Favorite 9-11 myths thread

[Realityhack]

While many here don't agree on what did happen on 9-11 some of us can probably agree on some things that did NOT happen. Common myths, misquotes, misinterpretations, etc.

Post your favorite or most commonly encountered myth.

[Realityhack]

1. 'pictures of cut columns'

The idea that pictures like this one



are of cutting charges that brought the building down (actually cleanup crew work).

[number6]

33. you got a picture of a steelworker

cutting that beam with a torch ?

[SDuderstadt]

34. Absolutely

[number6]

35. you sure thats the same beam ?

looks like a different location.

not making a judgement on the first picture, just wondered if there was a
picture of that particular beam being cut ....

[jberryhill]

37. The photographer was working for the steelworker's union...

...and the photo above is from the same set of pictures. Covered extensively in a prior thread.

http://www.samhollenshead.com/ - that's the photographer's own site.

[number6]

36. oh, I would also like to see a beam from a

controlled demolition ( picture of a steel beam, cut by explosives)

if somebody (anybody) could provide one thanks ....

[hack89]

38. Funny you should mention that

the truth movement has had 7 years to come up with one and have failed to produce a single one. Certainly doesn't say much for their scientific or engineering knowledge, does it?

[number6]

68. you have interviewed everyone in the truth

movement and seen all of there pictures (photos)??

and hows does producing a Photo at a site that they don't control
reflect on their scientific or engineering knowledge ? please explain ?

[number6]

70. still waiting for a picture of that beam

being cut .... post #1

[Realityhack]

40. Don't even need one.

First off the photo is known to be of a beam cut during the clearing of the site by someone documenting that work.

Secondly the angled pattern and slag clearly show that this was cut with a torch. A shaped charge would blast strait inward not at an angle carefully pooling the slag at the bottom of the cut.

This is a well documented myth. I don't have time right now to look up all the references but if you look around you will see many people claiming that beam especially was cut with a shaped charge and you will find clear proof it was not. Even within the truth movement many people acknowledge that this is a myth.

[number6]

69. still waiting for a picture of that beam

being cut .... post #1

[Realityhack]

78. Um...

just because something was done doesn't mean someone took a photo of it.

I am sure no photos exist for many of the torch cuts during the cleanup.

The fact is this matches up directly with other photos taken by the same person at the same time of the cleanup work. You can see other people cutting other beams in the same way with the same characteristics.

This is a well documented myth that started out with people assuming incorrectly that the photo is from the day of the attacks or so.

[number6]

90. you don't think anyone took a

photo of that cut, that may be.

maybe tho someone else has a photo..

..of course it wouldn't be the day of the attacks, the photos may be taken days, weeks,
.. months later

[Realityhack]

97. What?

No I don't know of any picture of that beam being cut.

Yes it is *theoretically* possible that someone did take a picture of that beam being cut (and it is identifiable as the same beam in the photo)

What on earth are you talking about here:
"..of course it wouldn't be the day of the attacks, the photos may be taken days, weeks,
.. months later"
What is all that supposed to mean?

[number6]

99. you said ....

"This is a well documented myth that started out with people assuming incorrectly that the photo is from the day of the attacks or so .....

I posted ""..of course it wouldn't be the day of the attacks, the photos may be taken days, weeks,
.. months later"

"What is all that supposed to mean?" meaning that I would assume that photos were taken
days later, weeks later , as the clean up process progressed. I believe the removal of
debree from the site took more than six months .....

[number6]

100. that 's fine and I accept that answer.

"No I don't know of any picture of that beam being cut."

[number6]

71. I still want to see a ....

picture of a steel beam, cut by explosives

the claim was that beam was cut by Thermite ...

I'm not saying how it was cut , I just want to see other Photo's
so I can make a comparison

[Realityhack]

77. Google is your friend n/t

[number6]

91. I tried ,..photos of Steel beams cut by explosives

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=photos+of+Steel+beams+cut+by+explosives&start=10&sa=N

Google was a disapointment, I wanted just plain photos of steel cut by explosives
not anything related to 911 .....

[hack89]

79. It's a truther claim - let them prove their own CT. nt

[AZCat]

81. I agree.

Don't let the lazy CTers goad you into doing their research for them, Realityhack. This isn't a fucking game of "fetch".

[Realityhack]

82. thanks AZ....

this made me want to revive my old doing the research thread but IIRC it is against forum rules and I don't have anything new to add. Just the same idea.

I honestly thought this one was a good choice to kick off the thread because it is so well debunked.

I actually find the lack of intellectual curiosity (and sometimes downright willful ignorance) of people a lot more frightening than terrorism. 3,000 people is tragic but it will not end western society. Those things OTOH will.

[number6]

94. I asked for a simple photo, not any research or anyone

to fetch anything

a simple no, I don't think a photo of that exists
or no I don't have a photo of that or ask someone else is fine .....

see AZCat thats why your a (censored ;))

[Realityhack]

95. And I explaned to you that a photo was not necisary.

Which you ignored.
Then you sent me to go fetch you a picture of something being cut with a shaped charge or thermite for your viewing pleasure.

[number6]

98. your reading to much into my post

"And I explained to you that a photo was not necessary"

are you the photo monitor, I'll decide whats necessary

I was >asking< you or anybody else to provide a photo
your are not obligated to provide one and one may not exist.

but you don't get to decide whats necessary

[Realityhack]

103. No that is left to physics.

Try to get that cut pattern with a shaped charge.

You are going to have a hell of a time hitting the beam at that kind of angle. And the slag would be all wrong.
Thermite, forget it. It simply doesn't work like that. You wouldn't be able to control it.
With a torch, this is exactly what we would expect.

A photo of the beam in the process of being cut is not required to determine how it was cut.

[number6]

93. I agree too, ....however

who controls the evidence, people in the Government

truthers don't have the Plane wreckage, steel beams, building ruble, or body parts.

it makes proving anything difficult

[Realityhack]

96. Right... because I have that beam in my hands?

please. That might work for some arguments but it hardly applies here.

[number6]

101. hey, hope you didn't burn your hands ......

;) :smoke:

[Realityhack]

104. No, it was cut with direct, zero point, alien, energy weapons, so it was nice and cool ;-) n/t

[Realityhack]

106. BTW thanks for the laugh. I needed it last night. n/t

[Realityhack]

102. Number 6 - I am going to jump back here for a second.

What I originally posted is a photo of a beam that is often held up as evidence of CD.
This was based on the false assumption that it was taken on/near 9-11.

It was not.

