911 is a joke

[onesp1ng]

doc, please understand that no one has officially claimed that the fire department was responsible.

larry silverstein said:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

when he said "pull it," he was actually referring to pulling out the men, the fire fighters. well, at least that's what he says he meant.

here is some hard science to chew on.

[ame="http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml_n5gJgQ_U"]YouTube - WTC 7 Free Fall Collapse[/ame]

now, if you believe building 7 was demolished by fire fighters, then you've got to ask yourself why? and then you've also got to take a look at the way tower 1 and 2 fell, because they fell at the same rate of speed as did tower 7.

how is it possible for three buildings to "collapse" at the same rate of spead, when only one was "demolished?" or, in other words, how can two skyscrapers collapse into dusk because of "pancaking" and another due to "thermal expanision," in roughly the same time frame?

they fall at a rate of speed that defies physics. such a fast rate of speed can only be reproduced in a vaccuum, meaning no air resistance, which is exactly what occurs during an implosion.

btw, how did the firemen get all of those explosives into tower 7 anyway? they must have done that pretty darn fast....

[doc]

OOPS. Screwed that up.

I made the statement about the fire department and didn't finish my sentence. Had other things going on here, and I can't multi task well anymore. Just thought that comment, which was in the that video, to be totally absurd.

I used to be a paramedic in New York, and I've worked extensively with these guys in the past. Sad that anyone could even think that the "fire department demolished it".

[liutangsanzang]

Well doc, u ask why people believe in a conspiracy.

To ask this question seems a little unrealistic: do you mean secret services never lie and hide things?

[onesp1ng]

"fire department demolished it".

no one claims this, and that video i posted didn't say so, either. it's what was illuded to by larry silverstein himself. he said, "pull it," during an interview, which is a term that's often used in demolitions. many assumed that's what he meant, because the building has all the characteristics of a controlled demolition, but no one has been able to follow up on it since.

as for:

Having two extremely large buildings next door collapse, with tons and tons of material shaking the earth and the surrounding buildings, had nothing to do with it?

no. like i said tower 5 and 6 were in closer proximity to the twin towers and neither of them collapsed. they showed partial collapsing, but neither of them collapsed. tower 5 and 6, in fact, protected tower 7 from the majority of the impact. furthermore, earthquakes also create massive shifting of structures, partial collapsing, etc., but they NEVER leave a pile of dust behind or collapse a building symmetrically -- top to bottom, end to end -- like is plainly seen with tower 7.

anyhow, now you know how nist has concluded. they say a building fell to dust in one sweeping motion, symmetrically, due to a "new phenomenon" called "thermal expansion," and did so in 4.5 seconds. and although fema admitted that high levels of sulfur were very unusual, no one has tested for pyrotechnic residues so far except for "the cospirators" in over 7 years.

i find it very difficult to understand how anyone can be satisfied with this. it seems people will accept just about anything....

[Panda]

"According to a federal agency report released Thursday, a "new phenomenon" known as thermal expansion was directly responsible for the mysterious collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Sept. 11, 2001"

Here's a link to a somewhat common beam material. The CTE is the coefficent of thermal expansion. It has been used for a long time 50+ years and can be easily tested and verified.

http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=9af2e4d225cd42a9b9bf71e84f0 bc68d

Please keep in mind this is in general and not specific to this case.

The coefficient of thermal expansion is how much the material expands when heated at the said temperature. This material is tempered and the beams used in most building are not due to dead load being the only concern (not in areas with earthquakes). Dead load is the static load, people, furniture etc. At a temperature of 1200 degrees F a standard cast Iron/Steel beam would begin to go thru phase changes and would loose half or more of its strength. Not to mention the expansion of the beams would most likely cause failure to the bolts holding the inner structure together as those are heated as well. Once the top 5th or so of the building started to fall….

Now it’s a dynamic (moving, civil engineering) A force exerted by a moving body on a resisting member, usually in a relatively short time interval. Also known as energy load.) F (force) = M (mass) * A (acceleration).

Here is a good link to the actual impact force on the floors once the top section started to fall on the lower sections thus picking up more mass as it moved down and picked up speed.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/flobi.html?m=91&h=1.25&v=9.899494936611665&ke=4459 &d=0.1&f=44590

Working in Engineering and dealing with aerospace materials for high temperature, we were watching on TV as most and the first thing we all said is this building is going to come down after seeing the fire for about 5 min.

It seems to me peoples research is limited to things read on websites and not actual materials, physics and math.

Using the impact calculator above you will see a 1 ton (2000lbs or 907kg) load falling 4 meters (12ft) will create 79,929 lbs of force. "d" I entered as .1m as the top penetrated thru the floors below and did not stop. How much does the top of each building way? More than structure below can handle is the correct answer Regis. True the outer shell supported most of the weight but the inner structure did support some and once that failed thats all she wrote!

[doc]

Yellow is nice on this background. Maybe I should change the template...

