Proof the cover story for 9/111 began immediately after the attacks

[LA RAM FAN]

The laws of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years that these Bush dupes always ignore dictate that the towers SHOULD have tipped over sideways and fell GRADUALLY.not at freefall speed in 11 seconds.

If physics predicts this and you are such a physics expert, then you should be able to explain how they should have fallen over instead of down. Please show what law of physics was broken by the buildings falling DOWN. And sense I am VERY confident that you can't do this, I would settle for a reference to a study that predicts a "fall over" collapse.
Many universities have done studies on how those buildings performed. I would give you some names, but I don't want to do your research for you.

Plus as I have said many times before on this thread,any grade school graduate would understand that it was an inside job when you told them the facts and the evidence because unlike many posters here,they actually know something about the laws of physics and understand that its impossible for fires to cause buildings to fall downwards at freefall speed like they did.

So, can you explain why the Delft University of Architecture Building collapsed from a "normal" office fire? Did that fall down at free fall speed?
LiveLeak.com - Delft University of Technology in Holland on fire and collapsing

Wow thanks for that video. It shows what an inferior building that was compared to the massive steel reinforced WTC7.
I didn't see any kink, nor that building fall straight down with any semblance of symmetry compared to WTC7, NOR ANYTHING AT ALL AKIN TO A TOTAL GLOBAL COLLASPE..What a miserable fucking fail that was
The building you compare to WTC7, most likely was another concrete reinforced building.
Have you ever taken an oxy -acetylene
torch to concrete? If you do, put your fucking safety glasses on before the concrete splatters and explodes in your face from the small amounts of moisture trapped in it when poured...That appears the likely cause of these types of buildings falling over..Hardly collapsing like any of the WTC buildings on 9-11.

And many credible people have very well thought out positions of the
physics involved that destroy the NIST fantasy.
You claim many universities have done studies on how those WTC buildings performed..link them and I'll link you what I have on the physics that conclude the WTC units should have fallen differently..If at all.

You'll find that trying to reason with I CANT SEE THE LIGHT on this that he knows nothing at all about the laws of physics that every junior high school kid learns at that age,and doesnt understand that buildings dont fall downwards at free fall speed in 11 seconds due to structural failure. that they come down GRADUALLY over a period of time. He also ignores that NIST was caught lying saying there was no molten pools of metal found when many credible people spoke of finding molten pools of metal.

excellent point,well said.I did not see any kind of kink in there on that inferiour building either and like you said,did not see it fall with any semblance of symmetry that the towers fell either.I also did not see any squibs in that building indicating charges were planted nor did I see any steel girders with immense weight being thrown out and landing several blocks away . Nor do you have firemen experienced and familair with explosives being used in buildings saying there that explosives were planted like they did on 9/11.

Most importantly,all that did was prove that Im right that buildings dont fall downwards at freefall speed.from that pitiful video,all I CANT SEE THE LIGHT proved,was that PARTS of a building can come down but not the entire structure at the same time in the fact that at least half of that building was still standing,the entire structure did not collapse and dissapear.you can still see part of the structure still standing after that.Boy you hit the nail right on the head,miserable fucking fail is right. See how he always fails and desperatly starts grasping at straws when getting his ass handed to him on a platter?
see what Im talking about now about this character?


He also of course ignores the facts that Bush and Cheney proffited immensely from these attacks as did Silverstein and doesnt want to believe it that professors in universitys that if they dont go along with the coverup,they'll get fired like Steven Jones did for speaking the truth.None of this stuff registers with him as you will find out if you try and reason with him.You'll find out that that he only see's what he wants to see.

you would think that after all the ass beatings he has got on this thread he would be too embarrased to come back here when all he does is help prove my point for me in his posts.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

so it was or wasnt an inside job ?

You tell us...

Many disturbing facts and information in this thread:
Indisputable Facts 9/11: Quite disturbing information
http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/217738-indisputable-facts-9-11-quite-disturbing-information.html


9/11 Disturbing and Indisputable Facts:

While learning the indisputable and disturbing facts below...ask yourself if you are experiencing any of the common thought process reactions explained here by Sigmund Freud...

Denial (also called abnegation) is a defense mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

The subject may use:
simple denial: deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether
minimisation: admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalization)
projection: admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility
Denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-------

The "official story" was spoonfed to mass media before either tower even fell. That in istself shows the "official investigation" was done before 9/11 even bagan.

Only 33 minutes after the second tower got hit, and before either tower even fell, was the elaborately written "official story" being aired on who's responsible...was this elaborately written news cast "official story" prewritten before the attacks...

How about the "official investigation" before the elaborately written "official story"...was the "official investigation" done before 9/11 even occured...

I think the answer is quite clear.

-------

Remember the Anthrax attacks which just happen to occur right after 9/11 and targeted Media and Senate...

The white house staff began taking the anti-biotic for anthrax BEFORE the first anthrax attack even occured...

-------

This documentary shows Jerome Hauer being interviewed on 9/11...just happened to be interviewed...let's see who he really is...

It was Jerome Hauer who advised the White House staff to start taking CIPRO, the anti-biotic effective against Anthrax, BEFORE the first anthrax attack even occured...

Jerome Hauer was Commissioner for Office of Emergency Management located in Building 7 or World Trade Center 7...

Jerome Hauer was Bush Administration Insider...

The Office of Emergency Management was located on the 23rd floor of Building 7, or World Trade Center 7 and was also where the Office of Counter Terrorism was...

World Trade Center 7 or Building 7 underwent strange and odd construction renovations just before 9/11...

Some of the strange and odd construction renovations in Building 7 consisted of where only the 23rd floor was reinforced with its floors, walls, windows all being strengthened making it some type of tree fort or sky bunker within sight of the World Trade Center twin towers...

Just before 9/11 it was slipped into the news that a Boeing Passenger Plane was successfully tested, flown with remote control...

This remote control technology of Boeing Passenger Planes was developed for someone in Office of Counter Terrorism to be able to take over a Boeing Passenger Plane, by remote control flying, if it was to be hijacked by terrorists...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVFZu97fWbU&feature=related]9 11 THE BIG CLUE EVERYONE MISSED - YouTube[/ame]

-------

Both the Twin Towers or World Trade Centers 1 & 2 underwent many months of construction renovations before 9/11 and up to the very day of 9/11...

Some of the construction renovations in WTC 1, WTC 2 were in and around the elevator shafts... where all the vertical support columns were located that ran from bedrock to the top floor...

The World Trade Centers even underwent construction renovations directly on the vertical support columns that happened to fail on 9/11...

The construction company that did the many months of construction renovations on the WTC Buildings, some of which were on the vertical support columns that ran from bedrock to the top floor, just happen to of had its CEO appointed by President Bush to the Commission White House Fellows...

The Pentagon too underwent construction renovations before 9/11 and up to the very day of 9/11...

The construction renovations on the Pentagon happened to be exactly on the section of the building involved on 9/11...

The part of the Pentagon involved on 9/11 also just happened to be the only part of the building reinforced for a possible impact...

-------

The many vertical support columns in the World Trade Center buildings, that ran from bedrock to the top floor, were fastened and welded together all the way up...

Not going to get into exactly what type of wireless technology may have been used or exactly whay type of developed explosives may have been used...but...

