WAR: Former Bush Administration Economist Believes WTC Felled by Controlled Demolition

LMAO Muadibb. I could not give a # what you think anymore. There is tons of proof in that article. It's just not what you want to hear. So, why don't you go crawl back under a rock.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
LMAO Muadibb. I could not give a # what you think anymore. There is tons of proof in that article. It's just not what you want to hear. So, why don't you go crawl back under a rock.

Really? what kind of proof?... they proclaim that for weeks there were hot molten pools of steel...that's BS, steel does not stay in a molten state that long without a source of heat powerful enough to maintain it in a liquid state....

And if all you have for proof are dimwit comments, you lost the argument already jamuh.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by Muaddib]

I provided an entire article of proof. If you don't have the balls to debunk all of it, that's your problem not mine. All the answers you want are in that article. Maybe you can find a debunking on Daily India, or whatever paper you read.

[edit on 18-6-2005 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Jamuhn
I provided an entire article of proof. If you don't have the balls to debunk all of it, that's your problem not mine. All the answers you want are in that article. Maybe you can find a debunking on Daily India, or whatever paper you read.

What proof?...i can probably find articles in the internet where they proclaim to have seen the fairy tooth and Elvis making up...does that mean it is true because you can find it in the internet?....

The hot molten pools of steel statement alone would be more than enough proof that the site has a bunch of BS in it. What are the sources corroborating what they are claming? nowhere....because noone can corroborate lies.

You need a reality check i fear.

I'll humor you...for now...

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center.

Are you saying you know better than the people sent to clean up debris? Tell me, how much time did you spend at the World Trade Center following the collapse? Are you some sort of pyschic or something?

Or maybe you just think you are....

I fear you are just being a dumbass who didn't even read the article.

Once again, to people that want the real truth:
www.americanfreepress.net...

[edit on 18-6-2005 by Jamuhn]

Can you actually find the AFP article and the corroboration for this statement and that this was happening?....

Where are the proclamations of "high school physics geniouses" explaining how in the world a hot pool of steel is maintained in a molten state for weeks without any source of power to keep the steel in that hot liquid state?.....

Originally posted by Muaddib
Can you actually find the AFP article and the corroboration for this statement and that this was happening?....

Where are the proclamations of "high school physics geniouses" explaining how in the world a hot pool of steel is maintained in a molten state for weeks without any source of power to keep the steel in that hot liquid state?.....

Well, if you didn't catch the AFP article the first 2 times I posted it, here it is again...www.americanfreepress.net...

And, for the second time, I'll quote this in relation to your question:

American Free Press has learned of pools of “molten steel” found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic “spikes” at the beginning of each collapse.

As I said, all you need do is read the article and it will answer your questions.

And for more corroboration of the hot molten steel:

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.

“Yes,” he said, “hot spots of molten steel in the basements.”

These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said.

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

And Muadibb, you still haven't told me when you were sent to inspect the World Trade Center site.

Haven't you learned by know that Christopher Bollyn is highly inacurate, and given to wide and wholesale distortion of data in order to slant his so-called "articles?"

For instance in that very page that you linked to, the whole siesmic theory has been thoughly debunked, by none other then the very scientists whose works, Bollyn tried to twist and distort to fit his own twisted world view.


Edit:


Why don't you read the orignal report to start with

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...



[edit on 18-6-2005 by HowardRoark]

Uuuummmmmm. The owner of the WTC said (see 'In Plane Sight") that, 'we decided to pull bldg 7 because of the damage." Ok, so they sat on the dynomite plunger waiting for the towers to colapse and as soon as they started to go they "pulled" bldg 7. And then there are the people who swore they found the black boxes and gave them to the FBI. And then the government sold the debris to a Chinese scrap company so there is no way to inspect the steel for blast damage. I do remember Bush saying on tv not to listen to conspiracy theories. What an odd thing to say when the dust had not even settled in NY. This is when I started to have headaches.

Originally posted by zarzura
The owner of the WTC said (see 'In Plane Sight") that, 'we decided to pull bldg 7 because of the damage."

