Entire Building on Fire Does Not Collapse-Beijing

Originally posted by Kratos1220

I have a question for you which you haven't answered. What if it came to be that you were wrong and we were right?

Then I'm on board for finding out who was involved and bringing them to justice. You see there's a big difference between me and some of the truthers here. My ego doesn't motivate my reality here. Only facts motivate me. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Big deal . I'd rather be wrong and know the truth then to live a lie.

It is my opinion that people like you would be angry almost to the point of being homicidal, very angry.

People like me? I'm sorry, how long have we known each other? Were we childhood friends? Did we go to high school together? Just curious since you seem to know what my personality is and how I handle situations. Please explain yourself.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jfj123

People like me? I'm sorry, how long have we known each other? Were we childhood friends? Did we go to high school together? Just curious since you seem to know what my personality is and how I handle situations. Please explain yourself.

I am referring to the people that have been defending the government to the very end with 9/11 for the last 7+ years who believe they are dealing with a bunch of mentally ill "truthers" who don't know what they're talking about. I wasn't taking a personal jab at you, so I'm sorry that it came across that way.

By the way, I liked your first answer. Do you believe that everything in the official story adds up then?

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Kratos1220]

Originally posted by Kratos1220

Originally posted by jfj123

People like me? I'm sorry, how long have we known each other? Were we childhood friends? Did we go to high school together? Just curious since you seem to know what my personality is and how I handle situations. Please explain yourself.

I am referring to the people that have been defending the government to the very end with 9/11 for the last 7+ years who believe they are dealing with a bunch of mentally ill "truthers" who don't know what they're talking about. I wasn't taking a personal jab at you, so I'm sorry that it came across that way.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not defending the previous administrations activities. Frankly I find the bush administrations lack of respect for the Constitution treasonous and he along with most of his banditos should be sitting in adjoining jail cells.
I just haven't seen any reasonable evidence that the criminals were involved in this particular crime.

By the way, I liked your first answer. Do you believe that everything in the official story adds up then?

[edit on 14-2-2009 by Kratos1220]

No I don't.
I'll tell you my hypothesis.
Keeping in mind I understand what I'm about to say is SPECULATION.
1. Due to massive incompetence, and lack of inter-agency communication, 9/11 happened.
2. I'm in the construction business and know from experience with other contractors that almost nothing is built to spec. When you hear that the WTC's should have been able to take a plane impact, that's what it says on paper. There's a world of difference between what's on paper and reality. Anyone in the construction industry will tell you that. And the more money involved (ie the bigger the building/project) the faster it needs to be done and any time someone can save a few cents on a bolt, it adds up to a lot of extra pocket money for someone.

Originally posted by jfj123

No I don't.
I'll tell you my hypothesis.
Keeping in mind I understand what I'm about to say is SPECULATION.
1. Due to massive incompetence, and lack of inter-agency communication, 9/11 happened.
2. I'm in the construction business and know from experience with other contractors that almost nothing is built to spec. When you hear that the WTC's should have been able to take a plane impact, that's what it says on paper. There's a world of difference between what's on paper and reality. Anyone in the construction industry will tell you that. And the more money involved (ie the bigger the building/project) the faster it needs to be done and any time someone can save a few cents on a bolt, it adds up to a lot of extra pocket money for someone.

Fair enough. Even if we have different opinions on what happened that day, wouldn't you say that an independent investigation to find out exactly what happened leading up to and on the day of 9/11 would be a good thing? I would like nothing more than to believe it all went down like they said it did, but at this point I just can't do that. Even if it turned out to be only a matter of incompetance and a complete lack of communication or listening to those communications, that's still presents some serious implications far beyond just 9/11.

I think we all have the right to know what really happened. I think that if there is any steel hiding around in China, India, bunkers here in the US or wherever that shows evidence of thermate, explosive or nuclear devices and anything else we'd want to see, we need to see it. Same goes for any evidence of incompetance or failing to listen to warnings and allowing it to happen knowing it was going to happen, we need to know. The only way we're ever going to know anything at this point is if the overwhelming majority demands an investigation. Our reasons don't have to be the same so long as we as a whole agree that we aren't being told the truth and demand to know what the truth is.

