So in other words, rather than accepting "responsibility" for your statements, you just hurl a pile of insults at anyone who questions you? Way to pass that buck MID!!

Keep labeling people.

I love how I'm now a left wing nut simply because I don't agree with your view of certain things.

I fully understand what you are trying to imply with your comments, the simple fact is that they don't ring true. Maybe you should choose your words more carefully before you start telling people they get the government they deserve when it comes to the events of 9/11.

What is sad, is the fact that you can't have a discussion with people without resorting to insults and belittling comments, and labeling everyone in a derogatory fashion everytime they have a view of the world that differs from your own.

Also, I'd love to know what your thoughts are in regards to the governments involvement with MK-Ultra, or the FBI allowing the 1993 WTC bombing to occur...

Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast



FBI Blunders and the First World Trade Center Bombing



I guess all of that is a bunch of crap too...

intense fire? wrong
The building was made of concrete and steel. Nothing to burn other than the jet fuel in the initital fireball.
there are photographs of survivors STANDING IN THE AIRPLANE HOLES in the side of the building. You cannot get any closer to the impact/fireball area than that.

Are you seriously proposing that a building can't catch fire, provided it's concrete and steel? Most houses in the UK are brick-built, and house fires are hardly unknown. What do you think burns in any building fire? Furniture, furnishings, paper, plastic...

A fire is not a static thing, nor is a person.

there is video footage of scores of people standing in the airplane holes in the sides of the
buildings waiting to be rescued by helicopters that just never seemed to get around to picking
anyone up. Check this video of the same woman sitting and casually waving for minutes as
she waited rescue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3151MqXu52s...feature=related


Firefighters reported "isolated pockets of fire" left on the 78th that they thought they would be able
to easily contain or "knock it down with two lines", just prior to the collapse:
video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU1WqEYEMBQ

And where was the fire while she was waiting? Look at the picture you posted, plenty of flames from the floors above the impact hole. Just because there is no fire at one place in a large building doesn't mean that there cannot be intense fires elsewhere, nor does it mean that the fire was not at that place at another time.

That's below the main area of damage and fire. Again, it was a big building and only a small fire on one floor doesn't rule out a large fire a few floors above.

Do you still say a steel and concrete building is immune to fire?

um...

no, I was going to try and argue with that.

It's pointless.



Ok, I'll make a stab.

So no buildings have ever burned down since they stopped making them out of timber and thatch, then.
That's interesting. I wondered why we never needed things like firefighters now.

They are not immune to fire, but neither do buildings of this type collapse due to fire.

The official 9/11 report contends that the fires were hot enough to melt the steel support brackets to the point that the entire building fell at
free-fall speed with NO RESISTANCE whatsoever . The heat would have to be so high that there is no way that this woman, Edna Cintron,
could have been alive and waving at the video camera. The entire building would have to have been engulfed and glowed like a red-hot rod for
EVERY support bracket throughout the structure to give way completely, not even slightly slowing the collapse.

I don't think anyone is trying to say the building wouldn't be burning. It's the fact we are supposed to believe it was so extremely hot that it caused the entire building to collapse all at once in the matter of a few seconds.

I don't think people could've caused those buildings to collapse by fire in that manner even if it was something done on purpose as an experiment.

It would be one thing if it burned, and large areas started giving way and/or being destroyed by fire over a period of hours, but we're supposed to believe nothing but fire caused them to collapse in that fashion after burning for what, 1 - 2 1/2 hours or so? That's hard for me to believe.

Even harder to believe is the collapse of WTC 7 in the same fashion when it wasn't even struck by anything.

Plenty of steel buildings have collapsed due to fire. That's why the steel has to have fireproofing - it delays the collapse and gives time for the occupants to escape.

Perhaps you ought to check out what the "official 9/11 report" - I presume you mean the NIST report - actually says. There is no claim that steel melted. You also need to check how fast the buildings fell.

Perhaps you'd like to argue that with thunkerdrone.

Steel-frame buildings have been known to collapse due to fire in 15 or 20 minutes. That is why the steel in the WTC had fire-proof coating.
You neglect the effect of the impacts to the towers, which both damaged the structure, making a fire-induced collapse more likely, and also damaged the fire-proofing in the impact area.
WTC7 burned for about six hours, with no fire-fighting to counter it. This is longer than fire-proofing is expected to protect a steel structure.

Everything you need to know. :- http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html


Excerpt :-

THE COLLAPSE

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.


WAS THE WTC DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED?

The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature)