Real 9-11 Research

[ChumpDumper]

DO YOU HAVE ANY EYEWITNESSES WHO SAW THE OFFICE FIRE SOFTEN THE GIANT STEEL BEAMS?The fire and the steel existed. That is beyond question. There is no physical evidence any explosives were present. The sounds can be easily explained as coming from other sources.

If you are going to argue explosives, the burden is on you to come up with evidence that would exclude any other explanation.

You haven't.

[smeagol]

The fire and the steel existed. That is beyond question. There is no physical evidence any explosives were present. The sounds can be easily explained as coming from other sources.

If you are going to argue explosives, the burden is on you to come up with evidence that would exclude any other explanation.

You haven't.

But . . . but . . . but . . . 300 witnesses heard explosions . . . it had to have been because explosives were going off.

Incidentely, these explosives were put there by Bush and OBL themselves, holding hands as they were performing their task.

I know it's true 'cause I read it in the interents . . .

[RandomGuy]

DO YOU HAVE ANY EYEWITNESSES WHO SAW THE OFFICE FIRE MELT THE GIANT STEEL BEAMS?

No. The official account does not claim that any steel beam was melted.

Now answer my question, since you want a trial, you can't just avoid questions you don't like.

Do you have any eyewitness accounts of visible explosive devices? Yes or no?

3rd time this question is asked

MYZBAmE7tT0
EZwprgqCANs
OKRJfIPiJGY
-SGPtvkIzQw

[Galileo]

No. The official account does not claim that any steel beam was melted.

Now answer my question, since you want a trial, you can't just avoid questions you don't like.

Do you have any eyewitness accounts of visible explosive devices? Yes or no?

DO YOU HAVE ANY WITNESSES WHO SAY OJ KILL HIS WIFE?

[Yonivore]

DO YOU HAVE ANY WITNESSES WHO SAY OJ KILL HIS WIFE?
Uh, O.J. was acquitted. Your analogy fails.

But, back to the question at hand. Other than your [questionable] visual characterization of the collapse of WTC 7 being a controlled demolition, the internet concurrence of other whackos such as yourself, and the assembly of some [as yet, unverified by me] "experts" who say it has all the earmarks of a controlled demolition (balanced, I hasten to add, by just as many "experts" who claim the collapse is readily explainable by the circumstances of the day); just what evidence has been produced -- physical evidence -- to support your claim the building was imploded?

Eyewitnesses to the placement of explosives? No.

Remnants of explosive charges in the rubble? Again, no.

Confessions from anyone involved in the conspiracy? I think not.

What do you have, other than your crackpot assertion? You have nothing.

[Galileo]

Uh, O.J. was acquitted. Your analogy fails.

But, back to the question at hand. Other than your [questionable] visual characterization of the collapse of WTC 7 being a controlled demolition, the internet concurrence of other whackos such as yourself, and the assembly of some [as yet, unverified by me] "experts" who say it has all the earmarks of a controlled demolition (balanced, I hasten to add, by just as many "experts" who claim the collapse is readily explainable by the circumstances of the day); just what evidence has been produced -- physical evidence -- to support your claim the building was imploded?

Eyewitnesses to the placement of explosives? No.

Remnants of explosive charges in the rubble? Again, no.

Confessions from anyone involved in the conspiracy? I think not.

What do you have, other than your crackpot assertion? You have nothing.

What evidence do you have for the existance of God?

[Yonivore]

What evidence do you have for the existance of God?
Can we just stick to the issue at hand?

Physics isn't faith-based...there should be physical, tangible evidence that WTC 7 was imploded.

[Galileo]

Can we just stick to the issue at hand?

Physics isn't faith-based...there should be physical, tangible evidence that WTC 7 was imploded.

there's a video of WTC 7 going down in controlled demolition.

there's no video of Jesus walking on water.

[Yonivore]

there's a video of WTC 7 going down...
True.


...in controlled demolition.
You have no physical evidence of this. None. Zilch.


there's no video of Jesus walking on water.
I know the truther movement has morphed into a quasi-religion but, why does it make your argument any more credible to compare a contemporaneous event where tons of rubble, with scores of professionals available to sift through and analyze it, exists to an event 2,000 years ago where a belief is an act of faith?

Do you believe Jesus Christ walked on water? And, if not, why would you apply faith-based reasoning to augment your argument that WTC 7 was imploded?

[Yonivore]

Here's what NIST said in their June 2004 Progress report on WTC-7:


The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:


An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, as the large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7, that were much thicker than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
Show me where NIST has subsequently abandoned this hypothesis in favor of an implosion hypothesis.

[RandomGuy]

DO YOU HAVE ANY WITNESSES WHO SAY OJ KILL HIS WIFE?

It is a simple yes or no question.

Do you have eyewitness accounts of visible explosive devices?

4th time this question is asked. Keep dodging. The more you can't honestly answer a simple question, the worse your case looks.

pgifFdi8eio

[Galileo]

It is a simple yes or no question.

Do you have eyewitness accounts of visible explosive devices?

4th time this question is asked. Keep dodging. The more you can't honestly answer a simple question, the worse your case looks.

Are you talking before or after the explosions?

[Galileo]

do You Have Any Eyewitness Accounts Of Explosives In The Seattle Kingdome? Yes Or No?

[RandomGuy]

"Your honor, we will readily accede that many people heard noises that either were or sounded like explosions. The litigant Galelio has asserted that these noises were bombs, but has, so far, failed to provide evidence of explosives. I ask that you hold him in contempt of court if he cannot answer this simple yes or no question."

"Agreed. Mr Galilei, can any of your witnesses speak directly to the question at hand? Can any of them testify that they personally witnessed explosive devices?"

[RandomGuy]

Are you talking before or after the explosions?

Do you have any eyewitness accounts of visible explosive devices?

5th time this question is asked. It is a yes or no question. You cannot answer it with another question. Either you do or you don't, which is it?

[Galileo]

Do you have any eyewitness accounts of visible explosive devices?

5th time this question is asked. It is a yes or no question. You cannot answer it with another question. Either you do or you don't, which is it?

DO YOU HAVE ANY EYEWITNESSES TO OSWALD SHOOTING KENNEDY?

[RandomGuy]

Since we are on the subject of what the witnesses DID say, let's take an often quoted bit that is used by "truthers" to support their "it wuz bombz" bit.


Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”

But wait, did he just say the building blew up? WOW.

What else did this experience firefighter who knows what bombs sound like have to say?


"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."

Oops.

http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm

This is a deceptive quote from a conspiracy theory site...


"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...

...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."

But wait, let's see what got left out:


“When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down.


Astonishing the way the people who call themselves "truthers" seem to leave out the parts of the truth they don't like...

[ChumpDumper]

Why don't you just say "no" and move on?

[RandomGuy]

DO YOU HAVE ANY EYEWITNESSES TO OSWALD SHOOTING KENNEDY?

Do you have any eyewitnesses that can testify to seeing visible explosive devices?

6th time this question is asked.

[RandomGuy]

Even bodies hitting the floor sounded like explosions.


“The sight was amazing. I was just totally awestruck. I reported to the command post, showed my ID and asked if I could be of use. They said ‘Absolutely. Stand off on the side with the other medical people.’ I couldn’t fight any fires because I did not have that kind of gear with me, but would have done it if asked.

“I decided to walk closer to the South Tower. I was about 100 ft from the South Tower looking up when the bodies started coming down. I counted 35. They were just piling up on the Marriott Marquis hotel. They were 10 to 15 thick piling up one after another. You could hear them hitting on the side streets. They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions.

“I have seen plenty of death in my life, and burned bodies and so forth, but this was incredible. As I was looking up, I saw a body coming down, hit a lamppost and explode like a paint ball. Its arms and legs got torn off and the head ripped off and bounced right by me.”

Hmmmm. Wow, maybe there are things that explode but aren't bombs.

[RandomGuy]

The building was filled with electrical panels and cable feeding them. Some would be no different than a powerline...

http://www.debunking911.com/plarc.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/plarc2.jpg

[RandomGuy]

[Example video transcript:]

Government Train Wreck: How government covers up freight train accidents…

"The noise sounded like two freight trains going over a trestle right over your head; it was an ugly roar. My wife said the noise when the house went was like a giant pencil sharpener working.”

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/storiesFJ.php

[Did a fright train pass over their head? Was there a giant pencil sharpener really over there heads?]

“While I was in my kitchen I heard this terrible roar coming," she said. "It sounded like a freight train coming right down my road here”

"It looks like it's been bombed. There's just a lot of destruction, a lot of debris," said Michael Bartz, a state emergency official. "

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WEATHER/09/02...nado/index.html

[Was it a bomb? Did a real freight train go down her road?]

"It indeed sounded like a freight train roaring past us, and when it was gone, we came out to find things a mess."

http://www.offenburger.com/farmarchive.asp?link=20040906

It came with "the roar of forty freight trains."

http://www.tornadochaser.com/UDALL/reports.htm

“It sounded like a freight train”.

http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=2954

“Before I reached the bottom of the stairs, I heard the sound of a roaring freight train”

[enter image of NOAA weather map an hour before the tornado touches down.]

As you can see, there was no tornado on that day, according to NOAA.

So why is the government covering up train derailments?

[enter sinister music]

In 2003 Amtrak was going bankrupt. They couldn't afford to rebuild the homes of Americans after a derailment.

ETC.. ETC..

[RandomGuy]

While the Titanic was sinking, passengers heard explosions in the ship. In this case, the "Official Story" would be wrong, using the same conspiracy theory logic. To this day, no one really knows what exactly caused the sound, only that it sounded like an explosion. Some say it was the steel snapping as the ship broke in two. Others say it was the hot steam engines hitting the cold water which exploded. Using Conspiracy Theory logic, it was blown up because witnesses characterized the sound as an "Explosion".

[Galileo]

The building was filled with electrical panels and cable feeding them. Some would be no different than a powerline...

http://www.debunking911.com/plarc.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/plarc2.jpg

dude, everything but the steel was turned to fine powder, including the exposives, desks chairs, computers, wiring, concrete, plastic, etc.

[Galileo]

While the Titanic was sinking, passengers heard explosions in the ship. In this case, the "Official Story" would be wrong, using the same conspiracy theory logic. To this day, no one really knows what exactly caused the sound, only that it sounded like an explosion. Some say it was the steel snapping as the ship broke in two. Others say it was the hot steam engines hitting the cold water which exploded. Using Conspiracy Theory logic, it was blown up because witnesses characterized the sound as an "Explosion".

You have bad logic. The Titanic was sunk by an iceberg, nor is there a motive for explosives to be planted in the Titanic, nor did they have modern explosives in 1912.

[RandomGuy]

dude, everything but the steel was turned to fine powder, including the exposives, desks chairs, computers, wiring, concrete, plastic, etc.

Do you have any witnesses that can testify to seeing visible explosive devices?

7th time this question is asked.

[Yonivore]

dude, everything but the steel was turned to fine powder, including the exposives, desks chairs, computers, wiring, concrete, plastic, etc.
Just as there were remnants of desks, chairs, wiring, concrete, plastic, etc... there would be remnants (and residue) of the explosives used to conduct a controlled demolition of WTC 7. Yes, much of the contents were pulverized. However, much weren't.

So, when did NIST change their working hypothesis from that listed in the 2004 report?

[Galileo]

[Example video transcript:]

Government Train Wreck: How government covers up freight train accidents…

"The noise sounded like two freight trains going over a trestle right over your head; it was an ugly roar. My wife said the noise when the house went was like a giant pencil sharpener working.”

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/storiesFJ.php

[Did a fright train pass over their head? Was there a giant pencil sharpener really over there heads?]

