[quote][LEFT][LEFT]Aside from the alleged cases of 9/11, fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse. This reverse truth is that every previous total collapse has been caused by the procedure known as ?controlled demolition,? in which explosives capable of cutting steel have been placed in crucial places throughout the building and then set off in a particular order. Just from knowing that the towers collapsed, therefore, the natural assumption would be that they were brought down by explosives.

[/LEFT] [/LEFT] [LEFT][LEFT]This [I]a priori[/I] assumption is, moreover, supported by an empirical examination of the particular [I]nature[/I] of the collapses. Here we come to the second major problem with the official theory, namely, that the collapses had at least eleven features that would be expected if, and only if, explosives were used. I will briefly describe these eleven features.

[/LEFT] [/LEFT] [LEFT][LEFT][B][I]Sudden Onset:[/I][/B] In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is sudden. One moment, the building is perfectly motionless; the next moment, it suddenly begins to collapse. But steel, when heated, does not suddenly buckle or break. So in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show, there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes. The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they began their collapse.

[/LEFT] [/LEFT] [LEFT][LEFT][B][I]Straight Down:[/I][/B] The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other buildings. The whole art or science of controlled demolition is oriented primarily around this goal. As Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has explained, ?to bring [a building] down as we want, so . . . no other structure is harmed,? the demolition must be ?completely planned,? using ?the right explosive [and] the right pattern of laying the charges? (Else, 2004). If the 110-story Twin Towers had fallen over, they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to buildings covering many city blocks. But the towers came straight down. Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle.

[/LEFT] [/LEFT] [LEFT][LEFT][B][I]Almost Free-Fall Speed:[/I] [/B]Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed. This can occur because the supports for the lower floors are destroyed, so that when the upper floors come down, they encounter no resistance. The fact that the collapses of the towers mimicked this feature of controlled demolition was mentioned indirectly by [I]The 9/11 Commission Report[/I], which said that the ?South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds? (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 305). The authors of the report evidently thought that the rapidity of this collapse did not conflict with the official theory, known as the ?pancake? theory. According to this theory, the floors above the floors that were weakened by the impact of the airliner fell on the floor below, which started a chain reaction, so that the floors ?pancaked? all the way down.[/LEFT] [/LEFT] [LEFT][LEFT] [/LEFT] [/LEFT] [LEFT][LEFT]But if that is what happened, the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, would have provided resistance. The upper floors could not have fallen through them at the same speed as they would fall through air. However, the videos of the collapses show that the rubble falling inside the building?s profile falls at the same speed as the rubble outside (Jones, 2006). As Dave Heller, a builder with degrees in physics and architecture, explains: [/LEFT] [/LEFT] [LEFT][LEFT][INDENT][I]the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?. . . In [the method known as controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously, and in virtual freefall. ([/I][I]Garlic and Glass 6)[/I] [/INDENT][/LEFT] [/LEFT] [B][I]Total Collapse:[/I][/B] The official theory is even more decisively ruled out by the fact that the collapses were [I]total:[/I] These 110-story buildings collapsed into piles of rubble only a few stories high. How was that possible? The core of each tower contained 47 massive steel box columns. According to the pancake theory, the horizontal steel supports broke free from the vertical columns. But if that is what had happened, the 47 core columns would have still been standing. The 9/11 Commission came up with a bold solution to this problem. It simply denied the existence of the 47 core columns, saying: ?The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped? (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, 541 note 1). Voila! With no 47 core columns, the main problem is removed.

   The NIST Report handled this most difficult problem by claiming that when the floors collapsed, they pulled on the columns, causing the perimeter columns to become unstable. This instability then increased the gravity load on the core columns, which had been weakened by tremendously hot fires in the core, which, NIST claims, reached 1832?F, and this combination of factors somehow produced ?global collapse? (NIST, 2005, pp. 28, 143).

This theory faces two problems. First, NIST?s claim about tremendously hot fires in the core is completely unsupported by evidence. As we saw earlier, its own studies found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached temperatures of even 482?F (250˚C), so its theory involves a purely speculative addition of over 1350?F. Second, even if this sequence of events had occurred, NIST provides no explanation as to why it would have produced global?-that is, total--collapse. The NIST Report asserts that ?column failure? occurred in the core as well as the perimeter columns. But this remains a bare assertion. There is no plausible explanation of why the columns would have broken or even buckled, so as to produce global collapse at virtually free-fall speed, even if they had reached such temperatures.

