A fitting post after the "innuendo by inquiry" bit.

In defense of John Kerry I don't think this is out of character for him. I believe he will always respond in a manner he thinks his audience wants to hear. Do I believe he buys the Truthers? Not really--I don't think he cares. He will believe it or not believe it if it means more votes or money. So yes, I do think he would nod along with Holocaust if he thought that would bring more votes--or he would argue with them if thought nodding along would cost him too many votes.

This is really a non-story about Kerry. He is simply doing exactly what he has politically done his entire career--blowing along in the wind of opinion polls without any real grounding of his own.

Nailing Hanoi John to any 1 position is akin to a St Bernard trying to catch a chicken.

Chicken John will keep avoiding and evading, as the lib media will give him a pass, like they did on the Christmas in Cambodia lie, err, story.

"He is simply doing exactly what he has politically done his entire career--blowing along in the wind of opinion polls without any real grounding of his own."

In other words , a perpetual fraud.

"John Kerry" and "The Truth" in the same sentence?
That was a joke right?

The difference in possible answers that Ace highlighted is due to the nature of his constituency.

When someone from the left comes up with a conspiracy theory, he attempts to avoid offending their sensibilities by courting outrageous ideas.

There are a remarkable number of people who believe 'Loose Change'. Democrats are all going to have to pussyfoot around these characters for awhile. It's going to make great comedy.
=================================

7 seconds for a 47 story building not hit by airplanes but implodes in its own footprint.....

Yeah, right.

Foolish Americans.

If you delete the httpace the link works. Watch the two during the early part of the question. They nod in unison several times, then when the point of the question becomes apparent, they freeze. Note, too, what Theresa does with her hands just before John launches into confirming that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, or just before confirming what an idiot he is. A clever idiot, that one. Or two.

Rich, too. As if they had the wherewithal to actually put that bundle together.
==========================

What other force besides gravity was working on it, civil behaviour? Where else was it supposed to go? What other force is working on you? Where else will you go next?
============================

Currently, John Kerry is on record as being of the belief that the debate over global warming is closed and no futher questioning is proper at all, but that the debate as to whether the American government blew up the WTC, WTC7, and the Pentagon -- and executed all the passengers they had taken off the remotely-controlled airplanes -- is, currently, open and subject to further review "based on fact."

Do you actually think those jets knocked the two tall buildings down? Why didn't they fall immediately?

It's uncivil not to engage your brain when you engage in conversation.
=============

53rd minute of Loose Change: thermite in action on the Twin Towers.
And Wonkette has video of the BBC and CNN talking about the just-collapsed WTC7. While it's still standing!
Remembers, spy kids: Synchronize those watches!

Also, do the math. Here's a nice civil experiment. Climb a 40 story building with faithful stopwatch in hand. Be sure to click it as you jump off the building. The data will need little discussion; it will be self-explanatory.
====================================

OK, that's '7 seconds', 'not hit by airplanes', and 'footprint'. What else ya' got?
====================================

Puff the Magic Thermite and bD hear nuthin' but the truth from those pomaded perfumed dolls at the end of the information stream.

How do you spell credulous, bD? You need to look the word up.
==============================

And gee thanks, Lori, for the headlines. I had other work to do today.
========================

Kinda like the true story of "Waco" Right Cambodia John!

Where were all of the moonbat lib conspiracy theorists when Klinton-Reno killed all of those innocent people in Waco, and then demolished the site shortly thereafter?

Just think. If Klinton Reno didnt murder Koresh and company, maybe OKCity doesnt happen, maybe Columbine doesnt happen, maybe Virginia tech doesnt happen.....

Damn! brilliant minds think alike! ha ha ha

Dems and Waco,

I'm with you on the Waco massacre. I bought Waco: Rules of Engagement. Highly recommended. FLEER video, automatic base of fire into the breaches the tanks made...

One of the sweetest outcomes of the whole "Truther" movement has been the ostracism of lefty scientists and others who have categorically demonstrated the stupidity of the "Loose Changer's" and have been serially attacked for their sanity.

There's nothing better than seeing life-long lefties refuse to go along with what they know to be scientifically retarded and be attacked by the far lefties.

Then they sit around saying "but, but, I'm a lifelong liberal, why would I lie?", without realizing that they have empowered these far left loonies.

How do you spell credulous, bD?_kim"

That's my thought when people forget to factor in Structural Resistance into their "normal"(sic) freefall meme. After all, only several floors were weakened at all, and even there, the high temp fire of jet fuel was expended in the fireball. I worked at Sheffield Steel in the melt shop, and it takes massive electrodes 15 minutes to melt scrap steel thoroughly. And they're small chunks to begin with.

What kind of pressure were your melt shop chunks under?
==================================

D, I couldn't believe the hassle I got from feminists when I objected to Clinton's behaviour. There is madness loose in the land.
=======================================

"What kind of pressure were your melt shop chunks under?-kim"

HUH?

Foolish civil behaviorists!

bryanD[elusional] you

truly

are

an

idiot.

HUH!

Is that something akin to Homers Doh!!!

Your pithiness belies your expertise.
======================

bryanD,

No one has ever claimed that the steel was melted, but that it was heated to a point of losing integrity. That point is far below the melting tempurature.

People smarter than you, I or the two children that made the Loose Change mockumentary have already dealt with these very simple issues.

I'll trust scientists, you can trust to hyperactive overly imaginative young boys. I'm confortable with that.

See? I told ya'. Great comedy.
===================

Looks like I win the typo award of the day and it's only my second post. sigh.

I'll tell you what is tragic. You can argue these points to intelligent people until you are hoarse, and if they have the bug of BDS it's like they are stone deaf. There is madness loose in the land. We've got it great, and they think Bush is a bad president.
====================================

A couple of small nots for the tinfoil hat crowd:

No, you don't need to melt steel for it to weaken, no matter what Saint Rosie thinks.

No, the building didn't collapse at free-fall speeds (as evidenced by actual debris falling faster than the bulk of the building in all of the videos).

No, they didn't use thermite to weaken or destroy the buildings, since you didn't see any trace of the insanely bright light that would have resulted from the use of thermite.

Yes, everyone who thinks the buildings were demolished by means other than being hit by hundreds of tons of metal and fuel traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, plus the ensuing fires in the heavily-damaged WTC buildings (and yes, that includes WTC 7, which had a huge hole torn out of it by WTC 1/2 debris) is crazy.

I mean looky here. Bread and circuses abound everywhere you look, and the only sacrifice it takes is that of a few volunteers. Wait'll you get a look at what's next.
=================================

Well at least civil behaviour and BryanD have without a doubt, in
their own words proven that they are A number 1 idiots.

The radio station I listen to had, a few weeks ago, some people call in on air about Ms. O'Donnell's comments. This being New York City, it's not surprising that many of those callers were people that were there on that day to witness it, or for cleanup.

An engineer who was present reminded us the WTC 7 had been burning for several hours before it fell.

Unfortunately Michael, that fact is proven every time Civil Behavior posts and about half of the time bryanD posts.

Oh dear, not this again. Missiles and thermite and bears, oh my!

There is no mystery what took down the towers (all three of them), but it was a conspiracy. A conspiracy of Saudi Wahhabists to take them down using airplanes.

As the Westford MA Democratic campaign manager for JF Kerry's 1st political campaign (he lost) I can see that character stays true. This politically calculating self-absorbed legend in his own mind has never changed.

Forgive me for my past sins. I voted for Carter too.

"I worked at Sheffield Steel in the melt shop, and it takes massive electrodes 15 minutes to melt scrap steel thoroughly. And they're small chunks to begin with." bryan

Obviously you lack an engineering degree as well as common sense. The steel does not need to melt. It simply needs to be heated to the point where its tensile strength drops. The rest of the work is done by the potential energy of the Earth's gravitational field.

Foolish civil behaviorists!

bryanD[elusional] you

truly

are

an

idiot.

HUH!

Is that something akin to Homers Doh!!!

Posted by: marc"

Oh, great! Here comes marc in his hot pants and hall monitor sash...Fuh-laming!

"Your pithiness belies your expertise.
======================

Posted by: kim"

No kim! We don't need a volcano in the shop. Magma and OSHA don't get along. Now make me some chicken since you mentioned pressure cooker.

