Honest question about 911

[eagle1462010]

The whole "controlled demolition" garbage never made any sense at all. The buildings were burning and there was no way to stop the fires, they would have fallen at some point. Steel girders are made by fire, they can be unmade by fire. Rosie O'Donnell and the truther morons evidently have never seen a steel mill.

Just more proof fires do not melt steel. The buildings came down very quick and so did #7, all freefell pretty much.

A Class Delta Fire is a metal literally on fire. It was standard training in the Navy. Once Metal burns it is self sustaining and produces it's own fire triangle through the burning process. Class Delta Fires cannot be readily extinguished.......as they have become self sustained. Which means at sea you must actually cut out the burning metal and throw it overboard.

Metals not only melt and twist, but they can burn.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Nist report stated that 10 floors were on fire. And that the lower levels failed causing the collapse. Metal will burn and snap under intense heat and then the weight of the building will fall directly down at the center of the weight.

I've seen the damage after a large industrial fire. It twists and snaps steel I'beams like twigs once it gets hot enough.

 

[Capstone]

Does anyone know of a paper, or video, written or produced by structural engineers...

A piece of friendly advice from someone who sincerely pines for the bliss of some of my own past ignorance: if you're in doubt about this issue at all, turn around and get as far away from the debate as you possibly can. There are plenty of issues more relevant to your personal life that are more worthy of your time and effort.

 

[Pennywise]

The Nist report stated that 10 floors were on fire. And that the lower levels failed causing the collapse. Metal will burn and snap under intense heat and then the weight of the building will fall directly down at the center of the weight.

I've seen the damage after a large industrial fire. It twists and snaps steel I'beams like twigs once it gets hot enough.

But Rosie said it was the first time in history that fire melted steel...

Am I to believe you or her?

 

[Freewill]

The whole "controlled demolition" garbage never made any sense at all. The buildings were burning and there was no way to stop the fires, they would have fallen at some point. Steel girders are made by fire, they can be unmade by fire. Rosie O'Donnell and the truther morons evidently have never seen a steel mill.

Just more proof fires do not melt steel. The buildings came down very quick and so did #7, all freefell pretty much.

A basic understanding of engineering will show you how the collapses occurred. Once one floor gave way the rest was inevitable. What people think was demolition, was fire being squeezed out as the spaces between the floors closed.

There is a lot that can be hypothesized surrounding the events that transpired before that day, and what certain intelligence agencies may or may not have known, but there is no mystery about what happened after the planes hit the towers.

No planes hit the # 7 and it free fell. Planes with thermobaric bombs, and nano thermite would of done it right?

OK, enters more conspirators to blow up WTC 7 and then keep their mouths shut.

Now tell us, did they set the charges in WTC 7 before or after the building was engulfed in flames? If before then why did it take 7 hours before they blew the building. If after then who in the hell is going to carry explosives into a burning building and for what purpose the building was being destroyed by fire that the fire company could not fight.

Figure it out. WTC 7 was not engulfed in flames. They had to leave the building before blowing it. And the most important thing , they wanted the area cleared and even to this day do you know some people don't know WTC 7 fell. I hear they forgot to put it in the museum as well. Guess that tidbit will be written out of history.

We will let pictures do the talking. (more if you want but I kinda think it won't matter)

WTC 7:

 

[Skylar]

The whole "controlled demolition" garbage never made any sense at all. The buildings were burning and there was no way to stop the fires, they would have fallen at some point. Steel girders are made by fire, they can be unmade by fire. Rosie O'Donnell and the truther morons evidently have never seen a steel mill.

Just more proof fires do not melt steel. The buildings came down very quick and so did #7, all freefell pretty much.

Penny, the towers fell no where near free fall with the collapse being exactly opposite of controlled demolition. WTC 7's collapse began when the penthouse fell *into* the center of the building....19 seconds before the facade fell. Demonstrating undeniably that the building's structure was failing long before the facade finally collapsed.

And you don't need to melt steel to weaken it. Sorry, but the bomb theory is just an awful, awful explanation of events. I could punch at least a half a dozen 'bomb theory' killing holes just off the top of my head. And you couldn't resolve any of them.

 

[saveliberty]

Don't know what it is about the conspiracy thread section, but it seems to bring out the nut cases.

