Seaver

Weight of evidence? All I've seen is random theories thrown around because of a general distrust in our government and a seathing hatred of Bush.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

stevo

Don't forget the reptoids. I'm serious. If there is a conspiracy they are most definitely involved.

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

Ustwo

They come for us all!

__________________
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

Okay, how's this?

I've personally spoken to a number of structural engineers since 9/11 about several aspects of the collapse. One of them is the static load bearing ability of buildings. A good friend of mine, a commercial structural engineer, stated plainly and without exaggeration that the industry standard ratio for static loads in building high rises is at least five. This means that if a floor is rated to carry one ton, then it should be able to easily withstand 5 tons without collapsing. Now according to the NIST, the steel in the WTC lost 60% of it's rated strength, which is probably an inflated number, but I'll use it anyway. If the fire, which was said to be around 550 degrees C (1022 F), reduced the rated strength by 60%, that would mean that the actual load bearing ability would have only been reduced by less than 20%. Any engineering student can tell you that 20% loss of strength isn't enough to cause a collapse or even cause warping. If the building was only supporting 20% of it's ability (it is law that a building cannot be loaded over it's rated strength, in actuality, the building was only carrying an estimate 8-10% of it's full strength, or 37-50% of it's rated strength), and the strength of the building was reduced 20%, then you still have a building that's standing strong. It wouldn't have fallen from the heat of the fires. It wouldn't have even moved.

That's not random theory. That's hard engineering experience, industry standards, and simple math put up against the NIST report - the final official explaination for the collapse. Fires could not have collapsed the towers even if they were allowed to burn for days. Both towers collapsed in about an hour. I am suggesting, based on evidence, that something else might have been responsible for the collapse of the building.

stevo

people must think i'm joking. what a shame. when the reptoids come for you, don't be suprised.

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

Seaver

Ok, here is your illogical conclusions.

1) The government purposefully killed 3000 of it's own citizens, causing millions of dollars to clean up said mess. For what? A chance to invade Afghanistan? In an effort to allow Bush to get re-elected?

2) All of the thousands of people who must have been involved supported the plan to kill 3000 innocent citizens in support of a Government who did not appoint them to their current position, and somehow convinced all involved to directly go against their oath protecting and serving the constitution.

3) The planes were not the planes which went missing. The government clearly has them in a hanger in Area 51 for 5 years, with all the passengers. All of the (again) thousands of people involved in transporting said plane, and caring for the passengers for 5 years have no qualms about supporting said kidnapping and murder. Not one comes forward to the news agencies.

4) Every air traffic controller now must be convinced to lie and say the government line of what happened that day. Knowing evidently full well what happened and supporting said murders.

5) The explosives must be placed at the exact floors at which the planes hit. The explosive experts must infiltrate the building, hammer through the walls to place said explosives onto the support beams. Explosives must be placed just perfectly, and magically capable of withstanding a plane crash and inferno without prematurely exploding, and still be able to detonate. Not one of the explosive team or admin come forward.

6) The pilots must have the skill to hit exactly in the right floors in the right position at 500mph. The skill to pull that off must be practiced for years.. skill in flying directly into a building looking like the WTC. Not one pilot or admin officer comes forward. The plane must hit exactly perfect in order to not prematurely set off said explosives. Not one pilot, Navigational Officer, or admin comes forward.

OR

1) Group of terrorists who only exists to kill American civilians spent 10 years and came up with a plan that would work. Using our own anti-terrorism methods of not fighting the hijackers they pulled off a plan.

2) Ability to fly anywhere into WTC in order to set off fire.

3) Said terrorist organization claims responsibility, with financial links proving.

What sounds more likely to you?

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Deltona Couple

sOMEONE IN THIS THREAD EARLIER HAD MENTIONED THIS "At the time of the attacks, I believe a Mr. Silverstein was the leaseholder on the Word Trade Center. He did an interview shortly afterward with a Public Service station - that aired only once. Basically, when he was talking about Building 7, he said that a firefighter had called him up and said that the damage was too extensive. Mr Silverstein, having no other choice, said to go ahead and "pull" it.

For those of you that don't know, "Pull" is a common term used to descibed detonating the charges in controlled building collapses."

For furthur information, in firefighting terms, the phrase "pull it" is also used to mean pull the team out and let the structure burn. just my $.02.

