Fireproofing key to Twin Towers' collapse

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
In another thread the NIST has been 100% debunked.
The NIST is a goverment agency. It's like saying the Bush Admenistration is suspected of a coverup, then asking members of the Bush Admenistration if they're covering things up. And they say "No we're not covering anything up!".

So, you are basically saying that you believe that it was an intentional demo based on your distrust of the government, not based on any real scientific or engineering data to support your theory.

Steel starts to weaken at 1,500 degrees. If there were a 1,500 degree fire burning 100 to 200 feet away (150 feet - 100 feet, since no way the fire was only on the opposing wall on the other side of the building LOL!) the heat may or .... may not.... still be tooo intense for anyone to stand 150 feet to 100 feet away.

Did you know that the temperature of a candle flame is about 1400 C ?

Just a little factoid that I’d thought I’d throw out there.

Look at the pictures. There's fire burning, and coming out of the initial point of impact long after the plane impacted and disentigrated.

Are those the same pictures with the people standing in them?

The following statement is so bizarre and divorced from reality that it defies belief.

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
In further addition, the guy who made and designed the WTC, Minoura Yamasaki is on record saying each tower was built to withstand multiple hits from airplanes. How much fuel does multiple airplanes carry? A lot more than 1 single plane hitting each tower.

How in God’s green earth did you ever come up with the claim that Minoura Yamasaki designed the towers to withstand multiple airplane impacts?



First of all, Minoura Yamasaki was the architect, not the structural engineer. Minoura Yamasaki did not design the structural system for the towers.

There is a great deal of misinformation out there about those impact calculations.

Here is an excerpt from a great article that covers that issue.

But Robertson still had one more set of structural calculations to perform. Lawrence Wien, who was continuing his fight against the towers, had begun to remind New Yorkers publicly of a Saturday morning in July 1945, when a B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, barreled into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. Most of the 14 people who died were incinerated by a fireball created when the plane's fuel ignited, even though the fire was quickly contained. The following year, another plane crashed into the 72-story skyscraper at 40 Wall Street, and yet another one narrowly missed the Empire State Building, terrifying sightseers on the observation deck. Wien and his committee charged that the twin towers, with their broader and higher tops, would represent an even greater risk of midair collision.

They ran a nearly full-page ad in The Times with an artist's rendition of a commercial airliner about to ram one of the towers. ''Unfortunately, we rarely recognize how serious these problems are until it's too late to do anything,'' the caption said.

The Port Authority was already trying to line up the thousands of tenants it would need to fill the acres of office space in the towers. Such a frightful vision could not be left unchallenged. Robertson says that he never saw the ad and was ignorant of the political battle behind it. Still, he recalls that he addressed the question of an airplane collision, if only to satisfy his engineer's curiosity. For whatever reason, Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.

Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances.

There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later.

The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.

As you can see, your statements: -"How much fuel does multiple airplanes carry? A lot more than 1 single plane hitting each tower," aren't even applicable.

[edit on 13-4-2005 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 13-4-2005 by HowardRoark]

Everyone who believes in the WTC conspiracy always mentions that the architect designed the buildings to withstand an airplane crash. You know what? They did! They stood for several hours after the crashes. When the buildings collapsed, they collapsed just as they were designed to, they pancaked, falling floor by floor instead of toppling over.

Another thought about the architect is that maybe, just maybe, his calculations were wrong. Nobody is perfect. I'm sure the architects who designed the Tacoma Narrows Bridge designed it to withstand high winds.

These arguments have been going like a broken record for nearly 4 years already.

Yes they were "designed" to withstand an airplane impact. You know what else? Your car was "designed" to withstand the impact of an accident, yet people still die in accidents don't they. Apartment buildings are "designed" to prevent fires from spreading floor to floor but it tends to happen doesn't it.

When are you going to realize that the fact that a plan did not pan out to it's textbook printed intentions doesn't mean foul play was at work. Sometimes the best plans in the world don't come through.

Did I anticipate a bad power supply would do in my dear old laptop? Wasn't it "designed" to protect my data? Things happen that don't fit the books sometimes.

Oh and talking about design... as PB&J mentioned, imagine if they fell "over" and not straight down. Wanna talk about casualties?

[edit on 4-13-2005 by Djarums]

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
No, what they didn't anticipate was Bush's younger brother Marvin Bush being incharge of security for the WTC and in charge of security of the airport where the planes were "highjacked".

Except Bush wasn't "in charge of security for the WTC", or Dulles. He was director of a company that carried out some of the electronic security, not quite the same thing.

Oh, and you also forgot to mention that he left the company in the financial year of 2000, to take up a directorship at an insurance company, one of those unlucky enough to be an insurance carrier for the WTC. Not a smart move if he's supposed to be involved, really.

