balderdash111

I can't believe I am diving into this again....

WTC was hit by one of the WTC towers as they collapsed, so it was not just fire. Most of the pics you see are from the north, which faced away from the towers, so you do not see the damage on the south side.

Plus, the fires continued for hours with little or no effort to put them out.

Your stat that no steel-reinforced buildings have collapsed from fire isn't a fair comparison, as those other buildings likely (a) had not suffered extensive structural damage at the same time, and (b) had someone trying to put the fire out.


See above. (And I recall seeing detailed schematics of WTC 7 floor plans in at least one report from the feds, so I'm not sure what your point is on floorplans being classified....other than adding a layer of spookiness)

we've been through this before. A rigid structure would tip over if the support were taken out from one side. Like a tree being chopped down.

A building is not a tree. It collapses upon itself if it fails.

I'm not an engineer, but I suspect Martian is right when he says they are designed to do this.

I don't believe the top did collapse first. I assume you are referring to the slight drop in the antenna before the building collapsed to suggest that the top fell first. But wouldn't that also be consistent with the central core beginning to collapse somewhere near the impact, thus lowering all of the structure resting upon it?

The actual collapse started around the middle (with the little puffs of debris all around the exterior that you equate with demo charges).

__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

Willravel

In 1991 One Meridian Plaza in Philidelphia (38 floor building) burned for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors. Building 7 collapsed at 5:20pm eastern time, not 6 hours after firefighters were alerted to fires in the building (the building is estimated to ahve caught fire roughly an hour after the second strike). Compare these two events. The One Meridian fire was substantially larger than the fire in WTC 7, and it burned longer. Yet not only did the Philidelphia tower not implode and collapse in 6.5 seconds, it did not collapse at all. Who said that one of the towers hit the WTC 7?
You had them before they were classified. i called about 6 months ago and they will not release them anymore. Your source had them before this classification was in place. No spookiness about it.
Buildings are partially flexable and partially rigid. I've never seen a building touch the ground during a severe wind storm, but I have seen them sway. What we are talking aobut is degrees of flexability versus rigidness. The building is made from a steel structure that takes quite a bit to bend, and steel supports CAN SNAP when put under enough pressure. The problem is that the rigidness claim doesn't hold up. If the structure of the building was as flexable as you claim, what's to stop the supports on the opposite side of the building BEND and the building falls onto one side? This is all moot of course, because steel can't be melted by airplane fuel, and therefore the structure should have not given at all - whether snapping or bending.

These puff lines are above the airplane entry hole. This isn't just the antenna falling. The upper floors poofed first. Poof lines (forgive me I don't know the technical term) can only be formed when the floor below is solid, othewise the necessary compression wouldn't be enough to blow out smoke, dust and debres.

fastom

These melting buildings (made of steel like barbeques and car exhausts, no?) got so hot that the people on the floors that had holes in the walls are seen waving for help. At 1800 degrees who can blame them! They must have been wearing racing driver fireproof suits, ordinary clothes would have burnt off.

Even if the building was made of aluminum it wouldn't have collapsed from fire.

fastom

OK, say the building designers fucked up and used low temperature solder instead of steel. Stuff that melts in a fire. How can you explain the worlds biggest engineering failure been swept away before any investigation was done?

If a bridge collapses it would be thoroughly analyzed before anybody carted off anything. Look what they do in a airliner crash, wreckage carted off to a building and reassembled. WTC was a rush to destroy evidence.

Martian

A common idea going around is that the steel must've melted and therefore the fires must've been 1800 C. That's quite untrue. Steel needs not melt to collapse - in fact, it loses roughly half it's structural integrity at around 600-700 C. It becomes pliable and will bend easily under a much smaller amount of pressure than would be required cold.

Also, let's not forget that the columns were not heated evenly; the fire burned inside the building, meaning that the inner face of the columns would have been hotter than the outer face. Heat causes metal to expand; if the inner half of the column were to expand more than the outer portion, the whole thing would've buckled, causing failure.

willravel - You've gone and done it now. I actually had to research this.

You get a gold star.

First off, the issue of steel melting or bending I have addressed. Further to that, a building will not collapse sideways unless there is some sort of load on one side, such as a sustained wind. The force of the airplane strikes was long since disspated by the time the buildings collapsed; there was nothing to cause them to collapse to the side. Hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete hold a lot of potential energy and when that energy is released in a collapse the materials are going to collapse downward. Some debris was deflected in the fall and landed outside the footprints of the two towers; many people lost their lives to that falling debris and it also caused extensive damage to many of the surrounding buildings including (according to many of the reports and summaries I've been able to find) the south face of WTC 7.

In the picture you've provided there is far too much smoke obscuring the building to conclusively state anything about the collapse.

Here is a picture of the collapse of the south tower; it clearly shows the top floors falling at the point of impact (at a slight angle here; they broke up due to repeated impacts with the floors below shortly after) :



Revisitng WTC 7 once more, it's important to remember that it wasn't the fire alone that caused the collapse, although with the presence of a large quantity of diesel fuel on the premises it's possible that this might've occured anyway. It's a combination of the structural damage caused by the falling debris of the other two towers and the uncontrolled fires that had raged within the building for hours without any attempts at fighting them. Steel doesn't melt in building fires, but it twists and bends and buckles. If the structure is already weakened it's not hard to see how that might lead to a collapse.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Willravel

Yes, but the steel they used in the towers was intended to withstand a fire, even from diesel fuel or a bomb. Bear in mind that the 1993 bombing, which was a bomb made from urea pellets, nitroglycerin, sulfuric acid, aluminum azide, magnesium azide, and bottled hydrogen, created much more heat initially than the burining fuel did 8 years later. My point is not that the original attack was more likely to bring down the building, in fact it was almost impossibl for a urea-nitrate bomb of that size to bring down the building. My point is that the building is a known national landmark. It has always been a target for terrorism. As a matter of fact, the engineers who designed them specifically said that they could withstand a collission from a plane not much smaller than the ones that hit them. Included in this were the ability to not topple due to the initial force of a strike, the destruction of supports by a strike, the subsequent fire due to a strike (planes don't fly without fuel), and the ability to evacuate the building in the event of a strike.

