From what I've read, it could have taken the impact alone, as it was supposedly designed with a collision from a 707 in mind. But it was not built to withstand the resulting fire. Oh, and those puffs of fire from the windows just before the collapse definitely do not look like what you see with explosives.

well thanks redneck- for at least acknowledging the truth concerning the integrity of the structural design--also you are aware of the timing concerning the flames which shows a degree of rationalism--i think had the towers not contained demolition charges i feel they would have "broken" at the core where the impact was located--the top should have fallen off and crashed to the ground --imo the pancaking is clear cut evidence of demolitions--the wtc had a super core that was over engineered--dont you agree?

Call this theory out there or whatever.
The core of the WTC towers was over-engineered, but the surrounding structure was somewhat under engineered, something like laying landfill on bedrock then expecting houses to stand up on it (look at what happens to half of San Fransisco in an earthquake to see what I mean).
The outer structure will easily crumble under any sort of serious assault, like an airplane hitting it. The airplanes that hit those towers were a lot bigger than a 707, for which the buildings were designed to be hit by. This very well might have bent some of those steel beams. Now combine the heat with the weight these damaged sections were supporting and you have an imminent collapse waiting to happen. Also, when you bend metal repeatedly or on a continual basis, it heats up and its properties change. Bend a paperclip to see what I mean.
I personally do not think any one thing contributed to the collapse. I believe it was a long series of events that were unfortunately bound to happen within that structure.

The fire causing the collapse, with or without the plane impact, has been proven to be a completely false in every variation of the theory. In case those who believe this fable are unaware, the WTC had previously been subjected to a more intense fire than on 9/11....
From the New York Times in 1975...

This 110-story steel-framed office building suffered a fire on the 11th floor on February 13, 1975.
Fire Commissioner John T. O'Hagan said yesterday that he would make a vigorous effort to have a sprinkler system installed in the World Trade Center towers as a consequence of the fire that burned for three hours in one of them early yesterday morning.
"It was like fighting a blow torch" according to Captain Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6,
........Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building.

So, this was a very serious fire which spread over some 65 per cent of the eleventh floor (the core plus half the office area) in the very same building that supposedly "collapsed" on 9/11 due to a lesser fire. This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted about 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and the trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.

It should be emphasized that the North Tower suffered no serious structural damage in this fire. In particular, none of the trusses needed to be replaced.

That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C.

So now you know that the WTC towers were well designed and quite capable of surviving a serious fire. I repeat that this was a very hot fire that burnt through the open-plan office area of the eleventh floor and spread up and down the central core area for many floors.

The Cardington tests also showed conclusively that fires such as this could not cause steel framed structures to collapse - even after much longer than the time for the towers to collapse on 9/11 (which was under an hour!).

And none of this is "theory". These are the undeniable facts. The official story is a flimsy theory that has been proven wrong in so many areas it's ridiculous that anyone still supports it.

Oh, spare us this specious, amateurish BS.

The difference between the example you gave above and what happened in 2001 was that in 2001 the buildings were hit with fuel-filled airliners that ablated the fireproofing and caused strucutral damage in addition to starting fires. I guess that little bit of news didn't reach your planet.

But don't take my word for it:



That was Glenn Corbett, assistant fire chief, assistant professor of fire science at John Jay College and technical editor of Fire Engineering Magazine.

That was broadcast on the program that shall not be named, season 3, episode 3. And he goes into more detail, if anyone's interested.

So just drop it, okay? Because this whole spiel is not only absurd, it's sickening. It's an insult to everyone who lost their lives that day. And you're not doing it because you're some courageous crusader braving powerful forces to bring the light of truth to a benighted, ignorant world. You're doing it because it amuses you. The real conspiracy on 9-11 just wasn't enough, so you had to embelish it. That's what this is really about: your own sick form of entertainment.

The show that shall not be named? Well...it does accurately describe this thread...

Redneck we obviously all saw the darned news footage and the explosions...no need to get testy...why dont you address the issues we bring up as to demolitions being used? Especially on the lower floors and the basement. The witnesses are out there and its been documented maybe I should ask you why the hell dont you believe explosions went off on the lower floors? What is it about the details given you do you disagree with? You people cant just dismiss evidence on whim...there more to 9-11 than the news footage we all saw that day.

Never have any of you addressed the insider stock trading the weelk prior to 9-11 by Wall St firms and Deutschebank. I guess it is easier for some of you to ridicule people rather than making an educated argument to the contrary?

Right - amateurish mindless bs like that Penn & Teller link! How about turning the quote around into "There's no evidence for the fires being nearly hot enough. What really brought the buildings down was explosive-type devices or bombs."