"No, they didn't use thermite to weaken or destroy the buildings, since you didn't see any trace of the insanely bright light that would have resulted from the use of thermite-cirby"

Please! Only certain angles or darkness makes the light apparent. Check 53rd minute of Loose Change for those puffs of smoke running ahead of the collapse..

Michael: how the hell are you? And why should I care. Back to your phone bank, fatty. :)

bryanD,

Every time you cite Loose Change as proof a kitten dies.

(P.S. little puffs of smoke from a skyscraper crumbling to the ground!!!1! OMGWFTBBQ! You're brilliant.)

The steel does not need to melt. It simply needs to be heated to the point where its tensile strength drops._philw

Yeah but why did the unheated, undamaged 90% of the building collapse. And so evenly? INTO itself and its frame? With 0 resistance from the structure? At freefall speed (10 seconds total)

Give a good answer to that, I'll be swayed.

Yeah but why did the unheated, undamaged 90% of the building collapse. And so evenly? INTO itself and its frame? With 0 resistance from the structure? At freefall speed (10 seconds total)

Massive fires burned in the building for hours before it fell, so it was neither unheated nor undamaged. The bottom 10 floors were demolished. It fell in on itself evenly because that's what it was designed to do. And don't make me laugh about "freefall speed."

Let me ask you this, bryanD, do you believe it was the planes that caused Towers 1 & 2 to collapse? If so, why do you think Tower 7 was a result of demolition? Who's responsible and for what purpose?

bryand: "Give a good answer to that, I'll be swayed. "

No, you won't. You are our generation's version of the Moon-landing "deniers". Nothing can sway you.

Yet you view Pravda as a sufficiently reliable information source to use as a reference.

Why is this not surprising?

Please! Only certain angles or darkness makes the light apparent. Check 53rd minute of Loose Change for those puffs of smoke running ahead of the collapse..

If "only certain angles" made the light show up, then it WASN'T THERMITE!

Thermite (when burning in the quantities suggested by loonies who think it was involved at WTC 1/2) makes a RIDICUOUS amount of light (enough that everyone in the area would have been saying "what the hell is that light, and why is it so damned bright?"). If they had used enough (dozens of pounds) to cut even ONE of the support beams at the WTC, it would have been clearly visible to one and all. Any glints of light you might have seen would have been from window glass reflections or from electrical conduits shorting out (like that one "waterfall" of sparks from one corner of the building - which was certainly not thermite, since it didn't completely overload the camera that was shooting it).

It wasn't thermite. Some small traces of thermite-like material might have formed in the debris, from high-pressure and medium-temperature combinations of aluminum and iron, but it certainly wasn't any serious part of the building collapses.

Those "puffs of smoke" just happened to come out of external air conditioning vents, and were the result of air, pressurized by the collapse, coming out of the least-resistance path. Real exposives would have blown out ALL of the windows, well in advance of the collapse (instead of puffs of smoke out of very specific non-window openings in the buildings as the towers fell).,

I've seen "Loose Change," and I've seen the many debunkings of that piece of crap. The fact that you can cite it with a straight face shows that you're well, really uneducated and have a severe lack of critical thinking.

BryanDuh keep saying "freefall speed," but no, WTC 1,2, and 7 did not collapse at "freefall speeds," which is really obvious from watching any of the videos, where you see the massive amounts of debris falling past the collapsing buildings.

It's so funny watching someone parrot things that someone else told him, when he REALLY has no idea of what those claims actually are...

bryanD:

Yeah but why did the unheated, undamaged 90% of the building collapse. And so evenly? INTO itself and its frame? With 0 resistance from the structure? At freefall speed (10 seconds total)

Unheated and undamaged? Since when is it just ok to make shit up? As I said, and as manits said, and as so many firefighters and specialists who were on scene said: the building burned for hours. They could not approach the area to put out the fire.

So fires burning for hours doesn't heat a building? Two 100 story skyscrapers slamming into the ground (by the way, measured on the Richter scale) and spewing concrete, steel, glass, and fine dust outward at blinding speeds wouldn't damage any nearby buldings? Start your hair on fire and drop a frag grenade at your feet one day, see if it damages you.

Had you ever been to the WTC before they fell? Looked up at how massive those buildings were? I had, every fucking day, and you try to tell me two boys with armed with negligable intelligence know the truth, that they have any ounce of perspective.

Pathetic, juvenile and contrary to common sense.

You, Bryan, are one gullible fool.

"Let me ask you this, bryanD, do you believe it was the planes that caused Towers 1 & 2 to collapse? If so, why do you think Tower 7 was a result of demolition? Who's responsible and for what purpose?_heralder"

Yes, planes hit. WTC was designed to withstand several plane hits. Security was pulled weeks before the event which would have allowed all kinds of monkey business. Like OKC Murrah bombing, gov't intel offices were housed, and at WTC7 financial records of interest to law enforcement were stored on servers. I don't pin motive. Don't know for sure. There were Put Orders on affected companies' stock. Also the parallel terrorist drills during 9/11, 7/7 and OKC should be investigated. Classis plausible Deniability tool: "drills". The fact that unanswered questions are deemed politically incorrect by the government adds fuel.

The only thing I know: buildings don't fall like that. Especially 2. Make that 3. What are the odds? Finally, before I had a dog in the hunt, I read PM's debunking issue, which conveniently omitted the center support beams in the schematics (there were 42. MASSIVE and largely undamaged, surrounding the elevators like a tree trunk They would not have telescoped into themselves. No way. That's why they left them out. Their hollow birdcage illustration was false. In fact they claimed that the topmost steel arch weakened (since retracted) as if that was all that was holding things together. In fact each floor absorbs its own weight. Would not have collapsed all the way to the street. Save your breath on that one.

I can't believe there are actually morons that exist in this country that question whether 9/11 was caused by the Bush Administration because they disagree with his politics or war policies.

I'm not an engineer or chemist (although as a pre-med major I took Chemiatry up to Organic Chem), but I would have to say that a plane that weighs anywhere from 350,000-400,000 lbs. loaded to the gills with jet fuel (highly flammable and explosive) flying into a building at 400-500 miles per hour would bring a building down with ease.

And the fact that (2) 110 story buldings falling to the ground in rubble within an hour would cause some of the other surrounding buildings to suffer damage and collapse as well.

So let me get this straight. Bush is a dolt because he read My Pet Goat after the towers were hit, but is such a diabolical genius, he is able to orchestrate such an attack under the nose of Democrats who despise him. Not to mention that he doesn't even have a full cabinet yet, has the CIA and parts of the FBI against him, and the man that Clinton did not kill (Bin Laden), releases a tape taking credit for it, which also matches the "chatter" the intel community heard for about a year, which is also before Bush took office.

The real issue is not 9/11, or Bush for that matter. It's that people in this country are straight up cowards. You'll talk crap about your own country, or a president you don't like because the Constitution will allow it. but heaven forbid you actually question the integrity of a person who actually admits they kill people "terrorists" as a means to a goal "create terror".

But what if the Japenese did not bomb Pearl Harbor? What if Roosevelt painted US planes to look like Jap bombers and attacked Pearl Harbor so that he could move the US into a war the country did not want? What if the Holocaust did not happen, and the pictures of groups of people emaciated to skin and bones was done through government photo shop technology available only to the government in 1942? What if the 1/3 of the Jewish population was not killed during WWII, but were taking up with the Halle-Bop comet, which is the best explanation for their disappearance off of the face of the planet? What if Hitler did not exist, but was really some dumb German painter paid to take some photos in a bad uniform, while the US turned Europe into a parking lot over oil? (Even though Europe does not produce oil). Right!! I would allow the US to be closer to the middle east which did produce oil. Yes!!! It all fits now.

What if a monkey jumped out my @ss holding a winning lottery ticket and wearing John Edwards toupee'? The possibilities are endless.

bryand: "The only thing I know: buildings don't fall like that."

Actually, you don't even "know" that, and since that is the "only thing" you claimed to know and that itself is false, that means you know nothing. at. all.

Which makes you a perfect "Truther".

Go back to reading Pravda, it will make you feel better now that Vlad has directed 50% of its stories to be positive and to treat America like an enemy. That should be right up your alley.

