9/11

[kuzadd]

ghosthacked:

As I have stated , and you are aware:

as I previously stated:

"one does not even need explosions in buildings to disbelieve the "official conspiracy theory"

one needs history, an understanding of US foreign policy, a knowledge of oil interests, some understanding of geo-political strategy, and bingo!

To NOT question 9/11 and the US govs. involvment is to be willfully blind."

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=230602

see post chock full of links!

But right now, I must admitting, I am enjoying the much needed correction in information riverwind is getting, for promoting some of the most BS statements wrt building construction et al, I have ever seen put to print.

[Riverwind]

But right now, I must admitting, I am enjoying the much needed correction in information riverwind is getting, for promoting some of the most BS statements wrt building construction et al, I have ever seen put to print.

Angus has been quibbling with the exact wording of some of the statements I have made. He has not refuted the general principal of any of my arguments. i.e.

1) that normal hydrocarbon fire can cause structural damage to buildings

2) that how a building collapses depends on the design of a building and it is impossible to claim that a building can *never* collapse into its own foot print.

Since you seem to accept Angus as an expert you should note one thing that he said:

"Of course it could all be just as the official explanation claims. It just seems more than a little odd to me that these buildings were so easy to bring down."

IOW - he seems to agree that the building collapses themselves cannot be used as conclusive evidence of a government plot even if he thinks they are odd.

This is more or less the argument I have made. That is why no theory can be taken seriously unless it is supported by a coherent and rational story arc that explains all of the events on 9/11.

For example, we can immediately discard any theory that claims the planes were not hijacked since we have eyewitness accounts from the passengers and the flight data recorders from at least one of the planes. This fact alone excludes most of the truthie theories.

[kimmy]

why do you choose those construction trades when there are so many more Kimmy?

or are you simply not aware of that?

Or did you pick those as the trades of ridicule??

(your usual tool)

Don't forget, I am privy to construction talk.

So am quite aware of 'shop talk' wrt specific trades.

You have asserted your husband's construction experience as a means of claiming your "investigation" into the WTC collapses has credible expertise behind it. If you wish to make such claims, then you must be prepared to field inquiries as to the specifics of his construction experience.

While I may have sounded as though I was ridiculing drywallers, framers, or mud and tape guys, my intention was to point out that being "in the construction industry" does not necessarily make you qualified to assess the structural engineering science involved in the WTC collapses.

So, please. You've asserted that your husband's construction experience makes your WTC "investigation" a credible scientific exercise. To evaluate that assertion, we need specifics. If you want us to consider your husband's expertise when we read your comments, then we need to know what exactly what his expertise is comprised of.

I know a number of experienced construction workers, none of whom I'd consider to have any particular knowledge about structural engineering science. And without specific information about the sort of work your husband does, I'm not prepared to give his construction experience any particular credence either.

We've seen credentials inflated and invented repeatedly on the Truthwagon. It's how Jim Fetzer became a "theoretical scientist", Barbara Honegger became a "Pentagon Colonel", David Hawkins became a "PhD in Thermodynamics" and a "leading forensic economist", and on and on.

-k

[kimmy]

Kimmy, how does this, affect any building codes in the UNITED STATES?? So we can completely ignore this post. You all remember the huge ass fire in the WTC in 1973, 4 floors engulfed in flames. Then they made the recomendation to install fire proofing material and OMG A SPRINKLER SYSTEM !!!....

I posted that for a couple of reasons.

First, I was tired of seeing Angus attempt to "big-man" Riverwind using his construction background. "Show me the code! Show me the code! Show me where it says that in the code! We put up steel stuff all the time and we don't need no stinkin insulation! So show me the code!"

Well, there's the code. National Build, 1965, Supplement 2, Fire Performance Ratings. While I'd love to read subsequent versions of the NBCC to verify that this regulation remains in force, I don't care to part with the $400 to buy a new one.

While I gather it is considerably more complicated than a simple yes or no question (involving discussion of fire endurance ratings and classification by the design use to determine whether insulation is required), there's clearly background for the claim that steel is to be protected from fire.

Second, I got tired of comments like this:

We work with pretty big steel. We move it, we lift it, we cut it, we join it. Nothing on the scale of the WTC, but big steel none the less. When you work with steel on a daily basis you come to understand it and what it can do. Do you realize the amount of heat required to cut or melt a structural component?