Willravel

Seaver, how do you expect to be taken seriously? You plainly state there is no evidence. I post evidence. You ignore it. Instead of reading my post (I have no evidence here that you've read my post) and responding to it, you simply respond to what you want, whether I've stated it or not.

It's posts like yours that prevent reasonable discussion in Paranoia and Politics.

Deltona Couple

I just realized when this thread started...lol. As far as burning is concerned. I quote a comment here...
"Again, jet fuel, burning in open air, will reach roughly 1,100 degrees at it's absolute hottest - insufficient to actually MELT steel. Certainly it can weaken the steel, but not melt it down. The WTC jet fuel did not burn in open air, thus a lower temperature may reasonably be assumed."

The last sentence is my concern. In a CONTAINED area, not open air, jet fuel burns HOTTER than its open air burning temperature. Just to make sure, I called a friend of mine who is a firefighter.

Willravel

That's a very good point. While there was a hole in the side of the building, it was hardly in open air. Combine that with the fact that both buildings collapsed at free fall speed, and you have to start wondering what really happened.

The initial impact did not weaken the centrer columns, it only fractured a few of the outer colums, the explosion burned off most of the fuel upon impact, what was left burned in a relatively closed area, and produced very little smoke, all of which was grey, not black, they burned for a very short time, firefighters were quoted saying there were explosions inside the building right before the collapse, they both collapsed at nearly free fall speeds, and the material was shipped off before FEMA could inspect it.

What sounds more likely to you?

1) Small fires and very little loss of structural intgrity caused two of the strongest buildings even built to fall in about an hour, and at near free fall speeds.

2) Something else.

Seaver

Why? Because I dont listen to 911u.org? If you've been in college the main thing they teach you is how to question sources... these sources don't stand up to a 3 year old's investigation.

Show me a major news network, some sort of major engineer society, something that says logic. I can claim I'm a structural engineer on a webpage... doesn't mean that what I say has any basis in physics.

And dont blame me for the state of politics. Sorry I dont tout the line of all but a few people and state reasons for conservative opinions.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

fastom

Seaver, does college still involve a whole lot of dope smoking?

I could take your post point by point... but that'd be pointless.

Ustwo

As compared to posts like yours Will which make politics indistinguishable from paranoia. You belong here.

__________________
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

You didn't read post #364, which I posted as a direct response to your post. Why bother posting in a thread if you don't read what other people write?
Do you have anything to say about 9/11, Ustwo?

Seaver

Funny... smoking pot makes you paranoid... and one of the people debunking the paranoia theories is accused of smoking pot?

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Deltona Couple

First, thank you for the compliment, we all should realize htat everyone on here is an adult, and has the right to their own opinions, but then what kind of society would we be ifwe weren't allowed to express it huh?...lol.

In comment to the 'explosions' heard. I am not, nor will I ever claim to be an explosives expert. I have in prior military experience dealt with explosives, but I can't claim to be an expert, but here is something that makes me wonder about using the term 'explosions':
What makes an explosion?
Per Meriam Webster online: ex·plo·sion
Pronunciation: ik-'splO-zh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin explosion-, explosio act of driving off by clapping, from explodere
1 : the act or an instance of exploding <injured in a laboratory explosion>
2 : a large-scale, rapid, or spectacular expansion or bursting out or forth <the explosion of suburbia> <an explosion of red hair>
3 : the release of occluded breath that occurs in one kind of articulation of stop consonants

So by definition do you agree that an explosion, even in SOUND could be the rapid expansion of any gases or material? If so, then an explosive sound COULD be made from any rapid expansion? perhaps water traped in a pipe, heated to over 1000 deg could 'explode' giving off tremendous force, imagine the force involved if water were to be 1000 deg and then suddenly the pipe containing it would give way? LOTS of force as the released water suddenly expands into a gas(remember water boils at I BELIEVE 212 deg? or something close to that. So sudden expansion of water, even if it were being forced out of a broken pipe, if it were superheated then it would boil instantly.
I'm not trying to use this as an explanation of why they fell, or why they fell so evenly, but you have to admit that it CAN explain the possibility of explosive noises? Just some extra information. Forgive me if I repeat anything, I am STILL trying to catch up, I mean you all have 10 PAGES to read up on...lol

host

Sorry all but the pattern here is pretty clear.

Do you really think willravel is some guy who comes up with dozens upon dozens of links, blaming Bush for everything ?

