Why are so few willing to discuss the science?

[Shady]

The science is pretty basic. Jet fuel cause hot fire. Hot fire melt steel.

[Je suis Omar]

Can I have a cite on the theory about fire ?

Je suis O: if you can explain to me what you seek, I'll do what I can to meet your needs, Michael.

And buildings have collapsed due to fires, not sure why you say it hasn't.

No high rise steel frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. Don't you think it more than odd that 3 did, on the same day, in the same city?

[bush_cheney2004]

No high rise steel frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. Don't you think it more than odd that 3 did, on the same day, in the same city?

False...see Windsor Tower...2005.

Edited April 1, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Je suis Omar]

The science is pretty basic. Jet fuel cause hot fire. Hot fire melt steel.

That is not even basic science. You illustrate an ignorance of both the facts and the science, Shady. Not the pejorative sense of ignorance.

[Je suis Omar]

False...see Windsor Tower...2005.

You advanced it, G, so you bring forth the evidence.

[Shady]

That is not even basic science. You illustrate an ignorance of both the facts and the science, Shady. Not the pejorative sense of ignorance.

No, it's really true. Jet fuel cause hot fire. That's a fact. Hot fire melts steel. Another fact. Case closed!

[Je suis Omar]

No, it's really true. Jet fuel cause hot fire. That's a fact. Hot fire melts steel. Another fact. Case closed!

Doesn't anyone have any idea why so few are willing to address the science?

I dare say that there likely are some who have received advanced education.

[bush_cheney2004]

You advanced it, G, so you bring forth the evidence.

Already did...almost 8 years ago. This is an old topic.....

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/8420-911/page-149#entry246144

[Shady]

Doesn't anyone have any idea why so few are willing to address the science?

I dare say that there likely are some who have received advanced education.

I already addressed the science. Or do you dispute the fact that ignited jet fuel causes fire?

[On Guard for Thee]

Well here is a little reality and science. The WTC buildings were within airspace, both by location as well as height, surrounding various airports. As such they were designed to withstand an impact by an airliner. Now any pilot who has flown into major airports knows that there are speed restrictions as you close in on them. Usually in the neighbourhood of 250 kts. Thats the type of impact that was anticipated in the buildings design. But guess what, the hijackers that day werent following FAA or ATC requirements. The video of the first plane indicates that plane was doing well over 500 knots. Now basic science will tell you that the force of impact has to do with mass times velocity. Its doubtful we have the technology to build a building to withstad that type of force. At least not in any way that would make it feasible.

[bush_cheney2004]

The science has already been addressed....several times. Thanks to PolyNewbie !

[Smallc]

I'm glad we can all agree on something lol.

[Je suis Omar]

Well here is a little reality and science. The WTC buildings were within airspace, both by location as well as height, surrounding various airports. As such they were designed to withstand an impact by an airliner. Now any pilot who has flown into major airports knows that there are speed restrictions as you close in on them. Usually in the neighbourhood of 250 kts. Thats the type of impact that was anticipated in the buildings design. But guess what, the hijackers that day werent following FAA or ATC requirements. The video of the first plane indicates that plane was doing well over 500 knots. Now basic science will tell you that the force of impact has to do with mass times velocity. Its doubtful we have the technology to build a building to withstad that type of force. At least not in any way that would make it feasible.

I don't think believe that that conclusion is completely warranted. In fact, both towers survived the impacts just as they were designed to do. It's the unexplained anomalies that followed that are important. One very important one was discussed by Toni Szamboti in the Ben Swann video I linked to, which, of course, you must have watched, right, OGfT?

That doesn't explain WTC7 nor does it explain all the other major problems with the official story of WTCs 1&2.

Let's focus on 7 for the moment and deal with the issues that have been raised.

[Je suis Omar]

False...see Windsor Tower...2005.

I repeat, no steel framed high rise buildings have ever collapsed. Portions of buildings have collapsed, which is what one would expect. And this was a real towering inferno that burned for what, 20 hours?

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't think believe that that conclusion is completely warranted. In fact, both towers survived the impacts just as they were designed to do. It's the unexplained anomalies that followed that are important. One very important one was discussed by Toni Szamboti in the Ben Swann video I linked to, which, of course, you must have watched, right, OGfT?

That doesn't explain WTC7 nor does it explain all the other major problems with the official story of WTCs 1&2.

Let's focus on 7 for the moment and deal with the issues that have been raised.

I dont think they did survive the impacts, which is why they turned into smoking holes in the ground. Because they didnt just tip over immediately upon impact means nothing. Aside from the initial impact damage at high speed, keep in mind these planes had very recently taken off and therefore lots of fuel on board. #7 succombed to the heat and the shudder from 1 and 2 burning and then collapsing.

