Comparison of WTC 7 and Mandarin Oriental Hotel, Beijing

[Subdivisions]

[Bolo Boffin]

1. Facile comparison, meant to capitalize on actual knowledge about both buildings. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Bloomberg just said it was a steel AND concrete structure.

The WTC buildings were all 100% steel.

[seemslikeadream]

3. Hey thanks

Looks like I missed all the fun today :hi:

[rollingrock]

4. Fire has never brought down

a modern steel structure, and never will.

That's what a CONTROLLED Demolition is for.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Why do they fireproof them then, if fire "never will"? n/t

[rollingrock]

24. Prolonged fires on upper floors

could possibly cause the thinner steel supports to eventually weaken on the upper floors, given enough a) burning time and b) burning intensity. But neither conditions a or b were present on 9/11.

Fire is more likely to effect the structural integrity of the upper floors because 1) the upper floors are more difficult for firefighters to reach, and 2) the structural steel supports are thinner. Partial collapse of a few upper floors due to fire has been known to occur (which prompted steel fireproofing), but none of these upper floor partial collapses has ever lead to a pancaking or domino effect that caused every floor of the building to pancake and totally collapse the entire building, as was alleged to have occurred on 9/11.

Fire would have no effect on the structural integrity of the massive core columns present in the lower half and base of the building.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. "Fire would have no effect on the structural integrity of the massive core columns"

Then why do they fireproof them?

[rollingrock]

33. how do you know that they do?

it could be a safety precaution, in case of defects in the steel.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. How do you know that they don't?

It's a little early in your tenure here to start the "Nuh-uh" game, don't you think?

[rollingrock]

44. I never said that they did or didn't

I just want to know what makes you certain that they do.

[Bolo Boffin]

51. Because the fireproofing of all floors of the 3 WTC buildings are well documented in the reports

The NIST reports.

http://wtc.nist.gov

[hack89]

8. How many modern steel structures

have been hit by fully loaded 767s? Why do truthers want to gloss over that very glaring and unique fact? Considering that the WTC was the first time that ever happened, why is it hard to imagine that they would be the first steel framed buildings to collapse?

[Subdivisions]

9. WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane. n/t

[seemslikeadream]

10. You would think by now that "misCONception" had been laid to rest

:eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Have you still never found a link to the complete collapse of WTC 7?

One that shows the east penthouse falling?

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html

[Bolo Boffin]

13. It was hit by debris from the North Tower. It also burned for seven hours

It also had an unusual structure, based on the lot size, an existing Con Ed substation already on the site, and a ramp that fed the entire WTC complex.

But you keep on fixating on "no plane hitting 7."

[hack89]

47. There are FDNY accounts of massive structural damage

which is what happens when nearby 1000 foot towers collapse. And of course it did burn for a very long time.

[rollingrock]

25. Simple physics

If you set off a massive bomb on the 90th floor of a building (simulating the explosion of an airplane impact), do you think that would cause the entire building to collapse? There's a reason why controlled demolition experts set the explosives to go off at the base of a building, not at the top, when they want to bring it down.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. "controlled demolition experts set the explosives to go off at the base of a building"

Why didn't they do this in the Towers?

[rollingrock]

32. Once again

If you set off a giant bomb on the 90th floor of a building, do you think it would cause the entire building to collapse?

[Bolo Boffin]

35. Depends on the building.

The Towers? Obviously, yes, if it did the same kind of damage and started the same enormous fires as the crash of the jets did.

[rollingrock]

43. That's a non-answer

"Obviously, yes, if it did the same kind of damage and started the same enormous fires as the crash of the jets did."

"Depends on the building."

so what type of building do CD experts rig explosives on the upper floors, rather than the base, to bring it down?

[Bolo Boffin]

50. You've changed the question.

Charges are, of course, on all levels of a CD building to remove supports and guide the eventual gravity collapse of the building.

However, the Towers show no such charges in place. Indeed the core stood for several seconds after the rest fell. The collapse started from the top and progressed down solely on the basis of the acceleration by gravity.