If the truthers are right about this, we all need to know just as much as we need to know if we're wrong so this whole issue can be resolved one way or the other. I just want to know what the truth is because I don't think that's what we've been told. The experts can't agree on what happened. The victim's families can't agree on what happened. The public can't agree on what happened. It is insanity to me that this can be allowed to fester like this considering the magnitude of what happened that day and to all those people and seemingly loads of holes in the official story and evidence that can't be definitively proved or disproved. It's no wonder we're all torn on this. It needs to be resolved and we deserve a proper investigation.

Originally posted by Kratos1220

Originally posted by jfj123

No I don't.
I'll tell you my hypothesis.
Keeping in mind I understand what I'm about to say is SPECULATION.
1. Due to massive incompetence, and lack of inter-agency communication, 9/11 happened.
2. I'm in the construction business and know from experience with other contractors that almost nothing is built to spec. When you hear that the WTC's should have been able to take a plane impact, that's what it says on paper. There's a world of difference between what's on paper and reality. Anyone in the construction industry will tell you that. And the more money involved (ie the bigger the building/project) the faster it needs to be done and any time someone can save a few cents on a bolt, it adds up to a lot of extra pocket money for someone.

Fair enough. Even if we have different opinions on what happened that day, wouldn't you say that an independent investigation to find out exactly what happened leading up to and on the day of 9/11 would be a good thing?

Yes, it sounds good on paper but who would do the investigation?

I would like nothing more than to believe it all went down like they said it did, but at this point I just can't do that. Even if it turned out to be only a matter of incompetance and a complete lack of communication or listening to those communications, that's still presents some serious implications far beyond just 9/11.

To me it's typical government screw ups.

I think we all have the right to know what really happened. I think that if there is any steel hiding around in China, India, bunkers here in the US or wherever that shows evidence of thermate, explosive or nuclear devices and anything else we'd want to see, we need to see it.

If there were evidence in those steel beams sent to china, we never would have sent them to china. They would have been melted down locally and under government control.

Same goes for any evidence of incompetance or failing to listen to warnings and allowing it to happen knowing it was going to happen, we need to know.

Absolutely.

The only way we're ever going to know anything at this point is if the overwhelming majority demands an investigation.

And the only way we are going to get majority support is by being a bit more realistic about what happened.
People hear about holograms, directed energy weapons, buildings rigged to explode, etc.. and they think we are ALL nuts. We need to be more realistic with our concerns if we're ever going to get anyone to take us seriously.

Originally posted by jfj123

Yes, it sounds good on paper but who would do the investigation?

I'm not really sure on the who part. I think I'd want Ron Paul involved though.

People hear about holograms, directed energy weapons, buildings rigged to explode, etc.. and they think we are ALL nuts. We need to be more realistic with our concerns if we're ever going to get anyone to take us seriously.

Yeah I'll agree that some of the stuff put forth by truthers is kinda out there, but at this point, I can't rule out the explosives part. I wouldn't put anything past the government to do whatever they had to do to trick us into agreeing to a war. They've already shown that they don't care what we want, only what they want and they'll do whatever they have to do to get it.

Another thing I don't understand is why the government seems to have no interest in going after Bin Laden. If he really did all this, why haven't we caught him yet? Why did the government let him go on more than one occasion? I really don't get that part at all. If he really did this, we would have got him by now and certainly wouldn't have let him go more than once. So, either he did it and we are protecting him or he didn't do anything and they pinned it on him to give us someone to blame.

reply to post by Aubryish


You left out the part about not having thousands of gallons of jet fuel to help out, and maybe a massive push from a jetliner exploding into the side to help weaken it a little bit.

reply to post by mpriebe81



you're a fool. a plane did not hit the WTC 7, solomon brothers building. to this building we are comparing.

reply to post by jfj123

What I meant was that the act was successfully perpetrated,not saying who,but it was a fait accompli.Starting from that and those related observable facts as clues,we run through all the scenarios,eliminating the impossible.Whatever remains(screw occam and his razor)has to be it,no matter how many compartmentally organized participants and never seen outside military secret explosive/cutter charges were involved.If the cover story hadn't been so tortured and changed and been shewn false by examples such as the building in China we might have dropped it.Naah.I love a good mystery.The whole world cares.And it's not just about bush-bash,he's a pathetic little has been,clearing brush at his little ranch as we go to hell in a bucket on his watch.Poser Christer.I think the LORD cares as this ball of crap is/was being done in HIS Name.

