Re: you know what's astonishing?

the popular mechanics one was awful. welding wouldn't cause a flow of molten steel. Take a look at the overhead shots for heat. Also that doesn't explain why there was molten steel before the building fell.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE=runningman;781907]the popular mechanics one was awful. welding wouldn't cause a flow of molten steel. Take a look at the overhead shots for heat. Also that doesn't explain why there was molten steel before the building fell.[/QUOTE] I know that one must be very alarming; it contains some real structural science and incorporates the commentary of hundreds of people with authoritative credentials. ;)

And where are is the credible evidence that there was "molten steel before the building fell"? How is that even possible to determine?? This sounds quite dubious to me...

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE=chunky;781795]That debunking channel on youtube is ace.

Anyone see a plane? I'm sure the Pentagon could of given us some better footage.

[youtube]lsWZHKIg3Cs[/youtube][/QUOTE] Ok, this is exactly what I'm talking about when I speak of the stuff not meeting the criteria of common sense. Let's examine this, shall we?

First, you obviously can't tell shit from that blurry video. But just because the frame rate of the security camera was not fast enough to provide you with a nice view of the entire aircraft does not mean that it is rational conclude that no plane was there.

[B]There were [I]hundreds if not thousands[/I] of independent, unrelated eyewitnesses to that aircraft![/B] There are tons of accounts of that through any number of credible news organizations. Google stuff like "eyewitness accounts Pentagon 9-11" and you'll get tons of hits back..you could look up articles and documented accounts of people seeing the plane until the day you die, if you wanted to. Here are just three of such hits:

[url]http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm[/url] [url]http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html[/url] [url]http://www.awitness.org/journal/pentagon_passenger_jet_quotes.html[/url]

So now let's think rationally here. Follow me closely:

[quote]1. There are lots of accounts of people seeing the plane. These people come from different walks of life, worked in different places, were doing different things, etc. - In other words, common sense would suggest that their accounts are mostly independent.

2. If we are to believe the conspiracy theory that no plane was there, then we must believe that all of these independent people were, in fact, not independent at all in their false accounts. The most common sense explanations for this would be that: (a) they are all mistaken and lying; (b) they are all in on the conspiracy theory; or (c) they are all made up by all of the media organizations, which then one must conclude are also in on the conspiracy theory.

3. So now tell me, which sounds more logical and has more common sense?

That the eyewitness accounts were in fact mostly independent in what they saw

OR

That all of the eyewitness accounts were either in on the conspiracy, or they all had bad vision, or every single one of the media outlets was also in on the conspiracy and published false reports - and that one lone, grainy, slow-frame surveillance from one angle "proves" it?[/quote]

Do you at all see what I'm getting at here? It's rational, common sense to conclude the first; it requires a MUCH bigger leap of faith to conclude the second.

Moreover, if it was a cruise missile like so many people suggest, then where are the big numbers of independent eyewitness accounts to [I]that[/I]? That doesn't even make sense; if the government was going to plot to "attack" their own Pentagon and wanted it to look like someone else did it, do you think that a cruise missile would be the most incognito option that they could choosen? :lol:

And I haven't even mentioned yet that there are also eyewitness accounts inside of the facility regarding pieces of the plane that were found. There are photographs of the pieces.

[url]http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm[/url]

So if we can rationally conclude that planes hit the buildings in New York (also tons of eyewitnesses there), then why is it suddenly so revolutionary for planes to have been similarly involved in Washington DC? Why would the government opt for planes and thermite explosives in one place and cruise missiles in the other?

And just how much evidence and how many eyewitness accounts do you need to finally conclude that the most logical explanation for what happened was that the plane simply hit the building?

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Miro I wish I had more time to debate you. I have been to busy this week. You should read my posts. That video that florida posted at 1:34 you can see the molten steel coming out of the side.. 4:20-31 in this video.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A[/youtube]

Molten metal was under building 7!! As far as Popular mechanics having the facts how so, they have alternate theories but not facts? You mean it is just another mainstream media outlet. Don't yo ufind it strange that for the first time ever a building was brought down by fire? It actually happened three times that day!!:lol: This isn't even a debate really more like a squashing. The "facts" are on our side.

Kerosense doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel Loud bombs heard throughout the buildings (all of them even building 7)

You must be very careful when looking for things that "make sense" and "logical" when you are having a scientific discussion. You must go where the science leads you, not where you would like to end up because it is logical.