This is known to be a photo of a beam cut during cleanup.
You can observe the diagonal marks indicating the torch was at an angle to the steel when the cut was made.
You can see photos of the cleanup crew cutting other similar beams in the same way (some CD advocates ignorantly claimed a cleanup team would never cut diagonally)

It is very well debunked as evidence supporting controlled demolition.

While I support the intellectual curiosity you are showing in wanting images to compare etc. I must ask:
Do you actually question wither it is true that this beam was cut during the cleanup?

[number6]

155. yes

>Do you actually question whether it is true that this beam was cut during the cleanup?

(some CD advocates ignorantly claimed a cleanup team would never cut diagonally)
why would they cut diagonally ?

the scrap people I know make 90 degree cuts straight across beams
its quick and efficient

-What I originally posted is a photo of a beam that is often held up as evidence of CD.
This was based on the false assumption that it was taken on/near 9-11-

I've heard of no claim by truthers, on when the photo was taken (strawman)
what date was the photo taken. / I beleive the claim is "it was cut by thermite"

I make no claim on how this beam was cut. Maybe they cut it at angle cause they
wanted it to fall a certain way

but its not unreasonble to question it.

/It is very well debunked as evidence supporting controlled demolition.-/ to you, not me
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>on edit, no I don't beleive in controlled demolition, I beleive explosives were planted
in the buildings, 2 different things, and no the buildings didn't fall into there own foot
print
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
now if you had 3 photos, one of a beam cut by thermite, one by explosives, and one by
a torch - and the cuts looked very different, that would debunk it ;)

[Redstone]

2. Anything except what we SAW happen. There was NO doctored video. There was NO

"controlled demolition." There was NO "rocket on the bottom of the airplane."

And for the love of Christ, there was NO "nuke."

Redstone

[Realityhack]

6. I was trying for more specific examples.

I think the rocket on the bottom of the airplane might be a good one.

The nuke is laughable but it's not quite what I was going for.

[hack89]

3. Flight 77 flying over the Pentagon and crashing in the Pentagon lagoon. nt

[Realityhack]

7. Good one. I never even heard it before. n/t

[Bassman66]

4. The Government were not forewarned about the attacks.

That's my favourite.

Oh, and the behaviour of Bush, his team and the SS that morning was normal.

[Realityhack]

5. Please clarify

Your first point may be valid in the sense I intended this (something we can definitively demonstrate is a misconception), in that we know various parts of the government had a variety of information indicating an attack etc.
But full knowledge is far from being demonstrated.

As for your second point:
1. I would not expect their behavior to be normal under the circumstances.
2. You have no evidence that anything happened against protocol etc.

I am trying to stick to things that we can definitively prove to be myths in this thread.

[Bassman66]

8. I just stated two myths.

People believe that the Government were not forewarned. That is a myth unless you can prove they were not.

People believe that the behaviour was normal in the school when it has been demonstrated again and again that it is not - you must have seen my many (many) posts on the subject.

"America is under attack"
No questions from Bush
No answers expected from Card
Fleischer flashs "don't say anything yet"
The SS sit still when they have no idea if there is a plane being hijacked over their heads right there and then.
Bush dilly-dallies and takes his time leaving the room
Photos taken
Handshakes
Chats
Then we eventually have the the call for "a moments silence" at the press conference.

Good grief Mr President, AMERICA IS UNDER ATTACK!

The belief that that is somehow normal is a myth.

[Realityhack]

9. Good job ignoring my post

You failed to answer the question of what specifically you meant by the government being 'forewarned' about 9-11. Trying to erroneously put a burden of proof on me for a vague unspecified claim is not an answer.

Your point regarding 'normal' behavior is not a factual mater that is easily demonstrated despite the fact that you repeatedly claim it is. For example:
"The SS sit still when they have no idea if there is a plane being hijacked over their heads right there and then."
Why don't you provide a record of what they where doing behind the scenes at that moment? You can't. You have no idea what was going through the agents minds, you have no idea what they where doing, and you have no idea what the SOP for such a situation is.

YOU think the behavior is abnormal. I happen to agree that some of it is a bit odd. However, this is not the type of 'myth' I was looking for.
This is *especially* true because you seem to see the behavior as some kind of 'clear evidence' of foreknowledge or a conspiracy which is far from being demonstrated.
If people where claiming that Bush reacted immediately and you posted that as a myth, that would make sense because he didn't. But I don't think people are claiming that.

[Bassman66]

17. "However, this is not the type of myth I was looking for."

I know!

Sorry to spoil it for you.

[Realityhack]

20. You are still intentionaly failing to answer my basic request for clarification.

and you are oh so amazingly cute with your response.

I was looking for things that could be clearly factually disproved. For example (if this were a myth which it is not) pieces of the WTC towers flew 372 miles. Of course they did not. If that where an actually exposed myth it would be a great fit. It isn't so of course it does not count.

Your point regarding behavior is far more nebulous and arguable. furthermore you overstepped the facts when you included the Secret Service. Keep in mind that I agree Bush's behavior was odd and I would personally have expected different behavior from the SS but I know the facts are not their to say their behavior was definitely outside of the SOP.

As for your point regarding foreknowledge I am still awaiting clarification. You may be quite correct but you have repeatedly intentionally dodged the question, which makes me think you are trying to push something unsupported without admitting to it.

[Bassman66]

22. I know what you were doing.

"Myths" only work one way.

[Realityhack]

29. NO. I call bullshit.

you are directly accusing me of blatant bias. Fine. Prove your claim. Answer my simple request for clarification.
Answer as to what SOP is for the SS under those conditions.
Post something that is clearly a myth.

I am not trying to pick on one side or the other. I think that an example of a 9-11 myth might be that the government can't cover up any conspiracy even a small isolated one.
That would be fine and would be a 'pro-truther' or whatever the fuck myth.

But don't call me out when you refuse to answer even a simple question for clarification. *YOU* are being dishonest by not answering my genuine question looking for clarification. Depending upon your answer you may be correct or may not have the required proof. But you won't even say what the fuck you mean.

I call Bullshit.

[Kaleko]

44. You call bullshit because, clearly, you are steeped in it.

This sentence alone: "*YOU* are being dishonest by not answering my genuine question looking for clarification."

Genuine question? How stupid you must think your readers are. To anyone with a functioning brain it is blatantly obvious that you are not looking for information. You are fishing for affirmations for your preconceived notions.


Realityhack - good name for you, I'll give you that.

[Realityhack]

49. Sorry thats a no go.

If you read back the entire thread Bassman66 has still failed to provide specifics on what he/she means by the government being 'forewarned' of the attacks.

This is a valid legitimate question because depending upon specifically what she/he intends by it, the question of wither it is a demonstrated myth can go one way or the other.