All these VERTICAL support columns somehow removed themselves fast enough ALL THE WAY DOWN so that if a bowling ball were dropped right beside the top floor at the same time...the top floor still hit the ground almost as fast as the bowling ball would even though the top floor had to work its way ALL THE WAY DOWN through these many VERTICAL support columns that ran from bedrock to the top floor...

-------

There were Israeli Mossad proven to be working in and around the World Trade Center buildings...

There were many Israeli Mossad spies arrested during 9/11 time frame...

Some of the Israeli Mossad spies were proven to be active in the Israeli military and explosive experts...

There were Israeli Mossad even arrested on the very day of 9/11 with evidence of explosives, etc that were held in jail, only to be released by the top of the pyramid scheme...

There were even Israeli Mossad dressed like and posing as Muslims, dancing and taking pictures, that were arrested on 9/11, only to be released by the top of the pyramid scheme...

-------

If you did not experience any of the symptoms of Denial explained by Sigmund Freud at the top of this page, then ask yourself if this fits you at the bottom of this page...

-------

Israel Hires Internet Soldiers to Penetrate American Forums, Chatrooms : Deadline Live With Jack Blood

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYedTmaHt1A&feature=player_embedded]provocateurs,shills and disinfo agents - YouTube[/ame]

I hope he decides to come back and look at that information you posted and what I just posted in reply to him as well.At least he isnt closed minded and only going into it only seeing what he wants to see like I CANT SEE THE LIGHT AND MONTROVENT who as you can see for yousrself,are in that denial mode that you so well explained and mentioned in this post of yours..He at least seems open minded about it that poster that asked that question.

 

[candycorn]

Bump.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

someone farted in here.

 

[Liability]

someone farted in here. * * * *

Yes. You do post frequently.

 

[Mr. Jones]

If physics predicts this and you are such a physics expert, then you should be able to explain how they should have fallen over instead of down. Please show what law of physics was broken by the buildings falling DOWN. And sense I am VERY confident that you can't do this, I would settle for a reference to a study that predicts a "fall over" collapse.
Many universities have done studies on how those buildings performed. I would give you some names, but I don't want to do your research for you.





So, can you explain why the Delft University of Architecture Building collapsed from a "normal" office fire? Did that fall down at free fall speed?
LiveLeak.com - Delft University of Technology in Holland on fire and collapsing

Wow thanks for that video. It shows what an inferior building that was compared to the massive steel reinforced WTC7.
I didn't see any kink, nor that building fall straight down with any semblance of symmetry compared to WTC7, NOR ANYTHING AT ALL AKIN TO A TOTAL GLOBAL COLLASPE..What a miserable fucking fail that was
The building you compare to WTC7, most likely was another concrete reinforced building.
Have you ever taken an oxy -acetylene
torch to concrete? If you do, put your fucking safety glasses on before the concrete splatters and explodes in your face from the small amounts of moisture trapped in it when poured...That appears the likely cause of these types of buildings falling over..Hardly collapsing like any of the WTC buildings on 9-11.

And many credible people have very well thought out positions of the
physics involved that destroy the NIST fantasy.
You claim many universities have done studies on how those WTC buildings performed..link them and I'll link you what I have on the physics that conclude the WTC units should have fallen differently..If at all.

The point of the link was to refute the idea that fire cannot case collapse in a steel framed building. In this case it caused collapse in a steel frame & steel reinforced concrete building. So, to say it was an inferior design is purely conjecture on your part.
To argue that the entire building didn't collapse exactly like WTC7 is asinine and misses the point. The point is steel framed and steel reinforced concrete buildings ARE effected by fire.
I take it you think a concrete reinforced building is inferior to steel alone?
I'm not sure what your point is on the acetylene torch. Those burn up to 6000 deg. F. I think we can agree that a normal office fire doesn't reach those temperatures. Thus not having the effect on the concrete that you are describing.
As for the studies on the building performance, I didn't link them because of the challenge to the specific person that was posted to.
If you have a conclusion on what SHOULD have happened, I'd be glad to read it.

You do understand that the WTC buildings experienced total and global collapse..right? That they were massive and robust structures and 2 of them were designed to withstand extreme forces and even a plane crashing into them?
So your building video is no comparison, and I challenge you to find a structure that under similar circumstances experienced a complete and total global collapse, in such a short time after collapse initiation..like the WTC.

The torch example is something I have experienced at work, you heat the concrete, in time, depending on the temp and proximity to the concrete, concrete will gall and explode and fall away, because it is a POOR conductor of heat. I have applied heat from a torch, on separate occasions to concrete, and steel and the concrete will gall and pop before a steel channel/beam will reach the temp required to melt.
Concrete is a good insulator against fire, because it is a poor conductor of heat/flame that may spread to other combustibles, don't get me wrong, but this very same property of poor heat conductibility,
will cause it to gall and explode, revealing whatever steel, or re-barb is encased within it, depending on temperature and duration of the fire.
So in some building fires, when this concrete blows off, the usually smaller, thinner and inferior steel components, compared to the WTC, are exposed and depending on temp and duration can cause tensile strength failure of the then exposed steel and perhaps cause a PARTIAL collapse, especially if the concrete is being used to bare the load ALONG with the steel components, but has not ever produced a total, global, symmetrical collapse as witnessed on 9-11, because of steels ability to spread the heat of a fire and channel it to other parts of the buildings steel.
Thus the only plausible way for the WTC buildings to come down like they did, would be if there was no place left for the steel to dissipate the heat and the initial heat source remained constant and increased, thus increasing the overall temp to all the steel and that did not happen.

And the temps at the WTC are questioned and rightfully scrutinized as being the sole cause of such collapses that were witnessed that day.

Not once in history of modern skyscrapers, has that happened, but we are to believe there is nothing wrong or peculiar about 3 buildings coming down in this fashion in one day?

 

[Light]

If physics predicts this and you are such a physics expert, then you should be able to explain how they should have fallen over instead of down. Please show what law of physics was broken by the buildings falling DOWN. And sense I am VERY confident that you can't do this, I would settle for a reference to a study that predicts a "fall over" collapse.
Many universities have done studies on how those buildings performed. I would give you some names, but I don't want to do your research for you.





So, can you explain why the Delft University of Architecture Building collapsed from a "normal" office fire? Did that fall down at free fall speed?
LiveLeak.com - Delft University of Technology in Holland on fire and collapsing

Wow thanks for that video. It shows what an inferior building that was compared to the massive steel reinforced WTC7.
I didn't see any kink, nor that building fall straight down with any semblance of symmetry compared to WTC7, NOR ANYTHING AT ALL AKIN TO A TOTAL GLOBAL COLLASPE..What a miserable fucking fail that was
The building you compare to WTC7, most likely was another concrete reinforced building.
Have you ever taken an oxy -acetylene
torch to concrete? If you do, put your fucking safety glasses on before the concrete splatters and explodes in your face from the small amounts of moisture trapped in it when poured...That appears the likely cause of these types of buildings falling over..Hardly collapsing like any of the WTC buildings on 9-11.

And many credible people have very well thought out positions of the
physics involved that destroy the NIST fantasy.
You claim many universities have done studies on how those WTC buildings performed..link them and I'll link you what I have on the physics that conclude the WTC units should have fallen differently..If at all.

