quote:

Originally posted by Mattnapa:
I will start with some science Lefty- heat has no significant effect on steel from fire temperatures we saw in the towers.

Are you kidding?

http://www.ashireporter.org/articles/articles.aspx?id=1154

Twoofers actually know that little about construction.

Classic turfin'.

The question is: Did the steel supporting structures melt?

If not, the next question is: How hot did the fires get the steel? How many calories were available if all the calories consumed in the fires were somehow instilled into the steel structures and how much 'compromise' did that make the steel structures?

The next question is: How come no fire has ever done this to a high rise building before?

Despite the condescenders, there is plenty of questions about the specifics of the collapses of the World Trade Center towers to warrant a 'power of the court' investigation--including subpeona and perjury powers. Even if the steel were compromised, the top 'imploding segment' would be as compromised (and, from a weight comparison basis, more compromised) that the lower 'collapsing segment' and, with any impact that I can envision, that would mean the 'top impacting segment' would disintegrate before the larger segment--4 times more mass. If there is some 'dynamic forces' somehow 'accelerating the implosion', that needs to be specified and explained 'from start to finish'.

One of the main problems with 'imploding buildings from fire' is that the 'force of implosion' dissipates the energy involved. There is no 'force' of interacting masses that I know of that would NOT 'decrease the speed of any subsequent impact' from the speed of the first impact coming from one 'local energy source'--unless more energy were applied....If you think I'm wrong with that assertion, please explain your point.....bit by bit.....or get anyone you think can explain it to do so....I'm actually interested in that explanation....

quote:

Originally posted by Kerry:
The question is: Did the steel supporting structures melt?

Of course not. They didn't have to melt. Never heard of a fire melting steel beams in any building that collapsed. They just have to get hot enough to warp and break joints.

quote:

If not, the next question is: How hot did the fires get the steel? How many calories were available if all the calories consumed in the fires were somehow instilled into the steel structures and how much 'compromise' did that make the steel structures?

Probably impossible ever to determine, but irrelevant, anyway, when to warp the steel is really all they needed to do.

quote:

The next question is: How come no fire has ever done this to a high rise building before?

Because no steel high-rise with unprotected steel was ever set fire by and aircraft that took out some of the supporting members.

Some low-rise steel structures have collapsed in this manner without the columns having first been bunged up by a mass of moving metal. Gogle Kader Toy Factory for one example.

And bear in mind that the steel components on the upper floors of the windsor Tower did collapse down to a concrete floor more robust, by comparison, than the mechanical floors of the WTC towers.

Don't even drag the Empire State aircraft strike into this. There was no fire proofing on the upper floors of the Windsor Tower. LOTS of concrete and stone around the columns of the ESB.

quote:

One of the main problems with 'imploding buildings from fire' is that the 'force of implosion' dissipates the energy involved. There is no 'force' of interacting masses that I know of that would NOT 'decrease the speed of any subsequent impact' from the speed of the first impact coming from one 'local energy source'--unless more energy were applied....If you think I'm wrong with that assertion, please explain your point.....bit by bit.....or get anyone you think can explain it to do so....I'm actually interested in that explanation....

WTF? There were tons of stuff cascading down, pushing the walls out, thus compromising the joints with the floor pans and trusses, as well as smashing the floors down. How do you make the weight of all that crap falling from above "disipate?"

And another thing, don't bring up that aluminum cannopt defeat steel, and that there should, thus, be no cartoon cut-out of an airplane on the sides of the towers. That is actually normal for an aircraft hitting steel.

Slab- What is your link supposed to prove? Commercial fires can reach temps of 1000C , yes at flashover for brief moments. Why is there no evidence of core columns above 250C in the debris? Why are you suddenly a fan of government information? And finally lets see some pre 9-11 information with these same statements.

Lefty how is it coming with the fact that there was not enough kinetic energy available from the impacts of the plane to cause the baseline damage from ther MIT report and to strip of the insulation. We go round and round, you do not answer the question and then a few months later youy claim it again. I know oficial story suckers have some brain dead regions since they are devoting so much of their brains energy to faulty ad hominum attacks.

quote:

Originally posted by Mattnapa:
Lefty how is it coming with the fact that there was not enough kinetic energy available from the impacts of the plane to cause the baseline damage from ther MIT report and to strip of the insulation. We go round and round, you do not answer the question and then a few months later youy claim it again. I know oficial story suckers have some brain dead regions since they are devoting so much of their brains energy to faulty ad hominum attacks.