“While I was in my kitchen I heard this terrible roar coming," she said. "It sounded like a freight train coming right down my road here”

"It looks like it's been bombed. There's just a lot of destruction, a lot of debris," said Michael Bartz, a state emergency official. "

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WEATHER/09/02...nado/index.html

[Was it a bomb? Did a real freight train go down her road?]

"It indeed sounded like a freight train roaring past us, and when it was gone, we came out to find things a mess."

http://www.offenburger.com/farmarchive.asp?link=20040906

It came with "the roar of forty freight trains."

http://www.tornadochaser.com/UDALL/reports.htm

“It sounded like a freight train”.

http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=2954

“Before I reached the bottom of the stairs, I heard the sound of a roaring freight train”

[enter image of NOAA weather map an hour before the tornado touches down.]

As you can see, there was no tornado on that day, according to NOAA.

So why is the government covering up train derailments?

[enter sinister music]

In 2003 Amtrak was going bankrupt. They couldn't afford to rebuild the homes of Americans after a derailment.

ETC.. ETC..

You have little to no ability to evaluate evidence. If typical of 9/11 debunkers, that's pretty scary.

[Yonivore]

You have little to no ability to evaluate evidence. If typical of 9/11 debunkers, that's pretty scary.
And the truthers see zebras when all the evidence points to horses.

Again, where is the physical evidence an implosion occurred? Name one reputable organization that is proposing a controlled demolition of WTC 7 took place.

[Galileo]

Just as there were remnants of desks, chairs, wiring, concrete, plastic, etc... there would be remnants (and residue) of the explosives used to conduct a controlled demolition of WTC 7. Yes, much of the contents were pulverized. However, much weren't.

So, when did NIST change their working hypothesis from that listed in the 2004 report?

the crime scene was not preserved at the WTC. When a crime scene is intentionally not preserved, that alone is evidence (but not proof) of an inside job.

Evidence Destruction
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/evidence.html

[Galileo]

Just as there were remnants of desks, chairs, wiring, concrete, plastic, etc... there would be remnants (and residue) of the explosives used to conduct a controlled demolition of WTC 7. Yes, much of the contents were pulverized. However, much weren't.

So, when did NIST change their working hypothesis from that listed in the 2004 report?

1100 human bodies, out of 2500 people killed at the WTC, WERE NEVER FOUND.

Gravity?

[Galileo]

Why did the antenna on the top of WTC 1, fall 12 feet, before the rest of the tower began to fall? Or are you ignorant?

[RandomGuy]

dude, everything but the steel was turned to fine powder, including the exposives, desks chairs, computers, wiring, concrete, plastic, etc.


Really?

Then if I go to a 9-11 research site and find pictures of peices of paper and wiring easily visible those pictures must be wrong...


Wiring easily visible:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/tc/tc_search4.jpg

and if I find a picture of firefighters using a cabinet to prop up a water hose, that is fiction:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/gif/wtc_other/ground_zero/1830_6.jpg

and all those accounts of finding body parts are just made up too. I mean wiht all the explosives capable of cutting steel, there shouldn't have been anything left but steel...

[RandomGuy]

1100 human bodies, out of 2500 people killed at the WTC, WERE NEVER FOUND.

Gravity?

Do you have any witnesses that can testify to seeing visible explosive devices?

8th time this question has been asked.

I have answered your questions, you have yet to answer this one.

[Yonivore]

1100 human bodies, out of 2500 people killed at the WTC, WERE NEVER FOUND.

Gravity?
What's your point? That means 1400 were found. So, your theory that ALL explosive remnants would have been vaporized is isn't supported by the fact that some of the victims bodies were destroyed beyond recognition.

Where is the evidence of explosive charges in the rubble?

[Galileo]

What's your point? That means 1400 were found. So, your theory that ALL explosive remnants would have been vaporized is isn't supported by the fact that some of the victims bodies were destroyed beyond recognition.

Where is the evidence of explosive charges in the rubble?

The rubble was not preserved propertly for scientific investigation.

WHY NOT?

[ChumpDumper]

The rubble was not preserved propertly for scientific investigation.

WHY NOT?Much of it was. No evidence of demolition explosives was ever found.

WHY NOT?

Because there was none.

[Galileo]

Much of it was. No evidence of demolition explosives was ever found.

WHY NOT?

Because there was none.

How do you know?

Did you check throught he rubble?

They found partially evaporated steel, which is proof of explosives.

[ChumpDumper]

How do you know?

Did you check throught he rubble?So everyone who looked through and cleaned out the rubble is in on the conspiracy too?

Nice.


They found partially evaporated steel, which is proof of explosives.How do you know?

Did you check through the rubble?

[Galileo]

So everyone who looked through and cleaned out the rubble is in on the conspiracy too?

Nice.

How do you know?

Did you check through the rubble?

People removing the rubble just did what they were told to do, they aren't in a conspiracy.

Photos of partially evaporated steel from the WTC appear in the FEMA report.

[ChumpDumper]

People removing the rubble just did what they were told to do, they aren't in a conspiracy.

Photos of partially evaporated steel from the WTC appear in the FEMA report.So they are in on it.

[Galileo]

So they are in on it.

define "in on it"

[ChumpDumper]

define "in on it"Define "define"

[Galileo]

Define "define"

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN BY IN ON IT???

[smeagol]

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN BY IN ON IT???
IN - ON - THE - CONS - PI - RA - CY

[ChumpDumper]

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU MEAN BY IN ON IT???The question isn't ambiguous.

Do you think they were in on it?

[Galileo]

The question isn't ambiguous.

Do you think they were in on it?

in on what?

[Galileo]

IN - ON - THE - CONS - PI - RA - CY

It's not a conspiracy.

It's a false-flag military operation.

Killing people is perfectly legal in military operations.

[ChumpDumper]

in on what?You tell me. You're the twoofer.

[Nbadan]

:lol

[RandomGuy]

How do you know?

Did you check throught he rubble?

They found partially evaporated steel, which is proof of explosives.

Do you have eyewitness accounts of visible explosive devices?

9th time this question has been asked and not answered.

Is your case so weak that you cannot answer ONE question honestly?

[RandomGuy]

Of course the same firefighters who are expert enough in bombs to rely on to "prove" explosive devices when they hear explosions, can't be relied on to recognize bomb components in the rubble during the weeks that they were in charge of the "pile".

Maybe Mr. Galilei has an account from a firefighter who saw the remnants of the explosive divices. They were sifting through the rubble for weeks, surely if there were explosive devices rigged on 220 floors of the twin towers some part of those explosive devices would remain...

[RandomGuy]

Unless of course the firefighters were in on it too... They work for the government after all.

[smeagol]

Unless of course the firefighters were in on it too... They work for the government after all.

They cannot be "in it" because it was not a conspiracy. It was an outright military operation . . .

[Wild Cobra]

DO YOU HAVE ANY EYEWITNESSES WHO SAW THE OFFICE FIRE MELT THE GIANT STEEL BEAMS?
Did you read any of the comprehensive theories how steel could melt under such conditions?

Consider all the kinetic energy involved. The vast majority of it is strait down. This energy is converted to heat. This heat can be enough to melt small quantities of steel, in areas that were hit right.

Ever take a wire clothes hanger and bend it back and fourth in the same spot? It gets rather hot, doesn't it... Now consider the magnitudes more of energy as steel falls, bends, impacts, etc.

[Wild Cobra]

Killing people is perfectly legal in military operations.
Real military operations against the public are illegal.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you have any eyewitnesses that can testify to seeing visible explosive devices?

6th time this question is asked.
I'm not even asking for eye witnesses. I would like to see the forensic evidence to back up the screw loose peoples claim, yet he has no proof to offer.

[Wild Cobra]

I suppose explosives were planted on these transformers:

fzbQjd_Oo4Q

S7cHgAVVNck

[Galileo]

I suppose explosives were planted on these transformers:

fzbQjd_Oo4Q

S7cHgAVVNck

New evidence suggests second shooter killed RFK

READ MORE & WATCH THE MSNBC VIDEO:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_Multiple_shooters_in_RFK_assassination_ 0326.html

[Galileo]

Real military operations against the public are illegal.

they should be, but John Yoo wrote a legal memo arguing they are legal.

[Wild Cobra]

they should be, but John Yoo wrote a legal memo arguing they are legal.
I know he has made claims liberals don't like, but are true since the president is the executor of law. As for military actions against the public, I never heard him making such a claim. Can you support that?

The president can suspends such laws and he best have good reasons to or else he would be impeached. Wouldn't any military force against known innocent people be a direct violation of the constitution?

[Galileo]

I know he has made claims liberals don't like, but are true since the president is the executor of law. As for military actions against the public, I never heard him making such a claim. Can you support that?

The president can suspends such laws and he best have good reasons to or else he would be impeached. Wouldn't any military force against known innocent people be a direct violation of the constitution?

The war on drugs is a direct violation of the constitution.

[Wild Cobra]

The war on drugs is a direct violation of the constitution.
No it's not. It falls under law making ability of commerce.

How about answering my question about the transformers. The explosions sound the same to most people, so were explosives placed on them?

[Don Quixote]

There's no convincing these people -- it's like they're in a cult. Thankfully, the ones who believe that GW knew about 9-11, or even orchestrated it, are a very small minority.

These people will believe anything bad about the Bush Administration.

[Nbadan]

Do you have eyewitness accounts of visible explosive devices?

9th time this question has been asked and not answered.

Is your case so weak that you cannot answer ONE question honestly?


Seek and ye shall find...


yIgoXQWiSlM.

[Nbadan]

Calculations from a real physicists...Sorry RG


Consider the following: if the pancaking effect caused the total building failure, why is it that no video of either of the WTC collapses shows any sign of stutter between floor collapses, which should have been very apparent especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of gravitational collapse was small? Consider also that apologists for the official conspiracy theory propose that 30% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the pyroclastic cloud of debris: that is, in their own analysis, this energy came out of the gravitational energy. This means that the time of fall would have been slowed further than what was observed. When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to pulverize concrete essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g.

Substituting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g’ x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g’ = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g’ = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g’ will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t’, then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g’ x (t’ exp2) =
(1/2) x 0.7g x (t’ exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t’ exp2), or (t/t’) = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t’ = 1.195 t.

Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.

The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational involved in the WTC towers collapses. Certainly that is the conclusion of J. Hoffman in his thorough discussion of the north WTC tower dust cloud [Ref. (8)]. By calculating the major sources and sinks observed, particularly the sink of the pyroclastic cloud expansion, Hoffman establishes that a large amount of energy had to be available to drive that expansion, in a (minimum) range of 2,706,000 kWh to 11,724,000 kWh (see his Summary table). Hoffman does not propose an energy source to balance that sink. In Appendix B, an estimate, for discussion purposes only, of the amount of thermite-equivalent to provide this energy source is discussed. It is large, but physically possible.

Physics911 (http://www.physics911.net/thermite)


Structure of WTC Columns and Their Metal Mass


The best on-line discussion resource found for these calculations was at Ref. (10). According to this source the inner core consisted of from 44 to 47 box columns (the exact number and layout is not known; the architectural firm had not released the construction drawings). The dimensions of the columns reduced in size with increasing height, changing to I-beams above the 85th floor. The above website article assumes (generously) that each core box column has the following (average) X-section: 12"wide x 36"deep x 2" thick.

If w = box column width, d = depth, and t = thickness, then the X-sectional steel area is given by

A = [d x t + (w-2 x t) x t] x 2. For d = 36", t = 2" and w = 12", then

A = [36" x 2" + (12"-2 x 2") x 2] x 2 = 176 in2 = 1.222 ft2.