Originally posted by Kratos1220

Yes, it sounds good on paper but who would do the investigation?

I'm not really sure on the who part. I think I'd want Ron Paul involved though.

This is what I'd like to see:
3 chair council of the following people
Ron Paul
Dennis Kucinich
Robert Wexler
They would in turn hire 10 people in each of the fields required for a proper investigation.
The 3 chair council would be given complete access to all agencies investigations and related evidence.

People hear about holograms, directed energy weapons, buildings rigged to explode, etc.. and they think we are ALL nuts. We need to be more realistic with our concerns if we're ever going to get anyone to take us seriously.

Yeah I'll agree that some of the stuff put forth by truthers is kinda out there, but at this point, I can't rule out the explosives part. I wouldn't put anything past the government to do whatever they had to do to trick us into agreeing to a war. They've already shown that they don't care what we want, only what they want and they'll do whatever they have to do to get it.

This is one of the reasons why I don't think the government would, assuming it could, try and trick us into war. You said they don't care what we want which is a very good point. We know for sure that was how the bush administration operated. The bush administration also didn't care what we thought. This is obvious based on the popularity rating in the 20's when bush left office. That being said, why would they need or even want to trick us to believe anything? That would imply they cared what we thought and wanted and you just said they didn't and I agreed with you. See where I'm going with that?

Now back to the problem with SOME of the truthers is that the nuts seem to have the loudest voice so it drowns out those who have at the least, reasonable questions. By default, people like you, get linked to the nuts which automatically ruins your credibility so the nuts ruin it for everyone.

Now I can say that because there were a number of questions about 9/11, the NIST did create a FAQ page which answered questions to things like controlled demolitions.

Another thing I don't understand is why the government seems to have no interest in going after Bin Laden. If he really did all this, why haven't we caught him yet?

Haven't you heard? Before bush and darth cheney left office, they announced that they already captured the ring leader of 9/11 - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed... Wait a minute???

Why did the government let him go on more than one occasion? I really don't get that part at all. If he really did this, we would have got him by now and certainly wouldn't have let him go more than once. So, either he did it and we are protecting him or he didn't do anything and they pinned it on him to give us someone to blame.

My personal thought is that he is the equivalent of the spiritual cheerleader and financial collections guy and has nothing to do with day to day operations or planning.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by jfj123]

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Thanks for the work GoldenFleece.

I'd just like to add a bit here;

The angled cuts made by saws is NOT what -- MOST "truthers" have been talking about in regards to thermate. Thermate MAY have been used to destroy the core.

Pre-cutting of key beams and shaped charges may have been used on I-Beams. So, this nonsense video I just watched, arg -- wrong. You also can't say that someone isn't re-cutting a beam that was cut -- it's exactly what I would do if I were covering up. The Truther's pointing to the cut I-beams aren't convincing, but absolute idiots, pointing to someone cutting an I-Beam on a picture that could have been last Wednesday - can't prove anything either.

Thanks GoldenFleece, for pointing out that angled cuts are not typical of cleanup (more cutting), but again -- you can't prove that there weren't less experienced people cutting at angles -- also, it's handy if you work for Bush and want to cover up pre-angled cuts and shaped charges. Alas, we don't have a crime scene here. We have lots of evidence of a criminal conspiracy -- but since a few bloggers on the internet can't PROVE IT 99% -- then the bad guys get a free pass.

>> Face it, the only way to solve this would be in a court of law. We could put clean-up crews on the stand with someone who knows the right questions to ask.

Nobody has claimed that the steel melted on either side. So, the "straw-man" argument, is finding some nit-wit statement and proving that false. Did Darwin make a proof about evolution by talking about how stupid creationists were? No. He built supporting evidence that did no require angels to explain things. 99.9% of building collapses can be explained without magic. Look folks, none of you are convincing as much as reasonable people on the fence. It was especially aggravating to watch the video with the cutting saws on the I-BEAMS -- not the core, the I-BEAMS weren't really supporting structures here but add strength for the flooring -- but that ridiculous carnival music - pretty insulting, when it's ignoring the main issue, and pretending that anyone MOST were talking about the i-beams being cleared up. This is the equivalent of looking at any cloud after a plane in a sky and saying -- that isn't a Chem-Trail.