You'll find that trying to reason with I CANT SEE THE LIGHT on this that he knows nothing at all about the laws of physics that every junior high school kid learns at that age,and doesnt understand that buildings dont fall downwards at free fall speed in 11 seconds due to structural failure. that they come down GRADUALLY over a period of time. He also ignores that NIST was caught lying saying there was no molten pools of metal found when many credible people spoke of finding molten pools of metal.

excellent point,well said.I did not see any kind of kink in there on that inferiour building either and like you said,did not see it fall with any semblance of symmetry that the towers fell either.I also did not see any squibs in that building indicating charges were planted nor did I see any steel girders with immense weight being thrown out and landing several blocks away . Nor do you have firemen experienced and familair with explosives being used in buildings saying there that explosives were planted like they did on 9/11.

Most importantly,all that did was prove that Im right that buildings dont fall downwards at freefall speed.from that pitiful video,all I CANT SEE THE LIGHT proved,was that PARTS of a building can come down but not the entire structure at the same time in the fact that at least half of that building was still standing,the entire structure did not collapse and dissapear.you can still see part of the structure still standing after that.Boy you hit the nail right on the head,miserable fucking fail is right. See how he always fails and desperatly starts grasping at straws when getting his ass handed to him on a platter?
see what Im talking about now about this character?


He also of course ignores the facts that Bush and Cheney proffited immensely from these attacks as did Silverstein and doesnt want to believe it that professors in universitys that if they dont go along with the coverup,they'll get fired like Steven Jones did for speaking the truth.None of this stuff registers with him as you will find out if you try and reason with him.You'll find out that that he only see's what he wants to see.

you would think that after all the ass beatings he has got on this thread he would be too embarrased to come back here when all he does is help prove my point for me in his posts.

Nice DODGE!
Can't respond to me directly, huh?

Obviously Mr Jones and I disagree about what happened. But at least he is offering up some information to back-up his opinion.

What have you got?...........oh right........"someone farted in here".......very applicable to the conversation.

 

[Light]

Wow thanks for that video. It shows what an inferior building that was compared to the massive steel reinforced WTC7.
I didn't see any kink, nor that building fall straight down with any semblance of symmetry compared to WTC7, NOR ANYTHING AT ALL AKIN TO A TOTAL GLOBAL COLLASPE..What a miserable fucking fail that was
The building you compare to WTC7, most likely was another concrete reinforced building.
Have you ever taken an oxy -acetylene
torch to concrete? If you do, put your fucking safety glasses on before the concrete splatters and explodes in your face from the small amounts of moisture trapped in it when poured...That appears the likely cause of these types of buildings falling over..Hardly collapsing like any of the WTC buildings on 9-11.

And many credible people have very well thought out positions of the
physics involved that destroy the NIST fantasy.
You claim many universities have done studies on how those WTC buildings performed..link them and I'll link you what I have on the physics that conclude the WTC units should have fallen differently..If at all.

The point of the link was to refute the idea that fire cannot case collapse in a steel framed building. In this case it caused collapse in a steel frame & steel reinforced concrete building. So, to say it was an inferior design is purely conjecture on your part.
To argue that the entire building didn't collapse exactly like WTC7 is asinine and misses the point. The point is steel framed and steel reinforced concrete buildings ARE effected by fire.
I take it you think a concrete reinforced building is inferior to steel alone?
I'm not sure what your point is on the acetylene torch. Those burn up to 6000 deg. F. I think we can agree that a normal office fire doesn't reach those temperatures. Thus not having the effect on the concrete that you are describing.
As for the studies on the building performance, I didn't link them because of the challenge to the specific person that was posted to.
If you have a conclusion on what SHOULD have happened, I'd be glad to read it.

You do understand that the WTC buildings experienced total and global collapse..right? That they were massive and robust structures and 2 of them were designed to withstand extreme forces and even a plane crashing into them?
So your building video is no comparison, and I challenge you to find a structure that under similar circumstances experienced a complete and total global collapse, in such a short time after collapse initiation..like the WTC.

The torch example is something I have experienced at work, you heat the concrete, in time, depending on the temp and proximity to the concrete, concrete will gall and explode and fall away, because it is a POOR conductor of heat. I have applied heat from a torch, on separate occasions to concrete, and steel and the concrete will gall and pop before a steel channel/beam will reach the temp required to melt.
Concrete is a good insulator against fire, because it is a poor conductor of heat/flame that may spread to other combustibles, don't get me wrong, but this very same property of poor heat conductibility,
will cause it to gall and explode, revealing whatever steel, or re-barb is encased within it, depending on temperature and duration of the fire.
So in some building fires, when this concrete blows off, the usually smaller, thinner and inferior steel components, compared to the WTC, are exposed and depending on temp and duration can cause tensile strength failure of the then exposed steel and perhaps cause a PARTIAL collapse, especially if the concrete is being used to bare the load ALONG with the steel components, but has not ever produced a total, global, symmetrical collapse as witnessed on 9-11, because of steels ability to spread the heat of a fire and channel it to other parts of the buildings steel.
Thus the only plausible way for the WTC buildings to come down like they did, would be if there was no place left for the steel to dissipate the heat and the initial heat source remained constant and increased, thus increasing the overall temp to all the steel and that did not happen.

And the temps at the WTC are questioned and rightfully scrutinized as being the sole cause of such collapses that were witnessed that day.

Not once in history of modern skyscrapers, has that happened, but we are to believe there is nothing wrong or peculiar about 3 buildings coming down in this fashion in one day?

I do understand that they suffered a global collapse and that they were designed to withstand extreme wind loads. But as for being designed for a plane impact, they were designed for a much slower impact than they received on 9/11. Leslie Robertson, one of the designers, has stated that it was designed for a "slow flying" airplane impact. The difference in a 200mph impact versus a 500mph impact is considerable. And there is no question that those impacts caused severe structural damage. That in addition to the fires caused the collapse. The fires were not the SOLE cause of the collapse in WTC1 & 2. That's not to say that the fires couldn't have been enough, given enough time without being fought.
It seems that whenever the fire is talked about in relation to the structure, the large core columns and perimeter columns are mentioned as if they were the collapse mechanism. The floor trusses, which are down right puny compared to supporting structure, are the collapse mechanism. They sagged, pulling the perimeter columns in. Once those columns are no longer standing true (can be seen in video of south tower, east side) they have lost structural integrity. That coupled with perimeter and core column damage done by the impacts, it unreasonable to assume that those buildings could withstand that.
As for WTC7, I understand that no plane struck that building. And NIST claims that the damage done by the North Tower collapse didn't directly cause the collapse. But those fires DID burn all day. They burned all through that building on multiple floors. And by what I have seen, fires can cause buildings to fail. I think the Delft building is a good example of that. As is the building in Madrid that is usually used to show that buildings don't collapse in a fire. But if you look at all the photos of that, you'll see that the unprotected structural steel collapsed while the steel reinforced concrete was left supporting the building.
So, as far as WTC7 goes, until there is proof that something other than fires did it, that's what I am going to believe. If evidence ever comes to light that something else occurred, I'll change my stance.

