patrick.net

See?

It's hilarious how one of you "disliked" Occam's Razor. I think that says it all.

Avatar says

This is some heavy stuff and I trust the evidence and logic of a very large group of trained architects and engineers over you and Bob2356.

Squatting in E. CoCo is right, you guys sound like a couple of those social networking trolls.

Er, you mean you trust the opinions of a group of architects and engineers who share your conspiracy theory as opposed to accepting the views of the vast majority who don't. Remarkable.

Bigsby says

Avatar says

This is some heavy stuff and I trust the evidence and logic of a very large group of trained architects and engineers over you and Bob2356.

Squatting in E. CoCo is right, you guys sound like a couple of those social networking trolls.

Er, you mean you trust the opinions of a group of architects and engineers who share your conspiracy theory as opposed to accepting the views of the vast majority who don't. Remarkable.

That's correct. I go with informed opinion over the herd (who are like lemmings) any day.

Even though it's shocking, I'd rather know what really happened. I think that the majority don't really have much of a clue. Maybe everyone is too busy watching American Idol and Dancing with Stars

coriacci1 says

remember this little project and who was involved?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

I wouldn't be surprised about those guys

Avatar says

That's correct. I go with informed opinion over the herd (who are like lemmings) any day.

No, you've just chosen to latch onto a group of uninformed individuals because you are obviously one of those people who laps up conspiracy nonsense irrespective of the veracity of the arguments.

coriacci1 ...I agree with you. The detractors here think they are scientists but there is little light with their heads so far up their butts. Even if detractors have problems with the idea that WTC 7 fell without being hit by a plane, there is no denying that 9/11 gave the US govt so many goodies: Homeland Security, TSA, two wars, NDAA, increasing global police state, reasons to ignore the crimes committed by bankers against the people, all for starters.
It was in the US govts interest to see all this happen. No doubt Bush rubbed his hands with glee.
You see, all crimes have motives. The US govt gained far more than it lost. No doubt if they could do it again to accelerate the police state, and the primal fears of the great unwashed, they would.

laughnow says

The detractors here think they are scientists but there is little light with their heads so far up their butts.

I rather think you've got that arse-backwards.
Honestly, this is like banging your head against a brick wall. We rely on the knowledge and work done by respected scientists to form our opinions. The kooks on here are the ones that think they know better.

laughnow says

You see, all crimes have motives. The US govt gained far more than it lost.

And what exactly did the US gain from the last decade plus? Come on, fill me in on all the major benefits that have befallen the US (government) since 9/11.
And yes, crimes usually have motives. Remind me again who flew the planes into the WTC.

curious coincidence?

>http://grandtheftcountry.com/facts/911/foreknowledge/brown.html

another item that could use some 'splainin.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bush_newyork_9-11.html

Who ever knew the best lookin bush was marvin? marvin? ever heard of marvin bush?

laughnow says

coriacci1 ...I agree with you. The detractors here think they are scientists but there is little light with their heads so far up their butts. Even if detractors have problems with the idea that WTC 7 fell without being hit by a plane, there is no denying that 9/11 gave the US govt so many goodies: Homeland Security, TSA, two wars, NDAA, increasing global police state, reasons to ignore the crimes committed by bankers against the people, all for starters.
It was in the US govts interest to see all this happen. No doubt Bush rubbed his hands with glee.
You see, all crimes have motives. The US govt gained far more than it lost. No doubt if they could do it again to accelerate the police state, and the primal fears of the great unwashed, they would.

This is just too funny. You say the detractors "think they are scientists", and in the very next sentence, make an assertion that a building can't fall without being hit by a plane.

YOU are the one making an alleged scientific conclusion. Are you trained in building collapse forensics?

Also, to say that someone capitalized on event X, does not imply that they CAUSED event X. Your logic is suspect. That would be like saying Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin, must have invented syphilis, since he benefited from the ability of penicillin to cure syphilis.

I know you guys aren't big on logic, though.

Maybe you need to fix that hole in the tinfoil.

Squatting in East CoCo says

From NIST:
"The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building."

I can read the report also. Why don't you ever include the next paragraphs? Maybe because they say what you don't want to hear?

"According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed."

It says it got hot enough the floor pulled away from the supporting column. NOT that the column failed from the heat. Once the floors failed the unsupported weight buckled the column. Not hard to imagine, 9 floors worth of weight hanging on one end would be just a little hard on the column involved. All three buildings are nothing but a bunch of vertical columns with floor trusses hung in between. The columns support the trusses, the trusses support the columns. The floors failed which destroyed the columns. Try rereading it until you understand it.

