Back to the towers..

[quickesst]

Something that has been nagging at me for awhile. I am a construction worker, have been for about eighteen years or so if my stint at Arkansas Aluminum Alloys as a millwright counts. The aluminum in your Honda came from there. I know a little about melting metal, and my construction experience has taught me that what an engineer or an architect draws on a piece of paper does not always translate well in the field. Now, the official story is that raging fires softened the steel, which supposedly weakened the flooring, thereby causing a pancake effect. What I do know is that the floors for commercial buildings are constructed to hold much more than it's own weight. Why no stop and go due to resistance? Another observation. When I worked at aluminum alloys, we had "puddlers" which were long steel bars with a steel head to stir the aluminum during the smelting process. Well, I can tell you with certainty, those puddler heads and a portion of the bar were continually submerged in melted alluminum at1600+ degree heat 24/7, and guess what? I could walk up to the bar and grab it with my bare hand all the way from the end to where it meets the furnace. What I'm getting at is this. Those so-called raging fires may have heated up the steel in the immediate area, and it may have knocked off some of the fire proofing with a direct hit(stuff sticks to steel really well), but I guarantee you the floors at a minimum of two floors down did not soften due to heat from the fires ABOVE them. Try telling me again that the steel below the fires was softened enough to cause a straight down-in it's own footprint descent. That building should have wrenched and twisted because of the building's strength in the bottom floors and the massive pylons below the basement. I'll never buy the "softened steel theory". Just a personal observation. Thanks.
quickesst

[salvorhardin]

1. Translation

There are some things I don't understand, and I have some misconceptions therefore I conclude that I'm right and you can't tell me otherwise.

[libertypirate]

50. May I translate you

deny, discredit, distract....

So 18 years of being an expert to your ten seconds of being an ass.

[Hoping4Change]

89. Well said.

:applause:

[LARED]

109. quickesst did not claim to be an expert

Why do you claim he was?

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. The official explanation for the collapse of the towers

defies logic.

One more factor to consider. All of the floors were made by pouring cement into steel pans. So not only did you have steel beams but you also had steel pans under all the floors attached to the steel beams.

IMHO, the only way to bring these buildings down would have been with some sort of explosive device(s) that were place inside the core, probably in the elevator shafts.

BTW: Welcome to DU and try to ignore the smart asses.

[mirandapriestly]

3. Smart asses? I think you mean dumb asses.nt

[Debunking911]

4. You do not have the NIST final version

The conspiracy theory version of the NIST report is not the NIST reports version. They have been leaving things out. For instance, you say fires well below the impact could not have softened the steel. That's because this is a conspiracy theory straw man. The fires moved UP as most fires do in building fires which are unfought. Fire also traveled down with the jet fuel.

These buildings are unlike most other buildings so unless you get an airliner hitting the same type of high raise building you shouldn't see this happen again.

The pancaking was a result of the collapse and not what started it. That's another staw man.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/firsttime.htm

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/towers.htm

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/impact.htm

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fires.htm

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/sag.htm

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/collapse.htm

[quickesst]

6. MirandaPriestly and DoYouEverWonder....

thanks for the welcome. As you can see, I am still awaiting an intelligent reply from the opposition.B-) Thanks.
quickesst

[Sinti]

12. I'm sorry if this is persnickety, but

can you use a term other than straw man? You are incorrectly using this term and it's confusing to me.

A straw man, in simple terms, is an argument brought up specifically for the purpose of being shot down quickly. It's like putting words in someone else's mouth, and then saying they're lying. Dig?


Straw man argument:

The arguer makes up a proposition never offered by her opponent (usually weaker than the true proposition) and then attacks it as if his opponent had offered that proposition.

A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted.

[mirandapriestly]

13. IOW what the debunker's do all the time.nt

[Debunking911]

17. And this is what YOU seem to do all the time

You add nothing but insult. Insults are three legged stools for social midgets. If you would like to point out somewhere you feel I'm wrong then by all means do.

[DoYouEverWonder]

21. I think

you need to invest in a mirror.

[mirandapriestly]

23. It is true that you always misuse the term straw man

when it is something that you do yourself constantly. It's an observation not an insult. At least I don't link to my own site which is full of straw men (and misspelled words).
And if I read the words "logical fallacy" one more time...:puke:

[boastOne43]

31. sorry but the NIST report has already been proven inadequate

this was posted by zforce awhile back


========================================
The NIST had found themselves in quite a pickle after the NIST's Metallurgical Results had attested to temps of less than 250c in Oct of 2004. The reason: the findings had contradicted their initial findings that the steel was adequate (representative) for the needs of the investigation (whole technical investigation), and more importantly, at the same time the findings had contradicted their "Fire Weakening" hypothesis.

So what did the NIST do?

Magic.

They, with a slight of hand, had changed their "adequate steel sample" from being adequate for the investigation (whole), to it only being adequate in determining the quality of the steel (final report).

The NIST did this even though in June 2004, before the "Steel temperature results" the NIST had clearly stipulated..

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter2.pdf

The collection of steel from the WTC towers is adequate for purposes of NIST’s investigation (i.e., chemical, metallurgical, and mechanical property analyses as well as a substantial damage assessment and failure mode examination) to examine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the impact of the aircraft and ensuing fires.


As you can clearly see above, the NIST clearly states, the collection of steel was adequate for the needs of the investigation (whole) - Chemical, Metallurgical,and Mechanical property analyses as well as a substantial damage assessment and failure mode examination.

Moreover, the NIST details exactly what the Metallurgical Investigation consists of in other papers describing their investigation..

http://www.nist.gov/testimony/2002/wtcplan.html

Collection and Analysis of Forensic Evidence: structural steel, material specimens and other forensic evidence to the extent they have been collected or are otherwise available; metallurgical and mechanical analysis of steel to evaluate quality and estimate maximum temperatures; analysis of fire and elevator control panels.

Hence, "The collection of steel is considered adequate for the needs of the investigation above"

Just in case more evidence is needed to ascertain the details of the investigation...

http://www.aws.org/conferences/abst...4/papers/2A.pdf

NIST is implementing its technical plan to address these issues (see http://wtc.nist.gov/). A primary objective of the investigation is to determine why and how the towers collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft. As part of this investigation, the Materials Reliability and Metallurgy Divisions in MSEL are studying more than 200 structural steel pieces from the WTC site. Progress in this study is outlined here..............

.......Task 3: Property data to support studies of structure performance and airplane impact modeling. Fourteen grades of steel were specified in the design of the WTC towers. All grades have been characterized for room-temperature mechanical properties, and initial high-temperature test results are complete. Testing at high strain rate is underway to determine the effects of strain rate on the mechanical properties of the outer columns, the inner columns and the spandrels. Chemical composition and metallographic examinations have been completed on the majority of the steels. Creep, or time-temperature-dependent behavior of some steels will be studied after the high temperature properties are developed.........

Task 5: Metallographic analysis of steel to estimate temperature extremes. Microscopic, macroscopic and metallographic analyses are under way to determine the maximum temperature excursions seen by the steel.

Hence as was stated before regarding task's 3 and 5...

---The collection of steel is considered adequate for the needs of the investigation above"---

So, as you can clearly see, the Metallurgical aspect of the investigation which the steel was adequate for, had consisted both of determining quality, and determining steel temperatures.

Last but not least, lets turn to the NAIL in the coffin.
The "Nail in the coffin" is evidence of the fact that the NIST had actually discussed changing their initial findings from the steel being adequate for the investigation to it being adequate to only part of the investigation (determining quality).

Note, this discussion had taken place on the very same day the results of the steel being less than 250c had been presented - Oct 19th 2004.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncstmin_oct19-20.htm

C: As John Barsom said, the statement is not accurate. The validity of the model question from yesterday speaks to this issue. I do not believe that we have enough forensic evidence. It may be okay to establish steel quality. There was no effort by the Building Performance Study team to systematically look at the steel.

C: The use of the term “adequate” needs to be revisited. There is no core column test to support the hypothesis. The floors came down, the slabs were pulverized. This was unprecedented. Exterior columns and core remained. The floors group will attack this finding

In summary, the NIST had only focused on one, and only one conclusion throughout its entire investigation, and that one conclusion being the assumption that fires were the cause of the two buildings collapsing.

That is the sole reason the NIST had ignored the metallurgical analysis results of the WTC structural steel . Over and over again, the wtc steel indicated temps of less than 250c, which inturn naturally indicated fires not being the cause for the collapses, yet the NIST kept on with their assumptions and computer generated simulations via their assumptions, that the steel had attained temps of 550c, even though there was not one piece of metallurgical evidence in support thereof..even going so far as tweaking their initial findings of the steel being adequate to it being inadequate in the final report, thus bolstering their POS, lying computer generated garbage.

=======================================

[mrgerbik]

35. Consider.....

1) Steel framed buildings are purposely engineered with very high redundancy. It's the norm, and it's called "building code".

2) Reinforced concrete floors will not completely pulverize into an extremely fine dust when "pancaked" on to each other.

3) Welds in conjunction with bolts are much, much stronger then the actual steel they support. Thus "failing" joints due to (cool) fires is a ridiculous claim and simply won't happen.
4) Basic laws of nature won't allow a 100+ story building to collapse at near free fall speeds, all the way down. Where was the resistance in these collapses? Why didn't the collapses occur slower at the start and speed up as the floors piled up on each other and gain more and more energy?

5) Yellow hot molten steel doesn't appear, and remain for weeks under tons of rubble, after a building falls from a "pancaking" collapse.

6) Countless videos caught squibs of smoke ejecting from the buildings far below the area of "pressure". Even if these were "pressure" ejections of air, why would they only come from 1, 2 or 3 windows as observed, and not the ENTIRE floor as expected (I mean we are led to believe that there was enough kinetic energy to pulverize concrete into dust, melt steel, pull and rip apart huge steel columns and beams - all in 10-15 seconds - but somehow theres only enough air pressure under this mayhem to knock out a couple windows at a time?).

7) There was one observed white hot molten iron ejection (not aluminum - it appears silver no matter the temperature) caught on at least 2 videos, which look exactly like a thermite reaction.

8) Explosions were heard, felt and recorded. These occurred before and during the "global pancake collapse".

9) Why WTC2 collapsed first, even thou WTC1 had been burning for some time longer, and had been hit directly (the plane ejecting the fuel almost completely within the building). While WTC2 was hit at an oblique angle, blowing most of the jet fuel outside in a fireball and causing much more localized fires.

10) How the top of WTC1, while obviously following basic laws of physics, didn't topple over as one would expect but somehow came to fall into and through some 70 concrete and steel floors.

I'd like to add much more but there are just too many coincidences, connections and unexplained events of that day and I would like to keep this post short.
Minds in denial won't accept facts because, in their warped manufactured pseudo-reality, even when the evidence is right in their face, they simply cannot and do not allow them to exist. I guess because it would be to painful to face? I don't know. This was planned to happen, and the people are performing beautifully.
It's all bullshit, and I hope something happens soon before all this falls by the wayside and becomes a B-grade conspiracy flick.
I don't buy into this ridiculous $15,000,000, 4-year-in-the-waiting "investigation", and neither should you.

If it walks like a duck....

[mirandapriestly]

56. Excellent points all

but these debunkers find points that they can argue, then only focus on those narrow points, ignoring all the rest. :eyes:

[Christophera]

76. Oops! Forgot To Explain Free Fall-Can't Be True

But it is true that if an oject at rest has a relative rate of fall becase of its elevation and resistence to descent, that if it is moved upward the fall time will be greater.

Meaning,



That the average distance upward of particulate (forget explaining why it goes up) must be added to the overall height used to calculate the rate of fall with a corrected, interpolated vertical distance of fall.

Meaning in the final sense, ................. the towers fell at free fall or faster by just a little.

[mirandapriestly]

5. So are you saying that heat

doesn't conduct (is that the right word?) or transfer from the point of contact? That is very interesting, and it shouldn't be too hard to prove. If true that would make it unlikely that the metal "softened", wouldn't it? I might not have understood what you meant though.

[AZCat]

64. "Conduct" is the right word.

A quick primer on heat transfer.

There are three paths for heat transfer: conduction, convection and radiation.

Conduction is either heat transfer within a solid or heat transfer between two solids in contact.
Example: a sauce pan is heated by the electric burner of a stove.

Convection is heat transfer from a solid to a fluid (either liquid or gas).
Example: water in a sauce pan on a stove picks up heat from the hot surface of the pan (the bottom).

Radiation is produced by any substance with a temperature greater than absolute zero (everything we've ever encountered, even space, is above absolute zero). The amount of heat transfer between two surfaces depends on the temperatures of the surfaces and how much they can "see" each other.
Example: if you are standing outside, the sun only heats the parts of you that are exposed to sunlight.

Now in the case of the post to which you were responding, what matters is the rate of conduction through the substance in question (a steel bar). Some substances transfer heat more quickly than others. This is why a cement sidewalk can be warm long after the sun goes down. It has picked up heat throughout the whole day, but since it transfers heat very slowly it takes a long time to get rid of all that heat it gained when the sun was shining on it. With a long steel bar, it is possible for one end to be very hot and the other to be cool enough to touch because the rate of conduction through the bar allows for this thermal gradient. This can be problematic in weight-bearing systems because steel expands as it gets hot. When one end is hot (and therefore expanding) and the other end is not this can cause stress within the steel that can change its ability to support weight.



Fun stuff. :)

[mirandapriestly]

71. Thank you, it is fun

don't get radiation, though.

[AZCat]

111. I don't quite understand...

Are you saying that you don't understand radiation, or are you advising me to avoid radiation?

The latter I have little problem accomplishing, but I have lots of help from my employer - even with the approaching summer solstice I rarely glimpse the sun these days (ugh).

[mirandapriestly]

113. Oh, I mean, I don't get your definition of radiation

but, I guess also make sure you use sunscreen. Hehehheh

[AZCat]

130. You're not the only one.

I didn't get it for a long time, and I've had a number of thermodynamics classes. I'll try to break it down for you.

Radiation depends on this thing called "absolute temperature". Celsius and Fahrenheit are temperature scales that are relative to a particular point (the freezing point of water). This is why there can be negative temperatures on those two scales. Absolute temperature scales, however, have no negative values - they aren't possible because no substance can get colder than absolute zero. Two common scales are Kelvin (associated with Celsius) and Rankin (associated with Fahrenheit). 460 Rankin is 0 degrees Fahrenheit (notice the use of the word "degrees" with the relative scale but not with the absolute one).

I try to think of absolute temperature as a measure of how excited the molecules of a substance are. It's kind of like measuring the energy of a crowd of people - the more animated the crowd, the more the people bounce around (and the higher the temperature). When molecules get excited, they fling off little chunks of energy - that's radiation, all those chunks of energy. The more excited, the more energy gets emitted by the molecules in the substance, hence the relationship between absolute temperature and emitted radiation.

Now it gets a little tricky when you get to radiation exchange between two bodies. Because the radiation emitted from a body goes in all directions, only a portion gets transferred from one body to another. One analogy is a bare light bulb in a room - since the light from the bulb shines in (almost) all directions, only a part of that light illuminates any particular surface surrounding the bulb. Radiation is the same way (actually, light IS radiation) and the amount of radiation transferred from one body to another depends on how much of the radiation reaches the second body. This is dependent on the size of the second body relative to the first, the distance between the two bodies, and whether there is anything in between that might block the radiation.

Even if you've figured out what portion of the radiation emitted from one body reaches a second body, you can't calculate the net radiation exchange until you have performed the reverse calculation - how much of the radiation emitted from the second body reaches the first. After doing that, you can calculate the net radiation exchange, using the absolute temperature to determine the magnitude of the radiation emittance and the fractions of radiation that reaches the body to calculate the actual amount of radiation transferred and then comparing the values - from body A to body B versus from body B to Body A.

Complex, huh? This is why I beat my head against the wall for so long.

Basically, all this explains that even though the sun is very hot and puts out an incredible amount of energy, it doesn't fry us to a crisp because only a very small fraction of that energy actually reaches us (partly because of distance and partly because of relative size).

[LARED]

131. This might be helpful

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/heattransfer/heattransfer.html

[Beam Me Up]

7. Hello!

Welcome.

Chances are you won't get an intelligent reply because there is nothing 'intelligent' about the 'pancake theory'.

[Debunking911]

19. This seems to be

the only type of reply I get. As Al Frankin says "I think refects more on the than it does on me." ;)

[mirandapriestly]

57. Oh so that was what those pancakes are for

I didn't get it before.They look so good.

[DemInDistress]

8. how did the steel ten floors above the crash site collapse?

and this..
view this page: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem3/ scroll down to this video 911.wtc.2.demolition.east.5.enl.slow.3.wmv how does cold steel 10 floors above "break/collapse" aliens?
watch the other videos on that page quick

[Debunking911]

20. That's an assumtion.

That very well may be the aluminum cladding which fell off as the building pivoted. Even before the collapse the light aluminum cladding was falling. As the steel bent the aluminum could not stay on the building. Conspiracy sites have been using this lightweight aluminum which can bee easily blown around by light wind to suggest all kinds of things. The proof it's not columns is the fact that they would have come off in threes known as column trees.

[DemInDistress]

41. rotflmfaooooooooooooooo..... what your eyes see the mind

can't comprehend. seeing is believing. in your face. controlled demolition or uncontrolled demolition. either way your prez is a fucking M-U-R-D-E-R-E-R !!!!

[Sinti]

9. Well, you know, the steel in WTC was special, it was more like tin foil ;)

You mean you don't believe in the pancake theory? Why not, didn't you read the report?