Floor height was 12ft, so we choose for discussion sake, a 12′ high box column in these calculations. Note that multiple floors could have had thermite-type compounds placed there. Also, no more than a foot portion, rather than a full 12 ft of column would be necessary to collapse that floor. Also, complete melt of a column portion is not necessary to cause collapse. So, per floor, per column there is a steel volume V = 12′ x 1.222 ft2 = 14.67 ft3. Also, note that the internal X-sectional area of a box column is given by

Aint = [d-(2 x t)] x [w- (2 x t)], and the internal volume by Vint = 12′ x [d - (2 x t)] x [w - (2 x t)].

Here, Vint = 12′ x [36"-2 x 2"] x [12"- 2 x 2"]/(144 in2/ft2) = 12′ x 1.778 ft2 = 21.333 ft3.

The internal volumes will be re-examined later as a possible space to place the thermite.

The website also mentions that the largest box columns used at the core bases had the dimensions of 16" wide x 36" deep x 4" thick. It is not known where exactly the molten steel, that puddled in the WTC basement, originated in the towers. The melt could have occurred some what higher in the columns (where "average" box columns would have been), or at the base where the "largest" box columns were. Molten material would flow down the various WTC shafts to the lowest point possible, 6 stories (some 72′) below ground level. Applying the same formulae as above, we have for these "largest" columns, A= [36" x 4" + (16" - 2 x 4") x 4"] x 2 = 352 in2 = 2.444 ft2. Note that this happens to be twice the area as for the "average" box column assumed above. Again, for a 12′ column, V = 12′ x 2.444 ft2 = 29.328 ft3. Also, here, the internal volume is Vint = 12′ x [36′ - 2 x 4"] x [16′ -2 x 4"]/144" = 18.667 ft3.

In summary, we have for a 12 ft. high core box-column, for a

12" wide x 36"deep x 2" wall thickness (hereafter referred to as an "average" box column), that it has 14.67 ft3 = 0.415 m3 volume of steel, and 21.33 ft3 = 0.604 m3 of internal volume; and

16" wide x 36" deep x 4" wall thickness (hereafter referred to as a "largest" box column), that it has 29.328 ft3 = 0.832 m3 of steel and 18.667 ft3 = 0.529 m3 of internal volume.

Sensible and Latent Heat Energies Needed for Melting a Core Column Section

Knowing the volume of steel involved, we next turn our attention to calculating the energy needed to melt a core column section. We decided to use values for the element iron rather than steel for the following pragmatic reasons:

steel is mostly iron (Fe);

whatever steel is chosen, may be the wrong kind and would be contested: Fe is a given and known quantity, whereas there are many steels;

Fe values found were readily available and reasonably self-consistent;

except for stainless steels, the thermal properties of steel are relatively close to Fe, although the mechanical properties may certainly differ more.

For Fe we will use the following values:

Density = 7874 kg/m3
Melting point = 1811 K = 1538 C
Specific heat = 25.1J/mol K = 449 J/kg K = 0.449 kJ/kg K
Latent heart of fusion = 13,800 J/mol = 2.47 x 10+5 J/kg
Latent heat of evaporation = 347,000 J/mol = 6.21 x 10+3 kJ/kg
mol = gm mole equivalent = 0.0558 kg for Fe

For a 12 ft high core Fe column, we have

for the "average" box column, 0.415 m3 x 7874 kg/m3 = 3267.71 kg Fe; and

for the "largest" box column, 0.832 m3 x 7874 kg/m3 = 6551.17 kg Fe.

Taking 300 K as "ambient" temperature on 9-11, then the temperature difference up to the melting point of Fe is given by

1811 K - 300 K = 1511 K (give or take a few degrees K).

Hence, the energy needed to raise a 12 ft high Fe column to its melting point temperature is given by

for an "average" column, 3267.71 kg x 1511 K x 0.449 kJ/kg K = 2.22 x 10+6 kJ; and

for a "largest" column, 6551.17 kg x 1511 K x 0.449 kJ/kg K = 4.44 x 10+6 kJ.

To actually melt the Fe at 1511 K, we need to provide the latent heat of fusion:

for "average" column, 3267.71 kg x 2.47 x 10+2 kJ/kg = 8.07 x 10+5 kJ; and

for "largest" column, 6551.17 kg x 2.47 x 10+2 kJ/kg = 1.62 x 10+6 kJ.

Thus we see that the sensible heat energies involved are almost a factor of 3 times larger than the latent heats.

Hence, for the total amount of energy needed to melt a 12 ft high Fe column, we need:

for "average" box column, (2.22 + 0.81) x 10+6 kJ = 3.03 x 10+6 kJ; and

for "largest" box column, (4.44 + 1.62) x 10+6 kJ = 6.06 x 10+6kJ

Energies of the Thermite Reaction

An iron oxide/aluminum "thermite" mixture consists of 23.7% Al, 74.7% Fe2O3 by weight, in the reaction

Fe2O3 + 2 Al => Al2O3 + 2 Fe + 849 kJ/mol.

Thus, 849 kJ of energy are released for every g-mole-equivalent (mol) of Fe2O3 that reacts with 2 mol of Al.

For Al, with a density of 2.699 g/cm3, there are 26.98 g/mol.

For Fe2O3, with a density of 5.24 g/cm3, there are 159.70 g/mol.

So then, 159.70 g of Fe2O3 + 53.96 g of Al (213.66 g total) produces 849 kJ of energy, or 3.974 kJ/g = 3.974 x 10+3 kJ/kg (Note that this gives the proper % component mixtures by weight).

For an infinitesimally compacted powder mixture, this would occupy a volume of 159.70g x (cm3/5.24 g) + 53.96 g x (cm3/2.699 g) = (30.48 + 20.0) cm3 = 50.48 cm3.

A separate analysis of a CuO/Al thermite mixture (used to weld copper parts) indicates a powder packing fraction of 0.82 (82%) can be achieved. Let’s assume a powder packing fraction of 0.82. Hence, our Fe2O3/Al thermite mixture would occupy not 50.48 cm3, but 61.5 cm3.

Thus the physical density of our densely-packed Fe2O3/Al thermite mixture is

213.66 g/61.5 cm3 = 3.474 g/cm3 = 3.474 x 10+6 g/m3 = 3.474 x 10+3 kg/m3,

and our energy density (per volume) is given by

849 kJ/61.5 cm3 = 13.805 kJ/cm3 = 1.3805 x 10+7 kJ/m3.

Thus to melt a 12 ft high Fe column, we need

for an "average" column, (3.03 x 10+6 kJ)/(3.974 x 10+3 kJ/kg) = 0.7625 x 10+3 kg = 762.5 kg of thermite. This would occupy a volume of 762.5 kg/(3.474 x 10+3 kg/m3) = 0.219 m3. Note that this volume of thermite is less than the internal volume Vint calculated earlier, 0.604 m3. Actually, the internal volume of the "average" box column could be filled with 0.604 m3/0.219 m3 = 2.76 times more than needed to do the job. Alternatively, the column does not require as high a packing density ( i.e. <0.82) and yet be able to load a sufficient charge of thermite mixture to cause melting

for a "largest" column, (6.06 x10+6 kJ)/(3.974 x 10+3 kJ/kg) = 1524.9 kg thermite. This would occupy a volume of 1524.9 kg/(3.974 x 10+3 kg/m3) = 0.439 m3. Note that this volume of thermFite also is less than the earlier calculated Vint = 0.529, but would require a moderately high packing density, approximately > 0.82 x 0.439/0.529 = 0.68.

[Nbadan]

Steel Ignores Jet Fuel
by Edward Mitchell


I am not a scientist, nor a physicist, nor structural engineer. I am a Boilermaker, Shipbuilder, and Blacksmith Forger. Union. Now a contractor on military facilities. I build steel storage tanks for jet fuel. A few years ago, a typhoon blew through, and I got to watch a Mobil AST, with 1,000,000 gallons of diesel in it, get hit with lightning. The grounding failed, and the million gallons blew up.

Well, for a diesel fire that is. It didn’t “blow up”. It simply caught fire, burned itself out after 4 days, blackened the steel. Catch that? One million gallons of diesel fuel, burned for 4 days, and didn’t melt a thing.

The tank, 1/4″-thick steel, never melted.

Yet the 47 HUGE box-section core columns, the main structural supports of the WTC towers, are said to have melted?

Stop, I’ll wet my britches laughing.

I’ve melted, welded, forged, bent, twisted, repaired, sheared, punched, formed, plated, blasted and coated just about every metal you see used commonly in industry and construction, for over 32 years. I’ve welded many a steel I-beam: purlin clips, joining plates, you name it.

Do you recall the explosion you see after the second plane hits the tower? What caused that?

It was the JP-8 [jet fuel] contained in the aircraft’s tanks.

Did you see that huge fireball? What was that?

It was the kerosene (JP-8 is nothing more than refined kerosene, the same stuff you use in your camping stove).

It burned OUTSIDE the towers!

How could this fuel then have reconstituted itself after exploding, and put itself back inside the building?

And then?

It ran down 90 floors to melt the “un-insulated I-beams”? What? “Shook” the insulation off by jet impact? Are you kidding me? When the jet hit, it did not even knock folks down in the building below it! What nonsense!

Because I KNOW the dimensions of a 14,000 gallon fuel tank. It’s about 11’x11’x11’ — About the size on one of the many small offices on the floor that got hit. That’s all. The size of one little office the size of a 11-foot-cube.

Let’s look at this another way: The volume of each of the towers was roughly 50 MILLION CUBIC FEET.

The volume of the fuel was a relatively insignificant 1,300 cubic feet, about 0.003 percent!

Yet, you would have me believe NOT my own eyes, that see an explosion of huge proportions caused by the impact of the jet plane, but rather a tale that says exploded fuel turned back into liquid form, and less than 14,000 gallons, a ridiculously small amount of fuel, ran 90 stories down the stairways (the stairwells the firefighters used to come up to see “small fires”) and caused the beams to melt because the impact “knocked off the insulation”.

I have only one reply to that: What about WTC 7. Not hit. there goes THAT THEORY.

Physics911 (http://www.physics911.net/mitchell)

[Nbadan]

Was the tell-tale signs of termite found on steel from WTC towers?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/docs/WTC_apndxC_img_11.jpg


The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
...
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.

911 Research (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html)

[ChumpDumper]

So the first guy was arguing against the already abandoned pancaking theory and the second guy was arguing against the never adopted melting steel theory.

As for the third issue, of you actually look at the scientific sites linked in those twoofer pages -- you find no mention of thermite or other explosives whatsoever. In fact, the culprit they cite as possibly providing the sulfur needed to cause the reaction that weakened the steel in WTC 7 is....




....wait for it.....




....pollution.


A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.

"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain."

Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says.

From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is: Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that, we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment." He hopes to have the opportunity to collaborate on thermodynamically controlled studies, and to observe the effects of adding sulfur, copper and other elements. The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity.

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

Thanks for bringing that last twoofer link up, Dan -- it pretty much explains the fall of WTC 7 to my complete satisfaction. No bombs, no thermite, no false flag operation, no nothing.

Acid rain, sea salt, rubber and plastic.

This case is beyond closed.

:tu

[Nbadan]

So the first guy was arguing against the already abandoned pancaking theory and the second guy was arguing against the never adopted melting steel theory.

If there was no pancaking then compressed air couldn't have caused the windows to blow out in the areas immediately below the building already collapsing...you can't have it both ways, either the floors pancaked or they didn't, and like you said, if NISA has already acknowledged that most of the concrete was pulverized, then what is causing the squib lines in the building?

[Nbadan]

The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity.

What the hell does 'compromise' mean? I guess it's open to interpretation....

