911 Pentagon Video Footage

[flyingswan]

Perhaps the most telling external analysis came from NIST’s own former chief of the fire science division, James Quintiere, at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference: -

“I wish that there would be a peer review of this ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable ... Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another ... In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.”

If you nominate someone as an expert, you don't get to cherry-pick which of his opinions you accept and which you reject. In spite of all his reservations about the NIST investigation, Quintiere doesn't support your position at all:

Quintiere stressed, however, that he never believed explosives played a role. He said NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it.

http://www.guardian....september11.usa

[Q24]

May I remind you that the 9/11 Truth Movement does not have the support of professional and private pilots, architects, and civil engineers.

All you are reminding me is that your statements are ignorant or badly worded.

Yes the truth movement does have the support of thousands of professionals in all fields, including hundreds of pilots and the 1,700+ members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth who petition for a new WTC investigation. In fact, the truth movement has more professionals in support who have demonstratably researched the subject, than can be said for those in support of the official theory.

It is apparent that what you are actually trying to say is that the truth movement does not have support of the largest professional membership bodies, and that would be quite true. But as these entities are not necessarily representative of the views of their membership (many of whom may not have independently researched the subject), this means very little quantifiable.

Two quick points about this topic. First, the editor has the option of allowing longer articles if he thinks the topic merits it:

The journal editor may waive these guidelines to encourage papers on topics that cannot be treated within these limitations. Such topics may include state-of-the-art reviews and detailed case histories. However, authors are advised that most topics can be covered within these limitations, and that clear justification is required for longer manuscripts.

http://www.asce.org/...al-Submissions/

Second, you keep claiming that Gourley's piece was peer-reviewed, but in fact discussion pieces just go through an editorial review process:

To accept or decline a Discussion or Closure, one review is required by the editor or someone he or she designates to review Discussions. It does not need to be sent to an individual reviewer unless the Discussion reviewer feels an outside review, for particular expertise, is necessary.

http://www.asce.org/...on-Peer-Review/

This does not affect any of my argument, only further demonstrates that mainstream journal publications are almost entirely at mercy of the editor and possible political considerations.

If you nominate someone as an expert, you don't get to cherry-pick which of his opinions you accept and which you reject. In spite of all his reservations about the NIST investigation, Quintiere doesn't support your position at all:

Quintiere stressed, however, that he never believed explosives played a role. He said NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it.

http://www.guardian....september11.usa

Of course you get to pick which opinions you accept and which you reject when such opinions do not impinge upon one another – obviously people can have overlapping areas of agreement without agreeing wholesale. There are two theories here: the NIST theory and the demolition theory. I am using an area of agreement between Quintiere and myself – his scathing attack on the NIST study - to make the point that NIST failed to prove their case. I am not using the area where Quintiere and myself disagree – the WTC demolitions - as evidence for my case.

[flyingswan]

This does not affect any of my argument, only further demonstrates that mainstream journal publications are almost entirely at mercy of the editor and possible political considerations.

It certainly affects your erroneous claim that Gourley's piece was peer-reviewed.

Of course you get to pick which opinions you accept and which you reject when such opinions do not impinge upon one another – obviously people can have overlapping areas of agreement without agreeing wholesale. There are two theories here: the NIST theory and the demolition theory. I am using an area of agreement between Quintiere and myself – his scathing attack on the NIST study - to make the point that NIST failed to prove their case. I am not using the area where Quintiere and myself disagree – the WTC demolitions - as evidence for my case.

A ridiculous argument.

The only point for you invoking Quintiere's name is that he is an expert on building fires who supports your NIST case. If his expertise is so dubious that he can't identify a demolition, why should his opinion of the NIST investigation carry any weight? If his expertise is so great that it supports your case about NIST, why doesn't it support the case for no demolition?

Edited October 12, 2012 by flyingswan

[Q24]

It certainly affects your erroneous claim that Gourley's piece was peer-reviewed.

Obviously you have not read the previous discussion, or at least gathered the point. The issue was regarding whether Gourley’s piece met standards of the journal. Seeing as it was reviewed and published, that was clearly the case. Whether it was “peer-reviewed” or “editor-reviewed” has no bearing on the point - Gourley's piece was fit for publication.

A ridiculous argument.

The only point for you invoking Quintiere's name is that he is an expert on building fires who supports your NIST case. If his expertise is so dubious that he can't identify a demolition, why should his opinion of the NIST investigation carry any weight? If his expertise is so great that it supports your case about NIST, why doesn't it support the case for no demolition?

