Take it away.

The local lord is not benevolent or open-minded.

Bailiff, whack his peepee.

Outstanding. Thanks for renaming the forum, a.v..

If I knew how to run these computer thingees I would post "the picture" just to be a complete smart ass.

BWAAAAA HAAA HA HA HA !!

Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report? You're a smart guy, I'm sure you'll see the proverbial WTFs? all over the place.

In terms of the collapse of the towers, I have to do more research. I've read a few of the progressive collapse theories, but some of the alternative theories do seem to have some merit. Although I'm not a structural/civil engineer, the physics is the same nonetheless. Since I'll be unemployed for the next two weeks, I've ordered some of the recommended literature off of Amazon.

Here's what I ordered:

1. Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory by David Ray Griffith
2. 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA - Myth of the 21st Century by Webster Griffin Tarpley

Historically, government sponsored terrorism is as old as Moses, so this does merit serious investigation.

Did you get the Popular Mechanics version? I think I saw a link to it online, but I don't know if it's the complete version or just an online condensation. There are some physics sites with deeper debates around. Obviously folks that will write a book come at it with a viewpoint already installed in their head.

OK.

19 highjackers did the job, more or less as the commission and most people think. There may be some odd circumstances, but most anything that complex is bound to have something hard to explain down to the last drop of jet fuel.

the only thing we know for a fact is four planes crashed and no individual or group benefitted from the event(s) more than bush/republicans/the pentagon.

The similarities to operation northwoods are more than mere coincidence.

The leap to the 19 hijackers having "done the job" is the part that beffudles me.

Why? How many does it take to storm a plane?

So, if it takes 19 total to storm four planes then that means that that part of the official story has been proven?

That's the basis of the official story. Crashing a plane isn't easy, but it isn't brain surgery either.

Weird. I just saw that fire in Beijing. That big skyscraper. It was burning. Looked like it was burning top to bottom. Anyone know if it collapsed on itself yet? Especially considering how the Chinese make things.

Anything massive hit it at 450 MPH?

Wasn't the impact that caused the failure, right? Or it would have fallen immediately I figure.

It's like this with me - granted, I'm not a steel worker or an engineer, but I have worked in a foundry pouring molten metal into forms to make castings (among many other things involving steel and other modern alloys). I also "engineer" things all the time in my current line of work. I'm talking structural things that people live in 24/7 that would mean my ass if they failed. I just dont see those buildings, and I'm only talking about the two towers, failing the way they did. I've said before I could see the fire softening the steel to where it had no structural value, but that would not be uniform. The thing would have to lean in one direction or other, and there really isnt any stopping it at that point and I would think in my personal experience that it would fall away in that direction.

The other most likely scenario IMHO, considering those buildings were built with a kind of "exoskeleton" design (in that most of it's structural strength came from it's exterior walls with sparse (though very strong) interior post-like supports, is that several floors would collapse in the interior, but would only go so far and the building would remain standing.


The "something rotten in Denmark" clincher for me is bldg 7. I could accept, very grudgingly, that what we saw on TV that day was enough to bring down the towers, but bldg 7 and what it contained...bullshit.

But all that has nothing to do with the planes, the hijackers, the administration or any of the other parts of the conspiracy I see around all the time. Your admitting the main part of the conspiracy may well be true, but some smaller building under the main buildings involved in only half the conspiracy is the most important part of the conspiracy for you?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/4213805.html

1. Initial reports from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) misunderstood the amount of damage the 47-floor WTC7 sustained from the debris of the falling North Tower—because in early photographs, WTC7 was obscured by smoke and debris.

Towers 1 and 7 were approximately 300 ft. apart, and pictures like the ones here and here offer a clear visual of how small that distance is for structures that large. After further studies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) told Popular Mechanics that debris from the 110-floor North Tower hit WTC7 with the force of a volcanic eruption. Nearly a quarter of the building was carved away over the bottom 10 stories on its south face, and significant damage was visible up to the 18th floor (see p. 24 of this report, and the screengrab below of an image of WTC7's damaged south face).

The unusual design of WTC7 is also crucial to the discussion, in that key columns supported extreme loads—as much as 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor—as the building straddled an electrical substation. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told Popular Mechanics, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.” The tower wasn’t hit by a plane, but it was severely wounded by the collapse of the North Tower. Which is when the fires started.

2. The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center weren’t knocked down by planes—they both stood for more than a half-hour after the impacts. But the crashes destroyed support columns and ignited infernos that ultimately weakened—not melted—the steel structures until the towers could no longer support their own weights (NIST offers a primer here). Ms. O’Donnell fundamentally misstates the case with her use of the word “melted”: Evidence currently points to WTC7 also collapsing because fires weakened its ravaged steel structure.

Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,” according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse.

3. Demolition experts tell Popular Mechanics that wiring a building the size of WTC7 for clandestine demolition would present insurmountable logistical challenges. That issue aside, there’s a clear-cut engineering explanation for why the building fell the way it did. Trusses on the fifth and seventh floors of the building were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another; with the south face heavily damaged, the other columns were likely overtaxed. In engineering terms, the “progressive collapse” began on the eastern side, when weakened columns failed from the damage and fire. The entire building fell in on itself as the slumping east side dragged down the west side in a diagonal pattern. Still, damage to the Verizon Building (see p. 21 of this report), directly west of WTC7, and to Fiterman Hall (see here) directly north, show that it was hardly an orderly collapse.

NIST is currently preparing its final report on the collapse of WTC7, which is expected to be released this spring. In order to address concerns of conspiracy theorists, the organization added “Hypothetical Blast Analysis” to its research, according to a December 2006 progress report. The report also points out that “NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition.”

So, 19 people acting in small groups COULD have done it. That's what you're saying, right?

Too much stinky BS happened with Bldg 7.

"main part of the consipracy"? What that planes crashed into two building in NYC that day and three collapsed in on themselves?

It's a simple fact that no one person or group benefitted from 9/11 more than bush/republicans/the pentagon. Their think tanks were breathlessly waiting for just such a thing as 9/11 to use American power to shove their personal ideas down the throats of the world.

Like anyone I have read all that and don't believe it.

Too bad, like any burning building in any city anywhere, we don't have footage shot from a chopper orbiting the building. Wonder why that is? Lots of footage shot from choppers of the towers, but none of bldg 7. Only ground level footage from pretty much one angle. that I have seen any way.

tell us what was in that building and get back with us