"Why, steel is big! It's strong! It's heavy! It is hard to cut it or melt it!"

Nonetheless, the National Building Code of Canada recognized 42 years ago that structural steel suffers a significant loss of strength when heated, and accordingly specified standards to prevent this from occurring.

Third, while as you point out this information was obtained from the Canadian building code, building codes are based on research and experience that do not stop at national borders. If the Canadian building code was updated in 1965 to require protection of structural steel, it is because it had become recognized by 1965 in the field that there was a need to protect structural steel from weakening due to heat.

(when did they start building the WTC? 1966. oooh. It was already known in the field by 1966 that structural steel needs to be protected from heat damage.)

So we can completely ignore this post.

I'm sure that many will, which is unfortunate. Because it addresses an issue that is fundamental to the discussion.

"lol, you can't burn steel! You can't melt it! You can't make a steel building fall down with a fire!"

This article that I linked to proves that the industry has long known that fire *can* cause a steel building to fall down.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

This article that I linked to proves that the industry has long known that fire *can* cause a steel building to fall down.

Agreed....it was proven again in Madrid during the Windsor Tower fire:

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/r...res/default.htm

[kuzadd]

You have asserted your husband's construction experience as a means of claiming your "investigation" into the WTC collapses has credible expertise behind it. If you wish to make such claims, then you must be prepared to field inquiries as to the specifics of his construction experience.

Nowhere did I claim "expertise", those are your nonsensical words.

This is exactly what I said

While I make no claim to be an expert, at all, when it comes to knowledge in the matters of construction, metal, blueprints, etc., the knowledge and further access to information I have is way, over and above riverwinds, false assertations!"

Which is IMO correct, based on all I have read here.

Now why, would you use such terminology?" Expertise" Except to mislead?

Please mislead away!

You are quite excellent at it!

Re: your use of the 'drywallers'. I am certain why you used it, (as a ridicule tool).Why? That is your main modus operandi, and largely, why I don't take you very seriously at all.

If I wish to undertake an investigation of the construction of the towers, there collapse etc, what do you care? What i do in my free time is my own business, I certainly don't question or care what you do in yours.

Edited August 25, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

Angus has been quibbling with the exact wording of some of the statements I have made. He has not refuted the general principal of any of my arguments. i.e.

1) that normal hydrocarbon fire can cause structural damage to buildings

2) that how a building collapses depends on the design of a building and it is impossible to claim that a building can *never* collapse into its own foot print.

Since you seem to accept Angus as an expert you should note one thing that he said:

There it is, the word 'expert' again???

What is with you people??

Why do you use such language, except to mislead?

Why would I consider Angus an 'expert'?

Though it is clear to me he has a better then average knowledge of how things are built.

You have never demonstrated any knowledge.

Period!

You have promoted fallacies as truths.

Edited August 25, 2007 by kuzadd

[Riverwind]

You have never demonstrated any knowledge.

I have demonstrated a lot of knowledge which I have gained by researching the topic. However, my knowledge contradicts what you want to believe so you try to dismiss it. Angus says things that you want to hear so you immediately accept it as the gospel truth despite the fact that Angus has been shown to be wrong when he tried to claim that fire protection on steel is not necessary.

I have made some statements which were too broad and I should have added some qualifiers and caveats. However, those over statements do not negate the basic validity of my arguments (i.e. it is possible for a structural damage + fires to trigger a total collapse of a steel frame structure).

The only fallacies I have seen on this thread are peddled by people like you who think it is possible to draw definitive conclusions from the evidence available. No one will ever be able to prove with 100% certainty why those towers collapsed and even the top experts in the field would admit that they have make many educated guesses to come up with a reasonable theory. For this reason, it is impossible to make any claims about what happened by simply analyzing the technical details of the collapse. We must look at the broader picture and consider all available evidence to determine what the most plausible theory is.

Anyone who looks at the broader picture will always conclude that 9/11 was caused by terrorists who hijacked planes an flew them into buildings because that theory fits with almost all of the evidence available.

Any theory that suggests the US government was an active partner in the attack is not plausible because there is no evidence that supports it and plenty of evidence that excludes it as a possibility.

Edited August 25, 2007 by Riverwind

[kimmy]

Nowhere did I claim "expertise", those are your nonsensical words.

