Why The Towers Fell

[talloola]

I am not an expert on any of this stuff, but I do understand explanations and common
sense from the right people.
A few months after the towers came down I watched a documentary, which thoroughly
explained 'just' how the towers came down.
It was very easy to understand.
They NEVER thought a commercial airline would hit the towers, so that concept was not
brought into the design to begin with.
There was not enough support directly up the 'middle' of the towers, but all of the design
was around the outside, and across, from side to side, SO, when the planes hit, and the
fire (which was so hot) burned for some time, it melted the steel running across from side
to side, and after the first floor collapsed, then it was the weight of the steel plus
the hollow center of the building, which had no way of supporting the steel. Everything
collapsed toward the middle of the towers, and the rest is history.
They have agreed that, that particular design will not be used again in the future, because of
what they have learned from the tragedy.

 

[lone wolf]

The best of instructors are they who realize there is more to learn.

Woof!

 

[CDNBear]

THIS DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THIS IN FACT IT SUPPORTS WHAT IVE SAID THAT THEY START FROM THE GROUND UP

Not at all. If you had any experience with blasts and the report of said blasts. Not to mention what happens to the energy released from said blast.

Oft, the report (the sound) refracts and is deflected. Especially in a city or urban setting. An excellent example of this comes from Deally plaza.

Now, to top that off you have elevator shafts that run down the center of the building. If you have energy being forced down. It WILL take the lane of least resistance. Floors are resistance. An open shaft with gaps around the cars, is going to be the route of exhaust.

Then you have the ventilation system. Another excellent lane of least resistance.

All that easily explains any form of energy coming from the base of the building or the windows of the various and odd floors as the building began to collapse.

Now, lets discuss a controlled demolition. Go look them up on you tube. Not one is ever started at the top. Yet the WTC obviously begins to come down at the top. Not at the bottom. Oh sure, you have all sorts of folks stating they heard something pop at the base. That was likely the doors on the elevator shafts blowing out. All controlled demolitions are nearly identical. The center is taken out, to bring the sides in. and the center portion of the building down, giving the external structure the ability to collapse inward.

A knowledge in explosives, buildings and other structural attributes, makes all this so seemingly obvious.

 

[CDNBear]

I am not an expert on any of this stuff, but I do understand explanations and common
sense from the right people.
A few months after the towers came down I watched a documentary, which thoroughly
explained 'just' how the towers came down.
It was very easy to understand.
They NEVER thought a commercial airline would hit the towers, so that concept was not
brought into the design to begin with.
There was not enough support directly up the 'middle' of the towers, but all of the design
was around the outside, and across, from side to side, SO, when the planes hit, and the
fire (which was so hot) burned for some time, it melted the steel running across from side
to side, and after the first floor collapsed, then it was the weight of the steel plus
the hollow center of the building, which had no way of supporting the steel. Everything
collapsed toward the middle of the towers, and the rest is history.
They have agreed that, that particular design will not be used again in the future, because of
what they have learned from the tragedy.

Excellent points talloola, well said. If I may interject one thing here though. The design was used in the Sears tower, but the designers learned from the construction of the WTC where the flaws were and corrected them. Thus the Sear tower, of similar design, would not likely succumb to the same fate.

 

[quandary121]

Umm, yes I did. The building was designed to withstand a hit from a 747, low on fuel, travelling slowly on approach. Not a fully fuelled 737-222, at full speed.

This, if you read the entire statement by the Architectural firm involved in the WTC design, would not be an issue.

The SQUIBS? You mean the windows popping out as the floors above forced more air downward as they pancaked over and over? Ya that takes a rocket scientist to fingure out...:roll:

You still don't even know what free falling is, I asked you to explain it, but you can't. You likely won't without a copy and paste job either. Parrot oh bringer of mirth and merriment.

I wondered when the name calling would start. you had your chance pal im not going to dignify you with my presence any longer. it was a discussion you wanted now you have sunk to this.! well keep your opinions to your self m8. as you have bored the pants off of me now ,and your answers about windows popping is ludicrous, also the fact that jet fuel which i stated had probably burnt up in the initial impact would not account for the melting of steel ,also the Architectural firm involved would have made provisions for such a colision and for you to say that they only expected a hit from a 747, low on fuel, travelling slowly on approach is even more ludicrous as they would of made it even more structurally sound rather then less , go back to your M8S and pretend among your selfs that you won this argument, as you have proved nothing to me but you contemptibility .:x

 

[CDNBear]

I wondered when the name calling would start.

