By Mr. Madison, I mean Sunofone
[right][snapback]518336[/snapback][/right]

Well, when all else fails, post lyrics to a Slayer song, that's what I always say... :-)
[right][snapback]518305[/snapback][/right]

thats right theres nothing more to be done here -you all believe wtc 7 collapsed due to fire related structural failure-you cannot be saved-it is not heracy-i will not repent

 
ANY anomaly in the official story does not make your theory the truth by default. You actually have to do work. 
[right][snapback]520778[/snapback][/right] 

At least we can be blind and unenlightened together, twinstead

I haven't found any report of a direct answer to the reason for molten pools of steel in my net surfing. Can anyone post a link?

2.Bush in the kids classroom on 9/11 - a) Bush kept reading with the kids for a half hour after Andy Card told him 'a second plane has hit the Towers - America is under attack'. One tiny problem with this - Bush's trip to the school was posted in mainstream newspapers days before 9/11. So, being a potential target, Bush and his Secret Service should rush to a safe location, right? Don't want to endanger the Pres and hundreds of school kids...

Bush stated TWICE that he saw the FIRST plane hit the WTC live on a TV in the school hallway. Wow! I never got to see that ! What channel was that on? Oh well, I don't feel too left out - nobody but Georgie saw it live on TV.

Once upon a time, on one Magical Day in September of 2001, three steel and concrete buildings fall at the speed of gravity, in a beuatifully symmetrical display.

This is historical, because not one steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire and/or plane impact.

Answer: The proof was trucked off to China, while rescue workers had barely started
searching for bodies. (SHIP THE STEEL! SHIP THE STEEL! LOOK FOR BODIES LATER!)
Tampering and destroying evidence of a crime scene is a criminal offence.....well, it was before That Magical Day!!

Ask sunofone. He has it. Its in the same article which talks about the guy who announced them to the media... a demolitions expert.

Nope. Did they have any idication that Bush was in danger inside the school? What if there was a sniper outside?

I thought I saw the first plane hit the WTC on 9/11 too, also during the weeks following it... I was mistaken though, it was the second plane, but from a different angle.

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

Go look at the video more closely and you'll see that its not perfectly symmetrical. Oh, sorry, but you guys expect to see it fall down on one side like in cartoons



I wonder how many steel framed buildings this tall had new planes flown into them deliberatly in an effort to take them down.



Umm... the steel is your proof? The steel was lying down there all broken up and needed to be removed to find the bodies... Do you have any evidence to claim that the evidence was destroyed on purpose?
[right][snapback]524918[/snapback][/right]

“What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?”…

WRONG! -the article i presented quotes bush's demo buddy(same guy who covered-up oklahoma murrah demo)from demo inc. as locating the molten pools-the explanation he offers holds as much water as these lame responses-that they were created from burning debri--HA! LOL-INADEQUATE in fact i would call it a "STAND-DOWN"

complete ignorance-i dont know of any indication greater than a second plane smashing into wtc to signify a terrorist threat to our country and president but evidently he wasd "aware" that he was in NO danger-

Bush audio with quote
i tot i taw a putty tat too! pathetic comeback--heres bush's freudian slip

Bush Caught in a Lie
About the 9/11 WTC Attacks

omg this is worst than all your other lame comebacks

again wtc 7(a 47 story hi-rise)had NO plane crash into it yet it collapsed

"Bush kept reading with the kids for a half hour after Andy Card told him 'a second plane has hit the Towers - America is under attack'."

I didn't read any of turbonium's post after THIS line, because after that I was sure it was just another ridiculous post from some leftist suckling all the lies from Michael Moore's ample bosom.

That single line is a flat out LIE.  Even Moore didn't go so far as to say a half hour...he said seven minutes, which was in itself a lie.  But honestly, what would you rather he have done in a classroom full of children?  "OH DEAR GOD!  OUR COUNTRY IS UNDER ATTACK!  RUN FOR YOUR LIVES, CHILDREN, I'LL TRY TO FIGHT THEM OFF!"
[right][snapback]525087[/snapback][/right]

 


Ask sunofone. He has it. Its in the same article which talks about the guy who announced them to the media... a demolitions expert.

You just helped support my argument. Here's the link to the actual quote from the demo expert http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/...w_seismic_.html
Here's a link to prove the molten steel cannot be the result of the fire http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/20...ring/steel.html
Another link showing thermal image of the WTC FIVE DAYS after 0/11 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_hotspots.html



Nope. Did they have any idication that Bush was in danger inside the school? What if there was a sniper outside?