My credentials to talk about this:

Electrician background 8 years in Construction Scientist 5 years developing new egress methods for buildings

Now an intelligent guy like you must see this.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[quote=runningman;782035]Miro I wish I had more time to debate you. I have been to busy this week. You should read my posts. That video that florida posted at 1:34 you can see the molten steel coming out of the side.. 4:20-31 in this video.[/quote] I've seen those silly Youtube videos, too.

Let me ask you a question: [B][COLOR=red]how do you as a "scientist" KNOW it was "molten steel" just from looking at a poor quality Youtube video?[/COLOR][/B]

Now let me hit you up with some additional food for thought:

[B]1. If you were a [I]real[/I] scientist, you would have immediately known that it is impossible to reasonably conclude whether or not that was "melted steel" just by looking at it on Youtube.[/B] Any [I]real[/I] scientist would need to conduct a pretty thorough analysis of the sample to make that statement. I'm not a scientist, but both of my parents are university PhD-holding scientists for most of their adult lives, and they can tell you that the determination of the composition of the material, the melting point of the material, and the temperature achieved in the sample is actually quite tricky and can't be done "by eyesight".

[B]2. A huge building like that has [U]thousands of materials and alloys in it[/U]; what you see coming out the windows in such poor quality videos could be a variety of things and may not actually truly be "molten".[/B] It could be burning insulation. It could be all kinds of aluminum alloys, which will glow if sufficiently heated (this is another one that conspiracy theorists always get wrong). It could be any number of things that could LOOK LIKE "molten steel" to the average gullible armchair investigator but actually could easily be something else.

[B]3. It's actually fairly logical to conclude that it wasn't steel, because if temperatures were sufficient to melt steel at that point, [U]the steel support beams would lost their ability to hold the load well before that point and the building would already be falling/ have fallen![/U][/B] You think the support beams could still hold the load while they are melting out the sides of the buildings? Please...that's just ridiculous. Most likely what happened is that [I]the steel never melted while the thing was standing [/I]as the fire temperatures couldn't reach that high; it merely weakened sufficiently to the point where it buckled and the load of the stories above it started pile-driving down on the floors below.

[quote=runningman;782035] [youtube]ezIU6ZxYU3A[/youtube][/quote] Thanks for posting this video, it was good for a laugh.

Did you know that [B]the video shows both of the bogus pictures I mentioned in my previous post?[/B]

At 1:10 they show the picture of steelworkers cleaning debris with a blowtorch. And at 1:20 they show the picture of the firefighters over the hole where they are using artificial lighting...and if that was a hole at the temperature "molten steel", they would be dead!

So that's a very credible, scientific, factual video you posted there. :lol:

Maybe you should read MY posts. :roll:

[quote=runningman;782035]You must be very careful when looking for things that "make sense" and "logical" when you are having a scientific discussion. You must go where the science leads you, not where you would like to end up because it is logical.

My credentials to talk about this:

Electrician background 8 years in Construction Scientist 5 years developing new egress methods for buildings

Now an intelligent guy like you must see this.[/quote] There was exactly ZERO SCIENCE and there were NO FACTS in the claims you just made. You as a "scientist" just ASSUMED that molten steel is pouring out the window, which no REAL scientist would ever do. You may have an electrician background and you may have worked with building exits, but no offense, you're about as much of a real scientist as my dog is an olympic athlete.

[B][COLOR=red]ONCE AGAIN: YOU CAN'T TELL WHAT MATERIAL IT IS FROM A SHIT QUALITY YOUTUBE VIDEO!!! IT'S [U]IMPOSSIBLE.[/U][/COLOR][/B]

My credentials to talk about this:

Basic common sense.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

didn't you watch the video? It was molten steel. Steven jones tested it. Jeez.. Miro you are the conpiracy theorist. You still have no reason why Building 7 imploded into its own footprint. As well as the other towers imploded into the strogest part of the structure (THE CORE) Core's usually pretty strong since it holds up the building.

Where did the pyrocrastic flow come from? Concrete doesn't explode in mid air.

Where did the Core go in all the buildings?

Why are there thousands of witnesses hear explosions in the building?

Why did the buildings fall when the fires were almost put out?

Why are you arguing when Larry Silverstein even ADMITTED they "PULLED" the building? Pulling is a contsruction controlled demolition term to implode buildings. Nothing else.

[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0[/URL]

Steel melts at 2750* how did the temperatures get so hot when Kersoene burns only at 1200* for only a few seconds?