Please, oh please show me where I called you a name in this discussion? Or are you projecting from your 'moron' comment towords moi?

Please now son, don't hurt yourself.

 

[talloola]

Excellent points talloola, well said. If I may interject one thing here though. The design was used in the Sears tower, but the designers learned from the construction of the WTC where the flaws were and corrected them. Thus the Sear tower, of similar design, would not likely succumb to the same fate.

That's good to know, thanks.

 

[quandary121]

Squibs

High-Velocity "Demolition Squibs" Are Visible in the Twin Towers' Collapses

[SIZE=-1]A horizontal jet emerges from the northwest face of the North Tower. [/SIZE]Squibs are "blasting caps (initiators) used in the explosive industry to set off high explosives." [SIZE=-1]1 [/SIZE] In discussions of the collapses of the WTC skyscrapers, the term has been appropriated to describe the physical appearance of puffs or jets of dust emerging from buildings during a demolition, caused by the detonation of explosive charges. Several such "squibs" can be seen in videos and photographs capturing the collapses of the North and South Towers.
It has been suggested that the evident squibs could have been added to the photographs and videos after the fact, given that much of this evidence has found its way onto the web via undocumented routes. However, the squibs show up in many diverse videos and photographs, and we have not been able to find any showing the squibs to be absent. A conspiracy of incredible proportions would be required to forge such convincing evidence of squibs in such diverse sources.
Squibs in the North Tower

Some of the clearest visual evidence of squibs in the North Tower is found in a video bearing the KTLA 5 banner. It shows two very distinct squibs emerging from the North Tower's northwest side, which is in profile on the tower's right, at about two and five seconds into the collapse.
Photographs

The photograph on this page shows two puffs of dust emerging from the walls well below the expanding dust cloud. The position and timing of the one on the northwest (right) face suggest that it is an early stage of the second squib seen in the KTLA 5 video.

The puff in that photo on the northeast (left) side is also visible in the first photograph on this page, but the second squib on the northwest side has already been subsumed by the dust cloud.
The first photograph on this page shows a puff of dust to the right of the visible north corner of the North Tower. That appears to be the beginning of the first squib.
Most of the photographs of the North Tower collapse show it after the second squib has already been subsumed by the dust cloud. We can find no photographs of the North Tower that should show the squibs but do not.
Videos

Other broadcasts besides KTLA 5's showed one or both of the squibs on the tower's northwest wall. This video, taken from close to the North Tower's base, shows the first squib very distinctly as a conical jet of gases that are lighter in color than the expanding dust cloud above.
This video (in wmv format) clearly shows the second squib emerging from the North Tower's northwest side.
This video broadcast by CNN provides one of the most complete records of the North Tower's collapse. It hides the squibs behind the banner, but even so you can distinctly see the second squib through the bluish semi-transparent part of the banner.
Another video shows the two squibs as clearly as the KTLA 5 video, and from a similar vantage point. It is not available on this site, but is found on the video 911: The Greatest Lie Ever Sold.
Squibs in the South Tower

[SIZE=-1]Broad dust ejections emerge from mechanical equipment floors of the South Tower. [/SIZE]Squibs are also apparent in the South Tower's collapse, though they don't appear to be as energetic as the two North Tower squibs examined above. In this photograph a red arrow highlights a row of puffs of dust emerging from the southeast face of the South Tower about 10 floors below the bottom of the zone of total destruction.
The same squibs are clearly visible in the first two collapse sequences of this ABC News video montage of the South Tower collapse.
Gravity-Collapse Explanations

Defenders of the gravity collapse theory consistently invoke the explanation that the ejections of dust are caused by pancaking floors squeezing out air and dust. The Popular Mechanics article attacking 9/11 Truth contains the following passage.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception." NIST's final Report on the Twin Towers mentions the piston theory to attempt to explain away the ejections:
The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos. There are several problems with this explanation, which we designate the piston theory.