[rollingrock]

53. I didn't change the question

I simply asked the same question in a different way, because it seems you don't want to answer the original one.

[Bolo Boffin]

55. Yes, you did.

It's right there in black and white.

[rollingrock]

59. And you still refuse to answer either question n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

60. No, I did.

You asked, "A bomb on the 90th floor could bring down a building?"

And I said, "Depends on the building." That building, as I said, if the bomb did the same kind of damage and started the same kind of fires, yes, down it would come. That is an answer to your question, and it is a direct and honest one.

[rollingrock]

62. Going round in round in circles again

A circular response is not a valid answer.

We were discussing the impact of the plane, not the fires. You keep going in circles.

When confronted with evidence that fire could not have bring down the towers, you say it was the impact of the plane. When it is shown the impact could not have caused the collapses, you say it was the fire, but never providing evidence for either one.

[AZCat]

63. Who said the impacts could not have caused the collapses?

I'd love to see the proof of that claim.


On Edit: Besides Skilling, because we don't have his original analysis and therefore can't critique it.

[Bolo Boffin]

64. Nice try.

It was the impact of the planes, the damage they caused, AND the fires they started that started the collapse of the towers. You don't want to compare apples to apples. You want to focus on one or the other. It was all of them.

[rollingrock]

65. That is what you claim

where's the evidence that one or both caused the collapse of the towers?

1) how can an explosion on the 80th or 90th floor of a 110 story building cause a total collapse?


The fires are a given. Obviously, when you have an explosion you are going to have a fire.

They are basically one and the same thing (the explosion from the impact and the resulting fires from the explosion). The real question is,

2) how can the resulting fire of said explosion that burns for less than an hour on the upper floors cause a total collapse?


You can tell me that Santa Claus lives in the North Pole and reindeer can fly, but it doesn't make it true unless you can prove it.

[Bolo Boffin]

66. "where's the evidence"

http://wtc.nist.gov

[rollingrock]

68. The NIST goes around and around in circles

it doesn't address any of my specific questions above.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. Ahh. n/t

[hack89]

46. Doesn't that depend on how much building there was above the explosion? nt

[rollingrock]

49. The impact took place on or near 90th floor of the buildings

Only about 10% of the building was above the impact point.

Maybe if the plane struck on the 10th floor instead of the 90th, the argument would be more plausible.

[hack89]

54. So much did that piece of the tower weigh?

what was its KE? Seven years after the fact the truth movement hasn't done basic calculations - why should we take what they seriously?

[rollingrock]

71. How much did that piece weigh?

A whole lot less than the lower piece. By an order of magnitude less.
You're not going to crush object A with object B when object B weighs several times less than object A.


What's more, the weight has nothing to do with it. The upper part of the towers weighed the same as it did before and after the plane hit the building. So why didn't it crush the building long BEFORE the plane hit it?

[Bolo Boffin]

72. Do you know the difference between dynamic load and static load?

Comparing the weight of one and the other is useless here.

[rollingrock]

73. You raise an interesting point

But I don't see how it could make much difference. the same gravitiatonal forces are acting on upper part before and after the impact. To put it another way, in a head-on, high speed collision between a passenger car and a commercial truck, which one do you think is going to get crushed?

[Bolo Boffin]

76. Nice picture.

[mrgerbik]

78. thats quite the pic there bolo ...

it really highlights the strength that was built into those towers...


anyone with 1/2 a brain will see that this structure below surely couldn't take any weight either, let alone a roof... kudos for the reference

[Bolo Boffin]

79. Misdirection

The structure you show could certainly take weight. So could the one I showed. I was not saying it couldn't take the weight of the above section. I was saying that it could not redistribute the force of that same mass in motion.

Do you understand the difference between dynamic and static weight?

[mrgerbik]

80. thats funny i was about to reply to your pic as misdirection...

or even deceptive...

[Bolo Boffin]

84. So you don't understand the difference between dynamic and static loads?

Or would you like a second chance to answer the question?

[mrgerbik]

99. why dont you explain it to me

[Bolo Boffin]

100. Glad to.

Take a brick. Place it on top of your head. You will feel some weight, it might be a little uncomfortable, but you will find that you can easily deal with this static force.

