Popular Mechanics responds to Rosie the Ranter

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
In PBS's "Building on Ground Zero" they state that the floors held right up till the collapses started.

Correct the floors held, the collapse was not started by pan caking.

[edit on 1-4-2007 by Stateofgrace]


[edit: trimmed quote to relevant portion]
Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Really ?




Or try reading here.
www.911myths.com...

I don't think you looked at the extent of what I was trying to discuss with you and rather are just attacking a small portion of my statement. Don't take it out of context.

Sooty smoke = bad fuel/air ratio.

And yes, I understand materials also makes a difference. But you're still not understanding the main point behind the whole argument with the look at smoke and fire temperatures. The fires were in no way in any position to compromise the steel globally. Re-read what I posted. Thanks.

Try here.

www.911myths.com...

LOL By the way I would love to point out how cliche it is for you to just throw a link at me and be like "here read this". Where is your input? Lacking to say the least.

Anyways, you have pools of molten material, again, on a simple basis, take a look at what the possibilities of what they could be? The Aluminum off the facades? Nope. How can you get pools of molten materials? From high amounts of a certain material. What was there a huge presence of at the debris zone?

I read your link and do not think it presents a whole picture to the scene but rather offers, for the most part, arguments that can easily deter you from looking forward and asking more questions.

Indeed, so why mention molten metal if it not an indicator of explosives. ?

LOL Indeed, I never mentioned explosives. Molten Metal does not necessarily equal explosives were used.

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

So back to the original argument, do you still maintain the the plane impacting the columns (exterior and interior) caused it to be "Severly compromised"?

I'd like the go back and point out my main arguments:

Argument 1 - Showing your statement to be incorrect in that the columns were not severly compromised upon impact from the aircraft.

Argument 2- The fires prior to collapse were in no position to bring the towers to their knees.

We can seriously sit here all day and talk about the molten metal found at the basements of both World Trade Center 1 2 and 7.

Or about pressurized air (refuted on this board by Wecomeinpeace).

Or about devils in the smoke clouds.

Or about holograms.

But those aren't anything I can strengthfully talk about, as opposed to the situation of World Trade Centers 1 and 2 and the moments leading up to their collapses .

Great post......... I like the way you put it together, the popular mechanics response, but more than anything that it brings out both sides of this debate here on ATS. I am still undecided although I am leaning toward the conspiracy side. Great post nevertheless..... Let's Keep Our Minds Open!

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Like what? I am curious as to what you have an issue with.

Maybe you could be specific and we could discuss this issue.

Oh gee, where to start.. I have been researching and posting information for over a year on here and other forums. The biggest thing is thier are no FBI and NTSB crime scene reports on any of the crime scenes on 911.

1. Evidence shows that the planes impacts on the towers did not casue them to collapse.

2. Evidence shows the fires in the towers did not burn long enough or get hot enough to weaken the steel.

3. We have no official report on what caused building 7 to collapse.

4. We have no video, photo or official reports on what hit the Pentagon.

5. Flight data recorder from the Pentagon shows a different path then what the official story tells.

I have a lot more evidence , where would you like to begin the debate.

please , share this "" evidence "

Originally posted by Masisoar
I'd like the go back and point out my main arguments:

Argument 1 - Showing your statement to be incorrect in that the columns were not severly compromised upon impact from the aircraft.

Argument 2- The fires prior to collapse were in no position to bring the towers to their knees.

We can seriously sit here all day and talk about the molten metal found at the basements of both World Trade Center 1 2 and 7.

Or about pressurized air (refuted on this board by Wecomeinpeace).

Or about devils in the smoke clouds.

Or about holograms.

But those aren't anything I can strengthfully talk about, as opposed to the situation of World Trade Centers 1 and 2 and the moments leading up to their collapses .

Yes we can talk no end about the various conspiracies surrounding 911 but to no avail.

So argument 1.

A plane slams into the side of each tower, slicing through the external steel supports and it is your position that they were not compromised?

Argument 2.

The fires were not hot enough to bring the Towers to their knees. So it is your position that the damage from the planes and the fires, these were two events, not one, were not enough to lead to catastrophic structural failure?

Maybe we should just extend this argument to how would anybody know this? How would anybody know that these two events were not going to bring the Towers down? They had to know this for absolute certain or there would have been no point in rigging the Towers in the first place, correct?

Equally so we could even extend it to how do the explosives that were preplaced survive both of these events?


[edit on 1-4-2007 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 1-4-2007 by Stateofgrace]

Originally posted by Stateofgrace

Equally so we could even extend it to how do the explosives that were preplaced survive both of these events?

