Loose Change 9/11 An American Coup trailer

[mouse]

[xellos88330]

Then why are there kerosene heaters? Do you not watch any of the videos?

Do kerosene heaters hold as much fuel as an aircraft? Is there as much fuel ignited as an aircraft fire? I don't think so.

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is en led "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Ins ute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4

[xellos88330]

On another note... the ejection of the debris outwards, think of this.

I have a straight stick, I bend it in half, it breaks, debris shoots outwards from the snapping point. Now imagine that, but only with entire building floors and equipment providing the pressure. Do the math.

[mouse]

After your stick broke did it turn into powder or dust? Were you not left with part of the stick that was solid?
Did the stick test positive for sulfur and thermite? Did someone come along and take the rest of the stick away and ship it to China before anyone could test it?

I must admit I like your passion and you did a good job digging for some facts. Unlike ChumpDumper you made your point w/o trying to belittle the messenger.

But I must warn you if your going to use any popular mechanic links and quotes keep in mind they have an agenda and have been exposed for having to say what they say.

Popular Mechanics Exposed: Tool of Propaganda against 911 Truth
Bookmark and Share

Popular Mechanics has been exposed as the fraud it is, intellectually bankrupt rubbish of "errors and omissions" in it's attempt to put down the 9/11 Truth from emerging on what really happened on September 11, 2001.

Editors of this propaganda magazine (propaganda in regards to 9/11) are continually made to look foolish and ridiculous.

Listen here to a radio interview that seemed to be the reason for the cancellation of many others from the editors of this propaganda, who need to stay out of the 911 Truth Kitchen, for they just can't stand the heat.

The Charles Goyette Show", Wed Aug 23. The question arises if this is the cause for the cancellation of more interviews that never happened.


Crowd laughing at Popular Mechanics while its being exposed

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/for...php?f=12&t=416




mp3 Size: 3MB 24 Minutes, from the Charles Joyette show.

Another great interview is that which Jack Blood of GCNlive.com radio network gave, where yet another Popular Mechanics editor was made to look the fool, as he attempted to defend the indefensible, intellectually bankrupt methodology and lies, with much disinformation. Listen to that interview here:

mp3 Size: 3MB 24 Minutes from Jack Blood radio show.

Popular Mechanics, and all the rest of those seeking to prop up the wicked and perverse"government conspiracy theory" of that day will continue to slide into derision by those capable to discern propaganda and detect fraudulence masquerading as journalism and objective reporting. Clearly, no one will defend the wholly inadequate 9/11 Commission report, with it's "errors" and "omissions" as well as "distortions" as Dr. David Ray Griffin brilliantly states it.

[mouse]

Do kerosene heaters hold as much fuel as an aircraft? Is there as much fuel ignited as an aircraft fire? I don't think so.

"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is en led "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Ins ute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4

This is very good work!

Now answer me one question......WT7 was a steel framed building also that came down at almost free fall speed it had no jet crash into it and did not have gallons of jet fuel burning inside so explain to me how it came down.

[xellos88330]

I would have to look more into WTC7, I only looked at the towers. Do you have the time of the collapse?

[mouse]

I would have to look more into WTC7, I only looked at the towers. Do you have the time of the collapse?

About the same speed ChumpDumper used to bail out of this topic,

NIST has now officially accepted that WTC7 came down with the acceleration of gravity, but they still couch it as a phase in a 5.4 second interval they claim matches the 5.4 seconds required for their model to collapse 18 floors.

[ChumpDumper]

Facts: pDumper avoids.


In February 2005, The Windsor building in Madrid (pictured) burned for over 24 hours as shooting flames engulfed almost the entire structure and yet the building did not collapse. The core of the WTC was exponentially more robust than the Windsor building. So we have one building that burned incessantly for over 24 hours and did not fall, compared to two buildings which were structurally far superior, burned briefly from limited fires, and yet both collapsed within an average time of 79 minutes - and Meigs claims they should have collapsed sooner!

That has already been addressed several times. The construction of the that building was completely different than that of the WTC towers, so it would have been impossible for it to fail in the same way the towers did.

A survey of the fire damaged structure of the Windsor Tower, Madrid, has concluded that the concrete structure “performed extraordinarily well in a severe fire”. The study, ‘Fire in the Windsor building, Madrid: Survey of the fire resistance and residual bearing capacity of the structure after the fire’ was carried out by the Spanish Ins uto Technico de Materiales y Construcciones (INTEMAC). It underlined the need for fireproofing structural steel concluding that the “need for fireproofing of steel members to guarantee their performance in the event of fire was reconfirmed”.

The Windsor Tower fire started on the 21st floor of the 32 storey building in February 2005. The fire quickly spread due to a lack of fire stops between the curtain wall façade and the concrete floor slabs. Designed and built in the 1970s, the tower was built using traditional design methods. Extensive refurbishment was underway at the time of the fire. Ironically, part of the refurbishment programme was to bring the building’s fire standards up-to-date with the installation of active fire prevention and resistance measures.

Structural failure happened with the collapse of the steel perimeter columns which resulted with the floor slabs collapsing as the edge support was taken away. The massive concrete transfer slab at the 20th floor prevented further progressive failure

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

So the steel actually failed from the heat of the fire. Fortunately in this case there was much more structural concrete in the building than in the WTC towers.

Seriously, why do you keep bringing up the same tired arguments like they've never been dealt with before?

[mouse]

Seriously, why do you keep bringing up the same tired arguments like they've never been dealt with before?

Psssst! it's called.....



In redneck terms so you can understand......




the truth never sleeps..................

[ChumpDumper]

Psssst! it's called.....

Actually, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

Tell me mouse -- is concrete the same as steel?