I find it far more likely that willravel is involved in a prolonged propaganda campaign then some guy in his basement obsessed with evil Bush, spending hours of his life making posts for TFP. Perhaps MY post belongs on politics, but no more than this one does.

I decided to delve into the paranoia board to test the waters again, but saddly its a far cry from its height a few years ago. Evil shadow governments in every corner, mass murder for undefined political gain, a Bush behind every tree.

I think its funny just how many of you think the latest terror plot was a plan to boost a political viewpoints chances in some upcomming election without the slightest proof because of the fact that you don't like that political view point.

DDDDave

I don't mean to dissapoint all the reptoids believers but PBS' Frontline did an Emmy Award winning documentary called 'Why The Towers Fell'. Imagine that, they actually talked to the engineer who designed the building and not their 'friend the structural engineer'. The impact and collapse were fully explained. It was a fascinating documentary and they will be doing a follow-up story on September 5.





Building on Ground Zero
http://www.pbs.org/nova/wtc/

Web site launch date: August 24, 2006
Original PBS Broadcast Date: September 5, 2006

In a follow-up to the Emmy Award-winning documentary "Why The Towers Fell," NOVA looks back at the events of 9/11 and reviews the major investigations into the collapse of the World Trade Center. What did the Twin Towers' catastrophic fall teach us about how to improve the construction and security of our most important structures, both present and future? What challenges face architects, engineers, and builders? What obstacles prevent them from adopting new building codes? The film features incisive interviews with key investigators and engineers, including Leslie Robertson, who engineered the World Trade Center towers and takes viewers to the construction site of his current project in Shanghai, touted as the world's tallest structure.

Here's what you'll find on the companion Web site:

*

From Impact to Collapse
Narrated by Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator of the federal building and fire safety investigation into the disaster, this audio slide show details the series of structural, fire-related, and other events that occurred within the towers as they progressed toward sudden, catastrophic collapse.
*

Above the Impact: A Survivor's Story
Brian Clark was one of only a handful of individuals to escape either tower from above the floors where the planes struck. Here, Clark tells his riveting, vividly personal tale.
*

Towers of Innovation
They're gone now, but New York's Twin Towers featured many elements that were groundbreaking at the time: a basement like a bathtub, a building like a tube, and an elevator system like a subway system, among others. In this article, review the buildings' engineering marvels.
*

Outfitting Firefighters
The firefighters that raced up the stairwells of the doomed towers carried several dozen pounds of equipment, everything from axes and turnout gear to thermal imaging cameras and self-contained breathing apparatuses. In this feature, prepare firefighters for a high-rise response.
*

The Structure of Metal
Explore metal at the atomic level and discover how it's structured, why it bends, and what happens when it heats up.

Also Links & Books and a Teacher's Guide

Don't miss upcoming NOVA broadcasts and companion Web sites—subscribe to our e-mail bulletin.

__________________
I am just a simple man trying to make my way in the universe...

"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined." - Thoreau

"Nothing great was ever accomplished without enthusiasm" - Emerson

fastom

Great stuff on that link. Though it appears some of it doesn't help the official story too much.

This is a great story of escape. It details the damage to the building very near the plane impact. The hooey about heat melting the steel sure seems like BS when the survivors are right there walking out. Also he mentions an explosion as his coworker is leaving just as the tower falls. Explain that.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html

balderdash111

Ugh.... I hate to get back into this, and yet the damn thing keeps drawing me in....

Melting steal - I am not sure what you are getting at here. You have seen the images, haven't you? There quite clearly was something melting in those buildings, and it was pouring out the side. The fact that someone was able to use the evacuation stairwells to get past that floor prooves nothing at all.

Did you consider the possibility that the stairs were in a different part of the building? Did you consider that stairwells are designed to insulate people from the fire on the floor?

Is part of your theory that the whole fire was staged? Even willravel will concede - I think - that it was extremely hot on those floors. I thought the argument was that it just wasn't hot enough?

(Of course, as has been pointed out many times before, nobody is saying that the supporting steel actually melted - I don't know what the stuff pouring out the side was, but it wasn't that. Rather, it was heated until it lost so much strength that it was no longer able to support the loads it was carrying.

Again, though, I don't think anyone is saying there was uniform heating throughout the floors where the collapse began. I suppose it is possible for enough of the support to be weakened in one part of the floor to cause the whole thing to collapse. If that is true, then it is entirely possible that this person to be able to get down through the less-hot areas, isn't it?)