Molten Steel Picture Building still standing

[IMG]http://9eleven.info/moltenstreamthermate.jpg[/IMG]

Pic During Clean up

[IMG]http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/GRAPHIC1/PSCI/WtcSteel.jpg[/IMG]

You can't get pools of molten steel from welding.

Basic common sense is proven to be unreliable. Science with scientific facts to back it up is the way to go. I mean an idiot can see building 7 was pulled. Look at how it fell?! I mean come on. Look how even it fell. Do yourself a favor and watch the end of my video with a controlled demolition expert. You get your expert that proves otherwise.

Also your Pentagon theories are awful. The Pentagon has some 70 cameras that caught the footage yet they only released a couple clips? Remember when the Minnesota bridge collapsed we had those images by the 6 o clock news.

You don't have any facts you just have theories based on common sense. I have experience in demolition when I was in construction and I have investigated 9/11 far more than you since it deals directly with my business. I mean you can believe what you want it is a free country even if it is a lie.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[quote=runningman;782147]didn't you watch the video? It was molten steel. Steven jones tested it.[/quote] No, HE DIDN'T. Not unless he was up in that building at the time that it was "melting out the window". He tested a sample LATER AFTER THE BUILDING FELL AND BURNED FOR WEEKS, at which point any number of unique events could have caused the outcome long after the building had fallen.

That debris pile sat cooking for weeks, and the materials at the bottom of the pile [I]could increase in heat[/I] to the point of melting in isolated areas because the fires were confined and the loss of heat was minimal; and there was lots of material to fuel the fire (plastics, fuels from elevator hydraulics, cars, etc.). But this happens in periods of prolongued combustion. [B]That was stated by NIST investigators from the America Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY).[/B]

This is just another example of your "scientific" reasoning:

Steven Jones tested a sample of something that came from the World Trade Center [I]a long time after it fell and burned for weeks[/I];

Therefore, the building steel must have been melting [I]while it was standing[/I].

That's completely false reasoning. [COLOR=red][B]STEVEN JONES' TESTING TELLS YOU [U]NOTHING[/U] ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE STEEL WHEN THE BUILDING WAS STANDING![/B][/COLOR]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

ok Miro whatever you say. The buildings imploded into its core because the core is weakest point of the building..

2+2=5

The sky is yellow.

FACT [COLOR=Blue]- Steven Jones got samples from a womans apartment across the street after the buildings fell. Not only from the bottom of the pile. He had 4 samples from 4 different locations. All point to thermite or thermate.[/COLOR]

The building was a fortress that could withstand multiple hits from multiple planes (WTC Architects) . Building 7 was imploded (obviously) I mean science points that way and common sense. The Pentagon nobody knows what happened there. Our arguments just prove that there needs to be a new investigation. Still to many questions.

You see Miro you don't have facts you have theories. I have facts. Testing from multiple locations. Testimony of witnesses hearing bombs in the building. What more do you need? You still didn't answer any of my questions... Just goes to show the facts are on my side because I have reasons.

I like how my sources aren't credible but your "pictures" link is some no named Scott Sleeper blog...HAHAHAHAHA..

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[quote=Miroslav;781822]

And I honestly don't know much about what Bush said or was smoking on that day, but I would take everything that ever came out of the man's mouth with a grain of salt for one reason: the guy wasn't too bright, and he said stupid, contradictory shit on an almost daily basis. Maybe I'll look into it more when I get home, I can't here at work. .[/quote]

You can see it here

Check out 5 min's 19 seconds until the end

[youtube]ALtNYBX7OmM[/youtube]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[quote=runningman;782161] FACT [COLOR=blue]- Steven Jones got samples from a womans apartment across the street after the buildings fell. Not only from the bottom of the pile. He had 4 samples from 4 different locations. All point to thermite or thermate.[/COLOR][/quote]

FACT - Whatever Steven Jones tested after the event STILL does not provide ANY support to your assertion about the condition of the steel WHILE THE BUILDING WAS STANDING.

FACT - You post videos with ironworkers using blowtorches and firefighters using artificial lighting and claim that is evidence of the"heat" in the rubble. That is just absurd.

FACT - You ASSUME that something you saw coming out the side on a Youtube video is "molten steel", and you think that the building could still be standing at that point if it's hot enough to melt steel.