I'd be open to serious discussion -- which, I've found two people capable of. I would love to admit anything wrong. It's just that you nitwits are trying to tell everyone about steel getting weak with heat -- well, we are talking about the fire on the Chinese high-rise. Which is more like Building 7. And it's still standing -- and another point, NO FOAM FIREPROOFING. Wow, amazing it didn't just drop.

Watching this video, it stated that the WTC fires were 1800 F and Steel loses 50% of its strength at 1100 F. Well, that's pretty much wrong. Jet Fuel burns at 1000 degrees Celsius or 1832 Degrees Fahrenheit -- in a dang jet engine. Office fires burn about 875. The jet fuel can burn for 15 minutes and then its back to an office fire. If you reduce the strength 50% -- in most every building in the world -- that isn't enough to cause immediate collapse. You wouldn't want to stay in it -- and MOST commercial buildings, are actually not up to code. Still, the design speck is for twice load capacity.

So I'll explain HOW this collapse could occur, without a lot of heat -- IF there were some design flaws and that gives an idea of what we should look for.

The INSULATION/fireproofing on the metal beams -- doesn't matter if it was blown off or not -- which I doubt. Because that is to keep heat from transferring throughout the structure and spreading a fire -- not, I would think, for structural integrity. Everyone just assumes that a bomb can strip paint -- as if it isn't up for discussion. Steel bends before it breaks, so a loss of integrity would cause a slower collapse -- the failure of the WTC would have to be due to design flaws ONLY.

If I were arguing for the anti-truth side, then I'd be saying that the Core was not designed to keep the bundled tubes together and they were not braced enough for sheer force -- if the vertical force left. So, if you remove the floor due to a pancake, then you lose the outward pressure that pushes the curtain wall in place, as the cables pull in the curtain wall -- they unhinge from the lower sheet of curtain. Once the curtain wall pulls inward -- it fails around the whole circumference.

The design of the inner cylinders, was then, in joints, and the flooring, instead of pushing down, is pulling outward -- the tubes decouple and spread wider -- like a flower petal.

IF that inner core could break apart as a bundle and "flower petal" then, the whole mess loses ANY stability, so the domino effect of curtain wall pulling in, while core unfolds out, runs down the structure.

If there were some documentation, showing UN-damaged core tubes, that were pulled out like flower petals on a daisy, then I would believe that the core could lose strength with the pancake.

Still, the only problem with this, the curtain wall would have to go first, then the floor hits the floor below, destroying it and the next line of curtain wall. Then AFTER that, the inner core gets pulled out.

So once again, we have a situation where the collapse was too fast. There wasn't time to pull the core outward, because it can't un-hinge BEFORE the floor collapses. I don't know either, if they made the bad mistake of not welding the tubes together, or if sections were only a story tall -- that would take a bit of research.

I can model this in my head -- and YES, I can see how the entire structure could collapse IF, the CORE was in sections. You would have to test the pieces, and have good photos of undamaged sections -- unfortunately, since BushCo was involved -- we don't have that.

It also, would take too much time. And it doesn't count out that the building could have been pre-prepped to collapse.

Remember, There was no jet fuel in Building 7. It was a conventional steel and concrete construction -- and it had a total collapse at the speed of gravity. So, the same magic is used. But, some fantasy material that WASN'T PROVEN IN THE BUILDING, and this idea that a corner makes the whole building collapse -- well, it's just an even harder pill to swallow. The three buildings together with the shifty behavior of BushCo, is why we have conspiracies about this.

>>>

>>>
I hesitate to even bring these points up -- because so far, you guys are pretty damn simplistic. I can argue your side better than you can, and you don't even come up with half as strong of arguments as I just have. It's like giving a baby a gun -- they don't know what they are pointing at.

>> Other than a few supportive comments, there has been a lot of tiresome nonsense on this discussion. I think I could do a better job of converting truthers if I cared to.

I have studied the Bush family's history. It is rife with False-Flags, supporting hard-line enemies of the USA to justify military spending and their own hard-line positions. Everyone in that family, with the possible exception of the Bush daughters, should probably be in prison for numerous crimes of Fraud, Bank Embezzlement, Drug Running, support for Terrorism, Treason and that's to name a few. I don't think it's likely they are innocent of everything, and I damn well know that they are guilty of a few.