One very important thing we have to remember is that almost ALL of the fuel was burned up on impact. The initial strike breeched the tanks and ignighted the fuel (thus the big explosions), what was left no one can say, but the fires could not habve burned at airplane fuel temperatures for long. In other words, the estimate heat of the fire based on the fuel is not a temperature that was consistant from strike to fall. There was a sharp drop immediatally after the collission, and then it probably went down to the 400-500 degree range or lower (office furniture, paper, carpert, etc. burning temps). This would have done nothing to the steel.
I'm glad you're doing research, this will enrich the discussion even further.
Okay, bear with me. This is going to be mathimtical...

We know from seismic records that one of the WTC towers too approx 8.4 seconds to collapse. s=½at² is the formula for distance and time. s is distance in feet, a is gravatational constant (32 ft/sec²), and t is time.
s = ½ * 32 * 8.5² = 1156'
WTC Tower 1 had a roof height of 1368'. Tower 2 was 1362'. As far as I'm concerned, it's proven that the towers' structures were destroyed at very close to free fall speed, perhaps faster since there is air resistance to consider. Impossible without explosives. (some help from reopen911.org for the math).


This is a picture from the southeast side of the building. There is almost no damage from Towers 1 or 2.

Martian

The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 that had gotten lost during landing maneuvres. Even if we assume that the aircraft was near maximum operating weight (technically impossible but, as you noted, quite close to that of a 757) a 707 flying at approach speeds will do much less damage toa structure than a 757 or even an identical plane with the throttle jammed wide open. This becomes important if we assume, as the FEMA report seems to indicate, that the damage to the insulation around the steel supports was a factor in the collapse. The speed of the aircraft would greatly affect the extent of the damage.

This site seems to suggest otherwise. According to this as well as other sources I've read, steel will lose a lot of it's strength at relatively low temperatures - 650C is sufficient to rob a steel support of half of it's support strength and it begins to weaken much lower than that, close to 400C. I haven't checked his sources, but that site does explain both the heat ranges and temperature ranges far more succinctly than I'm capable of.

I do hope you understand my skepticism, then. It's telling that I haven't even finished high school, yet I'm able to refute a great many of the claims made with no additional research or effort made.

This math at a glance appears to be accurate; however, it seems to be in direct contradiction to what I've read. Earlier sources of mine seemed to indicate a collapse duration of approximately 10 seconds, which obviously changes the numbers completely. I'm unable to find those sources right now, but if I dig them up I'll post them. Either way, it's not surprising even if the towers did fall at near free-fall speed. The resistance offered by the lower floors would be nearly insignifigant in the face of the energy being released in the fall of severl hundreds of thousands of tons of building. The lower floors gave instantaneously, lending an appearance reminiscant of a controlled demolition.


This is a picture from the southeast side of the building. There is almost no damage from Towers 1 or 2.[/QUOTE]

Do you have another source for this image? i can't see it.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Willravel

The speed is less my concern as the fuel issue. I remember watching the second strike on tv, and the great fireball. When airline fuel creates a massive burnoff like that, you are seeing all of the fuel ignite at once. Imagine that you put a match inside of a car gasoline tank. It explodes, creating a sudden, massive amount of fire. That fire is working its way suddenly through the whole fuel tank (the fire won't stop half way through the tank). Thre explosions is also the fact that the tanksa re enclosed, and air tight (or close to it). This suggests that the initial explosion occoured before or while the tanks were being ripped apart by the building. To me, a layman, this seems to be that a great deal of the fuel would have burned off immediatally.
But like I said above, the hotter fire caused by the airplane fuel would have been short. The fire would have been mostly fueled by the other stuff in the towers after a short time.
Don't forget that a HS education in Canada is the equivelant of a BA down in the states.
I'm going off seismic records I've had for a while. I'll find the link durring lunch. EDIT: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/seismic.html But even at 10 seconds, that is still about a freefall, which is impossible for a building like that.


Try reloading the page, I'll try to find another pic.

fastom

OK, i'm a metalworker and welder... i heat up metal and try to bend it quite often. Granted i don't usually try to knock skyscrapers over but i think the theory applies.

I'd be a very old man if had to wait for a kerosene fire to make even a flimsy piece of sheetmetal soft enough to bend.

No way will a big girder fall over at 650 degrees, not even double that.

What you are suggesting would mean new exhaust systems would fall off cars very soon after starting them, assuming they'd even run since the spark plugs would have melted already.

fastom

Hang on... he said "650C" ... hmmm freezing is 32F and 0C and boiling is 100C and 212F, right?

So we double it and add 30? Or is that just for speed limits?

Steel will soften at high temperatures (1000+ "normal" degrees) but a jet fuel fire won't do that, and like Will says it was a big burst of flame and a much lesser continous fire. Bet you could have touched those beams after that initial blast.

