Declassified Military Documents Show How US Government Planned Terrorist Attacks Against its Own Citizens

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: straightalker
fell into their own footprints

How else would the buildings collapse? Why would it fall sidewise, or any other way? Gravity acts directly downward so what force would pull the building any where except in their own foot print?

at freefall speed within what?

Very simple impact dynamics. If you drop an object from an infinitesimal height the force of its impact will be twice its weight. Therefore, dropping an object from any higher than a very small height will create a load of more than twice the weight of the object. A typical factor of safety on a building is less than 1.5. Therefore as soon as a large part of the building falls on another part the structure is going to fail instantaneously upon impact.

When in the past 100 years not one skyscraper has ever collapsed like that due to fire. Let's do the math. 100 years none. 1 day 3.

How many of the other skyscraper fires where combined with MASSIVE structural damage? None! When you knock out structural support the load isn't distributed evenly over the remaining supports. You end up with beams that are carrying far more load than they were ever designed to carry, then you anneal and soften them with fire making the situation worse.

You also have the effect of thermal expansion. If a beam is heated, it expands. If there is something keeping it from expanding it adds massive stresses to the beam. For example take the floor trusses into account. In the WTC they linked the outer structure to the core. These trusses heat up, expand, and press outwards on the outside columns, adding a massive bending moment to the columns. The trusses also add buckling nodes to the columns, you remove/weaken those floor trusses and the outer columns are much more likely to buckle.


Next, let?s consider how professional demolishing actually works. They knock out much of the structural support on a handful of floors, causing the building to fall on top of itself, within its own foot print at free fall speed.

At the WTC a lot of the structure was knocked out by the aircraft and the remaining support couldn't handle the load while being weakened by fire. Causing a couple floors to fail, which resulted in a chain reaction on every floor impacted by the falling mass.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: Aelius
Even on the most basic level nothing could have melted steel and created a river of steel at ground zero.

Jet Fuel can burn up to 2300K or 3680F, if you dont believe me, do the calculation yourself, it is very easy.

Steel can melt at a temperaute as low as 1153C or 2107F, depending on percentage of carbon Steel Phase Diagram It also always anneals at 1340F.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: straightalker
Larry ?Lucky Larry? Silverstein

This article is for truthseekers and not liars.

The dishonest statement that Larry meant to say "get the firemen out of there" when he said "pull it" disregards the rest of the entire statement and the reality of the completely impossioble odds that 3 skyscrapers fell into their own footprints at freefall speed within what?... 8 hours of each other?

3 fell in 8 to 10 hours or whatever. When in the past 100 years not one skyscraper has ever collapsed like that due to fire. Let's do the math. 100 years none. 1 day 3.

Lucky Larry said this...

"I remember getting a call from the...er...fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

"Pull it" is a commonly used demolition term. It means conducting the actual sequence of explosions that comprise what a controlled demolition is. WTC 7 was a controlled demolition no question about it. The entire building symetrically falls like it was sucked straight into the ground. The entire roof dips inwards. We see the shock waves of the explosions rippling through the entire structure. Witnesses at the scene, just as at the two WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers, reported "boom" "boom""boom" "boom""boom" "boom".

These facts are a demolition of the official 9-11 "truth commisions" tinfoil hat conspiracy theory that 19 radical muslims destroyed all three WTC buildings. Remember that commision? The one they tried to hire Henry Kissinger to lead?

So ask the question. Why is there such a massive coverup about 9-11. Ignore the liars. Think on your own.

I always knew you were one of them...too funny a someone named straightalker being one of then...tin foil hat and all...rofl

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: Aelius
Even on the most basic level nothing could have melted steel and created a river of steel at ground zero.

Jet Fuel can burn up to 2300K or 3680F, if you dont believe me, do the calculation yourself, it is very easy.

Steel can melt at a temperaute as low as 1153C or 2107F, depending on percentage of carbon Steel Phase Diagram It also always anneals at 1340F.

I don't doubt you but according to their own report the temp never reached the melting point at any given time. So either I'm right and the report is BS or the report is right and it's still BS. FUBAR

 

[imported_dna]

I don't know, too many experts here commenting about the WTC, and how the planes didn't cause it to collapse.