OK, I will admit I hate to quote wikipedia but in this case they are right on the Money

. C-4 is also well known for its durability, reliability, and safety. It will not explode even if hit by a bullet, punched, cut, or thrown into a fire.

en.wikipedia.org...(explosive)

also

A major advantage of C-4 is that it can easily be molded into any desired shape. C-4 can be pressed into gaps/voids in buildings, bridges, equipment or machinery.

seems like the perfect stuff , fits in with what you required

Originally posted by Stateofgrace

Yes we can talk no end about the various conspiracies surrounding 911 but to no avail.

So argument 1.

A plane slams into the side of each tower, slicing through the external steel supports and it is your position that they were not compromised?

Argument 2.

The fires were not hot enough to bring the Towers to their knees. So it is your position that the damage from the planes and the fires, these were two events, not one, were not enough to lead to catastrophic structural failure?

Maybe we should just extend this argument to how would anybody know this? How would anybody know that these two events were not going to bring the Towers down? They had to know this for absolute certain or there would have been no point in rigging the Towers in the first place, correct?

Equally so we could even extend it to how do the explosives that were preplaced survive both of these events?

Why are you misquoting me again? I said the exterior columns and interior columns were compromised, just not severely, like you state. Also, NO, I don't see them playing an important role in the collapse.

For your second statement. That's to say they intended on bringing down the towers, which is up to speculation. Also I'm not pre-supposing explosives, thermite or any type of incendiary was used because I don't see enough conclusive evidence to support any of that thus far. Just like I don't see enough conclusive evidence to support to official story the way they like to word it.

My position is that the plane impacts did what they did, destroyed some exterior columns and caused damaged to the core. Then you had the fireball, and then you had the jet fuel burn for the brief period it did and then you had fires ensue afterwards which just weren't strong enough to cause a global failure and cause the collapses within the times they did. It's just ridiculous to believe a building can be so easy to compromise. The jet fuel, the impacts played a role but nothing significant structural integrity wise, otherwise the building would of collapsed shortly after impact, but you had the ensueing fires to blame for the real failure, but that's pre-supposing "the fireproofing was knocked off" which I haven't seen evidence of yet and other factors.

But it's just not simply the case. The NIST has stated itself about fire temperatures, and the temperatures the steel reached when being exposed to those fires. (Remember fire temperatures do not equal steel temperatures because of heat absorption.)

I don't think you're bringing this argument anywhere, just being sort of mindless and not knowing exactly what you're attacking. Go read some more k thanks.

So back to the original argument, do you still maintain the the plane impacting the columns (exterior and interior) caused it to be "Severly compromised"?

Leslie Robertson thought so, good enough for me.

Originally posted by Masisoar
Why are you misquoting me again? I said the exterior columns and interior columns were compromised, just not severely, like you state. Also, NO, I don't see them playing an important role in the collapse.

For your second statement. That's to say they intended on bringing down the towers, which is up to speculation. Also I'm not pre-supposing explosives, thermite or any type of incendiary was used because I don't see enough conclusive evidence to support any of that thus far. Just like I don't see enough conclusive evidence to support to official story the way they like to word it.

My position is that the plane impacts did what they did, destroyed some exterior columns and caused damaged to the core. Then you had the fireball, and then you had the jet fuel burn for the brief period it did and then you had fires ensue afterwards which just weren't strong enough to cause a global failure and cause the collapses within the times they did. It's just ridiculous to believe a building can be so easy to compromise. The jet fuel, the impacts played a role but nothing significant structural integrity wise, otherwise the building would of collapsed shortly after impact, but you had the ensueing fires to blame for the real failure, but that's pre-supposing "the fireproofing was knocked off" which I haven't seen evidence of yet and other factors.

But it's just not simply the case. The NIST has stated itself about fire temperatures, and the temperatures the steel reached when being exposed to those fires. (Remember fire temperatures do not equal steel temperatures because of heat absorption.)

I don't think you're bringing this argument anywhere, just being sort of mindless and not knowing exactly what you're attacking. Go read some more k thanks.

I am not misquoting you; I am stating for the record your position, which you have in fact restated.

You have stated, without any form of proof, or calculations that this



did not seriously compromise the structural integrity of the building.

Please, offer up your calculations that support your theory and please offer up how you are qualified to look at this photograph and ascertain the damage.

I have equally stated my position and I equally now restate it. The external supporting columns of each tower were seriously compromised.

The static weight above each area did not go away, it was a constant, and it was bearing down on the severally compromised supporting columns. The fires were serious enough to cause the floor trusses that were attached to the severally damaged load bearing external columns to buckle and bow inwards. This buckling was not uniform, it caused further stress and stain on the remaining supporting structure.

The fires, irrespective of being global or local simply added to the already seriously compromised supporting structure.

I have and you have video of the external columns bowing INWARDS prior to collapse.