So again NO I don't see a contradiction. The building got hot enough that lots of the steel warped and buckled until the floors failed. NOT hot enough to destroy steel or melt steel, just hot enough to deform it. That's well within the norm for building fires.

If the building just needed demolition the floors all would have been in place and explosives would have needed to cut enough columns to bring down the building. The point you simply aren't getting is that no says you couldn't bring down the building by blowing up the floor connectors, just that no one would do it that way. You are extrapolating what would be the normal way of doing building demolition into saying that a floor failure couldn't bring down the building because no one would demolish the building that way. Sorry but wouldn't=couldn't is a logic failure.

Gotta love these armchair engineers who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

coriacci1 says

curious coincidence?

>http://grandtheftcountry.com/facts/911/foreknowledge/brown.html

This shows that well connected people got private warnings. (from Condoleeza Rice?). More evidence that people high up in the food chain knew 9/11 was going to happen.

bob2356 says

So again NO I don't see a contradiction. The building got hot enough that lots of the steel warped and buckled until the floors failed. NOT hot enough to destroy steel or melt steel, just hot enough to deform it. That's well within the norm for building fires.
If the building just needed demolition the floors all would have been in place and explosives would have needed to cut enough columns to bring down the building. The point you simply aren't getting is that no says you couldn't bring down the building by blowing up the floor connectors, just that no one would do it that way.

How do you know "no one would do it that way"? People will do anything if they think it will fulfill their agenda.

About the rest of your comment, I've watched every video in this thread and I'm more convinced than ever that the 9/11 story is an insult to the American people.

Homeboy says

Gotta love these armchair engineers who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

Squatting makes more sense than you.

"Do you believe what you can see with your own eyes, or do you believe what you are told?"

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Zv7BImVvEyk

bob2356 says

So again NO I don't see a contradiction. The building got hot enough that lots of the steel warped and buckled until the floors failed. NOT hot enough to destroy steel or melt steel, just hot enough to deform it. That's well within the norm for building fires.

This makes the NIST report look silly. Lots of people saw melted steel with their own eyes. Melted steel can't happen with normal building fires, or with kerosene

http://www.youtube.com/embed/8YaFGSPErKU&feature=related

Avatar says

"Do you believe what you can see with your own eyes, or do you believe what you are told?"

Avatar says

I really learned a lot especially when I look through some of the recommended websites by some of the posters.

Avatar says

I trust the evidence and logic of a very large group of trained architects and engineers

Avatar says

I go with informed opinion

Sounds like YOU believe what you are told. LOL.

Avatar says

This makes the NIST report look silly.

Have you even READ the NIST report?

Lots of people saw melted steel with their own eyes. Melted steel can't happen with normal building fires, or with kerosene

This is too easy, Avatar. Why don't you try challenging us?

0:01 “I'm curious, uh, about the, uh, pool of molten steel...that was found...in the...in the bottom of the towers.”

“Have you seen it?”

“Not personally.” FAIL!!!

1:01 “You get down below, you see molten steel” ← Who said this? A fireman? How did he know it was steel? Did he do a metallurgy test on it right there on the spot? FAIL!!!

1:14: “Who is this guy? What is his training in metallurgy? Who knows? FAIL!!!

1:35: “There are very sharp, but breakable shards on the end here” ← Steel that you can break with your bare hands? Um, that ain't steel. Did you hear they took “gullible” out of the dictionary? FAIL!!!

1:40 “This 8 ton steel I-beam is six inches thick.” And is it melted? No. What did the NIST say in their report? They said that steel did NOT melt due to the fires - “However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.” Hmmm... your video shows a bent piece of steel. How is that inconsistent with the NIST report? Answer: it isn't. FAIL!!!

3:28 “8 weeks later we still got fires burning.” I thought the conspiracy theory you guys keep throwing around says it was a controlled demolition. Can you name any other controlled demolitions that resulted in fires that burned for 8 weeks? So how is this proof that it was a controlled demolition. It isn't. SUPER FAIL!!!

3:52 “Molten metal...” Did he say molten steel? No. EPIC FAIL!!!

Just because you see something that's melted doesn't mean it's steel. You got nothing. You lose.

Avatar says

"Do you believe what you can see with your own eyes, or do you believe what you are told?"

