Luxury skyscraper hotel completely engulfed by fire in Grozny, Chechnya (VIDEO, PHOTOS)

[global1]

Source: Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”

Flames have enveloped all floors of the highest building in the North Caucasus, southern Russia. All people have managed to leave the building. The Grozny-city complex in the Chechen Republic includes luxury apartments and a 5-star hotel.

Watch LIVE on RT

According to witnesses’ pictures that immediately started to appear on Twitter, all stories of the building are covered with flames.

http://rt.com/news/chechnya-tallest-building-fire-280/

Read more: http://rt.com/news/chechnya-tallest-building-fire-280/

---

Reminiscent of WTC Fire. I wonder if it will implode upon itself?

[Archae]

1. Only if they use "nano-thermite."

[Berlum]

226. + 1,000

[closeupready]

2. Probably won't implode if the material fueling the fire

is located away from the building's support structures.

[zeemike]

3. Probably not

Sense no steel building has ever collapsed from a fire in history....except for the three that did so on 911....due to terrorism.

[hack89]

9. No steel building has ever been hit by a fully loaded 767 - until 9/11

is it really hard to accept 911 as a truly unique event?

[olddad56]

10. I don't recall WTC 7 being hit by a 767, or any aircraft for that matter.

perhaps it is hard for some people to accept that 911 was an inside job.

[hack89]

13. WTC 7 had WTC 1 fall on top of it

perhaps you remember those eyewitness accounts of a 20 story gouge in its side and multiple out of control fires?

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Unfought by humans with hoses OR automated sprinklers because the mains were cut.

WTC1 and 2 were integrated into the city services in intimate ways that are difficult to picture. Consider each tower represents a 100 acre floorspace of office equipment, cooling, batteries, bathrooms, etc.

When WTC1 and 2 came down, the water mains were toast. The subway was toast. The grid was toast. WTC7 was then un-serviced by the sprinklers, and they pulled fire fighting efforts that probably couldn't save the structure anyway.

[hack89]

18. But the FDNY was in on it - don't you know? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Zounds! Foiled again!

[olddad56]

26. here is something else you won't believe, those Mother Goose stories, they are not true either.

[zeemike]

19. And no jet fueled fire has ever melted steel ether.

there just is not enough energy in it to reach those type of temps unless you use forced air flow...like in a jet engin.
And sense all three buildings came strait down in their footprint it means that the fire was distrubited equaly on all suport columns so that they all failed at the same time...not once but in all three buildings...

There are unique events for sure...but it is really unique when it happens three times on the same day houris apart and in different kinds of buildings...

But maybe God was on OBL side and he can work miracles.

[hack89]

21. No has ever claimed that the steel was melted

steel will loose a lot of strength when it is exposed to high temperatures. And since the planes took out some core columns, each remaining column was supporting more weight. All it took was for one column to fail and all that PE was converted to KE - the building was not designed to handle such dynamic loads.

The WTC 7 was a three phased collapse. First internal failure at one end, followed by the collapse of that end of the building, which in turn pulled down the rest of the building.

The only way those towers could collapse is straight down - enormous weight plus gravity is basic physics. What lateral forces were there?

[zeemike]

23. Basic physics?....lets get real.

First when you see black smoke from a jet fuel fire it is because it is starved for O2...and so cannot reach temps even close enough to weaken steel enough to make it collapse
And should any building collapse the ONLY way it will come strait down is if all it's supports fail at the same time...that is physics...and well known among people who demolish buildings for a living...and why they spend weeks preparing for it and even then sometimes fail.

But I understand the problem here...if you don't believe it you then have to face the horror of admitting it was all a big lie and that you fell for it...much better to believe it and not think about why.

[hack89]

24. It was not the jet fuel producing that black smoke

the jet fuel burned off within 10 minutes. The black smoke was from the contents of the building - care to guess what color smoke you get when you burn plastic and other synthetic materials? That smoke plume was huge - it lifted tons of particulate matter miles into the atmosphere. The energy to do that is enormous. That fire was huge and hot.

As for the collapse - think about how much the tower weighed about the impact zone. And then consider that the falling weight grew as the collapse progresses. The columns were not design to support such forces - they were overwhelmed in an instant.

Go study the difference between static and dynamic forces - you will find your answer there.

Thanks for the flashback - it has been ages since decent Truther thread.

[zeemike]

29. Yep...not the truther charge comes out.

That is always good to blow it all off with.

But if the fuel was gone in ten minuets why did it take hours for the building to collaps?....was there a lot of fuel in the building to keep the temp hot?

But it is pointless to talk about it here...you cannot accept this even if you are drowned in a pool of evedence...that is the nature of this game.

[hack89]

31. Why do you think we have fire codes and sprinklers for high rise buildings?

go read the published reports. If you want a non-US engineering assessment, go look at what the ARUP group wrote.

[zeemike]

38. If I provided you with lots of evidence

From reputable organizations and people would it make any difference to you?

I already know that the answer is no...cause that is how this works...we get lined up on one side or the other and then it becomes a contest as to who is right and who is wrong.
And if you are on that side you will never believe anything but that, and ignore any and all evidence that shows otherwise...

The most telling evidence to me is logic gained from experience...and that tells me that those three buildings could not have collapsed in their footprint all the same at the same day from a fire that could not have gotten hot enough to weaken steel....way to many things would have had to happen to make that happen like it did.

And to me it is stunning how easy it is to manipulate people like that.

[hack89]

39. I know this issue inside and out

I spent hours in the old 9/11 forum - thousands of posts. Feel free to recycle old news - call me when you can name names.

Have a good evening.

[zeemike]

41. So do I.

And there is no need to waste our time with it...we are ether with it or against it.

[wildbilln864]

162. If you knew this issue inside & out....

why do you get it wrong by saying the jets were fully loaded?
obviously you don"t know as much as you think.

[hack89]

164. It was loaded with enough fuel to fly across country

and it weighed 250 tons and it flew into the WTC at 500 knots.

Now - can we agree that such a thing has never happened before? And that such a thing would severely damage a building?

[wildbilln864]

165. that's not fully loaded though!

they load usually just enough to make the trip.
and the passenger load was also like 40 percent.

[hack89]

166. 200 tons of steel, 60 tons of jet fuel and an impact speed of 500 knots

can we agree that a 767 in that condition will do severe damage to a building when it hits?

[wildbilln864]

241. we can....

we can agree als that you mispoke about knowing this issue inside out when clear errors are reported as facts. thank you.

[hack89]

242. But I corrected my post - are those new facts correct? nt

[wildbilln864]

243. not really...

because the towers were designed too take the impcts of a really "fully loaded" 767 and the difference isnt enough to make a partialyy loaded one( which was used) isn't significant.
In fact the designer said that the inpact would be like a pencil pnetraing a cage structure and the building would still hold.

[hack89]

244. No - they were not

it was supposedly designed to withstand the impact of a 707 flying at landing speed - a plane lost in the fog while landing scenario. Fire was not modeled. And of course this was done well before the age of computer modeling and design.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. You have zero experience.

The ATSM steel used in the twin towers had a self-tempering temperature of 1600f.

Tell me, at what temperature does that steel LOSE 50% of it's load carrying capacity?

[zeemike]

50. I have a lot more experience than you might think.

1,500+ Engineers and Architects
http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect – Member, American Institute of Architects. A practicing Architect for 20 years who has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings. Founding member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. •Speech at Sonoma State University 4/20/07:

"Another 2006 poll by Scripps Howard, Ohio University, which found that a shocking 16% believe that the World Trade Center's Twin Towers were brought down by explosives. Unfortunately, my research has also concluded that this is true. Tonight I will present to you the very clear evidence that all three World Trade Center high-rise buildings, the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed not by fire as our government has told us, but by controlled demolition with .....
never mind.

And don't let me boor you with this though...you can dismiss all these people as having no experience or just some nutty conspiracy therost...don't matter how much they say or how many of them say it...the official story MUST be believed...and you must ridicule anyone who dares say that the Emperor is naked...
Been through this all before...nothing changes...

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Enough experience you can't answer a simple question. Good day!

[KansDem]

112. Right after 9/11 I attended a forum of folks wanting to find answers...

Two attendees spoke up. One was an ex-military demolition expert; the other worked in construction.

Both said the tower collapses looked like controlled demolition.

I don't know; I'm neither an ex-military demolition expert or someone who works in construction, so I don't have the background and education to question them. But they both spoke from experience and concern.

[zeemike]

115. And I am no expert ether...

But I am not without experience...and it sure looked like a controlled demolition to me....as well as some experts that I know.

I actually knew one of the experts that examined the dust from the collapse and said it was nano termite...good enough for me.

[KansDem]

116. And have these NYPD firefighter comments been explained?

In the first video, the firefighter is saying "there is a bomb in the building."

In the second video, the firefighters are talking about multiple explosions; as many as three.

I've seen these clips (and others) from time to time but don't recall reading or hearing any evidence to refute their claims.

[zeemike]

118. They just ignore it.

Pretend like they don't know what they are talking about...
And there are literally hundreds of people like that with story's to tell...all just ignored.

[AtheistCrusader]

120. Yawn.

The buildings are linked.

Did you hear him say "The whole fucking plane blew"? Watch the video of the south tower burning, which is zoomed in on with a very high power camera. The fire PULSES with the force of the impact on the other tower. All through the buildings fire baffles blew out. Electrical systems shorted out. Etc.

In order for the impact to alter the fire in the other tower, please imagine the links between buildings below the lobby level. Air handlers. AC. Power conduits. Anything that can carry pressure, and that pressure found a way.

7:00 minutes in. This is video of the burning tower, and you can see the fire PULSE with the force of the impact on the other tower. Perfectly timed. The buildings are linked. Yes, there was damage in the lobbies when the second tower was hit. (There was damage in the first lobby as well, from the first impact.

[KansDem]

133. Sorry. I'm not seeing what you described at 7'00"

I see street scenes and a jumbling camera. An occasionally view of the buildings, but the camera work is such it's difficult to see the pulse you described.

I just perplexed at why so many theories surround why the buildings fell and particularly WTC7. It seems there are so many detailed speculations centered on building construction, materials, airliner fuel, explosions (etc.etc.etc.), crafted to support the "official" conclusion of why WTC1&2 collapsed and why WTC7 fell at all.

It reminds me of the Zapruder film of the JFK assassination.

(0'19&quot

We could clearly see the president get shot from both the back and the front, yet "experts" kept telling us that the reason for the president's head being thrown back wasn't due to a shot from the front, but because a bullet fired from behind caused a "muscle spasm" that jerked the head back. It didn't seem plausible to me, but that was the "official" explanation.

But that was the official "conspiracy theory" until 1979 when the United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that more than one shooter was involved.

Perhaps some day we'll learn the truth about 9/11...

[AtheistCrusader]

134. 6:58 precisely.

Just before/as you hear the whoosh-bang of the impact to the south tower, the smoke and fire in the north tower 'belches' or 'pulses'. (Sound delay due to distance.) Just before the cameraman ducks, because what you don't see when he ducks, is Flight 175's remains bursting through the north wall of the south tower, directly at the cameraman. The cameraman is, based on the angle, I would say hiding behind the north west corner of WTC 5, or a part of the Post Office across the street. Both buildings were impacted by pieces of flight 175, and the south tower, blown out by the explosion of the aircraft impact. Pretty brave cameraman, to keep filming at all given he just had pieces of a building and an aircraft thrown directly at him. One of the landing gear sets, and the starboard engine went right over his head, basically. Large pieces like a section of seats landed on the roof of the post office. Very much in the line of fire.