Does your planet know that WTC7 wasn't hit by a plane but also collapsed anyway? And that the fuel-filled airliners had their fuel all burn up within minutes of hitting the towers?

The real insult to those who died that day are people like you - you think you know better than the firefighter on tape saying to bring a couple more lines and they can knock out the fires, then right after that the whole effin' building collapses? Try and explain how he died... you know, because the fire he was bravely and confidently fighting was an extremely high temperature out of control blaze, and he had no idea what he was talking about, he and the other firefighters should have known better than to go into the buildings because all the signs were there that they were gonna collapse at any minute!

Tell us all you know about it, buddy, because you seem to think you know better than the hundreds of firefighters and rescue workers who died.

I wonder, could anybody sum up all the little pieces of evidence as quoted above, and list them somewhere? I'm trying to understand the 9/11 conpiranoids and would like to see, in one list or place, all the "evidence" they have. Or give me a link?

http://killtown.911review.org/bush.html

http://www.copvcia.com/


Paste these and go. Micheal Ruppert is a good one. He brings up the "put" options stocks that went up some 2000% just 2 weeks prior to 9-11 on companies like Raytheon, Boeing, NortheupGrumman...etc.

Maybe you just havent been enlightened yet? No worries...thats what we are here for. Here to help people wake up...

Here is a link to a site with lots of the evidence compiled on it 911 research
This is the evidence link on the site Evidence
Here's a link right to the firefighters tapes Tapes
If that link doesn't work for you go here first Firefighters

Thanks for the links. From what I've seen so far, it's a mass of circumstantial evidence, pointing out odd or unusual things, while making little attempt to provide common sense explanations for such things.
For example, the site raises two points: all 4 flights were fairly empty, and why did 3 of the 4 planes have no passenger resistance? First, they fail to compare the average Tuesday morning flight load for long-haul flights during September with 9/11's flight load. Just using common sense, I'm not surprised the flights were fairly empty. Did you ever fly prior to 9/11 during the middle of the week? I did a number of times and the planes were at least half-empty every time. These were coast-to-coast flights. Most business people who fly that far will usually stay the whole week, implying a Sunday night or Monday morning flight. Few families going on summer vacation in September. The economy was already going down by 9/11 and businesses were cutting back on business travel then, but the airlines were slow to reduce capacity. Result: flights that were less than half-full.

Lack of resistance? How many hi-jackings in the previous 20 years encountered passenger resistance? None. Why? Before 9/11, most hi-jackings ended after a few days, with the hi-jackers getting killed by commandos storming the parked plane, with the passengers being released after negotiation, etc. NO hi-jackings ended in the plane being crashed, killing all aboard. Thus the passengers felt no need to fear imminent death, they felt that they were in a for a rough time, but had reason to believe they would survive. UNTIL, the flight 93 passengers learned that other hi-hackings of the day were ending in death. Then they rebelled. It all makes sense, without the need to resort to conspiracy theories.

Now I know I've just addressed just two points out of many. But many of the other "questions" also seem as speculative and ill-researched. Should I spend hours and hours more reading them, considering the alternatives, educating myself on building demolition, architecture, jet-fuel properties, NORAD procedures, etc? And for what? To satisfy myself that there is not some broad-based conspiracy of the powerful that are pulling the wool over my eyes in the sneakiest of ways? Is it worth all that time and effort?
I have a Muslim friend who is absolutely convinced that if one studies the Koran, one will conclude that Islam is the only true religion and will thus get into Paradise. But should I devote years of my life doing this because he is so convinced? Nothing he's told me so far makes it seem that I'll be convinced. Sure, if he's right, it would be worth my time, but why should I believe him, why should I believe it's worth the time? I don't really feel any need to find God in his way.
I feel the same way about 9/11 conspiracies. It all seems so unlikely, and what I've learned so far is just not convincing. Why should I spend more time investigating it? I am not motivated by the general idea that many important events of our times are not what they seem (e.g., 9/11, Apollo hoax, etc), so why should I spend more time pursuing the possibility? That is probably the difference between conspiranoids and skeptics: the former see a hidden hand behind many things, whereas the latter do not. I am of the latter group. I hope I can pull myself away from this waste of time and let the conspiranoids spend as much time as they want on this. Wish me luck.

thank you for your informed logical look at a bizzare claim. You are 100% correct in your points. However I doubt the therorist will see it that way. I applaud your adult commentary that did not result in name calling or flameing

You really need to look deeper than what you have done, spraky. Didn't you look into the firefighters tapes? Did you not even look into the fact that there actually WERE far fewer passengers on the 4 flights that day? This is from the Washington Post link here Flt.77

But witnesses soon identified the aircraft that smashed into the Pentagon as an American flight, and then as Flight 77, which was unusually light on passengers this day.