The only thing ridiculous is your insistence that you must agree with every aspect of another person’s view to find common ground in one area – what a daft argument. To the rest of your comment: Quintiere is, as you said, a building fire expert, not a covert controlled demolition expert. He is best placed to critique the NIST study. And again, the fact is, as pointed out by Quintiere, that the NIST study failed to prove cause of the WTC collapses. I’m not interested in your sidetracking beyond that.

[flyingswan]

Obviously you have not read the previous discussion, or at least gathered the point. The issue was regarding whether Gourley’s piece met standards of the journal. Seeing as it was reviewed and published, that was clearly the case. Whether it was “peer-reviewed” or “editor-reviewed” has no bearing on the point - Gourley's piece was fit for publication.

As the Journal obviously had different standards for discussion pieces, which didn't involve peer review, your use of the term is misleading.

The only thing ridiculous is your insistence that you must agree with every aspect of another person’s view to find common ground in one area – what a daft argument. To the rest of your comment: Quintiere is, as you said, a building fire expert, not a covert controlled demolition expert.

You are simply begging the question. Just because you claim a covert demolition, you can't rule out Quintiere's expertise in building fires. If you are wrong about the demolition and the fires brought down the building, Quintiere's expertise in building fires is relevant. You have to prove your covert demolition first, and a major obstacle to that proof is that you have to explain why an expert in fires who you hold in high regard rules out a demolition.

[MID]

Ok, that’s what I’m looking for.

I honestly don’t know about other topics in the journal, but in general, to keep it fair, I’m sure you know that academic debates set an equal word or time limit for the opposing sides to present their arguments. Does the fact that Bazant was permitted two to three times more words than Gourley, and that he has the more impressive past resume on paper, make it fair? Perhaps the fact that Bazant was permitted two to three times more words than Gourley, and that he has the more impressive resume on paper, and also has the political and media establishment on his side, makes it fair? Perhaps the fact that Bazant was permitted two to three times more words than Gourley, and that he has the more impressive resume on paper, and also has the political and media establishment on his side, and that the truth movement is attacked from within, makes it fair? Well then, perhaps it’s fair that scientists were silenced during the time of Lysenkoism?

No, none of this is genuinely fair; it is illegitimately biased.

I do respect the way you begin and end the quoted section above with, “I’m not sure”, almost accepting the bias is apparent, but holding out for another answer which you cannot grasp (most likely because it does not exist). It’s nothing to do with technical standard of the journal which you brought up again in your post – that is for the peer-review to decide, which Gourley’s paper passed. The decision to limit Gourley/de-limit Bazant is an editorial/political decision. And of course 9/11 is a political issue. Can you imagine the attack JEM would be open to from powerful pro-war elements of the establishment if the journal gave appearance of the official and alternative 9/11 theories being on equal standing?

Anyhow, as I said, the difficulty of publishing such sensitive papers is really just a sideshow. Those seeking 9/11 truth have managed to publish papers, not only many at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but in mainstream journals – that was the real point. I don’t see that official theorists have done much better in the area of proving their case in journals. Apart from Bazant’s papers, there was that ridiculous Chinese paper supporting the collapses, which flyingswan once linked – which, so desperate to produce a global collapse, began by placing the WTC1 impact in completely the wrong location in the model. Certainly the NIST study, if it ever were to be peer-reviewed, would be derided for not proving the case of what happened on 9/11...

Perhaps the most telling external analysis came from NIST’s own former chief of the fire science division, James Quintiere, at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference: -

“I wish that there would be a peer review of this ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable ... Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another ... In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.”

People should really not criticize efforts of the truth movement and bias they face before getting their own house in order.

I have shown 1,700+ experts, still growing in number, and of which there are many hundreds more in other professional/scientific fields, who do agree with me. Can you show me all these experts who have definitely evaluated the points I argue and disagree with me? If not, it seems that my support is built upon facts and figures, whilst that you appeal to would be founded more in possibilities and speculation.

I don't think the vast majority of actual professionals care about positions like the one you promote.

I just met with a pile of AIAA members, all engineers, aerospace folks. The only response I ever get from these folks is a stare, and a smile (or not...depends)...if I say, "Hey folks, check this out and tell me what you think!"

Then I hand them a pile of your posts. Or just read one.

This is nut case stuff. Unsubstantitated nonsense. Always has been.

No actual professional accepts it, or acknowledges it!