But the video is critical, because there are two forces that acted on the lobby of each building. There's also separate footage of the WTC1 lobby before WTC2 gets hit. There's broken glass and all sorts of stuff already laying everywhere. The main columns at the center also carry things like air for ventilation. Each floor has baffles to prevent a 'chimney effect' in a fire. But they are only fire baffles. They aren't meant to withstand an explosion. In the rubble it was found that these were blown off in many places, by the impact. So that gives a path that force from the explosion can escape the columns at ground level, blowing out glass, etc. Basically it would be indistinguishable from a bomb going off. That's what any reasonable person would assume it to be. The other force was torque. The buildings resonated with the impacts. Building codes required the towers to withstand 4 million foot-tons of torque for wind loads in a hurricane. (Like Sandy, which hit not far away) The impact of the aircraft on the south tower imparted 7.7 million foot-tons of torque. (we're lucky the towers were so tough, it would not have been unreasonable for the towers to have buckled and fallen over on impact.) Meaning, think of the building as a very long crowbar. The end is embedded in some solid material, like concrete. You put force against the handle, and the crowbar flexes as you load it up. The same thing happened to the building. It flexed. A LOT. This can cause additional damage at the ground level where ceiling tiles, wall décor and whatnot will just break off and fall.

So yeah, the fire fighters at ground level likely experienced something much like a bomb going off. Even the firefighters in the basement and ground level of WTC1, when WTC2 was hit. And my point with this video is that the buildings are linked. And you can see that in the smoke and fire belching out of WTC1 when WTC2 is hit, at 5:58 in the video I linked.

This is because the fire was 'pushed' by pressures inside the buildings. The buildings are linked.

Edit: First time I gave a thought to his position, he is at the North West corner of the Post Office when the South Tower is hit. That's WTC7 to his right. As he was filming, a person was killed about 50 feet away from him as the debris from the second impact came down. That's how close this video was to the base. And he had no way to know what just happened to the south tower even. Imagine the fog of war. Pretty brave to keep filming at all. Should have gotten the Edward R Murrow award for news coverage or something like that. Close enough you can clearly hear the people jumping from WTC1 hitting the ground. I bet he still has nightmares.

What a sad fucking day.

[TrogL]

142. He can do a chemical analysis by looking at dust?

Kewl - must be Superman.

[zeemike]

146. The dust contained iron spheres and nanoparticles

associated with nano termite...
He works at the Los Alamos lab and has the equipment and expertise to make such claims.
He happened to be friends with a woman that had an apartment near the WTC who collected the dust that came in her home when the building collapsed and sent it to him.
The video he made of his findings was in a documentary that I can't remember the name of so I can't post it here...

But looking for it produced this...which is like the talk we are having...you being Tucker Carlson...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[TrogL]

141. and there's the logical fallacy

All cows are blue.
My dog is blue.
Therefore my dog is a cow.

Logical fallacy of the undivided middle.

In controlled demolition, buildings fall straight down.
The towers fell straight down.
Therefore controlled demolition.

Nonsense.

[NoMoreWarNow]

207. but no one is usng that exact simple logic to claim demolition

you are putting out a straw man argument.

[TrogL]

210. Here's one

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

Under "Challenges" second list of bulleted points, first bullet.

The buildings collapsed straight down, and at virtually free-fall speed, as in controlled demolitions

[NoMoreWarNow]

212. The key there is "virtually free-fall speed"

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Yes, there WAS a lot of fuel in the building.

Precisely. Not jet fuel. The shit you see all around you in standard office spaces. Multiple acres worth of it.

Now you're catching on.

[zeemike]

53. And none of it that would burn hot enough to melt aluminum much less steel

Unless you created a giant fan that compressed the air to provide enough O2 for it all to combust...like they do in a jet engin...Did they have some big fans in all of those buildings?
but here is the thing...black smoke=uncombusted fuel...uncombusted fuel= cold fire.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Wrong.

Even United Laboratories says you're wrong. Madrid Tower says you're wrong. Etc.

[zeemike]

57. Well I have to be wrong.

Cause if I am not wrong it means you have been lied to...

[Thegonagle]

64. One and two did not fall exactly, precicely straight down.

Look at the videos. Different parts of the buildings did fail before other parts.

The thing everybody needs to get out of their heads is the idea that they should have toppled over like broken toothpicks.

That's totally bunk if you stop and really think about the physical forces available to act in any particular direction, and also realize that a skyscraper is not a toothpick!

As the structures failed, they basically came apart at every weld and every joint as gravity pulled them down--not sideways. They would have needed to be impossibly rigid buildings to fall sideways any great distance.

Once again, a massive skyscraper is not a toothpick and can not fall over like one.

[zeemike]

66. Nothing that large can be done precicely strait down.

But it was damn close...
And I would point out two things to you....WTC7 was not a tall toothpick and it came strait down too.
And sometimes the demolishers want the building to fall one way or the other and they do it by blowing one of the suport collums slightly before the other and gravity does the rest.
but for a building to come down strait the suprots must be blown at close to the same time.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[TrogL]

143. Gravity goes down. What other direction would you like it to go?

[zeemike]

149. Take a box

And put it on legs...and try to make it fall strait down without kicking all the legs out at the same time...
What happens?...it falls to the side, because one side falls faster and with less resistance than the other side...
Gravity works like that too...motion is gravity less resistance.

[William Seger]

154. Perhaps you should actually try that experiment

... but you need to model one other important aspect: If support on one side is removed, the box will begin to tilt toward that side, just as the towers did, but in fact the box is trying to rotate around its center of mass. According to Newton, the action of pushing the mass of the box to one side causes an equal and opposite reaction. i.e. the center of mass of the rotating box is moved laterally only by pushing laterally against the remaining columns. If those columns can resist that lateral force, then yes, the box should topple to the side as conspiracists imagine. But if those columns can't resist that lateral force, as was the case with the towers, then the rotating box will kick the columns away in the direction opposite the tilt and then drop straight down, still rotating until it hit the floor.

[zeemike]

160. Don't need to do the experiment.

It has played out in real life...you can watch it on You Tube...just google demolition fail and see what happen when all the supports do not fail at the same time.

But this...."But if those columns can't resist that lateral force"...please tell us how a column made out of 4 inch thick steel can't resist the lateral force?...seems to me it MUST present some resistance to the forces at least for some time...thus one part falls faster than the other, which is the force that causes it to fall to the side.

And in fact the demolition people use this fact to direct the forces to get it to fall where they want...if they want it to fall to one side to avoid something they blow one side slightly before the other one....or usually the center first so that the outer walls lean inward.

[William Seger]

171. So, steel isn't just impervious to fire, it's infinitely strong? Wow!

> But this...."But if those columns can't resist that lateral force"...please tell us how a column made out of 4 inch thick steel can't resist the lateral force?

It's remarkable that a person who doesn't know at least the qualitative answer to that question (i.e. because even 4 inch thick steel has its limits) expects to be taken seriously when yammering about structural engineering issues, but there are people who can answer it quantitatively (Appendix II pg.11): It's because that lateral shear force caused by the rotation would have peaked at about 10.3 times more than the columns could resist.

[zeemike]

172. It does not have to be infinitely strong to resist the force.

It is all about time...if it resists the force for one second longer than the other support do you think the other side will wait for it?
You don't have to be a structural engineer to understand that basic principle...simple observation of natural and unnatural events in life can show you that...

But thanks for that link it is revealing on so many levels....like this

1Walter P. Murphy Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science, Northwestern University,
Evanston Illinois 60208; [e-mail].
2Graduate Research Assistant, Northwestern University.
3The original version with equations (1) and (2) was originally submitted to ASCE on September
13, and an expanded version with equation (3) was submitted to ASCE on September 22. Appendix II
was added on September 28, and I and III on October 5. The basic points of this paper, submitted
to SIAM, M.I.T., on September 14, were incorporated in Baˇzant (2001a,b). Posted with updates since
September 14 at http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/news, http://www3.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/,
and http://math.mit.edu/˜bazant.

Interesting to me because it was submitted 2 days after they fell...imagine that, such a conclusion so quickly submitted to be published...
And the conclusion itself is interesting...
"The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed."

IF the prolonged heating...and yet they have no evidence at all that open air jet fuel fires can or ever have reached 800c...just IF they did and IF all the columns failed...
A paper based on speculation is not much good as proof.

[William Seger]

173. If you weren't even aware of the lateral force of the rotation

Last edited Sun Apr 7, 2013, 12:01 AM - Edit history (1)

... than I'd say your "observation of natural events" leaves a lot to be desired. I was probably about 6 when I first noticed that when the top of a tower of wooden blocks fell to one side, it kicked the blocks below in the opposite direction, although it wasn't until high school physics that I understood why. But your belief that your "observation of natural events" allows you to challenge a professor who writes structural mechanics text books is the best laugh I've had today.

[zeemike]

174. I was not aware of lateral forces?....

How the fuck do you know that....there are always lateral forces in something like that....makes no difference at all to what I said...
The facts are that if something starts to fall, and one side of it has more resistance to the fall than the other side it will go to the side of least resistance...that is not some big revelation to most people.

And Just because he is a professor does not make him right about everything he says...as I pointed out right in the beginning he said it was speculation...all it could be 2 days after it happened.
If I show you a half dozen of people as qualified or more qualified that say something different will you accept that as proof?...can I then laugh at you because you don't agree with them?...
The evidence is not in your favor.

[William Seger]

175. "How the fuck do you know that" ?

Well, gee, I guess I just assumed that because you completely neglected those lateral forces in your imaginary physics of what you thought "ought" to have happened. Since that indicated to me that your understanding of what we should expect was seriously flawed, I pointed out that force to you and explained why it mattered. But apparently you still didn't understand why it was important and demanded, "please tell us how a column made out of 4 inch thick steel can't resist the lateral force?" But then, when I pointed you to a quantitative analysis by a structural mechanics expert -- one of the most cited experts in the world, in fact -- which does exactly that, you pull the "just because he is a professor" bit, instead of acknowledging the error in your imaginary physics.

But oh yeah, you're right about blindly believing professors. Some of them believe some really dumb things. For example, just because Steven Jones was a BYU professor with a PhD in physics doesn't mean that he was right about expecting the towers to topple over like a tree, just like you, and for exactly the same reason as you: He is completely clueless about structural mechanics. (His PhD also doesn't mean that he was right that the rustproofing paint chips in the WTC dust were "super-nanothermite," either, when he ventured into another technical area that he was manifest unqualified for.)

> If I show you a half dozen of people as qualified or more qualified that say something different will you accept that as proof?...can I then laugh at you because you don't agree with them?

But you seem to be unaware that there's a pretty well established way of settling any genuine technical issues: peer-reviewed technical journals, where Bazant frequently publishes. You are completely delusional if you believe there are "a half dozen of people as qualified or more qualified that say something different" in that venue, or in fact that have a snowball's chance in hell of ever successfully challenging Bazant or publishing their own papers in that venue.

> The evidence is not in your favor.

Oh, yes it is.

[zeemike]

176. You are making me dizzy with all that going round and round...

What I expressed was not "seriously flawed"...but that don't mean that you cannot find some calculation not made or referred to and claiming that it is.

And round we go....you present one professor that you claim made a conclusion about how the towers fell 2 days after the fact and then claim it proves your point....then tell me when I present someone equally qualified to speak that they are not qualified to speak...

Then just suggest I am too stupid to understand the complicated twisting lateral forces and other speculations that you say proves your point.

And no matter how long this goes on it will always be the same...no matter how many or how much I present you will always claim victory...so claim it already...makes no difference to me...I have nothing invested in being right.
But I will not submit to bullshit explanations ether.

[William Seger]

177. "when I present someone equally qualified"

You haven't presented anything except a seriously flawed expectation about what would happen if one side of the tower collapsed, and now you are making excuses for why you won't even attempt to? Suit yourself, and probably a wise decision.

[zeemike]

181. The hell I haven't

I have posted lots of stuff in this long thread and could post lots more...but that would NOT make any difference to you because you will simply ignore it no matter how much I present to you.
And all you have to do is say that I did not present any evidence....zero evidence is what is ALWAYS said not matter what is presented.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

Or a partial list of some prominent people and experts...

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS

A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)

Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California

Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England

Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia

Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado

David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland

Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California

Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona

David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College

An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage) disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/highly-credible-people-question-911.html

[William Seger]

183. You have presented nothing of substance

... nor will you be able to, with AE911Truth as your resource: None of those "experts" has ever produced anything resembling a valid technical argument for believing the WTC towers were destroyed by controlled demolition. Read through the comments of the people who supposedly have some training in structural mechanics (which is an extremely small subset of Gage's petition signers, anyway), and they say things that amount to, "I don't understand how this could happen." Well, that's a shame, but it's not a technical argument, and it ignores the vast majority of the profession who seem to understand it pretty well. Perhaps the AE911Truth "experts" should ask their peers to explain it to them. Or maybe just do some reading.