[quickesst]

10. That's another thing...

the "flashies" as some call them. Remind me again about those being electical panels. I build those electrical rooms. Trust me, or not, but that theory will absolutely not fly. Many of us believe they were squibs because of the placement and succession of hits. Have the naysayers anything new on this?
I believe, because of my on-hands work in the field of construction, and many nights running a jackhammer beating out the concrete from the steel doors used to cover the aluminum furnaces, that anyone who believes there should not have been a mountain of concrete chunks and slabs has no idea the strength of the material, especially on poured floors. They are ALL poured around a steel mesh for the purposes of strength, and holding the concrete together. Look above any acoustical ceiling with two floors or more, and you will have access to the undeworkings of the floor above, including outside walls. While you're up there, please notice that not only will you see the steel floor joists, but more than likely you will see at least one, if not more, steel I-beams running the length of the floor. I do not doubt that the design was unique, but the basic building blocks are pretty much the same. Steel, concrete, bolt, nuts, welding. Lots of welding. Anyone who welds knows that a basic welding school test will reveal two pieces of steel, properly welded together, will be much stronger than the original steel. Concrete doesn't turn to dust by cascading down in the manner the towers did either. Thanks.
quickesst

[Sinti]

11. Hey, quickesst, what do you make of this close up vid?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=WTC

BTW, welcome to DU, if I didn't already say that :) (though it seems you've been here and quiet for a little while)

Non illigitamus carborundum, dude... don't let the bastards grind you down.

[mirandapriestly]

14. I always thought the flashes

were the same as the detonation flashes that you can see on a controlled demolition. You can see them on this controlled demolition; they look the same.
http://www.timreynolds.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=671...

[Sinti]

15. Um, this is a discussion about acoustic guitars

Nothing wrong with that -- I love acoustic guitar, but...

Gee, maybe it's a sign. I should focus more on guitar, and less on this 9/11 stuff. O8)

[mirandapriestly]

24. I don't get it.

:shrug: acoustic guitars. wha..?

[Sinti]

25. Your link goes to a forum where they are discussing acoustic guitars :)

Text from the forum:

I know he plays Martins.....but I was just curious how did he get into them (Martins that is)? What was his first acoustic guitar? I think this qualifies as a good topic here. Please forgive me if this is already on another post.

[mirandapriestly]

36. How embarrassing

Here is the landmark tower demolition complete with flashes. I know that it's considered "lowbrow' to talk about flashes even among "inside job"bers, but there were flashes, so..
http://www.dfw.com/multimedia/dfw/news/archive/0318implosion1/index.html


what is that adorable woodland creature? Why doesn't he have a pancake on his head?

[Sinti]

42. That Landmark Tower demolition is a pretty good example

of how gravity and explosives take down a building. It doesn't always happen exactly at "free fall in a vacuum" speed, close, but not quite. Too bad it's not in real time - it has a bunch of cuts and stuff for theatrical effect. I believe the "flashes" are TNT charges going off... I'm not an expert, though. I'm not up to speed on the whole deal with flashes at the WTC. I think the PTB could brush it off very easily with a myriad of easy explanations. It's what they do.

That woodland creature is Oscar, an Eastern cottontail bunny that my son brought home, after his friend's cat played with it, and left it on her porch. He (or maybe she) was so tiny he fit in the palm of your hand. As you can imagine, Oscar needed a little doctoring. Too small for pancakes - even a silver dollar one would have been bigger than his whole body :)

[Jazz2006]

51. Here is an uncut version, Sinti, from an aerial view

Between the uncut version filmed from the air and the other version with some of its cut shots at the bottom at the very end, which would likely not have been visible from the sky through the dust clouds created by the demolition, perhaps one can cobble together a pretty good composite of the implosion of the Landmark Tower.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153

That said, I don't think it looks anything at all like what happened at the twin towers.

1) Listen to the sound. Clear and obvious detonated charges going off. The towers were under the scrutiny of numerous television and amateur video cameras at the time of their collapses and none of them sound like this.

2) Note the huge bursts of explosives erupting at the base of the Landmark as the first charges and then again after the series of timed charges are detonated, followed by another final series of charges before the building starts to actually fall. Nothing like that at the WTC towers.

3) Note the physical differences between the implosion of the Landmark and the collapse of the WTC towers.

4) Although some people insist on repeating the mantra that the towers "fell into their own footprints," that simply is not true. The reality is that the WTC towers rained debris over several blocks, damaging and destroying many other buildings.


That's an adorable bunny :D

What is the "PTB"?


Edit: oops, forgot to include the link (duh!)

[Sinti]

98. You're right, the Landmark Towers and WTC looking nothing alike.

This is a standard demolition, bottom out and straight down. You can see the flash of charges on many structural members just before the fall also. The other vid's timing is off - the dramatic cuts make the fall look much-much longer than it is.

WTC 1 and 2 most certainly did not fall in their footprint, no question about that. The aluminum cladding flew all over the place, some steel beams, and other parts of the WTC towers were ejected as far as 500 feet from the building site. WTC 7 fell in its footprint, for the most part, though I don't know the exact dimensions of the debris pile. It was a much "cleaner," if you will, collapse.

PTB = powers that be. :)

[mirandapriestly]

103. You can see that they are both controlled demolitions, though

people are using the Landmark Towers as a comparitive example all over the internet. The wtc used more powerful explosives; they obviously didn't care about "safety" and they started at the top with the wtc. But only an idiot would think they weren't taken down by similar means. Building 7 is very similar to the Landmark.

[Sinti]

105. The problem here is that controlled demolitions are just that, controlled

Technically, they could do whatever the heck they wanted if they had the skill and technique, within certain limits. They could make the top of the building spin on its axis with charges, and then bring it down, bring down the top, then go to the bottom and bring the rest. Control is the key here. You do have a relatively limited amount of time, because gravity is at work here, and is no respecter of persons (or pyrotechnic skill), but they could have taken much longer than what this vid shows, simply by allowing gravity to do more of the work.

Southwark Towers at implosionworld.com is a great example of this. It's 26 stories, and takes 6 seconds to fall (versus the South Tower of WTC which is 110 stories and falls in 12.2 seconds). They used less boom, more mother nature -- or father physics -- depends on your POV, I guess.

I have yet to find a video of WTC 7's collapse that shows the whole building. None of them show the bottom, just the top. Still searching for one. If you know where I can find one, please let me know. Landmark Towers may look like it -- it does from the view I get, but who knows what's going on at the bottom there. :shrug:

[mirandapriestly]

107. Here are a few

courtesy of "terrorize".
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/view?&h=105&w=140&type=msmedia&rurl=www.terrorize.dk%2F911%2Fwtc7dem2&vurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.terrorize.dk%2F911%2Fwtc7dem2%2F911.wtc.7.demolition.nj.wmv&back=p%3Dbuilding7%2Bdemolition%26sm%3DYahoo%2521%2BSearch%26fr%3DFP-tab-vid-t%26toggle%3D1%26cop%3D%26ei%3DUTF-8&turl=scd.mm-so.yimg.com%2Fimage%2F1794593633&name=911.wtc.7.%3Cb%3Edemolition%3C%2Fb%3E.nj.wmv&no=19&tt=2219&p=building7+demolition&oid=96a142f9fc3213ba&size=522.1kB&dur=50

[Jazz2006]

108. Sinti, agreed that it seems that there are no videos of the bottom of

WTC7 when it collapsed. Presumably because by that time (around 1720 if memory serves), much of the entire WTC complex area had become a massive search and rescue scene full of debris and danger, and the only locations safe to film from were several blocks away on the side that was accessible, which, unfortunately, would also mean that distance and other buildings precluded a view that could capture the bottom of WTC7 at the time it collapsed.

It certainly would have been helpful if the entire thing had been captured on video from all manner of angles and views, but, alas, it appears that the real world and real life circumstances dictated otherwise, so we are left with the facts and evidence that do exist.

Even without photographic or video evidence of the bottom of the building at the time of collapse, though, the existing videos and photos of the upper portions do not illustrate the rhythmic explosion of charges, or the sound of any such charges exploding, etc. as are apparent in the Landmark implosion.

Even without a view of the bottom of the building, the sounds should have been apparent if it was a controlled demolition and the series of charges exploding in sequence on the floors that are and were captured on film should have have been readily apparent, along with the sound that would have accompanied them.

NONE of this is shown on any of the videos that captured the building collapse.

The only conclusion that I can draw from the actual facts and evidence is that it was NOT a controlled demolition as it does not display any of the characteristics that the implosion sites and demolition sites suggest would have to be present, except for the fact that it fell quickly and somewhat uniformly.

[petgoat]

144. the fact that it fell quickly and somewhat uniformly.

And the fact that 57 perimeter colums and 24 interior columns failed simultaneously.

[Jazz2006]

106. Let's try a little Logic 101...

Exhibit "A" - Landmark Tower implosion as submitted by miranda - "This is what a controlled demolition looks like.

Exhibit "B" - WTC towers collapse - as seen by millions.

Stipulation (in posts above): Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" look entirely different.

Conclusion by miranda:

1) "You can see that they are both controlled demolitions, though."

~ Er, no, that isn't apparent at all. See Exhibits "A" and "B".

2) "People are using the Landmark Towers as a comparitive example all over the internet."

~ Repetition on the internet does not magically make something true or valid.

3) "The wtc used more powerful explosives; they obviously didn't care about "safety" and they started at the top with the wtc."

~ And this unfounded conclusion is based on ... what exactly?

4) "But only an idiot would think they weren't taken down by similar means."

~ "Similar means"? See Exhibits "A" and "B" and points 1 through 3 above. And insults do not actually strengthen weak and non-existent arguments.

5) "Building 7 is very similar to the Landmark."

~ It is similar in height, certainly. It may be similar in construction but I haven't read enough about that yet to know myself. I'll assume for purposes of this discussion that it is simiilar in construction as well, though. What's missing from videos of the WTC7 collapse that is shown clearly in the Landmark Tower implosion?

a) Listen to the sound. In the Landmark Tower implosion, it is clear and obvious that detonated charges are going off in a timed and rhythmic sequence. I have yet to see a video of the WTC7 collapse that sounds even remotely similar.

b) In the Landmark Tower implosion, huge bursts of explosives are visible erupting at the base of the building as the first charges go off (stage 1) and then a series of timed charges are detonated and clearly visible all the way up to the top of the building (stage 2), followed by another final series of charges at the base before the building starts to actually fall (stage 3). Granted, the videos I've seen to date of the WTC7 collapse do not show the very base of the building so a direct comparison in that regard cannot be made based on the videos vis a vis stages 1 and 3. That said, I haven't seen or heard of any witness accounts of huge bursts of explosives being detonated at the base of WTC7 at any point (whether stage 1 or 3). And the videos of WTC7 do show the bulk of the building throughout but do not depict anything remotely resembling the timed charges being detonated in stage 2.

Result: Seems you're going to have to repeat Logic 101, miranda, as you've failed.

[LARED]

110. Logic will get you nowhere in these parts of DU

I do applaud the attempt.

[mirandapriestly]

114. That is why you have posted here daily for 3 + years

Maybe someone should graph the pixels, then superimpose a "real" cd over the wtc, then you will think it is a wonderful idea,. bwahahah

[LARED]

121. I have no clue what you are talking about

Do you?

[mirandapriestly]

115. I can see you are still responsing to my posts, Jazz

despite the fact that I have you on ignore because of your constant personal attacks. It is very cowardly to post to someone who can't read what you are saying.

[Jazz2006]

125. And I can see you are still telling tales

out of school, miranda. I'm not the one making personal attacks. But you know that.

You continue to lie about me and try to disparage me all over these threads and yet you seem to expect that your posts should be sacrosanct because you choose not to read mine.

Newsflash: they aren't.

[mirandapriestly]

128. I can't read your posts which leads me to the conclusion

that you are not interested in discussion, but in getting a reaction. This is my reaction: :puke:

[Jazz2006]

174. You should lay off the shellfish

It's notorious for disrupting the gastrointestinal system.

I read it on a shellfish conspiracy website so it must be true.

[Sinti]

135. I have found a video with a more full view of WTC 7.

The structure does fall from the bottom straight down. There is no floor above ground level that falls first. I'll have to have a good look at the thing. It does look very similar. I'll need to blow it up, lighten it up, and get a good look at what's up down there. The damn thing has the description blurb sitting at the bottom of the screen, the news always has to tell you what you're watching, like you don't have eyes. What about WTC 6, has anybody given a good reason for its explosion?

[mirandapriestly]

142. Glad you asked that!

Killtown interviewed this emt who was also among those interviewed in what was released by the NYTimes a year or so ago. She has an interesting story and I think he links to her "official" interview too. She was not allowed in the building for shelter and she saw evidence of explosives I emailed her and she emailed back and I have no reason to doubt her.
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/02/911-rescuer-saw-explosions-inside-wtc.html

[Sinti]

207. WTC 6 got owned

Check it out:





You've got to wonder what's holding her up. Er...parts of her

[mirandapriestly]

208. uh-huh.nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

214. The Penthouse

Watch the penthouse, it collapses first, and a kink forms in the builing at the top. Both mean there is an internal collapse prior to the perimeter, not a uniform collapse at all.

[mirandapriestly]

54. That naughty kitty

Well, I think that charges have that look.
From quickesst post below:
(New York Times):
Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building

There is no innocent explanation, IMO.They also look very similar on the Body Atomic video.

[Debunking911]

30. To answer your question

If explosives created the so called "Squibs" then they work in reverse. Note how the debris ejects from the locations. It starts out slow then builds up as the collapse progressed. Explosives don't have that characteristic. They eject debris violently then disapate. Also, the conspiracy sites have yet to explain why so little ejecta is seen? With litterally hundreds of columns, how can just a few explosives bring a building down? All the controlled demolitions I've seen on those sites have many squibs on just about every floor.

It's not easy wrapping your head around 50,000 tons of wieght crashing down in a chaotic fashion on each floor. I'm well aware of that. The estimated wieght of the towers is 250,000 tons dead load and about 400,000 to 500,000 tons live load. You have NEVER held a jack hammer with that much wieght. The anology is lacking. It's like people trying to understand 4 billion years of evolution. That's not easy to understand either but the evidence is there for both evolution and the collapse by fire of the buildings.

You are stateing as fact a lot of things which just aren't true. Like concrete not turning to dust under impacts like we see in the collapse. There are many peer reviewed papers on concrete and impacts. When concrete fails under tension it can shatter like glass. Of course it takes a lot of energy but the energy was there. As conspiracy sites like to point out "Physics doesn't care if you believe". If you asked someone before newtons time something light can fall at the same speed as something heavy in a vacumm they would also not believe it but that doesn't make newton wrong.

I don't care what kind of weld you make on something. A good weld doesn't make it impossible to break. All you need is enough energy.

[petgoat]

55. "how can just a few explosives bring a building down?"

Ask Dr. Van Romero, an expert in explosives and controlled demolition.

He said a few charges in key places could do the job.

All the controlled demolitions I've seen on those sites have many squibs
on just about every floor.

The commercial CDs are run to satisfy the insurance companies. Here, once
the process was initiated, gravity did the rest.

When concrete fails under tension it can shatter like glass.

Right, it cracks. Pulverization is another issue. Of course where you get your
tensile loads you haven't explained.

the energy was there.

Not according to Jim Hoffman, who calculates that the amount of energy necessary to
create those dust clouds was 10 X the potential energy of the buildings.

[vincent_vega_lives]

215. Potential energy

got a link to "JIm HOffman"? I would love to see his calculations.

The floors were poured with brittle, non-structural concrete. Heck you can pulverize that concrete with a sledghamer.

[Christophera]

157. To RE Answer It Correctly - Explosives Built In, Encapsulated In Concrete

protected from oxidization/evaporation and decay. Access ports sealed with paraffin are opened and caps inserted. The only explanation for what we see,



and free fall.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

[Debunking911]

28. I didn't think

I would get a mature reply. Please continue to show everyone the quality of conspiracy theory evidence. I win. :)

[Debunking911]

16. As I'm waiting for

mature replies. As I said, his post is full of straw men which no one has yet to address. How can you intelligently reply to misrepresentation of facts?


1) The NIST report does not say the fires softened the steel and caused a pancaking effect.

2) The floor had well over the weight of another floor and not just more than it's own wieght as you suggest

3) The building did have resistance which is why the building collapse took longer than free fall. Do you expect the debris from 30 stories above the collapse zone to "Stop" due to a bolted on floor? Why wouldn't the "transfer of momentum" not work with the towers? Ever played pool? That's transfer of momentum. Add the gravity and wieght to it and it becomes easy to understand. One billiard hits one below, then the wieght of those two hit the one below that one etc... The speed increases with the wieght just as we saw with the towers.

4) The fires were directly below the steel so steel being cool on one end while on fire on the other end is a straw man.

5) the wieght of the building above crashing down on the flooring connections is what caused the pancake. And the evidence is all over ground zero. The floors didn't just fly away, they went straight down.

6) The building could never twist as you suggest. It wasn't a solid block of steel. It was a glorified erector set. It was all bolted together and it was the bolts and connections which failed.

7) There is no "SOFTEN STEEL THEORY" That's yet another straw man.

If the trusses never sagged and pulled in the perimeter columns how do you explain the photographic evidence from everyone who took photos that day? Not just the NIST photos but everyone's photos and videos show the bowed columns. What explosive bows in columns slowly over a 30 minute period?

[Sinti]

134. The WTC towers were not, by any means, glorified erector set.

Perhaps you should quickly find out exactly how these wonders of the world were built, so you can stop exposing your obtuseness on the matter for all to see. The NIST, which you like to use to bolster your argument, was pissed because they were not given nearly enough evidence with which to work. They had to go digging through landfills, literally, to get pieces. At this point, and to this day, they cannot reproduce what happened at WTC in a lab. They are trying, and have failed so far. They will continue to try.

