9/11: FDNY Member Says "Definitely" Bombs in Towers?

[Sentinel]

I agree,

The problem I have with Kane is his connection to Delta Oil. I see it as a song and dance event with the commision omission almost like a mocking session.

The thing we need to focus on regarding the safety of the first responders is giving them the edge to fight the new enemy. The enemy (who ever that may be) is not stupid, they cased 9-11 for a long time before the event.

The problem still has to fought on the intell side. The Red and Blue still have issues where a job will go out to the blue side sometimes almost 20 minutes prior to advisment to the red. The 911 system has to be changed.

Example: If there is a call for a fire and because of language misinterpritation (sorry) the 911 system pushes FD and now a second call goes out for shots fired, a lot of the time the forward intell will not reach the FD who is now running blind into Gunshots rather than a fire.

I give out the Cross intell Freqs/Callback info to just about every first responder out there so they can can listen to one another and get awareness on whats happening around them in real time rather than the delayed clusterF*** system now in use.

I do it totaly unauthorized but I work under the NYS Emergency Defense Act 1951 Civil Defense. I sometimes will call the dispatchers to pass emergency priority messages. You don't know how many times I'm faced with threats of arrest for doing it but unless I'm giving false info or am misrepresenting myself its just another day of the Anti auxiliary blues. They tried taking me to court and the judge just dimisses the charge. The time they got me to court they never showed up and I stood there in uniform waiting and waiting and waiting and the judge dismissed the case when I presented the laws and MY M.O.
I do it on my own as a Civil Defense watchstander for the North East quodrant.

The FDNY/NYPD hates auxiliary firemen and police officers, why else would they dismiss an APO for stopping a terrorist threat before 9-11? Why do they love my work now after 9-11? I have no problem standing up to the politics. Theres is love though with the field operators they know my work, its the politians who can't seem to take their heads out of the hole in their backside.

My mission is Force Protection Forward Observer-FWDSIGINT CD/Regional Watchstander.

I move as the LAW proceeds me.

GOD Bless


Sentinel

[Sentinel]

I run whats call the LARS project. It stands for Land Air River Sea.

If it flies floats rails or rolls I'm on it.

Now you know what my first mission is.

GOD BLess



SentineL

[Sentinel]

There was a report put over history channel or NGC that planes were called HIjacked when the secondary messege was put out to the carriers and when they messaged back somehow they were reported as hijacked.

This in refference to the two Korean 747s who were forced to land at whitehorse in canada. They reported they had recieved the cockpit warnings and when the responded back they were intercepted by NG Alaska and were forced to land in canada with no further incident. This may account for all the false reads that day.

I think the third plane may have been in refference to 93.


Take care everyone


Sentinel

[T.A.M.]

Keep up the fight Sentinel. I think you fight two enemies, (1) Islamic Extremists, (2) Government Complaicence (spelling?).

Peace.

[Christopher7]

You haven't answered this one:

Does the Earth look flat from your perspective while standing outdoors and on the ground?

I've got 2 & 1/2 acres and i have to cut and fill to make a place for a lounge chair.

The world is NOT flat, it is very bumpy!

[Christopher7]

Hypothesis: A set of assumptions provisionally accepted as a basis for reasoning, experiment or investigation.
Synonyms: guess, sceme, speculation etc.

NIST report: page 50 L.3.5 Summary of Working Collapse HYPOTHESIS

" The working collapse hypothesis has been developed arround four phases of the collapse that were observed in photographic and videographic records: the initial event, a vertical progression at the east side of the building and a horizontal progression to the west side of the building, leading to a global collapse.

From an analysis of the observed collapse sequence, the following sequence of events APPEARS POSSIBLE."

Until the final report comes out, this the current govt. statement.

Is there any proof that wtc7 collapsed due to debres and fire?

[kookbreaker]

Hypothesis: A set of assumptions provisionally accepted as a basis for reasoning, experiment or investigation.
Synonyms: guess, sceme, speculation etc.

NIST report: page 50 L.3.5 Summary of Working Collapse HYPOTHESIS

" The working collapse hypothesis has been developed arround four phases of the collapse that were observed in photographic and videographic records: the initial event, a vertical progression at the east side of the building and a horizontal progression to the west side of the building, leading to a global collapse.

From an analysis of the observed collapse sequence, the following sequence of events APPEARS POSSIBLE."

Until the final report comes out, this the current govt. statement.

Is there any proof that wtc7 collapsed due to debres and fire?

Creationists must love you.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Hypothesis: A set of assumptions provisionally accepted as a basis for reasoning, experiment or investigation.
Synonyms: guess, sceme, speculation etc.

NIST report: page 50 L.3.5 Summary of Working Collapse HYPOTHESIS

" The working collapse hypothesis has been developed arround four phases of the collapse that were observed in photographic and videographic records: the initial event, a vertical progression at the east side of the building and a horizontal progression to the west side of the building, leading to a global collapse.

From an analysis of the observed collapse sequence, the following sequence of events APPEARS POSSIBLE."

Until the final report comes out, this the current govt. statement.

Is there any proof that wtc7 collapsed due to debres and fire?

Is there any proof it collapsed due to anything else?

[Regnad Kcin]

...The world is NOT flat, it is very bumpy!Really? Are you certain?

[jon]

Is there any proof it collapsed due to anything else?

Of course not: clearly WTC7 is still standing. I mean, can't you tell an invisibility cloaking device when you see one.

[Pardalis]

Christopher7, may I ask how old you are?

[Joytown]

Question for someone who may have access to the transcripts of all the previously undisclosed emergency calls recently released on August 16th:

Is there any record of any of them saying anything along the lines of "holy crap, what is this detonator cord doing here" or "14 to base, we see thermite charges in the stairwell" or "what are these radio-controlled bombs doing here in the skylobby" or "we see exposed support beams wrapped with C4"?

Just wondering if there is any evidence at all in the recently released voice records of any of the emergency personnel in any of the towers running across any signs of preplanted explosives of any kind.

-Joytown

[Sentinel]

There is no such term as islamic extremism in regards to mass murder. True followers of islam no that its goes agianst ALLAHS LAW to murder innocent people.

There is a verse from both Jews and Muslims which states: "To murder 1 innocent person is equal to murdering the whole world"

There has to be truth before blame can be assigned.

1. OBL is not credited with 9-11 as can be seen on the FBI most wanted poster. Theres no mention of 9-11.

2. Why is the former spokesman for the Taliban attending Yale Universarty?

3 Why does the President keep flip flopping on the Iraq 9-11 connection?

4 Where is the WMD?

5 Why did the Bin Laden Family get to fly out of the country after 9-11 when the rest of the country was on ACT-0 ?

6 Why are there Firemen and Cops from 9-11 stating there were incidiary devises in the towers?

7 since when does kerosen burn through solid steel support beams when kerosen heaters in homes not melting.




GOD BLESS,

Sentinel

[Pardalis]

Sentinel, can you tell me where I put my remote?

[T.A.M.]

Sentinel; I will give you my opinion on your points...just my two cents...

there is no such term as islamic extremism in regards to mass murder. True followers of islam no that its goes agianst ALLAHS LAW to murder innocent people.

The Islamic extremists following Jihad, believe that killing of the "Kuffar" (all those not of Islam) is not murder, and that Martyrdom is the quickest path to heaven and Allah.


There is a verse from both Jews and Muslims which states: "To murder 1 innocent person is equal to murdering the whole world"

You are correct.

There has to be truth before blame can be assigned.

Once again, you are correct.

1. OBL is not credited with 9-11 as can be seen on the FBI most wanted poster. Theres no mention of 9-11.

I have gone to the site of the poster. The info was last updated June 1999, with the poster (the picture) updated in November 2001. Call it extreme lack of vigilence on the part of the FBI, but I doubt it means they at present, do not credit him with the 9/11 attacks.

2. Why is the former spokesman for the Taliban attending Yale Universarty?

Well most Universities are very left wing, and very much about freedom of speech, and avoiding prejudice. While I personally wouldn't have let him study there, it does not surprise me that the Uni did so...

3 Why does the President keep flip flopping on the Iraq 9-11 connection?

I think it is because the question is not as simple as a yes or no answer. I think he over stated the other day, when he flippently said "No" when asked the question, because we know that the position of his entire administration is that Iraq, while not "directly" involved in 9/11, is a country that had a leader that despised America, had WMD at some point, used them, and was a potential breeding ground for Terrorists. There platform has been about pre-emptively striking countries they see as threats, before the threat comes to fruition.

4 Where is the WMD?

There were some old ones found, but not many. The possibilities are (1) they are hidden in Syria, or (2) he never had the technology set up, (3) he dismantled the labs prior to the invasion, and had them destroyed.

Here is a question, related to this...

Given that finding Labs developing WMDs would have made the administrations time in Iraq so much easier from a public opinion pov, then why didn't they just plant some lab equipment and WMDs when they first invaded? If we are to believe that the USG is so evil as to kill 3000 of its own, and keep the entire conspiracy secret, then wouldn't planting some simple equipment and WMDs over in that big country be even easier to do.

5 Why did the Bin Laden Family get to fly out of the country after 9-11 when the rest of the country was on ACT-0 ?

Because they are best friends with the administration, and dignitaries from a foreign country. It is not a "Cool" thing for them to have done, but I imagine if Russias leader was here, they would have allowed him to leave as well.

6 Why are there Firemen and Cops from 9-11 stating there were incidiary devises in the towers?

I suspect it was due to (1) the chaos of the events of the day, combined with (2) multiple threats of bombs that came that day, and (3) all sorts of debris and items that, in a panic might have looked suspicious, and finally, (4) multiple explosions heard through out the timeline of the crashes and collapses...beyond that I have no answer...

7 since when does kerosen burn through solid steel support beams when kerosen heaters in homes not melting.

Kerosene, spraying out of the wings as they were ripped apart by the collision, set fire to the contents of the building, and also spilled down through the elevator shafts onto multiple floors, causing fires there. These fires, burning all sorts of other materials, produced much higher temperatures than Kerosene alone. Combined with the structural damage via the planes, and the weakened integrity of the steel caused by these very hot fires, and the tremendous weight atop the columns from the floors above, all combined to cause the tower collapse...

Just my 25 cents (I am long winded)...

TAM

[Hellbound]

4 Where is the WMD?

There were some old ones found, but not many. The possibilities are (1) they are hidden in Syria, or (2) he never had the technology set up, (3) he dismantled the labs prior to the invasion, and had them destroyed.

Just to add a bit to this...

We did find some circumstancial things, but nothing definate. Such as warheads that could be used to deliver and distribute Sarin (but were empty). We also found "dual use" facilities...places that manufactured fertilizers, farm, or industrial chemicals that just happened to have many of the same components as various agents, and with equipment that could be easily and quickly retooled to make them. But there were legitimate uses, as well, so that's iffy. Sort of like if you're investigating a gunshot in the woods, and a mile or two away you find a hunter with a rifle. Did he fire the shot? Well, it's likely, but without more evidence...

So it's one of those "either way" type things.

[Polaris]

5 Why did the Bin Laden Family get to fly out of the country after 9-11 when the rest of the country was on ACT-0 ?

Because they are best friends with the administration, and dignitaries from a foreign country. It is not a "Cool" thing for them to have done, but I imagine if Russias leader was here, they would have allowed him to leave as well.


This never happened.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

[T.A.M.]

Yes, according to the 9/11 Commission. I do believe the words of that report, but most who argue the point on the other side do not. My argument supposes that even if Bush et al let them fly, while it wasn't the best option, it was understandable, gien there position with the Saudi Royals, etc...

[Christopher7]

Is there any proof it collapsed due to anything else?

My question was not retorical. The purpose of debate is to hear other points of view and perhaps learn something. Reading the NIST report was very enlightining. Up to now i thought there was some proof wct7 collapsed due to debris and fire because so meny people have been stating with certanty that this was the case.

Evadently there is NO PROOF that wtc7 collapsed due to debris and fire damage or controlled demolition.

Like it or not, there are 2 theories on what brought wtc7 down. There are millions of people, like myself, who believe that, wtc7 was a CD.
For the last 3 months i have been reading publications, viewing videos and pictures, to see what evidence there is for both theories. I haven't seen any PROOF of either theory.

Other than 9-11, NO modern high rise steel frame building has EVER collapsed, except those brought down by controlled demolitions. It is therefore reasonible to consider this possibility.


Pardalis: I'm 63

[Gravy]

Evadently there is NO PROOF that wtc7 collapsed due to debris and fire damage or controlled demolition.

When experts believe that a building is about to collapse because of damage and fire, and then it does collapse, and plausible collapse scenarios and tests are done by experts who seek to explain the collapse mechanism, and no evidence of CD is reported by experts on the scene or afterward, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that the CD theory is plausible, then which of the two causes do you think brought the building down, Chris?

The completely implausible one, or the one that's completely plausible and obvious?

[Mancman]

Other than 9-11, NO modern high rise steel frame building has EVER collapsed, except those brought down by controlled demolitions. It is therefore reasonible to consider this possibility.


I don't believe it should be considered reasonable until somebody comes up with a valid motive for demolishing WTC7. Every motive I've heard (insurance scam, HQ for attack, contained CIA/FBI files) has been quite frankly, rubbish.

It's the equivalent of somebody being hit by a car and sustaining serious injuries, being taken to hospital and then passing away, and saying it is as reasonable to investigate the doctor for murder.

[Christopher7]

When experts believe that a building is about to collapse because of damage and fire, and then it does collapse, and plausible collapse scenarios and tests are done by experts who seek to explain the collapse mechanism, and no evidence of CD is reported by experts on the scene or afterward, and there is absolutely no reason to believe that the CD theory is plausible, then which of the two causes do you think brought the building down, Chris?

The completely implausible one, or the one that's completely plausible and obvious?

What experts? The firemen, the the people from Controlled Demolition Inc.?
Were there any structural engineers saying the bldg. is about to collapse?
Rember, they had just seen the Trade Towers collapse and they were looking at the front of the building.
Just because some people think the bldg. is going to collapse due to debris damage and fire and then it collapses, is by no stretch of the imagination proof, or even evidence.
Even if they were right, the result of debris damage and fire would look like the Fed. bldg. in Oklahoma City.
The experts who sought to explain the collapse coulden't even come close to confirming ther 'hypothesis' which BTW precluded the debris damage. Their conclusion was "Appears possible" (that's a double maby) so please stop using that as an arguement for debris-fire collapse.
The fact that other than 9-11 NO MODERN HIGHRISE STEEL FRAME BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAOSED FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN A CD and it's virtually impossible for a fire to burn so perfectly as to cause all the exterior support columns to fail at the same time, means that a CD is not only plausible but more likely.

[kookbreaker]

The fact that other than 9-11 NO MODERN HIGHRISE STEEL FRAME BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAOSED FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN A CD.

How many have been exposed to elements that would casue them to collapse?

I'll explain this since you seem to think in such limited terms:

There are 'X' numbers of highrise buildings in the world.

Of them, only a small fraction are considered 'steel framed'. Many more have concrete cores, concrete bases, etc.

Of those steel framed highrise buildings, only a fraction of have been on fire. (for that matter, not many non-steel framed ones have had big fires either)

Of those steel framed highrise buildings on fire, only a tiny, tiny fraction had the fires out of control burning for mulitple hours and exposing structural elements to danger.

What remains is a tiny sample, and what you have doesn't help your case:

1) Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia: Columns sagged from heat, even with the concrete covering the steel frame. Structural Engineers recommended abandoning the firefighting efforts. Water never stopped being pumped on the building. Building eventually destroyed due to fear of collapse.

2) Madrid Sheraton: Concrete core building with steel frame portion. Steel frame portion collapsed due to fire. Concrete portion survives due to it being, well, concrete.

That leaves WTC 1, 2 and 7. Which did not have the advantages of the above buildings.

So bouncing around saying that "NO MODERN HIGHRISE STEEL FRAME BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAOSED FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN A CD" implies that steel framed highrise buildings are in danger falling all over the place.

In short, you are being deceptive.

[Gravy]

What experts? The firemen, the the people from Controlled Demolition Inc.?
Were there any structural engineers saying the bldg. is about to collapse?
You, sir, are being deliberately obtuse. That's just rude. I'd appreciate it if you'd start taking this subject seriously. You TOLD ME that you read the quotes I gave you from the experts on the scene. You also read the observations of controlled demolitions experts who were there.

I don't think you understood them at all, however. Read them again, and try not to act like a little boy any more. This is a serious subject.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Like it or not, there are 2 theories on what brought wtc7 down.Like it or not, there are two theories of what the moon is made of: various minerals, and swiss cheese.

I hope you see my point.

There are millions of people, like myself, who believe that, wtc7 was a CD.There are countless people who believe the Earth is flat.

I hope you see my point.

For the last 3 months i have been reading publications, viewing videos and pictures, to see what evidence there is for both theories. I haven't seen any PROOF of either theory.If you say so.

By the way, ever chatted with a structural engineer? A fire analyst? Doesn't it strike you as funny that no experts in the related disciplines seem to consider this question a question?

