Originally posted by HowardRoark
Did you forget about the fact that they were both struck by airplanes

Did you forget that, based on NIST figures, the fire would've had to have done 4x the work of the impacts to cause a single floor to collapse?

So us any steel skyscraper, Howard, where fire has compromised 60% of the structure. We've seen horrible skyscraper fires, and none of them have done the kind of damage you're trying to tell us the WTC fires did.

OK fair enough on the sprinklers that is a possibility.

But there wasn't enough damage to WTC 7 to compromise the whole building.
We've seen no pics of raging fires or compromising damage.

All we have is people assuming the fire must have been big to have bought the building down. Assumptions can blind you...

Do you have pics of WTC 7 we haven't seen?

Originally posted by Damocles
so, if the fires never heated any of the steel over 250c, yet a typical m-14 grenade burns 4000 degrees,then how does your thermite theory fit in?

They wouldn't report it as evidence of demolition, I'm sure. If employees found the columns, they would probably think it was from the columns being cut after the fact or etc., and at any rate, NIST's report was completely set within the official premise of pancake collapse right from the start and it would never have been published with anything but theories trying to give credibility to that idea.

if the building was demo'd by the local officials cuz they were in fear that it could fall on the rescuers and crews that would be working in the area, it COULD have been a quick and dirty job. not saying thats what happened just what could have happened.

The collapse is like a perfect job. It falls right down onto its footprint like the most conventional of conventional demolitions. And this was a big skyscraper, too. Not as big as WTC1 and 2, but still a very large, 47-story building. It looks like it had explosives on each floor in just the right places, which would be hard enough to pull off within such a small amount of time without there having been fire in the building. I don't see how the charges could have been placed in there like that on 9/11.

ok, no disrespect but thats reaching for straws. unless they got some new silent explosives.

They wouldn't have to be that silent when you have the roar of thousands of tons of falling metal and concrete and everything else all around at the same time. Those collapses were loud. Individual conventional explosives may have stuck out, but even though C4 makes sense to me too, how do we know that's what was actually used? You apparently agree that we have no way of knowing this kind of stuff. The best we can do is to show that there seems to have been more energy used during the collapses than would've been naturally available by, say, the full weight of the 13 lightest floors. The fact that those floors, once they started to fall, never slowed down despite numerous obstacles that should have made them slow, and that they continued at the same rate the whole way down, is enough of a problem for me, even if I can't name off any particular HE's that you could pin the charges on.

but to date...theres not been ONE single person come forward. are they all cowards or sadists?

There have been people that have come forward. Indira Singh is one of them, was there on 9/11 as a medic, and you know what she's said (on a television conference)? That she's had a gag order placed upon her and last I heard, she was trying to get her lawyer to fight it so she could get more out through major media without consequence (which is the only way you would hear about her to begin with, and the media is a very corrupt institution in itself). And there have been others that have came forward and said they've had gag orders placed upon them, and the media will absolutely not pick up these stories. William Rodriguez's legal case against Bush, et. al. mentions the gag orders placed upon witnesses, but you can only get to his testimony if you get a copy of his court document (which I have a pdf copy of). Both of these people have testimony that points to explosives being used, though I don't think Singh has stated that opinion outright. I think I remember reading one article by a witness saying that the fire and police departments in whole had received the same orders, though I doubt the whole departments had juicy testimony anyway, but I don't remember any names for that one either. Realistically though these people don't have too many places to go for them to make you familiar with their names and stories unless you know them personally already or something.

So those are some of my thoughts on that, but either way there have been people that've come forward with their testimony. It's just that no one's really listening. I only came across Indira Singh by total accident, for example. Rodriguez is well known because he's been making a big deal about it, complaining that the 9/11 Commission wouldn't accept his testimony, and traveling around trying to get international investigations started and etc.

Now I will explain to you why the plane couldn't have significantly damged the core EVEN IF IT HIT IT HEAD ON.

We know that most of the plane at the pentagon was vaporized by the front of the building since there was virtually no wreckage on the front lawn and not a big enough hole for the entire thing to have entered.

Here is the outer wall at the pentagon that vaporized much of the craft...




Now at the wtc the plane made it through the massive steel exterior......but it would have naturally been shredded in the process.

So how could a shredded aircraft then proceed to slice through a concrete reinforced steel core that is thicker and stronger than the wall at the pentagon??

Here are the dimensions for ONE core column.....




Here is a close up of the massive core as it's being built...