This stuff is not a matter of subjective personal opinion. The reason your sources are ridiculed and ignored is that it is quite clear by now that they do not have anything of technical value to say. It's a shame that you don't understand that, but your lack of understanding is simply irrelevant to any actual issue. As is your whining about it.

You claimed you could produce a half-dozen people as qualified or more than Bazant who would say something different than Bazant. In the first place, AE911Truth does not have a single engineer who is anywhere near as qualified as Bazant -- not a one -- and in the second place, you will not find any of them publishing technical papers about WTC controlled demolition in peer-reviewed journals, because none of them have -- not a one. The best you will be able to do is find stuff they've published on the web, like Tony Szamboti's "missing jolt" theory or Gordon Ross' "momentum transfer" argument, and it won't take but a minute to point you to the technical refutations of those arguments by people who know what they are talking about. There is absolutely nothing like a serious technical debate about WTC going on within that technical community because nobody has raised any valid technical arguments that require such technical discussion. It simply doesn't matter that non-technical people like yourself are impressed by blog postings on a subject that you obviously do not understand. Sorry.

[zeemike]

184. The response is always the same...You have NO evidence.

And no matter how much of it I post, and how often that charge never changes...
And that is for a reason, when defending things that defy logic and reason you MUST dispute every piece of evidence that is contradictory to your claim....and discredit anyone who speaks up about it no matter how qualified they are...
The official story MUST be defended at all cost.
Even to the point of saying that the vast majority of experts agree with the official story...when that is clearly NOT the case.
Even though I just posted many engineers that are qualified to speak on this subject you insist that your lone one that says the official story is correct is MORE qualified because he is a professor...unlike all those engineers that have worked in the field for decades.

Well it is a waste of time posting evidence to you because you will just deny I did it, and claim there is NO evidence to contradict your own opinion...a can't win if you are the judge of wining.
And in the end you will play the "truther" card...cause "truthers" are all crazy for thinking that they are being lied to...who you gonna believe the official story or your lying eyes?
Nope, it is the official story, cause to believe your eyes is just too painful....the Emperor has a fine set of threads...and if you think you see his naked ass you must be crazy.

[TrogL]

168. False analogy

Make a 5 story tall building of toothpicks and make it fall any direction but straight down

[zeemike]

169. It was not an analogy.

It was a demonstration of forces at play, and the basics of it does not change with scale.

Basic principal being that when gravity acts on an object it must overcome forces for it to move if it is at rest...more forces on one side the longer it takes to overcome being at rest.
And that is why timing is so critical in demolition.

But you can watch what happens when things go wrong here...
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[cpwm17]

178. "basics of it does not change with scale"

That is where you are completely wrong. This fact frequently trips up 9-11 conspiracy supporters. You can't compare the behavior of those smaller and more solid objects in the video to what happened on 9-11.

As you scale up objects, all else being equal, the mass increases in three dimensions but the strength only increases in two dimensions. For a cylinder the weight is proportional to its cross section area times its height and its strength is approximately proportional to its cross section area only. If you double it dimensions its strength to mass ratio is approximately cut in half.

Engineers can't overbuild large buildings without adding a tremendous amount of mass. The large buildings were designed to withstand normal loads, but not what happened on 9-11.

Also, with all else being equal, as you scale up an object its mass increases much faster than its height. The amount of force required to accelerate the object laterally increases greatly relative to its height, but the force of gravity is always the same for every bit of matter in the object. Gravity always wants the object to accelerate straight down.

Try balancing a toothpick on your finger and then try balancing a baseball bat on your finger. For various reasons, the behaviors of the two objects are very different.

[zeemike]

179. And yet WTC7 behaved the same as the towers.

Even though you just told us they should have behaved differently.

But whether you balance a toothpick or a baseball bat one thing is the same, if the center of gravity shifts to one side it will fall to the side not strait down.
And in a building with multiple supports if you fail half of them at the same time the part under the failed supports will start to fall before the part under the un-failed supports and so the mass tilts to one side puting the center of gravity off to one side

But I am totally mystified by this..."the mass increases in three dimensions but the strength only increases in two dimensions"
Or this..."as you scale up an object its mass increases much faster than its height"

Comparing it's mass to it's height?...my head is spinning.

[cpwm17]

189. An object's strength is approximately proportional to its cross-sectional area

Last edited Tue Apr 9, 2013, 03:01 AM - Edit history (1)

which is pi*(radius)squared for a cylinder. The cylinder's mass is proportional to its cross-sectional area times its height. As the cylinder's size is scaled up, its mass increases faster than its strength.

An ant with spindly legs can carry a weight many time its own weight. An elephant with sturdy legs cannot. It isn't super strength by the ant, it's just simple physics on different scales.

In both towers the tops did tilt to one side when they started collapsing. The force of gravity was far greater than any lateral force once the supports completely failed. Gravity won.

WTC7 behaved very differently than the towers.

[zeemike]

191. "WTC7 behaved very differently than the towers"

Except that they all fell strait down into their footprint...which is what we are talking about.

And "once the supports completely failed" is the point....they did not and could not have completely failed at the same TIME...that takes a plan to pull that off.
What you are trying to tell us is that once one failed they all failed with it because the building was so poorly engineered, and the supports presented no resistance to the movement of mass downward...and three times on the same day with two different styles of buildings and from different causes...two plane and one falling debris...

You can believe that if you wish, but I don't, and I am not alone in that...nor will I let you or anyone else intimidate me into silence by attempting to make this out to be crazy talk or by insisting that I am stupid if I doubt the official story.

So what was the cross sectional area of the WTC buildings?...and I thought things like calculating that is part of designing tall buildings...you think then they ignored it and put it up with tooth picks?
All tall buildings and bridges are built with margins of safety calculations just like that...and the WTC was done that way too...and that is whey the center support beams were so massive....designed to withstand the force of a big jet plane smashing into it...designed to withstand more force than they can think of...

[cpwm17]

204. "Except that they all fell strait down into their footprint"

Last edited Mon Apr 8, 2013, 08:59 AM - Edit history (2)

NOT:


"they did not and could not have completely failed at the same TIME"
They didn't:

That's why the tops of the two towers leaned heavily when they started to collapse.

the supports presented no resistance to the movement of mass downward

In such a large building with many floors above the collapse point, the forces at the collapse point is many times the normal load. There's no way the towers could have resisted total failure once the collapse started. That's what scientists and engineers know, and that's what happened.

Both towers collapsed from the floors that the aircraft entered. The most obvious fact in the world is the aircraft caused the towers to collapse.

You can believe that if you wish, but I don't, and I am not alone in that...nor will I let you or anyone else intimidate me into silence by attempting to make this out to be crazy talk or by insisting that I am stupid if I doubt the official story.

Your personal incredulity is not evidence. I'm not trying to silence "truthers" any more than "truthers" are trying to silence people that support the scientific consensus.

So what was the cross sectional area of the WTC buildings?...and I thought things like calculating that is part of designing tall buildings...you think then they ignored it and put it up with tooth picks?
All tall buildings and bridges are built with margins of safety calculations just like that...and the WTC was done that way too...and that is whey the center support beams were so massive....designed to withstand the force of a big jet plane smashing into it...designed to withstand more force than they can think of.

The force of a massive section of tower collapsing on top of the rest of the tower is many times the force of the aircraft collision. Why would engineers build such a solid building that could withstand such forces? It would be cost prohibitive and would leave little room for occupants.

[TrogL]

185. Apples and oranges. And the basics do change with scale

You're comparing monolithic concrete buildings with the house of cards of the Trade Center.

They couldn't build the Trade Center as a monolithic concrete building because it could never get that high. The Empire State Building is about as high as that technology can manage. If it fell down, because of a massive hole in one side, it likely would fall down similar to the buildings in these videos.

[zeemike]

188. And WTC7 was not built that way at all

It was completely conventional...and yet if fell in the same manner even though not hit by a plane...

But no it would not fall down like it did, cause the plane did not damage all the center supports equality and that would have to happen for it to fall strait down...if some of the columns resisted longer than the other ones did it would tilt to the side and change the center of gravity...the force of gravity does not change by scale.

[cpwm17]

190. WTC7 fell asymmetrically

Looking south, as the best video shows, WTC7 first collapsed left to right - internally. You can see it in the video. The penthouse (on the upper left) collapsed first since the internal structure of WTC7 had completely collapsed under it.

The moment after the internal structure of WTC7 completely collapsed, the outer shell collapsed almost symmetrically. The shell did collapse somewhat toward the south and away from the camera view. That's why it severely damaged some nearby buildings. There's another video that does show WTC7's shell collapsing toward the south.

[zeemike]

193. And that is also how they demolish a building built like that.

They blow the center suports slightly before the outer ones to keep the building falling towed the center....
What you are saying is that when the center collapsed it CAUSED the rest of the supports to fail...that ain't so Joe..
And tell us how many feet it fell outside of the footprint...it was neglible...and any demolition company would call it a big success.

Here is one that shows every angle and all of them, strait down in free fall.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[cpwm17]

200. All the scenes show WTC7 collapsing in silence, unlike demolitions

Starting at the 4:00 minute mark in the video you can watch two scenes of WTC7 collapsing which show that east to west (left to right) collapse of WTC7. The penthouse on the upper left collapses first.

At 6:40 in the video you can watch the south lean of WTC7 as it collapses. If a demolition team had done that, they would never work again. WTC7 severely damaged neighboring buildings as it collapsed.

Your personal incredulity is not evidence. Actual engineers studied the collapse in detail. The insurance companies paid for damages caused by the terrorists. They know what happened on 9-11.

[zeemike]

202. Which is precisely how you would do it in demolition.

You can watch dozens of them like that...the blow the center a second or so before the rest to keep it going strait down....unless they want it to fall to the side then they blow that side first, the building starts to lean that way then the blow the rest....it is also why you first cut a notch in a tree you want to fell.

And you can show me no more perfect free fall of a building in any demolition video you can see on you tube....it was as near a perfect free fall as can be had...(and there is your visual evedence for you...cause that can be measured and was measured to be in free fall)

And your personal incredulity is not evidence ether...and I am sure it is even harder for you to believe that it was all a big lie and you were the sucker that believed it...but you did and it is.
But don't feel bad, I believed it too at first...but then I started to notice things and once I noticed it was full of lies and disinformation I admitted it sucked me in and fooled me and I changed....but for some the ego will not permit such a thing...but I have no shame about being fooled...I know full well I can be fooled and have been fooled before...and I don't think I am a bad person for it...trusting what people say is not a foolish thing...but continuing to believe it after you see it is a lie is.

[AtheistCrusader]

216. Multiple engineering teams, multiple universities, multiple insurance analysts.

All say you are wrong. And literally billions of dollars in liabilities were contingent upon those findings.

All you've got is generalities like 'blow the center' and 'perfect free fall'. (three of about 12 seconds worth of collapse time of non-structural building fascia qualified) Ignoring things like that upthread commenter pointing out no demolition firm who damaged so many surrounding structures would ever find work again.

I'm going to go with the experts on this one. Thanks.

[zeemike]

219. No you are going with the official story.

There are multiple experts that say it could not have collapsed from fire...and I listed only some of them...which you promptly ignore including the visual evidence of it free falling that can be measured...and instead you say that it did not fall perfectly down...(which is bullshit...it was as perfect a fall as anyone could expect)

And I know this is an impossible task to convince you of anything that is not the official story...I am only trying this as an exercise for my mind...I have no hope at all of making you question things...that will never happen.

[AtheistCrusader]

220. None of that is true. Not a word you just said is true about me.

I don't ignore the free fall evidence. It's quite apparent. I accept it as a part of the collapse given the long span steel cantilever frame, the three 'yokes' above the con Edison substation, and starting the collapse timing from the actual start of the collapse. (When the roofline penthouse and equipment area vanishes into... nowhere.) It is not unusual, disturbing, or troubling in the slightest in that context.