Was the reference to the fact that Newark Airport and the WTC are both run by Port Authority?

Was that news to some people? www.panynj.com...

How about Logan Airport? Did some spooky member of the Bush family control that one too?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
In another thread the NIST has been 100% debunked.
The NIST is a goverment agency. It's like saying the Bush Admenistration is suspected of a coverup, then asking members of the Bush Admenistration if they're covering things up. And they say "No we're not covering anything up!".

So, you are basically saying that you believe that it was an intentional demo based on your distrust of the government, not based on any real scientific or engineering data to support your theory.

I don't "believe". It's a fact its an intentional report made by the US Goverment, intended to support the US goverment. Or do you really think the US goverment is going to admit it was wrong, it initially lied, stalled, hedged, and didn't want to form and independant investigation?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Steel starts to weaken at 1,500 degrees. If there were a 1,500 degree fire burning 100 to 200 feet away (150 feet - 100 feet, since no way the fire was only on the opposing wall on the other side of the building LOL!) the heat may or .... may not.... still be tooo intense for anyone to stand 150 feet to 100 feet away.

Did you know that the temperature of a candle flame is about 1400 C ?

Just a little factoid that I’d thought I’d throw out there.

Here's some more little factoids for ya :

Color tells us about the temperature of a candle flame. The outer core of the candle flame is light blue -- 1670 K (1400 °C). That is the hottest part of the flame. The color inside the flame becomes yellow, orange and finally red. The further you reach to the center of the flame, the lower the temperature will be. The red portion is around 1070 K (800 °C).

- 4 parts of a candle's flame are identified. With only 1 part hot enough to weaken steel. ( 800 degrees C is equal very roughly to 1,500 degrees F )

- But there's much more. A candle flame isn't burning anything. Yeah there's the little string running through the center of the candle, but even that's nothing compared to trying to weaken steel.

- Put a candle flame up next to a steel beam, and nothing will happen. Why? Cuz the steel dissipates the heat of the candle over the surface of the steel. So the candle might give off 1,500 degrees, but the steel beam only feels 500 degrees, (or less). Since the heat from the candle is being dissipated over the surface of the steel beam.
The steel won't weaken. And no way will ever melt.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Look at the pictures. There's fire burning, and coming out of the initial point of impact long after the plane impacted and disentigrated.

Are those the same pictures with the people standing in them?

The floor the people are standing on, have fires on the same floor.

www.prisonplanet.com...


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The following statement is so bizarre and divorced from reality that it defies belief.

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
In further addition, the guy who made and designed the WTC, Minoura Yamasaki is on record saying each tower was built to withstand multiple hits from airplanes. How much fuel does multiple airplanes carry? A lot more than 1 single plane hitting each tower.

How in God’s green earth did you ever come up with the claim that Minoura Yamasaki designed the towers to withstand multiple airplane impacts?

First of all, Minoura Yamasaki was the architect, not the structural engineer. Minoura Yamasaki did not design the structural system for the towers.

Minoura Yamasaki himself stated this. Straight from the "horse's mouth".
www.prisonplanet.com...



Architect:
www.getty.edu...

Architect
A person whose job is to design and draw up plans for a building and to supervise the construction of a building. Often an architectural firm employing several architects is referred to as the "architect" of a building. Sometimes, architects specialize in a particular type of building or phase of a building project


Structural Engineer:
www.newbaybridge.org...

Structural engineer An expert in the behavior and design of structures. Structural engineering deals with structural analysis and design of concrete and steel structures, structural dynamics and mechanics, concrete technology, computational mechanics, structural safety and other related work.

The Architect oversees, supervises, the Structural Engineer. They work together. If the Architect says a building is made to withstand hits from multiple airplanes, he knows what he's talking about. Since he designed it, and oversaw the construction of it.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
As you can see, your statements: -"How much fuel does multiple airplanes carry? A lot more than 1 single plane hitting each tower," aren't even applicable.

Sure they are applicable. If each tower was made to withstand multiple hits by more than 1 airplane, this would include the fuel onboard multiple airplanes.
Since only 1 plane hit each tower, then the fuel onboard 1 plane would be equal to, or less than, the fuel carried by multiple planes.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Originally posted by Djarums
These arguments have been going like a broken record for nearly 4 years already.

Yes they were "designed" to withstand an airplane impact. You know what else? Your car was "designed" to withstand the impact of an accident, yet people still die in accidents don't they.

Are you saying there's a statute of limitations on how long people can question the goverment?
In that case why did it take the goverment over 40 years to admit many Black American soldiers from WW2 were on purpose not given certain medals, when they were responsible for keeping defensive fire on Jap attacking planes after White Americans either died, or ran and hid? For 40 years Black American groups kept up the pressure - until the US goverment finally came clean.