• The squibs contain thick dust of a light color, apparently from crushed concrete and gypsum. But these materials would not have been crushed until the pancaking floors above impacted the floor emitting the squib. Thus the dust would not be produced until the air was already squeezed out, so there was no source of the dust for the squib.
• The squibs emerge from the facade 10 to 20 floors below the exploding rubble cloud inside of which the tower is disintegrating. The thick clouds appear to contain the pulverized concerete of the floor slabs, which was the only concrete component of the tower. But the piston theory requires that the floors have already pancaked down to the level of the squib, making them unavailable for the production of the concrete dust more than 10 floors above.
• The piston theory requires a rather orderly pancaking of the floor diaphragms within the intact sleeve of the perimeter wall. Such a process should have left a stack of floor diaphragms at the tower's base at the end of the collapse. But there was no such stack. In fact, it is difficult to find recognizable pieces of floor slabs of any size in Ground Zero photographs.
• The North Tower exhibits three distinct sets of squibs at different elevations of the building. Each set is visible as two distinct squibs on the same floor, one emerging from about the horizontal center of each of the tower's two visible faces. This pattern is is far too focused and symmetric to be explained by the piston theory, which would produce similar pressures across each floor and over successive floors.
• The pancaking of floors within the perimeter wall would have created underpressures in the region above the top pancaking floor. But we seen no evidence of dust being sucked back into the tower.

 

[lone wolf]

Those outer frames were rung like schoolbells on impact. There was little to prevent rebound of a solid shell around a solid core as OWSJ are not designed for lateral shift and there were no internal structural members. WTC 2 (the second impact) went down first because the plane struck at an angle putting addional gyration into the rebound. Whether there was a failsafe mechanism in place to bring the building down into its own footprint is something we're not likely to hear

 

[quandary121]

Please, oh please show me where I called you a name in this discussion? Or are you projecting from your 'moron' comment towords moi?

Please now son, don't hurt yourself.

You still don't even know what free falling is, I asked you to explain it, but you can't. You likely won't without a copy and paste job either. Parrot oh bringer of mirth and merriment.

'moron'

 

[CDNBear]

I wondered when the name calling would start. you had your chance pal im not going to dignify you with my presence any longer. it was a discussion you wanted now you have sunk to this.! well keep your opinions to your self m8. as you have bored the pants off of me now ,and your answers about windows popping is ludicrous, also the fact that jet fuel which i stated had probably burnt up in the initial impact would not account for the melting of steel ,also the Architectural firm involved would have made provisions for such a colision and for you to say that they only expected a hit from a 747, low on fuel, travelling slowly on approach is even more ludicrous as they would of made it even more structurally sound rather then less , go back to your M8S and pretend among your selfs that you won this argument, as you have proved nothing to me but you contemptibility .:x

Wow, do you know when the building was designed and built?

There were no such things as 737-222's at that time. And yes, if you actually read the statements, it was built to withstand the impact from a 747, on approach to JFK, LaGuardia or Newark. This is common fact.

In fact, I don't even think anyone contemplated a plane being flown purposely into the building at all.

 

[CDNBear]

'moron'

Yes I believe you are, there is no name calling in what you quoted. I merely pointed out that you are parroting what you have been told and that it is bringing me nothing but mirth and merriment.

I see now why you are having such difficulties here. This sort of discussion requires a certain level of reading ability and comprehension. Both of which you seem to lack in greatly.

 

[quandary121]

Towers' Design Parameters

Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's

Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.
Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.
1960s-era Jetliners Compared to Boeing 767s

Contrary to widely promoted misconceptions, the Boeing 767-200s used on 9/11/01 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated.

The above graphic from Chapter 1 of FEMA's Report shows the sizes of a 707 and a 767 relative to the footprint of a WTC tower. [SIZE=-1]1 [/SIZE] Flight 11 and Flight 175 were Boeing 767-200s. Although a 767-200 has a slightly wider body than a 707, the two models are very similar in overall size, weight and fuel capacity.
propertyBoeing 707-340Boeing 767-200fuel capacity23,000 gallons23,980 gallonsmax takeoff weight328,060 lbs395,000 lbsempty weight137,562 lbs179,080 lbswingspan145.75 ft156.08 ftwing area3010 ft^23050 ft^2length152.92 ft159.17 ftcruise speed607 mph530 mphGiven the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.
Statements by Engineers

Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." [SIZE=-1]2 [/SIZE] Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.
John Skilling

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8.
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. [SIZE=-1]3 [/SIZE] A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.
The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. [SIZE=-1]4 [/SIZE] The Richard Roth Telegram

On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. [SIZE=-1]5 [/SIZE]
THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ... At the time the Twin Towers were built, the design approach of moving the support columns to the perimeter and the core, thereby creating large expanses of unobstructed floor space, was relatively new, and unique for a skyscraper. However, that approach is commonplace in contemporary skyscrapers.
Frank Demartini's Statement

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting. Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. [SIZE=-1]6 [/SIZE] Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.
There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. [SIZE=-1]7 [/SIZE] Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." [SIZE=-1]8 [/SIZE]
References

[SIZE=-1] 1. Chapter 1: Introduction, WTC Building Performance Study,
2. Towers collapse shocks engineers, MedServ, 9/11/01 [cached]
3. Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, The Seattle Times, 2/27/93 [cached]
4. City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, page 131
5. City in the Sky, Times Books ..., , page 134-136
6. Painful Losses Mount In the Construction 'Family', construction.com, 10/1/01 [cached]
7. City in the Sky, Times Books ..., , page 133
8. How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings, ENR, 4/2/1964 [/SIZE]

 

[CDNBear]

#juan...

I see you lurking here. You're an engineer. You know your steel and I'm sure you have discussed this event with your fellow professionals.

Please, by all means, enlighten us with some of your wisdom.

 

[quandary121]

Proofs of Demolition

Demolition of the Twin Towers is Provable Through Simple Analysis

Despite the destruction of the most significant evidence of the Twin Tower collapses -- the structural steel -- it is relatively easy to prove the towers were demolished. Determining how they were demolished without the benefit of the steel may be difficult or impossible, but proving that a gravity-driven collapse is insufficient to explain the characteristics of the collapses documented by photographic and seismic evidence is not.
There are numerous pieces of evidence that strongly indicate demolition, including the fact that authorities destroyed and suppressed evidence, the more than 100 years of engineering experience with steel-frame buildings, the misleading representation of the towers' design by truss theory proponents and the implausible sequence of events proposed by that theory, and the many collapse features that seem irreconcilable with gravity-driven collapses.
Proving demolition requires more than enumerating evidence. It requires making logical inferences about events using the evidence. Three fairly strong proofs are as follows. These are presented as qualitative arguments only. Each suggests an approach for developing a rigorous quantitative proof.

• The towers fell faster than they could have if they were crushing themselves.
• The volume of dust was too great to have been the product of a gravity-driven collapse.
• The South Tower's top shattered before falling, and so its breakup was not a result of gravity-driven crushing.

 

[quandary121]

Evidence Destruction

Official Response to the September 11th Attack

Officials' handling of the evidence of the September 11th attack has followed a clear pattern. The physical evidence most important to forensic analysis of the crime was destroyed or removed from the crime scene never to be seen again. Types of evidence not under the direct control of those officials were suppressed through a variety of means. These include photographs, video footage, and various once-public documents.
Destruction of Evidence: WTC Steel

The pattern of destruction of physical evidence is nowhere more apparent than in the rapid removal and recycling of the steel from Ground Zero. The structural steel was the most important evidence regarding the mass murder of September 11th. No amount of indulgence of forelorn hopes of finding survivors in the rubble, nor urgency of uncovering human remains for speedy identification, can justify the destruction of the evidence.

• If it was necessary to remove steel to another location to accommodate rescue and recovery efforts, the steel easily could have been preserved.
• Any steel pieces to be removed should first have been meticulously documented through the use of coordinate grids and photographs. This is standard practice in archeological excavations.
• Building 7 was evacuated long before it collapsed, and it fell into a tidy rubble pile that did not even block adjacent roadways. There was no urgency in removing its rubble, and certainly not in destroying it.

