Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
On now were talking about what the firefighters experienced, well then how about the explosions they heard before WTC7 came down?Aluminum melts at around 1600degrees F but does not burn until heated to over 6000degrees F far beyond the temps resulting from hydrocarbon fires.
1600F???
Chemical Elements.com - Aluminum (Al)
Nope, it hit other buildings.
Of course it did, the materials pilled up and hit the buildings around it. so? How does that affect the way it fell, or are you denying what is plainly seen in the videos?
Nope, wrong again. How long did the collapse take from start to finish?
Seconds. Did you bother to look at an example of a high rise damaged by fire, the Windsor Tower? Slow developing asymmetrical partial failure after nearly two days of complete conflagration.
Nope, it hit other buildings.
You are clutching at straws.
Is this why the east penthouse fell into the building first? Because all the support columns failed at the same time?
Yes, the columns in those floors failed simultaneously. Do you think it would fall all together if only one column failed? This is obvious.
Look at the 2005 Windsor Tower fire in Madrid Spain. Here you see a modern steel frame high rise fully engulfed in fire.
All buildings act the same right? Design type has no play in how a building reacts to fire right?
No all buildings are not the same, but all steel frame high rise buildings are.
What caused the bulge in WTC7 seen by firefighters?
2. Video of WTC7 displays all the characteristics of controlled demolition' namely sudden, immediate and symmetrical collapse in a straight downward direction through the path of greatest resistance.
Did it? Symmetrical? You call the east penthouse falling into the building FIRST, followed by the rest of the building symmetrical?
On now were talking about what the firefighters experienced, well then how about the explosions they heard before WTC7 came down?1600F???
Chemical Elements.com - Aluminum (Al)
Nope, it hit other buildings.
Of course it did, the materials pilled up and hit the buildings around it. so? How does that affect the way it fell, or are you denying what is plainly seen in the videos?
Nope, wrong again. How long did the collapse take from start to finish?
Seconds. Did you bother to look at an example of a high rise damaged by fire, the Windsor Tower? Slow developing asymmetrical partial failure after nearly two days of complete conflagration.
Nope, it hit other buildings.
You are clutching at straws.
Is this why the east penthouse fell into the building first? Because all the support columns failed at the same time?
Yes, the columns in those floors failed simultaneously. Do you think it would fall all together if only one column failed? This is obvious.
All buildings act the same right? Design type has no play in how a building reacts to fire right?
No all buildings are not the same, but all steel frame high rise buildings are.
What caused the bulge in WTC7 seen by firefighters?
Big difference!!!! Explosions can be heard, but they are not always caused by EXPLOSIVES. A bulge in the building side can only mean one thing.
The support structure is weakening/failing....
The fact that you have to have this explained to you is pretty ridiculous.
What about your completely fucked up claim that aluminum melts at 1600F? Are all your beliefs based on incorrect information? I seems so at this point.
On now were talking about what the firefighters experienced, well then how about the explosions they heard before WTC7 came down?
Big difference!!!! Explosions can be heard, but they are not always caused by EXPLOSIVES. A bulge in the building side can only mean one thing.
The support structure is weakening/failing....
The fact that you have to have this explained to you is pretty ridiculous.
What about your completely fucked up claim that aluminum melts at 1600F? Are all your beliefs based on incorrect information? I seems so at this point.
The fact that one who claims to be a builder and claims to have experience with structural steel needs to have that explained to him means one of two things; either he's lying about his experience or he is willfully distorting the facts to suit his agenda.
Big difference!!!! Explosions can be heard, but they are not always caused by EXPLOSIVES. A bulge in the building side can only mean one thing.
The support structure is weakening/failing....
The fact that you have to have this explained to you is pretty ridiculous.
What about your completely fucked up claim that aluminum melts at 1600F? Are all your beliefs based on incorrect information? I seems so at this point.
The fact that one who claims to be a builder and claims to have experience with structural steel needs to have that explained to him means one of two things; either he's lying about his experience or he is willfully distorting the facts to suit his agenda.
I choose the latter. Like usual, they distort to suit their agenda.