Or this from the CNN link here Low Numbers
The numbers appear out-of-whack, thankfully. And so, a lingering question is why the passenger loads on the four planes hijacked in U.S. skies are being described by industry officials as "very, very low.''

Are you really looking, or are you not wanting to look?

Problem is, it is not an informed look, and it is not a bizarre claim. He is not 100% correct, as I've already shown in my previous post. You accepted his claims without even knowing the actual details.

Thats an opinion I dont share with you. I see your (cough) evidence lacking adn I compare it to a childs belief in Santa Clause and evidence being a man in red suit at Kmart!

That is fuggin perfect!

What a brilliant (cough) rebuttal - I think a new standard has been set for support of your argument. Who wouldn't agree with the overwhelming proof you have provided for all of us! Magnificent!

I stand corrected! A new standard has usurped the one set just previous to this. Sheer brilliance. So little said, but speaking volumes! I'm truly at a loss to counter such a wealth of evidence.

It's not on the web - what do you want, you want me to transcribe the whole show? Do you have a condition prohibiting you from doing research outside of internet sources? Go get the episode on bittorrent or something - episode 3, season 3, about 10 minutes into the show. Or, you can email professor Corbett and ask him yourself.

Oh, nevermind. Maybe I should just put up an anonymous web page with lots of graphics - that kind of thing seems to hold much weight with you.



You mean the building that was set on fire by falling jet fuel, hit by falling debris and then had a million tons of rubble come down next door? The building that was reportedly filled with thousands of gallons of generator fuel? Yeah, can't imagine how that building could have collapsed. I mean, that kind of thing happens every day in my neighborhood.

By the way, buildings other than number 7 were damaged, and at least one(building #3 or 5, I think) suffered a partial collapse.

But back to the twin towers for a minute. Yes, the jet fuel did burn up within minutes. Before that time it ignited building and aircraft material, probably stripped fireproofing from the steel supports, and spread the fire rapidly across a large area(all this is in addition to the damage the aircraft itself caused to the structure). That's important: it's not just a simple matter of "temperature X must be reached before the WTC steel supports can fail." The size of the fire and the speed at which its temperature increases are also factors. The length of the support members in question is a factor. The fact that the bottom portion of a member is heated more than the top(which occurred in the WTC) - that matters too. There's other factors involved. The bottom line is this: steel expands and begins to lose its strength at the temperatures that were reached in WTC building fire.

Now, it should be said that there is indeed some uncertainty as to why Number 7 collapsed, and that's what people like you capitalize on. You provide a perfect example of how conspiracy nutters will take part of a phenomenon that is poorly-understood and cite it as evidence for outrageous accusations. You are no different than creationists who use actual problems in the theory of evolution as evidence for their idiotic claims.

People like you simply take advantage of the impressionable and the ill-informed. And you're not doing it for any high purpose. You're doing it because you think conspiracies are a cool idea. If you actually believed your own BS about all-powerful forces running our world you'd be paddling up the remotest tributary in the Amazon or something.



What does the dialogue among the firefighters here prove? That the fire was hot? That they thought the building was about to collapse? Yeah, that proves a whole lot. Not.

And for the record: you think that you know better than the people who work in the fire engineering field.

Now go ahead and round up some firefighters who were there that day. We'll see how many congratulate you on your brave pursuit of the truth, and how many want to strangle you with piano wire for using a national tragedy as a prop in your twisted fantasy.

Excellent job but sadly the therorist are so blinded by their own pursuit of the flameing of GWB his family and The american government they cant see the truth. Your points are right on the money GOOD JOB!

It really sadden's me! All these people have died, and yet all some people can do is blame our goverment! I have to wonder why? Do these people not see the true meaning of what has happen here! Do they not understand such foolish act's only give people like Bin Laden more reason to kill! We set hear and disagree on who did what... And i have found for the most part only a very small group of you really believe this was not a act of cruel intend by Bin Laden and his follower's. I think what make's this so hard to take is the fact, you guy;s have twisted so much of the fact's, Where were you that day> Did you not see the plane's. The pentagon. did you not hear the cell phone tape's as people called to say good-bye.. Have you gotten so lost in your world of conspiracies and dislike of the goverment, that you can no longer see, what the whole world seen that day! I find it get's harder and harder to post here with out getting upset, Not over what you say! That's your right. A right that OUR goverment protect's..but because it show's just a strong lack of disrespect for not only those who have died, but for there family's as well.

Don't worry, I'll look at your wonderful show - I'd be waiting forever if I was to count on you to actually post something to support your constant drivel.