The remains of the Twin Towers should have been afforded at least the same level of respect as the artifacts in an archeological dig, or remnants of an aviation disaster. Instead they were treated as garbage to be disposed of as quickly as possible. That the authorities hid their crime behind talk of rescue and recovery is exploitation of the most reprehensible kind. In fact, families and friends of the victims vocally protested the destruction of the Ground Zero evidence.Destruction of Evidence: Records

On May 6, 2004, an FAA quality-assurance manager destroyed a cassette tape recording of statements by at least six air traffic controllers who handled hijackings on 9/11/01. According to the Transportation Department the tape was destroyed, "without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it."
Removal of Evidence From the Crime Scenes

There is abundant evidence that there were concerted programs to remove evidence from the three known sites of carnage on September 11th: Ground Zero in Manhattan, the west wing and lawn of the Pentagon, and the debris fields of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania. This is particularly true of the Pentagon, where a mop-up operation by officials commenced immediately after the attack. It is not clear what evidence was removed from Ground Zero before the steel removal operation started, given that the scene was sealed off and under the control of persons hostile to a genuine investigation.
Removal of evidence from a crime scene by other than legitimate investigators and without proper documentation of the locations of artifacts is evidence of involvement in the crime.
Suppression of Evidence

The destruction and removal of evidence, so zealously undertaken by authorities overseeing the crime scenes, was not possible with various forms of documentary evidence gathered by people not invested in covering up facts of the attack. Authorities employed a variety of methods to suppress such evidence.

• Images of the WTC collapses, once abundant on the web, apparently have been purged from web history archive sites. Extensive image databases, such as Google's, are missing images of the collapses.
• A 78-minute audiotape of communications of firefighters in the South Tower was suppressed for over a year by the Port Authority and the Department of Justice.
• Detailed engineering drawings of the Twin Towers and Building 7 have remained unavailable to the public.
• New York City firefighters have reportedly been ordered to not to share what they witnessed on September 11th, and feared doing so would jeopardize their jobs.
• Officials have refused to release video footage of the Pentagon attack beyond the five frames released in early 2002. There must be dozens of cameras on the Pentagon grounds that recorded the attack.
• The FBI confiscated and refused to release footage of the Pentagon attack by security cameras owned by private businesses.
• Air traffic controllers have been ordered by the FBI not to discuss what they know about the attack.

Destruction of Evidence is Evidence of Criminality

The rapid destruction by authorities of the WTC steel, and their efforts to seize and bottle up other forms of evidence relating to the attack, are, if not themselves criminal acts, strong evidence of their involvement in crimes.

 

[quandary121]

Yes I believe you are, there is no name calling in what you quoted. I merely pointed out that you are parroting what you have been told and that it is bringing me nothing but mirth and merriment.

I see now why you are having such difficulties here. This sort of discussion requires a certain level of reading ability and comprehension. Both of which you seem to lack in greatly.

certain level of reading ability and comprehension

And you show nothing but your ignorance and stupidity Both of which you seem to have abundances

 

[CDNBear]

I stand corrected, 707 it is.

Now, if the piece provided didn't self support and the supporting website actual had footnotes and links that didn't self support, your post would be worth something.

As it stands, it's all old news. And no proof.

And you show nothing but your ignorance and stupidity Both of which you seem to have abundances

So, in other words, you can't support your claim I called you a name? OK.

Carry on as you were.

 

[darkbeaver]

Look conundrum. You spout off about reason and analytical thought like you have a lock on the market thereof. Let me explain what it is you are missing.
1) The WTC are unlike any other building in the history of the world, save the fact that they are indeed buildings.
2) Eye witnesses, one of which (ITN) is attempting to address some pretty glaring inconsistencies in the whole CT thing you got going on.
3) Whether you wish to accept my word for it or not, I'm Six Nation, related to Mohawk High Steel workers that built the building. I'm also ex Army and have worked in mining. I have an excellent understanding and knowledge of explosives and have worked with them extensively.
4) Again, whether you wish to believe it or not, I am a professional welder/fabricator, I actually have a contract with one of the worlds largest manufacturer of elevators, ThyssenKrupp. They retro'd the elevators in the WTC a few years before 9/11. Not only have I discussed the event at length engineers and architects that know the structure in side and out, I've seen technical computer models, by and for non partisan professionals, who have explained exactly what NIST and the rest of the alaphabet camp have said all along.
5) If you contact your local Fire dept, they will indeed tell that a hydrocarbon fire, will not only weaken any steel structure, it will melt it in the right conditions.
6) This topic has been beaten to death around these parts, so you have to take some ribbing from us Vets when it comes to this silly topic.


