Something for 9/11 Conspiracy loonies to read.

[Obamerican]

Well why are you here then? If there are no Conspiracies,why are you spending so much time here? There has to be something way in the back of your pea brain that has doubts about the Government's 911 fair tale story. The fact is,Conspiracies do exist. They really do. Dismissing all possible Conspiracies really is very closed-minded and a sign of ignorance. Many Conspiracy Theories are Bullshit but not all of them are. Try opening your mind. You might just be surprised what you find in there.

Are you stupid? Where did I say that I dismiss all conspiracies? "Pea brain"? Fuck you! Just because I don't follow your non-existent theory of what "really" happened I'm a "pea brain"?

Like all of the rest you got nothing. If I remember right aren't you the one that said the government should have video from satellites showing EXACTLY what happened on 9/11? You're nothing more than another fool that has seen too many movies. Believe it or not I worked for the NSA (National Security Agency) in the 70's and the government isn't smart enough to do the shit you "think" they did.

So again,why are you here? You're clearly far too closed-minded and dimwitted to possibly fathom anything other than what the Government tells you? So i don't believe you when you claim you don't dismiss all Conspiracy Theories. Your behavior exhibits the exact opposite approach. Seriously,open your mind. It wont hurt. I promise.

Dimwitted? LOL Am I "dimwitted" when I tell the idiots at the Flat Earth Society that they're wrong? Are you one of those "enlightened" people that think the US faked the moon landings? Just asking.

 

[paulitician]

Are you stupid? Where did I say that I dismiss all conspiracies? "Pea brain"? Fuck you! Just because I don't follow your non-existent theory of what "really" happened I'm a "pea brain"?

Like all of the rest you got nothing. If I remember right aren't you the one that said the government should have video from satellites showing EXACTLY what happened on 9/11? You're nothing more than another fool that has seen too many movies. Believe it or not I worked for the NSA (National Security Agency) in the 70's and the government isn't smart enough to do the shit you "think" they did.

So again,why are you here? You're clearly far too closed-minded and dimwitted to possibly fathom anything other than what the Government tells you? So i don't believe you when you claim you don't dismiss all Conspiracy Theories. Your behavior exhibits the exact opposite approach. Seriously,open your mind. It wont hurt. I promise.

Dimwitted? LOL Am I "dimwitted" when I tell the idiots at the Flat Earth Society that they're wrong? Are you one of those "enlightened" people that think the US faked the moon landings? Just asking.

So why do you hang around a Conspiracy Theory forum if you don't believe there are Conspiracies? Seems a little strange no? Let me just say again,not all Conspiracy Theories are real & credible but some are. Try to keep an open mind. Governments do lie to their People all the time. That's just fact.

 

[Obamerican]

So again,why are you here? You're clearly far too closed-minded and dimwitted to possibly fathom anything other than what the Government tells you? So i don't believe you when you claim you don't dismiss all Conspiracy Theories. Your behavior exhibits the exact opposite approach. Seriously,open your mind. It wont hurt. I promise.

Dimwitted? LOL Am I "dimwitted" when I tell the idiots at the Flat Earth Society that they're wrong? Are you one of those "enlightened" people that think the US faked the moon landings? Just asking.

So why do you hang around a Conspiracy Theory forum if you don't believe there are Conspiracies? Seems a little strange no? Let me just say again,not all Conspiracy Theories are real & credible but some are. Try to keep an open mind. Governments do lie to their People all the time. That's just fact.

I do agree that governments lie. But you seem to think that everyone that posts in a conspiracy forum should believe all of the conspiracies? That would seem kind of boring to an unenlightened person such as myself. Maybe you could enlighten me as to why you think we should all agree?

BTW, how about the moon landings? You dodged that one.

 

[paulitician]

Dimwitted? LOL Am I "dimwitted" when I tell the idiots at the Flat Earth Society that they're wrong? Are you one of those "enlightened" people that think the US faked the moon landings? Just asking.

So why do you hang around a Conspiracy Theory forum if you don't believe there are Conspiracies? Seems a little strange no? Let me just say again,not all Conspiracy Theories are real & credible but some are. Try to keep an open mind. Governments do lie to their People all the time. That's just fact.

