Why don't other steel -framed buildings ever fall from fires??

[clem_c_rock]

Just a simple question.

And damn, this fire looks 10 times worse than any on 911?

And why did building 7 fall when it didn't get hit by planes and barely was on fire?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050213/photos_wl_afp/050213122848_qsnvm548_photo2

[tx_dem41]

1. If you read the caption, it still might fall.

And, it didn't suffer an impact or have tons of jet fuel intensifying the heat.

[clem_c_rock]

6. I'm not the only one asking such questions

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=131225

[leesa]

10. The fire on 9-11 was minimal and was out according to firefighters when it

went down. You can see people standing at the hole where the airplane went in...how hot could it be??

[bpilgrim]

23. if it does it will be a dirty collapse unlike the towers and

WTC7 didn't suffer an impact or have tons of jet fuel intensifying the heat.

http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc-7_collapse.mpg
http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc7.swf



peace

[Wright Patman]

2. Any more questions like that

and your rations will be reduced, prole.

[clem_c_rock]

4. still waiting on the WTC # 7 explanation

[leesa]

11. They said they 'brought it down', assuming it was badly damaged, Iguess

But they are very unclear about it. Why are they so unclear about it? Do some google searches to find out what was housed where in those buildings.

[clem_c_rock]

13. Yes - exactly what was in there?

That's a whole other interesting story in itself.

Any explanation Guilliani?

Also, from all documentaries I've seen about controlled demollitions, it takes a large team of experts about a month to plant explosives in a large building.

Not less than 24 hours folks.

[clem_c_rock]

14. Any total collapse of a steel framer found here other than 911

http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

[Stevious]

3. who's going to make that connection?

Besides, * is a "Good Christian man".

[OneBlueSky]

5. pssst . . . c'mere . . . got a secret for ya . . .

those planes were not the cause of the WTC collapse . . .

ssssh . . . don't tell anyone . . .

[vincent_vega_lives]

53. ok...but why are we wispering?

HOW THE FLUCK DO YOU KNOW! :hi:

[LiberallyInclined]

7. "looks 10 times worse than any on 9/11"

looks can be deceiving.
do you know at what temperature the madrid fire is burning?
do you know the layout of the structural steel?
do you know what loads are being carried by which parts of the structural steel?

not all steel-framed buildings are the same, and not all fires are the same.

[clem_c_rock]

12. Any total collapse of a steel framer found here other than 911

http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

[LiberallyInclined]

16. according to your link, there were 3 other collapses besides 9-11

in steel structure buildings.

and your point...?

[clem_c_rock]

22. Where? I see only "total" collapses beng other than steel framers

[LiberallyInclined]

30. it says on page 2- that 6 collapses occurred in 20+ story buildings

and that 3 of them were the WTC...even by my rudimentary math skills, (6-3=3) that leaves 3 collapses over 20 stories other than the WTC.
the link you really need to read is this one:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse2.html

[clem_c_rock]

32. And if you look down lower at the chart, it says these were only

Partial.

[LiberallyInclined]

34. and how many of them were as tall as the WTC?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

have you been to this link yet?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse2.html

[clem_c_rock]

48. Over and over - Yes I have. I keep referring to it

And, once again, everybody keeps treating it as a "case closed" argument. But guess what you don't take into account. For every 1 PBS Expert in this documentary has about 100 others that don't agree and have equally, educated arguments.

[LiberallyInclined]

86. for me, it is "case closed"...

nothing different will EVER be proven, and pretty much nobody really cares anymore anyway.
once you've got this one all wrapped up tho'- you might want to get to work on who killed the kennedys?(after all was it you and me?), what happened at roswell?, and is there a god?(and if so- can he make a rock so big that even he can't lift it?).

you can harp about it all you want-
nobody's listening.

[clem_c_rock]

94. then stop replying to these posts.

some of us are getting sick of Gulf of Tonkins, Operation Northwoods, 911 and all the other games they play to get us to accept their wars.

End of discussion.