If your highly evolved scientific explanations rely on falsified evidence, and artificial features of the buildings, and many do, then they are not highly evolved explanations. If I paint the windows black and ask you what color the sky is... how can you tell me with certainty?

It was not only the bolt connections that failed, and there were welds as well as bolts. Some members of the steel they recovered were broken in the middle, other members of steel were broken just above the welds, some bolts were torn out, ripping their metal seats, and others snapped. IOW, it was a mixed bag.

[Christophera]

138. Ludicrous To Attribute Entire Buildings Fall To Sand, Gravel & Steel FRAGS

To sagging trusses. (twice?)



Your fantasy is inadequate.

[wildbilln864]

18. Excellent points quickesst!

I also have done metal stud framing and acoustic ceilings and agree 100% with you.
These buildings were not brought down by a kerosene fire as many would have us believe!
Not no way! Huh uh!
And most of the kerosene explodes into a fireball outside of one of the towers! Yet it came down first? Give me a break! Not planes hitting nor fires gutting, nor earthquakes have ever, ever brought down a skyscraper completely to the ground in history. And yet three, count em three were brought down in one day by two kerosene fires?
Pancake theory! Bwahahahaha!

[Debunking911]

22. This is what I mean by straw man.

No one said a kerosene fire brought down the buildings any more than lighter fluid cooks your meet in a barbeque. The jet fuel only helped the fires get started. It was a combination of fire, no fireproofing, impact and type of construction which brought the building down. Conspiracy sites leave some of these things out just to make it sound impossible. The proof it's not impossible is the fact that not one civil engineer agrees with Controlled Demolition. Not even from countries that hate us.

[Sinti]

26. Debunking, are you suggesting that there was fire on nearly all floors?

An "office fire" not just limited to the ones close to the impact point, where you can see the fire, but a fire on all floors that caused the building to fall that rapidly? What temps were those fires, and how widespread?

[Debunking911]

27. What makes you think you need all floors?

You only need the floors where the columns were pulled in. Are you saying you need more than that?

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/sag.htm

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/genfires.htm

You only need the floors at the impact levels to be on fire and only the side of the building which bowed. Once the building tilted at the bowed floor the massive wieght of the 20-30 stories above would have been way to much for the columns at the pivot point. At the end the bow is seen pulling in violently.



Can you explain how an explosive bows columns over a 30 minute time frame?

[Sinti]

29. It is the speed of the collapse that bothers me.

The steel and reinforced concrete core and closely spaced columns made of aluminum and steel should have offered some resistance, and should have slowed the collapse... even if it did collapse from the office fire above. If the materials below were "whole," if you will, even at 25 percent, it should have slowed the collapse down. You dig? This is my problem with your simple explanation.

[Debunking911]

32. There was NO reinforced concrete core

I'm afraid you have been listening to christopher who even conspiracy theorist have refuted. This is the problem with conspiracy theorist like Christopher. He puts up a site and makes some statements which are not based in fact and people like you trust him.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=feedback&mid=6779

Note his feedback by even conspiracy theorist are negative...

This Member's Current Feedback:
lenbrazil Posted: May 9 2006, 08:45 PM
Negative I agree with CS I think he's delusional, that doesn't justify the spam though.
Common Sense Posted: Apr 21 2006, 03:04 PM
Negative I pity him. He seems delusional. I truly wish he seeks help and they CAN help him.
adoucette Posted: Apr 20 2006, 12:49 PM
Negative Spam Spam Spam and more Spam
deadbeat Posted: Apr 12 2006, 06:33 PM
Negative Spaminator
reasonwhy Posted: Apr 11 2006, 10:29 PM
Negative more of the same spam
reasonwhy Posted: Apr 2 2006, 02:13 PM
Negative constant spam
newtonnjd Posted: Apr 2 2006, 01:40 PM
Negative Spams the same images over and over again. Very unhelpful to the discussion, probably on purpose.
ScottS Posted: Apr 1 2006, 10:43 PM
Negative Spam
Foxx Posted: Mar 31 2006, 10:59 AM
Negative Continual spam

But here is evidence there is NO concrete core..

Construction Type: WTC 1 collapsed at 10:29, 102 minutes after the crash.
WTC 2 collapsed at 09:59, 56 minutes after the crash.
Steel perimeter frame-tube system comprising external perimeter columns, central core columns and concrete slabs on steel bar trusses.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm

Note they talk about concrete floor slabs but no concrete core...

Construction Type: Reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

Note for this building they point out it has a concrete core.

Concrete removal
Since the end of WWII builders designed most of the concrete from the modern high-rise constriction. First concrete they eliminated was the stone exterior wall. They replace them with the “curtain walls of glass, sheet steel, or plastics. This curtain wall acted as a lightweight skin to enclose the structure from the outside elements. Next the 8-inch thick concrete floors went. They were replaced with a combination of 2 or 3 inches of concrete on top of thin corrugated steel sheets. Next the masonry enclosure for stairs and elevators were replaced with several layers of sheet rock. Then the masonry smoke proof tower was eliminated in the 1968 building code. It contained too much concrete weight and took up valuable floor space. Then the solid steel beam was replace by the steel truss. And finally the concrete and brick encasement of steel columns girders and floor supports was eliminated. A lightweight spray-on coating of asbestos or mineral fiber was sprayed over the steel. This coating provided fireproofing. After asbestos was discovered hazardous vermiculite or volcanic rock ash substance was used as a spray-on coating for steel. Outside of the foundation walls and a thin 2 or 3 inches of floors surface, concrete has almost been eliminated from high-rise office building construction. If you look at the WTC rubble at ground zero you see very little concrete and lots of twisted steel.

http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/2001-0911_WTC/2002-0500_LA-Firefighter_WTC-BuildingCollapse_Dunn.htm

Christopher's only evidence is a BBC illustration which was created just after the attack which is wrong.

Christopher is illustrative of most of the conspiracy sites. Hes just further out there.

[Sinti]

33. Actually I'm not referring to his site. These are the refs

from which I worded my description of the support system. In fact, I'm just short of quoting them in spots. Are you suggesting that the steel and reinforced concrete core and closely spaced columns made of aluminum and steel offered next to no resistance?

Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641 /

The twin towers of the World Trade Center were essentially two tubes, with the north tower (1,368 feet) six feet taller than the south tower (1,362 feet), and each were 110 stories tall. Each tube contained a concrete core, which supported only the load of the central bank of elevators and stairwells (Snoonian and Czarnecki 23). Also, the exterior of each tower had closely spaced columns made of aluminum and steel that provide the most support for the tower. To buffer extreme winds that come from the Hudson River and the occasional tropical storm, a shock-absorbing system was developed where the ends of each floor beam acts like an automobile's shock (Yamasaki 116).

http://www.unc.edu/courses/2001fall/plan/006e/001/engin... /

Each of the towers, in other words, was held up by its reinforced concrete core and the world's strongest curtain walls. Without the usual steel skeleton, the open floors allowed unprecedented space and flexibility.

http://www.salwen.com/wtc /

At the heart of the structure was a vertical steel and concrete core, housing lift shafts and stairwells. Steel beams radiate outwards and connect with steel uprights, forming the building's outer wall.

http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/2001-Environment/...

[Christophera]

137. I Explained Free Fall Because Concrete Can Fracture And Fall, You Have No

explanation.

You also have no evidence of the steel core columns you forgot to post or even mention.

I can show you a sectional image of an interior box column against a segment of standing concrete shear wall, and none of the "core columns" are seen. They are never seen.





and of course this image, which is absolutely concrete.



You have no evidence only a completely contrived web page.

[Christophera]

169. The Towers Fell Uniformly. No Fire On A Floor, No Failure, Not Uniform

And then there is this, which you assert was caused by bolt failures.

[Beam Me Up]

34. quickesst & wildbilln864 Thank you for your informed observations.

Those of us who have been asking questions about the 9/11 events often don't have backgrounds in fields that are needed to make truly informed statements. This has added, in part, to our lack of credibility by some. I'm just a 'stupid artist' but I look at the evidence presented and go, 'get out of here!' -- about a lot of things. Art, magic, mythology, propaganda, mind control -- these have been more my purview. I see, for example, how stories in the corporate news formats never or seldom say "alleged." It is THE "9/11 Terrorist Attacks" (tm) or THE "9/11 Terrorists" (tm). For me, these 'givens' are not given. Credibility must be earned and the corporate owned news networks have now lost any credibility they had. As has the whole edifice of the Federal Government of the United States.

But that is just me.

So, I just wanted to say, thank you for speaking out here in this forum and telling us the way you see it. I hope you do more of this in other forums, with your friends, family, and if you feel comfortable with it, become even more public with your statements. That takes a certain courage because there are all sorts of repercussions when one takes that stand, depending upon the level of attention you command. I'm thinking of what happened to Charlee Sheen, for example, fully aware that that could have been a set up. If so, it didn't work.

Those of us who are learning to see through the veil of lies that has been and continues to be thrown over us as our hijacked Ship of State sails for some lost imperial horizon have already started to man the lifeboats.

Danger up ahead.

[quickesst]

37. Straw men...

Used to have one when I was a kid. Helped my dad put it in the garden. He didn't do much for the crops though. Hang tough everyone, the truth shall set you free, but not Georgie.:crazy:
Anyway, to say that softened steel was not the official story is circumventing an inconvenient truth for Debunking911. The official cause is stated as impact plus raging fires. In YOUR world, if the fires don't soften the steel, the towers are still standing today. How many buildings have you worked on? How many times have you had your head a foot away from ceiling joists and I-beams to see how construction basically works. As I've stated before about engineers and architects, as much as I sometimes admire their work, it does not always translate well into the field. That's why England requires architectual students to have at leas two years experience in the field.
I also take exception to the claim the fires had anything to do with the collapses. We have a fireman's recording stating the fires in the first tower(I believe) COULD BE KNOCKED OUT WITH A COUPLE OF LINES. Are those nine words not in your vocabulary? And I still have no valid argument concerning the "flashies", so I am still convinced they were explosives. THERMITE, or possibly a newer technology called nanothermite could easily do the job with maximum effect and little explosive noise. There are many witnesses who have testified who were near the impact areas that mention no raging fires, and that's because, well, THEY'RE STILL ALIVE! You fellas use "straw man like dubya uses 911. It's not a cure-all for your arguments. Thanks.
quickesst

[Debunking911]

38. Please don't put words in my mouth

Also, read the story before you say what the story is. It's obvious to me are reading conspiracy sites which are purposely characterizing it as "Softened Steel" as a straw man. You can easily prove me wrong by searching the NIST PDF for the word "Softened" and pointing it out to me. I would retract any mistakes I made. The word is "weakened". You can WEAKEN without "SOFTENING" at much lower temperatures. Softening suggests the steel was at a molten state. The NIST never said this. I challenge you find that in the NIST report.

If you want to talk about experience, how many fires have you fought in steel high rise buildings? Because the fireman/professor/civil engineer Vincent Dunn said the hydrocarbon fires were more than enough to bring the building down. Here's a man who lost more than 300 of his brothers that day and is more than capable of knowing if the fires were enough to weaken the steel trusses.

I used to be in construction as well though not melting aluminum. But I don't pretend to know something CAN or CAN'T happen. Whether you want to believe it or not you and I are laymen when it comes to what fires can do or not do. Only someone who is a qualified civil engineer can say what should or shouldn't happen in a given situation and even then they never say what can or can't happen. Only what should happen given the evidence.

The "two line" quote taken out of context is really sore spot for me. Here is a guy who gave his life trying to save others and conspiracy sites are using his quote dishonestly. I can prove it...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire.htm

How in the world can someone use the fires on the floor where only a wing entered as evidence of what was going on above??? This is down right SICK of the CT community in my view. Only a wing entered the floor and if the fires calmed down it only SUPPORTS the NIST's report which said it was the cooling of the trusses which pulled the columns in. If you know about steel then you know it expands and contract with heat. The fires heated the trusses, the trusses expanded pushing out on the perimeter wall then contracted as they cooled. So the LESS fire at the time of collapse the MORE likely the collapse.

If the nose of the plane hit the 81st floor and the 78th floor had two small fires, what do you think the 81st floor must be like? No need to wonder...



78th floor at the time the fireman said it needed two lines.



82nd floor at the time the fireman said the building needed two lines.

See how deceptive the conspiracy sites are?

You would need TONS of thermite directly on the columns to do the job. How would they get the tons of thermite behind walls on every floor?

Why would trusses sag? Why would the columns pull in only on impact levels be pulled in? Has thermite ever been used for a controlled demolition? Do you have ANY evidence of thermite? (I know, they carted the evidence away but the residual chemicals should still be all over the lower east side of manhattan.) How many people and how many man hours are needed for this? There are many questions left unanswered by the conspiracy sites.

[mrgerbik]

39. molten steel/iron...

was found under tons of rubble and had been hot for WEEKS.
How do you explain the kinetic energy of a falling building causing this kind of heat?
An easier, and more fitting explanation is thermite. How convenient that the main by-product of a thermite reaction is white/yellow hot molten iron!

I don't think anyone has gotten so far as to try and explain the actual specific events as to how the thermite was used in conjunction with explosives or how it was transported inside. That's for a later investigation.
Any 2-bit detective can put all the pieces of that day together and see a pattern, why can't you??

[Debunking911]

43. This was explained by physics

Something Professor Jones must have forgotten.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm

[Christophera]

156. Calcs. Correct But Energy Not Focused Enough To Melt Steel. Forget it

Seriously, I have never seen so much math used to try and prove the impossible. Notion is actually ridiculous.

Ever think about selling used cars?

[vincent_vega_lives]

211. Thermite would NOT keep steel molten for weeks

Thermite burns quickly...and the steel cools quickly afterward. Only sustained heat can produce the results you are talking about.

[Chomp]

40. Nobody says the buldings fell as the result of fire alone

Nobody says the buldings fell as the result of fire alone
Nobody says the buldings fell as the result of fire alone
Nobody says the buldings fell as the result of fire alone
Nobody says the buldings fell as the result of fire alone
Nobody says the buldings fell as the result of fire alone
Nobody says the buldings fell as the result of fire alone
Nobody says the buldings fell as the result of fire alone
Nobody says the buldings fell as the result of fire alone
Nobody says the buldings fell as the result of fire alone
Nobody says the buldings fell as the result of fire alone


Because it can't be said too many times.

If anyone can find a suggestion from a MIHOP sceptic to the contrary, I will apologise and say out clear that I was wrong.

[Debunking911]

44. Nobody says everyone in MIHOP say it was the fires alone.

But the original post is

"the official story is that raging fires softened the steel, which supposedly weakened the flooring, thereby causing a pancake effect."

That's not the NIST report. I was responding to this. So I don't understand why you bring up the general view of MIHOP when there is clearly some who at least portray the jet fuel as not enough to soften the steel. The NIST never said it had to be for the collapse to take place.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Debunking911]

47. I didn't blame you

I know this is consiracy theory sites which told you about the fireman. Let me be clear. I think what those sites are doing is with the dead firemans quotes are SICK. I know you have nothing to do with them. OK? :)

Now for the other quotes...

People describe things all the time which aren't what they say they are. The person is trying to discribe it in a way that people will understand. Below is an example of what conspiracy theorist like to do with quotes...
____________________

Government covers up freight train accidents…

"The noise sounded like two freight trains going over a trestle right over your head; it was an ugly roar. My wife said the noise when the house went was like a giant pencil sharpener working.”

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/1953beecher/storiesFJ.php

Did a fright train pass over their head? Was there a giant pencil sharpener over there heads?

“While I was in my kitchen I heard this terrible roar coming," she said. "It sounded like a freight train coming right down my road here”

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WEATHER/09/02/wisconsin.tornado/index.html

"It indeed sounded like a freight train roaring past us, and when it was gone, we came out to find things a mess."

http://www.offenburger.com/farmarchive.asp?link=20040906

It came with "the roar of forty freight trains."

http://www.tornadochaser.com/UDALL/reports.htm

“It sounded like a freight train”.

http://www.disasternews.net/news/news.php?articleid=2954

“Before I reached the bottom of the stairs, I heard the sound of a roaring freight train”

-enter image of NOAA weather map an hour before the tornado touches down.-

As you can see there was no tornado on that day according to NOAA.

So why is the government covering up train derailments?

-enter sinister music-

In 2003 Amtrak was going backrupt. They couldn't afford to rebuild the homes of Americans after a derailment.

ETC.. ETC..

Take a look at these creatively edited quotes...

“I saw a flash flash flash the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context...

I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.

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

Let me guess why they left that important part out..

“t was professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera

SO WE WERE PRETTY MUCH-MOST OF THE WORKERS WERE INSIDE THIS BUILDING. I LIKE SAID, I DON'T KNOW IF ITS FIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER OR FOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER. MOST OF THEM WERE IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE CHIEF OR THE CAPTAIN SAID IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STAY INSIDE THAT BUILDING. BUT I DIDN'T FEEL SAFE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS TERRORIST ATTACK SO I WAS SCARED. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR PLANE EVERYONE WOULD RUN. SO I PRETTY MUCH STOOD AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE. I WOULD SEE TRIAGE, BUT I WAS PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.

THEN THAT'S WHEN-I KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER, AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED.

Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN?

A: THAT NOISE .IT WAS NOISE.

Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?

A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS-DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR "POP, POP, POP, POP, POP"? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT-BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE, THAT'S WHEN I SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110035.PDF

First, notice he and everyone else was scared of TERRORISTS. What do TERRORIST DO? So it's not unreasonable for someone who is thinking TERRORIST to hear the sound of huge concrete floors falling one on top of the other to think "BOMB" first. As I said, No one has ever seen an airplane hit buildings constructed like this and the collapse of this odd combination.