SNIPER?
javascript:add_smilie(":gun:")
gunsmilie.gifjavascript:add_smilie(":clap:")
clap.gif
If that's the best you can come up with....Here, how about this: "Saddam Hussein mighta bin on tha roof, just waitin' to pee on 'em"



I thought I saw the first plane hit the WTC on 9/11 too, also during the weeks following it... I was mistaken though, it was the second plane, but from a different angle.

javascript:emoticon(':tu:')
smilie OK - that might top your first answer - If Bush saw Kermit the Frog in a flying saucer shoot laser beams at the WTC, you just mighta seen that too?
Bush said on two separate occasions that he saw the first plane live, then seconds later said he was then told about the second plane.



Go look at the video more closely and you'll see that its not perfectly symmetrical. Oh, sorry, but you guys expect to see it fall down on one side like in cartoons :rolle

Using your logic, demolition experts will soon be out of business - just blowtorch a few floors, wait one hour and POOF!! 100,00 tons of steel and concrete turn into to a big pile of fine powder.



I wonder how many steel framed buildings this tall had new planes flown into them deliberatly in an effort to take them down.

Watch any of the videos - Watch the planes hit - Watch the buildings......teeter over??javascript:emoticon(':blink:')
smilie



Umm... the steel is your proof? The steel was lying down there all broken up and needed to be removed to find the bodies... Do you have any evidence to claim that the evidence was destroyed on purpose?
[right][snapback]524918[/snapback][/right]

You just helped support my argument. Here's the link to the actual quote from the demo expert http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/...w_seismic_.html

Here's a link to prove the molten steel cannot be the result of the fire http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/20...ring/steel.html

SNIPER?

If that's the best you can come up with....Here, how about this: "Saddam Hussein mighta bin on tha roof, just waitin' to pee on 'em"

If Bush saw Kermit the Frog in a flying saucer shoot laser beams at the WTC, you just mighta seen that too?

Bush said on two separate occasions that he saw the first plane live, then seconds later said he was then told about the second plane.

Using your logic, demolition experts will soon be out of business - just blowtorch a few floors, wait one hour and POOF!! 100,00 tons of steel and concrete turn into to a big pile of fine powder.

Watch any of the videos - Watch the planes hit - Watch the buildings......teeter over??

If you can't provide any PROOF for YOUR rebuttals, stop wasting your time, as well as everyone else's time.

The conclusion we reached was that enough of the structure had been compromised initially by the collision and subsequently by the heat loading that the remaining core and/or perimeter columns were allowed to buckle. As you know, most materials are dramatically stronger in compression than in either torsion or flexion. Buckling is simply one or both of the latter. The structural system of the WTC towers required that internal structure be in place in order to provide the lateral bracing in order to combat buckling. Failure of the entire system will occur when enough of the internal structure fails, and this will happen even with stone-cold steel.

We illustrated this to the rest of our staff with the standard experiment of standing on an empty aluminum soda can. A can with no deformations will sustain the load of an adult in compression, as long as he can keep his balance. However, even the smallest dent in the can will buckle the structure instantly. While considerably exaggerated, this is the same structural scenario that tubular building construction is based on.

The other questions answered were why the building should collapse entirely instead of merely toppling the upper part of the structure, and why the building should essentially disintegrate instead of falling like a felled tree. Here the explanation discusses the dramatic difference between static and dynamic loading.

Finally we discussed the heat loading applied by the airliner's fuel. It was known at the time where the airliners had come from and where they were going, and thus why they had so much fuel on board and why this was an attractive choice for hijackers. We knew at the time that heat weakened steel and that softened steel under loads shifted from elsewhere would collapse before too long.

Oh, and I asked one of my engineer geek friends what exactly......yada yada yada...more mindless propaganda lacking reference links and quotes ect. ect.

Putting aside the question of whether i believe you or not, what there makes you believe these were planted explosions and rules out any other explaination like pressure blowing out the weak points forced by the great weight of the collapsing floors above, or explosions cause by fuel, fire or spark and a compressed air enviroment, or anything other explosive cause?

"Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by “paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they ‘pancaked’ into the basement.”"



AHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!! Have you READ the link?

Yes I have. In addition to this sentence 'There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework.'
There is also this one 'a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.' 'Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson.'
By the way, they believe this causes holes due to huge amounts of sulfur -to quote "The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from?' He then adds a silly possibility 'acid rain' javascript:emoticon(':lol:')
smilie (rain pouring through the building - lots of leaks - umm.. well if you only accept the OFFICIAL story you can't think outside the box.
And...
"one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness"
I like that one too - except that's not explained at all - file it under "we don't know".