Fact is that this is the first time that you had airliners loaded with fuel crash into buildings, hence you could not have been prepared for it. Sure, simulations will get you pretty far, but having the "real thing" to analyze is a different thing. The Empire State was hit by a B-25, but that building is made of concrete, while the towers are described as hollow tubes; I'm sure that if they built them like the Empire State then they would've survived, but then again, they wouldn't be as cheap or easy to build.

Also, if anyone of you conspiracy theorist saw the state of WTC2 after the plane crash, you should've realized the situation wasn't good: it looked like someone carved out a good part of it. I remember thinking to myself at the time "this building is not going to last", and, indeed, after a short while the structure gave out, the top part leaned a bit to the side (due to that area carved out), but then went straight down (gravity).

Perhaps you people have seen too many movies where buildings fall down like a trees -- well, maybe that could happen if the building maintain its structural integrity, while withsdanding the immense lateral force required to accomplish such a feat.

Did you really expect them to list like the leaning tower of Pisa?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Even on the most basic level nothing could have melted steel and created a river of steel at ground zero.

The report flew in the face of that fact and it blows a hole wide enough to make the report suspect at best, a conspiracy at worst. You can't even assume incompetence since nobody is that stupid. Period, end of argument.

You are missing a key point Aelius, the steel did not have to melt.
As I pointed out:
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F,"
"NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. "

Imagine a 1000 feet tall building, has anyone even been close to something that tall?, now imagine it losses 50% of its strength. At that point it doesn't take much to make it all fall down.

All look at the design for WTC 1&2. They were hallow boxes with long beams from the inner hallow box to the outer wall. All the strength that held the building up was the inner box and outer box. If either of these boxes lost its ability to hold up just ONE floor the whole thing would compact one level on top of the next.

The entire building does not have to lose its abilty to stand, just one small floor.
Watch this video taken from the base of WTC 2 and you see it falling from the top down, there is no damage at all to the lower floors.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2GJ_JlUQjt8

The puffs of smoke that some people claim are explosions are caused by the air inside the building escaping. A 1000 foot tall building is going to be filled with a LOT of air, when the building starts to collapse all that air will try to exit any way it can. Some of it went out through windows in the side of the building.
Here is an experiment for those who don't believe me. Take a paper bag, place a cup of flour inside it. Now blow it up nice and big, now pop it and watch what happens to the flour.

Ps. Don't do this inside or else your mom will beat you.

 

[alchemize]

Hey look, another stupid 9/11 conspiracy thread.
And also a repost.

Mods sleeping?

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Aelius

Even on the most basic level nothing could have melted steel and created a river of steel at ground zero.

The report flew in the face of that fact and it blows a hole wide enough to make the report suspect at best, a conspiracy at worst. You can't even assume incompetence since nobody is that stupid. Period, end of argument.

You are missing a key point Aelius, the steel did not have to melt.
As I pointed out:
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F,"
"NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F. "

Imagine a 1000 feet tall building, has anyone even been close to something that tall?, now imagine it losses 50% of its strength. At that point it doesn't take much to make it all fall down.

All look at the design for WTC 1&2. They were hallow boxes with long beams from the inner hallow box to the outer wall. All the strength that held the building up was the inner box and outer box. If either of these boxes lost its ability to hold up just ONE floor the whole thing would compact one level on top of the next.

The entire building does not have to lose its abilty to stand, just one small floor.
Watch this video taken from the base of WTC 2 and you see it falling from the top down, there is no damage at all to the lower floors.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2GJ_JlUQjt8

The puffs of smoke that some people claim are explosions are caused by the air inside the building escaping. A 1000 foot tall building is going to be filled with a LOT of air, when the building starts to collapse all that air will try to exit any way it can. Some of it went out through windows in the side of the building.
Here is an experiment for those who don't believe me. Take a paper bag, place a cup of flour inside it. Now blow it up nice and big, now pop it and watch what happens to the flour.

Ps. Don't do this inside or else your mom will beat you.

I command you. That's twice you wrote a very logical reply to make it sound like you are right while completely ignoring the undisputable fact I mentioned. Unless you can prove otherwise your argument holds no merit.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Aelius

Even on the most basic level nothing could have melted steel and created a river of steel at ground zero.

The report flew in the face of that fact and it blows a hole wide enough to make the report suspect at best, a conspiracy at worst. You can't even assume incompetence since nobody is that stupid. Period, end of argument.

