9/11

[Riverwind]

riverwind: I am still waiting for an explanation on how oxygen deprived fires burnt hotter, 60 feet below ground buried under debris??? Tons of debris?? Your aluminum arguement fell flat, shouldn't have took cheney's bait?!

I am still waiting for a coherent story line that would explain how 9/11 could have been anything other than a terrorist attack.

You are wasting your time with random factoids and inconsistencies. Without a coherent storyline you have no argument.

As far as your hot fires - they are a red herrring since you have no proof that the fires were actually hotter than what one would expect for a hydrocarbon fire buried suddenly. You also have no way to prove that there weren't pockets of other materials that could have caused an endothermic reaction of some sort.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Riverwind

[kuzadd]

riverwind: I am still waiting for an explanation on how oxygen deprived fires burnt hotter, 60 feet below ground buried under debris??? Tons of debris?? Your aluminum arguement fell flat, shouldn't have took cheney's bait?!

I am still waiting for a coherent story line that would explain how 9/11 could have been anything other than a terrorist attack.

You are wasting your time with random factoids and inconsistencies. Without a coherent storyline you have no argument.

As far as your hot fires - they are a red herrring since you have no proof that the fires were actually hotter than what one would expect for a hydrocarbon fire buried suddenly. You also have no way to prove that there weren't pockets of other materials that could have caused an endothermic reaction of some sort.

Like your story on the battery room, ?????

You have been so sadly mistaken so many times, it's border on hilarity, except you take yourself, so seriously.

Your arguement "Without a coherent storyline" is my exact issue with the official 9/11 story, no coherent storyline, just 19 fringe character with boxcutters? run by a boogey man in a cave, on dialysis, thwarting the mighty US security capacity, Now that is Hilarious!!!!

it;s like a comedy skit, ludicrous, lacking sensible coherence and credibility, but you eat it up!

[M.Dancer]

Some people will predict the market based on the length of the skirt,

making huge gains and hitting paydirt,

me,

I take a peak and wait for chat

Of the 9.11 truther and their tin foil hat....

And sure enough between the 9th and today Alcan is up $10.00

http://tsedb.globeinvestor.com/invest/inve...ry_listing=AL-T

http://tsedb.globeinvestor.com/invest/inve...?pi_symbol=AL-T

Edited July 19, 2007 by M.Dancer

[Trandana]

Yeah US blew up the trade centers and dubbed a tape of Osama

for a reason to steal Iraq's oil, spread the news.

[psikeyhackr]

Has anyone learned how many tons of steel were on the 79th, 80th and 81st floors of the south tower yet?

How do you analyze the effects of the impact and fire without that information?

Didn't the people who designed the building in the 1960's have to determine that to design the building?

The NIST report says one plane had 9 tons of cargo and the other had 5 tons. If they can give us that information why can't they tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every story and basement level. It is not like it should have changed since 1973.

psik

[AngusThermopyle]

Why? The onus is on you to prove your claim. Most of your points are simply complaints about how the gov't handled the investigation - they don't prove a damn thing even if they were reasonable complaints. Most of the others are opinions that cannot be substantiated. I will pick on this one you have yet to provide a counter arguement:

Buildings will naturally collapse into their footprint unless there is some large force pushes them sideways like an earthquake. Demolition crews spend weeks trying to get buildings to collapse properly because they have a duty to ensure that absolutely _no_ debris affects the surrounding buildings (e.g. it was debris from WTC1 & WTC2 that damaged WTC7). IOW, your statement that the collapse of the buildings was unusual is simply false. However, I will give you another opportunity to produce one example of where a building topples sideways when there was no outside force.

Actually you are wrong on that one. Buildings do not naturally collapse into their own footprints. How do I know this? Could it be because I'm in the buisness? Why do you think demolition companies work so hard to achieve just this affect? I have been present at both controlled and uncontrolled demolitions.

If a building collapses without carefull planning it does not do so in a uniform manner. Factors such as piling depth, rebar size and frequency of/various materials used in the construction of the building will all affect the collapse to varying degree's.

