kuzadd

I did not say it is not possible. I am trying to find a coherent argument in your posts but have so far found none.What happened on 9/11 is straight forward: 1) Two planes crashed into WTC1 and WTC2. 2) These planes started fires in the buildings which weakened the structures. 3) The structures collasped and spewed debris on the surrounding buildings. 4) All of the surrounding buildings were damaged by the debris and had fires. 5) The combination of damage from debris and fires triggered a collasped of WTC7 6) The combination of damage from debris and fires triggered did not trigger a collapse in the other buildings. None of this is surprising or unusual. You are the one who is insisting that there is something strange about this sequence of events. oh and Riverwind, you did say, buildings react differently, to stressors, but then you said they shoud act the same especially in the case of wtc 1 and 2, just one of your numerous contradictions. in fact NO building would react(global collapse) exactly the same, unless it was subjected to exactly the same stressors. which is impossible , except in a lab. But not in the real world. 5) The combination of damage from debris and fires triggered a collasped of WTC7 now provide information you claim to have wrt #7 being more severley damaged, then 3,4,5,6 , so I can totally dismiss you and your nonsense, and contradictions even further. no plane hit number 7 and you have yet to provide your support, for your above claim. we started out discussing Eager's report, you can't even keep that straight, and you were totallly unaware of the enormous windload (lateral load) that the tower's bore everyday. I've reiterated the numerous times you have contradicted yourself and still you go on??? I have asked you numerous times to privide info to support your statments, please can you simply do that???? If not then your nonsense is easily discountable, very easily discountable.

drea, do you notice scotty, reads things, like words, that aren't there????

The US is on every continent in the world, mostly at the invitation of the host country. It's not a big plot by the Bushistas. What IS a big plot, and an active war, is Muslim terrorism. You can deny that to your heart's content, but it is there, and it is being fought by both sides. Denying that the War on Muslim extremism exists is rather like denying that the cold war took place. LOL, mostly at the invitation of host countries. Yah like iraq and Afghanistan? bah!

I didn't notice any announcement, other then the posting of an article. watch your interpretations. oh and BTW scotty, I read the article I posted, nowheredoes it say anything about a consolidation??

There is also absolutely no reason to claim that they should not have collapsed. Your arguments are circular and incoherent. rofl!! your arguments are circular and incoherent, and contradictory. that statement better describes your own statements.You've been allover the place. You are resorting to bashing, rather then rationally discussing YOUR own views. where do I begin???? You, yourself, made the claim different buildings react differently to different stressors. Yet all 3 come down in global collapse, something you yourself say is not possible, but then you say 1 and 2 should react in the same way, because they are constructed the same, BUT, then you say they should not react the same???? Riverwind"There is also absolutely no reason to claim that they should not have collapsed." partially or completely, or should they have tipped??? we are talking all along about global collapse, complete or global collapse. why should we assume all 3 different buildings affected by divergent factors, would have global collapse as a result. We shouldn't, because there is no reason to believe that is possible given the divergent factors. so why do you? as I have stated, don't dig yourself any deeper then you already have. I promise I won't help you do it anymore lol! I am still waiting for your info wrt buildings 3,4,5 and 6 being less damaged, then wtc 7 ,to support YOUR reasoning for why wtc7 globally collapsed ( despite no plane) and the other's didn't.3.4.5.6. (no plane, either) please provide that. thanks.

Wind exists - that does not mean it is a SIGNIFICANT factor. You have no evidence that wind was a significant factor on that day. It depends on what level you are talking about. Both buildings collapsed so at that level they behaved the same. However, when you look at the details of how the collapse progress you will see that the collapses were different.Frankly, I can't figure out what point you are trying to make. One minute you are arguing that all the towers should have collapsed and the next minute you are arguing that none of them should have collapsed. This all or nothing attitude is aburd. Different buildings will behave differently - some might collapse and some might not. Damage to a structure may trigger a collapse or it might not. Whether it does depends on many factors. Riverwind: you have contradicted yoruself so many times, your head must be spinning. You are the one claiming the all or nothing. You claim wtc 1,2 and 7 all had global collapses and that is credible. It's simply NOT credible, for the very reasons you state "Different buildings will behave differently - some might collapse and some might not. Damage to a structure may trigger a collapse or it might not. Whether it does depends on many factors." That's right, so there is absolutely NO reason to expect 3 buildings, affected by vastly divergent factors , to respond in the same way, ending in global collapse. and all 3 buildings responded by globally collapsing. NONE, ZIP. ZERO ZILCH!!! Yet that is the meat and potatoes of the official conspiracy re: the collapse. AND: you have also contradicted yourself on that, by saying it would be expected, or it would be strange if 1 and 2 would not react in the same way. I am still waiting for info on the damage to 3,4,5 and 6. that you claim demonstrates 7 was more severely damaged. also enlighten me on why it is eager doesn't address wtc 7, nor does the official report.