Now take the same brick. Have someone take it on top of a two-story roof. Let them drop it on your head. You will find that your ability to deal with this dynamic load is much less than the static force of the brick at rest.

Same brick, but much different forces.

Understand?

[mrgerbik]

102. thats kinetic and potential energy

It doesn't do a good job explaining how that load could crush through some 90 floors of resistance left - and it still doesn't explain the mysterious collapse of wtc7 - nor does it explain the major incompetence of allowing the hijacked planes (after the first hit) through in the first place - it also doesn't it explain the put options on the stocks beforehand - the total stonewalling of any real investigation into the Al-Qaeda cells through Able Danger - the mystery of the missing billions in gold that were housed in vaults under the towers - the fact that officials had a full list of the hijackers 72 hours after the attack when the manifestos show tampering - that the commission was a total joke and really didn`t prove anything besides a fishy coverup - that we attacked IRAQ claiming that they had ties to 9/11 - that the FBI still hasn't been indited Osama for 9/11 due to lack of evidence - that the hijackers were horrible pilots which flies in the face of the idea that they could have hit their targets with such precision - FEMA being in New York the day before 9/11 presumably on a drill (but of course it was misstated) - the war games being played out that day which confused and thwarted real defensive measures ...

[Bolo Boffin]

103. Nope.

Static loads and dynamic loads are not the same thing as potential energy and kinetic energy. They seem to be similar, but they aren't.

It doesn't do a good job explaining how that load could crush through some 90 floors of resistance left

Actually it does. The same mass delivers a static load to the structure when it's at rest. The building is designed to support it. But if that mass gains momentum and then strikes the structure, the dynamic load thus delivered is far greater. And if a joint can't redistribute this larger load, it will break. And so it went on 9/11, when the upper mass delivered massive dynamic loads to each floor in succession, none of which could adequately redistribute it before failing.

- and it still doesn't explain the mysterious collapse of wtc7 - nor does it explain the major incompetence of allowing the hijacked planes (after the first hit) through in the first place - it also doesn't it explain the put options on the stocks beforehand - the total stonewalling of any real investigation into the Al-Qaeda cells through Able Danger - the mystery of the missing billions in gold that were housed in vaults under the towers - the fact that officials had a full list of the hijackers 72 hours after the attack when the manifestos show tampering - that the commission was a total joke and really didn`t prove anything besides a fishy coverup - that we attacked IRAQ claiming that they had ties to 9/11 - that the FBI still hasn't been indited Osama for 9/11 due to lack of evidence - that the hijackers were horrible pilots which flies in the face of the idea that they could have hit their targets with such precision - FEMA being in New York the day before 9/11 presumably on a drill (but of course it was misstated) - the war games being played out that day which confused and thwarted real defensive measures ...

Off topic. Distracting squid ink. Start or locate threads to discuss these issues seperately and rationally.

[mrgerbik]

106. "Off topic. Distracting squid ink."...

Not really - the way I look at it (as a whole) is that we could argue forever about the exact physics and mechanics involved with thousands of pieces of steel and how they fell down at near free fall speed. Its almost like trying to explain a chaotic reaction. I dont think that you or I, NIST, FEMA, or anyone else on this board will ever be able to answer those questions unequivocally because it relys so heavily on speculation (remember, NIST promotes a theory).

What you can do thou is look at the mountains of circumstantial evidence that promotes the idea of inside wrong doing - then the niggles in regards to the collapse theories take a back seat -- because as you and I both know, the exact 100% bona-fide truth in regards to the collapses will probably never be fully understood (especially not from a computer model :eyes:).

Your worldview seems to point to an idea of total incompetence across not only governmental, but military and investigative lines as well. You promote the idea that one agency can provide the truth. Period. Your theories about 9/11 are hinged on the fanatical faith in the very same agencies that, in your own theories, are incompetent. I personally try and base my ideas on more then once source - where this allows a sorting/ digestion process to take place (a healthy method IMO) - instead of blind faith in just one. I say take a look at it all together ... THEN a pattern emerges.