No, he didn't.





[edit on 18-6-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by Jamuhn


www.americanfreepress.net...

This source is not nearly used enough. The American Free Press is a great website by the way.

Once again, I would like to point out that the whole seismic argument is B.S. with Christopher Bollyn claiming to know more about siesmology than the seismologists themselves.

As a reliable and credible source, he sucks pond scum.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Once again, I would like to point out that the whole seismic argument is B.S. with Christopher Bollyn claiming to know more about siesmology than the seismologists themselves.

Can you point out the discrepancies to me? Or should I just take your word for it?

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Once again, I would like to point out that the whole seismic argument is B.S. with Christopher Bollyn claiming to know more about siesmology than the seismologists themselves.

Can you point out the discrepancies to me? Or should I just take your word for it?

Did you bother to read the original report?

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

Pay real close attention to the scales on the graphs. both the time scale and the amplitude scales. These change in the various traces of the siesmic signal. look at figures 3 and 4. Tell me where the so called "spikes" are in those figures.

look at the amplitude and the time scale of those seiemic traces and then look at the amplitude and the time scale of figure 1.

It doesn't take a geneous to see that the so-called spikes are actually the seismic traces of the colapses themselves.

Bollyn is totally disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

As Arthur Lerner-Lam himself said of Bollyn's claims: ""There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."


The traces of the impacts and the collapses.




See? No spikes.

Where'd that graph come from? It wasn't in the document you sourced. Nor do you source your quotes. What's up with that?

Can you explain the graph to me? Can you explain the ones in the graph you posted?

C'mon man, you have to do more than just post a pretty picture to convince people. The graphs in the document do show spikes.

[edit on 19-6-2005 by Jamuhn]

OK, now to see an image from the document actually referenced. I have no idea where your's came from HowardRoark.


Notice the two lines demarcating the first and second collapse. You see the two BIG spikes preceding the recorded time for the collapse? Let's raise a couple flags there.

First off, it would be amazing if ALL of that jetfuel fell down elevator shafts, and none of it set the steel support beams on fire. One of the quotes was talking about a building that stood for over 12 hours after an 800+ degree fire. I'm happy to hear that buildings are that safe. Too bad jetfuel burns at over 2000 degrees. It didn't have to melt the steel, just heat it enough that it would warp, and once it started to warp it would shear from the pressure of trying to hold the upper floors of the building up. Combine the incredible heat of a jetfuel fire, with the incredible damage done to the steel from the impact and you have a collapse in the making.

Second, there were four engineers that were interviewed that stated that once the upper floors went from the warping up the supports, then there was no way the building would stand. The way the building was constructed left no extra support in case something like this happened. The outer portion of the building was a large part of the support structure. Since the outer walls were compromised by the impacts, the building had lost almost half of the support. Once the inner supports started to warp there was no chance at all.

Third, Once the upper floors went, the sheer weight of them added to the weight of the building would cause the lower floors to collapse. As the lower floors went, they would add more weight to the floors below them, so you would have a chain reaction that would cause the building to go down faster and faster. We're talking hundreds of tons of weight that these floors weren't designed to support. Remember that before the damage, the outer walls were a large part of the support, so once the floors went down, the outer wall was damged more, causing more weight on the inner beams, causing more damage to the walls as they collapse....etc. The more floors that went, the faster the building comes down. As it was collapsing it was gaining speed. This came from several engineers, including two of them that actually worked on building the WTC.

[edit on 19-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

Here's a little more from experts.....
Because the Empire State Building had been hit by a low-flying plane in 1945, both buildings were built and designed to sustain a direct hit of a slow-flying Boeing 707, the largest plane at the time. However, the jets that hit the towers on Sept. 11 were much larger Boeing 767s and were traveling at speeds close to 500mph.

