willravel, were you satisfied by my answer why the south tower fell first? (post 96)

Here's a closeup of what appeared to me to be a CFM56-3 engine, recovered from Murray St. and displayed on the FEMA site as photographed on Oct. 16, 2001, that you offer as a CF6......

<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/CF6.jpeg">
If you are right, the question is, what aircraft did it come from? FEMA reported that it came from Flight 175. The CF6 is made by the same manufacturer as the CFM56-3. The similarities, as you posted, are there, but the subtle differences, to me, a layman, may have escaped me. I am looking for inconsistancies in the official account of what happened on 9/11. I still am looking at the same one.....where did the engine that the government claimed was torn off of Flight 175 on impact, actually come from? There is no official report that it came from anywhere but flight 175, and no report that flight 175 was powered by a "CF" or a "CFM" set of engines.

My other posts refer to Flight 175 being powered by twin Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7 engines. I never posted anything about a CFM56-5b. I did post about the CFM56-3 model that powers 737-300 models and newer.

My research sez that <a href="http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010911-1">flight 175 was powered</a> by Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D engines, not CF6 or CFM56-3 engines. Popular Mechanics and Fema reported that the only engine found was from flight 175 that flew into WTC 2.......
(see below)

(Flight 11, however was reported to be <a href="http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010911-0&lang=en">powered by CF6-80A2 engines</a>, but no official claim has been made that a jet engine from that 767 was recovered.)

and for uber and will:

The South Tower was hit lower, but had much less structural damage. There was not a direct impact with the core, as there was with the North Tower.
Okay the jet fuel was only a catalyst, but how the fires started would effect the way the fires burned after the fuel burned out. As there was less fuel that started the fire in the South Tower, it would have less of an effect. I know from records that as far as other fuel for the fire - office furniture, paper, computers, etc. - the buildings were basically identical. If they have both been hit identically, they should have burned at the same rate. Imgaine you have two identical cars, you spill a gallon of gas in one, and 4 gallons in another. Which shoudl burn up faster?

Will, if the fuel is burned in identical places in the cars, the fire should burn equal fast in both. However, if the 4 gallons is in the closed trunk and the 1 gallon is in the cabin, the car with the smaller amount will burn faster since it is a better environment with more non-gasoline fuel available.

Ok, first to willravel, this is his thread after all:

If I spill a gallon of gas, and a cup of gas in 2 identical houses (roughly equal in size to the amount that fueled the fires, relative to there size) it is true that the gallon will get the house burning faster, but each will reach raging inferno relatively quickly. In the towers, the fires were burning in full force after a short time, but the south tower collapsed first, because it had more weight above the points of impact, causing more force to be applied to the weakening girders and support. By the time the first towers collapse, they were both fully engulfed in flames, but due to the extra force applied from above the south tower fell first.

As for the amount of structural damage, actually the south tower got it worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:W..._Locations.jpg
The main fuselage hit the corner of the support of the building, not the center, the corners provide much more support then the sides do.

Also check out this link, it’s a good explanation of the collapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...d_Trade_Center


To host:

You are right you never said it was a CFM56-5b. you did post about the CFM56-3 model, and the 2 models are virtually identical in design. Here is a picture of the CFM56-3, and please note the small piping, much smaller than the picture you think is of a CFM56-3
http://www.albadawi.be/GRAPHIC/cfm56-3.jpg


As for it being a CF6, I was not as clear as I should have been, the engine in this photo http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/pho...ginal/5474.jpg is a CF6, but it is a different engine then the one on Murray and Church St. The part found on Murray http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/e...cengines2.html is clearly different from the other photo of a CF6.

Here are the best 4 pictures of the Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D I could find:

http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/image...taway_high.jpg
http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/images/jt9d_1_high.jpg
http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/images/jt9d_3_high.jpg
http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/images/jt9d_2_high.jpg

The photo of the engine on Murray Street is to badly damage to do a visual inspection and identify it; it does show similarities with the JT9D-7R4D. But the part is to mangled up; the only visible parts are mangled metal and some tubing, which all jet engines have in abundance. The photo is beyond recognition visually, especially with people with out any training like us. It’s like taking a wrecked car, putting it in a car crusher, burning it, taking a picture of it, and asking some one who does not know about cars, what year it was made in based off of the picture alone. An expert with hands on access to the car could do it, but no one else.

Your problem is you are looking at 2 different engines and thinking they are the same. The picture on Murray Street and the picture you keep showing are different.

Dilbert, if the picture that I "keep showing"...is different than the engine photgraped on Murray St., where would the landfill jet engine pics from the FEMA website, have come from? The landfill was closed on March 21, 2001, after operating since 1948. It was only reopened to receive WTC 9/11 rubble.

There is yellow "crime scene" tape visible in both FEMA photos...here are the links and the captions:
<b>The following report indicates that it is doubtful than another WTC hijacked airliner engine combustion chamber was found...it was unprecedented that the flight and data recorder "black boxes were not found...</b>
<b>The rest of the quote boxes that follow, indicate to me that the authorities in charge of the 9/11 attacks "investigation" gave us information about what they found.....or in the case of the flight 175 and flight 11 "black boxes.....didn't find.....that defies credulity. The last quote box shows the DOJ admitting that FBI agents "looted" the WTC and Oklahoma Murrah building investigation scenes, for souveniers, and that Agent Marx, in charge of the Fresh Kill landfill WTC evidence, failed a polygraph and lied to investigators.
The FBI had no written policy, in Oklahoma in 1995 or after 9/11 that prohibited it's agents from looting evidence from those "terror" attacks.

No black boxes were recovered from the WTC, but a passport was.....no wreckage of flight 93 can be observed at the Shanksville "crash" site....but two passports (or visas) linked to two of the nineteen hijackers were said to be recovered there.

Dilbert, the links that you submitted in the post before your last one, support my contention that the wrecked jet engine core photos are of GE/CFAN design.....your sources say CF6, my photo comparison below shows similarities between the CFM56-3 photo on the wiki site page.

The comments that you quoted, about the CF6 were arrogant in their certainty. This does not bode well for the official line (FEMA) that the engine is from P&W powered flight 175!

In your last post, you also throw in the possibility that the wreckage is from a P&W JT9D-7 design. I see nothing that indicates a P&W source, but I do see simliarites in the upper right of each photo, that support a CFM56-3 source. The weakest evidence is that this is P&W jet engine wreckage, but the official line is that it has to be....
<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/streetsm.JPG">
<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/wikism.JPG">
Here's a closeup of a shot from the Naudet brothers 8/11 docu film. It's teken from the other side of the Murray St. engine, (same engine as in top photo)
<center><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/wtc2eng.jpg"><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/filmst.JPG"></center>
The last set of photos indicate that the larger closeup in the first photo, is from the opposite side of the engine, the side that was "shortened" by the impact of the initial crash into a WTC tower...or whatever this engine core previously hit.

Here's a cropped close up of your linked photo:
http://www.pw.utc.com/presskit/images/jt9d_1_high.jpg
There is a chance that we do not have a similar angle, but I see no similarity of the wreckage photos to the engine that Flight 175 was supposed to have,
this P&W JT9D-7.....
<img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/PWsm.JPG">

Let’s try this again, the land fill that you mention contains all the wreckage from the disaster, including all the parts of all the planes. The photo that you show in the land fill is clearly different then the one on Murray Street. There were 2 planes, with 2 engines each; this is from the other plane. Bottom line, the 2 are different. As for identification, I’m going to give up on it; it’s ludicrous for anyone with out training and direct access to it to identify it.

Every part of the plane was recovered, whether in a recognizable form or not, it all was found. The bright orange black boxes are located in the land fill, crushes and burned beyond recognition, but they are there. To think that some one would take the black box and get away with it is crazy; they're pretty heavy and not easy to walk off with.



The size of the black box matched against the total amount of rubble is the reason they are not found. And they are designed to survive a plane crash, not a falling building; most likely they were ripped to shreds in the collapse. And as for poly graphs, they are unreliable at best, so much that they are not admissible as evidence in a trial, its built on junk science and is not reliable.

Sure, they are light and may have been blown out of the building; strange things are recovered from all disasters. But this is just irrelevant, unless you are claiming that they were planted evidence, if you are, just come out and say it, and then back it up.

As for no wreckage at the crash site of flight 93, did you just not look?

From http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200060-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200061-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200062-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200063-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200064-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200065-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200066-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200068-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200069-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/PA00109-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/PA00109-2.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/PA00111-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200057-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200058-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200059-1.jpg



As to your second post, I must admit I am guilty of being arrogant in my certainty, I trusted your comparison of the 2 engines, the one found on Murray Street and the one in the land fill, you said that they were the same, and the land fill picture was a higher quality version of the Murray street engine, you were wrong, they are clearly 2 different engines, but since I did not check you, instead trusting you could see if to photos were of the same object (I thought a valid assumption) I did all my identification on the picture from the land fill, which I still think looks like a CF6. But no, the picture on Murray Street I still think is unidentifiable by me, or you, or anyone else on this forum. To me the Murray Street has similar features to a Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4D, but could really be anything.

And lastly, host please stop revising your old post in this thread, its hard to have an honest conversation if you keep changing the record of your post. Change spelling, punctuation etc, but don’t change and add things to your old post.

cause that's just lame.

Dilbert, the "arrogance" I was referring to was this quote that you posted that actually, as I said, reinforces my opinion....

The quote was linked to a post on letsroll.org ....it ended with:
You certainly have no reason to defend against a criticism that your tone was arrogant.....it has never been, IMO.

I found this...it took a lot of searching. This should be about finding the actual facts....not about how accurate any of our opinions are. In that spirit, if the nytimes was correct, I am wrong about the landfill picture, and you, Dilbert, are right!

Near the bottom of this nytimes article, there is this:
(I subscribe to newsbank...and I read the whole article....)
This "find" of a Flight 11 engine was never publicized widely; no mention by FEMA....

The Smithsonian had an exhibit that included recovered aircraft wreckage....no mention of an engine from WTC:
http://americanhistory.si.edu/septem...cord.asp?ID=45

Freaky things do happen, and plane crashes are no exceptions.
Claims that two passports or visas of hijackers of flight 93, and one from a WTC plane hijacker were recovered, post crash, just seems beyond "freaky" to me. The flight 93 "debris field" is the last place that I would expect that two hijackers' passports would be found.

The prosecutors emphasis on evidence exhibits from flight 93, and the CVR audio during the Moussouai trial penalty phase is also "odd", to me.