I know that Pappy Bush sent weapons to the Iranians, to help Republicans get elected. Maybe you heard of Iran/Contra. Lot's of coincidences on that case as well, as one of the main witnesses for the prosecution, had a stroke and got his brain lobotomized the day he was going to testify.

Bush even had a friend of the family, accuse him of meeting with the Iranians in France, and when the press jumped on it -- they instantly found credit card receipts that showed the friend was in the USA at the time. Very tricky, very good at giving false leads like the AWOL papers used to set up Dan Rather.

There are dozens of these incidents.

The 9/11 Incident, is not much different than all the others. The Usual MO of the Bush Crime family, is to have the people who did the crime, do the investigation. So that's where I'd start -- putting every investigator for BushCo on the stand.

Many of the first-responders, however, are dead. The lack of free medical support, the callousness of not supplying proper respirators when the head of the CDC knew the dangers -- well, it's real convenient if everybody dies -- or maybe its just an example it's just more incompetent people in the Bush government. We once again, have to wonder if it was stupidity or intent. These accidents, however, keep working out well for the Bush Crime Family.

>> But seriously guys -- prove your case. Stop being insulting. I'm done answering each and every one of these points -- because I only get a circular non-answer. You can't claim a straw-man argument, when you can't define what the OTHER point is.

>> The BCF had means, motive, and opportunity. They also destroyed evidence and interfered with a proper investigation. The 911 Widows for Truth have already been suing them for this. It is pretty insulting, to assume that everyone wants to waste their lives, just attacking a heroic Republican -- Liberals are not this way -- not that I know. This paranoia of the right, seems to constantly justify this persecution complex -- and it works great for a criminal who keeps committing crimes. The more people "bash Bush" -- the more he can get away with. Remember how the VERY GUILTY, O. J. Simpson? The defense won, because they made it about minorities being persecuted by the police -- NOT about the guilt of O.J.

That's how I see defense of the WTC disaster. We have to have the people in charge of the investigation, and in positions of power at the NSA, FAA and other agencies involved. It cannot be conducted by anyone connected in any way to Bush and the Democrats, nor who have any taint of conflict of interest.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

1-Steel loses 50% of its strength at 1100 F. Well, that's pretty much wrong.

2-Office fires burn about 875.

3-Because that is to keep heat from transferring throughout the structure and spreading a fire -- not, I would think, for structural integrity.

1- it's partially correct, but it doesn't account for the time element:

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

But are high steeltemperatures really necessary to explain collapse?
Not really. The initial speculation that very high temperatures were necessary to explain
collapse must be now revised since tests revealed a strong temperature effect on the yield
strength of the steel used. The tests by NIST (2005, part NCSTAR 1-3D, p. 135, Fig. 6-6)
showed that, at temperatures 150C, 250C and 350C, the yield strength of the steel used
in the fire stories decreased by 12%, 19% and 25%, respectively. These reductions apply to
normal durations of laboratory strength tests (up to several minutes). Since the thermally
activated decrease of yield stress is a time-dependent process, the yield strength decrease must
have been even greater for the heating durations in the towers, which were of the order of one
hour. These effects of heating are further documented by the recent fire tests of Zeng et al.
(2003), which showed that structural steel columns under a sustained load of 50% to 70% of
their cold strength collapse when heated to 250C.

2- wrong.

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...

^ graph shows the various nominal fire curves for comparison. It can be seen that, over a period of 2 hours, the hydrocarbon fire is the most severe followed by the standard fire, with the external fire being the least severe fire although the slow heating fire represents the lowest temperature up to 30 minutes. It is noteworthy that for standard and smouldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time. For the external fire, the temperature remains constant at 680°C after approximate 22 minutes. Whereas for the hydrocarbon fires, the temperatures remain constant at 1100°C and 1120°C after approximate 40 minutes.


3- no, it's to keep the individual pieces from heating.

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

1-I don't know either, if they made the bad mistake of not welding the tubes together, or if sections were only a story tall -- that would take a bit of research.

2-I can model this in my head -- and YES, I can see how the entire structure could collapse IF, the CORE was in sections.

1-They were in ~ 3 story sections and welded, not bolted. This is easily verified. Only the ext column trees were bolted together, although the individual sections were welded together.