[Bolo Boffin]

107. I'm going to respond to this, but I don't have the time and available attention to do it now.

But the general idea I'll be expounding upon is the necessity of a great cloud of witnesses to any faith-based worldview.

[mrgerbik]

108. faith based worldview

hmmm ..so yeah the OCT ... the crux of which being that our 'leaders' always have our best interests at heart.

But anyways, if you want witnesses to alternate views of 9/11, you dont have to go far -- literally ... (hint: google).

When the police indite someone for a crime and they have no direct witnesses to the act, they compile a list of evidence that points to their guilt. I personally think that the evidence of implicit involvement by insiders (whomever that may be) is very strong. I think the case made against 14 Muslim extremists directed by Al-Queda, specifically Osama, is either partially or totally fabricated.

[AZCat]

109. I don't think that's the crux of the so-called OCT at all.

Herein lies the rub: we didn't trust Bush and his cronies any more than you did. But that doesn't mean one should throw out all common sense when considering the events of September 11th. Ignoring or refusing to read the NIST reports just because they were written by the federal government at a time when Bush was president is an example of the sort of behavior that gets the "truth movement" in trouble.

[mrgerbik]

110. believe me i never wanted to throw out 'common sense'

in fact, its my common sense that leads me to these conclusions. To me, all of this is right in front of our faces, but it seems most people's sense of denial is so strong that it would be great to have a discussion on the psychology of belief instead of pancaking floors.

People who don't read the newspapers are uninformed, people who do read the papers are misinformed. - Mark Twain

But honestly, I think it is dangerous (to everyone) to always tow the line and never question what is presented to you, regardless of its source.

[AZCat]

111. I agree.

Perhaps the problem lies in the perception of each that the other has in some way accepted something without question. Whether or not it is true, the perception leads (at least IMO) to an antagonistic relationship. Is there any way to defuse such a dynamic and restart the conversation from first premises?

[mrgerbik]

112. well the only thing i can add

is that most of the truth lies in the middle, regardless of the topic... so following this premise, maybe more people could see eye to eye when in an argument, instead of resorting to hissy fits, name calling and the like. ?

[AZCat]

113. Perhaps.

I've had a couple of "across the aisle" relationships here that were amicable. I think some of the problem lies in the format of the discussion. It is hard to give written words the same context as a conversation in person. It seems easy to misinterpret what another person says. An innocent slip not meant to hurt is taken poorly and the situation escalates rapidly from there. Since few (if any) of us know each other in the real world, I don't think we give the same leeway to each other that we might otherwise. Perhaps this is a starting point?

[rollingrock]

83. LMAO

that pic is even more laughable than bolo's.

[rollingrock]

81. Do you believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy too?

So you subscribe to the crazy OCT theory that the Towers were hollow structures?
And that the perimeter walls were the only means of their support? Seriously? LMAO.

What happened to the central core columns? Did the tooth fairy take them away just before the planes hit?
Well I guess OCT land they didn't exist!

[Bolo Boffin]

82. Please stop beating straw men.

What have they ever done to you?

Are you under the impression that the core columns could have supported the building if the perimeter columns and the floor trusses were ripped apart from each other?

[rollingrock]

85. Uhh,

the core structures were designed to support several times the weight of each tower by themselves.

But your photo implies that they didn't even exist.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. Number one, you need to provide evidence to support that first assertion.

Number two, my picture implies no such thing. That is the connection of the floor truss to the perimeter columns. That is what you think could have supported the weight of the falling upper section. It would have to for the building to have remained standing. Both you and mrgerbik have manufactured this "hollow OCT myth" out of thin air.

[rollingrock]

91. What was the perimeter grid designed to do?

You really haven't a clue, do you?

The perimeter grid was designed to brace the Towers against tremendous lateral loads from high altitude winds. That was their primary purpose (the purpose of the core columns, OTOH, was to support the vertical or gravity loads of the buildings). The fact that these structures were on the exterior of the Towers made them particularly efficient at carrying lateral loads. The grid pattern of the perimeter steel made the buildings strong but highly flexible, allowing the Towers to actually sway with the wind instead of breaking.

