turbo - this means youve stumped him and there will be no response as to why there were pools of molten steel in wtc7 from anyone-ive posted quotes and links to undrewrite laboratory's official data concerning the actual steel used in wtc and how the absolute highest temperature obtainable by any type of hydro-carbon fire cannot exceed 1750* much less than the 2500* necessary to "elasticise"(maleable-yet still retaining its memory and ability to hold its form) it which is what the steel would need to be exposed to directly and wouldnt pertain to steel insulated within concrete- it goes to 2800* before you obtain "plasticity"(complete loss of form) which is what would be necessary to render structural failure-from ther it jumps to 3200* necessary for the molten state found at the cores of the four bldgs that collapsed-search underwriter laboritory its here somewhere-when i posted it bathory complained about my punctuation and syntax

Emphasis mine. Why do you seem to believe steel has to be heated to its melting point before it will fail under load? Every structural engineer knows that. If you need any more information on that let me know. Bottom line, steel does NOT have to melt to fail.

Regardless, you can't say there are no localized temperatures hotter than the melting point of steel. Fires are not isothermal. Never have been; never will be. There will be temperatures in some regions cool enough to have left identifiable human remains. Temperatures in other regions will be hot enough to melt steel.

Also the samples of melted steel in evidence show traces of sulfur, thus, lowering the temperature at which the steel melts.

The temperatures you give are, in my humble opinion, incorrect. If you believe I am mistaken, please refer me to reputable links.

no, it means i can't be arsed trying to decypher what he's saying from what he's quoting, its a pain in the arse, and merely a bit of advice for him

stumped me? hardly, when i know you have about as much clue regarding structural engineering and the physics involved as i do, i'm not about to accept your claim in the face of overwhelming silence from actual experts around the world.



i've caught you lying on occasion, is that what you are referring to?

But, by the way, that doesn't mean you've stumped me

Sonofone unlike others, you show an arrogance that one who has little actual understanding of structural engineering should definitely NOT have.

That's a big part of the problem. Sonofone it's time for you to state your qualifications. I will admit to you I am not a structural engineer, so I will say to you here and now that my observations are simply opinion albeit educated ones.

Are you willing to admit that instead of being some smoking gun of evidence of a grand conspiracy, your theory is as well simply conjecture?

He didn't marvel at the sight of three steel highrise buildings collapsing at the speed of gravity, an unprecedented event in history? Excuse the sarcasm, but is he waiting for the Second Coming? It makes it sound like "Oh, yeah, no biggie, it's nothing I haven't seen a thousand times - yawn." Sorry if this is kind of sarcatsic too. I'm just trying to emphasize that it seems a little hard to act blase about such a monumetal event.



Find an honest person, expert or not, who was, for example, watching CNN, and thinking "oh man, any minute now, these two towers are gonna crumble into dust".



There were many people who said they heard and felt explosions. Many firefighters are quoted as well. Check this video link: http://www.bcrevolution.ca/Video/Explosions%20everywhere.WMV



For highly qualified opinions, look at my links on previous posts. I'm backing up these details with experts in the field, and photograghic evidence, not with some shmucks from the tinfoil hat brigade. If the molten steel and seismic spikes (see video link above) alone don't seem worthy of further investigation , I suggest the people you know widen their scope of investigation. Start by having them compare the fires in WTC 7 to any other video or photo of any other buiding fires. That way, you have to throw out that the planes helped the collapse" It doesn't easily get shrugged off as nothing suspicious.
9/11 is unlike any event in history - no serious engineer can fall back on a ny previous research that makes steel building collapses a normal event, let alone not worthy of further investigation.



Agreed, and, I would add, do not accept the 'official' explanation as God's Truth. If the immediate destruction of much of the evidence (steel) before inspection doesn't raise a red flag, then a Gov't ordered "limited investigation" should.



No aviation fuel was in WTC 7 - but molten steel was, so that supposition is not correct.
Here's the link that quotes the two presidents of the construction companies at the WTC seeing "molten pools of steel" at WTC 1, 2 and 7 - http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/...w_seismic_.html
It's importanht to note, however, that their suggestion to "think of the jet fuel" as a cause of it is dubious when we know that WTC 7 had no exposure to jet fuel. Info with disinfo, it 's hard to say. Maybe he said it and forgot about WTC 7 not being hit by a plane.



