Originally posted by LeftBehind
Sorry, I have yet to see any of you prove that the official story "IS impossible, and no amount of capilization will prove this. Show me links proving it impossible.

OK. Without knowing the construction of the buildings, I can't prove it. But, it is known that steel columns give resistance. Resistance that should have slowed down the collapse of at least building 7. Building 7 wasn't a tube within a tube design. It was a regular building. Regular buildings don't fail symmetrically with asymmetrical damage. Take a structures class and you'll learn this. Now, with the transfer truss and all, I guess I'll agree to just disagree until the NIST report on building 7. If they do a good job at solving this problem, then I might change my stance.

Since I know that you can't or won't I will just do what you guys do and pretend that I don't have any theory I endorse, I just know the bomb theory is wrong.

I believe the bomb theory is wrong also. I may have considered it at first, but like a true open minded person, when confronted with evidence of it's impossibility, I changed my stance. Is that wrong to do? Should I still be argueing bombs when I don't feel that theory is correct anymore?

Does that work for you?

Sure.

I don't believe in any particular theory so I never have to prove anything, but I will continue to call foul on the controlled demolition theories.

The only reason I believe in some type of CD is because as of right now, it is the only thing that makes the physics work. If NIST can prove that the transfer truss was the cause of the complete failure, then I will change my stance again.

Ok, now you can stop asking for evidence, since you seem to think that the above stance excuses one from showing any.

Yes, I will stop asking you for evidence. Now will you stop asking me for evidence of bombs?

Ultima, that is a logical fallacy. Just because something hasn't happened does not mean it never will.

So, since we know that it is impossible for pigs to fly, does that mean they could one day? Just because it hasn't happened yet? Pretty much what you're argueing here.

Who's logic is false? A man who knows that buildings don't collapse due to asymmetrical damage or the man who says "it's ok that the laws of physics were broken. Just because it never has happened before doesn't mean it couldn't." Please explain, because to me, your logic is the one that is a logical fallacy. Unless, like I said, the NIST shows how it can happen. I'm not discounting the transfer truss as being the culprit. But, if it is that simple, why has it taken them 5.5 years to prove?

did anyone hear the story that fuel was stored in the basement of #7 for the auxilliary gen equipment for emergency lighting in case of power failure?
I dont hear that one bandied about like i used to.....
I also have heard that traces of thermite have been found on WTC steel pieces from #s1and 2,
I firmly believe that there are too many obvious lies and co-incidents to make the official stry plausable.
Its true the passenger lists and such did not add up correctly.
Also true that at least six hijackers have been locatd alive and well other places in the world.
Cell phones dont work from aircraft because signals produce a casscade effect from up that high.
Plus the callers were not making sense at times to those who took the calls.(missing details the real callers would have known.
Operation Northwoods was an old scenario designed to initiate a cuban invasion by US forces.Why not drag it out and use it to initiate the "war on Terror?"
It worked like pearl harbour!
FD tapes of the oklahoma bomb said the same thing that other bombs were found unexploded in the building.
People who have spoken up have died suspiciously.....
They will stop at nothing......even to killing off yer sons and daughters in wars for economic control of the planet.
The ones responsible are not loyal citizens but belong to an international conspiracy....they care for none but themselves.

Originally posted by bergle
did anyone hear the story that fuel was stored in the basement of #7 for the auxilliary gen equipment for emergency lighting in case of power failure?

Most of the fuel was recovered by the EPA.

To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7.

It is worth emphasizing that 20,000 gallons (of a maximum of 23,200 gallons) where recovered intact from the two 12,000-gallon Silverstein tanks. So, it is probable that the 20,000 gallons recovered was all of the oil in the tanks at that time. Since the oil in the Silverstein tanks survived, we can surmise that there was no fire on the ground floor.

2 problems

1) how could any of the debris damaged the inner support beams?

2) how could debri fires reach temps, to melt the THICKER beams the then 1-2?

Originally posted by THE DECIDER
2 problems

1) how could any of the debris damaged the inner support beams?

2) how could debri fires reach temps, to melt the THICKER beams the then 1-2?

Do not forget we have not seen any evidnce for the molten steel in the basements of all the buildings.



[edit on 11-2-2007 by ULTIMA1]

There is evidence for molten steel below each of the twin towers. See Scholars for Truth & Justice and also 911.blogger et. al., 911research.com. All of these issues have been resolved long ago. Also note in particular the article by Kevin Ryan completely debunking NIST on the issue of WTC 7 - (also debunks, Pop Mech, Garcia et. al. in the process).