Please provide examples of my "late" edits of my past posts. The only things that I can think of are the pictures that I posted last week, on a post early in this thread. All edits are time/date stamped here at TFP. I did not edit that post, the problem is there is with the "free web space" provider....not with any edit I performed.....

Why not? I saw a picture of the severed bound hands. That's freaky on so many levels. The hands weren't scorched, not burned, no abraisions from the view that I had, just severed and bound.

Papers are still being found in people's backyards in Brooklyn, bone remains were recently found on the top of one of the buildings off to the side.

Freaky? I guess.

It's just as simple to say, it's what happened.

YAY!!!!!!

There are a lot of weird things that happen in plane crashes, if you look at the pictured I posted, you will see there are 2 driver’s license, and a business card. When the plane hit the ground, the back would crash into the front creating pressure inside the cabin, as it ruptured this pressure would blow light objects out, other than that, if the passport was covered by something heavy and not likely to burn would preserve the paper. I think if you were able to see everything that was recovered, you would find most of the passports, and identifications, but they don’t make the news, however the terrorist passports do make the news.

http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/P200068-1.jpg
http://www.rcfp.org/moussaoui/jpg/PA00109-1.jpg

I’m unfamiliar with with the CVR audio during the Moussouai trial, you have a good link?

As for changing post,

I quoted you as saying

When I quote some one, I try to never take sections out from a quote, if I don’t want part of it, I’ll break it into 2 quotes.

I looked back yesterday and your post look like it was changed to include

I don’t recall that ‘hint’ from when I initially quoted you. The log says ‘Last edited by host : 05-04-2006 at 11:27 AM.’

Now fixing spelling is fine, even making things more clear, like removing ‘it’, ‘them’, ‘they’ with the actual party’s name is helpful. I could have just missed that it was in the initial post, at this point it does not matter, you understand my side and agree with me.

to those slinging labels & claiming this discussion is not worthy of the political thread...

it is dismissive and, entirely, rude to throw around terms, which knowingly bear a negative connontation (regardless of the fact they shouldn't), like "conspiracy theorists" or the more degrading "insane", and tell people this belongs in the paranoia forum.
such retorts are comparable to schoolyard name-calling and demeaning, and they lend, absolutely, no value to the discussion.
if you have nothing intellingent or compelling to reply with, i would suggest that you just refrain from typing till you, actually, do have something credible to refute the claims.

i would also like to state:
conspiracy theory does not = paranoia.
conspiracies occur on a daily basis, and the american government has taken part in its fair share of them that were later exposed.
and lest we forget, everything is theory - untill proven factual.

people are offering/analyzing/discussing actual evidence, and whether or not you agree with the conclusion they come to, it is not anyone's place to label the other's thoughts/perceptions/conclusions as paranoid.

if you are, for whatever reason, not open to to reading other's posts (on this particular subject) objectively, with an open mind and willingness to weigh the facts, then there is no reason you should comment on it, at all.
read it for kicks, if you wish, and then move on.

Thank you, red0bliva. Youy offer good advice.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we must be respectful of those who wish to call it a dog.

I disagree with yoiur viewpoint in this thread, but have I called you names or implied you were insane?

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I guess you better shoot it down with a 12 gauge.

so willtravel are all of your unanswered questions answered?

I'm still trying to contact some people who definately know a lot more than I do about things like structural engineering. I contacted a company that is building steel reinforced highrises in downtown San Jose, but tehy haven't gotten back to me yet. It's become clear to me that I am (I can't speak for anyone else) arguing beyond my understanding. I don't think, based on what I know, that the buildings could have possibly fallen due to the impact and fire damage from the planes that hit them. I also can't even begin to comprehend the collapse of WTC7. What I am doing now is more studying, and also monitoring (not as a moderator monitors, but as someone with interest follows a discussion).

Willravel: Will is my first name, Ravel is my favorite composer - just fyi, it doesn't really bother me.

One thing that will always bother me is that WTC 7, which was not hit by any plane or any significant debris from WTC1 or 2. Just so you know, photographic evidence shows that WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6, were hit with trmendous amounts of debris from the twin towers, espically when they colapsed. These buildings, buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6, were each made from smaller guage steel frames than WTC 7. WTC7, meinwhile, was over a block fartheer away from WTC1 and 2 than 3, 4, 5, and 6. At 5:20 PM on 9/11, WTC7 fell taking only 6 and a half seconds to collapse. Note that even when a building is demoloshed, it rarely comes close to free fall speed. Before 9/11 no steel framed building had ever fallen due to fire.

WTC7 does not recieve damage from debris.
WTC7 only has small fires.
WTC7 collapses in 6.5 seconds.
No steel framed building has ever fallen from a fire, arguabally without the assistence of two very big planes hitting them.

This is a picture of WTC7 (in the yellow rectangle) from the South Tower.
http://www.rense.com/general65/WTC7fromNTC.jpg
Notice the two very small buildings between the South Tower and WTC7. Those are building 6 (on the let) and building 5 (on the right). WTC 5 and 6 survived...but WTC7 didn't.

It doesn't add up in my mind.

Watch WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein say on PBS in 2002 that he told NYFD to "pull" Building 7 down..... http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=wtc7+ (Silverman's "Pull it" comment is at 3:30 minute mark on video)

Buy the video from PBS here: http://shop.pbs.org/products/AREB901/

Our State Department offers Silverstein's 2005 "clarification" here....complete with
untruths documented from FEMA report and NIST spokesman's comments published by Popular Mechanics....and as reported in the NY Times. There were no firefighters in or near BUilding 7 after 11:30 am on 9/11. So...is Silverstein's clarification a lie? Why would the U.S. State Dept. website display Silverstein's lie on it's official website, if our government had nothing to hide?

Can you spot the "big lie" from the State Department web page, in the quote box below? Is the font big enough to match the scale of the lie? <b>A bullshit story from our government, that a "kidney patient" who lived in a cave, planned an attack that involved 15 Saudi and 4 other middle eastern men who hijacked four airliners and flew 3 of them into buildings, flying at speeds over 500 mph at altitudes between 20 and 800 ft., executing fighter plane like maneuvers in spite of flying abilities described as poor by their flight instuctors.</b> The four airliners were all hijacked nearly simultaneously and all eluded U.S. air defense countermeasures, inspite of the admission by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and COTJCOS Gen. Myers, that the four war games that coincidentally were conducted at the time of the hijackings, actually increased the ability of air defense assets to counter the attacking airliners!

<b>You go...willravel !! As you can see, our government is posting this, because..???</b>
<b>NIST, FEMA, and NY Times state that there were no firefighters in Building 7, and "due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY..."</b>

Detailed report on building 7 collapse that dissects FEMA conclusions, complete with many photos and links to videos of the collapse:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fema_report.html

hey mods. have we had enough yet? We went on for 3 full pages discussing physics, fire temperatures, if it was possible that the fires brought down the WTC, to comparing engine photos. It seems to have moved beyond that. Obviously there are some people, who, no matter how much evidence is presented, are never going to believe 9/11 wasn't a government conspiracy. Aside from what some rookie says, yes this is paranoia - whats the difference from what this thread has become and the 911 threads in the paranoia forum? To keep this thread in the politics forum is a disgrace. I thought we were trying to clean up Politics. This is only a step backward.

So I take it there is no chance of you Will or you Host postulating that theory for me about what the motivation of the attack by the government was?

Now mojo, we've already been into this. If you look on previous pages you will see that the postulation of the theory for governmental motivation behind 911 squarely falls in the realm of paranoia.

Plus we all know they did it for oil.

no stevo, we have yet to cover building 7, when i get home tonight from work, i'll get right on debunking building 7.

I've had enough...stevo! Enough of watching my own government "communicate" to us by posting blatant lies on a State Department web page titled <b>You Are In: USINFO > Resource Tools > Identifying Misinformation</b>, in reference to an issue as controversial and sensitive as whether the lease holder of WTC 7 gave the NYFD permission to almost instantaneously demolish a 49 story building.

The one positive is that our government has verified that Mr. Silverstein did indeed tell the NYFD to "pull it", with regard to the destruction of WTC 7, and that the U.S. government folks who posted Silverstein's "revision" of what he said, 30 months after his televised remarks, thought that the lame shit that was intended to "explain away" the "pull it" remarks, would end the debate about what happened to WTC 7.

You got to change with the times, stevo....great leader has a 31 percent approval rating now. It's not far from Nixon's 25 percent support...at the end.

Again...why are you so angry? How about contributing to this discussion?

I'm not angry, I just think its disgusting. "contributing" only gives legitimacy to the paranoia.

As 'they' say, "Hear, hear!"

On TFP, we should always respect others, yes. This is should not be a challenging concept.

As others have said: if you don't like the topic, move along. Also not a challenging concept.

I'm sure there is a name for the lousy metaphor type of argument you've used here. But it's a lousy metaphor and it doesn't apply.


I'm sorry I'm posting and not adding value to the topic at hand. Perhaps I should have said all this to a moderator. But since it seems to apply to many, I chose to post. Perhaps someone could give me guidance on the right way to have handled this...
thx

And if it grew to 10 pages of calm conversation, where is the harm? The category that this is in seem pretty trivial. Ultimately, why does it matter?

And how can it matter more than disrespect and snideness to another member of TFP?

What is obvious to you, and others, may not be obvious to everyone. Where's the harm?

At the top of the page, I posted the curious spectacle of a web page on the U.S. State Department's website that purports to tell the public how to "identify misinformation". Why would "State" compose and post an elaborate anonymous rebuttal to points made in a book that explores the holes in the U.S. government's official 9-11 "story"? Did the book <b>911 Revealed</b>"hit a nerve" with the Bush administration? If not....why didn't the Bush State Dept. simply ignore the book instead of posting such a clumsy and unconvincing attempt to diminish the points made by the book's authors?

I've highlighted in bold the observation of the authors of "911 Revealed":
(Insert "Ustwo or "stevo" or "Mojo_PeiPei" in place of "The Bush Administration)__________ is unable to understand the difference between a book <b>(...or a thread)</b> which examines sceptic theories and a book which espouses such theories."

Why is a Politics forum thread that does the reverse of last years Popular Mechanics "examination" of points made by 9-11 official story sceptics; an article that was tainted by the contributions of a Popular Mechanics "senior researcher" who was the cousin of DHS head, Michael Cherthoff, "greeted" with such a visible and repetitive "chorus" of empty, protest posts?

ugh...
first of all, please stop trying to play nazi and have mods take this away from those who are, actually, contributing to the discussion and/or are enjoying reading through it.

secondly, if you wish to take part in discussion of politics, you must realize that there will always be differences of opinions and a variance in interpretations of facts.
just because people do not think as you do does not automatically render them wrong or their perspective useless (if you are evolved enough to listen to and digest other's views).
once again, if this convo were to stumble into the realm of speculation, then it might be more appropriate in the paranoia forum.
however, when discussing actual evidence of an actual event that has had a very real and very strong effect on, both, american and foriegn politics,... how can it not be included in the politics forum?