I've seen a few buildings that have come down due to poor engineering and or construction work. They tend to spill quite far when they collapse and always leave extensive sections standing or intact.

I've always wondered why those buildings came straight down, in fact, when I first saw them go down my first thought was "controlled demolition". I don't think your experience with these matters is very extensive judgeing by what you posted.

[Riverwind]

Actually you are wrong on that one. Buildings do not naturally collapse into their own footprints. How do I know this? Could it be because I'm in the buisness? Why do you think demolition companies work so hard to achieve just this affect? I have been present at both controlled and uncontrolled demolitions.

I explained in my post. Demolition companies take the time because they need to have _zero_ damage to surrounding buildings. The WTC buildings destroyed many of the surrounding buildings when they collapsed. IOW - the entire premise that the buildings collapsed 'cleanly in their footprint' is false.

I've always wondered why those buildings came straight down, in fact, when I first saw them go down my first thought was "controlled demolition". I don't think your experience with these matters is very extensive judgeing by what you posted.

I wondered too. However theories that the government deliberately demolished the buildings are incoherent, nonsensical and do not have one shread of supporting evidence. This means the only rational explaination is that the straight down collapse is a highly probable outcome given the nature of the damage to the structures.

If you disagree then please provide a coherent and rational storyline that fits with the evidence that we have. If you can't provide that then you are wasting your time speculating about whether the collapses were 'natural' or not.

[AngusThermopyle]

If you disagree then please provide a coherent and rational storyline that fits with the evidence that we have. If you can't provide that then you are wasting your time speculating about whether the collapses were 'natural' or not.

Actually, what I said was that your statement about buildings "naturally collapsing" into their own footprint was incorrect. Just a question inspired by curiosity, how many controlled/uncontrolled demolitions have you been involved in? Must be quite a few if your response and authoritative tone are any indication. As I previously stated I'm in the buisness. Not that it's any ones buisness but the position I hold is multi faceted. I act as Safety Officer, Purchasing Officer, Special Projects Manager and lastly, Company Geek.

Our next big Special Project involves erection as opposed to demolition. We've been awarded the contract to fabricate and erect the Olympic Rings for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. We aren't sure yet if we want this project though. The rings will be suspended 300' above the harbour and we'll build both them and the support tower that will arc out over the harbour. Now we just have to decide whether we want it or not. Sometimes I think we should take it, other times not. As Special Projects manager I would certainly be intimatlly involved in this one. We're not sure if we want the hassle of dealing with the media for one thing since we've been told Discovery Channel will be doing a special on it.

We are not actually a demolition company per se, however we do work intimately with such companies on a fairly regular basis. Often the demolition and construction guys have to work hand in hand on projects in order to avoid costly mistakes. So, I do have more than a passing familiarity with the demolition trade. As I said earlier, your statement was false. Please do not try to obfuscate the statement in question.

[Riverwind]

So, I do have more than a passing familiarity with the demolition trade. As I said earlier, your statement was false. Please do not try to obfuscate the statement in question.

There are only three explainations for what was observed on 9/11:

1) These particular buildings collapsed naturally into their footprint;

2) An amazing coindidence occurred and 3 buildings collapsed straight down even though they should have 'naturally' fallen over;

3) The buildings were deliberately demolished.

2) and 3) are *extremely* improbable given the evidence available. As a result, 1) is the only rational explanation. However, that is not what I said in the post you quoted. That post was at the tail end of a much longer exchange and I should have not made such a general claim regarding all buildings - my original claims were specific to the types of buildings that collapsed on 9/11 and I do feel it is correct to say that the straight down collapses were natural and there was nothing surprising about them. The NIST report completely explains the mechanisms involved.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Riverwind

[AngusThermopyle]

2) An amazing coindidence occurred and 3 buildings collapsed straight down even though they should have 'naturally' fallen over;

Okay, i can see now you just don't get it.