Willravel

I've been speaking in Ferinheit the whole time, as this I am an american, and thus am too lazy or stubborn to convert to metric. If we want to speak in metric...it is equally impossible. Let's put the fire thing to rest once and for all.
Since the aircraft were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, they would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the aircraft have a maximum range of 7,600 miles). They would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.

What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.

Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

It is also known as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.

Reactions (2) and (3) occur when a pool of jet fuel burns. When reaction (3) occurs the carbon formed shows up as soot in the flame. This makes the smoke very dark.

In the aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the impact (with the aircraft going from 500 or 600 mph to zero) would have throughly mixed the fuel that entered the building with the limited amount of air available within. In fact, it is likely that all the fuel was turned into a flammable mist. However, for sake of argument we will assume that 3,500 gallons of the jet fuel did in fact form a pool fire. This means that it burnt according to reactions (2) and (3). Also note that the flammable mist would have burnt according to reactions (2) and (3), as the quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited.

Since we do not know the exact quantities of oxygen available to the fire, we will assume that the combustion was perfectly efficient, that is, that the entire quantity of jet fuel burnt via reaction (1), even though we know that this was not so. This generous assumption will give a temperature that we know will be higher than the actual temperature of the fire attributable to the jet fuel.

We need to know that the (net) calorific value of jet fuel when burnt via reaction (1) is 42-44 MJ/kg. The calorific value of a fuel is the amount of energy released when the fuel is burnt. We will use the higher value of 44 MJ/kg as this will lead to a higher maximum temperature than the lower value of 42 (and we wish to continue being outrageously generous in our assumptions).

For a cleaner presentation and simpler calculations we will also assume that our hydrocarbons are of the form CnH2n. The dropping of the 2 hydrogen atoms does not make much difference to the final result and the interested reader can easily recalculate the figures for a slightly more accurate result. So we are now assuming the equation:

(4) CnH2n + 3n/2 O2 => n CO2 + n H2O

However, this model, does not take into account that the reaction is proceeding in air, which is only partly oxygen.

Dry air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen (by volume). Normal air has a moisture content from 0 to 4%. We will include the water vapor and the other minor atmospheric gases with the nitrogen.

So the ratio of the main atmospheric gases, oxygen and nitrogen, is 1 : 3.76. In molar terms:

Air = O2 + 3.76 N2.

Because oxygen comes mixed with nitrogen, we have to include it in the equations. Even though it does not react, it is "along for the ride" and will absorb heat, affecting the overall heat balance. Thus we need to use the equation:

(5) CnH2n + 3n/2(O2 + 3.76 N2) => n CO2 + n H2O + 5.64n N2

From this equation we see that the molar ratio of CnH2n to that of the products is:

CnH2n : CO2 : H2O : N2 = 1 : n : n : 5.64n moles
= 14n : 44n : 18n : 28 x 5.64n kgs
= 1 : 3.14286 : 1.28571 : 11.28 kgs
= 31,000 : 97,429 : 39,857 : 349,680 kgs

In the conversion of moles to kilograms we have assumed the atomic weights of hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are 1, 12, 14 and 16 respectively.

Now each of the towers contained 96,000 (short) tons of steel. That is an average of 96,000/117 = 820 tons per floor. Lets suppose that the bottom floors contained roughly twice the amount of steel of the upper floors (since the lower floors had to carry more weight). So we estimate that the lower floors contained about 1,100 tons of steel and the upper floors about 550 tons = 550 x 907.2 ≈ 500,000 kgs. We will assume that the floors hit by the aircraft contained the lower estimate of 500,000 kgs of steel. This generously underestimates the quantity of steel in these floors, and once again leads to a higher estimate of the maximum temperature.

Each story had a floor slab and a ceiling slab. These slabs were 207 feet wide, 207 feet deep and 4 (in parts 5) inches thick and were constructed from lightweight concrete. So each slab contained 207 x 207 x 1/3 = 14,283 cubic feet of concrete. Now a cubic foot of lightweight concrete weighs about 50kg, hence each slab weighed 714,150 ≈ 700,000 kgs. Together, the floor and ceiling slabs weighed some 1,400,000 kgs.

So, now we take all the ingredients and estimate a maximum temperature to which they could have been heated by 3,500 gallons of jet fuel. We will call this maximum temperature T. Since the calorific value of jet fuel is 44 MJ/kg. We know that 3,500 gallons = 31,000 kgs of jet fuel

will release 10,850 x 44,000,000 = 477,400,000,000 Joules of energy.

This is the total quantity of energy available to heat the ingredients to the temperature T. But what is the temperature T? To find out, we first have to calculate the amount of energy absorbed by each of the ingredients.

That is, we need to calculate the energy needed to raise:

39,857 kilograms of water vapor to the temperature T° C,
97,429 kilograms of carbon dioxide to the temperature T° C,
349,680 kilograms of nitrogen to the temperature T° C,
500,000 kilograms of steel to the temperature T° C,
1,400,000 kilograms of concrete to the temperature T° C.

To calculate the energy needed to heat the above quantities, we need their specific heats. The specific heat of a substance is the amount of energy needed to raise one kilogram of the substance by one degree centigrade.

Substance Specific Heat [J/kg*C]
Nitrogen 1,038
Water Vapor 1,690
Carbon Dioxide 845
Lightweight Concrete 800
Steel 450

Substituting these values into the above, we obtain:

39,857 x 1,690 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the water vapor from 25° to T° C,
97,429 x 845 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the carbon dioxide from 25° to T° C,
349,680 x 1,038 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the nitrogen from 25° to T° C,
500,000 x 450 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the steel from 25° to T° C,
1,400,000 x 800 x (T - 25) Joules are needed to heat the concrete from 25° to T° C.

