The gigantic elephant in the room, the fairy-tale of 9/11

[Care4all]

Wrong, the damage to the side facing the twin towers was seriously damaged. It took out columns meant to support the whole building, bringing more stress on those left. The unabatted 8 hour fire further weakened the remaining supports and columns and lead to the collapse.

whatever....i'm not stuck on my own opinion....

though it seems to me, building 7 had no logical reason to fall like an orchestrated implosion if it were one corner that was weakened...but i am not a scientist and i read ALOT of "who done it, mystery novels" so i am open to this being a part of my skepticism and my shortsightedness.

it would be perfectly plausible as well for it to have been brought down, for security purposes....it's not like they wouldn't plan for something like this way in advance....

care

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do you have any proof of this, or is this just what you read about?

Because to this day, there are no clear pictures of the south side of building 7. NO ONE knows for sure what exactly the extent of the damage was, beyond assumption and conjecture.

But your post does not even begin to explain how it would be possible for a steel reinforced building to collapse in the manner that building 7 did. In fact, it's laughable. I've yet to see anyone adequately explain how, if the damage was so concentrated on the bottom of the building from collateral fallout from the towers, the penthouse was the first thing to begin collapsing before the tell-tale "crease" even started down the building.

I'm all ears, RGS. Because building 7 has always remained a questionable aspect of 9/11 in my opinion. Without it, I don't see much of a case for calling the official story a cover-up, or calling the events of the day a conspiracy. Building 7 was, and always will be, the anomoly.

It was from a report much later and posted here on this board recently. It discussed the actual manner that building 7 was constructed and that several of the lower floor columns were designed to shift weight if needed to other columns. It discussed how the damage to the side of the building would have compromised the design of that building and that after 8 hours of heavy FUELED fire on an upper floor could cause just such a collapse.

The floor in question was feed from the basement by a HUGE tank, feed by injection and could easily have kept the fire fueled the entire 8 hours. Even after all combustables were expended on that floor. Most of the floors had their own smaller generator fuel sources but they would not have lasted the 8 hours.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Here's one on my favorites .. and I can't wait to hear the explanations .. oh wait .. I've never heard/read an explanation from the swallowers.

Give it a shot ...

This is the Pentagon impact site.

The roof, which didn't collapse until a half hour after the impact, exposes rooms right next to the impact.

But there is PAPER book sitting on a WOODEN stool laying open without seemingly any damage at all.

AND .. ont eh floor just above, there is a PLASTIC monitor sitting on a cabinet without seeming any damage at all

AND .. the walls are stiil white, not filled with soot, not burned the fuck up.

THUS, it would take a moron to believe that the same type plane filled with about just as much fuel that crashed into and melted giant buildings wouldn't even burn the pages of an open book right next to the impact site .. you'd have to be a moron to believe that bullshit.

AND

Another shot of the roof .. notice that its still intact and came down in one piece .. how the fuck can that be given that the plane is almost as tall as the building .. unless the plane slammed into the ground dug a crater and lowered its profile .. but there is NO evidence that the plane even touched the ground .. as people with eyes that work can clearly see.

Let's get another shot of that lawn ..

Shit .. you could play a couple of rounds of golf on that lawn. No skid marks, expected fuel burns, craters .. and by the way .. no plane, luggage, passengers, 7ft tall engines, wings .. no nothing .. but cognitive disssonance.

THUS .. one would have to be a complete moron to believe that a 757, almost as tall as the Pentagon, slammed into the building at incredible sppeds and didn't destroy the roof .. didn't create craters or fuel burns in the lawn .. didn't leave clearly visible traces of plane parts, bodies, luggage, etc .. didn't burn the pages of an open book .. and only made a 16ft hole in the building.

ONLY a moron would believe that bullshit.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.




7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions


Must be annoying to have everything you spew out of your mouth be wrong

That is ridiculous beyond belief. How is it that you swallowed that bullshit?

There is no science or physics that supports that nonsense and if you don't know .. on your own .. that matter meeting matter, especially early in the fall, will meet with resistance, thus slowing the rate of fall .. then what can I say.