[LiberallyInclined]

98. and some of us are getting sick of paranoid delusionals...

who see big-brother boogeymen in every shadow.

[libertypirate]

100. Some of us are getting sick of blind pricks who couldn't find their

own ass in the dark....

[stickdog]

99. Did you know that NONE of the analyzed WTC metal demonstrated

ANY significant exposure to temperatures greater than 600 C?

Did you know that less than 2% of the metal pieces recovered from floors that showed photographic evidence of fire demonstrated exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C?

Did you know that exactly ZERO metal pieces were recovered from WTC 7?

[Joe the Revelator]

8. Last time i checked, the Madrid building didn't have a plane fly into it..

demolishing its support beams.

also, building 7 fell because 2 of the largest buildings in the world fell less then a mile away from it, loosing it from its foundation.

[clem_c_rock]

9. And some evidence to support it?

Funny - ever seen footage of it collapsing? As perfect as any controlled demolition?

[Joe the Revelator]

15. Google is your friend!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

Of course, you'll tell me how PBS is MSM and that they're all bush shills, and that i'm a freepers, but you'll still be wrong.

[libertypirate]

101. Google might be your friend but it's not mine

Knowledge doesn't exist before it is found!

Your assumption that one leads to another sounds like how Bush got us into Iraq. Facts are not someone elses assumption and assumptions are the mother of all fuckups.


It is a disgrace that a nation would turn on the individuals who question it's motives, and a truth that has never been investigated.

[Skink]

17. The building probably doesn't hold evidence of short selling...

of airline stocks and other CIA secrets.

[WoodrowFan]

77. LOL

oh yes, they'd destroy an ENTIRE building. what, they were out of shredders??? ROFLMAO

[leesa]

21. None of this happened. The firefighters said the fire was controlled

If the support beams were damaged or the foundation damaged, why did they fall straight down? The architect couldn't figure it out.

[Dookus]

39. gravity

There wasn't enough force to push that amount of mass off to the side.

[Desertrose]

24. why waswtc7 the only one that fell ??

..."building 7 fell because 2 of the largest buildings in the world fell less then a mile away from it, loosing it from its foundation."

I would imagine if that was the cause, then why weren't there other buildings affected?? How come a whole bunch of tall buildings just didn't fall down too??

"loosing" it from its foundation? c'mon....get your head outta the sand.

[fooj]

18. You are not alone, Clem. Many are wondering the exact same...

[keith the dem]

19. Architect/ engineer here

Steel is always fireproofed in high-rise buildings. this fire proofing is designed for normal building fires like the one today. I did not yet see good pictures of the fire today, but I don't think that there is 40 Plus floors of load over top the damage like at the WTC.

The WTC were designed for airplane impact. This is why the towers did not collapse on impact. This is perhaps responsible for saving thousands and thousands of lives. (an incredible engineering fete often overlooked) The fireproofing was not designed for the jet fuel fire however. The fire softened steel was no match for the heavy load of the floors above.

Not sure about building 7, but the stress of 110 story buildings collapsing next door is something no building is designed for. (especially in a relatively non seismic area like NYC.)

The real conspiracy is that 52 warnings were discarded do to the incompetency and pro-business at any cost attitude of our fascists one-party government.

[Skink]

20. Ther also was some strange siesmic activity recorded by..

a NY university that was monitoring the area. Kind of like many little explosions being set of in succession.

[Joe the Revelator]

26. Gerat post!

Be prepared to be called a freeper :-D

[bpilgrim]

27. can you explain the CLEAN COLLAPSE?

http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc-7_collapse.mpg
http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wtc7.swf

please

peace

[Ediacara]

25. Because there are not 30-40 stories of overburden above the fire

The building you linked is essentially a skeleton holding up the atmosphere. Not so with the WTC.

[bpilgrim]

28. what about WTC7

and the CLEAN collapses?



peace

[LARED]

31. Clean collapse?

Sure

The collapse of WTC is of great interest to the civil engineering world. They were surprised by it failure mode. But don't count on them joining the LIHOP or MIHOP idiocy.