Now here we go - first counter argument and it's full of bs. "Falling jet fuel"? You must be joking - here's a drawing of the WTC complex - see how far away WTC 7 is from the towers? The closest tower to WTC 7 is also the first one hit - the one with nnofireball. The other tower had a fireball burn up right away. Falling jet fuel is a new one to me - did you make that one up yourself? Look at any video or photo of WTC 7 - post a link to any one you find that shows the building with more than a small fire. Then I'll take you more seriously.





Do you think I'm going to take your word for that? Post something to support your claim - there was no partial collapse of the other buildings, other than when they demolished them with a demo crew.



Look at the impact point - the area that should be a "raging inferno".

The fire was never nearly hot enough to weaken the steel, that is beyond doubt. The Cardington fire tests proved that conclusively - the steel was not even protected. They concluded ''A steel building survived fires in experiments with extreme temperatures beyond the range possible with jet fuel.” Look at the link Cardington

A hot, vigorous fire would have blown out many windows in the building and would have burned a red or white color. This was not what happened. The fire in the World Trade Center was an ordinary smoldering office fire.


First off, I'm not a ''nutter'' - I do my research, and provide support for my argument. The only ''nutter'' is someone who spouts off nonsense and doesn't have any evidence for his claims - that would fit your method of argument. If you support the official fairy tale, back it up or stop your ramblings. That's too much to expect, isn't it?


Now that's a good one - I provide all the source links and information to back up what I'm saying, and you have the nads to call me on taking advantage of the "ill-informed"! If I didn't care about what's going on, I wouldn't be spending all this time having to put up with arguments like yours that accept the "official" story without even having a clue that there is no evidence to back it up. I want people to look up what I post - don't take my word for it - read everything from every viewpoint. Then decide for themselves. You are so closed to the facts surrounding the event that you don't even look into all the contradictory evidence to the official story.
It's not "cool", it's reality - and I don't run away from it, I intend to fight it, because it's not over, unless attitudes like yours prevail.


What are you saying here? That the firefighters are lying? The fires were able to be controlled, just like they say on the tapes. And it proves that the fires didn't bring the buildings down, as a matter of fact. The firefighter on tape was at the worst point the fire was burning at, and they would have been able to take them out with two more hoses!

I don't - I've already shown you that the firefighters themselves knew what the conditions were in the buildings - don't try and play that crap on me.


If you had half a clue, you would watch all the videos and listen to all the radio and internet interviews that I have. They all have firefighters who were at the scene that day, and they all explain it exactly the way it went down. They are not afraid to speak the truth about it, and neither am I. Tell them they are spouting off a "twisted fantasy". They might want to take a hack at you with their axes for supporting the Gov't bs story that got their fellow firefighters murdered.

You are the blind ones - the only theory is the Gov't version you blindly believe in. You are typical of those who want evidence and when we provide it, you have nothing to counter it with of any value. If we can't see the truth, show us the evidence, or else stop pretending that you do know the truth. What a joke!

I can see this thread turning into a real flame war, real quick here.

You are posting in a very civil manner, so I respect you for that. But, have you not looked at any of the evidence we've been providing? If you have, what is it specifically that you don't believe? I've researched this a long time as have others here and there is a mountain of solid evidence to counter the Gov't story, which has virtually NO evidence. You seem to easily accepting of the Gov't at their word, because if you truly looked at the facts, you would not support the official story. I'm not sure you care to, but at least try to look into all the facts - it's overwhelmingly in favor of a conspiracy taking place on 9/11. The disrespect is by those who refuse to look at the facts as they truly are - hiding behind a lie is despicable and serves as a dishonor to those who died. Don't support the murderer who disgustingly claims another did his putrid actions. The lie is a weak one, and does not hold up under the slightest scrutiny.

There is not a single piece of evidence tying Bin Laden to 9/11 - not ONE! If anyone here wants to try and prove I'm wrong, post your evidence with links. No crap, just actual supporting evidence.

you have to remember that bin laden is cia--so he is essentially not even a factor when it comes to hard "proof" of taliban involvement--so next the only other option is the physical evidence


first off we dont blame our govt we are blaming its representatives--imo the people are the govt but we are currently being misrepresented--isis please compilate a list of the "physical" evidence that conclusively demonstrates guilt--dont think your alligence is owed to any administration--they have the duty to convince us beyond reasonable doubt especially if they want our children to die for their agenda--the only thing you should be sad about is the facts that innocent victims are being murdered and having their land occupied over oil and its our children that have been tricked into an agenda that has nothing to do with "liberation"--the real kicker will be when unocqal is sold to china--that means the pipeline through afg that we just sacrificed "our" children for is being "sold" to "CHINA"!!!!!!

Mindless drivel like a quote from a fire chief, professor of fire science and editor of Fire Engineering Magazine? Yeah, what the hell would he know.