It must be annoying to be dumb .. because you'd absolute HAVE to be dumb to swallow that.

 

[Sunni Man]

It was from a report much later and posted here on this board recently. It discussed the actual manner that building 7 was constructed and that several of the lower floor columns were designed to shift weight if needed to other columns. It discussed how the damage to the side of the building would have compromised the design of that building and that after 8 hours of heavy FUELED fire on an upper floor could cause just such a collapse.

The floor in question was feed from the basement by a HUGE tank, feed by injection and could easily have kept the fire fueled the entire 8 hours. Even after all combustables were expended on that floor. Most of the floors had their own smaller generator fuel sources but they would not have lasted the 8 hours.

Early in my life I was an Iron Worker and put up structural steel. Many times having to cut steel with an "oxy/acty rig" or heating steel with a "rose bud" to shape and bend it. Basically, we are talking 1400+ degrees.

There is NO way jet fuel, gasoline, diesel, or any other liquid fuel could make an all steel structure hot enough to collaspe like building #7

It doesn't get hot enough. Not even close.

I don't care how many hours the fire burned. Be it 8 hrs. or 80 hrs.

Just ain't gonna happen!!

 

[BlackAsCoal]

No one wants to take on Col Bowman, eh?

C'mon .. I have many more highly qualified and experienced people to post who also don't believe in fairy-tales.

C'mon sarge .. tell Bowman he doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Wrong, the damage to the side facing the twin towers was seriously damaged. It took out columns meant to support the whole building, bringing more stress on those left. The unabatted 8 hour fire further weakened the remaining supports and columns and lead to the collapse.

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that you swallowed every damn thing they told you about Iraq .. and I bet you went on a website and berated anyone who wasn't dumb enough to buy that crap.

Now you're an expert again.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No one wants to take on Col Bowman, eh?

C'mon .. I have many more highly qualified and experienced people to post who also don't believe in fairy-tales.

C'mon sarge .. tell Bowman he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I suggest you take your meds before some poor salesman gets shot for knocking on your door.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

C'mon swallowers .. let's go ..

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

03/26/07

PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
pilotsfor911truth.org

Contact: Robert Balsamo
e-mail: [email protected]

OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT'S OWN DATA

Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their 2002 report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77", consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder (FDR). The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:

The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense "5 Frames" video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.

The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

In August, 2006, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 .According to the 9/11 Commission Report, which relied heavily upon the NTSB Flight Path Study, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:37:46 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001 . However, the reported impact time according to the NTSB Flight Path Study is 09:37:45 . Also according to reports, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon and by doing so, struck down 5 light poles on Highway 27 in its path to the west wall.

The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is committed to discovering the truth surrounding the events of September 11, 2001 . We have contacted both the NTSB and the FBI regarding these and other inconsistencies. To date, they have refused to comment on, correct, refute, retract or offer side-letters that might explain the discrepancies between what they claim are the data extracted from the FDR of AA Flight 77 and the official story alleging its crash into the Pentagon.As concerned citizens and professionals in the aviation industry, Pilots for 9/11 Truth asks, why have these discrepancies not been addressed by agencies within the United States Government? Why have they falsely represented their own data to the American people? Pilots for 9/11 Truth takes the position that an official government inquiry into these discrepancies is warranted and long overdue. We call upon our fellow citizens to write to their Congressional representatives to inform them of these discrepancies and call for an immediate investigation into this matter. For more information please visit pilotsfor911truth.org.

Signed:

Robert Balsamo
4000+ Total Flight Time
Former:
Independence Air/Atlantic Coast Airlines

Glen Stanish
15,000+ Total Flight Time
American Airlines, ATA, TWA, Continental

Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
30,000+ Total Flight Time
Former Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown

John Lear
Son of Bill Lear
Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation
More than 40 years of Flying
19,000+ Total Flight Time

Captain Jeff Latas
USAF (ret)
Captain - JetBlue Airways

Ted Muga
Naval Aviator - Retired Commander, USNR

Col Robert Bowman USAF (ret)
Directed all the “Star Wars” programs under Presidents Ford and Carter - 101 combat missions

