short 9/11 video (includes molten steel columns

mookie9999

Specifics wrote:

Dude seriously im looking around and i cant see any fuel that would not be consumed in a second by the sort of fire that would be produced by this thing. I seriously cant imagine there was enough fuel involved in this incident to maintain a fire of the magnitude it would take to melt steel. As far as i understand it there were very strict safety rules specific to flammable materials in this building, i mean of course there would be, you cant have the risk of fire in a place that is innaccessible at any speed where there are such a number of people. I just want to get to the truth on this and i would love nothing more than some one to say something that is reasonable to suggest it fell down at freefall speed into its own footprint because of this plane strike. But seriously look at it mate, its all pretty lame so far. But you know what, im not a US citizen and its not my country, sad for you that i dont think pretty much any other government in the World would dare to try and get away with what looks obvious to have happened, i certainly would have trouble believing it of anywhere else. But dude show me a real Fact that supports the official story.

Show me one solid fact that supports the official story.

I assume this was the argument you were referring to? Since you are not going to believe the explanation that the Government gave (understandable), you probably won't believe the statements from engineering experts in a investigation both by the History Channel as well as PBS, I highly doubt you would ever consider anything that does not back your conspiracy belief, which is fine. May I ask for your facts from someone a little more reputable than Art Bell? Also I'm glad that you enjoyed my walking comment, you should consider taking a look at the actual site yourself instead of conducting your fact finding mission online.

mookie9999

69charger wrote:

What if I showed you a picture of a Unicorn? What would that prove?

Sweet! Do you have one??? Just being a smart ass. I agree with your comment!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Specifics wrote:

Sorry dude personally i havent got that far yet, i havent found any answers for my current big three.

The problem with the debate even at this level is that one side wants to find out what happened and the other wants to talk down to people as if they are being stupid for asking questions and not just believing what big brother says. Go figure huh!

Actually the problem is not that its like that here, its that its exactly like that to the very top.

You want to know the truth of what it all comes down to?

People know its bollocks, some in their heads some just in they're hearts, but some are too scared to admit it, while others are just happy to be under the wing and so will argue half-assed lies to defend the pack.

some are just stupid.

What can you do? keep tryin i guess, we only want answers dont we?

fuck it, i give nothing for this bullshit

Well now we have this never ending war with an invisible, unbeatable enemy, and an underhanded government that is happy to play perpetual war games on our tax dollars.

Bush took us down the garden path into an unwinnable war. Does the US not have any military strategists available? Must we be lied to daily for three , four....five terms of office to figure out these guys are all habitual liars that have zero morals dating back generations?

What a joke...

It is imperative, more so now than ever, that we get to the bottom of 9/11.

El_Kabong

mookie9999 wrote:

I assume this was the argument you were referring to? Since you are not going to believe the explanation that the Government gave (understandable), you probably won't believe the statements from engineering experts in a investigation both by the History Channel as well as PBS, I highly doubt you would ever consider anything that does not back your conspiracy belief, which is fine. May I ask for your facts from someone a little more reputable than Art Bell? Also I'm glad that you enjoyed my walking comment, you should consider taking a look at the actual site yourself instead of conducting your fact finding mission online.

will any of these ppl do?

http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

El_Kabong

sonicreducer wrote:

why the fuck hasn't anyone said anything about the fucking precision cut beams?

if that isn't proof, then what the fuck is?

b/c they know they can't answer it, just like they can't answer why building 7 collapsed

RolandTD20Kdrummer

My opinion on the beams is that they may have been cut afterwards or not. The downward 45 deg shear angle is essentially how a charge would be placed (v.s. a horizontal cut). I'm not a demolition expert. You would think a welder would make a horizontal cut v.s. a free falling 45 deg simply out of safety reasons when cutting it. Some of the other beams have horizontal cuts.

We'd have to see the reports on how the cleanup was performed. I'd like to know if they were actually clearing debris at that level, or just pulling it all apart with large machinery.