Buildings don't just fall over, they don't just naturally collapse into their own footprint either. Buildings fall down according to their structure. One building may have a main support structure that is symmetrical with other structures attached at asymmetrical positions and angles. This building would not collapse in the same way that a simple multey level box type building would collapse. Do you see what I'm saying?

I'm not offering up any opinion on the cause of the collapse of the WTC, you seem to think I am. I don't have enough raw uncontaminated data to do that, all of that that stuff is classified. To be honest, my life is busy enough already, I don't have time to obsess over who actually brought down the towers, what I am saying is that your statement about buildings collapsing into thier own footprint naturally is a false statement. Can you refute what I say? Can you show me some credentials you have in order to make what you said an informed opinion or merely a personal opinion based upon second hand sources?

Are you now going to deny having said that? Are you going to make me do that tedious quotation thing just so you can ignore what I bring up? Just admit it, you really don't know much about how buildings go up, or conversely, how they're brought down. In that case I'd say your opinion is based on second hand knowledge, not on first hand experience. Don't you agree?

[Riverwind]

Buildings don't just fall over, they don't just naturally collapse into their own footprint either. Buildings fall down according to their structure. One building may have a main support structure that is symmetrical with other structures attached at asymmetrical positions and angles. This building would not collapse in the same way that a simple multey level box type building would collapse. Do you see what I'm saying?

I see what you are saying, however, you are missing my point. When I said the buildings collapsed 'naturally' into their foot print I am saying they 'collapsed in a way according to their structure'. I used to the term to refute the assertion that the straight down collapse was proof of a controlled demolition. I spent some time in this thread trying to demonstrate that *some* structures in *some* circumstances *could* collapse straight down into their footprint as a result of asymmetric structural damage - an assertion that truthies absolutely refuse to accept. I assume that you would agree with that last statement and are only complaining because in one post I said that *all* buildings would collapse into their footprint. I already admitted that statement was wrong so I don't see why you are continuing to complain about my choice of words. I was dealing with idiots in this thread I got sloppy. In different cirumstances I would have used the precise wording that you seem to be looking for. Edited August 23, 2007 by Riverwind

[AngusThermopyle]

I see what you are saying, however, you are missing my point. When I said the buildings collapsed 'naturally' into their foot print I am saying they 'collapsed in a way according to their structure'. I used to the term to refute the assertion that the straight down collapse was proof of a controlled demolition.

I do see what you are saying however I think you aren't quite getting what I'm saying.

In order for buildings like the WTC to collapse the way they did through the impact of a modern mid size jetliner you would have to have an impact force many times that delivered by the mass of the planes. they would also have to impact the structure at several levels from all sides You would also have to accept that JP4 or JP5 on that day burned with a thermal rating far beyond any previously recorded temperature.

Given that one plane struck each structure those buildings should not just have dropped to their basements, they should have started to lean in the direction of the strike where the heat would be most intense. A heat that simply could not be generated by Kerosene or burning office dividers and desks.

However, supposing that by some miracle the total BTU value of plane and fuel was sufficient to melt the support columns, the buildings should still have fallen in the direction of the impact. Thats basic thermo and physics.

Partisan belief and conviction can be admirable, but they will never trump an honest analysis of the physical truths. There are certain immutable laws that govern all of us and no amount of wishing will make them go away.

[Riverwind]

Given that one plane struck each structure those buildings should not just have dropped to their basements, they should have started to lean in the direction of the strike where the heat would be most intense. A heat that simply could not be generated by Kerosene or burning office dividers and desks.

NIST explains quite clearly how the jet impact damaged the fire protection systems in the building which meant the building was no longer able to withstand the effects of normal hydrocarbon fires. The heat from these normal fires caused the floor trusses to buckle which, in turn, caused the outer columns to bend. At some point the outer columns gave way which led to a progressive collapse of the entire structure.

However, supposing that by some miracle the total BTU value of plane and fuel was sufficient to melt the support columns, the buildings should still have fallen in the direction of the impact. Thats basic thermo and physics.

Why don't you read the NIST report and point out specific flaws with their explaination? Do you really believe that your understanding of the laws of physics is superior to theirs? BTW - anyone who understands why buildings collapse would know that hydrocarbon fires do not melt steel - they simply weaken it.