If the meaning is that the government knew a terrorist attack was likely, or that they where aware planes might be used as weapons, or that they possessed X,Y,Z intelligence that could have been theoretically pieced together... sure it is a myth when people claim otherwise.

If the meaning is that the government at whatever level knew the full details of the attack... that is a baseless accusation. Light-years from the myths we are talking about.

So the question is legitimate.
And who are you to judge my intentions? I was trying to give Bassman66 a chance to make a point. he/she repeatedly refused to say anything more concrete, and eventually attacked me.

If you want to make a substitutive contribution to the thread, you might consider letting us know what your opinion on my question is. Do you think the government was 'forewarned' and if so what do you mean by that term (specifically).

[LARED]

14. My favorite myth is one where truthers believe that

asking someone to prove a negative is an argument.

People believe that the Government were not forewarned. That is a myth unless you can prove they were not.

[HamdenRice]

10. That people who think the Bush admin would not lie about 9/11 are "critical thinkers"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Realityhack]

12. Thanks for spamming the thread. eom

[HamdenRice]

16. Maybe I didn't understand the OP

You only wanted to list "myths" that it is agreeable to the OCTabots to call myths. My bad. I thought this was supposed to be an open, objective question.

[Realityhack]

19. I wanted to list actual Myths with clear concrete disproof.

who claims the Bush administration would not lie about 9-11?

As far as I can tell this is a straw man attack not an objective response. It isn't specific, and the target isn't X did or did not happen it is X people are or are not critical thinkers. In other words it is also somewhat tangential.

The field of laughing smilies push your post very close to flame bait.

If this is indeed an actual miss-perception (ie. people actually claim the Bush administration would not lie about 9-11) then it would qualify.

[HamdenRice]

26. Have you ever read the Amazin Randi OCTabot forum?

You know, where DU's OCTabots hang out and slap each other on the back for being "critical thinkers" who believe that the 9/11 Commission Report is the most thorough, authoritative, and complete description of what happened on 9/11 even though the commission chairmen publicly no longer stand by the report and the staff have admitted that they wanted to prosecute witnesses for perjury?

No?

Maybe that's why you asked that question.

Yes?

Then you are throwing up your own absurd strawman.

[Realityhack]

30. You have failed to provide the evidence I asked for...

Your statement:
"That people who think the Bush admin would not lie about 9/11 are "critical thinkers""

Who makes that claim?

[SidDithers]

11. Anything to do with buildings falling...

1. into their own footprint
or
2. at the speed of gravity

Similarly, anyone not understanding the difference between "explosions" and "explosives"

Sid

[Realityhack]

13. Good ones. n/t

[LARED]

15. Fav's

The belief the dust trailing off the falling steel sections of the WTC showed that the steel was vaporizing

The pod people who think the wing fairing was a pod

The dustification cultist. A sub sect are the direct energy accolades that when it was pointed out that the amount of energy required to dustify the WTC in say 15 seconds exceeded the entire energy output of the earth, just returned to their CT connect the dots beads.

No planers are for sure destined for the CT hall of fame

The notion that simple a bunny cage model of the WTC is meaningful

And the all time favorite myth is that steel burns like a log in the fire.

One last one was the Daisy Chain Committee that Nico believes is manned around the clock to discredit his "research" of which, I am the leader

[SDuderstadt]

18. I thought I was the leader of....

the Daisy Chain Committee. Was there a new election someone failed to inform me about?

[Realityhack]

21. The attatidue is not helpful Lared. My thoughts...

"The belief the dust trailing off the falling steel sections of the WTC showed that the steel was vaporizing"
People seriously claim that?

"The pod people who think the wing fairing was a pod"
good

"The dustification cultist. A sub sect are the direct energy accolades that when it was pointed out that the amount of energy required to dustify the WTC in say 15 seconds exceeded the entire energy output of the earth, just returned to their CT connect the dots beads."
I am confused by this one as the building was never turned into dust. The attitude is again unhelpful.

"No planers are for sure destined for the CT hall of fame"
Just no planes is fine.

"The notion that simple a bunny cage model of the WTC is meaningful"
That is a very specific attack. I agree with the point but I don't think this is a widely held myth.

"And the all time favorite myth is that steel burns like a log in the fire."
Haven't heard that one.

"One last one was the Daisy Chain Committee that Nico believes is manned around the clock to discredit his "research" of which, I am the leader"
Again a fairly specific attack. Valid but not really what I was looking for.

[hack89]

23. You need to spend some time in the archives

The dustification / steel vaporizing are "proof" of space based energy beams. You are familiar with Judy Woods?

[Realityhack]

27. No never heard of her. I think that may be a good thing for my mental health.

Thanks for the heads up on where that cane from though.

[SidDithers]

24. Steel burning like fire logs...

is maybe the funniest thing ever posted in the Dungeon.



Sid

[SDuderstadt]

25. Agreed....

this one is a classic.

[Realityhack]

28. I had missed that. Excelent contribution.... wow... just wow. n/t

[Realityhack]

31. No plane parts at the pentagon n/t

[number6]

32. The OCT is my favorite 9-11 myth.

:toast:

followed by GWB kept us safe.

nobody could ever think they 'd use airplanes as weapons.

Saddams connections to 9-11.

war on terrorism

[Realityhack]

39. 'The OCT' is not a specific myth.

Individual parts may be. Also you need clear evidence that these are false.

Nobody could ever think they'd use airplanes as weapons is good, except that I don't think anyone actually buys that myth.
GWB kept us safe doesn't seem directly related to 9-11 to me as he clearly didn't prevent the attacks. So I am not sure it really counts as a 9-11 myth.

Saddam's connection is good one.

'war on terrorism' is not clear.

[Realityhack]

41. From a recent thread - The plane at the penetrated 6 exterior walls n/t

[sgsmith]

42. An oldie but a goodie - WTC concrete cores

Need I say more? The allegation that both WTC-1 and WTC-2 had a concrete core that supported the interior of the two buildings.

[Realityhack]

46. good one. n/t

[aldo]

43. You mean like Fl 77 hitting the Pentagon -- which did not happen.

Or Fl 93 crashing into a mineshaft -- which also didn't happen. No one here has ever seen any photographic proof that either of the above happened, but that doesn't stop the true believers from believing. I would never have believed this could be possible previous to it actually happening (the blindness of the government account true believers, that is).

[Bolo Boffin]

45. No, not like that, because Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, Aldo.

Please take your fantasies someplace else.