The wind load is a fiction you created that has no relevance to this discussion. Wind was not a significant factor on that day. They did not behave exactly the same. The tower that was hit later collapsed first. This occurred because the impact of the second plane was lower down and the mass of the building above the impact point was larger. Once again - you are create a fiction that supports your obessions rather than looking at the evdience. re: wind,lateral load: because you cannot accept the fact, which is your problem, wind is always an issue, on a building over 1,000 feet tall, on the ocean front. Again you contradict yourself!!! windriver: post # 192 again you say: in this post, you are claiming they did not act exactly the same, in your previous post, you are claiming they did and they should , because it would be strange if they didn't. windriver quit before you dig your hole deeper.

All the souces indicate that wind was not a significant factor that day. I did was agree that wind is a theoretical lateral load, however, you have zero evidence that the wind was large enough to have any effect on what happened that day. WTC1 & WTC2 were identical buildings with near identical damage. It would have been very strange if they did not behave exactly the same. WTC7 is a building with an unusual design that was much taller than any WTC towers that remained standing. No one should be surprised that it behaved differently than the smaller towers that did not collapse.Others have posted links to pictures from WTC7 that clearly show that part of its face was ripped away from debris. You simply pretend that evidence does not exist. What is the point of posting if you are simply going to deny evidence that is shoved in your face? windriver: bolding so you can't miss...... WTC 1 and 2 may have been almost identical buildings, BUT, the wind, lateral load, would have affected each individual building differently, in relation to their position, geographically and in relation to one another, and in realtion to the other buildings. They were not hit in the same areas by the planes, in fact in very different areas, therfore, one would have to expect that they would NOT act exactly the same, by having the same collapse response. from information I previously posted, specifically wrt wtc towers: "Wind loads specified by codes are based on maps of design wind speed for different regions of the country. As wind speed increases, the wind pressure on the building increases proportionally to the square of the wind velocity. The pressure on the building also varies with the height and degree of shielding provided by other buildings and geographic features. Although not usually required by building codes, engineers frequently use wind tunnel studies to more accurately determine wind loads on tall buildings, where standard calculations may not be adequate. WTC 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 all had extensive wind tunnel studies performed as part of the design process. WTC 1 and WTC 2 were among the first structures that were designed using wind tunnel studies." did you read that? or the article wrt : the reinforcing of wtc 7, or the fact that you contradict yourself and the official story, hasn't sunk in yet??? FYI: I have seen the pics of damage to all the wtc buildings, why don't you provide that info that YOU claim proves wtc 7 was damaged more then 3,4,5, and 6??

I am aware of that, and have been noticing numerous stories on it. additional stories: Loss of bees a genuine threat http://www.chieftain.com/life/1176185110/5 Mysterious Bee Disappearance Could Disrupt US Agriculture http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/04...rious_bee_.html Loss of bees threatens a fatal sting for us all http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/living/17042355.htm Woefully underappreciated honeybees are the principal pollinators for 80 percent of the world's grains, fruits, vegetables and legumes, including about 90 ...

riverwind Post # 149 windriver: I asked you to show me, but you haven't. Don't worry, i've seen numerous pics of 3,4,5, and 6. and when you went off to look for them, you realized that they were all far more severly damaged then the uberstrong # 7 building., ( of course, you ignored the article I posted with regards to the massive strengthening of # 7, done in 1989) so you can't post them, because it makes a big hole in your theory. You initially were unaware wind causes lateral load, then somewhat concede it is possible. Wind is the main lateral load concern of such tall structures, i am sure you can read up on that yourself. The very fact that the wtc building were tested in a wind tunnel, is a sure indicator that wind was an issue always an issue, on towers so tall, of course that never crossed your mind. You then make an interesting statement here windriver: interesting in that you are contradicting yourself and pointing out the shortcomings in the official conspiracy theory, one of many. to which I respond, and am reiterating for a 3rd time here and now: kuzadd: You see, you are supporting the most irrational theory of all, 3 buildings, subjected to 3 different types of compromises,with varying lateral loads, would all respond in exactly the same manner. Global collapse. Now that is irrational!!!!! Different constructions, differing lateral loads from wind,which would effect the 3 buildings all differently, the planes hit two of the buildings in very divergent spots, wtc 7, no plane, some minor debris damage, and other variations, I am sure of, yet the response is all the same, global collapse??????? That's what get's to you isn't it??? You demonstrated yourself the implausability in the global collapse scenario/official conspiracy theory Thanks buddy, it's been enjoyable!!!