I do agree that governments lie. But you seem to think that everyone that posts in a conspiracy forum should believe all of the conspiracies? That would seem kind of boring to an unenlightened person such as myself. Maybe you could enlighten me as to why you think we should all agree?

BTW, how about the moon landings? You dodged that one.

Anyone who doesn't believe any Conspiracies exist,really is a very closed-minded ignoramus. Also,the topic is 911. Start your own 'Moon Landings' thread if you want to discuss that.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Yes and you keep believing your Government fairy tale. Ignorance really is bliss.

You really want to go there? here's how stupid you fucking are.

You have no choice to admit that two airliners crashed into the twin towers.

Yet you think it was impossible to do the exact same thing on the same day at the pentagon. You see it's common sense, if you plan this operation why change one of 4 parts of it?

Lets see we'll hijack 4 airplanes (or pretend they were hijacked, whatever you want to believe) and we'll crash 2 of them into the WTC and we'll fire a missile (No clue where we might get it from) into the pentagon; and while doing this we'll make the people and one of the airliners disappear.

Now what do you want to add about Shanksville?


Fucking stupid ass.

I'll challenge you the same way all these other assholes have failed. Tell me in your own words what you believe happened.

I can use a good laugh I need a good Ho Ho Ho tonight............

Well now you're just getting angry. But yes,i do believe our Government is capable of such awful crimes. But i'm not exactly sure what the cover-up is or why. That i do admit. But there is no way our Government has told us the truth about 911. They clearly at the very least took WTC 7 down intentionally. Now i can't say for sure why they did it but they did do it. As far as the rest goes,i still see way too many holes in their story. The only thing i know for sure is that they have lied. And that proves a Conspiracy does exist. You can hang onto your Government fairy tale story if you want to. I wont begrudge you for that. But i will always believe we were lied to. So let's just agree to disagree. Enjoy your Holidays.

The only holes are the ones in your head letting the sunshine in.

Of course the government lied, Different agencies within the Government lied.
But they did not cover up some insane plot within our own government. They lied to cover their own inadequacies. The 911 Commissions report got most everything right. And they got all the main points right. The only thing I disagree with about the NIST report and WTC 7 is that they didn't give enough credence to the damage done by the tower collapse. But you won't even admit that there was that much damage to the building.

You truly haven't a clue.........

 

[paulitician]

You really want to go there? here's how stupid you fucking are.

You have no choice to admit that two airliners crashed into the twin towers.

Yet you think it was impossible to do the exact same thing on the same day at the pentagon. You see it's common sense, if you plan this operation why change one of 4 parts of it?

Lets see we'll hijack 4 airplanes (or pretend they were hijacked, whatever you want to believe) and we'll crash 2 of them into the WTC and we'll fire a missile (No clue where we might get it from) into the pentagon; and while doing this we'll make the people and one of the airliners disappear.

Now what do you want to add about Shanksville?


Fucking stupid ass.

I'll challenge you the same way all these other assholes have failed. Tell me in your own words what you believe happened.

I can use a good laugh I need a good Ho Ho Ho tonight............

Well now you're just getting angry. But yes,i do believe our Government is capable of such awful crimes. But i'm not exactly sure what the cover-up is or why. That i do admit. But there is no way our Government has told us the truth about 911. They clearly at the very least took WTC 7 down intentionally. Now i can't say for sure why they did it but they did do it. As far as the rest goes,i still see way too many holes in their story. The only thing i know for sure is that they have lied. And that proves a Conspiracy does exist. You can hang onto your Government fairy tale story if you want to. I wont begrudge you for that. But i will always believe we were lied to. So let's just agree to disagree. Enjoy your Holidays.

The only holes are the ones in your head letting the sunshine in.

Of course the government lied, Different agencies within the Government lied.
But they did not cover up some insane plot within our own government. They lied to cover their own inadequacies. The 911 Commissions report got most everything right. And they got all the main points right. The only thing I disagree with about the NIST report and WTC 7 is that they didn't give enough credence to the damage done by the tower collapse. But you won't even admit that there was that much damage to the building.