[Bolo Boffin]

96. As you say, lateral loads, but you're missing a few things.

Number one, the perimeter column grid was meant to handle 100% of the lateral loads affecting the building. The core had no cross bracing to have handled any lateral loads. All lateral loads were transferred to the perimeter grid.

Number two, the perimeter grid was also designed to handle about 40% of the gravity loads (static weight of the building, plus the day to day shift in weight as people, office furnishings, etc. moved on and off the floors). The core was only designed for 60% of the gravity loads under normal conditions.

So, yes, I do have quite a few more clues than you about what the perimeter grid was for. Perhaps you'll reserve your chastising for a situation that won't embarrass you like this. I do understand the basics of how the buildings worked.

Now then, when the upper section tore through and ripped away the floor trusses from both sides (perimeter and core), you would expect to see the perimeter columns peel away and the core stand for a few seconds after the rest collapsed. A few seconds, I say, because eventually a lateral load would push the core over and it would break off at the base, and then gravity would take over and crush it up.

That is exactly what happened to both towers on 9/11. They fell due to the initial damage and the fires affecting the structure. That is all.

[rollingrock]

97. How much of the perimeter was destroyed by the plane impact?

You act as though all 110 stories of the perimeter grid structure surrounding the towers were instantly destroyed upon impact of the plane. When in reality, only a small fraction of it was compromised when the plane hit.

That's like breaking a hole in a concrete or metal gate around your house with a hammer and expecting the entire gate to fall over. It's not going to happen because the gate will still be standing, especially when the hole is made in the upper part of the gate.

[Bolo Boffin]

98. Your comparison is illegitimate.

Indeed, it was the tower whose perimeter grid was damaged most that fell first.

The only thing that has to happen is allowing the static load of the upper section to become a dynamic load, i.e., allow it to begin moving independently of the rest of the building. Once that happened, the upper section quickly gained enough momentum to tear through joints and begin its descent. And no one joint could have resisted that mass in motion.

Both collapses finally started when one entire side of the perimeter along one floor was pulled in by the sagging floor trusses. Once the perimeter could no longer balance the upper mass (balance being a matter of lateral loading), the collapse was inevitable.

[rollingrock]

104. Of course

The only way the collapse could have happened the way you describe it is if the core columns were taken out of the way first. You know, the core columns that you keep ignoring. The way you get the core columns out of the way is through explosives set off at the base of the towers, the same as is done in any controlled demolition.

[Bolo Boffin]

105. "if the core columns were taken out of the way first" - No, and the NIST explanation doesn't rely on

this at all.

What matters is that the connection between the core and the floor truss fail. That is what the upper mass did. If the floors are pulled away, then the core is left standing, exactly what happened on 9/11.

[AZCat]

90. The DCRs calculated by NIST belie that claim. n/t

[hack89]

87. Static vice dynamic loads have always mystified truthers

I see you are no different.

[AZCat]

70. That depends on what you mean by "giant".

I think the Tsar Bomba would probably do the job.

[rollingrock]

74. "Tsar" Bomba?

is that some kind of Russian nuke?

[AZCat]

75. It was.

The Tsar Bomba was an enormous multi-stage nuclear weapon developed and detonated by the U.S.S.R. It was, to this day, the largest nuclear device ever detonated, with a yield of fifty megatons. It was also the cleanest nuclear explosion, with ~97% of the yield from fusion. It is quite possible that the detonation of a nuclear weapon of this magnitude would wipe out all of New York City, let alone bring down the twin towers.

[rollingrock]

77. 50 megatons!

that's a big fucking bomb alright, lol.

[AZCat]

88. The biggest.

The largest bomb we ever set off was Castle Bravo at 15 megatons (it was only planned to be 5 MT but the Li-7 wasn't inert like we thought).

Of course, the magnitude of the explosion is dwarfed by the energy released in many natural events, like earthquakes and volcanos.

[rollingrock]

95. Overkill, haha

the energy from the blast of Tsar Bomba can cause 3rd degree burns from 60 miles away, according to wikipedia.