You claim to have experience in construction. Why don't you explain why a fire retardant coating is applied to exposed structural steel? Why don't you explain what would happen to unprotected steel exposed to heat caused by burning desks and carpets?

Edited August 23, 2007 by Riverwind

[kuzadd]

Riverwind:

Buildings will naturally collapse into their footprint unless there is some large force pushes them sideways like an earthquake.

You said this, you actually said this???!!!

Unbelievable!!!!

Unbleepin believable!!!

You have ZERO understanding of construction or anything, that is so clear!

Edited August 23, 2007 by kuzadd

[kuzadd]

demolition experts work so hard to prevent damage to other building precisely because buildings DO NOT FALL into their own footprint, EVER!

riverwind:

Why don't you explain why a fire retardant coating is applied to exposed structural steel?

why don't you explain that,( it is so obvious )and then why don't you explain, how it is done, and then how it is removed, etc.,

FYI: riverwind structural steel can take the effect of normal hydrocarbon fires with out fire retardant for the approximately 45 minutes to one hour that the buildings burned.

You claim you were "dealing with idiots" in this thread.

That was clearly a reference to yourself.

Based on the number of extremely foolish statements you racked up throughout this thread!

Inc you misunderstanding of lateral load?

You terrific table arguement!

and others

lol!

it's been hilarious!

[Riverwind]

demolition experts work so hard to prevent damage to other building precisely because buildings DO NOT FALL into their own footprint, EVER!

Prove it then.

Have you managed to come up with a coherent story arc that explains all of the evidence available yet? If not you better get to work.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Riverwind

[kuzadd]

Prove it then.

Your 'prove it" demands are quite funny, given your complete lack of knowledge.

Your contention is so hilarious!

You can't even see it yourself.

"demolition experts work so hard to prevent damage to other building precisely because buildings DO NOT FALL into their own footprint, EVER!"

well riverwind, riddle me this, : how would/could any building be demolished, in a manner to prevent/minimize damage AND make clean up quick and easy,( in order to keep costs down) without demolition experts??

I'll await your reply!

[Riverwind]

"demolition experts work so hard to prevent damage to other building precisely because buildings DO NOT FALL into their own footprint, EVER!"

What proof do you have of that claim? We have 3 examples of buildings that did collapse straight down *without* any controlled demolition - evidence which demostrates unequivocally that your claim is false.

If you disagree then you need to provide proof. Where is it?

[buffycat]

What proof do you have of that claim? We have 3 examples of buildings that did collapse straight down *without* any controlled demolition - evidence which demostrates unequivocally that your claim is false.

If you disagree then you need to provide proof. Where is it?

Uh... let's see now: Three buildings all collapse on the same day - in the same way as classic demolition demands. These three buildings are the only ones in history to do this! Quite convenient and oddly coincidental don't you think? If this was the norm, I would wager you could find many other instances of fires leading to straight down, gravity speed collapse - can you? (Outside of these three miraculous events?).

There was recently a fire (7-alarm) in the old Deutsche Bank building. At first residents were told to evacuate since the building might start falling apart and risked hitting other structures in the area. Well guess what - it's didn't collapse! In fact NO building EVER has collapsed so neatly into her own footprint at all - except for the magical WTC 12 and 3.

I find that odd.

[AngusThermopyle]

Have you managed to come up with a coherent story arc that explains all of the evidence available yet? If not you better get to work.

It's rather difficult to come up with evidence when that same evidence was whisked away at amazing speed and melted down as scrap in China don't ya think? Speaking of which, I must give credit to the guys who did that job, they were fast, really fast. The speed with which it was done would certainly impair any efforts to analyze the debris. As I said, I'm not going to put forth a theory on the collapse, I don't have enough information to form a truly informed opinion.

What I will say however is that there are a lot of factors that just don't make sense. Something is definitely not right about the whole damn thing, too many unexplainable events.