If you could go back in time, and freeze the world half a second before the outer walls (the corner that is oft used to establish the duration of free-fall (about 3 seconds)) start downward movement, you could not walk in the front doors of the building, through the interior, and out the back. It would be impossible, because much of the interior is already collapsed rubble, including major structural members.

What did you expect a 'natural' fire-caused collapse to look like? Do you expect the building to go over like a tree? It CAN'T. It weighs too much. Even compared to that Chinese apartment building that did a cartwheel. It's just too massive. Too vertical, too narrow of a footprint. And I disagree that a demolition company couldn't have brought it down relatively cleanly. That collapse actually kinda resembles a demolition in downward movement (WTC 1 & 2 do NOT), but it only resembles one. In actual effect, it was quite different, and extremely damaging to the surrounding structures. 30 West Broadway was destroyed by the collapse of WTC7, and it was across the street to the north. To the west, the Verizion building sustained $1.4 billion with a B, worth of damage.

That is NOT 'as perfect a fall as anyone could expect'.

1.4 BILLION in collateral damage to one neighboring building (approx. 2 Billion total to all surrounding buildings, 30 West was a much cheaper and smaller building than the Verizon building) is pretty bad work, as hypothetical 'demolitions' go.

The 'Official Story' at least in the capacity of the performance of the building structures, holds up. Purdue Univ. re-modeled it, found the collapse expected, etc. MIT, pretty much every major engineering firm to look at it, and actually model it, found the same weaknesses in the design. National fire codes for long span steel buildings have been revised as a result. They don't do that as busywork to cover up some bullshit. That's a major undertaking. United Laboratories, you name it.

Without getting into 'who knew what', and why intelligence reports were ignored, and why the President pretended 'no one could have known' when we later find out intelligence gists warned of it, how the FBI could have flubbed it, etc, without getting into any of that stuff, where I DO have questions, and WILL accuse at the least; criminal negligence, if not worse, if we are JUST talking about the physical effects of the planes hitting those buildings and the subsequent effects, then yes, I 'accept the official story'. I have ZERO hard evidence to suggest otherwise. And I'm ok with that.

At the end of the day, I think a lot of the noise and confusion and crazy accusations about demolitions and whatnot, diverted the national conversation away from culpability, to 'cest la vie' and trudging on, when there was very real blame to be reckoned in the aftermath. If you want to know why I get so angry, and attack 9-11 'truthers' like I do, it's for that reason. Perhaps they meant well. Perhaps they actually have some weird suspicion that they actually believe needs to be addressed. Whatever. I don't care. It's allowed an escape hatch through which the incompetent could escape justice. Men drawing up plans for a new war against an innocent country, unrelated to the attacks, so blinded by their agenda the real enemy just waltzed in and trashed the whole place... So yes, I get angry at truthers. I feel they have done us a great injustice. Whether they honestly meant what they claimed or not. I'm angry about that.

[zeemike]

221. Well want to know what I am angry about?

How easy it is to fool people....just baffle them with bullshit and they will not believe their lying eyes or the testimony of hundreds of people...
What makes this hard for you to accept is that if it is true, that it was an inside job, then all that you have been told about terrorism and all that crap is a big fat lie and you fell for it...and can't face the fact that you did.

And the PTB enable you in your self deception by flooding the market with big outrageous claims that are as ridiculous as they can make them, so that you will have evidence that "truthers" are nut cases and if you believe any of it you believe it all....the oldest trick in the book of manipulation of people.

And I mean none of this personally...it is about the big deception.

[AtheistCrusader]

222. I note you still have nothing technical to offer about the collapse.

Not even going to try to walk back the claims about the 'perfect as can be expected' collapse of WTC7 that caused 2 billion in damage to surrounding structures?

There's nothing perfect about it. Speaking of lying eyes, you know humans are prone to seeing patterns where there are none, right? Just because this one building on September 11th collapsed in a manner that sort of resembled a controlled demo, doesn't make it a controlled demo. You DO know that right?

[zeemike]

223. Seriously what good would that do?

I have presented volume of technical things here with links and all and you just ignored it...so posting more would bring the same results I am sure.
There is a big difference in people seeing patterns in things and seeing a building collapse at free fall speeds...that is not a pattern.
And you do know that for a building to collapse like that the supports must fail at the same time don't you?...no I guess not, or or you would not be able to believe that it was just natural...even the laws of physics are fungible if it challenges your faith.

[AtheistCrusader]

224. You keep saying I ignored this and that.

But I haven't. I've addressed each point directly, yet you still say I'm 'ignoring it'.

fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

Ignore != Reject/dismiss/counterpoint.

You still haven't shown that the core columns I referred to in the South Tower, falling last, are in fact some outer wall supports. You showed a video of the NORTH tower, not the South, and you have yet to correct that error.

I am waiting.

[zeemike]

225. Well I guarantee you that I can address anything you say

For anything you say...I can make shit up and call it addressing it.

The earth is round...no it is not, it is just an illusion caused by the refraction of light in the air....there you see....I have addressed it.

But YOU have not shown that the core columns were standing...just a picture of clouds of dust and debris you say show that they were...it is up to you to prove that claim sense after the dust cleared there were no core columns standing....so you ask me to prove a negative.

[AtheistCrusader]

227. I showed you one of multiple videos that shows it.

Your counter point was the WRONG TOWER.

Fix it, or we're done.

[zeemike]

228. We were done long before this.

You just can't accept not having the last word.
And there is nothing to fix....you can't prove a negative.

[AtheistCrusader]

229. More evasions.

Not a shred of evidence that requires or supports the demolition claims.
As per usual. By all means, sound retreat.

[zeemike]

230. I will never retreat from the truth.

And when you say things like "Not a shred of evidence" it says it all for me.
That is not the words of someone who is in an honest debate.

[AtheistCrusader]

231. But you haven't.

Offering evidence in the form of video of the wrong tower isn't evidence. It's an evasion, a diversion, or a lack of understanding of what is going on.

I don't really care which anymore.
A person involved in an 'honest debate' would have at least corrected that error/deception/etc.

[zeemike]

232. You made the claim that the center columns did not fall not me.

So it is up to you to provide the evidence for the claim not me.
And all you have provided is that you think you saw it through the dust...which is as close to zero evidence as you get.

So by your rules, I can claim it was a controlled demolition and you have to prove it is not.

[AtheistCrusader]

233. I provided you the evidence.

It is plainly visible in the video, and your counterpoint was not what it purported to be.

Why didn't you raise this 'I don't see it' objection earlier, instead of posting video of the north tower?

Edit: Yet ANOTHER video. 30 seconds in:

[zeemike]

237. Just curious but.

If the inter core remained intact after the building fell what then brought it down?...
Magic I guess or it did because they said it did and they are always right and would never lie to us....but there it is...you can imagine it through all that dust....and that is all the proof you need.

But as on all the other posts you can run me round and round and claim victory cause you did it...

[AtheistCrusader]

239. The inner core only holds up a certain percentage of the building's mass.

And it becomes irrelevant if the outer columns fail, because the floor trusses then fail, and everything comes down, leaving the core columns with no lateral support. There's quite a lot 'going on' in there, during the collapse. Very chaotic lateral forces. I suppose it was within the realm of possibility that those central columns might have stayed standing below say, the midpoint of the building, but that didn't happen, and isn't surprising.

The building is a tube within a tube. The floors are 'hung' between these tube walls. Take one away, and it's all over bar the shouting. NIST, Purdue, MIT, all cited the sagging floors pulling inward on the outer columns as the initiator of the collapse. Break the outer wall high enough on the building, and it's all coming down. Keep in mind, each floor is an acre in area.

Keep in mind, the south tower had the mass equivalent of the Japanese WWII battleship Yamato sitting above the fire/impact point. That's a lot of mass to 'drop' when the outer supports failed.

The outcome seems inevitable to me.

[AtheistCrusader]

234. Causing 2 BILLION in damage to surrounding structures is a "Big Success"

Please recalibrate your equipment accordingly.

[Thegonagle]

65. Exactly correct. Stick one end of a bent coat hanger into a camp fire sometime.

They're made of steel.

Let it become red hot, then see how easily it bends when you try to stick it into the dirt.

That coat hanger won't melt. A wood fire isn't hot enough. But it clearly loses strength.

[Politicalboi]

151. WTC 3, 4, 5, 6, still standing even though

A lot of debris fell on them. WTC 7 wasn't that close to 1 and 2 and did not fall on WTC 7. The animation report with NIST conclusion shows the middle columns still standing while the rest of the building collapsed. There should have been the columns and 50 stories of debris if we are to believe the 9/11 commission report. What good is the report if the buildings don't fall the same way?????

[hack89]

158. The FDNY reported a 20 story gouge in the side of WTC 7

they were observing a bulge in the side of the building for 3 hours before it collapsed.

[NoMoreWarNow]

180. early on after 9/11, the standard claim was that the jet fuel melted the steel columns

and in the WTC2 destruction, the top 1/3 tilted quite dramatically and should not have caused complete destruction of the tower down to the base.

[hack89]

182. There were many false claims early on - that is why we have investigations

Here is a MIT paper on the WTC fires - it explains just how hot and big those fires were.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

The top tilted as it was falling. Once all the connections were broken, it fell straight down - basic physics. Massive weight plus gravity minus no significant lateral forces meant a straight down collapse.

You need to understand the difference between static forces and dynamic forces. The structure below was not designed to withstand those forces once that weight started moving. A if it could crush the floor below then it was going to crush every floor below it - not only was that falling debris accelerating but it gained mass with each collapsed floor. Basic physics again.

[NoMoreWarNow]

206. you wrote no one ever claimed the steel was melted, which was false

even if it was a false claim.

I understand what you are saying about the "collapse" but it is more complicated than what you write. Much more complicated.

[hack89]

208. It is complicated

what is clear is that it did not involve demolition, holograms, mini-nukes or any of the other more esoteric theories. There is engineering or scientific group in the world that doubts that it was theoretically possible for a combination of structural damage from the plane and fire to cause the collapse of the WTC. It was not impossible like so many claim.

[NoMoreWarNow]

211. I don't think it is clear that there was no demolition at all.

Yes, it was theoretically possible for plane damage and fire to cause some degree of collapse. But the extent of the destruction and pulverization and the speed of the destruction indicates it wasn't simply a pancaking collapse.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. BAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA

1. What is your evidence for molten steel?
2. Simply looking at the wreckage from an aerial photo will reveal quite plainly that the buildings did not fall symmetrically.

WTC7 and the Verizon buildings took a much bigger hit from WTC1 than the Post Office for example. The components of both towers ABOVE the impact points most certainly biased in very obvious directions when the collapse began. They did not come straight down.

[zeemike]

25. Yep...stage two...make out like it is so crazy you just have to laugh it off.

Would you like me to post a clip of molten steel coming out of the WTC building before it collapsed?
Would you like me to post fire fighters that said they saw molten steel flowing down a column?
Would you like me to post a picture of the debris pile taken from the air with an heat sensing camera that shows molten steel at the bottom of the pile?

Not going to do it, cause I know full well you will laugh it all off as well, or give us some lame explanation for why we should not believe our lying eyes of those lying fire fighters....it is always the same.

[kiri]

37. molten metal was aluminum or copper, not steel

You are right that the fire was not hot enough to melt steel. It was hot enough to melt aluminum. And copper. There is a lot of aluminium in an office tower, and tons of copper and lead-tin solders in piping. That is the molten metal you see.

[zeemike]

40. Have you ever seen molten aluminum or copper?

I have....and aluminum looks like Mercury when it is molten...not white hot...and neither does copper.

Have you ever seen Termite melt steel?....well I have, and it looks just like that...white hot molten steel.

If you want to know how it looks just google it...or just stick that head back in the sand and repeat....There is no conspiracy anywhere.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Yes, I have seen molten aluminum. Heat it another 100 degrees.

You WILL see it glow.

Not to mention, go point your cell phone camera at a infrared/radiant stove. The stove looks red to you, but to the camera, it will appear blue. You need special sensors to do a spectrographic analysis to tell you what the metal is, and what temp it is. Joe home cell phone, and even some media cameras do not pick up colors in the manner you seem to expect.

And that's even assuming it was steel, which I do not. Plenty of other metals in the range of tens of thousands of tons in that building to have melted.

