Mojo_PeiPei

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?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

stevo

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.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Dilbert1234567

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

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

host

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?

stevo

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

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

Ustwo

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

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

boatin

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

boatin

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?

host

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?

red0blivia

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?

Willravel

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.

ubertuber

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:

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

ubertuber

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

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Willravel

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.

Ustwo

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.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ratbastid

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.

Willravel

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

Dilbert1234567

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?

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Willravel

Much appreciated.
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.

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.


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.

Dilbert1234567

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.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Dilbert1234567

(bump)

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

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

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.

ASU2003

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.

Willravel

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).

Dilbert1234567

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

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

ASU2003

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.

Dilbert1234567

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.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

host

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?

ASU2003

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.

Dilbert1234567

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?

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Willravel

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.

host

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:

host

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.

Dilbert1234567

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.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

host

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".

Dilbert1234567

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

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

Dilbert1234567

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.

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

host

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>

Cynthetiq

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Hanxter

like i'm gonna read all that...