WTC7 Demolition on mainstream news site

PolyNewbie · April 11, 2007

BS. Truthies themselves can't agree on the collapse time. Estimates range from 8 seconds to 17 seconds. That is huge range which renders any calculations based on the collapse time irrelevant.

No. The initial rate of collapse and early time rate of collapse is very near freefall speed. The estimates vary for total collapse but the destruction early in the event and rate of fall leave a large energy deficit if the official version is held to be true.

PolyNewbie · April 11, 2007

Ghost Hacked Why does this thread exist? I thought we had a couple 9/11 threads already.
This is not Canadian news at all. This is still US news, so belongs there. Last time you will hear me here in THIS thread on this topic.

Its supposed to be the reason why we are in Afghanistan fighting the war for heroine war for a natural gas pipeline war for imperial hedgemony war on terror.

If 911 is shown to be a fraud so is the Afghanistan war.

Riverwind Video evidence does not allow you to make any quantative calculations. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

You don't have to make definitive calculations. Its obvious enough before you put pencil to paper.

You are deluding yourself into thinking you understand this or science in general.

Riverwind · April 11, 2007

The estimates vary for total collapse but the destruction early in the event and rate of fall leave a large energy deficit if the official version is held to be true.

You could look at those videos a million times but they will never tell you how much mass was in the clouds of ejected matter. You can't even make a reasonable guess. Claiming that you have a "proof" based on such data is laughable. Frankly it does not make a difference if _you_ believe you can make an accurate guess - it still is not something that competent scientist would call a 'proof'.

Wilber · April 11, 2007

One more thing:
Both WTC1 and WTC2 started to collapse at the point of the impacts.

How dare you muddy the waters by stating the obvious.

Riverwind · April 11, 2007

One more thing:
Both WTC1 and WTC2 started to collapse at the point of the impacts.

How dare you muddy the waters by stating the obvious.

NIST simulations calculated the time it should take for the fires to reach critical support structures. These simulations confirmed that WTC2 should have collapsed first even though it was the second tower to be hit. Those "bombers" must have been super human - not only could they predict exactly what floor a three story high plane would hit, they were also able to predict how long they needed to wait before 'pulling the trigger'. Maybe they were aliens.

PolyNewbie · April 11, 2007

Maybe the planes were automatically guided in and those terrorists were not even on the planes - the flight manifest doesn't show any of these terrorists on the planes and the government had their pictures up a few days later and knew exactly who did the "attacks". Funny how some of them are still alive and well after crashing these planes into those buildings. That and just because experts who normally investigate accidents like this were never allowed on the scene and the evidence was destroyed doesn't mean anything.

People should trust Philip Zelikow (a professional propogandist that has never investigated anything) and Keane (who did the Oklahoma & Kennedy investigations) to tell the American people the truth. After all - no one wants to go to war and make all that money.

kuzadd · April 11, 2007

You, yourself, made the claim different buildings react differently to different stressors. Yet all 3 come down in global collapse, something you yourself say is not possible
I did not say it is not possible. I am trying to find a coherent argument in your posts but have so far found none.
What happened on 9/11 is straight forward:

1) Two planes crashed into WTC1 and WTC2.

2) These planes started fires in the buildings which weakened the structures.

3) The structures collasped and spewed debris on the surrounding buildings.

4) All of the surrounding buildings were damaged by the debris and had fires.

5) The combination of damage from debris and fires triggered a collasped of WTC7

6) The combination of damage from debris and fires triggered did not trigger a collapse in the other buildings.

None of this is surprising or unusual.

You are the one who is insisting that there is something strange about this sequence of events.

oh and Riverwind, you did say, buildings react differently, to stressors, but then you said they shoud act the same especially in the case of wtc 1 and 2, just one of your numerous contradictions.

in fact NO building would react(global collapse) exactly the same, unless it was subjected to exactly the same stressors.

which is impossible , except in a lab. But not in the real world.