Silly boy...or should I say sheep?

and as so many firefighters and specialists who were on scene said: the building burned for hours.-heralder

There were firefighters radioing down FROM THE BURNING FLOOR! They were right on top of it AT THE TIME. And yes, it wasn't as hot as the scientists say it should have been. See Loose Change :)

WTC was designed to withstand several plane hits.

No, each tower was designed to handle (for a while) ONE hit, from a plane weighing half as much, going half as fast, with a much lower fuel load. They talked to one of the engineers for a TV special, and he was stunned they held up at ALL from the actual impacts.

Security was pulled weeks before the event which would have allowed all kinds of monkey business.

...except that there were no unoccupied floors (some one would have noticed the thousands of pounds of high explosives, and the torn-out walls to get to the actual structure). "Pulled secutiry" isn't true, either. There was plenty of regular building security.

Like OKC Murrah bombing, gov't intel offices were housed, and at WTC7 financial records of interest to law enforcement were stored on servers.

...and those documents and offices could have been destroyed in many other ways that didn't involve a trillion-dollar hit to the nation's economy. A plain old fire, easily controlled after the fact, for instance.

The only thing I know: buildings don't fall like that.

Actually, tall structures tend to fall EXACTLY like that. They only use controlled demolitions to make sure they fall even more precisely. The WTC buildings, by the way, did NOT "fall into their own footprints," by a margin of a couple of blocks. If they had, WTC 7 might have been salvageable (without that ten-story gash in the side).

MASSIVE and largely undamaged

Actually, largely damaged, not the other way around.

...and without the outside beams giving them stability, being pulled down by the rest of the building, they had no chance of standing up.

bryanD:

There were firefighters radioing down FROM THE BURNING FLOOR! They were right on top of it AT THE TIME. And yes, it wasn't as hot as the scientists say it should have been. See Loose Change :)

And there goes another kitten.

Invaders from Mars landed on Earth and a huge battle ensued for the fate of mankind. See War of the Worlds :)

Pulled Security?

Damn my lying eyes. That's not what I saw on September 8th 2001.

As a former college professor and metallurgist I just can't stand it anymore. Here's the deal:

The WTC was a rare bird from a design perspective. The architect, Minoru Yamasaki, designed the towers such that the weight-bearing members were the outside walls rather than an internal column and beam system (as virtually all skyscrapers are). This allowed for the building interior to be totally free span with no internal walls (except for elevator shafting. This allowed the interior ares to be designed with no physical barriers and appears to be a significant reason for him winning the design contract over other better-known competitors. (see "Mean of Steel" Karl Koch III, Crown Publishers). Unfortunately it may have contributed to the collapse.

The steel used as building members isn't anything special. It's primary alloying element is carbon at about 0.2% to 0.3%. Melting temp is around 2650 per the Fe-C phase diagram give or take. Jet fuel doesn't burn this hot (thank you for pointing this out Rosie) so what happened?

There were two failure mechanisms at play. First, this steel derives it's strength via it's carbon content, I won't go into the boring details of the physics. BUT if exposed to temperatures in excess of 1000 deg F will undergo annealing, or softening. The higher the temp, the quicker this occurs. You may have heard the terms "tempering" or "stress relief". They are layman's terms used to describe the before and after states of annealing. The second problem encountered is that the steel horizontal members (lika all steel) grows significantly when heated via thermal expansion (see "Structure and Properties of Engineering Alloys" William F. Smith, McGraw-Hill)

The result? The jet crashes into the building spewing jetfuel across one or more floors igniting the contents. The temperature quickly exceeds the annealing temp of steel starting the steel softening. At the same time the thermal expansion of the steel beams (always greatest in the "long" direction of a steel member) begins pushing at the outer weight-bearing walls of the structure. The walls aren't able to be pushed outward in some instances because they weren't damaged by the crash. The result is significant compressive forces begin to destort the already softened beams as the continue to thermally grow and weaken simultaneously, until they fail and the floor falls to the one below it.

Now keeping in mind there are no structural supports INSIDE the building, the floors would fail as a large single unit, rather than in portions, someyet standing by being supported by internal columns not yet compromised. With the eintire floor falling it puts a huge dynamic force on the floor beneath as it strikes (these floors were steel support beams under steel decking supporting poured concrete floors). The floor beneath then collapses from the additional load (no floor would have been designed to support it's own weight, the occupancy load, and that of a floor or two above, especially under dynamic impact, ie the floors falling on top of it). Hince the "pancaking" we all saw as the building collapsed.

Surely uncivil behaviour and bryanDminus cannot be serious. Carefull, ladies--you are officially entering Rosie territory here. And fat, drunk, ugly and stupid is no way to go through life....

bryanD: If a man in Dark Sunglasses asks you to drink Kool-Aid...please say "Yes".

Thanks for the post metprof. But according to Bryan, all that "Metallurgy" and "College Professor" mumbo jumo is for the Birds.

Now the children responsible for bringing you Loose Change?

Dylan Avery: Education - finished Highschool.

Kory Rowe: Education - "Some" College

Jason Bermas: Education - "Some" College

Paragons of intellect.

Why so quiet Bryan?

We're enjoying gutting you like a fish.

Bryand is so quiet because he is flipping through the linked pages at the "Truther" site to find something, ANYTHING, that he can throw back at the commenters here without having to revisit the literlly insane basis for his belief system.

Since he will not be successful in this endeavor, I would predict he will disappear for a bit, and then reappear after the majority of the current poster are gone and simply begin again as if nothing had changed.

This is the lefts MO. They simply toss one insane theory/charge after another, desperately hoping that they never get bogged down long enough to actually have to delve into the details of their psychosis.

This is why I'm supposed to be embarrassed to call myself liberal, right?

Mantis, you are a liberal.

bryand is a leftist.

There is a difference.

Unfortunately for you, the leftists hate liberals just about as much as they hate conservatives.

BTW, for the record, it was the strong liberals who drove the commies out of Hollywood in the 30's/40's, the liberals (like Humphrey et al) who drove the lefties out of the DFL (although making a comeback now?), etc.

Don't think that those of us on the right are incapable of discerning the difference between the lefties and principled, CONSISTENT, liberals.

Not at all mantis. People like bryanD are in the minority. It's just deceptive because they scream the loudest.

Now that I've cooled off a bit from having lost my temper, I'll apologize for resorting to name-calling. September 11th is still a very sensitive subject for me and I'm still coming to grips with that.

Just provide the link to the Popular Mechanics debunk and that'll do it. If the conspiracy advocates can't accept facts then it's pointless to debate with them.

I'm back by popular demand.
Metprof, concentrate on the center support beams and the unheated I-beams below that sustained no damage. I say they should have twisted and sent the force at an oblique angle and down. Not straight down. Also, revisit the phoney schematics in the 4/05(?) PM article. That's a real head-scratcher to leave 1/2 of the steel out of their scientific plans. No mention in the official failure model of any center support beams. Is there?
And I'm familiar with heating-to-bend metal, but I (even I) can't heat this and bend something across the shop.
Are there any examples of similar imploded buildings not rigged.

Everybody else: quit calling me "liberal".

Heralder: (Off-topic)you're still a fan of the neo-con-ized National Review, right? Read this:
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_trotskyist_hour/

I can't believe there are still people out there who insist that there was a 9/11 conspiracy.

Really, seriosuly, get some help people. Therapists aren't that expensive and your insurance will usually cover a good 15 or so visits.

bryanD,

you're still a fan of the neo-con-ized National Review, right? Read this:

I think you have me confused with someone else. I don't read the the National Review.

Now that I've cooled off a bit from having lost my temper, I'll apologize for resorting to name-calling. September 11th is still a very sensitive subject for me and I'm still coming to grips with that.

Posted by: Heralder"

You really lose your temper here? Hmmm...
I never have. I figure my friendly "enemies" here are by default fat homosexual castrati with girl hands.

bryand: "I say they should have twisted and sent the force at an oblique angle and down. "

Yes, because when you were little, you played with Lincoln Logs and there's just no way all those mechanical and structural engineers and scientists (as well as architects) could possibly be correct about the very well understood physics involved in the collapse of the WTC. I mean, not when you have a couple of high school grads with "some college" are in disagreement.