[ChumpDumper]

Why would there be squibs going off in non-critical areas of a building that was already in total collapse?

[ChumpDumper]

What the hell does 'compromise' mean? I guess it's open to interpretation....You really don't know what the phrase "compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity" means?

[Nbadan]

The steel on a single floor of the twin towers weighed ten times as much as a 767....as I've always said in our past discussions, something had to weaken the inner column cores in order for the buildings to have fallen at ~10 sec...

[Nbadan]

compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity

How hot were the fires (a range)? and what percent of steel strength is lost at those temp ranges?

[ChumpDumper]

The steel on a single floor of the twin towers weighed ten times as much as a 767....as I've always said in our past discussions, something had to weaken the inner column cores in order for the buildings to have fallen at ~10 sec...Right.

A plane going 500 mph and fire.

Then the force of the moving mass of 200 or 300 767s crushed the rest of the building which was not designed to withstand said force.

[Nbadan]

then what?

[ChumpDumper]

How hot were the fires (a range)?If it's within the range they gave in the same sentence - 1,300F - everything seems plausible. That's about 700C.
and what percent of steel strength is lost at those temp ranges?I imagine it depends on the amount of sulfur.

[Nbadan]

Let me give you a hint...NIST calls it 'progressive collapse'.....

here's a pic:


http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/docs/ronanpt.gif
The section of the Ronan Point building that collapsed was not part of the support structure of the building. Rather, the collapsed balconies were short cantilever sections supported by the building's main structure. This contrasts with the collapse of a large structural section of the Murrah Building, and the total collapses of the World Trade Center syscrapers.

If one researches the history of total progressive collapse of buildings one will find that, in regard to the structural failure of large steel-framed or steel-reinforced-concrete-framed buildings it is a recent phenomenon, apparently starting with the Oklahoma City Bombing, and then rearing its ugly head again in the 9/11/01 attack.

Source: Link (http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/progressive.html)

[ChumpDumper]

then what?What do you mean? There's nothing after that. The building has collapsed. There's your hint.

[ChumpDumper]

Here's a hint: When a 30 floor building falls on a 70 floor building, it all comes down.

[Nbadan]

the problem with the progressive collapse theory is that it doesn't work...the probability is really. really low...

[Nbadan]

...you've seen the buildings collapse thousands of times I'm sure....when the building kinks while falling, you have energy transfer to the side of the kink so much of the mass isn't coming down on the inner support columns at all...that's significant because it effects the rate at which the building should have collapsed versus the time it did collapse....not to mention that the complete progressive collapse of a steel structure building has only occurred twice, on 911 and during the Oklahoma City bombings....coincidink?

[ChumpDumper]

And the Ronan Point building is a pretty poor comparison. There was a gas explosion in the corner of the 18th floor, nowhere near the core. That's a fail.

[ChumpDumper]

...you've seen the buildings collapse thousands of times I'm sure....when the building kinks while falling, you have energy transfer to the side of the kink so much of the mass isn't coming down on the inner support columns at all...that's significant because it effects the rate at which the building should have collapsed versus the time it did collapse....not to mention that the complete progressive collapse of a steel structure building has only occurred twice, on 911 and during the Oklahoma City bombings....coincidink?The Murrah building didn't completely collapse. Quit muddying the water with bullshit.

Now as for this energy transfer business -- it was 20 and 30 floors of falling office building. Nothing was going to stop or deflect that.

[Nbadan]

I was just using the Ronan building as a point of comparison to what the official NIST explanation of the collapse of the towers...I didn't just pull it out of my ass....

...anyway....


In the 20th Century, steel melted at 1535 degrees Celsius (2795 F) (see http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html), but in the 21st Century, it melts at 800 degrees C (1472 F).

This might be explained as a reporter's mistake — 800 to 900 C is the temperature for forging wrought iron. As soft as wrought iron is, of course, it would never be used for structural steel in a landmark skyscraper. (Descriptions of cast iron, wrought iron, steel, and relevant temperatures discussed at http://www.metrum.org/measures/castiron.htm or http://911review.com/articles/jm/cache/castiron.htm.)

But then lower down, the BBC page repeats the 800 C number in bold, and the article emphasizes that the information comes from Chris Wise, "Structural Engineer." Would this professional individual permit himself to be misquoted in a global publication?

Eduardo Kausel, an M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering, spoke as follows to a panel of Boston area civil and structural engineers: "I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements — floor trusses and columns — so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse." Kausel is apparently satisfied that a kerosene fire could melt steel — though he does not venture a specific temperature for the fire ( http://www.911review.com/articles/jm/cache/sciam_whenfell.html).

I feel it coming on again — that horrible cynicism that causes me to doubt the word of the major anchor-persons. Please just think of this essay as a plea for help, and do NOT let it interfere with your own righteous faith. The collapse of America's faith in its leaders must not become another casualty on America's skyline.

In my diseased mind, I think of the floors of each tower like a stack of LP (33-1/3 RPM) records, except that the floors were square instead of circular. They were stacked around a central spindle that consisted of multiple steel columns interspersed with dozens of elevator shafts (see http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm, http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm and http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html).

With the central core bearing the weight of the building, the platters were tied together and stabilized by another set of steel columns at the outside rim, closely spaced and completely surrounding the structure. This resulting structure was so stable that the top of the towers swayed only three feet in a high wind. The architects called it a "tube-within-a-tube design."

The TV experts told us that the joints between the floors and central columns melted (or the floor trusses, or the central columns, or the exterior columns, depending on the expert) and this caused the floor to collapse and fall onto the one below. This overloaded the lower floor, and the two of them fell onto the floor below, and so on like dominos (see http://news-info.wustl.edu/News/nrindex00/harmon.html or http://www.911review.com/articles/jm/cache/harmon.html).

Back in the early 1970s when the World Trade Towers were built, the WTC was the tallest building that had ever been built in the history of the world. If we consider the architectural engineers, suppliers, builders, and city inspectors on the job, we can imagine they would be very careful to overbuild every aspect. If one bolt was calculated to serve, you can bet that three or four were used. If there was any doubt about the quality of a girder or steel beam, you can be sure it was rejected. After all, any failures would attract the attention of half the civilized world, and no corporation wants a reputation for that kind of stupidity — particularly if there are casualties.

I do not know the exact specifications for the WTC, but I know in many trades (and some I've worked), a structural member must be physically capable of three times the maximum load that will ever be required of it (BreakingStrength = 3 x WorkingStrength).

According to Engineering and Technical Handbook by McNeese and Hoag, Prentice Hall, 3rd printing, September 1959: page 47 (Table) Safety Factors of Various Materials, the mandatory safety factor for structural steel is 600%. That is, a steel structure may be rated for a load of only one sixth the actual theoretical limit.

Given that none of those floors was holding a grand piano sale or an elephant convention that day, it is unlikely that any of them were loaded to the maximum. Thus, any of the floors should have been capable of supporting more than its own weight plus the two floors above it. I suspect the WTC was engineered for safer margins than the average railroad bridge, and the actual load on each floor was less than 1/6 the BreakingStrength. The platters were constructed of webs of steel trusses. Radial trusses ran from the perimeter of the floor to the central columns, and concentric rings of trusses connected the radial trusses, forming a pattern like a spider web (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif ). Where the radial trusses connected with the central columns, I imagine the joints looked like the big bolted flanges where girders meet on a bridge — inches thick bolts tying the beams into the columns.

In order to weaken those joints, a fire would have to heat the bolts or the flanges to the point where the bolts fell apart or tore through the steel. But here is another thing that gives me problems — all the joints between the platter and the central columns would have to be heated at the same rate in order to collapse at the same time — and at the same rate as the joints with the outer columns on all sides — else one side of the platter would fall, damaging the floor below and making obvious distortions in the skin of the building, or throwing the top of the tower off balance and to one side.

But there were no irregularities in the fall of those buildings. They fell almost as perfectly as a deck of cards in the hands of a magician doing an aerial shuffle.

Link (http://911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm)

[ChumpDumper]

I was just using the Ronan building as a point of comparison to what the official NIST explanation of the collapse of the towers...I didn't just pull it out of my ass....

...anyway....



Link (http://911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm)Whoever J. McMichael is, he goes on and on in this diatribe written in November 2001 about melting steel. This has no value whatsoever.

Does he have a DVD for sale now?

[Nbadan]

The WTC fires ranged in temp from (800-1000'F) depending on your source....

...and the actual standard ratio for static (structural) loads is five, not three. That is, if a bridge is rated to carry 1 ton, it should be capable of bearing 5 tons without collapsing....

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

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

[ChumpDumper]

The WTC fires ranged in temp from (800-1000'F) depending on your source....

...and the actual standard ratio for static (structural) loads is five, not three. That is, if a bridge is rated to carry 1 ton, it should be capable of bearing 5 tons without collapsing....Is that the standard for the WTC? It wasn't a bridge.


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


Thus, even if the fire had heated the steel to 550 degrees C (1022 F), that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.....Thus, you have no proof WTC 1 and 2 were designed to support the weight of 500 acres of office building each.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously Dan -- you are trying to say that WTC 1 and 2 were each designed support enough weight to make a structure that is 1.3 MILES tall.

[smeagol]

Quit muddying the water with bullshit.

That would seriously weaken his whole arguing strategy . . .

[RandomGuy]

How hot were the fires (a range)? and what percent of steel strength is lost at those temp ranges?

Astonishingly enough this is in the NIST report, if you had actually read it.

They do a whole technical subsection on it.

[RandomGuy]

Seek and ye shall find...


yIgoXQWiSlM.

I don't watch crappy youtube conspiracy videos longer than two minutes.

Nothing I saw there said anybody actually saw any explosive devices.

My question remains unanswered. Yes or no.

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

10th time this question has been asked and not given a straight answer. Is your case so weak that you can't answer ONE yes or no question?

[RandomGuy]

Calculations from a real physicists...Sorry RG
Consider the following: if the pancaking effect caused the total building failure, why is it that no video of either of the WTC collapses shows any sign of stutter between floor collapses, which should have been very apparent especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of gravitational collapse was small? Consider also that apologists for the official conspiracy theory propose that 30% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the pyroclastic cloud of debris: that is, in their own analysis, this energy came out of the gravitational energy. This means that the time of fall would have been slowed further than what was observed. When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to pulverize concrete essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g.

Substituting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g’ x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g’ = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g’ = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g’ will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t’, then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g’ x (t’ exp2) =
(1/2) x 0.7g x (t’ exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t’ exp2), or (t/t’) = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t’ = 1.195 t.

Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one.


Actually the two towers collpsed in 14 and 22+ seconds repsectively.

qLShZOvxVe4

The 9 seconds of "free fall" used in your outdated physics lesson was arrived at through a very stilted and inaccurate analysis of video.

Do try to keep up.

[RandomGuy]

Quite frankly the other starting assumption used by your outdated bit also was raised:

The collapse did not go from the top of the building height to ground level.

Both collapses started (gasp) where the planes and fires were, about 20-30 stories down the building, and the rubble pile was eventually about 4 stories above street level.

This means that the collapse of the building only really took 76-86 stories, not the full 110.

Shorter distance of collapse means less time for "free fall" than what is commonly put forth by the phsyics-challenged "twoofers".

If you actually go out to a calculator here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/flobi.html
You can get the free fall speed of an object dropped from, say, 86 stories or about 320 meters.
That ending velocity is about 79 m/s.
Stick that into the equation v= (g)(t) and you can easily solve, just as the professor did, for t.
79 = 9.8t
t = 7.95

So, the time that should be used for "free fall" is about 8 seconds, not 9.2.

This makes for an even bigger difference in the observed collapse times of 14 and 22+ seconds than 9 seconds.