Specifics

mookie9999 wrote:

I assume this was the argument you were referring to? Since you are not going to believe the explanation that the Government gave (understandable), you probably won't believe the statements from engineering experts in a investigation both by the History Channel as well as PBS, I highly doubt you would ever consider anything that does not back your conspiracy belief, which is fine. May I ask for your facts from someone a little more reputable than Art Bell? Also I'm glad that you enjoyed my walking comment, you should consider taking a look at the actual site yourself instead of conducting your fact finding mission online.

Thats the trouble with making assumptions without reading thru the debate, i'd personally moved on to this bit:

Specifics wrote:

Ok this could work, however this bit strikes me as interesting:

"Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure"

If these angle clips put a limit on the design allowables to the extent that it wasnt in fact designed the way it was supposed to be, then why the claims that it was? These were surely factored in to any claims about the capabilities of the buildings safety features?

Also the clearly melted steel seen in the video posted by the Roland TDK model.

The report you posted clearly defines the heats that could have been achieved by any fire that day, addressing all issues concerning flammables of all descriptions.

It also states that:

"However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best."

1. "Limiting factors on design allowables" which meant that the design was in fact flawed when it goes on to claim it wasnt.

2. Clear evidence of melted steel that it clearly states could not possibly have happened.

3. Lets also discuss the pilot skills necessary that were mentioned by Strangest Tribe's ex Navy flyer father.

Somethings wrong, lets get to the bottom of it.

Following on from this:

chopitdown wrote:

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

Now you're up to speed on this debate without having to walk anywhere.

My motivation for debating this issue is to find out the truth whatever that may be, i've moved on in my life from tryin to make a point.

Whats your motivation?

If you have nothing to add to the debate why bother?

And i walk past the Tower of London everyday but i dont get flashbacks and see it being built, or falling down, and being renovated, i know only what i investigate about it.

sonicreducer

69charger wrote:

Proof of what? A picture without context is not proof.

What if I showed you a picture of a Unicorn? What would that prove?

tell me how exactly this picture is out of context. there are two firemen standing next to rubble with beams poking up that look just like cutter charges sliced and diced 'em,... how is that out of context? i asked earlier in the thread if anyone could find a date on the picture or who took it. i seriously doubt it is fake.

sonicreducer

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

My opinion on the beams is that they may have been cut afterwards or not. The downward 45 deg shear angle is essentially how a charge would be placed (v.s. a horizontal cut). I'm not a demolition expert. You would think a welder would make a horizontal cut v.s. a free falling 45 deg simply out of safety reasons when cutting it. Some of the other beams have horizontal cuts.

We'd have to see the reports on how the cleanup was performed. I'd like to know if they were actually clearing debris at that level, or just pulling it all apart with large machinery.

were the firemen in charge of clean up (honest question) and if not could they have been there for the photo? and why would they only cut it down to where it was versus cutting it to the base?

mookie9999

El_Kabong wrote:

will any of these ppl do?

http://www.wanttoknow.info/officialsquestion911commissionreport

Not really. Although it is an impressive list of ex-government and military officials, the majority of their complaints stem from the 9/11 Commission report dropping the ball, and aeronaurtics experts speaking of the unlikely nature that a passenger plane hit the Pentagon. On the flip side of the coin you can find the same types of individuals (Government employees past and present as well as military professionals) that will say the exact opposite. Opposing viewpoints of experts in their own field that have no business making claims as to what happened due nothing for me. That goes for both sides. To me the explanation that has been provided on the collapse on the WTC towers from physicists holds more water than a government or military official ever will. Where are the scientists and physicists on the conspiracy theory side? I'm sure they are out there, but I get endlessly frustrated by looking over conspriacy theory sites that talk about planes not crashing, missles hitting the towers, Flight 93 landing instead of crashing, etc. etc. If you have a link to experts in demolition as well as a link to scientific experts discussing the improbable nature of the towers collapsing on their own without explosives, I will be quite thankful! Here's a link that I found that was a good read:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

mookie9999

Specifics wrote:

Thats the trouble with making assumptions without reading thru the debate, i'd personally moved on to this bit:



Following on from this:



Now you're up to speed on this debate without having to walk anywhere.