Bryan's response is the perfect caricature of a crazed and ignorant leftist.

bryan: "I never have. I figure my friendly "enemies" here are by default fat homosexual castrati with girl hands."

Wow. The only time bryan is not funny or hilarious is when he tries to be.

Well, Che was never really that funny either.

VagaBond, the PM site is unhelpful. The search link is a sorry, sorry synopsis with no schematics. No original article. I saw the issue at the library contemporaneously. If you find the page link, let me know. Perhaps the Scholars911 has a copy.

See, I want to know the truth, but the robots go Noooooo! Oh, nooooo, Mr. Bill! noooooo!

Fishy.

bryan: "And I'm familiar with heating-to-bend metal, but I (even I) can't heat this and bend something across the shop."

Gee, I don't want to shock you bryan, but a little time spent in a metal shop is probably insufficient to qualify you as someone who is knowledgeable.

But then again, look at those you do believe and it's a classic case of the blind leading the blind (or more precisely, the stupid leading the stupid.......except I don't think the leaders of the Truthers are that stupid, they just know that the bryand's of the world are and can be manipulated.)

bryan: "VagaBond, the PM site is unhelpful."

It's especially "unhelpful" when you want to live in a fantasy world.

Wow. The only time bryan is not funny or hilarious is when he tries to be.Drago"

But how far off am I?
Uncle Sam Wants You!

Well Bryan, as you know, I'm usually rather composed. I take very few things personally and enjoy debate.

You displaying your ignorance so proudly and self-righteously about a subject that has great personal meaning to me got under my skin, yes.

Everyone has their soft spots. I believe yours is on the top of your head where the skull never fully joined.

I figure my friendly "enemies" here are by default fat homosexual castrati with girl hands.

lol

bryand: "But how far off am I?"

You are, demonstrably, light-years off. But if you understood that, you wouldn't be. It's your ignorance that makes you so useful to your masters.

bryan: "Uncle Sam Wants You!"

I don't blame you for wanting to deflect attention from your profound stupidity on display in this thread.

For the record, Uncle Sam had me, for 21 years, which I'm betting is significantly longer than "he" had you.

See, I want to know the truth, but the robots go Noooooo! Oh, nooooo, Mr. Bill! noooooo!

You know, I found some aspects of the 9/11 attack story weird initially (cir. early 2002). I wondered why WTC 7 fell even though no planes hit it (fire alone had never taken a steel structure that size before), why they were withholding surveillance footage from outside the Pentagon, and why the plane hitting the Pentagon caused the damage it did. I chose to read up on it and discovered that the reasons I had those questions were because a) I was ignorant to a good deal of the science explaining the events, b) I was willing, temporarily, to take the assertions of those asking the questions publicly at face value. I became more knowledgeable about the first and disabused of the second (they leave a lot out, those conspiracy theorists). The only reason, at this point, for anyone to believe that anything other than the aircraft are responsible for the destruction is because they really, really want to believe in a conspiracy, regardless of the evidence. It's the same reason Kennedy assassination theorists studiously ignore the ballistics gel recreations and the Myers rendering. They, like Mulder, want to believe.

Drago: Your 21 trumps my 3, granted. I am surprised given your content-free comments than your older than 16. Still, jhow is/was 70 and sounded 11, funny.

"You displaying your ignorance so proudly and self-righteously about a subject that has great personal meaning to me got under my skin, yes._heralder"

I'm not being contrarian, but the "case closed" verdict came too quickly for the appearance of evil to be dispelled. The scrap sent straight overseas, no investigation, just like OKC. And in OKC, Gov Keating used the personal pain of the victims' families to tear down and dismantle a crime scene. This country is almost unique in refusing to consider the unthinkable. Elsewhere, "families" and "plots" are recognized as prime political movers. (The president of Mexico's brother(Portillo) implicated in a presidential candidate's assassination? Would have been covered up here under the guise of protecting public sensibilities. The Lone Nut hypothesis)

Bryan, didn't you comprehend what I wrote? What "center support beams" what "unheated I beams"? What the hell are you talking about?

The only supporting structures inside the exterior walls were the core columns at the very center.

Imagine each floor being constructed of 12 inches of concrete poured on top of steel sheeting, attached to a web of steel trusses, (I used the term "beam" in the previous post for simplicities sake but factually incorrect). These trusses were made up of horizontal beams and diagonal members. All attached to the exterior walls of the building and anchored at the core columns. Understanding that each tower was nearly an acre in area (we'll round down to 40,000 sq ft) the weight of this concrete alone at 150 lbs per cubic foot was approximetely 6 million pounds!!! For EACH FLOOR! Now as each floor collapsed onto the floor below the force applied increased exponentially. Each floor's weight was the sum of it's own weight and the weight of the floors that collapsed on top of it.

This amount of force turns steel members into matchsticks and concrete into powder. Is there any question why so few remains were found. The chance of a steel vertical member (column) changing the path of destruction as the building failed is virtually impossible.

Mantis,

DON'T GET ME STARTED ON THE JFK CONSPIRACY!!!!!!

ps. I'm outta here!

bryanD,

I can't really say it any more eloquently than mantis said it in the post above yours.

bryan: "I am surprised given your content-free comments than your older than 16."

Your surprise is understandable as you lack the intelligence to recognize content when it is presented to you.

Metprof, you are wasting your time.

Bryan has read what his masters have provided at the "Truther" sites, and that's all he capable of assimilating.

Period.

By tommorrow, he will "forgot" that you even posted on this subject and we will be back where we started with him.

He is the perpetually regressing poster.

Metprof: "Bryan, didn't you comprehend what I wrote?"

No, he did not.

metprof: ok. tired. thirsty. typing finger sore.

"Is there any question why so few remains were found."

Yet they conveniently found the guilty passport in the rubble. Fire AND grind. (it was a "drop")

You done good, though. Not convinced, but...

Mantis: "The only reason, at this point, for anyone to believe that anything other than the aircraft are responsible for the destruction is because they really, really want to believe in a conspiracy, regardless of the evidence. "

bryan: "You done good, though. Not convinced, but..."

Surprise.

Drago, your dead weight. Doing a tippy toe dance of irrelevancy. Shut up. :) bye

I guess I naively let science and data get in the way of a good moonbat hypothosis. You'd have thought I'd have learned watching my social science academic bretheren.

The scrap sent straight overseas, no investigation, just like OKC.

You're willing to believe that the scrap was simply sent overseas and no one ever looked at it? Why? Because Loose Change says so?

Ahem,

There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures. "

- Dr W. Gene Corley, head of the building performance assessment team

bryan: "Drago, your dead weight. Doing a tippy toe dance of irrelevancy. Shut up. :) bye"

I guess this is the kind of retort you give when you can't answer these questions: "Bryan, didn't you comprehend what I wrote? What "center support beams" what "unheated I beams"? What the hell are you talking about?"

Sorry bryan, this isn't Pravda, you can't make dissenting voices just go away.

Metprof: "I guess I naively let science and data get in the way of a good moonbat hypothosis. You'd have thought I'd have learned watching my social science academic bretheren."

Metprof, without giving away too much info on yourself (I wouldn't want you targeted by idiots like bryan and his ilk), what is it like on campus for you when you present scientific facts to members of the more "political" depts (humanities, social work, education, etc) on this subject?

You'd have thought I'd have learned watching my social science academic bretheren.

Hey, I have a master's in social science research. We're not all crazy postmodernists. Ok, I admit it, I've since lost interest in social science research, for exactly the reasons you allude to, but still, there are a lot of them who are committed to honest inquiry.

Mantis: "....but still, there are a lot of them who are committed to honest inquiry."

Mantis, we don't hear much from this particular subset of social "scientists" (don't get too hung up on the scare-quotes.)

Yet they conveniently found the guilty passport in the rubble.

Actually, they found it a few blocks away.

That pretty much sums up the "Truther" arguments, though. Take something odd, twist it and attach it to something else altogether, and pretend it's a conspiracy.

...and yes, they've found relatively undamaged passports after really horrendous plane crashes in the past. Crashes that will pretty much pulp a human being will merely wrinkle small booklets.

cirby,

That pretty much sums up the "Truther" arguments, though. Take something odd, twist it and attach it to something else altogether, and pretend it's a conspiracy.

