Apparently the video I watched exaggerated the 'average' temperatures that a house fire can reach at ceiling level. How they came up with the figure, I have no clue...other than perhaps did a senario where temperatures reached that level to impress prospective Masterguard smoke detector customers.

Unlikely but not impossible!

and gullible bootlickers

NO....tires produce 'black smoke' when burned!

We use a vaccuum oven and the polymer pyrolizes without actually burning. That way the steel isn't affected.

As I recall the first bombing was in the PARKING GARAGE under tower #1. Wouldn't there be cars in a parking garage?

NIST and FEMA both say that at best their "official" theories have very low probablity...

No one has ever commented on the NTSB flight 77 black box inaccuracies... not even our esteemed pilots... I wonder why?...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

http://www.digg.com/politics/Pilots_For_9_...h_Press_Release

http://www.netctr.com/911exposed.html



Correction... when burned at less than their optimum fuel/Oxy ratio... then they smoke...

Do you even know what burning actually is?... it's reaction with Oxygen.



Heh, I'm not nearly as clinical about it...



Did that one bring the tower down?... how very strange... after seeing 3 of them go down to less damage in a single day, one would conclude that it takes very little to completely destroy sky scrapers.

$9 trillion

what color smoke does burning $9 trillion make?

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Certainly.

Not the point. As usual you misdirect from a direct answer. The first explosion was meant to bring the tower down.

I'd say a planeload of jet fuel at 500 mph is a LOT more than "very little".

Did a planeload of jet fuel hit building 7?

Why are direct answers always replied to with misdirections. Flight 77 wasn't near the WTC, and those links aren't to the NIST or FEMA.

Nothing strange here... move along now folks... and jUSt ignore this and the other 100's of unanswered questions, unbelievable coincidences, ignored facts and obvious motives about that damned day... nothing to see here... move along... moo or baa or whatever you do... but jUSt move along now.





We are talking about 9-11, aren't we?... no misdirection attempted... I corrected it to NTSB.

Yet ANOTHER misdirection.

You never seem to have any adequate answers to any of the questions(or misdirections, as you call them:~)... why is that?

99.44% of your questions have been answered. So what's the problem?

LMAO!

I think the answers so far have been more than adequate. The problem is any answer brings yet another question from something only generally related. The collapse of the twin towers brings references to #7, then to the black box on the flight that hit the Pentagon.

It's classic bait and switch going back to Fast Eddie. I don't know every answer, but I know when I'm being sent on a wild goose chase as opposed to being debated.

99.44%?... really?... where and when?...

Take a browse here and kindly help these folks out with some of your answers...

http://stj911.org/index.html

911=Iraq

there's your bait & switch

If it's good enough for Ivory soap, what's the complaint?

Okay... let's try something different...

You give me an answer first... to any of the questions(take your pick:~)... and we'll try to stick to that to some kind of conclUSion...

I promise.

It's all here in this thread along with the links provided. All we can do is give sensible answers to silly questions. Whether you accept them or not, nobody should probably give a poopy.

What do you think about those folks at that site?

What folks at what site? I hardly ever click on your links anymore either. It's all the SOS.

Pick one of any I've already done. Start with the main towers and planes laden with jet fuel hitting buildings at almost 500 mph. Is that REALLY a small thing?

I like to start at the MAIN POINTS and work down to the minutiae, not the other way around.

(doing some major yard work so I'm in and out, no need for crickets chirping)

bart knows it all

no need to check anything

too smart for that

too perfect

No, that is by no means a small thing(hey, we agree on something!:~)...

But I contend that it was not still not nearly enough to bring down the buildings in the manner that they came down...

In the case of WTC2, the plane did not even hit the core of the building, but went through the corner of the building... if indeed this had caused the collapse, then surely it(the collapse:~) would have been much more pronounced on that corner and sides of the building and not fallen exactly straight down in the(explosive:~) manner that it did...

Have you looked at what the cores consisted of?... it's utterly mindblowing... millions of tons of concrete and incredible beams of steel... the so-called "pancake theory" might've explained the outer floors going down(though the undamaged floors would surely have offered some resistance to the freefall:~)... but it in no way explains the complete destruction of the core(s)...

What do you think?



Lol... that's what we feel like.

MILITARY TECHNOLOGY IS FAR AHEAD OF THE PUBLIC'S

Well earlier you did say " one would conclude it takes very little to completely destroy sky scrapers"



I've seen no evidence that WTC2 fell exactly straight and even. There's a difference between references to something and actual video evidence. The main thing I usually see is long distance video in real time, usually only aimed at the top of buildings. The sheer mass of several floors of a building collapsing on top of a damaged core generates a LOT of power. I would think more than any amount of small explosives.



Outer floors? Utter destruction? I'm not sure how technical that is. I'd expect a lot of destruction from a huge chunk of building falling several stories and taking more debris with it on the way. Gaining mass and momentum as it heads for the ground, still burning all the way.

One, the undamaged floors DID offer some resistance (not much, but then the force applied by the upper floors was tremendous) to the freefall. That's why it didn't collapse at freefall speed, inyer's assertions to the contrary.

And two, the upper portion of WTC2 is indeed noticeably tilted during the collapse.

Free-falling from WTC heights
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity


Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7


Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.

Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

But that can only occur in a vacuum.

Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth's atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph. (source)

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers' former height.