Oops that must imply some resistance, because it took almost 2 and 3 times longer than "free fall".

Since the explosives theory DEPENDS on little to no resistance, and a large amount of resistance was observed, you MUST conclude that explosives were not used.

[RandomGuy]

Thermite calculations

Please explain how thermite was attached to vertical columns long enough to cut them.

Do you have eyewitness accounts of the magically attached thermite charges?

[Extra Stout]

Galileo was at least an entertaining truther troll. When dan gets involved, things just devolve into abject stupidity.

[Galileo]

Please explain how thermite was attached to vertical columns long enough to cut them.

Do you have eyewitness accounts of the magically attached thermite charges?

The blasts that blew out the core columns weren't thermite. Where are you getting your information?

Thermite does not blow multi-ton steel beams 500 feet horizontally through the air.

[RandomGuy]

The blasts that blew out the core columns weren't thermite. Where are you getting your information?

Thermite does not blow multi-ton steel beams 500 feet horizontally through the air.


Energies of the Thermite Reaction
An iron oxide/aluminum "thermite" mixture consists of 23.7% Al, 74.7% Fe2O3 by weight, in the reaction

Fe2O3 + 2 Al => Al2O3 + 2 Fe + 849 kJ/mol.

Thus, 849 kJ of energy are released for every g-mole-equivalent (mol) of Fe2O3 that reacts with 2 mol of Al.

For Al, with a density of 2.699 g/cm3, there are 26.98 g/mol.

For Fe2O3, with a density of 5.24 g/cm3, there are 159.70 g/mol.

So then, 159.70 g of Fe2O3 + 53.96 g of Al (213.66 g total) produces 849 kJ of energy, or 3.974 kJ/g = 3.974 x 10+3 kJ/kg (Note that this gives the proper % component mixtures by weight).




HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Argue with dan, dipstick.

[RandomGuy]

Thermite does not blow multi-ton steel beams 500 feet horizontally through the air.

Nope simple gravity will do that too, as you have inexpertly alluded to.

Oddly enough, you still haven't produced accounts of glass flying for any appreciable distance.

I guess the glass at the wtc towers was explosive resistant too?

Multi-ton steel beams flew 500 feet horizontally, but ounce size pieces of glass didn't fly for miles in all directions from the "explosives"?

[RandomGuy]

Just a few numbers that make 9/11 conspiracies nearly impossible:


J.L. Hudson’s in Detroit, Michigan, the tallest building ever razed, was 439 ft. (26 stories)
http://www.implosionworld.com/records.htm

WTC 7 was 570 ft. (47 stories) 1.3 times the height of the J.L. Hudson. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

WTC 1/2 was 1,368 ft. (110 stories) 3.12 times the height of J.L. Hudson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_World_Trade_Center
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_World_Trade_Center

So, on 9/11, three buildings were razed with perfect precision. One was 131 ft. taller than the record tower and the other two (minus cell phone antennas) were 929 ft. taller than the record holder.

The Hudson Building “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated"
http://www.history.com/media.do?id=most_hudsons_implosion_broadband&action=clip

Even according to the Loose Change guys, the heightened security and bomb-sniffing dogs had only been lifted for 5 days.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, the construction is different and the towers would need less explosives if they were the same height. However, the towers were much taller and had more columns to cut as a result. Even if they did have the same amount of columns it would still take over 72 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives. That's just one building. Add the second tower and WTC7 and you see where this is going. It quickly becomes absurd. As if this absurdly complex plan was the ONLY way to scare Americans.

[RandomGuy]

What really makes this argument absurd is the amount of explosives needed to turn that much concrete into dust. (We are only talking about 10% of the total concrete in the building anyway. There was a massive amount of gypsum as well, which conspiracy theorists would like you to forget.) The argument is the pyroclastic flow (which there is no evidence of) was created by explosives. (Some have suggested an absurd amount of thermite) If the incredible amount of POTENTIAL ENERGY (Energy the building had just standing there due to the stored energy of lifting the steel into place.) which converted to Kinetic energy (as it collapsed) is not enough to create the dust cloud, then the assumption is explosives must have created it. How much? And why would they overload the building with powerful explosives? Why put more than would be needed to cut the steel? Why put enough to cut the steel AND create a pyro show? As you can see above, the collapse released enough energy to equal 272 TONS of TNT. Why wouldn't this amount of energy be enough to cut the steel connections AND create some dust as the floors impacted each other 110 times per building?

[Galileo]

I don't watch crappy youtube conspiracy videos longer than two minutes.

Nothing I saw there said anybody actually saw any explosive devices.

My question remains unanswered. Yes or no.

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

10th time this question has been asked and not given a straight answer. Is your case so weak that you can't answer ONE yes or no question?

Yes, there are eyewitnesses who saw wiring and cables in the WTC in the few days before collapse.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

Wiring and cables!

My house is filled with explosives!

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, there are eyewitnesses who saw wiring and cables in the WTC in the few days before collapse.
Wiring and cables for what?

Satellite TV? Maybe some internet/computer work? Assuming wiring was being done, it could be anything, and I'll bet some kind of upgrade occurs daily in a building that size.

What is the decription of the wiring?

Again, source?

[Galileo]

:lmao

Wiring and cables!

My house is filled with explosives!

Have you had any recent or unusual 'power downs'?

Have the 'bomb-sniffing dogs' been removed?

Does 'Marvin Bush' own a piece of your home security system?

If any are true, you could be in trouble.

[Galileo]

Wiring and cables for what?

Satellite TV? Maybe some internet/computer work? Assuming wiring was being done, it could be anything, and I'll bet some kind of upgrade occurs daily in a building that size.

What is the decription of the wiring?

Again, source?

the explosives could have controlled via the existing computer wiring system.

[Wild Cobra]

the explosives could have controlled via the existing computer wiring system.
And the USS Enterprise could sling-shotted around the sun, warping back in time and used their transporter to plant some corbomite.

Sorry, all I'm asking for is some undeniable evidence. You continue to refuse to give us any. I'll take the Star Trek theory over yours if explosives were used because there is no evidence of what you say.

Besides, it would be an acceptable false flag operation to correct history if someone else went back in time and stopped a historical event, changing history.

Hey, I'm starting to like this theory now!

[ChumpDumper]

the explosives could have controlled via the existing computer wiring system.If it's the existing wiring, why are you even mentioning eyewitnesses to wiring? You're saying they saw existing wiring that had been there for years.

You are flailing around like an idiot.

[Galileo]

If it's the existing wiring, why are you even mentioning eyewitnesses to wiring? You're saying they saw existing wiring that had been there for years.

You are flailing around like an idiot.

How do you know the old wiring, from the new wiring?

[ChumpDumper]

Have you had any recent or unusual 'power downs'?Ah yes, the Scott Forbes assertion. If everything Forbes say is true then one half of one tower was powered down for a little over a day. It has never been corroborated. You would think one other person would know something about this.

But even Scott Forbes can't back up Scott Forbes' story:

Interviewer: How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor?

Scott Forbes: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forbes.html

Oops.



Have the 'bomb-sniffing dogs' been removed?The extra bomb sniffing dogs had been removed. The regular ones were still on duty as always. One died on 9/11.


Does 'Marvin Bush' own a piece of your home security system?If by "own" you mean left the company and divested completely two years before 9/11, a year after his company lost the WTC security contract (1998).


If any are true, you could be in trouble.None of them are true for me, and none of them were true for 9/11.

[ChumpDumper]

How do you know the old wiring, from the new wiring?You just said no new wiring was needed.

Make up your mind.

[smeagol]

Dan . . . mouse . . . galileo is drowning. Through a floating devide his way . . .

[Nbadan]

Actually the two towers collpsed in 14 and 22+ seconds repsectively.

qLShZOvxVe4

The 9 seconds of "free fall" used in your outdated physics lesson was arrived at through a very stilted and inaccurate analysis of video.

Do try to keep up.


:lmao


sRvwe5WsHDA

Checkmate...

[Nbadan]

Even the Conservative History Channel Admits WTC Tower Fell At Freefall Speed..


olDOKEu_9WU

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao


sRvwe5WsHDA

Checkmate...
Why did they only show half of the building?

Because the part they didn't show started collapsing well before the part they bothered to show.

Twoofers don't believe in truth.

[Nbadan]

Why did they only show half of the building?

Duh...because the penthouse collapsed from the top....doesn't matter if there was facade damage in the front, what matters is how long it took the top of the building to hit bottom...

[ChumpDumper]

Duh...because the penthouse collapsed from the top....doesn't matter if there was facade damage in the front, what matters is how long it took the top of the building to hit bottom...Why leave it out completely?

Are they pretending it didn't happen?

[ChumpDumper]

See dan, the problem is you are trying to say that one-third of a 47 floor building collapsing almost ten seconds before the rest of it is insignificant.

It is quite significant.


But of course, you aren't interested in the whole story.

[Nbadan]

...probably because the other side was the side in which the WTC had collapsed, so the best venue point was from the other side of the building...none the less, the penthouse would not have started collapsing until the core had been compromised, so we are still taking about top to bottom speed...RG's film contends that all the debris should have fallen at free-fall speed, that's nonsense, but a great majority of it did...

Let me show you why your theory is nonsense, using two universal truths...math and physics...


ecmQegzMJQE

L_j1jAv1j3U&feature=related

[ChumpDumper]

...probably because the other side was the side in which the WTC had collapsed, so the best venue point was from the other side of the building...none the less, the penthouse would not have started collapsing until the core had been compromisedWhy? Most of the penthouse was not located above the core. In fact, it appears the part farthest from the core falls first.

[ChumpDumper]

And who is this this guy with the dry erase board?

Is it you?

[Nbadan]

Why? Most of the penthouse was not located above the core. In fact, it appears the part farthest from the core falls first.

Your theory would make more sense if engineers designed buildings to be supported by the front fascade....the penthouse collapse = core collapse....

[ChumpDumper]

There were three columns and two transfer trusses under the east penthouse. You are trying to say they served no purpose.

Why did they exist at all?

[Nbadan]

Are you saying that the trusses and support columns collapsed first? How?

[ChumpDumper]

Are you saying that the trusses and support columns collapsed first? How?One of the support columns was probably the first to go, causing the kink -- that was tested with computer models and linked a couple of times in this thread. Remember the deformation of the building was evident and documented for several hours. How many controlled demolitions work that way? So you have three or four hour long videos of them? Is the guy in the cap in them drawing it on a dry erase board?

[Nbadan]

Remember the deformation of the building was evident and documented for several hours.

That explanation doesn't make sense either...the deformation was on the corner of the building, so the building, had it been compromised there, would have collapsed toward the deformation where the trusses and columns collapsed, but the building collapsed in its own footprint, not in any particular direction...and it was a uniform collapse of all the other trusses and columns in the building...the building would have toppled over not collapsed onto itself...

[ChumpDumper]

That explanation doesn't make sense either...the deformation was on the corner of the buildingMeasurable deformation wherever they saw it told the firefighters the building was going down.
so the building, had it been compromised there, would have collapsed toward the deformation where the trusses and columns collapsed, but the build hours before the actual collapseing collapsed in its own footprint, not in any particular direction...and it was a uniform collapse of all the other trusses and columns in the building...the building would have toppled over not collapsed onto itself...How could it possibly be a uniform collapse when 1/3 of the building collapsed ten seconds before the rest of it?

[RandomGuy]

...probably because the other side was the side in which the WTC had collapsed, so the best venue point was from the other side of the building...none the less, the penthouse would not have started collapsing until the core had been compromised, so we are still taking about top to bottom speed...RG's film contends that all the debris should have fallen at free-fall speed, that's nonsense, but a great majority of it did...

