Why Didn't WTC #5 & #6 Collapse?

Originally posted by pteridine
Meanwhile, you can take heart that most people know that there was no conspiracy, other than the nutjobs that flew airplanes into our buildings and killed our people.

It's funny that you should say that.
Check the polls and you will see that most people believe that there WAS a conspiracy, or at least that we are being lied to.

Those who believe the official story are the vast minority.

As I said before, I would do my homework before you pick up stones to throw if I were you.

reply to post by ashamedamerican


What information is false on the sites that I referenced? You asked for references, I gave them and you said "false." Now that's a logical argument for you.

You never really explained the 1,3-diphenylpropane problem. Is there one or is this just a distraction.

reply to post by ashamedamerican

You said: "It's funny that you should say that.
Check the polls and you will see that most people believe that there WAS a conspiracy, or at least that we are being lied to.

Those who believe the official story are the vast minority.

As I said before, I would do my homework before you pick up stones to throw if I were you."

Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy
Submitted by Thomas Hargrove on Tue, 08/01/2006 - 13:33.
by THOMAS HARGROVE
Scripps Howard News Service
More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.
www.scrippsnews.com...

"More than a third" is now "most?" Remedial math will do you a world of good. As someone just told me, "I would do my homework before you pick up stones to throw, if I were you"

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ashamedamerican

 

What information is false on the sites that I referenced? You asked for references, I gave them and you said "false." Now that's a logical argument for you.

You never really explained the 1,3-diphenylpropane problem. Is there one or is this just a distraction.

I said false because pop mechanics has had many holes poked in it's arguement, proving it to be part of the larger overall lie machine, as for "debunking911.com" they have also been proven to spread false pseudoscience and propoganda. I'm not going to sit here and go over every lie they have told, it's not worth my time, anyone who has looked into them and their claims seriously can tell how how intellectually dishonest they are.

As for Dr. Jones I think I'll take the word of a physicist with credentials as long as your arm, who helped to pioneer muon-catalyzed fusion (cold fusion) over the word of a debunking site that has spread false information to further their own agenda.

As for 1.3 DPP look into it yourself and you will see what it means. The EPA itself said it was found in concentrations that dwarfed all others, and that they had never sampled it before.

I would suggest you spend less time surfing debunking sites, and take some time to simply research the whole 9/11 event from a neutral point of view.
You will see why the official story believers are the minority if you do this.

reply to post by ashamedamerican

The EPA found 1,3-diphenylpropane in large concentrations around the 911 disaster site but there were a lot of things found around the site. There are pyrolysis products from every organic in the buildings that were exposed to heat, including the fuel. It could have been from any of them. So what? How does this show any conspiracy?
Dr. Jones is debunked by the BYU faculty, not the site. They reference it. Dr. Jones is also a publicity hound.

[edit on 12/15/2008 by pteridine]

Originally posted by pteridine
Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy
Submitted by Thomas Hargrove on Tue, 08/01/2006 - 13:33.
by THOMAS HARGROVE
Scripps Howard News Service
More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.
www.scrippsnews.com...

"More than a third" is now "most?" Remedial math will do you a world of good. As someone just told me, "I would do my homework before you pick up stones to throw, if I were you"

A small portion of people believe that it was an inside job, look into how many believe that the official story is not true.

There are tons of polls from every angle.
How many believe it was an inside job, how many believe the official story to be false, how many believe we need a new investigation.

It's nice to google for a low percentage to use an example but that is intellectually dishonest when you look at the poll that gives the smallest percentage only, given how many polls there are, and the wide range of questions that have been asked.

Again, good job throwing stones when you have a small portion of the information, provided by a 60 second google search. Now I remember why I stopped responding to you in the first place.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ashamedamerican

 

The EPA found 1,3-diphenylpropane in large concentrations around the 911 disaster site but there were a lot of things found around the site. There are pyrolysis products from every organic in the buildings that were exposed to heat, including the fuel. It could have been from any of them. So what? How does this show any conspiracy?
Dr. Jones is debunked by the BYU faculty, not the site. They reference it. Dr. Jones is also a publicity hound.

[edit on 12/15/2008 by pteridine]

Then why had the EPA never sampled it before?
As for Dr. Jones being "debunked by the BYU faculty" how can you say that him being placed on paid leave means he has been debunked?

Lots of wonderful baseless assumptions, for which you have no sources or evidence.
I'm done doing your homework for you, research this for yourself and you will see the absurdity of your claims.