“There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse." --Chief Frank Cruthers

there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. it appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides

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

And why wouldn't floors falling around the building NOT APPEAR to be an EXPLOSION... :blink:

"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.” --Paramedic Kevin Darnowski

Again, just more sounds like explosions as floors ram into each other. Note he doesn't say he SAW three explosions.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110202.PDF

And here is the outright LIE...

“ we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.” -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen

Note where these lairs but the "...."

Now for the REAL quote...

I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110505.PDF

With that alone I should rest my case. ;) These CT sites are dishonest.

Here is the other lie, they split up these quote to make it seem like there are more than hey really are. You have paramedic Daniel Rivera and Stephen Gregory split up as if there are different accounts. They are the same account. What other reason would they have for splitting them up???

“Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." -- Captain Karin Deshore

MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.

GRASSY HILL WAS THERE AND UP UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS, WHEN SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY SHOUTED AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT WAS, "ITS BLOWING".

I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND, NOT A THUNDER CANT EXPLAIN IT, WHAT IT WAS. ALL I

KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CANT EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION.

...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT

IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDN'T KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING

SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.

It's time to see a transformer explosion.

http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion

All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.

SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES, STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE WATER.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110192.PDF

“I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.” -- Captain Jay Swithers

When I was giving her the oxygen, setting up the tank, you could hear a loud rumble. Somebody said run for your life. I turned to see who was yelling "run".

At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.

But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110172.PDF

First he heard the rumble. Not the so called "Explosion" which he never saw. Then he thought he heard an explosion because he saw the debris falling away from the building. He had TERRORIST on his mind and jumped to the conclusion that it was a bomb. You don't have to be a psychologist here.

Fire officer Paul Isaac Jr. asserted that 9-11 was an inside job last September 11 at ground zero where mourners and protesters were gathered; “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too”, said Isaac.

"there were definitely bombs in those buildings,” Isaac added that “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” --Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac

Paul Isaac never said anything of the kind. Another Conspiracy Theorist deception.


Could transformers or other electrical equipment explain some of what the fireman saw and heard?

Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”

But if you read on...

"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."

This is a quote taken out of context. Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking it out of context...

I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_
WTC_GRAPHIC/Gregory_Stephen.txt

Here is a fireman saying it could have been "electrical explosions".

What a transformer explosion looks like...

http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion

These buildings, as most office buildings in America had transformers and other high voltage electrical equipment.

Electrical Fire Hurts 6 at Trade Center
Published: July 24, 1992
An air-conditioning transformer five stories below the World Trade Center caught fire after an explosion last night, the authorities said. Six people were injured, none of them seriously, but the 110-story twin towers did not have to be evacuated, the authorities said.
The fire was first reported at 10:02 P.M. in a 13,000-volt transformer in the Trade Center's refrigeration plant, which provides air conditioning and ventilation for the complex, the Fire Department and the Port Authority said. The electrical fire, which went to three alarms, was brought under control at 11:24 P.M., said a Fire Department official, Lieutenant Erick Weekes.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE0DF1031F937A15754C0A964958260

February 26, 1993. It started like most other days. A 4 A.M. wake up, coffee and a buttered roll while driving to work at the Manhattan Central Office. At 12:18 P.M., lunch was being served when we received a call via a street alarm box at the corner of West & Liberty Streets. At the same time Engine Company 10, whose quarters are across the street from the World Trade Center, called us via radio and reported a possible transformer vault explosion on West Street near the Trade Center.

Transformer vault (also called manhole) explosions are fairly common place in Manhattan, especially during wet weather. They're highly visible and normally generate numerous telephone calls to the Central Office. We didn't think this one was going to be any different. When Engine 10 advised us by radio they had a working fire in the Trade Center, we thought the transformer vault was located within the basement of the complex. Not a routine event, but still,it's only a transformer vault we thought.

http://www.fdnewyork.com/wtc.asp

"The Trade Center was never designed for the amount of emergency power necessary for all those trading floors they have there," Calabro said. "Tenants would come in and need emergency power, and it was not available."

To solve that problem, E-J Electric set four generators on the roof of Tower 5, which was nine stories, as opposed to the 110-story Towers 1 and 2. E-J then ran high-voltage feeder cable to Towers 1, 2, 4 and 5, installed three substations and distributed power to the tenants.

"We pulled 6,000 feet of high-voltage feeder cable from the roof of Tower 5, through the building, down through the concourse, through the parking garages and to the roof of Tower 1 and 2," Calabro said.

Current standard tenant power capacity is 6W up to 10W per usable square foot depending on location. The World Trade Center's electricity supply is segmented for greater reliability and safety. Eight dedicated 13,800-V feeders divide into 23 building substations. On-floor electrical distribution is routed via at least two electrical closets per floor, each with separate high- and low-voltage bus ducts for tenant-dedicated use."

http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric_towering_security_2/index.htm

This is a deceptive quote from a conspiracy theory site...

"When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...

...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."

Now lets examine what he said in the context he said it. Here is the part conspiracy sites leave out..

“When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down.

http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric_broadway_electrical_supplys/

He said "The way I see it, it had to be the rivets" but the conspiracy site removes this important insight. They skipped over the sentence. There is only one reason to do something like that. To mislead the reader by removing all other possibilities for the sounds.

He also says he thinks the rivets caused the building to fall and not bombs. Interestingly, the NIST said most of the failures were at the bolts and connections.

Even bodies hitting the floor sounded like explosions.

“The sight was amazing. I was just totally awestruck. I reported to the command post, showed my ID and asked if I could be of use. They said ‘Absolutely. Stand off on the side with the other medical people.’ I couldn’t fight any fires because I did not have that kind of gear with me, but would have done it if asked.

“I decided to walk closer to the South Tower. I was about 100 ft from the South Tower looking up when the bodies started coming down. I counted 35. They were just piling up on the Marriott Marquis hotel. They were 10 to 15 thick piling up one after another. You could hear them hitting on the side streets. They were hitting cars, and there were lots of explosions.

“I have seen plenty of death in my life, and burned bodies and so forth, but this was incredible. As I was looking up, I saw a body coming down, hit a lamppost and explode like a paint ball. Its arms and legs got torn off and the head ripped off and bounced right by me.”

The person saying it was an explosion also says bodies hitting the floor sound like explosions. I'm sure they do. I'm sure an acre of concrete floor crashing down onto another acre of concrete floor also sound like explosions.

More here

The building was filled with electrical panels and cable feeding them. Some would be no different than a powerline...



It's not unreasonable to conclude, as at least one fireman did that the flashes might have been electrical in nature.

We may never know what exactly caused the flashes. But flashes alone do not mean explosive. You would see more than flashes if an explosive large enough to cut steel were set off. You would see ejecta coming from the same place as the flash.

[petgoat]

53. Bunk, in the realtime TV news reports, FDNY and police

officials were quoted as saying there were "secondary explosions."

How can that be construed as "sounding like explosives"?

[Jazz2006]

58. It's not unusual at all

for people to describe something as an "explosion". It's a pretty generic term. People frequently describe loud sounds as "explosions", especially in traumatic circumstances.

Moreover, it would be hard to fathom that there would not be all kinds of things "exploding" or sounding like "explosions" in a raging fire where combustibles and all manner of items are ignited.

Explosions are caused by all manner of substances such as propane, aerosol cans, batteries, paints, all manner of flammable liquids, oxygen cylinders, filament lamps, solvents, other combustibles. Heck, even dusts from everyday materials such as wood, grain, sugar, and synthetic organic chemicals can be combustible and explode violently if ignited.

In other words, the vast majority of the time when someone says "explosion", it doesn't mean "bomb" or "controlled demolition".

[petgoat]

59. The term was "secondary explosion" which is a term

specific enough that it's unlikely to be applied to a generic "loud noise".

[Jazz2006]

60. Not so.

It's still a very generic term.

Secondary meaning subsequent. Explosion meaning just about anything, as set out above in #58.

There's no magic to it. The phrase doesn't take on any specific meaning just because the word "secondary" is added to the word "explosion".

[petgoat]

61. Google "secondary explosion". It always has a specific

meaning.

Something can fall down and go "boom" but it doesn't fall down and go "sonic boom".

[Jazz2006]

62. Nonsense.

It's generic.

In the real world.

Google that.

Better yet, try not to rely on Google for everything you believe in.

And what's with your reference to "sonic boom"?

Is that something new that you wish to add to the equation now?

[DoYouEverWonder]

92. These sure look like secondary explosions to me

[vincent_vega_lives]

212. A secondary explosion

Is a detonation of explosive material caused by close proximity of an explosion.

What you see is a purely kinetic explosion, with the fires being ejected by the rapid compression of air during the "pancaking" of the floors.

[Debunking911]

65. Pet, Some people heard the explosive sound of the

airliner hitting the building but didn't see it so they said they heard secondary explosions. Some people heard the sound of floors collapsing and said they heard secondary explosions. Just look at this...

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit."

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110505.PDF

KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CANT EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION.

...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT

IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDN'T KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING

SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES, STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE WATER.


The bold part is usually left out by conspiracy sites.

This is the unedited verion of what the fireman said. Why do you think they leave that stuff out? Do you think they're being honest???

Don't forget the mindset people were in that day. Everyone thought it was a terrorist attack with more than one atttack going on. It's not unreasonable for people to hear something which sounds like an explosive going off, not know what it is and call the sound an "Explosion".

http://www.911myths.com/collapse2.rm

You can hear the explosive sound of steel snapping in that video yet there was no explosive.

[petgoat]

88. Please provide a quote from a specific person who described

the sound of the plane's impact as "a secondary explosion".

Is this more invention of evidence?

[Sinti]

91. Please be a little more considerate of other people's experience

Many people experienced "secondary explosions" as they were coming out of the building, that knocked them down, threw them back and so on. Obviously, these explosions were not the building pancaking on top of them, as they are still alive to tell. See for yourself in the videos below, if you would like to. Please, if you don't mind, have a little more respect for what these folks went through.

A gentleman who survived the catastrophe:

"It just went ba-boom, it was like a bomb went off, and it was like holy hell coming down them stairs, and then when we finally got to the bottom, we were coming out on mezzanine level, and another explosion came and sent everyone flying..."

Video link:

http://s74.photobucket.com/albums/i273/sintisoul/?action=view¤t=ba-boom.flv

Another gentleman who managed to survive the catastrophe:

"Me and Mr. Harris from the Corporation Council were on the 21st floor. I told him we've got to get out of here. We started walking down the stairs. We made it to the eighth floor. Big Explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor. And I turned to Harris, I said, we're dead, we're not going to make it out of here. I took a fire extinguisher and I busted a window out. That's when this gentleman heard my cries for help, this gentleman right here, and he said -- kept saying, stand by, somebody is coming to get you. They couldn't get to us for an hour, because they couldn't find us."

Video link:

http://s74.photobucket.com/albums/i273/sintisoul/?action=view¤t=911.flv


A firefighter who was trying to save lives:

"As we were getting our gear on, and making our way to the stairway there was a heavy duty explosion."

Video link:

http://s74.photobucket.com/albums/i273/sintisoul/?action=view¤t=heavy.flv

While I personally don't generally put that much stock in "eyewitness accounts," I think this video testimony speaks for itself. Granted, these "explosions" may have been from other things in the building being on fire, aerosol cans and the like will explode in a fire. These are facts we don't know from the video, and I'm open to that possibility. But, there were certainly "explosions," per se, not loud noises confused for something else.

[Christophera]

170. Men 6 Floors Down In the Basement Found Exploded Walls, From Plane Impact?

Are you trying to imply that the sound from the plane impact blew up the walls in the basement?


Explosions In The Basement.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/theories/chiefengineer_pecoraro.html

Mike told his co-worker to call upstairs to their Assistant Chief Engineer and find out if everything was all right. His co-worker made the call and reported back to Mike that he was told that the Assistant Chief did not know what happened but that the whole building seemed to shake and there was a loud explosion. They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them.

...............

The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.

"There was nothing there but rubble" Mike said. "We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press - gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.

........

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. ‘There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything’ he said

No walls, NO WALLS!!! This is not possible from plane impact..

[Sinti]

46. Debunking911, why did the steel at the core offer so little resistance?

Explain to me how it fell so fast, please.

[Debunking911]

48. The core didn't fail first

The connections at the core failed. The core was still standing seconds after the collapse.

MIT did a study and found the collapse times were easy to achieve with the KE in the building.

The trusses pulled in the columns which begain the collapse. As the debris from the collapse hit the trusses below the kinetic energy in the collapse snapped the bolts and ripped other bolt holes open with ease. it's esimated that the 30 stories above the collapse point was about 50,000 tons for the south tower. The WTC was essentially bolted together like an erector set. Each average floor had 376 5/8" bolts, 188 Truss seats, 120 ViscoElastic pieces and 120 gusset plates. That's what failed and caused the pancaking but only after the trusses pulled the columns in and tilted the building.

[Sinti]

49. I didn't ask when the core failed I asked why didn't it slow the collapse

The South Tower collapsed very quickly, the top 30 floors went down in 3 seconds, at 12:20 by time-coded video (which I will upload to somewhere tomorrow if I can) from the initiation of failure the entire thing is on the ground - no core - just dust. Even 20 seconds from top to bottom is a bit hard to swallow, given the size and amount of material.



As you can see, that's a lot of structural steel being used.

Columns in lower core are almost solid steel and weigh up to 56 tons each.

Link for above statement:
http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/eng-news-record.htm

Do you suppose they used a lot of really sub-par steel in the building and pocketed the extra? Do you think perhaps the lower part was weakened dramatically by the previous bombing causing thousands of microscopic fractures? Really bad engineering? If it's the engineering, there are a lot of buildings we should worry about.

The question is not really why the building failed, it's why so fast. Can you give me a pointer to the MIT paper, perhaps that will enlighten me a bit. If you have it and don't mind.

[Debunking911]

66. The floors are not ON TOP OF THE CORE so why should it

create resistance? The floors are on top of plate connections. They ripped off easily from the core. So your question is a straw man. How can the structural steel in the core columns resist collapse if the collapse went around it/beside it?

Look at 'Detail B' in the graphic below...



You see where it says "Seat with stiffiner plate"? Do you see where it says "Two 5/8" diamiter bolts in slotted holes.



You see the guy sitting on the horizontal column? You see the little things protruding out?

That's what failed and not the core. That's what caused the resistance we see in the longer than free fall collapse times.

Did you expect 5/8" bolts to stop that Juggernaut once it got going???

[Sinti]

70. My question is not a "straw man" - a straw man is a very specific

kind of argument. It is when someone proposes a very weak argument, replacing the original argument, then shoots it down, thereby attempting to discredit the whole body of evidence that you are presenting. Please, I beg of you, use this term correctly it is unnerving.

I did not ask if the core failed or why the core failed. That's not my question. I am asking why the structural steel that is obviously there from photographs (in the core and elsewhere) didn't slow the progression. It is a simple question which you appear to answer "around" rather than directly.

There was a lot of steel in the building, structural steel welded as well as bolted together. Why did the vertical supporting structural steel not slow the collapse. You obviously cannot answer this simple question. I will try to find out what they say for myself, thank you.

[petgoat]

73. A second question: if the floors peeled so easily away from the

core, then why did the core fall at all?

[Sinti]

74. BTW, there were more than just 5/8 inch bolts holding the steel together

That is a fallacy perpetrated by PBS, I've never seen that said elsewhere.

This statement is from the House hearing.

The floor system was supported by 29-inch-deep open-web joist trusses with A36 steel chord angles
and steel rod diagonals. Composite 1-1/2-inch, 22-gauge metal floor deck ran parallel to double trusses that
were spaced at 6 feet 8 inches. The floor deck was also supported by alternate intermediate support angles
and transverse bridging trusses that were spaced at 3 feet 4 inches. The bridging truss also framed into some
periphery columns. Figure 2-2 (in Chapter 2) shows the layout of a typical floor. Because 13-foot-wide and
20-foot-wide modular floor units were prefabricated for construction, the outside two trusses shared a
common top chord seat connection with adjacent panels. All double trusses were attached to every other
periphery column by a seat angle connection and a gusset plate that was welded to the spandrel and top
chord. Therefore, all truss supports had two trusses attached to the seat connection. A single bolt was used
for each truss sharing a seat connection. The bottom chord of each pair of trusses was attached to the spandrel
with visco-elastic dampers that had a slip capacity of 5 kips. At the core, the trusses were connected to
girders that were attached to the box or H-shaped core columns by beam seats welded to the column faces.

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_apndxB.pdf

[petgoat]

75. Good find! nt

[mirandapriestly]

78. Wowsers! ,nt.

[Grateful for Hope]

80. Excellent find

You are quite a fine researcher.

[Christophera]

139. NOTICE: No Raw Images Used, Paints Mental Picture (argument demo inside)

A fictional notion of collapse for those who do not want to believe our government has been infiltrated.



Notice, one picture destroys his entire argument, just as if it were a thousand words.





We had better warn insurance companies about the potentials for brackets, viscoelastic dampers and bolts. Those things are really potent.

[Christophera]

77. NO MIHOP says "Fires Alone", Unless Disinfo, Planted Strawman In Truth

camp.



I don't understand why you have to try make such an incredibly confusing sentence.

Posted by Debunking911

That's not the NIST report. I was responding to this. So I don't understand why you bring up the general view of MIHOP when there is clearly some who at least portray the jet fuel as not enough to soften the steel

Perhaps you haven't made a sentence or a vaild point because no MIHOPer portrays fuel fires as adequate. The opposite.