Observations from 9/11

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's "complete and final report" of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. Here is the exact quote: "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". (That's the government's official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast. See for yourself: QT Real)

But as we've just determined, that's free-fall time. That's close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.

http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

And the buildings did not collapse perfectly into their own foundations - some parts made it accross the streets to damage other buildings.

Not that it matters, a bad demo job could have done the same.

It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults.

http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml

inyer, attempt to use a little logic. Even if the collapse WERE, as you maintain, a controlled demolition, it would have fallen at freefall speed ONLY IF ALL EXPLOSIVES ON ALL FLOORS WERE DETONATED SIMULTANEOUSLY or at the base of the building, rather than sequentially as you maintain occurred. Even a deliberately demolished building falls at actual freefall speed only if it's demolished by literally blasting out the underpinnings and allowing it to REALLY freefall.

our military has the technology

do you really doubt that?


you can watch the building explode as it falls

Yes. I really doubt that they have the ability to secretly mine an entire occupied building for collapse undetected.

the building was only half occupied



and there was plenty of time

even power out time with no security cams

Much less three buildings.

Some people have no problem with dishonoring the military as a whole, with no evidence whatesoever.

sounds like gwb to me




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

9/11: a 7-Man Job
A common objection to the argument that 9/11 was an inside job is that the conspiracy would be too big to keep quiet. In other words, the argument is that it is impossible that so many people could have kept quiet for so long. SOMEONE would have talked or made a mistake, so that the conspiracy would have been discovered.

Is that true? Maybe.

But anyone who's seen a Tom Clancy movie knows that a handful of bad guys can pull off big conspiracies, especially when they've got a high-level military or government person on board (Clancy writes fiction, but has a lot of high-level friends in the military, and knows his stuff).

Moreover, to anyone who knows how covert military operations work, it is obvious that segmentation on a "need-to-know basis", along with deference to command hierarchy, means that a couple of top dogs can call the shots and most people helping won't even know the big picture.

I Can't Hear You

It has now been shown that a handful of people were responsible for willfully ignoring the evidence that Iraq lacked weapons of mass destruction. See, for, example this article. Indeed, Iraq was not the first time the U.S. has ignored or faked intelligence in order to justify war.

The facts are also clear that it was also obvious to U.S. intelligence that 9/11 was going to happen on or around the date it happened.

So how many people would it have taken to ignore the intelligence that hijackers were going to attack? How hard would it have been for a handful of top-level administration officials to stick their fingers in their ears, say "nah nah nah" (like kids do when they don't want to hear what you're saying), and let it happen?

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/...-7-man-job.html

That is totally different than all your other theories.


If it really is a conspiracy that blogger is dead.

Yeah, anyone who's seen a Tom Cruise movie knows how easy it is to fly Navy jets.

especially with a fully trained pilot actually flying it

{{{{{shaking head in disbelief}}}}}

I wonder how much of that highly volatile jet fuel was left in either liquid or gaseous form after those gigantic fireballs we all witnessed on tv.

The explosion would do a lot of damage in it's own right, any left gas or liquid likely to ignite and burn elsewhere, doing more damage. I don't get where you are going with that.

When I bought my mig welder and my oxy/acetylene torch I went out and got a book on welding. The author was talking about a trick he uses with the cutting torch. He fires up the torch and dials in the flame. He starts the cut and when the torch is cutting along really good he turns the acetylene off and continues to cut the metal with oxygen alone. I was like, "No sh_t?"

Of course this probably doesnt apply to what is being discussed so dont mind me.





Well it seems to me the folks who buy the official theory seem to think that jet fuel sloshed through several floors of the towers and soaked upholstery and draperies and furniture and ran in streams down hallways and stairwells. I'm willing to bet more than 70% or better of it burned up in the initial explosion/fireball.

Of course that fireball set a buttload of sh_t on fire and with the buildings sprinkler system destroyed (apparently) in the impact, well then some poor sap firefighters are gonna have to be Johnny on the spot to slow it down.



Naw. Just the unAmerican partisan repuslickans that would sell out their nation.

So a huge gas explosion isn't damaging? There was plenty of other fuel for the fire after the initial explosion.

Given the low occupancy level on September 11, 2001, NIST found that the issue of egress capacity from these places of assembly, or from elsewhere in the buildings, was not a significant factor on that day.
http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/legreg/testimon...Jeffrey1026.htm

Although the majority of space in the WTC complex was off-limits to the general public, 2 WTC (South Tower) featured a public observation area aptly named "Top Of The World."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

EVIDENCE OF FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE COLLAPSE: During an interview on 9/11 with Rudy Giuliani, he claims that he was advised by an authority to exit the lobby of one of the towers because the tower was about to collapse. How could ANYONE have known the towers were going to collapse? Absolutely no steel structures had ever collapsed before.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:9vgHxV...cd=13&gl=us

Built for an enormous amount of money between 1966 and 1970 by the Port Authority of the State of New York...the Twin Towers were always money-losers as rental properties and required huge subsidies (tens of millions of dollars a year) from the State of New York to remain solvent.

The only thing that saved the Twin Towers from demolition was the fact that they were filled with asbestos, which would be released into the air if the buildings were destroyed by controlled explosions. In 2000, the Port Authority calculated that it would cost $1 billion
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/01/real-...s-targeted.html

The analysis of WTC tenants’ square footage use before 9/11 indicates a 64.6% coverage by tenants with more than 50,000sf
http://www.naiop.org/foundation/albertoaward.pdf
"significant vacancies after the dot com crash of 2000"