Alfons Olszewski
Founder Veterans For Truth
US Army (ret)
Aircraft Maintenance Crew Chief

Robin Hordon
Former Boston Center Air Traffic Controller
Commercial Pilot

John Panarelli
Friend and fellow aviator of John Ogonowski - Capt. AA #11
11,000+ Total Flight Time
Eastern Metro, Braniff, Ryan International, Emery
Worldwide, Polar Air Cargo

Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford
United States Marine Corps (ret)
10,000+ Total Flight Time
303 Combat Missions

Captain Dan Govatos
10,000+ Total Flight Time
Former Chief Pilot of Casino Express airlines
Director of Operations Training at Polar Air

George Nelson
Colonel USAF (Ret.)
Licensed Commercial Pilot and Aircraft Mechanic

Dennis Spear
Army Aviator (ret)
7000+ Total Flight Time Operations Officer, Aviation Safety Officer

Captain Joe H. Ferguson
30,000+ Total Flight Time (ret) USAF (ret)


For complete member list please visit core group @ pilotsfor911truth.org

ENCLOSURE: Cover letter of FOIA requests.
Pilots For Truth Press Release

 

[BlackAsCoal]

I suggest you take your meds before some poor salesman gets shot for knocking on your door.

Perfect moron comment

thanks

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You can post all the drivel you want, EOTS and 9/11dumbshit already trotted them all out. Your a dollar short and a day late. Which one of them are you by the way?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Early in my life I was an Iron Worker and put up structural steel. Many times having to cut steel with an "oxy/acty rig" or heating steel with a "rose bud" to shape and bend it. Basically, we are talking 1400+ degrees.

There is NO way jet fuel, gasoline, diesel, or any other liquid fuel could make an all steel structure hot enough to collaspe like building #7

It doesn't get hot enough. Not even close.

I don't care how many hours the fire burned. Be it 8 hrs. or 80 hrs.

Just ain't gonna happen!!

There is a very good reason why it's never happened before, since, or will fire alone EVER get hot enough to weaken steel structures.

And you stated the reason .. it's IMPOSSIBLE

 

[Ravi]

This is the Pentagon impact site.

The roof, which didn't collapse until a half hour after the impact, exposes rooms right next to the impact.

But there is PAPER book sitting on a WOODEN stool laying open without seemingly any damage at all.

AND .. ont eh floor just above, there is a PLASTIC monitor sitting on a cabinet without seeming any damage at all

AND .. the walls are stiil white, not filled with soot, not burned the fuck up.

...and so forth...

go through a hurricane. You'll see much stranger things than that which might lead you to conclude that the hurricane didn't actually happen.

You people amaze me, really.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

You can post all the drivel you want, EOTS and 9/11dumbshit already trotted them all out. Your a dollar short and a day late. Which one of them are you by the way?

Another excellent moronic comment.

Please stick around .. you make my point.

Let me guess .. I was right about you and Iraq.

Not sure you're even qualified to have an opinion.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

go through a hurricane. You'll see much stranger things than that which might lead you to conclude that the hurricane didn't actually happen.

You people amaze me, really.

That's your argument ...

Strange things can happen !!!



PLEASE .. stick around

 

[BlackAsCoal]

C'mon .. waiting for one of you experts to tell these pilots they don't know what they're talking about.

Still batting 100% on the "book on the stool" .. no swallower even attempts to explain it.

C'mon .. there are about a hundred other anomalies to get to.

 

[Andrew2382]

lol, bac you're an idiot.

All you do is deny evidence by saying "wow that's a load of crap" and then don't post any evidence yourself.

I already posted enough links to prove your bull shit. When you come back to Planet Earth let me know.

BUILDING 7

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.


WTC OMG STEEL CAN'T MELT!

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 entitled "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 Institute 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."


PENTAGON OMG THERE WAS NO PLANE!

Claim: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile — part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide — not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.




PLEASE GO TO THE STORE AND BUY A CLUE

 

[Andrew2382]

also, watch this video of a test performed of a jet smacking into a wall of a nuclear reactor. The shit deatomizes in front of your eyes. This happened to much of the plane. NOT ALL OF IT, BUT A LOT OF IT. The black box was recovered and parts of the landing gear and bodies were found at the Pentagon.