"Aside from what some rookie says, yes this is paranoia "

am i the "rookie" you speak of?
i joined this site because, from first appearance, it seemed to be a place where mature and enlightened people could come to, openly, exchange ideas on a variety of subjects. reading through this particular thread has been pretty disappointing.

i am at a total loss as to why you and ustwo, after repeatedly deeming this topic as undeserving of the politics thread or your time, would keep coming back, time and time again, just to put it down some more.
what is the point of that?
why does it bother you so much that you would plea for mods to remove or move it? why wouldn't you just go read through a thread that you do consider worthy? is there any explanation for these actions, at all?

Stevo, you are a rookie comapred to me (I have something like 3,700 posts to date, dwarfing your 1,000), so does that mean that I am right and you are wrong? Of course not. TFP isn't here for freshman bashing, espically when this person has read the rules.

Stevo, what is your response to post #120? You are more than welcome to join in our conversation. Standing outside of our conversation hurling insults is unacceptable, and only makes you out to be stubborn and uneducated on the subject. Look at Dilbert, for example. This guy has gone head to head with me the whole time and has shown me nothing but respect. He disagrees with me, sure, but he somehow is able to treat me like a human being.

Stevo, and ustwo - your opinions are noted. However, the thread stays for now.

I'm not saying this to exclude you, but I'll note that host and willravel (the primary motivaters of this thread) are still attempting to address issues of possible evidence and facts - which are being rationally and politely raised by Dilbert and The_Jazz. A discussion about evidence and whether the commonly assumed story is even possible are perfectly fine for this space. From what I can tell, your recent attempts to counter that possibly productive discussion by trying to tempt it into conspiracy theories, motivations and shadowy plots amount to attempted threadjacking. Repeated attempts to derail the discussion and discredit the posters by marginalizing them as paranoid or crazy have been noted and don't do anyone any good - because will and host have declined to go down that path. At this point, if you hate this discussion so much, please hit the back button.

I strongly disagree that this thread demeans our politics forum. That isn't related to my personal feelings about one side or the other - and that's part of why I'm mostly staying out of this. In fact, in some places this thread has been exemplary for the restraint and topical focus that people have shown. Perhaps you and I simply have different ideas about what this forum should be. If that is the case, please take this up over PM - the moderating and administrating team is open to input and will discuss your ideas.

I think this thread is fine here, and will probably end when people stop posting. There's no reason to lock it or move it, and considering how calm and rational the primary discussers are attempting to remain I don't think there will be. I'm waiting with interest for Dilbert's thoughts on tower 7, will's information from structural experts, and host's photographic documentation.

boatin said a few things very well:

...
Rookie posts are always welcome here, as long as they follow forum guidelines.

Just so everyone knows where I stand: I still don't know anything for sure. I am not convinced that there was enough damage by the planes, be the damage from fire or from the impact, to bring down the buildings....but I am not going to rule out the possibility. I've been wrong before. To know exactly when and if the steel frames of the strcture would have given, I'd need to get access to the exact type of steel (so I can determine at what temperature it would be movable), what exactly was in the buildings at the time of the crashes and fires, what specific damage was done from the collissions, what direction and speed the wind was, etc. Some of that information simply doesn't exist. I think that a solution is possible, though. Because I have not ruled out the possibility of a solution, I will not give up in discussing, experimenting, and investigating.

Uber an insane man is convinced of his own sanity and can try to explain why what he feels is sane in light of all evidence to the contrary.

That is what these discussions are pure and simple. Being civil has nothing to do with it, its insanity.

The closest analogy I can find to this argument is a holocaust denial debate. You have people who give you untrue, unproven, and unsound 'facts' to prove their point and ignore all evidence to the contrary. Pay no attention to the 1000's of eye witnesses or the piles of bodies, but instead rely on a minority of dissenters, and bad science. No matter how 'civil' the debate it has no place here and would have been moved in the past. You can have a civil debate about sex, it goes in the sexuality board, you can have a civil debate about your own paranoid government conspiracy delusions, and it goes in the paranoia forum where we can ignore it.

I recommend you start ignoring it here, Ustwo. The mods have spoken. It's a perfectly valid and civil thread, and evidently it's staying.

YOU have been the one talking about conspiracies on this thread. will and host have refused to go there. They've studiously avoided any speculation about motives or agents. The question here is about physics. There's no conspiracy theory in physics.

One might wonder why you're so violently defending a position nobody's attacking. You protest too much.

Ustwo, what's your response to post #120?

Well ok it looks like this thread is getting off topic, so to get everything back on track here we go.

I’d like to open with popular mechanics thorough debunking; it goes through and tells the most up to date material.
One big thing that is not mentioned is that the fireproofing that is sprayed onto some steel girders is easy to knock off with enough force; the impact of the planes would easily shake it off. This would also have happened in some places in wtc 7 from the impact caused by the debris from wt1. I know this for a fact because recently (about a year ago) we had an earthquake near where I live and it knocked off nearly half of the fire proofing in the mechanics garage where I work. It was only a 5.something and it was about 33 miles away. Fire proofing is designed to stand up to fire, not to impacts, its does break and fall off if enough force is applied.

Next I’d like to put to rest the controlled demolitions claim.

I’ll first start with the process of a controlled demolition. All the major support beams must be severed in order to get the building to collapsed, that means they beams must be exposed, cut part way to weaken them, and rigged with explosives. This explosive is usually a specialized explosive called RDX, encased in copper to make a chapped charge, which shoots a jet of hot copper to slice the beam. Then a secondary charge blows the beam a bit so it is no longer resting on the lower part but can fall. This whole setup needs to be applied to a lot of beams on many floors, that means they must cut through the walls to get to the beam, this just can’t be done secretly. It would take months to do, everyone in the building would have to be in on the plan, and it’s just crazy to think of all the logistics to destroying a building. Now I know you’re going to tell me if it only takes one girder to bring the tower down, why is it so hard to think it was a controlled explosion. The important girders were all on the lower floors, near the worst of the fire, next to the diesel, now how do you have explosives and fire in the same spot. Copper melts at 1084.62C, so were safe on temp for the metal, but RDX has an auto ignition point of 234°C, but that’s pure RDX, now they would probably use a plastic explosive, like C4 (which contains RDX) but C4 does not explode when its burned, it just burns, it burns very well. So there is another problem, if there were explosives set, they would need to be protected from the fires, so the workers would have to cut through the walls to plant the explosives, and then seal them back up and protect them from heat and fire. Back to the melting point of copper, copper melts at 1084 C so the fire would not necessarily gotten hot enough to melt the copper, but will a shaped charge work when very hot, no. when a shaped charge detonates, it forces the copper into a stream or jet that slices through the material, even though it has liquid properties, it is still not molten, but it is heated significantly, now it the copper was already heated, the extra heat from a fire and the charge would melt the copper rendering it ineffective. Next all the wiring would have to be shielded from heat, and any radio equipment for a remote detonation would also have to be dealt with in the same manner, to protect any remote equipment it would have to be incased in something, which would hamper any radio signal.

There were bad fires in tower 7, excessive damage from the collapse of the other towers, and thousands of gallons of diesel to fuel the fire. The fire fighters were called back because they were understaffed and could not cope with it, if WTC 7 was the only problem that day, it would still be standing, but the firefighters had been going since early that morning, and simply could not handle another fire to fight, not to mention the extreme instability of the building, they were right to not go into the building. Further more the building design was quite bad, allowing for a single column to bring the tower down, as stated in the NIST report.

Another thing I’ve been hearing a lot of is that no steel building has collapse before or after. Stating this as a reason that the towers should not have collapse is just stupid, its like saying no blimp before or after the Hindenburg has burst into flames due to static electricity, does this mean the helium lobby secretly planted charges inside of the Hindenburg to make it look like it was unsafe to suit there own agendas? No. It’s just that we have had very few experiences with these large steel buildings and never once before 9/11 has one been struck by a large plane. Never one has a moderately sized building had a huge building fall right next to it and then caught fire, and then have its fire suppression fail, and then have a bunch of diesel in the basement to boot.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDX
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=5&c=y


so how we doing willtravel?

Much appreciated. :thumbsup:
Sure thing. I love Pop Mech, and I've been a subscriber since I was in 8th grade. I've read and gone through a lot of the article elsewhere, but for the sake of discussion, I'd be glad to revisit it.
While I don't want to say it was controled demolition (I'm not here to speculate), I do think that the videos of the collapse don't look like they resulted from fire. I'll like the video so everyone can see it.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...L_wtc-7_1_.gif
If the .gif vid doesn't work, let me know and I'll find another.
While I don't particularly like the title of conspiracy theorist (conjures up pictures of X-Files and such), I'll say for the sake of arument that group includes me. Yes, the FEMA report is incredibly vague about the collapse of the WTC7 building, basically admitting that they really don't knoww how or why it collapsed, and asking for further investigation. The second investigation was done by the NIST, or the National Institue of Standards and Technology. In the NIST report, the claim is that a large area of the South face of WTC7 was severly damaged by falling debris, presumabally from the South Tower. This theory does not support symetrical collapse.

http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc7damage.jpg
This picture is an estimation of the damage to the 7th WTC building. If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires. Had the building fallen in a non symetrical manner, i wouldn't have given it a second thought. The problem is that only one part of one side of the building was damaged, and the fires were going out, and the building collapsed in 6 seconds. Forgive me, but the Pop Mech article doesn't touch on these points.
Sunder lied. One of the main supporting claims for the collapse theorists is that firefighters and first response personel inside the building described a lot of damage inside the building. The infamous "Pull it" statement by WTC7 owner Larry Silverstein indicated that he wanted to pull all of the firefighting personel out of the building as he thought it was a lost cause. The following is a quote from Larry Silverstein's spokesperson, McQuillan:
So there was firefighting going on at WTC7 on 9/11 after the collissions and before the collapse.


Dilbert, I hope you don't mind if I turn this into a two part response. I have to go out for a job interview in a bit. I'll read and respond to your post later this evening or tomorrow.