 

[candycorn]

Wow thanks for that video. It shows what an inferior building that was compared to the massive steel reinforced WTC7.
I didn't see any kink, nor that building fall straight down with any semblance of symmetry compared to WTC7, NOR ANYTHING AT ALL AKIN TO A TOTAL GLOBAL COLLASPE..What a miserable fucking fail that was
The building you compare to WTC7, most likely was another concrete reinforced building.
Have you ever taken an oxy -acetylene
torch to concrete? If you do, put your fucking safety glasses on before the concrete splatters and explodes in your face from the small amounts of moisture trapped in it when poured...That appears the likely cause of these types of buildings falling over..Hardly collapsing like any of the WTC buildings on 9-11.

And many credible people have very well thought out positions of the
physics involved that destroy the NIST fantasy.
You claim many universities have done studies on how those WTC buildings performed..link them and I'll link you what I have on the physics that conclude the WTC units should have fallen differently..If at all.

You'll find that trying to reason with I CANT SEE THE LIGHT on this that he knows nothing at all about the laws of physics that every junior high school kid learns at that age,and doesnt understand that buildings dont fall downwards at free fall speed in 11 seconds due to structural failure. that they come down GRADUALLY over a period of time. He also ignores that NIST was caught lying saying there was no molten pools of metal found when many credible people spoke of finding molten pools of metal.

excellent point,well said.I did not see any kind of kink in there on that inferiour building either and like you said,did not see it fall with any semblance of symmetry that the towers fell either.I also did not see any squibs in that building indicating charges were planted nor did I see any steel girders with immense weight being thrown out and landing several blocks away . Nor do you have firemen experienced and familair with explosives being used in buildings saying there that explosives were planted like they did on 9/11.

Most importantly,all that did was prove that Im right that buildings dont fall downwards at freefall speed.from that pitiful video,all I CANT SEE THE LIGHT proved,was that PARTS of a building can come down but not the entire structure at the same time in the fact that at least half of that building was still standing,the entire structure did not collapse and dissapear.you can still see part of the structure still standing after that.Boy you hit the nail right on the head,miserable fucking fail is right. See how he always fails and desperatly starts grasping at straws when getting his ass handed to him on a platter?
see what Im talking about now about this character?


He also of course ignores the facts that Bush and Cheney proffited immensely from these attacks as did Silverstein and doesnt want to believe it that professors in universitys that if they dont go along with the coverup,they'll get fired like Steven Jones did for speaking the truth.None of this stuff registers with him as you will find out if you try and reason with him.You'll find out that that he only see's what he wants to see.

you would think that after all the ass beatings he has got on this thread he would be too embarrased to come back here when all he does is help prove my point for me in his posts.

Nice DODGE!
Can't respond to me directly, huh?

Obviously Mr Jones and I disagree about what happened. But at least he is offering up some information to back-up his opinion.

What have you got?...........oh right........"someone farted in here".......very applicable to the conversation.

Obviously you're wasting your time with paulitician/rimjob.

Mr. Jones is also a lost cause and cannot synthesize a defense for his beliefs beyond "watch the video" which is no defense at all.

The official pictures taken by the NYPD show building 7 missing up to 18 floors at one corner due to the collapse of the World Trade Centers as well as a raging fire profile. Obviously the building would have not stood regardless of the fires but the weakened structure fell more quickly due to the fires in the building.

As for WTC 1 and 2, you're spot on correct; they withstood the building impact but the exposed steel and the fires caused the collapse of the structure. All of this has been explained time and again to the pair of fools you're addressing. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them think.

 

[daws101]

The laws of physics that scientists have gone by for thousands of years that these Bush dupes always ignore dictate that the towers SHOULD have tipped over sideways and fell GRADUALLY.not at freefall speed in 11 seconds.

If physics predicts this and you are such a physics expert, then you should be able to explain how they should have fallen over instead of down. Please show what law of physics was broken by the buildings falling DOWN. And sense I am VERY confident that you can't do this, I would settle for a reference to a study that predicts a "fall over" collapse.
Many universities have done studies on how those buildings performed. I would give you some names, but I don't want to do your research for you.



edited for wackjobery

 

[Mr. Jones]

I do understand that they suffered a global collapse and that they were designed to withstand extreme wind loads. But as for being designed for a plane impact, they were designed for a much slower impact than they received on 9/11. Leslie Robertson, one of the designers, has stated that it was designed for a "slow flying" airplane impact.

WARNING!! LONG ASS REPLY POST.

Leslie E. Robertson, an engineer who helped design the WTC. He is currently a partner at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, a structural consulting firm that was under contract to the WTC at the time of the tragedy. In a keynote address Robertson reportedly told the Structural Engineers Association of Utah that: "...as of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel still running."[3]
So how did the fires get hot enough to melt steel and continue to burn for months despite using thousands of gallons of Pyrocool?
Despite the strong possibility that combustibles like "paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they 'pancaked' into the basement." And "that cars left in parking garages under the WTC contained gasoline that may have fueled the fires."
"none of these fires were hot enough to melt steel. Indeed, none of the combustibles in the wreckage burned anywhere near the melting point of construction grade steel beams (2800 °F). ...the smoldering fires for the most part were oxygen-starved.
There is no way to avoid the conclusion that the molten materials under the wreckage, as well as the smoldering fires, were a residual product of whatever caused the collapse of the WTC. Something on September 11, 2001 burned hot enough to melt steel in the basement of both towers."
Hint-It wasn't run of the mill office fires doing that melting, even NIST admitted that most of the Kerosene was consumed by the initial fireball after impact of the planes.
"But as serious as these explosions and fires were, jet fuel simply does not burn with sufficient energy to melt steel***not even close."

"The fact is that jet fuel, which is essentially kerosene, will not burn in air in excess of about 1,000°C (1,832°F)***nowhere near the 2,800°F melting point of steel. Even this 1,000°C upper limit is very difficult to achieve, since, as Thomas Eagar pointed out, it requires the optimal mixing of fuel with oxygen during combustion, which can only be achieved in a laboratory."

The difference in a 200mph impact versus a 500mph impact is considerable. And there is no question that those impacts caused severe structural damage.

Back to the design for plane impact-
"Although the WTC's soaring lines gave the impression of a relatively light frame, in fact, the towers were extremely rugged, engineered to withstand hurricane-force winds and to survive a direct hit by a Boeing 707, the largest commercial jetliner of the day. In a 1993 interview the WTC's principal structural engineer, John Skilling, stated that prior to construction he performed an impact analysis of a 600 mph Boeing 707 impact, and concluded "that the building structure would still be there."[28]

"Frank A. Demartini, onsite manager during the construction of the WTC, seconded this view during a January 25, 2001 interview, in which he noted that the study involved "a fully loaded 707." Demartini even declared that "the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting."[30] Demartini kept an office in the North Tower and was last seen on 9/11 assisting evacuees on the 78th floor.[31] "

That in addition to the fires caused the collapse. The fires were not the SOLE cause of the collapse in WTC1 & 2. That's not to say that the fires couldn't have been enough, given enough time without being fought.