Let me show you why your theory is nonsense, using two universal truths...math and physics...


ecmQegzMJQE

L_j1jAv1j3U&feature=related

The guy's starting assumptions are where he goes wrong, and they are pretty easily seen if you watch the whole thing and know what you are looking for.

1) He fails to add more mass to the falling section as floors collapse.
2) He also seems to think that gravity only acted on the falling mass for the first 3.8 meters of the collapse, and magically stopped accelerating the falling debris. Essentially he forgets to add in the term for initial speed to his equations after the first bit of acceleration.

Dan, feel free to run it by any physics professor to double check this. Let me know if you do, and what they say.

The guy makes some rather common beginner's mistakes.

[RandomGuy]

......RG's film contends that all the debris should have fallen at free-fall speed,

The film contends nothing of the sort.

YOUR FUCKING THEORY CONTENDS FREE FALL, not the youtube I provided.

All it says is that the there wasn't anywhere near a "free-fall collapse".

Either you didn't understand the film, or you are trying to distort what it said in some pitiful attempt at a strawman.

Which is it dan, stupidity or deceit?

[DarrinS]

Damn, are you guys still debating the troofers?

Why have a battle of wits with unarmed people?

[Wild Cobra]

Why have a battle of wits with unarmed people?
It is discouraging. They keep coming up with stupid shit, and cannot see the truth.

[MavTalker]

Never has a steel framed building collapse due to fire and they had 3 of them go down during 9/11? I think chump, RandomGuy and all his dreamworks buddy's have read one to many fairy tale books as children.

[ChumpDumper]

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

[Nbadan]

He fails to add more mass to the falling section as floors collapse.

Think Opposing forces...the non-collapsing mass would have acted as a force in the opposite direction, slowing down the collapse...not speeding it up...besides, he made the more than generous assumption that no mass fell off to the sides (even though you can see if films that much mass clearly did) and that the building was built with a minimum weight safety standard, which we know can be anywhere from a multiple of 3 to 5....

[Nbadan]

He also seems to think that gravity only acted on the falling mass for the first 3.8 meters of the collapse, and magically stopped accelerating the falling debris. Essentially he forgets to add in the term for initial speed to his equations after the first bit of acceleration.

No he doesn't, the 9.8 multiple is the established gravity constant...

[ChumpDumper]

the building was built with a minimum weight safety standard, which we know can be anywhere from a multiple of 3 to 5....So what was it?

[Nbadan]

So what was it?

who cares? the point is he is more than generous in his calculations on the conservative side..in fact, he adds 0 safety factor...

[MavTalker]

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

Our so called leader was reading a children's book.

[ChumpDumper]

who cares?I care.

What was it?

[ChumpDumper]

Our so called leader was reading a children's book.That's a non-answer.

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[mouse]

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


You want my personal opion or what the evedence shows?

[ChumpDumper]

You want my personal opion or what the evedence shows?Those two are different?

What do you think?

[smeagol]

You want my personal opion or what the evedence shows?
Personal opinion?

[DarrinS]

Your theory would make more sense if engineers designed buildings to be supported by the front fascade....the penthouse collapse = core collapse....


I don't know how many times I have to post this fuckin paper.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

[RandomGuy]

Never has a steel framed building collapse due to fire and they had 3 of them go down during 9/11? I think chump, RandomGuy and all his dreamworks buddy's have read one to many fairy tale books as children.

That's what you're going with?

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.

Conspiracy sites point to the building falling straight down as proof the buildings were blown up. Even Professor Jones uses this in his paper as an indication of controlled demolition.

[RandomGuy]

But Jones and others making this claim know very well that these buildings are not built like the towers. Most of the buildings they point to are steel reinforced concrete buildings or have steel reinforced concrete cores. Others are constructed with a steel web evenly distributed throughout the building. These buildings are not a "tube in a tube" design. The towers were steel without concrete. The towers perimeter steel walls were held in place by the trusses and those trusses were connected to the perimeter columns by small bolts. They also weren't hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour. While it's true they were designed to withstand the impact of a smaller 707, they never factored in the removal of fire proofing or fuel in the wings.

"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse."

[RandomGuy]

But it wasn't the impact which the NIST said brought the building down. That's a conspiracy theorist straw man. They show an interview with a construction manager who said the buildings steel skin should have held up by redistributing the load. He's right. This is EXACTLY what the NIST said happened. It wasn't the impact alone which the NIST said brought down the towers. It was a combination of factors. The only way conspiracy theorists can attack the report is by separating these factors and attacking them individually. It's like taking a car accident apart and saying the car shouldn't have skidded off the road because the factory said the car could grip up to .97 g's. While that might be true, the conditions on the road must be factored in. Was there rain, dirt, gravel, anything which could have contributed to the crash? Conspiracy theorists are engaged in deliberate disinformation when they talk about these factors in a vacuum. They KNOW these factors can't be separated.

The PBS special did a good job of explaining the difference between the towers construction and these other buildings conspiracy theorists like to point to. Most steel buildings have a web of steel like this..

[RandomGuy]

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.h3.jpg

[DarrinS]

Never has a steel framed building collapse due to fire and they had 3 of them go down during 9/11? I think chump, RandomGuy and all his dreamworks buddy's have read one to many fairy tale books as children.


Ok, this is a simple question.

Of all those steel buildings that DIDN'T collapse due to fire, how many of them were struck by commercial aircraft? How many of them were struck by large pieces of debris and structurally compromised before the fire?


Answer: ZERO

[Galileo]

Ok, this is a simple question.

Of all those steel buildings that DIDN'T collapse due to fire, how many of them were struck by commercial aircraft? How many of them were struck by large pieces of debris and structurally compromised before the fire?


Answer: ZERO

How many were struck by giant bombs during WWII?

SHITLOADS OF THEM.

How stupid are you?

[ChumpDumper]

How may buildings bombed in WWII were constructed like the WTC towers?

I'd like a list, please.

[Galileo]

How may buildings bombed in WWII were constructed like the WTC towers?

I'd like a list, please.

There were thousands of steel-framed building struck by bombs during WWII.

Unlike the WTC, most of these weren't specially designed to withstand airplane attacks.

[ChumpDumper]

Did thousands of them have the core design of the WTC towers?

Yes or no.

[ChumpDumper]

Unlike the WTC, most of these weren't specially designed to withstand airplane attacks.The WTC wasn't designed to withstand an airplane attack.

[Galileo]

The WTC wasn't designed to withstand an airplane attack.

Yes it was. The building designers say so.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes it was. The building designers say so.Nobody ever expected a deliberate suicide attack with a fully fueled jet flying at close to full speed. No designer ever said that.

[Galileo]

Nobody ever expected a deliberate suicide attack with a fully fueled jet flying at close to full speed. No designer ever said that.

It doesn't matter if the plane is piloted by a suicide pilot, or if the plane just flys into the WTC.

The designers did expect the planes to have a load of jet fuel in them at cruising speed, how could a plane with no jet fuel fly?

The thousands steel-framed buildings in Europe that were bombed during WWII were not designed with these protections like the WTC. Yet no steel-framed building in Europe suffered global collapse from either the bombs or the ensuing fires.

You are up against a brick wall Chump Dumper.

[ChumpDumper]

It doesn't matter if the plane is piloted by a suicide pilot, or if the plane just flys into the WTC.Sure it does.

The designers did expect the planes to have a load of jet fuel in them at cruising speedWhat plane cruises at 1000 feet?

The thousands steel-framed buildings in Europe that were bombed during WWII were not designed with these protections like the WTC. Yet no steel-framed building in Europe suffered global collapse from either the bombs or the ensuing fires.Again, how many had the core construction of the WTC?
You are up against a brick wall Chump Dumper.Nah. You're the one doing nothing about what you perceive as the largest betrayal ever of the US people by its government.

[RandomGuy]

Nobody ever expected a deliberate suicide attack with a fully fueled jet flying at close to full speed. No designer ever said that.

The scenario used by the designers was for a plane that was smaller, flying slower, and with less fuel than what happened on 9-11.

At the time of construction of the towers, jets were overall not as large.

The specific scenario they did some ROUGH calculations, not detailed computer modeling mind you but sliderule calculations, on was an average jet at the time (727?) flying slowly around 200 mph.

Remember from the kinetic energy calculations, that when you double the speed of an object, the kinetic energy goes up by a factor of 4.

It wasn't "designed" to withstand the full speed impact of a large modern jet, it was "calculated" to be able to withstand the low speed impact of a smaller 60's era jet.

There is a huge difference.

[RandomGuy]

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

11th time this question has been asked of Galileo and not given a straight answer. Is your case so weak that you can't answer ONE yes or no question?

[Galileo]

Sure it does.What plane cruises at 1000 feet?Again, how many had the core construction of the WTC?Nah. You're the one doing nothing about what you perceive as the largest betrayal ever of the US people by its government.

the WTC did survive the plane flying at cruising speed.

[Galileo]

The scenario used by the designers was for a plane that was smaller, flying slower, and with less fuel than what happened on 9-11.



not true.

[Galileo]

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

11th time this question has been asked of Galileo and not given a straight answer. Is your case so weak that you can't answer ONE yes or no question?

Just look at the detailed crime scene report made by investigators immediately after 9/11. Show me where it says no explosive devices were found.

[RandomGuy]

The scenario used by the designers was for a plane that was smaller, flying slower, and with less fuel than what happened on 9-11.


not true.

If you could actually back up any of your dumbassical assertions I might give a rat's ass about your opinion.

You state that the buildings were designed to withstand jet impacts.

Prove that, and we will go from there.

[RandomGuy]

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

12th time this question has been asked of Galileo and not given a straight answer. Is your case so weak that you can't answer ONE yes or no question?

[DarrinS]

Yes it was. The building designers say so.


What happened?
The World Trade Center towers "were indeed designed to withstand the impact of a large commercial aircraft," wrote Professors Oral Buyukozturk and Franz-Josef Ulm of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. "They were not, however, designed to withstand the prolonged effect of fire resulting from a bomb in the guise of a fully fueled aircraft." As a result, "a building designed to rocket toward the sky, imploded into the ground."

CEE Professor Eduardo Kausel agrees. "Both buildings survived the initial assault, and did not give way for a remarkably long period of time after the crash. This extraordinary capability allowed many lives to be saved, and is a major credit to the designers. Ultimately, however, the intense fire heated the structural steel elements well beyond the thermal limit of some 800 degrees Fahrenheit, which caused the steel to lose resistance or even melt, and as supporting members gave way, the final failure of the building was initiated."

"At that point, the upper floors began to fall wholesale onto the structure below, and as they gained momentum, their crushing descent became unstoppable.

Via two simple models, Kausel was able to determine that the fall of the upper building portion down onto a single floor must have caused dynamic forces exceeding the buildings' design loads by at least an order of magnitude (i.e. more than 10 times the weight of the upper floors).

"There was no way in the world that the columns below could have taken this large overload, and as these failed in turn and collapsed, a domino-effect down the building ensued."

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/wtc-cee.html

[RandomGuy]

http://www.jod911.com/sounds.pdf

[RandomGuy]

If you could actually back up any of your dumbassical assertions I might give a rat's ass about your opinion.

You state that the buildings were designed to withstand jet impacts.

Prove that, and we will go from there.

Hell, I'll even concede the point to you.

The plane and resulting initial fuel fire didn't bring down either tower.

No official account has ever claimed that.

[Galileo]

If you could actually back up any of your dumbassical assertions I might give a rat's ass about your opinion.

You state that the buildings were designed to withstand jet impacts.

Prove that, and we will go from there.

The WTC did withstand the jet impacts, dumbshit.