You truly haven't a clue.........

What are you not getting? lol! You believe the Government fairy tale story on 911 but i do not. We're not gonna change each other's minds on that. So why bother? They lied. Therefore,i do believe there is a cover-up. That's just how i feel. You're entitled to your feelings as well. Anything more to discuss?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Well now you're just getting angry. But yes,i do believe our Government is capable of such awful crimes. But i'm not exactly sure what the cover-up is or why. That i do admit. But there is no way our Government has told us the truth about 911. They clearly at the very least took WTC 7 down intentionally. Now i can't say for sure why they did it but they did do it. As far as the rest goes,i still see way too many holes in their story. The only thing i know for sure is that they have lied. And that proves a Conspiracy does exist. You can hang onto your Government fairy tale story if you want to. I wont begrudge you for that. But i will always believe we were lied to. So let's just agree to disagree. Enjoy your Holidays.

The only holes are the ones in your head letting the sunshine in.

Of course the government lied, Different agencies within the Government lied.
But they did not cover up some insane plot within our own government. They lied to cover their own inadequacies. The 911 Commissions report got most everything right. And they got all the main points right. The only thing I disagree with about the NIST report and WTC 7 is that they didn't give enough credence to the damage done by the tower collapse. But you won't even admit that there was that much damage to the building.

You truly haven't a clue.........

What are you not getting? lol! You believe the Government fairy tale story on 911 but i do not. We're not gonna change each other's minds on that. So why bother? They lied. Therefore,i do believe there is a cover-up. That's just how i feel. You're entitled to your feelings as well. Anything more to discuss?

Once again a truther knows only that the Government lied.
You admit that you don't want to learn the truth so please carry on. But when you make stupid false statements on a public forum then yes I will correct you and offer you the truth. If you won't accept it, then you label yourself for what you are.

Enjoy..........

By the way, If you want to make a claim that someone lied, then it really is up to you to prove it.

 

[paulitician]

The only holes are the ones in your head letting the sunshine in.

Of course the government lied, Different agencies within the Government lied.
But they did not cover up some insane plot within our own government. They lied to cover their own inadequacies. The 911 Commissions report got most everything right. And they got all the main points right. The only thing I disagree with about the NIST report and WTC 7 is that they didn't give enough credence to the damage done by the tower collapse. But you won't even admit that there was that much damage to the building.

You truly haven't a clue.........

What are you not getting? lol! You believe the Government fairy tale story on 911 but i do not. We're not gonna change each other's minds on that. So why bother? They lied. Therefore,i do believe there is a cover-up. That's just how i feel. You're entitled to your feelings as well. Anything more to discuss?

Once again a truther knows only that the Government lied.
You admit that you don't want to learn the truth so please carry on. But when you make stupid false statements on a public forum then yes I will correct you and offer you the truth. If you won't accept it, then you label yourself for what you are.

Enjoy..........

By the way, If you want to make a claim that someone lied, then it really is up to you to prove it.

Yes i am a 'Truther' and proud of it. I don't need your approval. But thanks. Good luck.

 

[SFC Ollie]

What are you not getting? lol! You believe the Government fairy tale story on 911 but i do not. We're not gonna change each other's minds on that. So why bother? They lied. Therefore,i do believe there is a cover-up. That's just how i feel. You're entitled to your feelings as well. Anything more to discuss?

Once again a truther knows only that the Government lied.
You admit that you don't want to learn the truth so please carry on. But when you make stupid false statements on a public forum then yes I will correct you and offer you the truth. If you won't accept it, then you label yourself for what you are.

Enjoy..........

By the way, If you want to make a claim that someone lied, then it really is up to you to prove it.

Yes i am a 'Truther' and proud of it. I don't need your approval. But thanks. Good luck.

 

[daws101]

Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former combat fighter pilot. Aerospace engineer. Currently Captain at a major airline. Combat experience includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch. Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle and General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark fighter/bomber. Former President, U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board. Also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review. Awarded Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals. 20-year Air Force career.