[B][I]Sliced Steel:[/I][/B] In controlled demolitions of steel-frame buildings, explosives are used to slice the steel columns and beams into pieces. A representative from Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said of RDX, one of the commonly used high explosives, that it [COLOR=black]slices steel like a "razor blade through a tomato."[/COLOR] The steel is, moreover, not merely sliced; it is sliced into manageable lengths. As Controlled Demolition, Inc., says in its publicity: ?Our DREXSTM systems . . . segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment.?

 The collapses of the Twin Towers, it seems, somehow managed to mimic this feature of controlled demolitions as well. Jim Hoffman (2004), after studying various photos of the collapse site, said that much of the steel seemed to be ?chopped up into . . . sections that could be easily loaded onto the equipment that was cleaning up Ground Zero.?  

[LEFT][LEFT][B][I]Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials:[/I][/B] Another feature of controlled demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles. And, Hoffman (2003) reports, ?nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine power.? That observation was also made by Colonel John O?Dowd of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ?At the World Trade Center sites,? he told the History Channel, ?it seemed like everything was pulverized? (History Channel, 2002).[/LEFT] [/LEFT] [LEFT][LEFT] [/LEFT] [/LEFT] This fact creates a problem for the official theory, according to which the only energy available was the gravitational energy. This energy would have been sufficient to break most of the concrete into fairly small pieces. But it would not have been anywhere close to the amount of energy needed to turn the concrete and virtually all the non-metallic contents of the buildings into tiny particles of dust.

  [LEFT][LEFT][B][I]Dust Clouds:[/I] [/B]Yet another common feature of controlled demolitions is the production of dust clouds, which result when explosions eject the dust from the building with great energy. And, as one can see by comparing videos on the Web, the collapses of the towers produced clouds that are very similar to those produced by controlled demolitions of other structures, such as Seattle?s Kingdome. The only difference is that the clouds produced during the collapses of the towers were proportionally much bigger.[/LEFT]
  [/LEFT]
   [LEFT][LEFT]

[/LEFT] [/LEFT] The question of the source of the needed energy again arises. Hoffman (2003), focusing on the expansion of the North Tower?s dust cloud, calculates that the energy required simply for this expansion---ignoring the energy needed to slice the steel and pulverize the concrete and other materials---exceeded by at least 10 times the gravitational energy available.

[LEFT][LEFT]The official account, therefore, involves a huge violation of the laws of physics---a violation that becomes even more enormous once we factor in the energy required to pulverize the concrete (let alone the energy required to break the steel). [/LEFT] [/LEFT] [LEFT][LEFT] [/LEFT] [/LEFT] Besides the sheer quantity of energy needed, another problem with the official theory is that gravitational energy is wholly unsuited to explain the production of these dust clouds. This is most obviously the case in the first few seconds. In Hoffman?s words: ?You can see thick clouds of pulverized concrete being ejected within the first two seconds. That?s when the relative motion of the top of the tower to the intact portion was only a few feet per second.?Jeff King (2003), in the same vein, says: ?[A great amount of] very fine concrete dust is ejected from the top of the building very early in the collapse. . . [when] concrete slabs [would have been] bumping into each other at [only] 20 or 30 mph.?

The importance of King?s point can be appreciated by juxtaposing it with the claim by Shyam Sunder, NIST?s lead investigator, that although the clouds of dust created during the collapses of the Twin Towers may create the impression of a controlled demolition, ?it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception" ([I]Popular Mechanics[/I], 2005). The pancaking, according to the official theory being defended by Sunder, began at the floor beneath the holes created by the impact of the airliners. As King points out, this theory cannot handle the fact, as revealed by the photographs and videos, that dust clouds were created far above the impact zones.

  [LEFT][LEFT][B][I]Horizontal Ejections: [/I][/B]Another common feature of controlled demolition is the horizontal ejection of other materials, besides dust, from those areas of the building in which explosives are set off. In the case of the Twin Towers, photos and videos reveal that ?[h]eavy pieces of steel were ejected in all directions for distances up to 500 feet, while aluminum cladding was blown up to 700 feet away from the towers? (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 7). But gravitational energy is, of course, vertical, so it cannot even begin to explain these horizontal ejections.

