Do you believe the official 911 story?

[SAYIT]

YOU want to know because you think the towers were brought down by thermite/explosives based on false information and bad science. YOU think the high temps in the debris pile was from thermite which is what created the supposed "melted steel".

The molten steel claim has even less evidence than the molten aluminum claim, yet you choose, like an idiot, to believe it.

not even close to the truth multiple reports from credible witlessness of both molten metal and excessive temperatures after the event

wrong ...again ..there weren't sufficient temperatures to have WEAKENED steel in any of the evidence not destroyed

thermite is not required to burn for weeks only to create the excessive temperatures in the first place ...the super-heated material was still hot or burning for weeks.. not the thermite

Last week you were denying the steel was still melting weeks after 9/11 and now you are claiming it was thermite which cut through that steel and that the steel did hold the heat at melting point for those weeks. Your claims are not only diametrically opposed, neither make sense and you, of course, provided no scientific support for them.

 

[SAYIT]

YOU want to know because you think the towers were brought down by thermite/explosives based on false information and bad science. YOU think the high temps in the debris pile was from thermite which is what created the supposed "melted steel".

The molten steel claim has even less evidence than the molten aluminum claim, yet you choose, like an idiot, to believe it.

not even close to the truth multiple reports from credible witlessness of both molten metal and excessive temperatures after the event

Not even close to the truth. As with your molten steel claims there is no evidence of temps high enough to melt steel. There are observations of molten materials but no proof of molten steel or temps high enough to melt it. Period.

 

[wihosa]

Unless someone proves otherwise yes.

If there was a real investigation there would be proof one way or the other.

When something unprecedented happens there should be an examination. When extraordinary claims are made extraordinary proof is required.

You are lying to yourself if you say that all the questions have been answered.

It's time for the real investigation... Or we can keep on living the lie.

 

[wihosa]

As usual, this topic has degenerated into name calling. The righties, so afraid that the truth is that there was a conspiracy simply call names at people who are not afraid to look at the obvious.

When something happens for the first time and remains unexplained those with an open mind want proof. Assertions are not proof. NIST has offered no science for its assertion that fire caused a modern steel framed high rise to collapse at near free fall speeds.

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of how such buildings are engineered. I do have a basic knowledge having installed a few structural steel elements (beams and columns). First know that in structural engineering there is the safety factor which in high rise buildings is a factor of four. In other words if the math dictates for instance that a beam should have a load bearing capacity of say 40 pounds per square foot then the design beam will have to have a load bearing capacity of 160 psf. The point is that these building are over engineered by a factor of four.

Secondly, all steel framed buildings have the steel structural elements coated in fire proof insulation calculated to withstand a complete conflagration of all potential furnishings and any combustible construction elements.

Finally, building seven is the only such building to ever have collapsed supposedly due to a moderate office fire. Yes moderate. Do a google search, you will find,any examples of similar buildings that were more involved in fire and burned longer yet had no total collapse. Just use your own eyes (look at the video of building seven, its obviously controlled demo)and common sense. If all it took to bring down a building was a fire, why are controlled demolition companies in business? If one wanted to bring down a building, just light it on fire!

I can't figure out who or how, I don't have the facts, but I'm not afraid to listen to licensed architects and structural engineers. If you have the courage of your conviction then Go to the AE911 site.

It's time for a real investigation by a real prosecutor with real subpoena power.if you name calling nay sayers are right you will have the proof. If real science is provided that shows that for the first time ever a fire caused the complete collapse of a modern steel framed high rise I will be prove wrong.

I'm not afraid how about you?

Explain the wreckage and the light poles...

If you cant explain how they got there then maybe you should listen to logic a little.

I assume you are talking about the light poles at the pentagon (my post was about building seven) and what wreckage are you talking about?
I can't tell you how the light poles were knocked down. Are you saying the only way they could have been knocked down was by an airplane?

