Kearnsey said:

I notice you don't give a source.

Anyway, I bet that's the only thing NIST (supposedly) said that you believe! Everything else they say is lies - but because (you think) they said it was freefall......then IT MUST BE TRUE! Why do you believe JUST that sliver of NIST's reports whilst lambasting the rest as lies etc?

Here's a quote from NIST's FAQ on WTC7. It's clear you hold NIST with very high regard - so what do you think of their explanation?

Whether WTC7 experienced a very short period of freefall or not, it makes no difference. It collapsed due to fire damage (and broken watersprinklers - they were supposed to be fed by NY water supply - but that was wrecked when the towers went down. Somehow I suspect you won't be so insistent on NIST's expertise this time. Only when it suits you.....

Oh, but you are a highly educated civil engineer, materials scientist and physicist, right?

See, again we have cherry-picking. When it suits Kearnsey NIST is THE WORD OF TRUTH. And when it suits you, your professor and his 'authority' are suddenly THE authority. You are not in a position to appeal to authority because those with expertise say you are absolutely wrong to believe in demolition.

It is YOU ignoring authority - you have one nutty Mormon Professor. But you must know how many thousands work at NIST, NASA, Ivy League Unis etc etc - none of whom give the least credence to such silly conspiracy........and yet you happily make an argument appealing to authority!

Surely you can see how silly you're being?

Oh, and what about your former professor working with Chris Bollyn, a former writer for N America's leading fascist newspaper? What are Bollyn's bona fides? Writer for America's leading fascist, Holocaust denier and anti-semite? If your ex-professor still carries the cachet of his past, then so does Bollyn. Oh dear.

Fascists are pushing this crap - and they are recruiting from those that believe it.

If 911 Truth was a movement with any genuine substance it would have kicked the fascists out. Instead they are led by them. Come on, wake up?

 

[quote name='G String' timestamp='1388792015' post='63733

Whether WTC7 experienced a very short period of freefall or not, it makes no difference. It collapsed due to fire damage (and broken watersprinklers - they were supposed to be fed by NY water supply - but that was wrecked when the towers went down. Somehow I suspect you won't be so insistent on NIST's expertise this time. Only when it suits you.....




henry silverstein in person( the owner of WTC 7 and the twin towers) in an interview said that WTC mas put down with controlled demolition becuase there was the risk that the damages accured to the building could make it dangerous,unfortunately a controlled demolition requires weeks of calculations,yet WTC7 broke down perfectly vertically,as well as the twin towers.it curious nonetheless that that morning, some people found the time to put explosives in building 7 to break it down to avoid uncontrolled damages,soeone might thing that the explosives were put there days or weeks before 9 11

 

Again, as this seemed to go right over your head: I am not a demolitions expert. That is why I rely on those WHO ARE to make judgments about such matters. You are ignoring the hundreds of engineers and architects that have stated their EXPERT opinion on the subject as well. Do you get a plumber to fix your car? No you rely on those with expertise in the field of inquiry. I am relying on identical logic--as does everyone else in normal situations. Why you can't see that the logic is the same in this case as well is beyond me.

Also, I never said he was my professor. Your bigotry betrays you. I stated that I am from Utah. That doesn't mean that I attend BYU or espouse mormon ideology of any kind (and if I did, how would that diminish my arguments in any way?). Also, you have yet to explain how the Professor's religious status impacts his findings.... In fact, you avoided discussing the findings at all... You are skirting away from the arguments lobbed against you in leiu of more easily achievable points?

You seem to be making up the rules of logic as you go along, g string. Like your undergarments, your argument is thin.

 

@ G string

Freefall is important, because, for freefall to occur it would mean that the supporting steel columns would have had to have been removed, and fire alone just does not remove steel columns

Can you not understand that?

 

LOL. No - you are doing that! You take a few people who agree with you and claim that is the opinion of "the experts" - to which I should demur. Uh uh! Wrong way around.

What YOU miss is that your few engineers are the outliers - the mass of engineers, scientists, chemists and demolition folk - whom you ignore - DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU. Yet you totally ignore those thousands and millions of engineers and instead you rely on the few whom agree with you - and then you claim their expertise, and say I should listen to them. Why don't you listen to the (far greater number) of experts whopm totally disagree with you? I can't see why that's so hard to understand properly. Well, I can - you have a conspiracy to uphold, so proper logic and treatment of evidence won't suffice.

@Armyofninjas - I called him "your" professor because you'd brought his name and his stupid work into it. If dislike of idiot mormon's is bogotry, well, I am happily guilty.

You have this ONE guy. You ignore every other professor who disagrees with him. You dispute NIST. You dispute everyone except those very few with whom you agree. That is called CHERRY PICKING. It's called CONFIRMATION BIAS.

Initially people claimed "demolition.....freefall". But now we're down to "a small part of ONE collapse was effectively in freefall" - FOR WTC7 ONLY. Not for the towers. And this is the "proof" of demolition? That's pretty thin proof!