[/LEFT] [/LEFT] [B][I]Demolition Rings:[/I][/B] Still another common feature of collapses induced by explosions are demolition rings, in which series of small explosions run rapidly around a building. This feature was also manifested by the collapses of the towers.

  [LEFT][LEFT][B][I]Sounds Produced by Explosions: [/I][/B]The use of explosives to induce collapses produces, of course, sounds caused by the explosions. Like all the previous features except the slicing of the steel columns inside the building, this one could be observed by witnesses. And, as we will see below, there is abundant testimony to the existence of such sounds before and during the collapses of the towers.  [/LEFT]
  [/LEFT]
       [B]

[I]Molten Steel:[/I] [/B] An eleventh feature that would be expected only if explosives were used to slice the steel columns would be molten steel, and its existence at the WTC site was indeed reported by several witnesses, including the two main figures involved in the clean up, Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, and Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Incorporated. Tully said that he saw pools of ?literally molten steel? at the site. Loizeaux said that several weeks after 9/11, when the rubble was being removed, ?hot spots of molten steel? were found ?at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels? (both statements quoted in Bollyn, 2004).

Leslie Robertson, a member of the engineering firm that designed the Twin Towers, said: ?As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running? (Williams, 2001). Knight-Ridder journalist Jennifer Lin, discussing Joe "Toolie" O'Toole, a Bronx firefighter who worked for many months on the rescue and clean-up efforts, wrote: "Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. 'It was dripping from the molten steel," he said'" (Lin, 2002). Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint, Inc., which supplied some of the computer equipment used to identify human remains at the site, described the working conditions as "hellish," partly because for six months, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees or higher. Fuchek added that "sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel" (Walsh, 2002). And still more witnesses spoke of molten steel.

This testimony is of great significance, since it would be hard to imagine what, other than high explosives, could have caused some of the steel to melt.

The importance of the nature of the collapses, as summarized in these 11 features, is shown by the fact that attempts to defend the official theory typically ignore most of them. For example, an article in [I]Popular Mechanics /I, seeking to debunk what it calls some of the most prevalent myths about 9/11 fabricated by ?conspiracy theorists,? completely ignores the suddenness, verticality, rapidity, and totality of the collapses and also fails to mention the testimonies about molten steel, demolition rings, and the sounds of explosions. [/quote]

This is by David Ray Griffin, a Christian Theologian.

Interesting - not a conspiracy theorist myself but how did the building fall down at freefall speed if the floors were collapsing on each other? And how does a collapse cause concrete to be pulverised to dust?

It doesn't make for proper science.

Does anyone have some refutations for me?

Re: Christian Theologian addresses New York on 9/11

There is an easy answer to all of this "controlled demolition" B.S. -- it looked like controlled demolition because it [B]was[/B] controlled demolition, but not in the conspiracy theorist, tinfoil hat sort of way.

When the WTC towers were designed, they were specifically engineered in such a way that if they ever had to be demolished or god forbid fell, they would fall into themselves and go straight down to minimize damage to the surrounding structures. Could you imagine the damage two 100+ story buildings would do if they were just falling free?

As we unfortunately learned, those efforts to control the demo worked. I'll see if I can find a source for this, but I thought this was pretty widely understood.

Re: Christian Theologian addresses New York on 9/11

please come to NYC, look at pics of the aftermath, see how big the tub was before you ask things like this.

1, jet fuel burns hot. 2. they were 110 and 112 floors high. 3. it wasnt pulverized to dust, it actually took about 7 months to clear it. 4. the ""TUB"" was 4 blocks long and 3 avenues wide, 70-78 feet deep. the tub was filled to the brim. 5. i was there, there was at least 50-60 feet high of debris. add in the fact that it was spread over about 40 square blocks, not just on the site.

can we please drop it. cheney, bush, clinton, powell, rice, cia, fbi, neo con nuts, uber left nuts.... all people who had nothing to do with a group of religiously fueled assholes who had problems with every american leader since the post WW2 period hijakcing 4 planes and landing 3 of them into humoungous buildings with thousands of people who were just working.

and dont say we do things like this, nor have we since the A bombs. we never randomly attacked innocents, we sent in a military that, 99% of the time, only shoots when shot at. yes we occupied, but we went after government installations, not everyday people.

Re: Christian Theologian addresses New York on 9/11

-100 points to every idiot who has a conspiricy theory beyond religion vs american governmental interference.

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

delirious, did you just recently get electricity?