[kuzadd]

What proof do you have of that claim? We have 3 examples of buildings that did collapse straight down *without* any controlled demolition - evidence which demostrates unequivocally that your claim is false.

If you disagree then you need to provide proof. Where is it?

Yes, from 'fire', all 3 of them, that should most defintely do away with all demolition companies!

Set your building on fire, let it burn for an hour and it will collapse neatly into it's footprint (more or less) LOL!

Did you notice the news on the bank building in NYC??

Already damaged from wtc collapses , in the process of demolition, it burnt for seven hours and, OMG! it didn't collapse!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ernational/home

The blaze began about a dozen floors up and burned on multiple floors at the building, steps from where 343 firefighters lost their lives in the World Trade Center attack. A worker in the building discovered the fire on the 17th floor after noticing smoke, Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta said.

Badly damaged by the disaster, the once 40-story Deutsche Bank building is being dismantled. The state of the building, the asbestos hazard and heavy smoke made conditions especially difficult for firefighters, Scoppetta said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/08/18...m_deutsche.html

After more than seven hours battling what the fire commissioner called an "especially difficult fire," firefighters declared the blaze under control at 10:40 p.m., the department said. Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scopetta said the fact that the building was under demolition made the work all the more arduous.

seven alarm fire, battled for seven hours and, the badly damaged, in the process of being demolished building stood firm!

Gosh, why didn't that fire just neatly collapse that building, seven hours of fire!!!!

rofl!

Oh yeah, your other claim wrt contsruction redundancy in the structure of the towers, was your other big, big flub!

[kuzadd]

There was recently a fire (7-alarm) in the old Deutsche Bank building. At first residents were told to evacuate since the building might start falling apart and risked hitting other structures in the area. Well guess what - it's didn't collapse! In fact NO building EVER has collapsed so neatly into her own footprint at all - except for the magical WTC 12 and 3.

I find that odd.

sorry B, I missed the reference to the bank building, I gave riverwind some links anyway.

Yes, except for wtc 1,2& 7 which in riverwinds eyes, the anomolies, have become the norm.

Edited August 23, 2007 by kuzadd

[Riverwind]

Already damaged from wtc collapses , in the process of demolition, it burnt for seven hours and, OMG! it didn't collapse!

Talk about clueless. I ask for proof and you provide anecdotes. You made the claim that buildings NEVER fall into their own footprint. That is statement is not only false - it is absurd. The fact that you would make it simply demonstrates how little you understand.

Where is your proof that a building could *never* collapse? (hint - you can't proove such a thing)

Where is the *conclusive* evidence that demonstrates that the WTC did not collapse of their own accord? (hint - there is no such evidence).

Where is your coherent story arc that explains all of the facts that we know to be true such as the arab terrorists on the planes? (hint - you have none).

You want to claim that the biggest crime of the century occurred yet you have no *conslusive* evidence, no whistle blowers and no coherent theory. All you have a random collection of factoids that you do not really understand and you think it means something.

Yet you repeat your claims over and over again and expect to be taken seriously. Once GWB is gone people like you will find your quaint little theories sharing headlines with batboy and elvis sightings.

Edited August 24, 2007 by Riverwind

[kuzadd]

In riverwinds eyes, the anomolies, have become the norm.

That YOU accept the ABNORMAL as the normal is incomprehensible.

Another poster explained to you why buildings do not fall into there own footprints, NATURALLY, as you stated.

You were informed buildings fall according to how they were built, perhaps the other poster would inform us if location is also a factor (example, on a hill).

When a demolition crew, is planning to take down a building the manner in which they were constructed, plays a huge role in how they are demolished.

You have been unable to grasp these simple concepts.

I asked you this:

How would/could any building be demolished, in a manner to prevent/minimize damage AND make clean up quick and easy,( in order to keep costs down) without demolition experts??

(people who know what they are doing)

well according to You and the "official theory" now all it takes is to set your building ablaze and in an hour it will come crashing down "naturally".

NO PLANES necessary as the official theory relies on fire, it is all about fire and heat weakening steel. It is acknowledged the plane hits alone did not take down the buildings, never mind building number 7!!