Excuse me - burning, falling debris that was ignited by jet fuel. And no I didn't make it up - if anyone, NIST must have made it up. Their report says: "Fires in WTC 7 - which began soon after WTC 1 collapsed - were observed on floors 7, 8, 9 and 11 near the middle about half an hour before collapse; floor 12 was burned out by this time. Fires were also seen on on floors 12, 13, 22, 29 and 30 at various times during the day".



Here you go, straight from a site you like to cite:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch3.htm



Very interesting link, but as I said last time: more elements than temperature are involved in determining whether a building will collapse due to a fire. The construction of the building in the Cardington test is not the same as the structure of the world trade center towers, and they didn't simulate hitting it with an aircraft and the damage that would cause, either.

Secondly, the conclusion of the Cardington test is this: the floor slab plays a critical role in preventing collapse by bending, carrying loads no longer carried by weakened, unprotected steel beams. In the test the floor slab is supported by "cold" perimeter columns. But in the world trade center, the load-bearing concrete floor slab was between the core columns and the outer perimeter columns - the same outer perimeter columns that were damaged by the aircraft impact. The supporting columns in the WTC were not "cold." The floor slabs themselves were also damaged. The Cardington report says: "Columns were protected, but beams were not." Only the beams, not the columns, were subjected to those temperatures unprotected in the Cardington test. So your link doesn't support your position, and possibly damages it.

Furthermore, the Cardington test says only that the structure didn't collapse; it didn't say that the steel didn't weaken. Carbon steel starts losing its strength at a mere 300C and creep(and attendant deformation) begins at around 450C. And that's from Lawson and Newman, Fire Resistant Design of Steel Structures. According to one report I read(which actually cites the Cardington test, by the way), some parts(not the entire region) of the affected area were probably(not definitely) heated to over 700C "for some or all of the time" between impact and collapse. That's why you didn't have windows shattering all over the place: there almost certainly were very high temperatures, but only in some regions of the impact area.



You're right, you're not a nutter. You know you're spewing crap and you do it because you think conspiracies are exciting.



Read it again. I wasn't calling you ill-informed. I'm calling the people you fool ill-informed. They're like poor suckers fooled by a slick con man, and you're like the con artist who takes them for a ride.



Never said they were lying, so just drop that straw man argument right there.

Now: how does it "prove" that that fires couldn't have brought the building down? Did the firefighters have X-ray vision and do a microscopic analysis of the building steel right then and there?



Nobody in the building is going to be able to just look around and understand all the forces at work that lead to an event like the collapse. Nobody. No scientist, no engineer, no firefighter. That takes a long time and a great deal of rigorous study.



Next time you're in New York, walk into a firehouse and talk to them about your theory. I'm sure they'll be most receptive.

edited fer spellin'

OK, first things first. I'd like to post some questions that I hope you'll answer. And please note that I don't think this question about the number of passengers is so very crucial, but I'd like to see if we could discuss and analyze one point in a rational manner. These postings tend to jump around a lot and that doesn't help the search for truth.

1) Say I would agree that the passenger load on those four aircraft was indeed unusually light and there's no statistical explanation for it. What do you make of that? What meaning does that have for you? Why should anyone care? What does it have to do with conspiracy? Is there an explanation for that other than conspiracy (see point 4 below)?

2) Your first link, the Wash. Post one. That was written Sept 12 and the article writer just said "it was light on passengers that day." That to me is a vague statement and doesn't prove or disprove anything. Like I said in the previous post, I gave all kinds of reasons why the planes were all below 50%, one even at 20% or so. A reporter just saying "unusually light" is not enough for me. I don't know how he came to that conclusion, so I discount it.

3) the second CNN link: "the numbers APPEAR out of whack". Yeah, at first glance they do. I'm not satisfied with a first glance. This article appeared on Sept 20. and I doubt anyone had done a full analysis and given serious thought to the question of whether the load was really so out of whack. I earlier gave all kinds of reasons as to why those flights were so light on passengers and you did not address a single one. The article talks about average load during July, 2001, which to me is a meaningless comparison to a set of weekday, coast-to-coast, september flights. The article talks about June loads, 2nd quarter 2001 loads and Sept. 2000 loads. None of those are really fair comparisons, for reasons I wrote of earlier. This article is not convincing, it's just a starting point.

4) the CNN article also said "Many investigators suspect the terrorists at the very least shopped for flights with low passenger loads". Why did you ignore that? Even if I'm way off base about those flights not being as unusually low at first blush as they appear, then this idea is the best explanation. It makes sense, it's rational; the terrorists were perfectly capable of finding this information out without help from the CIA or the Mossad.