Re: Christian Theologian addresses New York on 9/11

[quote=thesightless]jet fuel burns hot.[/quote]

Jet fuel can melt steel and keep it molten for weeks?

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

[quote=Jenks]delirious, did you just recently get electricity?[/quote]

Hey Jenks... that made me laugh!!! Will have to buy a generator to keep on [ms] :D

Re: Christian Theologian addresses New York on 9/11

[quote=delirious]Jet fuel can melt steel and keep it molten for weeks?[/quote]

actually yeah, call your local fire dept and ask them what a fual with over 1000 octance will burn like. or take a 93 octane fuel, pour it into a cup and drop a match, being careful of course. add in 200 floors of office supplies, electrical currents flowing steel and rebar, a few thousand tons of paper and wood desks, propane and gas from the restaurants and cafes in the buldings, the oil use to heat the building...... ill stop now.

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

the top fell on the bottom. mass in motion at the speed of gravity. grinding each floor on its way down.

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

The conspiracy sites have been pushing this for a few days now - Delerious just because someone is a theologian doesnt necessarily mean that they are smart.

I'm disgusted how sections of American society believe that their government could do this, even after OBL admitted responsibility. Playing this type of politics with the memory of the 3000+ victims is like murdering them all over again.

Are we all familiar with Occam's Razor folks.

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

no..^^ fill me in

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

[quote=runningman]the top fell on the bottom. mass in motion at the speed of gravity. grinding each floor on its way down.[/quote]

So each floor gave no resistance? How is that possible?

[quote=davetlv]The conspiracy sites have been pushing this for a few days now - Delerious just because someone is a theologian doesnt necessarily mean that they are smart.[/quote]

Ok - but just because something's appeared on a conspiracy site doesn't disprove it. If you have a clear article rebutting the facts Griffin mentions, please link to it.

[quote=thesightless]actually yeah, call your local fire dept and ask them what a fual with over 1000 octance will burn like. or take a 93 octane fuel, pour it into a cup and drop a match, being careful of course. add in 200 floors of office supplies, electrical currents flowing steel and rebar, a few thousand tons of paper and wood desks, propane and gas from the restaurants and cafes in the buldings, the oil use to heat the building...... ill stop now.[/quote]

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 ?C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 ?C." [B] "But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame.[/B] There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the [B]500 ?C to 650 ?C range [/B][Cote, 1992]. [B]It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.[/B]... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 ?C [B]and loses about half of its strength at 650 ?C [/B][Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... [B]Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 ?C fire[/B]." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)

Even if we accept this to be the case - why did the steel also melt and become molten in Building 7, which was not even hit by an aircraft?

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

do you know how much weight that is?? those floors wouldn't be able to do a thing about that. snap like twigs. how strong do you think steel is?

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

[quote=runningman]no..^^ fill me in[/quote]

one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything

[URL="http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html"]http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html[/URL]

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

[quote=runningman]do you know how much weight that is?? those floors wouldn't be able to do a thing about that. snap like twigs. how strong do you think steel is?[/quote]

No other steel building in history has collapsed due to fire except on 9/11. That's how strong steel is.

[B]Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire[/B]. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

no other building was lit on fire with a full load of rocket fuel either.;)

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

[quote=delirious]No other steel building in history has collapsed due to fire except on 9/11. That's how strong steel is.

[B]Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire[/B]. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)[/quote] [quote=runningman]no other building was lit on fire with a full load of rocket fuel either.;)[/quote]
WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane, unless I'm very mistaken.

How can this be? How can a steel-reinforced building that never got hit by a plane, collapse completely to the ground from fire?

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

[URL="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change"]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change[/URL]

this video spark my interests in it. I found it interesting. if you have seen it already sorry.

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

[quote=delirious]WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane, unless I'm very mistaken.

How can this be? How can a steel-reinforced building that never got hit by a plane, collapse completely to the ground from fire?[/quote]

I'm not sure if you realize this but 2 of the worlds biggest buildings fell in downtown NYC.. it would have been a war zone when thy fell with flying crap everywhere..I have to stop with this argument because I feel like i'm explaining this to an 8 year old..

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

give it a rest. please. just give it a rest.

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

he might be worser than eye-p who claimed cheney was responsible fo rthe attacks so we could chain afghan and iraq to get the oil.

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

Damn... thought this would be the place to get a solid refutation. You guys are dissappointing!