I have also seen Thermite. So what. Heat is heat. At no time during even the collapse do I see anything resembling the white-hot sunburn-inducing color temps of thermite burning.

Fucking magic thermite. Get out of here.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Raise that aluminium another 100 degrees, and tell me what color it is.

[zeemike]

77. Well that is true enough.

If you have it in a container where it won't flow away from the heat.
But if it was flowing it would flow long before it glowed red.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Sure.

And?

The building wasn't a static container. Things shifted and sagged over time, and that would allow liquids to pool, flow, pool, flow again, as the topography of the interior of the building shifted. You can clearly see sagging on the walls from outside in the higher res videos.

[psychopomp]

131. Your efforts to persist with pertinent facts is admirable

I am wondering how long your interlocutor will continue before throwing out a YOU JUST DONT GET IT DO YOU

I used to be skeptical regarding the official explanation for the collapses, but after spending countless hours going over the arguments in the 9/11 forum, I became convinced that the demolition/implosion theories are baseless. I am particularly indebted to Boloboffin, who I had begun by assuming was the Devil incarnate, but after some months (years)? realized was heroically lionizing the facts.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Prove it was molten steel and not copper, aluminium or any other number of things that do melt at

the temps expected in such a fire.

I'll wait.

[zeemike]

54. Well don't wait cause I can't prove shit to you.

You have already said that is so many words...

And this is the drill with things like this...you line up on one side and there you stay, because to change is to admit to error...and the ego will not permit such a thing.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. So every time someone like you says 'it was molten steel'

I'm going to pop up and ask you prove it.

Just like when some goddamn fundie pops up and says 'gawd did it'.
Or some paranoid right wing nutjob says 'the illuminati did it'.

etc.

Because you have just as much proof that the material of which you spoke was molten steel and NOT molten aluminium.

[zeemike]

59. And you can prove it was molten aluminum then?

Oh that's roght, the evedence is gone...shipt to Japan or China...
But then you don't need no stinking evedence cause you have the official story....and all those hundereds of witnesses are all just lying or don't know what they saw.
And you don't need to show how a fire like that could turn that aluminum you say was molten into white hot metal...you just say it is and it is.

The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes.

Professional Safety The American Society of Safety Engineers 2002-05-01 - SH&E at Ground Zero Disaster Response (link)

"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." -Leslie Robertson

SEAU News Structural Engineers Association of Utah 2001-10-01 - WTC A STRUCTURAL SUCCESS (link)

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." -Structural Engineer Abolhassan Astaneh

PBS Newshour 2007-05-10 - Collapse of Overpass in California Becomes Lesson in Construction (link)

"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat." -Chaplain Herb Trimpe

The Times Herald-Record 2002-09-08 - A Day In September The Chaplain's Tale (link)

"You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel -- molten steel! -- running down the channel rails. Like you're in a foundry... like lava... from a volcano." -FDNY Captain Ruvolo

Turn Century Pictures 2003-01-01 - COLLATERAL DAMAGES (link)

"descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."

The Atlantic Monthly Group 2002-08-01 - 77 NORTH WASHINGTON STREET (link)

"In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." -Alison Geyh, PhD.

Bloomberg School of Public Health 2001-10-01 - Mobilizing Public Health Danger in the Dust (link)

"Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helens and the thousands who fled that disaster" -Ron Burger

National Environmental Health Association 2003-09-01 - Messages in the Dust (link)

"They showed us many fascinating slides" ... "ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster." -Dr Keith Eaton

The Structural Engineer The Institution of Structural Engineers 2002-09-03 - President visits ground zero on New York visit New York visit reveals extent of WTC disaster (link)

"Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. Massive steel girders were sandwiched in with crushed concrete. Someone told us that they weighed 1,000 pounds a foot. The collapse left them all blackened and twisted. They are among the few recognizable items in the rubble. You find scant evidence of the hundreds of offices that were once part of the twin towers. Most the furniture and equipment was pounded into dust." -Guy Lounsbury of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing

National Guard The National Guard Association of the United States 2001-12-01 - Serving on 'sacred ground' Guardsman Sees Humanity's Best and Worst during Two Weeks at 'Ground Zero' (link)

http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Hot_Spots

[hack89]

68. There had to be melted aluminum in the rubble pile

considering the rubble pile was full of it and, as you have shown, the rubble pile was hot enough to melt it.

[zeemike]

69. what made it hot enough to melt it?

That is the question.
You cannot melt metal with a fire fueled by jet fuel or office furniture...except for lead or tin...
That is why the blacksmith uses a bellows to get the iron hot enough to work, cause charcoal by itself will not do the job...and charcoal burns much hotter that jet fuel.
In order to create great heat it requires fuel and O2...lots of O2...which you don't get with a natural flow of air.
But termite does not need air at all to create the heat and melt steel.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Not true. Plenty of aircraft have burned in open air down to the steel members

without even the fuel. Hell, the plastics and chairs and luggage and shit inside have utterly destroyed aluminium aircraft.

You also seem to be missing the kinetic energy of the collapse. Every ounce of energy used to lift the building materials from the ground, into place, is actually locked into every ounce of the building in the form of potential energy. Just the collapse, let's say you were a genie, and you could snap your fingers, and the building would be back, in full. Then snap your fingers again, and remove every rivet and weld, so the whole thing comes down. You'd still be releasing an enormous amount of heat. The kinetic energy of the building collapse was on the order of a small nuclear bomb. Hell, there's a whole branch of CT theory about a nuclear bomb being used to trigger the 'demolition', precisely because they don't grok this concept, and have to look in other places to explain the energy.

[zeemike]

81. And those aircraft melted the aluminum into a pool of red hot metal?

Is that what you are saying?...never heard of such a thing.
And the kinetic energy is not concentrated in one place so much it turns metal into a molten mass...and I question your A bomb statement...

But that A bomb thing is a perfect example of disinformation and how it is used to discredit the truth...been used by the CIA for ever...
You create or encourage a lot of wild theory's and put them out there...and the more of them and the wilder they are the better....then ridicule anyone that brings up what you are trying to hide by saying ....you mean you believe the aliens did it?

They have been working this same game on us for decades now, and we seem to never catch on.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. I have seen pooled aluminium from such fires.

I have also seen it consumed in the reaction as fire. Both are possible. If the aluminium is very thin it is likely to burn.

[hack89]

80. All the burning consumables in the rubble pile melted the aluminum

There is no such thing as long burning thermite. If used, the thermite would have finished burning before the collapse had finished - what fueled the fires in the rubble pile? It could not have been thermite.

And how would thermite produce large amounts of molten metal? It would have been used to melt narrow cuts in the columns, not melt the entire thing. Cutting the core columns would not have generated large amounts of molten metal. Furthermore, that molted metal would be widely dispersed by the collapse and would have quickly cooled and solidified.

[zeemike]

83. The core columns were 4 inches thick steel.

How much termite do you think it would take to cut through it?
But that is the thing about liquid...it tends to pool in the low spots, and when you have a pool of white hot steel it tends to take a long time to cool...because of it's mass.

[hack89]

84. The thermite would be gone in seconds

so there could be no thermite in the rubble pile.

And if you cut a quarter inch slice from those columns, it is not going to produce a huge amount of molten metal. And lets not forget you don't need to cut every column - just a couple would be enough. There would not be pools of molten steel - there wouldn't be that much.

[zeemike]

86. Termite is not an explosive.

And the whole objective of it is to release a lot of energy over a longer time so that it don't explode...depending on how much of it was used it would take minuets and several of them.

And every column that supported the building would have to be cut and that cut would have to take place in regular intervals the length of the suport...(engineers could calculate just at what distance would be best)
And in a 110 story building that would be a lot of termite and a lot of molten steel that would be seeking the lowest level like all liquids do...and that would be the bottom of the pile.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. You're describing tens of thousands of tons of thermite in special containers to direct cutting flow

do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TONS.

[zeemike]

94. Do you know how silly that sounds?

Where did I say "TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TONS."

but that is an old rhetorical trick...take everything to the extrema and then say that is what I said.

[AtheistCrusader]

99. You did.

"And every column that supported the building would have to be cut and that cut would have to take place in regular intervals the length of the support"

Do you have any idea how much that shit weighs, in a directional cutting housing? I don't know what your value of 'regular intervals' is, but I'm guessing more than two along TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY THREE SUPPORT COLUMNS.

YOU said every column.
YOU said regular intervals.

NEVERMIND that the CENTRAL columns of the south tower could be seen standing in the cloud of smoke post-collapse for several seconds, meaning the central columns were last to buckle and fall.

[hack89]

93. So you reject the nano-thermite argument?

good.

Not every column needs to be cut - basic engineering calculations will tell you how many to cut before the remainder cannot support the weight. And each column needs to be cut once. A single cut will render a column unable to support any weight.

[zeemike]

95. Now where did you get that idea?

That I reject the termite argument?
Well then you do the calculations and tell me how many columns you would not have to cut to keep the thing falling strait down.
But I think in a building that tall, you would be foolish not to cut every one...especialy the center structure where the columns were made out of 4 inch thick steel...

Go look at some building demolition clips and you will see even with smaller buildings they cut every supporting structure and if it is tall on various levels all the way up...and if they fuck up even a little the building will not come down strait.

[hack89]

97. Nano-thermite is a popular truther argument

to get around the problems of thermite as a demolition material. Nano-thermite is explosive.

Why would they care it the building came down straight? It was not a commercial demolition - they didn't care about damage to surrounding buildings. Look at what happened to WTC 7. All they needed to do was get that massive weight moving - once it was moving nothing was going to stop it.

And again, you miss the point about it falling straight down. One a single column failed, that building was going to collapse. And it was going to collapse straight down. Gravity and massive weight - the remaining structure would collapse like toothpicks. Again - dynamic vs static forces. Learn the difference.

[zeemike]

101. And it is also a common item used in demolision...

Nano termite is custimizeable...you can make it burn slow or very fast in an explosive manner...depending on what you want it to do...that is why they use it in demolitions.

but yes once you get the weight moving it is common down....but to get it to come strait down is the trick...cause if you don't fail all the sprouts at the same time it moves to the side...that is why experts are used...and timing is critical.

[hack89]

102. No it is not.

Thermal lances are used to cut up scrap metal, but it is not used to demo free standing building. They used linear shaped charges like these:

[AtheistCrusader]

91. With thermite? A LOT, because you'd have to do it around the entire beam. And in some cases

you'd have to do it horizontally, which means special housing for the thermite to direct the cutting flow.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. A good point. We would see burning thermite during the collapse

if it remained to burn in the wreckage weeks after the collapse.

Thermite burns white-hot, will even induce sunburns. You can see it. None is visible during the collapses.

[zeemike]

96. ...

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[AtheistCrusader]

100. And?

Did you miss 'DURING THE COLLAPSE'?

As the whole damn building came down, we see no thermitic burn-throughs on the crap falling, ejecting sideways, etc, not even as multi-floor outer wall sections (like the one that hit WTC7) peel away from it.

Yay, you found molten metal dribbling out long before the collapse and you think that rises to the challenge of 'where the fuck is any thermite burning during the collapse'? Not a chance. Try again.

Here's what thermite looks like. Bit more energetic than that dribbling-ass shit you just linked, and that doesn't explain why none is visible across the entire building during the collapse.

[zeemike]

104. Most of the supports for that building were in the center.

That is where most of the load was at...and that is why those columns were made of 4 inch thick steel.
That center structure is what had to be failed for the building to collapse strait down...and you can't see the center of the building from anywhere outside...

But that video you posted looked just like what was coming out of the side of the building that I posted...so how does that not prove my point?

[AtheistCrusader]

105. WRONG.

The 47 supports in the center were the LAST THING TO FALL in the South Tower.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING?

LAST THING TO FALL.

You can see them still standing in the smoke for several seconds after the rest of the building has hit the ground.

[zeemike]

108. Holy fuck...

Now up is down and right is left and buildings fall from the outside in....

I have died and woken up in bizzarro world where everything is the reverse of what it was in my last life...

But show me the picure of it so I can know...