 

[wihosa]

and btw NIST determined that the building was not structurally vulnerable
and the failure of that single column under any circumstance would have resulted in initiation of the collapse sequence...you know...the theory you claim to support...

The single column " theory" if ridiculous. There are literally hundreds of columns in a structure like that. It's like saying if a single stud was removed from a wood frame building it would fall down. It's laughable. Believe me, I've demoed wood frame structures ( a garage and a 60 year old UN-permitted guest house). They don't just fall down and the column/beam connections are far more rugged in steel frames than wood.

Uh-huh. And how many 47 story buildings did you design and build in the mid 1960s?

I've never designed any steel framed buildings but I have a basic knowledge of them, enough to know they can't just fall down. And from your question I can see you can't quite follow a thought. I said I demolished an Un-permitted guest house that was 60years old. The point about it being un- permitted was that it was a sub standard structure and even as such it didn't just fall down, it took a crew of four and a skid steer tractor most of a day to take it down.
Buildings don't just fall down, especially steel frame high rises, the most engineered buildings in history.

 

[wihosa]

YOU want to know because you think the towers were brought down by thermite/explosives based on false information and bad science. YOU think the high temps in the debris pile was from thermite which is what created the supposed "melted steel".

The molten steel claim has even less evidence than the molten aluminum claim, yet you choose, like an idiot, to believe it.

not even close to the truth multiple reports from credible witlessness of both molten metal and excessive temperatures after the event

Not even close to the truth. As with your molten steel claims there is no evidence of temps high enough to melt steel. There are observations of molten materials but no proof of molten steel or temps high enough to melt it. Period.

No evidence? You can clearly see the melted off stumps of the columns in many photos from ground zero. By the way the columns are melted off at an angle so as to facilitate the movement downward of the upper portion of the column, just as is done inCONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!!!!

 

[eots]

not even close to the truth multiple reports from credible witlessness of both molten metal and excessive temperatures after the event

wrong ...again ..there weren't sufficient temperatures to have WEAKENED steel in any of the evidence not destroyed

thermite is not required to burn for weeks only to create the excessive temperatures in the first place ...the super-heated material was still hot or burning for weeks.. not the thermite

Last week you were denying the steel was still melting weeks after 9/11 and now you are claiming it was thermite which cut through that steel and that the steel did hold the heat at melting point for those weeks. Your claims are not only diametrically opposed, neither make sense and you, of course, provided no scientific support for them.

never said steel was still melting..last week this week or ever, stop your lying and I never once said it held it at a melting point..you said that nonsense not me

 

[eots]

you want to know because you think the towers were brought down by thermite/explosives based on false information and bad science. You think the high temps in the debris pile was from thermite which is what created the supposed "melted steel".

The molten steel claim has even less evidence than the molten aluminum claim, yet you choose, like an idiot, to believe it.

not even close to the truth multiple reports from credible witlessness of both molten metal and excessive temperatures after the event

not even close to the truth. As with your molten steel claims there is no evidence of temps high enough to melt steel. There are observations of molten materials but no proof of molten steel or temps high enough to melt it. Period.

no evidence for the temperatures required to weaken steel..

 

[wihosa]

As usual, this topic has degenerated into name calling. The righties, so afraid that the truth is that there was a conspiracy simply call names at people who are not afraid to look at the obvious.

When something happens for the first time and remains unexplained those with an open mind want proof. Assertions are not proof. NIST has offered no science for its assertion that fire caused a modern steel framed high rise to collapse at near free fall speeds.

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of how such buildings are engineered. I do have a basic knowledge having installed a few structural steel elements (beams and columns). First know that in structural engineering there is the safety factor which in high rise buildings is a factor of four. In other words if the math dictates for instance that a beam should have a load bearing capacity of say 40 pounds per square foot then the design beam will have to have a load bearing capacity of 160 psf. The point is that these building are over engineered by a factor of four.

Secondly, all steel framed buildings have the steel structural elements coated in fire proof insulation calculated to withstand a complete conflagration of all potential furnishings and any combustible construction elements.