That video is ridiculous. What exactly do you think it demonstrates? It proves absolutely nothing of what you are trying to allege.

Avatar says

This makes the NIST report look silly. Lots of people saw melted steel with their own eyes. Melted steel can't happen with normal building fires, or with kerosene

Amazing, all the people in the video that saw molten steel with their own eyes and absolutely none of them thought to take a picture of it. I always liked the picture on 911truth.org that shows the group of firemen standing around looking down at an orange glow of "molten steel". Especially since the original shows them with their flashlights (edited out in the 911truth.org version of the pic) and the glow isn't orange, it's the white of the flashlights. Of course anyone who has done high school metal shop foundry work knows that they weren't standing around like that looking down at molten steel without getting 3rd degree burns. But why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy?

Squatting in East CoCo says

A floor failure in a fire wouldn't (couldn't) have pulverised concrete into a huge pyroclastic flow and leave a nice little pile of rubble. There was a LOT of energy released in that DEMOLITION.

Wow, that's so cool. So the unknown, mysterious people who did the demolition didn't do an ordinary demolition that just knocked the building down, they did some kind of super demolition that pulverized all the concrete in the building. Very clever. That way anyone thinking that the buildings were demolished by explosives would be fooled by all the pulverized concrete. What did they use to pulverize all the concrete do you think? Holy Cow batman, that's why there was no explosive residue, they used an atomic bomb. Very very clever people. A HUGE pyroclastic flow, that's really cool also. Just curious, where did it flow to by the way? There's not a lot of downhill slope in lower manhatten.

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-There,-Their-and-They%27re

Ya gotta love how one of the truthers' arguments is the fires weren't that hot, and another one of their arguments is that the fires were really hot.

what does conspiracy mean anyway?

The earth is flat Batman.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but I would just like to have my mind put at ease.

-Why did multiple witnesses claim to hear multiple explosions before each of the twin towers came down?

-Building 7 was not seriously damaged, and was clearly not fully engulfed in flames. It housed all of the SEC's documents relating to investigations into Enron and other major corporations at the time. Why would it implode straight down?

-Why did the coroner that arrived on scene of the wreckage of flight 93 not find one drop of blood or sign of any human remains?

-Why is there not one single video capturing a plane hitting the Pentagon?

- How is it possible that not one single black box was recovered from either plane (2 on each plane) in the rubble at ground zero?

- How good of a pilot would you have to be to fly a 757 at close to its maximum capable speed, and bank a turn, and score a direct hit dead center of a building?

- What the hell was Dick Cheney talking about?

The list goes on and on...
I am really not one to believe in conspiracy theories. I simply think there are a ton of questions with no good answers.... or no answers period.

What's more hilarious is that you think Ockham had a razor....

Homeboy says

It's hilarious how one of you "disliked" Occam's Razor.

SoftShell says

What's more hilarious is that you think Ockham had a razor....

Looks like he shaved his head.

coriacci1 says

what does conspiracy mean anyway?

It's that thing you believe in.

Homeboy says

It's that thing you believe in.

you presume much.

coriacci1 says

you presume much.

You lie much.

Why would "they" need to bring down building 7? Wouldn't the two towers be enough? Wouldn't it arouse unnecessary suspicion? The two towers failed at the point of impact. (or did "they" know where the planes were going to hit and place explosives only below those points?)

Homeboy says

Down is the direction that buildings fall, because of gravity. If you knew anything about physics, you would know that it is actually more difficult to make a skyscraper fall over sideways than it is to make it fall down.

you know nothing of physics, obviously.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Er, you mean you trust the opinions of a group of architects and engineers who share your conspiracy theory as opposed to accepting the views of the vast majority who don't. Remarkable.

The vast majority, as you say, are stupid. Wake up. Here is the video that should put your little misguided thinking into it's proper place:

If you dare watch that video, you will see absolute evidence that the government was totally involved in 911. I dare you to watch it.

Gary Anderson strategicdefaultbooks.com

Oh for FFS, your proof is a Youtube video with 130 views of a couple of firemen in a state of shock trying to get a handle on what is happening. You really are stretching it, aren't you?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Please provide link. I can't find a single picture of an airliner hitting the pentagon.

So they blew up the Pentagon as well, did they?

Squatting in East CoCo says

Homeboy says

YOU are the one making an alleged scientific conclusion. Are you trained in building collapse forensics?

Homeboy, what are your credentials? Education? Profession? Are you trained in building collapse forensics?

I rather think you are missing the point.