 

[Skylar]

Have you ever read the PNAC document, 90 pages, easy to find and read on internet, Project for the New American Century,

Have you? Because whenever I ask you to show me where in the PNAC doc the passages that you're alluding to exist.....you always, always refuse. You've neither read the document nor have the slightest clue what's in it.

But that hasn't stopped you from alluding to an argument you know you can't factually support.

Major reason was to get rid of Hussein in Iraq , and rearrange the ME, Egypt, Libya, and now for Syria.

If the main reason was to get rid of Hussein in Iraq.... then why not accuse Iraqi's? They would have had a blank check from Congress for the invasion, had overwhelming international support and could have gotten any resolution they want passed in the UN.

Yet instead, they accused Saudi nationals of the attacks, despite Saudi Arabia being our closest ally in the region. And then had to awkwardly lie about 'WMD' in Iraq, make bullshit allusions to connections between Iraq and AlQaeda and endure massive protests, lukewarm international support, and burn through both treasure and international credibility to attack Iraq.

Which makes absolutely no sense, applying your 'logic'.

 

[Skylar]

Figure it out. WTC 7 was not engulfed in flames.

That's what you say. The FDNY however has a very different story.

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn’t lose any more people.

Chief Daniel Nigro
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt

So very heavy fire on many floors. But there was no fire, huh?

"I ran into Chief Nigro, who I saw at a field communications unit there and I went over to chat with him. As I remember he was quite upset, quite distraught, but in a quiet way. I must have lingered there. There were hundreds of firefighters waiting to -- they were waiting for 7 World Trade Center to come down as it was on fire.

Assistant Commissioner James Drury

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Drury_James.txt

Waiting for it to come down as it was on fire per the Assistant Commisioner of the FDNY, but no fires according to you. Have you 'figured out' a reason why any rational person would ignore the FDNY and instead believe you?

While you're thinking on that, I'll keep kicking the dead horse of your argument:

The only thing is that later on I teamed up with
Chief Jay Fischler of 46 Battalion at the time. Now heís in the
8th Battalion. We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center
as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire
on nearly all floors. We ran into ~ f~ of our old buddies from
Rescue z.


Lt. Robert Larocco FDNY
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Larocco_Robert.txt

So fires on nearly all floors before it came down according to Lt. Larocco.....who was there. But no fires according to you, who wasn't.

They had to leave the building before blowing it.

And who is 'they'? The FDNY? Because they had already evacuated the area and blocked the area off. No one was allowed in. And of course, the buidling was on fire, despite your claims otherwise. No system of explosives can operate while on fire. Charges would have either exploded or been reduced to bubbling pools of goo. Wires would have melted, transmitters would have melted, timers would have melted.

And of course, none of the girders were cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition. No residue of explosives was ever found in any dust sample. No seismic signatures of explosives were detected by nearby seismic sensors. And no apparatus of explosives was ever found after the collapse. Not an inch of blasting wire, not a single transmitter, not a single charge, nothing.

Despite your theory requiring thousands up thousands of them.

And of course, there's the problem about the collapse initiating in virtual silence. When actual controlled demolition is ludicrously loud. So.....explosives that were both fireproof AND silent?

Um, no. Your narrative is just awful, not holding up to an even casual review.

And the most important thing , they wanted the area cleared and even to this day do you know some people don't know WTC 7 fell. I hear they forgot to put it in the museum as well. Guess that tidbit will be written out of history.

Of course they wanted the area cleared. The FDNY had determined *hours* before the collapse that the building was going to fall from fire and structural damage.

The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell,

it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.


So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down.

Assistant Chief Frank Fellini
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fellini_Frank.txt

And again....

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn’t lose any more people.


We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was giver., at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely I continued to operate at the scene….

Chief Daniel Nigro.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt

And again....

When we found out, I guess around 3:00 O’clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, we’ve got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there.

So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that’s when 7 collapsed. Then, basically, after 7 collapsed, I went over and told the Chief that -- by then they had companies with handie-talkies, masks. “

William Ryan, 23 year vetran of the NYFD

And again.....

Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area –

Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on.

And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been. That's about it

Chief Frank Cruthers

So its a conspiracy....because they pulled their people from a structurally damaged, burning building that they anticipated would collapse?