2- it was. As the upper block descends, it removes the floorbeams in the cores, which also served as bracing for the core columns. Once you have long unbraced lengths, they either buckle, and/or break at the welds.

What is really, really annoying about this 9/11 conspiracy topic, is that, every time a Truther's theory gets "NAILED" because, someone has THE PROOF -- well, it's not looked at in context to the whole case.

The WHOLE CASE, spans the Patriot Act, the bogus excuses for war to invade two countries, the hunt for Bin Laden that somehow meant Bush would stop the FBI from investigating financial avenues in the case, and that Bush would stop the FBI from questioning the Bin Laden family when they were the only plane flying commercially the next day. I mean, I could fill VOLUMES with coincidence and unexplained behaviors.

Everybody NAMED in the case, has a track record of quasi-criminal behavior -- I only say "quasi" because, none have been tried yet. Heck, even Karl Rove has two subpoenas he can somehow ignore.

Having a PLAUSIBLE reason for collapse is not the same thing as having proof. You still have building 7, which doesn't even have a plausible reason. None of the fires was hot enough, outside of the fevered imaginations of Bush Government apologists (since a demolition would be easy to determine -- they either did it or covered it up, right?)

Let's not forget that Silverstein made about $6 Billion in pure profit, tax free, from the insurance claim. The Patriot Act, which came out of this incident, somehow resulted in Negroponte allowing Financial Institutions to over-leverage their investments by up to 40 times -- which set them up for complete collapse.

THE BROADER LANDSCAPE HERE, is a War on the Middle Class. At every turn, things are done that bankrupt us, remove liberties, and transfer wealthy from the public to the private. 9/11 would just be one of many links in that chain.

Torture, False-Flag Wars, A collapse of the economy, etc, etc, etc.

Against this backdrop, we are supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to a fire collapsing a steel structure, and a third steel and concrete building (without a plane crash). We have other buildings hit by planes, and other fires that were much longer and more intense. Sure it is POSSIBLE, that the WTC was brought down just as we were told -- but not likely. The only times we see buildings of steel collapse, and we see free-fall speeds, is with controlled demolitions. So you are saying, that people are normally killed by Guns, but we got to give some mobster the benefit of the doubt with his "spontaneous holes" theory.

9/11 is the OJ Simpson event for White People.

All this could be sorted out in a fair trial -- and I think it is necessary to put it to rest. Hint; if Arlen Specter is part of the trial -- it isn't a fair one.

reply to post by Kratos1220


The INCOMPETENCE EXCUSE -- doesn't fly with me when someone assumes power. There is such a thing as criminal incompetence.

Dick Cheney would be tried and convicted if what he says was true. He wants us to give him a pass, because he had 3 or 5 emergency drills that involved air planes flying into buildings. This left NORAD confused and distracted -- without ANY CONTINGENCY, if someone attacked us.

So, the VP left the entire nation open for ANY AND ALL ATTACKS, while he played toy commander in his bunker.

The President, continued to read a book to kids -- looking like a dear caught in the headlights.

If Bush thinks that his job is to protect Americans, and not his sworn duty to protect the Constitution -- guess what, he failed at both.

>> The incompetence is no defense. There are many cases of criminal gross negligence with less severe malfeasance and those people are in prison. To me, if you get a position of power -- you also lose the stupid defense. You should have never taken the reigns.

If this is true, than there should be no special treatment for leaders who could be replaced far better with a random lottery.

We have soldiers who die all the time in battle. We have "acceptable collateral damage." If the Bush government had been taken from power -- innocent or guilty, we would not have had $1 Trillion in loans from China to pay for their tax cut to the wealthy. We would not have had two wars that were bogus. We would not have set ourselves up for this financial crash.

But this special leniency, we should show to these random losers in suits, because they held a certain office? It sickens me. How are their lives and jobs and privilege worth one decent and well trained military troop -- much less thousands.

WE impeached Clinton over lying about sex -- after 6 years of investigations that proved him INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES. And now, we can't investigate a president after a smoking ruin in which they are complicit, and when their only excuse is criminal incompetence.

Nice effort to raise the bar Anti-Truthers.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

1-I don't know either, if they made the bad mistake of not welding the tubes together, or if sections were only a story tall -- that would take a bit of research.