This is exactly what I said

While I make no claim to be an expert, at all, when it comes to knowledge in the matters of construction, metal, blueprints, etc., the knowledge and further access to information I have is way, over and above riverwinds, false assertations!"

Which is IMO correct, based on all I have read here.

That's not all you said. You also said this:

Oh and BTW, it;s only fair to tell you, I have a spouse who has been in construction for over 20 years.

I have a copy of wtc 1 blueprints and loads of research, documented, I have done on my own, and with my spouse, over the past 5 yrs.

So please do tell me riverwind about the construction of the towers, hydrocarbon fires, and structural steel, and the fireproofing.

You should have got that already, and it was that much easier to spot your complete lack of knowledge.

Would you now like to bow to my authority?!

You boasted of your husband's 20 years of construction experience in explaining why Riverwind should Respect Yo' Authoritay. (if that's not an "appeal to authority", then what is?)

And now it turns out that your husband's 20 years of construction is in .... sheetmetal.

Now why, would you use such terminology?" Expertise" Except to mislead?

Please mislead away!

You are quite excellent at it!

Mislead?

I would say that the misleading is being done by the person bragging that her husbands 20 years of construction experience made her research more credible, when in fact it's 20 years of sheetmetal work.

Re: your use of the 'drywallers'. I am certain why you used it, (as a ridicule tool).Why? That is your main modus operandi, and largely, why I don't take you very seriously at all.

I am ridiculing the idea that 20 years of sheetmetal experience makes your husband an authority on structural engineering.

Tell you what, next time we're discussing the collapse of a sheetmetal-framed building, your husband's 20 years of sheetmetal experience will probably be extremely relevant to the topic. If a quonset hut blows down in a gale, and your husband says "the official story can't be true, this was an inside job!" I'll give his opinion a lot of consideration.

If I wish to undertake an investigation of the construction of the towers, there collapse etc, what do you care? What i do in my free time is my own business, I certainly don't question or care what you do in yours.

Of course. Investigate away. There's lots of people with no knowledge at all who are "investigating" the WTC collapse, so you'll feel right at home.

-k

[kuzadd]

I have demonstrated a lot of knowledge which I have gained by researching the topic.

if you have, I have not seen it.

redundancy, lateral load, etc.,

Your table argument was outrageous at best/

t Angus has been shown to be wrong when he tried to claim that fire protection on steel is not necessary.

Is that what Angus said?

Didn't Angus in fact say 'all steel buildings do not require fire proof insulation on the structural components"

very different from the word's you are putting in his mouth now isn't it?

However, those over statements do not negate the basic validity of my arguments (i.e. it is possible for a structural damage + fires to trigger a total collapse of a steel frame structure).

Have I denied that basic theory,has Angus??

Though again your lack of knowledge is showing it is NOT FIRE, IT IS HEAT!!!!

IT IS HEAT GENERATED BY FIRE!!!

do you get that???

Didn't I infact say

"HEAT plus time can equal damage.

I NEVER DENIED THAT.

How much heat?

How much time?"

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=245790

You REPEATEDLY confuse HEAT and FIRE, they are NOT the same!

Here is a link to Thomas Eager's report;

He SUPPORTS the official story.

He explains well the difference between heat and fire:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html

"Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. "

The only fallacies I have seen on this thread are peddled by people like you who think it is possible to draw definitive conclusions from the evidence available.

Yet again with the misleading words, I have peddled NO "fallacies", I cannot draw a definitive conclusion nor do I say I do, I express an opinion. An opinion of my own, based on , my own research of the subject and the available evidence.

Anyone who looks at the broader picture will always conclude that 9/11 was caused by terrorists who hijacked planes an flew them into buildings because that theory fits with almost all of the evidence available.

Assumption! Anyone who looks at the broader picture , will have even more questions.!

Anyone who looks at the geo-political , strategic, aspirations, and foreign policy history, of the US, including, pipeline politics, the fomenting of Islamic Fundametalism, the dominance by the US of ME oil, etc., etc., etc.,

see and read entire post and all links, then do some homework!

[kuzadd]

And now it turns out that your husband's 20 years of construction is in .... sheetmetal.

Sorry, is that not a construction trade?? LOL!