Where you see a symmetrical collapse, I see the middle and or rear going first, watch the video again, better yet watch this one, it’s a bit clearer

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._collapse2.mpg

Just before it starts, watch in the top right part of the building, how the extra parts drop faster then the rest, this is showing that it was not symmetrical; the center fell first, most likely because of the diesel fire in the basement causing weakness in the structure, coupled with the impact from wtc 1. Secondly you can see the building twist, the left side comes forward a bit and the right goes back a bit. This is because the center lost its integrity first, and the outside had to support the additional weight of the building, it could not so it to failed, causing the twist. Charges would not cause the building to twist like that. Moreover if there were charges on several levels, those levels would have collapsed first, instead of just the bottom, we would see the windows break on the level that the explosives are on, not because of the explosives, but because the floor that the explosives are on would collapse first, causing the floor to drop and the windows to rupture, we don’t see this, we only see the tower disappear from sight, hence the bottom gave first.

Well look at it this way, the damage was not terrible, it knocked out a few of the beams, but not enough to bring it down, but it did increase the load on the rest of the beams, almost to there failure point, then the fire heated the beams weakening them enough to cause a full collapse, now in several interviews people site hearing explosions, this could be mistaken for the sound of the building collapsing, or it could be the tanks of diesel rupturing, if some of the tanks survived the initial fire, they could have heated, vaporized, ruptured and cause a massive explosion in the basement, causing the final collapse.


And although I’m not fully sure, I think with the firefighting, there were firefighters there for a bit, but gave up after finding it either hopeless or not worth risking there lives for an empty building, after seeing two others collapse. I think the first response people are not considered a firefighting effort, I don’t think he was lying, but I do see how you may, think of it this way, there were firefighters there, but they were not fighting the fire in full force, they were assessing the fire and the building if they would fight or not.

(bump)

So is everyone satisfied with this now, everyone ok with the explanations for what happened. Any more questions willravel

I'm in contact with several people who are experts in fields of physics, engineering, and forensics, but I'm haveing trouble bringing up the nature of my questions. How does one politely ask, "Do you see something fishy about the greatest tragety on American soil in the past 50 years, something that effected most of us to our core?" I tried being up front with several people and was scoffed at (I didn't know people still scoffed). I know it's their right to refuse my request, and I respect that, but it's frustrating. It feels like I'm hitting a wall on this.

I am not satisfied with the explainations of the collapse of WTC 1, 2 or 7. I don't understand how moderate damage and fires could topple WTC 1 and 2 so quickly. Had they fallen after 15-20 hours, and had the fires grown instead of died down, then I might understand their collapse. Also, I do not see an asymetrical collapse in WTC 7. I saw how quickly the top right fell, but it was lss than a fraction of a second that it was ahead of the rest of the building. After reading about high rise fires in other cases not connected with 9/11, I can see plainly that the steel frames of buildings are never effected by the fire at all. While the interrior of the building sees damage, the steel frame survives unscathed (sp?).

It bears repeating that I appreciate the efforts of those who have made this thread a refuge of reason and respect. You have my thanks.

What floor of WTC7 was damaged? (as the picture above indicates)

If the first 5 floors colapsed, would the weight of the building cause it to come straight down? Or would there be a momentary pause, as the steel structure got bent and concrete broke apart? There just doesn't seem to be any resistance as it is falling down.

And that is very confusing. Had the building slowly collapsed, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. It collapsed at free fall speed, which is impossible for a steel framed building (except when the steel supports lose all strength at once, whihc is not supported by claims that the building fell due to fire and minor damage from debris).

Please read The Fire, The Collapse from:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

Here is a highly technical article about the physics of the collapse
http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/

Here is a less technical article
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

And one new thing I learned today, WTC was one of the first building to be built with the aid of computers, before that time, steel buildings were built with wide margins for error, usually doubling the capacity for the load needed. If the floor had to support 100 tons, it would be built to hold 200 tons. WTC was the first with the aid of computers to be precise and not have to be over built, if a floor had to hold 40 tons, it could only hold 40 tons, there was not margin for error because none was needed. We must also remember that the building was contracted with tubular steel, extremely strong when static, but easy to bend with enough force, and once bent, loses most of its structural integrity. Think of a soda can, even when I weighed 300lb I could carefully stand on an empty can of soda, but if I malformed it slightly, even a pin hole, it would collapse as soon as I stood on it, it lost all structural integrity when it is damage, the steel tubing is not quite this severe, but the plane smashing through the supports would have removed a great deal o there integrity.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

http://www.clemusart.com/exhibcef/mu...ng,%201998.jpg

From this picture, let's say that the botom 4 floors were destroyed by the bomb. The fifth floor would have no support under it, so it would colapse. The sixth floor is connected it that one, so it would follow. Then when the fifth floor hits the ground with the weight of all of the floors above it, would there be a pause, resistance, or slowing down. Or would it be like dropping a bowling ball onto a pop can? Wouldn't the top most floors have some large pieces of them left?

What caused the Oklahoma Fed building to stay up? Is it because the fire wasn't there? Here is the video of the implosion. You can hear the explosives, but I bet there are quiet explosives that just get very hot...
http://www.cnn.com/US/OKC/reporters/.../implosion.mov
There isn't much resistance in the parts that had explosive charges, and the places that didn't get blasted, were slower to topple over.

It looks like it took twice as long for the OK Fed building to come down than from the animated gif movie above. I'm not sure if that is because the buildings were constructed differently or what.

I’m not sure why were dealing with the federal building right now, it has nothing to do with the WTC, but here we go.

First the picture, the main difference in the 2 is that WTC7 did not lose any part of the top, just damage to the bottom, where as the federal building, it did collapse, just not all of it, the entire front section collapsed. The bomb hit the front side of the building, not the rear, the rear was still structurally viable, that is why it remained standing, the fires were there, but not through out the building, mainly just in the front where the bomb hit. This is not the case in WTC7 the fire was in the basement where the diesel was stored, this weekend the main supports, causing the asymmetrical collapse, center first, then the rest a half second later. The building design is very different of the 2 buildings, so they are not comparable.

And that picture you show of the federal building, is not accurate at all
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ty_bombing.jpg


http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefme...9/T059167A.jpg
In this pic, looks how the supports are covered in concrete unlike the WTC, which was tubular steel, that is why it still stood, any fire would be protected from the steel, and it could survive longer until the fire suppression got to the scene, unlike in the WTC, where the fire was able to reach the steel directly.

As for silent explosives… um, no, there is no such thing as a silent explosive, it is physically impossible to make a silent explosive. As for cutting metal silently, it’s still not easy, last week at work I had the privilege to destroy some hard drives with a cutting torch, it was loud, noisy, slow and messy. On several occasions, the liquid metal popped, and put out the torch, and I was only cutting aluminum. The setup to use a cutting torch to cut the structure would be next to impossible. As for thermite, thermite can not be used to cut laterally, only vertically, the flow cannot be directed other than by gravity; again not suitable for cutting supports. The only way is to set shaped charges to slice the supports, and then secondary charges to blow the beam out of alignment so that it can fall, other wise it will just stay in the same place. But there is no evidence of explosives in the building, and the setup to do so is too much to accomplish.

I'll be satisfied when the U.S. government starts telling the truth. BS, like an incomplete, $20 million "sham" investigation, that contains statements like the following two, are not helping to convince me of anything:
I'm still waiting.....can anybody come up with a link to a "final" NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7?

The only reason I brought up the federal building is because it was damaged and imploded.

Would this be the final report on WTC 7 from NIST?
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%...se%20Final.pdf

It looks like there were some flaws in the design of the building, and they did a good job explaining the collapse.

From other sources, there are sounds 9 seconds ahead of WTC 7 collapse, if they are explosions or collapsing material, I don't know. I think there are ways to take out a building quietly, but it might take a while and go into the paranoia column.

Well, host I think that’s the nail in the coffin; that is the final report on WTC 7. as for your the quote from http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm, you take it out of context, in the case of the study of WTC 1 and 2, no steel from 7 was recovered. This says that when they did the investigation of the 2 towers, they did not bother with the tower next to it, this is not an omission, its just common since, the study you quote is not about WTC 7 so why would they collect evidence from it.

Thanks ASU2003, I did not see that report yet, it does a great job, I did not know that the worst fires were on the 5th floor where the diesel was stored, and that is where the structural collapse started.

As for the sounds 9 seconds before hand, it could be one of the tanks finally blowing up, could be any matter of things, if you heat a fire extinguisher, eventually it will explode. It does not just have to be a bomb.


willravel, how are you doing with those articles I posted for you?

I'm responding as I read...
So they agree that the crash damage was not significant in that "the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure." I'm glad we got this one out of the way. The outside was moderately damaged, and the inside was probably not damaged at all. This means that the focus of the blame for the collapse falls almost singularly on the fire.

I have read many observations of molten steel, or steel that has become so hot that it has melted completlty and is in liquid form, in the basements of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. One Dr. Keith Eaton, a renound structural engineer, toured the hrounds after the collapses. He wrote in an article:
While it is possible for a fire that was aided by jet fuel and office furniture and such could theoretically cause steel to lose it's strength, we've already established that it cannot melt the steel. Please watch this video (in wmv format).
These descriptions are not consistent with the fires that would have resulted from the collision.
I'm in Appendix II, I'll answer this when I can.

Dilbert1234567...you did not see a NIST "final report" on WTC 7, because one does not exist.....it won't be released by NIST until at least, "late 2006".

I cannot grok your "take" on what NISTS's "no steel" from WTC 7, really means. Consider that, WTC 7 was part of ther NIST investigation and evidence gathering until spring 2005. Your unusual opinion prompted me to read skim the entire June 2004, NIST "Appendix F Interim Report on Inventory and Identification of Steels Recovered from the WTC Buildings"

It's as if NIST didn't give a shit about steel forensics testing of any buildings other than WTC 1 & 2.
As recently as June 2004, long after site clearing was complered, NIST failed to obtain and identify structural steel samples from WTC 7, a 47 story building that collapsed into it's own, unique, seperate footprint.

Dilbert1234567, "no WTC 7 steel" means just what it says. NIST has no structural steel samples identified from WTC 7 to test. Seems like evidence of criminal negligence or intentional obstruction of the fire investigation!
See the following post:

Whoah....Dilbert1234567.....whoah....what's your hurry ???? The "fun" is just starting....let me answer ASU2003's question....please !!!