Seems to me that was addressed when one reads what the NIST report actually says as opposed to a Truther's characterization thereof. The energy needed to strip the insulation, even if it was properly applied (over which there is some debate) was between .1MJ and 1 MJ. At the lower end of this range, I believe there is more than enough kinetic energy.

quote:

Originally posted by Mattnapa:
Slab- What is your link supposed to prove? Commercial fires can reach temps of 1000C , yes at flashover for brief moments. Why is there no evidence of core columns above 250C in the debris? Why are you suddenly a fan of government information? And finally lets see some pre 9-11 information with these same statements.

Who says "at flashover for brief moments"?
The fires burned for enough time at enough heat in a contained space (which increases heat) with plenty of oxygen to compromise the steel structure. Structural steel will lose up to 50% of its strength at 1,000 degrees. At 1,500 degrees, it will not support it's own weight.
Imagine thousands of tons bearing down on a compromised section.

Matt, I'm not a fan of the government or the conspiracy theorists. I rely on the information presented/shown/proven and what I watched, just like you do.
I've been in the business long enough to understand why the buildings collapsed.
If it was the Empire State building, it would have been a different outcome.

quote:

Originally posted by Mattnapa:
Lefty how is it coming with the fact that there was not enough kinetic energy available from the impacts of the plane to cause the baseline damage from ther MIT report and to strip of the insulation. We go round and round, you do not answer the question and then a few months later youy claim it again. I know oficial story suckers have some brain dead regions since they are devoting so much of their brains energy to faulty ad hominum attacks.

There was kinetic energy to sever columns, there was heat to make the steel expand. The weight of the buildings was born catawampus for nearly an hour.

The amount of energy needed to strip the insulation is speculative to the degree that there is no way to test the effect of a couple hundred tons of frag carromming about the interior.

What is lacking is the slightest bit of proof that demolition charges were placed anywhere in the building. Until you produce that, you have double handsful of bugger all.

Newly discovered footage showing the real villan of 9/11. It wasn't airplanes.

quote:

WTF? There were tons of stuff cascading down, pushing the walls out, thus compromising the joints with the floor pans and trusses, as well as smashing the floors down. How do you make the weight of all that crap falling from above "disipate?"

The act of 'cascading down' doesn't even make sense to me, leftysergeant. Maybe I'm 'dense' but the only thing that was 'falling down' was what had been 'held up' by the building for thirty years. To have a local event to cause the whole thing to come 'cascading down' in as complete and rapid a fashion as it did is still the problem. How?

After all, it's not like 'something' was helping it, is it?.........

Really, there is enough here to warrant a court-type investigation inclusive of subpeona and perjury power. I agree with the 'twoofers' in that regard....

quote:

If it was the Empire State building, it would have been a different outcome.

How so--and why? If that's a 'design issue' with respect to how the World Trade Center towers were built, then that should be part of the 'explanation'.....plus, that still doesn't explain WTC 7.....

quote:

There was kinetic energy to sever columns, there was heat to make the steel expand. The weight of the buildings was born catawampus for nearly an hour.

Where did all this 'kinetic energy' come from, leftysergeant? Was that the plane impacts? Was that the 'top section' falling on the 'bottom part'? Was that 'the heat'? Whatever it was, one thing we may (or may not) agree that it wasn't was 'gravity', right? Or, is the 'energy source' that caused this whole thing to implode 'gravity' in your assessment? If so, explain how gravity 'jumped ship' from the 'weight of the bottom section' to the 'imploding force of the top part'.....

This really does need to be investigated in a court-type fashion with subpeona and perjury power....

Problem is, if the court did not include their favorite tin foil folder, there would be one or two camps of the twoofer movement out on the streets shrieking like little babies that they weren't given a chance to be heard.

And if all of them spoke as "expert witnesses", anyone questioning the official narrative would be dismissed as a barking moonbat, given the numbers of barking moonbats parading themselves as experts.

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

I encourage everyone to watch this documentry....it will explain the TRUTH to all who are brave enough to view it, accept it, and learn from it.

www.ZEITGEIST.com

myths,astrology,religion,politics,history,9/11.....all relate to one another

Slab- The information I have claims that normal commercial fires are in the range of 500 to 600C. Temperatures at flashover and of perfect mixture jet fuel fires approach 1,000C. do you have information different than that? also I noticed some of the temps you mentioned seem to be farenheight, so lets try to keep that straight.

Lefty- do you admitt the NIST used the MIT study headed by Wierzbicki to estimate damage to the towers. Do you disagree that all the damage to the columns, floors, etc required all the energy from the planes, but did not include insulation. If you claim the MIT study included the energy to strip insulation please cite it. The fact is that NIST decided later that they needed this insulation stripped, but the MIT study had already accounted for all the KE provided by the planes. It is possible obviously that some of the insulation was stripped, but any accounting for this must be subtracted from the rest of the damage to the building

Lefty- Just curious if you are going to respond to the Bollyn quote on the Flight 11 thread. I would hate to think you are one of those sissy official story suckers who froth at the mouth with the thought that someone doubts the shiny righteousness of the imperial guard, and yet at the same time has no rational ability to respond to questions. You are not one of those folks are you?