The assumption that the specific heats are constant over the temperature range 25° - T° C, is a good approximation if T turns out to be relatively small (as it does). For larger values of T this assumption once again leads to a higher maximum temperature (as the specific heat for these substances increases with temperature). We have assumed the initial temperature of the surroundings to be 25° C. The quantity, (T - 25)° C, is the temperature rise.

So the amount of energy needed to raise one floor to the temperature T° C is

= (39,857 x 1,690 + 97,429 x 845 + 349,680 x 1,038 + 500,000 x 450 + 1,400,000 x 800) x (T - 25)
= (67,358,330 + 82,327,505 + 362,967,840 + 225,000,000 + 1,120,000,000) x (T - 25) Joules
= 1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) Joules.

Since the amount of energy available to heat this floor is 477,400,000,000 Joules, we have that

1,857,653,675 x (T - 25) = 477,400,000,000
1,857,653,675 x T - 46,441,341,875 = 477,400,000,000

Therefore T = (477,400,000,000 + 46,441,341,875)/1,857,653,675 = 282° C (540° F).

So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.

Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.

Here are statements from three eye-witnesses that provide evidence that the heating due to the jet fuel was indeed minimal.

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby (one of the impact floors of the South Tower) when the aircraft hit. He has been quoted as saying: "We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped."

Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the South Tower: "The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway."

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: "Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned."

Neither Stanley Praimnath nor Donovan Cowan nor Ling Young were cooked by the jet fuel fire. All three survived.

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Conclusion:

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

(research found via http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...tc/how-hot.htm)

duckznutz

I think everyone is getting tied in knots a little here.
I am an Architect . . here are the facts : -
1 - Think of the towers as tall square 'tubes'. The external skin IS structural and acts with a very lightweight lattice floor plate structure spanning to the central core (to acheive collumn free commercial spaces).
2 - It was not 'big steel girders' which 'melted'. The towers were the worlds first masonry-free high rise towers and the steel was protected with lightweight fire-board (drywall as I think you guys call it over there).
3 The aircraft hit the buildings at slightly different angles. One had more damage to the central core than the other and in both cases the impact and explosion 'blasted off' varying amounts of fire protective boards in each case.
4 It is widely accepted that it was failure of the connection of the lattice floors to the central core which precipitated the collapse. It doesnt take much heat to warp lightweight lattice steel, especially when its fire protection is gone, plus the fact that the external stressed skin facade was seriously weakened in the initial impact.
5 When the critical number of lattice connections had failed in fires which were burning entirely uncontrolled (fueled not only by aviation fuel but by offices full of carpet furniture and paper) then the floor plate would collapse. When that happened, the weight of the concrete slab on top of the lattice structure would fall 12' and slam into the floor below and so on and so on.

If you are a construction professional its not so hard to understand. Remember, these were the days before progressive collapse building codes were introduced.
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

The aircraft with no windows? . . .well thats maybe another story.

__________________
Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.

Willravel

God knows I've been tied in knots about this topic before, so I wouldn't be surprised.
Yes, this is 100% true, and is supported by both the conspiracy and the non conspiracy side of the discussion.
Also completly true. Right there with you so far.
Yep. I'm with you there. An explosion from 3,500 gallons of exploding jet fuel is more than enough to strip a lot of drywall.
I've never heard that. Actually, I've never heard of "lattice steel". "Steel lattice" is the way people describe the hollow steel tubes surrounding a strong central core (as opposed to bracing the buildings corner-to-corner or using internal walls). A steel lattice was put in place to try and fix the problem with space versus the problem of wind sway. The steel used in the outter supports, the steel lattice, was still primarily iron and carbon. The melting point of iron is 1538 °C (2800 °F). Carbon belts at 3527 °C (6381 °F). The exterior walls were the light steel you speak of and concrete. Those did not bear any weight. The central core of both WTC buildings takes all the gravity loads of the building. Those are not made of a light steel. Those are the reason the building would have collapsed. Those are made of the metal that cannot melt because of a kerosene fire. The imagery of the WTC doesn't even reveal the aluminum siding of the WTC towers deforming. Let's also not forget about the time frame. Even the lightest steel takes a while to begin to lose it's strength.
I'll work on this one when I have more time.
Well, as I said I'm ony a layman.
I've seen no evidence of this beyond eyewhitness reports (which are unreliable). Thanks very much for the post! I hope I have given you as much to think about as you have me.

samcol

Stop viewing the world from your own small little world. Yes, I'd love to think that the US is a model country and wouldn't do anything wrong. However, if we are to have a debate about whether or not to believe everything we have been told about 9/11 please don't use words like reasonable, ideally, and continue describing the US as a model of freedom and democrazy. Obviously a government of the people for the people and by the people would not do this to the people, but that's not what this debate is about. It's about finding out what really happened on 9/11. So please stop using rhetoric and start objectively looking at the full spectrum of information regarding 9/11, not just what you've been force fed.

The "allegations" I made do have very solid sources. I will cite them if you want me to, but it takes a while to dig them up so I haven't yet. However, may I ask you first if it will make a difference? Do you understand the significance of the government running drills of the exact same scenario on the exact same day, or past plans to carry out terror attacks on the civilian population? If you can't then there is no point to continue this debate.

duckznutz

willravel, apologies for the confusion . . .. the steel lattice I refer to is not the external lattice of the facade (which purpose is to take out wind loads), but the prefabricated lattice trusses which made up the floor plates. These were light-weight steel sections, prefabricated into zig-zag truss beams (to save weight and allow services to pass through) and were connected to the central core. It was supposedly the failure of these light-weight floor plate trusses (at their connection with the core)which resulted in the floor collapse. Once just one part of one floor starts crashing down, the whole thing is going to go down like a pack of cards. Strong as the building was . . . the large span floor plates were not designed to withstand the impact of a concrete floor from above dropping down 12' . . and even if it could, you would now have the weight of TWO concrete floors bearing on weakened connections with fires still raging. Stunned as I was at the time . . in hindsight, the collapses are not really hard to understand.