My motivation for debating this issue is to find out the truth whatever that may be, i've moved on in my life from tryin to make a point.

Whats your motivation?

If you have nothing to add to the debate why bother?

I'm glad that "moving on" allows you the option of not answering my question. My addition to this debate was to add that buildings surrounding the Trade Center were severley damaged. The area surrounding the trade center is not like the heart of the financial district where buildings are on top of one another as far as the eye can see. Closer to the Hudson River (where the towers stood), there is more open space than other parts of the city, which was my point of requesting you to view the actual site. Considering that you are far too consumed with sarcasm and cynicism you would not be interested in logic and appear to be ready to swallow anything that is the opposite of what is not only the official report (who gives a shit, right?) but also the report of physicists and scientists have concluded. When I clicked on one of the links that you quoted the page was no longer found. Would love to read more about it, but it's time for my daily walk :rolleyes:.

El_Kabong

sonicreducer wrote:

were the firemen in charge of clean up (honest question) and if not could they have been there for the photo? and why would they only cut it down to where it was versus cutting it to the base?

abook posted something about the firefighters being mad at guiliani(sp) b/c he severely limited who was allowed in the area, the firefighters were mad b/c they thought they could still find and save ppl...you'd have to find her post, i don't want to recap it out of context

it's also interesting that they sealed the recordings of the firefighters communications on 9/11

El_Kabong

El_Kabong wrote:

abook posted something about the firefighters being mad at guiliani(sp) b/c he severely limited who was allowed in the area, the firefighters were mad b/c they thought they could still find and save ppl...you'd have to find her post, i don't want to recap it out of context

it's also interesting that they sealed the recordings of the firefighters communications on 9/11

i found the link she posted

http://www.firefightingnews.com/article-US.cfm?articleID=27125

Firefighters Union Letter On Rudy Giuliani
March 8, 2007

On March 14, 2007, the IAFF will host the first bi-partisan Presidential Forum of the 2008 election cycle. No other union and very few organizations has the credibility and respect to attract top-tier candidates from both political parties. The lineup of speakers who have agreed to participate in our Forum is truly a testament to our great union and the reputation we have built as a powerful political force and a coveted endorsement.

John Edwards, John McCain, Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Duncan Hunter and seven other candidates will make their case before the 1,000 delegates who will be attending the Forum and to our entire membership via same-day broadcast on our web site.

Early on, the IAFF made a decision to invite all serious candidates from both political parties — except one: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

We made this decision after considerable soul-searching and close consultation with our two New York City affiliates, the Uniformed Firefighters Association Local 94 and the Uniformed Fire Officers Association Local 854, as well as our former Local 94 President and current IAFF 1st District Vice President covering New York.

The IAFF recognizes that Mayor Giuliani generally enjoys a favorable reputation as a result of his actions immediately after the tragedy of 9/11. As such, we want our affiliates and every one of our members to clearly understand the reason and rationale behind this very serious and sober decision.

Many people consider Rudy Giuliani "America's Mayor," and many of our members who don't yet know the real story, may also have a positive view of him. This letter is intended to make all of our members aware of the egregious acts Mayor Giuliani committed against our members, our fallen on 9/11, and our New York City union officers following that horrific day.

Rest assured, our exclusion of Mayor Giuliani is not about any particular contractual or policy issue or disagreement, nor is it based on his unfriendly relationship with our New York City affiliates prior to 9/11 — which we will document and explain in additional correspondence later on during the campaign. In fact, we invited several candidates with whom we have had substantial disagreement on policy issues because we feel very strongly that our members have the right to hear from all candidates, not just those who tow the IAFF line.

Regrettably, the situation with former Mayor Giuliani is very different. His actions post 9/11 rise to such an offensive and personal attack on our brother and sisterhood — and directly on our union — that the IAFF does not feel Rudy Giuliani deserves an audience of IAFF leaders and members at our own Presidential Forum.