You forgot:

-Add creepy music.

-Have prepubescent sounding Highschool graduate gravely narrate.

And, oh by the way, Paul is dead. I am the walrus.

"Yet they conveniently found the guilty passport in the rubble."

No, not in the rubble, but 2 blocks away.

They... WE... found paper of all sorts, millions of documents, all over the place, as far as Brooklyn. And all kinds of other stuff. Jewelry, office supplies, photos. Conspiracy nuts hide this fact, because one passport surviving alone amidst rubble sounds really cool and mysterious, while a few interesting coincidences popping up amongst the millions of surviving artifacts sounds, well, banal.

You want weird? There was an archeological collection from lower Manhattan excavations being stored in the WTC at the time. 18 out of about 1 million artifacts survived 9-11. That kind of makes those few "double" survivors, doesn't it?

Ben

Mantis, we don't hear much from this particular subset of social "scientists" (don't get too hung up on the scare-quotes.)

Gotta read the journals. Varies a bit by discipline, too. I discovered after a while that the conclusions (or lack thereof) of "soft" science left me very unsatisfied, especially since my research was on the journalistic coverage of the "hard" sciences.

Let's watch it together, shall we?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9NRX37SM

So far its 42% pro-conspiracy, 48% pro-whatever Condi last said.

Gotta read the journals.

I keep a copy of "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of
Quantum Gravity" with me as "filler" text. It gives a real insight to, well, people like bD.

Let's watch it together, shall we?

Let's not. Let's watch the several debunkings of it, along with reading websites like "Screw Loose Change."

Stupid spammer. Even more annoying than the Truthers.

Allstreet: "Dr. Ron Paul for president '08."

Allstreet, some of us are very familiar with Ron Paul. Not a bad guy, but he'll never be President as he cannot inspire even the minimum number of Americans to follow him.

If you're for Ron Paul, then get used to disappointment.

On the upside, I believe that Brenham Texas may be in his district and even if it's not, you can always take the Blue Bell Ice Cream factory tour.

allstreet: "i am 29 year old female living in CT.

i have never voted and have never been inspired to."

Dumbest start to a posting on a political thread that I've ever seen.

That text-block dump spam for Allstreet turns up all over the place, unedited (for the most part).

You're not arguing with a person, you're replying to a robot owned by crazy people.

Mantis, cirby's post perfectly captures the problems with the soft sciences: cirby: "I keep a copy of "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of
Quantum Gravity" with me as "filler" text."

One of the best takedowns EVER! How I would have loved to see the faces of the academic charlatans who spew forth nonsense like this when the Mathematics professor (Physics?) laid it on them!

cirby: "It gives a real insight to, well, people like bD."

The sad thing is that bD is not even capable of understanding just how profoundly correct you are and what a perfect example it is that you have referenced.

You're not arguing with a person, you're replying to a robot owned by crazy people.

Which, in a nutshell, is pretty much how I feel when discussing Wizbang! subjects here with people like Barney, bryanD, civil behavior, etc.

Yes, Peter, but robots may be capable of (artificial) intelligence....

Drago, you like Ron PAul? I guess you're not a moron, after all. Voted for him in 88. Instead of for W's idiotic-but-not-as-dumb-as-his-son Dad.

"I keep a copy of "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of
Quantum Gravity" with me as "filler" text."-cirby

Can I have your autograph?

When I was a little kid, I'd wear cowboy boots with my bathing suit.

Here's a picture of bryanD attempting to sell his conspiracy theories.

Take note of the "Ages 4 and up" in the corner.

Can I have your autograph?

...and that about does it for bD.

Didn't even get the reference.

Someone made the claim to me that Fred Thompson was part of the Washington Corruption Machine and Ron Paul wasn't because Fred has a PAC...

"Buildings dont fall like that"

Huh??

What?

I saw it live on television and I swear they did fall like that!

unbelievable! A million and a half tons were way more then adequate enough traveling down at 120 miles per hour to destroy tower sevens under pining support..along with everything else in its path!!

Wow?

Yes, Peter, but robots may be capable of (artificial) intelligence....

Emphasis on "may". As in "I may hit my royal straight flush here on the flop..."

cirby: "...and that about does it for bD.

Didn't even get the reference."

What'd I tell you?

Bryan has to make a joke out of it to cover his stupidity. Not ignorance. Stupidity.

What was so necessary in trade 7 to destroy that could not have been Sandy pantsed out and destroyed?

Princess Di's blood alcohol results?

Janet Reno's sex change operation results?

A blue stained dress?

The archival papers that Burger really meant to steal?

Houdini's frozen sperm?

What was it conspiracy theorists? please tell..

Special note to bryanD[elusional]

Sorry for being late to the thread, but this had to be said!

"Forty-two!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"

"I checked it very thoroughly," said Deep Thought," and that quite definitely is the answer.

I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."

bryanD[elusional], one question, was your mother married to a Vogon?

Mantis, I agree. I have many liberal friends in the social sciences and humanities who are inquisitive and rational, along with being very nice people.

Drago, I've found liberals and nutjobs on campus. The liberals believe in most of the standard items such as gun control, abortion, wealth redistribution, etc. and can argue passionately for their position while hearing the other side.

The nutjobs are the most troubling for me. Logic, scientific evidence, and laws of nature be damned. When confronted with facts these folk's voice becomes louder and more shrill. I'd lump people like Noam Chomsky into this group. There is no theory too extreme if it fit's their world view. The problem then becomes one of inquisitiveness and intellectual honesty. Both die when you restrict what's acceptable for review and consumption to only such items that conform to your world view. The problem is then compounded when you convey such information to your students AND only have civil debate with those of the same world view.

bryanD[elusional], one question, was your mother married to a Vogon?

Posted by: marc

Leave your phone number or address and we'll talk about that one.

bryanD[elusional]

Are there any examples of similar imploded buildings not rigged.

Sampoong Department store.

Everybody else: quit calling me "liberal".

I believe it was established above your are not a liberal that in fact you sound, act and maybe look like a "leftest," in this case adorned with foil hat.

However there is some evidence you may answer to the monikers moonbeam or moonchild.

Sampoong Department store.-marc

Skyscraper. In Japan, perhaps?

"Are there any examples of similar imploded buildings not rigged"

Do You mean like ones hit by a 200 ton passenger jet barreling into it at 500 mph?

No..? Your shit outta luck there!

Jeebus h. Vhrist on a pogo stick bryanD[elusional], in the 3 minutes from the time the Sampoong link being added you had plenty of time to click and give the info a quick review.

Yet in that same 3 minutes all you did was formulate the question Skyscraper. In Japan, perhaps?

Hello? HELLO?

Is anyyyyyybodyyyyy in there?!!

7 seconds for a 47 story building not hit by airplanes but implodes in its own footprint.....

Yeah, right.

Foolish Americans.

Posted by: civil behavior at April 24, 2007 09:30 AM

WHY THE HELL DO CONSPIRACY FANTASISTS KEEP TELLING LIES ABOUT THE WTC??!! For the love of God! LEARN STUFF!!! READ THIS:

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

Quote:
"A tall office building cannot be made to tip over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. However, because typical human-inhabited buildings (and their supporting elements) are spread over a larger area and are not nearly as rigid, the laws of gravity cause them to begin collapsing downward upon being weakened or tipped off center to a certain point...

... The collapse of the towers 1 and 2 followed this principle exactly. When the impact floors of both towers eventually failed, the upper sections did not simply tumble over into the street below, rather they tilted while simultaneously collapsing downward...

... Video of the north tower collapse clearly shows a roughly 50-story tall section of the building shearing away intact and laying out towards the west, heavily damaging the American Express building and others on the adjacent block. Aerial photos taken just after both collapses show massive volumes of debris that impacted WTC 7 (and other buildings to the north), the effects of which were directly responsible for the intense fires within that structure.

These facts indicate that a relatively small amount of structural support debris actually landed straight down within the towers' footprints, making this event notably dissimilar to a planned demolition event."

So not only were the collapseS exactly what was expected given the damage, the towers DID NOT FALL INTO THEIR OWN FOOTPRINTS. Blanchard here mentions the AmEx building. Others mention 30 West Broadway and the Verizon building. Tell me: How could those buildings have been damaged had they collapsed into their own footprints?