I would say that the misleading is being done by the person bragging that her husbands 20 years of construction experience made her research more credible, when in fact it's 20 years of sheetmetal work.

Is that not a construction trade??

I am ridiculing the idea that 20 years of sheetmetal experience makes your husband an authority on structural engineering.

did I say that somewhere Kimmy,"authority on structural engineering" oh there is that misleading wording again, as stated ,your good at it!

[Tell you what, next time we're discussing the collapse of a sheetmetal-framed building,

Oh sorry that's "sheeter/decking" not quite the same, but go to town with it, Miss Construction expert.

LOL!

I would say that Kimmy is afraid, afraid, because someone is on here who can read blueprints and understands how metal is used particularily wrt heating of metal.

So Kimmy must now come out and attack and ridicule, by going so far as ridiculing a legitimate construction trade , a skilled trade that REVOLVES around metal!

priceless Kimmy, show us what yah got girl!!

yah gots nothing, so your resorting to smear and ridicule, go girl, go!!

Oh and Kimmy, dear, my hubby's father was an IRON WORKER, another construction trade!!!

His brother is also in the biz!

It runs in the family!

Hurry attack another trade! use your ridicule! it is your trademark!

Edited August 26, 2007 by kuzadd

[Riverwind]

Your table argument was outrageous at best

When I originally presented the table example it included a number of assumptions which PolyNewbie either ignored or did not understand. He then repeated over and over again about how wrong the example was but refused to explain exactly why it was wrong. After much prompting I finally convinced him to explain and he demonstrated that he had completely ignored the starting assumptions and invented his own. In the end, he had to acknowledge that the example was not wrong given the starting assumptions. The entire exchange is a perfect example of how truthies try to manipulate and misrepresent science in order to make their case.

Didn't Angus in fact say 'all steel buildings do not require fire proof insulation on the structural components"

Angus claimed that my statement was completely false which implies that he feels that no fire protection is ever required. If he had meant to say that fire protection is only required in some cases then he should have stated that and acknowledged that my statement was partially correct.

You REPEATEDLY confuse HEAT and FIRE, they are NOT the same!

My my, you love to bring up irrelevant details. Fire and heat are different concepts but it is not necessary to distinguish between the two for the purposes of this discussion.

Anyone who looks at the geo-political , strategic, aspirations, and foreign policy history, of the US, including, pipeline politics, the fomenting of Islamic Fundametalism, the dominance by the US of ME oil, etc., etc., etc.,

Those arguments mean nothing unless you can actually provide evidence that there is a connection between them and the events on 9/11. If 9/11 was a hoax intended to justify the invasion of Iraq then why were the 'alleged' hijackers Saudis and not Iraqis? Where is the evidence that the government was involved? Where are the whistle blowers? I know you think you can dismiss those questions but those questions mean your theory is extremely implausible and should not be taken seriously. If you could come up with *plausible* answers to those questions then your theory might be worth considering. Edited August 26, 2007 by Riverwind

[kimmy]

Sorry, is that not a construction trade?? LOL!

I never disputed that it was a construction trade. I just dispute the idea that it makes his opinion of this matter particularly noteworthy.

Is that not a construction trade??

Sure. So is drywalling or framing, but I don't see those guys claiming that 20 years in the construction biz gives them inside knowledge of how skyscrapers could have collapsed.

I would say that Kimmy is afraid, afraid, because someone is on here who can read blueprints and understands how metal is used particularily wrt heating of metal.

I'm "afraid"? Because your husband can read blueprints? Please, tell us what you think your perusal of blueprints is going to uncover. Do you think your husband is the first person who can read blueprints to look into this? If your husband is honest, the first thing he'll say when he's done looking over these blueprints is "this is very complex and far beyond my level of expertise."

I'm "afraid" because your husband is going to tell us about how heat affects metal? Why? Is he going to dispute what the National Research Council and the National Building Code of Canada says about the effects of heat on structural steel?

So Kimmy must now come out and attack and ridicule, by going so far as ridiculing a legitimate construction trade , a skilled trade that REVOLVES around metal!

I would never ridicule the trades. I know how much money tradesmen bring home, and there's no way I can ridicule somebody who can bring home that kind of money.

I simply don't think that being in a trade, even a construction trade, even a construction trade involving metal, gives someone the qualifications to make a credible assessment of something as complicated as the Twin Towers.