Finally, building seven is the only such building to ever have collapsed supposedly due to a moderate office fire. Yes moderate. Do a google search, you will find,any examples of similar buildings that were more involved in fire and burned longer yet had no total collapse. Just use your own eyes (look at the video of building seven, its obviously controlled demo)and common sense. If all it took to bring down a building was a fire, why are controlled demolition companies in business? If one wanted to bring down a building, just light it on fire!

I can't figure out who or how, I don't have the facts, but I'm not afraid to listen to licensed architects and structural engineers. If you have the courage of your conviction then Go to the AE911 site.

It's time for a real investigation by a real prosecutor with real subpoena power.if you name calling nay sayers are right you will have the proof. If real science is provided that shows that for the first time ever a fire caused the complete collapse of a modern steel framed high rise I will be prove wrong.

I'm not afraid how about you?

Explain the wreckage and the light poles...

If you cant explain how they got there then maybe you should listen to logic a little.

I assume you are talking about the light poles at the pentagon (my post was about building seven) and what wreckage are you talking about?
I can't tell you how the light poles were knocked down. Are you saying the only way they could have been knocked down was by an airplane?

Perhaps you are talking about the scant wreckage at the pentagon. If you want to know what it looks like when an airliner really crashes into a building google ""Dana airlines crash in Lagos Nigeria June 4,2012" . You will see the wreckage of a md83 (comparable to a 757) which crashed into an apartment building. As would be expected the entire tail selection is clearly visible. The plane didn't punch all the way into the building even though it was a typical wood framed structure as opposed to the pentagon which was concrete and steel. Also a good portion of the fuselage is partially intact though severely burned after the planes fuel exploded.
The fact that there are elements which could have come from an airliner found at the pentagon only confirm that this deception was well planned.

 

[S.J.]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKQJdf8HeUw]Molten Metal - YouTube[/ame]

 

[candycorn]

As usual, this topic has degenerated into name calling. The righties, so afraid that the truth is that there was a conspiracy simply call names at people who are not afraid to look at the obvious.

When something happens for the first time and remains unexplained those with an open mind want proof. Assertions are not proof. NIST has offered no science for its assertion that fire caused a modern steel framed high rise to collapse at near free fall speeds.

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of how such buildings are engineered. I do have a basic knowledge having installed a few structural steel elements (beams and columns). First know that in structural engineering there is the safety factor which in high rise buildings is a factor of four. In other words if the math dictates for instance that a beam should have a load bearing capacity of say 40 pounds per square foot then the design beam will have to have a load bearing capacity of 160 psf. The point is that these building are over engineered by a factor of four.

Secondly, all steel framed buildings have the steel structural elements coated in fire proof insulation calculated to withstand a complete conflagration of all potential furnishings and any combustible construction elements.

Finally, building seven is the only such building to ever have collapsed supposedly due to a moderate office fire. Yes moderate. Do a google search, you will find,any examples of similar buildings that were more involved in fire and burned longer yet had no total collapse. Just use your own eyes (look at the video of building seven, its obviously controlled demo)and common sense. If all it took to bring down a building was a fire, why are controlled demolition companies in business? If one wanted to bring down a building, just light it on fire!

I can't figure out who or how, I don't have the facts, but I'm not afraid to listen to licensed architects and structural engineers. If you have the courage of your conviction then Go to the AE911 site.

It's time for a real investigation by a real prosecutor with real subpoena power.if you name calling nay sayers are right you will have the proof. If real science is provided that shows that for the first time ever a fire caused the complete collapse of a modern steel framed high rise I will be prove wrong.

I'm not afraid how about you?

Explain the wreckage and the light poles...

If you cant explain how they got there then maybe you should listen to logic a little.

I assume you are talking about the light poles at the pentagon (my post was about building seven) and what wreckage are you talking about?
I can't tell you how the light poles were knocked down. Are you saying the only way they could have been knocked down was by an airplane?

