Sensible answers to some 9/11 Questions

[Gorilla]

The best part of this whole article...

"12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

THERMITE!!?? Do you even know what it is, how it works, and have you ever used it? Sure, it'll cut through a railroad track IN ABOUT 1/2 AN HOUR! That'd make a great controlled demo.

"OK boys, FIRE IN THE HOLE! Let's come back tomorrow, it'll be down by then.

Oh wait, I know the answer... they started the thermite at precisely 1 hour 40 minutes before the AC impacted.

You are in friggin orbit somewhere near Pluto.

 

[Chaz]

How do you all rationalize the WTC 7 collapse? It seems logic doesn't leave many possibilities outside controlled demolition.

 

[JimNtexas]

How do you all rationalize the WTC 7 collapse? It seems logic doesn't leave many possibilities outside controlled demolition.

The NIST study of WTC 7 is still in progress, but their faq makes a lot more sense than demolition (see question 12 referenced above).

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

• An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

• Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

• Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

I would also refer anyone interested in this subject to this podcast, which includes an interview with FDNY Deputy Fire Chief (ret.) Vincent Dunn, an expert on the effect of fire on buildings in general, and on the WTC structures in particular:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog/science/3769332.html

Chief Dunn is the author of the 1988 book Collapse of Burning Buildings .

The thing that really bothers me about misguided people like RJPilot is that they just wave their hands and accuse thousands of dedicated professionals like Chief Dunn of willing participation in mass murder. I'd sure like to see one of these "truth seekers" say that to the Cheif's face.

 

[Slice121]

(by the way, you also may want to keep up with current events. Fleet deployments, FEMA Concentration Camps, Leaves pulled.. etc etc.. anyone here still of age to be drafted? Get ready.,. i hear the bill is for anyone age 18-42...the first had problems getting through.. but it was a dry run from what i understand... coming to a town near you)

So did you buy your Canadian home and exchange your dollars for twoonies yet? I'm sure you'll flee with the best of them.

 

[Chaz]

Well that is an interesting hypothisis Jim. It might be more believable if the conditions existed for that to happen, which would include massive structural damage and rampant fire. There are plenty of photos before the collapse from all sides that show only spurious small fires and no structural damage.

The burning debris traveled over and around WTC 6 and Vesey St., impacted WTC 7 .......

Ok sure, I'll believe it.

 

[Fugawe]

Well that is an interesting hypothisis Jim. It might be more believable if the conditions existed for that to happen, which would include massive structural damage and rampant fire. There are plenty of photos before the collapse from all sides that show only spurious small fires and no structural damage.

The burning debris traveled over and around WTC 6 and Vesey St., impacted WTC 7 .......

Ok sure, I'll believe it.

Is there something in the air in RJs?

 

[Yellowbird]

There are plenty of photos before the collapse from all sides that show only spurious small fires and no structural damage.

There are also photos, video, and reports of severe damage (inlcuding a 20 story gash) to the south face of WTC 7. Granted, there aren't any really good surveys of the entire south face, but after WTC 1 went down, the few surviving people with cameras had better thing to take pictures of than the surrounding buildings.

The burning debris traveled over and around WTC 6 and Vesey St., impacted WTC 7 .......

Ok sure, I'll believe it.

Look at the collapse videos and satellite photos post collapse - the debris covered a very wide area.

 

[Chaz]

There are also photos, video, and reports of severe damage (inlcuding a 20 story gash) to the south face of WTC 7. Granted, there aren't any really good surveys of the entire south face, but after WTC 1 went down, the few surviving people with cameras had better thing to take pictures of than the surrounding buildings.



Look at the collapse videos and satellite photos post collapse - the debris covered a very wide area.

WTC 6 took a heck of alot more damage than 7. It stood. I would like to see the photos and video of severe damage and 20 story gash. If you have a link please post it.

 

[Chaz]

Is there something in the air in RJs?

Yeah Fagawe, its like the 60's all over again. Only now, the crazies are flying your family around.

