Why all the worldwide turmoil? (9/11 thread)

[hot enough]

21 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The diagram means that "nanothermite" is not energetic enough to cause the demolition you have alleged, hence the very idea is utter nonsense.  Particles and small chips recovered from the WTC collapse are readily explained by known substances common to building construction and exposure to fire/heat.

The Windsor Tower fire readily demonstrates that steel framed structures can/do fail when exposed to high temperatures below steel's "melting point".

A U.S. interstate bridge collapsed just days ago because steel reinforced concrete failed when exposed to fire for a lengthy period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, you are late to this game, a game many of us played many years ago, and there is absolutely nothing new or original offered by your allegations.   It is the same, old, stale....nonsense....motivated by a completely different agenda than..."science".

Bush_Cheney makes these "wild ass" accusations, that I am "motivated by a completely different agenda", without describing or proving her allegations, which is her normal operating procedure.

Now to her science, which she just states categorically, without any discussion or proof, which is her normal operating procedure.

A steel frame building, ie. one framed with humongous steel columns, like the twin towers and WTC7, do not act at all like steel reinforced concrete structures. Everyone knows this intuitively.

B_C asserts that "[T]he Windsor Tower fire readily demonstrates that steel framed structures can/do fail when exposed to high temperatures below steel's "melting point".

In actuality, it proves the opposite and B_C has a poor grasp of the science of 911 and building science in general, poor research skills or she is knowlegeable and she is advancing these spurious arguments to hide these major crimes.

This issue had come up before in this thread, Impact and I discussed it somewhat, both of us pointing up why WT wasn't a good comparison to WTC and B_C was around for that discussion, in point of fact, she was the one who posted the Windsor Tower picture as an example that she still mistakenly believed was a demonstration "that steel framed structures can/do fail when exposed to high temperatures below steel's "melting point".

Because this is such a crucial point to the discussion of WTC and the fallen buildings, and to aid in forever banishing such arrant nonsense from these pages, I include the following in its entirety.

[Also, it is apparent that there are many who totally ignore pertinent information that is put squarely before their eyes so I can't trust that these same folks will go to a link to see the same highly pertinent information/science.]

The WT burned for almost a day, a roaring conflagration. A structure, made of concrete with light steel reinforcing, ie. steel reinforced concrete, structures that are much much more susceptible to collapse from fires and still it remained standing. Read on to see why, which will also tell you just how completely impossible it is that the twin towers collapsed because of fires.

 

Quote

9 - 1 1 R e s e a r c h .com .wtc7.net

Home   Analysis New York City collapsing buildings other high-rise fires other collapses WTC 1, 2 collapses design parameters role of fires fire severity effects on steel collapse features explosive events demolition squibs frame shattering concrete pulverization dust volume steel shredding symmetry mushrooming speed of fall demolition proofs speed of fall volume of dust breakup of top collapse theories column failure theory truss theory demolition theories basement bombs nuclear devices directed energy radiant projectiles distributed explosives thermobarics thermite simulations Building 7 collapse rate of fall controlled demolition WTC 6, 5 holes Pentagon assault location Pentagon videos witnesses forensics impact damage damage pattern aircraft debris shockwave jetliner approach theories Eastman Bart attack from the air NORAD stand-down flight mysteries phone calls theories suicide pilots home run system flight program bumble planes Flight 93 shoot-down Won-Young Kim follow-up attacks anthrax perpetrators intent minimized fatalities maximized shock conspiracy Attack Scenario 404 whistleblowers official actions evidence destruction investigation prevention 9-11 anomalies top anomalies historical precedents   Search Essays Reviews Talks Interviews FAQs Materials Papers Resources Site Guide About Contact Contribute V 1.43  Copyright 2003-2015,  911Research.WTC7.net site last updated:09/09/2015  fair use notice