DUSKWINGS wrote:

Nobody says jetfuel melted steel - but they do say the planes hit, caused damge and a fireball - which ignited entire floors of the WTC (undernormal conditions it would have taken hours for fire to spread so widely).

And you're wrong about the temperatures. The following is from AZOBUILD.COM, the Ato Z of Building:

----

That brings me to one paradox in the conspiracy view and that's this:

the conspiracists argue that a speeding, fully fuelled passenger jet crashing into the towers, causing massive explosions and damage, and triggering enormous fires (unfought) across several floors WAS INSUFFICIENT TO BRING DOWN THE TOWERS.

And yet.....they claim demolition did it.

If the planes, explosions and fires couldn't do it....how much explosive would one need? An awful lot, presumably.

And yet there's no evidence for it. Nothing.

Usually conspiracists will at this point say, "it only takes a little explosive/thermite to bring the towers down."

OH!!! So a plane, explosions and fires can't, but a little carefully placed thermite can? Amazing. You see the inconsistency? A very little well-placed explosive can do it....but not plane crash, explosion, fireballs and unfought fires across several floors in a dense, well-ventilated environment of paper, plastic, and god knows what.......lol

Anyway, the ingredieents for thermite were present in large quantities at the WTC - rust, aluminium, fire.

Funny - there's nothing new here. 911 "scholarship" as they like to call it has not moved on one iota in....8 years? That's despite the zealotry of their "researchers". All of their issues and arguments have been addressed and answered. They just refuse to listen and accept it.

Just after 911 it was reasonable to be highly sceptical, imo. But now? No - it's all been addressed, evidence has been fielded, reason has explained it. If you ignore the evidence in support of the bloody obvious (the planes, explosions and fires did it) then it's little surprise you find something far more imaginative (and unsupported) to fill its place. The issue is settled - at least until some sufficiently strong evidence says otherwise. We have never had that. That's either a failing of 911 Truth's method, or because there's nothing to find. Until something turns up, 911 Truth is going nowhere. Believers without evidence.

And that's a far more interesting phenomena imo. Truthers are very much like Holocaust deniers - no surprise really, as it's the same people heading both efforts. The evidence for the Holocaust and 911 being hijackers and planes is vast, multifarious and overwhelming. The evidence against them non-existent - they are just wild claims (which actually reveal a wider political agenda and worldview - one that demands they sacrifice reality, the scientific method and even the bloody obvious so as to support it.

None of the Truthers ever care that their "Movement" is riddled with, and led by, genuine fascists and even neo-Nazis. Indeed, it goes the other way - plenty of Truthers openly support Holocaust denial, anti-semitism, Nazism. Plenty don't support those things, of course - but they refuse to accept it's an issue! HAving Nazis and fascists in your "movement" is not bad simply because such people are....unpopular. It's disgusting.....but more importantly for "911 Truth" it's corrosive. Corrosive to rationalism, science, liberty, justice, democracy.

I don't much care whether people believe in 911 Truth or not. But I do care that well-meaning people are falling into the hands of fascism through it. And....believing in such conspiracies makes one already susceptible to fascism. One of Nazism's main motivating myths and beliefs was a grand conspiracy - a World Conspiracy of Joooos. That, alongside a long campaign to undermine German peoples' faith in traditional power were instrumental to the rise of the Nazis. They didn't gain support by claiming they would 'melt the Jooos' - rather they said they Germans faced a conspiracy against them (by Jews aka 'international capital', 'bankers', 'global elites' -- all the stuff Truthers have now moved onto hating too.)

You see?

 

the fireball indicates that the fuel leaked out causing th explosion,so the fire could have not damaged the steel mash stucture of the buildings so significantly to make them collapse,since that steel mash structure was built just to keep the buildings from breaking down if a plane had crashed against them

learn to read the links u post: All materials weaken with increasing temperature and steel is no exception. Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300ºC and increases rapidly after 400ºC, by 550ºC steel retains about 60% of its room temperature yield strength. This is usually considered to be the failure temperature for structural steel. However, in practice this is a very conservative assumption; low loads, the insulating effects of concrete slabs, the restraining effects of connections etc. mean that real failure temperatures can be as high as 750ºC or even higher for partially exposed members.

now wonder why it takes oxyhydrogen blowpipes to work steel.
wonder why if the heat was so high to melt or weaken the steel,the people who walked down the stairs managed to escape intead of turning into human torches although the stars were very close to the steel structure.
And don t forget that those buildings were full of azbest

u don t actually need an awful lot,u need to place the charges in the right places,and yes there s no evidence of it because nothing remained but powder


it s funny how the laws of physics don t work for the official version of 9-11

 

And those "right places" can't be reached by speeding passenger jet, explosion, fireball, massive unfought fires............sure.

Just imagine where you could place any charges on any particular floor, and consider the conditions those spots experienced from "plane crash, explosion, fireball, raging office fire". You think the energies from a few well-placed charges can't be obtained?