The disrespect that he exhibited to our 343 fallen FDNY brothers, their families and our New York City IAFF leadership in the wake of that tragic day has not been forgiven or forgotten.

In November 2001, our members were continuing the painful, but necessary, task of searching Ground Zero for the remains of our fallen brothers and the thousands of innocent citizens that were killed, because precious few of those who died in the terrorist attacks had been recovered at that point.

Prior to November 2001, 101 bodies or remains of fire fighters had been recovered. And those on the horrible pile at Ground Zero believed they had just found a spot in the rubble where they would find countless more that could be given proper burial.

Nevertheless, Giuliani, with the full support of his Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen, decided on November 2, 2001, to sharply reduce the number of those who could search for remains at any one time. There had been as many as 300 fire fighters at a time involved in search and recovery, but Giuliani cut that number to no more than 25 who could be there at once.

In conjunction with the cut in fire fighters allowed to search, Giuliani also made a conscious decision to institute a "scoop-and-dump" operation to expedite the clean-up of Ground Zero in lieu of the more time-consuming, but respectful, process of removing debris piece by piece in hope of uncovering more remains.

Mayor Giuliani's actions meant that fire fighters and citizens who perished would either remain buried at Ground Zero forever, with no closure for families, or be removed like garbage and deposited at the Fresh Kills Landfill.

Our Local presidents at the time attempted to meet with the Mayor to stop this despicable treatment of those who perished, but he refused to even see them face-to-face.

The scoop-and-dump continued. And when hundreds of family members of the fallen joined with our affiliate leadership and members to protest Giuliani's decision, he ordered senior officers of the New York Police Department to arrest 15 of our FDNY brothers, including a number of local elected IAFF leaders.

Giuliani modified his policy after the protest because public opinion was so strongly with our members. Ultimately, he was forced to put the fire fighters back on the pile. Our protests were later proven justified as more bodies were ultimately recovered and those families given a chance for some closure and a decent burial.

Giuliani argued that the change was for our own safety, but his argument was empty and without substance. Fire fighters had been on that pile since minutes after the twin towers fell — why all of a sudden, after nearly two months working on the pile, was Giuliani concerned about fire fighter safety?

In our view, he wasn't really concerned. The fact is that the Mayor's switch to a scoop-and-dump coincided with the final removal of tens of millions of dollars of gold, silver and other assets of the Bank of Nova Scotia that were buried beneath what was once the towers. Once the money was out, Giuliani sided with the developers that opposed a lengthy recovery effort, and ordered the scoop-and-dump operation so they could proceed with redevelopment.

In the first few days immediately after the disaster, Giuliani had said he was committed to the recovery of those lost "right down to the last brick." We believed him at the time. But, what he proved with his actions is that he really meant the "last gold brick."

Giuliani crucified fire fighters after our protest and publicly stated that our members were essentially acting like babies, that they didn't have the market cornered on grief. His insensitive statements demonstrated his inability to grasp what members of the FDNY were experiencing.

What Giuliani showed is a disgraceful lack of respect for the fallen and those brothers still searching for them. He exposed our members and leaders to arrest. He valued the money and gold and wanted the site cleared before he left office at the end of 2001 more than he valued the lives and memories of those lost.

Our members deserved the right to continue with a full search for their lost brothers and other innocent victims. Proudly, as you know, the fire service has a code similar to the military, where we leave no one behind. Recovering even a piece of a turnout coat or helmet gave our FDNY brothers and sisters and the families of the fallen some small semblance of peace, something to honor. But hundreds remained entombed in Ground Zero when Giuliani gave up on them.

The fundamental lack of respect that Giuliani showed our FDNY members is unforgivable - and that's why he was not invited. Our disdain for him is not about issues or a disputed contract, it is about a visceral, personal affront to the fallen, to our union and, indeed, to every one of us who has ever risked our lives by going into a burning building to save lives and property.

We have heard from some affiliates that Giuliani's campaign is beginning to reach out to our locals, looking to build support. If you are contacted by Giuliani, Von Essen, or a representative of the Giuliani campaign, we hope you will say not just, "No," but, "Hell no." And please let the IAFF Political Affairs Department know about it by calling (202) 824-1582.