[AtheistCrusader]

110. It's at about 1:30 in this video.

And yes, the south tower mostly fell from the outside in. That's a good characterization, being a tube within a tube construction. How is this some sort of shocking revelation to you? The outer pillars are one tube, the central core another, and the 1 acre floors are 'hung' between these two support tubes.

Very simple/inspired actually.

[zeemike]

117. That is not the center columns you see

It is the outer column and side....
Here is another look.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[AtheistCrusader]

121. Wrong tower.

You just showed video of the second tower collapse. I linked the first.

That's why I specified the South Tower. They collapse differently. I agree this video shows what appears (I stress APPEARS) to me to be outer wall panels. But they could be north tower core supports. The video quality doesn't make me super confident. But I think they COULD be outer wall supports.

That doesn't change my contention about core columns falling last in the south tower.

[TrogL]

144. that doesn't even look like metal

Looks like something out of my firepit.

[zeemike]

148. That is what termite looks like burning.

Do a search for termite and see for yourself.

Here is an good one if interested.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[DelusionDestroyer]

156. Awesome!

That video you posted was concise and thorough. It also was disheartening because there will never be hope for America as long as it's citizens are stupefying themselves with mainstream media. Ugh.

[zeemike]

159. My feelings exactly....n/t

[TrogL]

167. Same logic fallacy

If thermite looks like something and something else looks like that it must be thermite. I've already given a counterexample

[zeemike]

170. It is not a logical fallacy it is a piece of evidence.

A crucial piece of evidence is always how it looks.
The second piece is how it acts...and that little experiment shows how it acts...
So right there are two crucial pieces of evidence...

What crucial piece of evidence can you produce?

[TrogL]

186. I don't need to. I'm attacking the logical flaws in your argument.

I can prove lots of evidence that stuff falls straight down unless something else is going on. Apples falling from trees comes to mind.

[zeemike]

187. Your evidence is that stuff falls strait down

unless something prevents it?....that's your evidence?
Well then I am convinced...

[TrogL]

192. That's why there's so many false convictions

A crucial piece of evidence is often NOT how it looks. That's how you get false convictions. Until you have absolutely eliminated absolutely everything else that it could be - then it's evidence.

That is the core of avoiding the Undivided Middle logical fallacy. Hell, even Sherlock Holmes said it - "Once you have eliminated everything else, what is left must be true". That's what I'm doing - proposing the "everything else".

You're doing the exact opposite, proposing one thing, and discounting everything else because it doesn't meet your pet theory. You're doing it, unscrupulous prosecutors do it, conspiracy authors do it. For a really good example, if you can still find a copy, read Holy Blood, Holy Grail or anything else by those authors.

Again, I don't need to produce evidence, I merely need to show yours isn't exclusive. I'll start up another thread on how you DO run a proper conspiracy theory. Couldn't find a good spot so it's the post responding to this one.

[TrogL]

194. Here's how to run a properly constructed conspiracy theory

This one's called LIHOP. Let It Happen On Purpose.

In a nutshell, the Bush government wanted somebody, anybody to attack them so they could put a fascist government in place and attack Iraq.

• Known bad guys were getting aircraft training in Florida. It was ignored.
  
• The same bad guys boarded aircraft unchallenged. Security sucked at the time. Everybody knew it. I've sat in cockpits.
  
• The same bad guys hijacked aircraft. Procedure at the time was let the hijackers do what they wanted. Everybody knew it.
  
• The aircraft were diverted from their flight paths to head towards NY/Washington. Standard operating procedure is a NORAD/military response. This did not happen. Nobody made the crucial phone call. Why?
  
• The aircraft, controlled by an agent of foreign power, struck a valuable building on American soil. Mission accomplished. The pilots got glory, the Bush government got their excuse to do whatever they wanted, including invading Iraq (even though the pilots were from a completely different country).

Point one is weak, but my argument stands without it. Two and three are incontrovertible.
The best place to attack is point four. Find another reason why NORAD wouldn't respond and my argument falls apart. The problem is, the only other answer is "incompetence", but NORAD was competent enough to respond to another incident (I think it was the one with the famous golfer whose plane lost pressure) a few weeks before, and they routinely respond to another incidents of small aircraft incursions in Washington airspace. What was different about 9/11?

My conspiracy theory hangs together nicely, without needing outrageous flights of fancy, bizarre physics (gravity going sideways) or anything else. As soon as the first aircraft touched a building, without that building falling down, catching fire or even breaking a pane of glass, the Bush government has already won. Anything beyond that, sch as the buildings falling down, was pure gravy. Nice for them, but unnecessary.

[TrogL]

196. Here's a video the Truthers might like

Stumbled across it looking for something else.

Jury, we're already in a conspiracy thread.

[zeemike]

195. How often is a critical piece of evidence is what it looks like?

Way more often than not...

"I don't need to produce evidence, I merely need to show yours isn't exclusive"
So then I don't need to produce evidence that the investigation of this by the officials is a cover up, just show that their evidence is not exclusive then....is that right?

Just trying to understand the rules of this game....or are there different rules for you and me?

So tell us then how you have absolutely eliminated a controlled demolition?...and I guess you don't need to produce evidence for it...it is absolutely eliminated because the official story eliminated it and that is definitive and absolute...
It is funny to me that you talk about logic and yet you can't see the logical fallacy in the above...I fear you are tangled up in orthodoxy.

[TrogL]

197. The problem is, there are exceptions

So then I don't need to produce evidence that the investigation of this by the officials is a cover up, just show that their evidence is not exclusive then

That sentence doesn't even make any sense, which leaves me to believe you STILL don't understand the issue.

I have not eliminated controlled demolition. You are saying the only possible conclusion is controlled demolition. That is NOT the same thing. To discount what you're saying, I need only come up with another conclusion that uses the same set of known facts.

The rest of your statement is laughable. The official story is full of holes. I'm a LIHOPer which is hardly "orthodox".

Occams Razor is useful here. One (too short) version is "the simplest explanation is best". A version more in lines of what Occam was actually after is "the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions is the place to start".

Controlled demolition requires a huge number of assumptions, how to plant the explosives etc. etc. etc. in a building that was so unstable it didn't even need that much umph to bring it down. I'd rather go with...

-gravity goes down (apples)
-unstable building gets hit with big thing (plenty of video, some people couldn't work upper floors due to seasickness)
-unstable building falls apart from point of impact (plenty of video, none of it showing collapse starting from bottom)
-building goes down from point of failure (more video), squishing anything below with the combined weight of everything above, making it more unstable
-and so on and so on all the way to the ground (building obscured by smoke, but can be derived that it fell primarily in its own footprint)

Now you've got me watching demolition videos (it's a break from Russian car crashes) and they all seem to start from the bottom. What was different with the Towers?

[zeemike]

198. Well I will try again to make you understand me.

You said you did not need to produce any evidence just show that my evidence was not exclusive.
So if we are playing by the same rules, then I don't have to produce any evidence that there was a controlled demolition just show that your evidence for collapse from fire is not the only evidence...I did that many times now.

"I need only come up with another conclusion that uses the same set of known facts."
But that is just it...you DON"T use the same set of facts....you have ignored every last one I have posted here....and you have given us little in the way of facts...most of it is speculation....like the speculation that fire got hot enough to melt steal in an open air jet fuel fire...something that experts will tell you is really hard to do....but you ignore them.
And visual facts....like the molten steal coming out of the building...just ignore that as a fact because your eyes can lie to you...what facts have you presented that any of that is true?

The WTC was NOT and unstable building...THAT is a big fat lie.

Most of those demolition buildings are less than 40 stories...the WTC was 110 and it had core columns that were massive....there is no way you could bring that building down strait by blowing just a few of those supports

Structural System


1 and 2 World Trade Center used the so-called tube within a tube architecture, in which closely-spaced external columns form the building's perimeter walls, and a dense bundle of columns forms its core. Tall buildings have to resist primarily two kinds of forces: lateral loading (horizontal force) due mainly to the wind, and gravity loading (downward force) due to the building's weight. The tube within a tube design uses a specially reinforced perimeter wall to resist all lateral loading and some of the gravity loading, and a heavily reinforced central core to resist the bulk of the gravity loading. The floors and hat truss completed the structure, spanning the ring of space between the perimeter wall and the core, and transmitting lateral forces between those structures.

The tube within a tube architecture was relatively new at the time the Twin Towers were built, but has since been widely employed in the design of new skyscrapers. In fact most of the world's tallest buildings use it, including:

The Sears Tower (1450 ft)
The World Trade Center Towers (1350 ft)
The Standard Oil of Indiana Building (1125 ft)
The John Hancock Center (1105 ft)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/index.html

[TrogL]

201. Ok that's more like it

Except I haven't been posting anything except logic. Be that as it may I prefer the jet fuel ignited interior furnishings fueled steel bending theory because it requires less assumptions than controlled demolition.

Showing me a fuzzy video of embers falling and claiming its anything definite without a full spectrographic analysis is ridiculous.

I've seen plenty of examples of steel bending under heat and cold. It's a constant nightmare for the people maintaining the LRT tracks.

The tube within tube was new for the Towers because they couldn't go that high without it. The building was not without its problems and lessons learned were applied to newer buildings. It's still a mistake to apply problems with older buildings (such as their propensity for toppling sideways) to them.

[zeemike]

203. Well the fact is...

that you can pile up a big pile of office furniture and dowse it with jet fuel and light it on fire, and you will not be able to melt steel...and maybe not even aluminum...and even if you did melt aluminum it would not glow red because before it ever got that hot it would turn to liquid and seek the lowest point...those are facts and can be demonstrated.

But no you can stick a coat hanger in a camp fire and make it glow red...but that is quite different from sticking a steel beam of any size in a big camp fire and seeing it glow red...and those steel beams were made of 4 inch think steel something like 36x28 and such a massive piece of steel takes a tremendous amount of energy to make it red much less white hot....all of that fact.
Office furniture has less energy in it than jet fuel and will burn cooler than jet fuel in an open fire and jet fuel in an open fire will not melt steel...all fact.

But those are facts that conflict with the official story and must be ignored for reasons apparent.

[TrogL]

205. I've already told you I don't give a shit for the official story

The only reason I like the "official" story (which I understand involves what was holding the beams together failing, not the beams themselves) is because it requires less assumptions than "controlled demolition".

I wouldn't be the least surprised if they're both wrong.

I just find it unfortunately that we're arguing minitui about how the buildings fell down when we could devote this energy to why they fell down. Find out who was behind LIHOP and/or MIHOP.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. I don't need to prove it was aluminium.

I saw the footage and the pictures. I agree it was molten metal. There are metals in the building in the range of tens of thousands of tons that could be reasonably expected to produce such a result. So I make no claim as to what metal it was.

If you wish to claim it was specifically steel, you need to prove it.

There is a sample of molten metal that survived, and is part of the memorial. There was a sheared off steel cross-beam, in the shape of, literally a cross. It has what was molten metal draped across it, cooled in a form like a cloth. A rather pleasing effect. Anyway the sheared off steel beams don't exhibit any signs of having been melted. The beams are clearly steel, as they are rust-orange. The 'draped' metal, is not. It's still silvery-grey. If it were steel, it should be rusted too.

There are some beams that exhibited signs of erosion. I saw none that were literally liquefied to molten steel. Not one. I won't say it's impossible that it could have happened, but I haven't seen it.

It remains to those who claim the unusual scenario of molten steel, to prove it. Burden of proof goes to the extraordinary claim.

[zeemike]

75. Well the evidence is all gone now.

And the comity that investigated it never seen the rubble because by the time they got around to it the steel had been shipped to China...except for that one small peice...which they did not look at either.
And the claim is extraordinary only because it conflicts with the official story...which totally conflicts with a ton of evidence including visual evidence and hundreds of witnesses...
It seems to me the extraordinary claim is that there is no evidence because they disposed of it.

But that is how things work....they control the message by intimidation and cover up, and by just not addressing the evidence they don't like...and convincing others that if they question it they must be crazy.


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[AtheistCrusader]

89. Your linked video uses the term 'molten metal' and 'molten steel' interchangeably.

So about half of that is nonsense. I don't see any of the sources cited actually testing the metal to see what its composition is. Sounds like euphamisms/mistakes. None of this is solid evidence that ANY of the molten metal in the wreckage was steel.