__________________
Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.

ObieX

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=loose+change

911 Loose Change 2nd Edition with extra footage


better than 911:In Plane Site

__________________
We Must Dissent.

samcol

I saw loose change 2. Definetly one of the best 9/11 movies out. I was amazed at how many eye witness accounts the movie had that said there were bombs or explosions. Nearly 5 years ago and the government won't come forward and release the pentagon tapes or answer simple questions regarding 9/11. Nothing about 9/11 makes much sense.

fastom

That was a very interesting hour and a half. The actual news footage from that awful day speaks volumes. They are always candid early on before somebody hands them a script.

Martian

Wow, it's been a while since I checked in here. First off, a big shout out to ducknutz, who has summarized my understanding of the whole situation in a much more concise (and educated) fashion.

Having said that, a rebuttal is in order.

samcol, I don't live under a rock. I am well aware that the world is not a nice place; corruption and scandal abound, even within the government of the United States of America. The system obviously doesn't work the way it was intended to when it was set up some 200 years ago.

But there's an order of magnitude between what happened during, for example, Watergate and what happened on September 11. Do I believe that your government hides things from you? Naturally I do. Mine does the same; some of it is necessary, some of it is the above mentioned corruption.

However, you are making a rather extraordinary claim.. I have yet to see that contended. There is a lot riding on the premise that your government would either allow or commit an attack on it's own people, on it's own soil. It presupposes a level of corruption, a level of callousness and a level of greed that most don't believe is there. The very fact that you still operate a government 'by the people, for the people' is evidence that the majority of Americans believe the system works; if they didn't, I can't believe it would still be in operation.

I have never claimed perfection on the part of your government. There's a reason I haven't immigrated. But being imperfect is a far cry from being evil.

As I have previously said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you want to make the claim that your own government is perpetrating large-scale attacks on it's own people and have that claim taken seriously, you do have to provide evidence and that evidence has to be reliable and trustworthy. A few grainy stills and questionable web sites don't cut it here. If something akin to the Watergate tapes surfaces on the issue, then I'll take notice. For the time being, I'll continue believing that the more reasonable explanation is the more likely one. I don't deny the possibility that what you say is true, but to me it seems like the less viable option. What is proposed in the official explanation is not only plausible, but actually quite likely, especially when taken in light that the people blamed in the official story have actually corroborated that story by claiming responsibility.

I do recognize the signifigance of the evidence you mention. Do you? Drills and exercises are circumstantial at best. Former plans could be damning, if they can be proven true, but even then are still not incontrovertible. They may lend credence to your side of things, but they prove nothing.

If you can provide your sources, I will most definitely check them out when I have the time available. Please note that free time is something I have precious little of lately, so it may be some time before I can properly review anything you put up here. But the other side of it is that until I see verifiable evidence of the claims made, they're only that. They are not fact until proven as such.

I will not be so presumptuous as to tell you what to believe. You are free to draw your own conclusions. I will present the other side of the debate if you bring the topic up for discussion, but I do not and will not present my arguments as the only possible explanation; they are merely, as I said, the most logical conclusions according to the evidence I have found.

I don't take kindly to being accused of being naive, or a fool. Please refrain from doing so in the future.

__________________
I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept
I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept
I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head
I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said

- Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

Willravel

So you are refering to the theory that the lateral trusses became detached by the heat of the fire and fell down on each other, leaving the columns bare and without the latteral support the columns fell. Of course this makes no sense. Even if you believe this idea that the peremeter columns, lacking lateral support, would somehow buckle and fall, you certianally can't apply that logic to the core structure because the core columns are not free standing. The core was also a lattuce of steel. This was a crossbraced structure with these huge steel columns, the dimensions of which were 36" by the outside dimensions and they were fabricated of steel that was 4" thick at it's base. So if your theory is true, then the outside would have fallen around the core, leaving the core standing. On top of that, when you examine pictures of the collapse, you do not see free standing portions of perimeter columns that are buckling. You see the building systematically being exploded from top to bottom.

fastom

Yep, if fire weaking had anything at all to do with it why did the top floors seem to disintegrate first?

One thing nobody has brought up is the whole "9-1-1" thing. Right from the outset it was claimed an Islamic group was responsible and that the date was chosen for it's 911 emergency phone number implications. Do they even have 911 in Arab countries? It sounds like something an American would have thought up.

host

In this post: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=56
...over on the "Tilted Politics" Forum, I responded to Marvelous Marv's comment about my earlier statement that, on the morning of 9/11, there occured a <b>""staged inability of the federal government to muster a timely air defense of the east coast skies.""</b>