I have photographs of the central cores standing after the towers collapsed.

FACT the central cores failing did not start the collapse.
FACT the central cores survived the collapse.
Fact the external columns were seriously compromised and lost their ability to support the above static weight.

If you dispute these facts, offer it up.


[edit on 1-4-2007 by Stateofgrace]

[edit on 1-4-2007 by Stateofgrace]

[edit: removed nested quote]
Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Stateofgrace

I am not misquoting you; I am stating for the record your position, which you have in fact restated.

You have stated, without any form of proof, or calculations that this



did not seriously compromise the structural integrity of the building.

Please, offer up your calculations that support your theory and please offer up how you are qualified to look at this photograph and ascertain the damage.

Where are your calculations to say it is, if you want to put it that way.

I have equally stated my position and I equally now restate it. The external supporting columns of each tower were seriously compromised.

With respect to what? The whole building or just that wall of the building? Because eitherway, you still have a network of other exterior columns + trusses + interior columns woven together as a basis of support.

So with respect to what? The whole building or just that side of the building?

The static weight above each area did not go away, it was a constant, and it was bearing down on the severally compromised supporting columns. The fires were serious enough to cause the floor trusses that were attached to the severally damaged load bearing external columns to buckle and bow inwards. This buckling was not uniform, it caused further stress and stain on the remaining supporting structure.

You're telling me, because those particular exterior columns were taken out, that the whole building's structural integrity was greatly at risk?

Also, where is this bowing and buckling? Can you show pictures of this? Because I haven't seen any thus far. The only bowing and buckling you can see occur is at the moment of collapse when everything on one given floor failed simultaneously.

So you're saying one badly damaged side caused a simultaneous global collapse? And that's because you also believe the fires were obviously hot enough to do enough damage.

Tell me, how do you get a simultaneous collapse then. You have a complete floor just give out when the "one side of the building" you claim to be the weakest point, is the "weakest link" to the puzzle.


Do you understand HOW MUCH BOWING would have to occur, not to mention you still have to explain away just HOW the interior of the building just apparently obliterated itself from existence and allowed the whole rest of the building to fall. The trusses didn't pull down the interior columns, that's impossible. Because if the bolts holding the trusses on the exterior columns weren't strong enough, how in the hell did they manage to bring down the interior columns?

Tell me.

I have and you have video of the external columns bowing INWARDS prior to collapse.

I have photographs of the central cores standing after the towers collapsed.

Show me.

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
You have stated, without any form of proof, or calculations that this



did not seriously compromise the structural integrity of the building.

Check out FEMA chapter 2, it has detailed info on the damages to the perimeter columns by the impacts in both towers. You'll find less than 15% in either building was knocked out, just on the impacted floors.

Then check out NIST simulations of the damage sustained to the core. They even changed a plane's trajectory to get the most damage they possibly could, and only got something like 7 columns severed out of ~50, and a slightly larger number that sustained anywhere from major damage, to a scratch. The rest were perfectly fine.

Let's assume the total equivalent redundancy of a given floor is at least 200% (more than reasonable -- overshooting your target loads by a factor of 2, or 200%, is common for CONVENTIONAL construction; skyscrapers and experimental structures tend to have much greater safety factors, at least ~5).

Even in that bare minimum of column redundancy for safety reasons, the structures were in no danger of collapse from the plane impacts alone. A lot was left for the fire to do, and so much catastrophic failure from fire is completely unprecedented.

[edit on 1-4-2007 by bsbray11]

He doesn't understand that, I've tried explaining that.

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
Correct the floors held, the collapse was not started by pan caking.

Roger that. That revelation puts a MAJOR blow to the counter-'squibs' argument. I'm specificialyl referring to the ones that are seen far far below the 'demo-wave', the ones that are soem 40 floors beneath it and appear very early in the collapse. The reason is because it makes it even more difficult and unlikely for the compression etc to make its way that far down so early. If the floors were dropping out on the inside well before what we can see dont on the outside, it leaves room for that argument, but since NIST has declared (and video review shows) that wasn't the case it leaves need for an explaination.

I'm working on a video for it, about halfway done. Now the damn narrating part... argh....


In it I'll suggest a third hypothesis which applies to the other line of arguments here in this thread:

Charges may have been used on a smaller scale (than one would expect compared to a full out demo-job[see screw loose change]) to ensure that the towers would not only collapse, but would do so completely and like a house of cards when they did. Those were some nasty fires when you look at all the tapes, but then there's the nature of the WTC2 collapse (that ignores the path of least resistance), my prior argument in this post, and then the obvious catalyzing effect from the total collapse (it'd be a different world today if they never collapsed). In short, I intend for it to be balanced, realistic and effective...