This pic shows the exterior steel that it had to pass through in comparison to the massive nubs of the core columns sticking up in the center.....


And for scale so you realize just how big the exterior steel columns are that it had to pass through first.....take a look at the big burly construction worker in the bottom left of this photo touching one of the columns....




Bottom line..the core could not have been damaged by an obliterated plane that barely clipped it.




[edit on 5/11/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Stateofgrace,

See, they have pictures, charts, diagrams, they know the trueth. they know it was planned. they don't care about your evidence. There's is right. Yours is wrong.

Keep going...I'm still on your side...This was no conspiracy...

You got my vote for way above...

they won't let me vote for you again...it must be a conspiracy..ats is against me.

[edit on 11-5-2006 by tommy1701]

You have refuted NOTHING that I posted and I had to go into greater detail because you IGNORED what I had previously posted while pretending to have refuted it with irrelevant information about debris coming out the north face!

Good riddance.

There is no place in intellectual debate for antagonistic, sarcastic, obtuse, rude, and juevenile individuals such as yourself.

you left at the back door the moment you started wrongly accusing people of mass murder.

Ok so you are calling me out for not being civil simply because of my position on this issue!

Classic.

Have fun training to be a taco bell manager.

Originally posted by Damocles

Originally posted by Barcs
cough! cough! BUILDING 7 cough! ahem!

Funny how everyone is so focussed on the towers yet everyone forgets the most obvious sign of controlled demolition there is. If building 7 WAS demolished, then WTC1 & 2 were also demolished. That's the bottom line.

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Barcs]

that is the goofiest logic ive seen in a while. first off, the jury is stil out on 7. but im willing to say that its possible. i cant rule it out like i can 1&2.

but lets say that 7 was demo'd. couldnt it be a case of insurance fraud? wasnt it on fire and the guy said "pull it" which is many peoples basis for a conspiracy there? (thats assuming he wasnt saying "pull the fire brigade out its lost") its easy to concieve that he was going after the insurance money as he felt he'd lost everything anyway.

but thats just my opinion. to say "oh if 7 was a demo job the whole thing was". it wasnt.

if any conclusive proof ever comes out that it was demo...ill buy the first round of beers for anyone in this discussion.

The "pull it" comment is a tiny part of the theory on building 7. It could have been insurance fraud. BUT, the one thing you forget is that controlled demolitions have to be planned WAY AHEAD of time. They couldn't simply send an explosives team in there while it has a huge fire inside of it. If 7 was a controlled demolition, then the explosives HAD to be planted there ahead of time. If they were planted ahead of time, then there was definitely foreknowledge of 9/11 which was not only ignored, but used to their advantage. That indicates conspiracy, and if that IS the case, then they would have demolished the WTCs as well. There'd be no sense at all in demolishing building 7 if the Twins towers didn't collapse. It's simple logic. If building 7 was demolished by controlled demolition, then the twin towers were as well.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Now I will explain to you why the plane couldn't have significantly damged the core EVEN IF IT HIT IT HEAD ON.

We know that most of the plane at the pentagon was vaporized by the front of the building since there was virtually no wreckage on the front lawn and not a big enough hole for the entire thing to have entered.

Here is the outer wall at the pentagon that vaporized much of the craft...

Which has nothing to to with the WTC towers, but go on. . .

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Now at the wtc the plane made it through the massive steel exterior......but it would have naturally been shredded in the process.

You realize that the thickness of the side plates of the exterior columns was around¼ inch in the impact zone, don’t you?

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
So how could a shredded aircraft then proceed to slice through a concrete reinforced steel core that is thicker and stronger than the wall at the pentagon??

WTF are you talking about? Where are you getting your Pentagon comparison from?

”concrete reinforced steel ? Where did you come up with that one?

Please provide backup to support your contention that the core was built with concrete reinforced steel.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Here are the dimensions for ONE core column.....

Uh, dude, you do realize that you are posting pictures of the bases of the columns, you know the part that sits on top of the foundations. It even says so in the image file name: “col_base.jpg,” and “corebase1.jpg.” I hope you are not trying to suggest that the columns were that thick the entire height of the building, are you?

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Here is a close up of the massive core as it's being built...

Judging by the buildings in the background, they were barely off the ground in that photo. How about a picture of the core columns from the impact floors?

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
This pic shows the exterior steel that it had to pass through in comparison to the massive nubs of the core columns sticking up in the center.....

(Photo edited out - HR)

And for scale so you realize just how big the exterior steel columns are that it had to pass through first.....take a look at the big burly construction worker in the bottom left of this photo touching one of the columns....