Oh and Kimmy, dear, my hubby's father was an IRON WORKER, another construction trade!!!

His brother is also in the biz!

It runs in the family!

Big deal. Invite the whole family. Unless you've got a relative who's a structural engineer, I'm not particularly impressed by any of that.

-k

[kuzadd]

I simply don't think that being in a trade, even a construction trade, even a construction trade involving metal, gives someone the qualifications to make a credible assessment of something as complicated as the Twin Towers.

-k

Well that is your opinion, and while I must disagree with your statement to some degree, and I will explain.

Also , I beg to differ, with your use of the work "credible" .

As i would easily state that a person with access to construction skills on an industrial level, a knowledge of how heat affects metal, etc., is in a far more credible position to make comments on construction practices, then someone who has none of this experience, and knowledge, ie: Riverwind and yourself.

You cannot possibly realistically disagree with this, though I am sure you will.

NOW, In this entire argument, had you been paying attention, which apparently you haven't, I have been quibbling with riverwind about construction practices.

Redundancy in construction, the effects of lateral load on a building, heat versus fire, some basic physics, and the effects of heat on metals.

Redundancy, lateral load, environmental forces, the effects of heat on metal, are all things as stated, that. I can discuss with an above average knowledge, and I am quite confident and comfortable with that statement.

Eg: Riverwind, claims the towers were built with "little to no redundancy"

This is a completely non-credible statement.

I do not know if you know what this term exactly means,wrt construction, but for RW, to state this as factual, is equal to stating we do not breathe oxygen. it is a patently false statement.

Redundancy: refers to the quality or state of being redundant, that is: exceeding what is necessary or normal; in construction it is, as an example: an ability of a building to redistribute loads, when something has failed. Redundancy in a building of the magnitude of the towers would be essential, and by all accounts, the WTC towers were highly redundant structures.

Another statement wrt: lateral load, and the buildings not being under any lateral load is another falsity, promoted by Riverwind. What is lateral load? Well as I explained to RW previously, the most common lateral load is a wind load. The towers would have under considerable horizontal force, everyday, acting on the structure. In fact this consideration was taken in, when the towers were constructed as scale models were built and subjected to wind tunnel tests.

One does not need to be a structural engineer to know, or understand the basic concepts.

One does need an understanding of building construction, and practices, on a larger scale

One these matters ,as stated I have a better then general knowledge, this is what I have stated and this is what I have quibbled with RW, all along.

Regardless of what you think is credible or not basic construction practices and considerations, are as practical and applicable to wtc towers and any other structures.

Edited August 27, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

My my, you love to bring up irrelevant details. Fire and heat are different concepts but it is not necessary to distinguish between the two for the purposes of this discussion.

There you go again!

Fire and Heat are two different concepts, and are necessary to distinguish between.

Why would you even claim that?

A cool fire will not generate much heat.

A hotter fire will generate more.

A short lived fire will not generate much heat.

A long burning robust fire will generate much more heat.

That is why it is important to distinguish between the two.

It is not an irrelevant detail , it is an important detail.

Except to someone, who doesn't know, of what they speak!

[Riverwind]

Fire and Heat are two different concepts, and are necessary to distinguish between.

You left out the most import part of my statement. I said:

Fire and Heat are two different concepts, and are necessary to distinguish between for the purposes of this discussion..

Please explain why making a distinction between the two would have made any difference to the discussion about fire protection above? Technically speaking the building code wrong to talk about 'fire protection systems' for steel because fire is not the problem it is heat.

You whinge about lateral load from wind but you have no evidence that they were actually significant. Basic force calculations show that the force of gravity acting on the building far exceeds any wind load on that day.

You harp of my claims of redundancy but you missed the fact that my statement was a comparison to other types of structures and not an absolute statement. Those beams could have 1000x times redundancy but my statement would be still correct if the structures that I was comparing the towers to had 100,000x redundancy.

What you are doing is simply a diversion that adds nothing to the discussion and simply demonstrates that you don't have much of an argument.

If you want to make a case that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack then you should provide a coherent and plausible theory supported by evidence that shows how the government planned and executed the hoax. It is not enough to say they had *motive* - you have to show they actually did it. Enough with your diversions - try addressing the real question for once.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Riverwind

[kuzadd]

redundancy is in the manner of construction, not in the 'beams', as you state.

and if you knew anything about construction, you would know that.