The eroded beam photo is likely evidence of an effect you get when you heat iron to 400c and spray water vapor on it. Perfectly normal conditions in the wreckage. (iron burns as plasma under some circumstances.)

[zeemike]

98. So?

Molten steel is molten metal?
and it is seldom a witness has the ability to take a sample to test it and confirm it was steel...
But how can you tell from a photo that the beam looked like that because it was sprayed with watter when hot?...did you test it? Have you sprayed watter on a hot beam before?

But pleas tell us...what circumstances causes iron to burn as a plasma...

[AtheistCrusader]

103. There are lots of ways to test it.

Easiest would be to stick a probe in, let it cool, and test it with a magnet.

I have seen beams destroyed in that manner before. I thought you were 'familiar with this stuff'. You should know at what temps iron burns, and under what additional fuel conditions give you exothermic oxidation.

[zeemike]

106. Well I don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

So I understand that you are a structural engeneer...Is that right?

Cause me I am just a working stiff that just has experience in things like welding and crap like that that don't mean shit to you I am sure...but I have seen a lot, and I am no dummy...And I understand science....and have had a life long interest in it...over the last 60 years or so...surly not as smart as you are I am sure, with that degree in structural engineering and metallurgy.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. I am a welder as well.

I have no idea how a welder could NOT know what I just asked you.

[zeemike]

109. Well it is real simple.

you don't need to know that to weld...I did not learn it from a book, I learned it by doing...on the job.

You don't have to be a metallurgist to know how to weld.

[AtheistCrusader]

111. Perhaps not but if you don't want your welds to fail...

it helps to know a LITTLE bit about metallurgy. The fact that iron burns is very low hanging fruit, and usually done to entertain, if not educate people.

[zeemike]

113. Also known as oxidation...

so what?...how does that help us with this?...
No we have eaten this apple to it's core and it is time to quit...you may declare victory if you wish...I am accommodating in that way...my sense of self worth will not be effected in the least...
Just don't expect me to buy the lie, cause I can't.

[AtheistCrusader]

114. Oxidation generates heat.

It is an exothermic reaction. Iron can 'rust' in a fast, self-sustaining fashion in air under conditions present and expected in the rubble.

[olddad56]

28. It is your world Atheist Crusader, we are all just living in it.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Not my fault people are so gullible.

[LanternWaste]

78. Your faith is strong...

Your faith is quite strong...

Woo is merely the faith the 'gullible' hold. You however, rationalize your faith-- something that has never been done by the Gullible Others...

[zeemike]

124. WTC 7 was not hit by a 767

Yet it too collapsed...
but anything can be rationalized if you want...cause it is really hard to accept that you were lied to, and far safer to just believe it.
And I know how difficult it is to step out of that comfort zone...but it must be done.

[hack89]

126. Because WTC 1 collapsed on it.

perhaps you remember those eyewitness accounts of a 20 story gouge in its side and multiple out of control fires?

[zeemike]

127. See how easy it is to rationalize it?

The WTC tower did not fall on it...a piece fell on it...and yet these fires were so distributed so evenly through the building and burned so hot that it caused all the support structures to fail at the same time...and within a few hours of the fires too...
Incredible coincidence don't you think?...
But no I know you have a rationalization for it....it must be rationalized or doubt might creep into your mind...then all hell would break loose in your thinking...

The emperor is not naked...he can't be naked cause that would just be crazy....and we can't have that crazy talk around here.

[hack89]

128. A single support collapse - after fires burned for seven hours

it was a three phase collapse starting at one end. WTC 7 had a unique cantilevered structure because it was built over a Con Ed substation.

The FDNY was monitoring a bulge in the side of the building for three hours before it collapsed - they knew that it was structurally unsound. Which makes sense considering there was a huge hole in the side of the building.

[zeemike]

130. Well it all comes down to this.

Do you believe what you see or do you believe what you are told...
But the building was not unique at all, and in fact was standard steel frame construction that has been used for decades....but let's not bother with that cause you can rationalize that too.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[hack89]

132. No - it was not a standard steel structure

The building was situated above a Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints.

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[6] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (56,000 m2).[7] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built.[8] The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[9] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The 5th floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the 7th floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

So explain to me why a massive hole, a bulge in the structure and fires burning for seven hours would not lead to a building collapsing.

[zeemike]

135. Because it never before in the history of steel buildings happened?

And it did not happen on this one in the OP...

Now explain to me how extra bracing to distribute the load to the foundation in the building caused it to collapse strait down as in a demolition...Can't happen unless all sports fail at the same time...but perhaps you can give us some rational explanation as to how random fires caused simultaneous failure all over the building...
Cause if you know some trick to make that happen with a fire it would put those demolition experts out of a job...just burn it and watch it collapse instead of spending weeks in planning and preparation and all that explosives....diesel fuel is much cheaper.

[hack89]

136. It didn't collapse strait(sic) down

Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2013, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)

it was a three phased collapse.

1. Internal failure of supporting column causing part of the roof structure to collapse
2. Collapse of one end of the building
3. Universal collapse of the rest of the building as it was dragged down.

Part of your problem is that you don't have the basic facts.

[zeemike]

137. I could say the same about you.

The basic facts is that the building DID come strait down...unless you nit pick it to say it was not perfectly straight down....but even with the pros perfectly straight down is impossible.

But your real problem is that you can't accept the fact that you have been duped into believing the lie...which is not unexpected...because as most con artist know, that their crime will likely not be reported because people are ashamed of being fooled.
And this human behaviour is used against us.

[AtheistCrusader]

236. When's the last time a Pro caused two BILLION dollars in damage bringing down a building.

I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I've certainly never heard of it. Quick search showed one demolition error at 200m USD for a fatal error at a nuclear power plant that was being destroyed.

What example have you of normal 'pro's' causing 2BN USD in damage bringing down a building in a planned demo?

[zeemike]

238. When is the last time pros demolished a tall building

In the center of Manhattan?
You do understand just how dense it is with buildings don't you?....how could it NOT cause lots of damage?
How far apart where those buildings?...the distance of a street and a sidewalk?

It is really nonsense to use that argument as proof it was not a controlled demolition...but any proof you can think of will be enough for you to hang your hat on...that is the nature of self deception.

[AtheistCrusader]

240. 2BN is a lot of money. We're not talking cosmetic damage here.

The Verizon building ate the majority of that, and it had MAJOR structural damage. That building is one street width away, but 30 West was utterly destroyed, and the Post Office was not, and the Post Office is much closer.

2nd tallest building ever to be demolished, as of the posting of the video. The surrounding buildings were not closer to WTC7, excepting the side with the big courtyard and the side with the parking lot. WTC7 was slightly taller. Which doesn't hurt the demo team, because gravity is your friend in this situation.

[AtheistCrusader]

235. If that were the case, the final bill for this collapse came to 2bn dollars.

Making it the most expensive diesel fuel ever, pretty much.

Still with the 'straight down' canard I see. Nevermind the damage to 30 West, nevermind the damage to the Verizon building. It came straight down like magic, damaged nothing around it, and on top of the rubble was a box full of happy puppies.

[wildbilln864]

161. it wasn't a fully loaded 767....

but you knew that.

[hack89]

163. It was loaded with sufficient fuel to fly across country

and it weighed 250 tons and it flew into the WTC at 500 knots.

Now - can we agree that such a thing has never happened before?

[whatchamacallit]

199. It was unique alright

Perfect one-off spectacle for the new order. The more I consider how it was used to change our world, the more I doubt it's freak physics...

[cpwm17]

123. Many steel buildings have collapsed from fire alone

That's why they put fire proofing materials on exposed steel beams in steel buildings.

[zeemike]

125. Really?....that is news to me

Care to give us a link to those events?

[cbrer]

147. References please?

I tried to find ONE and couldn't. Thanks.

[cpwm17]

150. Here are a couple of examples:

A more recent collapse video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ff1_1210707903


An example from 1948:

http://blogs.sj-r.com/behindthecurtain/index.php/2009/05/03/towering-inferno/

Steel Reinforced Concrete columns survive:


Steel girders loose strength and collapse:

[cbrer]

152. I wish I could get

the video to play from Delft University. I'd love to see it.

But your second example (Bressmer Bldg.) plainly shows no collapse, so it fails the description.

I'm aware that steel girders and I beams can bend, twist, and melt. According to (my understanding of) the NIST investigation of the twin towers, there weren't any substances locally available to create a hot enough temp. to melt steel. And the primary pillars WERE coated with fireproof material.

I'll bookmark and continue to try and open the Delft video. I'll also try to learn what caused the fire, if the entire structure collapsed, and when/how it was built.

Thanks

after a simple search, I'm enclosing a still photo of the Delft bldg. post-fire. No collapse. Any other suggestions?

[IMG][/IMG]

[cpwm17]

153. Here's the collapse on YouTube

An entire section of the building collapsed due to a fire. It proves the point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv=8XMTALBYRNA

Here's what fire did to a building that originally survived the San Fransisco earthquake in 1906:


Fireproofing material can't protect a building from unfought seven hour fires, which happened in WTC7. The fireproofing material was dislodged in the Twin Towers by the aircraft collisions.

Steel beams weaken and expand when heated. The steel beams weren't melted on 9-11. No serious investigator makes that claim.

[Renew Deal]

4. How is that possible if the building is up to standard?

I think the answer is it's not without human intervention.

Either this is a man made fire of the building is sub-standard. Of course, I don't know if there are any standards in Chechnya.

[tinrobot]

5. Only if hit by a Boeing filled with jet fuel

Structural damage from a jetliner impact and lots of extra fuel for the subsequent fire can really mess with the stability of a 110 story building.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. Local news is reporting the fire is on the plastic facsia of the building, not the interior structur

e. So no, the building's integrity is unlikely to be harmed, if that is accurate.

Also, this may come as a shock to you 'will it implode' folks, but not all buildings are built the same. This one is small enough it might be concrete pillars, rather than long span steel frame, and fire does pretty much nothing to such buildings.

WTC7 was a rather unusual design for a lot of reasons that should be obvious to anyone that had even a casual interest in why the building collapsed. Quell surprise so many don't have a clue.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. I call bullshit on a conspiracy theorist.

What happened on 9/11 HAS happened before in steel structure fires. The Windsor Tower in Madrid, a perennial CT'ist canard is actually a FANTASTIC example.

1 fire started in one location via an electrical short spread throughout the building. 3 hours into the fire, all of the steel framed components of the building above the top mechanical floor collapsed to the street. It is an excellent example, but requires that one understand how, and out of what, both buildings were constructed.

In Madrid, all the components made of concrete pillar construction stood just fine. Had to be actively torn down. All of the upper penthouse sections and meeting rooms that were framed out of steel, collapsed, just like WTC7. To the street. Dynamically.


So your 'history of architecture' (actually engineering, not all architects are building materials engineers, etc) is incomplete.

But since I don't have my head in the sand, I can clearly see it. And keep that fucking 'bush cheney apologist' brush the FUCK away from me. I'd have both of them in jail for criminal negligence at the LEAST for the failures that led up to the planes hitting the buildings in the first place, so don't even DREAM of starting with me.

[AAO]

30. Nothing wrong with being a conspiracy theorist

when the evidence is so obvious. And unless you provide a link, I call bullshit again.

Oh, and it didn't collapse! The facade was burned away! Here's a pic jokerman!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TorreWindsor1.JPG

[AtheistCrusader]

48. That's not a facade.

That was a steel framed section of the building. It's GONE.

Do you notice a BIG CHUNK OF THE BUILDING GONE up top in the before/after? That is all steel framed components. The walls are thinner and allow for bigger rooms for ballrooms, conference rooms, suites. The rest of the building is concrete pillar construction, which you can clearly see after the fire.

The fire DESTROYED, at the THREE HOUR MARK, all steel framed components of the building. Above the mechanical floor (Heavy concrete floor, with air conditioning, air handlers, things like that) you notice the tower narrows a bit right, after the fire? That's the missing steel bits. All that is left is concrete. Concrete that WTC7 didn't have at all.