[petgoat]

52. Those drawings are what's dishonest about the NIST report

They ascribe to NIST's fantasies about what happened a degree of unjustified
precision to make it look like empirical data.

Do you have ANY evidence of thermite?

Yes. The molten metal in the basement, the sulfidation attack on the steel
documented in the FEMA report Appendix C, the picture of what looks like
blobs of molten metal on the ends of falling core columns in Dr. Jones's
paper.

the residual chemicals should still be all over the lower east side of
manhattan.

Why? Thermite is not an explosive per se. It's an exothermic cutting agent.

How many people and how many man hours are needed for this?

Dr. Jones says forty men taking ten trips each. Dr. Van Romero says a few
charges in key places could have brought the building down.

You would need TONS of thermite directly on the columns to do the job.

So is it hard to bring the towers down or are they a house of cards? And are
the truss clips flimsy and unzipping and strong enough to buckle the perimeter
columns, and are the trusses so flimsy they sag or so strong that when they cool
they buckle the perimeter columns? You guys need to make up your minds.

There are many questions left unanswered by the conspiracy sites.

Maybe if you'd bother to read Dr. Jones and Dr. Romero you'd learn something.

[quickesst]

63. Well said petgoat....

Which is one of the reasons I felt comfortable participating in this forum. But this is like the planes. Sometimes they're just aluminum shells that disintegrated on impact, and sometimes they are juggernauts that can rip through concrete and steel. Of course this applies to witnesses too. When the witness relays a gubment position, it's a credible witness, and they can't wait to show it to us. When a witness relays a ct position, well then there are all these circumstances, and sometimes they see what's not really there, you know, because it's a psychological thing. I still don't know why they choose to "waste" a part of their lives arguing with what they percieve as "fringe whackos". Hey, I don't really believe in the chemtrail theory, but, I don't waste a precious part of my life on the chemtrail boards trying to convince them they're delusional. Thanks.
quickesst

[Debunking911]

68. Why is it

that you take conspiracy sites at their word when I prove quotes were chopped up like puzzle pieces by them? Why do you not take the word of fireman who were there over a web site asking for donations? Why are civil engineers not smart enough or honest enough to see what laymen see? Why are laymen willing to risk thier lives but not civil engineers? Why are civil engineers not only keeping quite but comming out against CD? You can't even get a controlled demolition expert on your side.

No, I don't think you're whacko, I think you've been told one side of the story and only the drips thay want you to know. That's why I'm here.

Another reason I'm here is exactly what you hint at in your reply. The republicans want us to distrust government to help them "Drown it in a bathtub". While I don't trust them I don't think it's all filled with corrupt people from top to bottom. You may get a % corrupt but not the number you need to pull this off? Sorry, I don't see any evidence for that. It's something a republican would say.

[mrgerbik]

69. because ...

that you take conspiracy sites at their word when I prove quotes were chopped up like puzzle pieces by them?

Not all "conspiracy" sites chop up their quotes. Look around among the hundreds of 9/11 skeptic sites and you'll find truths, theories and conjecture, just as you would any scientific debate. I myself don't believe all the theories that are out there. Mashing all conspiracy theories together and calling it a whole is simply lazy. Most, if not all of us, just want the truth.


Why are civil engineers not smart enough or honest enough to see what laymen see?

I guess it depends on what civil engineers you talk to. Some clammed up after they clearly stated on that day or just after that the official theory was extremely improbable. I think it's alot easier to "go along" with the official reasoning - no one wants to be labeled a fringe wacko. I think peoples jobs and reputations are at stake in most cases.


The republicans want us to distrust government to help them "Drown it in a bathtub". While I don't trust them I don't think it's
all filled with corrupt people from top to bottom.

I personally don't believe it's all the Republican's work. I won't surmise as to WHO it was, but I think most politicians are in the dark on any inside work. It would be too dangerous to let everyone in on a plan of this magnitude.


You may get a % corrupt but not the number you need to pull this off?

I don't understand why you would expect that more then a small group of people would be needed to pull something like this off. Years of planning and almost anything is possible. If you can believe that a group of terrorists could pull something like this off, why not insiders?

[Debunking911]

67. Jones blob photo are photoshopped, Pyroclastic flow never happened.

First I would like to know why Jones uses a photoshopped picture to support his hypothesis? This is the original...



The camera informaton is still on it.

Note it look less white than Jones photo? He says the white blobs prove Hoffman's "pyroclastic flow" hypothesis. Then why did he feel the need to add white to the photo?

Also, I've been asking this for a while but no one seems to have any evidence of people complaining of being burned by the air in the dust cloud. No poached people anywhere despite some fireman were a block away. There are trees next to the building which showed no signs or 212 degree F air temp. This would happen in a pyroclastic flow because the minimum temp is 212 degrees F. (100 degrees C) That alone proves Hoffman's out of his mind.

[petgoat]

72. Boy are you jumping to conclusions!

I would like to know why Jones uses a photoshopped picture to support his hypothesis?

I see the same white blobs in both pictures.

Where does Jones say the blobs prove pyroclastic flow? The blobs are evidence of thermate,
and have nothing to do with the duct clouds.

no one seems to have any evidence of people complaining of being burned by the air in the dust
cloud.... That alone proves Hoffman's out of his mind.

Photos of burned cars lining the curbs have been posted on this board. I haven't seen any
pictures of any jumpers on the pavement either--does that mean there weren't any jumpers?

[Debunking911]

82. That's because hes been changing his paper...

This is the photo he used to have.



This is his original paper

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm

You see how tricky he is? He was found out months ago so he changes the photo.

As you can see he has changed his paper a lot because his more ludicrous claims were found and debunked early.

He wrote:

"Observe the grayish-white plumes trailing upward from white "blobs" at the left-most extremities of the upper structure."

There are no WHITE BLOBS in the upper left of the original. In his photoshopped one there is.



Where does Jones say the blobs prove pyroclastic flow? The blobs are evidence of thermate, and have nothing to do with the duct clouds.

You might be right, I retract that. I must be thinking of him using Hoffman who thinks there was a pyroclastic flow at the WTC. He uses Hoffman as an authority. Hes an idiot if he think there was a 212 degree minimum temp for pyroclastic flows.

The point is he used a photoshopped photo to make his case. I stand by that. He also uses a a very questionable source as an authority.

There was cars on fire from falling debris, not a pyroclastic flow. The proof is there was paper right next to the cars on fire. Unless it was asbestos paper and trees by ground zero there was no pyroclastic flow.

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

Note more photoshopped white clouds.

This is version 3. You should have seen one. Heh!

[petgoat]

87. I don't believe that Jim Hoffman ever claimed that the dust

clouds were 212 degrees, so your "debunking" on that score would seem to be
a straw man.

I'll suppose that your claims of photoshopping rest on some perception of the
tweaking of gammas or brightnesses--which would seem to me to fall under the
classification of "enhancement" rather than the "fabrication" implied by the
use of the verb "photoshopped".

[LARED]

100. Actually Hoffman claimed something even more ridiculous

He claims the temperature was raised to over 700 deg C. What a knucklehead.

According to the ideal gas law, expanding the gasses 3.4-fold requires raising their absolute temperature by the same ratio. If we assume the tower was at 300 degrees K before the collapse, then the target temperature would be 1020 degrees K, an increase of 720 degrees. Given a density of 36 g/foot^3 for air, the tower held about 2,000,000,000 g of air. Air has a specific heat of 0.24 (relative to 1 for water), so one calorie will raise one g of air 1 / 0.24 = 4.16 degrees. To raise 2,000,000,000 g by 720 degrees requires:

2,000,000,000 g * 720 degrees * 0.24 = 345,600,000,000 calories
= 399,500 KWH

:rofl:

[boastOne43]

81. that photo actually exhibits signs of thermite use.

if you look at the columns that are falling towards the center of the pic, the horizontal ones about even with the top of WTC 7, you'll notice the tops of them are smoking. this is a sure sign that thermite was used to 'cut' them as they are still hot from the process. thanks for posting it.

[Debunking911]

83. Not at all

You can't tell what that is. It could be anything falling away from the column. The core columns were surrounded by three layers of fire retardant gypsum which were painted. (Making the wall around the core) It would have easily broke away and caused the light gray (Not white) anomaly you see. Why doesn't he even consider this as a possibility? Only someone with another motive would jump to such a conclusion.

Some of what you see is paper. It's not a blob but more like some dots. like in this photo...

[mirandapriestly]

79. Thermite also provides oxygen

which would keep buried fires going,as they were in the wtc rubble, fwiw.

[Debunking911]

84. You can't find

a single example of thermite lasting 6 weeks after it goes off. It would have taken tons of thermite. There is a more plausable explanation though...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm

It's pure physics and explained in detail.

[mirandapriestly]

86. Uh, thermite is just

iron OXIDE & aluminum powder, maybe sulfer, it's not "a bomb going off". Get it? oxide =oxygen. It's a reaction that can contain even under water or while buried because it carries it's own oxygen supply. AND not just the fires need to be a certain temp, but THE STEEL HAS to reach and maintain that temp. too.

[Debunking911]

90. I don't recall saying thermite blew up like a bomb?

Only that you need tons of it.

Another explination exist which is far more plausible.

Abbreviations: gigaJoules (gJ) = 1,000 megaJoules (MJ). To heat steel to the melting point requires about 0.68 gJ of heat to be added for each tonne (metric ton) of steel. Enough more heat has to be added to melt it. Total is about 1 gJ/tonne. All we require is enough heat to obtain yellow hot steel, approximately 0.6 gJ/tonne. However, for simplicity and to allow for losses, assume 1 gJ/tonne of yellow hot steel in the basement(s) of WTC 1 & 2(?).

This could esaily be supplied by a pressure pulse down the box columns as each floor is stripped off.
Again, for simplicity of analysis, assume 100 floors each supplied the same sized pulse of energy down the box column. Then each floor supplied 10 MJ. Calculations shows that this amount of energy, distributed over the horizontal area of the box columns, only provides a small fraction of the pressure required to cause structural steel to yield. So ignoring the top 10 floors to allow a further 10% loss in energy transfer, all that is required to obtain yellow hot steel in the basements is the modest contribution of 10 MJ per floor per tonne of yellow hot steel.

Pressure calculations: Above I determined that each floor needed to deliver 10 MJ of energy down the box column to the bottom in order to supply more than sufficient heat to cause a tonne of steel to become yellow hot. Here we need to assure ourselves that this energy delivery does not stress the box column into yielding. Now just yielding is not failure, but might be noticed in a post-collapse inspection of box columns. From wikipedia, structural steel has a yield strength of 400 MPa and an ultimate strength of 650 MPa.

Reminders: Pascal = Newton/m^2, Joule = Newton-meter (N.m). The meters-squared, m^2, will refer to the cross-sectional area of the box column. The meters in the Joule part will refer to the vertical height of the pressure pulse traveling down the box column. The speed of sound in steel is 5100--5960 m/s, depending upon the source one uses. For simplicity in the following I will assume that the speed of the pressure pulse is just the rounded-off 5000 m/s.

Since we are attempting to find the highest possible reasonable figure for the pressure delivered to the box column by the pressure pulse, assume that the pressure pulse lasts only for 0.001 s = 1 millisecond. Then this square wave of pressure extends vertically for 5 meters. Thus the force over these 5 meters is 2 MN, 10 MJ = 2 MN x 5 m. So the force applied to the cross-sectional area of the box column is 2 megaNewtons.

Now assume that this force is applied equally across the cross-sectional area of the box column. (We will return to this assumption. It certainly applies to all parts of the pressure pulse traveling down the box column except at the moment of initiation.) Now assume the box column is a square 1 meter on a side and is 3" = .0762 m thick. Thus the steel cross-sectional area is 4 x 0.0762 = 0.3048 m^2.

We have now determined that the pressure on the box columns due to the pressure pulse traveling down it is 6.56 MPa = 2 MN/0.3048 m^2. This is trivial compared to the 400 MPa yield strength of the structural steel. No yielding will be observed, and indeed, none was in the majority of the structural steel. The exceptions are in the basement, where stresses and temperatures were high. The 400 MPa figure applies to ordinary temperatures, not elevated ones.

At the moment of the initiation of the pressure pulse due to floors stripping off, the initial forces will all be on just the outside edges of the most exterior of the box columns in the core. But as the calculation shows, the pressure required is less than 1/40th of the yield strength. So the box columns would not show signs of yielding, even with highly asymmetric patterns of the initial forces.

"Roaring oven" Ok, it was indeed hot in the rubble piles of WTC 1 & 2. More important, there were definite hot spots which were the hottest. We have seen ample evidence of potential fuels, including ordinary office materials, gasoline in the automobiles in the basement(?) and transformer oil. However, heat always flows from higher temperatures to lower ones. So to obtain yellow hot steel requires not only sufficient energy, but if heated from the exterior, high temperatures. If the energy was supplied by pressure pulses, as suggested, then simply the friction of repeated slamming the bottom of a box column into unyielding concrete or granite suffices.

Further, perhaps the estimated temperature of the hot spots, obtained via infrared scanning, was 1500 F = (810+273)K = 1083K. Assuming approximately black body radiation. 1000K is red hot, maybe 1500K is orange hot. Yellow hot, then is very close to the melting temperature of iron, (1535+273)K = 1808K. It seems to me a higher temperature than can be reached by burning ordinary office materials. That gasoline was in close proximity seems unlikely. I don't know the temperature of burning transformer oil, but I suppose it is less than gasoline(?) The point behind this addendum is that the pressure pulse hypothesis is highly robust under alternative scenarios and is not dependent on an external source of chemical energy. - David B. Benson

[mirandapriestly]

93. from your site

Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten steel found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect.

[simonm]

85. elevator shafts - most likely place for bombs

How would they get the tons of thermite behind walls on every floor?

No need to target every floor or wall. A cutting charge for every 3 floors should be sufficient. These charges can be placed in the main core columns. In addition, strategically placed cutting charges on the outer perimeter for maximum control.

Elevator shafts would be ideal since they are next to the main support columns. Weekends are the best times because the building is mostly empty.

Do you have ANY evidence of thermite?

Thermite is only a possible option. There are alternatives and stronger versions but yes, lots of explosives would be required and only a well connected and financed group can accomplish the task. These guys are definitely not terrorists with box cutters.

How many people and how many man hours are needed for this?

A small crew of 8-12 and few weeks would do fine. The operation can be segmented as needed. Wiring and drilling would be the beginning phase and is labor intensive. Elevators can be used to move from each location. Very private.

The most significant and final step in the operation is placing the charges. For this, you would need to turn off all electricity to avoid electrical fields or the bombs can detonate prematurely.

The main switchbox to detonate the bombs can be hardwired to the existing communications infrastructure or wireless (less reliable, more risky).

If you want to remain on the scene to supervise the operation, WTC7 would be the ideal location especially if the system is hardwired. Any other tall building in the area would also suffice.

- This is just my theory which is based on various sources and I reserve the right to change it when new information is available.

[Debunking911]

94. The plan itself is unlikely.

"No need to target every floor or wall. A cutting charge for every 3 floors should be sufficient. These charges can be placed in the main core columns. In addition, strategically placed cutting charges on the outer perimeter for maximum control."

So what floors would be the ones needed to cause the perimeter columns to bow the way they did over time? Why didn't anyone see these thermite reactions on the other floors? No fireman said they saw anything like thermite going off. Only on the floor with the airliner debris did we see this effect. It just happens to be where aluminum and other material from the aircraft was.

"Elevator shafts would be ideal since they are next to the main support columns. Weekends are the best times because the building is mostly empty."

How would thermite in the basement cause the bow on the floors above? How would cutting the core columns in the basement bring the top down first? Wouldn't the building fall beginning at the bottom where the core was cut? Why not?

"Thermite is only a possible option. There are alternatives and stronger versions but yes, lots of explosives would be required and only a well connected and financed group can accomplish the task. These guys are definitely not terrorists with box cutters."

Why is everyone saying the fireman heard explosions then saying thermite which they say doesn't "Explode" cut the columns? Were the explosions the fireman heard, bombs exploding just for fun? How many different types of explosives and cutters were there? It sounds to me like the conspiracy sites say it's one thing then when that one thing doesn't fit the other evidence they change to another for just that thing.

"A small crew of 8-12 and few weeks would do fine. The operation can be segmented as needed. Wiring and drilling would be the beginning phase and is labor intensive. Elevators can be used to move from each location. Very private."

It takes crews months of work to bring down an unoccupied building without secrecy. This building was one of the most secure buildings in the world. Maintenance and cleaning crews worked around the clock all over the building. This was a small city in a city. For any team to get into the building they have to have people open doors for them and such. Why use such a risky plan when all they had to do is let another truck into the garage but this time with a small nuke.

Any crew that would be sent in to do one job but also install the charges would have to also DO THE JOB.

"The main switchbox to detonate the bombs can be hardwired to the existing communications infrastructure or wireless (less reliable, more risky)."

The reason why demolition crews use wires and not radio controlled explosives is someone may set off the frequency by accident who has nothing to do with it. Yet another unnecessary risk.

Then there is the other question of why not just blown one up to get the media there and the other later that day? Do you think they needed the planes? I don't know why they would pick a plan with so many possible places of failure when just one would have done the job.

[petgoat]

95. Once again, your post is full of invented impediments

It takes crews months of work

How many times do I have to tell you: Dr. Van Romero said a few charges could do it,
and Dr. Eagar's theory said that a few failing truss "clips" could do it.

Maintenance and cleaning crews worked around the clock all over the building.

And when they finished one section they wouldn't come back to it. Did they scrub the
elevator shafts out every night?