[B][COLOR=red]FACT - SO FAR, YOUR "FACTS" ARE [U]RIDICULOUS[/U].[/COLOR][/B]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

your claims are weak at best and any scientist if you brought that data (your argument) wouldn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. They changed the colours of the pictures?? HAHAHAHAHA.. bright lights.. Oh ya Miro the welders caused the molten steel.

Larry Silverstein is on record saying he decided to pull it? What is your reasoning behind this? Just answer this one for me since you haven't answered any.

I think it is safe that you are the conspiracy theorist on this one.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[quote=runningman;782170]your claims are weak at best and any scientist if you brought that data (your argument) wouldn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. They changed the colours of the pictures?? HAHAHAHAHA.. bright lights.. Oh ya Miro the welders caused the molten steel.

Larry Silverstein is on record saying he decided to pull it? What is your reasoning behind this? Just answer this one for me since you haven't answered any.

I think it is safe that you are the conspiracy theorist on this one.[/quote] I will answer you after you answer to the three points I noted above with regard to the COMPLETE FALLACY AND LUNACY OF THE "FACTS" YOU STATED.

Also, add this one in your file as well: [COLOR=red]"testimony" of inexperienced people who think they "heard bombs" while a building is being hit by large jets and is burning is NOT a reliable way of determining if there was in fact a bomb.[/COLOR] :roll:

I think it is safe to say based on how you completely brush all of my points aside that you do not even have the capacity to recognize how far gone from reality you actually are.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

firefighters don't qualify to know what a bomb is? Your arguments are getting even funnier Miro.

Ok now I'm crazy? HAHAHA ok defender of the US.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[quote=runningman;782184]firefighters don't qualify to know what a bomb is? Your arguments are getting even funnier Miro. [/quote]

Shortly after 9/11 NY Firefighters recorded over 500 oral histories on 9/11 recounted their experiences of that day. Mayor Bloombergs Administration refused to release these histories until victims families took them to court and won to get the histories released. Many of the testimonies mention multiple explosions along with other strange occurrences.

Check out 38 minuites

[URL="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8707513149655779206&q=source%3A000974024203882481900&hl=en"]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8707513149655779206&q=source%3A000974024203882481900&hl=en[/URL]

The experts couldn't recreate the conditions of the official story when they tried to with the floor models in furnaces.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

i hate this type of discussions because no matter what side of the discussion you are on, you are acomplishing NOTHING!

Re: you know what's astonishing?

I don't see the problem with discussing it. It is a subject that will be debated for years to come. Its not going to go away much as many people want it to. Personally I think this will only seriously get looked at in many years time. Many people feel cheated and lied to and the number of people how don't believe the official story is only going to grow. Though this will not change anything.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[quote=chunky;782199]Shortly after 9/11 NY Firefighters recorded over 500 oral histories on 9/11 recounted their experiences of that day. Mayor Bloombergs Administration refused to release these histories until victims families took them to court and won to get the histories released. Many of the testimonies mention multiple explosions along with other strange occurrences.

Check out 38 minuites

[URL]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8707513149655779206&q=source%3A000974024203882481900&hl=en[/URL]

The experts couldn't recreate the conditions of the official story when they tried to with the floor models in furnaces.[/quote] I'll check your stuff out when I'm at home, sorry I can't do it here at work.

But seriously... what do you have to say to your suggestion that no plane hit the Pentagon when there were so many independent witnesses who saw it and who also saw the aftermath inside of the destroyed building? You seem fairly with it...are you really going to just turn a blind eye to that basic reasoning? Do you not see the fallacy of making claims about "molten steel before the buildings fell" based on a [I]Youtube video??[/I]

[quote=runningman;782184]firefighters don't qualify to know what a bomb is?[/quote] No, not from what they "think they hear" while a building has been hit by jets and is burning and getting ready to fall down. That is NOT a reliable way to determine if there was a bomb. :roll:

Re: you know what's astonishing?

I'm sure when pieces of glass and steel are falling from 800 feet in the sky, they sounds like explosions...

I do think that this article answers most of the engineering questions well:

[url]http://www.absconsulting.com/news/latimes.pdf[/url]

[B]"It's quite a famous structural system," said Fenves. "It's very well-designed." Steel buildings in general are known for their strength. Even less well-designed steel buildings survived the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco and the 1933 Long Beach quake, Youssef said.

When they were built in 1970, the World Trade Center towers were the world's tallest buildings. But the strength designed to withstand wind was no match for the fireball of an exploding plane. "We didn't have any terrorism in mind when the buildings originally went up," Hooper said.