I think that we Americans need to demand further investigation just to clarify the discrepancies that you've [Pilots for 9/11 Truth] found. And I think that we need to be getting on the phone with our Congressmen and women and letting them know that we don't accept the excuses that we're hearing now, that we want true investigators to do a true investigation." Google Videos
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

who would conduct this investigation?
none of the 911 associations could participate as they are biased we've beat this dead horse enough.

 

[daws101]

As far as WTC 1&2 collapsing name ONE other building IN THE WORLD with that same construction. THERE ARE NONE!! Can you say DESIGN FLAW??

Study Suggests Design Flaws Didn't Doom Towers
By ERIC LIPTON
Published: October 20, 2004

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - After the most sophisticated building analysis in United States history, federal investigators have arrived at the clearest picture yet of the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, largely ruling out a design flaw in the buildings as a central factor in the catastrophe...

In interviews Tuesday, the lead investigator, as well as other engineers who have studied the collapse, said the evidence increasingly suggested that the giant structures - given the extreme conditions, including temperatures that reached more than 1,000 degrees - performed relatively well on Sept. 11, 2001.

For Leslie E. Robertson, the structural engineer who helped design the twin towers as a young man back in the early 1960's, the latest findings buttress his longstanding assertion that the towers were fundamentally sound. His wife, Saw-Teen See, who is a managing partner at Mr. Robertson's New York design firm, said the report "validates the way we thought the structure would have performed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/20/nyregion/20towers.html

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs.

The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure, however, its 244 perimeter columns made it “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation (commented)

Quote: Originally Posted by Obamerican]Your entire argument is based on 1/10 of ONE PERCENT of the engineers in the world that says what you do about the collapse.

OCTASSes back the governments theory, based on never before occurring, absurd, unproven and secretive computer simulation data, and wild conspiracy theories that are full of holes, and full of shit.



If you believe the NIST theory so much, then why do you go against their statement? Do you not realize that what you just wrote goes against their findings? The "huge diesel tanks" had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC 7, and neither did the physical "damage" caused by the falling tower/s...according to NIST.
Perhaps you would like the government and NIST to cooperate with a new independent investigation to help clear up your misunderstandings?

[quote Originally Posted by Obamerican ] And don't say "free fall". They weren't.

Why not? NIST does! You're even more mixed up then you were in past discussions about the 9-11 controversy. NIST Admitted WTC-7 Accelerated at Freefall Speed.

NIST Admits Freefall

OpEdNews - Diary: (9/11) NIST: a. Free Fall Requires No Resistance b. WTC7 was in Free Fall

Quote: Originally Posted by SFC Ollie ]Minimal fires in WTC 7? You really believe that? For 7 hours there were minimal fires?

Other steel buildings have burned for longer periods of time without a total global collapse.
The north tower survived a serious fire in 1975.
9-11 Research: The 1975 Fire

A major fact that OCTASSes fail to think about, is the correct time for free-fall in a vacuum from the heights of the towers' roofs to the street is 9.2 seconds. And the crushing of all the mass of the buildings and acceleration of the 400,000 tons of intact structure below the impact zone only slowed the fall by a couple of seconds.

The speed of fall, the uniformity of acceleration and the verticality of collapse are not
consistent with the effects of fire but are fully consistent with the hypothesis that the building
supports were rapidly and completely severed. No plausible explanation for this other than the
use of explosives in a controlled demolition has been presented.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...eration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf

 

[daws101]

So again,why are you here? You're clearly far too closed-minded and dimwitted to possibly fathom anything other than what the Government tells you? So i don't believe you when you claim you don't dismiss all Conspiracy Theories. Your behavior exhibits the exact opposite approach. Seriously,open your mind. It wont hurt. I promise.

Dimwitted? LOL Am I "dimwitted" when I tell the idiots at the Flat Earth Society that they're wrong? Are you one of those "enlightened" people that think the US faked the moon landings? Just asking.