[onesp1ng]

hi! panda,

i should say i'm glad to have you in the conversation, but it's obvious no one here really wants to talk about this anymore. the topic has been exhausted. no one wants to listen to anyone who has a different viewpoint. no matter what new info comes out, it's the same.

the hypotheses by nist and fema have been concluded as truth, when in any other field they would need to undergo unbiased peer review. there are so many absurdities and proof of misdoings that it's ridiculous.

but if people care to wear blinders, so be it.

[Maestro]

your right im not really interested in discussion on the topic, but its simply because ive been researching this for awhile now. the reason i started the zeitgeist thread is because it had experts in their fields supposedly atleast, talking about the subject

[doc]

I think its worth discussing, but, as we say in medicine, "don't think of zebras when you hear horses..."

In other words, common things are common.

I view these buildings things the same way. Planes hit them, heat from jet fuel weakened the steel, they collapsed.

[onesp1ng]

panda said:

Working in Engineering and dealing with aerospace materials for high temperature, we were watching on TV as most and the first thing we all said is this building is going to come down after seeing the fire for about 5 min.

a steel framed building has never collapsed entirely, symmetrically, and into it's own footprint throughout history with the use of demolitions. this statement shows amazing forsight in it's own right, but your not specific enough. i can't really tell if the argument is concerning towers 1 & 2, tower 7, or all of them.

regardless of the structure in question, i can say that in panda's attempt to assert physics, he/she has overlooked quite a few other pieces of the puzzle. the thinking and math could possibly make sense for towers 1 and 2, but it doesn't explain how the towers (1,2, and 7) all collapsed into fine dust particles. it doesn't explain why firefighters are on tape saying tower 7 is," about to come down. watch out, they're going to blow up the building. etc." then it collapsed in perfect symmetry. it doesn't explain why the bbc reported the collapse of tower 7 before it even came down. it doesn't explain why when the rubble was tested, pyrotechnic substances were found within the reminisce of all three buildings, or why people within the government/media denie the existance of such evidence. and it doesn't explain how the pockets of "molten lava" developed. in fact, it doesn't explain this and an awful lot more.

i think there is evidence that should be discussed and heard. this "hush, hush" stuff doesn't serve the victims or their families in the least.

panda, since you understand the laws of thermodynamics, you should understand how insanely improbable (more like, completely impossible) it would be for three buildings to fall down symmetrically, into dust, on the same day, in the time frames mentioned. you would also know that metal can not melt into pools of lava without an incredibly intense heat source. you would know that what happened on that defies the physics you hold dear and true.

please, if you are sincere about this discussion, i ask that you take a look at a few videos from beginning to end. some are cynical and probably even a bit disturbing to an extent. but they all make valuable points, and they're points which are continually swept under the rug by media and government officials. the people in many of these videos, deemed "conspirators," are experts in their given fields. their views are no less worthy of your time and energy than those expressed by nist and fema.

i would think everyone would want answers to these questions.

the two include john gross, the leading engineer behind the nist report, who denies the existence of molten metal pockets found within the remains of tower 1, 2, and 7. this is contrasted with first hand testimony, nasa's thermal images of the area, and picture evidence of "meteor like" shapes that were pulled out of the rubble.
[ame="http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=v36bkCB8sTY&feature=related"]YouTube - 9/11 Truth: NIST engineer denies molten steel at Ground Zero[/ame]
[ame="http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=v90RioFSB4M&NR=1"]YouTube - NIST Shyam Sunder vs Infowars WTC7 debunked?[/ame]

this one includes a series of questions directed toward shyam sunder, the director of the building and fire research laboratory for nist. it's cut up as a propaganda piece with a clear bias, probably by infowars.com, but the point made at the very end is an important one. like the bbc broadcast that reported the collapse of tower 7 twenty minutes before it fell, it demonstrates how people knew this building was coming down before it actually did. let me remind you, if you didn't hear it the first hundred or so times, buildings just don't fall down and crumble due to fire.
[ame="http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=v90RioFSB4M&NR=1"]YouTube - NIST Shyam Sunder vs Infowars WTC7 debunked?[/ame]

here is the bbc report of tower 7 falling 20 minutes before it actually did. tower 7 still stands behind the woman as she reports that it had collapsed. [ame="http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=p23FIcOkO30"]YouTube - BBC report WTC 7 collapse 20 mins early![/ame]

bbc special regarding the mysterious collapse of tower 7: [ame="http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=VEex6b3PkQc"]YouTube - WTC 7 was 355 feet away, so WHY did it Collapse?[/ame]

the last one is basically a spoof, one which was probably done in very poor taste, mind you. but it challenges the whole psychology being pushed by nist and the media. it also illuminates in a very cynical manner the narrow-minded approach that many have on the subject.
[ame="http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=OOHuv4mb-m8"]YouTube - NIST - A WARNING FOR YOU![/ame]

doc you used to say things like, "always question, question, question," a line of thinking i personally find much more inspiring than the old "zebra and horse argument."

i know, everyone will say..."the airplanes flew into the buildings, i saw it with my own eyes. that's why the buildings came down. isn't it obvious?"

no.