Your reading assignment is Firefight: Inside the Battle To Save the Pentagon on 9/11 by Patrick Creed and Rick Newman. It's available at your local library. Educate yourself. Get your life back.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

157. it didn't

[Realityhack]

158. Yes it did.

There is more than enough evidence to make that conclusion.

[Realityhack]

47. Wrong.

The pentagon was clearly hit by flight 77. The details of how this came to be may debatable. But the fact of the crash is not amongst those who have done any serious research.

[Realityhack]

48. mineshaft?

:shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

50. The crash site was an abandoned strip mine turned into a landfill. n/t

[Realityhack]

51. new myth, mine shaft = filled in strip mine. n/t

[Dubiosus]

52. gosh

these 4 sound like 1, somehow...:evilgrin:

[Realityhack]

80. ?? n/t

[End Of The Road]

57. Aldo is right.

I like this newbie! He's smart and we'll keep him.

Welcome to DU!
:hi:

[Realityhack]

73. Right about what? n/t

[End Of The Road]

53. That the heat from the jet fuel was enough to bring the towers down

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That one always gets me going.

[AZCat]

55. That one is pretty fucking stupid.

I wonder who is claiming that was the cause?

[hack89]

58. That's more of a strawman than a myth. nt

[Realityhack]

75. this does not qualify as a myth unless people actually claim it.

Words have meaning. I have seen this used as a straw man but never argued as a serious position. If I am wrong please point out where this argument is made. Otherwise this does not count as a myth because it is not held as true by anyone.

[RC]

108. the burning jet fuel running down the elevator shafts is what brought down the both TWC's.

This burning jet fuel was supposed to have burned so hot in the 7th subbasement that it melted all 47 support columns. That was one of the first government claims that got debunked.

Never mind most of the fuel load burned outside the building with the second crash. This building came down first.
This burning fuel in the elevator shit, err..., shaft was on the national news for over a week. It took a long time to die. I first heard that one either on 9/11 or 9/12.

[AZCat]

110. That was a government claim?

Funny, I didn't realize they were making claims that early about the collapse of the towers.

[LARED]

111. Perhaps RC is one of those that think the media and the government

are the same entity.

[AZCat]

113. Perhaps he does.

Perhaps he is not familiar with America, and instead is basing his assumptions on other countries where that might be true.

[RC]

121. Oh yea with no facts have nothing except to attack the messenger.

One thing I have notice down here is the name calling and insults by those that buy the government line.

[AZCat]

122. I guess I missed that.

Care to point out where either I or LARED called you names or insulted you?

[RC]

124. You tell me then when that story first aired.

[AZCat]

126. Asking you about that is a personal attack?!

Wow - that's fucked up. All I wanted was confirmation it was a government claim and not one from another source. Can you confirm that, or are you merely conflating (as LARED suggested) the media with the government?

[LARED]

127. Sure

The Washington Post
September 12, 2001 Wednesday
Final Edition


With justification. In just under an hour, a raging fire from burning jet fuel softened or perhaps melted the steel strength members supporting 50 floors of undamaged skyscraper above the point of impact in the South Tower.

Sunday Express
September 16, 2001

In just under an hour, the raging inferno caused by burning aviation fuel melted the steel core structure supporting the 50 floors of undamaged skyscraper above the point of impact in the South Tower.
The top floors collapsed into the undamaged area and the impact caused the entire building to crumple to the ground. Just half an hour later the North Tower collapsed in the same way. By late afternoon, the 47-storey Building 7, another of the Center's seven buildings, had also collapsed after burning all day.

The Ottawa Citizen
September 13, 2001 Thursday Final EDITION

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the construction manager for the World Trade Center, agreed that burning jet fuel melted steel columns.
"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said.
"But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel.
"Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

I don't think the government planted these stories. Do you?

[RC]

134. Who did then?

[Realityhack]

136. Did you read the posts?

One has a source for the claim.

Furthermore NONE of them claim anything about a sub-basement.

I would like to see a source for your original claim or see you modify it.

[LARED]

144. Here's the entire articles. You seem to think if the government didn't tell

these writer and their sources what to say they are too stupid to make intelligent comments

========================================

The Washington Post

September
12, 2001 Wednesday 

Final Edition

 'Magnitude Beyond Anything We'd Seen Before';

Towers Built to Last But Unprepared For Such an Attack

 BYLINE: Guy Gugliotta, Washington Post Staff Writer

 SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A18
 LENGTH: 894 words

 Built to withstand earthquakes and hurricane-force winds, and equipped with enhanced security after a 1993 terrorist bombing, the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center were supposed to last. Their architect boasted that they could withstand the impact
of a jumbo jet.

 But when two hijacked commercial jetliners crashed into the 110-story structures within 20 minutes of each other early yesterday morning, experts flinched, for "what we saw today was several orders of magnitude beyond anything we'd seen before," said the
National Academy of Sciences' Richard Little, who has overseen several studies on how to protect buildings from terrorist attacks.

 "We were hopeful at first," said Pennsylvania State University architectural engineer Kevin Parfitt, who teaches a course in building failures. "But the longer the fire burned, the more we feared the outcome." 

 With justification. In just under an hour, a raging fire from burning jet fuel softened or perhaps melted the steel strength members supporting 50 floors of undamaged skyscraper above the point of impact in the South Tower. The top floors slumped to the damaged area, and the impact of the dead weight caused the entire building to pancake to the ground. A half-hour later, the North Tower collapsed in the same way.

 By late afternoon, the 47-story Building 7, another of the center's seven buildings, had also fallen after burning all day. Building 6, the U.S. Customs House, was a smoldering, soot-blackened hulk.

 Experts agreed that collapse of the two towers was almost inevitable; although their "tube structure" design was their greatest source of strength, it was also an Achilles' heel. For someone who wanted to bring them down, a guided missile filled with jet fuel
was perhaps the only way.

 The towers were built like "rectangular doughnuts," Parfitt said. Strength came from a central steel core and from steel columns spaced closely around the perimeter of each building. There was no structural support between the core and the outer walls.

 "When the planes come through, they cut through a number of those columns," Parfitt said. "At the same time, the planes are starting transcontinental flights, and they have full tanks of aviation fuel. You get a massive explosion and a fire."

 The initial jet fuel explosions most likely blew the insulation off the towers' girders, Parfitt suggested, incinerated easy combustibles and gave the ensuing fires free access to the unguarded steel. "Sprinklers aren't going to do too much in that situation," Parfitt said.

 For the people inside the buildings trying to escape, what followed was a macabre race against time, and the odds were not good. Each of the Trade Center towers had 250 elevators, but only three stairwells. Between 20,000 and 25,000 people had to get out of each
building as rapidly as possible.