5) You seem to think these two articles say it all, but to me they don't, for the reasons given above. Usually it's the conspiracy theorists who don't accept what the mainstream media say, yet here you are quoting them and letting them stand as your sole "proof". Do you believe everything CNN and the Wash Post tell you? For me, I believe the numbers they give. But I don't automatically believe their analysis of what the numbers mean. I examine and think about what they say it all means, and then agree or disagree of admit ignorance. I agree with what they say in point 4 above as that is the most rational explanation (assuming the assumption about light flight loads).

6) YOu ask me "Are you really looking, or are you not wanting to look?" That goes both ways, so maybe you should stick to rational discussion with me or just stop now.

Your turn.

Your drivel is what I referred to, because you just talk off the top of your head and don't reference anything. I've downlaoded the show, so I'll come back to that after I've seen it.



You made up the "falling jet fuel" but meant "falling debris that was ignited by jet fuel". OK - so let's see the photos or videos I asked for to support that claim. NIST must have something I didn't see to back up this "burning debris" all over WTC 7. I don't accept it on their word, and neither should you. So if you find something I missed, post it here.



I stand corrected - and it's something that actually supports my argument. If you read further down, it states

"WTC 3 was subjected to extraordinary loading from the impact and weight of debris from the two adjacent 110-story towers. It is noteworthy that the building resisted both horizontal and vertical progressive collapse when subjected to debris from WTC 2. The overloaded portions were able to break away from the rest of the structure without pulling it down, and the remaining structural system was able to remain stable and support the debris load. The structure was even capable of protecting occupants on lower floors after the collapse of WTC 1."

So thanks for helping provide even more evidence for the absurdity of the total collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7!



You're right that the Cardington structures were not the same as the WTC structures. But, on the contrary, it strongly supports my argument. The towers were much stronger than the Cardington structures. Each floor was designed to hold 2,600,000 pounds (1300 tons) beyond its own weight. Likewise, the steel used in these structures was rated to hold five times its normal load.

As well, the structure of the towers consisted of huge inner core columns, something the Cargington structure did not have.
Below is from the link here WTC Structure
Compare the Cardington structure...

...to the WTC structure.


As I already covered, the steel in the towers was rated 5 times stronger than standard grade steel, such as the Cardington tests used. And the steel was fireproofed in the towers - even if any was exposed by the planes, 95% was not. Since the fireproofing was sprayed on, it is not very likely it would just 'peel off' the steel anyway - that's another fable used by the Gov't run investigations. The steel they "examined" to prove that it came off was a selected section where explosives would have done it, not a friggin' plane.

And you have the burden of proof that there were any areas where the temperatures were hot enough to weaken the steel. That is another fairy tale they spout off to "prove" their analysis. They don't have any proof, not from any photos, not from any videos, and not from any of the firefighters, or any other people who got out of the towers. That is such a joke, it's amazing that they can say it with a straight face. These two towers come thundering down into a pile of rubble, and there is not any evidence to support the official story - no shattered windows, no raging fire. These towers were all window everywhere from the putside - where the hell were these hidden, raging fires? Reality eludes your beliefs.


It's not crap nad I already told you I don't do it because it's "exciting"! That is the real crap . It's actual evidence that would hold up as valid under any scrutiny. Because it is proof that goes against the fantasy that you somehow buy into, you can't invalidate it, so you think you can get around that by calling it crap. The official story is crap - and you can't get around that.

You're really living in a delusional state. The con men are the Gov't clowns and you are the poor sucker being fooled. How can such a pathetic story as the official one have you believing in it? It's mind boggling.


Firefighters don't need "x-ray vision" or microscopes to assess the situations they are in when they are in buildings fighting fires. There were a lot of very experienced firefighters in the towers on 9/11, and they were in communication with each other throughout. They know when there is structural instability or fires too large to handle. A structure impending on structural failure doesn't plummet in an instant - there are obvious signs of possible and imminent failure. The tapes prove there was no imminent structural failure. The buildings collapsed in about 10 seconds, which is near free fall speed, just as the firefighter said there was only 2 hoses needed to put out the fires. There is no magical collapse from some unknown and unseen red hot fires elsewhere in the buildings. That's absurd and beyond any chance of being provable.


All the forces at work? Come on, the buildings were not in any danger of collapse. I've already pointed out that they nearly free-fall collapsed without any indication of failure whatsoever - inside or outside the buildings. That's two buildings, with no signs of any structural failure. Get real!

I'm sure they would. Because they know it's a fact, not a theory. Like these ones...

Louie Cacchioli, aged 51, was a firefighter attached to Engine Company 47, based
uptown in Harlem. “We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck,” Cacchioli recounted later. “I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twenty-fourth floor to get in a position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building.”