Sure there were multiple examples of erroneous reporting and speculation of how the steel turned into "licorice" or spaghetti or whatever but that has been shown to be false.
And you still don't comprehend that these fires were not hot enough to cause this huge tower to go from stable to instantaneous total descent ..fire does not work that way. Even FDNY firefighters radioed that they weren't that bad and in one instance called for 2 hoses to 'knock it down"
And explain the people standing in the gaping whole where the airliner entered? Were there fires? You bet your ass, but NOT enough to cause the rapid global descent in just a little over free fall acceleration.
So if the fires DID reach the temp point to cause this melting and pooling that burned for 3 months, it wasn't from normal office fire combustibles, and the melted steel Leslie Robertson and others talked about could not have come from that.

It seems that whenever the fire is talked about in relation to the structure, the large core columns and perimeter columns are mentioned as if they were the collapse mechanism.

It seems people forget just how fucking massive they really were, and how the further down they went ..the bigger they got! Some people act like they should not have provided some resistance, and forget they only provided minimal resistance that resulted in the towers falling way faster then, given the physics, should have.
"In fact, the WTC had tremendous reserve capacity. An early article about the project in the Engineering News-Record declared that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2,000 percent before failure occurs."[33]"
The top structure descending into the lower portion would have been met with equal force initially, thus slowing the descent, and there was none! It collapsed just short of freefall.
The top portion fell right through the more robust lower portion almost unimpeded. Even a lowly high school physics teacher called NIST out on that.

The floor trusses, which are down right puny compared to supporting structure, are the collapse mechanism. They sagged, pulling the perimeter columns in. Once those columns are no longer standing true (can be seen in video of south tower, east side) they have lost structural integrity. That coupled with perimeter and core column damage done by the impacts, it unreasonable to assume that those buildings could withstand that.

"Because the NIST did not have the necessary facilities, it contracted Underwriter Laboratories to conduct a series of fire endurance tests on trusses like those in the WTC. (The recovered truss samples were too badly deformed during the collapse to test them directly, so NIST fabricated new trusses identical in design.) The purpose of the tests was to establish a baseline, and the results were surprising. Not one of the truss assemblies failed during a series of four tests, not even the truss sprayed with the minimum amount of fireproofing. "The floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for over two hours."[52]
The UL tests not only laid to rest the theory that the trusses were the cause of the collapse on 9/11, if anything, the tests demonstrated the fundamental soundness of the WTC truss design."

Even if they could not withstand that, you must still take into account the resistance the lower floors that were not structurally compromised at the time, and take into account the time it should have taken to achieve this total global collapse, compared to what we witnessed.
Each truss assembly-concrete floor behaved as a single unit.
NIST has neglected the law of conservation of momentum by not explaining how the huge mass of the building provided virtually no resistance at all to the upper part of the building.
Also the problem with the puny truss theory is that one can clearly see "that during each collapse, perimeter columns and other structural members didn't simply fall to the ground. In many cases they were ejected up and out of the disintegrating structure at nearly a 45 degree angle: a cascade that hurled steel beams weighing 20 tons or more as much as 600 feet from the base of the buildings."

You can't even add those massive pieces of the towers that were ejected and PULVERIZED and claim they contributed to the weight smashing down on the lower portion..because they were...ejected away from them and fucking turned to dust!

As for WTC7, I understand that no plane struck that building. And NIST claims that the damage done by the North Tower collapse didn't directly cause the collapse. But those fires DID burn all day. They burned all through that building on multiple floors.

Have you bothered to watch any videos of the WTC7 before it fell down in a heap? Seriously "multiple fires" on " multiple floors"?
"Enough to cause such an implosion like collapse? BS.
Besides omitting and otherwise falsifying evidence, NIST also committed the type of scientific fraud called fabrication, which means simply “making up results.”[49]
They lied about the shear studs, and the fires and what floors they were on and what time the 12th floor fire went OUT. They also lied about the lack of freefall acceleration until called out on it and still haven't had the balls to come back and try to explain THAT, nor give up their computer data for others to try and replicate!

And by what I have seen, fires can cause buildings to fail. I think the Delft building is a good example of that. As is the building in Madrid that is usually used to show that buildings don't collapse in a fire. But if you look at all the photos of that, you'll see that the unprotected structural steel collapsed while the steel reinforced concrete was left supporting the building.

Of course fires can cause buildings to fail, but not fucking implode in on themselves producing 2.25 secs of fucking freefall!
Have you read about the Madrid fire? Do you realize how long the motherfucker burned? And yet..still DID NOT IMPLODE OR COLLAPSE TOTALLY TO THE FUCKING GROUND.
NIST has not explained anything, in fact they lied their asses off and distorted facts, and data. Have you not read ANY rebuttals that counter NISTS claims?

So, as far as WTC7 goes, until there is proof that something other than fires did it, that's what I am going to believe. If evidence ever comes to light that something else occurred, I'll change my stance.

The people that were charged with finding out let you me and everyone else down miserably. I'm not out to convince you only to recommend that you seriously read with an open mind and some courage what many credible experts, FDNY and other witnesses say about the events of that day, in particular the physics experts explain the various laws that NIST did not take into account, and how steel loses its strength and how long it takes.

Dead On Arrival
Official theory of 9/11 WTC tower near-free-fall collapses violates Laws of Physics - a knol by Michael Fullerton
Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight: The 9/11 "Official Story" and the Collapse of WTC Building Seven
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

 

[daws101]

I do understand that they suffered a global collapse and that they were designed to withstand extreme wind loads. But as for being designed for a plane impact, they were designed for a much slower impact than they received on 9/11. Leslie Robertson, one of the designers, has stated that it was designed for a "slow flying" airplane impact.

Dead On Arrival
Official theory of 9/11 WTC tower near-free-fall collapses violates Laws of Physics - a knol by Michael Fullerton
Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight: The 9/11 "Official Story" and the Collapse of WTC Building Seven
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

edited for lack of evidence and false premise !

 

[Mr. Jones]

Dead On Arrival
Official theory of 9/11 WTC tower near-free-fall collapses violates Laws of Physics - a knol by Michael Fullerton
Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight: The 9/11 "Official Story" and the Collapse of WTC Building Seven
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

edited for lack of evidence and false premise !

You aren't authorized to edit anything, quit spamming the thread with bullshit, if you have anything to prove lack of evidence post it.

 

[Mr. Jones]

You'll find that trying to reason with I CANT SEE THE LIGHT on this that he knows nothing at all about the laws of physics that every junior high school kid learns at that age,and doesnt understand that buildings dont fall downwards at free fall speed in 11 seconds due to structural failure. that they come down GRADUALLY over a period of time. He also ignores that NIST was caught lying saying there was no molten pools of metal found when many credible people spoke of finding molten pools of metal.

excellent point,well said.I did not see any kind of kink in there on that inferiour building either and like you said,did not see it fall with any semblance of symmetry that the towers fell either.I also did not see any squibs in that building indicating charges were planted nor did I see any steel girders with immense weight being thrown out and landing several blocks away . Nor do you have firemen experienced and familair with explosives being used in buildings saying there that explosives were planted like they did on 9/11.

Most importantly,all that did was prove that Im right that buildings dont fall downwards at freefall speed.from that pitiful video,all I CANT SEE THE LIGHT proved,was that PARTS of a building can come down but not the entire structure at the same time in the fact that at least half of that building was still standing,the entire structure did not collapse and dissapear.you can still see part of the structure still standing after that.Boy you hit the nail right on the head,miserable fucking fail is right. See how he always fails and desperatly starts grasping at straws when getting his ass handed to him on a platter?
see what Im talking about now about this character?