So in summary according to you and the official theory a 1 hour burn time, and a natural collapse!!

All demolition companies shall now be put out of business, henceforth!

also wrt this statement you made

The WTC buildings destroyed many of the surrounding buildings when they collapsed.

That is a FALSE statement.

When the wtc towers collapsed they DAMAGED surrounding buildings, but did not DESTROY them, 3,4,5,6 were demolished at later dates, and the Deutsch bank, with the 7 alarm fire , burning for 7 hours, was also damaged and in the process if being demolished presently. BUT wait, it forgot to collapse, naturally!!!

rofl!!!!!

You made the claim that buildings fall naturally into their own footprint and that my friend is the FALSE CLAIM.

You then provide 3 ANOMOLIES as proof, to back up your false claim.

As Bcat said to you if this is correct, you should be able to back that up with more , if that is the norm, as you are claiming, yet I notice you didn't.

Is it because there have been numerous fires in big steel structured buildings, inc the WTC #1 previously, that burned for longer and they didn't collapse???

That would be why, wouldn't it riverwind?

Where is your coherent story arc that explains all of the facts that we know to be true such as the arab terrorists on the planes?

The simple fact and truth is riverwind, we KNOW, none of that to be true. You just assume it is.

I know that will fly right over your head.

We only KNOW the incoherent nonsensical story as told to us by the Bush regime. That is all we KNOW.

Therein lies the problem, doesn't it? There is too much of the story, that is not quite right. Not quite coherent?

I would beg to question the Bush regime where is the coherent story based on facts?

I haven't seen it.

The onus of cohesiveness was on the Bush administration, that was never demonstrated.

Your post is truly one of the most convoluted I have ever read.

Your entire posts falls into "demands" like a petulant child, I can almost hear you stomping your foot!

Rant, rail and then ridicule!

When I see that, I know, you have nothing, nothing.

[Riverwind]

You and the "official theory" now all it takes is to set your building ablaze and in an hour it will come crashing down "naturally".

A strawman argument. No one is claiming that fires alone can cause a building collapse. All three buildings had major structural damage *and* major fires. The *combination* of the structural damage and fires is what triggers a collapse. A building a building on fire will not collapse because the fire protection systems are in tact.

When the wtc towers collapsed they DAMAGED surrounding buildings, but did not tDESTROY them, 3,4,5,6 were demolished at later dates

So the WTC was a *clean* collapse because it only *damaged* 4 other towers instead of *destroying* them? Any demolition company that caused that amount of damage to surrounding buildings would be sued out of existence. It is very difficult to get a buildings to collapse without causing collateral damage of the sort we saw on 9/11- that is why demolition companies take so much time. The WTC collapses did cause the the surrounding buildings to be *destroyed*. This evidence clearly indicates that te WTC collapses were *not* clean collapses.

Frankly, the truthie claim that the WTC tower collapses 'looked like' a control demolition is the most absurd. The WTC collapses looked nothing like a controlled demolition because the collapses started at the point of impact and then spewed debris over a large area outside of the footprint of the structures.

, and the Deutsch bank, with the 7 alarm fire , burning for 7 hours, was also damaged and in the process if being demolished presently. BUT wait, it forgot to collapse, naturally!!!

Stating that A *can* cause B to occur does not mean that A occurs then B must *always* occur. Why is that basic logic so difficult for you to understand?

The onus of cohesiveness was on the Bush administration, that was never demonstrated.

The generally accepted explaination for what happened on 9/11 is cohesive and coherent (i.e. terrorists hijacked 4 planes and slammed them into buildings).

Your arguments consist on looking at random 'anomolies' that could be explained in any number of ways and then using the anomolies to make the rediculous claim that the US government deliberately murdered 3000 of its own citizens. If you want to make such a claim then the onus is on you to provide a plausible alternate explaination. So where is your plausible alternate explaination for what happened on 9/11? Where is your evidence that supports your claim?

Edited August 24, 2007 by Riverwind