...

I command you. That's twice you wrote a very logical reply to make it sound like you are right while completely ignoring the undisputable fact I mentioned. Unless you can prove otherwise your argument holds no merit.

What "undisputable fact"? I think it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the steel did not have to "melt" in order to lead to structural problems.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: laFiera

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: laFiera

thanks for the other link..i will do more reading since I havent informed myself much into this other event....might even get the book from that dude....You do mention somethin gabout the ships being silent; on that link i provided the author of the book who is being interviewed claims the following:

Thanks, do I get a

About the buildings collapsing---not sure what 3 specific buildings the post is about, however is interesting to note Silverstein(leaseholder of WTC) made the following comment about building 7:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

2 years later the company came out and said that silverstein meant to pull the firefighters, not the building! .So do you think he pull the building or it, firefighters!
Do a search in youtube for his actual words if you dont believe what i have pasted above. Silverstein and building 7.

I have read and studies the Silversteen quote and he does say something along the lines of "pull it" Do some more digging and you will see that "pull it" a common fire fighting term used in reference to pulling out of a building.
Fire fighter: "Sir the house is about to fall down cause of the fire"
Fire Cheif: "Ok, pull it"

I think this is a case of two terms being mixed up, as "pull it" is also used in descriping the demolition of a building as well. I think Silversteen, or the fire cheif, made a bad choice of words, or more likely used the correct term without even knowing that it was related to demolition.
I can't imagine that there was this ragging fire and that they were some how able to get explosives into the building in order to "pull it" Also, if it was as planned demo, how come none of the explosives didn't go off cause of the fire. We see no evidence of bombs blowing up, but a fire that large would have caused some of them to blow up. Watch videos of chain reaction explossions and you can clearly see one going off after another.

hehe! no cookie man! i ate them all! i loveee cookies!!
Alright...
I do remember reading there were no firefighters in building 7, as they had been evacuated earlier in the day; do you know otherwise? also, from what I have also read, these 3 buildings were the only steel frame high rise buildings in the history of the world which have collapsed under severe fire. Also, i dont know about the raging fire...is been a while since ive seen the pics, but the only fires in building 7 were on the southeast wall; and that fire from the pics, were on two floors(5 and 7); so most likely the explosives didnt go off cause the fires were not close enough to them? heheheh I'm not an explosive expert, but hell, im just going by common sense. One thing is clear dude, no raging fire, unless there was one,and I totally missed it. Now fema did say the following:
Specifically, FEMA made these findings:

?Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.?

However dont u find it interesting that the windsor building in madrid burned for 24 hours and it didnt collapse like building 7? How is that explained??? maybe the steel frame in building 7 wasn't of good quality? Next time i hope they import them from Madrid! alright, outta here for the weekend....let me know other interesting points you got and ill take a look at them!

I have a special on tin foil hats today-- buy 2 get 1 free....lolol

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: laFiera

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: laFiera

thanks for the other link..i will do more reading since I havent informed myself much into this other event....might even get the book from that dude....You do mention somethin gabout the ships being silent; on that link i provided the author of the book who is being interviewed claims the following:

Thanks, do I get a

About the buildings collapsing---not sure what 3 specific buildings the post is about, however is interesting to note Silverstein(leaseholder of WTC) made the following comment about building 7:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

2 years later the company came out and said that silverstein meant to pull the firefighters, not the building! .So do you think he pull the building or it, firefighters!
Do a search in youtube for his actual words if you dont believe what i have pasted above. Silverstein and building 7.

I have read and studies the Silversteen quote and he does say something along the lines of "pull it" Do some more digging and you will see that "pull it" a common fire fighting term used in reference to pulling out of a building.
Fire fighter: "Sir the house is about to fall down cause of the fire"
Fire Cheif: "Ok, pull it"

I think this is a case of two terms being mixed up, as "pull it" is also used in descriping the demolition of a building as well. I think Silversteen, or the fire cheif, made a bad choice of words, or more likely used the correct term without even knowing that it was related to demolition.
I can't imagine that there was this ragging fire and that they were some how able to get explosives into the building in order to "pull it" Also, if it was as planned demo, how come none of the explosives didn't go off cause of the fire. We see no evidence of bombs blowing up, but a fire that large would have caused some of them to blow up. Watch videos of chain reaction explossions and you can clearly see one going off after another.