Please share this correspondence with your membership. Thank you.

Fraternally and Sincerely,

Harold A. Schaitberger, General President

Vincent J. Bollon, General Secretary-Treasurer and Past President, UFOA of NYC, Local 854

Kevin Gallagher, IAFF 1st District Vice President and Past President, UFA of NYC, Local 94

Stephen Cassidy, President, UFA of NYC, Local 94

Peter Gorman, President, UFOA of NYC, Local 854
Written by IAFF

Specifics

mookie9999 wrote:

I'm glad that "moving on" allows you the option of not answering my question. My addition to this debate was to add that buildings surrounding the Trade Center were severley damaged. The area surrounding the trade center is not like the heart of the financial district where buildings are on top of one another as far as the eye can see. Closer to the Hudson River (where the towers stood), there is more open space than other parts of the city, which was my point of requesting you to view the actual site. Considering that you are far too consumed with sarcasm and cynicism you would not be interested in logic and appear to be ready to swallow anything that is the opposite of what is not only the official report (who gives a shit, right?) but also the report of physicists and scientists have concluded. When I clicked on one of the links that you quoted the page was no longer found. Would love to read more about it, but it's time for my daily walk :rolleyes:.

I apologise for not answering you're question, the only one i could find i did answer. You'll have to ask it again.

Sarcasm and cynicism? i think if you read back thru the whole thing YOU instigated the sarcasm and cynicism, my fault is to try to hold a mirror up to people like YOU, and expect it to make any difference. But having read thru the link you posted i see who you COPY this from. Nice work! An almost perfect impression.

Ok your link, hard to read to be honest, what a smart-ass prick! but ok heres what i got from it:

Nutty 9-11 Physics wrote:

So according to the world experts on building demolition:

It was immediately obvious that the towers were going to fall

They have no idea how they would have brought down the towers in a controlled demolition.

Followed by:

Nutty 9-11 Physics wrote:

"Actually, the collapse doesn't look like a controlled demolition. Real controlled demolitions try very hard to avoid flinging debris far beyond the building itself. They blow the lower stories and the center of the building to cause the building to collapse in on itself. The collapse of the World Trade Center doesn't look remotely like a controlled collapse, apart from stuff falling down.

Cant have it both ways. If the "world leaders in demolition" dont know how they would have done it it would have been VERY hard to pull off in a normal clean way. And actually that makes me a little more suspicious that the "world leaders in demolition" dont have an idea for bringing down a building? world leaders? on the ball, forward thinking, ready for a challenge, would be my idea of how a world leader in any field would be. Anyway thats by the by.

my next point would be:

Nutty 9-11 Physics wrote:

There are lots of accounts alleging that rescue workers encountered molten steel. The first question that comes to mind is whether these witnesses know the difference between incandescent and molten. Steel can get hot enough to glow long before it gets hot enough to melt. The fact that glowing steel was pulled out of the rubble doesn't mean it was molten.

Wheres the figures for the heat necessary to make steel glow? not on the tip of his tongue apparently. Put a little more effort into opening the link in the OP, and the other links in the thread youwill find molten steel, and indeed in most links i've seen, it seems a given, if it wasnt there i'd like to know.

To me the rest was all rubbish, the same sort of rubbish he rightly accuses others of talking. But he appears to do it from 10 storeys above everyone else. Its an interesting read actually mainly for the manner in which he addresses things. Its the same smart-ass, but ultimately empty waffling employed by a few people on this forum. A Hero figure maybe?

I'll repeat myself, i just want to find the truth on this, my 3 questions still stand.

Why can people like YOU not debate the issue for more than a few meaningfull points before they resort to smart-mouth stupidity?

You didnt make it past one point!

Whats the problem?

mookie9999

Specifics wrote:

I'll repeat myself, i just want to find the truth on this, my 3 questions still stand.

Why can people like YOU not debate the issue for more than a few meaningfull points before they resort to smart-mouth stupidity?