For any team to get into the building they have to have people open doors for them

They could rent space in the building and open the doors themselves.

someone may set off the frequency by accident

Not if you use insensitive receivers and powerful transmitters.

No fireman said they saw anything like thermite going off.

Were any of them in the elevator shafts?

Your continual talk about the perimeter columns being "bowed" is unfortunately supported
by no physical evidence, and the photographic evidence is doubtful because the photos
might just show heat waves. Too bad the steel that would have proved the bowing was
destroyed. Too bad NIST didn't address the heatwave issue in their analysis.


Your complaint that people cite explosion testimony and suggest thermite is just silly.
We have to deal with reality the way it is. Have you never seen it raining in the sunshine?
The creation of distracting events is a powerful disinfo technique--the murder victim was
strangled, but witnesses saw someone run away carrying a bloody knife. Demanding that
everything make sense when we are still assembling the data is not appropriate.

[Debunking911]

96. Here is my evidence, now show me yours.

"How many times do I have to tell you: Dr. Van Romero said a few charges could do it,"

This is a conspiracy theory lie.

"Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D."

"and Dr. Eagar's theory said that a few failing truss "clips" could do it."

But then this is not in the elevator shaft is it? Now you have thermite being rigged to the trusses. Why would they need thermite or bombs in the shaft if they could do the job with the thermite on the trusses? And this also doesn't explain the bowed columns.

"They could rent space in the building and open the doors themselves."

They can't open mechanical rooms and elevator shaft doorways. You are wrong. Only building personal can open those. You seem to be just rationalizing how they could get in without knowing how they could. There is an elevator serviceman in the physorg forum who has detailed just how hard this would be.

"Not if you use insensitive receivers and powerful transmitters."

Are you going to deny there is a greater risk?

"Your continual talk about the perimeter columns being "bowed" is unfortunately supported
by no physical evidence,"

You've got to be kidding me...







http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=WTC&pl=true



Yet you have not ONE photo of the east wall which does not show bowing from any camera at this same time. Not one yet you say I have no physical evidence. You could easily prove me wrong by providing ONE photo showing no bow in the column. Until you do (From a reliable source) I will continue to rely on this photographic evidence and helicopter pilot for proof.

"Your complaint that people cite explosion testimony and suggest thermite is just silly.
We have to deal with reality the way it is. Have you never seen it raining in the sunshine?
The creation of distracting events is a powerful disinfo technique--the murder victim was
strangled, but witnesses saw someone run away carrying a bloody knife. Demanding that
everything make sense when we are still assembling the data is not appropriate."

The conspiracy theorist are NOT just gathering evidence. They are saying things MUST have happened a certain way because that is the only explaination. What interesting is that you don't use the same logic when discussing the government reports. Conspiracy theorist were "Demanding that everything make sense when still assembling the data not appropriate" to do so according to you yet they did it with a vengence.

So you can't explain why people heard explosion from explosives yet you still think they used thermite to bring down the building. I suggest it's because heated trusses expanded which caused them to sag. Then they cooled pulling in the perimeter columns until the building tilted. Once it tilted the collapse begain and nothing was going to stop it. Not some bolts on the trusses or spandrels.

We SAW planes hit

We SAW the fires

We SAW sagged trusses

We SAW bowed columns (Whether you want them to be or not the evidence is clear)

We saw the building tilt

We saw the bolts sheard off on ground zero

We SAW the core standing for a few seconds after collapse suggesting it wasn't thermite in the basement because it would have fallen first. It also proves the floors pancaked around it.

We did NOT see what could be called thermite reactions except where the aluminum plane came to a stop in the building. (Something which can be and has been explained naturally in a number of ways)

We did NOT see any evidence of thermite in the basement other than molten metal which is easily explained with physics.

We did NOT see the building fall from the bottom floors as if the core was the first to fall.

We did NOT see the columns below the impact area bow as if the core fell first.

We did NOT see the columns fall inward as if the falling core pulled them in, they leaned over outward as if the floors fell first then the columns leaned outward, pushed my the falling debris.

There is just so much evidence of collapse by fire and NONE for Thermite/Explosives.

Can you PLEASE provide one bit of evidence for thermite other than the ones which have already been debunked?

[petgoat]

97. ..

You are in such a hurry to get to "the truth" that you fail to
consider the facts.

Dr. Van Romero said a few charges could bring the towers down. That is a
fact, not "a conspiracy theory lie" as you claim. He said that. He
never recanted it, and his change of opinion about the power of the
fires to bring the towers down is irrelevant to that fact.

Your conflation of Dr. Eagar's theory with a false thermite/explosives
dichitomy (why not use both?) is not rational. I never suggested thermite
was used on the trusses. An abrasive cutting wheel would be easier.

They can't open mechanical rooms and elevator shaft doorways.

You never heard of a pick gun? $59 from spycompany.com




Radio control is perfectly practical. One way would be to use simultaneous
transmission of two frequencies; another would use a coded pulse sequence.
Childsplay for techie types, believe me.

As to your continuing claims of perimeter bowing, your failure to distinguish
between "physical evidence" and "photos" hampers your analysis. Observations
of bowing prove of nothing since they can not be distinguished from
observations of heat waves. Your claim that the evidence on this is clear
is absurd.

you can't explain why people heard explosion from explosives yet you
still think they used thermite to bring down the building.

I certainly can. They heard explosions because they heard explosions. I think thermite
may have been used because it explains several otherwise inexplicable things:

the molten metal firefall from the northeast corner of WTC2
the sulfidation attack of the FEMA/ASCE Appendix C steel samples
the molten metal in the basement

In addition, thermite makes sense because it avoids leaving explosive residue, and because
it lacks the chemical markers that explosives have.

[Jazz2006]

101. Re: elevator shaft doorways.

Do you actually know how access to elevator shafts in the WTC towers was controlled and monitored?

And re: Van Romero. I don't recall seeing him quoted as saying "a few" charges could bring the towers down in the manner in which it fell. I recall reading his account of seeing the live reports on television beginning shortly after the first plane hit and his attempts to reach various officials by telephone because he believed very quickly that the buildings were in danger of collapse due to the airplane impacts, etc.

And I recall the story in the Albequerque newspaper and the subsequent story in which Mr. Romero said he was misquoted or misinterpreted, etc. but I don't recall him ever saying "a few" charges could bring the building down.

(And just so that it's amply clear, please note that I am not saying that he didn't say those words that you attribute to him with regularity here "that a few charges could bring the towers down" - I'm saying that I have never seen those words attributed to him anywhere else.)

[petgoat]

116. Dr. Van Romero

"If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.

"The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said."

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

[Jazz2006]

127. I've seen that quote many times.

I thought that you might have one in which he says "a few charges could bring the towers down", which is why I asked.

[petgoat]

140. That's what the paraphrase says. nt

[Jazz2006]

102. And another query, petgoat., re: access to elevator shafts

What makes you think that it would be easy for someone to surreptitiously gain access to the elevator shafts in the WTC towers on various floors for purposes of planting explosives and how many floors and at what levels do you think they would have had to do so in order to plant these explosives?

And given that there are approximately 100 elevators in each tower, how many of those do you think that such surreptitious explosives planters would have required access to?

[petgoat]

117. For Elevator Access see "Elevator Surfing"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_surfing
http://gene.greger-weltin.org/elevator_surfing/




http://www.explosive911analysis.com

According to USAToday, there were 198 elevators

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm

I wouldn't want to speculate on the nuts and bolts of how many charges
and where.

My purpose in advancing the charges-in-the-elevator-shafts theory was
only to discredit the notion that istalling explosives would have been
impractically complex.

[Jazz2006]

136. I doubt that "elevator surfing" as described

in those links would work at the WTC towers, petgoat, for a variety of reasons.

I don't have time right now to write it all out in great detail but thought I'd respond briefly now just to give you an idea of where I'm coming from on this subject, and we can discuss it in further detail later if you like.

In a nutshell, I think that the "elevator surfing" scenario described is precluded because of

(1) the various locking mechanisms in place on the tower elevator cars;
(2) the unlikelihood of accessibility to the roof of the elevator cars from the landing side of the elevators while in between floors even if you could get past (1);
(3) the configuration of the elevator cars as set out in the graphic you posted (i.e. local elevators, express elevators, etc.; and
(4) various other security measures in place that restrict a tenant's access to various parts and floors of the buildings after hours.

I think that the scenario you're advancing - i.e. planting sufficient explosives in WTC tower elevator shafts to bring down the towers in the manner in which they fell - would be much more complex in practice than you seem to think. And to do so undetected would be, I suspect, practically impossible.

[petgoat]

141. practically impossible.

Right. 'Cause they have locks on the doors, and everybody knows spooks can't pick
locks.

'Cause they have video cameras, and everybody knows a video monitor can't be fooled by a loop of
videotape.

I think you're claiming expertise you don't have.

[Jazz2006]

161. You seem to be taking a very simplistic view to

something that is more complex than you suggest.

I claim no personal expertise in this subject matter. I have, however, been consulting with people who do have expertise in it, and I have been conducting research and fact-checking on it (which is still ongoing).

It is not a simple matter of picking locks on doors. The "various locking mechanisms" that I referred to previously are not merely "locks on the doors" as you seem to blithely assume. As I understand it, there are at least three different types of locking mechanisms that were in place at the WTC towers at the time, two of which were designed to prevent the inner elevator doors from opening in between floors and a third designed to prevent the outer elevator doors from opening when an elevator car was not at a landing. While one of the former two types could potentially be overcome from inside an elevator car, the second type – which was installed in approximately half of the cars – could not.

It is also not the simple matter that you seem to assume it is to avoid all of the security measures in place at the towers at the time. It is not just a matter of "having video cameras". The security measures, particularly those that were put into place after the 1993 bombing, are much more extensive than that.

You seem to want to make it sound as though a crew of explosive planters, having taken up tenancy in the towers prior to 9/11 to establish their cover, could:

(1) wander all over the buildings after hours at will;
(2) gain access to anything they want with nothing but a pickgun (hint: pickguns only work on conventional locks like those "locks on doors" that you refer to, not on electronic locking systems);
(3) shimmy on top of elevator cars from inside numerous elevators (and it would have to be numerous elevators because of the system of express and local elevator cars in place);
(4) either have access to the records that illustrate which of the elevators were equipped with which type of locking mechanisms in order to use only the ones whose inner doors could potentially be opened from inside the elevator cars, or, alternatively do a whole lot of trial runs in a whole lot of those 200 elevators after hours with a crew of people in each one that they are testing in order to determine which of the elevators had which locking mechanism;
(5) all the while avoiding video cameras, both the obvious ones and the hidden ones, presumably because they have also gained access to information on where all of those cameras are located;
(6) all the while avoiding being seen or heard by other tenants or security guards walking through the buildings;
(7) all the while causing no apparent damage and raising no suspicion;

And while a “video monitor can be fooled by a loop of video tape,” given that the explosives planting team would have to gain access to numerous elevators in different locations and on different floors, they would also have to fool numerous video monitors.

Disclaimer: I am not saying that explosives could not, under any circumstances, be planted in elevator shafts. In fact, my consultations, research and fact-checking to date have led me to believe that it could, in fact, be done. Certainly not in the simplistic manner that you seem to be suggesting, and certainly not by “elevator surfing” as described in the links you provided. I think it would be a thousandfold more complicated than you suggest, but I think that it could be done if one invested the necessary time, money, technical expertise, and if one was also – and there’s no getting around this – very, very lucky.

[petgoat]

173. You don't source your claims of detailed technical knowledge.

Elevator surfing requires that adjacent cars ride on different tracks but share the same
elevator shaft. This says that if one got access to the shaft through one car, one
would then have access to many shafts.

The security measures, particularly those that were put into place after the 1993
bombing, are much more extensive than that.

Whatever they are, they involve low-paid workers after midnight, probably working
second jobs, bored out of their skulls because nothing ever happens.

quickesst's point that no one with a ladder and a toolbox would be questioned is another
factor.

[Jazz2006]

175. Again, Ms. Goat, your simplistic view is apparent in your

lame response.

"Elevator surfing" in the manner you seem to envision requires a whole lot more than cars sharing the same shaft. It is ridiculous to extrapolate from the college boy antics site that you cited that it is applicable to all elevator systems in all buildings, and particularly ridiculous to extrapolate that it is applicable to the unusual (at the time, unprecedented) elevator system in the WTC towers, and equally ridiculous to extrapolate that it is applicable to highly secure buildings.

The "if" factor of your second sentence is one of the points I addressed in great detail in my prior post. Gaining access to the roof of an elevator car from inside an elevator car in the WTC towers in the first place is all but impossible. Funny how you gloss over that necessary requirement, upon which everything else in your scenario relies.

And funny how you haven't managed to respond to all of the other points I addressed, upon which your "easy" scenario relies.

And, no, gaining access to the roof of an elevator in one shaft does not mean that you could also gain access to other shafts (depending on the nature and location of the other shafts), although it would allow you to gain access to other elevators in the same shaft as long as you don't mind risking being crushed to death, of course, in the midst of your explosive planting endeavors.

And "quickesst's point that no one with a ladder and a toolbox would be questioned" is complete and utter nonsense.

Jesus, maybe I should revert to addressing all of your posts with "Got milk?" for all the thought and effort you put into them.

[petgoat]

177. Still no source, I see. I don't see how you can claim

that access to the elevator shafts comes only through impossible portholes. You have
the secret blueprints to support this view?

[Jazz2006]

179. There you go again, Ms. Goat.

"Impossible portholes"?

WTF are you on about now? I certainly never said any such thing. You seem to just make things up as you go along and hope that nobody will actually read back to see that you're making it up.

You're the one suggesting that planting explosives in the elevator shafts of the WTC towers to bring them down in the manner in which they collapsed would be a piece of cake, requiring nothing more than "elevator surfing" and "video loops".

I responded in detail setting out why I think that your view is ridiculously simplistic.

It is quite telling that you have addressed none of the specific points I made and even more telling that you're now manufacturing things such as "impossible portholes" and attributing them to me.

And "secret blueprints"?

Again, you haven't responded to the points set out in detail above, but instead sidestep them entirely and attempt to ridicule by making up shit.

I can only conclude, therefore, that you know full well how ridiculous your "elevator surfing and video loop" scenario is but you hope that by tossing undeserved insults around that others might not notice.

Sheesh.

[petgoat]

180. Your response in detail was unsourced.

I didn't address your specific points because they were not worth adddressing.

You want to claim access to the elevator shafts is impossible, then object
when I point that out.

Yes, secret blueprints. The blueprints of the WTC are still secret.

[Jazz2006]

182. Nah, you didn't address my points because you can't.

It is quite obvious, Ms. Goat.

You try to obfuscate by attributing things to others that they've never said. You try to ridicule anything that you don't understand or that you cannot refute and hope that people won't notice that you don't actually address the points made.

A certain proportion of posters here will buy into that. But none who apply any semblance of critical thinking skills will.

Nice try, though.

[petgoat]

184. Still no source, I see. Spam does not serve truth, nt

[Jazz2006]

185. Lame, lame, lame, Ms. Goat.

Still no response to the points I made, I see.

No surprise there.

[petgoat]

186. Surely as a lawyer you understand that much of your stuff is inadmissible.

List your points and I'll respond (maybe). Unsourced claims (and anonymous anecdotes
like "I knew Mohammed Atta") I ignore--they are less than hearsay and only clutter up
my beautiful mind.

[Jazz2006]

189. It seems that you can't even spell inadmissible,

let alone comprehend what it means.

It is obvious that I'm wasting my time on you.

I posted - in good faith - some fairly detailed responses to your posts on points about the elevators and security systems in the towers and how or if explosives could have been planted in the elevator shafts. I went so far as to consult with those with expertise in those fields and knowledge of the buildings. I pointed out that my research and fact checking was continuing but that this is what I'd learned so far.

Your response? It was totally lame, and didn't address the vast majority of what I'd said. Just another fly-by seagull sort of post that characterizes the vast majority of your posts.

Even though I knew that was your style, I actually thought that maybe, just maybe, you weren't going to resort to seagull style for a change.

I was wrong, obviously.

You post all manner of ridiculous crap all over the place, usually one liners with no basis in fact, just a bunch of uninformed nonsense, while you purport to ridicule anyone who happens to disagree with your goofy and unsubstantiated notions, and yet you expect, nigh demand, that others provide you with detailed and footnoted facts, sources, and annotations. Pffffft.

Lastly, while it might be cute on a juvenile sort of level that you are attempting to pretend that you understand law, what with your references to "inadmissable(sic)" and "hearsay", I will gently suggest that you refrain as it seems quite obvious that you do not have a clue.

Oh, and by the way, "Got Milk?"

[petgoat]

192. Your detailed responses were unsourced, and thus bs.

Also, you seem to be forgetting that you're supposed to espouse
an anti-Bush agenda occasionally. Isn't it about time for you
to tell me I'm embarrassing the progressive cause?

And where do you get the idea I can't spell inadmissible?
Did some expert with no name tell you that?

I edit because I'm a compulsive editor, not because I can't spell.

[Jazz2006]

195. Yet again, Ms. Goat,

you've said nothing of substance but try to obfuscate when you can't refute.

Oh, and the ever popular insinuation that someone who disagrees with you, or - god forbid - expects you to post something, anything, of substance - must be a bush lover/freeper/troll.

Yeah, that's really subtle and clever of you.

If you can't refute, obfuscate.

If all else fails, insinuate the the person who disagrees with you is a bush lover,

No, that's never been done before. Never. No, really, never ever.

You should start a thread on it to illustrate your cleverness and originality.