2-I can model this in my head -- and YES, I can see how the entire structure could collapse IF, the CORE was in sections.

1-They were in ~ 3 story sections and welded, not bolted. This is easily verified. Only the ext column trees were bolted together, although the individual sections were welded together.

>> Hey -- they'd be unbraced if the entire building didn't come straight down. Sure, if they are sticking up in the air AFTER the floors below were collapsed, then welded sections might topple AFTER they were exposed, or at least a number of stories.

Three welds means this is a lot stronger bundle than I thought -- and it couldn't rose-petal out. So it means some 300 feet of core should have been sticking up.

Don't bother trying to TEACH ME about how solid tubes react. I mean, WELDS are usually stronger than original steel when done right, ARC welders fuze the steel and such joints are NOT weak points. Buckling can happen with one tube, if the forces are NOT straight down.

If the inner floor held, such that it pulled on the core -- well, the core held it up when it wasn't collapsing, you don't add more weight suddenly by collapsing it. It would also look a lot like a Christmas tree with about 40 stories of floor hanging from a core.

You have a theory where the floors break free of the core, and no explanation then of how it was brought down.

>> See my other points about CONTEXT. To believe that 9/11 was not an inside job, is to believe a mobster that his enemy did not just sprout spontaneous holes -- I mean, I can come up with a theory for how that could happen -- so it's possible. That would NOT keep you out of any court, however.

2- it was. As the upper block descends, it removes the floorbeams in the cores, which also served as bracing for the core columns. Once you have long unbraced lengths, they either buckle, and/or break at the welds.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by VitriolAndAngst]

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Everything you said is wrong. Fitting facts to the incident.

Look, this post started by looking at a HUGE fire for 20 hours in China. There must be a conspiracy to magically keep the structure up -- like all the other steel buildings.

To put off the "but it's different argument" like the building wasn't furnished (means less fuel as well), and didn't have it's full weight added. Well, most all buildings have a certain amount over they weight that they are supposed to hold up.

According to all the Bush Is Not Involved Apologists, the Chinese fire should have weakened the steel 50%. Either they build to better code standards, or that is garbage.

There was no evidence that the fire at WTC was that hot. It had black smoke, there were people looking out through holes near the fire, the metal curtain showed little damage other than the initial blast. Every estimate, is taken from the highest theoretical temperature, and the weakest assumed tolerance.

And still, it collapsed at free-fall speeds --- which might happen if it was designed like an umbrella -- but no explanation for the fall of the core.

Buckling? Are you kidding me? That would require it to move to the side. It would also take a lot of force for a bundle of tubes. The only two ways would be if the bundle split like a flower, or someone cut it with thermate and demolition charges -- or something exotic that I wouldn't even speculate on.

I'm just not seeing what we should be seeing after a pancake collapse -- and that is AFTER I'm not convinced that the fire was that hot, or the theories of how steel gets so week when we've seen numerous steel buildings totally engulfed in flame.

>> Apologies Seymore, I didn't quite see what you were explaining. I'm just fed up with all the nonsense about steel getting so weak in fires and there are numerous incidents of fires -- hotter than 9/11, to call this nonsense what it is.

Lots of dis-info on the subject. And I'm sure there is just bad data getting out in the public. All so that the Bush Crime Family can move on to the next phase of destroying the Middle Class.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by VitriolAndAngst]

reply to post by Kratos1220


There is some evidence that OBL was killed by a Pakistani agent, December of 2001.

OBL got into Pakistan, because at Tora, Bora, they pulled our special forces back to let Afgannis who were little more than an organized group of drug runners take him out. It's likely he might have just paid them to let him leave -- that's how we got MOST of the "suspected terrorists" in GitMO -- by paying a bounty.

OBL is more useful as a bogey man if he is alive.

But really, we only have Bush's word that they aren't still friends. The Bin Laden family bailed his ass out when he bankrupted Arbutso oil. Bush pushed for and got an increase of funding for Al Qaeda (which used to work for the CIA), when he first got into office.

Many of the alleged hijackers were Saudi.