hehe! no cookie man! i ate them all! i loveee cookies!!
Alright...
I do remember reading there were no firefighters in building 7, as they had been evacuated earlier in the day; do you know otherwise? also, from what I have also read, these 3 buildings were the only steel frame high rise buildings in the history of the world which have collapsed under severe fire. Also, i dont know about the raging fire...is been a while since ive seen the pics, but the only fires in building 7 were on the southeast wall; and that fire from the pics, were on two floors(5 and 7); so most likely the explosives didnt go off cause the fires were not close enough to them? heheheh I'm not an explosive expert, but hell, im just going by common sense. One thing is clear dude, no raging fire, unless there was one,and I totally missed it. Now fema did say the following:
Specifically, FEMA made these findings:

?Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.?

However dont u find it interesting that the windsor building in madrid burned for 24 hours and it didnt collapse like building 7? How is that explained??? maybe the steel frame in building 7 wasn't of good quality? Next time i hope they import them from Madrid! alright, outta here for the weekend....let me know other interesting points you got and ill take a look at them!

I have a special on tin foil hats today-- buy 2 get 1 free....lolol

The 9/11 conspiracy folks need way more tin-foil than that. And maybe while we're at it we could get them a discount on some physics and engineering classes. Unfortunitly the common sense they'll have to find themselves...

 

[KlokWyze]

The 9/11 conspiracy folks need way more tin-foil than that. And maybe while we're at it we could get them a discount on some physics and engineering classes. Unfortunitly the common sense they'll have to find themselves...

I love this one. I am a "nut" because I don't believe 2 aluminum planes and jet fuel brought down 2 steel buildings built to withstand the impact of aircraft. If 51% of Americans believed the truth you guys would INSTANTLY change your opinions on this. No question. The "conspiracy nut" attack is plain and simple dissension. We mention peices of scientific evidence that doesn't fit with your comfortable idea of reality.

Believing that 19 arabs from ACCROSS the globe brought down steel buildings with aluminum planes in the most ADVANCED AIR DEFENSE GRID ON EARTH because they hate our freedom laugh then... well that is up to you.

Let me ask you one thing: Innocent people are being worked to death in slave camps in North Korea. Why aren't you guys going over there and attacking them??? But you believe some arabs suicide bombed us because they "hate our freedom". You are a fool.

How about you geniuses address these issues:

current state of US foreign policy
our OBIVOUS PRO-ISRAEL policies
insane military budget
geographic position of the world's oil reserves/geogrphic position of the countries we invaded/plan to invade
national deficit
one-sided mainstream media
highest levels of government LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH CONSTANTLY
evidence of past false flag operations
# of innocent Iraqi civilians dead
afghan opium boom
trillions of $$$ unnaccounted for
slow erosion of our civil liberties
obvious demolition of all 3 WTC buildings(you can ignore this one)
the laughable 9/11 commissions "independence"

good luck.

 

[alchemize]

Look, it's thermite!
OMG look at the intense heat required to change the structure!

Looks like KlokWyze is the latest to join the whack-a-mole tinfoil gallery.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze
I love this one. I am a "nut" because I don't believe 2 aluminum planes and jet fuel brought down 2 steel buildings built to withstand the impact of aircraft.

Yep. This may help you: "Only the containment building at a nuclear power plant" is designed to withstand such an impact and explosion, says Robert S. Vecchio, principal of metallurgical engineer Lucius Pitkin Inc., referring to the hijacked Boeing 767 airplanes, heavy with fuel, that slammed into each WTC tower."

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze

The 9/11 conspiracy folks need way more tin-foil than that. And maybe while we're at it we could get them a discount on some physics and engineering classes. Unfortunitly the common sense they'll have to find themselves...

I love this one. I am a "nut" because I don't believe 2 aluminum planes and jet fuel brought down 2 steel buildings built to withstand the impact of aircraft. If 51% of Americans believed the truth you guys would INSTANTLY change your opinions on this. No question. The "conspiracy nut" attack is plain and simple dissension. We mention peices of scientific evidence that doesn't fit with your comfortable idea of reality.