Honestly riverwind?!

When discussing heat vs fire.:

Did you notice here in AT's statement

"Do you realize the amount of heat required to cut or melt a structural component?"

That is what I was referring to, do you notice AT used the correct terminology?

The terminology that anyone who is in the construction would use.

When one applies a "torch"( I am using torch to demonstrate in a simple manner) of some type, to steel, using fire,or some other heat source, the heat eventually generated , by that heat source, will eventually, by causing the component, to reach the necessary temperature, cut or melt the structural component.

Which is why , I am telling you there is a big, big difference between , fire and heat.

If a fire(heat source) is not generating enough heat, there will be no weakening,no cutting.

THEREFORE it is important to differentiate between the two , you have failed to, or do not understand that.

Edited August 27, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

which in summary is why all along, I have been quibbling, with your construction "knowledge"

wrt the twin towers.

Why?

Because you have none!

Wrt: the building codes.

I am sure that the construction company A.T. works for, builds to code or surpasses it, as I know my spouse does. Why am I sure of that? Because every job is inspected as it goes along.

If a job is not "to code", it will be rectified quickly, you can believe that!

But, it's not just that, shoddy work means no repeat business, and a destruction of a professional reputation. Not something any company wants to do or have.

Edited August 27, 2007 by kuzadd

[Riverwind]

"Do you realize the amount of heat required to cut or melt a structural component?"

Do you realize that no one has ever claimed that the fires cut or melted structural components?

Which is why , I am telling you there is a big, big difference between , fire and heat.

The take it up with the authors of the building code who said:

The fire endurance of steel in a structural assembly depends primarily on the thermal protection provided by other materials interposed between the steel and the fire exposure.

The people who wrote that must not know what they are talking about because they incorrectly talked about the 'fire endurance' of steel instead of the heat endurance.

"THEREFORE it is important to differentiate between the two , you have failed to, or do not understand that.

You failed to provide any argument that making such as distinction is relevant to the discussion.

Your diversion tactics are kind of silly. They don't change the fact that you don't have a coherent and plausible story arc supported evidence that explains how the events on 9/11 could have been anything other than a terrorist attack.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Riverwind

[kimmy]

Well that is your opinion, and while I must disagree with your statement to some degree, and I will explain.

Also , I beg to differ, with your use of the work "credible" .

As i would easily state that a person with access to construction skills on an industrial level, a knowledge of how heat affects metal, etc., is in a far more credible position to make comments on construction practices, then someone who has none of this experience, and knowledge, ie: Riverwind and yourself.

You cannot possibly realistically disagree with this, though I am sure you will.

I have been forthright about my level of education, and I have never asserted myself to be any sort of authority on construction or engineering matters.

Which is why I support my statements with research or calculations.

For example, I don't need to take your husband's or Angus's word about how heat affects steel, because I found the National Building Code supplement pertaining to that topic.

-k

[psikeyhackr]

Is there a conspiracy regarding the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the towers? So why haven't we heard that in SIX YEARS? How can you analyze the physics of the impact without the distribution of steel and concrete thru the building? How many tons of steel can you heat to 1100 deg F in 56 minutes? Didn't the designers have to figure out what ot put on each level in the 1960s?

How much steel was on the 80th floor of the south tower?

Windsor Tower 131 ft x 82 ft x 348 ft tall

30 flrs of WTC 205 ft x 205 ft x 360 ft tall

There had to be enough steel on the 80th floor of the south WTC to hold FOUR Windsor Towers. But we haven't heard how much steel was on every level of the buildings in SIX YEARS.

The Windsor Tower didn't collapse in 18 hours of fire so how did all that steel weaken in 56 minutes? Don't steel the TRUTH!

psik

[Michael Hardner]

I'm heartened by the fact that this subject wasn't posted on for a few months. I'm disheartened by the fact that this thread is almost a year old. I posted on it on December 10th.

Thankfully, the general public has largely remained apathetic to this non-issue. Hopefully, future generations will be able to filter out this conspiracy nonsense better, as these allegations come up far too often.

[segnosaur]

Sweet zombie jebus... I thought this thread was long dead and buried. Why would anyone waste their time resurecting it from the dead?