So why do you hang around a Conspiracy Theory forum if you don't believe there are Conspiracies? Seems a little strange no? Let me just say again,not all Conspiracy Theories are real & credible but some are. Try to keep an open mind. Governments do lie to their People all the time. That's just fact.

the question here is not why "WE" HANG AROUND this thread it's why "YOU" hang around, there are plenty of let's masturbate around the 911 myth sites. do you do it just to have your collective ass handed to you?
it's a tough concept for you ass clowns but this is a debate forum, the pro and con of an issue. not a pity party for nut cases !

 

[eots]

you really want to go there? Here's how stupid you fucking are.

You have no choice to admit that two airliners crashed into the twin towers.

Yet you think it was impossible to do the exact same thing on the same day at the pentagon. You see it's common sense, if you plan this operation why change one of 4 parts of it?

Lets see we'll hijack 4 airplanes (or pretend they were hijacked, whatever you want to believe) and we'll crash 2 of them into the wtc and we'll fire a missile (no clue where we might get it from) into the pentagon; and while doing this we'll make the people and one of the airliners disappear.

Now what do you want to add about shanksville?


Fucking stupid ass.

I'll challenge you the same way all these other assholes have failed. Tell me in your own words what you believe happened.

I can use a good laugh i need a good ho ho ho tonight............

well now you're just getting angry. But yes,i do believe our government is capable of such awful crimes. But i'm not exactly sure what the cover-up is or why. That i do admit. But there is no way our government has told us the truth about 911. They clearly at the very least took wtc 7 down intentionally. Now i can't say for sure why they did it but they did do it. As far as the rest goes,i still see way too many holes in their story. The only thing i know for sure is that they have lied. And that proves a conspiracy does exist. You can hang onto your government fairy tale story if you want to. I wont begrudge you for that. But i will always believe we were lied to. So let's just agree to disagree. Enjoy your holidays.

the only holes are the ones in your head letting the sunshine in.

Of course the government lied, different agencies within the government lied.
But they did not cover up some insane plot within our own government. They lied to cover their own inadequacies. The 911 commissions report got most everything right. And they got all the main points right. the only thing i disagree with about the nist report and wtc 7 is that they didn't give enough credence to the damage done by the tower collapse. but you won't even admit that there was that much damage to the building.

You truly haven't a clue.........

and what lil ollie can not understand is the reason nist does not give credence to the damage is because if they did they could not achieve a near symmetrical collapse in computer simulations

 

[daws101]

well now you're just getting angry. But yes,i do believe our government is capable of such awful crimes. But i'm not exactly sure what the cover-up is or why. That i do admit. But there is no way our government has told us the truth about 911. They clearly at the very least took wtc 7 down intentionally. Now i can't say for sure why they did it but they did do it. As far as the rest goes,i still see way too many holes in their story. The only thing i know for sure is that they have lied. And that proves a conspiracy does exist. You can hang onto your government fairy tale story if you want to. I wont begrudge you for that. But i will always believe we were lied to. So let's just agree to disagree. Enjoy your holidays.

the only holes are the ones in your head letting the sunshine in.

Of course the government lied, different agencies within the government lied.
But they did not cover up some insane plot within our own government. They lied to cover their own inadequacies. The 911 commissions report got most everything right. And they got all the main points right. the only thing i disagree with about the nist report and wtc 7 is that they didn't give enough credence to the damage done by the tower collapse. but you won't even admit that there was that much damage to the building.

You truly haven't a clue.........

and what lil ollie can not understand is the reason nist does not give credence to the damage is because if they did they could not achieve a near symmetrical collapse in computer simulations

9/11 truther challenge: WTC7 collapse
Submitted by Minarchist on Tue, 06/24/2008 - 19:36
in
Daily Paul Liberty Forum

0
votes My problem with 9/11 truthers can basically be summed with their inability and/or unwillingness to produce sufficient basis to "fix" the WIkpedia accounts, and yet they object to them. That is why I came up with this challenge.

One of the biggest issues for 9/11 truthers seems to be their difficulty in comprehending how the crashes into the two main towers could have eventually caused the collapse of a third building. So I've picked the accounting of the WTC7 collapse in Wikipedia as the topic for the challenge.