The collapse

It's the opinion of many experts that the WTC towers didn't collapse because of the impact of the crashes, but rather as the result of the catastrophic effects of the burning jet fuel. Prof. Ted Kranthammer of Pennsylvania State University estimates jet fuel temperatures ranged from 1,000-3,000[degree sign]F. At 1,000[degree sign]F steel loses up to half of its tensile strength and starts to buckle and deform, and at 1,400[degree sign]F it retains only 10-20% of its overall strength. These temperatures are much higher than what would have been expected from typical office furnishings and wouldn't have been figured into the original design.

The remaining fuel not immediately consumed in fireballs was believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact. According to the FEMA report, "The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the building's contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings. The heat output from these fires is estimated to have been comparable to the power produced by a large commercial energy generating station. Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and the resulting damage was sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures."

Without the protection of the fire-resistive coating, the intense heat from the burning jet fuel was allowed to heat the floor trusses to the point at which they sagged and eventually failed. During a British Broadcasting Corp. interview, structural engineer Chris Wise said, "It was the fire that killed the building. There's nothing on earth that could have survived those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning." This type of failure produced two fatal structural problems. First, with the failure of the floor trusses, the exterior walls were no longer tied to the core. Without this critical connection, the exterior walls were allowed to buckle from the weight of the structure above them. Once this occurred, the weight of the huge mass above the impact point started to fall, gaining momentum and crushing the structurally intact floors below. The added weight from each floor falling on the floor below it added to the pancaking effect, producing a progressive collapse, which resulted in the catastrophic failure of both structures.

Here's the entire article for those that want to read it.
www.findarticles.com...

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Well, if you didn't catch the AFP article the first 2 times I posted it, here it is again...www.americanfreepress.net...

Oh i am sorry...i thought you actually meant the real AFP, and not some fourth rated "nobodyknowsit" site....

This is the real AFP site....
www.afp.com...

BTW....just one question....you actually think that giving a link to a site that gives no corroboration at all with any reliable links of what they say, or any links at all for that matter, and which talks about theories that have been debunked, and makes claims that anyone with half a brain can realise is BS, and you think you won the argument?......

Originally posted by Jamuhn
As I said, all you need do is read the article and it will answer your questions.

I read part of what that site says.... i couldn't believe anyone would be so naive to believe such obvious lies.... The link does not anwser any questions...it just makes BS stories which have not one inch of truth.

First of, what explosives are capable of making pools of hot molten steel, and how is it possible for steel to stay in a molten state for 5 weeks with no heat source? which would have to be hot enough to maintain the steel in a molten state for 5 weeks.....

Originally posted by Jamuhn
And for more corroboration of the hot molten steel:

WTF?...you are trying to corroborate the story from that site....with more stories from that same site?.....

I don't think you know what corroboration means...

[edit on 19-6-2005 by Muaddib]

A) The purpose of a newspaper is to "corroborate" their own stories. The corroboration of pools of hot molten steel was made from at least two different sources who were there. You weren't.

B) American Free Press is primarily a newspaper, which I've seen in many places. I've never seen or heard of the other AFP until you brought it up.

C) A link to the original study has been posted along with a relevant chart. Note: HowardRoark's chart doesn't come from that source. I'm not sure where it came from.

D) I don't have any answers as to how molten steel would remain in the basement of the world trade center 5 weeks after the collapse. Nor does the American Free Press.

E) Once again, I didn't realize the goal of these conversations were to win an argument. Obviously they are to you, and I'm not sure what that says about you as a person, but maybe you have a lot to think about.

If you think I believe this story then that is your problem. I am merely open to the possibility, and haven't seen any STRONG evidence to the contrary as of yet, but perhaps Howard will provide some sources and links to his information.

The only thing you have are sensational statements similar to, "If you believe this, you are stupid." You're a bad person Muadibb, and I feel sorry for you.

If you want to keep this up without providing any links, or contrary information, than you will be doing so by yourself and to no avail. Frankly, this isn't worth my time anymore, and neither are you.

I'd rather converse with people like HowardRoark who have something to offer.

Sleep well, don't let the terrorists get you.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
A) The purpose of a newspaper is to "corroborate" their own stories. The corroboration of pools of hot molten steel was made from at least two different sources who were there. You weren't.