And what about when the US goverment finally admitted to on purpose doing experiments only on Black American soldiers? Giving them diseases on purpose, then pretending they didn't have treatments, or a cure?

Modern cars (the ones with no real bumpers) are designed to withstand an impact of 15 mph. In addition, they are designed with the idea that all passengers are wearing their seatbelts, and that the driver isn't intoxocated.

Next, this point of yours supports everyone who's questioning the newest official goverment claim that fire and intense heat brought down WTC 1 and WTC 2. How many car accidents have there been worldwide? How many skyscrappers have fallen from fire?
If no one ever died in a car the past 30 years, then someone dies, you know something's not right.
If no SUV ever lost a tire in the past 20 years, then suddently SUVs start losing their tires, you know something's not right.
If no Audi ever suddently accelerated by itself from a dead stop, for the past 20 years, then suddently Audi's start accelerating by theirselves, from a dead stop, you know something's wrong.

Apartment buildings are "designed" to prevent fires from spreading floor to floor but it tends to happen doesn't it.

We're not talking about apartment buildings. Or about cars. We're talking about skyscrapers. Made of steel. Many skyscrapers in the past have been on fire. A skyscraper once even got 100% engulfed in flames (the entire building from bottom to top). And it kept standing for days. No skyscraper has ever, every, fell down as a result of fire. None.

When are you going to realize that the fact that a plan did not pan out to it's textbook printed intentions doesn't mean foul play was at work. Sometimes the best plans in the world don't come through.

This point of yours can be used against itself. You say it might not have been built to textbook specs. It might not have performed to textbook specs.
The same can be said it might have been built to text book specs. It might have performed as intended, to textbook specs.

Did I anticipate a bad power supply would do in my dear old laptop? Wasn't it "designed" to protect my data? Things happen that don't fit the books sometimes.

How many laptops, in the world, in the past have been messed up from bad power supply? Now how many skyscrappers in the world have fallen because of fire?

Oh and talking about design... as PB&J mentioned, imagine if they fell "over" and not straight down. Wanna talk about casualties?

[edit on 4-13-2005 by Djarums]

Silverstein finally admitting WTC 7 went straight down from it being demolished on purpose - and not from fire. This adds more weight to the rest of the WTC skyscrappers being brought down on purpose from something else other than the planes, or fire. Demolition of a skyscraper doesn't take 1-2 hours to set up and do.

[edit on 16-4-2005 by OpenSecret2012]

Originally posted by ashmok

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
No, what they didn't anticipate was Bush's younger brother Marvin Bush being incharge of security for the WTC and in charge of security of the airport where the planes were "highjacked".

Except Bush wasn't "in charge of security for the WTC", or Dulles. He was director of a company that carried out some of the electronic security, not quite the same thing.

Being a Director of a company means one is in charge. One has upper management power. He had enough power to do nefarious, clandestine, things and activities.

It was a company spokesman, Barry McDaniel, who's been saying that Bush and the company mearly carried out "some of the security". This isn't the result of any findings from any investigation. Just a statement by a company worker.
Marvin Bush has refused to comment. No major newspaper, magazine, or TV station, has ever tried to ask Marvin Bush for comment. For what his position and job was and entailed. The FBI, HSA, and other "police" agencies, have all refused to investigate Bush, or even the company in charge of WTC security. (Wouldn't it make sense to look at the company in charge of WTC security?!?)

Oh, and you also forgot to mention that he left the company in the financial year of 2000, to take up a directorship at an insurance company, one of those unlucky enough to be an insurance carrier for the WTC. Not a smart move if he's supposed to be involved, really.

A company "financial year" is different than the year on your calender. It varries from company to company. Some companies have June to May as their financial year. Some companies from Sept to August as their financial year.
Even if Marvin Bush left by December 2000, it in no way means he had nothing to do with what happened at the WTC on Sept 11, 2001. Need a common sense example?

A bank gets robbed. The detectives have a hunch it might be an inside job. They ask the bank for employee info going back years and years. Usually 4-5 years prior.

So once again, it doesn't matter if the WTC was fireproofed, or wasn't fireproofed. An inside job would make sure it came down as planned.

The fact that Bush went from being in a high level job at a company in charge of security for the WTC, to being in a high level job at a company insuring the WTC... this alone is intresting enough to warrent investigation. A normal, regular, police detective would suspect an attempt to cover tracks. Marvin Bush didn't personally lose money while at the insurace company. So he suffered no monetary loss.