Background Attack Aftermath Evidence Misinformation Analysis Memorial   The Windsor Building Fire Huge Fire in Steel-Reinforced Concrete Building Causes Partial Collapse The Windsor Building after the fire was extinguished On the night of February 12, 2005, a fire started in the Windsor building in Madrid, Spain, a 32-story tower framed in steel-reinforced concrete. At its peak, the fire, which burned for almost a day, completely engulfed the upper ten stories of the building. More than 100 firefighters battled to prevent the uncontrollable blaze from spreading to other buildings. 1   During the night the building shedded larged pieces, which crashed to the ground. 2   The fire apparently caused the collapse of the top floor spans surrounding the still-standing core structure of the ten uppermost floors. As in the case of the other large skyscraper fire since 9/11/01, fears of total building collapse in the case of the Windsor fire were widely reported. 3   Those fears would again prove unfounded. Because the Windsor fire produced a partial collapse, some have argued that it validates the official account of the collapses of WTC Buildings 1, 2, and 7. Because the same fire was so massive and did not produce total collapse, others have cited it as evidence disproving that account. LINK Steel Versus Steel-Reinforced Concrete In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses. In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar. 4   The concrete pillars in the Windsor building are clearly visible in the photographs showing the intact core exposed by the collapsed facade. The very light construction of the perimeter, described below, makes it clear that the core was the main load-bearing component of the building. Compare these photographs of the Windsor building fire to photographs ofthe Twin Towers' fires and Building 7's fires Before examining the partial collapse of the Windsor building more closely, we note that steel-framed and steel-reinforced-concrete-framed structures behave very differently in fires. Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete. Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.   LINK Windsor Building Partial Collapse The observation that the Windsor Building is the only skyscraper to have suffered even a partial collapse as a result of fire suggests that the use of steel-reinforced-concrete framing was responsible. A closer look at the incident shows reality to be more complex. The portion of the building that collapsed consisted of the outer portions of floor slabs and perimeter walls throughout the upper third of the building (the 21st through 32nd floors). The outer walls consisted of steel box columns arranged on 1.8 meter centers and connected by narrow spandrel plates. The columns had square cross-sections 120mm on a side, and were fabricated of C-sections 7mm thick welded together. (these had a fraction of the dimensions, and were spaced about twice as far apart as the perimeter columns of the Twin Towers.) The perimeter columns lacked fireproofing throughout the upper third of the Windsor building. 5   The Windsor Building fire engulfed the upper third of the building, but also spread downward as low as the fourth floor. A report by two fire safety experts in Japan highlighted three causes for the very wide extent of the fire: The lack of a sprinkler system Incorrect installation of spandrels The lack of fire prevention regulations in Spain 6     The Windsor Building fire demonstrates that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours, can produce the collapse of parts of the building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection. It also shows that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial. Estimated time frame of collapses Time Collapse Situation 1:29 East face of the 21st floor collapsed 1:37 South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed 1:50 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:02 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:11 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:13 Floors above about 25th floor collapsed Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor 2:17 Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed 2:47 Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed 2:51 Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed 3:35 South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor 3:48 Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor 4:17 Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down 7   These partial collapse events, spread over several hours, contrast with the implosion of WTC Building 7 in 7 seconds, and the total explosive collapses of each of the Twin Towers in under 17 seconds. References 1. Fire Engulfs Office Building in Madrid, 2/12/05 [cached]  2. Burning Building Might Collapse, news24.com, 2/13/05  3. Collapse Threatens Skyscraper in Madrid, 2/14/05 [cached]  4. Madrid Windsor fire: the Arup view, arup.com, [cached]  5. The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid, One Stop Shop in Structural Fire Engineering, [cached]  6. Collapse Mechanism of the Windsor Building by Fire in Madrid ..., ncdr.nat.gov.tw,  7. Report on the Windsor Building Fire in Madrid, Spain, NILM, 7/1/05 [cached]    page last modified: 2013-03-20 Share|

 

Edited April 2, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

This should, if folks are honest, lead to some excellent discussions on WTC. Note from the time chart how even this much more highly susceptible to collapse building came down in its partial collapse; it was in bits and pieces, haltingly, spread out over hours, while the twin towers, steel framed high rises, that are not at all susceptible to collapse from fires, both came down at accelerating speeds. 

Can anyone say, absolutely impossible!

Edited April 2, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

Here's a US "news media" reporter telling about the magical passport, all with a straight face. 

 

Edited April 2, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

And a slightly more honest CNN reporter - "... if you can believe that"

 

[drummindiver]

@hot enough

You clearly have some animosity towards America. I imagine you were one of the millions worldwide cheering the collapse of the buildings and the deaths of thousands of people who just went to work Monday morning.

Allahu akbar.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, hot enough said:

What do you reckon happened? WTC7 was a controlled demolition, as were the twin towers. Is it that difficult for you to make logical deductions?

Regardless, planes were seen.  Holograms?  Mass hypnosis?

[dialamah]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Regardless, planes were seen.  Holograms?  Mass hypnosis?

I expect the whole thing was filmed in the same studio that they filmed the moon landing, remember that scandal?   Then they used special laser-lights to project the film around the WTC for the benefit of the people on the street, along with hidden speakers for sound effects, and of course detonated the explosives so the towers would come down.

Pretty sure that's what happened.   

[dialamah]

2 hours ago, hot enough said:

This should, if folks are honest, lead to some excellent discussions on WTC.  

 

Pre-defining those who fail to respond in the way you wish as 'dishonest' suggests you aren't really interested in discussion, only conversion.   Most people are honest in their opinions/beliefs, regardless of how wrong, stupid or gullible you think they are.    

[Altai]

3 hours ago, hot enough said:

Yup, the magical passport, stronger than a titanium airliner engine. This was one of the "investigations" little gems that was stuffed down the rabbit hole in a hell of a hurry. 

 

LoL is not it interesting that people who says they dont believe in God because of they cant see God, but believe in these tragic-comic stories despite they didnt see it 

[Ash74]

1 hour ago, Altai said:

LoL is not it interesting that people who says they dont believe in God because of they cant see God, but believe in these tragic-comic stories despite they didnt see it 

But the other side of the coin is those that believe in a God will follow ancient teachings that treat follow human beings in such uncivilized ways. For life choices that are really nobodies buisness. 