The clean collapse is explained as follows

1. The building was on fire for seven hours. For much of that time it there was little attempt to fight the fire. Small fies are an internet myth.

2. The live safety systems for the building were compromised by the destruction of WTC 1 & 2. Hence one reason the fire fighter pulled out. Oops, I used the word pulled.

3. There were large storage tanks of fuel oil in the building.

4. The design of the building was very unique. They built over an electrical substation in a cantilever fashion. When built it was a very difficult design problem with little or no experience to go on. In an not so amazing fashion the new building has discarded the cantilever approach.

5. It appears clean because the building internally failed, pulling the structure inward.

[Bolo Boffin]

82. Also

The NIST study has found that there was extensive damage to one side of WTC7, damage that isn't shown completely in any set of pictures because no cameras were on that side of the building after WTC 1 and 2 collapsed. There were eyewitnesses though, and their testimony is part of what NIST is working on.

This damage is noted in the Popular Mechanics article recently discussed here...

[pauldp]

102. Oh Sure. And they kept none of the steel to find out why. Jesus.

Why investigate one of the most if not THE MOST unusual buliding failures in history?

Why even talk about it in the media?

UNF*CKING BELIEVABLE

They are so busted. They're even incompetant evil masterminds.

But you gotta hand it to 'em. They must have their butboy minions working day and night to cover Silverstein's gaff.

[keith the dem]

33. Try this

Stand on a aluminum soda can, be sure to get your center of gravity over the can. (balance) Have someone else lightly tap the side of the can. You will drop straight down even though only one point on that can was dented. The load over a large building like that will quickly cause progressive failure in all the columns in the frame system, Kinda like the circumference of the soda can.

Te BFEE has enough lies and incompetence to indict anybody, We don't need to make things up. Like the Dan Rather letters, those bastards will exploit any mistake by our side to shift the truth.

[demodewd]

37. then why?

Then why did the top load over the South Tower disintegrate(explode) from the bottom up before it had a chance to collapse onto the base?

[keith the dem]

38. Floor by floor progressive collapse

starting above the point of impact. They called it pancaking. The impact of all those floors coming down would be as more powerful as any explosive that could have been hidden there. The power of all that dropping weight would be an explosion.
The soda can analogy, Structurally that can can hold you up if you are static, jump on it and it will "explode".

[spooked911]

42. But if the top part is collapsing in on itself,

how can it also drive so much force downwards?

I could see the top chunk driving the collapse if it stayed more or less intact, but if the top piece is disintegrating, it is losing mass out the sides and losing downwards momentum.

It simply doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[keith the dem]

50. These are monolithic concrete floors

Like pancake held up with toothpicks. the toothpicks may fly out the sides, put the greater mass/force is directly down.

By the way, I am enjoying this conversation, and don't get me wrong, I think there was some sort of criminal conspiracy (of silence or incompetence) involved here.

[demodewd]

52. where's the hammer?

Where's the hammer that initiated the pancaking? The top 30 begins to immediately disintegrate from the bottom up and momemtarily appears to be suspended without falling(due to the explosions' velocity).

Notice the sharp delineation between the darkened smoke filled top explosion and the color of the progression of charges moving rapidly down the lower half. IF the top half would have immediately slammed down onto the lower half the darkened smoke would have mingled with the lower half's pulverization. Instead we got a segregation in colorization of the two separate events.

[vincent_vega_lives]

55. The hammer

was gravity...one floor collapsing the 10' on to another. In this case one side collapsed first.

So "demodude" tell us about all the explosives you have handled.

[demodewd]

65. why

Why didn't the top section that would be falling at an angle crash through the east wall?

[vincent_vega_lives]

70. Huh?

One side of the buiding failed first, that's all it took to compromise the structural integrity.

Are you basing your question on that picture? Ahhh, sorry but someone drew that red box.