[edit on 16-4-2005 by OpenSecret2012]

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
It was a company spokesman, Barry McDaniel, who's been saying that Bush and the company mearly carried out "some of the security". This isn't the result of any findings from any investigation. Just a statement by a company worker.

It's relevant information, however, which to get a fair picture is worth mentioning, I think.

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
Even if Marvin Bush left by December 2000, it in no way means he had nothing to do with what happened at the WTC on Sept 11, 2001.

As your only suggestion here appears to be that he might have done so because he had executive power within the company, I'd have thought showing that wasn't the case well before 9/11 makes it unlikely.

Apart from that, it seems you've got this the wrong way around. Bush doesn't have to prove he had nothing to do with it, you (or whoever) need to show that he did. And there's not the faintest scrap of evidence to show that.

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
The fact that Bush went from being in a high level job at a company in charge of security for the WTC, to being in a high level job at a company insuring the WTC... this alone is intresting enough to warrent investigation. A normal, regular, police detective would suspect an attempt to cover tracks.

Only if he'd already decided on guilt already.

[edit on 16-4-2005 by ashmok]

Originally posted by ashmok

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
It was a company spokesman, Barry McDaniel, who's been saying that Bush and the company mearly carried out "some of the security". This isn't the result of any findings from any investigation. Just a statement by a company worker.

It's relevant information, however, which to get a fair picture is worth mentioning, I think.

There's a reason why independent investigation commities are formed.
- The only reason Marvin Bush's connections were found out wasn't because of any news agency. It was because his mother Barbara Bush talked about it in her book.
- Next we have a company worker making a few comments.

- We still have no investigation. Not even an attempt at asking any questions to Marvin Bush, by any, any, major media.

Originally posted by ashmok

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
Even if Marvin Bush left by December 2000, it in no way means he had nothing to do with what happened at the WTC on Sept 11, 2001.

As your only suggestion here appears to be that he might have done so because he had executive power within the company, I'd have thought showing that wasn't the case well before 9/11 makes it unlikely.

Company workers and spokespeople have lied before in the past. We still don't know for a fact exactly when Marvin Bush supposivly quit being connected to security for the WTC. We don't have any sources that are independant to confirm this. Not even Marvin Bush himself will say himself when he stopped being connected.

Originally posted by ashmok
Apart from that, it seems you've got this the wrong way around. Bush doesn't have to prove he had nothing to do with it, you (or whoever) need to show that he did. And there's not the faintest scrap of evidence to show that.

No you have it the wrong way around. Look at this from the point of view of any police investigation. Police make a list of suspects. Then they track them down, and question the suspects. They may even later re-question suspects as the investigation continues. There is resonable suspicion that Marvin Bush had something to do with the WTC mess.
As I said before, when a Bank gets robbed, and the cops suspect an inside job. They don't ask for a list of workers for the past month, week, or even year. They look at who worked at the bank years and years and years and years back. Even if the worker quit working 1 year before the incident.

Let me ask you this:
1. Does it make sense to analyze the company who was in charge of security for the WTC?
2. Does it make sense to analyze the workers of the company that was in charge of security for the WTC?

Originally posted by ashmok

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
The fact that Bush went from being in a high level job at a company in charge of security for the WTC, to being in a high level job at a company insuring the WTC... this alone is intresting enough to warrent investigation. A normal, regular, police detective would suspect an attempt to cover tracks.

Only if he'd already decided on guilt already. Which of course you have, haven't you?

[edit on 16-4-2005 by ashmok]

Pre-planned crimes are just that - pre-planned. "What happens if we get suspected?", "What happens if we need an allibi?", "What happens if some media get wind we once worked for security for the target?"
Marvin Bush isn't deciding on guilt. Neither am I. I am decided on wanting to see a through investigation. And part of a through investigation is freeekin investigating the company that handled security for the WTC.
If Marvin Bush has nothing to hide, then he'll stop ducking attempts to ask him questions.

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
There is resonable suspicion that Marvin Bush had something to do with the WTC mess.

Then tell us about it. It needs to be more than you simply saying so, though, or the fact that his name is Bush.

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
If Marvin Bush has nothing to hide, then he'll stop ducking attempts to ask him questions.

When has he ducked attempts to answer questions?

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
I don't "believe". It's a fact its an intentional report made by the US Goverment, intended to support the US goverment. Or do you really think the US goverment is going to admit it was wrong, it initially lied, stalled, hedged, and didn't want to form and independant investigation?

So you are claiming that the hundreds of researchers and scientists that work for NIST are in on this “coverup?”

What about the thousands of scientists, engineers and researchers that rely on NIST data and findings?

Are they in on it also or are they so blind and ignorant in their chosen professions, that they can’t see that they have been fooled?