[mouse]

Tell me mouse -- is concrete the same as steel?

Lets see....

they do share a common trait they are both hard like your head.

[ChumpDumper]

Lets see....

they do share a common trait they are both hard like your head.

Is concrete the same as steel?

I see we have gotten to the point where you won't actually discuss anything but instead are posting YouTube after YouTube without ever saying anything yourself.

I guess I'll just post a link to debunking sites after every one since you can't even bring yourself to admit a simple fact like concrete is not the same as steel. This is the mindset of the truther. I find it to be quite dishonest; it certainly helped to remove doubts about the veracity of the basic official story.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home...inks%20section

[E-1101]

Chump face it you hate America you always have you always will!

[mouse]

ok Chump I will meet you half way! I will stop posting links and videos as soon as you show me where any steel framed building besides the three on 9/11 that has collapsed due to fire into a huge pile of dust and rubble.

[ChumpDumper]

ok Chump I will meet you half way! I will stop posting links and videos as soon as you show me where any steel framed building besides the three on 9/11 that has collapsed due to fire into a huge pile of dust and rubble.

Glad to.

Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."

http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/...00f932a8c0____

[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the
WTC collapse theory.]

"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire"

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/...mick_fire.html


The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel." wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.

http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magaz...d/berhinig.htm

From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ]
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.

pg 6/74

The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.

The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet.

The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74

The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireproofing was newer and more modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it imagine the impact of a 767]

pg 16/74

Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500° F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings

pg 17/74

Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal
discoloration and buckling steel.

pg. 21/74

The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation, leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.

pg. 26/74

Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are susceptible to damage from construction work.

The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant extreme caution by firefighters.

pg. 36/74
Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams, the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and contribute to building collapse.
pg. 37/74

Other Fires

In February 1991, a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza - a 38 story office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on its steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage, authorities were worried it might collapse.

"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a
possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged
floors."

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/t...ons/tr-049.txt

About 2 years later, the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse entirely due to the resulting fire.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/p...ons/TR-068.pdf


Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania on, December 20, 1991, Killing 4 volunteer firemen
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/p...ons/TR-061.pdf


Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed about 20 minutes after fire broke out


http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/p...ons/tr-135.pdf

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

So you're going to stop now, right?

[ChumpDumper]

Hey mouse -- I also have a YouTube for you.

It shows the results of several steel framed structures collapsing from fire and, at the 2:30 mark, it shows rather dramatic footage the steel-only top section of the Windsor Tower in Madrid collapsing while the rest of the building reinforced by concrete remains standing.



So you're going to stop now, right?

[Col. Sam Daniels]

If it bothers you that much you must really hate NY.

[ChumpDumper]

If it bothers you that much you must really hate NY.

Ad hominem.

In fact....



Only been once, but I really enjoyed it.

[mookie2001]

just to get it on record because i havent in a year or so

im with mouse, it doesnt help his case that he posts youtubes and talks about loosechange all the time but september 11th has about 1000 questions and 1000 holes in the official story, one only needs to look as far as building 7 and the 9/11 commission report to see the official story is just a story

[ChumpDumper]

I guess if there was a reason to protect buildings from being attacked by other buildings, WTC7 might have been mentioned in the 9/11 commission report.

Did you read the NIST report dedicated to building 7?

[mouse]

A bridge, and elementary school and an Oil Rig are hardly even close the the size of WTC7. In fact they are not even 'high rise' buildings.

The building in Spain collapsed 11 Floors and not the whole building. Also note that it never crumbled to the ground in a pile of dust in its own footprint now did it?

Also WTC building only had fire damage to the upper half (like the building in Spain - why did the whole building collapse then?

You did post in a way what I had asked for so I will honor my words and not post anymore links or videos in this topic again!

I just hope one day you don't end up like this guy did,

[mookie2001]

building 7.

The 9/11 commission report













yeah you linked it to me


remember the simpsons where bart became a genius and he could anticipate questions before hand


-question

[ChumpDumper]

A bridge, and elementary school and an Oil Rig are hardly even close the the size of WTC7. In fact they are not even 'high rise' buildings.

The building in Spain collapsed 11 Floors and not the whole building. Also note that it never crumbled to the ground in a pile of dust in its own footprint now did it?

Because the rest of the building was reinforced with concrete. That's why I asked if you thought if there was any difference between steel and concrete.

There is.

Also WTC building only had fire damage to the upper half (like the building in Spain - why did the whole building collapse then?

Because the sections above the fires in each WTC building were both larger than the entire Windsor building.

You did post in a way what I had asked for so I will honor my words and not post anymore links or videos in this topic again!

I just hope one day you don't end up like this guy did,

You just posted another video.

[Laker Lanny]

Dude you got Dumped!

Chump 10
mouse 0

[El Jefe]

Common sense implies that the majority of people have an understanding of an experience so as to have a collective knowledge. I don't know about you but that's the first time I have ever seen a building (as unique in its construction as the twin towers) brought down by plane or any other means. So how then can we have common sense?

Why do people continue to question expert opinion based on actual science. Is it because the answers aren't "sexy" enough.

This. One thousand times this.

Even without an event as extraordinary as 9/11, so called common sense is often wrong. Now confronted with a unique event, there are going to be some parts that confuse us at first. I know everyone wants to come up with a fantastical explanation for these things (there was a bomb! The CIA did it!) When the answer is much more mundane (as mundane as "Islamic Extremists hijacked and crashed a plane into the building, causing a fire that weakened the structure enough to cause collapse" can be)

I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that makes me question the preponderance of evidence that supports the official version. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so those claiming some other version of the truth better have some amazing evidence to back it up. Accepting anything less is the true disservice to those that lost their lives that day.