Other than 9-11, NO modern high rise steel frame building has EVER collapsed, except those brought down by controlled demolitions. It is therefore reasonible to consider this possibility.Only for perhaps a moment. Just because something looks like something doesn't mean it is something. (Remember our little flat Earth experiment?) For your controlled demolition to be true, you are going to have to provide physical evidence -- not just residual materials from the scene of the destruction, but also from during the planning stages (for instance: e-mails, memos, procurement orders), the installation stages (including materials transport, manpower involved, independent witness testimony), and the continuing cover-up (proof of one or more pay-offs, for example). Just a couple of these or similar items would help build a case. Simply saying you've studied videos for a couple months does not detective work make.

And by the way, what is it with people and the use of ALL CAPS? It doesn't strengthen an assertion in any way.

[Trifikas]

Other than 9-11, NO modern high rise steel frame building has EVER collapsed, except those brought down by controlled demolitions. It is therefore reasonible to consider this possibility.


Unless those steel frame High-rises were hit by an aircraft, this comment is irrelavant. Whenever the "No modern high rise steel frame building has collapsed" argument is trotted out, A few things are usually forgotten:

1) It assumes that the structure of the building was intact when the fire started. Not the case with WTC 1&2.

2) It assumes that all fire protection measures built into the building are still functioning. Also not the case with WTC 1&2, As the collision destroyed much of the fireproofing along the impatct area

3) It assumes a "Mundane" cause for the fire (Cigarette in bed, Electrical short, etc), and therefore started small. This is important, because while the fire spreads, it consumes the Fuel available. While the fire heats the Supporting Steel and weakens it, once the fuel available is exhausted, the fire in that location goes out and the steel can cool again. The fire may have spread to other places in the building, weakening the steel there, but never weakens enough steel (Assisted in this by the intact Fireproofing) all at once, and the building remains standing.

compare those to what happened:

The fires in WTC 1&2 started over a very large area all at once, due to the fuel igniting, mostly on the floors where the supporting structure was weakend by the impact, and where the fireproofing was knocked off by the Airplane.

And you can see how the "No Modern steel structures..." Argument doesn't apply.

[T.A.M.]

Other than 9-11, NO modern high rise steel frame building has EVER collapsed, except those brought down by controlled demolitions. It is therefore reasonible to consider this possibility.


http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153

You are not exactly correct. There have been others prior to 9/11.

[Sentinel]

WTC 7 sustained damage from the north tower collapse. There was a twenty floor gash simular to the deutche bank on liberty st. The tower was listing south. If anything, the building had to be taken down for the safety of the first responders operating on the scene.

This is based on my personal observation hen I arrived 84.



Take care


Sentinel

[T.A.M.]

Sentinel:

thanks for backing up the point that we make to "Truthers" all the time wrt WTC7.

Also, I posted above some replies to your seven points. Don't take them personally, they were meant as my opinions and observations only.

Peace.

TAM

[Sentinel]

Its just pissing me off to see that some of the so-called truthers keep spitting the same dis-info over and over again even when the pictures which they go by shows the fact.

They had to pull it because if they hadn't the would have had more people killed do to the un predictable fall.

There is something else that raises my suspicion regarding the WTC 7 the pentagon and the 7/7 event.

AMEC. They were connected to all the sites. They were the company that was working on the pentagon re-construction just prior to impact. They were also connected to the Blackstone Group at WTC 7 and they seem to come up at 7/7 which has been proven to be a drill being conducted by VIsor Inc at the same time using the same M.O.

Soemthing else on a side note: The wingtv article that keeps getting repeated "fireman states 9-11 was an inside job" is total Bullsh*t. I'm getting tired of seeing so-called scientist and high researchers repeating the BS already.

So I'm going to put something out there about the original authors of the slander. They are known DCS operatives connected to Tim White who is a known FBI informant out of Denver. It is a known fact that wingtv publishes kiddie porn along with other off the bell curve stuff. Tim White is also known to be involved with the kiddie porn stuff. Victor thorn aka scott has numerous time advocated violence towards other researchers. Thomas Hollbrook another inter spook is also pushing dis-info for wingtv even after hearing from Dylan Avery another "police informant" stating that last years anniversary event was a false write up, he still continues to print for them and being that hes now connected to revere radio which claims to be at war with Wingtv its just BS because holbrook as well as avery continue to operate with wingtv. Why else would he protect wingtv by not showing their activities at the memorial last year on the extra?

If anyone wishes to know what reall occured read the village voice article by sarah ferguson "conspiracy theorist invade Ground Zero" for the truth.

I don't advocate violence but there is a limit to the disrespect that will not be crossed.


Sentinel

[Pardalis]

Pardalis: I'm 63

I'm sorry to say, but you have the reasoning of a 13 year old.

[Sentinel]

Oh, and for the fake mother F******* out there with LC two weeks and believe it The hood is definately going to represent. No fear hear, so keep talking that Sh8t cause we are going to see whos scared. I hear roxdog and dj P*ssy like hanging with police informers?

We are going to blow up the spot.


Sentinel

[T.A.M.]

Sentinel:

I doubt you'll have to do much with any of the loose changers. The minute the police move toward them they will likely all shut up for fear of their parents getting word of it and grounding them.

:)
TAM

[Sentinel]

Thats true. most of them will cutting school to get there. It seems that all they can relate too. I've seen one lc forum where one guy states hes fifteen and was having a debate with a thirteen year old about lc being a hoax. The first question out of dylans mouth was "was his nam paul isaac jr ?" thats when the kid stated the other guy was thirteen. I'd like to know if there is a law against pandering to children? and if so can we get a charge?

Also would like to put a word out to the IRS since theres over 50.000 dvds that were passed and sold. Can we get an audit against LC, Please? I will be contacting the local and state tax authories later today and will be passing the word to the IRS.


I'm sure at $17.95 a pop he must be making quite a profit off our loved ones for sure. He seems to flying all over the country alot. Whos paying to flight charge and why isn't dylan jason or corey on the no fly list since they are som much against the admin?


Two weeks and counting.



Sentinel

[Christopher7]

How many have been exposed to elements that would casue them to collapse?

I'll explain this since you seem to think in such limited terms:

There are 'X' numbers of highrise buildings in the world.

Of them, only a small fraction are considered 'steel framed'. Many more have concrete cores, concrete bases, etc.

Of those steel framed highrise buildings, only a fraction of have been on fire. (for that matter, not many non-steel framed ones have had big fires either)

Of those steel framed highrise buildings on fire, only a tiny, tiny fraction had the fires out of control burning for mulitple hours and exposing structural elements to danger.

What remains is a tiny sample, and what you have doesn't help your case:

1) Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia: Columns sagged from heat, even with the concrete covering the steel frame. Structural Engineers recommended abandoning the firefighting efforts. Water never stopped being pumped on the building. Building eventually destroyed due to fear of collapse.

2) Madrid Sheraton: Concrete core building with steel frame portion. Steel frame portion collapsed due to fire. Concrete portion survives due to it being, well, concrete.

That leaves WTC 1, 2 and 7. Which did not have the advantages of the above buildings.

So bouncing around saying that "NO MODERN HIGHRISE STEEL FRAME BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAOSED FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN A CD" implies that steel framed highrise buildings are in danger falling all over the place.


Reply) Wrong! it means just the opposite ie steel frame buildings don't fall down ...ever. Even in earthquakes they partially collapse an wind up looking like the leaning tower of wherever.


In short, you are being deceptive.

ETA Just re-read your post, Where does is say that the steel frame portion failed?

You don't know what you are talking about.
There are 2 diffrent kinds of steel construction.

The Madrid Sheraton was a steel renforced concrete, that is, steel rebar (round pieces of steel) are set vertically and wraped with more rebar to make a cage. Then a form is placed arround the rebar and cement is poured into the form. I have done this kind of construction meny times (on a much smaller scale)
This kind of construction is not as strong as steel I beams which are NOT surrounded by concrete because they don't need the concrete. Unlike rebar they are self supporting.
A steel frame building means a steel I beam frame.
Madrid was not a steel frame building, it was a steel reinforced concrete frame building.
I hope i'v made that clear enough for a layman to understand.
If not let me know.

[Christopher7]

You, sir, are being deliberately obtuse. That's just rude. I'd appreciate it if you'd start taking this subject seriously. You TOLD ME that you read the quotes I gave you from the experts on the scene. You also read the observations of controlled demolitions experts who were there.

I don't think you understood them at all, however. Read them again, and try not to act like a little boy any more. This is a serious subject.

Obtuse? On the contrary sir, i was very direct. I did read the quotes and stated that the firemen and the CD experts saying "the building is comming down" and then it comes down, doesn't explain a GLOBAL collapse but rather a collapse that looks like the Ok. City bldg. Sorry if i didn't make that clear.

[simakperrce]

If that is the clip, then what building is he referring to? And as to my point above, did you hear the comment "here we go again?"

There were also reports, which I'm sure Sentinel is aware of, that a third plane was incoming. There was no third plane incoming.

I remember someone on the Radio saying at some point that "there are still 8 planes in the air which are unaccounted for". That part freaked me out since our office was but a mile away from the burning towers and I was having visions of planes hitting left and right and I didn't know what I should do, stay or leave. It was terrible. There was also another false report of a "bomb explosion in front of the State Department in Washington". People were just totally and utterly out of it. Who could blame them?

[Christopher7]

Like it or not, there are two theories of what the moon is made of: various minerals, and swiss cheese.

I hope you see my point.

There are countless people who believe the Earth is flat.

I hope you see my point.

If you say so.

By the way, ever chatted with a structural engineer? A fire analyst? Doesn't it strike you as funny that no experts in the related disciplines seem to consider this question a question?

Only for perhaps a moment. Just because something looks like something doesn't mean it is something. (Remember our little flat Earth experiment?) For your controlled demolition to be true, you are going to have to provide physical evidence -- not just residual materials from the scene of the destruction, but also from during the planning stages (for instance: e-mails, memos, procurement orders), the installation stages (including materials transport, manpower involved, independent witness testimony), and the continuing cover-up (proof of one or more pay-offs, for example). Just a couple of these or similar items would help build a case. Simply saying you've studied videos for a couple months does not detective work make.


And by the way, what is it with people and the use of ALL CAPS? It doesn't strengthen an assertion in any way.

Read my post again. I only said that a CD should be considered as an alternate possibility.

Do you know of a qualified structural engineer who states that wtc7 suffered a global collapse because of the debris damage and fires?

The NIST report had all the available information, including what few pieces of steel they didn't illegally destroy, and they coulden't say that wtc7 collapsed due to the debris damage and fires.
Until the final report comes out (if it ever does) the difinative word of the EXPERTS is "appears possible".

[Christopher7]

Unless those steel frame High-rises were hit by an aircraft, this comment is irrelavant. Whenever the "No modern high rise steel frame building has collapsed" argument is trotted out, A few things are usually forgotten:

1) It assumes that the structure of the building was intact when the fire started. Not the case with WTC 1&2.

2) It assumes that all fire protection measures built into the building are still functioning. Also not the case with WTC 1&2, As the collision destroyed much of the fireproofing along the impatct area

3) It assumes a "Mundane" cause for the fire (Cigarette in bed, Electrical short, etc), and therefore started small. This is important, because while the fire spreads, it consumes the Fuel available. While the fire heats the Supporting Steel and weakens it, once the fuel available is exhausted, the fire in that location goes out and the steel can cool again. The fire may have spread to other places in the building, weakening the steel there, but never weakens enough steel (Assisted in this by the intact Fireproofing) all at once, and the building remains standing.

compare those to what happened:

The fires in WTC 1&2 started over a very large area all at once, due to the fuel igniting, mostly on the floors where the supporting structure was weakend by the impact, and where the fireproofing was knocked off by the Airplane.

And you can see how the "No Modern steel structures..." Argument doesn't apply.

Dude, we're talking about wtc7. Get with the program

Fires have gutted buildings in L.A., Philly, and Venezuela. In all 3 cases the steel frame was NOT DAMAGED. They were all rebuilt without replacing any of the steel I beams. Fires in buildings don't burn hot enough to weaken steel I beams. Where you get this stuff, one of those debunking sites?

[Christopher7]

http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153

You are not exactly correct. There have been others prior to 9/11.

Did you read the article?

The 3 buildings they describe in detail were reinforced concrete, they were NOT steel frame. Further, they were in Egypt and Greece where the building codes are lax to non existant.

I repeat: No modern steel frame high rise building has EVER collaosed due to fire or any other reason EXCEPT FOR CD!

Try again.

[Mancman]

You don't know what you are talking about.
There are 2 diffrent kinds of steel construction.

The Madrid Sheraton was a steel renforced concrete, that is, steel rebar (round pieces of steel) are set vertically and wraped with more rebar to make a cage. Then a form is placed arround the rebar and cement is poured into the form. I have done this kind of construction meny times (on a much smaller scale)
This kind of construction is not as strong as steel I beams which are NOT surrounded by concrete because they don't need the concrete. Unlike rebar they are self supporting.
A steel frame building means a steel I beam frame.
Madrid was not a steel frame building, it was a steel reinforced concrete frame building.
I hope i'v made that clear enough for a layman to understand.
If not let me know.

The core of the Madrid tower was reinforced concrete, but the upper 16 stories of perimeter columns(which failed completely) were nothing but steel.

On the subject of the Madrid Winsdor fire, can anyone guess as to what was actually fuelling that fire? Since it was in the middle of a renovation programme I wouldn't expect any combustibles that you would find in an office or hotel to be present.

[Pardalis]

I repeat: No modern steel frame high rise building has EVER collaosed due to fire or any other reason EXCEPT FOR CD!


They (WTC1,WTC2 and WTC7) collapsed due to fire AND structural damage.

[T.A.M.]

Did you read the article?

The 3 buildings they describe in detail were reinforced concrete, they were NOT steel frame. Further, they were in Egypt and Greece where the building codes are lax to non existant.

I repeat: No modern steel frame high rise building has EVER collaosed due to fire or any other reason EXCEPT FOR CD!

Try again.

ANSWER 1: YES. I have read the article!!! Did you??

The 3 buildings they go on to speak about are not the ones I am referring to (if you read the article, you would know that). Those buildings are described in detail because of the uniqueness of their collapse, not the material they were made from (if you read the article you would know that as well!!!!).

As to where they are from, I could care less, as the CT grandiose statement, which of course you have spued here at nauseum, is...

"No modern steel frame high rise building has EVER collapsed due to fire or any other reason except CD." You do not state "In North America" anywhere, but you do say "EVER".

Just so everyone understands where I am coming from, I will do what I rarely due, and that is to reprint here, the entire article I have referred to...

(Bold my emphasis)

From FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEERING MAGAZINE ARCHIVE:

Historical Survey of Multistory Building Collapses Due to Fire
By: Jesse Beitel and Nestor Iwankiw, Ph.D., P.E.

INTRODUCTION
There have been, and remain to be, continuing concerns about the adequacy of structural fire protection in the wake of the 9/11 tragedies. As significant as these events were, they were also clearly not representative of the normal accidental impact of fire on building structures. To assess the extent and nature of structural collapses due to fire in taller buildings, a review of existing information about fire incidents resulting in structural collapse was collected and reviewed.

The survey was international in scope and included building collapses due to fire in structures with four or more stories that had occurred during the 1970-2002 time frame of the survey. Both total and partial collapses were included in the survey. Since no database exists that systematically identifies building collapses due to fire (including the NFIRS system), the survey was necessarily exploratory. The survey methodology included a review of both news sources and technical literature, as well as inter-views with a wide range of individuals knowledgeable in structural fire protection. Twenty-two fires were identified that caused either partial or total collapse of a multistory structure. The adequacy and code compliance of the original structural and fire-resistant design of the identified buildings were beyond the scope of the project and were not assessed. While the number of fire events may appear low (average of one/year), these fire events are high-consequence occurrences with respect to loss of life, injuries, and economic costs.
article continues below
Dupont

This survey of structural building collapses due to fire causes was sponsored in 2002 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as part of a larger project. The complete report is available from NIST.1

SURVEY RESULTS
For the purposes of this NIST survey, multistory buildings were defined as those having four or more stories. Nonbuilding structures, such as tunnels, bridges, observation or transmission towers, were not included. Either partial or total failure of the structural framing, members, and/or connections was considered to have constituted a collapse, and it was necessary for a fire to have been the direct cause of this failure.

A total of 22 such cases were identified through 2002 after extensive searches of the literature, news, and other contacts, with the Sept. 11 disasters in New York and Washington, DC, counting as five of these incidents [World Trade Center (WTC) 1, 2, 5, and 7, and the Pentagon]. The cases occurred not only in the U.S. and North America, but also internationally. This NIST survey data demonstrated that buildings of all types of construction and occupancies, in the U.S., North America, and abroad, are susceptible to fires, particularly older buildings and those that may be undergoing construction, renovations, or repairs. The total fatalities were dominated by the Sept. 11 WTC disasters, which were unique in that they were precipitated by terrorist attacks that substantially damaged the buildings' structural framing and destroyed their fire protection systems prior to the fires.

The NIST survey of 22 fire-induced building collapses from 1970-20021 identified a variety of conditions, materials, locations, and buildings. Fifteen cases were from the U.S., two from Canada, and five from Europe, Russia, and South America. The numbers of fire collapse events can be categorized by building material as follows:

* Concrete: 7 (1 in Pentagon 9-11 event)
* Structural steel: 6 (4 in 9-11 WTC events)
* Brick/Masonry: 5
* Wood: 2
* Unknown: 2

Three of the these events were from the 1970s, another three from the 1980s, four from the 1990s, and 12 in 2000 and beyond. This temporal distribution is skewed towards more recent occurrences, as expected, both due to the magnitude of the WTC (counted as four events) and Pentagon (one event) disasters of 9-11 and the news media searches.