[DarrinS]

The WTC did withstand the jet impacts, dumbshit.


Didn't you read his previous post, dumbass?

[RandomGuy]

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

13th time this question has been asked of Galileo and not given a straight answer. Is your case so weak that you can't answer ONE yes or no question?

13 times and counting. We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to say it...

[Galileo]

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

13th time this question has been asked of Galileo and not given a straight answer. Is your case so weak that you can't answer ONE yes or no question?

13 times and counting. We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to say it...

yes, cables and wiring were seen in the WTC before it collapsed, by several hundred witnesses.

[RandomGuy]

yes, cables and wiring were seen in the WTC before it collapsed, by several hundred witnesses.

Cables and wiring are not explosive devices. They are cables and wiring, Sir Fails-alot, no more no less. If that is all it takes to "prove" explosive devices, you will have to explain why cables and wiring in the WTC is different than any other modern office building.

All you need is one person who says they saw an explosive device attached to any structural member. Just. One.

The question was not "ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF CABLES AND WIRING?" is it?

You do not get to pick and choose what questions to answer in a real court. You must answer the question as asked.

I ask yet again, for the 14th time.

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.

[Galileo]

[QUOTE=RandomGuy]Cables and wiring are not explosive devices.

[QUOTE]

yes they are. They are used to line buildings in controlled demolitions.

[RandomGuy]

Either there are witnesses who say "yes I saw explosives/bombs wired and connected to structural members" or there aren't.

Finding someone who saw wiring in an office building is about like finding someone who saw a copier. I see wiring and cables right now from where I sit. Does this mean that the building I am in has an evil conspiracy getting set to blow it up?

[RandomGuy]

I see wiring and cables right now from where I sit. Does this mean that the building I am in has an evil conspiracy getting set to blow it up?

[RandomGuy]

yes, cables and wiring were seen in the WTC before it collapsed, by several hundred witnesses.

Please provide links to the witnesses' statements.

[Galileo]

Either there are witnesses who say "yes I saw explosives/bombs wired and connected to structural members" or there aren't.

Finding someone who saw wiring in an office building is about like finding someone who saw a copier. I see wiring and cables right now from where I sit. Does this mean that the building I am in has an evil conspiracy getting set to blow it up?

you're the one who asked for it. Don't cry to me about it. I hope no one hooks a bomb up to those wires, like they did in the WTC.

[Galileo]

I will be on the radio tomorrow night with Jesse Ventura, debating the WTC controlled demolition:

Saturday, April 5, 6 PM - 8 PM (central)

Kevin Barrett's guests will be Jesse Ventura, Rolf Lindgren and Ed Thompson.

You can listen live right here:

http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/

Now is your chance to call in and be a hero!

[DarrinS]

How do explosives and wiring survive being engulfed in burning aircraft fuel -- one for 56 minutes, the other for 102 minutes?

And the collapse started near the areas where the planes struck? A controlled demolition would never start this high on a building.

By the way, do you notice anything different between this ACTUAL controlled demolition and the WTC collapse? Turn your speakers on.

79sJ1bMR6VQ

[Galileo]

How do explosives and wiring survive being engulfed in burning aircraft fuel -- one for 56 minutes, the other for 102 minutes?

And the collapse started near the areas where the planes struck? A controlled demolition would never start this high on a building.

By the way, do you notice anything different between this ACTUAL controlled demolition and the WTC collapse? Turn your speakers on.

79sJ1bMR6VQ

This video is not a controlled demolition. The building was doused in jet fuel, which brought it down. Cables and wiring caught fire. It was also hit by a small airplane, which impacted on the other side, out of view of the camera.

[DarrinS]

This video is not a controlled demolition. The building was doused in jet fuel, which brought it down. Cables and wiring caught fire. It was also hit by a small airplane, which impacted on the other side, out of view of the camera.


ha ha. very funny

Explosives and wiring are immune to fire. :sleep



I should've cashed in on the whole 911 troof movement. If I had realized there were people as gullible as you out there, I could've written some dumb book or movie and made a small fortune.

[DarrinS]

I will be on the radio tomorrow night with Jesse Ventura, debating the WTC controlled demolition:

Saturday, April 5, 6 PM - 8 PM (central)

Kevin Barrett's guests will be Jesse Ventura, Rolf Lindgren and Ed Thompson.

You can listen live right here:

http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/

Now is your chance to call in and be a hero!


Will you guys also be discussing your shared belief in Bigfoot?

[ChumpDumper]

Now is your chance to call in and be a hero!Calling in to a radio show now counts as heroism?

[Galileo]

Calling in to a radio show now counts as heroism?

For you, it would be a step in the right direction. I'm hoping to get Tim Duncan on the show.

[Galileo]

Will you guys also be discussing your shared belief in Bigfoot?

don't know much about bigfoot. Are you talking about a large grizzly bear?

[Galileo]

Bigfoot in Arizona?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6253832280519607860&q=bigfoot&total=13572&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[ChumpDumper]

For you, it would be a step in the right direction.If I thought the government was behind 9/11, I wouldn't be wasting time starting threads about changing the NBA draft rules.
I'm hoping to get Tim Duncan on the show.:lmao

[DarrinS]

Here's another REAL controlled demolition. The sound of it is unmistakeable.

7XG-l3N1YfQ

[DarrinS]

And another


ZfUu_FFJjPk

[Galileo]

If I thought the government was behind 9/11, I wouldn't be wasting time starting threads about changing the NBA draft rules.:lmao

We'll probably have to wait until Duncan retires, but we have Mark Stepnowski on board:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6011753495446077514&q=mark+stepnoski+prisonplanet&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Alex welcomes former Dallas Cowboys offensive lineman Mark Stepnoski, who recently joined the ranks of the many celebrities and professionals who have begun to question the official story of what happened on 9/11

Related Information :

Former NFL Star Latest To Question 9/11 Official Story http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept...

Mark Stepnoski - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Ste...

[DarrinS]

^^Your links go to nothing.


You need to learn how to use the internets, dude.

[Galileo]

^^Your links go to nothing.


You need to learn how to use the internets, dude.

the first link goes to the others. think ahead.

[ChumpDumper]

the first link goes to the others. think ahead.Actually, had you thought ahead, you would have copied the link locations and not just the text.

[ChumpDumper]

OMFG


In an interview with the Indiana-based Eerie Times-News published yesterday , Stepnoski speaks at length about his deep research into the events of 9/11 and why the official explanation seems suspect.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/stepnoski_former_nfl_star_latest_to_question_911.h tm

The Times-News is based in Erie, Pennsylvania.

Eerie, Indiana was a sci-fi mystery television show on Fox that featured Bigfoot, undead Elvis and intelligent dogs bent on world domination.

Fucking hilarious.

[DarrinS]

OMFG



http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/stepnoski_former_nfl_star_latest_to_question_911.h tm

The Times-News is based in Erie, Pennsylvania.

Eerie, Indiana was a sci-fi mystery television show on Fox that featured Bigfoot, undead Elvis and intelligent dogs bent on world domination.

Fucking hilarious.


LOL


Stepnoski is also trying to legalize maijuana. I think he smoked too many blunts when he stumbled upon his 911 troofer hobby.

[Galileo]

LOL


Stepnoski is also trying to legalize maijuana. I think he smoked too many blunts when he stumbled upon his 911 troofer hobby.

you a drug warrior too, eh? KILL 'EM ALL! LET GOD SORT 'EM OUT!!

:smokin

[mookie2001]

when it comes to anything involving science or math, nbadan scoffs two people on the reg, chumpdumper and mannyisgod

[ChumpDumper]

I just leave all that stuff to Random Guy. Math has always made my eyes glaze over.

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

[Nbadan]

when it comes to anything involving science or math, nbadan scoffs two people on the reg, chumpdumper and mannyisgod

...Thanks Mook, I have a mathematics degree....

[Nbadan]

mathmaticious...


6cAs1YBELmA

[RandomGuy]

How do explosives and wiring survive being engulfed in burning aircraft fuel -- one for 56 minutes, the other for 102 minutes?

And the collapse started near the areas where the planes struck? A controlled demolition would never start this high on a building.

By the way, do you notice anything different between this ACTUAL controlled demolition and the WTC collapse? Turn your speakers on.

79sJ1bMR6VQ

I have pointed this bit out and it was ignored.

If explosives did indeed bring down the WTC they were awfully quiet.

I have personally been within a block of a SMALL building that was demolished with explosives.

It was LOUD and very distinct.

If you listen to ALL of the audio of WTC, you get a low rumble, but no sharp reports that carry for miles.

The amount of explosives alleged to have been in the buildings would have done two things:

Scattered debris for MILES, especially glass.

Been loud enough to hear distinctly in New Jersey.

Neither of which was observed in the actual collapse, which is why CTers wave this stuff away.

[RandomGuy]

I ask yet again, for the 15th time.

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.

[Galileo]

I have pointed this bit out and it was ignored.

If explosives did indeed bring down the WTC they were awfully quiet.

I have personally been within a block of a SMALL building that was demolished with explosives.

It was LOUD and very distinct.

If you listen to ALL of the audio of WTC, you get a low rumble, but no sharp reports that carry for miles.

The amount of explosives alleged to have been in the buildings would have done two things:

Scattered debris for MILES, especially glass.

Been loud enough to hear distinctly in New Jersey.

Neither of which was observed in the actual collapse, which is why CTers wave this stuff away.

the witnesses near WTC 7 all described sounds typical of controlled demolition. The videos you see of WTC 7 all have the camera & mike several blocks or more away from the building.

You guys are pretty desperate.

[Galileo]

Take a look at the carefull report made at the crime scene, showng were the remains of explosive devices were located.

Oh wait, no careful report of the crime scene was ever made. 99.999% of the debris was shipped to Asia before scientists could look at it.

Show me eyewitness accounts of steel beams bent by office fires.

[ChumpDumper]

the witnesses near WTC 7 all described sounds typical of controlled demolition. The videos you see of WTC 7 all have the camera & mike several blocks or more away from the building.The Fort Worth YouTube posted above was taken several blocks away too.


You guys are pretty desperate.Nah. Simple common sense. It took four months of physical prep work to bring down the 30-floor Landmark Tower in Fort Worth. Given your extensive knowledge of building demolition -- how much prep work would be needed to bring down the two 110 buildings and one 47 floor building?

How many pounds of explosives would need to be used on the structures that could not have been weakened earlier like the Landmark Tower was?

Be specific. You are the expert after all.

[Don Quixote]

Yes ... the Truthers are the ones who have to bear the burden of proving that the Towers were a controlled demolition, or at least an inside job by the White House, the Illuminati, or whatever.

Non-truthers do not have that burden of proof.

[ChumpDumper]

Shit, Galileo couldn't even admit that the Landmark Tower didn't have 64 floors.

[Yonivore]

Shit, Galileo couldn't even admit that the Landmark Tower didn't have 64 floors.
Well, hell, what'd you expect? He did count them.

[smeagol]

when it comes to anything involving science or math, nbadan scoffs two people on the reg, chumpdumper and mannyisgod
True dat.

especially becuase you say so . . . :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Here's a number for you --

One month.

That is the amount of time from when this picture was taken until the Landmark Tower in Fort Worth was imploded:

http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/landmarkdemo-09.jpg

Here's another number --

Three months.

That's how long the demolition experts had been working to expose the structural members of the Landmark Tower before this picture was taken.

Now you math majors are trying to tell me that all three towers were brought down by explosives and demo work that had to go on for months before 9/11 but went completely undetected by the tens of thousands of people working in them.

Bravo!

:tu

[mookie2001]

Here's a number for you --

One month.