My reasons for stating this are:
<b>( Consider that the fighter reductions at Langley, and the inordinate numbers of 9/11 "War Games and exercises", were scheduled against the backdrop of Bush's receipt of the now infamous Aug. 6th PDB that advised Bush that Al-Qaeda was planning to hijack airliners and use them as weapons. Bush later fought to keep from disclosing to us, that PDB's contents. )</b>
<b>[1]</b>The record shows that air defense fighters, in Aug. 2001, were removed from Langley Air Force Base.
<b>[2]</b>A large number of "War Games and "Special Exercises" were discovered to have been planned by military and intel agencies on 9/11, an effort was made to hide the numbers and extent of these "events", and we were ultimately told that these "events" heightened air defense response to the hijacking of four jet airliners, while the actual defense response and testimony of military and government officials seems to indicate that the opposite is true.
<b>[3]</b>The false premise, from the 9/11 Commission report, that War Games and "exercises" that "coincided" with the 9/11 attacks, enhanced response performance by NORAD and it's military defense response. The scope and numbers of the actual "exercises" were minimized in the Commission report.
<b>[4]</b>A report of a scheduled 9/11 "exercise" by the "NRO", reported in
2002 by AP and UPI as a "bizarre coincidence".
<b>[5]</b>A key, 9-17-2001 CNN report, attributed to sources in the military, that details the timeline of Flight 93 on 9/11. The timeline was exactly matched by testimony in 2003 to the 9/11 Commission by Mr. Scott, on behalf of General Arnold. The Flight 93 take-off time was, however,wrong.
<b>[6]</b>2003 Testimony of General Arnold & Mr. Scott, and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, before the 9/11 Commission, as well as an examination of General McKinely and the circumstances of his receipt of the "first shootdown order of an airliner in history, (Flight 93). The timeline testimony of Mr. Scott matched the above CNN report from two years earlier.
Mineta's testimony that placed Cheney and Mineta in the underground,Washington Command center before 9:30 am, was later altered by the 9/11 Commission, and pushed just past 10:00 am, with no explanation.
<b>[7]</b>In June, 2004 shortly before the final 9/11 Commission report was issued, it's staff "amended" the time that the FAA notified the military of the hijacking of Flight 93...from the previously testimony of 9:16 am, to <b>"no report until after it crashed at about 10:02 am !!!!!!!!"</b> Ignoring Mineta's 2003 testimony that he arrived at Cheney's location at 9:24 am, the 9/11 Commission revised the facts to a determination that Cheney did not even arrive until just after 10:00 am !
<b>[8]</b>Link to page of info now deleted from the web that shows phone calls from Flight 93 passengers that reported it's hijacked status, began at 9:20 am. Also contains info concerning takeoff time of Flight 93.
<b>[9]</b>Link and display of BTS website data for Flight 93 that shows the flight's wheels lifting off runway in Newark, NJ at 8:28 am, not at the 8:40 am
time from the 9/11 Commission report. You can duplicate that data search at the link. Just choose "Newark", "United", and "Sept. 11, 2001". The data is known to be a reliable record of every airliner wheel lift-off and touchdown in the U.S.
<b>[10]</b>Links to documentation of the attempts by Rumsfeld, Myers, Bush administration members, and 9/11 Commission members to alter, cover up, and avoid openly and accurately reporting on the events of 9/11 and the military response to the attacks, along with congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's successful attempt to expose the concealed 9/11 War Games, complete with video. In addition to the War Game cover up, there is a convincing case that a desperate, but transparent attempt has been made to
conceal Cheney's role in the Flight 93 shootdown order, as well as the timeline of that Flight, to falsely place the blame on the FAA for delayed notification of the hijacking to NORAD, from 9:16 am, until after Flight 93 crashed.
<b>[1]</b>
<b>[2]</b>
<b>[3]</b>
<b>[4]</b>
<b>[5]</b>
<b>[6]</b>
<b>[7]</b>
<b>[8]</b>
<b>[9]</b>
<b>[10]</b>
<b>Give the above material a thorough read, and then try to persuade me that it was proper to bury Mineta's testimony about when he arrived at Cheney's side on 9/11, when Flight 93 took off, when it's hijacking was reported to NORAD by the FAA, that the War Games and "exercises" on 9/11 were just coincidental, but needed to be concealed from the public and from accurate disclosure in the 9/11 Commission Report, or that the Commission members delivered the facts about Cheney and the shootdown order and the quality of the NORAD air defense response to the 9/11 attacks, to the American people in a sincere, complete, and straightforward manner.

Tell me why, given this sad record of blatant distortion and misinformation, accompanied by the fact that not one of the four hijacked airliners was intercepted, that I should change my mind that the U.S. east coast air defense response on the morning of 9/11 was intentionally "staged" to underperform, by the responsible officials in charge. The only other possibility, if they are not liars and suspected traitors, is that they are too stupid, incompetent, and or delusional to still be in positions of governance or other responsibility. No one was demoted, disciplined, or fired !

Willravel

I think we have changed places, Host. I believe that, based on the science, this is far more machiavellian than complacency. In fact, I believe that forces in deeper hiding are responsible, in connection with those not 'morally bound' in the current administration, for recruiting is Saudi Arabia for purpouses including financing, planning the dissapearance of 3 commercial jets, grounding intercepter fighters, striking the pentagon with a missle or UMV, hitting the world trade buildings with planes after having them expertly wired with demolition charges, planting evidence, stealing footage of the pentagon attack, having FEMA (and now the NIST) wrapped around their fingers so much so that they'd say pretty much anything, strangleholding the media, and making a mockery of our whole country.

I think that your theory about the government simply not responding and allowing goes in tandum with my theory. Please read post #171 for proof of demolition.

fastom

How about the odd changes to rules that occured months before September 01. Pilots were allowed to be armed until that was changed. Planes were allowed to be intercepted and shot down without the Secretary of Defense giving personal approval until they changed that too. Both in June/July 2001.