I guess that's where SPF 50+ Sunblock comes in handy.

[hack89]

45. Simple physics

if the weight of the building above the impact zone imparts a dynamic force as it falls greater than the strength of the building below then it will collapse. How much do you think the top 30 floors of a WTC tower weighed? How much PE? How much KE?

You do realize, that no truther has ever proven (in the sense of real science with math and all that) that it was impossible to collapse without CD - please don't be offended if I am not willing to simply take your word for it.

[greyl]

6. If the hotel had collapsed, would you have noted the differences in design?

You should be doing that right now, btw.

[Twist_U_Up]

7. Very evil people did 911. Very delusional stupid people swallow the lie.

Yes, one step at a time, slow and steady. Or you can just wait 25 years for them to admit it when it doesnt matter. Thats how it works.

[seemslikeadream]

11. and they were not Muslims

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Yes, they were. n/t

[seemslikeadream]

16. well ya maybe some but they weren't in charge although they may have thought so

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Make up your mind. n/t

[rollingrock]

17. Many of the named hijackers are still alive

"FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity
of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt. "


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

[SDuderstadt]

18. Now you're "rebunking" totally debunked 9/11 CT nonsense....

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

[rollingrock]

19. Tell it to the FBI Director

or is he just another crazy conspiracy theorist?

[SDuderstadt]

34. Why don't you ask him yourself and...

see what further information was available after the date of that story and why that would lead to retraction of certain statements? Do you understand the concept of temporization? If I say on Tuesday that something happened a certain way then, upon the basis of further information, amend what I said, would you disregard my latest statements???

[Bolo Boffin]

23. An update to that story (Sept 23, 2001) was published by BBC in 2006.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

Your Mueller quote has long been superseded by the facts.

[rollingrock]

29. It's amazing

how the FBI came up with the full identities of all alleged 19 hijackers within 72 hours of the attack.

Even more amazing, they claimed to have found the hijackers' intact passports within the massive burning wreckage of the 110 story towers. lol!

[Bolo Boffin]

31. The hijackers had to buy tickets and were listed on the manifest.

No surprise at all.

And no, your statement of the passport myth is ludicrous.

[SDuderstadt]

37. What's amazing is how many times you can be simply wrong about things....

it wasn't the passports of ALL the hijackers...it was one....and it wasn't found in the debris...it was found on the street by a paaserby and turned into the police. Do you ever bother to fact-check things you are spoon-fed by CT websites????

http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

[rollingrock]

48. "It was one"

Nope, you're wrong.

The passports of at least 4 hijackers were allegedly recovered from the airplane crash sites and WTC, including one from the luggage.

The passport of Satam al Suqami was recovered near the World Trade Center site, reportedly a few blocks from where the World Trade Center's twin towers once stood. <17><18>; a passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. The passports of two other suspected hijackers, Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al Ghamdi, were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania, and a fourth passport, that of Abdul Aziz al Omari was recovered from luggage that did not make it onto American Airlines Flight 11<19>.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks

[Bolo Boffin]

52. Wow.

That's amazing.

[SDuderstadt]

56. So, in essence, ONE was found at Ground ZERO....

which is essentially what I said. I wasn't talking about 93 and I certainly wasn't talking about a bag that failed to make it onto the plane.

Maybe you should re-read part of your own post:

"Even more amazing, they claimed to have found the hijackers' intact passports within the massive burning wreckage of the 110 story towers. lol!"


Finding one at GZ, 2 at the 93 crash site and one in a bag that didn't make it on to the plane is certainly not "claim(ing) to have found the hijackers' intact passports within the burning wreckage of the 110 story towers". You jist refuted your own claim...did you notice that?

[rollingrock]

61. sorry, no cigar.

you said it was one hijacker, period.

you never qualified your statement, until you were shown to be wrong that is.

[SDuderstadt]

92. Wrong...you assumed that's what I meant...

YOUR claim was that numerous passports of hijackers were found in the debris at GZ. I correctly pointed out that it was 1) found on the street and was 2) the passport of ONE of the hijackers. I never said others weren't found. Your statment was incorrect.