- Put a candle flame up next to a steel beam, and nothing will happen. Why? Cuz the steel dissipates the heat of the candle over the surface of the steel. So the candle might give off 1,500 degrees, but the steel beam only feels 500 degrees, (or less). Since the heat from the candle is being dissipated over the surface of the steel beam.
The steel won't weaken. And no way will ever melt.

Once again, folks, we have a person who is not only ignorant of the difference between temperature and heat, but he also refuses to learn the distinction.


One candle won’t met a steel beam, I’ll agree with you there. How abaout 1,000? 100,000 candles? What if I had 1,000,000 candles or 670 million candles?

The total heating value of a single 100 gram candle is about 0.8 BTUs.

A gallon of kerosene has a heating value of 134,000 BTUs.

5,000 gallons of jet fuel would have a heating value of about 670 million BTUs.

Minoura Yamasaki himself stated this. Straight from the "horse's mouth".
www.prisonplanet.com...

Bad link. I found your page, however, and I will not pay money for a Alex Jones video.

Architect:
www.getty.edu...

Architect
A person whose job is to design and draw up plans for a building and to supervise the construction of a building. Often an architectural firm employing several architects is referred to as the "architect" of a building. Sometimes, architects specialize in a particular type of building or phase of a building project


Structural Engineer:
www.newbaybridge.org...

Structural engineer An expert in the behavior and design of structures. Structural engineering deals with structural analysis and design of concrete and steel structures, structural dynamics and mechanics, concrete technology, computational mechanics, structural safety and other related work.

The Architect oversees, supervises, the Structural Engineer. They work together. If the Architect says a building is made to withstand hits from multiple airplanes, he knows what he's talking about. Since he designed it, and oversaw the construction of it.

You don’t know any architects and structural engineers, do you?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
As you can see, your statements: -"How much fuel does multiple airplanes carry? A lot more than 1 single plane hitting each tower," aren't even applicable.

Sure they are applicable. If each tower was made to withstand multiple hits by more than 1 airplane, this would include the fuel onboard multiple airplanes.
Since only 1 plane hit each tower, then the fuel onboard 1 plane would be equal to, or less than, the fuel carried by multiple planes.

Once again. There is no evidence that the buildings were designed to withstand hits from multiple airplanes. One calculation was done to see if the building could withstand the damage from a single impact! The effect of the fires from an airplane impact was not considered in this calculation

Silverstein finally admitting WTC 7 went straight down from it being demolished on purpose - and not from fire.

Where did he state that?

The “pull” statement is not a claim that the building was demolished, but rather an acknowledgement that the fire department was going to pull their people out of the building and let it burn.




[edit on 18-4-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by ashmok

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
There is resonable suspicion that Marvin Bush had something to do with the WTC mess.

Then tell us about it. It needs to be more than you simply saying so, though, or the fact that his name is Bush.

OMG! A bank gets robbed. There's some suspecion it's an inside job. Even though the cops don't know yet if the security guard was part of the robbery, or not - they still question and investigate him!
Same with all the Bank workers. The cops also check up on who's worked at the bank... not the past 5 weeks, or months, but the past years. Cuz the cops know an employee who might've worked as long ago as 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, could've set things up for the robbery!

No one has investigated the company in charge of security for the WTC!! No major news media, TV station, newspaper, magazine, nothing!

You saying "it needs to be more than me" raising a stink is a sad commentary on you, and perhaps the rest of America. "Gee umm, if only 1 or a few people say something's wrong, but the majority of people say everything's fine, then everything must be fine."

Many, many, major news stories first broke from 1, one or a few, people raising a stink saying "look at this!". Even though the majority were ignoring it. The guy who got gang rapped by the NYC police inside the police station bathroom by cops in uniform. The hundreds of Black Americans who were DWB for no reason at all. The USA goverment has a looong history of coverups that got busted first by 1 or a few saying "something's not right. Look at this!". Like the servicemen who were given diseases on purpose, then the cure withheld on purpose.

A bank robbery happens. One of the guys who worked as a security guard for the bank, and in addition, worked for the company that picked up money from the bank. He then quit before the robbery. Oh BTW, he and the president of all the bank branches, happen to be brothers.

George Bush is the president of the USA. The USA suffers what looks like one of its worse ever terrorist attacks on home soil. His brother worked security for the target of the attack. His brother also at the same time worked security for the airport. His brother quits working before the attack happens.
"Oh Marvin Bush quit over 1 year before the attack so there's no connections at all!". Yeah? Why do cops do an employee background check streching back for years and years during a normal investigation? Because even the lowest ranked cop, a "flatfoot", knows an employee can set things up and quit loong before the incident happens.

Originally posted by ashmok

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
If Marvin Bush has nothing to hide, then he'll stop ducking attempts to ask him questions.