ASU2003, NIST has never issued it's "delayed" WTC 7 "final report". The html version of the link that you provided, tells why, on Page 4, the delay happened, and when the "final report", would be released. Now....new reports show that NIST will delay release of it's WTC 7 "final report", for at least afull year longer than the initial, "fall 2005" delayed release date:
The following is from google's <a href="http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:VqvTaCDtfGIJ:wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs.htm+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1">cache</a> of:
<b>Since WTC 7 was not impacted by any aircraft, and sice NIST "broke out" the WTC 7 final report, and...after delaying it's release to "late 2005", and now again, to "late 2006", is it unreasonable to suggest that NIST's web page is misleading as to it's first listed, "primary objective", and that with the delays in finalizing and releasing it's WTC 7 "final report", especially given the lame initial reasons for issuing an incomplete WTC "final report", that NIST has failed it's own, first listed "main objective[]s of the investigation" ?</b>

WTF does that mean ???? I dunno...but it can't be a good thing.....in fact, it smells!
MS NBC's Tucker Carlson interviewed scholarsfor911truth.org 's Steven E. Jones, on Nov 16, 2005 but he seemed hostile towards Jones, and would not even roll the video that showed the collapse of WTC 7, that Jones had sent to MSNBC as part of his interview presentation. <b>Would an unbiased and openminded media treat Steven E. Jones with the same courtesy and lack of prejudice that it seems to extend to NIST? Where is the MSM reporting of NIST's failure to release a final WTC report that includes WTC 7? Why did the 9/11 Commission fail to mention the collapse of 47 story WTC 7, at all?</b>
Isn't five years enough effing time for our government to issue a report as to why the only fire damaged, steel framed skyscraper in history, that was not hit by an airliner, or bombed as in the case of the Murrow building in Oklahoma, collapsed after burning for no more than 7 hours and 20 minutes, suddenly and completely, at a "free fall rate" into it's own footprint?

Why isn't the media joining Jone in his questions about how molten metal could exist at ground zero for six weeks, and asking why NIST issued a "final" WTC report that wasn't "final"?
As Steven E. Jones references in the following linked example found in his "paper" cited above......there is ample scientific, anecdotal, picture, and news reporting "evidence" that there was "molten metal" under the WTC wreckage for at least six weeks after the buildings collapsed. No one from NIST, or for that matter, any scientists that I have come across, can offer an explanation as to how temperatures hot enough to liquify steel were reached...and then persisted after the two airliners flew into the WTC towers 1 and 2, and then exploded:
willravel.....in looking into this, I was surprised to find that NIST recovered "no steel" from WTC 7, that NIST's "WTC final report" did not contain a "WTC 7 final report", the lame excuses NIST gave for the delay.....the "new" WTC 7 "final report" dealy of an additional year....and the lack of any explanation as to the melting of steel and "molten metal" that persisted at ground zero after the WTC buildings collapsed.....not possible as a result of shortlived fires from jet fuel, diesel fuel, office paper, appliances, furniture fueled fires in WTC 1,2 and 7, since NIST and other scientists seem to agree that fire temperatures were never elevated to levels that could melt, or liquify iron or steel.

well no the fire did not get the temperatures that hot, but you forget about the collapse, we are talking about a 500,000 ton structure falling 400 meters my calculus is rusty, so if some one can check it for me great, potential energy is weight * height * gravity

I get the integral between 0 and 400 of (400-x)*(500000 tons) * (400-x)/400*9.8m/s^2

this gives me 2.37 x10^14 joules of potential energy, this has to go somewhere, some went into sound, and moving air out of the way, but most of it went into deformation and heat (both cause each other) this is why it was so hot inside. Besides that the pile of rubble would also insolate the heat as well keeping it hot weeks after. Further more, great heat can be generated with deformational forces, take a coat hanger and bend it in the same place allot and feel how it heats up. It does not take much to bend a coat hanger, but for objects that do take allot to bend, much more heat is generated; this is the source of the extreme heat in the rubble, besides the fire.

Dilbert....you're serious, aren't you?

Wouldn't it be cheaper for foundries to use your "gravitational energy equals heat theory" to achieve casting and smelting temperatures, than to pay the electric bills to run their furnaces from dead cold to melt? The NYFD poured huge volumes of water on the debris piles for at least a month after the collpases. Why was molten metal only found underground? Wouldn't metal wreckage from upper floors, already partially heated from the "destructive" fires, have a head start in creating similar molten metal conditions near or at the surface of the debris piles. NIST's own inventory report stated that investigators expected to find WTC 1 & 2 airliner impacted material at or near initial debris recovery areas (wreckage from upper floors on top of debris piles.)

How about providing one reputable scientific source who supports your theory of high temperatures resulting from gravitational effects from a building collapse. Or....any examples from controlled demolition via implosion of a tall building. Wouldn't the heat from the collapse of a smaller building be enough, if you are correct, to ignite lower temperature, post collapse, fires?

I want to alert you that I just update my post #154 to document that NIST admitted in June, 2004, that "No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7".

a better more detailed report on the sulfur: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...rman-0112.html
can be found here:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf


As for a possible source for the sulfur all the UPS's (uninterruptible power supplies) we have at my work are powered by sulfuric acid, when they burn out, they boil and spread sulfuric acid all over the place in a cloud, this would be replicated if burned in a fire, if there were any UPS's in the area, it would be a likely source of the sulfur.

Here is a nice article about the reason behind the molten steel in the basement, a much clearer explanation than my last attempt.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm

See here is our problem; you have a lack of knowledge about physics, conservation of energy and many other things in the realm of science, and your rude comments show it. There is a great deal of energy stored when you lift an object, roughly equal to the energy spent lifting it, it’s a bit more to overcome any resistance of lifting it (air resistance as an example)

To get you caught up to speed, please read these 2 articles on gravitational potential energy.
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssc...rgy/u5l1b.html
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physic...ialEnergy.html

And please check your understanding with this:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssc...gy/u5l2bc.html


now that you have an elementary understanding of potential energy, you can understand why your response is so ludicrous, to get that potential energy you have to expend more energy to store it, and since burning fuels is a far more effective way to transfer this energy to melt the steel, than it is to drop it, the foundries have chosen to use fire rather than the ‘dropping method’. Although dropping the metal will heat it, it would be more cost effective to just use a furnace.

As for why the inside of the rubble was hotter then the outside, that is due to the insulating effect that the outer layers provide to the inner layers, most of the material in the tower is a poor conductor of heat, so the heat stayed trapped inside. As for the lack of molten metal on the out side, again it would not be insulated and thus cool quickly. Not to mention most of the heat was generated by the pressures created by the upper rubble on the lower rubble, again placing the hottest parts deeper.


Here is the backing:
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm
and another
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Further more, to my knowledge there has been no metallurgical analysis of the molten metal; for all we know it could be something other than steel with a lower melting point, I see the beam glowing red, and then something dripping off of it, but there is nothing to say that the dripping is not another metal that the beam was sitting in a pool of. Furthermore the only record of anyone saying there was molten steel in the wreckage was second hand, and denied by the person who allegedly spoke it. As seen here:
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot...-wtc-site.html



Again the lack of scientific knowledge on the subject. The smaller the building the smaller the amount of energy, as the height increases, the energy increases exponentially, as the height shrinks, it decreases exponentially, so no a smaller building would not have this problem to this degree, if at all.


And if you are still unsure about the ‘pull it’ comment regarding the 7th tower please read the following, it’s quite comprehensive.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html


please take some of your free time, and enroll in a physics class at your local community college, you may also want to enroll in a calculus class as well, as physics and calculus go hand in hand.

Dilbert1234567, I have no history of intentionally acting rudely towards you. I was sincerely flabbergasted by your argument. It seemed an unsubstantiated stab at a theory that would explain away all of the dubious and questionable federal government directed and deliberately non-directed, (willfully incomplete) actions to keep conspiracy theories "alive and kickin", when all it would take is competent and credible evidence gathering and investigation, and the timely issuance....of "final reports" as previously promised. A spirit of reluctance to lead or cooperate in investigating and disclosing "what really happened" on 9/11, resonated from Bush and Cheney from the very beginning. The surviving family members of 9/11 victims had to shame Bush into agreeing to form the 9/11 Commission, or there would not have been one. Little good it's report actually did to quell suspiscion. First came the cynical, Bush appointment of herr Kissinger to head the commission, which was shouted down, and then came the appointment of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#Criticisms">former Saudi business associate</a>, Tom Kean, (not the sharpest move, after you've told us that 15 of 19...9/11 "hijackers", were Saudis...) to replace Kissinger as 9/11 Commission chairman..... My point is that the "conspiracy theories" are the result of official government ineptness, duplicity, insincerity, and or, criminality....not...in spite of them. They aroused suspicions, because their "handling" of the investigation....smells.

I enjoy trying to meet the challenge that you've put out to us, and I've admitted, on this thread....specifically to you....when I was mistaken. I had hoped that would garner your trust....and I hope that we can get past this. Accept that I did not intend to incite you....now....hopefully I am providing some of what you challenged me to give you:
The problem with your theory, IMIO (in my ignorant opinion....) is that you have no way to measure how much of the energy that was generated from the fall of heavy debris from the upper reaches of the tall WTC 1 & 2 towers, was dissipated upon impact with the near ground surfaces, i.e., low buildings, multiple concrete decks and sub-surface structural levels that surrounded the towers' one acre footprints. Energy was also absorbed from upper floor debris, due to "pancaking" of floor upon floor....with floors undamaged by fire or impact from either "attacking airliner", offering the most energy absorbing resistance, since they were studier....harder to pancake.

WTC 7 was less than half the height of the twin towers and was comprised of much lighter core steel support members. It is documented that there were hot fires burning in it's contained, seperate debris field, for some weeks after 9/11. It is documented that competent, credible witnesses observed "vaporization" of structural steel from that building. It is documented that WTC 7 is the only steel framed building in history to collapse from fire damage and heavy but localized structural damage. The combined circumstances of the WTC 7 collapse, coupled with the persistent, post collapse, hot fires in it's footprint, and throughout the 16 acre WTC site, the reports of glowing and molten steel encountered in the debris, are enough to arose suspicion in an allegedly ignorant individual, such as I appear to be.
When you add the clumsy BS on the U.S. State Dept. <a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html">web page</a>...intended to rehabilitate WTC leaseholder Silverstein's video documented and unambiguous <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2059787&highlight=silverstein+pull#post2059787">statement of three years earlier....</a>

Is ignorance a prerequisite for an individual to perceive deliberate deception on the part of unknown persons in a federal government that runs the type of "cover op" intended to diminish the controversy of Silverman's 2002 statement, three years after he was videotaped, making it? Show me another example where a federal agencies web page is "turned over" to an a private individual so that his spokesperson can post a propaganda piece that coincides with the "official line" of the current executive regime. I've never seen anything like it, if you have....direct me to it!

