Today's anniversary

[lucky4034]

http://youtu.be/yrQVaiFYmcg

http://youtu.be/NNuosBnlw5s

OUT OF RUMSFIELDS OWN MOUTH... how can you dispute that?

 

[Dead Duck]

Ohhhhh -
Thank you for clearing that up. Now it makes perfect sense. It was right there in front of me the whole time. With evidence like that, we all need to sell our guns and move to Canada.





Well....OK then...

I gotta go Pee now...

 

[ocsdor]

Who raised you guys? Are you just visiting here? Just WOW.

Sad thing is, your here in Indiana and not California like I'd figure. And I assume own guns to boot. Do you guys dress normal in public to fit in?
How do you look the rest of the time? Do you hang out together in special bug-proof rooms? Do you have special glasses to tell us from them from you? Is there an x on the back of your neck or is that part of the other side? I take it that the meds just don't work.

I am actually serious. I'd really like to know.

I did have to un-check most of you off my ignore list just so I could see the whole thread. Ignore list sure cuts the pages down.

Perhaps you should go back to burying your head in the sand if that's what makes you comfortable.

 

[ocsdor]

Please...somebody...bring back negative rep. It was the only thing that the loons and dips cared about....which is kinda funny in itself.

 

[rambone]

 

[ocsdor]

Another tin foil hat wearer:

Morgan O. Reynolds served as chief economist for the United States Department of Labor during 2001-2002 during George W. Bush's first term.

He was a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX.

In 2005, he gained public attention as the first prominent government official to publicly claim that 9/11 was an inside job, and is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

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

 

[Dead Duck]

ocsdor
This message is hidden because ocsdor is on your ignore list.

Sorry - I didn't catch that.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Another tin foil hat wearer:

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

OK, so we've got an economist (not a structural engineer) who KNOWS this was an inside job because he predicted the Twin Towers wouldn't fall (and his degrees in economics qualify him to make such a statement) and the fact that we invaded Iraq is the clincher for him, even though no one he knew or served with in Washington admitted to that idea (because they were all cowards and traitors).

Yep, conclusive proof!

 

[ocsdor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg

Architechs & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

[Blackhawk2001]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqs9DYisSsg

Architechs & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
World Trade Center Building 7 Demolished on 9/11? | AE911Truth

Oh yeah. Seems to me we've been all over this a couple years ago. I'm not sure what would be the basis for this belief about the Twin Towers, but I don't remember enough about the specifics of Tower 7 to comment on it. I do seem to remember that Tower 7 was partially collapsed (thus the evacuation) and folks were worried about its structural integrity before the collapse pictured.

 

[printcraft]

 

[Brandon]

Funny how some think jet fuel is the only thing that burns in a fire.

 

[lucky4034]

what other fuel source that would be abundant in both WTCs are you suggesting burns hotter? Thermite perhaps?

 

[hornadylnl]

Maybe the beams were made of magnesium.

 

[Brandon]

Hotter? All you have to do is soften the metal enough for it to sag before the weight of the floor collapses on the floor below it causing the next floor to collapse because it can't take the sudden load.
Besides the design of the WTC was the outside of the building was a lot of it's strength. Knock out some of the support from around the stair wells and elevator shafts and there isn't much left to hold it up.

I don't know what all in a commercial building would burn but I am sure the carpet, all the papers, the fabrics on the chairs, the drop ceiling added some fuel to an already blazing fire.

How many buildings have been able to withstand an airplane (of similar size to 9/11) crashing into them and not catching fire/collapsing?

 

[GBuck]

The Freemasons are poisoning the wells!

We didn't poison the wells. That was the Illuminati. I wish people would stop confusing us.

 

[lucky4034]

Hotter? All you have to do is soften the metal enough for it to sag before the weight of the floor collapses on the floor below it causing the next floor to collapse because it can't take the sudden load.
Besides the design of the WTC was the outside of the building was a lot of it's strength. Knock out some of the support from around the stair wells and elevator shafts and there isn't much left to hold it up.

I don't know what all in a commercial building would burn but I am sure the carpet, all the papers, the fabrics on the chairs, the drop ceiling added some fuel to an already blazing fire.

How many buildings have been able to withstand an airplane (of similar size to 9/11) crashing into them and not catching fire/collapsing?

The problem with that is that simply adding fuel to a fire doesn't increase the temperature and it is temperature that is important, not really the amount of heat or the length of heat. For instance, you couldn't set a small piece of steel out in the sun all day long and soften it, but you could take a torch and soften it in seconds. The steel won't soften until it reaches a sufficient enough temperature...

Think of a campfire. You could add 5 more pieces of wood and it would grow, but the temperature wouldn't change a whole lot. Instead... take a piece of cardboard and fan the flames, to improve the environment the campfire is burning in and all of a sudden the temperature increases significantly.