Yet, no matter how much that's known, you people will continue, to insist on your unsubstantiated positions.

Wonder why I am here at all?

Hmmm. Me too!

[skyeagle409]

All you are reminding me is that your statements are ignorant or badly worded.

Yes the truth movement does have the support of thousands of professionals in all fields, including hundreds of pilots and the 1,700+ members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth who petition for a new WTC investigation. In fact, the truth movement has more professionals in support who have demonstratably researched the subject, than can be said for those in support of the official theory.

9/11 conspiracist do not have the support of professionals. Another example was at our last Christmas party where military, commercial, private pilots, and military crew members met together in Vacaville, CA. and not one supported the 9/11 conspiracist.

Edited October 12, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Holy Cow, an actual Christmas Party! Yeah, that's certainly convincing proof!

And the other big scientific proof, don't forget, is that the fabled hijackers were religious zealots, determined to hook up with 72 virgins. That quality endowed them with superlative flying skills!

Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that the government never lies and is concerned only with the truth.

[skyeagle409]

Holy Cow, an actual Christmas Party! Yeah, that's certainly convincing proof!

A Christmas party of military, commercial, private pilots and military crew members. Professionals, you understand!

Edited October 12, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Yes the truth movement does have the support of thousands of professionals in all fields, including hundreds of pilots and the 1,700+ members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth who petition for a new WTC investigation. In fact, the truth movement has more professionals in support who have demonstratably researched the subject, than can be said for those in support of the official theory.

None of the military, commercial, and private pilots I have spoken with support the 9/11 conspiracist.

And, another example.

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

-----------------------------------------------------

* Controlled Demolition Inc

* D.H. Griffin Companies

* Mazzocchi Wrecking

* Gateway Demolition

* Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal

So once again, where is your evidence that explosives were used? Experts and investigators have said no explosions were seen nor heard during the collapse of the WTC buildings, which was evident in the videos, and no evidence of explosives were found in the WTC rubble.

Edited October 12, 2012 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

I don't think the vast majority of actual professionals care about positions like the one you promote.

I just met with a pile of AIAA members, all engineers, aerospace folks. The only response I ever get from these folks is a stare, and a smile (or not...depends)...if I say, "Hey folks, check this out and tell me what you think!"

Then I hand them a pile of your posts. Or just read one.

This is nut case stuff. Unsubstantitated nonsense. Always has been.

No actual professional accepts it, or acknowledges it!

Yet, no matter how much that's known, you people will continue, to insist on your unsubstantiated positions.

Wonder why I am here at all?

Hmmm. Me too!

Makes me wonder where he got the idea his view had the support of architects, civil engineers, pilots, and demolition experts. The overwhelming majority do not support 9/11 conspiracist.

[MID]

Makes me wonder where he got the idea his view had the support of architects, civil engineers, pilots, and demolition experts. The overwhelming majority do not support 9/11 conspiracist.

Yea, me too, Sky. It's c onstant curiosity, requiring some explanation on his part!

But, that won't be forthcoming anytime soon, so..

..I ask the same question I ask about other prfotagonists on other CT threads--who do the very same things..

Why bother?

.

Edited October 13, 2012 by MID

[+Liquid Gardens]

Ok, that’s what I’m looking for.

I honestly don’t know about other topics in the journal, but in general, to keep it fair, I’m sure you know that academic debates set an equal word or time limit for the opposing sides to present their arguments. Does the fact that Bazant was permitted two to three times more words than Gourley, and that he has the more impressive past resume on paper, make it fair?

What, exactly, do academic debates have to do with scientific journals? That is not their purpose. Did this journal state that they were going to be hosting a debate? It doesn't really make much sense to me insinuate that there is some unfairness on the part of mainstream journals when said journals have no obligation to anyone; they certainly are not under the obligation to allow longer articles beyond their general word limit guidelines. Do you have any record of a journal refusing to accept a submission because of the political sensitivity, or even mentioning it at all? Swan has already provided you their guidelines clearly indicating that they allow longer articles, it's not uncommon apparently.

And as I think boony said, this whole 'unfairness' point in the context of science is just plain whiny. Nothing is preventing them from continuing their work and research. I'm sorry that they have to do just as much work and convincing as every other scientist and professional on the planet to get their ideas published. This isn't the courtroom where all your circumstantial evidence has some sway, this is the much higher bar of scientific publications where conclusions from circumstantial evidence are accurately called 'conjecture'. And not published.