Steel and iron cannot melt from hydrocarbon fires alone (that includes kerosine, jet fuel, gasoline, funiture, your hair, your pet goat... all hydrocarbons, etc.). The highest a hydrocarbon fire can reach is about 1700 F (unless oxygen is forcefully added to the fire as in a blast furnace). Steel and iron melt at about 2700 F. WTC 7 fires would not even be hot enough to significantly and sufficiently weaken the steel for a collapse. Even then, it would not be a symmetrical heating of all 27 core columns which is required for symmetrical collapse. NIST itself gives collapse due to fire as having a very low probability. There were not huge fires at WTC 7. There are no pictures of huge fires. And in any case, much of the heat from any fires that did exist would have been wicked away by the steel itself... (ever soldered? ever welded? or brazed? - you would understand). And the damage to the structure itself was not seen by observers to be of sufficient magnitude to bring the structure down. And EVEN if it had been - which is was not - , it was asymmetrical damage and WTC 7 would not have fallen into its own footprint. The building was brought down by controlled demolition. It meets all of the criteria for controlled demolition:

Characteristics of Demolition:
1. Sudden Onset
2. Straight down
3. Nearly Free Fall Speed
4. Total Collapse
5. Sliced Steel
6. Pulverization of concrete
7. Dust Clouds
8. Horizontal ejections (squibs)
9. Demolition rings
10. Sounds of explosions
11. Pools of molten steel
(all supported by photographic evidence and eyewitness testimonies)

How many impossibilities, plus improbabilities does it take to see that any hypothesis other than CD is simply ludicrous. It is suggested that those who have trouble with this revisit 10th grade physics, intro to logic 101, and review philosophy of science, scientific fheory building and the role of empirical data. Or, failing, that, simply watch the damn thing (WTC 7) collapse. And remember that the terrorists are in Washington DC.

Originally posted by BasementAddix
Im tired of these conspiracys by people whoever never even seen the WTC in person...I was there the day after the attack...working....there was no bombs...not internal explosions...I have a magnitude of friends who were in all of the buildings as it was happening...and Im just sick and tired of all this conspiracy BS...

I was there a week after...there are a lot of fire fighters in new york who would disagree with your opinion. If you were there the next day, how do you know there were no explosions? Do you have technical details to support your opinion, or is it just that, pure speculation and uneducated opinion on the subject?

Thanks for clearing that up. (Eyebrow cocked)

Originally posted by LeftBehind
How would assymetrical damage cause symetrical collapse?

Well, once a column or two in the middle failed, it brought down the middle of the building. This is observed when the penthouse collapses. This in turn brings the rest of the building down with it.

Well, the only thing I want to say about that for now is I'm sure you would be VERY welcome in the demolition industry is this were true... I mean.. You ONLY have to knock out a "collumn or two" and the whole building will just come down?


Nothing personal Leftbehind but that is just ludicrous and I'm sure many of us here will agree with me. But keep em' coming. I'm very amazed, and not neccesarily in a good way.

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
Well, the only thing I want to say about that for now is I'm sure you would be VERY welcome in the demolition industry is this were true... I mean.. You ONLY have to knock out a "collumn or two" and the whole building will just come down?

I guess the demolition companies are using the new way to bring down a building, some jet fuel and a few damaged collums. Or in the case of bulding 7 just let fires gut the floors and damage a side so it will fall straight down

Ultima.. is that a note of sarcasm I detect..


OOOOHHH let it be soo..

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
Ultima.. is that a note of sarcasm I detect..


OOOOHHH let it be soo..

No, just more proof of how stupid the official story is.

Two pieces of personal info to add here:

Someone a while back in the thread claimed disdainfully that questioning IX-XI was basically sacrilegious because it was a terrible day, firefighters died and none have spoken out promoting a govt. conspiracy, etc, etc.

Nonsense, from someone who hasn't the slightest clue about 9/11 and how this world works.

My best friend worked the inner of two security cordons on the WTC site beginning Sept. 12, and was there for several weeks. (The outer cordon was local NYC police; the inner Federal agents and marshals.) We spoke at length about 9/11 a few months ago, and he was very clear that many of the NYC police & firefighters and the workers clearing the site spoke openly of bombs and demolition, and that there were near-riots with the Feds when local police, firemen and cleanup workers tried to cross the inner cordon without authorization or tried to remove anything from the scene without submitting to the prescribed Federal oversight. He mentioned specifically the molten metal, the bizarrely sliced girders, and the collapse of the sub-basements as obvious on-site evidence for demolition.

In short, the WTC site was tied up by the Feds from the get-go, under their complete control. My friend is absolutely convinced the WTC towers and building 7 were purposefully demolished.

Also, I spoke with a close business associate on Sept. 13 who deals with Larry Silverstein and he reported that Silverstein had said to him privately that WTC 7 collapsed from raging fires due to the heating oil stored in the basement; the building having a generating station in its basement.

This latter I report for what it's worth, though I don't believe Silverstein is telling any more than a sliver of the truth. I personally believe that the building was brought down that day with placed charges and the fires were allowed to burn unhindered do provide a plausible reason for collapse.

Silverstein & the fire dept. allowed the fire to advance enough to compromise the integrity of the steel columns on the lower floors--once exposed to fire, these columns would have had to have been replaced, with great difficulty and cost, and so Silverstein conveniently had reason to demolish the building with quickly placed (it is a straight-forward CD job, as the columns are placed in a simple grid)--or pre-placed--charges. Take your pick.

[edit on 12-2-2007 by gottago]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by ViewFromTheStars
Ultima.. is that a note of sarcasm I detect..


OOOOHHH let it be soo..

No, just more proof of how stupid the official story is.

Just trying to be silly.

Gottago, that is heavy. Can you tell us more about your best friend?