For the love of god, learn something about imapct dynamics before you make another post on this subject.
A piece of foam weighing ~2lb caused fatal damage to Columbia. This is a piece of foam you could punch through with your bare hands. A small piece of rock from space can cause a carter 100s of times its size. If an aircraft flies into a small bird ~2 lbs, it can cause 10s of thousands of dollars of damage. If one is sucked through an engine, made out of titanium, it can destory the compressor blades. A bullet made of lead (very soft) traveling at high speed can penatrate armor.

Before the planes hit the towers they had roughly 40MJ of energy, if all that energy was stopped in one second that become 40MW of power acting on the building at the instant of impact. The fuel on board the aircraft had 792GJ of chemical energy. BTW: A stick of dynamite has ~300kJ of energy.

BTW: The building did withstand the impact of the aircraft, the impact, however, it weakened the structure to the point that it could not withstand the post impact fire.

 

[morkinva]

Do you believe any 9/11 conspiracy theories?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze

The 9/11 conspiracy folks need way more tin-foil than that. And maybe while we're at it we could get them a discount on some physics and engineering classes. Unfortunitly the common sense they'll have to find themselves...

I love this one. I am a "nut" because I don't believe 2 aluminum planes and jet fuel brought down 2 steel buildings built to withstand the impact of aircraft. If 51% of Americans believed the truth you guys would INSTANTLY change your opinions on this. No question. The "conspiracy nut" attack is plain and simple dissension. We mention peices of scientific evidence that doesn't fit with your comfortable idea of reality.

Believing that 19 arabs from ACCROSS the globe brought down steel buildings with aluminum planes in the most ADVANCED AIR DEFENSE GRID ON EARTH because they hate our freedom laugh then... well that is up to you.

Let me ask you one thing: Innocent people are being worked to death in slave camps in North Korea. Why aren't you guys going over there and attacking them??? But you believe some arabs suicide bombed us because they "hate our freedom". You are a fool.

How about you geniuses address these issues:

current state of US foreign policy
our OBIVOUS PRO-ISRAEL policies
insane military budget
geographic position of the world's oil reserves/geogrphic position of the countries we invaded/plan to invade
national deficit
one-sided mainstream media
highest levels of government LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH CONSTANTLY
evidence of past false flag operations
# of innocent Iraqi civilians dead
afghan opium boom
trillions of $$$ unnaccounted for
slow erosion of our civil liberties
obvious demolition of all 3 WTC buildings(you can ignore this one)
the laughable 9/11 commissions "independence"

good luck.

Whoa there chief, I think you're very confused about my world views. Just because I happen to agree with JEDIYoda on THIS particular topic doesn't mean I'm in his political camp, he'll be the first to tell you we are hardly ideological buddies (hell, search P&N if you don't believe me). I'm against our general stance in the Middle East with regard to Israel, I think we need to do something about our national debt, I'm not a big Bush supporter (to put it mildly), I'm VERY concerned about our civil liberties, I don't think the invasion of Iraq was a wise move and I'm the LAST person to go with the ideological crowd, in fact, when the majority of Americans start agreeing with me, I tend to step back and reconsider my position.

However, I have developed those ideals through a rational and reasonable approach to the world around me, and 9/11 is no exception. I suggest you need physics and engineering training because I have both, and most of the people who DO have such training believe that the attacks could certainly have happened the way the "official story" suggests. There IS no "scientific evidence" to contradict the story, and quite a bit to support it. The conspiracy theories, without exception, seem to come from people unfamiliar with the fields involved in the attacks, from military knowledge to intelligence knowledge to scientific knowledge. Your assertion that aluminum planes and jet fuel can't bring down buildings like the WTC and the assertions of others that steel has to "melt" to cause structural collapse do nothing to contradict my view of your side of the debate.

Think about it this way...you CLEARLY have a reason to want to believe the government was behind 9/11, and so do the vast majority of the people pushing such theories. Yet I am about the last person who would be defending the Bush administration because I wanted to, I have no motivation for doing this other than the fact that I think it's the truth. You want to blow off what I'm saying, be my guest, but I really think you should think about it for a second...

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Aelius

Even on the most basic level nothing could have melted steel and created a river of steel at ground zero.

The report flew in the face of that fact and it blows a hole wide enough to make the report suspect at best, a conspiracy at worst. You can't even assume incompetence since nobody is that stupid. Period, end of argument.

...