He also of course ignores the facts that Bush and Cheney proffited immensely from these attacks as did Silverstein and doesnt want to believe it that professors in universitys that if they dont go along with the coverup,they'll get fired like Steven Jones did for speaking the truth.None of this stuff registers with him as you will find out if you try and reason with him.You'll find out that that he only see's what he wants to see.

you would think that after all the ass beatings he has got on this thread he would be too embarrased to come back here when all he does is help prove my point for me in his posts.

Nice DODGE!
Can't respond to me directly, huh?

Obviously Mr Jones and I disagree about what happened. But at least he is offering up some information to back-up his opinion.

What have you got?...........oh right........"someone farted in here".......very applicable to the conversation.

Obviously you're wasting your time with paulitician/rimjob.

Mr. Jones is also a lost cause and cannot synthesize a defense for his beliefs beyond "watch the video" which is no defense at all.

The official pictures taken by the NYPD show building 7 missing up to 18 floors at one corner due to the collapse of the World Trade Centers as well as a raging fire profile. Obviously the building would have not stood regardless of the fires but the weakened structure fell more quickly due to the fires in the building.

As for WTC 1 and 2, you're spot on correct; they withstood the building impact but the exposed steel and the fires caused the collapse of the structure. All of this has been explained time and again to the pair of fools you're addressing. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them think.

I provided the poster with valuable links that describe the basis that formed the opposition to the OCT (official conspiracy theory) as told to us about the attacks of 9-11. Simply because you have your head still up your ass and refuse to pull it out, does not always mean others do.
The OCT is based on a false premise that 19 Muslims commandeered planes, that they infiltrated the worlds most heavily defended air space, and achieved a 75% success rate in hitting their targets, all while the nation was coincidentally running war games, AND the only people arrested on 9-11 were Israeli in a van with explosives.
Most of 9-11 story as told by your leaders and those covering their asses is and has been shown to be mostly a fabrication, with many dubious and disingenuous parts of the fable proven to be lies.
All one has to do is look around them and see the world they live in for what it is, a control grid and 9-11 was the taser used to manipulate the US and the worlds populations to accept authoritative control methods, for the purpose of controlling world resources, and economies, and people like you are one of the biggest
threats as you use a human beings natural and conditioned instincts to lead them or keep them manipulated and blind to reality.
You have used every imaginable fallacy here on USMB and elsewhere on the internet to spread disinformation, and ridicule those who think for themselves instead of relying on conditioned, manipulative thought.

 

[Light]

Dead On Arrival
Official theory of 9/11 WTC tower near-free-fall collapses violates Laws of Physics - a knol by Michael Fullerton
Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight: The 9/11 "Official Story" and the Collapse of WTC Building Seven
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

Lol…………you were right…….that was a LONG reply. But I appreciate the detail.

The molten metal evidence doesn’t seem to go anywhere. By all accounts, there was indeed molten metal in the debris pile. But what metal was it?.......steel, aluminum, or any combination of many different materials in those buildings? And the fact that the debris pile was a least 6-8 stories deep, fires burning under there would undoubtly get hot enough to melt metals. And don’t forget that there were cars, generators and transformers in the basement of those buildings. All of those have combustible materials in and/or attached to them. So, all of these combustible materials, covered by tons of steel and concrete to insulate it, would turn into pretty efficient oven.
And what is the implication that you believe the molten metal indicates? An incendiary device cutting the core columns? If that is the implication, you HAVE seen that the cores stood until after the buildings had collapsed around them. That and the fact that a few people survived the North Tower collapse in the core, proves that the cores were not cut at the bottom. And if the implication is that the incendiary was used at the initial collapse zone, then there is the obvious problem of the device surviving the airplane impacts.

As for the buildings collapse, I can’t believe the “free fall” fallacy is still a subject for discussion. They clearly didn’t fall at “free fall”. There was debris hitting the ground with the building still visible. Thus the debris was clearly out pacing the collapse of the building. The best evidence of time it took is a video that was filmed from within the North tower during the South tower collapse. You can hear the collapse for approx. 18 seconds. And that’s not considering that the actual moment of collapse would have been just before they could hear it.
And the “2000 percent increase in live load before failure” is obviously inaccurate. No building carries that kind of reserve capacity. 3-4 times the live load is a more standard figure.
There seems to be a large misunderstanding of how these buildings were constructed. That would be my first suggestion to anyone that wants to understand how they fell, is to learn how they went up. Yes they had massive core columns. But there were no massive beams that connected these columns to the perimeter columns. The floor trusses are what connected the two. The size of the core columns is irrelevant. They were only holding the floors at the ends, not providing support under them. The core columns could have been 16’ sq. & solid…………..it wouldn’t have changed how the floors disconnected from them. Now if the perimeter columns had been about twice the thickness and the truss seats had been considerable larger, then that might have made some difference. Although, that would probably make the build TOO rigid and not respond well to wind loads.

As for the plane impacts, there seems to be a conflicting statements on what was considered regarding the speed of the planes. Robertson says slow flying or landing speed. Skilling says 600mph impact with the fuel being dumped into the building being the major problem. Demartini, who was not a designer of the building, but the building construction manager, doesn’t reference the speed of the aircraft. And his assertion that it could take multiple impacts is purely a guess on his part. He is not making a statement based on what was considered in the design of the building. He is stating his opinion of the sturdiness of the building. The building wasn’t DESIGNED to take multiple impacts. The designers did not consider planes being “intentionally” flown into them. The bomber that crashed into the Empire State Building is what spurred the consideration for aircraft impacts.

WTC7 IS a difficult one to understand. And I don’t pretend to understand it completely. The build was on fire ALL day. I have read dozens of fireman’s quotes stating the condition of the building after the towers collapsed and up until it itself collapsed. The large majority state that the building was damaged by the fall of WTC1 and that there were fires all through the building. The words “fully involved” were used repeatedly. Firemen stated that the building was creaking and groaning very early on. And that there was a bulge on the (I believe) west side at approx. the 12th floor. They state that they were staying away from it because they, in their professional opinion, felt the build was unstable.
As for NIST’s report, I don’t believe that they got everything right. But it would be pretty damn hard to write a “perfect” report on something like that. Too many unknowns considering the building was empty all day and nobody can testify as to what was going on inside.

I appreciate the links. One of them I had not read before.

 

[daws101]

Nice DODGE!
Can't respond to me directly, huh?

Obviously Mr Jones and I disagree about what happened. But at least he is offering up some information to back-up his opinion.

What have you got?...........oh right........"someone farted in here".......very applicable to the conversation.

Obviously you're wasting your time with paulitician/rimjob.

Mr. Jones is also a lost cause and cannot synthesize a defense for his beliefs beyond "watch the video" which is no defense at all.

The official pictures taken by the NYPD show building 7 missing up to 18 floors at one corner due to the collapse of the World Trade Centers as well as a raging fire profile. Obviously the building would have not stood regardless of the fires but the weakened structure fell more quickly due to the fires in the building.

