Itinerant Air-Cooled

RSorak 71Westy wrote:My understanding of WTC7 was that their were large reserves of diesel fuel in the basement for the emergency generators.

Then why didn't we see massive fires therefrom?

The fact that people claim that jet/diesel fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel is not relevant because it only has to get hot enough for it to soften just a little, and this happens much cooler than the point at which it melts.

Agreed. It only needs to weaken the steel to the failure point.

But how could ALL of those dozens of columns soften, bend and fail at exactly the same moment?

Glad to see some more rational folks expressed their opinion.

If you're referring to me: I don't think I'm being irrational. I do think I'm open to questioning the official line. As I said above: The only story more preposterous than 'it was an inside job' is the story they tried to tell us was the truth.

I'd love to be proven wrong.

In the WTC towers it only took the center core supports to fail for the whole thing to come down.

In any steel frame structure the whole thing is tied together, if any one part or section fails, it impacts all the rest.

Just because this had never been seen before, I dont think is valid. How many high rise fires had not had major effort to put them out, and were left to burn, Like WTC7?

Are there any precedent-setting instances of huge skyscrapers being struck by airliners?

A B-25 "Mitchel" hit the Empire State Building in 1945....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empir ... ding_crash

Been here?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/assets/swf ... pse/sunder

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debun ... ories.html

How did the damage to the buildings compare?

I just added those links above, but a Mitchel is a lot smaller plane and held a lot less fuel airplane fuel vs JP4.

I'm on a lake canoeing with my sons. Hard to read the links ATM. :)

An excellent decision. We are going for a little kayak paddle ourselves here in a couple of hours. If we work it right, we can get the tides to work for us both ways.

Here's a link to Popular Mechanics which debunks the WTC collapse as conspiracy.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ws/1227842

Truly, though, if you think that the WTC could be demolished by a conspiracy and kept hidden, I guess you'd believe that PM could be bought out as well...



Mike

Lanval wrote:Here's a link to Popular Mechanics which debunks the WTC collapse as conspiracy.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ws/1227842

Truly, though, if you think that the WTC could be demolished by a conspiracy and kept hidden, I guess you'd believe that PM could be bought out as well...



Mike

I would not want to be categorized as irrational when I share that I have many many questions that have not been answered to my satisfaction. I too, am amazed at how neatly the WTC buildings pancaked.

WTC7 is a big question. Seven hours after the planes hit the towers, this little 47 story building just had to go down, perfectly? It collapsed in 7 seconds, only a second slower than free-fall gravity.

We have some incredible skyscraper fires on record, Caracas Venezuela, the spectacular February 9, 2009 Mandarin Oriental hotel fire in Beijing, the Windsor Building fire in Madrid in February 2005, even a couple here in the U.S. where the involvement to the building was far more severe, and none of the others collapsed, much less pancaked with the precision of a controlled demolition as did all three of the collapsed buildings at WTC. Look at the other four WTC buildings that got hammered and burned for hours and hours. They look like they suffered, particularly #4, but they were standing. Building 7? Pretty spiffy before it dropped so nicely.

Don't dismiss those of us who question as crackpots. These are questions that cannot be answered easily.
Colin

You obviously didnt read the pop mech link you quoted before you replied. Explains WTC7 nicely.

Amskeptic wrote:

Lanval wrote:Here's a link to Popular Mechanics which debunks the WTC collapse as conspiracy.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ws/1227842

Truly, though, if you think that the WTC could be demolished by a conspiracy and kept hidden, I guess you'd believe that PM could be bought out as well...



Mike

I would not want to be categorized as irrational when I share that I have many many questions that have not been answered to my satisfaction. I too, am amazed at how neatly the WTC buildings pancaked.

WTC7 is a big question. Seven hours after the planes hit the towers, this little 47 story building just had to go down, perfectly? It collapsed in 7 seconds, only a second slower than free-fall gravity.

We have some incredible skyscraper fires on record, Caracas Venezuela, the spectacular February 9, 2009 Mandarin Oriental hotel fire in Beijing, the Windsor Building fire in Madrid in February 2005, even a couple here in the U.S. where the involvement to the building was far more severe, and none of the others collapsed, much less pancaked with the precision of a controlled demolition as did all three of the collapsed buildings at WTC. Look at the other four WTC buildings that got hammered and burned for hours and hours. They look like they suffered, particularly #4, but they were standing. Building 7? Pretty spiffy before it dropped so nicely.

Don't dismiss those of us who question as crackpots. These are questions that cannot be answered easily.