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

Let your personal involvement not keep other people from discussing what they think might be important Sightless: you may not agree, but IMO it's not a reason to mute any questioning of the events that occurred that day.

Respect,

Yao

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

[quote=Yao] but IMO it's not a reason to mute any questioning of the events that occurred that day.

[/quote] i dunno, i'd say someone asking the same question over and over and just not grasping a concept is a pretty decent reason to mute.

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

delirious probably thinks that we went into Afghanistan for there opium so the secret society could make money. And we went into Iraq for their oil. In order for all this to happen we just had to fly a couple planes into our buildings and kill everybody inside.. So who did it the Illuminati or the US Government?? OOOOOHHH SCARRYYY..

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

im trying to figure out my copier's scanner so i can give some trustworthy info on this.

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

[quote=runningman]So who did it the Illuminati or the US Government?? OOOOOHHH SCARRYYY..[/quote] :CrackUp: :CrackUp:

Like all good conspiracy theories it all comes down to the Jews - we did it. We control the Illuminati, we control th US Government. War in Iraq was for us. We are responsible for 9/11.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

Whoever did it, the Mossad has already tracked them down and cut them to pieces.

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

delirious, though I'm more on the side of the consipracy theory I'll play devils advocate and point out some things which were pointed out to me in a discussion with a friend who is on the other side of the fence. I, like you, believe there are too many "coincidences" and every time you question things you only get replys saying put it to rest but nothing to refute it.

So in regards to building 7 there was apparently some 1000+ gallons of diesel fuel in tanks which were hit by debris. The fuel then weakened a bolt(?) on the main truss of the building which caused the collapse.

Now that what my friend found online. Now my question to this goes as follows: The documentary aired on Discovery, where the designer of the the towers was used to explain the falls, tells us that had the protective coating on the beams in the towers been left intact, the would have never fell. The coatings were "blasted off" when the planes hit the building thus allowing for the metal to be affected by the fires. Now assuming this is a valid explaination, carry this over to building 7, where you have a fuel with lower energy density (diesel vs. jet fuel) and the protective coating is (assuming it was there in the first place) intact how could this explaination be valid?

But the other point that my friend made was if it was an inside job than someone would have spoken up, its just to big a job to keep under wraps.

My only argument to this was because of how horrendious(sp?) this act was the public would live in denial and it would be a much bigger feat to prove, that being the case.

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

ok its isnt working and im no techie.

ill cut it down to the major points. cuz im not typing all of this shit- it can be found in ""report from ground zero"" by dennis smith- pages 183 onward.

these come from a) dennis smith, a former NYFD captain b) minori yamasaki's journals and words (he was the architect) c) engineer rom hamburger who was an inspector who had urged the PA to re-do the fireproofing on the buildings. d)leslie robertson- and engineer who worked onthe buildings during intial construction and the repairs after the 93 bombing. and finally e) Henry Guthard, one of yamasaki's partners who worked on the buildings.

----first thing, each floor was once sqare acre plus 12 feet.

---steel used in the construction was designed to hold up pretty well. but not enough. at 1200 degrees it stretches 9.5 inches per 100 feet. the fires at the top were estimated 2200 degrees from the temperature that the jet fuel generates in a confined, non pressurized space. the steel used was processed from 1962-1968

-----the design of the building itself was a fatal flaw-- yamasaki has used a ""bamboo style"" support design whereas a central pylon of steel and concrete columns were bundled up and the floors laid around them. then the outer wall provided lateral support. this put all the weight on the extreme middle(60%) and outer edge.(40%)

-----when ron hamburger inspected the building, he has been quoted as saying ""if you knock it, that spray on protection will fall off"" when you hit this fireproofing (which btw was installed in 60's and early 70's) it simply falls off the wall. fly a jetliner into something you can knock off with your hand and it wont hold.

----- each floor was held by trusses, literally hanging on the support beams, not directly tied to them. this also lead to voids within the structure. these voids funneled the heat and fire upwards and downwards, onto the main support beams in the center upon impact. this report is backed by numnerous 911 calls where people said explosions burst through the walls up to 15 floors beneth the impact zones.

--- also contributing to the spreading of the heat at a drastic rate were the factors that each building had 97 passanger elevators, and shafts for them. as well as the worlds largest HVAC system, with 60000 tons of cooling capacity. lot of venting room.