That site goes under the assumption that one of the buildings was demolished, and counts on that to support its "point". If it started out with a new, clean slab looking for irregularities between the debris from the buildings, they'd find none.

What?? You are supposed to give an alternate explanation..sorry, no dice.



Sniper.

hmmm....



What, you deny that, if there was an assassination threat, a sniper wouldnt be a good method to use?

You're just pulling on straws here.

Sniper Theory - please provide evidence for YOUR cool new theory- no 'straw pulling' now.

Then please explain: why did Bush hold a press conference JUST OUTSIDE the school after his classroom fiasco? Sniper fell asleep on the rooftop?



Nope. He didnt say he saw that, and I didnt. Your responses are becomming childish. Its evident that you're not out to find the truth, you're just out to find and believe anything that puts the US in a bad light.

No, the US is good people ruled by scum. THEY put the US in a very bad light.



And your point is? Not only is he accused of being a bad public speaker, I saw a video of a plane hitting the 1st tower, I thought it was the 1st plane... then I heard about the 2nd tower getting hit and another video being shown, and I thought that was the 2nd tower getting hit by the 2nd plane.

And you later realized you were wrong, I would imagine? How much later? Can we assume one or two weeks tops, with 24/7 replays on TV? Problem is, Bush made these comments MONTHS after 9/11. And I haven't seen him say he had long term brain freeze (for a year plus) and NOW he knows better.

You'd think that someone who was capable of creating such an elaborate conspiracy would not slip so easily...

OK, now I accuse him of being the mastermind of all this? Now that's pretty funny!! I have never said that, nor implied that. My points regarding Bush are to show foreknowledge of 9/11, not as the 'creator' of it, but at LEAST complicity in it. He's a dolt puppet, that's why he lets out remarks that reveal things through stupidity, and lack of a written out script.



1. Debris was all over the place.
2. It didnt turn into a pile of fine powder.
3. Hence the reason theres demolition experts.

You should stay away from using the word "logic"

Good point - I shall refrain from the oxymoron 'your logic'.
Sarcasm cannot be deciphered from regular responses, I guess.



Nope, they dont "teeter" over... so whats your point?

Sorry, that point was to an earlier post from another anti-conspiracist.



I'd tell you to stop wasting your time but you're so obsessed with portraying the US in a bad light at every turn that you probably dont even notice that you dont have a point.
[right][snapback]526434[/snapback][/right]

Get over the US paranoia - it's NOT the US - it's the TRAITORS of the US involved in mass murder of its own citizens I am putting in a bad light.

Now - can you explain your Sniper Theory? I guess I should expect proof of this anyday now......

Yes I have. In addition to this sentence 'There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework.'

There is also this one 'a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.'

He then adds a silly possibility 'acid rain'

smilie (rain pouring through the building - lots of leaks - umm.. well if you only accept the OFFICIAL story you can't think outside the box.
And...

"one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness"
I like that one too - except that's not explained at all - file it under "we don't know".

What?? You are supposed to give an alternate explanation..sorry, no dice.

Sniper Theory - please provide evidence for YOUR cool new theory- no 'straw pulling' now.

Then please explain: why did Bush hold a press conference JUST OUTSIDE the school after his classroom fiasco? Sniper fell asleep on the rooftop?

And you later realized you were wrong, I would imagine? How much later? Can we assume one or two weeks tops, with 24/7 replays on TV? Problem is, Bush made these comments MONTHS after 9/11. And I haven't seen him say he had long term brain freeze (for a year plus) and NOW he knows better.

Good point - I shall refrain from the oxymoron 'your logic'.
Sarcasm cannot be deciphered from regular responses, I guess.

nice evasive tactics lol you ignore the vast bulk of his post.

You are whinging about Bush not leaving the school after a while, because for all we know a plane could be about to land on it or something. Now would it make much sense to rush the president out of a temporarily secure location (the school) when it is unclear as to whether or not there is any danger outside (eg sniper, car bomb, god knows what else)?

turbonium, why is it that you consider anything in the investigation that may not be explained yet as proof it was a conspiracy? All investigations will have unanswered questions and anomalies. That doesn't mean competent experts cannot reach defensible conclusions about cause and effect.