[seemslikeadream]

12. none of those ultra-combustible naked short selling files that'll melt structural steel laying about

Well, of course not! There wasn't a billion of gold in the basement and none of those ultra-combustible naked short selling files that'll melt structural steel laying about.


Wonder who had the insurance on this one?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seemslikeadream]

21. By the way, has it fallen yet?

I thought that all buildings not hit by a plane fall very fast

[LakeSamish706]

28. My question still is, why are there a handful of people on the 911 sites...

that consistently insist that there was no wrong doing on September 11, 2001. I asked this question here about 6 months ago and never got an answer. These people know who they are, and it begs the question.

[Subdivisions]

30. Because, not unlike the Pentagon Media Team Rummy put in place

to sell the Iraq war, their job is to make rational people look insane in their attempt to discourage any meaningful debate as to what really happened that fateful day.

[SDuderstadt]

38. There was plenty of wrongdoing on 9/11....

I'd love for you to find one person here who claims otherwise.

[LakeSamish706]

39. And what I mean by wrong doing is a complicit Government involvement in 911.

What kind of wrong doing did you have in mind?

[SDuderstadt]

40. Hijacking airplanes and....

slamming them into buildings. Have you ever noticed that all your claims of government complicity fall apart so quickly? Hint: they're not credible.

[LakeSamish706]

41. And have you ever noticed that you are one of the persons steadfastly deny any ....

conspiracy occurred? There is more than enough evidence that these buildings did not come done due to fire, but you still ignore that.

[SDuderstadt]

42. I deny that there was the kind of conspiracy you seem to cling to....

precisely because of the LACK of evidence. First of all, no one claims that WTC 1 or 2 came down only because of fire. You seem to keep conveniently omitting the airliners slamming into both buildings and ignoring the fact that the collapse of both initiated precisely where they were struck. How many experts from both the government and outside of government have to study this before you listen to their conclusions?

[whatchamacallit]

89. It's been established that the fires alone could not have caused the collapses

and the amount of structural damage attributed to the impacting planes cannot be quantified. Therefore, your "proof" lays in some magical combination of possible factors. Add to this sketchy formulation the fact that 3 buildings fell in one day in a manner never before seen, and it's not hard to understand why some people are skeptical. Considering how quickly this event was exploited by BushCo to forge a new political reality, enhance the fortunes of friends and allies, and possibly destroy evidence of government and corporate crime, your reticence to explore the possibilities is disturbing.

[SDuderstadt]

93. Have you even read the NIST report?

Do you understand physics? There is no "magical combination" involved. I believe both Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted for numerous crimes, but perpetrating 9/11 isn't one of them. They, no doubt, capitalized upon the events of 9/11 to commit crimes, but that is hardly the same as saying they planned or executed it. Sorry.

[SDuderstadt]

94. Unintentional dupe

[whatchamacallit]

57. IMO the NIST report was created by liars or fools, your choice

They provided the magical conditions for the impossible, and it became the bible for the intransigent.

[AZCat]

58. No, that' sYOUR choice.

And you're opinion, to which you're entitled. I, however, disagree (nor do I think it has reached the level of the bible - it has far more facts in it).

[whatchamacallit]

67. True (nt)

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seemslikeadream]

114. By the way, has it fallen yet?

[Bolo Boffin]

115. Have you checked out my new thread on this?

The CCTV Building was a reinforced concrete structure, designed specifically not to fall using the WTC buildings as cautionary tales, was built to survive earthquakes, and had additional bracing in place waiting for an arch to be built to the other building.

Notice especially the part where Arup designed it after doing an intense study of the WTC buildings. It didn't fall BECAUSE the WTC buildings did.

[seemslikeadream]

116. WTC7 was NOT hit by a plane, did you know that?

http://www.culturecourt.com/F/Antonioni/ThePassenger.htm

[Bolo Boffin]

117. But two buildings next to it were -- they collapsed, severing the water main

which kept the sprinklers in 7 from working and kept the firefighters from fighting the fires in 7, did you know that?