Al Qaeda as an organization is kind of a mystery. It may be derived from "the base" or "the database" specifically, one created by the CIA to list radical islamists. However, in Saudi Arabia, there has been a lot of opposition from both religious and "people who don't like tyranny" to the Kingship of the Saudis. To my best guess, I'd think that it was a phony counter-government agency schemed up by the Saudis and the CIA. What better way to control the opposition than to be it? So, nominally, Al Qaeda is against the Saudi Government, but redirects the rage outside the country. It reminds me of how our own KKK and other radical groups, got all wrapped up in being NeoCons and so supportive of Bush. Blackwater seems to be sucking up a lot of mal-contents who read soldier of fortune magazine in this country. Give these guys a gun, an ID bag and a secret code name, and you've got a lot of useful idiots.

Remember the Miami 7 incident, where some homeless street punks got outfits and boots from an FBI Agent (I'd say handler)? Then they got plans to blow up the Sears Tower -- but it was more of a tourist brochure. Some of the people the government has put on trial, have been from the ranks of these LONG watched losers. One might, if one were cynical, think that they keep these people around, in case someone needs a patsy for any dark project.

Getting back to the Saudi's version of the same thing; Al Qaeda's goals were: To remove permanent military bases of the US from Saudi Arabia. To remove Saddam Hussein and make Iraq a religious state rather than secular. To bankrupt the United States.

Who achieved their goals in this struggle, eh?

>> Bin Laden has never been much of a threat. 4 of the hijackers got passports from a CIA agency in Saudi Arabia. Their ring-leader was a double-agent who had done work for either the US or the British in the past -- I can't remember everything here and I'm too lazy to look it up. Anyway, I remember reading a lot of the pre-attack preparation from a Stripper who claimed to be his girlfriend -- remember when they used to make fun of these people's morals, that they went to a strip club prior to the attack? It was quietly taken out of the news, because it kind of in the way of Radical Wahabism being the bogie man.

Along with all the curious crap that the WTC collapse involves -- it's a great night of entertainment to follow the training of the hijackers in Florida. It has "school of the Americas" written all over it. In fact, one of the air bases where the leader and two others trained, was a CIA drop. Such a place is an airport where planes can come and go without any inspection. Later, that small outfit got a huge no-bid multi million dollar contract.

I quit following that stuff, because I just don't have the time. Memory fades and we have to make a living.

But any investigation into the background of ANY of this War on Terror -- stinks like three week old fish.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

You're absolutely right about the welds being often,usually even,stronger than the orig. stock.Any structurally important welds are also tested by a couple ways,magniflux or x-ray with documentation kept of each weld.There were samples of the steel pieces and bolts and all fasteners kept.Even rock core samples from before construction even came back up to ground level.
BTW the weakest area on a beam or built up column such as these is not the weld,but there is a zone of altered grain structure sometimes called the embrittlement zone.It is near,but not right at,the weld itself.On high carbon steel you anneal after welding to even out the grain to prevent stress crack initiation.On pure iron it is much less an issue as to be practically nonexistant,but very expensive to obtain pure iron.
You can study steel your whole life and still learn more.
Magniflux is kinda cool,you magnitize the steel,electrically,then sprinkle on iron filings and any stress zones show as perturbations in the mangetic flux.Like the old metal filings over a magnet science fair thingie,,but if the steel has irregularities in the grain it causes the filings to assume a rough arc,not smooth.This gets photographed for record.These guys are certified welders and watched over by bonded inspectors.If any welds showed any irregulrities someone would make the call and it would be ground out and done right,or not.That would be documented.
I'm sure all those have been 'lost'.
I read the spec's on the wtc steel a long time ago and as I recall it was medium carbon alloy.Good weldability and low brittleness were the prime concerns as the bdg. was subject to swaying.I can't imagine a bolt substitution with inferior size or even a lesser grade bolt as postulated earlier,especially if it was the only possible explanation other than inside job(in more ways than one)as these things would have been on record,testing reports,bill of lading for delivery of materials on the site,etc.The sections were prefabricated and trucked to the site as needed(each section was unique and it was a logistical feat they were quite proud of,made necessary by the crowded area of lower Manhattan and the gradually lessening of section of the pieces as it went up) and the holes would have been checked several times before being erected hundreds of feet up(Doof!!!Wrong piece!!!NOT) and smaller bolts would have been noticed and not passed inspection,for just this reason we're discussing here. They keep records of which of a myriad of electrodes were used on any important job fer criminy.End rant.