Perhaps the fact that Bazant was permitted two to three times more words than Gourley, and that he has the more impressive resume on paper, and also has the political and media establishment on his side, makes it fair? Perhaps the fact that Bazant was permitted two to three times more words than Gourley, and that he has the more impressive resume on paper, and also has the political and media establishment on his side, and that the truth movement is attacked from within, makes it fair?

Maybe he has the political and media establishment on his side because he is correct? Why do you act like this is not a possibility? This is the problem with almost every single argument or evidence point we've gone over in the last few months; there is always, in my and many others' view, at the very least an alternative explanation to every point you bring up, many of them I'd even say are more accurately called a 'more probable' explanation (*cough* 'media had foreknowledge of WTC7 collapse' *cough*). Yes, you can occasionally use circumstantial evidence alone successfully in court, but that tactic is devastated by simply pointing out that the circumstantial evidence also supports a different explanation or multiple scenarios. I know I've said this before, this is what makes you so easy to dispute, it is the overall vulnerable spot in your overall argument, your certainty is out of proportion from the evidential support. Maybe ultimately we will find out you are correct, but that's going to require a lot more data, there's gobs of it missing at critical places in your argument. But you act like that missing data is no hindrance at all, and forge on feeling justified referring to people as criminals and insinuating that people, that may be 100% innocent, are implicated in some way in the mass murder of thousands.

Well then, perhaps it’s fair that scientists were silenced during the time of Lysenkoism?

Yep, you've nailed it, it's just like mid 20th Century Soviet Russia, modern America is so similar. And making kids wear uniforms at school, just like the Nazis.

And again, what a bunch of whiny bull, 'silenced'. There have never been more ways for patriots like our brave truthers to communicate than any time in human history, what a joke. It's not the opportunity to be heard that they want, it's to be legitimate. Unfortunately, that has to be earned, and it's difficult.

No, none of this is genuinely fair; it is illegitimately biased.

I'm not going to look it up but I could have swore that you were just chiding boony or someone for providing 'just their opinion'.

I do respect the way you begin and end the quoted section above with, “I’m not sure”, almost accepting the bias is apparent, but holding out for another answer which you cannot grasp (most likely because it does not exist).

I'm kind of surprised you respect that because I see almost none of it from you: "I'm not sure". And you have mischaracterized me, I've already grasped and stated it, it's amazing that it even needs to be said again: they are not being biased if their standards are not met. Again, they are not hosting a debate, truthers are entirely free to keep working and keep submitting. Of course the way you originally stated the point is so loaded to begin with, insinuating that the undefined set 'mainstream journals' have been 'proven' to be biased; how many, are you sure it's bias? You're nowhere near proof, and you're not answering my direct questions for your evidence of bias due to political sensitivity; I didn't ask if it was possible. Right now this is purely based on your imagination.

It’s nothing to do with technical standard of the journal which you brought up again in your post – that is for the peer-review to decide, which Gourley’s paper passed. The decision to limit Gourley/de-limit Bazant is an editorial/political decision.

Nice try, 'editorial' and 'political' need to be divided by more than a slash. Of course, it's a an editorial decision: they didn't 'limit' Gourley, they gave him the same amount of words they give most of their submissions, they treated him fairly. They gave Bazant more words for reasons unknown, possibly because of political sensitivity, maybe because he's a luminary, maybe because he's just plain correct, maybe because they had extra space that month; only one of those is what I'd call 'biased'. Especially since this isn't a debate, no one was crowned the winner.

I've been meaning to rip into you about pretty much flat out misleading me that Gourley's paper was peer-reviewed as that term is used in reference to normal papers, it appears that this was an editorial review which is different, but it's Friday we'll let it go. I will say that I have felt a little guilty that I've gotten too busy to respond to many of the posts you've made on TT, but when I have to unpack your statements and see if, surprise, surprise, I think you are significantly overstating them, I don't feel so bad as you're essentially making me check out nearly everything you say.

And of course 9/11 is a political issue. Can you imagine the attack JEM would be open to from powerful pro-war elements of the establishment if the journal gave appearance of the official and alternative 9/11 theories being on equal standing?

Do you realize how much credibility JEM would gain by standing against these pro-war elements, providing the evidence of the attacks, and showing that their commitment is to what they say it is: science? I know you don't realize the fame and fortune, of not just a celebrity but a historical nature, awaiting anyone that could really demonstrate your case with a lot of good evidence. I wish you had a more realistic assessment of your abilities to determine the behavior of so many people you've never met, based on your imagination about what they think and fear and believe and can do. I wish you could imagine the scenario, that just might actually be the reality despite your certainty, that the official and alternative theories are not actually on equal standing at this point, it's possible no matter how you avoid it.