Yes, that is what I am saying. The wreckage of AA77 outside the Pentagon and the DNA of the passengers. Explain how they got there

 

[candycorn]

Explain the wreckage and the light poles...

If you cant explain how they got there then maybe you should listen to logic a little.

I assume you are talking about the light poles at the pentagon (my post was about building seven) and what wreckage are you talking about?
I can't tell you how the light poles were knocked down. Are you saying the only way they could have been knocked down was by an airplane?

Perhaps you are talking about the scant wreckage at the pentagon. If you want to know what it looks like when an airliner really crashes into a building google ""Dana airlines crash in Lagos Nigeria June 4,2012" . You will see the wreckage of a md83 (comparable to a 757) which crashed into an apartment building. As would be expected the entire tail selection is clearly visible. The plane didn't punch all the way into the building even though it was a typical wood framed structure as opposed to the pentagon which was concrete and steel. Also a good portion of the fuselage is partially intact though severely burned after the planes fuel exploded.
The fact that there are elements which could have come from an airliner found at the pentagon only confirm that this deception was well planned.

Explain the wreckage being there and the passenger DNA.

 

[eots]

i assume you are talking about the light poles at the pentagon (my post was about building seven) and what wreckage are you talking about?
I can't tell you how the light poles were knocked down. Are you saying the only way they could have been knocked down was by an airplane?

perhaps you are talking about the scant wreckage at the pentagon. If you want to know what it looks like when an airliner really crashes into a building google ""dana airlines crash in lagos nigeria june 4,2012" . You will see the wreckage of a md83 (comparable to a 757) which crashed into an apartment building. As would be expected the entire tail selection is clearly visible. The plane didn't punch all the way into the building even though it was a typical wood framed structure as opposed to the pentagon which was concrete and steel. Also a good portion of the fuselage is partially intact though severely burned after the planes fuel exploded.
The fact that there are elements which could have come from an airliner found at the pentagon only confirm that this deception was well planned.

explain the wreckage being there and the passenger dna.

explain the collapse of building 7..

 

[Freewill]

The single column " theory" if ridiculous. There are literally hundreds of columns in a structure like that. It's like saying if a single stud was removed from a wood frame building it would fall down. It's laughable. Believe me, I've demoed wood frame structures ( a garage and a 60 year old UN-permitted guest house). They don't just fall down and the column/beam connections are far more rugged in steel frames than wood.

Uh-huh. And how many 47 story buildings did you design and build in the mid 1960s?

I've never designed any steel framed buildings but I have a basic knowledge of them, enough to know they can't just fall down. And from your question I can see you can't quite follow a thought. I said I demolished an Un-permitted guest house that was 60years old. The point about it being un- permitted was that it was a sub standard structure and even as such it didn't just fall down, it took a crew of four and a skid steer tractor most of a day to take it down.
Buildings don't just fall down, especially steel frame high rises, the most engineered buildings in history.

Every building hit by a commerical jet airliner fell.

 

[Freewill]

perhaps you are talking about the scant wreckage at the pentagon. If you want to know what it looks like when an airliner really crashes into a building google ""dana airlines crash in lagos nigeria june 4,2012" . You will see the wreckage of a md83 (comparable to a 757) which crashed into an apartment building. As would be expected the entire tail selection is clearly visible. The plane didn't punch all the way into the building even though it was a typical wood framed structure as opposed to the pentagon which was concrete and steel. Also a good portion of the fuselage is partially intact though severely burned after the planes fuel exploded.
The fact that there are elements which could have come from an airliner found at the pentagon only confirm that this deception was well planned.

explain the wreckage being there and the passenger dna.

explain the collapse of building 7..

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7

I suppose explosives with silencers attached may explain it better.

 

[Freewill]

Explain the wreckage and the light poles...

If you cant explain how they got there then maybe you should listen to logic a little.

I assume you are talking about the light poles at the pentagon (my post was about building seven) and what wreckage are you talking about?
I can't tell you how the light poles were knocked down. Are you saying the only way they could have been knocked down was by an airplane?