The collapse distribution by building story height was as follows:

* 4-8 stories: 13
* 9-20: 3
* 21 or more: 6

Almost 60 percent of the cases are in the 4-8 stories range, with the remainder affecting much taller buildings. Six collapses occurred in buildings over 20 stories, and three of these were the WTC steel-framed buildings (1, 2, and 7).

At least four of these fire collapses had occurred during construction or renovations of some kind, when the usual expected architectural, structural, and fire protection functions were still incomplete or temporarily disrupted, and/or potential new fire sources were introduced, such as electrical and gas line repairs, welding, and the presence of other flammable supplies and/or equipment. Partial collapses (14 events) were the most frequent occurrences, and the WTC disasters (listed as four separate events, with three full collapses) dominated the full collapse event total of eight cases. Office and residential were the primary types of occupancy in these 22 buildings, as would be expected in multistory construction, with the occupancy distribution being as follows:

* Office: 9
* Residential: 8
* Commercial: 3
* Combined commercial/residential: 2

The 9-11 events are quite thoroughly documented in the FEMA 4032 and ASCE-SEI Pentagon Reports,3 with further NIST investigations on the WTC ongoing, and will not be further covered herein. Rather, some other interesting and more obscure cases of fire-induced collapses will be described.

Two large department store fires in Athens, Greece, in 1980 are documented in the paper by Kyriakos Papaioannoa, 1986.4 These fires began at 3 a.m. on Dec. 19, 1980, with arson being suspected as the cause. The Katrantzos Sport Department Store was an 8-story reinforced concrete building. Its fire started at the 7th floor and rapidly spread throughout the building, due to lack of vertical or horizontal compartmentation and the absence of sprinklers. Collected evidence indicated that the fire temperatures reached 1000°C over the 2- to 3-hour fire duration, and the firefighters concentrated on containing the fire spread to the adjacent buildings. Upon termination of these fires, it was discovered that a major part of the 5th to 8th floors had collapsed. Various other floor and column failures throughout the Katrantzos Building were also observed (see Figure 1). The cause of these failures was considered to be restraint of the differential thermal expansion of the structure that overloaded its specific elements or connections. On May 21, 1987, Sao Paulo had one of the biggest fires in Brazil, which precipitated a substantial partial collapse of the central core of the tall CESP Building 2.5 This was a 21-story office building, headquarters of the Sao Paulo Power Company (CESP), after whom the building was named. Buildings 1 and 2 of this office complex were both of reinforced concrete framing, with ribbed slab floors. These two buildings had several unique internal features and contents. Both buildings still retained their original wood forms used for pouring the concrete floor slabs, which were never removed. Low-height plywood partition walls were also used in the interiors. Approximately two hours after the beginning of the fire in CESP 2, its structural core area throughout the full building height collapsed. This collapse was attributed to the thermal expansion of the horizontal concrete T-beam frames under the elevated fire temperatures, which led to the fracture of the vertical framing elements and their connections in the middle of the building, and the consequent progressive loss of gravity load-carrying capacity (see Figure 2).

A fire-initiated full collapse of a textile factory occurred in Alexandria, Egypt, on July 19, 2000.6 This 6-story building was built of reinforced concrete, and its fire started at about 9 a.m. in the storage room at the ground floor. Fire extinguishers were nonfunctional, and the fire spread quickly before the firefighters could arrive. An electrical short-circuit accelerated the fire spread. At about 6 p.m., nine hours after the start of the fire, when the blaze seemingly was under control and subsiding, the building suddenly collapsed, killing 27 people. Figure 3 shows a photograph of this collapse.

CONCLUSIONS
Past experience and this 2002 NIST collapse survey confirm that fires, and the related damage, deaths, casualties, and any collapses, are essentially rare and random events, whose effects depend highly on the time, nature, and circumstances of the fire occurrence. Thus, fires represent a hazard to all building types, materials, and occupancies. Likewise, the added fire-fighting difficulty in all taller buildings must be recognized, given the longer times needed to escape or access the higher floors. Many of the past major fires in tall buildings fortunately occurred in the evenings or weekends, when the office buildings were almost vacant, thereby, minimizing their potential dangers to human life. Automatic sprinkler systems are a very effective means to suppress a fire, but if the system is being repaired, or is nonexistent or nonfunctional for other reasons, the threat of fire growth increases.

Another important finding of this study was the lack of readily available, and well-documented, information on partial or total structural collapse due to fire. Unless the fire event was significant for other reasons, e.g., loss of life, very little information was available. It is recommended that a centralized database be developed, whereby structural damage and collapse can be investigated and systematically reported in the future. The current lack of systematic information on fire-induced collapses seriously limits the profession's understanding of the scope and nature of the real structural fire protection problem.

Jesse Beitel and Nestor Iwankiw are with Hughes Associates, Inc.

REFERENCES

1. Iwankiw, N., and Beitel, J., "Analysis of Needs and Existing Capabilities for Full-Scale Fire Resistance Testing," Hughes Associates, Report NIST GCR 02-843, December 2002.
2. 2 FEMA 403, World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, May 2002.
3. ASCE-SEI, The Pentagon Building Performance Report, ASCE, Reston, VA, January 2003.
4. Papaioannoa, K., "The Conflagration of Two Large Department Stores in the Centre of Athens," Fire and Materials, Vol. 10, 1986, pp. 171-177, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
5. Berto, A.F., and Tomina, J.C., "Lessons From the Fire in the CESP Administration Headquarters," IPT Building Technologies, 1988, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
6. BBC News, "Factory Fire Kills 15 in Egypt," World: Asia-Pacific, July 20, 2000.



Just for your reference....

[Christopher7]

Where does it say that a steel frame bldg collapsed?

Reinforced con. is quite diffrent. (and they didn't totally collapse)

I'll change that to global (total) collapse for clarity.

Thank you for the correction.

The point is still the same

No modern high rise steel frame building has ever totally collapsed due to fire.

[T.A.M.]

Where does it say reinforced concrete. It lists "Structural steel" and then in brackets references WTC 1,2,7 as three of the six.

Time for you to bring your evidence (besides the NIST or FEMA, since as a CTer you believe them to be false) demonstrating, like your quote, that there has never been a STEEL FRAMED HIGHRISE STRUCTURE to EVER COLLAPSE.

[T.A.M.]

and since it lists the Pentagon, a steel reinforced concrete structure, under the "Concrete" section, I would suggest that section is for the "reinforced concrete" buildings.

From 911review.org:

The Pentagon is constructed with 42,000 40 cm. (15") square steel reinforced concrete pillars.

[Pardalis]

Reinforced con.

This seems about right.

http://www.wordreference.com/fren/con

[Christopher7]

The core of the Madrid tower was reinforced concrete, but the upper 16 stories of perimeter columns(which failed completely) were nothing but steel.

On the subject of the Madrid Winsdor fire, can anyone guess as to what was actually fuelling that fire? Since it was in the middle of a renovation programme I wouldn't expect any combustibles that you would find in an office or hotel to be present.

It raged out of controll for something like 24 hrs.

Refrence for the steel beam failure please.

Please accept my apology for the negative remark. It was my understanding that it was a reinforced concrete construction.

BTW The building did NOT collapse.

[Mancman]

It raged out of controll for something like 24 hrs.

Refrence for the steel beam failure please.

Please accept my apology for the negative remark. It was my understanding that it was a reinforced concrete construction.

BTW The building did NOT collapse.

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

"Despite a complete burn-out, the strength provided by a technical concrete floor, plus the passive fire resistance of the building's concrete core and frame, prevented the building from collapse.
The only part of the building to collapse was the network of steel perimeter columns supporting the slab on the upper floors."

"This case study is an example of the excellent performance of a concrete frame designed using traditional methods and subjected to an intense fire. It also highlights the risks when active fire protection measures fail or are not included in steel frame construction."

The building did not suffer global collapse (nobody claims this), but all the steel perimeter columns did, which is the cruicial point.

[defaultdotxbe]

It raged out of controll for something like 24 hrs.
as manc stated the building was undergoing renovations so there liekly was not a great deal of fuel available for the fire, meaning it would have been less intense than WTC fires

Refrence for the steel beam failure please.
i dont have a picture handy, but its pretty lcear the steel framework around the core suffered a complete collapse

BTW The building did NOT collapse.
the steel portion DID collapse

BTW the building was NOT hit by a plane

[Christopher7]

Where does it say reinforced concrete. It lists "Structural steel" and then in brackets references WTC 1,2,7 as three of the six.

Time for you to bring your evidence (besides the NIST or FEMA, since as a CTer you believe them to be false) demonstrating, like your quote, that there has never been a STEEL FRAMED HIGHRISE STRUCTURE to EVER COLLAPSE.

It also lists wtc5 but makes no mention of what or where the other 2 are.

[T.A.M.]

You are correct, but where they are is not that important. I would say what is of some relevence, though, is if the other "Structural Steel" Structures they mention, were complete or partial collapses.

My point was, as I have always said, the grandiose statement pushed by the CT movement, is too wide in scope.

If it was restructured as...

"There has never been a complete collapse of a steel framed structure in North America in recent history." That would be harder to disprove. Then we would have to find out if the other buildings listed under "Steel Structured" were (a) Steel Framed, (b) in North America, and (c) complete collapses...

[Christopher7]

as manc stated the building was undergoing renovations so there liekly was not a great deal of fuel available for the fire, meaning it would have been less intense than WTC fires


i dont have a picture handy, but its pretty lcear the steel framework around the core suffered a complete collapse


the steel portion DID collapse

BTW the building was NOT hit by a plane

You're right. I stand corrected.

However, The building was fully involved and the fire burned for ?hrs before the steel beams collapsed. Also i would like to know if the steel I beams were as strong as the ones in wtc7. I'v got some more research to do.

This is why i'm here debating. To hear the other side and learn something.

Thank you very much
Chris

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Christopher7, listen to what you are saying:

Before time T, what objects X did Y because of Z? If you can't show that X did Y because of Z before T then X did not Y because of Z.

You understand that this is a logical fallacy because there must be a first instance of something, yes?

The onus is upon you to show that Y could not happen to X because of Z, regardless of T. Or, put back in terms of 9/11: you have to show that the wtc7 could not have collapse because of fire and debris, regardless of if there had been an analogous situtation prior to 9/11 or not.

[Christopher7]

You are correct, but where they are is not that important. I would say what is of some relevence, though, is if the other "Structural Steel" Structures they mention, were complete or partial collapses.

My point was, as I have always said, the grandiose statement pushed by the CT movement, is too wide in scope.

If it was restructured as...

"There has never been a complete collapse of a steel framed structure in America in recent history."

That would be harder to disprove. Then we would have to find out if the other buildings listed under "Steel Structured" were (a) Steel Framed, (b) in North America, and (c) complete collapses...

You are also right. I deleted north because of the Venezuela fire (although i could get in trouble here)
I have confidence that if there are any other cases of total collapse, you will find them. Meanwhile i'm going to look into the Madrid collapse.

Thanks to all. Have a nice day.

[Trifikas]

Dude, we're talking about wtc7. Get with the program

Fires have gutted buildings in L.A., Philly, and Venezuela. In all 3 cases the steel frame was NOT DAMAGED. They were all rebuilt without replacing any of the steel I beams. Fires in buildings don't burn hot enough to weaken steel I beams. Where you get this stuff, one of those debunking sites?

Let's not cast aspersions as to what programs I am or am not with, dude. The "No previous high-rise steel etc.." argument still doesn't wash with respect with WTC 7, either. It had more than a fire to contend with, it had structural damage as well, and the location of the fire was probably in the absolute worst place in the structure, along a transfer beam supporting the majority of the load.

The standing theory is that a gas pipe continued to fuel the fire, continuously heating the transfer beam (maybe more than one, don't have this information immediatly in front of me) to the point of weakening and failure.



Don't have first hand knowledge of the other two, I watched Meridian burn from the City Hall plaza, and know from friends and family in the fire detection / supression businesses that they were worried about collapse of the building. A report is at

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf#search=%22meridian%20plaza%20philadelphia% 22


With respect to the the frame being intact, from the report:

After the fire, there was evident significant structural
damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire
damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted -- some as much as
three feet.

Meridian also claimed the lives of three of Philly's Finest.

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, listen to what you are saying:

Before time T, what objects X did Y because of Z? If you can't show that X did Y because of Z before T then X did not Y because of Z.

You understand that this is a logical fallacy because there must be a first instance of something, yes?

The onus is upon you to show that Y could not happen to X because of Z, regardless of T. Or, put back in terms of 9/11: you have to show that the wtc7 could not have collapse because of fire and debris, regardless of if there had been an analogous situtation prior to 9/11 or not.

No. I only have to establish that it could have been a CD.
Rember, the official story is a 'could be' there's NO PROOF.
So no need to un-prove it

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No. I only have to establish that it could have been a CD.
Rember, the official story is a 'could be' there's NO PROOF.
So no need to un-prove it

If all you "have to establish [is] that it could have been a CD" then why are you wasting your time looking for other examples of steel frame fires resulting in collapse? It does nothing to substantiate your claim of CD.

[Christopher7]

If all you "have to establish [is] that it could have been a CD" then why are you wasting your time looking for other examples of steel frame fires resulting in collapse? It does nothing to substantiate your claim of CD.

I'm not, you guys are, and doing a very good job of it.

I'v got some research to do. See ya tomorrow

Chris

[Christopher7]

Let's not cast aspersions as to what programs I am or am not with, dude. The "No previous high-rise steel etc.." argument still doesn't wash with respect with WTC 7, either. It had more than a fire to contend with, it had structural damage as well, and the location of the fire was probably in the absolute worst place in the structure, along a transfer beam supporting the majority of the load.

The standing theory is that a gas pipe continued to fuel the fire, continuously heating the transfer beam (maybe more than one, don't have this information immediatly in front of me) to the point of weakening and failure.



Don't have first hand knowledge of the other two, I watched Meridian burn from the City Hall plaza, and know from friends and family in the fire detection / supression businesses that they were worried about collapse of the building. A report is at

http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf#search=%22meridian%20plaza%20philadelphia% 22


With respect to the the frame being intact, from the report:



Meridian also claimed the lives of three of Philly's Finest.

Link doesn't work. Sounds like something i should read.

I'll be back tomorrow. have a nice day

Chris

[Trifikas]

Link doesn't work. Sounds like something i should read.

I'll be back tomorrow. have a nice day

Chris

Sorry about that...the link works for me, but try this one:

www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf

[kookbreaker]

ETA Just re-read your post, Where does is say that the steel frame portion failed?

You don't know what you are talking about.
There are 2 diffrent kinds of steel construction.

The Madrid Sheraton was a steel renforced concrete, that is, steel rebar (round pieces of steel) are set vertically and wraped with more rebar to make a cage. Then a form is placed arround the rebar and cement is poured into the form. I have done this kind of construction meny times (on a much smaller scale)
This kind of construction is not as strong as steel I beams which are NOT surrounded by concrete because they don't need the concrete. Unlike rebar they are self supporting.
A steel frame building means a steel I beam frame.
Madrid was not a steel frame building, it was a steel reinforced concrete frame building.
I hope i'v made that clear enough for a layman to understand.
If not let me know.


Yeah, here's a layman's comment back for you: Now that you've admitted everything you said here was wrong, do you want to take back the 'you don't know what you're talking about' comment?

[gumboot]

Link doesn't work. Sounds like something i should read.

I'll be back tomorrow. have a nice day

Chris


Another thing you should look up is the Kader Toy Factory fire, May 10, 1993, Thailand. Three steel-frame 4 storey buildings suffered total collapse from fire alone. Building 2 collapsed in 15 minutes.

-Andrew

[Gravy]

Dude, we're talking about wtc7. Get with the program

Fires have gutted buildings in L.A., Philly, and Venezuela. In all 3 cases the steel frame was NOT DAMAGED. They were all rebuilt without replacing any of the steel I beams. Fires in buildings don't burn hot enough to weaken steel I beams. Where you get this stuff, one of those debunking sites?

You are horribly iignorant.

WTC 5. Office fire only. Fire-protected column and beam buckled on floor 8 of 9. Some lower floors failed completely and...pancaked. Why didn't the whole building collapse? It's only 9 stories tall and wider than it is tall. Imagine if this fire-damaged 8th floor had been hit by an airliner and had another 200 million pounds on top of it.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044aa72598802f.jpg

You work in construction?

As Kookbreaker points out, the Meridian building in Philly was so weakened it had to be shored so that it could be torn down safely. This fire was FOUGHT, the building was not hit by an an airliner traveling at top speed.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044efb13a4b6c9.jpg

Beams deflected up to three feet between columns.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044efb13a8d145.jpg

The Madrid building? The steel on the top ten floors DID fail, due to fire. The perimeter columns were not steel reinforced concrete, they were fire-protected steel.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044b4a743bd2aa.jpg

[T.A.M.]