Apparently some posters do not understand, the importance of the bee's to our /their food crops. The disconnect is loud and clear, and disgusting. Unfortunately, the forum is littered with alot of 'lower life forms" , sadly it is the bee's that are dying. LOL!!

No. What I said was: Well, actually, the NIST has explained it to be a combination of the massive damage suffered when the first tower fell into it, and the fires that softened the steel afterwards. Their full report is due out this spring, that doesn't mean they haven't expressed why the building collapsed. And while the report is a work in progress, they have explained the collapse. Because you ignored it earlier, I'll repost it for you again: If you ignore or distort what I, and others type, I will repost it in the hope that you will eventually read and understand what we're saying. I posted the NIST preliminary assessment of the collapse of WTC7, and you stated that they had made no assessment. Riverwind replied to your straw man that since other buildings didn't fall down, WTC7 shouldn't have either. Yet you chose to either make claims not supported by the comments or ignore them altogether. So to answer your question, I can repost this material as many times as it takes and if you eventually understand it, yes it will mean something. actually stignasty it is you that have chosen to ignore and twist. see below: "The current NIST working collapse hypothesis " from your own post a hypothesis is NOT an explanation, it is a POSSIBLE explanation, why you persist in portraying it as a final explanation is beyone me? Other then to promote bs? Hypothesis: either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal in other words it is NOT a foregone conclusion, as you are attempting to portray it as. actually my response to windriver was there and reiterated. You missed it? only possible if you've done that intentionally. cause you don't like the reponse?

No. What I said was: Well, actually, the NIST has explained it to be a combination of the massive damage suffered when the first tower fell into it, and the fires that softened the steel afterwards. Their full report is due out this spring, that doesn't mean they haven't expressed why the building collapsed. And while the report is a work in progress, they have explained the collapse. Because you ignored it earlier, I'll repost it for you again: If you ignore or distort what I, and others type, I will repost it in the hope that you will eventually read and understand what we're saying. I posted the NIST preliminary assessment of the collapse of WTC7, and you stated that they had made no assessment. Riverwind replied to your straw man that since other buildings didn't fall down, WTC7 shouldn't have either. Yet you chose to either make claims not supported by the comments or ignore them altogether. So to answer your question, I can repost this material as many times as it takes and if you eventually understand it, yes it will mean something. from your own post "working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 " they have a hypothesis, they are setting out to prove, will they, will they not, we'll see when the final report comes out, and there is NO conclusion, so why are you claiming there is?? You claimed I ignored it, actually I adressed it, here's what I already said in bold, k? Yet, you are making that claim? ( different buildings, behave in the same way) wtc 1 and 2, were different buildings, from wtc 7, and yet they all behaved the same way when damaged. they globally collapsed. and wtc 7 wasn't hit by a plane, constructed differently, massively reinforced in the '80's , see link to article posted. and yet, collapsed in the same manner. Now who is making irrational claims? who is making irrational claims? the official conspiracy is. Yourself and Riverwind are in fact making that very claim, as allegedly believable, that buildings built differently and damaged differently irregardless, would globally collapse. You call that credible?

You're right of course. It was hit by a 110 story building. My point is that you're calling a gigantic amount of damage "minor." Well, actually, the NIST has explained it to be a combination of the massive damage suffered when the first tower fell into it, and the fires that softened the steel afterwards. Their full report is due out this spring, that doesn't mean they haven't expressed why the building collapsed (regardless of how many question marks you use). http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm Neither NIST nor FEMA have explained the collapse, you acknowledge such yourself, by claiming they will be releasing a full report this spring, therefore, to this date, they have not as of yet, explained the collapse. ok, so we are in agrement on that! so were 3,4,5, and 6. they didn't completely collapse, were closer and were far more damaged what's your point, again? or do you think if you just keep saying the same thing over and over, that will actually mean something?

