The evidence is slowly accumulating that the Twin Towers were demolished........

[rosco rathbone]

It survived a B-25 crashing into it.

Yeah, but there are acres of valuable floor space devoted to internal columns in that structure.

 

[sticky_keyboard]

Yeah, but there are acres of valuable floor space devoted to internal columns in that structure.

A B-25 is a lot smaller and a lot slower.

 

[Guest]

Still, the concept of a plane crashing into it with so little damage is neat, for lack of a better term.

 

[Problem Child]

Re: fires that raged unchecked.

Hmmm...funny, no evidence of that. No witnesses for that either. The very opposite actually.

Kevin Ryan (an executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center) seriously questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse. - From an email to Dr Frank Gayle (director of the government team)
The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C. However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.




Brian Clark, one of the few survivors from above the aircraft impact level in WTC 2 said this of the fires he saw whilst coming down the stairwell: "You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames just, just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall."

The New York Fire department tapes reveal that there were only small fires
Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones." Ladder 15: "Floor 78?". Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

The story of Stanley Praimnath who was feet away from the plane impact on WTC 2: "As he curled into a fetal position under his desk, the plane tore into the side of the building and exploded. Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department. Stanley's office resembled a battle zone--walls flattened into dusty heaps, office equipment strewn violently, flames flickering about and rubble everywhere."


Not much evidence of a raging inferno. None in fact.

Ah, another reader of rense.com I see.

from http://www.thetimesonline.com/artic...nd_state/d208fe2d5f40d6e686256f5400636a0a.txt :


Underwriters Laboratories denied that it ever certified the steel in the World Trade Center buildings and said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization."

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, a spokesman for the Northbrook, Ill.-based company.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.

Apparently, what you and Mr. Ryan are still missing is the fact that the steel didn't have to get anywhere near melting temperature for the building to fail, which is what Mr. Ryan says in his letter (if you read the whole thing).

Additionally, it seems that Mr. Ryan is a fraud, and was fired for being a fraud and misrepresenting UL.

Of course Mr. Baker could be lying about what UL labs does and doesn't do. Maybe one of you guys could check that for me.

Your other anectodal evidense is just that - anectdotal.

Please stop and try to evaluate this: These people who claim that the fires, which burned for up to an hour, weren't severe ARE STILL ALIVE.

This means they probably managed to get out of the buildings before they reached any appreciable size, therefore their accounts really have no significance in judging how bad the fires were at the time of collapse, which is the only instant in time that is relevant here.

I apologize, however, for using the term "raging". This term was an inadvertant choice on my part, probably brought on by seeing flames coming out of multiple floors of the building on TV.

I have some questions for the conspiracy freaks though, and I apologize if anyone has already asked them:

1) If explosives were used, they were planted on the very floors that the airliners hit, since film evidence shows clearly where the collapses started in each building. How did the pilots manage to hit the buildings in the exact spots where the explosives were? Obviously, they weren't terrorists...they were old recycled pilots from Air America! Or maybe they were just regular airline pilots. Were these pilots disgruntled because they had to take a pay cut in their last contract? Seem like an extreme way to get back at Delta...

2) If the government is lying about Mohammed Atta and the other eighteen, why would Osama Bin Laden back up it's cover story? Is Bin Laden secretly working for the Bush family? Wait, don't answer that...

3) Why didn't the government plant the explosives on the lowest floors of the building to inflict the maximum damage on the building? They could have at least doubled their body count by blowing up the 5th floor instead of the 70th.

3a) Why did the government let anyone get out at all? Why not just blow the buildings as soon as the disgruntled-pilot-driven airliners hit and catch everyone in the buildings instead of letting people escape for an hour? Why did the government allow the thirty minutes (or whatever the time period was) between building collapses occur? Again, it seems like the disgruntled pilots could have timed their efforts better. Lots of innocent people (targets) escaped because of their bungling.

4) Does the government have some sort of hatred for the FDNY and the NYPD? If they had just blown the buildings up and not let them burn for an hour, an awful lot of innocent firefighters and cops would have been saved.



That's all I've got for now. I've got more important shit to do than argue fantasy with a bunch of diaper-wearing shut-ins.

 

[Problem Child]

It does make for a simpler life not to ask questions of events like this one.

The problem is not with people asking questions. It's with people that totally ignore the overwhelming facts and continue to believe conspiracy theories with no basis in reality.

 

[Ishmael]

Adding one minor point to PC's posts.