When has he ducked attempts to answer questions?

The same way George Bush, and Kerry both ducked questions about their membership in the same secret organization - the Skull and Bones Society. The news media refused to officially ask both of them about it. Until the power of the internet become soo much, the story stayed alive and wouldn't be allowed to die off. That the media was finally forced to ask Bush and Kerry about them both being members of the same secret society.

The same with Bill Clinton when he cheated on his wife. The media refused to ask him official questions about it. To investigate the "allegations".

It's the same with Marvin Bush. The news media refuses to officially investigate his involvement with the security for the WTC, and the airport. The US goverment also refuses to investigate his involvement with security for the WTC. No one will investigate, no one will ask him any questions.

The news media, the police, the investigating agencies, are suppose to all investigate the obvious. To not do so, is allowing the possible culprits to duck hard questions. Questions that could, and will, lead to the truth. (As what finally happened with it coming out that Bush and Kerry were both members of the same secret society.)
Purposly not asking a person who worked security for both the WTC and the airport, any question, and doing no investigation, is allowing that person to duck. Just like Clinton was allowed to duck cheating on his wife (until it was forced to be investigated.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
I don't "believe". It's a fact its an intentional report made by the US Goverment, intended to support the US goverment. Or do you really think the US goverment is going to admit it was wrong, it initially lied, stalled, hedged, and didn't want to form and independant investigation?

So you are claiming that the hundreds of researchers and scientists that work for NIST are in on this “coverup?”

What about the thousands of scientists, engineers and researchers that rely on NIST data and findings?

Are they in on it also or are they so blind and ignorant in their chosen professions, that they can’t see that they have been fooled?

1. Is the NIST a goverment agency? Yes or no? Yes... or.... No?

2. Is the American goverment being suspected of covering up some, or all, of what happened with the WTC? Yes or no?

3. Has the US goverment in the past ever covered things up? Yes or no?


--------------------

The entire thing with if the Jet fuel did weaken the steel in the WTC is moot to me. Let's say the Jet fuel and the fire resulting from it did so weaken the steel in the WTC, which made it fall down/ Yeah? So what?

Let's say there's no way the fuel and the fire were able to weaken the steel in the WTC. So what?

Both instances are moot due to the fact Marvin Bush was the, or one of the, inside men, who set things up. He made sure the WTC would fall down, no matter if the fire was hot enough, or wasn't hot enough.

This thread is about the fire from the fuel. I'm posting saying it's a moot point. It's a tiny branch part of a much, much, bigger branch, which is part of a much, much, much, bigger tree trunk. I'm trying to get the posters and lurkers to stop aiming for the tiny branch, and start aiming for the tree trunk! Marvin Bush. Who was working security for the WTC and for the airport! Marvin Bush who hasn't been questioned, or investigated by anyone. Even though in all other investigations, ya darn right the security employees are always investigated. Not just the immediate employees, but former employees going back for years and years!

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Minoura Yamasaki himself stated this. Straight from the "horse's mouth".
www.prisonplanet.com...

Bad link. I found your page, however, and I will not pay money for a Alex Jones video.

The link works perfect. Force yourself to control your belief system that the US goverment can't ever be wrong... would never cover something up.... and calmly click on one of the menu choices at that link:

Windows Media Broadband: Click Here

Windows Media Dial-up: Click Here

Apple Quicktime Broadband: Click Here

Apple Quicktime Dial-up: Click Here

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Once again. There is no evidence that the buildings were designed to withstand hits from multiple airplanes. One calculation was done to see if the building could withstand the damage from a single impact! The effect of the fires from an airplane impact was not considered in this calculation

1 guy did that calculation. Another guy named Minoura Yamasaki did his calculations. Right after 9-11 he stated his results in the press. It's all at that link I gave. Calmly click on one of the menu choices, and calmly watch, and re-watch it.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Silverstein finally admitting WTC 7 went straight down from it being demolished on purpose - and not from fire.

Where did he state that?

Watch the video at that link. Sivlerstein himself is on the video saying this himself, from his own mouth, with his own words. As well as other people who were eyewitnesses, like the... ummm... firemen!

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The “pull” statement is not a claim that the building was demolished, but rather an acknowledgement that the fire department was going to pull their people out of the building and let it burn.

[edit on 18-4-2005 by HowardRoark]

Incorrect.
1. WTC 7 did not fall down because of fire. WTC 7 never ever never burned down. There were a few fires on a few floors that suddently, and mysteriously started for no reason. The few fires in WTC 7 weren't out out control!

2. Meanwhile, in 2 other buildings that were right next to the WTC, no fires started. And either no damage, or very little damage, happened to them. (The Mellinimum Sheraton Hotel skyscraper was one of them).