Just look at eots' old posts regarding James Quintiere. He'll quote nine things from him to support his bullshit, yet ignores the fact that James still believes that fire caused the collapse.
Go figure.
the fact that one who claims to be a builder and claims to have experience with structural steel needs to have that explained to him means one of two things; either he's lying about his experience or he is willfully distorting the facts to suit his agenda.
i choose the latter. Like usual, they distort to suit their agenda.
Just look at eots' old posts regarding james quintiere. He'll quote nine things from him to support his bullshit, yet ignores the fact that james still believes that fire caused the collapse.
Go figure.
you can't fix mendacious.
2. Video of WTC7 displays all the characteristics of controlled demolition' namely sudden, immediate and symmetrical collapse in a straight downward direction through the path of greatest resistance.
Did it? Symmetrical? You call the east penthouse falling into the building FIRST, followed by the rest of the building symmetrical?
You are lying to yourself now. Symmetrical doesn't mean that the upper most portion would not first be taken down so as to CONTROL THE DEMOLITION!
So you don't know.....And you don't know how to get through all the conspiracy crap to find out..... Got it....... i might even enlighten you some time....
Yeah, but first you would have to have an idea of what the word enlighten means.
By the way Sarge, you're the one defending a conspiracy theory.
No he's not but he is toying with you and you are bouncing like a puppet on a string.
I suspect many "truthers" get into the CT World for the fun but invariably end up taking themselves and their movement waaaay too seriously. When you resurface you will find a lot of people have been laughing at you.
So you don't know.....And you don't know how to get through all the conspiracy crap to find out..... Got it....... i might even enlighten you some time....
Yeah, but first you would have to have an idea of what the word enlighten means.
By the way Sarge, you're the one defending a conspiracy theory.
No he's not but he is toying with you and you are bouncing like a puppet on a string.
I suspect many "truthers" get into the CT World for the fun but invariably end up taking themselves and their movement waaaay too seriously. When you resurface you will find a lot of people have been laughing at you.
Wow, First off you cannot make controlled demolition of WTC7 a fact just because you say so. You need some kind of proof other than it looks like a CD..... Yes of course explosions were heard, they are heard in all office fires and many home fires, there are lots of things that go boom when heat is applied.....Or didn't you know that was a fact? Now ask yourself what does a CD sound like? It's not intermittent explosions lasting several hours and then no explosions when a building starts to fall. Never heard of any explosion doing a delayed time destruction sometime after the blast. And you still haven't looked for what could have caused the blast hole at the pentagon....You aren't looking for truth, you are the same as the other CTrs here....
Why don't you enlighten us? What do you think made the hole?
That is the picture of the "c"ring wall. The wall that was punctured after the plane supposedly went through the exterior concrete and steel wall and all the interior support columns.
So you don't know.....And you don't know how to get through all the conspiracy crap to find out..... Got it....... i might even enlighten you some time....
It won't help. CTs are impervious to enlightenment.
"No amount of evidence will dissuade a conspiracy theorist, but when they appeal to scientific evidence, they're fair game. And the 9-11 conspiracy sites have some very strange science." - Steven Dutch (from Nutty 9/11 Physics)
You seemed to have "missed" the following in the other thread.
So what was the safety factor of the floors impacted by the jet? Was it still 4?
The design of the building was unchanged.
First of all, you ignored the actual question (for obvious reasons I might add). let me repeat it for you. What was the safety factor of the floors after being impacted by the jet? Was it still a 4?
You really have no clue do you? See your next quote for proof of this...
The weight of the structure from the damage area up did not increase.
Really? The downward movement of the upper structure at collpase initiation did not increase the load/force at all????
Are you friggin' stupid?
Hmmmm. Let's try an experiment. Place a 20 pound weight on a scale. 20 pounds right? Now drop the same weight from ten feet and tell me what the impact registers.
When the load was static you moron!!!In other words the structure was still capable of supporting the damaged floors.
Jesus H. Christ!!
No wonder you believe controlled demolition and all the other bullshit.
On now were talking about what the firefighters experienced, well then how about the explosions they heard before WTC7 came down?1600F???