That is a good find gumboot, but most CTers will simply say they are not highrise buildings, blah blah blah

[gumboot]

That is a good find gumboot, but most CTers will simply say they are not highrise buildings, blah blah blah


True. The weakening steel structure didn't have 10 - 20 floors on top of it to support. And yet they still collapsed.

I find that whole CT thing of "they're so tall and strong" to be laughable. Taller buildings are ALWAYS less stable.

-Andrew

[Christopher7]

Sorry about that...the link works for me, but try this one:

www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf (http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf)

Thanx: That one didn't work fo me either. I can get to the page but can't scroll. Maby it's my dial-up.
Could you post the relivant part about it having to be torn down
Thanx

[Pardalis]

Christopher7, you are 63 and you spell "thanks" with an "x"???

Come on...

[Christopher7]

[quote=Gravy;1876726]You are horribly iignorant.

WTC 5. Office fire only. Fire-protected column and beam buckled on floor 8 of 9. Some lower floors failed completely and...pancaked. Why didn't the whole building collapse? It's only 9 stories tall and wider than it is tall. Imagine if this fire-damaged 8th floor had been hit by an airliner and had another 200 million pounds on top of it.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044aa72598802f.jpg

Good point about the damage to the steel beams. It had been my belief that fires in these buildings (Madrid, Meridian, and wtc5) had not caused structural damage. I stand corrected.
wtc5 was fully involved yet it didn't collapse completely
It had meny tons of wtc1 fall on it, thats probably what collapsed part of it.
Good find on Maridian pics.

[Christopher7]

Yeah, here's a layman's comment back for you: Now that you've admitted everything you said here was wrong, do you want to take back the 'you don't know what you're talking about' comment?

I overstated and have been corrected.......Revised statement:

Other than 9-11, no modern steel frame high rise building has completely collapsed in the USA due to fire.

I retract and apologise for the negative comment.

Chris

[Christopher7]

Another thing you should look up is the Kader Toy Factory fire, May 10, 1993, Thailand. Three steel-frame 4 storey buildings suffered total collapse from fire alone. Building 2 collapsed in 15 minutes.

-Andrew

If you read the whole article it says that the building didn't even meet Bangock's (sp) minimal building standards.

[Christopher7]

That is a good find gumboot, but most CTers will simply say they are not highrise buildings, blah blah blah

Right again. The taller the building, the beefer the lower framework.

Also, wtc5 was fully involved and didn't completely collapse.

[Pardalis]

Also, wtc5 was fully involved and didn't completely collapse.

Oh crap, they forgot to set charges in WTC5. How absent-minded of them!

[Christopher7]

There's NO proof that the debris damage and fire caused wtc7 to collapse completely.
There were only a few scattered fires on the west, north and ease sides of wtc7.
The debris and fire damage wluld have resulted in a collapse like Ok. city, not a global collapse.
Since CD's are the only known cause for global collapse of modern steel frame high rise buildings in the USA, that possibility should be considered.

[Pardalis]

There's NO proof that the debris damage and fire caused wtc7 to collapse completely.
There were only a few scattered fires on the west, north and ease sides of wtc7.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1857649&postcount=83

Since CD's are the only known cause for global collapse of modern steel frame high rise buildings in the USA, that possibility should be considered.

Argument from personal incredulity.

[Christopher7]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1857649&postcount=83



Argument from personal incredulity.

I am willing to admit when i am wrong and revise my position.

Are you willing to acknowledge the possibility that wtc7 could have been a CD?

[Pardalis]

Are you willing to acknowledge the possibility that wtc7 could have been a CD?

Show me proof.

Have you read Gravy's post I just linked to you BTW, especially this part http://911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi ?

[Christopher7]

Show me proof.

Have you read Gravy's post I just linked to you BTW, especially this part http://911myths.com/wtc7moresmoke.avi ?


I have seen this video. It is NOT proof of a global collapse. Perhaps one like Ok city.

There is NO proof that wtc7 suffered a GLOBAL collapse. Yet you keep insisting i provied proof for the only known cause of a global collapse.

Will you acknowledge the POSSIBILITY that wtc7 could have been a CD?

[Pardalis]

I have seen this video. It is NOT proof of a global collapse.

But it is proof that WTC7 was extremely damaged.

Will you acknowledge the POSSIBILITY that wtc7 could have been a CD?

No, I have no reason to believe there were explosives used.

[Gravy]

Will you acknowledge the POSSIBILITY that wtc7 could have been a CD?

I absolutely will. As soon as you provide evidence. Good luck with that.

[Christopher7]

I absolutely will. As soon as you provide evidence. Good luck with that.

How about the molten metal in the basement or the eyewhitness testimony saying they hear expolsions and the bottom floor blew out. If i go find the statements will you reject them out of hand like the fact that wtc7 looks like a CD?

[Pardalis]

like the fact that wtc7 looks like a CD?

Chris, don't make me post it again... Don't push me, you know I will... :D

[Christopher7]

Manyana

[Gravy]

How about the molten metal in the basement or the eyewhitness testimony saying they hear expolsions and the bottom floor blew out. If i go find the statements will you reject them out of hand like the fact that wtc7 looks like a CD?

Show me a CD that produced molten metal in a basement. Just one will do. Thanks.

[MikeW]

But it is proof that WTC7 was extremely damaged.
There's now another clip showing damage at the bottom of http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html . I have a big downloadable version there, or you can check a smaller YouTube version at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4

[T.A.M.]

Christopher7:

1. I am glad you are open minded enough to have revised your statement (unlike most of your CT counterparts, who will not). However, your presente revision only holds true, if you have proven those two other buildings mentioned in the article I showed you were not in the USA.

2. I am willing to admit that WTC7 was POSSIBLY, but VERY UNLIKELY brought down by a CD. I am also willing to admit that it is POSSILBE, but VERY UNLIKELY that someone painted each of the steel beams in WTC7 with a new paint that ate away at the beams over 5-6 hours, and then forced the collapse...you get my drift. Without proof, there are a tonne of POSSIBLE, but VERY UNLIKELY causes...Given the qualifications of the NIST investigators, I will almost certainly agree with what ever conclusion they come to in their final report as the "MOST LIKELY" cause of the collapse of WTC7.

3. Wasn't there a huge cache of fuel in the basement/bottom floor of WTC7 that exploded and caused fires...or am I wrong? Wouldnt that explain the explosion...the molten metal, I believe is from WTC 1&2 debris, not WTC7.

4. As for "Global" collapse, I do not think that happened, in the traditional sense. WHile the entire building came down, not all of it collapsed at once. Looking at the debris field, one can see that the SOUTH SIDE Collapsed, and the North Face of the building fell over this debris, like a blanket, almost intact...Depends, I guess, on the official description of the term "Global" collapse.

TAM

[gumboot]

If you read the whole article it says that the building didn't even meet Bangock's (sp) minimal building standards.


Um... for fire safety. Not for structural integrity. It lacked sprinklers and insulation on the steel.

The buildings were structurally sound. There was a fire. And they totally collapsed. Steel buildings collapse from fire.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

There's NO proof that the debris damage and fire caused wtc7 to collapse completely.
There were only a few scattered fires on the west, north and ease sides of wtc7.
The debris and fire damage wluld have resulted in a collapse like Ok. city, not a global collapse.
Since CD's are the only known cause for global collapse of modern steel frame high rise buildings in the USA, that possibility should be considered.


I really don't think you appreciate how extensive the damage and fires were. And have you forgotten the enormous frikken fuel tank in the building?

-Andrew

[gumboot]

I have seen this video. It is NOT proof of a global collapse. Perhaps one like Ok city.


I think you're confused. Oklahoma City was the one that had explosives, not WTC7. Oklahoma City didn't totally collapse. WTC7 did.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

Other than 9-11, no modern steel frame high rise building has completely collapsed in the USA due to fire.


Oh I can play this game. Other than 9-11, no modern steel frame high rise building AT LEAST 100 floors high has completely collapsed in lower manhattan due to fire.

Wow. Amazing.

Wait. WTC1 and 2 didn't collapse due to fire. That's right. There was that whole thing with the FRIKKEN WIDE-BODY AIRLINERS BEING FLOWN INTO THEM AT 500MPH!!!!!

I wonder if that had anything to do with the collapse...:rolleyes:

As soon as you make claims about buildings collapsing "due to fire" you are being dishonest.

Let's try this scenario. No steel-framed skyscraper that has been hit by a commercial airliner at high speed has EVER remained standing. Not once, in human history.

-Andrew

[Gravy]

There were only a few scattered fires on the west, north and ease sides of wtc7.
Well, there you go again...

Banaciski: "I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about."

Boyle: "So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors."

Nigro: "It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people."

Cruthers: "Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse."

(Saving Pardalis a coronary): http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1857649&postcount=83

The debris and fire damage wluld have resulted in a collapse like Ok. city, not a global collapse.
From the same person who didn't think that fire damages structural steel comes this opinion that WTC 7 should have reacted like a 9-story reinforced concrete building that was hit by a truck bomb.

Un-freaking-believable.

[Gravy]

As soon as you make claims about buildings collapsing "due to fire" you are being dishonest.

I need to make a recording of that, because I'll be saying it about 200 times in a few hours at Ground Zero.

[T.A.M.]

Prior to 9/11, there was never a case of 19 Hijackers taking over commercial airliners and ramming them into buildings...therefore it couldnt have happened...lol

It may be straw, but its also funny...:)

TAM

[gumboot]

Prior to 9/11, there was never a case of 19 Hijackers taking over commercial airliners and ramming them into buildings...therefore it couldnt have happened...lol


Prior to September 17, 1981, I had never exist.

That means I musn't exist! :eye-poppi

* gumboot vanishes in a puff of smoke.

-Andrew

[Hellbound]

Prior to September 17, 1981, I had never exist.

That means I musn't exist! :eye-poppi

* gumboot;1877285 vanishes in a puff of smoke.

-Andrew


That's not even the tiop of the iceberg!

Prior to September 11th, 2001, there had never been a Spetember 11th, 2001!!!!!!!!!!1one!!!111!!!!!!eleven!!!!!

:D

[tsig]

.


I'm just going sane in a crazy world.



GOD BLESS


Sentinel

We all live in a world of functional insanity.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Prior to September 17, 1981, I had never exist.

That means I musn't exist! :eye-poppi

* gumboot;1877285 vanishes in a puff of smoke.

-Andrew

Whippersnapper.

[gumboot]

Whippersnapper.

I always laugh when you guys go on about the CTers being male internet-savvy twenty-somethings...

We're not ALL morons...:rolleyes:

-Andrew

[Brainache]

Well I only have a birthday once every four years. What are the chances of that? That's gotta prove I can't be real.:boggled:

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I always laugh when you guys go on about the CTers being male internet-savvy twenty-somethings...

We're not ALL morons...:rolleyes:

-Andrew

I kiiiid, I kiiiid. I'm only 30.

[gumboot]

I kiiiid, I kiiiid. I'm only 30.

:p

I know. But it is funny. In many ways I fit the CTer profile pretty good. Film people gobble woo for lunch, both young and old.

I was studying at film school during 2001. You should have heard the conversations on September 12. :covereyes

-Andrew

[T.A.M.]

TAM, at the aged 35, moves to quickly, and listens to the snap of his hip break...lol

:)

[NobbyNobbs]

Well I only have a birthday once every four years. What are the chances of that? That's gotta prove I can't be real.:boggled:

No, that only proves that you look four times older than you are.

[tsig]

2. I am willing to admit that WTC7 was POSSIBLY, but VERY UNLIKELY brought down by a CD. I am also willing to admit that it is POSSILBE, but VERY UNLIKELY that someone painted each of the steel beams in WTC7 with a new paint that ate away at the beams over 5-6 hours, and then forced the collapse...you get my drift.
TAM

The FSM ripped out the steel beams with Her mighty noodly apenedages.

Life with no reality anchor is ....

[Regnad Kcin]

Read my post again. I only said that a CD should be considered as an alternate possibility.No, you did not "only" say that:

My question was not retorical. The purpose of debate is to hear other points of view and perhaps learn something. Reading the NIST report was very enlightining. Up to now i thought there was some proof wct7 collapsed due to debris and fire because so meny people have been stating with certanty that this was the case.

Evadently there is NO PROOF that wtc7 collapsed due to debris and fire damage or controlled demolition.

Like it or not, there are 2 theories on what brought wtc7 down. There are millions of people, like myself, who believe that, wtc7 was a CD.
For the last 3 months i have been reading publications, viewing videos and pictures, to see what evidence there is for both theories. I haven't seen any PROOF of either theory.

Other than 9-11, NO modern high rise steel frame building has EVER collapsed, except those brought down by controlled demolitions. It is therefore reasonible to consider this possibility.

Pardalis: I'm 63Bolding mine.

Do you know of a qualified structural engineer who states that wtc7 suffered a global collapse because of the debris damage and fires?I do not, as the information is outside of my knowledge. Note: this doesn't mean an example doesn't exist, of course, only that I don't know.

The NIST report had all the available information, including what few pieces of steel they didn't illegally destroy...What is this "illegally destroy" business?

...and they coulden't say that wtc7 collapsed due to the debris damage and fires.
Until the final report comes out (if it ever does) the difinative word of the EXPERTS is "appears possible".Frankly, my friend, I am so tired of this CT nonsense. And it is nonsense. Of the 100 proof kind.

NIST didn't have to set about eliminating all possibilities in order for the remaining one to emerge the victor. Until you provide evidence -- the hard, cold, physical kind -- of what is at this point a silly little fantasy, it will remain just that. You and your "millions of people" may not like it. Tough.

[Mancman]

The Madrid building? The steel on the top ten floors DID fail, due to fire. The perimeter columns were not steel reinforced concrete, they were fire-protected steel.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044b4a743bd2aa.jpg

Just a note; the steel which collapsed from the Madrid Building was unprotected.

Something I've just noticed: the Manchester University study http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm appears to disagree with the concrete centre webpage: http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.

Reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire.

When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected perimeter columns survived, except for the unprotected columns at the 9th and 15th floors which all buckled in the multiple floor fire (see Figure 2). However, they did not cause any structural collapse. Obviously, the applied loads supported by these buckled columns had been redistributed to the remaining reinforced concrete shear walls. Nevertheless, structural fire analysis should be carried out before such a conclusion can be drawn.

Confusing. Perhaps the thing that differed between the upper and lower sections of the building were these 'concrete shear walls' and concretecentre threw these under the term 'concrete frame'? :confused:

[Trifikas]

Thanx: That one didn't work fo me either. I can get to the page but can't scroll. Maby it's my dial-up.
Could you post the relivant part about it having to be torn down
Thanx

You know, I've not looked into it for a while, but I don't think they tore it down. But it's also unoccupied. a NYT article from 1997:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E4D9163CF93AA35751C0A9619582 60&sec=&pagewanted=print

(hopefully this one will work better than my other links for you)

stated:

The engineers have proposed stripping the building to structural steel to just below the 19th floor and reconstructing it at a cost of $250 million, Mr. Rotwitt said.

bolding the important qualification. qoogle sattelite maps show a parking garage where I recall it being, but it's tough to tell dimensions from that.

I'll see if I can find more, but Philly being what it is, it could stand for years without any decision being made.

[Mancman]

You know, I've not looked into it for a while, but I don't think they tore it down. But it's also unoccupied. a NYT article from 1997:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E4D9163CF93AA35751C0A9619582 60&sec=&pagewanted=print

(hopefully this one will work better than my other links for you)

stated:



bolding the important qualification. qoogle sattelite maps show a parking garage where I recall it being, but it's tough to tell dimensions from that.

I'll see if I can find more, but Philly being what it is, it could stand for years without any decision being made.

It was demolished entirely.

On Feb. 23rd, 1991 a fire broke out on the 22nd floor. It severely damaged eight floors, and three firefighters lost their lives. Demolition was begun in 1998 and completed in 1999.
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=102728

[kookbreaker]

It was demolished entirely.

Geez, I just noticed that it was my Dad's old company that did the Architecture on it.

[Mancman]

There's now another clip showing damage at the bottom of http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html . I have a big downloadable version there, or you can check a smaller YouTube version at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51FIPMlrFf4

Is it just me or is the southern facade sagging?

[kevin]

Right again. The taller the building, the beefer the lower framework.

and the taller the building the more energy the upper floors gain as they fall through all that height and hit the beefier lower framework. and the more mass (and therefore energy) it has when it strikes the beefier framework.

frameworks in buildings are designed to keep buildings standing in place, not have massive weights dropped on them. Nor are they designed to have many of their columns completely severed by a plane going through them, then severely heated by fire.

[kevin]

the fact that wtc7 looks like a CD?

There are only so many ways a building can fall if it's supports fail. Gravity pretty much only pulls one way.

If the lower structure of WTC 7 was damaged by non-explosive means and then failed how would the video of the collapse be different?

[Trifikas]

Geez, I just noticed that it was my Dad's old company that did the Architecture on it.

Wierd. It was my dad (and his company) who put the fire alarm system in the building...next to it.

But there you go, C7, - The building was not rebuilt with the same steel.

but at this point, can we all agree the "No steel high-rise building has collapsed due to fire..." Argument doesn't really mean anything with respect to 9/11? Between the fact that it's not technicaly true (See prior examples), and that the WTC buildings had structural damage as well as fire, The argument is not really valid.