Colin

The urge to see the machinations of those we hate in the evil deed that surround us is as old as man himself. I don't like Bush, and I consider Cheney a traitor worthy of trial. Even so, I argue that pull off this sort of thing would require more involvement and knowledge than could be easily kept secret, particularly since Bush/Cheney knew quite well that:

1. Sooner or later they'd be out of office; some evidence would be left behind, no matter how carefully planned. Someone would find it, and they'd be in trouble.
2. There are too many people in any version of the US gov't who both don't like the current regime, and have the power to do something about it. CIA, NSA, Congress and the Senate to name a few. No way could a controlled and deliberate destruction of those towers been done by the US or some faction of the US. Even less so is it possible that it could have been done by someone else with a grudge.

That said, the various incidents that people have questioned have been answered in detail by men who are well-paid to know whereof they speak.

Thus:

If you don't trust the various sources from outside the gov't which have turned an eye towards those theories and found them wanting, then ultimately you argue that it's all a conspiracy. There is no knowable truth, it's just lies upon lies. If that's the case then why bother searching for the truth at all? Why even question the authorities if, when your question is answered, you simply dismiss the answer itself as a charade meant to draw our attention away from the man behind the curtain?

Asking questions is not a problem; indeed, asking difficult and unpleasant questions is a requirement of our democratic state. But if every answer that doesn't correlate with your assumption of evil/conspiracy/trick is rejected, then you're not questioning ~ you're seeking confirmation of a worldview you already hold, and are no longer part of the solution, but part of the problem.

Let us not go down this road; until some evidence to the contrary appears, we must assume our best answers are true. This is, and has been since the moment man turned away from the failed promises of religion toward the more substantive, but less soothing answers that rational thought and science offer, the core of our democracy, even our race.

Mike

I recall seeing a video of the Popular Mechanic guys debunking Loose Change, it was a Democracy Now interview, I did not see anything that Popular Mechanics did that debunked anything in Loose Change.
I have not seen what these guys have to say yet.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
http://ae911truth.org/en/about-us.html
Two things from their site.

1,561 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 13,024 other supporters
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.

"It is obvious that these buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, and it is imperative that a new and unbiased investigation be undertaken immediately!"
~Will T., Ph.D., Education, U.C., Berkeley

They have a vid. I may not get to watch it, this is sorta old news to me. I see plenty happening right now that the Criminal Cartel that makes rules to keep itself in power is doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQgVCj7q49o


Here is another interesting site.
This is from the families of 9/11 victims who fought to create The 9/11 Commission. The battle they had to get an investigation and how it turned out is telling.
http://www.911pressfortruth.com/
And the vid
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... +the+truth


For years many believed the Earth was flat. This is due to the political and religious leaders of the time using many means to keep the masses believing a false hood they propagated.
Today, what story is being told by the leaders? Perhaps just like with the "earth is flat" we will find the lie is coming from the leaders.

steve74baywin wrote:For years many believed the Earth was flat. This is due to the political and religious leaders of the time using many means to keep the masses believing a false hood they propagated.

Wrong.

"The paradigm of a spherical Earth was developed in Greek astronomy, beginning with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most Pre-Socratics retained the flat Earth model. Aristotle accepted the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds around 330 BC, and knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on.[2][3][4][5]
The misconception that educated people at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief, has been referred to as "The Myth of the Flat Earth".[6] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[7]"

Later:

"The Earth's circumference was first determined around 240 BC by Eratosthenes. Eratosthenes knew that in Syene, in Egypt, the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice, while he estimated that the angle formed by a shadow cast by the Sun at Alexandria was 1/50th of a circle. He estimated the distance from Syene to Alexandria as 5,000 stades, and estimated the Earth's circumference was 250,000 stades.[63] Subsequently, ignorance of the size of a stade caused problems both to the Arabs and to Christopher Columbus."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Mike

RSorak 71Westy wrote:You obviously didnt read the pop mech link you quoted before you replied. Explains WTC7 nicely.

Excuse me. What I "obviously" did or did not read is not open to your speculation.
I read it. I read it as soon as it hit the magazine rack. I read the accounts of engineers selected by Popular Mechanics and, while food for thought, I do not consider their conclusions the last word. Neither do I categorically reject their conclusions. What I do reject, are people telling me what I obviously did nor did not read, and I reject the wording throughout the article that describes every questioner as a "conspiracist" who "seizes" on "facts", thus immediately twisting the argument into categories of sane people versus insane people.

So allow me to ask without your preemptive conclusions, why these three buildings are the very first steel skyscrapers on record to collapse and why the WTC7, without a plane hitting it or anything, still managed to collapse so thoroughly?
Colinsheesh