Yet, you are making that claim? wtc 1 and 2, were different buildings, from wtc 7, and yet they all behaved the same way when damaged. they globally collapsed. and wtc 7 wasn't hit by a plane, constructed differently, massively reinforced in the '80's , see link to article posted. and yet, collapsed in the same manner. Now who is making irrational claims? Is there? show me Isn't there a reason to believe that the wind was large enough to cause tipping?( not necessarily of the entire building, why do you assume it has to be the entire building?) sure there is. clue: read about the buildings being subjected to windtunnels, as posted. the towers were subjected to lateral load everyday visavis the wind. eager's claim is BS. that there was NO lateral load, that is what he said. "Also Eager says because the buildings were approx 95% air, this predisposed them to implosion. How is this so?? Given all buildings are approx 95% air, think about it. Buildings should be imploding regularily , yet they are not." the terrorist angle is irrelevant. if buildings are predisposed to implosion because they are 95% air, then any type of weakening of a structure, should cause a building to implode. let's use as an example in a storm, a massive tree falls onto a house, using Eager's theory, the house should then just implode, Well having witnessed two such incident recently, I can tell you the houses forgot to implode, oooops! I also note with great interest Eager DOES NOT address wtc 7, why?????????

and your point is? I said minor damage, in relation to the fact of the very MAJOR damage sustained by 3,4,5, & 6, it was minor damage. WTC7 was a very,very strong building, see article posted. wtc 7 was not subject to as much lateral load as wtc 1 and 2 ( no plane, not as tall) wtc 7 was not hit by a plane. therefore I ask, what is your exact point? NIST and FEMA can't/haven't explain(ed) the collapse of wtc 7, when they allegedly had access to all the info. why???? the 9/11 official commission conspiracy theory report, doesn't even acknolwedge wtc # 7. why????

Then apparently you don't know much, because Bush's newest batch of terrorists/freedomfighters , are killing innocents

The right is quick to dixie-chick. Indeed - but again they can't fight back with any kind of facts (since there are NONE to support thier twisted view of the situation). So, as usual they name call and smear - makes ya wonder what they are all so darn afraid of - perhaps folk realizing their own duplicity in the matter. Anyway - defending the freedom of speech for those one agrees with is easy - but it is more important to defend the right of expression for those we may not agree with. As usual - the name calling bullies come out - with NO real argument just schoolyard behaviour. pathetic. but, B , name calling /smear is always the choice of those who are weakest in their position. They got nothing but name calling/smear. We must let them use there weakest tactic, if it makes them feel better ;-)

America, through it's foreign policy , doesn't respect any country. PERIOD. America serves, it's OWN interests. This has nothing to do with 'respect'. which makes these questions irrelevant. Oh,Hush Now gladly, The questions weren't so pointless and irrelevant, anyway. I am certain now posters will argue for 10 pages on these pointless and irrelevant questions, as if they actually matter, they don't.

wrt lateral load from wind Wind loads specified by codes are based on maps of design wind speed for different regions of the country. As wind speed increases, the wind pressure on the building increases proportionally to the square of the wind velocity. The pressure on the building also varies with the height and degree of shielding provided by other buildings and geographic features. Although not usually required by building codes, engineers frequently use wind tunnel studies to more accurately determine wind loads on tall buildings, where standard calculations may not be adequate. WTC 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 all had extensive wind tunnel studies performed as part of the design process. WTC 1 and WTC 2 were among the first structures that were designed using wind tunnel studies. wtc buildings, had extensive wind tunnel studies done on them because they were CONSTANTLY exposed to wind, which is a lateral load, therefore Eagers claim, that there was NO lateral load, is bogus, as 1 and 2 were over 1000 feet high, lots of wind, lots of lateral load, to tip the towers, yet they didn't. wrt # 7, NIST has no conclusion as to why the tower globally collapsed, because there simply wasn't enough damage, from debris or fire. wtc 7 interestingly was reinforced to the point that an entire floor could be taken out and it would not affect structural integrity. COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million By MARK MCCAIN Published: February 19, 1989 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...&pagewanted=all LEAD: BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space. ' but somehow we are to believe that minor damage caused a global and complete collapse, to building # 7. but not 3,4,5,&6, while the buildings on either side of # 7 stood and strong as always. It would demand suspension of all rationale and logic to believe that. very strong building, very strong!