 In 1993, after terrorists set off a bomb in a basement garage, it took four hours to evacuate the towers, but Dennis Wenger, director of the Texas A&M University Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, said half the occupants got out in the first hour.

 "There was no panic, and a lot of cooperation," even though the stairwells were "quite narrow" and smoke was wafting upward as people climbed down, said Wenger, who studied the 1993 evacuation.

 In some ways, yesterday's scenario might have seemed better -- the fires were above most of the occupants. But what they didn't know was that -- in the South Tower -- they had less than an hour to get out. The North Tower was not much better.

 The end came when the fire had softened the girders so that the weight above the crash sites became unsupportable. The South Tower, hit lower down, fell first beneath the greater weight. The North Tower, with less weight above the explosion, held out a bit longer: "The whole thing just imploded," said Melvyn Blum, 55, a real estate executive who was watching through a telescope from his 44th-floor office a few miles away on Manhattan's Seventh Avenue, "just like you see when they take buildings down with dynamite."

 Angus Kress Gillespie, author of the 1999 book "Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center," said architect Minoru Yamasaki had designed the towers to withstand the impact of a jumbo jet, "but planes have become bigger" since the center was built in 1972. Minoru Yamasaki Associates (MYA) issued a statement yesterday saying the firm was in contact with authorities and had offered assistance. "We believe that any speculation regarding the specifics of these tragic events would be irresponsible," the statement said. "For obvious reasons, MYA has no further comment at this time."

 By late Tuesday, few were criticizing Yamasaki for misplaced bravado. After the 1993 bombing, the center's towers "were probably among the half-dozen strongest buildings in the world, but it couldn't withstand that kind of insult," Little said.

 Cesar Pelli, designer of the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, the world's tallest buildings, suggested that although "it will take structural engineers a long time to figure out exactly how" the towers collapsed, he agreed that "no building is prepared for this kind of stress.

 "I feel a tremendous sense of loss, but this is insignificant when you think of the horror of the loss of life," Pelli said. "The grief is just unimaginable."



LOAD-DATE: September 12, 2001
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2001 The Washington Post

Sunday Express

September 16, 2001
 
32 - PAGE NEWS SPECIAL; WHY DID THE TOWERS CRUMPLE INTO DUST?

BYLINE: By Keith Perry
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 14
LENGTH: 875 words

STANDING proud on New York's skyline, the twin towers of the World Trade Center were built to withstand earthquakes, bomb
attacks and hurricane force winds.

 The buildings were fitted with enhanced security after the 1993 terrorist bombing and their architect boasted that they
could withstand the full impact of a jumbo jet.

 But when two hijacked airliners ploughed into the 110-storey buildings, building experts were appalled at the extent of
the devastation. "What we saw today was several orders of magnitude beyond
anything we had seen before, " said Richard Little of the National Academy
of Sciences.

 Mr Little is an expert on how to protect buildings from terrorist attacks. "We were hopeful at first, " said
Kevin Parfitt, an architectural engineer at Pennsylvania State University who runs a course in building failures. "But the longer the fire burned, the more we feared the outcome."

 In just under an hour, the raging inferno caused by burning aviation fuel melted the steel core structure supporting the 50 floors of undamaged skyscraper above the point of impact in the South Tower.

 The top floors collapsed into the undamaged area and the impact caused the entire building to crumple to the
ground. Just half an hour later the North Tower collapsed in the same way. By late afternoon, the 47-storey
Building 7, another of the Center's seven buildings, had also collapsed after burning all day.

 Building 6, the US Custom House, was reduced to a smouldering, blackened hulk.

 Construction experts believe the collapse of the two structures was "almost inevitable". Although their "tube structure" design was their greatest source of strength, it was also a fatal weakness.

 Someone who wanted to destroy the buildings would realise that using a fuel-laden commercial jet as a missile was probably the only way.

 "The towers were built like rectangular doughnuts, " Mr Parfitt said. "Strength came from a central steel core and from steel columns spaced around the perimeter of the building. There was no structural support
between the core and outer walls.

 "When the planes came they cut through a number of those perimeter columns, " Mr Parfitt said. "At the same time, the planes are starting transcontinental flights and they are equipped with full tanks of aviation fuel. The result is a massive explosion and a fire.

 "The initial jet fuel explosions probably blew the insulation off the towers' girders, " Mr Parfitt suggested. They also incinerated easy combustibles and gave the ensuing fires free access to the unguarded steel.

 "Sprinklers aren't going to do much in that situation, " Mr Parfitt said. For the people inside the buildings
trying to escape, what followed was a terrifying race against time in the face of impossible odds. Each of the Trade Center towers had 250 lifts but only three stairwells. Between 20,000 and 25,000 people had to get out of the building as rapidly as possible.

 In 1993, after terrorists set off a bomb in a basement garage, it took four hours to evacuate the towers, but Dennis Wenger of the Texas A&M University Hazard Reduction and Recovery Centre, said half of the occupants got out in the first hour.

 "There was no panic and a lot of co-operation, " even though the stairwells were quite narrow and "smoke was wafting upward as people climbed down, " said Mr Wenger, who studied the 1993 evacuation.

 The scenario on Tuesday might have seemed better - the fires were above most of the occupants.

 But what they didn't realise was that in the South Tower they had less than an hour to get out. The situation on the
North Tower was not much better.

 The tragic end came when the fire had softened the girders so much that the weight above the crash sites became unsupportable.

 The South Tower, which was hit lower down, fell first beneath the greater weight.

 The North Tower, with less weight above the explosion, held out a bit longer.

 "The whole thing just imploded, " said Melvyn Blum, 55, an estate agent who was watching through a telescope from his 44th floor office a few miles away on Seventh Avenue in Manhattan.

 Angus Kress Gillespie, the author of the book Twin Towers: The Life Of New York City's World Trade Center, said that the
architect Minoru Yamasaki had designed the towers, which were built in 1972, to withstand the impact of a 747.

 Minoru Yamasaki Associates issued a statement saying the firm was in contact with the authorities and had offered assistance
following the tragedy. But it declined to comment on the devastation.

 Few would criticise the architect for his original bravado. After the 1993 bombing, the towers were described as probably
among the strongest half-a-dozen buildings in the world, but it "couldn't withstand that kind of insult", Mr Little said.

 Cesar Pelli, designer of the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, the world's tallest buildings, suggested that "it will take structural engineers a long time to figure out exactly how the towers collapsed".

 He added that no building was designed "to take this kind of stress".

 "I feel a tremendous sense of loss, " Mr Pelli said, "but this is insignificant when you think of the horror of the loss of life."