Doesn't the fact that so few people were able to escape from floors above the impact strongly suggest that most were unable to get past the floors that were hit?


Explosion on the ground floor - Again, not sure what you are getting at. It's not clear from the man's story how closely the explosion he saw preceded the collapse of the building. Logic suggests there was some time lag, or he would have been crushed by the building when it fell. Are you suggesting that it was some sort of failed or premature demolition explosion?

Even those who argue for the demolition charges theory (which I think is preposterous for many of the reasons cited by others) don't, to my knowledge, suggest the charges were placed at the bottom of the building.

So, fastom, I can't explain the explosion, but I am not sure what you think it proves.

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

Willravel

Balderdash, I'd like it if you read Post 364 from this thread. It seems that it was missed by some people, and I *think* it has some relevant content.

balderdash111

Yes, I read that. It has nothing to do with my post, however.

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

Willravel

Yes, it has nothing to do with your previous post. I was asking if you had any thoughts about the post.

balderdash111

Not particularly, no. I have no idea who your friend is, whether your facts are accurate or whether you have applied your analysis correctly.

I choose to believe the various independent organizations that have explained - to my satisfaction - what happened and why (as an engineering matter, not a geopolitical one). I have seen their credentials and I know what they purport to mean. You may think the entire engineering community is a farce and they don't know what they are doing, but I think you are wrong.

A few interesting things about your post that I choose not to read to much into, as I imagine it was just quick and loose writing on your part:

you say you spoke with "a number" of structural engineers, then talk only about what one of them told you. Should we infer that the others told you something else?

you do not say that the one who told you about load ratios agrees with your theory that the fire did not cause the collapse. Should we infer that he/she does not?

you also do not say whether your friend agrees with your application of the load ratio information to the WTC collapse. did you extrapolate that on your own, or did you work it through with your friend?

Also, a parting thought....

you don't mention in your analysis any of the additional factors contributing to the collapse of the floors, such as any damage incurred when the airplanes hit, any additional weight on the floors due to airplane debris and debris from floors above that were damaged. even assuming your analysis to be correct, the weight on an individual piece of flooring could have been double its usual load, particularly if a section above has fallen on it.

I haven't done the math, but if a floor support is already damaged, or already supporting additional weight, I should think it would be more susceptible to collapse due to fire, no?

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

Willravel

I can't give his name (nor can I give my own). If you'd like, there are plenty of engineers out there, and most of them are only a phone call away.
Here's the thing though...the various independant organizations you mention are in two groups: the NIST and FEMA, and entertainment organizations like the History Channel and Popular Mechanics. The second group is basically a joke from the standpoint of fact checking, as they get all their info from the first group and simply reprint. That means that the 'various organizations' boil down to just two organizations very quickly. Two organization do not represent the entire engineering community.
Most of them told me to fuck off before I could ask them a single question. I don't really count them as against or for my point as they did not give me any information beyond the fact that some peopkle are dousche bags.
He gave me the same answer that most people give me: "I honestly don't know." No one came out and siad I was wrong. A few people said I was probably right, but essentially I was given the 'let me think about it' answer.
He agreed completly. As soon as he told me about the 5 times the rated weight thing I asked him if that meant that it was closer to 20%, and he said yes.
Damage incurred from the airplanes would not have caused the top floor to collapse first, as is varified by photographic evidence taken the day of the collapse. The NIST and FEMA both say that heat, not crash damage, was the cause of the collapse. As for the airplanes themselves, airplanes are quite light, and even lighter when they are ripped to shreds by outer support columns. The weight of the plane would be divided up many many times.

Uncle Pony

Try this link for an in-depth, expert, analysis.

Willravel

Tilted Nonsense might have been a better plac for that link. I can appreciate your point, but I do find it slightly offensive as I have invested a great deal of time and effort in this.

Uncle Pony

Well then, I'll answer you somewhat seriously. In a nutshell, I agree with Seaver when he posted:

A huge government conspiracy involving several hundred (if not thousand) people and planted explosives is not the most likely scenario to me. Like you, it was a likely scenario to the DU poster that I linked. Difinative photographic evidence of a controlled scientific study to support your claims. What more could you ask for?

Willravel

You're skipping ahead to the end. The biginning of the discussion has to start with the facts. Speaking from a simple standpoint of a layman, some of the events surrounding 9/11 don't add up. Once past that, you look at it with the assistence of specialists and trained professionals who can answer your questions. Once you're sure things don't add up and have proof, then you move on to how it was carried out. Once you have that, you move on to whome.