Just so many things don't add up. Who paid to haul away the building debris? How is it that a paper passport survived intact when any other debris from the plane made of a more resilient substance was badly damaged? The WTC owner buys the place and gets a giant windfall insurance settlement all within a few months.

samcol

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...6alexvideo.htm

9/11 conspiracy is going more mainstream everyday. Here's a piece about a charlie sheen interview on the alex jones show.

Willravel

My God, can you imagine Charlie Sheen being the man who is credited with bringing the 911 truth movement to the mainstream press?! This is fantastic. EXCELENT link, samcol. Thanks very, very much.

samcol

Funny how the media won't listen to 9/11 family members, government workers, engineers or scholars who have tried to bring this forward, yet they listen to Sheen

Regardless, I hope this story can survive the weekend before it falls off the face of the earth again. Maybe the 9/11 truth movement could gain some real traction in the mainstream if it does.

Willravel

Welcome to a world that revolves around hollywood.
Hopefully Charlie Sheen can stay clean so that the story doesn't get drowned in the controversy of drug use in hollywood.

stevo

Just wondering if any of the conspiracy theorists have read this site and if they have any rebuttal. http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y

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

samcol

Yes that's been discussed in this thread and the WTC building 7 thread. Most of it's the typical strawman. They take a microcosm of the 9/11 information and pretend like they are addressing the hardest hitting evidence of a cover-up.

Oh ya, don't forget Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff of homeland security, is one of the lead reporters for this article. Almost as independent as appointing Henry Kissenger to the 9/11 commission as was first intended, or they conflict of intrests of most of the current 9/11 commission. What a joke.

Ustwo

Wow, that sure had a lot of straw men in that article.

__________________
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.

Willravel

I'll do as much as I can durring lunch. I have a question, though...If I can prove that every argument from PM is either fundamentlaly flawed, incorrect, or a strawman, will you consider that there are unanswered questions asbout 9/11?

stevo

Of course there are unanswered questions about 9/11. I don't think anyone is arguing that there aren't. But thats not your arguement either. I believe your arguement goes along the lines of:
Something I think PM does a good job of discrediting.

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

Willravel

Maybe 'we' are stretching, but several things have to be taken into account.
1)This wonderful picture displays the Tower 2 crash:

It shows a picture of the collission where you can clearly see two engines, and something else on the bottom, left of the fuseloge.
I'm no professor of aeronautics (although I was accepted to Embry Riddle back in 2002), but that looks fishy to say the least. Let's take a look at out Boeing 767-200ER:

Well that's odd. All I can see are two very large engins. I see no large mas on the BOTTOM of the plane.
Here's a pic of one with it's landing gear down:

It seems we *might* not be streching as much as the professor insinuates.

The standard U.S. air defense protocols for dealing with errant instrument flights were in place many years before Sept. 11. These procedures are automatic and require no special order. Within minutes after a flight ceases to respond to ground control, the FAA is expected to alert NORAD - which scrambles jet fighters to intercept the errant flight for reconnaissance purposes. These are supposed to be airborne within 10 minutes of the problem arising.

This routine was activated on at least 67 occasions in the year prior to June 1, 2001 and on 129 occasions in 2000. Exceptional as the events of 9/11 proved to be, the procedures should have also been activated automatically within minutes of each flight diversion on that day (i.e., long before anyone needed to realize that hijackers would fly multiple airliners into buildings). This did not happen.

NORAD's story (above) was disputed in the FAA statement of May 21, 2003. The FAA claimed that regardless of the official notification times claimed by NORAD, phone bridges were established immediately after the initial attack (at 8:46). NORAD was informed in real time throughout of all developments, including about the plane that ultimately hit the Pentagon, the FAA said.

Check this link out: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...40731213239607
Huh, I don't remember ever hearing this theory. I'm all ears if anyone has info on it. I'll call it a straw man until we can see someone of at least some reputation in the 9/11 truth movement mention this. How odd.
OOPS! Pm has made a tiny mistake here. In an AP article, one of PM's own experts, Maj. Douglas Martin said "From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001". That's what I'd call a glaring flaw.
If you've read my previous posts, you can see this is already debunked.
Debunked on 1/14 by yours truely.
It's impossible for the top floor to have fallen first, so the rest of the puff line explaination is irrelevent. Had this been a truss failure, as the NIST report claims, it would have failed near the crash site first, where the highest temperatures were. I've debunked that NIST report too, btw.
Strawman. The seismic records have nothing to do with proving bombs go boom. They have everything to do with the speed at which both buildings collapsed. If you've read my posts, you know that the steel reinforced buildings collapsed at free fall speed, which is of course impossible.
o rly?

What physical damage? Where are the photos that prove 25% of Building 7 was scooped out? The photos published in reports, and those available on me Internet do not show anything other than trivial damage, such as some broken windows.

Tom Franklin, a professional photographer for a New Jersey newspaper, traveled quickly to the World Trade Center to get photographs. According to his own report, he was standing in front of Building 7 at about 4 p.m.. He took lots of photos, but where are his photos of Building 7? Why would he ignore a skyscraper with 25% of its first 10 floors scooped out?
Where is a photograph that shows a hole 75 feet wide? All the photos available in reports and the Internet show only small holes. I call BS. These areguments are getting old. In this very thread I've posted many times about how it's impossible that there could have been a 75 foot hole. It's absurd.
Withstanding a hurricane is impressive, but withstanding a plane crash is down right amazing. Check out post #136 in this thread. It shows that the wing of a plane hit a window and it didn't break. Can I get some windows like this? Are they nuke resiastent, too?
Not okay. THERE WAS NO BLACK BOX FOUND AT THE SITE OF THE PENTAGON CRASH. She lied.