Um, the important thing to remember is that you really have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[n0spam4me]

Doesn't anyone consider the fact that for three buildings, that is WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete destruction of the buildings. doesn't that strike you as unique? also, as an alternative to the NIST white wash job,
Please see 911SpeakOut.org The World Needs Truth
also Patriots Question 9 11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9 11 Commission Report

9/11/2001 = the BIG LIE

 

[Skylar]

Doesn't anyone consider the fact that for three buildings, that is WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete destruction of the buildings.

The buildings collapsed. What 'shoulda' been left behind that wouldn't raise your suspicions?

 

[Penelope]

Have you ever read the PNAC document, 90 pages, easy to find and read on internet, Project for the New American Century,

Have you? Because whenever I ask you to show me where in the PNAC doc the passages that you're alluding to exist.....you always, always refuse. You've neither read the document nor have the slightest clue what's in it.

But that hasn't stopped you from alluding to an argument you know you can't factually support.

Major reason was to get rid of Hussein in Iraq , and rearrange the ME, Egypt, Libya, and now for Syria.

If the main reason was to get rid of Hussein in Iraq.... then why not accuse Iraqi's? They would have had a blank check from Congress for the invasion, had overwhelming international support and could have gotten any resolution they want passed in the UN.

Yet instead, they accused Saudi nationals of the attacks, despite Saudi Arabia being our closest ally in the region. And then had to awkwardly lie about 'WMD' in Iraq, make bullshit allusions to connections between Iraq and AlQaeda and endure massive protests, lukewarm international support, and burn through both treasure and international credibility to attack Iraq.

Which makes absolutely no sense, applying your 'logic'.

You need the backing of the people. This was not just about Iraq, its about the threat of Muslims and Israel's and even SA getting rid of certain people in the ME. The whole document is about changing the ME, a new régime, and a new even like Pearl Harbor to get the people ready for war and to advance the Patriot Act. Also as a reason to spend multi trillions on new weapons, and preemptive war. You'd have to read all 90 pages and look who it is wrote by and who signed it to get the full story,
then we get to the Clean Break, wrote for PM Netanyahu, one who has a problem with Arabs, the PLO killed his older brother, and his Dad was very anti Arab. His Dad even put into his son's mind what to do and PM Bibi openly states it.

 

[Skylar]

You need the backing of the people.

You do. Which is why your theory is so ludicrously incompatible with accusing Saudi nationals from our closest ally in the region. Had the attackers been Iraqi, they would have had the people for whatever action they wanted to take. Instead, they had to make a years long innuendo campaign trying to fallaciously link Iraq and Al Qaeda and straight up lie about WMD.

All of which would have been utterly unnecessary had the attacks been Iraqi. Putting an enormous kink in your theory that you simply can't iron out.

This was not just about Iraq, its about the threat of Muslims and Israel's and even SA getting rid of certain people in the ME. The whole document is about changing the ME, a new régime, and a new even like Pearl Harbor to get the people ready for war and to advance the Patriot Act.

And here's how I know you've never read the PNAC doc: it makes absolutely no mention of the Patriot Act. As the PNAC doc was written *before* the Bush administration, before 911, before the Patriot Act. Making reference to it rather difficult without a TARDIS or a flux capacitor.

The only mention of a 'new Pear Harbor' was in reference to networking upgrades. Specifically information technology. Yet as you're chewing predigested conspiratorial cud without having read the document you're referencing, you never knew that. Instead, you recited the conspiracy without having read the document.......and insisted the 'new Pearl Harbor' reference alluded to the Patriot Act and getting people read for war. Which, of course, is blithering nonsense.

And why you have failed to quote the PNAC doc. But you'll *allude* to elaborate conspiracies....as long as we don't ever ask you to back it up factually.

Your conspiracy narrative neither works factually, nor makes much sense.

 

[daws101]

You need the backing of the people.

You do. Which is why your theory is so ludicrously incompatible with accusing Saudi nationals from our closest ally in the region. Had the attackers been Iraqi, they would have had the people for whatever action they wanted to take. Instead, they had to make a years long innuendo campaign trying to fallaciously link Iraq and Al Qaeda and straight up lie about WMD.