Perhaps you are talking about the scant wreckage at the pentagon. If you want to know what it looks like when an airliner really crashes into a building google ""Dana airlines crash in Lagos Nigeria June 4,2012" . You will see the wreckage of a md83 (comparable to a 757) which crashed into an apartment building. As would be expected the entire tail selection is clearly visible. The plane didn't punch all the way into the building even though it was a typical wood framed structure as opposed to the pentagon which was concrete and steel. Also a good portion of the fuselage is partially intact though severely burned after the planes fuel exploded.
The fact that there are elements which could have come from an airliner found at the pentagon only confirm that this deception was well planned.

Did that plane crash at full speed?

 

[wihosa]

I assume you are talking about the light poles at the pentagon (my post was about building seven) and what wreckage are you talking about?
I can't tell you how the light poles were knocked down. Are you saying the only way they could have been knocked down was by an airplane?

Perhaps you are talking about the scant wreckage at the pentagon. If you want to know what it looks like when an airliner really crashes into a building google ""Dana airlines crash in Lagos Nigeria June 4,2012" . You will see the wreckage of a md83 (comparable to a 757) which crashed into an apartment building. As would be expected the entire tail selection is clearly visible. The plane didn't punch all the way into the building even though it was a typical wood framed structure as opposed to the pentagon which was concrete and steel. Also a good portion of the fuselage is partially intact though severely burned after the planes fuel exploded.
The fact that there are elements which could have come from an airliner found at the pentagon only confirm that this deception was well planned.

Did that plane crash at full speed?

It crashed while taking off, don't know what speed. Don't know what speed the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon was going either.

The fact remains that a wood framed structure is going to offer a lot less resistance than what is essentially a concrete and steel fortress.

 

[candycorn]

Perhaps you are talking about the scant wreckage at the pentagon. If you want to know what it looks like when an airliner really crashes into a building google ""Dana airlines crash in Lagos Nigeria June 4,2012" . You will see the wreckage of a md83 (comparable to a 757) which crashed into an apartment building. As would be expected the entire tail selection is clearly visible. The plane didn't punch all the way into the building even though it was a typical wood framed structure as opposed to the pentagon which was concrete and steel. Also a good portion of the fuselage is partially intact though severely burned after the planes fuel exploded.
The fact that there are elements which could have come from an airliner found at the pentagon only confirm that this deception was well planned.

Did that plane crash at full speed?

It crashed while taking off, don't know what speed. Don't know what speed the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon was going either.

The fact remains that a wood framed structure is going to offer a lot less resistance than what is essentially a concrete and steel fortress.

Still cant explain the DNA being there? Doesnt that prove the plane that crashed was AA77?

 

[SAYIT]

Unless someone proves otherwise yes.

If there was a real investigation there would be proof one way or the other.

When something unprecedented happens there should be an examination. When extraordinary claims are made extraordinary proof is required.

You are lying to yourself if you say that all the questions have been answered.

It's time for the real investigation... Or we can keep on living the lie.

We may never have an investigation that will satisfy you CTs. In fact from what I've seen on this board nothing will ever satisfy you.
The fact remains is there is no proof of explosives, none of some secret super stuff which could have melted that steel and kept it molten for weeks. None.

 

[wihosa]

Did that plane crash at full speed?

It crashed while taking off, don't know what speed. Don't know what speed the plane that supposedly hit the pentagon was going either.

The fact remains that a wood framed structure is going to offer a lot less resistance than what is essentially a concrete and steel fortress.

Still cant explain the DNA being there? Doesnt that prove the plane that crashed was AA77?

DNA but no bodies? Like I said, check out the plane crash in Nigeria. Right into the side of a much less stout building. Fuel exploded, plane burned but there are bodies. And as would be expected the tail section is essentially untouched. Look with your own eyes.
Again DNA "found" only goes to show that the deception was well planned.