Anyhow, as I said, the difficulty of publishing such sensitive papers is really just a sideshow. Those seeking 9/11 truth have managed to publish papers, not only many at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but in mainstream journals – that was the real point. I don’t see that official theorists have done much better in the area of proving their case in journals. Apart from Bazant’s papers, there was that ridiculous Chinese paper supporting the collapses, which flyingswan once linked – which, so desperate to produce a global collapse, began by placing the WTC1 impact in completely the wrong location in the model. Certainly the NIST study, if it ever were to be peer-reviewed, would be derided for not proving the case of what happened on 9/11...

Again, I really haven't seen much expertise demonstrated that I should give your opinion of scientific papers that much merit. And we went over this months ago: there ain't no 'proving' in science.

People should really not criticize efforts of the truth movement and bias they face before getting their own house in order.

A large part of the 9/11 conspiracy 'evidence' I've heard so far has one glaring problem: confirmation bias. Can you really say that all in the truth movement are unbiased? Are you?

I have shown 1,700+ experts, still growing in number, and of which there are many hundreds more in other professional/scientific fields, who do agree with me. Can you show me all these experts who have definitely evaluated the points I argue and disagree with me? If not, it seems that my support is built upon facts and figures, whilst that you appeal to would be founded more in possibilities and speculation.

What a poor argument. Can you show me all the experts who have evaluated alchemy and disagree with it? Here have some other facts and figures. 1700 is a little over 1% of licensed architects alone, let alone including the numbers of engineering and construction disciplines, which makes 1700 seem pretty pathetic after a freakin decade. Your hand-wavy explanation as to why all the other experts are silent, despite significant incentives and interest and investigation, is based purely on indeed, 'possibilities and speculation'; I'd even go so far as to say that some of your assertions on this point are pretty much ungrounded fantasy. You ignore that two-thirds of the 'establishment' boogeyman is not (edit) motivated by ideology, business and media are motivated by money which comes from the population; the government needs those two far more than they need it. That results in incentives for, well, just the biggest story ever.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Liquid Gardens

[booNyzarC]

Watch out LG, you're bound to get the silent treatment, like me, with posts like that.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Ha, perhaps boony, Q's and my conversation has gone well though; it's sunshine and butterflies compared to he and you or swan. As always I'm only intending to criticize the argument not the person. And I know it's implied that there are 'sides' here on the forum, but I invite anyone to disagree with me, feel free to point out where you disagree with my assessment and arguments against Q or anything actually, especially people like you that I do agree with on other things. And I don't intend to let anyone off the hook either: skyeagle, you might be next bro, did I see you agreed or something with Roswell? Another topic I'm very vaguely educated on, sorry if I'm misrepresenting you, but if so, that may be my next to-do on UM.

And christ, when on earth am I going to get another star? I'm sick of Ectoplasmic Residue. If only you earned them by word count instead of post count...

[Zaphod222]

Ok Boon, I can see it now. You can see the Tail and the whole body. I thought the white thing was supposed to tbe the plane, but it's the smoke/debris.

Still doesn't prove it wasn't an inside job though.

I love conspiracies, but this "troother" crap is just too much. So, if you don´t believe that after thousands of jihadist attacks, the US government would actually feel the need to fake another one? Why?

In your mind, was the US Cole bombing, the Beirut barracks bombing, the Nairobi embassy bombing, the Kobar compound bombing, and for that matter the first attempt to blow the WTC in 1993 also an "inside job"?

So, the US government has been attacking itself for several decades now?

Good grief.

[Babe Ruth]

I wonder why Fire Engineering Magazine had trouble with the official story?

I wonder why defenders of the official story cannot explain the source of the heat observed? Vaporized bodies? Blistered paint and melted tires and busted-out windows in vehicles?

I have a hunch about why those companies and individuals who support the official story are the same who had a history of government contracts, yes I do. Common sense DOES come into play.

[skyeagle409]

I wonder why Fire Engineering Magazine had trouble with the official story?

I wonder why defenders of the official story cannot explain the source of the heat observed?

American 11 and United 175, and their fuel loads.

Collapse

World Trade Center Aftermath

NFPA’s chief building fire protection engineer. “The heat from the jet fuel fires, which are estimated to have reached temperatures of 2,000°F (1,093°C), would’ve been hot enough to melt the steel trusses holding up the oncrete-slab floors.”