Is it just "business as usual"..."nothing to see here", when the lead investigative federal agency responsible for investigating and determining the effects of fire damage on the 3 collapsed WTC "skyscrapers"....fails to achieve it's own first stated goal.....by one third if you consider that it issued a "final report" that only made determinations about the collapses of two out of three WTC towers, and admitted that it had no structural steel samples to test to evaluate the collapse of that third building....and then quietly seperate and postpones the final report on that building'd collapse, and then delayed the final report release for another full year....with no official announcement that it was doing so? I don't think that it is....especially when many architects and engineers consider the collapse of the third building after a fire....to be unprecedented.....and historic.

Call me ignorant...but something is going on that smacks of an official attempt to conceal the truth...the facts...about the WTC 7 collapse, from the American people.

Here are descriptions of the heat and the aftermath of energy absorbing impact of falling WTC debris: (Note the date....9 weeks after 9/11)
<b>Three "molten metal" references:</b>
<b>....and reports by engineers of "evaporated" WTC structural steel:</b>

like i'm gonna read all that...

You may be freighted to learn that I agree, well all but the ‘handling of the investigation....smells’ part. The government does botch investigations, they are fallible, this investigation should have started from day one, not waited, and it should be closer to being finished by now, if not finished. This still does not mean there was a cover up, just a slow government. A bureaucracy is slow to act on everything, but just because they are slow does not mean they are covering something up. Official reports take a great deal of time; they have to be reviewed time and time again. Look at the Kennedy assassination, they lost his brain, how the hell some one looses that escapes me, but I still don’t think there was a conspiracy, just a dumb intern :lol:




Again your lack of physics, all the pan caking does not remove energy it only transforms the kinetic energy into a different form, in this case deformation, and heat (and a bit of sound, but that’s actually deformation), a great deal will go into heat, because there is no other place for it to go.

Again the lack of scientific knowledge in this field. A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. And that is exactly what we have here, please read:
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformati...ing/steel.html

As for the source of the sulfur, there are plenty of sources inside of an office building.


His statement meets the very definition of ambiguous, not unambiguous, by Saying ‘it’ his statement is ambiguous, he could be referring to anything, the building, the firefighting effort, his fly could be down ;). He was referring to the firefighting effort, it was not worth it to continue, and it was hopeless. They watched it burn and eventually it collapsed, the video you show, splices the time so just after he said pull it, the building falls, blatantly misleading people.
Again I ask you to please read http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html


Sorry this is anecdotal evidence, and we all know that the media spices things up to get ratings. Reporters know nothing about the structures and thus there report should hold no weight. For all intensive purposes there will be molten metal in any fire, what kind of metal is the important thing, it could have been copper (wires), lead (batteries), aluminum (everything), tin, nickel etc. As I already showed, the ‘evaporated steel’ is just the result of steel being heated in a sulfur rich environment that caused it to melt at a lower point than steel normally would.

I have posted and referenced this more than once, but have recieved no response. This is a paper I wrote and rewrote concerning the WTC attacks for a class in which my professor assigned us the book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. I have another paper addressing the Pentagon crash if anyone is interested.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/attachm...chmentid=14218
I address the issue of how jet fuel fires, even ones caused by fuel that burned off in a few seconds, were able to collapse the towers. For a bonus, I even throw in a bit on building 7 and how a pressurized fuel line feeding a fire in the middle of the building for several hours was able to collapse it neatly into its own foundation.

So friction, not fire, is what caused the great heat? What about the several pictures taken of yellow-to-white hot metal falling from the not yet fallen towers?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...enCloseup1.JPG
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/...Molten2Low.JPG

Yellow fire = moten steel; around 1000 degrees C. If aluminum from the plane or exterior had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 degrees C and therefore would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. However, the iron found in steel could reach the yellow-to-white hot temperatures. Again, I'm not going to try and explain it yet, BUT I will say that I have no reasonable (in following with the official story) explaination for this.

Well kind of, the fire was a great source of heat, and the majority of the cause of the collapse, but the cause of the incredible heat in the rubble was the fire, and the collapse.

Well first off, we don’t know if this is steel, copper, aluminum, it could be anything, and there are no reports of molten steel being found. I am unsure why you think the molten aluminum flows away from heat; it would pool and flow downhill, which ever way that is. But as for them being ‘cutter charges’ that just is ludicrous, if it were a shaped charge, the effect would be nearly instantaneous, and not leave a long trail, if it was thermite, thermite can only be used to cut down, and cutting a horizontal support on the edge of the building would be pointless, not damaging the structure in any real degree, and visible to everyone, the only important horizontal points are the trusses, but they are inside and would no be visible like this is. Further more, the fire was plenty to take the building down. it could be an exotic metal igniting, such as aluminum, magnesium, or the like.

Another great article on the collapse:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html


As for MrSelfDestruct, sorry your post got buried;

As for your paper, it’s good and concise, I agree with it. Thanks for the input.

Attorney Jerry Leaphart on Directed-Energy Weapons, Iran, & 9/11
 

Jerry Leaphart speaks on evidence for directed-energy weapon usage at the World Trade Center on 9/11, and the government's probable plans to use these weapons in Iran.

Leaphart says the attack on Iran was delayed due to exposure of directed-energy weapon usage at the WTC.

Downloadable MP3s of Leaphart's interview:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/257

Leaphart also addressed NIST and NCST regarding the WTC:
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/NCST.html

Scientific Paper on directed-energy weapon evidence at the WTC on 9/11:
Drs Judy Wood & Morgan Reynolds
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

To his credit....at the Dec., 2006 NIST meeting, Atty Jerry Leaphart does an impressive job, in his public comments, posted on the NIST website, of mocking NIST for it's still incomplete "study" and it's "findings and recommendations" with regard to the collapse of WTC towers 1 and 2, and he observes that NIST is avoiding citing it's own WTC 1 and 2 "progressive collapse" findings and recommendations:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/LeaphartStatementDec2006.pdf

NIST has "revised" the expected release date of it's report on the reasons for the collaps of WT7, from "early 2007", until "spring 2007". This report is two years behind what was issued in 2005, for public comments, as the "final report" on the collapse of the WTC towers.

IMO, the delays are becoming a "joke". Five years to issue a vital report, from the standpoint of potential remedial action with regard to existing and new tower design and construction?

....and we've heard every excuse for the delays imaginable, from NIST, even that they did not want to increase the size of their staff to do their investigation of the unprecedented collapse of steel high rise towers from fire, so they claim that they postponed an "in depth" analysis of the WTC 7 collapse, instead. No urgency here, and no NIST credibility.

I'm observing though, that newcomers here are posting new threads, and that is good, but they aren't following the posting guidelines in structuring their thread OP's in a way that would state their own positions and encourage comments....and this OP is another example of that shortcoming.

Can we chalk up the failure....the long delays and inconsistencies from NIST as more of that "can do" spirit in the US government of the current era...ala FEMA vs. Katrina, the Walter Reed hospital "mess", the lack of armor and equipment "for the troops", the failure of air defense response on the AM of 9/11, Scooter Libby....a man who was assigned....simultaneously.... the jobs of COS to the VP, National Security advisor to the VP, and special assistant to the POTUS, on National Security, but who had a memory that he paid his lawyers to describe as so faulty, that he could not even remember that the VP told him that Plame was CIA....yet he swore to a grand jury that "Russert told him".....

....or is this like the FBI....losing track of how many phony "national security letters" it issued, to do an end run around the 4th amendment requirement of search warrants, signed by a judge, or the DOJ, firing 8 US attorneys because of their "performance shortcomings".....no wait....it wasn't because of their performance.....it was....and on, and on, and on......

Would a "liberal press", let NIST "stonewall" "what happened on 9/11", with so little comment or coverage?

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/forumdisplay.php?f=45

We have a 9/11 Conspiracy thread already.

Thanks for joining TFP.

Actually, we have several.

This one is in Politics: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=104134

the directed energy crap belongs in paranoia.

...and if he can't make a case here, he's welcome to start or add on to a thread in paranoia.

Let's see...we have a building, WTC-7 that was reported to have been built with extra structural integrity designed into it:
...and from a NIST web page:
In 1989, Larry Silverman boasted to the NY Times about the structural integrity and "redundancy" that was designed into WTC7....

....so, even though, by NIST's own admission, no high rise, steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fire, and WTC7 was not hit by an jet airliner, but collapsed anyway, NIST was not concerned enough about the WTC7 total collapse, neatly into it's own footprint, to commit to a timely and thorough investigation of how the total structure failure of that building happened.

...and, even though the collapse of WTC7 was unprecedented, the evidence of news reporting of CNN's Aaron Brown and BBC's Jane Standley, recently discovered....is that both reporters announced that WTC7 was expected to collapse, and they announced that it had collapsed, before it did....and a BBC editor tells us that the BBC "lost" the video tape of Jane Standley's relevant, 9/11 reporting.....

video and more information about identical, "pre WTC-7 collapse" news reporting by BBC is available here: http://www.archive.org/details/bbc200109111654-1736

BBC editor explains...on BBC website:
Read the 227 comments, on the page linked above, below Richard Porter's explanation....

Does anyone else reading this, think that NIST has seemed less than seriously committed to a timely investigation of the unprecedented collapse of WTC7?

Oddly enough, preceded by:

Which was protecting your opinion.

yup. and nearly a year... but mostly, yup.

Amazing new 911 truth video.
 

Amazing new 911 truth video.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...third+stage%22

Described as “a collection of short mainstream media and independent film clips on the evolution of 9/11 skepticism”, this is one of the best 911 truth videos I’m come across.

At twenty minutes it’s the perfect introduction to 911 truth.

It avoids all of the usual pitfalls; doesn’t engage in wild conjecture about what may or may not have happened, doesn’t dwell on dubious theories that sap legitimacy from the REAL questions surrounding the events of that day.

Best of all, it stresses the importance of activism and gives a voice to the family members of the victims who are demanding a new investigation.

Really compelling overview and highly recommended.

If you enjoy it please spread it around. This is a masterpiece of agitprop and DESERVES TO BE SEEN.

Thank you.

Read post #166 (above...) to put the following in it's proper context, and this...post #148 from the previous page of this thread:
The "reports_october05.htm" in the last link in the preceding quote box, references "October 5, 2005"......