The pentagon was going under Renovations and the side that got hit Ring E I believe had just been finished with its upgrades which included a much stronger foundationa nd reinforced concrete with blast resistant windows etc...

The Wall was similar to that of a nuclear reactor wall

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name=""movie"" value=http://www.rocketsurf.net/browse.php?u=Oi8vd3d3LnlvdXR1YmUuY29tLyZxdW90O2h0dHA6Ly93d3cueW91dHViZS5jb20vdi9abDBNaE9ka1JFUSZhbXA7aGw9ZW4mYW1wO2ZzPTEmcXVvdDs%3D&b=61></param><param name=""allowFullScreen"" value="true"></param><param name=""allowscriptaccess"" value="always"></param><embed src=http://www.rocketsurf.net/browse.php?u=Oi8vd3d3LnlvdXR1YmUuY29tLyZxdW90O2h0dHA6Ly93d3cueW91dHViZS5jb20vdi9abDBNaE9ka1JFUSZhbXA7aGw9ZW4mYW1wO2ZzPTEmcXVvdDs%3D&b=61 type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

 

[BlackAsCoal]

lol, bac you're an idiot.

All you do is deny evidence by saying "wow that's a load of crap" and then don't post any evidence yourself.

I already posted enough links to prove your bull shit. When you come back to Planet Earth let me know.

BUILDING 7

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom &#8212; approximately 10 stories &#8212; about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors &#8212; along with the building's unusual construction &#8212; were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.


WTC OMG STEEL CAN'T MELT!

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 entitled "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 &#8212; 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 Institute 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."


PENTAGON OMG THERE WAS NO PLANE!

Claim: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile &#8212; part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide &#8212; not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.




PLEASE GO TO THE STORE AND BUY A CLUE

Dude .. then just go the fuck away.

I'm looking for someone who can analytically address the questions I've poised .. and you my brother ain't it. "Go to the store and buy a clue" reaches the limits of your ability for critical thinking.

Fire alone can't melt steel or even weaken it .. that's the undeniable scientific proof. There are no exceptions. Go pour some kerosene on some steel .. make that a lot of kerosene on steel and it will never weaken it I don't give a fuck how long you let it burn. There are no exceptions to IMPOSSIBLE.

Ever heard ot the Law of Falling Objects? .. Of course you haven't, but it's been around since Newton .. Gaileo expanded on it, but the science of it hasn't changed as it is as valid today as it was then. If you believe that a building collapsing from "weakness" can fall at free fall speed .. then you're a moron .. and if you need a Bush government report to make you beieve that which has no science .. it just means you're a controlled moron.

Common sense question .. If fire is weakening a structure on one side where the source of fire is .. how does it fall UNIFORMLY? Would not the structure lean/tilt to the source of the weakening? How does it fall exactly the same three times in buildings of different structures, even the one not hit by planes and experiencing small one alarm fires? Do you need a report or an expert to answer those questions?

It does not go without notice that you, nor anyother swallower, even attempt tp address what US military combat pilots have said about the events of 9/11. It just proves that one, you don't know what you're talking about and you need cue cards to have a response, and two, and most importantly, you're not a critical thinker searching for the truth. Whether one believes the story or not, there has been enough sane and honest questions raised that would require people who truly seek the truth, to demand answers for.

Bowman flew 101 combat missions .. He has the absolute top level in national security .. in fact, he's an expert. He fucking headed the Star Wars program .. you think what he has to say deserves listening to?

There is a cream of the crop group of combat pilots who say someone who didn't even have the flying skills to rent a Cessna, cannot climb into the cockpit of large aircraft and fly them with precision .. AND make flight manuevers that they themselves could not make.

Dude, I'm sick of listening to knuckleheads who can't think for themselves feign self-righteous indignity as if tribute need be paid to their ignorance.

Didn't Iraq teach you people anything?

 

[Toro]

Hear that sound?

That's the sound of the same chord being struck over and over and over and over again.