“As an engineer,” says Bonnie Manley, NFPA’s structural engineer, “I was thankful to see the buildings still standing, but I knew it wasn’t beyond the realm of possibility that they’d collapse. There was no immediate collapse, but the fires weakened the structures, and one collapsed and then the other in what’s called a ‘pancake failure’—one floor falling down on the other.”

To maximize the space inside the buildings, the towers were designed with a column-free interior supported by an inner core of steel columns and the tubular steel that ringed the structures. The aircrafts’ impact, the explosion,

and the heat from the resulting fires softened the steel girders until they could no longer support the weight above them.

According to David Hague, NFPA’s senior fire protection engineer, the initial impacts probably rendered the sprinkler and standpipe systems inoperative on the fire floors and displaced any fire-resistance coatings on the structural steel. This exposed the steel to temperatures in the range of 1,600°F (871°C) and higher. “At that temperature, steel deforms, particularly when under load,” he says. Even if the fire protection systems had remained operative, it’s unlikely they’d have discharged enough water to protect the structural steel, he says.

“We can design systems to cope with the fire loading presented by such quantities of jet fuel—it’s done constantly in aircraft hangars,” Hague notes. “But the system would be a foam system, and a foam system isn’t practical for buildings of this type. Water has some effect on jet fuel, but it’s not as effective as foam.”

http://www.nfpa.org/...curepdf/wtc.pdf

Vaporized bodies?

If they were vaporized, how would anyone have known? But, you have been saying that temperatures were too low to weaken steel and now, you are flip-flopping.

Blistered paint and melted tires and busted-out windows in vehicles?

When you have fires, you can expect temperatures to be high another to blister paint.

I have a hunch about why those companies and individuals who support the official story are the same who had a history of government contracts, yes I do. Common sense DOES come into play.

It has been more than 11 years since the 9/11 attacks, so why haven't 9/11 conspiracist presented evidence that refutes the official story?

Edited October 13, 2012 by skyeagle409

[MID]

Holy Cow, an actual Christmas Party! Yeah, that's certainly convincing proof!

And the other big scientific proof, don't forget, is that the fabled hijackers were religious zealots, determined to hook up with 72 virgins. That quality endowed them with superlative flying skills!

Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that the government never lies and is concerned only with the truth.

Two egg nogs nminimum for you at the party.

It'll help relax you, and may just stimulate a desire to look at what you say a little less posessed by your zeal.

I could also ask you to illustrate one superlative flying skill exhibited by a terrorist on 9-11-01.

But no, I've already asked, and you invented the " HANI MANEUVER." That didn't work out too well. You'll have to do better than that fiction.

[MID]

A Christmas party of military, commercial, private pilots and military crew members. Professionals, you understand!

I don't think he can, Sky.

He's not one of those people.

[MID]

It has been more than 11 years since the 9/11 attacks, so why haven't 9/11 conspiracist presented evidence that refutes the official story?

Can't wait for his answer to that one Sky.

I know we can't expect honesty:

"There is no such evidence, anywhere..."

[Babe Ruth]

Two egg nogs nminimum for you at the party.

It'll help relax you, and may just stimulate a desire to look at what you say a little less posessed by your zeal.

I could also ask you to illustrate one superlative flying skill exhibited by a terrorist on 9-11-01.

But no, I've already asked, and you invented the " HANI MANEUVER." That didn't work out too well. You'll have to do better than that fiction.

That would be swell MID, if we could fly together. That would be terrific, if only we had an airplane we could do it in. Do you own an airplane?

[MID]

That would be swell MID, if we could fly together. That would be terrific, if only we had an airplane we could do it in. Do you own an airplane?

Unfortunately, I don't own a 757 that could be configured like the one on 9-11. I don't see the point on getting my hands on a Falcon or a Gulfstream just to do the Hani Maneuver (... )

Executing basically a standard rate right 330 I did long ago, even descending. I

Edited October 13, 2012 by MID

[MID]

That would be swell MID, if we could fly together. That would be terrific, if only we had an airplane we could do it in. Do you own an airplane?

I meant that you should come up with something better than the idea of the Hani maneuver. That standard rate right turn was easy. Trying to imitate that superior airmanship isn't interesting to me. Maybe it is to you?

[DONTEATUS]

BR BS ASAP DOD TAC Its all in the way that one looks at it. Some may need too look a bit closer. Im with Mid on this Train wreck. Time to Lock the doors.