As for WTC 1 and 2, you're spot on correct; they withstood the building impact but the exposed steel and the fires caused the collapse of the structure. All of this has been explained time and again to the pair of fools you're addressing. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them think.

I provided the poster with valuable links that describe the basis that formed the opposition to the OCT (official conspiracy theory) as told to us about the attacks of 9-11. Simply because you have your head still up your ass and refuse to pull it out, does not always mean others do.
The OCT is based on a false premise that 19 Muslims commandeered planes, that they infiltrated the worlds most heavily defended air space, and achieved a 75% success rate in hitting their targets, all while the nation was coincidentally running war games, AND the only people arrested on 9-11 were Israeli in a van with explosives.
Most of 9-11 story as told by your leaders and those covering their asses is and has been shown to be mostly a fabrication, with many dubious and disingenuous parts of the fable proven to be lies.
All one has to do is look around them and see the world they live in for what it is, a control grid and 9-11 was the taser used to manipulate the US and the worlds populations to accept authoritative control methods, for the purpose of controlling world resources, and economies, and people like you are one of the biggest
threats as you use a human beings natural and conditioned instincts to lead them or keep them manipulated and blind to reality.
You have used every imaginable fallacy here on USMB and elsewhere on the internet to spread disinformation, and ridicule those who think for themselves instead of relying on conditioned, manipulative thought.

quit spamming the thread with bullshit,

 

[Liability]

Obviously you're wasting your time with paulitician/rimjob.

Mr. Jones is also a lost cause and cannot synthesize a defense for his beliefs beyond "watch the video" which is no defense at all.

The official pictures taken by the NYPD show building 7 missing up to 18 floors at one corner due to the collapse of the World Trade Centers as well as a raging fire profile. Obviously the building would have not stood regardless of the fires but the weakened structure fell more quickly due to the fires in the building.

As for WTC 1 and 2, you're spot on correct; they withstood the building impact but the exposed steel and the fires caused the collapse of the structure. All of this has been explained time and again to the pair of fools you're addressing. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them think.

I provided the poster with valuable links that describe the basis that formed the opposition to the OCT (official conspiracy theory) as told to us about the attacks of 9-11. Simply because you have your head still up your ass and refuse to pull it out, does not always mean others do.
The OCT is based on a false premise that 19 Muslims commandeered planes, that they infiltrated the worlds most heavily defended air space, and achieved a 75% success rate in hitting their targets, all while the nation was coincidentally running war games, AND the only people arrested on 9-11 were Israeli in a van with explosives.
Most of 9-11 story as told by your leaders and those covering their asses is and has been shown to be mostly a fabrication, with many dubious and disingenuous parts of the fable proven to be lies.
All one has to do is look around them and see the world they live in for what it is, a control grid and 9-11 was the taser used to manipulate the US and the worlds populations to accept authoritative control methods, for the purpose of controlling world resources, and economies, and people like you are one of the biggest
threats as you use a human beings natural and conditioned instincts to lead them or keep them manipulated and blind to reality.
You have used every imaginable fallacy here on USMB and elsewhere on the internet to spread disinformation, and ridicule those who think for themselves instead of relying on conditioned, manipulative thought.

quit spamming the thread with bullshit,

It wasn't "orbs."

It was "gerbils."

Richard Gere started the coverup.

It started with an empty roll of toilet paper.

You could look it up.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Hey I CANT SEE THE LIGHT,thanks for showing that you have pathetic memory problems as bad as Candyass does.You clearly dont understand english and what the phrase "-im done with you means." that I mentioned several pages back.That I stopped reading your ramblings several pages back and got tired of your nonsense like that pathetic video as your latest dodge. alzheimers diseace is something that seems to be common with you agents.

Your obviously the newest agent to have penetrated this site.The ones in denial dont keep coming back with pathetic ramblings like yours and for constant ass beatings.You have exposed you are the newest agent to come here.You guys handlers sure are getting desperate.

better check into that memory course program sometime.Your so stupid you dont get it that the farting thing was aimed at your fellow agent Candyass that I have had on ignore for years now.Guess it escaped you that i did it soon after he posted.have fun talking to yourself.Thats something you obviously love to do here on this thread with me.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I do understand that they suffered a global collapse and that they were designed to withstand extreme wind loads. But as for being designed for a plane impact, they were designed for a much slower impact than they received on 9/11. Leslie Robertson, one of the designers, has stated that it was designed for a "slow flying" airplane impact.

WARNING!! LONG ASS REPLY POST.

Leslie E. Robertson, an engineer who helped design the WTC. He is currently a partner at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, a structural consulting firm that was under contract to the WTC at the time of the tragedy. In a keynote address Robertson reportedly told the Structural Engineers Association of Utah that: "...as of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel still running."[3]
So how did the fires get hot enough to melt steel and continue to burn for months despite using thousands of gallons of Pyrocool?
Despite the strong possibility that combustibles like "paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they 'pancaked' into the basement." And "that cars left in parking garages under the WTC contained gasoline that may have fueled the fires."
"none of these fires were hot enough to melt steel. Indeed, none of the combustibles in the wreckage burned anywhere near the melting point of construction grade steel beams (2800 °F). ...the smoldering fires for the most part were oxygen-starved.
There is no way to avoid the conclusion that the molten materials under the wreckage, as well as the smoldering fires, were a residual product of whatever caused the collapse of the WTC. Something on September 11, 2001 burned hot enough to melt steel in the basement of both towers."
Hint-It wasn't run of the mill office fires doing that melting, even NIST admitted that most of the Kerosene was consumed by the initial fireball after impact of the planes.
"But as serious as these explosions and fires were, jet fuel simply does not burn with sufficient energy to melt steel***not even close."

"The fact is that jet fuel, which is essentially kerosene, will not burn in air in excess of about 1,000°C (1,832°F)***nowhere near the 2,800°F melting point of steel. Even this 1,000°C upper limit is very difficult to achieve, since, as Thomas Eagar pointed out, it requires the optimal mixing of fuel with oxygen during combustion, which can only be achieved in a laboratory."

The difference in a 200mph impact versus a 500mph impact is considerable. And there is no question that those impacts caused severe structural damage.

Back to the design for plane impact-
"Although the WTC's soaring lines gave the impression of a relatively light frame, in fact, the towers were extremely rugged, engineered to withstand hurricane-force winds and to survive a direct hit by a Boeing 707, the largest commercial jetliner of the day. In a 1993 interview the WTC's principal structural engineer, John Skilling, stated that prior to construction he performed an impact analysis of a 600 mph Boeing 707 impact, and concluded "that the building structure would still be there."[28]

"Frank A. Demartini, onsite manager during the construction of the WTC, seconded this view during a January 25, 2001 interview, in which he noted that the study involved "a fully loaded 707." Demartini even declared that "the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting."[30] Demartini kept an office in the North Tower and was last seen on 9/11 assisting evacuees on the 78th floor.[31] "

Sure there were multiple examples of erroneous reporting and speculation of how the steel turned into "licorice" or spaghetti or whatever but that has been shown to be false.
And you still don't comprehend that these fires were not hot enough to cause this huge tower to go from stable to instantaneous total descent ..fire does not work that way. Even FDNY firefighters radioed that they weren't that bad and in one instance called for 2 hoses to 'knock it down"
And explain the people standing in the gaping whole where the airliner entered? Were there fires? You bet your ass, but NOT enough to cause the rapid global descent in just a little over free fall acceleration.
So if the fires DID reach the temp point to cause this melting and pooling that burned for 3 months, it wasn't from normal office fire combustibles, and the melted steel Leslie Robertson and others talked about could not have come from that.