[petgoat]

196. Still no source, only spam. My point was important, I suppose.

I'm beginning to think I must have said something important that needs
to be buried under wads of electronic kleenex. (All this shit means
a pony and all that.)

I'll have to look over the record and see what it was.

Probably it was the point that Boeing and Otis sell their products around the
world, thus Boeing and Otis locks to cockpits and elevators are available
for study around the world, and are thus insecure.

[Jazz2006]

198. Still no refutation, only nonsense, Ms. Goat.

It grows wearisome.

And one of us has to work in a few hours.

Adieu.

[petgoat]

199. Your stuff is not sourced, therefore inadmissible. That's nonsense? nt

[Jazz2006]

201. Your responses are the nonsensical bits, Ms. Goat.

You still haven't - because you can't - refute the substance of my posts.

No matter how long you try to convince yourself otherwise.

Now, like I said, one of us (me) has to work in a few hours so I can't continue this little game of yours where you pretend to post anything responsive while you.....

don't...

ever.


But knock yourself out.

[petgoat]

202. Restate your points (if any) . I'm beginning to think my point

that the Otis elevator locks and the Boeing cockpit locks were available to clients
around the world is what motivated this spam attack. (The Boeing locks have previously
been discussed on this board.)

I'm learning from the opposition. Elsewhere a Bushcist inadvertently pointed out to me
that the answer to the riddle of the FEMA Appendix C sulfidated steel samples might
be that someone salted the samples with sulfur, hoping that investigators would take
the bait and conclude that diesel fuel and jet fuel were so goshdarn corrosive that
wimpy little fires caused the collapses of the towers and WTC7.

They didn't, and nobody has suggested that the sulfur came from the fuel.

[Debunking911]

118. I asked for evidence

Show me the quote outside a conspiracy theory site for Dr. Van Romero. Here is my evidence:

"I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

"Your conflation of Dr. Eagar's theory with a false thermite/explosives
dichitomy (why not use both?) is not rational. I never suggested thermite
was used on the trusses. An abrasive cutting wheel would be easier."

Do you have evidence to support the "abrasive cutting wheel" theory?

"Radio control is perfectly practical. One way would be to use simultaneous
transmission of two frequencies; another would use a coded pulse sequence.
Childsplay for techie types, believe me."

If it's that easy and safe why don't real controlled demolition experts use it?

"As to your continuing claims of perimeter bowing, your failure to distinguish
between "physical evidence" and "photos" hampers your analysis. Observations
of bowing prove of nothing since they can not be distinguished from
observations of heat waves. Your claim that the evidence on this is clear
is absurd."

Do you have any evidence it's heat distortion? You don't do you. You simply read it on a conspiracy site and THEY don't even have evidence for it. You couldn't get the SAME bowed effect from EVERY angle and EVERY camera. You just CAN'T. This idea is from conspiracy theorist who are desperate for some answer to this powerful evidence. The FACT is heat distortions are wavy and not uniformed.

More evidence:



This is heat distortion from fire. You couldn't get another photo from another camera to give the same exact photo. That's because the angle you're viewing in changes the refraction.

So you can continue to claim the bowed columns are a result of heat distortion/refraction but I will continue to point out you're wrong. The difference is I'll do it with evidence.

"the molten metal firefall from the northeast corner of WTC2"

Airliner and office debris can also explain this anomaly. There is a paper by Dr Greening which shows this possibility.

"the sulfidation attack of the FEMA/ASCE Appendix C steel samples"

The sulfidation can also be explained by sulfur in the gypsum and 30 years of acid rain. It was in NY.

"the molten metal in the basement'

This is the easiest to explain with physics.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm

The point is there is nothing which screams thermite or explosive. This is a leap which the evidence doesn't support.

[petgoat]

143. You asked for evidence and you got it.

Do you have evidence to support the "abrasive cutting wheel" theory?

Of course not. I only advanced it in response to the absurd theory that thermite was
used on the trusses.

If {radio control} is that easy and safe why don't real controlled demolition experts use
it?

Because it's expensive. Besides, the miles of det cord makes the client feel
they're getting good value for their money.

You couldn't get the SAME bowed effect from EVERY angle and EVERY camera.

Who says that they did?

heat distortions are wavy

You show a point source. What we're talking about is heat coming out of every
window on a floor, and subject to laminar flow. Your picture is a point source
in open air. Apples and oranges.

"the molten metal firefall from the northeast corner of WTC2" Airliner and office debris

Molten aluminum is not cherry red. Nor is molten computers, molten particle board,
molten rugs, or molten paper.

The sulfidation can also be explained by sulfur in the gypsum and 30 years of acid rain.

If gympsum caused eutectic evaporation of steel, it should be common enough that
fire engineers would step forward and say so. They haven't. Acid rain? Are you
suggesting that WTC7 had roof leaks?

Your "explanation" of the molten metal at http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm
has no author. I haven't got time for anonymous perlscript "proofs".

there is nothing which screams thermite or explosive.

There is plenty.

The molten metal, the sulfidation attack, the eyewitness accounts, the pulverized
concrete, the fact that Orio Palmer did not report any structural damage or any big
fires, the dust clouds, the symmetrical collapse, the squibs, the fact that steel
conducts and radiates heat so efficiently, the lack of any core steel samples showing
heating over 250 degrees C, reports by William Rodriguez of an explosion BEFORE the
plane hit.

[AZCat]

146. Laminar flow?

You don't know what you're talking about. Why not just tell the truth and admit that you don't understand the phenomenon, rather than trying to fake it? If you ask nicely, there are even posters here who wouldn't mind trying to explain it.

[petgoat]

147. Laminar flow as opposed to turbulent flow is a simple intuitive

concept. Hot air coming out of the windows of the WTC will tend to rise in sheets along the side
of the building, as opposed to the turbulent flow displayed in Bunk's photograph. We see the same
thing when water pours smoothy along a pencil.

If you have a PhD in fluid dynamics please enlighten us, but unsubstantiated claims to
superior knowledge are of little value.

[AZCat]

162. A PhD in fluid mechanics is not necessary...

to understand the difference between the two cases in your post. Perhaps a primer on Reynold's number would be useful, or does your knowledge encompass this already? Boundary layers also play a role here, so it might not be a bad idea if you knew more about them if you persist in developing your own theories.

[petgoat]

168. It's not my theory, it's Bunk's theory

He presents a photo of a hot-air-distorted image. The heat source is a point source some
distance from the image object. Bunk claims that's what heat distortion from the fires
should look like.

I'm pointing out that there's no comparison of Bunk's photo to the distortions observed
in the photos of the WTC, which distortions are cited by NIST as evidence of column
buckling but which can also be explained as heat-wave image refractions.

[petgoat]

99. Re: Alleged risk of radio control.

If receivers had a timer built in, there could be no danger of premature detonation.

[Sinti]

206. Hey, petgoat, they didn't really have to do radio control, if the House

info is correct.

WTC #1 & #2 were wired through #7 through the basement to a substation.

2.1.5 Emergency Power
Primary power was provided at 13.8 kilovolts (kV) through a ground level substation in WTC 7 near
the Barclay Street entrance to the underground parking garage. The primary power was wired to the buildings through two separate systems. The first provided power throughout each building; the second provided power to emergency systems in the event that the primary wiring system failed.
Six 1,200-kilowatt (kW) emergency power generators located in the sixth basement (B-6) level provided
a secondary power supply. These generators were checked on a routine basis to ensure that they would function properly during an emergency. This equipment provided backup power for communications equipment, elevators, emergency lighting in corridors and stairwells, and fire pumps. Telephone systems were provided with an independent battery backup system. Emergency lighting units in exit stairways, elevator lobbies, and elevator cabs were equipped with individual backup batteries.

PDF Link:
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf

I'd suspect, following the existing wiring structure, they could have hard wired it without anyone noticing much. These guys had probably 10 years (if MIHOP is true) to get all their ducks in a row. The only issue would be the instability of the in-place explosives. They could have run the lines first, of course, and done the dirty work closer to the zero hour.

[Jazz2006]

104. simonm, re: access to elevator shafts

I guess I should have also posed my questions in #102 to you and not only to petgoat.

But with some modification since you did spell out that you think explosives on every third floor would be sufficient.

So with said modification, what makes you think that it would be easy for someone to surreptitiously gain access to the elevator shafts in the WTC towers on every third floor? And given that there are approximately 100 elevators in each tower, how many of those do you think that such surreptitious explosives planters would have required access to?

You said that " a small crew of 8-12 and few weeks would do fine. The operation can be segmented as needed. Wiring and drilling would be the beginning phase and is labor intensive. Elevators can be used to move from each location. Very private."

While elevators may be semi-private (not exactly private), that does not address the question of access to the hoistways (aka elevator shafts) upon which your scenario relies. How do you envision these surreptitious forays into numerous hoistways on every third floor actually taking place without anyone noticing?

One more small point - upon what do you base your insinuation that drilling would be "private"? Weekend or not, buildings full of law firms, banks, securities firms, financial firms, and such never actually sleep, and nor does security and monitoring stop.

How exactly do you envision this operation of planting explosives in elevator shafts on every third floor by way of elevator, wiring and drilling taking place?

[dailykoff]

112. They wear uniforms. (n/t)

[Debunking911]

119. So can Al Qeada

What make you think that's all they need?

[dailykoff]

120. You're catching on. (n/t)

[Debunking911]

123. Unfortunately you don't seem to be.

They would know Al Qaeda could just get uniforms so the security is much more than just walking by with a uniform.

[dailykoff]

133. Let's just say they know their way around uniforms. (n/t)

[Debunking911]

148. You can say it

doesn't mean anything if you do

[DoYouEverWonder]

122. Since BushCo member Marvin Bush

ran the Company that provided security for the WTC for 2 years before the attack, I would say very easy.

Plus I don't think you needed to go through so much trouble to find a way to bring the building down from the inside. Just time and the knowledge that you didn't have to worry about the security guards bothering you while you work.

In a building with 100 elevators a few are always going to be out of commission or down for 'maintenance'. Few people would ever notice. Oh yeah Charlie, that's the one with the burnt out motor, they're still waiting for the part.

[Debunking911]

124. He was out by 2000

http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html

[DoYouEverWonder]

126. He could have easily made sure

the right people were in key positions before he left.

[Debunking911]

129. That's not evidence

There is more evidence that people in the Bush family get powerful jobs in top companies because of their access to government. Bush himself made this clear. People pay for access to power. A top security company would want M Bush for access and nothing else in the hopes of one day getting laws passed for them or government contracts. I'm sure hes guilty of being a scumbag just like most of the Bush family but murderer? I don't see the evidence.

Look at what happened with Katrina. There is a Bush who has a company selling educational DVD's and Babara Bush tried to divert her Katrina aid to by DVD's from him. You could include him in a conspiracy to cause Katrina just to make him money. There are people who think the levels were blown up.

[DoYouEverWonder]

132. Who said it was evidence

It is speculation but it is speculation based on the information available.

However, the issue of getting through security should have been easily doable either way. Even the airlines believe that there were people on the inside who helped the hijackers because they found so many box cutters stashed in seats on other planes that day.

[Debunking911]

151. The information IS what's called HISTORICAL evidence

IE Historical precedence.

Having low level person operating with an outside team is not the same as a high level person who needs people below to complete the task. I can get a job at the airlines and place knives by myself but if I were the CEO of a security company I have to inlist the help of many to pull off that you're suggesting. Human resources to hire and the people the people themselves who also have to be trained in elevator mechanics to do the jobs they were hired to do. How do you inlist so many people like that? And all of them said YES to killing thousands? No one said "Na, I'll pass..."? Or no one said "Sure, I'll do it" out of fear then went to the media in perhaps another country? That is another thing there is no historical precedence for. A group this large commiting this many murders in America.

[petgoat]

154. Nobody needs training in elevator mechanics to place some

charges in the elevator shafts.

Black ops are more likely to place moles than recruit on site.


At some point it gets difficult to comment on a low-quality argument
without it sounding like an ad hominem.

[DoYouEverWonder]

164. Our friend is all about red herrings

After awhile arguing with this one is a distraction and a waste of time. He knows the game he's playing.

[petgoat]

145. Security never sleeps? I guess you've never been a guard.

Sure they sleep. They can't help it. Sit and watch TV monitors of empty stairwells
from midnight to 8:00 a.m. for ten months.

A few typists work after midnight, a few Int'l communications monitors.

No wiring and drilling is required. You're inventing impediments.

[Debunking911]

149. Thermite burns down

You're inventing ease of use. You just don't put a thermite package next to a column and expect it to burn sideways. It doesn't work like that. To my knowlege, thermite has yet to be used on a steel vertical column like the ones found in a basement of the WTC. I have yet to see a viable mechinism for delivery. IE When, where and how it was placed.

Why don't you tell us just how this thermite would work? How do you make sure it cuts the column and not burn downward? You are the one saying it's easy so you must know how right?

You also were never a guard at the world trade. How do you know it wasn't like all of NY?

[petgoat]

150. I'm no expert on thermite, and prefer not to speculate on how it's

used. If we can put a man on the moon, we can bring down the WTC. Especially since
Dr. Van Romero said small amounts of explosives in key points could do the job, and
the conventional wisdom from MIT for three years was that the failure of a few clips would
bring the floors and the towers down.

edited for spelling

[Debunking911]

152. Once again that's not true at all..

"Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years." - Van D. Romero, Ph.D."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

Why are you bringing up a "A few clips". This is a straw man. Quote where the NIST ever said it was a few clips which brought down the towers...

[petgoat]

153. "Quote where the NIST ever said it was a few clips"

I can't. They never said it. NIST has completely reversed the Eagar "zipper theory". If you
had read NIST ort even read some of the many posts I have made in reply to your nonsense, you
would know that.

Do your homework.

And Dr. Van Romero's expressions of contrition (which earned him a citation as one of the top six
lobbyists of 2003*) are not a recanting of his opinion that small amounts of explosives in a few
places could have brought the towers down.

*http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2003/18dec01.html

[Debunking911]

158. In other words you have no evidence.

I did my homework and the NIST never said "A few clips brought down the towers" or anything like it. This is a complete fabrication and one you're proving by not being able to back up your statements like I have.

If Dr. Van Romero says his quotes are being taken out of context then it's up to you to say the "small amounts of explosives" quote was the only quote that wasn't.

Here we go again, attacking his credibility instead of evidence for explosives. This is an all too familiar pattern. Hes a lobbiest for what?

"Romero is credited in the article with being instrumental in procuring about $56 million worth of appropriations for New Mexico Tech"

He lobbies for money for his school. There is nothing strange or out of the ordinary about that. He is a "lobbyists who made an impact in 2003" because his money went to educate students. Hardly the type of person who would hide the largest mass murder in US history. It comes no where near other lobbiest like the ones working for Haliburton or Exxon who made billions. And for what? For greed.

[petgoat]

159. I have no evidence that your faulty framing is true, correct.

NIST never said the truss clips were flimsy. I never said NIST said that.

The official story of the WTC collapse for four years was the MIT/Eagar/NOVA
"zipper" theory. NIST has repudiated that.

How can Dr. Van Romero's "small amount of explosives" statement possibly be taken out of
context?

“'From his perch 2,000 miles outside of the Beltway, this physics Ph.D. understands exactly how
Washington works,' the article states. 'A major chunk of his job involves lobbying for federal
government funding, and if the 2003 fiscal year was any indication, Romero is a superstar.'”

http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2003/18dec01.html

[Debunking911]

165. You didn't say "zipper theory". But NIST never said zipper theory anyway

What YOU call "Official story" scientist call "Hypothesis". There were a number of "Hypothesis" some were leaning toward which have nothing to do with any "Official Story". The NIST never had an "Official Story". This is pure conspiracy theory nonsense. The official report doesn't have the word "Zipper" in it either. They now have a final report. If you bothered to read the NIST report you would find there were 4 total reports.

"Progress in Determining Collapse Sequences Progress in Determining Collapse Sequences

•Possible Collapse Hypotheses(May 2003) –not building specific; key events not identified

•Working Collapse Hypothesis(June 2004) –single hypothesis for both WTC towers; identifies chronological sequence of major events

•Leading Collapse Hypotheses(October 2004) –separate hypothesis for each WTC tower; identifies building-specific load redistribution paths and damage scenarios in addition to chronological sequence of major events

•Probable Collapse Sequences(April 2005) –refined building specific collapse sequences with chronological sequence of majorevents, load redistribution paths, and damage scenarios."

There is only ONE official study and that's from the NIST. Conspiracy theorist take other studies by outside groups who have no nothing to do with the investigation and conflate them with the government study. This is obviously dishonest. Example: Bob creates a report, Jane creates a report, John says bobs report is flawed because jane is wrong. What kind of logic is this? Eagar was wrong on his initcal hypothesis so the NIST is wrong? The only logic to this kind of thinking is conspiracy theorist are purposely conflating the studies to cast doubt on the NIST report. They have NOTHING to do with each other. If you're arument is the NIST is helping Bush get away with the murder of 3000 people please use the NIST report to prove it. Anything less is smoke and mirrors.

"How can Dr. Van Romero's "small amount of explosives" statement possibly be taken out of
context?"

Easy, leave out a word like "relatively" and the quote is taken out of context. "relatively small amounts of explosives" could mean a small amount compared to most Controlled Demolitions. He doesn't even have to use the word "relatively". In his mind he could be thinking a normal CD on a much smaller building would need 2 tons of explosives but on this building which is 3 times the size he could use 4 tons. The point is he did not give a specific amount and more importantly, he said his quote was taken out of context.

Here we go again, attacking his credibility instead of evidence for explosives. This is an all too familiar pattern with conspiracy theorist. Hes a lobbyist for what?