I command you. That's twice you wrote a very logical reply to make it sound like you are right while completely ignoring the undisputable fact I mentioned. Unless you can prove otherwise your argument holds no merit.

What "undisputable fact"? I think it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the steel did not have to "melt" in order to lead to structural problems.

Well I'm happy to see that he was not the only person who the main point is lost on. I suspect there are a few dozen million other tax payers who also missed the point.

I was hoping that I wouldn't need to resort to the slideshow approach but...

Official Report = not hot enough to melt steel
Eye witness testimony = river of steel at base of WTC

Since nobody is stupid enough to miss this point there are but two options.

A: Eye witness' are right and the official report is suspect.

B: The official report is right and the dozens of eye witness' working at ground zero are suspect.

Since there is no logical reason for anyone willing to risk their health and even death to help strangers out of pure selflessness to lie and since they have nothing personal to gain one might observe that those responsible for the report do not fit into that category. Since both cannot be right you must choose.

Locking out fire experts and replacing them with intellectuals, you know the guys who do this for a living for 20 or 30+ years, notwithstanding I had an observation that I would now like to share. That observation is that the offical report, the one backed by the government, is full of sh!t.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Aelius

Even on the most basic level nothing could have melted steel and created a river of steel at ground zero.

The report flew in the face of that fact and it blows a hole wide enough to make the report suspect at best, a conspiracy at worst. You can't even assume incompetence since nobody is that stupid. Period, end of argument.

...

I command you. That's twice you wrote a very logical reply to make it sound like you are right while completely ignoring the undisputable fact I mentioned. Unless you can prove otherwise your argument holds no merit.

What "undisputable fact"? I think it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the steel did not have to "melt" in order to lead to structural problems.

Well I'm happy to see that he was not the only person who the main point is lost on. I suspect there are a few dozen million other tax payers who also missed the point.

I was hoping that I wouldn't need to resort to the slideshow approach but...

Official Report = not hot enough to melt steel
Eye witness testimony = river of steel at base of WTC

Since nobody is stupid enough to miss this point there are but two options.

A: Eye witness' are right and the official report is suspect.

B: The official report is right and the dozens of eye witness' working at ground zero are suspect.

Since there is no logical reason for anyone willing to risk their health and even death to help strangers out of pure selflessness to lie and since they have nothing personal to gain one might observe that those responsible for the report do not fit into that category. Since both cannot be right you must choose.

Locking out fire experts and replacing them with intellectuals, you know the guys who do this for a living for 20 or 30+ years, notwithstanding I had an observation that I would now like to share. That observation is that the offical report, the one backed by the government, is full of sh!t.

If you are talking about melted steel durring the clean up, as I said jet fuel can burn very hot, and when there is little air it will be very close to its adiabatic flame temperature (max. temp) so it would be more than hot enough to melt the steel.

If you are talking about while the buildings were still standing, I say the eye witnesses are full of crap, as eye witnesses usually are. There are many studies on how worthless eye witnesses are.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Aelius

Even on the most basic level nothing could have melted steel and created a river of steel at ground zero.

The report flew in the face of that fact and it blows a hole wide enough to make the report suspect at best, a conspiracy at worst. You can't even assume incompetence since nobody is that stupid. Period, end of argument.

...

I command you. That's twice you wrote a very logical reply to make it sound like you are right while completely ignoring the undisputable fact I mentioned. Unless you can prove otherwise your argument holds no merit.

What "undisputable fact"? I think it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the steel did not have to "melt" in order to lead to structural problems.

Well I'm happy to see that he was not the only person who the main point is lost on. I suspect there are a few dozen million other tax payers who also missed the point.

I was hoping that I wouldn't need to resort to the slideshow approach but...

Official Report = not hot enough to melt steel
Eye witness testimony = river of steel at base of WTC

Since nobody is stupid enough to miss this point there are but two options.

A: Eye witness' are right and the official report is suspect.

B: The official report is right and the dozens of eye witness' working at ground zero are suspect.

Since there is no logical reason for anyone willing to risk their health and even death to help strangers out of pure selflessness to lie and since they have nothing personal to gain one might observe that those responsible for the report do not fit into that category. Since both cannot be right you must choose.

Locking out fire experts and replacing them with intellectuals, you know the guys who do this for a living for 20 or 30+ years, notwithstanding I had an observation that I would now like to share. That observation is that the offical report, the one backed by the government, is full of sh!t.