You're skipping to the end.

fastom

May i suggest a reread of that article.

Cynthetiq

really? so one cannot *THINK* for themselves in a manner that works for the individual?

So me, Seaver, and everyone else who engages in this thread has to follow your methodolgy?

I find that quite ironic that a person who is starting off as the simplistic method of Occam's razor is being told they are wrong.

__________________
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.

Willravel

Think of it this way....what's the point of discussing something like this if no one wants to simply look at the evidence? You can think for yourself all you want, but screaming half truths about conclusions isn't going to solve this. Careful breaking down of evidence is the only way that anything is really gong to get solved. It worked really well in the 9/11 thread in politics (with the people who payed attention to it).

You don't have to follow my methodology, and the thread doesn't have to have meaning, but it would be nice if it did. Instead of being a flame magnet, maybe it could have relevence. Instead of being a back and fourth between "You're all f**king crazy" posts and "Why aren't you reading my posts?" posts, we can actually discuss the subject at hand.

Look at post 364, 365 and 366. I posted very specific information that is not paranoia, in my humble opinion, in response to a challenge by Seaver. Insdtead of responding to that, the second post is fmale worthy of banning (in every part of TFP except paranoia. Apparently the rules are different here). The third post, by Seaver, the same person who issued the challenge, ignored my post completly and assumed that he knew everything about the thread. It makes broad stroke accusations hidden awkwardly behind a pseudo-occam's razor argument. He strawman's (example: planes at area 51), generalizes ("Every air traffic controller now must be convinced to lie and say the government line of what happened that day" is pure BS), and even falsifies (there is NO evidence financially linking the al Qaeda or OBL to 9/11, absolutely none. Numerous posts in this very thread prove that, but one wouldn't know that unless one read the thread before posting...) in order to try and support his post.

Those three posts really are this thread in a nutshell. And when I try to lay down some ground rules to fix the problem, I get shot down by a Supermod. The secret to TFPs success is user-maturity. We have rules that remind people that they are adults, and should treat others with respect. When that respect breaks down, so also goes TFP.


Edit: I know that looking at the bigger picture, the 9/11 conspiracy theories look crazy. But the bigger picture is hardly the only perspective. If you really want to prove me wrong, then address my facts, not the conclusions that come after the facts. I've said it many times: my conclusions are my own, and I do not take them to be fact. They are guesses based on evidence, and nothing more. Until you can do that, until you can discuss this at a basic level, it's just meaningless flaming. BTW, Occam's razor is a princeple, not a law. Not all correct explainations are simple or likely.

Cynthetiq

My point isn't to destroy this thread, but actually invite more people to it that have differing opinion and method of arriving there.

If I follow exactly your path, then all that has happened is that I'm able to see and understand where your argument or point of view is coming from. It does not necessarily bring me to a differing opinion from my original.

I'm not shooting anything down. I'm asking how one can "request" that in the spirit you are stating of "respect."

__________________
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.

Seaver

Ben G. Streetman is the dean of the University of Texas school of engineering (ranked 5th in the Nation). He gave a lecture on how it was indeed possible. Sorry if I trust his credentials more than your unknown friend.

Actually no, it's very relevant. Your whole case is that it wasn't the planes that caused the collapse, so obviously it was someone. You have to give conclusive evidence on who that someone was for your case to actually make sense. Since I'm not the one who started pointing fingers at the government doing it, the box was opened by someone else. Therefore I am more than right in attacking said conclusions.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Willravel

Do you have a link or something?
Then you clearly misunderstand my case. I don't have to give evidence of who or what is responsible in order to make my point, just who or what isn't. I am trying to prove that the fire and planes were not responsible for the collapses. If I can prove that to everyone, then I'll move on to the next step. I see little value in exploring the second step in this without exploring the first to it's end.

I have very little confidence in my conclusions about who is responsible because there is so little evidence to support them. I do feel confident in my conclusions about the evidence surrounding the collapses of the WTC Towers and the Pentagon.

I can say with supreme confidence that I have no idea who is responsible for 9/11. All I can say is that I know who didn't do it. Everything else is conjecture.

host

willravel, IMO, you should just keep going the way you are going. All you seem to be doing is asking the questions that need to be asked, and demonstrating the inconistancies in the official "line".