I don't know all ghetto details of 9 11 and nobody here does either. We will never know. I do not believe that the US government set the whole thing up either. Everything something happens like this there is a huge conspiracy plot. 

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Altai said:

LoL is not it interesting that people who says they dont believe in God because of they cant see God, but believe in these tragic-comic stories despite they didnt see it 

So true...

[Altai]

12 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

So true...

Are you kidding ? You are one of them, who believe in the govt stories. Its a kind of religion.  

[Omni]

10 minutes ago, Altai said:

Are you kidding ? You are one of them, who believe in the govt stories. Its a kind of religion.  

Ignoring facts is what religions are all about after all.

[capricorn]

1 hour ago, Altai said:

Are you kidding ? You are one of them, who believe in the govt stories. Its a kind of religion.  

Your English is improving, my dear.

[hot enough]

3 hours ago, dialamah said:

Pre-defining those who fail to respond in the way you wish as 'dishonest' suggests you aren't really interested in discussion, only conversion.   Most people are honest in their opinions/beliefs, regardless of how wrong, stupid or gullible you think they are.    

I agree, most, or at least many are. I would have to say though, that that number falls precipitously when the discussion is 9-11. Surely, you have noticed this not only here, but in your life. 9-11 is not to be discussed. The first assumption that the vast majority go to is "a truther/a conspiracy ..., all the names that people call others, for one reason, to stop discussion of the topic. 

Why would thinking folks like you avoid these highly interesting discussions, everyone loves a good mystery - it's because of the fear factor. Why should there be a fear factor in our great society, a land of honesty and candor? Do you really, honeslty think that people who have real questions, people who really want to know would dare to ask in this MLW climate?

 

Edited April 2, 2017 by hot enough

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Why would thinking folks like you avoid these discussions - because of the fear factor. Why should there be a fear factor in our great society, a land of honesty and candor?

 

1

Not because of fear, but because for those people, the evidence is not compelling or believable while the evidence for the other point-of-view is.   

[Omni]

Still waiting to hear how all that explosive got installed in the towers.

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Not because of fear, but because for those people, the evidence is not compelling or believable while the evidence for the other point-of-view is.   

Forgive me but I don't think you are being honest. Do you deny that there won't be folks absolutely crushed/devastated when the truth comes out? The folks who are wrapped up in their image that the US is good, kind, benevolent, generous, ... .

Why are so many fighting the truth right now? Who in their right mind would think that a PhD professor at the end of a long and brilliant career, a top flight forensic engineer, would throw his whole life away producing a fraudulent scientific study? 

[dialamah]

Just now, hot enough said:

Forgive me but I don't think you are being honest.

Conversation stopper.  

 

[Altai]

5 minutes ago, Omni said:

Still waiting to hear how all that explosive got installed in the towers.

Simple, you are putting the explosives in your bag and calling a taxi, going to the towers, your police friends allowing you to get in and you are going to the rooms which you was rented before, putting the explosives on columns. Then waiting for the planes to hit the towers while shipping your coffee in an helicopter turning around the towers 

Edited April 2, 2017 by Altai

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Conversation stopper.  

 

Do you engage in lots of discussions on 9-11? Do you hear regular discussions on this? This is a big event, a major event in everyone's lives. Now are you trying to tell me this is a freely, openly, honesty carefree type discussion. 

As interesting as it is, as important as it is, you haven't joined in. Why?

[dialamah]

Just now, hot enough said:

As interesting as it is, as important as it is, you haven't joined in. Why?

 

You've already made up your mind that it's because I'm dishonest.   

[Omni]

10 minutes ago, Altai said:

Simple, you are putting the explosives in your bag and calling a taxi, going to the towers, your police friends allowing you to get in and you are going to the rooms which you was rented before, putting the explosives on columns. Then waiting for the planes to hit the towers while shipping your coffee in an helicopter turning around the towers 

That's quite the story. Totally implausible, but interesting none the less.

[hot enough]

5 hours ago, drummindiver said:

@hot enough

You clearly have some animosity towards America. I imagine you were one of the millions worldwide cheering the collapse of the buildings and the deaths of thousands of people who just went to work Monday morning.

Allahu akbar.

Facts don't mean anything to you. It was Tuesday morning. The cheering crowds was another US propaganda myth. 

But let's turn this around. Consider all the cheering from Americans over the deaths of tens of millions their governments have slaughtered since WWII. The huge majority of Americans who supported the illegal invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan, all because of US lies. 

Your perpetual whining is really really sickening considering the death and suffering that has been pretty much the sum total of the USA.

And to top this all off, it wasn't the alleged hijackers that the US has falsely accused. The science says, unequivocally, it is impossible. 

Who could have done? Who is the only group that had access to the nanothermite which was found at WTC?

[hot enough]

37 minutes ago, capricorn said:

Your English is improving, my dear.

Cheap shot?