3. In addition, WTC 7 was built to server as a millitary grade pillbox. A bunker.. In an emergency the mayor, FBI, CIA, and other agencies, were to use WTC 7 as their HQ. Since it was specifically designed to be a pillbox/bunker.


WTC 7 is the key, the wind that blows apart the house of cards of lies being spewed forth by the goverment.

Watch the freeeeeeeekin video LOLOL!

:hey

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
You saying "it needs to be more than me" raising a stink is a sad commentary on you, and perhaps the rest of America.

I'm in the UK, not America, and I don't see why asking you to justify what you said is a "sad commentary" on me. Still, beneath all the bluster I see you offer no reasons whatsoever to suspect Bush of anything, other than his name.

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
Purposly not asking a person who worked security for both the WTC and the airport, any question, and doing no investigation, is allowing that person to duck

So let's get this right.

Originally you tried to make Bush sound like he was acting suspiciously by ducking questions. Now you admit there were no questions, but still claim your first statement was correct?!

Well, that's really not a defence I'd like to rely on in a court of law. Top marks for twisting, though.


[edit on 21-4-2005 by ashmok]

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
1. Is the NIST a goverment agency? Yes or no? Yes... or.... No?

2. Is the American goverment being suspected of covering up some, or all, of what happened with the WTC? Yes or no?

3. Has the US goverment in the past ever covered things up? Yes or no?

So your logic goes thus:

If A is part of B, and

In the past B has done C, then

A has done C.

Interesting page regarding other steel buildings that have serious fires and did not collapse. Don't know about the reliability of this page (but makes for interesting reading). Shows pictures of the burned out buildings.

www.serendipity.li...


[edit on 4/21/2005 by DCFusion]

opensecret, read through this, please.

www.firehouse.com...

Firehouse: From that point, (after the second tower collapsed) if you took a panoramic sweep, what could you see? There’s debris. There’s dust. How about the building at 90 West? Could you see that? Did it have a fire in there right away?
Hayden: We had a good fire in there. We had the equivalent of a fourth-alarm fire in there. We had fire in 50 and 7 World Trade Center. We had fire in 90 West. We had a smaller fire in one of the apartments in Battery Park City that we dispatched companies up there to put out. We had a water supply problem because I remember the water main was broken. Actually, to get water over in our sector over there at West and Liberty we got one of the fireboats to draft for us. It turned out it was the retired John J. Harvey that started drafting for us. That’s what got us water. When somebody total me the Harvey was pumping water, I said the Harvey? Thank God it was there because it pumped for us for about three to five days. Chief Mosier took the operations in 90 West. I gave him X amount of companies. I said just hold it, keep her from jumping the street. The Marriott Hotel was across the street. I said just don’t let it get out of the building here, just try to confine it, and he did a great job up there. They got some lines. They were able to hold it and contain it.
Firehouse: The building just south of that was the Marriott.
Hayden: Across the street. That’s what I was concerned about, that the fire would jump the streets. We had exposure problems, so Bobby’s function was just to contain the fire there. They had a big air shaft in there and he was able to get a line across the shaft and keep it in one wing of the building on the upper floors. And eventually it burned itself out. There was a good fire condition. It was pouring smoke and fire out of there. We were going to a fourth-alarm fire there. If you had to really address this fire, you would be trying to handle it as a fourth alarmer and he had nowhere near that, so he did a good job with that. We also were doing searches along all the debris in front of the Marriott and out on West Street, the void searches.
Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Jay Jonas told me that at one point, when he had finally made his way out of the debris, you were standing on top of a truck?
Hayden: Yes. It was covered in debris. I got on top of the rig only to establish a presence there. There was a lot of confusion, a lot of chaos. That was my command post in that sector. I stood on top of the rig and people could see who I was, that there was a chief in charge and that people could come to me and I’d give them assignments. It worked. I didn’t realize it at the time, but it worked. People could point, there’s the chief over there, rather than out of all this chaos and destruction, where was there a command post? You couldn’t even make out West Street. So I saw the rig. I got on top of the rig and I stayed there. And eventually we got a bullhorn, a radio. I had a bullhorn and we were able to get some type of order in the assignments and what we were doing. We tried to get some type of accountability. I gathered everybody around me. There were hundreds of guys and there was a lot of confusion. I had everybody take their helmets off for a moment of silence, and it calmed everybody down. Then, I said, please assist the chief officers in getting some accountability here. Whether you’re on duty or off duty, give them your name, your unit, and give it in to the chiefs. The chiefs made up a list and I had started getting a list of who I had working on the site there, also. It was just an attempt to gain some kind of control.
Firehouse: So you were able to move forward a little bit at that point?
Hayden: At that point. And then also when I got everybody around. I didn’t know how many chiefs I had there. I just told them what we’re going to do, we’re going to split this up into companies. I did it by getting them to stop and take their helmets off for a moment of silence.Once I had the moment of silence, then I started giving out the orders to everybody about what we’re going to do. After that, we had some type of organization. That’s the only way I could have done it. I couldn’t think – I needed help. It was a desperate measure.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in. But you could see the fires burning in 4, 5 and 6. They became fully involved. We had fire on the 15th floor of one of the high-rises. I gave a battalion chief two companies. I said go up there, put this fire out. I told him, don’t call for any help, don’t give any signals, just put the fire out and come back and tell me when the fire’s out. This is all you’re getting, put it out. Fortunately, you know, it wasn’t large, it was out one window. At some time that night, it was dark and I had had it. I went down and I got my eyes washed out. They took me to the eye station and then they took me to Bellevue. I had my eyes washed out and then I met up with my brother, who’s also a firefighter.