All of which would have been utterly unnecessary had the attacks been Iraqi. Putting an enormous kink in your theory that you simply can't iron out.

This was not just about Iraq, its about the threat of Muslims and Israel's and even SA getting rid of certain people in the ME. The whole document is about changing the ME, a new régime, and a new even like Pearl Harbor to get the people ready for war and to advance the Patriot Act.

And here's how I know you've never read the PNAC doc: it makes absolutely no mention of the Patriot Act. As the PNAC doc was written *before* the Bush administration, before 911, before the Patriot Act. Making reference to it rather difficult without a TARDIS or a flux capacitor.

The only mention of a 'new Pear Harbor' was in reference to networking upgrades. Specifically information technology. Yet as you're chewing predigested conspiratorial cud without having read the document you're referencing, you never knew that. Instead, you recited the conspiracy without having read the document.......and insisted the 'new Pearl Harbor' reference alluded to the Patriot Act and getting people read for war. Which, of course, is blithering nonsense.

And why you have failed to quote the PNAC doc. But you'll *allude* to elaborate conspiracies....as long as we don't ever ask you to back it up factually.

Your conspiracy narrative neither works factually, nor makes much sense.

the pnac doc is / was speculative fiction...

 

[n0spam4me]

Doesn't anyone consider the fact that for three buildings, that is WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete destruction of the buildings.

The buildings collapsed. What 'shoulda' been left behind that wouldn't raise your suspicions?

Just for a start, how about the bottom two thirds of the North Tower still standing, damaged but not destroyed?

 

[Skylar]

Doesn't anyone consider the fact that for three buildings, that is WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete destruction of the buildings.

The buildings collapsed. What 'shoulda' been left behind that wouldn't raise your suspicions?

Just for a start, how about the bottom two thirds of the North Tower still standing, damaged but not destroyed?

Okay....what structure in the bottom 2/3 of the north tower would stop the upper 1/3rd from falling all the way to the ground?

 

[daws101]

Doesn't anyone consider the fact that for three buildings, that is WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete destruction of the buildings.

The buildings collapsed. What 'shoulda' been left behind that wouldn't raise your suspicions?

Just for a start, how about the bottom two thirds of the North Tower still standing, damaged but not destroyed?

more bullshit

 

[SteadyMercury]

And here's how I know you've never read the PNAC doc: it makes absolutely no mention of the Patriot Act. As the PNAC doc was written *before* the Bush administration, before 911, before the Patriot Act. Making reference to it rather difficult without a TARDIS or a flux capacitor.

 

[n0spam4me]

Doesn't anyone consider the fact that for three buildings, that is WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete destruction of the buildings.

The buildings collapsed. What 'shoulda' been left behind that wouldn't raise your suspicions?

Just for a start, how about the bottom two thirds of the North Tower still standing, damaged but not destroyed?

Okay....what structure in the bottom 2/3 of the north tower would stop the upper 1/3rd from falling all the way to the ground?

Not a thing to stop the upper third of the building from falling down to the ground, but then NOT destroying the lower 2/3 while it does so, it would be more likely that significant mass from the upper part of the building would fall away from the building and drop to street level, rather than have to drop through the still standing and as yet not structurally compromised lower 2/3 of the building.
Not only that, but it is not only totally improbable but rather impossible for the mass of the upper part of the building to descend at 64% of the acceleration of gravity while pulverizing the structure under it.

 

[daws101]

Doesn't anyone consider the fact that for three buildings, that is WTC1, 2 & 7 there was complete destruction of the buildings.

The buildings collapsed. What 'shoulda' been left behind that wouldn't raise your suspicions?

Just for a start, how about the bottom two thirds of the North Tower still standing, damaged but not destroyed?

Okay....what structure in the bottom 2/3 of the north tower would stop the upper 1/3rd from falling all the way to the ground?

Not a thing to stop the upper third of the building from falling down to the ground, but then NOT destroying the lower 2/3 while it does so, it would be more likely that significant mass from the upper part of the building would fall away from the building and drop to street level, rather than have to drop through the still standing and as yet not structurally compromised lower 2/3 of the building.
Not only that, but it is not only totally improbable but rather impossible for the mass of the upper part of the building to descend at 64% of the acceleration of gravity while pulverizing the structure under it.

link please !