Eyewitness testimony is about the least accurate way to gather information ever devised. I don't believe they are "suspect", I believe they are mistaken. Interviews with many eyewitnesses, even experts in their field, after 9/11 reveal a shocking number of contradictions in their recollections. Maybe it's just me, but that gives me some doubts about simply taking their word for it. Anybody who's worked in law enforcement or intelligence will tell you that eyewitnesses are not a very good source of detailed information.

But I'm curious about this "river of steel" comment...you keep repeating it, but I have yet to see a reasonable link proving anybody really made this statement. I find it particularly suspect since I can't think of ANY explanation that would allow for steel at the base of the site to be totally melted to the point where it was actually flowing around...which you seem to imply from your usage of the alleged quotes.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Zorba

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Aelius

Even on the most basic level nothing could have melted steel and created a river of steel at ground zero.

The report flew in the face of that fact and it blows a hole wide enough to make the report suspect at best, a conspiracy at worst. You can't even assume incompetence since nobody is that stupid. Period, end of argument.

...

I command you. That's twice you wrote a very logical reply to make it sound like you are right while completely ignoring the undisputable fact I mentioned. Unless you can prove otherwise your argument holds no merit.

What "undisputable fact"? I think it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the steel did not have to "melt" in order to lead to structural problems.

Well I'm happy to see that he was not the only person who the main point is lost on. I suspect there are a few dozen million other tax payers who also missed the point.

I was hoping that I wouldn't need to resort to the slideshow approach but...

Official Report = not hot enough to melt steel
Eye witness testimony = river of steel at base of WTC

Since nobody is stupid enough to miss this point there are but two options.

A: Eye witness' are right and the official report is suspect.

B: The official report is right and the dozens of eye witness' working at ground zero are suspect.

Since there is no logical reason for anyone willing to risk their health and even death to help strangers out of pure selflessness to lie and since they have nothing personal to gain one might observe that those responsible for the report do not fit into that category. Since both cannot be right you must choose.

Locking out fire experts and replacing them with intellectuals, you know the guys who do this for a living for 20 or 30+ years, notwithstanding I had an observation that I would now like to share. That observation is that the offical report, the one backed by the government, is full of sh!t.

If you are talking about melted steel durring the clean up, as I said jet fuel can burn very hot, and when there is little air it will be very close to its adiabatic flame temperature (max. temp) so it would be more than hot enough to melt the steel.

If you are talking about while the buildings were still standing, I say the eye witnesses are full of crap, as eye witnesses usually are. There are many studies on how worthless eye witnesses are.

Let me put it another way. Your own official report says you are wrong yet you stand by it. There is nothing more to discuss.

The only error I made is not providing a 3rd option. I'll chalk it up to lack of sleep.

Both are right. Neither did the temp reach temps high enough to melt steel, as your own official report says, and the eye witness' saw a river of steel at the base of the WTC. If I'm not mistaken it lasted over a week before it cooled, but I'm hazy on this detail.

 

[imported_Aelius]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Aelius

Originally posted by: Aelius

Even on the most basic level nothing could have melted steel and created a river of steel at ground zero.

The report flew in the face of that fact and it blows a hole wide enough to make the report suspect at best, a conspiracy at worst. You can't even assume incompetence since nobody is that stupid. Period, end of argument.

...

I command you. That's twice you wrote a very logical reply to make it sound like you are right while completely ignoring the undisputable fact I mentioned. Unless you can prove otherwise your argument holds no merit.

What "undisputable fact"? I think it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the steel did not have to "melt" in order to lead to structural problems.

Well I'm happy to see that he was not the only person who the main point is lost on. I suspect there are a few dozen million other tax payers who also missed the point.

I was hoping that I wouldn't need to resort to the slideshow approach but...

Official Report = not hot enough to melt steel
Eye witness testimony = river of steel at base of WTC

Since nobody is stupid enough to miss this point there are but two options.

A: Eye witness' are right and the official report is suspect.

B: The official report is right and the dozens of eye witness' working at ground zero are suspect.

Since there is no logical reason for anyone willing to risk their health and even death to help strangers out of pure selflessness to lie and since they have nothing personal to gain one might observe that those responsible for the report do not fit into that category. Since both cannot be right you must choose.