And as far as demolition goes......there's one very important thing to note. Both towers collapse began at the point of plane impact/explosion/fireball/fires. Any demolition charges (of whatever kind) would have to survive the plane crash, explosions, fireball and fires.

So would their triggering mechanisms.

And what is it that you're claiming? That there were demolition charges on every level? Or just at the initiation zone?

Fine.

This is from NIST:

There's your answer.

You didn't know that the fires were hot enough to severely undermine the strength of the steel. Now you know.


THE AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction)

Checkmate. ;)

 

No ,a plane couldn t do it,the twin towers collapsed vertically,and they were projected to remain up if a plane had crashed against them,u don t want to understand it,so now explain me how is it possible that the two towers that were hit by the planes collpsed exactly like building 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1HIPK6RYW4

 

Please don't post few responses in a row, you can edit and update your initial one

 

they weren t hot enough!otherwise people wouldn t have been able to escape through the stairs

sorry,i m sloppy with quotes,feel free to edit them

 

Ah!

Bit pointless arguing about figures when you just insist "they weren't hot enough".

The fact is - ALL THE EVIDENCE SAYS THEY WERE HOT ENOUGH.

NIST says the fires were easily hot enough.

You believe NIST absolutely when they say WTC7 fell at effective freefall for 2.5 seconds but you absolutely disbelieve them when they say the temperatures easily reached temps hot enough to compromise structural steel.

TO me that's someone just sticking to their POV - not someone basing their view on the facts.

And that's fine - over 911 at least. But imagine that attitude moving into the political sphere! Especially when there are fascists running this gig! Scary.

yah - then you can accuse me of changing my post after I posted. The internet is a big place.....don't worry about the space. I'm trying to be economical - but there's a lot of crap to dispute. Forgive me. :D

 

someone merged my posts - and never says so in the edited post. I'm not taking part anymore under such conditions.

bye. enjoy!

Just watch out for the fascists, oh Troooofseekers! lol

 

yes,they were hot enough,i was so stupid not to think the people who escaped were fire proof

 

1. Why won't nist release the algorithms they used to generate the computer simulation they released to explain their theory?

2. Explain how 2.25 seconds of freefall could occur other than through the use of explosives?

 

"Someone" is me, that's my job around here, to clean up mess, I already left notice about that, I edited without hard feelings (having in mind you didn't took that as advice and continued to leave posts in a row), if you can't respect that than really, there isn't much left to talk about

For the future reference, when I leave the notice ,that's the point of no return, I let it slide silently so many times before that becomes a problem, after that notice, sorry, but you are asking for it *yes*

 

After reading all the theories and other stuff I eventually came to the conclusion that a possible "demolition" of such magnitude is pretty unreal to say the least. On the other hand I think it is very improbable that the government of USA did not know anything about an attack on their soil.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M

 

Absolutely. And that's been lost among the howling of the crazies.

The Bush administration fought to prevent publication of evidence that they were forewarned. (At least some of) the evidence was published. FACT.

The issue is more of negligence than malfeasance. The conspiracists would make more headway if they were pursue LIHOP over MIHOP [Let It Happen On Purpose versus Make It Happen On Purpose] There's a much lower burden of proof needed for LIHOP - and it is indistinguishable from negligence.

And that concentration on MIHOP over LIHOP by 911Truth is evidence of its character. MIHOP implies a conspiracy. Speaking very crudely, that's what makes "911 Truth Movement" susceptible to fascism. It creates "the other" - the other that is a threat to the "real true nation".

 

I don't know but sometimes war is used for internal politics rather than foreign affairs and if it is proven it wouldn't be the first time...

 

Explain the lack of footage of a plane at the pentagon--the most filmed place on Earth. Also explain how the pilot flew the course they say was flown before crashing into the pentagon--expert pilots can't do it (expecially not in a HUGE 757).

Yes, I already knew heat weakens all metals--it is the principle behind heat treatment. But I'm not talking about weakening. Those steel beams were melted--absolutely liquified. Jet fuel can't do that--and neither can ANY MATERIAL present in a normal office building. Video of Molten Steel

500 degrees doesn't liquify steel as itsz melting temperature is between 2600 and 2750 degrees Fahrenheit (source).

A weakened steel frame would still take more time than it took to collapse. That's the entire engineering principle for the way that modern steel framed buildings are built. It is a safety concern.

Also explain the presence of Thermate on the steel beam sample. This sample WAS ANALYZED IN A LABORATORY and the presence of Thermate was found. Explain the presence of active nanoengineered aluminothermic chips and solidified molten steel droplets that were found in the dust of the WTC collapse. You can't. not without the presence of Thermate.

Also, I find it highly ironic that you admit that you are a bigot (an example of holding biased views without evidence) and yet still expect to be taken seriously. Hate mongers are all the same. No wonder you simply accepted their version of events as the basis for being propelled into two unjust wars. Keep towing the party line, G String.