----- tied back to mr hamburger, the company who created the steel had allowed it to sit outside, and rust. and furthermore, mr hamburger claims that the fire proofing company sprayed the fireproofing over the rust. this is comlicated by the fact that the buildings may have very well deteriorated over the last 40 years, and more fireproofing probably fell off and lay exposed, furthering the rusting of the beams. and back to the temperature, the beams were instantly exposed to conditions a thousand degrees above where they begin stretching if they were heated via a flame.

----- the planes crashed directly through the buildings (cant refute that we all saw it) and severly damaged the center cores. the planes, according to the FAA and US airforce were travelling just above 500 miles per hour, 200 miles per hour faster than the design considerations of a 707 plane. also a lot heavier (767's were what hit). the planes crashed into the buildings with a load of 25 million pounds.

----leslie robertson an engineer on the building confessed that the original designs did not factor in a fully loaded plane's fuel load, a fuel load that has increased octane drastically since 1962 (original study date for the designs).

--- """tragically, neither the architects nor the engineers at the time could have anticipated an airplane as advanced as the 767, which carried 10,000 gallons of fuel in wings that spanned 156 feet from wingtip to wingtip. nor did they anticipate that planes could crash with a force of about 25 million pounds. also it seems that no one could have anticipated the consequences of the extraordinary fire load of ten thousand gallons of jet fuel and the consequence of a fire that burned at about 2200 degrees uniformly, instantly, and comprehensively on one or more floors of the building""""

the planes radius of impact was about 15 floors.

---henry guthard(prodject manager of the site) quoted as saying """to hit the building, to disappear inside the building, to have peices come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. to defend agaisnt 5 thousand gallons of ignited fuel at 1350 feet is not possible""

------yamasaki never considered a full collapse, but he did consider that if a plane had struck the building, the side that was impacted could partially collaspe within a few floors of the impact. this was only accounted for if the steel stretched at the alloted 9.5 inches per 100 feet at 1200 degrees.

furthering this point is a combination of all above points.upon \impact the voids, HVAC systems, elevators and stariwells literally funeled the heat and fuel throughout the building, creating a building wide stretch within minutes. a stretch well over the alloted amount for 1200 degrees on a small site.

----the trusses that held one square acre of 3 inch thick concrete are included in the steel. so were the bolts that held them on. this shifted the weight onto the center colums, which were damaged and holding 20 floors above them. but the 47 columns could not stand the weight. they buckled severly.

---- since the walls were no longer supporting, and the center columns heavily damaged, the floors collapsed, and here is where it gets scary. they didnt collapse partially, they collapsed wholly. one sqaure acre of concrete and steel fell directly upon its counterpart below. no floor was designed to withstand the dynamic uniform weght of a falling floor, and it too collapsed, beginning a tradgic chain reaction that only got incrementally stronger every 15 feet. then in the matter of seconds the falling debris was travelling at a speed of 120 miles an hour, bearing the brunt of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, then 8 and 9 and so on floors with it. this took 12 seconds.

---lastly, 40000 tonnes of a building prodject that took 11 years to build, with 4,761,416 square feet of concrete, fell bearing a load of 2000 pounds per square foot, plus the dynamic load, onto floors designed to bear 100 pounds per square foot.

---- this all fell upon a base which was surrounded by silt, consisting of 70 foot walls of concrete aroudn its border and subway tunnels underneath. the base itself became so severly damged that half an hour later the north tower fell. with the two main towers falling, the debris flew for city blocks, and into tower 7 (aka the AMEX building) which was a lot smaller than either tower and lost approximetly 30% of its weight bearing capability from damage to both its above groud structure and below ground base. a few days later they had to demolish another building.

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

thank fucking god i got that off.

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

[quote=Jenks]Whoever did it, the Mossad has already tracked them down and cut them to pieces.[/quote]

And who said you Americans get nothing for you support of Israel :lol: :lol: :lol:

Do you want us to take out some nuclear facilities in iran too?

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

PS those sources i used are the fucking people who designed and oversaw construction and dennis smith was one the fire consultants for the city fire dept. just to clear that up. i would think they are reliable.

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

[quote=davetlv]And who said you Americans get nothing for you support of Israel :lol: :lol: :lol:

Do you want us to take out some nuclear facilities in iran too?[/quote] honestly, i think the mossad are at least one of the reasons we support isreal.

good book to pick up Dave-

[U][B]Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad[/B][/U] by Gordan Thomas

[url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312339135/sr=8-1/qid=1144258571/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-5508694-4811845?%5Fencoding=UTF8[/url]

Fantastic read.