3 and 4 are subjective at best, that I understand. None of my credentials make me an expert by any stretch of the imagination. But what you are asserting here is, without a doubt, ridiculous. The monumental scale of an operation of this magnitude would require a great many people to be involved. Would make it inconceivable to maintain secrecy this long without someone breaking ranks. That doesn't even touch on the glaring holes in the theories put for by the people you quote.

Go back and reread the stuff you have posted, then go and read the NIST report or an abbreviation thereof and try to do that with an open mind. You will see, as do most of those that do, that there are far to many variables at play. For it to be an inside job in the sense that you have asserted.

Besides that, Bush is nowhere near smart enough to orchestrate such an complicated event.

a. You make plausable sense to the completely ignorant with glib practised delivery, like you've recently attented a seminar on conspiracy theroy debunking.

b. Your expertise and field tested abilities makes you a suspect. You did it, you're just here escaping discovery by claiming the inside job actually wasn't done when you know it was done because hey it's done.

c. The last sentence is a giveaway about the expected audiance ( Besides that, Bush is nowhere near smart enough to orchestrate such an complicated event.[/quote] )anybody who's watched the news or purchased one of hundreds of Bush joke books in the last seven years wouldn't need to hear that.Would they? So who are you really talking to? The buildings were demolished by the bankers Bear, get used to the idea, It'll make the next few years easier for you to understand.

:canada:

 

[quandary121]

I stand corrected, 707 it is.

Now, if the piece provided didn't self support and the supporting website actual had footnotes and links that didn't self support, your post would be worth something.

As it stands, it's all old news. And no proof.

So, in other words, you can't support your claim I called you a name? OK.

Carry on as you were.

As it stands, it's all old news. And no proof.

better than any you have shown whether it self supports is as irrelevant as your answers to the proofs given

So, in other words, you can't support your claim I called you a name? OK.

Parrot oh bringer of mirth and merriment is this not name calling i think it is!!

PROOFS OF FIRES NEVER BRINGING DOWN A BUILDING
Other Skyscraper Fires

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

[SIZE=-1]The One Meridian Plaza fire [/SIZE]Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.
The One Meridian Plaza Fire

One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. [SIZE=-1]1 [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]2 [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]3 [/SIZE] It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. [SIZE=-1]4 [/SIZE] Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

[SIZE=-1]The First Interstate Bank fire [/SIZE]
The First Interstate Bank Fire

The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss. [SIZE=-1]5 [/SIZE]
A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans. [SIZE=-1]6 [/SIZE] The 1 New York Plaza Fire

[SIZE=-1]Close-up of the First Interstate Bank fire
Photo: New York Board of Underwriters [/SIZE]1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours. [SIZE=-1]7 [/SIZE]
Caracas Tower Fire

The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.
Lax enforcement of fire codes in Venezuela was blamed for the malfunctioning of water pumps and a lack of fire extinguishers inside of the building. Because the building was empty when the fire broke out, no civilians were killed or injured. [SIZE=-1]8 [/SIZE]
The Windsor Building Fire

[SIZE=-1]The Windsor Building fire [/SIZE]The most recent case of a severe high-rise fire is the one that destroyed the Windsor Building in Madrid, Spain on February 12, 2005. The Windsor fire was more severe than any of the other fires described on this page, and the incident has been widely publicized, with comparisons to the fires in the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11/01. However, the Windsor Building, unlike all the buildings mentioned above, was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel. Hence it is described on a separate page, which notes differences between the response of these different types of structures to fires.
[SIZE=-1]9 [/SIZE] References

[SIZE=-1] 1. ONE MERIDIAN PLAZA, Philadelphia Fire Films, 1991, [cached]
2. High-rise Office Building Fire One Meridian Plaza, [cached]
3. One Meridien Plaza, [cached]
4. High-rise Office Building Fire One Meridian Plaza Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, [cached]
5. First Interstate Bank Fire, lafire.com, [cached]
6. Interstate Bank Building Fire Los Angeles, California (May 4, 1988), [cached]
7. U.S. Report on Trade Center Echoes Lessons of Past Disasters, New York Times, 4/2/02 [cached]
8. Towering Inferno In Caracas, CBSNEWS.com, 10/18/04 [cached]
9. U.S. Report on Trade Center ..., New York Times, 4/2/02 [/SIZE]