Chemical Elements.com - Aluminum (Al)
Nope, it hit other buildings.
Of course it did, the materials pilled up and hit the buildings around it. so? How does that affect the way it fell, or are you denying what is plainly seen in the videos?
Nope, wrong again. How long did the collapse take from start to finish?
Seconds. Did you bother to look at an example of a high rise damaged by fire, the Windsor Tower? Slow developing asymmetrical partial failure after nearly two days of complete conflagration.
Nope, it hit other buildings.
You are clutching at straws.
Is this why the east penthouse fell into the building first? Because all the support columns failed at the same time?
Yes, the columns in those floors failed simultaneously. Do you think it would fall all together if only one column failed? This is obvious.
All buildings act the same right? Design type has no play in how a building reacts to fire right?
No all buildings are not the same, but all steel frame high rise buildings are.
What caused the bulge in WTC7 seen by firefighters?
Big difference!!!! Explosions can be heard, but they are not always caused by EXPLOSIVES. A bulge in the building side can only mean one thing.
The support structure is weakening/failing....
The fact that you have to have this explained to you is pretty ridiculous.
What about your completely fucked up claim that aluminum melts at 1600F? Are all your beliefs based on incorrect information? I seems so at this point.
2. Video of WTC7 displays all the characteristics of controlled demolition' namely sudden, immediate and symmetrical collapse in a straight downward direction through the path of greatest resistance.
Did it? Symmetrical? You call the east penthouse falling into the building FIRST, followed by the rest of the building symmetrical?
You are lying to yourself now. Symmetrical doesn't mean that the upper most portion would not first be taken down so as to CONTROL THE DEMOLITION!
On now were talking about what the firefighters experienced, well then how about the explosions they heard before WTC7 came down?
Big difference!!!! Explosions can be heard, but they are not always caused by EXPLOSIVES. A bulge in the building side can only mean one thing.
The support structure is weakening/failing....
The fact that you have to have this explained to you is pretty ridiculous.
What about your completely fucked up claim that aluminum melts at 1600F? Are all your beliefs based on incorrect information? I seems so at this point.
The fact that one who claims to be a builder and claims to have experience with structural steel needs to have that explained to him means one of two things; either he's lying about his experience or he is willfully distorting the facts to suit his agenda.
Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.
In my first thread I pointed to two parts of the story which just don't stand scrutiny. First the vanishing pentagon plane and second the collapse of WTC7. These are not the only parts of the story which don't add up, just the most glaring and obvious.
We are to believe that the highjacker was with very little flight training able to make a very tight descending spiral turn and slam into the Pentagon. Professional pilots have attested to the difficulty of this maneuver and doubted an amateur could pull it off. Then the plane punched thought the side of the Pentagon which is two feet thick steel reinforced concrete, the wings folded back but remained attached to the fuselage as well as the tail section and were dragged into the building where it continued on through the structural support columns (these are very substantial as it is a three story structure) and all the way to where it punched another hole in the "C ring" wall in the interior of the Pentagon. Then the entire plane along with the passengers and baggage almost completely burned up, leaving only a couple of pieces of wreckage which could have come from an airliner. Pictures taken immediately after the impact make clear that the exterior wall was still intact and the large structural failure was due to the ensuing fire so what ever hit the pentagon punched through the exterior as it did the "C ring" wall. I noted that one would expect to find at least the tail section on the ground outside the building and much more debris. The conspiracy theorists (defenders of the official story) pointed to a video of a fighter jet on a rail being slammed into a block of concrete as evidence that the plane would have been obliterated, but the video doesn't show the aftermath so it's hard to tell what was left of the plane, besides if the plane was obliterated upon contact how did it punch through the exterior wall, the structural columns and the "C"ring wall? Additionally, even if all these improbable events did occur, the idea that the plane was almost entirely consumed by fire is silly. Aluminum melts at around 1600degrees F but does not burn until heated to over 6000degrees F far beyond the temps resulting from hydrocarbon fires. There should have been large globs of melted aluminum inside the pentagon but the pictures of the aftermath don't show this. Finally I pointed out that there is YouTube video of an airliner of like size and weight which crashed on takeoff in Lagos Nigeria. It slammed into the side of a much less substantial wood frame apartment building. It did not penetrate all the way through. The tail section as expected was almost untouched and though the plane exploded and burned the airframe is easily recognized, and passengers and luggage are clearly evident. The conspiracy theorists want to hang their hat on the fact that some debris which looks similar to airliner parts were found and that light poles out side the Pentagon were knocked down or that DNA was "found" inside the Pentagon days later. Clearly, this was a conspiracy and if as I am saying it was not as a result of the official conspiracy theory, then the real conspirators had every motivation to plant phony evidence to cover their tracks.