To you and I, it seems strange, and potentially "telling"....that NIST has spent at least $16 million and after 4 years, has no more of a vague determination than FEMA as to what happened to WTC 7, and the 9/11 Commission simply ignored that question completely.

Here is NIST's latest "timetable" for answers....now missed....by months....with no re-promise of when the report that they avoided including in last year's "Final" report, will be issued. The problem here is that the postings from uninformed skeptics who try to discourage the posting of questions and of inconsistnacies in the official "line", interferes and distracts from that very process. It is telling that you are the one who is now given "direction", and not the "baiting" "trolls" who contribute nothing other than attempts to discredit you by "pressing your buttons" via personal attacks both here, and about your posting here.....that they continue to bring up on other threads to discredit you, instead of challenging your opinions.

You are not the problem, my friend. You've been driven here....and now discouraged from even examining this controversy here, as well:
...but in Jan. 2006, NISt was still looking for answers.....
The "work" that is being done here is to compile a record of what does not "add up" in the governments account of what happened on 9/11.

In this post, we demonstrate that not only does the government's account of what happened to WTC-7, the only steel framed tall building in the world, ever to collapse as a result of a structural fire ( it was 47 stories tall and it collapsed less than 8 hours after fire burned on some of it's floors), but that the most respected and technically savvy government agency charged with a scientific investigation and determination of what happened that caused three skyscrapers to all collapse at or near the speed of gravity, into their own footprints, because that agency's mission is to make buiding code change determinations that enhance fire safety and structural integrity, not only did not include the causes of most troubling building collapse of the three, WTC7, in it's "final" report, issued a year ago....but has missed a promised seperate addendum to the final report that was due 2 months ago, and now offers no firm date for that release.

Since WTC7 was not struck by a jumbo airline flying at high speed, the delay in reporting determination of the reasons for it's collapse, puts all other high rise steel framed structures in a state of fire safety uncertainty, along with all
similar buildings planned, or under construction, and those who underwrite insurance of these structures, at a higher exposure to safety and financial risk.

This is the present state of affairs. Nothing else must be "so", for this to be the status of the investigation of what happened. I suggest that those who want to post conditions for what willravel and some others are doing here, to start their own thread and post their opinions there. This subject has already been "driven to paranoia", accompanied with derision towards those who are willing to come here and attempt to have a serious discussion. Since there is no discouraging of "troll and bait posts", is the intent to drive this discussion off of all TFP threads?

Cynthetiq

You guys obviously cannot tell when a moderator is contributing to the thread or moderating the thread. I figure you'd know by now having seen that we have pretty much standardized on COLORING AND BOLDING OUR POST to make sure people know when we have the moderator hat on.

Again, if you are asking someone to change their point of view, reasonsing, opinion. would you want them to just change it instantly? Or would you expect them to approach it with critical thinking and arrive there as you did, by asking the questions and finding the answers for themselves?

__________________
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.

Willravel

My dad is a pastor. My dad also has road rage. One time he was driving and someone cut him off. He flipped the guy off. They guy was a perishner at the church.

My dad didn't have his clarics on. He wasn't performing communion. He thought he was just some guy driving downtown. But then again he wasn't. He is always a pastor. Whether he is blessing someone or shopping for produce at Safeway, he is always a pastor....and that role follows him wherever he goes and whatever he does.

I know you weren't warning anyone about anything as a moderator, but you still are a moderator.
I would hope someone would be able to use critical thinking instead of generalizing, straw manning, and falsifying. Of course the post I was responding to offered no in depth analysis. No critical thinking.

Cynthetiq

But see, I have spoken to engineers as well, from mechinical to structural, industrial to manufacturing. The all see that it's quite possible to have happened as it did without intervention of a conspiracy group.

There is one part that is missing from your load capacity theory and that is motion. Once the material is in motion it no longer can withstand the load as such because the load isn't incremental it is instant. So while you may be able to hold the load a 100lb bag of cement in your arms, it falling at differenet speed than just being "transferred" you cannot hold that same load.

__________________
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.

Willravel

We interveined with the collapse?
I have no doubt that the plane did damage going in. I have no doubt the initial explosion did damage. I do have doubt that a collapsed building that's top floor collapsed first was made to collapse by damage in the middle. I do have doubts that the heat from fire that would be most intense and thus most hot in the middle of the building would cause the top floor to collapse first. I do doubt that any amount of fire damage, impact damage, and a combination of the two, could cause a building as strong as the WTC towers to collapse at near free fall speeds.