Before:

After:

[Boardofools]

63. Ummmm chief.

That burned out bldg. in your picture there is still standing. And it burned for a lot longer and hotter than the towers did. Also, the towers were constructed to take multiple hits from Boeing 707 airplanes. The largest commercial airliner at the time. Coincidentally a plane with very close to the same fuel capacity as a Boeing 757.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Ummmm 'chief', I already pointed that out.

Here I'll use big letters, maybe it'll sink in:

ALL OF THE STEEL FRAMED COMPONENTS OF THE WINDSOR TOWER COLLAPSED TO THE GROUND 3 HOURS INTO THE FIRE.

Everything you see standing there is CONCRETE PILLAR CONSTRUCTION, to which fire does FUCKALL.

Concrete pillars being a design feature LACKING in all three buildings that collapsed on 9/11. Steel gets hot, and it gets weak, LONG before it melts. A result obvious in the Madrid Tower fire that started small and spread, from a single electrical short, rather than starting across multiple acres of office floor, or in the case of 7, getting hit across multiple floors with multiple unfought fires from WTC1 debris.

Not that you will read or believe any of this. You just saw the pictures and didn't fucking understand what a concrete pillar looks like.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

33. If steel buildings can't collapse from fire then why is structural steel required to be ...

.... treated with fire retardant coating? All modern buildings require exposed (to potential fire) structural steel to be coated. Why is that? The steel itself isn't flammable so why spend millions of dollars to coat steel?

My partner asked me: "why are the steel I-beams in our condo building garage covered with that ugly popcorn looking foam?"

The answer: Structural steel can heat and lose 50% (IIRC) of its strength from a 500 degree fire.

The coatings applied are given "hour ratings" based on how long they will withstand fire before, hopefully, the fire is extinguished or, worse case, the building collapses AFTER the occupants escape.

An office building like the WTC is a glorified shell with fancy cosmetic coverings like drop ceilings and paper thin wall coverings that offer no fire protections to the structure. Unlike a residential structure, which relies on fire blocking and fire retardant drywall to protect its structure before occupants escape and/or the fire department arrives, the WTC's fire collapse protection relied on surface applied fire resistant insulation applied to the steel structure.

Between the blast of the jet crash and the inability to fight any of those fires due to sprinkler/water loss, the buildings were doomed. The insulation was either gone from the initial blast or was bound to exceed its fire "hour rating" due to lack of ability to extinguish.

Let ANY building burn long enough and it will collapse. Steel or no steel. Some, like WTC1 and 2, will collapse faster when their fire retardant system is compromised. And all, like WT7, will collapse if left to burn for several hours.

[AAO]

34. thermate and nano-thermite.

[snooper2]

62. I use nano-thermite in my yard for the fucking fire ants..

works every time!

[AAO]

35. I feel sorry for you people that bought the 911 commission report

hook, line and sinker!

[Earth_First]

51. 'You people"

...oh, the irony!

[Boardofools]

61. Why is structural steel required to be treated with fire retardant coating?

I'll answer that. The idea is that the steel will survive the fire regardless. Using the coating, in theory, is to keep the steel up to design standards after the fire so the frame can be used after the fire in hopes that the bldg. can be repaired.
It's not rocket science. It's engineering. Which I spent many years doing when I designed commercial bldgs.
I even had the opportunity to design an upfit for a mid rise steel bldg. that was damaged by a bomb blast.

now that I answered your question. Perhaps you can answer mine.
How was Jane Stanley, of the BBC, able to announce on live TV that the Solomon brothers bldg., also known as WTC7, had collapsed when it is still standing right behind her. And then did collapse 25 minutes later?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

67. Interesting.

So national, state and local fire codes aren't for occupant (and rescuer) safety. The codes are actually "salvage codes".

Hmmm. That's an interesting theory.

Why on earth would they need to be protected from fire for future use when we all KNOW no steel framed building has never collapsed due to fire. What ever do you mean by "keep the steel up to design standards"? If the steel can't collapse due to office (or jet fuel) fire, then why must the steel be protected? According to truthers, steel is impervious.

Since you claim to be an engineer, can you tell us at what temperature steel ceases to be "up to design standards" in a fire?

As for that BBC woman. Do you think, with all the talk of WT7 in danger of collapsing, there MIGHT have been some confusion as to whether (or not) it had already collapsed since several news sources were discussing its imminent collapse?

Or maybe she was "in on it" because that's what building-blower-uppers do. They send out press releases to the BBC prior to blowing up a building because, apparently, there weren't enough cameras on site or in the air and they wanted to publicize the event for maximum effect. I suppose.

Note: I don't endorse any additional commentary made on this or any other video made by this youtube content poster. This video is presented solely for news footage contained herein.

[Paul E Ester]

7. This is how I remember Grozny

Even in flames it looks better than it used to.

[Blue_Tires]

36. chechen war?

[Posteritatis]

43. The recovery is absolutely astonishing - as was its condition after the war. (nt)

[Cheap_Trick]

8. Only if the owner gives the order to "pull the building"

Like WTC7

[TrogL]

11. Depends on whether the building is constructed like a house of cards

Looks like your typical Russian steel and concrete.

[AAO]

12. ....and the building DID NOT collapse!

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Of course not. Some plastic siding caught fire. Big deal. Expensive cosmetic damage.

Your expectations are horseshit.

[AAO]

32. You're denial is astoundingly horseshitty!

[cpwm17]

245. Because we know that all buildings should behave the same in fires

no matter how large they are or what building materials are used – what do stupid scientists or engineers know about building behaviors in fires?

[DelusionDestroyer]

155. Refusal to consider anything but what your master forces you to.

I really love your responses! You have such a shameless gusto about you. I wish I still believed the fantastical official fairy tale of 9/11, alas, elementary logic and common sense as well as my mind's refusal to suspend basic laws of physics woke me up to a new world. An uglier, scarier one. But I do know that if I hadn't accepted the reality of the situation, then my whole life would be in the shadow of lies and that is equal to not having a life at all. You can't truly exist in a lie. Anyway, I like your responses because I see that you are very intelligent and seem to be throwing your curve balls really well, must have lots of practice! I gather this from reading your responses. You don't offer proof or solid evidence against the gospel that the Truthers are bestowing unto you, You simply reply by bending facts and twisting them into fun little balloon animals that dazzle the eye of the morons , which make up the majority of Americans. But you are not stupid, or a moron. You offer them hope that their government is not the true evil of the entire world, you help them to feel ok with sending their family and friends to die for us in "Wars" for reasons other than greed and domination. You're a Damned good Shill.
But if by chance you really aren't awake and you do believe what you say, then I must apologize to myself for wasting my time typing this to someone that doesn't exist in the real world. I think it's a compliment to be called a 911 Truther! I am proud of it. It's way better than being a 911 Liar!!!

[AtheistCrusader]

157. I missed the part where i said the government was blameless.

There are a number of individuals I would like to see in jail forever for that day, to say nothing of the fake run-up to the Iraq war.

But that doesn't change how and why the towers came down. I have offered plenty of evidence, and have been met with outright deception in response. (for instance I specified the south tower core columns fell last, supplied video that supports it, and have someone reply with what purported to be a different camera angle that showed an outer wall, rather than core columns. Problem is, the truther 'very familiar' with the events had substituted the North tower instead. Inept or a liar, I don't care. Still a truther that doesn't know a damn thing about what he was talking about.)

I don't believe for one second you know the first thing about 'basic physics' let alone building codes, metallurgy, etc., either.

[AtheistCrusader]

215. Right here.

"You offer them hope that their government is not the true evil of the entire world, you help them to feel ok with sending their family and friends to die for us in "Wars" for reasons other than greed and domination. You're a Damned good Shill."

I did no such thing. I want some indictments against members of the government, particularly from that day. Perp walks, people in fucking jail. Nor do I help people to feel better about sending their family, and friends and children to war. If you look at my 'transparency page, you can see for youself the only post I've ever had hidden was for unloading on a war mongerer on this site. (a poster that was banned for said war mongering later that day)

Not very good at this are you?


Again, I don't buy for a second that you have any of those credentials, and if you do, I highly doubt you put them to any productive purpose. You can't even remember from one post to the next what you just said.

[AtheistCrusader]

218. I hope you enjoyed your stay.

[xiamiam]

27. probably no evidence of nanothermite..nt

[wordpix]

58. not real bright to envelop a bldg like that in plastic trim

[kentauros]

79. My thoughts as well.

I mean, what were they thinking? Well, I can guess what they were thinking:

"Plastic facades! They're lightweight, cheap, easy to clean, easy to replace, and can be produced in any shapes, sizes, colors, and designs. What could possibly be wrong with any of that?"

[Boardofools]

60. What's it waiting for?

I mean you know all steel structures collapse from fires right? Like the Winsor bldg. in Spain that burned for 3 days. Oh wait well not that one. Come to think of it I can't recall any steel frame high rise that has collapsed due to fire.
BTW. I used to design commercial bldgs.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. Windsor did collapse. The upper sections of the building that fell down 3 hours into the fire were

made of steel. That's where the meeting rooms, banquet rooms, and high end suites were. Steel allowed those rooms to have thinner walls.

The rest of the building that remained standing after the fire is made of concrete pillar construction. Fire can cause that to spall, but it's not sufficient to bring the building down.

Think of Windsor as a hybrid building. Mostly concrete pillar, but above the 2nd technical floor, 70% of the building was steel framed in a similar (but not identical) manner to WTC7. That steel got hot enough to weaken, sag, and collapse to the ground, 3 hours into the 11 hour fire. Concrete stood the test, all of the steel failed. Dramatically so, there's news footage of it raining down en masse.

[zipplewrath]

82. So you understand buckling right?

Or technically, "stability failure". The WTC fell due to buckling which is a stability problem. Once it started, nothing was going to stop it. Too much mass in motion which is basically released potential energy.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

76. Been thoroughly debunked by several respectable publications.

It's sad and pathetic to keep perpetuating this conspiracy bullshit.

You do a disservice to this site and America in general by choosing to remain inside your paranoid fantasies.

[FiveGoodMen]

85. Of course it will implode on itself

That's what buildings always do when they catch fire.

Just witness WTC7.

[librechik]

138. I know this personally becasue I have to buy a new oven

every time I turn on the self-clean option, where internal temps reach jet-fuel fire range (800F)

That has been very expensive, but what are you going to do? Steel weakens, and then it explodes.

So when did this building explode?

[madrchsod]

119. pooling molten steel?

a constant temperature of 2300 degrees? as a former steel worker in one of the largest melt shops in the usa i find it really hard to believe that there was pooling steel. i`ve also shotgunned cut 4 inch thick steel H beams and there is very little pooled steel at the cut site. i`ve also shotgunned up to 6 thousand pounds of bundled steel that produced a molten steel puddle that quickly cooled into a solid mass. unless there was a constant temp of over 2300 degrees there was no pooled steel at the towers.

[AtheistCrusader]

122. Agree.

There was over 50,000 tons of aluminum cladding on the buildings, and who knows how many tons of copper in the 100-acre-per-tower office buildings of towers 1 and 2. Plenty of other, more easily-melted metals present to account for that.

[TeeYiYi]

129. And it didn't tip over yet?...

...or faint and collapse into it's own footprint?

Everyone knows fires make skyscrapers give up the ghost...

TYY

[DelusionDestroyer]

139. Length of time?

I can not find one article on the Internet that states how long this building was burning for...

[Capt. Obvious]

140. There's a lot of "loose change" on this thread

Holy shit I didn't expect to see this outside of the subway.

[lib2DaBone]

145. Get Ready.. the tower will free-fall in a perfect footprint....

Because we all know... Jet fuel can melt steel beams into pools of moulton metal....

Even large buildings within 100 yards of towers will fall into perfect demolition, even if the building was not touched by fire.

You see.. it's MAGIC! Yes.. it's Magic science that makes buildings do a free fall!

And BTW.. ignore all those New York City Firemen who report explosions.. what do the Firemen know?

Fox News is much more credible than the NYFD.

Now, go back to sleep.. everything is fine...

[TrogL]

214. You might want to joint the discussion up above

[KurtNYC]

209. "So Saddam Hussein did this?"

[Sunlei]

248. wow at least they got every person out! wish they had done fast evac. with the WTC area.