[spooked911]

87. You don't believe the red box? It's simple geometry!

In any case, if the upper section is also collapsing on itself, what is the force drving the collapse of the lower section? Where is the "hammer"? It seems to me there would be some lag while the top section collapses before it starts pushing down on the lower floors. Remember, this happened incredibly fast, like there was no resistance.


Why didn't the top section slide over and only smash one side of the tower instead of straightening out and collapsing straight down.

[vincent_vega_lives]

96. Ahh the RED BOX

is draw in the wrong place for one thing. Yes the section above the crash tipped. In hindsite not unexpected as a huge hunk of what keeps the building stable was removed and then weakened by fire. Once the building tipped due to loss of structural support on one side, the whole structure, including the core, and the columns supporting the floors are compromised. Once that happens, collapse initiates and gravity works straight down. The downward force far outweighed the lateral force at that point.

[Ediacara]

81. Wow....

Just because you drew a leaning box over the smoke doesn't mean it was leaning in any way.....

[spooked911]

40. Exactly-- that is the very suspicious thing to me.

The top chunk of the south tower started disintegrating from the bottom up while it was supposedly also the force driving the overall collapse.

Look at this sequence (the lower set):
http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/south-tower.htm

This pattern of collapse doesn't make much sense to me unless explosives were blowing up the top chunk of building as they blew up the lower sections.

[demodewd]

46. re: http://thewebfairy.com/nerdcities/WTC/south-tower.htm

In frames below, we can see that the top 35 or so floors have snapped off and are toppling eastward. In the above frames we follow the north-east corner of the tower as this 35 floor section collapses. Using the north-east corner as a reference I have outlined in red the progress of this 35 floor top section as it descends.

The first thing to note is that the top section itself must be disintegrating otherwise (as the above frames show) the top section would have extended far into parts of the building that are clearly as yet unaffected by the collapse.

But what could possibly cause the top section to disintegrate? And in fact, what could possibly cause the top section to almost entirely disintegrate, before the lower section begins to collapse?

You have to realize that most of the top section had not been affected by the aircraft strike or fires and was thus still the same immensely strong structure that had supported the building for more than 30 years. If this section was going to fall at all, this section would fall as one piece (like a tree in the forest). Unless, of course, this section had been laced with explosives and was undergoing a controlled demolition of its own, just a few moments before the lower part of the building was demolished.

[LARED]

47. A very funny line

If this section was going to fall at all, this section would fall as one piece (like a tree in the forest)

This will not happen. There is no way the section would retain its structural integrity and topple as one piece.

If you live on the moon, then maybe.

[demodewd]

51. not immediately

It would not have completely lost its structural integrety at the collapse's initiation.

Why isn't the lower half's east wall top section torn away as the top 30 falls on the lower half? You can see how far the top half is into the lower half by measuring the lost distance from the roof line.And yet that wall is still standing!

Instead of falling,it actually remains suspended momentarily in air while the lower half begins its controlled demolition.

[vincent_vega_lives]

56. WHY?

"It would not have completely lost its structural integrety at the collapse's initiation."

Explain it demoboy.

"Controlled demolition"; God you love that word...:freak:

[demodewd]

64. re: explain

I would except that I don't respond to people that demean my monicker.

[vincent_vega_lives]

97. OK demodewd

I apologize. Please provide an explanation.

[LARED]

58. actually remains suspended momentarily in air?

What in the world are you talking about?

[demodewd]

63. get it?

The top started disintegrting by a series of charges simultaneous to those initiated by the lower half. The debris from the charges would be suspended in the air before falling.

[LARED]

66. I thought you said the top section remained suspended

Did I misunderstand your earlier comment, or are you changing your story?

[demodewd]

67. clarification..I hope

The top section would fall until it was broken up by the demolition charges that were progressing from bottom to top. The lowest floors that were demolished first would have been suspended from the blast for a second . That's why you don't see the top section immediately crashing through the east wall.

[LARED]

71. You have an active imagination my friend

The videos plainly show the top section starting to rotate around the west wall because the east wall fails first. The top section then starts to fall into the lower section as it is rotating. Both sections are breaking up. Initially this looks quite slow because gravity has just started to have its way with the top section.