Auxiliary Fireman Lt. Paul Isaac Jr. also spoke of bombs in an interview with internet
reporter Randy Lavello. Isaac had served with Engine Company 10 in lower Manhattan during the late 1990s, so he knew the area around the WTC. Isaac said that many New York firemen were very concerned about the ongoing cover-up of why the World Trade Center collapsed. “Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings,” he revealed, “but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid discussion of this fact. There were definitely bombs in those buildings.”

Would you like to go into their fire stations and tell them all that they 're "spewing out crap because they find it exciting"? Please do so, but I won't be paying for your hospital bills...or your funeral.

At 11:56 AM, NBC News broadcast a segment in which reporter Pat Dawson
summarized a conversation he had just had with Albert Terry of the FDNY. Terry had
told the reporter that he had about 200 firefighters in the WTC buildings at around 9 AM.
Then, Terry said, he had heard a kind of secondary explosion. Dawson:
Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City
Fire Department, who was obviously one of the first people here after the
two planes were crashed into the side, we assume, of the World Trade
Center towers, which used to be behind me over there. Chief Albert Terry
told me that he was here just literally five or ten minutes after the events
that took place this morning, that is the first crash. The Chief of Safety of
the Fire Department of New York City told me that shortly after 9:00 he
had roughly ten alarms, roughly 200 men, trying to effect rescues of some
of those civilians who were in there, and that basically he received word of
a secondary device, that is another bomb, going off. He tried to get his
men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another
explosion which took place. And then an hour after the first hit here, the
first crash, that took place, he said there was another explosion that took
place in one of the towers here. So obviously, according to his theory, he
thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.
One of the secondary devices, he thinks, that [detonated] after the initial
impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the
towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted
in the building. So that’s what we have been told by Albert Terry, who is
the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department. He told me
that just moments ago.

“The fact that veteran firefighters had ‘a coherent plan’ for putting out the ‘two pockets of fire’ indicates they judged the blazes to be manageable. These reports from the scene of the crash provide crucial evidence debunking the government’s claim that a raging steel-melting inferno led to the tower’s collapse.” (Marr 38-39)

Earlier in the morning, Pete Ganci, the Chief of the Department, and thus the highest-
ranking uniformed firefighter in the city, had told Giuliani: “We can save everybody
below the fire. Our guys are in the building, about halfway up the first tower.” (Giuliani 8) Ganci was killed in action later in the day.

Why not ask them about the way things were handled after the collapses too?

On Monday, November 11, Giuliani and his officials were again confronted by 200 angry firefighters and bereaved families at a meeting. Giuliani was accused again and again of running a “scoop and dump” operation. One widow protested: “Last week my husband was memorialized as a hero, and this week he’s thought of as landfill?” When Van Essen stammered that the department had been overwhelmed, a widow replied, “Stop saying you are overwhelmed! I am overwhelmed! I have three children and my husband is dead!” Dr. Hirsch of the “biological stain” theory discussed below tried to defend Giuliani by arguing that nothing resembling an intact body was being found any longer, but he was shouted down by firemen who knew from their experience on the pile that this was not so. Van Essen was forced to concede that, based on photographic evidence he personally examined, remains were indeed still be found that had to be “considered intact bodies.” (Van Essen 270-271)

Giuliani’s rush to eradicate the crime scene without regard to the preservation of human remains thus served two important goals. He was able to destroy much pertinent evidence, and he succeeded in throwing the firefighters on the defensive and playing them off against the police, the construction workers, and other groups. He was able to split the firefighters themselves. The firefighters were tied into knots emotionally, and were left with no time or energy to pursue the issue of justice for their heroic fallen comrades, which could only have been served by directly raising the issue of the indications of controlled demolition in numerous points of the World Trade Center complex. Nor was the cynical oligarchical strategy limited to Giuliani: at the 9/ commission’s last set of hearings in New York City, the FDNY, NYPD, and other line departments of the city were mercilessly baited by the likes of former Navy Secretary John Lehman, who told them that their operational coordination was inferior to that of a Boy Scout troop. So far the firefighters have not been able to mount a challenge to the 9/11 myth, which necessarily portrays them as incompetent, in spite of their heroism and huge losses. Only by demolishing the myth, only by unearthing the story of controlled demolition, can the immense historical merits of the firefighters be duly recognized.

The firefighters know what happened on 9/11. And it's not crap spewed out because it gives them a thrill. You know it, I've proven it to you. They would be completely pissed and disgusted by that comment. I'd stake all I have against your notion that they would not.

http://www.royalsoced.org.uk/events/report..._structures.pdf

"An uncontrolled fire in the contents was enough to bring down # 7 World Trade Center, the 47 story building that collapsed after being ignited by burning debris."