It seems people forget just how fucking massive they really were, and how the further down they went ..the bigger they got! Some people act like they should not have provided some resistance, and forget they only provided minimal resistance that resulted in the towers falling way faster then, given the physics, should have.
"In fact, the WTC had tremendous reserve capacity. An early article about the project in the Engineering News-Record declared that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2,000 percent before failure occurs."[33]"
The top structure descending into the lower portion would have been met with equal force initially, thus slowing the descent, and there was none! It collapsed just short of freefall.
The top portion fell right through the more robust lower portion almost unimpeded. Even a lowly high school physics teacher called NIST out on that.

"Because the NIST did not have the necessary facilities, it contracted Underwriter Laboratories to conduct a series of fire endurance tests on trusses like those in the WTC. (The recovered truss samples were too badly deformed during the collapse to test them directly, so NIST fabricated new trusses identical in design.) The purpose of the tests was to establish a baseline, and the results were surprising. Not one of the truss assemblies failed during a series of four tests, not even the truss sprayed with the minimum amount of fireproofing. "The floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for over two hours."[52]
The UL tests not only laid to rest the theory that the trusses were the cause of the collapse on 9/11, if anything, the tests demonstrated the fundamental soundness of the WTC truss design."

Even if they could not withstand that, you must still take into account the resistance the lower floors that were not structurally compromised at the time, and take into account the time it should have taken to achieve this total global collapse, compared to what we witnessed.
Each truss assembly-concrete floor behaved as a single unit.
NIST has neglected the law of conservation of momentum by not explaining how the huge mass of the building provided virtually no resistance at all to the upper part of the building.
Also the problem with the puny truss theory is that one can clearly see "that during each collapse, perimeter columns and other structural members didn't simply fall to the ground. In many cases they were ejected up and out of the disintegrating structure at nearly a 45 degree angle: a cascade that hurled steel beams weighing 20 tons or more as much as 600 feet from the base of the buildings."

You can't even add those massive pieces of the towers that were ejected and PULVERIZED and claim they contributed to the weight smashing down on the lower portion..because they were...ejected away from them and fucking turned to dust!


Have you bothered to watch any videos of the WTC7 before it fell down in a heap? Seriously "multiple fires" on " multiple floors"?
"Enough to cause such an implosion like collapse? BS.
Besides omitting and otherwise falsifying evidence, NIST also committed the type of scientific fraud called fabrication, which means simply “making up results.”[49]
They lied about the shear studs, and the fires and what floors they were on and what time the 12th floor fire went OUT. They also lied about the lack of freefall acceleration until called out on it and still haven't had the balls to come back and try to explain THAT, nor give up their computer data for others to try and replicate!

And by what I have seen, fires can cause buildings to fail. I think the Delft building is a good example of that. As is the building in Madrid that is usually used to show that buildings don't collapse in a fire. But if you look at all the photos of that, you'll see that the unprotected structural steel collapsed while the steel reinforced concrete was left supporting the building.

Of course fires can cause buildings to fail, but not fucking implode in on themselves producing 2.25 secs of fucking freefall!
Have you read about the Madrid fire? Do you realize how long the motherfucker burned? And yet..still DID NOT IMPLODE OR COLLAPSE TOTALLY TO THE FUCKING GROUND.
NIST has not explained anything, in fact they lied their asses off and distorted facts, and data. Have you not read ANY rebuttals that counter NISTS claims?

So, as far as WTC7 goes, until there is proof that something other than fires did it, that's what I am going to believe. If evidence ever comes to light that something else occurred, I'll change my stance.

The people that were charged with finding out let you me and everyone else down miserably. I'm not out to convince you only to recommend that you seriously read with an open mind and some courage what many credible experts, FDNY and other witnesses say about the events of that day, in particular the physics experts explain the various laws that NIST did not take into account, and how steel loses its strength and how long it takes.

Dead On Arrival
Official theory of 9/11 WTC tower near-free-fall collapses violates Laws of Physics - a knol by Michael Fullerton
Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight: The 9/11 "Official Story" and the Collapse of WTC Building Seven
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

as always,I CANT SEE THE LIGHT gets his ass handed to him on a platter and can only sling shit in defeat like the monkey troll he is and is doing now. They sure pay these agents well the way they constantly keep coming back for their constant ass beatings.

 

[candycorn]

You'll find that trying to reason with I CANT SEE THE LIGHT on this that he knows nothing at all about the laws of physics that every junior high school kid learns at that age,and doesnt understand that buildings dont fall downwards at free fall speed in 11 seconds due to structural failure. that they come down GRADUALLY over a period of time. He also ignores that NIST was caught lying saying there was no molten pools of metal found when many credible people spoke of finding molten pools of metal.

excellent point,well said.I did not see any kind of kink in there on that inferiour building either and like you said,did not see it fall with any semblance of symmetry that the towers fell either.I also did not see any squibs in that building indicating charges were planted nor did I see any steel girders with immense weight being thrown out and landing several blocks away . Nor do you have firemen experienced and familair with explosives being used in buildings saying there that explosives were planted like they did on 9/11.

Most importantly,all that did was prove that Im right that buildings dont fall downwards at freefall speed.from that pitiful video,all I CANT SEE THE LIGHT proved,was that PARTS of a building can come down but not the entire structure at the same time in the fact that at least half of that building was still standing,the entire structure did not collapse and dissapear.you can still see part of the structure still standing after that.Boy you hit the nail right on the head,miserable fucking fail is right. See how he always fails and desperatly starts grasping at straws when getting his ass handed to him on a platter?
see what Im talking about now about this character?


He also of course ignores the facts that Bush and Cheney proffited immensely from these attacks as did Silverstein and doesnt want to believe it that professors in universitys that if they dont go along with the coverup,they'll get fired like Steven Jones did for speaking the truth.None of this stuff registers with him as you will find out if you try and reason with him.You'll find out that that he only see's what he wants to see.

you would think that after all the ass beatings he has got on this thread he would be too embarrased to come back here when all he does is help prove my point for me in his posts.

Nice DODGE!
Can't respond to me directly, huh?

Obviously Mr Jones and I disagree about what happened. But at least he is offering up some information to back-up his opinion.

What have you got?...........oh right........"someone farted in here".......very applicable to the conversation.

Obviously you're wasting your time with paulitician/rimjob.

Mr. Jones is also a lost cause and cannot synthesize a defense for his beliefs beyond "watch the video" which is no defense at all.

The official pictures taken by the NYPD show building 7 missing up to 18 floors at one corner due to the collapse of the World Trade Centers as well as a raging fire profile. Obviously the building would have not stood regardless of the fires but the weakened structure fell more quickly due to the fires in the building.

As for WTC 1 and 2, you're spot on correct; they withstood the building impact but the exposed steel and the fires caused the collapse of the structure. All of this has been explained time and again to the pair of fools you're addressing. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them think.

Bears Repeating.