Oxidation and sulfidation occurred prior to the fire. The fire provided the energy needed to complete the formation of a eutectic mixture, which then had a lower melting point than that of normal steel. This liquid mixture then infiltrated the spaces between the metal grains, leading to additional erosion without necessarily melting it in the process. The mechanism of the formation of the mixture is neither disputed nor problematic. The actual amount of liquid was very small compared to the degree of erosion.

The researchers write in one instance that the source of the sulfur is not conclusively identified, but that doesn't translate into there being a mystery why sulfur was there. Sulfur is ubiquitous in urban environments and comes from many sources, which the authors identify. For engineers it is important to know which source provided the sulfur so that it can be abated for future construction.
[right][snapback]527759[/snapback][/right]

Dont forget this line: "steel may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire."

Exactly - so how come there were 'molten pools of steel'? (Going in circles here)


Well, theres an explanation right there!



How is that silly? Because you dont want to accept it?

Put it this way - if covered steel turns to swiss cheese, even over 30 years from acid rain, I guess the Empire State Building should be a mountain of cheese by now. Do you always accept any explanation the 'official' one is, or do you have any common sense?



If you accept the conspiracy theory, you're a moron.

If you believe the official story, you are a mindless, no-brained puppet.



What do you mean its not explained... it was explained right in the site... The whole page is about the explenation.

Please quote from the article about the reason for the one-inch to half-inch reduction. I don't know where the cause of this is shown...



Obviously you are stupid enough to not understand a word I said. Their case only holds some water when they compare the debris from a tower which fell by a questionable cause to debris of a building which fell by a bomb. They compare a the WTC towers to building 7 (their first mistake), assume that building 7 was taken down by a bomb, and then say "well, look at the resemblances! That means the WTC towers were blown up by bombs too!"

If you are too ignorant to fully research the articles, you would find this quote from WTC owner Larry Silverstein:

In a September 2002 PBS documentary called 'America Rebuilds,' Silverstein states, in reference to World Trade Center Building 7, "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." We know that the term 'pull it' means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six." If it meant pull out the firefighters, he would not have said "pull IT" and would not have said "... made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" in one non-stop sentence.

If you have a BIT of intelligence, you would expect to have heard something like 'we made the decision to call the firefighters out of there, because it was an inferno (see pictures for NO proof of an inferno) and thank God we did, because the whole buidling came down thirty seconds later'.

Do you see the error here? First they have to prove that building 7 was taken down by bombs. Obviously if they say that building 7 wasnt taken down by bombs, they dont have a case there, and the whole thermo image is useless. No dice.

See above quotes. Do YOU see the error of your assumptions?



I didnt claim there actually was a sniper... I claimed that there was a possibility of a sniper. You really think that its impossible for a sniper to be used during an assassination attempt? Im sure you dont think its impossible, therefor it is possible that the secret service did think about that possibility on 9/11.

Anything is possible - if you want to believe YOUR theory! But where are the quotes to back it up?



After the area is cleared... and more security to the place...?

What? Another part of your theory that even the offiical explanation does not use. Maybe you could provide evidence for this?? I'm still waiting for your SNIPER THEORY to get some teeth to it.....



Unlike you, I was not glued to the TV screen watching replays of 9/11 24/7 chanting "Bush is evil. Bush is evil. Bush is evil." and the duration of how long I made the mistake of confusing footage of one plane for the other doesnt matter. All that matters is that people made mistakes like this.

Can't you answer anything? Silly accusations like "Bush is evil" chants are just mindless drivel. As for Bush - same mistake, made twice on two separate occasions, abouth the biggest catastrophe ever on American soil? Plus, the timeline is impossible to excuse as a mistake. Watch the video again. He says in one complete explanation he saw the first plane hit, went in the room, and was told about the second hit. That is NO mistake. He's an idiot who fumbled when he says "er, uh, the TV was obiously on", to explain seeing the first plane hit live as it occurred.

However, you'd think that if he'd really had seen footage of plane #1 before any footage was available, one of his conspirator partners would have told him to stop talking about it...

He's a moron who can't even read at a grade three level - you can't put a monkey in charge without expecting to call in a clean-up crew for all the crap it spews out.



You misplaced "your" and your quotation mark.

No - it stands as is.



He didn't ignore it... the dolt just doesn't know how to use quotes.

Use spellcheck if YOU don't want too look like a dolt - or is that to make Bush look like a literary genius?



Precisely.
[right][snapback]527868[/snapback][/right]

I like that - "for all we know". It sums up your entire post.