You didnt make it past one point!

Whats the problem?

I checked our correspondence and have to say that the walking comment that you made of me reaked of sarcasm. If I misunderstood, I apologize.

To your other question, no problem here.

As far as my link that I provided I just so happened to stumble upon it this morning while trying to find an expert opinion from the other side. If someone wants to make it their hero, more power to them. I find it interesting that you would describe his information as rubbish that is "10 stories above everyone else". How does one make that distinction? My last question for you is how does a falling building destroy buildings that aren't there to be destroyed?

El_Kabong

mookie9999 wrote:

Not really. Although it is an impressive list of ex-government and military officials, the majority of their complaints stem from the 9/11 Commission report dropping the ball, and aeronaurtics experts speaking of the unlikely nature that a passenger plane hit the Pentagon. On the flip side of the coin you can find the same types of individuals (Government employees past and present as well as military professionals) that will say the exact opposite. Opposing viewpoints of experts in their own field that have no business making claims as to what happened due nothing for me. That goes for both sides. To me the explanation that has been provided on the collapse on the WTC towers from physicists holds more water than a government or military official ever will. Where are the scientists and physicists on the conspiracy theory side? I'm sure they are out there, but I get endlessly frustrated by looking over conspriacy theory sites that talk about planes not crashing, missles hitting the towers, Flight 93 landing instead of crashing, etc. etc. If you have a link to experts in demolition as well as a link to scientific experts discussing the improbable nature of the towers collapsing on their own without explosives, I will be quite thankful! Here's a link that I found that was a good read:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

so who is reliable for you? there are plenty of physicists like the professor at byu among others

what i find unlikely is it is just an odd coincidence certain ppl in this administration wanted things like an invasion/occupation of iraq before they even got into office, they even said in september of 2000 that the only way they would gain enough support from the public is thru a 'new pearl harbor'...it's also odd they took the authority away from NORAD to intercept or even send jets to check on flights that are hijacked, not responding to radio, deviated from their assigned flight path...2-3 months prior to 9/11...just as i think it's odd these same ppl have ties to the isi and terrorist cells we bought, created, trained, armed...in the 80's...the same isi who wired mohammed atta money very shortly before 9/11

what is the explanation for building 7?? 5 1/2 years later and they still can't finish their report, in fact the head guy said in an interview that he has no idea what caused it to collapse

El_Kabong

MakingWaves wrote:

The DC flight zone was not enforced then like it is today.
All I am saying look at which side has more facts and which one has more assumptions. The conspiracy theory side has almost all assumptions and very little fact that have to be made for the theories to be true.

so you're saying almost an hour after those in charge say it was obvious america was under attack...a known hijacked plane can enter dc airspace, make a u-turn, re-enter dc air space...and no one thought of sending fighters from andrew's air force base (only 10 miles from DC) at any point? a known hijacked plane, again almost an hour after 2 hijacked planes hit the towers, could deviate from its flight path and no one had the idea of sending any fighters after it?


yeeeeeaaaaaaaaah

El_Kabong

69charger wrote:

Proof of what? A picture without context is not proof.

What if I showed you a picture of a Unicorn? What would that prove?

hahaha you are funny

what about the big heap of molten mass in the video roland (i think) posted? is that out of context, too?

maybe you could put the cut beams and that molten mass into context for everybody?

69charger

El_Kabong wrote:

hahaha you are funny

what about the big heap of molten mass in the video roland (i think) posted? is that out of context, too?

maybe you could put the cut beams and that molten mass into context for everybody?

I saw it. What is it? Molten steel? Molten aluminum? Really hot wood? What is it? How can you make any determination based on that video other than whatever that shit is it is very likely hot?

That's what I'm getting at. It isn't proof of anything!

RolandTD20Kdrummer

69charger wrote:

I saw it. What is it? Molten steel? Molten aluminum? Really hot wood? What is it? How can you make any determination based on that video other than whatever that shit is it is very likely hot?

That's what I'm getting at. It isn't proof of anything!

did you watch it with audio? They said it was 4 floors of the WTC