[Je suis Omar]

The science has already been addressed....several times. Thanks to PolyNewbie !

But you don't feel any need to bring it to anyone's attention.

[TimG]

That's certainly among the most unscientific things I've ever heard. I'm shocked.

I have no patience for ideologues you pretend they care about "science" when all they are really doing selectively choosing evidence that supports narrative that they want to believe. If you want me to believe you actually care about science then prove it by addressing the data that undermines your narrative. Specifically, the complete lack of participants coming forward to admit their part in the cover up.

Real scientists address the big problems with the narrative first. Ideologues abusing science ignore the big problems and focus on the trivial details that mean nothing as long as the big problems are not addressed.

Edited April 1, 2015 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

But you don't feel any need to bring it to anyone's attention.

No, as the engineering is well documented. Conspiracy theories are not science or engineering.

[Je suis Omar]

I dont think they did survive the impacts, which is why they turned into smoking holes in the ground. Because they didnt just tip over immediately upon impact means nothing.

That's quite the assumption, Sir. Even NIST didn't suggest such a notion. That they didn't tip over at all says a great deal. Asymmetrical damage does not bring on symmetric free fall.

Aside from the initial impact damage at high speed, keep in mind these planes had very recently taken off and therefore lots of fuel on board.

The speed was pretty much right in line with design criteria. The fuel loads were nowhere near full load, which was what the design called for.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html

#7 succombed to the heat and the shudder from 1 and 2 burning and then collapsing.

I want you to think about what you have just said here. WTC7 was a football field plus (123 yards) away from WTC1. Since the fires in WTC1 were nowhere near hot enough to melt, let alone seriously degrade the steel structure, how do you figure that that fire could have had any effect upon WTC7?

I'm going to have to ask you to support your ideas with something more than your fanciful notions of how steel buildings fall down. "shudder" indeed.

[Queenmandy85]

With all due respect, Queen Mandy, you are speaking from a position of ignorance, in the non pejorative sense.

Please watch this.

I watched the video and he claimed 30 - 40 demolition engineers rushed into a burning building amid a horde of cops and firemen hauling tons of explosives, hundreds of metres of wire, primacord and proceeded to accomplish in a few hours, what a real demolition crew would do in several days.

[Je suis Omar]

I have no patience for ideologues you pretend they care about "science" when all they are really doing selectively choosing evidence that supports narrative that they want to believe. If you want me to believe you actually care about science then prove it by addressing the data that undermines your narrative. Specifically, the complete lack of participants coming forward to admit their part in the cover up.

You're advancing a huge joke, right? Will Newton's Third Law satisfy you. I'm pretty sure that that one deals with conspiracies.

[poochy]

Building fall down, Bam, Bam.

[On Guard for Thee]

That's quite the assumption, Sir. Even NIST didn't suggest such a notion. That they didn't tip over at all says a great deal. Asymmetrical damage does not bring on symmetric free fall.

The speed was pretty much right in line with design criteria. The fuel loads were nowhere near full load, which was what the design called for.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/home/655-faq-9-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-survive-the-impact-of-the-airplanes.html

I want you to think about what you have just said here. WTC7 was a football field plus (123 yards) away from WTC1. Since the fires in WTC1 were nowhere near hot enough to melt, let alone seriously degrade the steel structure, how do you figure that that fire could have had any effect upon WTC7?

I'm going to have to ask you to support your ideas with something more than your fanciful notions of how steel buildings fall down. "shudder" indeed.

The speed as I have pointed out was in excess of double the design criteria. You can easily see from various news footage that after the initial impacts which did the major damage, the heat from burning fuel finally weakened what was left and the damaged structure finally gave way and the upper floors essentially acted as a pile driver as their weight descended onto the lower ones.

[Je suis Omar]

I watched the video and he claimed 30 - 40 demolition engineers rushed into a burning building amid a horde of cops and firemen hauling tons of explosives, hundreds of metres of wire, primacord and proceeded to accomplish in a few hours, what a real demolition crew would do in several days.

You missed the part where Danny Jowenko, an expert in controlled demolition stated that it was a controlled demolition. He did this without knowing anything about WTC7. He could hardly have been prepared to give a complete analysis of how it might have been prepared.

In fact, he would know nothing about hi tech nanothermites as these were only a recent discovery. And interestingly enough residues of those nanothermites were found in WTC dust.

[Queenmandy85]

Then why did Bin Laden's people bother flying passenger aircraft into the buildings if they had already wired them for demolition?