 

[JimNtexas]

Chez and RJ Pilot. I have a question for you. Are you willing to type the following words:

"Chief Dunn of the New York Fire Department is a liar."

Because that's what you are saying, and not just about Chief Dunn. You're saying it about the hundreds of professional engineers who participated in the NIST study.

 

[Yellowbird]

WTC 6 took a heck of alot more damage than 7. It stood. I would like to see the photos and video of severe damage and 20 story gash. If you have a link please post it.

WTC 6 wasn't a 40 story building - the structural stresses would be completely different.

Here's you link: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm


Here's a summary:

As for Building 7 and the evidence for Controlled Demolition, lets review the evidence...

What we do have for sure.

1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".

2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesn’t look straight." He then says "It didn’t look right".

3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."

4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".

5) Photographic evidence of a fire directly under the penthouse which collapsed first.

6) The penthouse fell first, followed by the rest of the building shortly after.

7) The collapse happened from the bottom.

8) Photographic evidence of large smoke plumes against the back of B7. Plumes of smoke so large you can't see the entire rear of the 47 story office building.
9) Silverstein is not a demolition expert and was talking to a fire fighter and not a demolition expert. Why would he use the word "Pull" to describe the demolition to a fire fighter?
10) Silverstein denies "Pull" means "Controlled demolition". He said it means "Pull" the teams out of the building.
11) Silverstein did not make the decision to "Pull". (Whatever that means) "they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse"
12) Another fire fighter used "Pull" to describe the decision made to get him out of the building.

What we don't have...

1) Clear view of the large hole

2) Number of columns and location of columns taken out by the tower impact

3) Clear view of all the fires seen on the south side

4) Any sign of an actual explosive.
Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.

​

 

[Chaz]

I am not calling anyone a liar. Nor am I pointing blame to anyone. I think we can all agree that there are only two possibilities.

1. WTC 7 was brought down by fire and damage caused by debris from the towers.
-OR-

2. It was brought down by controlled demolition.

In my opinion, the evidence available suggests possibility # 2. And to think otherwise, I would need to see some compelling evidence or rationalize and talk myself into it.

 

[Fugawe]

Yeah Fagawe, its like the 60's all over again. Only now, the crazies are flying your family around.

Well, at least you guys admit to smokin' something..........now I understand.

Fugawe
:laugh:

 

[Gorilla]

AAAAAAHHHHHHH! Why am I sucked into this thread by knuckleheads who don't understand explosives, metallurgy, tensile strength, yield strength, annealing/normalization of steel, etc etc.

But, but, steel doesn't melt until something like 2600 degrees! A jet fuel fire is only, like, 1900 degrees! True but it flows like butter at well below it's melting point. Almost no strength whatsoever. Secret Mr. Wizard trick - take a bar of steel, heat it to ~ 2000 degrees. Guess what! You can bend it with your hands! You ARE SUPERMAN! YAY!

Oh yeah? It was a demolition using explosives! You can tell because it pancaked! And, uh, someone SAW some funny little booms BELOW the fire! And, uh, a FIREMAN said FUNNY WORDS! Do you have any idea how many tons of composition B or other high explosives would be needed? How many dozens of miles of detcord? How would it be installed, unnoticed? Why not make the building fall sideways? More damage that way. Steel under very high stress yields with a crack/bang that is very similar to an explosive charge.

Well, BUSH DID IT so he can, uh, TAKE THE OIL. Yeah man, it's all BIG OIL and CHENEY! Halliburton, those guys. With the funny top hats. Gee, ya think maybe there would have been an easier way to create a pretext for war? Perhaps a hundred pounds of nerve gas at a mall, with Hussein's fingerprints all over it? But it's a lot cooler to imagine the greatest Rube Goldberg scenario in the history of the world, i.e. the hijacking of aircraft, impact with the WTC, followed by some spook pushing a "controlled demo" button.

Conspiracists: Go read your op manual. You're spending waaaaay to much time with this tin-foil, geek conspiracy rubbish.

 

[Fugawe]

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attack_Simulation&only