 

LOAD-DATE: September 16, 2001
LANGUAGE: English
PUB-TYPE: Newspaper
Copyright 2001 EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS

 The Ottawa Citizen

September 13, 2001 Thursday Final EDITION

Towering infernos: World Trade Centre designed to handle plane crashes, but not fire, expert says

 

BYLINE: Tom Spears
SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen
SECTION: SPECIAL SECTION, Pg. B10
LENGTH: 731 words 

The World Trade Center could have survived the impacts of two airplane crashes but fell because its steel pillars softened in the burning jet fuel, says a Boston professor of skyscraper design.

"The structure itself performed very well. After the impact, we saw the structure shook a little bit and it would have stood if there was no fire," said Masoud Sanayei, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Tufts University,

"There was intense heat -- more than ordinary fires that buildings experience because of the large amount of jet fuel." He wouldn't give an estimate, but said it would be thousands of Fahrenheit degrees.

"The fire was the cause of the actual collapse," he said.

The towers had what engineers call "tube-in-tube" construction.

One ring of steel columns stood around the building's outer edge, like a giant steel pipe standing on end. An inner cluster of columns stood like a second tube around the elevator shaft in the building's centre.

Across these columns were fastened reinforced concrete slabs that formed each floor.

"They are very strong in the vertical direction to carry the gravity load (i.e. the building's own weight), and very strong in carrying lateral (sideways) loads such as wind loads and earthquake loads," Mr. Sanayei said yesterday.

"When the airplane hit one of the towers, it punctured it. But if you have a pipe standing up and it has a hole in it, it still stands up. It is designed for that.

"Then the fire started.

"Steel softens as a result of high temperatures, and then it can't carry as much load."

Steel loses half its structural strength when its temperature reaches 500 to 600 degrees fahrenheit.

At most, given the massive fire, he believes such a skyscraper could only have stood for two or three hours. But no one could have predicted the exact moment when the buildings became too weak to stand.

As the steel was starting to soften, concrete slab floors expanded in the intense heat, and this probably caused them to break their connections with the steel supports.

"When one of these floors collapses, then it hits the one below" with a heavy force, he said.

"Then the next one (below is hit) and the next one, causing a domino effect," even in the bottom half of the building, which had suffered no damage in the initial crash or the fire.

"It implodes into itself."

Engineers call this form of collapse "pancaking," as each slab flattens itself on top of the one below, guided and contained by the steel columns. The same thing happens in the controlled demolition of an building, where it prevents debris from flying outward.

"It is very difficult for anyone to survive this pancaking. There is no space between the slabs."

Mr. Sanayei is a structural engineering expert specializing in skyscrapers and teaches a course called Skyscrapers: Architecture & Engineering.

Earthquakes and fires always lead to updates in building codes, and this one will likely lead to new rules for skyscrapers, especially dealing with fire resistance, he said. But the most important thing is to improve airport security.

He also calls for better ways of evacuating tall buildings.

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the construction manager for the World Trade Center, agreed that burning jet fuel melted steel columns.

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said.

"But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel.

"Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

[RC]

145. Jet fuel does not explode. It burns. Gasoline explodes.

JetA is a kerosene, not much different from diesel fuel. In fact I have put out cigarettes in an open container of diesel fuel. Also kerosenes do not not burn hot enough in the open air to melt or even significantly soften steel. It doesn't matter how much jet fuel was involved, the fact remains pooled jet fuel just does not burn hot enough to melt steel. This wasn't a Hollywood movie, this was the real world where physics laws cannot be broken.

There have been much more massive and hotter fires that burned for days in sky scrapers and they did not come down. The only steel frame building that are said to have collapsed due to fire are WTC 1, 2 & 7. All in the same day, all in their own foot print. Nothing before or since has ever happened like that. Amazing that!

Your so called news articles reads like those sensational Hollywood action movies, not real life. They were more than likely written by journalist that didn't understand what they were writing about and were being fed by someone with an agenda. Hey, look at Fox News, they do it all the time.

[AZCat]

146. And apparently some people are incapable of moving past recycled bullshit claims. n/t

[RC]

147. Such as...?

[AZCat]

148. Look: All I ask is one simple thing.

Before coming here (or going anywhere, for that matter) and posting a bunch of stuff you read on a conspiracy site, please check it out first. There are myriad ways to do this: DU has plenty of threads in this subforum that cover a plethora of 9/11 topics (some multiple times); the NIST report, while flawed, is an excellent resource; there are surely engineering professors at the local college/university who would be happy to answer some questions or work through a problem with you.

But don't come here and spam crap that we've seen a dozen times (yes, at least that many - check the archives). It just makes you look lazy and stupid.

[RC]

149. You did not address a thing I posted.

You seem to live down here for the purpose of intimidating anyone that does not toe the government line. I've done the research, I've read the "spam crap" I've read well researched facts also.
9/11/01 can be likened to a jig saw puzzle and your pieces do not fit very well.
With the massive amount of steel in the upright columns, there is no way enough jet fuel could get into the basements and burn hot enough, long enough to melt or even soften enough of the 47 uprights to bring the buildings down. With your explanation for how the building came down, those massive columns should have been left standing 40 to 60 feet in the air. The outside dimensions of the center column was a few inches less than 3 X 5 feet where it came out of the bed rock and this tubular column was 4 inches thick.
There were cut into 30 foot lengths mixed in with the debris. How could that be possible?
Whether it is how hot jet fuel burns in the open air or the melting point of steel or what it was that flew into the Pentagon, the governments explanation does not hold up. Something did, yeah. But 757's have two engines. Where is the other engine?

[Realityhack]

152. again... who said basement? when?

As for the other engine what makes you think it doesn't exist? We have limited photographic evidence of the debris.
You also seem to have moved from 'some people initially claimed jet fuel melted the steel' to an argument that this is still held as a theory.

You are spouting off recycled and sometimes incorrect arguments. For example:

The twin towers fell into their own foot print. False
Their was only one engine at the pentagon. Not demonstrated, inconsistent with other evidence.

Why would you expect people to take you seriously if you put forward statements like that?

[RC]

153. Are you telling me the towers fell over? How far away were building

crushed under the falling towers? A block? Two blocks? How far?

Recycled arguments? Fact are facts, You can't change those, so the arguments based on reality can't very much. But if you are making up shit as you go along, the sky's the limit. Exploding jetA fuel. Molten steel caused by this same pooled burning jet fuel. Enough burning jet fuel running down the elevator shafts to melt the support columns in the air starved basements.
The first building to come down had most of the fuel load burn outside the building. So why did it come down first? The damage was much less, both from the plane and the fire.