Has anyone figured out how much kinetic energy was converted to heat by those strikes? Everyone is talking about Kerosene and toilet paper. As far as I know the laws of physics weren't abated and e=mv^2. There was the 'give' of the buildings, and all the rest of that energy was converted to *shock and awe*, heat.

Ishmael

 

[miles]

The problem is not with people asking questions. It's with people that totally ignore the overwhelming facts and continue to believe conspiracy theories with no basis in reality.

You just don't understand. They see things that nobody else can see or ever hope to understand. The rest of us are simply unenlightened.

99.999999% of the population is wrong, and they're right.

 

[Problem Child]

You just don't understand. They see things that nobody else can see or ever hope to understand. The rest of us are simply unenlightened.

99.999999% of the population is wrong, and they're right.

Tune in tommorrow night, same bat time, same bat channel, and see me waste another hour of my night proving that Louis Farrakhan never went up in a giant spaceship to visit The Honorable Elijah Muhammed.

 

[CuriousJack]

The illuminati own this thread!

The illuminati own this forum!

The illuminati can read your thoughts!

Quick, make a tin-foil hat!

 

[Gringao]

Tune in tommorrow night, same bat time, same bat channel, and see me waste another hour of my night proving that Louis Farrakhan never went up in a giant spaceship to visit The Honorable Elijah Muhammed.

You mean that's not true?

 

[ma_guy]

Ah, another reader of rense.com I see.

She doesn't read Super Market tabloids but goes to rense.com for her "facts"??? lmao That's even worse.

 

[Problem Child]

You mean that's not true?

Only in the minds of thousands of his followers, which is sad.

 

[ruminator]

There is no truth but the official truth.

I'm glad there aren't any Hunter Thompson fans here.

 

[Problem Child]

There is no truth but the official truth.

I'm glad there aren't any Hunter Thompsom fans here.

I loved HST.

Do you really think those towers came down due to something other than planes crashing into them?

If so, that surprises me.

 

[ruminator]

I loved HST.

Do you really think those towers came down due to something other than planes crashing into them?

If so, that surprises me.

Reading some of HST's thoughts on it was one of the most compelling arguments that the whole thing wasn't as it appeared. He was getting close to throwing new light on it and had been working on it since early 2002.

 

[Problem Child]

Reading some of HST's thoughts on it was one of the most compelling arguments that the whole thing wasn't as it appeared. He was getting close to throwing new light on it and had been working on it since early 2002.

Do you have a link? I'd like to read that.

 

[Problem Child]

Nevermind, I found it.

edit: I thought I found it, but after looking through 5 pages of google hits all I get is "Hunter Thompson about to blow the lid off 9/11 attacks".

Nothing with any actual theories from him on what happened. If you can find one link it for me, please.

I'm listening to his 2002 interview with an Australian interviewer. He calls Bush the "goofy child president". Classic Hunter.

 

[LukkyKnight]

Reading some of HST's thoughts on it was one of the most compelling arguments that the whole thing wasn't as it appeared. He was getting close to throwing new light on it and had been working on it since early 2002.

So are we saying his death was to hush up what he was uncovering?

 

[ruminator]

So are we saying his death was to hush up what he was uncovering?

He called a friend expressing that concern a day before it happened.

Linked Here

My favorite conspiracy theory is that he's still alive and ready to testify.... ...different kind of energy there.

 

[lustforlife74]

The problem is not with people asking questions. It's with people that totally ignore the overwhelming facts and continue to believe conspiracy theories with no basis in reality.

Brother, faith is the most deadly thing in world.

 

[LukkyKnight]

My favorite conspiracy theory...

Ever read "Killing Time" by Caleb Carr?

 

[Problem Child]

Brother, faith is the most deadly thing in world.

Faith that the government is always right or always wrong?

I have neither so I'm sure you may have the wrong idea about me.

 

[Ishmael]

Ever read "Killing Time" by Caleb Carr?

Anything by Caleb Carr is worth reading.

Ishmael

 

[ruminator]

Ever read "Killing Time" by Caleb Carr?

I haven't but I probably will now.

'The greatest truth that information is not knowledge' - from his work, seems to be applicable in many ways.

 

[LukkyKnight]

I haven't but I probably will now.

'The greatest truth that information is not knowledge' - from his work, seems to be applicable in many ways.

The setting and some of the plot devices are distracting, but the thrust of the underlying tenet is chillingly credible to one who has spend decades in D.C.