By adding wood, carpet, paper, plastic to a jet fuel fire... you don't add to the temperature much. The fire is not lacking fuel... it is lacking oxygen. If anything, adding less efficient fuels(wood, paper etc...) would likely further stunt the jet fuels ability to burn as efficiently as those alternative fuels would take away oxygen from the surrounding area, creating an environment less ideal for the jet fuel to reach optimal temperatures.

Jet fuel is capable of softening the steel if it is burning in an efficient enough manner... the question is, how likely was it that oxygen starved jet fuel could burn hot enough to weaken the steel structure? Hard to say, but it is unlikely.

Especially when you consider the properties of steel and vast amounts of steel interconnected in the towers. The problem compounds because steel is an amazing conductor of heat. It will move and dissipate heat very efficiently and very quickly. You could take a 6 foot steel rod and stick one end in a campfire, and in a couple of minutes the steel rod would pull heat away from the fire and the other end rod will get very hot. The interconnected pieces of steel inside of the twin towers would work the same way and would quickly absorb the heat from the fire and begin to dissipate it throughout nearby steel pulling heat away from the fire rapidly making it even more difficult for the fire to raise the temperature of large areas of steel.

Again... is it possible that jet fuel was 100% responsible for the collapse? Sure... but it would take some very ideal conditions to make it happen. However, if that was the only aspect of this day being disputed... I don't think so many people would question the overall story. Its only until you apply this same methodology across the entire events of the day that you realize that there were too many "ideal conditions" to make the story given believable.
..................................................

For instance... I brought up that 100+ street level witnesses/victims all reported explosions (many still report the same thing today).... This is a fact.

Paul countered that fact by simplifying the solution and saying something along the lines of how traumatized victims are not reliable sources of information.

Normally, I would agree... if it were 1 or 2 or 5 people reporting bombs then it wouldn't hold much weight because in the right condition, it is totally acceptable to say that a handful of people are not reliable sources because they may have all been too disorientated to decipher what was happening. However, to completely brush off 100+ people is simply reckless.

.................................................

And this mentality doesn't stop at a single bomb theory or hundreds of disorientated eye witnesses.... This same logic of "ideal coincidence" is being applied across multiple events from the time those pilots began learning to fly from the time the NIST report was submitted. There are a lot of holes being filled with blatant simplification and remarkable coincidence. That is not to say that a coincidence can't happen, but when every thing that happens in a short time span, that usually would be extremely unlikely to ever happen... happens, there is a call for wonder. For me personally there are simply TOO many coincidences, unknowns, unanswered and unexplained pieces of evidence to at least not question the entire story.

..............................................

I also understand that this is a very sensitive subject and a very scary subject. I don't expect everyone to agree or to be as skeptical as I am... hell, I even expect people to get angry, as they have in this thread. However, I am not of the belief that questioning this, given the amount of evidence is irresponsible. Actually, I think it would be more irresponsible to not question....

 

[CarmelHP]

See, I told you it was kinda funny. Getting neg repped is now "fascism." The depths of ridiculousness have been plumbed.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

what other fuel source that would be abundant in both WTCs are you suggesting burns hotter? Thermite perhaps?

Have you ever heard the term: "flashover"? Or: "backdraft"?

I'll add some to this. Nothing I have read in the NIST report sounds a false note to me. Although I am only mildly familiar with types of building collapse, we did look at the various types of collapse typical of earthquakes and explosions and had the principles explained to us fairly well in our Urban Search & Rescue Task Force training.

Also, through my association with fire departments over the years, I've picked up some information about structural fires and what makes them burn and what makes them dangerous. It's possible that the thousands of gallons of jet fuel ignited by the collision of the airliner with the building wouldn't have created enough heat long enough to melt the structural members of the floors above the crash site sufficiently to cause the structure to fail. However, there were other tons of flammables in the buildings' thirty or forty floors above the crash sites, and those flammables not only had the heat of the initials fires to ignite them, they had the enormous draft of wind coming through multiple openings to provide plenty of oxygen for the fires. If you look at videos of the Twin Towers, you can see smoke coming, not only from the crash sites, but from the floors above the sites for quite a ways. All those floors were burning. It appears the collapse started when the crash site floors were no longer able to support the weight of the floors above them, since, in the videos, the upper floors appeared intact for the first couple seconds of the collapse. Since there was no fire resistant coating on any of the structural members, any part which sustained high enough heat long enough could have started the collapse. As with all "pancake" collapses, once a structural member gives way, enough overstress is created on the other structural members to cause many or all of them to fail at once, bringing the structure straight down.

 

[kedie]

Why the WTC Building Collapsed

I post this in every troofer thread I see. I don't know why though, they obviously never read it.