And as for more than one engine at the Pentagon, what evidence might that be? The hole wasn't even big enough for a 757. Not by a long ways.

Two pictures and two questions for ya...

This was taken before the collapse. Where is the hole big enough for a 757? This is a picture of the hole. Notice the windows around it. They are still there.


Where is all that debris that is supposed to be scattered all over the grass? Surely they didn't clean it all up yet, the fire dept is still there. They didn't have time yet anyway.

I know, they were hiding the second engine to keep us conspiracy theorists busy, Yeah, that's it! They were busy hiding that 2nd engine. It all seems so simple now! Never mind they were multi ton engines.

[Realityhack]

156. You have migrated from saying something is a 'myth' to attacking it as a straw man

1. How far where things crushed under the towers.
- I thought you did the research?
the FACT is they did NOT fall into their own footprint. Of course they did fall mostly down. Gravity tends to result in that.

2. Jet fuel in the basement.
- This is not a claim anyone here is making. Therefore your attacks on it are attacks on a straw man you set up. I seriously doubt ANY engineer EVER held that opinion as it is blatantly obvious that whatever happened did NOT happen in the basement.

3. The hole size.
- Again. I thought you said you did the research. The issue of the hole size has been addressed. This is not the topic for that discussion. Feel free to start one, or look up all the old posts on it, or ACTUALLY do the research on the internet.

The last bit of your post is just trying to put words in my mouth. I made no claim as to the second engine being hidden for any reason, much less to keep you busy.

We know that if you assume a plane did hit the building, that most of the plane parts especially the heavy parts are likely to end up in the building. Underneath that collapse zone.

[AZCat]

154. You've done the research? Bullshit.

You wouldn't be parroting these stupid claims if you had. You claim the "government's explanation does not hold up" yet you show no indication of being aware of the actual explanation of the government (as embodied by the NIST).

[Realityhack]

151. "All in their own foot print" YAY bullshit! n/t

[Realityhack]

135. ok fair enough. But it sounds like a fairly dead myth.

Given that the towers did not colapse from the bottom this sounds like a fox news style myth. Did the government seriously claim this? If so what part. It doesn't sound like anything an engineering body would claim. It appeared from the start that collapse initiation did not start in the basement.

[loslobo]

54. Pancake theory

If you actually believe that explosives were not used, then I pity your intellect. Please explain away testimonials, recordings, visual evidence, basic physics, systemic recordings and common sense......

[AZCat]

56. Explain away...

what "testimonials, recordings, visual evidence, basic physics, systemic recordings and common sense....."?

[loslobo]

59. Gravity

Explain away Newton.....

Time(2)=(Distance X 2)/ Gravity

85.7375=2724/32
85.5=2736/32

9.2 Seconds

In a perfect environment with no resistance, it would take 9.2 seconds. If in your fairy tale world every undamaged floor lying below magically unhinged themselves your pancake theory would still take 96 seconds.

The demolitions were traveling down faster than gravity.

I don't need to go further, unless you can explain how the law of Gravity doesn't apply.

[AZCat]

60. 96 seconds?!

What kind of math is that?! Please explain how you reached this result.

[LARED]

61. If memory serves me correctly, you will be getting a link

to a Judy Wood calculation. Good luck

[AZCat]

63. It looks like you were correct.

I was hoping that perhaps the poster was referring to something else.

[loslobo]

62. you need to answer questions before you ask more here's a freebee

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

[AZCat]

64. Unfortunately Dr. Wood's formulation of the problem is incorrect.

We here at DU are familiar with her "Billiard Ball" model of the collapse and have discussed it before. She has forgotten neglected to account for momentum transfer, which changes the results significantly.




On Edit: I had forgotten Dr. Wood had posted an explanation of sorts about momentum. It is as flawed as her original model.

[loslobo]

65. Sorry were you expecting mini nukes?

You can nit pick theories all you want, the point was the PANCAKE theory is absurd.

Did you consider momentum transfer could never be calculated with the vast amount of explosives that had to be used?

[AZCat]

66. Nitpick?!

The whole premise of her model is flawed! Bringing in explosives violates the premise even more - can't you see that?

[loslobo]

72. I'll fuel your idiocy one more time

You continue this without once defending Pancake...
Models are for your narcissistic mental masturbation, I don't need to prove were every explosive was planted to satisfy your psychosis.

[AZCat]

74. Wow that's fucking stupid.

Thank you for making it overwhelmingly clear you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

[Realityhack]

87. 96 seconds is inccorrct. Period.

It is just plane wrong.

Now you have a choice. You can
A) Defend the 96 second time-line
B) Admit it is incorrect
C) Abandon all attempts at making sense and replying to people.

If (A) then please post your defense. Try to keep the calculations clear etc.

If (B) STOP then re-consider wither any of your argument can stand without the bogus 96 second figure. If yes then admit the 96 seconds is wrong and rephrase your argument without using it. If no than just admit you were wrong.

If (C) then please stop posting.

[Realityhack]

76. Loslobo - You are new here...

do try to look around a bit before mouthing off. Many of the people here know a shitload more than you do. Unlike you they have actually done some research on these subjects outside of their own confirmation bias. In addition they may actually (unlike you) have some clue what the fuck they are talking about when it comes to physics etc.

Your post does NOT qualify as a myth for this forum. The OP specifically speaks about myths we can (for the most part) agree on. That is ones that are clearly demonstrated to be false.

Far from that, what you have posted as 'obvious truth' is at best poor congecture and much of it outright factually wrong.

[loslobo]

83. Pancake theory NOT a myth?

How arrogant of you to suppose what I do or do not know. I didn't know this was an academic circle jerk. Just because you drank the kool-aid doesn't make it "factually wrong"

[Realityhack]

84. I did not say that.

I responded to your post clamming explosives where 'clearly used'.

[loslobo]

85. If your blind to that, then you make my point

:argh:

[Realityhack]

86. Sorry I guess you are not familiar with me. I like evicence.

Got any?

[Bolo Boffin]

67. Payne Stewart's intercept shows the 9/11 planes could have been.

This is based on a misunderstanding of the NTSB report which changes time zones at one point, leading the unsuspecting to think intercept happened in 19 minutes. It was actually 1 hour and 19 minutes.

[subsuelo]

88. The myth of an impartial commission concerned about the truth

[Realityhack]

89. That is prity broad brush.

Do you have anything more specific?

Also you should provide more details.
'an impartial commission' I assume you mean the 9-11 commission?
'impartial' to what degree? how do you define that? etc?
Who believes this myth?
etc.