When you read the latest from NIST, barely covered by the "liberal" press when it appeared 3 weeks ago....consider, from post #171, that NIST decided not to increase it's staff to investigate the total collapse of each of the three largest steel framed structures......ever to totally collapse....and in post #148, that NIST saved no steel samples from WTC 7, and that NIST has postponed release of it's final report on the collapse of WTC 7, since mid 2005, and now announces that the earliest report release will be in "late" 2007.....

The press does not even cover the NIST delays anymore.... and it is documented that NIST did note even begin it's physical investigation of the WTC 1 & 2 collapses until eight months after 9/11. The 6th anniversary of 9/11 is 53 days from now. NIST is the agency that was the premiere fire investigation unit in the world.....and now....because NIST has failed, there is a response:

NIST "FINAL WTC REPORT" or GROUNDHOG DAY, the movie?
 

<h3>No, You Don't Find ANY corporate owned media covering this story anymore, not in an election year....</h3>

This is "real life", as farce...these "weasels" didn't have the nerve to issue an actual press release on their latest "final" report "postponement" and WTC 7, fire investigation determination:

If they don't postpone the release of the National Institure of Science's (NIST) "final report" of their investigation of the collapse of WTC 7, the only tall, steel framed building to collapse after a major structural fire, this coming August, as they are now predicting, <h3>the report's release will be within weeks of seven full years since the collapse occurred.....</h3>

....nothing to see here, folks, nothing unusual about a key, fire safety report's release being postponed for three full years....believe what we tell you, otherwise, you'll be considered on the "fringe".

When NIST released the "final report" on it's investigation of the collapse of the WTC towers, in summer, 2005, they told us they could now focus completely on determining the cause of the collapse of WTC 7, into it's own footprint.

Read the comments NIST released above, on December 18, 2007, and then, read this:
(Now, after more than six years, on December 18, NIST seems to have ruled out a diesel fuel fire....)
No diesel fuel involved in the WTC 7 fires, now according to NIST, no airliner hit the 47 stories tall, WTC 7, six years of investigation, and this:

They know people aren't listening anymore.

NIST should suggest to the State Dept. that they revise the propaganda posted on their website:

The NIST meeting was held on Dec. 18, and everyone, including all journalists, tv, radio, and independent news hounds were too busy with their near final, pre-holiday preparations, to bother to report on what transpired at the meeting.

Or, they did take notice, but their editors and news directors did not regard any of the reporting that was filed, as "newsworthy". NIST itself didn't bother to release a statement about the meeting or postponement of their WTC 7 report, or their new theory that the structural fires fed only on building materials and the contents strewn about, on each of the 47 floors.

There is this, for you to "chew" on:
http://missingsteel.blogspot.com/

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...2&postcount=58

It will be at least, just shy of seven years after the fact, officially confirmed now, (quietly...) ,by NIST, before we can expect a "final report" on what NIST determines has most likely caused WTC 7, to collapse. I'm wondering if they'll even bother to disclose the next postponement.....

How many years, minimum, will have to pass, with no official plausible answer, as to what caused WTC 7 to collapse, before skeptics will begin to even suspect that our concerns were squarely rooted?

The "missing metal" documentation, is the tale of a "circle jerk". "Real" journalist, who are in the business of speaking truth to power, would at least sit the two "2008" democratic senators down, after asking them or a key staff member to review only what is contained on this page of this thread, and then ask them to react to this information, on camera.

Before you even reply....I know....what the fuck could I be thinking, to post such gibberish? Maybe it is time ti move on, maybe it's been time, since 12/12/00, to look for another country to reside in?

I love how it's now mainstream news how the US government funded and radicalized the Mujahideen which is killing our troops today. Charlie Wilson is basically regarded as a hero on the history channel. I guess having 10 manhattans a day and engaging in treasonous activities is something to be applauded.

Anyone who talked about this days or even years after 9/11 would of been considered a conspiracy kook. Why is that different today?

The NIST stuff is pretty amazing in the fact that they are finally talking about what many of us have known about the subject for years. Thanks to Rudy and other war mongers people can't even stand hearing the word 9/11 anymore. There is a total media blackout about this.

They have a of work to ignore.....I mean....to DO....if they plan to publish their whitewash.....I mean their final report on the WTC 7 collapse, before the 7th anniversary, this coming september:

(From the first NY Times quote box displayed in post #176- <h3>"But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country.")</h3>

FROM THE OFFICIAL ONGOING WTC 7 COLLAPSE INVESTIGATION, JUST 75 MONTHS AND ONE WEEK, AFTER 9/11:

NIST audio/slide visuals presentation at 12/18/07 "progress" meeting:
They'll have to ignore all of this, because it sure doesn't jive with any of the fire damage modeling that they claim they are doing, does it?

Nothing to see, (or think about...) here, folks.....just a normal, 75 months long investigation into an unprecedented skyscraper collapse, with no indication that it will ever explain what and how, it happened....judging by the briefing of Dec., 18, totally ignored by the journalist community in the U.S.

How did i not see this post before? Great find on that Salomon Bros renovation! Pretty damning evidence there if somebody was trying to think how it actually could collapse rather just try to make the official lie fit.

There is so much false information out there and so many things that can be disproved and so few than can be proved that every aspect needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I have seen the same shots of the Pentagon in much larger and clearer size and not only is the computer monitor unscathed but there's a stack of papers that aren't burnt or blown all over. C'mon, this melted the stainless and titanium aircraft parts a few yards away? :rolleyes:

Over on the http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...85#post2384285 thread, in post #993,
I thought it best to fully reply to willravel's comments on this thread. I want to stess that it is not neccessary or required, it is actually detrimental, when challenging the governments official account of what happened on 9/11 at the WTC complex in lower Manhattan, <h3>to offer any alternative opinion as to what did cause the collapse. Simply let the government prove its case....it's done a curiously insufficient job of doing it, so far....</h3>

It is best to simply point out, at least so far, that "the facts", or lack of them, compared to the government's account, simply speak for themselves. It is charitable, given the conflicting statements, lack of action, oft repeated postponement of findings, status of evidence, and in the case of structural steel debris from WTC 7, if there even is any, to say after nearly 6-1/2 years, that it is best to continue to wait for NIST to issue it's report on the WTC 7 collapse.

Waiting and watching are the best responses. It is up to the government to back it's assertions, and, as of today, it does not seem that they are doing a credible or competent job of it, does it?

Remember the government's investigative response to the mid-air explosion and crash into the ocean, south of the LI shore, of TWA Flt 800, in June, 1996. The debris from the airliner was recovered from the ocean, painstakingly reassembled in an LI aircraft hanger, studied for possible clues to the cause of the explosion and crash, and a report was issued, 18 months later:
Contrast the TWA Flt 800 investigation, the hurdles faced in recovering the airliner debris from the bottom of near shore ocean, the timeliness of the investigation and issuance of a report determining what happened, and the NIST investigation of the collapse of 47 story, WTC 7.

<h3>It was supposed to be important to engineers, to determine ASAP, what brought down WTC 7, the only "modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire".... declared a news report, six years ago:</h3>
<h3>Maybe NIST could have "borrowed" some WTC 7 steel, from these guys:</h3>
<h3>Or, maybe this guy still has some WTC 7 structural steel for NIST to examine:</h3>
....and here we are today: See Post # 176 Link:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=176

NIST claims still not knowing what caused WTC 7 to collapse, their working hypothesis has been revised to exclude building fires fueled by diesel or other petroleum based fuel...to a "working hypothesis of normal building fires"...these would be fires fueled solely on room contents, approx. 4 lbs. of coumbustible materials per square foot, with these combustibles exhausted at any given spot, after just 20 minutes of intense buring, at the "head of the fire", before the fire moves on.

NIST has again postponed release of their final, WTC 7 collapse report until August, 2008, fully seven years after WTC 7 collapsed, if NIST can meet this new deadline:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACmeetingDec18_2007.htm

They won't make a real case because there is no real case. There's too much evidence to contradict any of the official stories.

It should be this:
1) Government makes it's case
2) The case is disproved by facts.
3) We ask for the real story.

We aren't responsible for figuring out what happened, it is their responsibility to tell us.

The December 18, 2007 NIST meeting was a "bombshell" of disclosure and further postponement....now the minutes of the meeting are available, I posted the link in the bottom of my last post. No diesel fuel fire says, NIST, just 20 minutes long, roving fired, feeding on room contents at an estimated 4 lbs. of combustible material per square foot of floor area, with ventilation limited....and this was a big story in the months after 9/11....now NIST doesn't even link the meeting on it's main WTC page http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ or anything else since 2005, and the media provides NO COVERAGE of the 12/18/07 meeting, or of it's disclosures.

<h2>Where is the media coverage? Isn't one major political party's platform totally invested in "9/11", aren't we told we are at war, because 9/11 changed everything? What happened on 9/11, why isn't a major revision to the theory behind the collapse of 47 story tall WTC 7...diesel fuel fed fires, NEWS????</h2>

ok so because i have things to avoid in 3-d, i read this thread pretty carefully through and am interested by it but also a bit confused. the interesting elements are in the proliferation of interpretations of the available evidence--but i find myself wondering the extent to which the problem lay in the nature of the evidence in relation to what it is supposed to "explain"...there are a variety of what i think are frame-generated interpretive differends here. one of the main disputes, dispensed with early on in a way, concerned a political choice--how close one chooses to be to the official ad hoc "narrative" that was in place by the 13th of september 2001, the ur-moments of the idiotic "war on terror" (and all that has followed from that)--which appeared to shape whether the questions about what exactly caused the collapses are or are not material--for....well what?

problem no. 1 then: it seems self-evident that the "explanation" cooked up immediately after the attacks was not based on much of anything beyond the political need to generate a coherent-seeming response.
so it follows that there would by myriad problems created for this coherent-seeming response by subsequent investigations--simply because the narrative was based on nothing, on the loops of video footage--and the political choice was made that a Response was required because, in conservative-land, the absence of a Response was apparently understood as an indication of Weakness, and so there was no time to await any rational conclusions about what might have in fact happened.

from there, the politics surrounding the investigations, their results etc. follows in a straight line.

earlier in here, i think host noted that the ineptness and internal inconsistencies of the various reports on this topic were in themselves problematic--the process "stinks"---the problem with this is that it seems to make of the question of why the wtc buildings collapsed a kind of device for delegitimating the administration's entire "war on terror" etc.---now to be clear i think that the "war on terror" was illegitimate from the beginning, its motives transparent, its inconsistencies with the material world obvious simply because it was based on so little and could not have been otherwise.

that said:
a. could someone who has been engaged in tracking this issue explain to me exactly why the question of how the wtc buildings collapsed is the focus of the thread? in other words, what exactly do you see as at stake here, in this particular dimension of the retro-narrative?

another way of asking the same basic question:

based on this, what scenario do you think better explains not just the building collapse, but the events themselves? i understand that this would be a speculative exercise, but i am curious about the logic that extends the implications of the events at the center of the thread beyond themselves.

anyone?