5) The combination of damage from debris and fires triggered a collasped of WTC7

now provide information you claim to have wrt #7 being more severley damaged, then 3,4,5,6 , so I can totally dismiss you and your nonsense, and contradictions even further.

no plane hit number 7 and you have yet to provide your support, for your above claim.

we started out discussing Eager's report, you can't even keep that straight, and you were totallly unaware of the enormous windload (lateral load) that the tower's bore everyday.

I've reiterated the numerous times you have contradicted yourself and still you go on???

I have asked you numerous times to privide info to support your statments, please can you simply do that????

If not then your nonsense is easily discountable, very easily discountable.

Riverwind · April 11, 2007

in fact NO building would react(global collapse) exactly the same, unless it was subjected to exactly the same stressors.
which is impossible , except in a lab. But not in the real world.

Complete BS. There are an infinite number of damage scenarios that could lead to a complete collapse. More importantly, you have zero proof that your claim is true.

PolyNewbie · April 11, 2007

Riverwind Complete BS. There are an infinite number of damage scenarios that could lead to a complete collapse. More importantly, you have zero proof that your claim is true.

How come its never happened before with completed buildings except in controlled demolitions ?

Riverwind · April 11, 2007

Maybe the planes were automatically guided in and those terrorists were not even on the planes

How come none of the people who 'dissappeared' on that day have come forward to confess their role in the plot? There were hundreds of people who were either on those planes or close relatives of those who were. Yet none of them have come forward to expose the hoax of the century. The lure of fame or the power of guilt is a powerful force. It is irrational to suggest that 100s of people could resist it.

Riverwind Complete BS. There are an infinite number of damage scenarios that could lead to a complete collapse. More importantly, you have zero proof that your claim is true.
How come its never happened before with completed buildings except in controlled demolitions ?

No steel frame structure has ever had a large plane flown into it before. But as I said - the onus of proof is on you. You have no proof that buildings cannot collapse naturally when damaged enough.

PolyNewbie · April 11, 2007

Riverwind:How come none of the people who 'dissappeared' on that day have come forward to confess their role in the plot? There were hundreds of people who were either on those planes or close relatives of those who were. Yet none of them have come forward to expose the hoax of the century.

I didn't say there wasn't passengers but it would be silly to think the planes couldn't be guided in by computer.

No steel frame structure has ever had a large plane flown into it before. But as I said - the onus of proof is on you. You have no proof that buildings cannot collapse when exposed to enough damage.

No but its easy to see that there wasn't enough damage - not nearly enough. The designers of the wtc admit that the building was designed to take such an impact and explained that the bulding was like a screen on a door and that a plane could poke through it and leave the building standing. In fact that is what was observed as well. The buildings remained standing after the impacts. The fires did not cause the steel to heat up very much at all - only a few supports got hot enough for half strength. The building strength was more than enough to just hold up the weight - the natural frequency of the building didn't change and it didn't bend.

All of a sudden the buildings both started to fail then gradually blew apart from to to bottom at near freefall speed. Both buildings collapsed the exact same way even though the planes hit in different locations.

Riverwind · April 11, 2007

I didn't say there wasn't passengers but it would be silly to think the planes couldn't be guided in by computer.

Where is your proof that it is possible to remotely control large jets with such precision? Where is your proof showing it would be possible time the explosions precisely even though the building was badly damaged? You have none. It is idle speculation.

No but its easy to see that there wasn't enough damage - not nearly enough.

Says who? Hoffman and his merry band of thruthies? Claiming it is 'obvious' is not a proof.

The fires did not cause the steel to heat up very much at all - only a few supports got hot enough for half strength.

You are fabricating data again. The NIST analysis clearly indicates temperatures that are as a high as 1000 degC. More than enough to weaken steel which is directly exposed to the fires. In normal building fires all structural steel is protected by insulation or concrete. This ensures that the steel does not weaken even in hot fires. On 9/11 the jet impact ripped this insulation off which exposed the steel directly to the flames.

kuzadd · April 11, 2007

in fact NO building would react(global collapse) exactly the same, unless it was subjected to exactly the same stressors.
which is impossible , except in a lab. But not in the real world.