What follows is the current wikipedia account of the collapse of World Trade Center 7.

At the end of this post, after the quote, is my related challenge to 9/11 truthers.

9/11 truther challenge: WTC7 collapse | Ron Paul 2012 | Peace . Gold . Liberty

 

[Mr. Jones]

One of the biggest issues for 9/11 truthers seems to be their difficulty in comprehending how the crashes into the two main towers could have eventually caused the collapse of a third building.

Perhaps that is because NIST is not at all clear on just how that happened. Maybe you can explain it to us.
NIST in their report says that physical damage to the WTC 7 by the towers was NOT a cause of collapse or failure.
Why you defend a position that even NIST gave up on is beyond ignorant.
They don't even have a substantiated position on how the fires in WTC 7 even started.
The NIST authors have not proven their hypothesis regarding the fate of WTC 7, and the NIST conclusions are not based on physical evidence that can be tested and confirmed by others.
They frequently use the term " probable collapse sequence" to describe their hypothesis, but their report never quantifies this probability.
FEMA concluded that a fire induced collapse had only a low probability of occurrence.

Various hypotheses were considered for the initiation of complete global collapse. The possibilities considered by NIST included
(1) a fire-induced local failure leading to vertical and horizontal failure progression throughout the entire structural system, (2) a
fire-induced failure from burning diesel fuel leading to complete global collapse, and (3) a blast-induced demolition scenario.
According to NIST:

The leading hypothesis for the failure sequence that characterized
the initial local failure was based on fire-induced failure events in the
tenant floors.9
A heat-induced column failure hypothesis was quickly ruled out after concluding the fires were not hot enough for the duration of
time required to reduce the steel strength by 50 percent.
Therefore, it would not have been possible for a building contents fire to have heated a massive, insulated column such as Column 79 to the point of failure.10

In its brief dismissal of the controlled-demolition scenario, NIST argues that careful preparation of columns for demolition could not be accomplished without detection, and ''Controlled
demolition usually prepares most, if not all, interior columns in a building with explosive charges, not just one column."12

While NCSTAR authors imply that demolition of multiple columns would be required and unlikely, the same authors conclude that the
buckling failure of a single column was sufficient to trigger a complete progressive collapse of the entire building. If a single-
column failure could bring the entire building down, it does not matter how that column was removed.
If a man-made collapse required extensive preparation to
deliberately break every column on multiple floors, then a "natural" single-column failure could not possibly cause rapid, symmetrical,
and complete global collapse—straight down in classic controlled-demolition style.

Observations for WTC 7 do not
match the typical sequence of events
for a controlled demolition.
This collapse sequence is
inconsistent with a typical controlled
demolition…
13 --NIST

There are thousands of alert and well-informed citizens worldwide, including scientists, demolition experts, architects and structural engineers, who disagree with the preceding statements.

Furthermore, the collapse sequence referred to by NIST is the
one taking place during their computer simulation—a sequence of events invisible to witnesses and, to a significant extent,
under the control of NIST analysts.

Only fire-induced floor-system failure was seriously considered by NIST as the cause of collapse initiation. Abundant and well-
documented evidence suggesting the controlled demolition of WTC 7—including news videos, witnesses hearing explosions,
foreknowledge of the collapse, first-responder reports of molten metal in the debris, extreme surface temperatures recorded by NASA thermal imaging for weeks following the collapse, and evidence of melted structural steel—was simply ignored.14
It is difficult to imagine how anyone interested in establishing the likely technical cause of the building failure could
ignore evidence of a ''liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on
the steel."15
This was obviously not caused by an ordinary fire consuming only building contents.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/NIST_Analyses_Brookman.pdf?format=pdf

 

[Mr. Jones]

As far as WTC 1&2 collapsing name ONE other building IN THE WORLD with that same construction. THERE ARE NONE!! Can you say DESIGN FLAW??

Study Suggests Design Flaws Didn't Doom Towers
By ERIC LIPTON
Published: October 20, 2004

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - After the most sophisticated building analysis in United States history, federal investigators have arrived at the clearest picture yet of the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, largely ruling out a design flaw in the buildings as a central factor in the catastrophe...