Read the article. The lack of significant lateral load is one of several reasons stated. The main reason is the buildings fell so qucikly that they hit the ground before any tipping could take place. So? You need to learn basic logic. Getting hit by debris makes a collapse possible - it does not make it 100% likely. WTC3 through 6 did not collapse even though they were hit by debris yet WTC7 did. Nothing strange about that because all of the buildings were damaged in different ways and had different construction. I've read that article numerous times, previously. Have you? I am going to safely surmise, I have a far better grasp of basic logic then you do, so spare me your insults. "Getting hit by debris makes a collapse possible - it does not make it 100% likely. WTC3 through 6 did not collapse even though they were hit by debris yet WTC7 did. Nothing strange about that because all of the buildings were damaged in different ways and had different construction." Yes, there is something strange about that, because 3, 4, 5, & 6 were severely damaged and I mean severely damaged, yet they did NOT globally collapse. But you are telling me that the building FURTHEST from 1 & 2 which sustained minor damage compared to the other buildings collapsed globally and that is not strange?? That makes no sense. So four buildings that sustained major damage, fail to globally and fully collapse,and are demolished at a later date, but the one the furthest away with the least damage globally collapses???? You have not addressed the lateral load, Eager says there was NO lateral load, Yet there was. so explain in the face of definite presence of lateral load, why the buildings failed to tip? Also Eager says because the buildings were approx 95% air, this predisposed them to implosion. How is this so?? Given all buildings are approx 95% air, think about it. Buildings should be imploding regularily , yet they are not.

It means there is nothing preventing it from imploding. There was no wind that day. Earthquakes are an external force that provide a 'lateral load'. No plane but it was hit by 100s of tonnes on debris when the WTC1 and 2 collapsed. Pictures make it clear that the damage to WTC7 was at least as bad as the damage to WTC1 & 2. "It means there is nothing preventing it from imploding." So then what encouraged it to implode, because virtually ANY structure is roughly 95% air, why don't all buildings then therfore implode?? Because following this line of logic, buildings should be imploding every time, some external force is imposed upon it. "There was no wind that day." That is unadulterated baloney, there is always wind, airflow, ESPECIALLY at that height (altitude), and because wtc 1 and 2 were near water. unless you are referring to groundlevel, other then that , that is a ridiculous claim. "Earthquakes are an external force that provide a 'lateral load'. " and so is wind. and so is weakening a building through a corner impact as happened in wtc #2, but Thomas Eager says , there was NO lateral load. So in his faulty logic, no lateral load, no reason for the buildings to tip, BS!!! wrt# 7: buildings 3, 4, 5 & 6 were also hit with debris, in fact far more so then 7, which was the furthest from wtc 1 and 2, none of those buildings globally collapsed, they were demolished at a later date. try again? do you belive in magic?

"First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself." why is it a vacuum tube? "Second, there is no lateral load," doesn't the wind qualify as making a lateral load?? In fact, wouldn't wind qualify as the most common lateral load against any structure?? Yes it would. "Most lateral loads are live loads whose main component is a horizontal force acting on the structure. Typical lateral loads would be a wind load against a facade, an earthquake, the earth pressure against a beach front retaining wall or the earth pressure against a basement wall. Most lateral loads vary in intensity depending on the building's geographic location" so how can Eager realistically state that, there was no lateral load. even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. "To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down." gosh, so many earthquakes, in the world, and darn those buildings forget to collapse nearly straight down, what's with that??? how about wtc # 7, no plane??? total collapse.

America, through it's foreign policy , doesn't respect any country. PERIOD. America serves, it's OWN interests. This has nothing to do with 'respect'. which makes these questions irrelevant.

Yes, I do! Apparently you DO NOT, since you posted this piece of garbage, complete with a fictionalized conversation between 'Mr Soprano' and Avery.( that was clearly a 'tongue in cheek' dialogue), do you know what that is??. Mr Soprano is fictional, you do understand that? He is a character in a tv series, you are aware of that right? Then you postulate this piece is a rebuttal, and a factual rebuttal, to boot, ????? I already told you what this piece is, and it isn't a factual rebuttal, in any sense of those words, only in your imagination. LOL Actually, I posted that link. As for being a piece of garbage, it's no less accurate than Loose Change or 9/11 Mysteries. Yes it's a fictionalized conversation, but it's not much different from what you can read on the Loose Change website: Dylan Avery, 23 Director, Editor, Founder In May 2002, after spending three months doing construction work on Vines, I had a half hour conversation with James Gandolfini at the opening party. To make a long, drawn out conversation short, James told me, "If you want to be a successful director, you have to have something to say to the world." It was that month that I began writing "Loose Change," a fictional story about my friends and I discovering that September 11th was not a terrorist attack, but rather, an attack by their own government. Upon researching for the movie, it became apparant that the subject matter may not have been entirely fiction. Over two years time, adding more and more information, the fictional movie evolved into what it is today; a documentary. http://www.loosechange911.com/company.htm#dylan actually stignasty: I originally saw that link posted here, by sunsettomy, some time ago see here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8417 wether you posted this previously, I do not know. The fictionalized conversation is VERY different in that link, then the advice given to Avery, by the actor James Gandolfini, which I had already referred to in my post.