither do your fairy tales.

[Galileo]

Do you have any eyewitness accounts of visible explosive devices?

DO YOU HAVE ANY EYEWITNESSES WHO SAW THE OFFICE FIRE MELT THE GIANT STEEL BEAMS?

[ChumpDumper]

DO YOU HAVE ANY EYEWITNESSES WHO SAW THE OFFICE FIRE MELT THE GIANT STEEL BEAMS?They didn't have to melt. And the fires and beams were there. That is beyond question.

[Galileo]

They didn't have to melt. And the fires and beams were there. That is beyond question.

DO YOU HAVE ANY EYEWITNESSES WHO SAW THE OFFICE FIRE SOFTEN THE GIANT STEEL BEAMS?