patrick.net

a few more points to consider.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/8_tf25lx_3o

http://www.youtube.com/embed/0BjbjXMlCHc
http://www.youtube.com/embed/56nQnqf7zwA
http://www.youtube.com/embed/SC3Se86IBAw&feature=related

Squatting in East CoCo says

SO a little fire brought it all down by causing a "key structural column to fail". But it would have taken massive amounts of explosives around "most, if not all, interior columns" to blow it up. Can you see the contradiction?

Why are you deliberately misquoting the NIST report? You left out a crucial part of the sentence. And it wasn't a "little" fire. That's ridiculous. You truthers have already decided on your conclusion, and would do anything to convince yourselves - mislead, misquote, lie, whatever.

Are you a structural engineer with experience in building demolition? If not, then how do you know what is required to cause a building to fall down? This is the problem - a bunch of self-proclaimed experts who imagine they know something because they know how to get on the internet.

Squatting in East CoCo says

Homeboy says

No shit? A chemist or engineer. LOL. Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about, so how do you know if it's possible to do such a thing?

Use the truth if it is on your side, otherwise try personal attacks.

I don't think you know what the word "truth" means. You are using it in a religious sense. Your religion (the conspiracy theory) is "truth" to you, no matter how much it is disproven.

Now how is my post a personal attack? You said they should "test for explosives", and that would supposedly prove if the towers were intentionally detonated.

Except you have no idea what that even means. I asked you how that could be done, and you gave me a sarcastic non-answer. I attacked your ARGUMENT - you are advocating an action for which you have no idea if it's even possible or how it would be done.

Squatting in East CoCo says

The problem with conspiracy theories is that it pulls you down a rabbit hole until everything is one big interconnected conspiracy.

So then stop believing in them.

Do you feel safer since the war, initiated by 911, on terrorism started?

Not a bit. You are still more likely to be struck by lightning than you are to be killed by a terrorist. And yet they have created an entire government entity dedicated to making our lives miserable. Flying used to be a pleasant experience and now is a horrible ordeal. We fought a war for no reason that we had no business fighting.

None of this means that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition. Bush certainly capitalized on the situation to turn the U.S. into a police state, but there's no evidence that he masterminded it.

Homeboy says

Bush certainly capitalized on the situation to turn the U.S. into a police state, but there's no evidence that he masterminded it.

i guess you never heard of the project for a new american century either.

Squatting in East CoCo says

I'm sorry, my "sarcastic non answer" assumed

Ah! you "assumed". You conspiracy buffs seem to do a lot of that.

that most people reading this forum understood that we have the forensic knowledge to determine if explosives are used.

How do you know this? The NIST stated in their report that testing for thermite would be inconclusive, since the elements they would test for would already be present in the building materials themselves.

You are claiming that the NIST is wrong, and that it is possible to test for explosives. I am asking you how you know this.

Hint: Just SAYING you know it is not proof.

Squatting in East CoCo says

What are your credentials, homeboy?

I have none. That is why I do not make outlandish claims about secret conspiracies to destroy buildings with controlled demolitions, and, unlike you, I do not claim that things are "impossible" when you clearly have no knowledge of structural collapse forensics.

Occam's Razor: One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

Now you're just acting like an idiot. Good bye.

coriacci1 says

a few more points to consider.

thanks. more good info . the 1st and 4th video (for me) especially added more to think about. I'm still reeling from a few of the others that were mentioned, not sleeping too well right now

http://www.youtube.com/embed/KoSEDuUOPJ0

this one also talks about the Pentagon and Shanksville, PA on 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/embed/2IWJX879fOk

remember this little project and who was involved?

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

Squatting in East CoCo says

SO a little fire brought it all down by causing a "key structural column to fail". But it would have taken massive amounts of explosives around "most, if not all, interior columns" to blow it up. Can you see the contradiction?

No, read your own qoutes again. Since when does uncontrolled translate into little? Did you miss the part that said "chain of events"? Read what the chain of events was.

Squatting in East CoCo says

SO an uncontrolled office fire brought it all down by causing a "key structural column to fail". But it would have taken massive amounts of explosives around "most, if not all, interior columns" to blow it up. Can you see the contradiction?

Nope don't see the contradiction at all.

You missed some critical parts of the report. First off we are talking about 7 wt report, not 1&2. Secondly the report never said a key structural column failed. It said a key structural column buckled (bend under strain after being heated) , causing the floor girder connection to fail. Once the floors collapsed the building went down. The report clearly states that temps for columns was 300c and floors under 600c. Heat expansion and buckling, not any kind of steel failure, caused connector failure.

No one said massive amounts of explosives. Where did you get this? You seem to read a lot into things. It said for explosives to be effective they have to be put right onto the steel. So everything around the steel would have needed to be taken down. This is true. Controlled detonations need the position, size, and composition of the explosives to be carefully done.

The (alleged) a&e for 911 truth "evidence" doesn't make much sense to me. It involves lots of black magic and unknown conspiracies that I don't see as being plausible.

bob2356 says

You missed some critical parts of the report. First off we are talking about 7 wt report, not 1&2. Secondly the report never said a key structural column failed. It said a key structural column buckled (bend under strain after being heated) , causing the floor girder connection to fail. Once the floors collapsed the building went down. The report clearly states that temps for columns was 300c and floors under 600c. Heat expansion and buckling, not any kind of steel failure, caused connector failure.

No one said massive amounts of explosives. Where did you get this? You seem to read a lot into things. It said for explosives to be effective they have to be put right onto the steel. So everything around the steel would have needed to be taken down. This is true. Controlled detonations need the position, size, and composition of the explosives to be carefully done.

He's not going to listen to you. His mind is already made up. No amount of evidence or logic will ever convince these people.

Homeboy says

He's not going to listen to you. His mind is already made up. No amount of evidence or logic will ever convince these people.

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.

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?