'Pull' was used twice in the same PBS special "America Rebuilds". First by Larry Silverstein, "pull it", then by a worker for the Department of Design and Construction for The City of New York. After demolishing Buildings 4 and 5, he spoke on the phone and said "we're getting ready to pull the Buiding 6."

See this link: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:kBXVBzR...lient=firefox-a

From an article titled "America's First Family of Demolition", it mentions ".. the process of preparing a building for its five-second takedown as a process of carefully removing all non-essential (non load-bearing) materials, scanning blueprints, taking samples of concrete to determine its actual strength (or weakness!) -- and even, in some cases, re-building parts of the structure in order to properly pull it down."

I have researched this more and found that 40 or 50 years ago, large buildings were taken down with hand labor. In those situations most interior and exterior walls had to be cabled and "pulled" in onto floors. Before you "pulled" the walls you would place old truck tires on the floor to cushion the shock and maintain the integrity of the floor your working on.

More to look into.........

.....until we speak again.......Cheers

P.S. I'm still holding out hope you'll change your mind. Thanks for keeping me on my toes though.

they fail to quote any experts

That's a little bit of a straw man. When I said he saw nothing suspicious I meant he saw nothing suspicious, not that he saw nothing out of the ordinary.



The steel members of WTC7 were shown to have been compromised by eutectic admixture. That's a well-understood phenomenon.

The tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel that were stored on the roof of WTC7 would cause a nice inferno. When those tanks were breached, all of that fuel would have run down to lower levels and burned for hours weakening the steel. Add to that the destabilizing effects of the collapse of One and Two, which must have given off shock waves like a small earthquake, this would have greatly contributed to the building collapse.

Can you show me that either there wasn't all the fuel on the roof, or that if it was there it could have not contributed to the collapse of the building?



If we are to read Silversteins words at face value, set within the context of cause and effect (i.e we decided to pull it - and then watched it collapse), and take his terminology in the same way the same terminology is used elsewhere in that PBS special, then by extension we have to ask how and when was the building wired?



So, all that stuff would have had to be done to WTC7 (and 1 and 2 as well actually) if they were indeed prepared for demolition and 'pulled' that day.

You still have not explained when the building was prepared for demolition. This would have been perhaps the greatest demolition in history if it is true!

It could have not been done in one afternoon while the building was on fire and other buildings were falling down around it. Therefore, it had to be prepared for demolition before 9/11. Supports would have to have been cut, charges placed throughout the building and miles of wiring laid throughout the building without the tenants knowing what was going on.

Please explain why he did this and how it was done. Why go through all of that trouble to begin with, anyway? Why not just put high explosives by the building like in Oklahoma City? After all, they had no reason to be concerned about damage to surrounding buildings

Perhaps you missed my link explaining how the buildings may have been prepared for demolition beforehand. Check it out: http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

[QUOTE]The tens of thousands of gallons of diesel fuel that were stored on the roof of WTC7 would cause a nice inferno. When those tanks were breached, all of that fuel would have run down to lower levels and burned for hours weakening the steel.[/QUOTE

There was no inferno, however. Check this link out: http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/b7.html

Your theory that raging fires caused the collapse is based on two unproven assumptions:

1. RAGING FIRES: If you recall, I had previously asked you to try and find ANY photos or videos of WTC 7 that indicate anything other than small areas of fire, on its 7th and 12th floors, shortly before its collapse. Again, the photographic evidence to back up your theory falls on you to prove otherwise.

2. FIRE CAUSED THE COLLAPSE: Assuming you can prove Point 1, remember that no fire, however long and well-fueled, has ever destroyed a multi-story steel-frame building. Again the burden of proof falls on you for an explanation on how it could cause the collapse.

In regards to building access, here is another interesting fact, taken from this link :http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html

Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport.
According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

Hey Turbonium...I like that post of yours as it mentions the Presidents brothers company doing security at WTC...I theorize that if there were demolitions involved that what better way than to do it under the guise of doing security? Perfect cover. I have read about this before and stored it on the hard drive...I meant to post it sooner but forgot...thanks for beating me to the punch.