The lower one starts to pancake from the force of the upper section impacting the lower. The upper one starts to disintegrate after a few degrees of rotation because even in a slightly rotated position the "fabric" that hold the structure together in the vertical (normal) position cannot hold it together without a foundation AND gravity working normal to the position. In other words after a few degrees the building start to fall apart everywhere.

Once the east wall failed (from heat and stress) there were no explosives required to make the top section come apart. It is not possible for it to stay in one piece.

[demodewd]

74. it still would crash through the east wall

The top section failed because the core failed(due to explosives) and because of the onset of explosives at the floors of impact. The top section would have eventually broken up but not in the profound expediant manner in which it happened. The top section without the effect of explosives would have crashed beyond the east wall. This did not happen.



If your top section is pancaking on the lower section it would be evidenced by a noticable discoloration of the pulverized masses below the impact point.Why the obvious segragation of puff colorations?

The top section then starts to fall into the lower section as it is rotating.

If this were true we would see the top section or massive debris surpassing the east wall as it would be falling at an angle.

In other words after a few degrees the building starts to fall apart everywhere.

If this is true,then why are the top floors of the east wall of the lower section devoid of top section intrusion?
Friend.

[LARED]

76. Dewd, this is not hard

The top section came apart because it was the only thing it could have possibly done given how the building failed.

This is OBSERVED TO HAVE HAPPENED.

The building was OBSERVED to collapse as the construction of the building and physics dictate it should.

As I said it's not hard. I do understand you choose to ignore this basic fact, so enjoy.

[demodewd]

80. it ain't easy like you would hope it to be

You still can't explain why the east wall wasn't demolished by falling debris from your top section coming apart. It fell at an angle. Where's the plummeting steel beams and pulverized cement and SMOKE mix forcing itself through the east wall?

I don't know that what we see here is the building collapsing in the manner that YOU would expect it to. Wouldn't it fall as a whole entity..at least at first? What would cause the bottom floors to explode in a similar manner as the base in a second after detachment?

Is the core of the top part detached from the lower half?

Hypothetically if you took a laser that cut the building in two in one second...which is essentially what we have here..I don't think the top part would begin to violently disintegrate in the next second or two or three. It would act as a whole unit initially. Perhaps gravity would put stress on it..but this initial immediate violent disintegration. No.

[LARED]

88. Like I said, enjoy

Perhaps gravity would put stress on it..


Perhaps???? :wow::wow::wow::wow:

When I read stuff like that, it is apparent I am wasting my time.

[vincent_vega_lives]

72. What was the initiation trigger?

aprox how much explosive per floor do you think?

Did they use radio or wire?

When where the detonators placed?

[illflem]

29. The fact that building 7's

structure was cantilevered because of an electrical substation that was under it before construction certainly didn't make it any stronger

[Make7]

35. Controlled demolition.

"TV footage showed bright orange flames shooting out the sides of the Windsor Building, believed to be empty and located near one of Madrid's main boulevards. Muffled explosions could be heard coming from the burning building.

The fire started around 11:30 p.m., local time, Saturday and was burning out of control more than two hours later.

About three hours after the fire started, the top floors of the building - at least six of them - collapsed in a shower of flaming metal debris. " - CBC



__________

Since we know that fires do not cause steel buildings to collapse, the most reasonable explanation is that some sinister organization placed explosives in the building.

But who would this benefit? Who had the motive and the opportunity to do this? ETA? Al-Qaeda? I don't think so, it is too sophisticated of an operation for mere terrorists. It must have high-level government involvement of some kind. Maybe it was PNAC. Or the CIA. Possibly the Mossad. Or it could have been Saddam, as revenge for Spain participating in the Iraq War. That must be it - it was Saddam. He had his intelligence agents place the explosives when he found out Spain was to be part of the "coalition of the willing", but before the invasion actually began. He obviously waited long enough so no one would suspect him, and then made it look like an office fire. Clever bastard! But it didn't work - people heard the explosions. The truth will be known!

:) Make7

[hack89]

36. "We know that fires do not cause steel buildings to collapse"?

We = Google Engineers.
Why do builders spray fireproofing material on steel girders if there is no chance of a steel building collapsing from a fire? There is is room for logic in this conversation you know.

[LARED]

44. I have pointed out the observation about

why steel building are fireproofed at least 200 times in the last three years.

Not so amazingly, not one CT'er has ever provided a rebuttal. I hope you're not holding your breath.

[hack89]

59. I have a first grader I have to explain a lot to ..

I view this as an opportunity to hone my parenting skills!!

[hack89]

60. self deleted

[Make7]

45. Didn't you read the original post and post #12?

Fires don't cause the collapse of steel framed buildings. It's a foregone conclusion.
__________

Obviously the fire-proofing is just a scam. Someone got a bunch of laws passed to require useless additional construction material to be applied just so they could make money. My belief is that Bechtel is probably behind it.

:) Make7

[hack89]

54. You are right - but fires and the loss of structural integrity..

do cause the collapse of steel frame buildings. The logic is simple:

1. The loss of support members (due to, say, an 767) redistributes the load of the building, over stressing remaining support members.

2. Prolonged fire weakens (not melts) those support members until they are unable to support the added stress.

3. The building collapses.

It seems to me that you have a sample size of one for this particular scenario and comparisons to regular building fires are dishonest. Lets not even mention the unique design of the WTC that makes comparisons to other fires hard.

A question - how many tons of explosives were needed to bring down the WTC and how many semi-trailers were needed to transport them? When you can answer simple questions like these, I'll take you seriously.

[Make7]

79. Simple answers.

"A question - how many tons of explosives were needed to bring down the WTC and how many semi-trailers were needed to transport them? When you can answer simple questions like these, I'll take you seriously." - hack89
__________

Simple answers: 1.8 tons of explosives, zero semi-trailers - three cargo vans.
__________

"On February 26, 1993, a 1,200-pound bomb in a van exploded in the parking garage beneath the World Trade Center. This was the most destructive terrorist attack carried out on U.S. soil up to that time, killing six people, injuring more than a thousand, and causing half a billion dollars in damage. If the van had been parked a few feet closer to one of the pillars, it could have collapsed an entire tower of the Trade Center, killing tens of thousands." - FFF

:) Make7

[NecessaryOnslaught]

49. there is a big difference

between partial collapse due to a failed or warped beam and global collapse.

[k-robjoe]

41. I´m not into this discussion

but just let me get the facts straight : Was the collapse of those top floors only partial, as it seems from these pics? :

[Make7]

43. That is what is being reported.

Partial collapse of the top six floors. So far...
__________

"Several top floors have slumped onto lower ones, and fire official Fernando Munilla said the 106-metre tall building could collapse.

"If the partial collapses keep happening, it would be lying to say it's impossible that the whole building couldn't fall down," he said." - BBC

-Make7

[k-robjoe]

62. Yes, looks like it ought to

[vincent_vega_lives]

57. I like your sense of humor

we need more of it around here.

Cheers! :toast:

[clem_c_rock]

68. Thanks for the pics - they just confirmed my beliefs even more

Now if a building was to collapse from a fire, this is exactly the way I would expect it. Extremely messy, section by section. Not this perfect sudden demolition-like free fall.

Thanks

[hack89]

61. A simple fill in the blank for anyone interested..

1. XXX tons of explosives were used to bring down the WTC.

2. They filled XXX semi-trucks

3. This represents XXX elevator trips to take them to the proper floors

4. They took XXX men XXX days to install

5. XXX of people witnessed this and suspected nothing.

If you cannot answer these basic questions, why am I supposed to believe that WTC was a controlled demolition?

[clem_c_rock]

69. Welcome to the world of Marvin Bush

I can't fill in all the blanks honestly. I definitely see something strange about Marvin Bush being a principal in Securacom, the company that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International.