In interviews Tuesday, the lead investigator, as well as other engineers who have studied the collapse, said the evidence increasingly suggested that the giant structures - given the extreme conditions, including temperatures that reached more than 1,000 degrees - performed relatively well on Sept. 11, 2001.

For Leslie E. Robertson, the structural engineer who helped design the twin towers as a young man back in the early 1960's, the latest findings buttress his longstanding assertion that the towers were fundamentally sound. His wife, Saw-Teen See, who is a managing partner at Mr. Robertson's New York design firm, said the report "validates the way we thought the structure would have performed."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/20/nyregion/20towers.html

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs.

The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure, however, its 244 perimeter columns made it “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation (commented)

OCTASSes back the governments theory, based on never before occurring, absurd, unproven and secretive computer simulation data, and wild conspiracy theories that are full of holes, and full of shit.



If you believe the NIST theory so much, then why do you go against their statement? Do you not realize that what you just wrote goes against their findings? The "huge diesel tanks" had nothing to do with the collapse of WTC 7, and neither did the physical "damage" caused by the falling tower/s...according to NIST.
Perhaps you would like the government and NIST to cooperate with a new independent investigation to help clear up your misunderstandings?

Why not? NIST does! You're even more mixed up then you were in past discussions about the 9-11 controversy. NIST Admitted WTC-7 Accelerated at Freefall Speed.

NIST Admits Freefall

OpEdNews - Diary: (9/11) NIST: a. Free Fall Requires No Resistance b. WTC7 was in Free Fall

Quote: Originally Posted by SFC Ollie ]Minimal fires in WTC 7? You really believe that? For 7 hours there were minimal fires?

Other steel buildings have burned for longer periods of time without a total global collapse.
The north tower survived a serious fire in 1975.
9-11 Research: The 1975 Fire

A major fact that OCTASSes fail to think about, is the correct time for free-fall in a vacuum from the heights of the towers' roofs to the street is 9.2 seconds. And the crushing of all the mass of the buildings and acceleration of the 400,000 tons of intact structure below the impact zone only slowed the fall by a couple of seconds.

The speed of fall, the uniformity of acceleration and the verticality of collapse are not
consistent with the effects of fire but are fully consistent with the hypothesis that the building
supports were rapidly and completely severed. No plausible explanation for this other than the
use of explosives in a controlled demolition has been presented.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...eration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf

daws101] it's a tough concept for you ass clowns but this is a debate forum, the pro and con of an issue. not a pity party for nut cases

And this is how daws101 explains his positions on a topic he is engaged in a debate about, by replying with images of his data sources and debate skills.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I wonder if anyone (meaning building engineers) has ever considered if any other columns were weakened by the fires that were burning for 7+ hours......

 

[Mr. Jones]

I wonder if anyone (meaning building engineers) has ever considered if any other columns were weakened by the fires that were burning for 7+ hours......

I wonder if you have ever been to a 7+ hour cook out, pig roast etc.. and thought about how the metal grill never weakened or was destroyed by the fire... despite being subjected to all that heat for all those hours...You obviously have no concept on how heat dissipates, and moves away from the source, and spreads to cooler parts. Have you ever used an oxy-acetylene torch in your life?

This argument depends on the understanding of the behavior of steel.
If heat is the cause, the steel will weaken gradually and will start to sag in the region where the fire is most intense.
At that moment the steel will have almost enough strength to hold up the weight of the building, but not quite.
So we have the force of gravity acting downwards trying to produce
an acceleration of 32 feet per second, per second and the force of the hot steel pushing upwards with a force a bit less then gravity,

Let us say that we are looking at it at the moment at the point where the strength has declined to the point where the steel is capable of pushing upwards with 90% of the force required to hold the building up against gravity.

There would thus be a net downward force of 10% of gravity.
Now acceleration is proportional to force, and we have a net force of
10% of gravity, So we would see an acceleration downward of 3.2 feet per second, per second.

When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order. The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued at that rate until out of sight.
There is no hint of a slow start. This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is absolutely impossible if the loss of
strength is due to the application of heat.

The observed acceleration, if maintained, would bring the roof to the ground in 6.2 seconds. A brick dropped from the roof would take 6.0 seconds. These numbers are so close together that only
something which destroys the supports in an instant can account for it.

In short, the buildings should not have collapsed as they did in the short amount of time they did, because of the very nature of fire and its effects on steel. Especially when gravity is taken into account.
Removal of stubborn emotional barriers is a prerequisite to understanding this, and for Gods sake, use your brain and think about it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf

 

[SFC Ollie]

I wonder if anyone (meaning building engineers) has ever considered if any other columns were weakened by the fires that were burning for 7+ hours......

I wonder if you have ever been to a 7+ hour cook out, pig roast etc.. and thought about how the metal grill never weakened or was destroyed by the fire... despite being subjected to all that heat for all those hours...You obviously have no concept on how heat dissipates, and moves away from the source, and spreads to cooler parts. Have you ever used an oxy-acetylene torch in your life?

This argument depends on the understanding of the behavior of steel.
If heat is the cause, the steel will weaken gradually and will start to sag in the region where the fire is most intense.
At that moment the steel will have almost enough strength to hold up the weight of the building, but not quite.
So we have the force of gravity acting downwards trying to produce
an acceleration of 32 feet per second, per second and the force of the hot steel pushing upwards with a force a bit less then gravity,

Let us say that we are looking at it at the moment at the point where the strength has declined to the point where the steel is capable of pushing upwards with 90% of the force required to hold the building up against gravity.

There would thus be a net downward force of 10% of gravity.
Now acceleration is proportional to force, and we have a net force of
10% of gravity, So we would see an acceleration downward of 3.2 feet per second, per second.

When you graph the data you find that the fall did not start with a motion which could be ascribed to a small net force of that order. The downward acceleration of the roof was very close to free fall right from the start, 30 feet per second per second, and continued at that rate until out of sight.
There is no hint of a slow start. This tells us that the steel supports went from adequate strength to virtually no strength in an instant. For reasons stated above this is absolutely impossible if the loss of
strength is due to the application of heat.

The observed acceleration, if maintained, would bring the roof to the ground in 6.2 seconds. A brick dropped from the roof would take 6.0 seconds. These numbers are so close together that only
something which destroys the supports in an instant can account for it.

In short, the buildings should not have collapsed as they did in the short amount of time they did, because of the very nature of fire and its effects on steel. Especially when gravity is taken into account.
Removal of stubborn emotional barriers is a prerequisite to understanding this, and for Gods sake, use your brain and think about it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/LeggeLastTry4.pdf

The secret of a good pig roast is to not allow the fire to be too hot. If it were hot enough to affect the steel grill in any way then you just flash fired your pig. Nice try but major fail.

Your cut and paste also does what truthers are so famous for, you leave out all the time it took for the east penthouse to fall. And we really don't have a clue what was going on behind that facade during those 7 - 8 seconds do we? Oh I know you have some off the wall explanation for it, but sorry it doesn't fly.

 

[Mr. Jones]

The secret of a good pig roast is to not allow the fire to be too hot. If it were hot enough to affect the steel grill in any way then you just flash fired your pig. Nice try but major fail.

The point is that a normal fire with only office material as combustibles, steel would not weaken, nor melt to cause damage to the steel, let alone cause a sudden onset of collapse.

Your cut and paste also does what truthers are so famous for, you leave out all the time it took for the east penthouse to fall. And we really don't have a clue what was going on behind that facade during those 7 - 8 seconds do we? Oh I know you have some off the wall explanation for it, but sorry it doesn't fly.

The central core of the building went first, as is evidenced by the penthouse mechanical room, and why a 2.25 second free fall occurred, as admitted to by NIST. The collapse of the penthouses indicates loss of core integrity.
What needs clarification is how all the structural components were removed simultaneously to cause the 2.25 seconds of free fall, in the first place, as asymmetrical fire damage can not accomplish this. Especially in a heavily fortified building like WTC 7.
NIST did not assume thermal conductivity in their models or explanations.