"Romero is credited in the article with being instrumental in procuring about $56 million worth of appropriations for New Mexico Tech"

He lobbies for money for his school. There is nothing strange or out of the ordinary about that. He is a "lobbyists who made an impact in 2003" because his money went to educate students. Hardly the type of person who would hide the largest mass murder in US history. It comes no where near other lobbyist like the ones working for Haliburton or Exxon who made billions. And for what? For greed.

The zipper around the building didn't cause the collapse as Eager hypothesised but it DID happen after it. The floors DID pancake around it. It can be seen in the photos and videos.

[petgoat]

167. I never said NIST said "zipper theory".

The MIT "zipper/pancake" hypothesis was incorporated in the FEMA report of 5/02
and as such it was the "official story" for three years. Uncontradicted by anyone
but tinfoil hatters, it was widely spread around on TV, in newspapers, and in magazines.

Since you said "There is only ONE official study and that's from the NIST" I'll
suppose you never heard of of the FEMA report.

Enjoy: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html


The NIST report completely reverses the MIT/FEMA theory. Gone are the flimsy truss
clips, and there's not a pancake to be found.

leave out a word like "relatively" and the quote is taken out of context.

The newspaper article says "the detonations could have been caused by a small amount
of explosive, he said." If Dr. Van Romero took issue with this characterization of
his statement, why wasn't this mentioned in the retraction article? If Olivier
Uyttebrouck took anything out of context, take it up with him. [e-mail]

Here we go again, attacking his credibility instead of evidence for explosives.

That's not true. The evidence is there, including Dr. Romero's unretracted statements
that the collapse looked just like a controlled demolition, that a "relatively small"
amount of explosives could have done it. The only statement he retracted was that
fire could not have done the job.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

Considering the possibility that Dr. Romero's faith in the validity of his opinions might
have been influenced by his status as a fundraiser is only reasonable and rational, and would
be a perfectly legitimate line of questioning had Dr. Romero appeared as an expert witness in court.

[Debunking911]

209. FEMA didn't mention "Zipper" either.

Why did you point me to that web site which mischaracterizes the FEMA report? They never said "Zipper" either. I suggest you re-read the report without the text inserted by conspiracy theorist.

But you wont find me defending FEMA for anything anyway. The point is the NIST report which is the "OFFICIAL FINAL REPORT" and not something done by people outside the government like Eager or the preliminary report by FEMA. The reason they needed 4 progress reports is because the study was in PROGRESS. They went from possible collapse hypothesis to probable collapse hypothesis. Saying they were wrong during the beginning of the investigation so they must be wrong at the end is a logical fallacy. It stands to reason they would need to change the hypothesis with new information gained during testing of the hypothesis.

Your Dr Romero site also doesn't have any point by point retraction. It's the whole article which he denounced as misquotes. The writer selectively takes quotes and doesn't give the whole retraction letter. But as I said, even if he DID say it could have been a "Small amount of explosives", you still can't tell me relative to what? 2 tons as opposed to 10? On every other floor as opposed to every floor? The quote is meaningless without more detail.

What he DID say is

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail,"

[vincent_vega_lives]

213. Small amounts?

So which is it? The ANTI-Pancake crowd seem to refute this by stating that there is no way that could happen without explosives on every floor, otherwise the building would not have fallen close to "free fall". We are then talking MASSIVE amounts of explosives, blast caps, and wiring.

No on is saying it would be impossible to bring down the WTC with explosives, just not the way people here are claiming...thermite, concrete encapsulated explosives, squibs on every floor, planes with pods, ect.

2nd Law of thermodynamics. The plane and resulting fire has all the requisite energy to cause the collapse that HE has. HE can have a lot less of course because it is highly focused. Even then the Potential energy in the building takes over, in either case and causes the total collapse.

[Christophera]

155. Thermite Placed During 1993 Bomb Remodel - Intimate Contact W/Steel Allows

thermite to work vertically. And it will sag and run bigtime. That's why they remodeled the 1st floor as well. To completely remove a box column perhaps 10 or more feet had to be coated with 1 inch of thermite on at least 3 sides. that is why there was so much molten metal in the basement. It was necessary to melt so much to be assured the columns were almost fully severed

I actually remember a newscaster following the bombing remodel say, "Special fireproofing was added as a safeguard against further terrorism." Somewhere earlier in the news it was mentioned that corrosion prohibited special treatments on some columns and others were partially cast in concrete.

Since I saw the documentary, after the bombing, I was very interested in the towers because I knew so much about their structure and watched all the newscasts on the remodel closely.

[indigolake]

160. Remodeling and rebuilding...

Glad someone brought up the fact that all the buildings hit on 9/11 had been remodeled or modified within the previous ten year or less. Just makes me wonder about the bombing in 1993, and if it wasn't just a diversion to modify the WTC Twin Towers for 9/11. I recall visiting NYC about 3 years after the first bombing, and my hubby wanted to go in the WTC tower. I got close to the tower and didn't want to even cross the street. For some odd reason, I felt something very negative and fearful about them and wanted to get far away from those buildings.

The side of the Pentagon that was hit was in the process of remodeling.

And interestingly, the Capitol building had recently undergone renovation before 9/11, and then afterwards, extensive renovation, as did the national archives building where the Constitution resides. Hmmmm... What's up there? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[unpossibles]

163. "where the Consti...*what* resides?"

I think I remember that thing. Something to do with rights or some such.

On the bright side, at least we still have good old number 2! I actually had someone essentially tell me that; that although he didn't like Bush, the only reason he voted for him was because John Kerry wanted to take his guns away...

:crazy:

[Debunking911]

166. That's just not true.

1) Kerry did not want to take away guns. This was a myth perpetuated by the right and I see it worked on your friend.

2) The constitution doesn't give EVERYONE the right to bear arms. It give a "well regulated militia" the right. That's what the state national guard is. There have already been court cases which spell this out.

3) You have the right to have a gun just as you have the right to a toaster oven. The government can't just take your toaster oven without changing the constitution. They can only regulate it for safety.

I say this not because I think we should ban guns. In fact I took out a firearm permit for a shotgun. I voted for Kerry and though I think he was not the best choice for the dems he would have been 1000 times better than Bush.

[quickesst]

171. The elevators....

I cannot possibly keep up with the technical jargon going on, suffice it to say, I can glean enough to understand what is meant. On the other hand, I am a blue collar construction worker who has seen the inside of more elevator shaft walls than one cares to. I start with a square hole in the floor, frame the shaft walls, install the shaftwall board, then frame for the elevator doors on each floor. After the elevator anchor is installed, the techs install the elevators. Both the elevator techs and my crew has to have access to the shaft for extras, so we ride the top of the elevator to accomplish this. Now for the really hard part. In order to access the shaft after the elevator is installed, there is this special key. It looks like an allen wrench and has, I believe six or eight sides. Up near the top of the elevator door there is an access hole. You take this special key, stick it in the hole, and with a little luck, and a lot of stabbing, it matches up with a corresponding allen type reciever. Apply sideways pressure to the door, a quarter turn of the wrench, voila, the door opens. Just a matter of stepping onto the roof of the elevator car, where, lo and behold, on board controls. Ride up and down at your liesure. Otis is the premiere elevator company, but I would assume they all work similar to them.
I have also mentioned before, that anyone pulling maintenance would not seem out of place, even in a crowded room, if they brought a six foot ladder, a tool box, and a flashlight. Simply climb the ladder, remove a piece of ceiling tile, and the entire area, including steel columns, are exposed for your pleasure. It would be extremely simple to plant whatever anyone wanted there. If they are working at a desk job, chances are they do not have a working knowledge of building mechanics, therefore would not question any maintenance going on anywhere in the building. Some people must be under the impression that black ops has a budget of fifty bucks a week, and can't afford the personel with the expertise to pull this off. The technical jive, I'll leave in petgoat's and a few others more than capable hands. I do however, know a little about the practical application, and the nuts and bolts of construction, and accessing elevator shafts, columns, trusses, and electrical and maintenance rooms is nothing for someone with a few resources. Thanks.
quickesst

[petgoat]

172. Thanks for your expertise, quickesst.

I've said before, welcome to DU! :hi:
But I'll say it again.

Elsewhere in this forum there was discussion of the fact that "al Qaeda airlines"
flew Boeings, and so presumably had keys to the cockpit doors in those planes.

I'll suppose Otis has installed elevators around the world, and passed out those
elevator keys. I note they have a contract for 66 elevators for a building in Dubai.

http://www.otis.com/news/newsdetail/0,1368,CLI1_NID19554_RES1,00.html

So I wonder how many flavors of Boeing keys and Otis keys there are. And if somebody
who played around with one lock could figure out how to make a key for a different one.

Your point about the ladder, the toolbox, and the flashlight is an important one. I heard
that some guys took thousands of dollars worth of furniture out of a college lounge one
time--they just drove up in a truck, they had overalls on, they carried a clipboard, they
checked off the couches as they took them and everybody thought they were authorized to
take them.

Thanks for the props, and don't worry about the jargon. You know what Sam
Spade said: "The cheaper the hood, the gaudier the patter."

[Jazz2006]

176. quickesst - that's a nice little anecdote but...

I'm taking from your anecdote that you are talking about buildings still under construction and that you are talking about elevators that were not subject to being summoned to other floors while you're doing your thing, and that you're talking about gaining access to them from the landing, not from inside the elevators.

Is that the case or .... ?

[petgoat]

178. "subject to being summoned to other floors" At 3:00 a.m.? nt

[Jazz2006]

181. Ms. Goat, your simplistic view and your ignorance

are showing again.

You seem to be suggesting that there is no reason for tenants to be in the buildings at 3 a.m. (wrong from the start - lots of law firms and securities firms etc. in the towers and there is no question whatsoever that late nights and all nighters are not uncommon) - and at the same time, you are suggesting that the explosive planting teams were tenants who were in the buildings at 3 a.m. planting explosives in elevator shafts.

You can't have it both ways.

If it was so unheard of for tenants to be in the buildings at 3 a.m., that fact alone would have drawn huge attention to the explosive planting putative tenants being there at 3 a.m., don't you think?

[petgoat]

183. I am suggesting nothing of the sort.

The people in the building at 3:00 a.m. would be typists, international communications staff,
document production staff, security, and maybe janitorial staff doing major maintenance.

Explosive agents would be there secretly, not openly, so I CAN have it both ways. If they
know how to avoid the security cameras (or distract the guards) they can wander at will.
And only the janitors will be using the elevator at 3:00 a.m. Everybody else is just waiting
for QUITTING TIME!!!!!! :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

[Jazz2006]

187. Once again illustrating your lack of knowledge, Ms. Goat.

It seems apparent that you've never worked in a professional capacity in a building chock full of professional firms.

It's not just clerical staff, security staff and janitors about in the wee hours.

And it's not just "janitors using the elevator at 3:00 a.m.".

Are you not aware that various tenants occupied multiple floors? Are you not aware that in law firms, for instance, where the firm occupies several floors, that lawyers use elevators to get to, for instance, their law library or the offices of colleagues with whom they're consulting or to the duplicating department or to the after hours secretarial department or to the after hours fax operators, etc., etc., etc.?

Guess what? They use elevators, even in the middle of the night.

You seem to be truly unaware of how the real world functions in these circles.

And no, people cannot "wander at will" after hours in a secure building by merely distracting guards or avoiding cameras.

Ever heard of proximity cards?

Your ignorance really IS showing.

[petgoat]

188. Au Contraire, Master Jazz. (pat pat pat on head)

Institutions that occupy several floors normally have stairways between the
various floors. The very limited use of elevators by such personnel could
very easily be anticipated, and planned for, by wiley operatives.

And yes, people can wander at will.

Furthermore, your assumption that addressing me as "Ms." is belittling
betrays your limitations.

[Jazz2006]

190. You haven't a clue about what you're talking about, clearly.

You have been wrong about all of the prior assertions you made about how you "think" things work in a busy skyscraper full of law firms, securities firms, etc. etc. but, as always, you then just pick a single point to try to divert on rather than addressing the legitimate points made .... and you still get it wrong.

Notwithstanding the fact that you have got everything else wrong in our exchanges so far and notwithstanding the fact that you simply couldn't refute what I've said and have tried to pretend that it was for some other reason than the fact that you simply have no legitimate response, I'll still address this last ridiculous post of yours that illustrates your ignorance about how the corporate world works, yet again.

I work in a skyscraper at a firm that occupies 11 floors of the building. There are, of course, stairways connecting the various floors (duh). Here, for instance, the stairs are non-contiguous and are located at opposite ends of the building in a manner that means if you wanted to take the stairs from the uppermost of our 11 floors to the bottom most of our 11 floors, you would actually have to traverse from one end of the building, down a few flights, across the entire length of the building, down a few more flights, then traverse the length of the building again to get to the stairs that would get you to the lower of those 11 floors. (For further clarity, I'm referring to the internal stairs and not the emergency stairs which are located more centrally but which are not accessible except in emergencies.)

It is simply reality that unless one is going only a few flights in a reasonably direct path, one is going to take an elevator instead of the stairs, especially if you've got a pile of documents to carry or if your office is located nearer to the elevators than to the stairs at the opposite ends.
The width of the building spans an entire city block. It's not as though the stairway is like one in your house. To lend some perspective, each floor of the WTC towers was approximately an acre in size.

Your assertion - without any source, I might add - that there would be very limited use of elevators is ridiculous. Your assertion - without any source - that elevator use "could very easily be antipated, and planned for" by anyone, let alone "wiley operatives" is beyond ridiculous.

And, finally, you are WAY off base and leaping, yet again, to ridiculous assumptions and conclusions with your assertion that I am somehow assuming that addressing you as Ms. is belittling.

Where the hell did you get that idea?

Do you think that women are inferior to men?

I sure don't.

I use "Ms" as a respectful form of address, not as a term of derision. In fact, I'm offended that you think it's offensive.

YOUR leaping to conclusions is not any indication of MY limitations. It is, however, yet another in the list that is forming of yours.

[petgoat]

191. One could simply avoid the floors of the very busy law firm where the

elevators were constantly running. BTW, did any of the WTC tenants occupy 11 floors?

And if you work at a firm occupying eleven floors you've narrowed the possibilities down
pretty much enough to is your firm. Do your supervisors know you post on lefty boards in
the middle of the night or don't they care what you do?

[Jazz2006]

193. Seems you're hopeless, Ms. Goat.

I'll not waste any more time on this with you as it is apparent that you're not remotely interested in facts but are only interested in tossing off silly little one liners without substance in hopes that nobody will notice that you're not actually addressing the details that have been provided to you.

If and when you find the wherewithal to address the points raised earlier, which you've tried so hard to obfuscate, perhaps we'll have something to talk about.

I won't hold my breath, though.








Got milk?

[petgoat]

194. Unsourced points are not worth even reading, let alone addressing.

As a lawyer, you should know that.

Do you bill clients for your time responding to anonymous letters and crank
phone calls?

If you're going to claim I paid short shrift to some significant work,
at least cite the post by number, okay?

[Jazz2006]

197. Nah, you just can't refute them so you're

pretending otherwise.

It's quite common among those who feign knowledge that they don't have.

(Like claiming - without a souce - that nobody but janitors use elevators in skyscrapers full of law firms, securities firms, international businesses, etc. after hours. There's some unsourced and feigned knowledge for you.)

But one of us (that would be me) has to work in a few hours, and your non-responsive, ill-considered, poorly constructed, and lame responses have grown wearisome.

So, good night.

[petgoat]

200. Restate your points (if any) and I'll respond. I've restated mine

too many times in nt posts. I suspect this spam attack has to do with
my perception that both Boeing cockpit locks (as previously discussed
on this board) and Otis elevator locks were available to clients around
the world, and thus keys could easily be fabricated to 9/11 locks.

[DoYouEverWonder]

203. In buildings like the WTC

there are often whole floor and/or large sections of the building that just big empty spaces. Even the Empire State Building has never achieved 100% occupancy and many floors have never been finished.

In buildings as big as the WTC there are lots of places to hide that no one will ever notice you and getting past security is fairly easy in most places. Especially, if you have help on the inside.

[petgoat]

204. "lots of places to hide"

Right, and one could even access the regions with semi-active elevators if one simply turned off the
elevator from which one was working, leaving the others to fill the needs of the hordes of 3:00 a.m.
legal researchers.

[Debunking911]

210. There is a difference between

"Lots of places to hide" and "Places to plant explosives/thermite so the building collapses as it did." The buildings core has nothing to do with the observed sagging trusses and bowed columns. I know you don't like this fact which collides with your hypothesis but it IS a FACT that sagging floors were photographed. I would think even YOU would agree it's impossible for heat defraction to work on the sagging trusses without doing any defraction to the columns in front of them. The same warp would be seen on the columns as on trusses but CLEARLY that didn't happen. You are left with trying to explain why we see sagging trusses if the thermite was in the elevator shaft no where near it.

[unpossibles]

205. well, yeah obviously - I agree it's not true

but it's what he said to me. Frankly, I told him we was/is a fool then. The guy is brainwashed by FOX 100%.

I have no problem with guns one way or the other, although I do think they should be regulated.

I was referring to the simplistic one-issue voters, the guys who chant "from my cold dead hands!!1!" yet don't seem to mind when the government (which they allegedly want to be less intrusive and that they don't trust to the point of needing to be armed to the teeth) takes away all of their other rights (speech, religious freedom, trial, etc) and spy on them, and tortures them, and they don't seem to mind. It boggles my mind.

I don't think they understand that those other rights are really more important to a free society than is the right to shoot something. Again, I am not anti-gun: I own a variety of weapons because I like them and don't think they should be illegal, but if the government can proclaim me to be an Enemy and lock me up without trial or communication, weapons don't mean shit.