Locking out fire experts and replacing them with intellectuals, you know the guys who do this for a living for 20 or 30+ years, notwithstanding I had an observation that I would now like to share. That observation is that the offical report, the one backed by the government, is full of sh!t.

Eyewitness testimony is about the least accurate way to gather information ever devised. I don't believe they are "suspect", I believe they are mistaken. Interviews with many eyewitnesses, even experts in their field, after 9/11 reveal a shocking number of contradictions in their recollections. Maybe it's just me, but that gives me some doubts about simply taking their word for it. Anybody who's worked in law enforcement or intelligence will tell you that eyewitnesses are not a very good source of detailed information.

But I'm curious about this "river of steel" comment...you keep repeating it, but I have yet to see a reasonable link proving anybody really made this statement. I find it particularly suspect since I can't think of ANY explanation that would allow for steel at the base of the site to be totally melted to the point where it was actually flowing around...which you seem to imply from your usage of the alleged quotes.

Regardless it has been discussed here before. You are welcome to do a search and look at the links. Eye witness testimony says there was a river of steel at the base of the WTC.

The Offical Report says the jet fuel never reached steel's melting point at any given time.

Doesn't this strike anybody strange? Short of jackhammering it into your skull there is nothing more I can add.

 

[LEDominator]

The Offical Report says the jet fuel never reached steel's melting point at any given time.

When though. When the towers were still standing or when they had collapsed? Also, does anyone know if there were temperature measurements done on site at the base? That should put the whole issue to rest.

 

[LunarRay]

The Airline planes did hit the two towers.. not some radio controlled black ops planes..

All the dynamics regarding the towers and pentagon fit if you accept physics. The seismographic and sound evidence also fits.. if you look to the transfer of sound to the foundation at the start of the falls.. I buy all that as reasonable.. The testimony before the commission is ummmmm a bit tainted by 'cover yer butt' statements.. but also normal for the folks involved..

Nah.. no conspiracy in WTC, Pentagon or the Penn crash site...

BUT!! The SEC, FBI, SS and a myriad of other interesting folks lived in Bldg 7... That bldg bothers me greatly.. Nothing about the fall makes sense.. the chunk of bldg taken out of the corner would have been reason enough to raze it by experts.. to keep it from falling and destroying further assets.. but no one will fess up to that..
The load can shift when the corner can't support its load.. but, the redundant feature in that bldg would allow much more damage AND the structure almost cannot possibly fall in on itself.. The reason being the load transfer will continue as each structural support weakens but not in an uniform manner at some point it will come back to the initial support point and then the topple effect should occur.. you did not have the WTC 1 or 2 design issue with pancake effect... it is of different design.. even allowing for the diesel fuel under pressure heating stuff should also have burned stuff and the fires were localized and visible.. no additional fires than the two were noted nor were those two of any structural consequence..

Evidence not disputed of almost uniform structural beam length taken from the site worries me.. This bldg is also the only one that ironic samples of the steel were preserved albeit small but interesting pieces.. AND some interesting substances were found to be present in the steel at the cut points.. (or where they snapped or what ever they did to cease being one piece as installed) And there was that molten metal issue.. that don't really fit either but is explainable.. perhaps..

The only other worrisome issue about the entire WTC event is the 2nd impact delivered most of the fuel out side of WTC tower.. but it did cause more structural damage IMO than the first one..

I don't buy into the conspiracy theory on this at all... I do on Kennedy (John and Robert) but not this one.. Perhaps if Specter was Commission Counsel in this case too we'd find pristine documents of the bad guys on top of the rubble pile..

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Aelius
...

Regardless it has been discussed here before. You are welcome to do a search and look at the links. Eye witness testimony says there was a river of steel at the base of the WTC.

The Offical Report says the jet fuel never reached steel's melting point at any given time.

Doesn't this strike anybody strange? Short of jackhammering it into your skull there is nothing more I can add.

So, just so I have this right, I'm supposed to take the word of some random witnesses that nobody has provided any evidence to support (I did a quick google search and found NOTHING), the type of testimony that has proven to be innacurate time and time again and in this exact incident produced widely varying recollections of what occured, over every other piece of evidence out there? The only thing striking me as strange here is that, for some reason, you are clinging to the least reliable piece of "evidence" in the entire debate just because it fits with your preconceived view.