Raynjuls- Sorry I should have addressed my comments regarding the NIST insulation controversy to you. Sorry that the language is a little strong from me towards other people on this thread. As I have stated to you before my frustrations do not come necessarily from those who are supporters of the oficial story, but rather for those who seem to combine the most venom with the least discussion from either side. It is too bad the discussion has broken down with you, but I have appreciated your spirit of fair science. Happy Holidays to you

quote:

Problem is, if the court did not include their favorite tin foil folder, there would be one or two camps of the twoofer movement out on the streets shrieking like little babies that they weren't given a chance to be heard.

And if all of them spoke as "expert witnesses", anyone questioning the official narrative would be dismissed as a barking moonbat, given the numbers of barking moonbats parading themselves as experts.

leftysergeant, why don't you see it this way: Let's say that all of this issue is true as it has, so far, been explained in the NIST report. Then, submitting this information to the courts (or the legislature or whereever it appears appropriate to formally, inclusive of court authority, consider the causes of the entire scenario of 9/11), laid open to be scrutinized, rebutted, and confirmed, will add new force to the war effort with renewed assurances that 'our cause is just to the world'. However, if not, then we have need to adjust our commitments as a nation accordingly. 'Our cause' is no longer just--and, if that be the case, we as 'Americans' truly for the virtue of freedom and justice need to stop using '9/11' as, in any way, justifying our aggressions on the world. Do you at least agree with that?

Billnj, I viewed that zeitgeist movie one night at a slow time at work from another thread on this forum.

If you really want to get paranoid, maybe this whole 'corporate take-over' sceme working its way out through American history started with the Civil War. After the war, I believe Abraham Lincoln wanted to 'forgive and forget' and, other than situating the blacks to where they were no longer slaves, allow the South back into the Union as before the Civil War. However, Abraham Lincoln was 'assassinated'--supposedly by 'Southern interests'--but how do we know? The result of his assassination made it where the South wasn't allowed to be 'forgiven'--and the ravages to the South persisted after the war as if the 'opponent' wasn't a 'member of the Union'. It probably hastened the dismantling of the 'plantation system' and open the South up to 'industrialization' with the newly freed slaves as cheap labor and the manning of the Army--supplemented by the 'spoils of war'....

Well said Kerry, but it seems that the fervor of the patriotism in this country, and especially when the patriotism is directed at the annihilation of the terorists, has transcended discourse. The assuredness of the righteousness of the cause no longer needs investigations. Investigation and discussion themselves are opponents of the assuredness of the cause. To question is to betray

quote:

The assuredness of the righteousness of the cause no longer needs investigations.

However, if our 'righteousness' is based on 'false witnessing', well, may 'God' have mercy on our souls....

quote:

Originally posted by Mattnapa:
Slab- The information I have claims that normal commercial fires are in the range of 500 to 600C. Temperatures at flashover and of perfect mixture jet fuel fires approach 1,000C. do you have information different than that? also I noticed some of the temps you mentioned seem to be farenheight, so lets try to keep that straight.

I was speaking in farenheight. It's the American in me I guess.
I think it depends on circumstances. At 1,100 degrees (F) structural steel is severely compromised. The whole premis spun by the truthers is that steel would have to melt. It doesn't.
Take those 8 or 10 floors that are a raging inferno at a conservative 1,000 degrees and set a thousand tons of remaining building on top of them.
Enter gravity.
Now imagine the momentum created by a couple of million pounds of massive building that just got a running start towards the ground.
How they were built had everything to do with what happened.

quote:

Originally posted by Mattnapa:
To question is to betray

I don't think so.
To create something out of nothing that fits an agenda of "doubt everything" is not questioning, it's nonsense.

Slabmaster- If indeed the public had a reasonable standard of understanding over the events of the day, and if indeed their was a reasonable discussion you might have a leg to stand on. If you do not see the major media's unwillingness to discuss this issue, then you have blinders on. I know in your book you have determined there is nothing to talk about, and you believe our media is capable of making this judgement and enforcing the silence as well. The problem is you and the media do not get to decide truth all on your own. If a large enough percentage of the public wants a public discussion, then those who work against that are simply working for anti-democratic principles and censorship. Are you really going to say that you do not believe there is a tendency to identify anyone who wishes to discuss 9/11 as someone that believes in a conspiracy theory?

The major media give the conspiracy theories as little attention as they do because the false flag and CD theories were obviously pulled out of someone's butt. Stick to the criminal negligence and unprovoked war theories. Those have some basis in fact.

quote:

the false flag and CD theories were obviously pulled out of someone's butt.

That's good enough for me!
No problem, mate!