[kevin]

Um... for fire safety. Not for structural integrity. It lacked sprinklers and insulation on the steel.

WTC 7 had no fire proofing on the steel? Wow, they're lucky they never had a regular office fire around the steel supports. Even that could've done some damage.

[Mancman]

WTC 7 had no fire proofing on the steel? Wow, they're lucky they never had a regular office fire around the steel supports. Even that could've done some damage.

I think gumboot was referring to the Kader factory fire. Though WTC7 apparently had no fireproofing in mechanical levels around the cantilever trusses.

[gumboot]

I think gumboot was referring to the Kader factory fire. Though WTC7 apparently had no fireproofing in mechanical levels around the cantilever trusses.


Having said that, I read somewhere that in a fire inspection prior to 9/11 the floor of WTC7 with the diesel tank on it was found to be well below spec - with no sprinklers and significant amounts of exposed steel where the fireproofing had come off.

-Andrew

[kevin]

Having said that, I read somewhere that in a fire inspection prior to 9/11 the floor of WTC7 with the diesel tank on it was found to be well below spec - with no sprinklers and significant amounts of exposed steel where the fireproofing had come off.


not sure on sprinklers (I doubt they had them, sprinkler coverage really wasn't being pushed by building codes until later in the 70's and 80's, at least here in the midwest) but WTC 1/2 also had significant amounts of exposed steel. Mainly in the floor joists. The NIST report has photos from building inspections where bare steel is visible. And that was just in the visible areas. Who knows what was going on behind the drywall on the columns.

[Mancman]

http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/archive/nist_wtc7.html

"• In a 1997 facility condition survey, fireproofing was observed to be prominently missing on 5th floor framing above main lobby; possible repair not confirmed.
• A majority of the 5th floor was not protected by sprinkler systems, with the exception of mechanical space to east and office area to north side of building; no evidence of sprinklers in enclosures on 5th floor (also on floors 7, 8, and 9) which housed OEM generators and day tanks. Seventh floor generator room may have been sprinklered, conflicting data.
• Two of the three sprinkler risers which were located next to stairs (#1 and #2) on the west side of the building transferred towards center on the 5th floor along with stairs.
• Sprinkler systems on floors 1 through 20 were supplied directly from the city distribution system through an automatic pump located on the 1st floor; water supply could be interrupted by loss of power to fire pump or significant damage to underground city main in vicinity of building."

[Woody-]

Time to take on this "it looked like a controlled demolition" fallacy

I did a quick search on youtube and google videos and found some clips of different CD events.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153

This one is probably the closest to what we saw in WTC7, it is the landmark tower in Fort Worth. It does fall in a very small area but besides that not much is the same. First of all you can hear numerous explosions going off before the collapse starts, then when the main charges go off their is a huge explosion at the base. Neither of these was observed at WTC7. Also you can see the building breaking into smaller sections as it falls.

Here are some others

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4616350698094286697
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7185526538684391362
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2451439718308727518
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2421326324041129616
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5515424451823800690
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6449270076349123045
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8022906563501761454
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4451252877216031192
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7000444892387259083

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsR7sTc0ghY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m85gFpJqRQo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtmwJVmBvXg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oASHTpbTeUw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XG-l3N1YfQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZdiDV3MF1k

Besides the fact you cant find any example of a building being blown up from the top down there are two things that really stand out. First, in all the videos with sound you can hear numerous small distinct explosions going off before the main charge. Second, in nearly all cases the building is brought down in sections, not in one big piece.

Of course both of those things are the very reason that they call it a "Controlled" demolition. They use the small charges to weaken the building in key spots so when they fire the main charges it will break up and fall where they want it to.

This brings me to another point, controlled demolition does not mean "drop in its own footprint". Several of those videos show buildings falling over instead of down, the "control" part is getting it to fall in the direction you want.

[pgwenthold]

Time to take on this "it looked like a controlled demolition" fallacy


In terms of how the building falls, I think WTC7 at least looks more like a CD than the other towers, which do not resemble buildings falling by CD in any way.

Of course, calling WTC7 a CD has its own problems, most importantly, as you note, the lack of explosives or even testimony that suggests there were explosions (like we hear about the other towers). Meanwhile, the fact that the building falling due to structural damage was predicted hours before it occured is fairly good confirmation that it fell due to damage.

There is, of course, the other problem, which is why they would coverup a CD of WTC7. They didn't hide their CD of the other WTC buildings that were damaged. Why not just destroy WTC7 as part of the cleanup?


This brings me to another point, controlled demolition does not mean "drop in its own footprint". Several of those videos show buildings falling over instead of down, the "control" part is getting it to fall in the direction you want.

It's a lot cheaper and easier to just tip a building over and have it smash than to pulverize it all at once, that is for sure.

[pgwenthold]

I want to repost this so it doesn't get lost. The more I think about it, the more I like it. Talk about an argument that recoils. It shows just the level of thoughtlessness that goes into the CT argument.

Christopher7 wrote:
How about the molten metal in the basement ...

Show me a CD that produced molten metal in a basement. Just one will do. Thanks.

[T.A.M.]

the following is not my belief, I am a Debunker, but to play devils advocate, this is how the CTers will reply to your posts...

CTer:
Yes, what you say may be true, but that is why the govt used Thermite, which does not emitt loud detonation sounds when it cuts the steel. Thermite is also the reason for the molten steel. Professor Steven Jones has done experiments which conclusively show the presence of Thermite in the WTC rubble.

Of course the above is Shaite, incorrect unprovable nonsense, but it is how they will answer you...

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

the following is not my belief, I am a Debunker, but to play devils advocate, this is how the CTers will reply to your posts...

CTer:
Yes, what you say may be true, but that is why the govt used Thermite, which does not emitt loud detonation sounds when it cuts the steel. Thermite is also the reason for the molten steel. Professor Steven Jones has done experiments which conclusively show the presence of Thermite in the WTC rubble.

Of course the above is Shaite, incorrect unprovable nonsense, but it is how they will answer you...

Once again highlighting the frustration of having to use pages and pages of real science to debunk one good soundbite that is full of woo.

[pgwenthold]

the following is not my belief, I am a Debunker, but to play devils advocate, this is how the CTers will reply to your posts...

CTer:
Yes, what you say may be true, but that is why the govt used Thermite, which does not emitt loud detonation sounds when it cuts the steel. Thermite is also the reason for the molten steel. Professor Steven Jones has done experiments which conclusively show the presence of Thermite in the WTC rubble.

Of course the above is Shaite, incorrect unprovable nonsense, but it is how they will answer you...

It's the old "It was a CD unlike any other CD ever done" argument.

[T.A.M.]

Exactly...oh, and the CTer would have gone on to their latest, which is that the Thermite was set at every level, and they had a remote control, so that they could set off the Thermite at the very level the planes hit first...that is why it doesn't look like a standard CD...

[Pardalis]

Time to take on this "it looked like a controlled demolition" fallacy

I did a quick search on youtube and google videos and found some clips of different CD events.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4616350698094286697
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7185526538684391362
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2451439718308727518
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2421326324041129616
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5515424451823800690
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6449270076349123045
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8022906563501761454
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4451252877216031192
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7000444892387259083

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsR7sTc0ghY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m85gFpJqRQo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtmwJVmBvXg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oASHTpbTeUw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XG-l3N1YfQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZdiDV3MF1k


Dang, these are cool to watch, especially when you know nobody is in them.

[Sentinel]

Chief picciotto states that collapse started around the 6th floor.




Sentinel

[Gravy]

Sentinel, shouldn't you have more respect for the truth than that? Piccioto was in the stairwell between 6 & 7 when the tower collapsed around him, Ladder 6, and Josephine Harris. He doesn't think the collapse started there, for chrissakes. Get a grip.

[Christopher7]

In post 125 pg 4 Gravy posted a picture of a section of wtc7 framework pointing out where it sheared off.
Since steel bends and doesen't just break off, these beams must have been cut.

Here's a closeup of a beam behind the above mentoind framework section.
If you enlarge and center on the large hole in the Vorizon bldg. you can see this beam behind the framework section.

DanielsNews, wtc7, 9/11 and after, beam closeup
http://danielsnews.com/index.php?name=coppermine&file=displayimage&album=1&pos=0

[LashL]

What's the deal with Sentinel here, if I may ask? Having skimmed through the thread, it's not clear to me.

(I hope this query does not violate any rules, I'm just genuinely curious but can't make heads nor tails of it from skimming this thread and thought perhaps this would be an efficient way of cutting to the chase, as it were.)

[kookbreaker]

In post 125 pg 4 Gravy posted a picture of a section of wtc7 framework pointing out where it sheared off.
Since steel bends and doesen't just break off, these beams must have been cut.

Wrong,

Metal does sheer and break very well. Ask any fencer who has broken a blade.

[sleahead]

the following is not my belief, I am a Debunker, but to play devils advocate, this is how the CTers will reply to your posts...

CTer:
Yes, what you say may be true, but that is why the govt used Thermite, which does not emitt loud detonation sounds when it cuts the steel. Thermite is also the reason for the molten steel. Professor Steven Jones has done experiments which conclusively show the presence of Thermite in the WTC rubble.

Of course the above is Shaite, incorrect unprovable nonsense, but it is how they will answer you...

Perhaps I'm not up to date with the theories of Professor Jones, but I thought his theory involved the use of both thermite and explosives - thermite to weaken the structure and explosives to finish the job. However, in the absence of any seismographic evidence of explosions, is Jones now proposing a theory involving thermite alone?

[Christopher7]

Wrong,

Metal does sheer and break very well. Ask any fencer who has broken a blade.

There's a huge difrence between a fencing blade and steel plate.

Are you actually saying that all these steel plates snaped and broke off ?

Go to DanielsNews.com and look at the picture i mentioned above. Note the blue discoloration.
This indicates high temperatures.

[gumboot]

What's the deal with Sentinel here, if I may ask? Having skimmed through the thread, it's not clear to me.

(I hope this query does not violate any rules, I'm just genuinely curious but can't make heads nor tails of it from skimming this thread and thought perhaps this would be an efficient way of cutting to the chase, as it were.)


I stand ready to be corrected,

But as I recall he is an Auxillary Fireman in New York. He seems to believe in a degree of CT - at least as far as he believes there were bombs or explosives inside the Towers that caused/contributed to their collapse.

However he is most vocal in resisting the Loosers and their antics at Ground Zero. He does not consider the site where nearly 3,000 people died to be appropriate for their politics. He also seems to be pretty vocal in general about the poor state of FDNY and the lack of support they have from NYC.

He tends to pop in now and then and drop off a few lines that can be hard to decipher.

Hopefully he will pop in and correct any errors I have made above.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

There's a huge difrence between a fencing blade and steel plate.

Are you actually saying that all these steel plates snaped and broke off ?


There's less difference between a fencing blade and a steel plate than there is between clashing two blades together and ripping a 110 floor build apart.

-Andrew

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

There's a huge difrence between a fencing blade and steel plate.

Are you actually saying that all these steel plates snaped and broke off ?

Go to DanielsNews.com and look at the picture i mentioned above. Note the blue discoloration.
This indicates high temperatures.

Steel plates can, and do, shear:
http://www.efunda.com/processes/metal_processing/stamping.cfm


Shear strength in structural engineering is a term used to describe the strength against the type of structural failure where a component fails by shearing when it splits into two parts that slide past each other. The shear strength of a component is most important for beams but also relevant for e. g. plates. In a reinforced concrete beam, the main purpose of stirrups is to increase the shear strength. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_strength)


Shear Strength
The stress required to produce fracture in the plane of cross section, the conditions of loading being such that the directions of force and of resistance are parallel and opposite although their paths are offset a specified minimum amount. Source (http://www.mesteel.com/dictionary/index.html)

[Christopher7]

Steel plates can, and do, shear:
http://www.efunda.com/processes/metal_processing/stamping.cfm

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_strength)

Source (http://www.mesteel.com/dictionary/index.html)

In construction, shear strength is gained by adding diagonal members to keep a wall from collapsing to the side.

Your first quote is about a hydrolic press shearing (cutting) a piece of steel
Your second quote is about 2 parts slide past each other
Edit to correct: Your third quote is about a fracture in a plane of a cross section
Shear strenght has nothing to do with steel plates breaking

Either these steel plates were cut or they broke off.

[kookbreaker]

There's a huge difrence between a fencing blade and steel plate.

Your comment was "Since steel bends and doesen't just break off"

Steel bends and eventually breaks.


Are you actually saying that all these steel plates snaped and broke off ?


You once again underestimate the sheer amount of forces at work during the collapse. Darn right there will be shearing and breakage.

[kookbreaker]

There's less difference between a fencing blade and a steel plate than there is between clashing two blades together and ripping a 110 floor build apart.

-Andrew

Fencing blades most often break when they strike their intended target. There is often a large amount of energy focused on a very small footprint. Steel's flexibility in this case is the reason it is used and has never been replaced by any other material.

But steel is not magic, and with enough force it will sheer off. The forces required for this, even when scaled up, are much, much less than the energy released during the collapse of the towers.

[Christopher7]

Fencing blades most often break when they strike their intended target. There is often a large amount of energy focused on a very small footprint. Steel's flexibility in this case is the reason it is used and has never been replaced by any other material.

But steel is not magic, and with enough force it will sheer off. The forces required for this, even when scaled up, are much, much less than the energy released during the collapse of the towers.

First of all we're talking about wtc7, not the towers.
Second we're talking about steel plates not fencing swords.

There's no sign of streatching or bending here. Steel will bend before it breaks.

Are you saying that all these plates just broke off without deforming at all?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

In construction, shear strength is gained by adding diagonal members to keep a wall from collapsing to the side.

Your first quote is about a hydrolic press shearing (cutting) a piece of steel
Your second quote is about 2 parts slide past each other
Edit to correct: Your third quote is about a fracture in a plane of a cross section
Shear strenght has nothing to do with steel plates breaking

Either these steel plates were cut or they broke off.

Shearing, as demonstrated in the first link and expanded upon in the subsequent links, is one of the methods of failure.

Here is info on plain old breaking:
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/education/calc-init/static-beam/material.html
http://howthingswork.virginia.edu/lecture%20slides/knives%20and%20steel.pdf#search=%22steel%20break%2 0bending%20mechanical%20properties%20shear%20-tensile%22 (pdf file)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

First of all we're talking about wtc7, not the towers.
Second we're talking about steel plates not fencing swords.

There's no sign of streatching or bending here. Steel will bend before it breaks.

Are you saying that all these plates just broke off without deforming at all?

The beams in your pic show both deformation and breakage.

I don't know if anyone else had/has trouble with the original link, if so here it is http://danielsnews.com/index.php?name=coppermine&file=displayimagepopup&pid=255&fullsize=1

[Cuddles]

First of all we're talking about wtc7, not the towers.
Second we're talking about steel plates not fencing swords.

There's no sign of streatching or bending here. Steel will bend before it breaks.

Are you saying that all these plates just broke off without deforming at all?

Are you saying that breaking isn't deforming?

[kookbreaker]

First of all we're talking about wtc7, not the towers.


It is still a humungous amount of energy.


Second we're talking about steel plates not fencing swords.


Steel does not magicly gain extra properties as it scales up. It merely takes more energy to cause the same effects.


There's no sign of streatching or bending here. Steel will bend before it breaks.

Are you saying that all these plates just broke off without deforming at all?

You are wrong. The first pics you referenced were on Gravy's page 4 post. The columns are bent. The rest have shown similar signs.

[Christopher7]

The beams in your pic show both deformation and breakage.

I don't know if anyone else had/has trouble with the original link, if so here it is http://danielsnews.com/index.php?name=coppermine&file=displayimagepopup&pid=255&fullsize=1

Thanx for the link. Yes the beam is bent but the plate "broke" in a straight line. No streatching or tearing. Also note the blue discoloration = heat: and what's that white stuff?
If this plate broke off the edge would be deformed not straight and woulden't produce that white stuff. It might produce enough heat to turn the metal blue but only a expert could say.

[DavidJames]

If this plate broke off the edge would be deformed not straight and woulden't produce that white stuff. Why don't you tell us about your background, education, work experience, that kind of thing which leads you to these conclusions?

[Christopher7]

Why don't you tell us about your background, education, work experience, that kind of thing which leads you to these conclusions?

This is not rocket science. It doesn't take any expertice to see that the steel plate was cut in a clean straight line. Further, if you look at the other beams in the framework section (DanielsNews wtc7 debris2) they were all cut at the same place (about 2" above the end of the beam) and how do you explain that white stuff?

[DavidJames]

This is not rocket science. It doesn't take any expertice...
Thanks, that's what I thought.

[azazal]

Thanx for the link. Yes the beam is bent but the plate "broke" in a straight line. No streatching or tearing. Also note the blue discoloration = heat: and what's that white stuff?
If this plate broke off the edge would be deformed not straight and woulden't produce that white stuff. It might produce enough heat to turn the metal blue but only a expert could say.

Pardon my ignoramce, I just want to make sure we're on the same page here. We're talking about the beam on the far left of the picture, correct? And what is the context of this picture? Was is taken on the 11th, a few days after when clean up had started?

[Christopher7]

Pardon my ignoramce, I just want to make sure we're on the same page here. We're talking about the beam on the far left of the picture, correct?
ans) yes

And what is the context of this picture? Was is taken on the 11th, a few days after when clean up had started?