Says them with no corroboration at all....which means it is a rumor which most probably is a lie, until you can actually give a real news source corroborating this....

Originally posted by Jamuhn
B) American Free Press is primarily a newspaper, which I've seen in many places. I've never seen or heard of the other AFP until you brought it up.

The real AFP, Agence France-Presse, is the third largest newspaper in the world... not that fourth rate link with BS stories....

Originally posted by Jamuhn
C) A link to the original study has been posted along with a relevant chart. Note: HowardRoark's chart doesn't come from that source. I'm not sure where it came from.

All you have to do to find from where his chart came from is right click the image, hit properties and it will tell you the URL it came from... The image comes from Popular Mechanics, an actual reliable site, not that bs site you gave.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
D) I don't have any answers as to how molten steel would remain in the basement of the world trade center 5 weeks after the collapse. Nor does the American Free Press.

They don't have any awnsers because their claims are lies....steel does not stay in molten state for 5 weeks without having a heat source powerful enough to maintain itself, and the steel in a liquid state....

Originally posted by Jamuhn
E) Once again, I didn't realize the goal of these conversations were to win an argument. Obviously they are to you, and I'm not sure what that says about you as a person, but maybe you have a lot to think about.

The goal of these conversations is to find the truth, you can't find the truth by posting lies and obvious bs stories with no corroboration but what a fourth rated website claims...

Originally posted by Jamuhn
If you think I believe this story then that is your problem. I am merely open to the possibility, and haven't seen any STRONG evidence to the contrary as of yet, but perhaps Howard will provide some sources and links to his information.

You haven't seen any strong evidence?.... Are you still going to school or college? Ask your physics/chemistry professor if it is possible for steel to stay in a molten state for 5 weeks with no heat source to maintain it in that state...

Then ask your physics/chemistry professor what explosives are powerful enough to melt steel....

When he/she gives you the answer then you will realize what that story from the website you are so willing to believe is......

Originally posted by Jamuhn
The only thing you have are sensational statements similar to, "If you believe this, you are stupid." You're a bad person Muadibb, and I feel sorry for you.

wow, now you are playing the victim.....
I am a bad person huh?...the first one who decided to be a jerk and back your claims from a bs site was you....when anyone is a jerk towards me, i respond in the same manner...if you respond in a civil manner, I continue the conversation in a civil manner...."do unto others as they do unto you" that's my motto, if you don't like it, then perhaps you should have thought twice before being a jerk.

Anyways, as you said in your first response in this thread, I don't give a # what you think, more so because you decided to be a jerk. I care about the truth and theories that can be corroborated, not lies, exagerations, and fantasies.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
If you want to keep this up without providing any links, or contrary information, than you will be doing so by yourself and to no avail. Frankly, this isn't worth my time anymore, and neither are you.

I'd rather converse with people like HowardRoark who have something to offer.

Sleep well, don't let the terrorists get you.

Jamuh....you are not a new member of these forums...you have been here long enough and have participated in previous discussions we had about this same topic....all the links, corroboration and excerpts which debunk what that site you gave has, can be found in the forums...in several threads.

One that I can remember is called "9/11 The Feds did it" or something similar. In that link a lot of evidence can be found debunking the demolition story and some of the other stories. There is a link around which has most, if not all links to threads about this topic.

BTW, here is a thread on this topic, with the response from a moderator and member, astrocreep, who has a degree in construction and 10+ years experience. (more experience than me) He sums it up pretty good in this link. This is actually the first time I see this thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

My own degree is only in computer and electronics engineering, although i have worked in my uncle's construction company for 2 years and was a mapper of government, private and public properties for 3 years. I am not a civil engineer but at least know that you need to know more than "high school physics" to claim that you are an expert in this topic, and i can see when a story is bs.

I apologize if i am impatient with some people, but i can't stand when someone posts about something they obviously have no idea whatsoever about, but keep claiming that bogus stories are true.


[edit on 19-6-2005 by Muaddib]