Once again I am done responding to your allegations until you can begin to provide evidence to back up your claims.
Good day to you.


[edit on 15-12-2008 by ashamedamerican]

reply to post by ashamedamerican


It was the first poll in the search. I usually only use the internet to get technical papers but you wanted references and I don't have e-library access at home so I used the site.
You really don't like any challenges to the conspiracy ideas, do you? Your mind seems to be made up.

Next time, learn to read before you accuse me of lying. It seems your favorite tactic is to deliberately take your enemies out of context and accuse them of lying. The post was not even directed at you.

You engaged in common conspiracy tactic of deliberately misstating the facts - While the South Tower (WTC 2) was 600 ft from WTC 7 you
left out that the North Tower (WTC 1) was only 350 ft from WTC 7.

Also here is tenants list of WTC 6

United States Department of Commerce
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
United States Department of Agriculture - Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (AAPHIS)
United States Department of Labor
Export-Import Bank of the U.S.
Eastco Building Services (building management)

Wow all sort of Gubmint agencies including Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
(ATF) - this was Mcvey's target in Oklahoma City Federal building

Wonder how the tin foil heads missed that one

reply to post by ashamedamerican


You said: "Then why had the EPA never sampled it before?"
Maybe they hadn't sampled a 911 size disaster before. It's not a particularly rare compound.

You Said:"As for Dr. Jones being "debunked by the BYU faculty" how can you say that him being placed on paid leave means he has been debunked?"
I agree, "ostracized" would be a better word. They are paying him to stay away. The engineering departments are embarrassed by his reckless actions.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ashamedamerican

 

It was the first poll in the search.

I'm sure it was.
This only proves what I have been saying.
When I say do your homework, I don't mean do a 60 second or less goggle search, and post the first link you come across as irrefutable proof.
Try actually reseraching this.

Your mind seems to be made up.

It is. I have seen too much evidence in the hundreds if not thousands of hours I have spent looking into this. As I said, I have done my homework, and if you ever do too, you will see that what I am telling you is right.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ashamedamerican

 

You said: "Then why had the EPA never sampled it before?"
Maybe they hadn't sampled a 911 size disaster before. It's not a particularly rare compound.

You Said:"As for Dr. Jones being "debunked by the BYU faculty" how can you say that him being placed on paid leave means he has been debunked?"
I agree, "ostracized" would be a better word. They are paying him to stay away. The engineering departments are embarrassed by his reckless actions.

I think we've had enough baseless arguements, and slanderous rhetoric.
I would like to remind you that this thread is about WTC buildings #5 & 6.

If you would like to continue please free to start a "baseless arguements and slanderous rhetoric" thread.

reply to post by ashamedamerican


Right. WTC #5 and #6. You asked why they didn't collapse. I said that #6 had collapsed and you said that the inside collapsing didn't count and it must have been hit by debris, anyway. If the outside shell is standing, it isn't a collapse. Only the #7 collapse counted. The argument was that #5 and #6 had bigger fires than #7 and they survived so #7 must have been planned. I said that #7 had been hit, too, and that plus the fires made it collapse. You said that I hadn't researched it enough. This then wandered back to sabotage. On the previous "Pull it" post I explained why thermite wouldn't work to do a simul shear of the vertical support beams but you forgot about the fact that you couldn't explain how it was dropped on command without explosives. You tried explosives, but several explained to you that even in the racket of 911, it would be noticible.
You have concluded that something is wrong but don't know what and really want a conspiracy. You are arguing many positions looking for a hook but just can't explain how #7 was dropped on command. Now you want to say that the evidence the #5 and the outside of #6 didn't fall is proof of a conspiracy with #7. Unfortunately, no two sets of conditions are identical so this fails. You still have no plausible theory of how #7 was done but hope that your 5,6,7 faulty logic will carry the day. The gist of all of this is that you and the conspiracy boys can't answer the important question:

How was #7 dropped on command?

reply to post by pteridine


If you're correct and the majority of people don't believe it was an inside job, that just means the majority of people are either not educated enough to understand, or don't care to look into it at all.

Sorry, but that is not a good argument to prove anything. To believe something just because everyone else does is sheep mentality at its worst (or best?). The majority at one time thought the world was flat, and the center of the universe, and would burn you at the stake if you suggested otherwise.

Some people still think they're the center of the universe, and that sort of ignorant thinking is still alive and well. You don't get burned at the stake anymore, just get called a 'conspiracy theorist loony' and ignored by 'the majority'. Cleaner and more effective...