[edit: trimmed quote to relevant portion]
Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

The only melted steel in WTC1, 2 or 7 was found in the lower levels. Does no one remember that those fires smoldered for over 3 months?

The weakening of the steel led to the floors collapsing prior to the towers collapsing. THis is verified by firefighters who radioed this information. There is a link on the NOVA site that really put it into perspective, and makes alot sense.

Why did WTC 7 collapse? Well, there are theories abound, and using psuedo science you can truly prove both sides of the arguement. What needs to be found is some type of hard evidence. One blasting cap or piece of wire or trigger or electronics or one single person to step forward and say they did it.

The pilots who shot down Flight 93 came forward, and NO one listened becasue they were to preoccupied with WTC 1,2 and 7. No one has come forward and said that they have hard proof that this was a demo or a conspiracy.

The last true conspiracy the US faced was JFK. Trust me, if that occured today with the media and mindset of Liberal America, there would have been a different outcome. There is no way to hide an operation that large, a conspiracy is a few people.

Flight 93 was 6 people max.
1. Cheney- gave the order
2. Mineta
3. Mystery Navy personnel
4. Flight control with f-16
5. F-16 pilots

It took less than half a dozen people to pull that off.

Originally posted by esdad71
ULTIMA, what are your qualifications or psychic ability do you use to cast away all of those people?

Funny dad... I have asked you for your qualifications a hundred times and you have failed to answer.... now you demand the same answers from another poster... laughable at best.

Originally posted by esdad71
Trust me, if that occured today with the media and mindset of Liberal America, there would have been a different outcome. There is no way to hide an operation that large, a conspiracy is a few people.

This is nothing more than simple conjecture that relies on faulty logic that:

1. A large number of people were KNOWINGLY involved.
2. The rewards for those truly involved are not great enough to keep them quiet.
3. The fear of exposure is not enough to keep them quiet.
4. Fear of retaliation is not enough to keep them quiet.
5. It was not a "compartmentalized operation".

You just keep on telling people to "TRUST ME." Why should ANYONE trust you or your opinion that you continually state as fact?

A conspiracy is a FEW people? Try telling that to the Russian Mafia.


[edit on 2-4-2007 by Pootie]

What do you want to know poot? I was responding to someone else who totally disregarded something that was posted, and he questioned me first. It was a sarcastic response since I could truly care less to what a persons qualifications are. I mean, look at the current president. A reformed alchoholic who partied his way through college and snorted more money than I will make in a lifetime, but he is the president. Einstien was a patent clerk and many a person from humble or non educated backgrounds did alot.

How about posting a diatribe about how you support Rosie the Ranter and her babble bro?

Originally posted by esdad71
How about posting a diatribe about how you support Rosie the Ranter and her babble bro?

Because you jump into every thread with the same old junk that you present as fact. In this thread I am simply here to counter YOU. You rapid fire post to try to make it seem like what you are saying is TRUE, FACTUAL and that you have some kind of support when really it has been the same old same old from you since I have been here.

What link?? I'd like to see it... Seriously.

The film I'm talking about is the latest put out by PBS and NIST. Any of the videos that shos the instant of the collapse show the same thing: the floors held, but sagged and caused the actual walls to snap horizontally all the way around the break zone... to begin the collapse, which we all know didnt take very long.

From there you can look at any any of the videos and see that the fires are burning level thru/in the windows. I think there's an image linked in this very thread that shows it. The floors held.

There's 'squibs' that appear from below the first skylobby, which nobody can explain. And sorry, but you cant excuse all of the "explosions" that were reported, especially not if the floors hadn't been collapsing well before the collapse sequence.



What media?

Are you suggesting there's a "liberal media"? If so I'm going to have to conclude that you're a biased republican, because there's no such thing as a liberal media, and in my experience only politically biased people jump to that sort of Left/Right conclussion.

The very nature of our entire national reality is a conspiracy, but where's the media? O, the people that sell US the war, and then when it doesnt go 'good' then they change their story so they dont lose credability? It doesnt matter once w're already in there, nor does it matter even if we "win and pull out", because there are permanent military bases there: we never pull out. How about the fraudulent federal reserve/income tax system (that pays for the permanent war economy imperialist war machine)? Where have they ever been on that one? They've never been, and it's because we're an imperialist system, we have our entire history, long before we ever heard the name Dubya, but when have they ever been there to cover that? The media has sold every single line the imperialist establishement has handed them, ever, and continue to do so. Most people still don't understand why the intent to attack US was ever there in the first place. Some liberal media. All the media does is sells US the latest lines of BS, while polarizing the left/right mindset (that's right, both sides) so that everyones too emotionally wound up (subverted) and distracted on the wrong issues (diverted) to ensure people dont focus on the real issues that affect US all equally.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 2-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]