Then there is WTC7, the smoking gun as it were. Here, if it weren't so monstrously evil it would be laughable. The evidence which can be gleaned overwhelmingly points to controlled demolition. Watch the YouTube video of the collapse, it falls neatly straight down at near free fall speed into its own footprint. This can ONLY happen if ALL the support columns fail simultaneously on each floor and synchronously from floor to floor. The chances of this happening from a random event are so vanishingly small that it must be considered IMPOSSIBLE! The NIST report asserts that this was the result of a moderate office fire but presented no science to back it up. They may as well have blamed it on fairies. Again YouTube video provides an example of what structural failure due to fire looks like. Look at the 2005 Windsor Tower fire in Madrid Spain. Here you see a modern steel frame high rise fully engulfed in fire. It rages uncontrolled for nearly two days and finally there is some structural failure. This failure is as would be expected, near the top (heat rises), slow in developing and asymmetrical. The aftermath shows a burned out wreck but with the structural frame largely in tact. The building did not simply collapse entirely in seconds.
If you are honest with yourself you simply can't ignore the obvious, WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.
THE IMPOSSIBLE DIDN'T HAPPEN ON 911!
The fact that one who claims to be a builder and claims to have experience with structural steel needs to have that explained to him means one of two things; either he's lying about his experience or he is willfully distorting the facts to suit his agenda.
I choose the latter. Like usual, they distort to suit their agenda.
Just look at eots' old posts regarding James Quintiere. He'll quote nine things from him to support his bullshit, yet ignores the fact that James still believes that fire caused the collapse.
Go figure.
You can't fix mendacious.
Previously I started a thread entitled "do you believe the official 911 story?" It was immediately moved to the conspiracy theory category even though I advocated no theory at all. I then followed that up with a thread called "who's the conspiracy theorist?" Where I pointed out that the defenders of the official story are the conspiracy theorists since there was never a criminal trial and so no facts were established and we are left only with the assertions of the official conspiracy theorists.
In my first thread I pointed to two parts of the story which just don't stand scrutiny. First the vanishing pentagon plane and second the collapse of WTC7. These are not the only parts of the story which don't add up, just the most glaring and obvious.
We are to believe that the highjacker was with very little flight training able to make a very tight descending spiral turn and slam into the Pentagon. Professional pilots have attested to the difficulty of this maneuver and doubted an amateur could pull it off. Then the plane punched thought the side of the Pentagon which is two feet thick steel reinforced concrete, the wings folded back but remained attached to the fuselage as well as the tail section and were dragged into the building where it continued on through the structural support columns (these are very substantial as it is a three story structure) and all the way to where it punched another hole in the "C ring" wall in the interior of the Pentagon. Then the entire plane along with the passengers and baggage almost completely burned up, leaving only a couple of pieces of wreckage which could have come from an airliner. Pictures taken immediately after the impact make clear that the exterior wall was still intact and the large structural failure was due to the ensuing fire so what ever hit the pentagon punched through the exterior as it did the "C ring" wall. I noted that one would expect to find at least the tail section on the ground outside the building and much more debris. The conspiracy theorists (defenders of the official story) pointed to a video of a fighter jet on a rail being slammed into a block of concrete as evidence that the plane would have been obliterated, but the video doesn't show the aftermath so it's hard to tell what was left of the plane, besides if the plane was obliterated upon contact how did it punch through the exterior wall, the structural columns and the "C"ring wall? Additionally, even if all these improbable events did occur, the idea that the plane was almost entirely consumed by fire is silly. Aluminum melts at around 1600degrees F but does not burn until heated to over 6000degrees F far beyond the temps resulting from hydrocarbon fires. There should have been large globs of melted aluminum inside the pentagon but the pictures of the aftermath don't show this. Finally I pointed out that there is YouTube video of an airliner of like size and weight which crashed on takeoff in Lagos Nigeria. It slammed into the side of a much less substantial wood frame apartment building. It did not penetrate all the way through. The tail section as expected was almost untouched and though the plane exploded and burned the airframe is easily recognized, and passengers and luggage are clearly evident. The conspiracy theorists want to hang their hat on the fact that some debris which looks similar to airliner parts were found and that light poles out side the Pentagon were knocked down or that DNA was "found" inside the Pentagon days later. Clearly, this was a conspiracy and if as I am saying it was not as a result of the official conspiracy theory, then the real conspirators had every motivation to plant phony evidence to cover their tracks.