Complete BS. There are an infinite number of damage scenarios that could lead to a complete collapse. More importantly, you have zero proof that your claim is true.

waiting patiently, or are you digging yoruself, deeper at your own behest??

PolyNewbie · April 11, 2007

Riverwind: Where is your proof that it is possible to remotely control large jets with such precision? Where is your proof showing it would be possible time the explosions precisely even though the building was badly damaged? You have none. It is idle speculation.

Guided missiles have been built - which is essentially what the plane was turned into. Its not a big stretch to think explosives could be cased in something to withstand the fuel fires.

Its a bigger stretch to think to inexperienced pilots could guide the planes in with that much precision - at least according to Pilots For 911 truth.

Where is your proof that terrorists were even on the plane ?

We know there wasn't nearly enough structural damage because the buildings remained standing firm after the crashes. They did not bend due to wind loads.

Riverwind: The NIST analysis clearly indicates temperatures that are as a high as 1000 degC.

In a few hot spots maybe but not over a great area of the structure. Most of it was under 500 deg C on the surface of the beams in both structures.

kuzadd · April 11, 2007

Maybe the planes were automatically guided in and those terrorists were not even on the planes
How come none of the people who 'dissappeared' on that day have come forward to confess their role in the plot? There were hundreds of people who were either on those planes or close relatives of those who were. Yet none of them have come forward to expose the hoax of the century. The lure of fame or the power of guilt is a powerful force. It is irrational to suggest that 100s of people could resist it.

Riverwind Complete BS. There are an infinite number of damage scenarios that could lead to a complete collapse. More importantly, you have zero proof that your claim is true.
How come its never happened before with completed buildings except in controlled demolitions ?
No steel frame structure has ever had a large plane flown into it before. But as I said - the onus of proof is on you. You have no proof that buildings cannot collapse naturally when damaged enough.

Riverwind: "No steel frame structure has ever had a large plane flown into it before."

really ????

http://www.withthecommand.com/2002-Jan/NY-empireplane.html

Riverwind"But as I said - the onus of proof is on you. You have no proof that buildings cannot collapse naturally when damaged enough."

and you have no proof they can, because, until Sept 11th , they never had, and have never since.

waiting for the info on 3,4,5,and 6 that didn't collapse,don't you wanna show everyone on the forum the support for your statement, that 7 was damaged far more then those buildings???

I am sure there is interest.

PN aren't you interested in Riverwind supporting his/her statement, that wtc 7 was far more damaged then 3,4,5,and 6. the "onus of proof is on you", to back up your statement.lol

waiting..........................

btw: riverwind, did you read this, share your thoughts

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...&pagewanted=all

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need

"MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors "

''Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building

no reason to think wtc 7's minimal damage, would cause a collapse, to this super strong reinforced structure,

Riverwind · April 11, 2007

Guided missiles have been built - which is essentially what the plane was turned into. Its not a big stretch to think explosives could be cased in something to withstand the fuel fires.

Which, of course, makes it even more improbable that such an operation could have been conducted. All of this is idle speculation that means nothing because you have no CONCLUSIVE evidence that the buildings did not collapse naturally.

Where is your proof that terrorists were even on the plane ?

Do you have any proof that they weren't? (BTW - your claim that some of the terrorists was seen after 9/11 has been thoroughly debunked so don't bother repeating the nonsense).

In a few hot spots maybe but not over a great area of the structure. Most of it was under 500 deg C on the surface of the beams in both structures.

The NIST analysis makes it clear that there was enough heat to weaken the steel in critical places.

Riverwind · April 11, 2007

and you have no proof they can, because, until Sept 11th , they never had, and have never since.

So? The onus of proof is on you since the overwhelming weight of evidence supports the widely accepted explaination for why the buildings collapsed. If you want to claim otherwise you need CONCLUSIVE evidence that bombs were present. You have nothing but idle speculation about what should or should not happen when large airplanes full of fuel hit large buildings.