For refrence please note DanielsNews wtc7 debris4 & 3 the debris were still smoking and a fire truck is still putting water on the debris pile. The framework section is as it is in the other pictures.

[Hellbound]

That plate you see is a connector plate. See the large beam it's attached to? Imagine another beam that size on top. It was attached to the other half of that steel plate.

The upper portion of the beam was pushed to one side or another by the weight of the upper portions collapsing. That caused the sttel beam above to act as a lever, and more than capable of shearing that steel plate off (likely through extension/stretching) without bending it excessively.

The "white" you're seeing could be a number of things. First, that looks more like silver...places where the interior steel of the plate is exposed (as would be expected from a rough seperation, as in a tear/shear event). Even assuming it's something on the plate, it would not be unreasonable to assume that some of the massive amounts of falling debris could have caused it (such as a piece of drywall impacting and depositing bits of plater on the rough edges of the torn plate).

[azazal]

For refrence please note DanielsNews wtc7 debris4 & 3 the debris were still smoking and a fire truck is still putting water on the debris pile. The framework section is as it is in the other pictures.

See that's why I want to make sure we're all on the same page.

Back in post #379 you said
If you enlarge and center on the large hole in the Vorizon bldg. you can see this beam behind the framework section.

DanielsNews, wtc7, 9/11 and after, beam closeup

Then in post 383 you said
Go to DanielsNews.com and look at the picture i mentioned above. Note the blue discoloration.
This indicates high temperatures.

Is the picture http://danielsnews.com/index.php?name=coppermine&file=displayimagepopup&pid=255&fullsize=1 for WTC 7 or for the Verizon building? If it was the Verizon building, then how come there is no metion of explosive charges found during it's renovation?

[Christopher7]

That plate you see is a connector plate. See the large beam it's attached to? Imagine another beam that size on top. It was attached to the other half of that steel plate.

The upper portion of the beam was pushed to one side or another by the weight of the upper portions collapsing. That caused the sttel beam above to act as a lever, and more than capable of shearing that steel plate off (likely through extension/stretching) without bending it excessively.

The "white" you're seeing could be a number of things. First, that looks more like silver...places where the interior steel of the plate is exposed (as would be expected from a rough seperation, as in a tear/shear event). Even assuming it's something on the plate, it would not be unreasonable to assume that some of the massive amounts of falling debris could have caused it (such as a piece of drywall impacting and depositing bits of plater on the rough edges of the torn plate).

So you believe that this and several other plates broke off in a STRAIGHT line about 2" above the beam joint without stretching or deforming ?

Do you consider it possible that they were cut with a shape charge ?

[Hellbound]

So you believe that this and several other plates broke off in a STRAIGHT line about 2" above the beam joint without stretching or deforming ?

Do you consider it possible that they were cut with a shape charge ?

It's not a straight line.

You can see evidence of some deformation in the rough edge of the tear, as well as the peak along the tear line.

HAving seen the effects of cutting charges and shaped charges up close, I feel I can confidently say, categorically, that this was not the result of a cutting charge.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/beam1.jpgCropped and zoomed area of interest
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/beam1_invert.jpgwith color inversion
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/beam1_24.jpg256 color
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v225/ArkanWolfshade/beam1_16.jpg16 color

[Hellbound]

Thank you, Arkan.

If nothing else, we seem to have proven that my photo interpretation skills far outreach those of Christopher7.

:D

[Christopher7]

It's not a straight line.

You can see evidence of some deformation in the rough edge of the tear, as well as the peak along the tear line.

HAving seen the effects of cutting charges and shaped charges up close, I feel I can confidently say, categorically, that this was not the result of a cutting charge.

The white stuff obscures the edge but if you look closely it is a STRAIGHT edge as are the other plates that "broke" 2" above the beam joint.

If you believe that all those plates could "break" in the same place and deny that those "breaks" were straight, then OK.
I respectfully disagree.

I have to go now but I'll leave you with this question:

Can you possibly believe that Washington D.C. was defenceless on 9-11, that there were no anti aircraft misles of any kind to protect our nations' capitol ?
I'll be back later to state why i believe there were.

[Hellbound]

The white stuff obscures the edge but if you look closely it is a STRAIGHT edge as are the other plates that "broke" 2" above the beam joint.

If you believe that all those plates could "break" in the same place and deny that those "breaks" were straight, then OK.
I respectfully disagree.

They weren't straight. See Arkan's posts.

I have to go now but I'll leave you with this question:

Can you possibly believe that Washington D.C. was defenceless on 9-11, that there were no anti aircraft misles of any kind to protect our nations' capitol ?
I'll be back later to state why i believe there were.

Being a member of the U.S. military, and having been to the Pentagon on a few occassions, as well as being familiar with the general strategy plans of most of our important areas, yes. I would be suprised if there were any anti-aircraft capabilities maintained on-hand. The typical thinking of the time was that any attack headed for CONUS would have adequate warning, and any needed assets could be quickly gathered from nearby bases (or pulled out of storage, I could imagine them having some hand-held AA missiles locked in an armoury somewhere). No one expected civillian planes to be the weapon. It was expected to be either a traditional terrorist attack (suicide bomber or truck/car bomb) or a military strike (fighters and/or bombers, if not ICBMs or similar).

I'm not really concerned with why you believe they were. Frankly, it doesn't matter why you beleived anything.

I woudl be interested in any actual evidence you have. And, as a note, conjecture and speculation do not equal evidence.

[DavidJames]

I'm not really concerned with why you believe they were. Frankly, it doesn't matter why you beleived anything.

I woudl be interested in any actual evidence you have. And, as a note, conjecture and speculation do not equal evidence.I suspect he pull his evidence from the same source as other CTers.

Hint - bring your toilet paper.

[Regnad Kcin]

...I have to go now but I'll leave you with this question:

Can you possibly believe that Washington D.C. was defenceless on 9-11, that there were no anti aircraft misles of any kind to protect our nations' capitol ?
I'll be back later to state why i believe there were.Not this argument again.

And around and around we go...

[Gravy]

Structural steel shearing, cracking, and splitting without bending significantly? Impossible!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f71cc3b180d.jpg
It all depends on the forces involved, my friend.

Christopher7, you've been civil and all, so I don't want you to be offended by this. I do hope you'll think about it: you say you're a construction contractor, yet every time you say something about the material properties of buildings, you get it completely wrong. That worries me.

[Gravy]

Can you possibly believe that Washington D.C. was defenceless on 9-11, that there were no anti aircraft misles of any kind to protect our nations' capitol ?
I'll be back later to state why i believe there were.
I'm launching a preemptive strike.

A reminder: on September 11, 2002, portable missile batteries were temporarily placed near the Pentagon in case of an "anniversary attack." I guess all the regular missile batteries were down for maintenance.

Richard Clarke, from Against All Enemies:
The Secret Service and Customs had teamed up in Atlanta to provide some rudimentary air defense against an aircraft flying into the Olympic Stadium. They did so again during the subsequent National Security Special Events and they agreed to create a permanent air defense unit to protect Washington.

Unfortunately, those two federal law enforcement agencies were housed in the Treasury Department and its leadership did not want to pay for such a mission or run the liability risks of shooting down the wrong aircraft. Treasury nixed the air defense unit, and my attempts within the White House to overfule them came to naught. The idea of aircraft attacking in Washington seemed remote to many people and the risks of shooting down aircraft in a city were thought to be far too high.

Moreover, the opponents of our plan argued, the Air Force could always scramble fighter aircraft to protect Washington if there were a problem. On occasions when aircraft were hijacked (and in one case when we erroneously believed a Northwest flight had been seized), the Air Force did intercept the airliners with fighter jets.

We succeeded only in getting Secret Service the permission to continue to examine air defense options, including the possibility of placing missile units near the White House. Most people who heard about our efforts to create some air defense system in case terrorists tried to fly aircraft into the Capitol, the White House, or the Pentagon simply thought we were nuts.

[Gravy]

Christopher7, you see straight lines at the top of these splice plates?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f725a46a749.jpg

Contractor licence and business registration, please. Take it out of your wallet, please. Thank you. How much have you had to drink today, sir?

[Garrette]

It may be the only time I post in this thread as I'm not as technically knowledgeable as the others here, but I'll chime in on three things:

1. Those edges are undeniably NOT straight. Insisting otherwise is evidence of a lot, but not of a conspiracy.

2. My experience with the aftermath of shaped charges is limited, but not zero: The edges of those beams do not match my experience or expectations.

3. As a long time member of the military myself, and not being unfamiliar with the facilities in and around D.C., I second Huntsman. There were no anti-aircraft sites around the Pentagon, the Capitol Building, or the White House. AA sites are damnably rare here.

[azazal]

hmmm, guess my google-fu is weak. Does anyone have a picture of a beam that was cut with a charge? Quick and easy way to disprove C7 claim.

[Pardalis]

I have to go now but I'll leave you with this question:

Can you possibly believe that Washington D.C. was defenceless on 9-11, that there were no anti aircraft misles of any kind to protect our nations' capitol ?
I'll be back later to state why i believe there were.

Do you know what this is called?

It's called moving the goalposts.

Let's keep this discussion on one topic at a time. Does this mean that you acknowledge that you no longer have enough proof that the WTC towers and WTC7 were brought down by demolition charges?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

hmmm, guess my google-fu is weak. Does anyone have a picture of a beam that was cut with a charge? Quick and easy way to disprove C7 claim.

Bomb disposal:
http://www.air-and-space.com/20020624 China Lake Explosive Ordnance Disposal.htm

Specifically: http://www.air-and-space.com/20020624%20China%20Lake/4%2016%20Linear%20shape%20charge%20l.jpg
http://www.air-and-space.com/20020624%20China%20Lake/4%2028%20Linear%20shape%20charge%20I-beam%20cut%20l.jpg

[Belz...]

Can you possibly believe that Washington D.C. was defenceless on 9-11, that there were no anti aircraft misles of any kind to protect our nations' capitol ?

Yes. Yes I can.

[azazal]

Bomb disposal:
http://www.air-and-space.com/20020624 China Lake Explosive Ordnance Disposal.htm

Specifically: http://www.air-and-space.com/20020624%20China%20Lake/4%2016%20Linear%20shape%20charge%20l.jpg
http://www.air-and-space.com/20020624%20China%20Lake/4%2028%20Linear%20shape%20charge%20I-beam%20cut%20l.jpg

I had found those, I was hoping for a cross cut. Damn thing is, I've seen close up on Discovery Channel shows on CD, but not finding anything handy on the web

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I had found those, I was hoping for a cross cut. Damn thing is, I've seen close up on Discovery Channel shows on CD, but not finding anything handy on the web

Ditto. Not much under the images, and for the web (once 911 sites were filtered out) there were just pdf's of engineering docs.

[kookbreaker]

Can you possibly believe that Washington D.C. was defenceless on 9-11, that there were no anti aircraft misles of any kind to protect our nations' capitol ?
I'll be back later to state why i believe there were.

Yes. I can very much understand it. You do not defend hard targets at the expense of the soft ones around it during peacetime.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Haven't read much here, I'm tired of the subject. But I did want to add, I work directly with fire fighters from 20 different fire departments and I can tell you they span the same continuum of beliefs as any other average cross section of people. There are science types and conspiracy believers just as there are elsewhere.

Such a claim is as meaningless as it is coming from anyone else unless the guy has other evidence which he clearly doesn't.

[Pardalis]

Anti-aircraft missiles around Washington DC? Now who wants a "police state"? :rolleyes:

[azazal]

Ditto. Not much under the images, and for the web (once 911 sites were filtered out) there were just pdf's of engineering docs.

So there is only one answer, we need Huntsman to cut a beam for us and post pictures :D

[Sentinel]

I should it made it clear that it was a quote:
"Chief Pichiotto stated the collapsing sound started at the 6th floor"
I bleive it was the National Geografic Channel.


Yes, there is a difference between The Disinformation goons trying to exploit Ground Zero and the real search for truth behind 9-11.


1st. No mention of 9-11 on OBL poster (FBI) Spokesman for the FBI stated theres "no hard evidence" I wonder why ?

2. Multible Military drills on the same day as the attacks (A) Vigilant Gardian (B) Vigilant Warrior (C) Northern Vigilance And so on and so on.

3. The fact that a the public was well notified of the Presidents schedual for 9-11 at Booker Elementary. Why didn't the terrorist know about this?

4. The fact that ABCs John Cochran asked the president that morning as he left the Hotel "If he knew what was happening in NY ? With the President stating "He did and would have something to say about it later"

5. The state of Florida was the only state under State of Emergency since September 7th. Jeb Bush the Presidents Brother.

6. John O'neilwas prevented (Obstruction of Justice) by Ambassador to Yeman Barbara Bodine after the U.S.S. Cole hit.

7. NYC/OEM FEderal state of NY/NJ Tri-pod Bio/Chem 9-11

8. How did Mayor Guliani know the towers were coming down when the firemen didn't?

9. Question for the pilots: What is a power Dive at 10.000 per munite?

10. Why didn't the secret service place the president in protective custody when it was obvious the country was inder attack?

11. When did the VP get to the Emergency Operations Center?

12. Why did they give permision for the Bin Laden family and friends to fly out of the country when ATC-0 was in effect for the CONUS?

13. If we were looking at it as another country we'd say 9-11 was a coup de tat over though of the United States of America.

14. You give credility to known Nazi Cointel agents looking to dirsrupt and disrespect the families of 9-11, why?

I guess no one saw or read Korey Rowes statement about purposely posting disinfo on LC? Or statging that he was a military informant aka snitch? How observant of you.


Message to Andrew
Thank you for the good back. You hit it right on the head. Respect the Dead and stop desicrating Holy Ground.

Have a nice day

Sentinel

[Pardalis]

Sentinel, have you found my remote control yet?

[Sentinel]

National Geographic channel.

[Hellbound]

So there is only one answer, we need Huntsman to cut a beam for us and post pictures :D

LOL

I'd love to, really. BUt I don't know how to make shaped charges (not of this type, anyway), nor do I have a location suitably out of the way that I could run this test without having to explain to some nice men in unifroms just what I'm doing with several pounds of home-made explosive.

I had, earlier, found some pics of line charges cutting through sheet steel.

The pics are at this site (http://www.norabel.com/products/explosivecuttingframe/) lower down the page. This is a framed linear charge for cutting holes.

There's also some good pics on this thread (http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=2219) at the science madness site.

[Pardalis]

Huntsman, maybe you could get together with Crazy Chainsaw and make somekind of re-enactment of 9/11 in his backyard. :D

[Hellbound]

You know, there's a chance I could try and find out when the next unit in our command is running a demolition range, and see if I can go with them. I coudl try to get them to let me rig something up. Even then, though, it wouldn't be an actual cutting charge, so probably not worth a lot.

I'll see if there's any certified demolition companies around here that I could email, see if they have a pic available.

[Sentinel]

Why didn't the Pentagon get evact when everyone there seemed to know they were next? Pentagon Protection Service Know about the august 6th PDB?

This question is in refference to a military news write up shortly after.

Have nice day

Sentinel

[Sentinel]

I'll make a deal with you. I sent you my number. You call me and I'll let you hear it for yourself,Sir.


I don't stand by anything unless I have it on video and Chief Piciotto clearly states that the sound began at around the 6th floor.

Then you can apologize to me in the open forum about "Getting a Grip"
And for the bonus I'll let you hear "duff and Nasty" state they were still looking for flight 11 over Kennedy after 175 already impacted Locating the "Bogey Dope"

Have a nice day



Sentinel

[Pardalis]

Sentinel,

1-do you expect anyone to answer your questions?

2-If so, would you even bother to read those answers?

3-Where's my remote?

[nathanmcginty]

I should it made it clear that it was a quote:
"Chief Pichiotto stated the collapsing sound started at the 6th floor"
I bleive it was the National Geografic Channel.


Yes, there is a difference between The Disinformation goons trying to exploit Ground Zero and the real search for truth behind 9-11.


1st. No mention of 9-11 on OBL poster (FBI) Spokesman for the FBI stated theres "no hard evidence" I wonder why ?

2. Multible Military drills on the same day as the attacks (A) Vigilant Gardian (B) Vigilant Warrior (C) Northern Vigilance And so on and so on.

3. The fact that a the public was well notified of the Presidents schedual for 9-11 at Booker Elementary. Why didn't the terrorist know about this?

Sentinel

Someone knew he was at the Florida resort, right? Wasn't there a newsreport about a van full of "reporters" being turned away who were trying to see the POTUS that morning?

Yeah - the paper was the "Longboat Observer" in Florida (I take it). Apparently they still stand by that story.

I can't post links yet. Sad.

[gumboot]

There's no sign of streatching or bending here. Steel will bend before it breaks.


You can't make broad sweeping claims like that. The response to load forces depends on the grade of the steel used. Mild steel certainly bends before it breaks. Not true of hard-temper high-carbon steel. Steel can be soft and flexible, or hard and brittle, depending on its temper and carbon content.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

1st. No mention of 9-11 on OBL poster (FBI) Spokesman for the FBI stated theres "no hard evidence" I wonder why ?