This is all I have time for during a 1 hour lunch. I'll finish a bit later.

samcol

Did you know that the guy who prepared daily security briefs for Reagan and also briefed Bush I thinks 9/11 was an inside job (Ray Mcgovern)?

Also, the former chief economist for Bush I thinks the same thing(Morgan Reynolds)?

Regarding PM, why didn't they ask why Ashcroft stopped flying commercial airliners prior to 9/11, or why Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco was told not to fly to New York that day. Did Bin Ladin call them and tell them it was too dangerous?

Why doesn't the government just release the videos of the plane hitting the pentagon to clear that whole issue up?

Don't forget about the numerous military drills that depicted flying planes into buildings that day. Of course PM can't answer those questions.

Ustwo

Ummm this was a great conspiracy (right wing, NWO, Illuminatus, whatever) and someone decided to save the Mayor of San Francisco?

__________________
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.

Willravel

It's not about secret organizations or lost treasure or Nicholas Cage. It's a simple matter of some people are willing to do a lot to get what they want. It is a hell of a coincedence that on 9/10, Mayor Willie Brown was told to miss his flight to NY, is it not?

There are questions without answers, and it seems like a lot of people are avoiding asking those questions. Do you ever wonder about any of the occourances surrounding 9/11, Ustwo?

samcol

I'm not sure what you're implying, but apparently the mayor was important enough to be spared. I don't know why and don't really care and it's not really important because all this call shows is that there was prior knowledge by a person, or group in the government that an event was going to happen in New York that day. Which goes against what we've been told that know one ever knew or thought that such a thing could happen.

ash

i think the bush admin benefited from attacks, it makes you wonder if the attacks were generated to democratize worldwide and make an excuse to declare war on the iraqis. with everything going on with oil prices, i think the people need to look at the bigger picture instead of analyzing everything

__________________
"somepeoplesay"

pan6467

We will NEVER know the truth of 9/11. Whether it was truly terrorists, or a government conspiracy or both, we just will not know and thus theories will always come out.

The problem existing isn't 9/11. The problems are: what has the government done since, what is it that is happening that makes the conspiracies so believable and what is being done to refute the conspiracies.

Well, since 9/11:

we have gone to war with a country not involved (yet tried to blame them, falsely) resulting in 1000's maimed and dead and billions that we cannot afford being spent.......... and all the while if anyone complained they were terrorist sympathizers, whackos and their patriotism questioned.

We have seen rights taken away, wiretaps without warrants, due process on hold, trial by jury laughed at, torture in prison camps......... and all the while if anyone complained they were terrorist sympathizers, whackos and their patriotism questioned.

We have seen more of our country sold including most recently our ports security to the Chinese to the point where after the Chinese inspect ships coming in, we cannot.

Finally, we hear how we must lose our rights to protect us from the "next attack" yet we have an administration that allows and almost gleefully promotes illegal aliens to cross our borders, this administration has offered them free healthcare setting aside BILLIONS to take care of them, knows that by allowing them in they can destroy prevelant wages, and so on.... all based on their own or their donators' wallets, not the true safety of ALL US citizens. In which case any one of those aliens can be terrorists ready to make the "next act"............. and all the while if anyone complained they were terrorist sympathizers, whackos and their patriotism questioned.



The only true refuting of anything is attacking the people asking questions and trying to question their sanity. Yet, the government continues to hide information, change stories and outright lie to the people...... so one has to ask, why are they working so hard to refute in these ways and not just bring out the evidence and truly be open?


The biggest and most important question need to be answered: WHO IS PROFITTING THE MOST? Not the US, not the citizens, not the taxpayers..... in fact we are losing far, far more than we did on just 9/11. So Then who is???????????? Follow the money, the insurance, the government billions to rebuild (when nothing has been done yet..... we haven't even fucking accepted a blueprint that I know of.... and if we have it's not been very well publicized), the media's right winged talking heads who carry blindly Bush's agenda, the money spent on the wars (the over charging of fuel to the army, or the payment of goods never delivered, or the substandard armor and protection we have given our men)............ we just truly need to follow OUR TAX MONEY. ............. AND YET: ......... all the while if anyone complained they were terrorist sympathizers, whackos and their patriotism questioned.


We cannot change 9/11. IMHO perhaps the government didn't "do" anything but there is no doubt in my mind they knew it was going to happen and allowed it to happen.

There is far too much money not accountable, too many coincidences and lies and coverups and fraudulent claims and weird unexplainable incidences our government and this administration keep trying to sweep under the carpet and the defensiveness is outlandish. If they have nothing to hide why are they so defensive??????????

FOLLOW THE TAX MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and we will have the answers we seek.

As said on Coast2coast last night (paraphrased): "the US was this great mansion and we ignored the stealing of small stuff.... but not these people have taken the artwork, the furniture, the computers, the games, etc. and are now ripping out the chandeliers, the gold pipes, the marble pillars and even the hardwood floor and aren't even attempting to hide any of the looting anymore."

It's time to speak out, rebel and demand our government be held accountable to its citizenry and not foreign investors, governments or rich. IT IS OUR COUNTRY, IT IS OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS AND IT IS OUR CHILDRENS FUTURE THAT WE MUST FIGHT TO PROTECT AND IF WE ALLOW WHAT IS HAPPENING TO CONTINUE..... OUR PROGENY WILL LOOK BACK ON US AND CURSE US FOR NOT DOING ANYTHING TO PROTECT AND MAKE SURE THEY HAD THE SAME OPPUTUNITIES AND FREEDOMS WE SO ENJOYED.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"