You just read something on the net and believed it, huh? Start here:

http://911myths.com/index.html

http://www.debunking911.com/

... and then for the love of God, THINK!

---
For everyone else: Sorry about the rant, but these people drive me nuts. The "footprint" canard has been disproven so many times... I'm about ready to just save a precomposed message to cut and paste every time I see it. I've already lost count of how many times I alone have responded to it.

ElMondoHummus,

And those of us that spend time here have pointed to each and every study, series of images and certified experts debunking the "truthers" countless times.

It doesn't matter, they are idiots, and their mental capacity and derangement is explained here in elegant detail.

Jeez, I hope this all doesn't get caught by the system as spam, as I'm putting up three posts in a row... but anyway...

(Part II)

Yeah but why did the unheated, undamaged 90% of the building collapse. And so evenly? INTO itself and its frame? With 0 resistance from the structure? At freefall speed (10 seconds total)

Already answered in previous post, but here's a link again: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm. Again, the towers did not fall at freefall speed. Watch videos of the collapse.

Why did the rest of the building fall? Read earlier link to Blanchard paper, and Bazant study.

Why no resistence? There was resistence; it was overcome by the fall of the upper section. You're trying to debunk the idea of a pancaking collapse, with each floor impacting the one below it, causing it to collapse. That is also what the "free fall" canard is supposedly debunking. Neither are right, and NIST itself doesn't subscribe to the pancake collapse.

Also, from Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1:

"... the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation."

... and:

"In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."

To continue:

"Yes, planes hit. WTC was designed to withstand several plane hits."

Several points:

1. The buildings designers themselves said that they planned for a 707 - a smaller plane, but the average one at the time the towers were build - to impact at relatively low speeds. The assumptions were that a 707 would impact accidentally in a fog. Not that a heavier plane would hit at high speed with a half load of fuel (the 767's did not have a full fuel load, BTW. I've seen that said, and that's a mistake). Also, one of the designers - I don't remember which one, Robinson or the other - frankly admitted that they did not consider the impact that fires would have on weakening the structure. They accounted for the impact alone.

Apologies for being unable to substantiate the designer's admission regarding fires. I'm still trying to find where I read that. It's fair to ignore that point until I can provide citation. But, the issue about a 707 at low speed vs a 767 at high is well documented. Google or other search engine lookups will reveal those sources. That part of the point still stands.

2. The Tacoma Narrow's bridge wasn't designed to collapse. Engineering mistakes can happen.

3. Besides, the WTC 1 & 2 towers did withstand the plane hits. How long did they stand before the fires did what they did. And perhaps they might have survived the fires without the plane hits. Might. But both in combination were what brought the towers down. Read the NIST reports, as well as the sites I've linked above. If it weren't for the plane hits, the structures at the point of impact would not have been exposed to the fires; if not for the fires, those exposed structures would not have been weakened.

"Security was pulled weeks before the event which would have allowed all kinds of monkey business."

Response: http://911myths.com/html/wtc_bomb_sniffing_dogs.html

"The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

"Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-nyaler122362178sep12,0,1255660.story

Not all security was pulled. Only the heightened security.

"The only thing I know: buildings don't fall like that."

Why then do all the architectural publications disagree with you? Again, I point to the Blanchard paper as just one example. See the architectural and engineering publication links at the bottom of this page: http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

"In fact each floor absorbs its own weight."

True, but irrelevant. Refer to above NISTAR and NIST FAQ excerpts for how the collapse happened.

"There were firefighters radioing down FROM THE BURNING FLOOR! They were right on top of it AT THE TIME. And yes, it wasn't as hot as the scientists say it should have been. See Loose Change :)"

See Debunking Loose Change, and "9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide".
Also: There was more than one burining floor at the time. You're thinking of Loose Change's story on Chief Palmer:

"48:59
Chief Palmer had reached the fire on the 78th floor of the South Tower and devised a plan to put it out.

9:52 a.m., 13 minutes before collapse. "... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones." That code means fatalities.

If the 78th floor was a raging inferno like the government would have us believe, then Palmer wouldn've got as far as he did "

Sorry, the fire was raging on the floors above.

Source: 9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide Section III

You single out one floor. It wasn't representative of the whole of the impact area, let alone where the fires spread to.

"No mention in the official failure model of any center support beams."

No, there's not. There's no need. The above link to the NIST reports regarding the exterior columns failures are sufficient to explain the collapse. Also, again read industry publications, too. I've only seen one structural engineer disagree with the NIST reports, and he hasn't even tried to get his findings published in a peer reviewed journal.

"The scrap sent straight overseas, no investigation, just like OKC"

Incorrect. Steel wasn't even completely removed from Ground Zero until May 2002.

Also, from http://911myths.com/html/recycled_steel.html:

""There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures".
www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm

Also: Refer to Blanchard paper:

"Assertion #6
"Debris removed from Ground Zero - particularly the large steel columns from towers #1 and 2 - were quickly shipped overseas to prevent independent examination or scrutiny."
PROTEC COMMENT: Not according to those who handled the steel.

"... According to all parties, the steel went through the same series of steps as it would have on any other demolition project, albeit on a larger scale and with an increased presence of examiners. No one we spoke with perceived an attempt to "rush" or hide the process, and to the opposite, dozens if not hundreds of unrelated individuals - working for the various entities and possesing various types of expertise - came into close contact with the steeel over a period of monts before it was eventually shipped overseas."

How in God's name did part three of my posts appear first? Oh well... sorry for that, everyone. If I'd just posted a big mass, it would've been unreadable. As it is, it's too long, but there was much to say.

... and where are parts 1 and 2?? Oh man, that's gonna be hell to recreate.

Sorry everyone for the above stuff appearing so disjointed.

ElMondoHummus,

Are there any examples of skyscrapers collapsing in like manner as the 3 on 9/11? There are Japanese specimens that have tipped over, Argentinians that burned themselves out. No implosions, though. Are there?

And don't worry about your 1 & 2. I believe you.

Your ALL CAPS were funny. Don't fret. The truth will out. Right?

"Are there any examples of skyscrapers collapsing in like manner as the 3 on 9/11?"

Are there examples of skyscrapers that tall collapsing period? Nice dodge, bryanD. Still no retraction of your mistake, even though the damage to 30 West Broadway, the Verizon, and the AmEx buildings give lie to the claim of collapsing "into their own footprints".

Also: Any challenge to Blanchard's paper? Or Murphy's at http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf ? How about Dr. Greening's issues linked here: http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Or is making fun of my caps all you can do? No problem; I got it coming. I did sort of lose it. But, when you see people say the same lie over and over, what can you say? You're just the latest one in the line of liars. So sure, go ahead. Mock my ALL CAPS. I can take it.

And when you can answer the points themselves, I'll be waiting.

There are Japanese specimens that have tipped over, Argentinians that burned themselves out. No implosions, though. Are there?

The buildings that people cite as "falling over" were 10% or less the height of the Towers, and weren't "skyscrapers" by anything like the modern definition (300 feet or more). One 12 story tower-type building in Malaysia fell over, but it was mostly made of reinforced concrete, not steel-framed like the WTC. Even so, its collapse footprint was pretty much in the relative ballpark of the debris field from WTC 1 and 2.

Shorter buildings don't have anything like the same sort of physics driving them as the really tall ones. Comparing those to the WTC is like comparing regular automobiles to the plane that hit the Pentagon (crush versus shred into a million pieces).

So it's true that the WTC didn't fall over like any other skyscraper ever did, but that's because there was never a skyscraper LIKE the WTC that was ever damaged enough to collapse. They were all too short AND made differently, or weren't damaged enough to fall down.

Well, we know Bryan's "proof" has been shot to heck when he is resorting to weak attempts at anecdotal evidence.
-=Mike
...The same WH that could not keep ANY secrets managed to keep this a secret from everybody except some psychopaths?

Of course our government wouldn't cover up anything about 9/11.

Just ask Pat Tillman's surviving family or Jessica Lynch.

Of course our government wouldn't cover up anything about 9/11.

Just ask Pat Tillman's surviving family or Jessica Lynch.

Holy shit, they're the ones who took down the towers?!

CB:

Of course our government wouldn't cover up anything about 9/11.

Just ask Pat Tillman's surviving family or Jessica Lynch.

And this is related how?

Mantis, for the "record" Tillman was the one that planted the thousands of pounds of TNT in tower one and two. All without being seen by the thousands that worked in the building.

Guys guys guys. bryanD and cb must have a legitimate point -- John Kerry is open to their "facts."

And all the while Bush is catching up on the ending of My Pet Goat.

"Just ask Pat Tillman's surviving family or Jessica Lynch."

No one's saying the government can't lie. Everyone acknowledges that the government can lie, cheat, steal, and commit any sort of crime that's physically possible. No one's trying to defend the government when we point out the flaws in conspiracy fantasy. As bad as government can be, it is incapable of doing impossible feats. What we criticise is this unquestioning embrace of fallacies answered elsewhere without applying any of the critical thinking that shows the truth of these fantasies: That the towers did not collapse into their own footprints, that molten metal was indeed found, but molten steel is unproven, and that the explanations given by the conspiracy prone members of the 9/11 Scholars for "Truth" fail to reflect reality.

And no one can explain how government would plan the demolition of the WTC and make it happen in the manner that it did. No one can explain how the government can plant bombs in the basement, as some purport, yet make the towers collapse start at the top. No one can explain how thermite, an incendiary that burns for seconds to minutes at most, explains the molten metal found months later. Moreover, no one can explain exactly how the government would've been able to get explosives in the towers. Yet, when people bring up the lies about freefall, molten metal, and collapsing into their own footprints, that's exactly what they're insinuating. The implication is that the towers would've stood without government intervention, yet they cannot reconcile the facts of the issue with their fantasies.

And the thing is, the incredulities that the so-called truth movement brings up do get answered. These members of the so-called truth movement don't bother to look for the truth; they're satisfied with the fantasies. And every time they get answered, they run to other forums and ask the same questions and make the same error-ridden claims that get answered elsewhere!" I first saw the molten steel myth around 7 or 8 months ago; I first saw the freefall one sometime last fall. These have been explained in rational manners, yet folks who cling to conspiracy fantasy refuse to enlighten themselves. They'd rather parrot the same false claims elsewhere.

And when they start losing the arguments? Well, normally, I get hit with the WMD stuff about Iraq. This is the first time I've personally been confronted with the Pat Tillman dodge. Yes, the government lied about his death. Yes, I'm outraged. How does his death put explosives in any of the towers? How does the false myth built around Jessica Lynch mean that molten metal found months later proves thermite use? The physical facts of the collapse are not described by conspiracy fantasy. Yet, the fantasies get pushed, and the dodges come out when the fantasy-prone get confronted with facts.

Yes, this is a terrible government. How does that explain the towers collapse? At most - at most - that opens the door to Bush's government letting it happen. It does not open any door to them making it happen. Because if they did indeed make it happen, how did they do it in the way it happened? Controlled demolition does not explain this, and every shred of proof - from windows being blown out to that silly "footprint" canard - gets disproven.

Fantasies may be comforting, but they are not truth. And asking the Tillmans or Lynch's about their experience proves nothing about the towers' collapse.

WTC was designed to withstand several plane hits.

Which it did...only after several hours of uncontrolled burning did the structure weaken and allow the building to collapse.

ElMundo,

"How does his death put explosives in any of the towers? Etc Etc."

The same way Pat Tilman and Jessica Lynch were "used" to perpetuate the notion that our government is trustworthy. The same reason the US attorneys were fired from their jobs "claiming" poor performance reviews. The same reason why we are "using" rendition, torture and Gitmo and using covert ops in other nations. The same reason why AT&T has been diverting all email and telephone calls to the government surreptitously.

The reason explosives come to mind is that many people question the unusual amount of conicidences that preceeded the attack (notice I said attack). Maybe, just maybe our own government knew ahead of time and "used" the attack to further their own agenda.

Think PNAC.

Then read all of the conicidences leading up to the day of the atack.

Then read a copy of My Pet Goat and ask yourself if the story is as riveting as tending to a nation under attack.

Then go on about your business and pretend the government is trustworthy.

At this point I normally tack on, foolish Americans. In this case I'll just add "good luck" and enjoy being used.

"The steel does not need to melt. It simply needs to be heated to the point where its tensile strength drops._philw

Yeah but why did the unheated, undamaged 90% of the building collapse. And so evenly? INTO itself and its frame? With 0 resistance from the structure? At freefall speed (10 seconds total)

Give a good answer to that, I'll be swayed." bryanD
*************
This is only a good answer if you passed high school physics. When the steel weakened by the burning jet fuel lost its tensile strength, the SEVERAL floors above the impact all fell.
F=MA, force equals mass (of the upper floors) times acceleration, the Earth's gravity in this case. The force produced from the falling upper stories was one FAR exceeding the building design limits.

They fell quite straight because the Earth's gravity pulls objects down straight. Obviously stuff blows out the sides from impacting upper floors and sprays out a bit at great force, impacting other nearby structures.

Paranoia strikes deep; into your brain it has crept.

It's 'The Pet Goat'. And look at the near lethal blow to al Qaeda that has sprung from the cogitations and resolve developed in those few minutes, captive to the Secret Service, and able to keep the kids calm, read through a script, and prepare.

You've just been uncivilly hornswoggled by that criminal liar, Michael Moore. Wake up, you fool.
=============================

"The reason explosives come to mind is that many people question the unusual amount of conicidences that preceeded the attack (notice I said attack)."

So, the government caused 9/11 and planted the explosives? Or the government merely knew ahead of time and let it happen?

ElMundo,

The government knew ahead of time (Aug 6th pdb is only one good "public" unveiled example of prior knowledge) and made full use of the cover. There are lots of others.

How could they be blamed when we were "attacked."

Why else would Bush sit in a classroom after knowing full well the nation was under attack. That alone is unforgivable. Read the timelines carefully.

I don't necessarily "blame" any American for thinking ill of those who question our governments possible role in 9/11. My beef is they simply refuse to connect ALL the dots. They are all there. They just refuse, it's nationalism at it's best. It's not just 9/11. That just happened to be the precursor to all the rest.

I'll repeat again. Read the PNAC. Get to know the backgrounds and alliances of all the major players. The law firms, the think tanks. the college clubs, the corporate boards, the long standing friendships, the rallying cry delegated to honchos in the religious base.

Step outside of engineering and take a good hard look at the psychology of such a movement. Those with the money behind the scenes (Scaife, Coors, Koch etc) all know what side their bread is buttered. They benefit from chaos, oil, K street projects and all. They use the "base" to rally the "troops". You really think they haven't planned this for YEARS? They are intextricaby linked and you have no entry into their world. It is secret and even more so secure, and they plan to keep it that way. You are not kept abreast of the latest. They don't trust you with that kind of information.

It is only for those who question this government to reveal the possibilities. You cannot imagine the government coming out and saying they were culpable do you? Only when they get caught. (Which by the way was the reason for my very brief post on Tillman and Lynch, and there are plenty of other examples of "caught") You certainly don't think they are going to admit to it?

Americans simply do not wnat to believe their own government would feed them to the wolves. Understandable, but regrettable. Those with money and power could care less.

Which is why I stand by my comments and my post, foolish Americans.

civil behavior:

Why else would Bush sit in a classroom after knowing full well the nation was under attack.

I know, he should have gotten angry, then flown around the Earth to turn back time like Superman did in Superman 2.

My beef is they simply refuse to connect ALL the dots. They are all there.

The problem is, all the dots have been there, but conspiracy theorists are placing extra dots that don't logically connect to the rest. As a result, my connect-the-dots picture doesn't look like a bunny, it looks like an incomprehensible scribble done by a crazy person (and that's not a coincidence.)

Step outside of engineering...

STOP right there. That's the problem.

This is from your earlier post:

7 seconds for a 47 story building not hit by airplanes but implodes in its own footprint.....

Yeah, right.

Foolish Americans.

After you were proven irrevocably wrong about the scientific and physical nature of the universe, you tell us to step outside of that and look at less tangible unprovable factors.

Guess what, those aren't dots anymore, those are claw marks of desperation.

It is only for those who question this government to reveal the possibilities.

There is a striking difference between possibility and reality. You've chosen to immerse yourself in fantasy and possibility rather than factual circumstances...and then you condescendingly lambast everyone else as foolish for not sharing the same conviction to stand up to imaginary villians.

You can be a soldier in your mental war against an enemy that doesn't exist. Menwhile, the rest of the world will move on, and our country will continue to fight against the real enemy.

And I hate to break it to you...you're one of them.

"Step outside of engineering and take a good hard look at the psychology of such a movement. "

No. That is sloppy thinking. Either the physics and engineering support the story, or they do not. You cannot ignore the physical and engineering reality of the event. You cannot ignore the physical reality of any event. The physics - heck, the observed facts, physical, chemical, or engineering - must support the story, else the story is not true. There is no getting around this history-proven concept, which is the basis of every modern scientific theory, from the movement from Ptolemaic to Copernican to modern cosmology, and the movement from spontaneous generation to the knowledge of reproduction in organisms, the progression of early breeding knowledge to our current knowledge of genetics, and so on, and so forth. You can never ignore the physical reality of an event. And trying to argue that one should ignore the "engineering" of 9/11 is doing exactly that.

"7 seconds for a 47 story building not hit by airplanes but implodes in its own footprint....."

What is this trying to purport? That it was in "free fall" and collapsed into it's own footprint? What is trying to be argued from those facts? The argument normally represented when those points are argued is that the building would not have collapsed on it's own, and wouldn't have collapsed in the manner that it did unless controlled demolition was used. You said this; this must be what you're arguing.

"The government knew ahead of time (Aug 6th pdb is only one good "public" unveiled example of prior knowledge) and made full use of the cover. There are lots of others."

So, the government knew ahead of time and planted the explosives anyway. Why?

Or, are you saying that the government didn't plant the explosives, and merely took advantage of the event? If you are, then why did you argue the first point, that the buildings were in free fall and collapsed into their own footprints? If the government didn't plant the explosives, and merely allowed the event to happen, then there shouldn't be anything strange about the collapse, correct?

"Americans simply do not wnat to believe their own government would feed them to the wolves. "

Americans are far less trusting of the government than you think. Besides, this is an irrelevent argument. Whether or not Americans trust their government or not, the point is whether the government planted the explosives - which is what you're arguing when you said "7 seconds for a 47 story building not hit by airplanes but implodes in its own footprint....." - or they did not - which is what you're trying to imply when you say "The government knew ahead of time... and made full use of the cover".

Which is it? Did the government plant the explosives in the towers, or did they know ahead of time and just "let it happen"?

I find it rather ironic that the contrarians of possible complicity on the part of government concerning 9/11 want to purposefully confuse the original post I made which was targeted to Building 7 not the two towers while trying to use the physics explanation for the collapse.

As to the two towers, they were "attacked" using planes. What physics professors or structural engineers can't prove is what exactly brought them down. What makes your application of physics any more verifiable than another physics professor or structural engineer? Why would I believe your explanation over another professor who claims the contrary? Or even other metallurgist who cannot definitively say what caused the tower collapse. Claiming to know exactly how and what caused the fall of the towers is impossible for either side. NO one knows for sure.

What is not impossible to know is ALL the other dots that preceeded the attack.

Again I will say, read the PNAC. Explore the timeline, Observe what has happened in the time since. Ask yourself the hard questions.

You have no idea what your government is doing. Neither do I which is what makes it even worse. Only when they get caught do we hear what seems to get worse and worse.

Todays' poll says 66% of this nation feels the country is going in the wrong direction. That certainly isn't the result of people believing in the actions of the government. Count me in the 66%.

"What physics professors or structural engineers can't prove is what exactly brought them down."

So, what does that have to do with government duplicity?

And ok, I'll restrict my own commentary to WTC 7. What happened to that tower. Did explosives bring it down?

At the beginning of this discussion, I didn't know why WTC7 fell. I've now become convinced that it was not a conspiracy by al Qaeda. They clearly were targetting the two taller buildings.
==============================

I've tried so hard not to go into conspiracy land, but the present administration has lied so much and seemed so eager to go to war with Iraq, and they have shown so little regard for the lives of our soldiers, that my mind keeps flitting in that direction. The sad thing is that if a person even asks a few simple questions they are labeled as a looney left-wing nutcase.

Was Dick Cheney really running a mock scenario of planes hitting the twin towers that day, which led to much of the confusion? I'm just asking. I haven't explored the conspiracy theories very thoroughly. Seems like there are lots of unanswered questions though. Did anyone ever get fired for negligence? Seems like a whole lot of people dropped the ball that day.

Just one example why one ball got dropped. Jet interceptors fly directly out into the Atlantic once scrambled and are trained to ignore other directions. It took an Air Force general screaming on the mike to turn jets around that day. This was a SURPRISE attack, and the blame for the surprise is righteously applied to a lot of people.

I blame Val Plame. Wasn't she in charge of WMD? Wasn't that mass destruction? I jest, and yet.
============

Ozett, you've displayed enough honest rhetoric that I would defend you to the limits of my ability against the charge that you are a looney left-wing nutcase. You are a standard, thinking, American, so persuaded of the righteousness of the mainstream press that you do not realize you've been lied to about al-Qaeda and the struggle against radical Islam. You are asking sensible questions, for the most part.

It was the right thing to do to depose Saddam. He was an evil man intent on weapons of mass destruction and he'd have put them in the hands of the terrorists who are still fighting for his capital, if he'd gotten them.

Kalb's report about last summer's conflict in Lebanon, out today, should help convince you of the manner in which you have been led astray.
=============================

Nevermind. I just read you last post on the 'Askin' thread. Are you a bot?
-=======================

but the present administration has lied so much

It's a funny thing.

I hear this a lot, from conspiracy nuts. They come up with a dozen crazy theories, tying the Bush administration to everything in the world, and when they're shown how every one of those conspiracies is wrong, they use the "Bush Lied!" line. How do we know Bush lied a lot? "Look at all of the conspiracies they've been tied to" - and point back to the same debunked list...

Cirby, here are a few examples of the lies. There are so many I could only list a few. I apologize if any of these have been debunked, but I don't think they have.

1. Dr. Rice: "[W]e received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack airplanes to try to free U.S.-held terrorists." (03.22.04)

Bush received an August 6, 2001 memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." which mentioned bin Laden's desire and capability to strike the US possibly using hijacked airplanes. The CIA warned that bin Laden will launch an attack against the US and/or Israel in the coming weeks that "will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities or interests."
The Bush administration prevented the release of details of the August 6th briefing in the report issued by the Joint Congressional Committee investigating the 9-11 attack.

2. The Bush administration repeatedly has constantly tried to link Iraq to the September 11th attacks.

Both the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9-11 Commission found "no credible evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."

In September 2003, Bush finally admitted that there was "no evidence" linking Iraq to 9-11.

3. BUSH: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. [Bush on Polish TV, 5/29/03]

No need for comment here.

4. The Bush administration repeatedly claimed that Iraq presented an imminent threat to the US and its allies.

The director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence & Research stated that "Iraq possessed no imminent threat to either its neighbors or to the United States."
A January 2004 report by the Army War College concluded that Iraq was not an imminent threat and characterized the war as "an unnecessary preventive war of choice against a deferred Iraq."

5. During his Veteran's Day 2005 address, Bush charged that " . . more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. "
The Washington Post extensively analyzed this claim, concluding that: "Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material...Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country. In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release." (Washington Post, 11/13/05)

Kerry was confronted by die hard "inside jobbers" who threw statements full of foregone conclusions, and just plain gibberish at him. Loaded questions, at best, and just garden variety agitprop at worst. Kerry and his wife were at that book store to sell copies of their new book. That's all. Watch the video, you'll see Theresa barely able to keep her eyes open when the "troofers" start spewing.

Like this writer, responding to most of the mihop's on this thread by ignoring their foolish nonsense, Kerry simply gave the stock answer any speaker does when confronted with polite nonsense. Yeah, right, whatever....oh, look at the time, got to go.

Five will get you fifteen, from now on Kerry avoids any forum where "troofers" are likely to approach him.