I believe you won't get anyone to say there is no hard evidence against OBL. He hasn't got a mention of 9/11 on his wanted poster because he hasn't been indicted for the crime. He hasn't been indicted because the US Government do not have a chain of custody for the evidence against him (video tapes etc.) thus they cannot be admitted as evidence.



2. Multible Military drills on the same day as the attacks (A) Vigilant Gardian (B) Vigilant Warrior (C) Northern Vigilance And so on and so on.

Vigilant Guardian was a CPX. The transition from VG to real-world took about 4 seconds. Vigilant Warrior (I and II) were operations in the Gulf in, IIRC, 1994 and 1995. Saddam Hussein deployed forces to the Kuwait border, so Operation Vigilant Warrior was executed to make him stand down.

The only reference to Vigilant Warrior as an exercise is in Richard Clarke's book "Against All Enemies". He claims to have overheard Richard Myers (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) mention it during a phonecall.

It was postulated that this was a "live fly" aspect of Vigilant Guardian, but this is false. Warrior denotes NORAD live fly exercises, however the exercise term "Vigilant" is reserved for CJCS-approved CinC-NORAD Sponsored CPXs. The appropriate term for CJCS-approved CinC NORAD field exercises (live fly) is "Amalgam". Amalgam Warrior is held every second year, and was held in 2000 and 2002, not 2001.

Northern Vigilance was not an exercise but a real world operation. It was in response to a major Russian exercise, so any claim that Northern Vigilance was established on purpose would indicate Russia was also involved in the 9/11 plot.

Of course none of this affected the 14 aircraft on alert bases in the CONUS region. NEADS - who would have to deal with the hijackings - only had 4 aircraft.

And yet, all of this is irrelevant anyway. The military didn't have TIME to do anything. They had 9 minutes to intercept AA11, 2 minutes to intercept AA77, 0 minutes to intercept UA175, and minus 4 minutes to intercept UA93.

For additional information I reocmmend you read my NORAD report (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/fst/NORAD.pdf) (kindly hosted (http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/) by MarkyX) which addresses the possibility of a NORAD "stand down".



3. The fact that a the public was well notified of the Presidents schedual for 9-11 at Booker Elementary. Why didn't the terrorist know about this?

Someone has already pointed out that an incident occured which was markedly similar to the Al assassination of the leader of the Afghan resistance movement only shortly before 9/11. It seems at least possible that this was an attempted assassination of the President.



4. The fact that ABCs John Cochran asked the president that morning as he left the Hotel "If he knew what was happening in NY ? With the President stating "He did and would have something to say about it later"

That was at 09:16 EDT as Bush was leaving the classroom at Booker Elementary School.



5. The state of Florida was the only state under State of Emergency since September 7th. Jeb Bush the Presidents Brother.

Nope.

Executive Order 2001-261 (http://sun6.dms.state.fl.us/eog_new/eog/orders/2001/september/eo2001-261-09-07-01.html) on 7 September 2001 declared that the Florida National Guard would assist other authorities in civil emergencies.

It was Executive Order 2001-262 (http://sun6.dms.state.fl.us/eog_new/eog/orders/2001/september/eo2001-262-09-11-01.html) on 11 September 2001 that declared a state of emergency - in RESPONSE to the 9/11 attacks.



7. NYC/OEM FEderal state of NY/NJ Tri-pod Bio/Chem 9-11

9-12, actually. And?



8. How did Mayor Guliani know the towers were coming down when the firemen didn't?


Not true. Read Fatal Confusion (http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/7/7_P911.html) for an account of how early people knew a collapse was imminent.

Minutes after the south tower collapsed at the World Trade Center, police helicopters hovered near the remaining tower to check its condition. "About 15 floors down from the top, it looks like it's glowing red," the pilot of one helicopter, Aviation 14, radioed at 10:07 a.m. "It's inevitable."

Assistant Chief Joseph Callan recalled feeling the north tower move. "I made the decision that the building was no longer safe," the chief told the Fire Department's oral history interviewers.

"All units in Building 1," he announced over the radio at 9:32. "All units in Building 1, come out, down to the lobby. Everybody down to the lobby."

Sentinel you yourself have often been critical of the poor communication abilities of the FDNY and the NYPD. That's why the firemen didn't get out. That's why they died. Because they didn't hear the calls from their chiefs to evacuate, and because no one in FDNY was getting information from the NYPD aviation units.

I hope you succeed in your quest to rectify this problem, to avoid a similar tragedy.




9. Question for the pilots: What is a power Dive at 10.000 per munite?

I assume you're referring to UA175's 10,000 feet per minute descent towards New York? 10,000fpm is certainly a very uncomfortable descent for passengers, but not especially so for the aircraft. Bear in mind the limitations of turning and climb/descent for airliners are not for the safety of the aircraft - they are for the comfort of the passengers. Obviously the hijackers on 9/11 weren't overly concerned with passenger comfort.




10. Why didn't the secret service place the president in protective custody when it was obvious the country was inder attack?

This is one question I too would like to know. IMHO after the second aircraft hit Bush should have been directed to Air Force One. I think there's lots of likely and plausible explanations for why he wasn't, but I would like to heard, officially, what the reasons were.



11. When did the VP get to the Emergency Operations Center?

I understand it was about the time The Pentagon was hit. The 9/11 Commission Report has a timeline for the VP's movements.




12. Why did they give permision for the Bin Laden family and friends to fly out of the country when ATC-0 was in effect for the CONUS?

Bin Laden has a large family. They are not all terrorists. However those that left the US were all under diplomatic passports, which means they have immunity. The US government CANNOT detain them. As it is I believe the FBI interviewed them all before they left.



13. If we were looking at it as another country we'd say 9-11 was a coup de tat over though of the United States of America.

A coup d'état (pronounced /ku de'ta/), or simply a coup, is the sudden overthrow of a government through unconstitutional means by a part of the state establishment, that mostly replaces just the top power figures.

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_detat)

Who were the President and VP replaced with on 9/11? I believe, by definition, the top leaders of a government cannot carry out a coup d'etat.



Message to Andrew
Thank you for the good back. You hit it right on the head. Respect the Dead and stop desicrating Holy Ground.

I apologise aswell if I made any assessments of your position that are inaccurate. We do not agree on all aspects, it appears, but on the above issue we are in 100% agreement. Regardless of who is responsible for 9/11, the victims are still victims. Either way, they deserve respect.

-Andrew

[Woody-]

Can you possibly believe that Washington D.C. was defenceless on 9-11, that there were no anti aircraft misles of any kind to protect our nations' capitol ?
I'll be back later to state why i believe there were.

This one is easy.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&ie=UTF8&qmo=ms&dq=pentagon&near=&oq=pentagon&om=1&z=15&ll=38.865575,-77.046304&spn=0.023958,0.036736&t=k

It would of been a little too easy to accidentally shoot down a plane headed for Reagan National Airport if the Pentagon had AA capabilities.

[Gravy]

Chief picciotto states that collapse started around the 6th floor.

"Chief Pichiotto stated the collapsing sound started at the 6th floor"

I bleive it was the National Geografic Channel.
First, notice the huge difference in the two statements.

Second, how much do you want to bet that he was saying he heard the collapsing sound when he was at the 6th floor? Because that's where he was. When he heard the collapsing sound. And everyone there knew where it was coming from. Because they were knocked off their feet by the air rushing down the stairwell.

It's important to get these things right, Sentinel.

[Darth Rotor]

There's no sign of streatching or bending here. Steel will bend before it breaks. You can't make broad sweeping claims like that.

-Andrew
I guess he's never seen a shear load on a piece of steel cut it like butter. Guess he's never had to work with his hands, and over torque a bolt's head with a torque wrench, and shear the head right off. :p

I guess he has never used bolt cutters.

DR

[azazal]

LOL

I'd love to, really. BUt I don't know how to make shaped charges (not of this type, anyway), nor do I have a location suitably out of the way that I could run this test without having to explain to some nice men in unifroms just what I'm doing with several pounds of home-made explosive.



Oh sure, here I go and give you a perfectly good reason to blow stuff up and you counter it with logic and the law.

Actually if any one you served with had pic available, or the next time you're out on the practice range, take a camera.

[Hellbound]

Oh sure, here I go and give you a perfectly good reason to blow stuff up and you counter it with logic and the law.

Actually if any one you served with had pic available, or the next time you're out on the practice range, take a camera.

Well, that's the problem, we don't deal in shaped charges. I can find photos of booms small and large, and the aftermath. But a good photo of explosive-cut steel is a bit different.

Truth be told, I think finding photos of known torn and sheared steel would be better evidence.

[Belz...]

Why didn't the Pentagon get evact when everyone there seemed to know they were next?

Please provide evidence that this is true.

[Belz...]

I believe you won't get anyone to say there is no hard evidence against OBL. He hasn't got a mention of 9/11 on his wanted poster because he hasn't been indicted for the crime. He hasn't been indicted because the US Government do not have a chain of custody for the evidence against him (video tapes etc.) thus they cannot be admitted as evidence.

And that isn't how the evil gubmint the CTers posit would act. So far so good.

[Garrette]

Why didn't the Pentagon get evact when everyone there seemed to know they were next? Pentagon Protection Service Know about the august 6th PDB?

This question is in refference to a military news write up shortly after.

Have nice day

Sentinel
9:03 am: 2nd plane hits the WTC

9:43 am: Plane hits the Pentagon

40 minutes.

40 minutes to go from "Holy ****! The WTC has been attacked!" to "There are still planes presenting a threat out there." to "One of those planes is heading toward this area" to "One of those planes is targeting the Pentagon" to "Let's move 25,000 people out of the building."

Get real.

And, please, please, enlighten us about the "military news write up shortly after."

[Sentinel]

A. WTC evacuated aprox 40.000 people. If the pentagon has lead time with so much radar and High Altatude Recon Patrol and land based radar with the Sat/comm systems which can monitor the whole planet, tell me how they didn't see it from the initial lose Voice/comm at 0813hrs?

B. The military drill started sept 10 as per DOD News.

C. The VeeP stated meet the press 16 sept 2001 that phone bridges were established after the first impact. Secret Service was well aware of the event from the start. Yet, they didn't put the president into protective custody until after his pre-schedualed 0930 speech.



Sentinel

[T.A.M.]

Sentinel;

With regards to the SS and the President point...

I think the reason they didn't pull him out, was that (1) They had secured that area prior to entering it (The school and area), so it was as safe, if not safer, than moving him, in a situation that was "evolving", and (2) there may have been a desire to not "Start" a panic at that time, until more info was learned.

Just some thoughts.

PEACE

TAM

[Christophera]

I really don't think you appreciate how extensive the damage and fires were. And have you forgotten the enormous frikken fuel tank in the building?

-Andrew


It is ludicrous to think that fire could get to enough bearing columns to cause a unform collapse at the speed 7 came down with the uniformity present. Especially when the fuel is localized or travelling downward.

The words "extensive" and "enormous" are cognitive distortions, overgeneralizations intended to maximize conditions that were minimal.

Oh, I forgot, I'm at randi.org where reason leaves with the bathwater.

[T.A.M.]

It is my opinion, and I have a fair degree of expertese in the matter, that the people, for the most part, who post at this forum are MUCH more logical, and reasonable, in terms of thought processes, train of thought, etc.., then any of the other forums that discuss 9/11, in particular, the "Truth" sites.

Christophera said:
It is ludicrous to think that fire could get to enough bearing columns to cause a unform collapse at the speed 7 came down with the uniformity present. Especially when the fuel is localized or travelling downward.

The words "extensive" and "enormous" are cognitive distortions, overgeneralizations intended to maximize conditions that were minimal.

You are on a skeptics forum. Skeptics require proof to believe something. Where is your proof that (a) the fires in WTC7 could not "get" to enough bearing columns to cause uniform collapse of the building at the speed it came down?

The words "extensive: and "enormous" are adjectives, and descriptives, very similar to "ludicrous" or "localized" that you used. There is nothing wrong with using them, provided there is evidence to back up their appropriateness.

Prove that these words were used to "maximize" what was "minimal".

[KingMerv00]

It is ludicrous to think that fire could get to enough bearing columns to cause a unform collapse at the speed 7 came down with the uniformity present. Especially when the fuel is localized or travelling downward.

Why is that?

[KingMerv00]

The words "extensive" and "enormous" are cognitive distortions, overgeneralizations intended to maximize conditions that were minimal.

It is ludicrous to think that fire could get to enough bearing columns to cause a unform collapse at the speed 7 came down with the uniformity present. Especially when the fuel is localized or travelling downward.


(bolding mine)

Irony, thy name is Christophera.

[Garrette]

A. WTC evacuated aprox 40.000 people. If the pentagon has lead time with so much radar and High Altatude Recon Patrol and land based radar with the Sat/comm systems which can monitor the whole planet, tell me how they didn't see it from the initial lose Voice/comm at 0813hrs?

B. The military drill started sept 10 as per DOD News.

C. The VeeP stated meet the press 16 sept 2001 that phone bridges were established after the first impact. Secret Service was well aware of the event from the start. Yet, they didn't put the president into protective custody until after his pre-schedualed 0930 speech.
Sentinel

A. The 40000 in the WTC needed no prompting to evacuate and started immediately and had help outside. The Pentagon did not know it was a target.

B. The military drill was Operation Northern Vigilance and was intentionally timed to coincide with a Russian exercise which simulated air attacks against North America. Are you suggesting the Russians were in on it, too?

C. The VP was echoing the FAA which did say the phone bridges were in place "within minutes" after the first impact, but the only time a specific time is specific it's 9:20, which then leaves 23 minutes for analysis, decision-making, and evacuation.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It is ludicrous to think that fire could get to enough bearing columns to cause a unform collapse at the speed 7 came down with the uniformity present. Especially when the fuel is localized or travelling downward.

The words "extensive" and "enormous" are cognitive distortions, overgeneralizations intended to maximize conditions that were minimal.

Oh, I forgot, I'm at randi.org where reason leaves with the bathwater.

stfu

[LashL]

I just want to mention that Christophera did the exact same thing for years at DU that he is doing here now - that is, posting the same vague photographs over and over and over and over and over again in every thread he was on while insisting upon the existence of a concrete core, something that not another single person in the world has ever seen or believes; yapping about a "documentary" that not another person in the world has ever heard of or seen; using the same rude and insulting language to accuse everyone else of being deceptive, dishonest, lacking integrity, etc., as a smokescreen to avoid ever offering proof of anything he posts, etc. - until he finally got banned as he grew ever more shrill and abusive.

Just so you know.

[R.Mackey]

I just want to mention that Christophera did the exact same thing for years at DU that he is doing here now - that is, posting the same vague photographs over and over and over and over and over...
Years??

yikes. I've never felt it worth my time to do more than snipe at him, being clearly so determined that if you handed him a steel girder he'd say "concrete," as well as so far out that not even the likes of geggy or Killtown pay attention to him...

...but for those of you who have, my hat is off to you. You've done a bang-up job keeping him slaved to his computer, rather than loose among the general public. Bravo.

[Gravy]

Years??

yikes. I've never felt it worth my time to do more than snipe at him, being clearly so determined that if you handed him a steel girder he'd say "concrete," as well as so far out that not even the likes of geggy or Killtown pay attention to him...

...but for those of you who have, my hat is off to you. You've done a bang-up job keeping him slaved to his computer, rather than loose among the general public. Bravo.
Crazy thing is, he was doing it before 9/11. What a stroke of luck for him that an event happened which allows him to complete his life's work.

Hey, Chris: reality is suing for visitation rights.

[R.Mackey]

Crazy thing is, he was doing it before 9/11.
Now wait a minute. That goes beyond crazy, and into Rod Serling's playbook.

What possible concern could he have had about concrete vs. steel core prior to Sept. 11th? Did he feel that the concrete producers were being maligned in the press?

Any idea what he thinks about the Forth Rail Bridge or the Eiffel Tower?
Egad, I really don't want to know...

[Gravy]

A. WTC evacuated aprox 40.000 people.
It was 13-15,000 (http://www.mailman.hs.columbia.edu/news/mmwr.pdf), and, as at the Pentagon, the evacuation didn't begin until after the attack. Why? Because no one knew where the plane was headed.

If the pentagon has lead time with so much radar and High Altatude Recon PatrolNot that I've heard of. I recommend reading gumboot's NORAD air defense response compilation. (http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/) (click on "download a detailed NORAD...") It's excellent.

and land based radar with the Sat/comm systems which can monitor the whole planet, tell me how they didn't see it from the initial lose Voice/comm at 0813hrs?
Because they couldn't monitor the whole planet. The FAA had to tell them approximately where flight 77 was, and by the time they did it was too late.

B. The military drill started sept 10 as per DOD News.Relevance?

C. The VeeP stated meet the press 16 sept 2001 that phone bridges were established after the first impact. Secret Service was well aware of the event from the start. Yet, they didn't put the president into protective custody until after his pre-schedualed 0930 speech.The first impact was believed to be an accident. There was no reason to assume that the President was in any danger. After the second attack, it was a smart thing to do to make a short televised speech while surrounded by America's future: its children. Had Bush simply been hustled away, it might have given the (accurate, but not reassuring) impression that things were in chaos.

[Gravy]

Now wait a minute. That goes beyond crazy, and into Rod Serling's playbook.I was joking. Sorry. But I wonder what he was up to before 9/11. Have you seen how many internet forums he's spammed with this nonsense?