oops, I forgot, he works for the governemnt. He must be part of the coverup.


[edit on 21-4-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
Incorrect.
1. WTC 7 did not fall down because of fire. WTC 7 never ever never burned down. There were a few fires on a few floors that suddently, and mysteriously started for no reason. The few fires in WTC 7 weren't out out control!

To the contrary, no one was fighting the fires. Therefore by definition, they were not “in control.”

2. Meanwhile, in 2 other buildings that were right next to the WTC, no fires started. And either no damage, or very little damage, happened to them. (The Mellinimum Sheraton Hotel skyscraper was one of them).

Not all of the surrounding buildings were damaged or had fires. Many of them did, however. Your point proves nothing.

3. In addition, WTC 7 was built to server as a millitary grade pillbox. A bunker.. In an emergency the mayor, FBI, CIA, and other agencies, were to use WTC 7 as their HQ. Since it was specifically designed to be a pillbox/bunker.

It was a “millitary grade pillbox?”

Where did you come up with that? LOL

Oh, and continually telling us that the WTC7 fires were "minor" doesn't make it true. The video clip at www.911myths.com... is very short, and doesn't show flames, but there's enough smoke coming out of the south side of the building to suggest significant fires on multiple floors.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
Incorrect.
1. WTC 7 did not fall down because of fire. WTC 7 never ever never burned down. There were a few fires on a few floors that suddently, and mysteriously started for no reason. The few fires in WTC 7 weren't out out control!

To the contrary, no one was fighting the fires. Therefore by definition, they were not “in control.”

No, the fires were noticed, and being taken care of/about to be taken care of. But then Siverstein gave orders for the Firemen to stop fighting the fires and move back. Because Siverstein somehow mysteriously dynamited the building. Even though no one was seen going in with dynamite. Even though it takes hours to set up a building for demolition.

Originally posted by HowardRoark

2. Meanwhile, in 2 other buildings that were right next to the WTC, no fires started. And either no damage, or very little damage, happened to them. (The Mellinimum Sheraton Hotel skyscraper was one of them).

Not all of the surrounding buildings were damaged or had fires. Many of them did, however. Your point proves nothing.

Thanks! You've just supported all my points! You admit many other surrounding buildings had fires! Now how come they didn't also burn up, or have to get dynamited like WTC 7 because of its "extreem fire damage"?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

3. In addition, WTC 7 was built to server as a millitary grade pillbox. A bunker.. In an emergency the mayor, FBI, CIA, and other agencies, were to use WTC 7 as their HQ. Since it was specifically designed to be a pillbox/bunker.

It was a “millitary grade pillbox?”

Where did you come up with that? LOL

WTC 7 was a super-unique building. It was ment to serve as the official command post for the goverment of NYC. And in addition as a command post for Federal goverment agencies. In the event of a mass dissaster - biological, nuclear, blackout, war, natrual dissaster (earthquake, flood, city-wide fire, hurricane, etc... etc...). In order to serve this function, WTC 7 was built with pillbox specs. A pillbox is military slang for a reinforced, fortified building. Re-inforced enough to stand up to attack in order to protect the very important occupants inside.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Originally posted by ashmok
Oh, and continually telling us that the WTC7 fires were "minor" doesn't make it true. The video clip at www.911myths.com... is very short, and doesn't show flames, but there's enough smoke coming out of the south side of the building to suggest significant fires on multiple floors.

Smoke is'nt an indicator of how serious a fire is! LOL! The only thing smike potientially indicates is what type of material is being burned. Some materials make more smoke than others, some make different color smoke than others.

A paper-fueled fire for example could be utra-intense but give off less smoke than an oil or plastic-fueled fire that's very minor.