ScottSA · April 11, 2007

Good grief, don't you thruthies realize that the burden of proof is in your court? Otherwise, it's like me claiming there's a radar resistant flying elephant circling overhead, and demanding that you prove it's not true. If you're going to attack the blatantly obvious, YOU have to show how the blatantly obvious is a big plot. And trotting out a B 24 with no fuel hitting the Empire state building doesn't even start to address the WTC

PolyNewbie · April 11, 2007

Riverwind All of this is idle speculation that means nothing because you have no CONCLUSIVE evidence that the buildings did not collapse naturally.

We have scientific experts saying the collapse is impossible. You have nothing. The Zelikow Keane report doesn't go near it and the FEMA report says the official version has a "low probability of occurance". You in essence, have Bill O'Reilly and a variety of other presstitutes. Thats it.

ScottSA · April 11, 2007

Riverwind All of this is idle speculation that means nothing because you have no CONCLUSIVE evidence that the buildings did not collapse naturally.

We have scientific experts saying the collapse is impossible. You have nothing. The Zelikow Keane report doesn't go near it and the FEMA report says the official version has a "low probability of occurance". You in essence, have Bill O'Reilly and a variety of other presstitutes. Thats it.

This is as far as Polly gets. I don't know why anyone bothers trying to educate him...reams of official documentation have been put in front of him debunking every single point he has come up with, and he reduces it all to "Bill O'reilly" and "presstitutes". Amazing.

PolyNewbie · April 11, 2007

Riverwind: The NIST analysis makes it clear that there was enough heat to weaken the steel in critical places.

The steel was weakened, sure, but only by as much as half in the most weakened areas which were small. But simple arithmetic, the NIST diagrams of temperatures and damage, and a knowledge of the standards on which the building was built shows it shouldn't have collapsed. You don't need to be a civil engineer to see that.

I don't know why anyone bothers trying to educate him...reams of official documentation have been put in front of him debunking every single point he has come up with, and he reduces it all to "Bill O'reilly" and "presstitutes". Amazing.

The official hypothesis gets changed all the time. There was no investigation as to how the buildings actually collapsed. The investigation stops at collapse initiation.

Riverwind · April 11, 2007

We have scientific experts saying the collapse is impossible.

Those "experts" use fabricated data from video evidence. That means their claims are INCONCLUSIVE.

You have nothing.

The NIST report and several papers by real structual engineers. However, the most important this is the generally accepted explaination is rational, coherent and does not contradict itself.

The steel was weakened, sure, but only by as much as half in the most weakened areas which were small. But simple arithmetic, the NIST diagrams of temperatures and damage, and a knowledge of the standards on which the building was built shows it shouldn't have collapsed. You don't need to be a civil engineer to see that.

Then why don't any civil engineers agree with you? The NIST analysis has been accepted by the academic community.

PolyNewbie · April 11, 2007

The NIST report and several papers by real structual engineers. However, the most important this is the generally accepted explaination is rational, coherent and does not contradict itself.

The Keane - Zelikow report won't touch the actual collapses, even they were restricted from seeing evidence as was FEMA. The other structural engineering explanations have all been discredited by Hoffman in a way that anyone can see the obvious invalid assumptions they make in arriving at their conclusions. You don't need to be a civil engineer to see through all this nonsense.

These reports are largely specualtion and the hypothesis differs between various "experts" who were never allowed to see the evidence.

No forensic experts were allowed to conduct a real investigation.

PolyNewbie · April 11, 2007

They had a pilot (Pilots For 911 Truth) on Alex Jones today who did a structural engineering degree before becomming a pilot for the military. He didn't really think 911 could be an inside job because he didn't think about it until a NOVA special came on TV explaining the pancake theory. He says structures don't behave that way and its obvious that they are lying because none of the supporters for the official story will participate in a public debate.

Its a free show and starts at 12:00 Toronto time (EST) and cycles every three hours. His interview comes up about 1 hr & 10 minutes into the show.

PrisonPlanetTV - click on listen live link at left

(Warning: Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorists and supporters of the official version may not want to hear a conspiracy theorist interview an expert on 911)