Any idea what he thinks about the Forth Rail Bridge or the Eiffel Tower?
Egad, I really don't want to know...
He denies that the word "Firth" exists.

[kevin]

I was joking. Sorry. But I wonder what he was up to before 9/11. Have you seen how many internet forums he's spammed with this nonsense?


this is his site too:
http://www.algoxy.com/

not sure if he was on the anti-mtbe rampage prior to 9/11 (he created his site around 2002).

[Christophera]

Prove that these words were used to "maximize" what was "minimal".

Prove you have a brain that appreciates the freedom it abuses here by explaining why the supposed 47 steel core columns are never seen in the images of the demolition when the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is.

[Christophera]

Crazy thing is, he was doing it before 9/11.

Yes I was.

If what I've done is crazy, then what you do is sick or criminal.

I was trying to stop 9-11 in 1999, but unreasonable ignorant groups of people constantly obfuscated, confused and diffused my efforts.

As far as I can tell the opposition on this board is all on an infiltrated government payroll. Illegal black ops.

[Christophera]

Have you seen how many internet forums he's spammed with this nonsense?


Coming from one who will not explain why the 47, 1300 foot steel core columns are never seen, your every word at all times is spam.

[T.A.M.]

Prove you have a brain that appreciates the freedom it abuses here by explaining why the supposed 47 steel core columns are never seen in the images of the demolition when the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is.

At first I was just going to return the insult with one of my own, but you are the juvenile in this exchange, so I will let you continue that particular tactic alone.

with respect to the Steel Core columns, there are numerous videos that show the core steel columns standing for 15-20 seconds after the main part of the 2nd tower fell. Is that what you are referring to.

As to the concrete core...where is your solid evidence from a reliable source that confirms there was a concrete core...I have seen no such evidence.

TAM

[Gravy]

your every word at all times is spam.
Bringing Monty Python sketches into this will not help, oh Minister of Silly Posts.

[Gravy]

Can we PLEASE not get into this here? There are 70 pages of this idiocy to frolic in over at Christophera's "Realistice" thread.

[Christophera]

At first I was just going to return the insult with one of my own, but you are the juvenile in this exchange, so I will let you continue that particular tactic alone.

with respect to the Steel Core columns, there are numerous videos that show the core steel columns standing for 15-20 seconds after the main part of the 2nd tower fell. Is that what you are referring to.


Hey, you didn't explain anything.



No there are not "numerous videos" or you would have posted a link. I however can post a link to an image of the WTC 2 concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif), and no steel core columns are seen, which you have not explained.

[Pardalis]

As far as I can tell the opposition on this board is all on an infiltrated government payroll. Illegal black ops.

So why don't you leave then?

[Ravenwood]

Yes I was.

If what I've done is crazy, then what you do is sick or criminal.

I was trying to stop 9-11 in 1999, but unreasonable ignorant groups of people constantly obfuscated, confused and diffused my efforts.

As far as I can tell the opposition on this board is all on an infiltrated government payroll. Illegal black ops.

If this was a black op, we would not be debating you in this civilized manner. A real black op would have simply dropped the 10$ for a box of 9mm subsonic ammo & put an end to your incoherent ramblings. Real illegal government black ops do not play nicely & have no qualms about wetwork...(what they would do with the remaining 49 rounds I have no idea...)

[Christopher7]

9:03 am: 2nd plane hits the WTC

9:43 am: Plane hits the Pentagon

40 minutes.

40 minutes to go from "Holy ****! The WTC has been attacked!" to "There are still planes presenting a threat out there." to "One of those planes is heading toward this area" to "One of those planes is targeting the Pentagon" to "Let's move 25,000 people out of the building."

Get real.

And, please, please, enlighten us about the "military news write up shortly after."

Norman Meneta testified to the 911 Commission that he was with Cheney on the morning of 911 when.....a young man kept coming into the room and saying " the plane is 50 miles out, then the plane is 30 miles out, the plane is 10 miles out". At this point the young man asked "do the orders still stand?" to which Cheney replied "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?".

For 40 min. everyone knew we were under attack.
Maby you believe that our military leaders are so incompitent that they took NO action to protect our nations' capital, I don't!

Cheney knew that there was an airplane headed for the Capitol.
Maby you believe Washington was left defenceless. I don't

In 1994 an airplane landed on the White House lawn. We were assured at that all steps had been taken to prevent a terrorist from flying a plane into the White House.

About that same time (1993 - 1994) an al Quida cell was busted in the Philippines. On their computer they mentioned flying airplanes into the Sears Towers, CIA headquarters or other high value target.

A jet taking off from or landing at Regan airport could possibly be hijacked an reach the Capitol before jets could be scrambeled.
Therefore: There would have to be some kind of anti aircraft misles for this possibility.

Obviously such a system would monitor all airplanes in the area and would only bring down an airplane when it was cristal clear that it ment to crash into the White House or other high value target in D.C.

This information would of course be classified.

No reasonible person could believe that our militery leaders would neglect to take the common sense precaution of installing some kind of anti aircraft misles as a last line of defence or fail to put F16' over D.C during the 40 muintes they had to do so.
ETA: unless failing to do so was intentional.

[LashL]

Years??

yikes. I've never felt it worth my time to do more than snipe at him, being clearly so determined that if you handed him a steel girder he'd say "concrete," as well as so far out that not even the likes of geggy or Killtown pay attention to him...

...but for those of you who have, my hat is off to you. You've done a bang-up job keeping him slaved to his computer, rather than loose among the general public. Bravo.

Well, we tried. And yes, we discussed regularly how at least it kept him off the streets, but alas, he eventually got banned there, too. And regrettably, I suspect that's how he ended up here.

*sigh*

Sorry about that.

[LashL]

Yes I was.

If what I've done is crazy, then what you do is sick or criminal.

I was trying to stop 9-11 in 1999, but unreasonable ignorant groups of people constantly obfuscated, confused and diffused my efforts.

As far as I can tell the opposition on this board is all on an infiltrated government payroll. Illegal black ops.

I haven't read anything between this lunatic post of christophera's and the end of the thread but just had to pop in to say, whatever he says after this is most probably utterly insane.


Just saying, because there might be a pool afterwards, and if there is, the time is now 0437 EST.

[T.A.M.]

The people here, whose opinions I trust, say it is senseless and a wastwe of time to debate you Christophera, so will not, but since you asked for links, here is one for starts.

Between 7:20 and 7:30 You will see the straight columns of the core fall, after the main part of the building has done so.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=65460757734339444&q=9%2F11+eyewitness

[Gravy]

Norman Meneta testified to the 911 Commission that he was with Cheney on the morning of 911 when.....a young man kept coming into the room and saying " the plane is 50 miles out, then the plane is 30 miles out, the plane is 10 miles out". At this point the young man asked "do the orders still stand?" to which Cheney replied "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?".

For 40 min. everyone knew we were under attack.
Maby you believe that our military leaders are so incompitent that they took NO action to protect our nations' capital, I don't!

Cheney knew that there was an airplane headed for the Capitol.
Maby you believe Washington was left defenceless. I don't

In 1994 an airplane landed on the White House lawn. We were assured at that all steps had been taken to prevent a terrorist from flying a plane into the White House.

About that same time (1993 - 1994) an al Quida cell was busted in the Philippines. On their computer they mentioned flying airplanes into the Sears Towers, CIA headquarters or other high value target.

A jet taking off from or landing at Regan airport could possibly be hijacked an reach the Capitol before jets could be scrambeled.
Therefore: There would have to be some kind of anti aircraft misles for this possibility.

Obviously such a system would monitor all airplanes in the area and would only bring down an airplane when it was cristal clear that it ment to crash into the White House or other high value target in D.C.

This information would of course be classified.

No reasonible person could believe that our militery leaders would neglect to take the common sense precaution of installing some kind of anti aircraft misles as a last line of defence or fail to put F16' over D.C during the 40 muintes they had to do so.
ETA: unless failing to do so was intentional.
Please use the forum search function. This has all been covered ad nauseum. You are wrong again. If you're going to continue debating these issues, please start taking the subjects seriously and do at least some research. Your posts are not improving.

[Belz...]

A. WTC evacuated aprox 40.000 people. If the pentagon has lead time with so much radar and High Altatude Recon Patrol and land based radar with the Sat/comm systems which can monitor the whole planet, tell me how they didn't see it from the initial lose Voice/comm at 0813hrs?

Easy. They CAN'T monitor the whole planet. I'm pretty sure they don't know what I'm doing now <waves his hands in the air.>

[Shrinker]

Any idea what he thinks about the Forth Rail Bridge or the Eiffel Tower?
Egad, I really don't want to know...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/361744f983cd3f0db.jpg

[Belz...]

It is ludicrous to think that fire could get to enough bearing columns to cause a unform collapse at the speed 7 came down with the uniformity present. Especially when the fuel is localized or travelling downward.

That sounds remarkably like an argument from incredulity.

The words "extensive" and "enormous" are cognitive distortions, overgeneralizations intended to maximize conditions that were minimal.

Someone beat me to it, but so is the word "ludicrous".

[Belz...]

If what I've done is crazy, then what you do is sick or criminal.

I do believe you're treading dangerously close to breaking some rule, chris.

[Belz...]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/361744f983cd3f0db.jpg

Bless you, Shrinker! That was one good laugh. I'm keeping that one for posterity.

[Gravy]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/361744f983cd3f0db.jpg
Shrinker, you slay me.

[Gravy]

I was trying to stop 9-11 in 1999, but unreasonable ignorant groups of people constantly obfuscated, confused and diffused my efforts.
Prove it.

[LashL]

Shrinker, you slay me.

Oh my! Me, too. That's a keeper, Shrinker. Thanks.

[Brainache]

So is Chris the wacky troll coming back? I'm looking forward to his next piece of incontravertible evidence.
I'd like to know why he was warning people about 9/11 in 1999. Who? Where? How? etc.

[Belz...]

I was trying to stop 9-11 in 1999, but unreasonable ignorant groups of people constantly obfuscated, confused and diffused my efforts.

You. Tried to stop 9/11 back in 1999 ?

Okay, this does it.

Seek help.

[Pardalis]

Please use the forum search function. This has all been covered ad nauseum. You are wrong again. If you're going to continue debating these issues, please start taking the subjects seriously and do at least some research. Your posts are not improving.

I'll make it easier for him.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=60315

And Christopher7, this thread is a perfect example of how to be an abusive jack ass, thanks to Mutton-head who surprisingly, when he started to post on this board, was the perfect gentleman. So please Christopher7, restrain yourself.

Have a nice read.

ETA: and what happened to your controlled demolition theory? Why do you change the subject? Have you now reconsidered your position?

[Christopher7]

Please use the forum search function. This has all been covered ad nauseum. You are wrong again. If you're going to continue debating these issues, please start taking the subjects seriously and do at least some research. Your posts are not improving.

I take this very seriously.
I'm asking a simple question.
Do you believe Washington D.C was defenceless on 911 ? (no anti aircraft misles)

[Woody-]

I take this very seriously.
I'm asking a simple question.
Do you believe Washington D.C was defenceless on 911 ? (no anti aircraft misles)


You might of missed my response a couple of pages ago, so I'll post it again.

This one is easy.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&ie=UTF8&qmo=ms&dq=pentagon&near=&oq=pentagon&om=1&z=15&ll=38.865575,-77.046304&spn=0.014469,0.030727&t=k

It would of been a little too easy to accidentally shoot down a plane headed for Reagan National Airport if the Pentagon had AA capabilities.

[T.A.M.]

I believe that the pentagon, apart from scrambling nearby jets, on 9/11, was not protected by any form of short range ground to air missile launching units or Gun units. I am sure it had some military personnel inside who might have acted in a defensive way.

So now that I have said that, where is your conclusive, factual based solid proof to prove otherwise...

(this should be good).

TAM

[Christopher7]

You might of missed my response a couple of pages ago, so I'll post it again.

This one is easy.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&ie=UTF8&qmo=ms&dq=pentagon&near=&oq=pentagon&om=1&z=15&ll=38.865575,-77.046304&spn=0.014469,0.030727&t=k

It would of been a little too easy to accidentally shoot down a plane headed for Reagan National Airport if the Pentagon had AA capabilities.

Read my post again. I adderssed that question.

Do you believe our military leaders are so stupid as to not have a last line of defence?

[Christopher7]

I believe that the pentagon, apart from scrambling nearby jets, on 9/11, was not protected by any form of short range ground to air missile launching units or Gun units. I am sure it had some military personnel inside who might have acted in a defensive way.

So now that I have said that, where is your conclusive, factual based solid proof to prove otherwise...

(this should be good).

TAM

Thank you. You are the only one here who will answer the question directly.
That information would be classified. So your question is retorical.

What about the White House? Did you read the part about the plane landing on the White House lawn? Do you think they would leave it unprotected? (no stingers no air cover) Forget about Meneta, the whole country knew at 9;03 that we were under attack.

[Pardalis]

What about the White House? Did you read the part about the plane landing on the White House lawn?

Was it a Boeing 757?

ETA: Oh, and what ever happened to your controled demolition theory?

[kevin]

Thank you. You are the only one here who will answer the question directly.
That information would be classified. So your question is retorical.

What about the White House? Did you read the part about the plane landing on the White House lawn? Do you think they would leave it unprotected? (no stingers no air cover) Forget about Meneta, the whole
country knew at 9;03 that we were under attack.

If the information would be classified how do you know the white house was undefended? Since there was no attack on the white house the lack of a anti-aircraft or missle firings from the white house are not proof that they were undefended.

Furthermore, the president wasn't in the white house, jets had been scrambled, and the path of the plane could point to many possible targets (DC would be known as a target rich environment).

If the plane had decided to fly further on would the jets have had time to catch the plane and shoot it down? We don't know because that didn't happen.

anti-aircraft measures tend to be aimed up, the plane hit the building from the side. In the pictures of the Pentagon I've seen there are no port holes in the side to point cannon out of.

[Christopher7]

Was it a Boieng 757?

It was a Cesna, The point is, the incident made it clear that the White House was vunerable to a terrorist attack by air, be it a small plane, a corperate jet or whatever.

[Gravy]

I take this very seriously. I'm asking a simple question.
No, you don't take this seriously at all. You refuse to face facts. You're here for an argument, not to learn, and you can't be bothered to do the slightest bit of research beyond surfing idiotic CT websites. You can't even be bothered to use the forum search function as I asked you to do.

The following quote has been posted many times here.

Richard Clarke, from Against All Enemies:
The Secret Service and Customs had teamed up in Atlanta to provide some rudimentary air defense against an aircraft flying into the Olympic Stadium. They did so again during the subsequent National Security Special Events and they agreed to create a permanent air defense unit to protect Washington.

Unfortunately, those two federal law enforcement agencies were housed in the Treasury Department and its leadership did not want to pay for such a mission or run the liability risks of shooting down the wrong aircraft. Treasury nixed the air defense unit, and my attempts within the White House to overfule them came to naught. The idea of aircraft attacking in Washington seemed remote to many people and the risks of shooting down aircraft in a city were thought to be far too high. Moreover, the opponents of our plan argued, the Air Force could always scramble fighter aircraft to protect Washington if there were a problem.

On occasions when aircraft were hijacked (and in one case when we erroneously believed a Northwest flight had been seized), the Air Force did intercept the airliners with fighter jets. We succeeded only in getting Secret Service the permission to continue to examine air defense options, including the possibility of placing missile units near the White House. Most people who heard about our efforts to create some air defense system in case terrorists tried to fly aircraft into the Capitol, the White House, or the Pentagon simply thought we were nuts.
Portable missile batteries were placed near the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2002, in anticipation of an "anniversary attack." The regular missile batteries were at the cleaners.

[Pardalis]

It was a Cesna, The point is, the incident made it clear that the White House was vunerable to a terrorist attack by air, be it a small plane, a corperate jet or whatever.

Would you prefer having batteries of missile launchers at every strategic site in the US, like in a real police state?

[Christopher7]

If the information would be classified how do you know the white house was undefended? Since there was no attack on the white house the lack of a anti-aircraft or missle firings from the white house are not proof that they were undefended.

Furthermore, the president wasn't in the white house, jets had been scrambled, and the path of the plane could point to many possible targets (DC would be known as a target rich environment).

If the plane had decided to fly further on would the jets have had time to catch the plane and shoot it down? We don't know because that didn't happen.

anti-aircraft measures tend to be aimed up, the plane hit the building from the side. In the pictures of the Pentagon I've seen there are no port holes in the side to point cannon out of.

The plane approached D.C at 7,000 ft. and made a 330 degree turn.
A stinger misle team (or other system) stationed at the White House would have had plenty of thim to bring it down.

[Pardalis]

Christopher7, does this mean that you have reconsidered your controlled demolition theory?

[Christopher7]

Would you prefer having batteries of missile launchers at every strategic site in the US, like in a real police state?

No. Just Washington D.C.

[Christopher7]

Christopher7, does this mean that you have reconsidered your controlled demolition theory?
In my last post on the subject i left it at "I respectfully disagree."

[Pardalis]

No. Just Washington D.C.

Would you want Washington DC to be a No-Fly zone as well?

[Pardalis]

In my last post on the subject i left it at "I respectfully disagree."

Why don't you want to continue on this subject, since it is the subject of this thread?