The Windsor Tower didn't collapse in 18 hours of fire so how did all that steel weaken in 56 minutes? Don't steel the TRUTH!

The Windsor Tower was a different design than the WTC, and made use of a concrete-reinforced core that made it more tollerant to fire and heat.

So, what happened at the Windsor tower has no relevance to what happened on 9/11.

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

[JerrySeinfeld]

Here is a fitting commentary by Mark Steyn about the conspiracy theorists - he puts it so well why bother trying to paraphrase:

...enjoyable as they are, pop-culture metaphors aren't really of much use, especially when you're up against cultures where life is still defined by how you live as opposed to what you experience via media. It seems to me, for example, that when anti-war types bemoan Iraq as this generation's Vietnam "quagmire," older folks are thinking of the real Vietnam — the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and whatnot — but most anybody under 50 is thinking of Vietnam movies: some vague video-store mélange of The Full Metal Deer Apocalypse. Take the Scott Thomas Beauchamp debacle at The New Republic, in which the magazine ran an atrocity-a-go-go Baghdad diary piece by a serving soldier about dehumanized troops desecrating graves, abusing disfigured women, etc. It smelled phony from the get-go — except to the professional media class from whose ranks The New Republic's editors are drawn: To them, it smelled great, because it aligned reality with the movie looping endlessly through the windmills of their mind, a non-stop Coppola-Stone retrospective in which ill-educated conscripts are the dupes of a nutso officer class. It's the same with all those guys driving around with "9/11 Was An Inside Job" bumper stickers. That aligns reality with every conspiracy movie from the last three decades: It's always the government who did it — sometimes it's some super-secret agency working deep within the bureaucracy from behind an unassuming nameplate on a Washington street; and sometimes it's the President himself — but when poor Joe Schmoe on the lam from the Feds eventually unravels it, the cunning conspiracy is always the work of a ruthlessly efficient all-powerful state. So Iraq is Vietnam. And 9/11 is the Kennedy assassination, with ever higher percentages of the American people gathering on the melted steely knoll.

There's a kind of decadence about all this: if 9/11 was really an inside job, you wouldn't be driving around with a bumper sticker bragging that you were on to it. Fantasy is a by-product of security: it's the difference between hanging upside down in your dominatrix's bondage parlor for half-an-hour after work on Friday and enduring the real thing for years on end in Saddam's prisons.

He continues in another column...

A decade or so back at some confab at Paramount, I met Lionel Chetwynd, a writer and producer who was raised in Montreal and in his pre-showbiz days served in the Black Watch (the Royal Highland Regiment), in the course of which he met several Canadian veterans of the Dieppe raid. After recounting their story one night at a party in Malibu, he was invited to pitch it as a project to some network honcho. He laid out the bones of the plot — a suicidal dry run for D-Day against a heavily fortified European port.

"Who's the enemy?" asked the network exec.

"Hitler," said Chetwynd. "The Nazis."

"No, no, no," she pressed. "Who's the real enemy?"

"It was the first time I realized," Chetwynd later told Cathy Seipp, "that for many people, evil such as Nazism can only be understood as a cipher for evil within ourselves." Who's the real enemy? Ike. Churchill. The Imperial General Staff. Us.

Ed Driscoll, who's been scanning the shrivelled horizon of an ever more parochial movie industry for some years now, likes to cite that anecdote as a kind of shorthand for the Hollywood aesthetic: who's the real enemy? In this season's crop of movies, the enemy is never al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Baathists . . . Sure, they're out there somewhere at the fringe of events, but they're just Hitchcock's MacGuffin — the pretext for the real story. And that means the heroes can never be, say, a bunch of U.S. Marines who leap from their Humvee on the outskirts of Ramadi because something goofy's going on. No, the heroes have to be dogged journalists or crusading lawyers or obstinate wives who refuse to swallow the official explanation. And the real enemy are renegade government officials, covert agencies, right-wing senators, Halliburton. And, unsurprisingly, despite the unpopularity of Bush and the Iraq war, the public simply doesn't buy the idea of their country as a 24/7 cover-up for rape, torture and war profiteering.

[Higgly]

Here is a fitting commentary by Mark Steyn about the conspiracy theorists - he puts it so well why bother trying to paraphrase:

He continues in another column...

Mark Steyn. I love it.