Other buildings were hit with burning debris too.

http://www.mceer.buffalo.edu/meetings/WTC/agenda.asp

Bottom right:The 90 West Street Building was hit by burning debris from the collapse of World Trade Center 2

And another building: http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/sto...25/daily14.html

"A fourth multi-story structure, the landmark Cass Gilbert building, was gutted by the fires resulting from burning debris that fell from the twin towers. Structural engineers estimated last fall that as many as seven to eight other buildings ultimately would have to be torn down because of extensive structural or other damage. "

Here it hit a post office:

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/LM/LM068.htm

"Burning debris struck the post office, igniting fires and releasing smoke and fumes. The building was further damaged by flooding from open sprinklers and the Fire Department's prolonged use of a standpipe in the building."

And, from someone's personal account, although this is only anecdotal evidence: http://www.dogcollector.com/nest/september_11.htm

So, since WTC was seen burning, it's reasonable to conclude that burnind debris hit WTC 7 and started a fire. What else would have started the fires? Government agents set them on purpose?



How does that support your argument?



You didn't understand the Cardington test very well the first time you posted that link ; you just jumped to the part you thought supported your theory - the bit about the temperature, without bothering with the heart of the report. Not only that, you didn't even seem to know the difference between a column and a beam.

Once again: the Cardington test involved protected, "cold" columns. Its results show the ability of a "composite" floor slab to take up loads from weakened beams, but little about the supporting columns. There were far different conditions in the WTC. The perimeter columns, core columns and floor slab were all damaged by the aircraft impact.



How do you know 95% of the steel wasn't exposed to fire by the planes?

NIST's working hypothesis is that the sprayed-on fireproofing was stripped off by the aircraft impact - you're saying it's impossible that this could have happened? How? Remember - it's sprayed on - the fireproofing was a vermiculite plaster. You think maybe an airplane impact could have deleterous effects on such material? Show me how it's impossible for the fireproofing to have been removed by the airplane impact.



No - they can only estimate the temperature of the fire, they can't know for sure. And it wasn't a fully developed fire. Just because you can't see flames pouring out if it like Dante's inferno doesn't mean that regions inside can't become hot as hell.

What temperature do you think the fire was, and why? Do you thin it was under 450C?



So you think the fact that firefighters in a burning building didn't predict an impending collapse is proof that the building couldn't have collapsed on its own?

No indication of failure? So you can look at a building and tell if it's about to collapse? you can judge the conditions inside and the condition of the support structures right on the spot? You're good, man. Real good.



Firefighters can't misjudge conditions in a building, even in an unprecedented event like 9-11?

Nobody knew what was going to happen that day - it was an unique event, and for you to believe that complex events like these are so easily predicted is telling.

The quotes from firefighters prove that they heard what they thought were bombs at the time. Mr. Cacchioli is only quoted once as saying bombs were in the building - that quote is taken at the time of the attacks. He never repeats this claim. He's still around today and has spoken about 9-11 as recently as September 2004, yet he never mentions bombs again. Given the dearth of other evidence of bombs in the building, it's reasonable that he was simply mistaken at the time. In the chaos of a collapsing building, that is not an unreasonable conclusion. Now if he repeated that claim today, that would be something else, but I haven't seen it, and yes I did look.



Isaac(who was not there) is citing unnamed firemen. This claim is unsubstantiated, yet you believe it. If there really are "many" out there, I think at least one would have come forward by now.

Besides, you think everyone in government with an acronym on their jacket is lying(except when they support your claims) so who's to say this guy isn't just flat-out lying?

But go ahead, go look up some firefighters who survived the events and ask them what you think. Let us know what happens. Since so many firefighters know the "truth," you should be confident that you can obtain a first-hand account from these guys. It would be the scoop of the century, not to mention you'd be doing us all a public service by exposing this evil conspiracy. What's stopping you?

I don't know why I bothered to type all that when your whole idiotic theory can be pretty well dealt with in two questions that anybody can understand.

Q1: Why is fireproofing material applied to structural steel?

Answer: Because it is vulnerable to fire.

Q2: What happened in the twin towers on 9-11?

Answer: A big-ass fire.

Thank you, come again!

Never mind. Don't bother answering those questions. I'm not wasting any more of my time reading or responding to you. Go ahead and declare that you've "won."

If you really want to test your theory, post it here.

Just keep in mind a couple things: you're not as smart as you think you are. And all these theories are about you, in the end. Your vanity, your ego, and your entertainment. You think you're pulling aside the veil of lies that has the rest of us poor dopes fooled, but not you! No, not the brave and brilliaint Turbonium, struggling to bring the light of truth to the befuddled masses! What crap.

All you are really doing with these half-baked theories of yours is masturbating to mass murder.

And I think we have heard quite enough of this subject...