While engineers are exploring ways to "bomb-proof" buildings to protect occupants from flying glass and crumbling walls, it is considered too costly and not socially desirable to attempt to protect buildings from the type of attack that occurred Tuesday.

"We'd be living in bunkers," Youssef said. "We cannot turn the country into bunkers."[/B]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

I don't think I suggested that no plane hit the Pentagon. I stated that I haven't seen any footage of one hitting the Pentagon. I find it strange how you are willing to side with the Pentagon witnesses but not the New York witnesses.

I can't answer for all the for all the witnesses and what they clam to of seen. but the fact the front wall was still standing and after the impact and collapsed later leaves me to question it. My point with the Pentagon has always been why can't we see some clear footage? Why release footage that isn't clear? This should of been the easiest of the footage to debunk but the Government has not. I can't think of any crime where video footage of the crime is not supplied no mater how many witness there are. If I attacked someone in a busy nightclub, I'm sure video footage with be used as evidence in my trial.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[quote=floridaorange;782254]

[URL]http://www.absconsulting.com/news/latimes.pdf[/URL]

[B]"It's quite a famous structural system," said Fenves. "It's very well-designed." Steel buildings in general are known for their strength. Even less well-designed steel buildings survived the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco and the 1933 Long Beach quake, Youssef said.

When they were built in 1970, the World Trade Center towers were the world's tallest buildings. But the strength designed to withstand wind was no match for the fireball of an exploding plane. "We didn't have any terrorism in mind when the buildings originally went up," Hooper said.

While engineers are exploring ways to "bomb-proof" buildings to protect occupants from flying glass and crumbling walls, it is considered too costly and not socially desirable to attempt to protect buildings from the type of attack that occurred Tuesday.

"We'd be living in bunkers," Youssef said. "We cannot turn the country into bunkers."[/B][/quote]

I like how they said bomb proof..:lol:

Glass falling and hitting the ground? The firefighter on the 82nd floor wouldn't have heard it. Also I think you should give firefighters more credit. They are very well trained on many matters. Blasting and fire are some of them.

Also the [U]building was made to absorb multiple plane crashes[/U]..

[B]Tower Could Sustain Multiple Plane Impacts'[/B]

[B][URL="http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a012501demartini#a012501demartini"]January 25, 2001: WTC Construction Manager Says Tower Could Sustain Multiple Plane Impacts[/URL][/B]

[URL="http://www.historycommons.org/eventedit.jsp?oid=1626004942-18157"][IMG]http://www.historycommons.org/pics/icons/edit.png[/IMG][/URL]

[IMG]http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/617_frank_demartini_2050081722-12326.jpg[/IMG]Frank De Martini. [I][Source: New York Times][/I]Frank De Martini, an architect who works as the World Trade Center’s construction manager, is interviewed for a History Channel documentary about the WTC towers. He says, “I believe the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing the screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” [[URL="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805076824/centerforcoop-20/"]Dwyer and Flynn, 2005, pp. 149[/URL]] De Martini will be in his office on the 88th floor of the North Tower when it is hit on 9/11. He will die when the tower collapses, after helping more than 50 people escape. [[URL="http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2003/Aug/20030829News013.asp"]Associated Press, 8/29/2003[/URL]; [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/29/nyregion/29WTC.html"]New York Times, 8/29/2003[/URL]]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[quote=floridaorange;782254]I'm sure when pieces of glass and steel are falling from 800 feet in the sky, they sounds like explosions...

I do think that this article answers most of the engineering questions well:

[URL]http://www.absconsulting.com/news/latimes.pdf[/URL]

[B]"It's quite a famous structural system," said Fenves. "It's very well-designed." [/B] [B]Steel buildings in general are known for their strength. Even less well-designed steel [/B] [B]buildings survived the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco and the 1933 Long Beach [/B] [B]quake, Youssef said. [/B]

[B]When they were built in 1970, the World Trade Center towers were the world's [/B] [B]tallest buildings. But the strength designed to withstand wind was no match for the [/B] [B]fireball of an exploding plane. "We didn't have any terrorism in mind when the [/B] [B]buildings originally went up," Hooper said. [/B]

[B]While engineers are exploring ways to "bomb-proof" buildings to protect occupants [/B] [B]from flying glass and crumbling walls, it is considered too costly and not socially [/B] [B]desirable to attempt to protect buildings from the type of attack that occurred [/B] [B]Tuesday. [/B]

[B]"We'd be living in bunkers," Youssef said. "We cannot turn the country into [/B] [B]bunkers."[/B][/quote]

Funny I though it had been established that the buildings where designed specifically to withstand a plane impact.