You miss the whole point. The investigation may NEVER lead to a proper conclusion if they never, ever consider a reason outside the OFFICAL explanation.
[right][snapback]528876[/snapback][/right]

But if the investigators can't even postulate a theory based on explosives being used, then they may never come to a reason behind the strange markings and thinning of the steel

Scientific hypotheses that operate within narrow parameters are inherently flawed and often lead to unfounded conclusions, or are inconclusive

Put it this way - if covered steel turns to swiss cheese, even over 30 years from acid rain, I guess the Empire State Building should be a mountain of cheese by now. Do you always accept any explanation the 'official' one is, or do you have any common sense?

Please quote from the article about the reason for the one-inch to half-inch reduction. I don't know where the cause of this is shown...

We know that the term 'pull it' means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six." If it meant pull out the firefighters, he would not have said "pull IT" and would not have said "... made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse" in one non-stop sentence.

If you have a BIT of intelligence, you would expect to have heard something like 'we made the decision to call the firefighters out of there, because it was an inferno (see pictures for NO proof of an inferno) and thank God we did, because the whole buidling came down thirty seconds later'.

Anything is possible - if you want to believe YOUR theory! But where are the quotes to back it up?

What? Another part of your theory that even the offiical explanation does not use. Maybe you could provide evidence for this?? I'm still waiting for your SNIPER THEORY to get some teeth to it.....

As for Bush - same mistake, made twice on two separate occasions, abouth the biggest catastrophe ever on American soil? Plus, the timeline is impossible to excuse as a mistake. Watch the video again. He says in one complete explanation he saw the first plane hit, went in the room, and was told about the second hit. That is NO mistake. He's an idiot who fumbled when he says "er, uh, the TV was obiously on", to explain seeing the first plane hit live as it occurred.

He's a moron who can't even read at a grade three level - you can't put a monkey in charge without expecting to call in a clean-up crew for all the crap it spews out.

Use spellcheck if YOU don't want too look like a dolt - or is that to make Bush look like a literary genius?

You miss the whole point.

I'm not stating that the oddities in the steel are proof of a demolition. But if the investigators can't even postulate a theory based on explosives being used, then they may never come to a reason behind the strange markings and thinning of the steel.

In some ways you are right. I think there is a limit to it though. A theory postulated on ANY preconceived idea is wrong, either starting from 'it could be explosives' or starting from the official story. For that reason many 911 conspiracy theorists are just as guilty as the ones they accuse of not 'thinking outside the box'.

A true investigation starts from a blank slate, observes the evidence and comes to a conclusion based on that evidence. If the preponderance of evidence pointed to explosives, then you can start investigating it from that standpoint.



I think my structural engineering friends would take a rather big issue with you on this one. You infer that they would be blind to evidence of explosives if it came up in their study of the collapses, or worse yet try to cover it up.

The fact remains that the reason most competent structural engineers wouldn't support a controlled demolition theory concerning 911 isn't because they are operating within narrow parameters; it's because there is no legitimate evidence that supports it. All the presented evidence (that I have seen) of demolition can and does have a more mundane explanation that is just as viable. So then it becomes a simple matter of postulating just how each would have happened.

That's when the incredibly complex web of conspiracy theory must be created and explained:

Who did the work? My understanding is that this is a pretty specialized field of work with a relatively small number of companies that have the knowledge. If a non commercial professional did the work, then who was it? How many people did the work? How was this done with no one else noticing it? No custodians? no building engineers? It just that this kind of information would likely have come to the attention of thorough investigators. How broad was the conspiracy?

Sir, this is where you guys loose me. To me this raises many more questions than it answers. And each new answer raises 2 questions in it's place!
[right][snapback]529210[/snapback][/right]

[right][snapback]530369[/snapback][/right]

Here is my analysis of the above events:

The steel beams bearing most of the load were located in the center of the tower, and thus most of the metal from the plane would not have hit the central steel beams, which would thus have remained largely undamaged by the impact.

The fire in WTC 1 was thus less intense than that in WTC 2. And WTC 1 had less strucutral damage to WTC 2, with its more intense fire and critical strucural damage, would have collapsed first. Or, put another way, had the fires and strucural damage been the cause of the collapse then WTC 1 (hit after WTC 2), and subjected to a less intense fire and less load bearing structural damage, would have collapsed after (not before) WTC 1 collapsed.

Much is still to be investigated, as there are so many unexplained, and 'first time ever' anomalies.

Watch the collapse videos closely - there is no change in the speed of the fall. They are in virtual freefall from the star to finish