[subsuelo]

92. lol

right

[Realityhack]

105. That was oh so very helpful.

I guess you can feel like you contributed to a serious discussion today. :sarcasm:

I assume you mean the 9-11 commission.

Now here is the thing. Your myth is that they where
1. Independent
2. Interested in the truth

One is a matter of degrees. I am not sure anyone claims they where completely impartial. I am not sure it would be POSSIBLE to be completely impartial. So my question is mainly around who claims they where.

Two is mostly a matter of interpretation of other peoples intentions. I don't know how much hard evidence you can martial on that point that would be conclusive. Remember the idea was to look at things that where clearly demonstrably myths.
So while I definitely do not doubt that more than one motive was at play, again it becomes a matter of degrees, with likely even less real evidence.

In any case I don't know if anyone actually claims the above in a way that would contradict your statements AND be demonstratively false.
Of course I could be wrong. I have admitted as much further up in this thread. Perhaps you could be helpful and clarify your points.

[mhatrw]

107. Osama did it. n/t

[RC]

109. Osama did it?

I thought Saddam personally flew both planes into the twin towers. :shrug:

[Realityhack]

138. That is going to need some support

I do not think that is a 'myth' that people here can generally agree on.
I am fairly sure it is not a myth you can back up with hard evidence. If you can please do so now.

I really intended this topic to be about common factual fallacies that we can demonstrate conclusively to be false, not thing particular people do not happen to believe happened.

So anyway I would be interested in any support you have for that claim.

[mhatrw]

139. I would be interested in seeing any support for the claim that Osama did 9/11 myself ...

until then I will consider it a myth.

[Realityhack]

142. Thats fine but it wasn't really the purpose of this topic. n/t

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

112. Favorite misconception...

...is the notion that this applies in any way, shape, or form:

"- The 9-11 Forum, like all of DU's forums, is dedicated to a peaceful and respectful discussion. Do not engage in personal attacks or ad-hominem commentary. The heart of this is DU's rules for civility. Follow this."

:rofl:

[AZCat]

114. You have no idea.

You come in here, thinking you're all hot shit, and make an ass of yourself. Now you're pissed because we didn't swallow your bullshit just because you're a "mechanical engineer". I've been here for a lot fucking longer than you, and while I have never accused anyone of being a traitor or shill, the reverse happens quite frequently. Maybe you should mind the beam in your eye before making a fuss about the mote in mine.

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

115. And there you have it.

Never mind that it was more of a rhetorical observation, but thanks for supporting the point anyway. :hi:

[AZCat]

116. The only fucking point here...

is that you have no basis for your fucking claims. Go whine about it somewhere else.

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

117. Awww....

Now that's not being very civil now, is it? :shrug:

[AZCat]

118. It's more civil...

than calling someone a "shill" or "troll".

Hypocrite.


ETA: Fucking, fucking, fucking.

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

119. When in Rome.

But perhaps there's hope yet for that civility. I believe that's the first post of yours I've read that doesn't contain the word "fucking" at least 3 times. Good job! :thumbsup:

[AZCat]

120. Shit!

I think I still have time to go back and edit it - thanks for pointing that out!


Fucking
Fucking
Fucking


Anyway, it appears from your post that you think it is acceptable to accuse someone here of being a shill or troll, but not acceptable to question someone on the basis of their claims. Is this true?

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

123. Quite an interpretation there, Sparky.

Just a simple, rhetorical observation.

Really, I was tempted to post links to every ad hom and personal attack you've made in this forum, but I thought it uncivilized to risk crashing DU's server. :-)

[AZCat]

125. Yeah, sure.

Don't be fucking childish. It was quite apparent what you were implying.

And good luck with the ad hominem (you might want to look up the definition first) and personal attack list. You might want to add a category for "questioning posters about the basis for their claims" since that seems to be interpreted as a personal attack by the "truth movement".

Any answer to my question, or are you going to dodge it?

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

128. LOL!

You're a piece of work, aren't you?

My answer? No. How's that? Or are you going to try and twist THAT into another pseudo road rage train wreck?

Let's make this as simple as possible for you, okay? My original post in this thread was simply an observation of the irony of the "rule" I posted, and how that does not manifest itself in reality. Are you somehow suggesting that these things don't take place here regularly? Or are you, yet again, just extrapolating wild tangents for the sake of getting yourself all worked up? :shrug:

[AZCat]

129. If you don't think it's acceptable then why did you do it? n/t

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

130. Never said "unacceptable".

I was pointing out irony. Do you really need this much explanation for such a simple concept? :shrug:

[AZCat]

131. You think it's ironic...

to call boloboffin a shill and a troll?

Wow - what lengths you will go to defend your behavior. :eyes:

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

132. Now you're just being silly.

That's not the irony I've already explained to you several times. Are you really that bad at comprehension?

I'll give you another piece of irony - that you, of all people, would speak of ANYTHING to do with behavior. :rofl:

[AZCat]

133. Now you're just being stupid.

That's what my first fucking post to you was about.

[Realityhack]

137. This is Off Topic.

Did you have anything to contribute to the forum?

You may see that as a 'personal attack' (unless I am on ignore) but I am seriously asking. You seem to want a serious debate. So post something we can discuss. This topic stared off fairly reasonably. You might even have something to contribute.

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

140. Oh really?

And who is it that decides what is fit for contribution here? You? AZcat? :eyes:

[Realityhack]

141. Did you READ the OP?

This topic is about Myths about what happened on 9-11. You are talking about the rules of the forum.

That is off topic.

Are you arguing it is not off topic?

[Bleeding Cubbie Blue]

143. I'm not "arguing" anything.

It's a 9/11 forum. I made a tongue-in-cheek observation that it's a misconception that the rules apply as stated. My mistake was in assuming that folks like AZ and yourself had a sense of humor and/or irony, for which I apologize. Yeesh. Is EVERYTHING a major dispute with you guys? :shrug:

[Realityhack]

150. look.

If you look up thread I respond to most of the posts in this thread. You made an off topic post and I pointed that out. It doesn't have to be a major conflict. I was surprised you even responded to my 'this is off topic' post.
I was simply trying to keep the subject on track.

[aldo]

159. MYTH: Many camp stoves have been melted by burning kerosene (jet fuel)!

FACT: Nope,has never ever happened (and burning jet fuel has never brought down a steel framed building either).

[AZCat]

160. Who, exactly...

was guilty of believing your myth? Oh wait - it's just another straw man from the "truth movement". Just like your claim re. jet fuel & a steel framed building.

[Realityhack]

161. AZ is correct. In order for this to qualify...

someone has to have believed it. As I have never heard this one before I am interested as to where you saw it.