This info is even on Miros debunking site. The agument has always been that the plane was larger and carryed more fuel

[URL]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html[/URL]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^I never agreed that was established, and find that claim preposterous. There are many factors, such as [B]where[/B] the 757 strikes the structure and how much jet fuel the 757 is carrying.

[B] "It's like hitting someone at the back of the knee," said Nabih Youssef, a structural engineer who heads the Tall Building Council in Los Angeles and is an expert on the design and strength of skyscrapers. "With enough weight above you, you take the entire building down." [/B]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

that is totally false the "back of the knee" statement. That would imply that the planes hit the building in a "weak spot." The building was made strong with steel from the bottom all the way to the top.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Guess that's your way of saying the article I posted is bullsh*t?

Here it is again in case you missed it: [url]http://www.absconsulting.com/news/latimes.pdf[/url]

[B]Even though structural steel used in buildings is coated with a fireproof material, extreme amounts of heat cause the steel to soften and lose its strength. The weight of the floors above then causes them to crash. "The technical term is progressive collapse--the slang term is pancaking," said Ron Klemencic, president of Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire, the Seattle firm that engineered the World Trade Center. "What basically happens is that one floor falls on top of the floor below it, and with one floor falling on top of another there's no way to stop it." [/B]

You have to make a decision guys at some point, whether or not the Seattle firm that engineered the World Trade Center is also in on your conspiracy.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

I already proved that pancaking is impossible. The floors didn't offer any resistance because it fell at free fall speeds. Each floor should have offered some sort of resistance.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^Which is the same as saying that engineers of the world trade center are also conspirators.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

no it is saying we need a new investigation.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[quote=runningman;782318]I already proved that pancaking is impossible. The floors didn't offer any resistance because it fell at free fall speeds. Each floor should have offered some sort of resistance.[/quote] pssh...whatever. You dodn't prove anything. The whole "free fall speeds" thing has been shown [I]highly[/I] dubious years ago.

[COLOR=white]Here's a question for you: if the tower was falling at free fall speeds( i.e., accelerating at the speed of gravity), then why is all of the loose debris from the tower falling at a [U]VISIBLY FASTER SPEED[/U] THAN THE REST OF THE BUILDING?? [B]LOOSE DEBRIS CAN'T BE FALLING [I]FASTER[/I] THAN THE REST OF THE TOWER ITSELF IF THE TOWER IS IN "FREE FALL" SPEED.[/B][/COLOR]

See for yourself, even a grade schooler could clearly see it: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoOp40E6UZg[/youtube]

Also, a lot of conspiracy theorists like to argue that the building came down in 9-10 seconds, a speed consistent with the "free fall" theory. GUESS WHAT - IT TOOK LONGER THAN THAT TO FALL.

See here for a video that provides an [I]imperfect, unscientific[/I] estimate of the fall that is already clearly higher than the 9 seconds that people like to quote - you can literally watch and count it: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4[/youtube]

For a more scientific approach, see here where an analysis of seismic readings of the falls for each building supports an estimate of [B]15 seconds for the North tower.[/B]

Also, here is an estimate done by Dr. Frank Greening, a PhD scientist who tried to model the transfer momentum of one floor hitting the others - [B]he estimates about 12-13 seconds[/B]. [URL]http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm[/URL] [URL]http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf[/URL] [IMG]http://www.debunking911.com/Collapse3.jpg[/IMG]

Look, no one can actually give you THE exact number because it's impossible; everything is an estimate at the end of the day - even if some estimates are more precise than others. And I'm not saying that the NIST reports are great and don't have a lot of flaws themselves. But it is naive and just asinine to claim that "free fall" speed is PROVEN, because it's NOT PROVEN AT ALL.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

why you guys want to complicate things i don't understand...

WTC 7 had no plane hit. there was a small fire. they decided to pull..? that doesn't seem odd? and it just happened that it was all prepped to be demolished. it doesn't work like that.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^A controlled demolition...really? Highly improbable imo. Besides, if it was demolished intentionally, why? What would be the point, and how would they have gotten away with it given that it occurred 20 minutes after the other buildings fell? Just seems highly unlikely.