(Photo edited out - HR)

“big burly construction worker “ Sorry I just had to laugh at that considering your handle and avatar.


I’ve got a better photo. This is one of the exterior column trees that was knocked off of the opposite side of WTC1 from the impact. This is from the actual impact zone. No big, burly, construction workers though.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Bottom line..the core could not have been damaged by an obliterated plane that barely clipped it.

Barely clipped it? Where did you come up with that?

How many of the core columns were box columns and how many were I-Beams in the impact zones for each building?


[edit on 11-5-2006 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 11-5-2006 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
Let me break this down for you again since you are having trouble getting it.

The plane entered at an angle. The diagram below on the left shows the how.....

It looks like the fuselage is directly in line to hit one of the corner core columns. to me.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Have you addressed the fact that most of the Building ended up outside their own footprint

Can you explain why this would negate demolition theory in the first place? I would think explosives from within the building sort of would propel material outwards, but hey, what does common sense mean anymore?

Erm, call me crazy, but I'm sure I've always heard them referred to as IMplosions when they do a controlled demolition, as in the building implodes.

EXplosives are used to create the IMplosion.

When they brought down the Canberra Hospital the implosion went wrong and debris was thrown into and all the way accross Lake Burley Griffin, killing a little girl.

The point of a CONTROLLED demolition is that all the debris lands in a neat little pile because the building implodes, it falls in on itself. Explosives are used to break the supports in a very carefully timed sequence, not blow up the building.

Any idiot can use explosives to blow a building up, just ask timothy McVeigh, but it takes an expert to bring a building down.

Great posting Stateofgrace. You've got my Way Above vote.

Cruz,

Thanks for the support. Stateofgrace can use it. His arguments are well reasoned and believable.

I don't claim to know anything about structures, buildings, controlled explosions but, stateofgrace seems to know his stuff.

He needs our support...I voted him Way above too.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
When they brought down the Canberra Hospital the implosion went wrong and debris was thrown into and all the way accross Lake Burley Griffin, killing a little girl.

Let me guess -- explosives were used?

The point of a CONTROLLED demolition is that all the debris lands in a neat little pile because the building implodes, it falls in on itself.

If that's why you want to control the collapse, then sure. If killing people isn't something you're very concerned about, but making the demos look natural is, then there you go. And you can control it to do that.

I hope you guys understand what blowing those towers up did. It suddenly put our country into the exact mentality needed by our administration to get into war in the Mid-East, something they were already planning on and wanted for reasons that belong in other forums here.

Now, what part of that would be accomplished by blowing the buildings up and being totally obvious about it? The buildings would have to come down to really drive the point home, but making them obvious demos would just raise a lot of unneeded questions and complicate things. People would probably be smart enough to realize that that sort of job would be extremely difficult without some help along the way, unless the WTC security team that Bush's brother ran up until just before 9/11 was really a front set up by al Qaeda, and even that would be a horrible scenario for the public to become aware of.

And that's why the collapses were set up to look natural. For someone to be so confused as to not understand why the towers would not've been conventional demos, they've obviously missed the point and have some serious reflecting on current global events to catch up on. Or history.

It's called a psych-op. The military does them to achieve military goals. Sometimes, they involve civilians. It happens. It's certainly happened before, many times. The Nazis did it at least twice. You may deny such a thing as fascism could hit the US, but think of it this way: there's a precedent for it now. I'm sure no one before the Third Reich could've ever imagined such a horrible thing could happen, and then there was no precedent for anything so atrocious being carried out by men. Not only is there now a precedent, but the same type of corporate power behind fascism is still in full swing in the West, and the same banks and everything. And really, the casualties on 9/11 aren't anything compared to how many people die all over the world on a regular basis because of power abuses that are largely because of Western influences. It just doesn't happen to us spoiled Westerners that often, because

Originally posted by tommy1701
I don't claim to know anything about structures, buildings, controlled explosions but, stateofgrace seems to know his stuff.

He needs our support...

Wow dude. I wish I could express what I'm thinking after reading this, but, it would take a poet. Deny ignorance much?

But there was a lot of noise, and plenty of reports of explosives going off, even from the NYFD, so what's your point?

LOL I have been following this post from the beggining.

Just because you claim to not hear explosives doesn't have the slightest effect on what I and others can hear, including NYFD personel who were there.

You are making the claim that there were no explosions heard and that there was no noise which is just BS, regardless of your background or expertise.