Sixty-four percent of New Yorkers believe the 911 Commission did not answer important questions about what happened on 11 September. Within the five boroughs of New York, nearly 7 in 10 (or 56 percent statewide) call for Congress or Spitzer to open an inquiry.

source

[edit on 12/15/2008 by ANOK]

reply to post by pteridine

How was #7 dropped on command?

The simple answer, thermate cutting charges.
They can cut in any direction, and can be wired to detonate at the same time.

However this is offtopic, this thread is about WTC 5 & 6.
If it wasn't I would make you explain how anything else could make all the columns magically fail at the same time, allowing WTC 7 to fall straight down into it's footprint, rather than collapsing in any of the 360 directions the laws of physics would force it to, had all the supports not failed at precisely the same time.

But since it IS off topic don't waste anyone's time, because the simple answer is, there is NO other way it could have fallen straight down into it's footprint.

Originally posted by pteridine
How was #7 dropped on command?

Well that's the big question isn't it?

Sorry but asymmetrical damage and fires do not cause symmetrical collapses.

It doesn't matter if your imagination can't stretch to far to think how it could have been done. There is also no need to prove how it was done to know it wasn't a natural collapse caused by asymmetrical damage and fires.

Buildings simply don't collapse, globally and symmetrically from asymmetrical damage and fires, period. Prove me wrong with precedence of some kind. Problem is you can't, because its never happened, and never will. A little known man named Newton might show you the correct path for what you seek, maybe you should go see him and get to know his wise words?

Go look at what he says about the laws of motion...

reply to post by ashamedamerican


We went over this. They can be wired to ignite at the same time, but the failures can't be timed to occur simultaneously. It is a problem of heat flow with any thermochemical cutter. Additionally, the thermal mass of the supports requires a very large amount of thermally energetic materials. We aren't speaking of a 6" I-beam. Large amounts don't stick; they flow with gravity. We need something to keep the molten mass in contact with the beam long enough to heat the entire target volume to the softening point under load. When plastic flow occurs, the suport will fail. There would need to be a small army of people hauling in satchel charges and building coffer dams around each vertical pillar. If there were concrete covering the pillars that would require more cooking time and more thermite.
The 5,6,7 argument won't work. They sustained differing amounts of damage from impact and fire so the survivability of #5 skeleton, partial survivability of #6, and failure of #7 cannot be related.

Originally posted by pteridine
I said that #7 had been hit, too, and that plus the fires made it collapse.

Not according to the NIST report. According to NIST, it was the fires that caused the collapse, not the impact damage from WTC 1. Page 38/130:

Had a water supply for the automatic sprinkler system been available and had the sprinkler system operated as designed, it is likley that fires in WTC 7 would have been controlled and the collapse prevented.

Page 39/130:

Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7. The building withstood debris impact damage that resulted in seven exterior columns being severed and subsequently withstood fires involving typical office combustibles on several floors for almost seven hours.

Page 39/130:

Even without the structural damage, WTC 7 would have collapsed from fires having the same characteristics as those experienced on September 11, 2001.

Page 58/130:

Compared to the airplane impact damage to the WTC towers, there was relatively little damage to the interior of WTC 7.

It seems that NIST don't agree with your statement, do they?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by ashamedamerican

 

We went over this. They can be wired to ignite at the same time, but the failures can't be timed to occur simultaneously.

You may have gone over it while I wasn't paying attention to you, due to your rude, arrogant, ignorant, slanderous remarks towards me and others, but no, "we" didn't go over it.

Yes the failures can be timed, thermate will cut through the columns completely, therefore if all columns are cut at the same time, failure occurs.

I don't know what page you googled and copied that from but it's not correct.
You don't need "something to keep the molten mass in contact with the beam long enough to heat the entire target volume to the softening point under load" with thermate cutting charges. Or "a small army of people hauling in satchel charges and building coffer dams around each vertical pillar."

I would like to see your source for this information.
I would also like to stay on topic. This isn't about building 7 or thermate.

reply to post by ANOK


Your logic says that because you have never seen it before, it can't happen. You are certain, in your own mind, that there are no sets of circumstances that could allow such a collapse to occur without a planned demolition. You are a boundless repository of collapsed building knowledge and surely understand the gravity of the situation.

I say that unless another method can be shown to have done it, WTC#7 is your precedent. [Actually it looked a little skewed in the photos so we might have to wait a while longer for the precedent you ask for].