[IMG]http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/911-tower-collapse.jpg[/IMG]

[URL="http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5"]Popular Mechanics Article[/URL]:

[B]WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.[/B]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[quote=floridaorange;782276]Guess that's your way of saying the article I posted is bullsh*t?

Here it is again in case you missed it: [URL]http://www.absconsulting.com/news/latimes.pdf[/URL]

[B]Even though structural steel used in buildings is coated with a fireproof material, extreme amounts of heat cause the steel to soften and lose its strength. The weight of the floors above then causes them to crash. "The technical term is progressive collapse--the slang term is pancaking," said Ron Klemencic, president of Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire, the Seattle firm that engineered the World Trade Center. "What basically happens is that one floor falls on top of the floor below it, and with one floor falling on top of another there's no way to stop it." [/B]

You have to make a decision guys at some point, whether or not the Seattle firm that engineered the World Trade Center is also in on your conspiracy.[/quote]

If that were the case the steel columns would still be sticking up in the middle of the building.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^So what is your proposed reason as to why they did fall?

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Guys I love this debate. I think each side has given good reason as to why we should have a new investigation. Obviously we each stand wherever we stand but a new one should be done considering it looks like we are pretty much 50-50.

Now Miro what you need to understand is that the building was blown up, so the WTC 1 and WTC 2 had to travel a greater distance since it was blown outward. It travelled further because it didn't take a straight line down more of an out and down. Also Miro it was travelling through pulverized concrete and steel so it wasn't totally equal to dropping a cue ball off the top in free air.

Also to prove that it was controlled demolition how did huge 60,000lbs beams end up 400 ft away unless it was blown out? First off how did it come apart from the other beams for starters and then go 400ft sideways?

[IMG]http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WFC3_close.jpg[/IMG]

Building 7 was blown up. You know how I know for sure? Because the owner of the building said so. What more do you need?

Florida I know you are looking for the "why" would they blow up 7 but you need a new investigation to get that. All we are saying is that it was controlled demolition. The owner said it, an expert in controlled demolition said it, the firemen said it. A new investigation would answer your why.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE=runningman;782601]

Building 7 was blown up. You know how I know for sure? Because the owner of the building said so. What more do you need?

Florida I know you are looking for the "why" would they blow up 7 but you need a new investigation to get that. All we are saying is that it was controlled demolition. The owner said it, an expert in controlled demolition said it, the firemen said it. A new investigation would answer your why.[/QUOTE]

Where/when did the owner say that? Can you provide some kind of real source for that information, otherwise what's the point of stating such a claim, right?

Re: you know what's astonishing?

I thought everybody already knew this. I thought it was common knowledge.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100[/youtube]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^If that were a fact, he wouldn't have received the insurance money :lol:

[B]Silverstein's Quote:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, he was talking to the fire commander

-Fact which is undisputed by either side, both are not in the demolition business

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

He could be lying, right? But here is the corroborating evidence...

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. 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. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski[/B]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

To pull a building is to not pull firefighters. It has never been used. To pull it means to "pull" the main beams out to demolish a building.

He would have said "to get the fireman" out because it also makes him look better if he said it that way.

I can't stress this enough "pulling" has never been used as firemen to get out of a building. That is a controlled demo term.

Also Florida sometimes it's who you know not about what you did?;):lol: Especially in your country.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[quote=floridaorange;782520]^So what is your proposed reason as to why they did fall?[/quote]

I don't have a proposal. I just believe that an acceptable explanation was never given. So a public investigation should be made an all relevant people should be interviewed under oath with full public transparency. This is the main point. Why was this never done? Do the the victims do not deserve this? The official story stinks and thats as far as I am sure...who did it and why is beside the point.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^Fair enough man.

[QUOTE=runningman;782624] Also Florida sometimes it's who you know not about what you did?;):lol: Especially in your country.[/QUOTE]

referring to?

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE=floridaorange;781526]^I'm actually not interested in debating that part of the movie, mostly the part about the US government having some role in 9/11 and the reason for why internationals would believe such bs. [/QUOTE]

Florida you say that you are interested in the part about US government having some role in 9/11. I'm interested in what you think about Bush's claim about seeing the first plane on TV. I'm not saying its an admission of guilt. I'm just interested in peoples opinion.

Check out 5 min's 19 seconds

[YOUTUBE]ALtNYBX7OmM[/YOUTUBE]