That is the amount of time from when this picture was taken until the Landmark Tower in Fort Worth was imploded:

http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/landmarkdemo-09.jpg

Here's another number --

Three months.

That's how long the demolition experts had been working to expose the structural members of the Landmark Tower before this picture was taken.

Now you math majors are trying to tell me that all three towers were brought down by explosives and demo work that had to go on for months before 9/11 but went completely undetected by the tens of thousands of people working in them.

Bravo!

:tu midwest wrecking company almost got away with it too those sneaky buttholes

[Galileo]

TRUTH JIHAD RADIO
Archived Shows in April of 2008 - ARCHIVED PODCAST ( RSS )

SATURDAY, APRIL 5, 2008
MP3 Files: Hour 1, Hour 2
Playlist Files: PLS M3U

HOUR: 1
Rolf Lindgren--
FIELD: Libertarian Party activist; WTC Bldg. 7 researcher
TOPICS: 9-11 truth; Third Party candidates; failure to intercept flights

Jesse Ventura--
FIELD: Former governor of Minnesota
TOPICS: WTC controlled demolition (Bldg. 7); news entertainment: 60 Minutes; politicians vs. statesmen

HOUR: 2
Ed Thompson--
FIELD: Former Mayor—and current Mayor-elect—of Tomah, WI
TOPICS: 911; Ventura comments; WTC Bldg. 7; Ron Paul



http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/index.php?cmd=archives.month&ProgramID=25&year=8&month=4&backURL=index.php%253Fcmd%253Darchives.getyear%252 6ProgramID%253D25%26year%3D8%26backURL%3Dindex.php %253Fcmd%253Darchives

[Galileo]

Here's a number for you --

One month.

That is the amount of time from when this picture was taken until the Landmark Tower in Fort Worth was imploded:

http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/landmarkdemo-09.jpg

Here's another number --

Three months.

That's how long the demolition experts had been working to expose the structural members of the Landmark Tower before this picture was taken.

Now you math majors are trying to tell me that all three towers were brought down by explosives and demo work that had to go on for months before 9/11 but went completely undetected by the tens of thousands of people working in them.

Bravo!

:tu

the WTC was weakened and compromised by an airplane impact and fire, fewer explosives were needed to take it down.

You must be manic depressive.

First, you say no explosives were needed. Then you assert this gigantic amount of unheard of numbers of bombes must have been used.

[ChumpDumper]

the WTC was weakened and compromised by an airplane impact and fire, fewer explosives were needed to take it down.Actually, no demo charges were needed to take them down.
First, you say no explosives were needed. Then you assert this gigantic amount of unheard of numbers of bombes must have been used.First you assert that plane impacts and fire can't do any damage to the towers, now they are an integral part of the plan to weaken the buildings.

Make up your mind.

And tell us how the explosives survived the plane impacts and the fires that you now admit did substantial damage to the buildings.

Please give details.

[Nbadan]

Now you math majors are trying to tell me that all three towers were brought down by explosives and demo work that had to go on for months before 9/11 but went completely undetected by the tens of thousands of people working in them.

They didn't care about killing 50,000 people on 9/11 - 'nough said

[Don Quixote]

They didn't care about killing 50,000 people on 9/11 - 'nough said

Huh?

Who's "they"? The terrorists? Yeah, I guess they didn't care much for human life.

And what's that to do with the question? -- how did the prep work (i.e., placing the bombs, getting them into the building, etc.) go completely unnoticed by everyone?

[ChumpDumper]

They didn't care about killing 50,000 people on 9/11 - 'nough saidThat wasn't the question. The question was why risk the probable exposure of the plot over the several weeks needed to plant the explosives and prep the columns for demolition on floors occupied by working offices?

[Nbadan]

Huh?

Who's "they"? The terrorists? Yeah, I guess they didn't care much for human life.

And what's that to do with the question? -- how did the prep work (i.e., placing the bombs, getting them into the building, etc.) go completely unnoticed by everyone?

I'll tell you the same thing I've been telling Chumpy for years....'They' are the people who planted explosives in the central core of the twin towers and WTC7.....or they didn't......

Why do you need extensive prep work if you don't care about safety?

[Nbadan]

That wasn't the question. The question was why risk the probable exposure of the plot over the several weeks needed to plant the explosives and prep the columns for demolition on floors occupied by working offices?


Nobody was inspecting the beams and interior core....

[ChumpDumper]

Nobody was inspecting the beams and interior core....Give me a fucking break. The columns were right there on the floors with the working offices where the collapses started.

To keep from being laughed at, you must answer all these questions:

1) How did the government access the columns and beams on the multiple floors with working offices?

2) How were the explosives attached to them with no one's knowledge?

3) And how did the explosives survive the impact of the planes and the fires and remain perfectly attached to the columns and beams?

Be specific.

[Nbadan]

How did the government access the columns and beams on the multiple floors with working offices?

who said it was the government?

[Nbadan]

How were the explosives attached to them with no one's knowledge?

....it's not like they strapped bombs on beams in the middle of offices...there were plenty of interior support beams out of view...

[Nbadan]

And how did the explosives survive the impact of the planes and the fires and remain perfectly attached to the columns and beams?


...many didn't, obviously.....but the ones that compromised the lower floors? Why do you think both planes hit so far up the towers? Wouldn't have there been more chance of casualties if the planes had hit the towers much lower?

[Nbadan]

Do you know who supplied the logistics for the first W.T.C. attack?

[Don Quixote]

Hmm. So the variant "Truther" arguments seem to hinge upon the (slight) possibility of explosives being planted in the Towers, by people working for either (a) Bush, or (b) the Illuminati. Any other likely culprits?

No one saw explosives being planted, and no one is talking.

The Truther case is not convincing. For it to adequately explain what went on, they will need to explain who put the explosives in the building, how they did it, and why. You will have to explain how the explosives were never detected by anyone prior to the collapse. Then you will need to explain why they would even bother with aircraft when explosives would do the trick by themselves. Your explanation will then have to account for (a) no eyewitnesses and (b) no testimony.

On the other hand, non-"truthers" have a plausible explanation (aircraft hit the buildings at full speed, the fuel burned hot and caused structural collapse). We have millions of eyewitnesses. We have "suspects" who have already confessed (jihadists trained here and overseas) and we have a motive.

[ChumpDumper]

....it's not like they strapped bombs on beams in the middle of offices...there were plenty of interior support beams out of view...Out of view?

Really?

How many spaces will go completely unnoticed for weeks by the entire maintenance staff of all three towers?

How many, say, elevator engineers do you think worked the day shift in the twin towers? Let's start there.

[ChumpDumper]

...many didn't, obviously.....but the ones that compromised the lower floors?The lower floors were compromised by 20-30 acres of office building falling on top of them.
Why do you think both planes hit so far up the towers?Because planes fly in the air.
Wouldn't have there been more chance of casualties if the planes had hit the towers much lower?It would have been great for them if they could have flown the 767s in the PATH tunnel under the WTC.

[Nbadan]

How many spaces will go completely unnoticed for weeks by the entire maintenance staff of all three towers?

Who said it was weeks? Maybe it was just days....and if Silversteen was in on it....there's no telling who could have gained access to critical building areas....

[Nbadan]

The lower floors were compromised by 20-30 acres of office building falling on top of them.

Opposing forces...think back to physics....

[Nbadan]

Because planes fly in the air.

What hit the Pentagon then?

[ChumpDumper]

Who said it was weeks? Maybe it was just days....and if Silversteen was in on it....there's no telling who could have gained access to critical building areas....It was the jooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I can certainly understand the Silverstein angle. He took the money and retired to Dubai, didn't he?

[ChumpDumper]

What hit the Pentagon then?Lots of skyscrapers surrounding the Pentagon.

Good comparison :tu

[Don Quixote]

I'm amazed that people are still spinning their wheels over 9-11 "Truth." In a way, it is reminiscient of JFK conspiracy theorists. There were, as most people know, two commissions that covered the assassination of the President, one in 1964 I believe, and the other sometime in the 70s. They covered every known detail and released over 500,000 pages of documents. It was a fairly solid case that Oswald acted alone, or at least was not part of any conspiracy.

Yet ... there are still a great many people (50%?) who, despite the evidence, still cling to the belief that Oswald was a pawn in some conspiracy to kill the President. We could point to the sheer volume of documents, but the conspiracy people will always come back and say, but what are you hiding? They operate off of the assumption that the "ones in power" are always up to something nefarious or sinister. It's a rather destructive hermeneutic when applied to biblical studies, or history. It turns everyone into a skeptic.

Same case here. The "Truther" evidence is very weak. But I suspect we'll be hearing from them for decades. I'm not sure why people believe these things ...

is it for the satisfaction of knowing the big "secret"? That YOU have figured it out, instead of those mouth-breathers who believe the official line?

perhaps for the thrill it adds to the study of history? I don't know.

[Nbadan]

It would have been great for them if they could have flown the 767s in the PATH tunnel under the WTC.

..or planted explosives...

[ChumpDumper]

To the terrorists, it made sense to, you know -- hit the buildings however they could.

[Nbadan]

It was the jooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I can certainly understand the Silverstein angle. He took the money and retired to Dubai, didn't he?

No, he took that insurance money and is in court sueing for more...

[ChumpDumper]

..or planted explosives...Since the collapse started at the impact floors, that wouldn't even be necessary.

[ChumpDumper]

No, he took that insurance money and is in court sueing for more...And what has he done with that money? Retired to Dubai, right? Or was it Israel?

[Don Quixote]

there were plenty of interior support beams out of view...

Ah yes, the argument from silence. We are to believe that since no one has NOT verified seeing bombs in the hidden areas not being inspected regularly, that there bombs in those very areas.

Sorry, but our standard of truth is a little higher than that.

[Nbadan]

I'm amazed that people are still spinning their wheels over 9-11 "Truth." In a way, it is reminiscient of JFK conspiracy theorists. There were, as most people know, two commissions that covered the assassination of the President, one in 1964 I believe, and the other sometime in the 70s. They covered every known detail and released over 500,000 pages of documents. It was a fairly solid case that Oswald acted alone, or at least was not part of any conspiracy.

The Senate select committee determined that there was likely a conspiracy, but that so many people had mysteriously vanished or turned up dead that a conspiracy could never be proven or discounted...

[Don Quixote]

Wow ... this is stupid. Time for bed.

Doing the Lord's work, Chumpy.

[ChumpDumper]

So -- how many elevator mechanics were in the twin towers during a regular work day?

[Nbadan]

Ah yes, the argument from silence. We are to believe that since no one has NOT verified seeing bombs in the hidden areas not being inspected regularly, that there bombs in those very areas.

Sorry, but our standard of truth is a little higher than that.


No, we also have mysterious explosions going off in lower floors of both towers after the planes hit, during the ensuing panic...

[Nbadan]

Wow ... this is stupid. Time for bed.

Doing the Lord's work, Chumpy.


Yes, bury your head deep into your pillow tonight...night...night...

[Nbadan]

So -- how many elevator mechanics were in the twin towers during a regular work day?


I'm sure there was always a emergency team available or two, but why would they plant bombs in elevator shafts?

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, bury your head deep into your pillow tonight...night...night...You're the one posting on the internets while you think the government pulled off 9/11. How do YOU sleep?

[Nbadan]

You're the one posting on the internets while you think the government pulled off 9/11. How do YOU sleep?

I never said it was the government...you did...

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sure there was always a emergency team available or two, but why would they plant bombs in elevator shafts?dan, what was in the core?

Elevators.

200 of them.

One cannot swing one's dead cat in the cores without hitting an elevator.

Who maintains elevators?

Elevator mechanics.

Now, how many mechanics do you think maintained the 200 elevators on an average work day?