I think that what is at stake is the reliability of the official "narrative". The weakest point in the official "story" is the collapse of WTC 7. It was not hit by an jumbo airliner,laden with jet fuel, travelling at 500 plus mph. It was 47 stories tall, there is documentation provided above as to it's superior structural strength, it is the only structure of it's construct to collapse at a near "free fall" rate....or to collapse at all....as a result of persistant structural fire.

There was a reported interest and urgency, after the collapse, to pinpoint why it collapsed. There is much evidence that it's collapse was predicted and expected, after the twin towers collapsed, but almost now real evidence as to why this was expected, especially since such a collapse was, and is, unprecedented.

That's about all we know, and now, we wait. WTC 7 also housed NYC CIA, FBI, and Secret Service offices, and there were reports that the SEC office in the building housed incriminating evidence that ongoing stock market abuse investigations and prosecutions depended on.

It seemed that there was and is indifference in aggressively investigating why WTC 7 collapsed. There is the added curiousity that the Popular Mechanics magazine analysis of the WTC 7 collapse, intended to debunk the speculation resulting from the initial and incomplete FEMA examination and report of the collapse, turned out to have as it's lead author, a fact not disclosed when Popular Mechanics published it's "findings", one Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of DHS head, Michael Chertoff.

I think we are nearing the time when we can conclude that the government has no credible explanation as to how and why WTC 7 collapsed. When we get there, either by NIST further postponing or by walking away from it's "report", we will see what happens next. I think that the 9/11 attack is too big an event for the current news media balckout to be justified. I think the problem for the news media is that they do not know how to report the NIST delays and revisions.

Bush era apologists will always be there to disparage even reasonable and measured discussions like this one. This is unprecedented, the event and the indifferent and oft delayed investigation. It should have been handled as any other criminal investigation, but with much more intensity and diligence, but, so should the response to it have been handled.

We are left, for now, to share observations of interest:
"City officials" moved incredibly quickly, under the circumstances....during the time when the debris at the WTC site was still handled gingerly, as rescue hopes died hard, and only after many days....no steel was recovered from WTC 7,

NIST reported that "no steel was recovered from WTC 7".... I linked the quote from a NIST web page, in my last post.

I'm just a guy...I have more modest means and less resources at my beck and call, than NIST, or City of NY and other federal agencies. On 9/11, I lived "uptown" in Manhattan.

Less than two months later, I was able to do a short term sublet of an apartment near ground zero....no one who had a choice, wanted to live there. This was my front window view....of the river and WTC debris on it's way in a NY Sani Dept. barge, to Freshkills Land Fill on Staten Island:
<center><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/index/4001119b.JPG"><br><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/4001119.JPG"><br><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/index/4001119a.JPG"></center>
<p><br>
...and this was the rear view, from the roof of the apartment building:
<center><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/index/MVC-006F.JPG"><"><br><img src="http://home.comcast.net/~qvc/index/mvc-009f.jpg"></center>
<p><br>
....the point being....it didn't take deep pockets to get a "presence" near ground zero, and I took all of the above pictures in mid-november, 2001, more than 45 days after the above article was published in the NY Times. I think the photos support a contention that the Sept. 29 NY Times article was a "wake up" call, for serious investigators to answer a call to gather structural evidence at the WTC site. My photos show that there was still much debris available, if anyone wanted to look, even 45 days after the report of the rush to remove and melt the evidence, allegedly to recover a relatively tiny amount of money from the scrap salvage proceeds.

I've documented that there was available transport, the dock where the barges received WTC debris was 3 blocks from ground zero, a straightline on West Way, no turns for trucks, except to turn in to unload under a huge rail mounted marine crane. It is known that there was unlimited storage for the structural steel debris at the destination of the transport barges, Freshkills landfill on Staten Island. It was also much less costly and cumbersome to take the steel out via barge, than via truck, over surrounding vehicle bridges to scrap yards, in less than 30 ton individual truck loads, than on the high capacity barges.

I am saying that NIST doesn't have steel samples, cannot make a timely determination, and the structural steel was immediately "disappeared", because it seems that is the way that TPTB wanted things to turn out.

Where we are today, with the non-status of the WTC 7 collapse investigation
is the result of official decisions taken six years ago. <h3>It is for each of us to decide, if some of the official story of what happened on 9/11, say a portion of the story as large as how and why WTC 7 collapsed, and why the investigation of the collapse was so inadequate, that the entire official account will become increasingly less accepted. It follows that the justification for endless war on terror is also increasingly inadequate to sustain the commitment to it.

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/7007/shitoc0.jpg

Lets get people with internet engineering degrees to tell us how things work.

Keep this crap in paranoia where it belongs then, its a mockery to keep it in politics, and allowing it began the downfall of this forum in the first place.

Edit: And Ill add I had a friend who died that day there, I had not seen him in close to 10 years but he was a good guy and this type of idiocy is vexing. If you want to ban me for it fine, I'll be done with this forum, but nothing will satisfy your conspiracy people here, ever.

How do you get "no diesel fuel involved" from that?

The disclosure by the chief NIST WTC 7 investigator at the 12/18/07 meeting, that NIST's "working hypothesis" does not currently include diesel oil fueled fires, only fires that are "normal building fires".....

The transcript of the minutes of the 12/18/07 meeting were apparently not available until two days ago. In this post, #180, I posted a link to the recording of the meeting and a log of the time points in the recording, where relevant points, highlighted below, were discussed:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...&postcount=180

I'm glad we use the mainstream media to guage what is political in nature and what is paranoid discussion.

*MESSAGE FROM THE THREAD STARTER*

This thread is for evidence and scientific discussions only. No supposition, no "why did they do it?", and especially no bullshit pictures intended to derail the thread. Present verifiable evidence or refute it with science. If you can't do that, you will go find another thread.

Ustwo, you're not welcome to post whatever you want in threads. There are rules on TFP and not following them along with disrespecting people tends to bring consequences.

So anyway, getting back on topic:
Let's take a closer look at WTC 7.
47 stories tall, trapezoidal shape from above, 610'H x 330'L x 140'W, steel frame, storage tanks containing diesel fuel, 12 transformers, an emergency bunker for Rudy, 1,868,000 sq ft of office space

Official collapse:
According to the official story, after the North WTC tower was hit it rained debris down on WTC 7 which caused substantial damage to the south face, particularly the bottom of the south face. There was also some damage to the southwest corner. Loss of power to an inadequate fire suppression system prevented sprinklers from putting out the small fires caused by the debris in the far south side of WTC 7.

After the North Tower collapsed, firefighters moved into WTC 7 in an attempt to put out the small fires. A fire was reported burning for several hours. At 5:20 the building collapsed completely, falling into it's footprint due to "weakening caused by fires".

Questions:
One must consider several facts when looking at the official story of FEMA and the NIST:
1) A steel framed building has never collapsed due to fire before 9/11. In 1991, One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia had a 4 alarm fire which burned for 18 hours and literally destroyed everything but the frame across 8 floors did not cause any structural failures. WTC 7 fires were not 4 alarm and burned for around 7 hours. As a matter of fact, scientific experiments which use fires that burn hotter than any known building fire in history used on steel frames without fire protection cannot cause any level of damage to the steel frame.
Conclusion: fire alone is not likely to have caused a collapse at all, let alone...
2) A steel framed building falling at free fall speeds into it's footprint?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...L_wtc-7_1_.gif
Please watch this gif very carefully. Please note that this has not been sped up at all. The middle of the building falls slightly faster than the edges (instead of the south, where the damage was reported) and the collapse happens only at the bottom, totally evenly.
http://www.wtc7.net/docs/fig_5_21a.jpghttp://www.wtc7.net/docs/fig_5_22a.jpg
Notice the break point?

Now look at the rubble:
http://www.wtc7.net/docs/wtc7_pile_s.jpg
The collapse was centered around the vertical axis, it's less than 2 stories high, and it's almost entirely in the footprint of the building.
3) The physical evidence was destroyed. Without being investigated as rubble, the steel from WTC 7 was sold off and was melted down. This is one of the 3 steel framed buildings in history to collapse due to fires, but it wasn't studied?

These are unanswered questions.

The WTC 7 fires were not diesel fuel, that is very obvious from the available videos. The fires would have had to have been much more intense to harm the structure.

Maybe i need to throw my barbeque argument in here again. Some people just can't grasp the effect of fire on metals.

On a large scale, uneven heat on opposite sides of a steel beam can warp it with a temperature difference of only 100°F. With enough warping on a large scale, a building whose supports are brackets on a center column and on the cage exoskeleton can pull loose from those, transfer load to smaller supports that weren't intended to bear so much weight, and suffer a domino effect of support failures.

Of course, if people are presenting evidence of energy weapons, I must counter with evidence that Stealth Jews planted tactical nuclear weapons in the towers. Not only odes it explain the collapse, it explains the health problems suffered by workers at ground zero.
http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/new...yasensou.e.htm

اود ان اعرف المزيد من هذه... اليهود الخفي

I won't bother quoting all that BS...
"On a large scale, uneven heat on opposite sides of a steel beam can warp it with a temperature difference of only 100°F. "

No it won't. It will with much more heat ... LOTS more. 100 degrees would be like a beam exposed to the winter cold on one side and room temperature on the other. I don't believe many buildings collapse from that.

Again, car exhaustt systems and barbeques are made from this mysterious substance with butterlike qualities you people read about but evidently have never seen or touched.

Sure it's January but go out on the deck and fire up the barbeque and experiment with trying to melt or warp it. Get that sucker to collapse, i'll wait.

Double checked, it was 300, not 100. And fortunately, no part of my grill that heats up is responsible for bearing the weight of more than ten or twenty pounds. the idea that a difference of a few hundred degrees from one side of a beam to another could warp it enough to cause a collapse isn't mine, it's from a professor of materials engineering at MIT, whose job it is to know about that kind of thing.

And if the difference between winter cold and room temperature is 100 degrees, I'd hate to live where you do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9Jh...IDLink=3368785

Bill-owned

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BUXglJU2w6U&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BUXglJU2w6U&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


Bill does nothing to address "inside job" theory of having information and doing nothing about it. He does address this theory, but then again- he should with all the stock his wife owns.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/74LRpnnRm20&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/74LRpnnRm20&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>