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

[quote=thesightless]PS those sources i used are the fucking people who designed and oversaw construction and dennis smith was one the fire consultants for the city fire dept. just to clear that up. i would think they are reliable.[/quote]

yeah sightless, but are they CHRISTIAN THEOLOGIANS????????

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

im just tired of every fucknut who puts one and one together and get 7 coming up with yet another reaosn why our government intentionally killed 3000+ people and probably going to end killing an entire generation of police, firemen, and EMS workers from contamination. not to mention, reminding me that i lost my uncle/godfather, my best friend, and a few others i was close with. add on about 4 months of funerals before i broke down and couldnt deal with it anymore.;)

i seriously want to punch one of these thoerists square in the throat and watch while they gasp for air while thier collasped trachea suffocates them.

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

[quote=delirious]Damn... thought this would be the place to get a solid refutation. You guys are dissappointing![/quote]

is that a little better Delerious?

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

^^ thank you.......... but i know it won't matter.

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

[quote=neoee]delirious, though I'm more on the side of the consipracy theory I'll play devils advocate and point out some things which were pointed out to me in a discussion with a friend who is on the other side of the fence. I, like you, believe there are too many "coincidences" and every time you question things you only get replys saying put it to rest but nothing to refute it.[/quote]

Thanks for the intelligent post. My only problem with the idea that gallons of fuel caused building 7 to fall is that the video shows the building coming down perfectly symetrically. What are the chances that an explosion of this nature would cause a reaction which only a few demolition teams in the world are able to pull off?

Even the official FEMA report says that fuel causing the collapse only has a low possibility of occurance and should be further researched:

[quote]The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, [B]the best hypothesis [fire/debris-damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue[/B]. [/quote]

So much for those who say people should be quiet about it!

[quote=thesightless]the planes crashed directly through the buildings (cant refute that we all saw it) and severly damaged the center cores. the floors collapsed, and here is where it gets scary. they didnt collapse partially, they collapsed wholly. one sqaure acre of concrete and steel fell directly upon its counterpart below.[/quote]

[URL="http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture5.jpg"][/URL][URL="http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture5.jpg"][IMG]http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture5.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

Do you really believe "severe damage" to the center cores caused completely symetrical floor collapsing in two separate buildings, on the same day?

[quote][B]In order for a floor to fall, hundreds of joints had to break almost simultaneously on 236 exterior columns and 47 core columns. [/B]

The Collapse: An Engineer's Perspective[/quote]

Are we supposed to belive this happened in two separate buildings with two separate and distinct impact points?

[quote=thesightless]no floor was designed to withstand the dynamic uniform weght of a falling floor, and it too collapsed, beginning a tradgic chain reaction that only got incrementally stronger every 15 feet. then in the matter of seconds .... this took 12 seconds.[/quote] According to the official report, it took 10 seconds.

[quote][B]At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds[/B]

[URL="http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm"]http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm[/URL][/quote] [B]For a 1,300-foot building, however, ten seconds is almost free-fall speed. But if each floor produced just a little resistance, so that breaking through each one took a half second, the collapse of all those floors — 80 or 95 of them — would have taken 40 to 47 seconds. Can we really believe that the upper part of the buildings encountered virtually no resistance from the lower parts?

[/B]How could the collapse crush 100 steel and concrete floors while falling as fast as objects fall through air?

These are the points I wanted refuted - no more bark, more bite please :)

Re: Christian Theologian says WTC towers were demolished, cites evidence

[QUOTE=delirious] Do you really believe "severe damage" to the center cores caused completely symetrical floor collapsing in two separate buildings, on the same day?

Are we supposed to belive this happened in two separate buildings with two separate and distinct impact points? [/QUOTE]

This supports my position that these buildings fell in controlled demolition because they were designed to come down in controlled demolition. Two different impacts at two different points both caused a controlled fall of the towers.

One thing you never hear about is any other evidence corroborating these conspiracy theories. Did someone set these charges at some point? Did someone detonate them? If so, why did they stagger the detonations rather than doing it at the same time? Yet, there is no reference to anyone ever doing any of these things. You'd think that if this was going on, someone would have noticed it at some point.