[liutangsanzang]

The importance of doubt and the realization of knowledge is a field where the philosophy of Buddha meets the philosophy of Socrates.

But it is a difficult philosophical exercice to really doubt about beliefs.

One reason is the fear of paranoia, a mental illness. At a a least extent, just to doubt more than "normal" people do will make you feel uneasy, marginalized, abnormal.
Another reason is the identity trauma that it may cause if we realize what we believed, what our parents believed is not true. Where does the i can take rest if he doubts too much?

Doubt is truly a subtile experience and it needs a lot of love for reality to be conducted. Where the doubt arises and puts in danger the I, u have to rely on love for reality.

[onesp1ng]

guess i'm lucky to have enough lovin' in my life to be able to doubt to an extreme about certain things and still feel sane. when i was younger, though, i often felt marginalized and outcaste for the way i thought. but as you get older, i think it has a lot to do with your support system, personality, and so on. now i just accept that people have different belief systems.

anyway, all i'm really asking for is a proper investigation into this tragic event. it's important that tests are done to prove, once and for, whether or not it was a controlled demolition. with the anomalies involved, i don't understand why these tests were never performed. i don't understand how people sit back and swallow it, either.

of course, others may feel it's entirely inconceivable -- that planes hit the building, they fell, and that's that. like i said from the start, i may be dead wrong, and i actually hope that i am. this isn't something i want to believe.

but, look. here you have a 47story steel framed building, which is massive. although it was never hit by a place, in 4.5 seconds, it completely and totally collapses. now the official story is that it collaped due to fire or "thermal expansion." (imagine, you begin counting to five, and a huge 47story building vanishes before you even finish.) and we aren't talking about "pancakes" being found of many floors on top of each other. what's left is a hole, tons of fine dust particulate, and "molten lava," which simmers under the debris field for a month after.

an aerial shot:


the building also falls symmetrically -- not to one side or another (like anything else would in nature), neither partially nor with the center beams still sticking out. it utterly disappears, into it's own footprint, just like towers 1 and 2 did. you have to admit, that's pretty amazing.

clearly, these are the largest, most mysterious engineering failures in the history of the world: based on offical explanations. the final nist report was kind of a last straw for me; i simply think it's much too extraordinary to believe.

i want a test to be done to see if pyrotechnic substances were used, which would prove or disprove everything -- it's that simple! i'm sorry, but to not ask for them at this point, just seems absurdly ignorant.

[onesp1ng]

btw, my apoligies for my second to last post (to those of you who actually got all the way through it). i wrote it in a dash before work, and now, rereading it, notice all the typos.

[Panda]

“panda, since you understand the laws of thermodynamics, you should understand how insanely improbable (more like, completely impossible) it would be for three buildings to fall down symmetrically, into dust, on the same day, in the time frames mentioned. you would also know that metal can not melt into pools of lava without an incredibly intense heat source. you would know that what happened on that defies the physics you hold dear and true.”

Onesp1ng, I was only talking about 1 & 2.

7 looks a bit shady and like a controlled demo. “a steel framed building has never collapsed entirely, symmetrically, and into it's own footprint throughout history with the use of demolitions”.That’s the point of a controlled demo. They do it all the time in large cities like NY and Vegas to build new resorts (ask doc, I’m sure he’s seen a few. How about the Stardust?)

I would agree the molten metal thing is also a bit sketchy unless there was some "other" substance burning. And what was the molten material, steel, copper? There was something that stated there might have been some other materials on the plane (thermite or something else).

The dust particles were mostly concrete as that would be pulverized along with other materials like insulation. The metal was not crushed into dust. It was reclaimed, sent to foundries and will be used in the new buildings.

“let me remind you, if you didn't hear it the first hundred or so times, buildings just don't fall down and crumble due to fire.”

You are correct sir, fire doesn’t. However, when you loose 25% for the main load bearing wall (outside) and the internal support structure fails (due to being weakened by heat), gravity does. Once the center failed and the top floors started to drop there is no reason it could not collapse straight downward, as it did (1 & 2).

I find it a bit amusing you seem to knock others for not being open minded with regard to other scenarios but it seems when someone disagrees with the (maybe your) “conspiracy theories” you seem to get mad and jam “facts” down people’s throat. Yes there are many unanswered questions and yes there are things that don’t add up. Most likely we will never know all the facts and I doubt relying on FEMA, NIST or the news media will not get the job done. The fact is they all have benevolent agendas.

Just curious but are you one of the people who thinks the Holocaust never happen? Even with the mass graves of 10’s of thousands of bodies and video and picture documentation?

The biggest reason the media throws things out there are to get people to watch. If it looks like shit and smells like shit, then its shit! Just because some one says it’s an orange doesn’t make it fact. The only thing we can do is make things safer so it doesn’t happen again and not to forget.

And that’s all I have to say about that. – Forest Gump

Peace

[doc]

Orange looks good too. Maybe I should change the template...