Hey Sunofone, good topic...this babys in the HOT zone!...lol

Hey twin...I just had a thought about the demo of WTC7...in a normal situation these steps you mention would have been taken for safety reasons and they would have taken time and people would have noticed some of the more obvious preparations but in a scenario made to look like a terrorist attack I guess any way to bring down the building quickly would have done. In other words it wouldn't have been a conventional takedown so I disagree with your premise that demolitions weren't involved. You did bring up good points it's just that I think this was a different type of demolition. What stands out the greatest for me is the molten pools of steel in the basements of these structures. Even if you were to believe that the steel was weakened by fire it does not explain the "molten" state that the steel was in which was also in an oxygen starved environment beneath all of that rubble. I do have a question for you though...what is the most unbelievable aspect for you concerning Bush involvement in 9-11...is it just too unbelievable? Do you think we bring up good points? Just curious.

It has less to do with safety than the actual mechanics of demolition. Those things MUST be done to successfully bring down a building. If they indeed wanted it to look like a terrorist attack, then why bring down the buildings in such a way that folks like you insist looks like controlled demolition? Are you saying they can fool thousands of competent structural engineers, but somehow you can see through it?

Also, just because YOU can't explain the molten steel, doesn't mean that an engineer cannot come up with a defensible explanation. To be blunt you don't have to understand it. What is important is that structural engineers CAN.

I have no illusions about how evil some people can be, or how underhanded governments can be; frankly, I don't consider it impossible that you are right. How could one possibly ever be 100% correct (that includes your theory)? My position is that based on the expert observations of people whom I hold in the utmost regard, and who are in my eyes very qualified to make such observations, the evidence, in my eyes, leans more towards your being wrong.

To answer your last question, yes, you bring up good points.

Im confused on how you can judge what was going on in the building and basement simply by looking at the outside of the building? In my opinion the photographic evidence is completely worthless, and proves nothing one way or the other. It has little place in this debate.




I think you misunderstand the burden of proof. You are the one making the extraordinary claim. You have the burden of proof to explain how it couldn't have caused the collapse.

extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof--Carl Sagan.

My point is that although you bring up interesting points, there are competing explanations for each and every one of them. You have not presented extraordinary proof. Much of it is conjecture, representing motive as proof, and implying that any anomaly or inconsistency in the official story makes your theory the truth by default.

That said, I appreciate your position. You obviously have given this much thought, and I can see how you must feel you are fighting an uphill Battle against many whom you see as blindly accepting the official story regardless of the inconsistencies in it. I refuse to fall into that category, so I will refuse to come out and tell you that you are wrong. I am at an impasse in my investigation right now. My structural engineering skills are rudimentary at best.

You have my word that I will continue to investigate your claims and respect your opinions.

You are my favorite naysayer Twin...lol. Serious.

LOL glad to hear that.

Everybody who has an intelligent argument about something I don't agree with will always get my respect. In many ways it is important to be true to yourself no matter what anybody says. If you can come to opinions in an intelligent and relatively unbiased way, even if I may disagree, who am I to berate you for your beliefs?

Hell, if more people in the world treated each other with respect maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.

...Oh, and if you want to find an issue where we probably totally agree, start a thread about the idiotic war on drugs.

Will do....this should be interesting...lol

I disagree. See this link http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
It says, in essence, that all supporting beams would have to fail instantaneously to back up your theory. To believe that, with no empirical evidence whatsoever, is the more extraordinary claim. An altogether once in a lifetime event needs more evidence than a belief in what FEMA states in their lame report, with too many unproven assumptions and leaps in logic.



I appreciate that. You have my respect as well. I certainly don't claim to have all the answers, either. But I can see that all the unanswered questions have us both seeking the truth, which is what we both want, wherever and whomever that leads to......

Thanks, spycat....it does add fuel to the fire, no? javascript:emoticon(':devil:')
smilie

Just as an aside, twin, I keep thinking I'm in a tavern, guzzling a pint of Duff, hearing replies from Moe the bartender.javascript:emoticon(':lol:')
smilie

LOL maybe you are...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...e+%3E+%2Bchange



thats what happened on 9/11, get it through your f***ing heads.

accept it or not. everything in tha tis supported by proven documents.