Then there is WTC7, the smoking gun as it were. Here, if it weren't so monstrously evil it would be laughable. The evidence which can be gleaned overwhelmingly points to controlled demolition. Watch the YouTube video of the collapse, it falls neatly straight down at near free fall speed into its own footprint. This can ONLY happen if ALL the support columns fail simultaneously on each floor and synchronously from floor to floor. The chances of this happening from a random event are so vanishingly small that it must be considered IMPOSSIBLE! The NIST report asserts that this was the result of a moderate office fire but presented no science to back it up. They may as well have blamed it on fairies. Again YouTube video provides an example of what structural failure due to fire looks like. Look at the 2005 Windsor Tower fire in Madrid Spain. Here you see a modern steel frame high rise fully engulfed in fire. It rages uncontrolled for nearly two days and finally there is some structural failure. This failure is as would be expected, near the top (heat rises), slow in developing and asymmetrical. The aftermath shows a burned out wreck but with the structural frame largely in tact. The building did not simply collapse entirely in seconds.
If you are honest with yourself you simply can't ignore the obvious, WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition.
THE IMPOSSIBLE DIDN'T HAPPEN ON 911!
the jet didnt vanish most of it turned to plasma
as for the harder pieces
you can see parts laying all over the place
that day
http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm
Big difference!!!! Explosions can be heard, but they are not always caused by EXPLOSIVES. A bulge in the building side can only mean one thing.
The support structure is weakening/failing....
The fact that you have to have this explained to you is pretty ridiculous.
What about your completely fucked up claim that aluminum melts at 1600F? Are all your beliefs based on incorrect information? I seems so at this point.
The fact that one who claims to be a builder and claims to have experience with structural steel needs to have that explained to him means one of two things; either he's lying about his experience or he is willfully distorting the facts to suit his agenda.
I'm not lying and I am right. You are the conspiracy theorist. As for my structural steel experience, I've install numerous steel columns the largest were six 8"x8"x1/4" tube steel columns sixteen feet tall to support the roof of a batting cage, planted in two foot diameter by six foot deep steel reinforced concrete caissons. I've also install a steel floor beam, if I remember right is was 18 lb per foot I beam supported by 6"x6"x1/4"tube steel columns with welded flanges and bolt connections.
What experience do you have with structural steel?
So you don't know.....And you don't know how to get through all the conspiracy crap to find out..... Got it....... i might even enlighten you some time....
It won't help. CTs are impervious to enlightenment.
"No amount of evidence will dissuade a conspiracy theorist, but when they appeal to scientific evidence, they're fair game. And the 9-11 conspiracy sites have some very strange science." - Steven Dutch (from Nutty 9/11 Physics)
As I have pointed out, you are the conspiracy theorist. Your "evidence" was never tested so it can't be considered fact. But it is a fact that no other modern steel frame high rise has ever suffered, sudden, immediate and total collapse due to fire, even fire which raged for days.
You are right about one thing though, even that fact will not dissuade you from your conspiracy theory.