With this in mind, and over a period of a year or two, I surely believe "maintenence" men could have had enough time to plant explosives.

http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2003-02/articles/10292-1.html

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

http://indyweek.com/durham/2004-08-18/eichenberger.html

Again, about WTC7, watch a video of the actual fires and tell me straight that that would bring those buildings down.

[hack89]

73. You have to be kidding me!

When you strip away your cynicism and paranoia there's not much left is there?

Tons of explosives, miles of detonating cord and thousands of people over two years with perfect secrecy - give me a break!

[demodewd]

75. via radio signals

Each package would have a battery powered radio link that connected it to the main computer.This master computer would be able to detonate specific packages of explosives at specific times simply by sending signals to the packages.
from Painful Questions,p.74

[hack89]

78. You still had to get tons of explosives into the building!

Come on guys - listen to yourselves! I challenge you to lay out a comprehensive scenario with numbers ( tons of explosives, number of men, days of work, number of potential witnesses). You can't do because once you get past the Bushco paranoia or the x-files conspiracy theories you have NOTHING! You are merely mouthing other peoples speculation with no understanding. If you cannot explain what happened at WTC from beginning to end with some detail you have NOTHING. Questions prove nothing - give me facts.

Why don't you answer my fill in the blank test? I challenge you to prove your case.

[clem_c_rock]

84. Also, why are you so willing to attack these questions

When the official story is one of the most illogical accounts imaginable.

You don't get suspicious when they say Atta's passport survived unscathed while no black boxes were found.

You don't get suspicious when flight 77 #1. dissapearing from NORAD's radar, #2. isn't really seen by any credible witnesses over the entire city of Washington DC, #3 the plane somehow gets past the giant antiaircraft battery that surrounds the pentagon. #4 Every video tape of the pentagon is confiscated w/in minutes of it being hit, never to be seen again. And all we get is 5 frames that don't show anything except an explosion.

The list goes on and on, but yet you will spend massive amounts of energy attacking anyone who asks these questions and yet won't spend an ounce of energy questioning the official accounts.

People who are asking a lot of questions aren't all crackpots, in fact, they are people like these: http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

Why don't you spend some time answering some of those "crackpots" questions.

I suppose you by the legitamacy of the 2000/2004 elections and the idea the PNAC is really out for spreading democracy too.

[seatnineb]

95. Sure was hot between the 78th and 84th in WTC2

....but not hot enough to prevent this from happening...

The plane struck between the 78th and 84th floors. Witnesses later reported seeing faces appear at the hole after the flames subsided, many of these people began to jump.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/weekmodernist/wtc007.htm

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[DulceDecorum]

85. That is like asking

why other candidates
do not get selected as pResident by the Supreme Court.

The reason those other buildings do not collapse is because
Muslims do not Suspend the Laws of Physics
until exactly nine months minus one day have passed
since the Supreme Court last suspended the Constitution
on blatantly partisan grounds.

[k-robjoe]

89. Something missing

I would like the best arguments of both sides to be here. And I don´t know if anyone has mentioned this :

" ...its so odd how this fire isnt causing the whole building to explode into tiny peices. i thought fire caused steel to explode, not bend and deform.. weird."



( The bending and "sagging"(?), compared to the seismic spikes on 911. )

[LARED]

90. Huh?

i thought fire caused steel to explode

I don't know where that quote came from, but it's wrong.

[k-robjoe]

91. It´s meant as a joke (You know, CT humor) n/t

[LARED]

92. Ok, I'll tune up my funny bone (n/t)

[RobertSeattle]

93. Fires cause all kinds of wierd things to "explode"

When I was in Desert Shield/Storm, we burnt all our garbage in a big pit in the middle of the desert (couldn't allow the Saudis to get a hold of those naughty Sport Illustrated or Newsweek Magazines!). You wouldn't believe all the "explosions" you'd hear from Garbage pit - batteries often "explode" and anything else that is rapidly changing from a solid to a gas - otherwise known as an explosion.