You're just adding data, but not improving the viewable image. Why have an image that is higher res than a monitor or your eyeball's ability to process data?
While there is indeed a limit to how good the original image may be, I believe the major benefit of higher and higher res is the ability to blow up smaller and smaller portions of the original image, while still retaining something viewable.
Of course, once you exceed a certain threshold, the accuracy of your camera lens starts playing a major role in your ability to blow up images, so for this application, that could also be considered a 'cut-off' point.
And the study was of the plane striking the building, it made absolutely ZERO study on the effects of the fuel load burning inside the building along with the building conttents, and it did not forsee the heat insulating coatings around the steel being ripped off by the impact.
So let me get this straight...the building was designed to take an airliner strike, but only if said airliner had dry tanks? What you are saying makes no sense at all. The reason the fuel wasn't taken into account is because it is incapable of burning hot enough to weaken steel, insulated or not.
And if you google for the name of the idiot that wrote that e-mail, he was FIRED by UL for LYING about everything he said in the e-mail!!!
Umm, no. He was fired for speaking out against the 'official version of events'.
Note this choice quote - "UL vehemently denied last week that it ever certified the materials."
Note that this 'choice quote' is a bald-faced lie. UL's CEO, Loring Knoblauch, was quoted as saying that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC buildings, and that everyone involved should all be proud that the buildings had stood for so long under such intense conditions.
In 2003, in a written reply to a communication from Kevin Ryan expressing dismay over the UL's reputation, Knoblauch wrote:"We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them."
In a subsequent communication with Tom Chapin, the manager of UL's Fire Protection division., Chapin reminded Ryan that UL was the "leader in fire research testing". He then went on to say that although the UL does not certify structural steel per se, ther job is to: "produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119."...in short, to certify assemblies of which steel is a component.
FROM THIS MOMENT ON you are not ever allowed to quote this stupid e-mail ever again.
On the contrary, from this moment on, I'll quote Kevin Ryan more than ever. The UL's precipitous termination of his employement and subsequent lies do not invalidate Ryan's argument...they certify it.
The guy was so incompetent that UL FIRED HIM outright.
That is a lie. He wasn't fired for incompetence, he was fired for embarassing the company, by questioning the government's story. (Note: the UL currently enjoys tax-exempt status, courtesy of that same government.)
Yes, a DIFFERENT BUILDING with a different contruction and a different fire. That fire was a fire of the building's contents, not jet fuel.
Exactly. The Madrid fire burned far hotter and for far longer than the jet fuel splashed inside the WTC towers. In fact, from NIST's own fact sheet:
The jet fuel, which ignited the fires, was mostly consumed within the first few minutes after impact. The fires that burned for almost the entire time that the buildings remained standing were due mainly to burning building contents and, to a lesser extent, aircraft contents, not jet fuel.
Nor was that building's steel members stripped of their heat resistent coatings by a jetliner impact.
As shown before, the jet fuel was incapable of raising the temperature of the steel enough to weaken it, even uninsulated sections.
NOR where there a FULL 20 floors of building above the floors that were burning.
The Madrid skyscraper was not overdesigned to 600% of specifications (2000% for the core), and yet it still managed to support a massive construction crane perched on its roof.
Pools of fuel that have vaporized in an area not yet connected to the fire, that suddenly catch fire. Aerosols of dust. (grain elevator explosions) Air in sealed spaces being heated until the sealed spaces b
That is not a problem at all, since no one claimed that it collapsed when the plane impacted. It collapsed when the top part of the building crashed down on the floors below, which then crashed down, and so on.
The point that I was making was that if the building wasn't immediately destroyed by the impact of the airliner (which it wasn't), then you have to postulate an additional damage vector to explain the subsequent collapse. As I have shown, the fire is insufficient for this purpose.
No mention of the North Tower in your post...I guess you're still chewing on that one.
Because of its construction, yes. Read the Popular Mechanics article.
You mean this passage?
What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors, it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.
Since the theory of 'progressive collapse' has never before or since been observed outside of the events of 9/11, to attempt to dismiss the WTC 7 collapse by use of this dubious theory is putting the cart before the horse.
Yes it could. Yes it does.
Apparently, we've exhausted your capacity for rational thought.
As for explosions only being caused by bombs, ever, that is of course an insane claim from an insane person. You need to get out more. Seriously.
Yup. We've definitely exhausted your capacity.
Your steadfast clinging to an 'official version of events' that is demonstrably false, as well as your utter refusal to acept even the most elementary of facts, leads me to one of two conclusions regarding your motives:
You're just a regular Joe, who waves the flag and believes that questioning our government is treasonous. You may mean well, but your unquestioning faith in our government is blinding you to the truth.
- or -
You're a government shill, bought and paid for, who patrols message boards like this in pursuit of your astroturfing campaign to keep the majority of the populace believing the government's lies.
Frankly, I don't care which. If the former is true, perhaps I've planted enough doubt to make you start to think for yourself. If the latter, then I can rest assured that your poisonous lies don't deceive anyone else reading this thread.
The 757 is a bigger plane, so yes, your point is invalid. Actually, I need to interject a correction here. I misspoke in my earlier responses...the airliners that struck the WTC towers were 767s (the aircraft that allegedly struck the Pentagon and the aircraft whose remains were found near Shanksville, PA were the 757s). That being said, let's do an in-depth comparison of the 707 and the 767:
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds, the maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.
The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet, the wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet, the length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel, the Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s, the cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.
All in all, fairly similar. The 767 is slightly heavier, but the 707 is slightly faster. Here's a calculation of the energy each aircraft would release if it struck an object at its cruising speed:
Boeing 707:
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
Boeing 767:
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).
Now isn't that interesting??? Due to its faster cruising speed, the 707 actually hits harder on impact than the 767. Of course, all this is merely hypothetical. Lets move this into the real world now, by plugging in the speeds of the actual 767s on inpact with the towers:
AA Flight 11: 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).
UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).
Now let's see how those numbers stack up against the energy from the impact the towers were designed to take: the 707:
Flight 11: 3,950,950 Kilojoules/5,607,720 Kilojoules = 70% of required energy.
Flight 175: 6,227,270 Kilojoules/5,607,720 Kilojoules = 111% of required energy.
Now, as Flight 175 did in fact deliver energy 11% in excess of the reported design standard, one could conceivably make the argument that the South Tower was felled by the impact. There's just two problems:
To reach this conclusion, one must ignore the inconvenient fact that the WTC towers were overdesigned by 600%,
- and -
There's the tiny problem that the North Tower didn't collapse when the jet impacted...it collapsed 56 minutes later.
As for the North Tower, Flight 11 only managed to deliver 70% of the required energy. Care to explain that?
No there would not. Ignoring the laws of physics may serve you well in other arguments, but I'm just not going to let sloppy thinking like that slide. Provide grounds for your contention that debris can slam through a concrete and steel structure (incidentally, pulverizing said concrete to sub-100 micron particles) as fast as said debris fall through air, or admit it is groundless.
No they were not. The text you were quoting talked about "melting steel". You couldn't be bothered to read the letter when I linked to it initially, and you couldn't be bothered to read the letter when I subsequently posted the relevant passage. No wonder you're so secure in your misconceptions.
Try to read it again:
Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low
Just to clarify...the OP didn't pull that sentence out of thin air...
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.
Look, the crap you are spewing out has been answered a million times.
Odd, then, that you failed to sufficiently answer them in your response. All we get from you is more distortions and evasions.
Repeating lies won't make them true.
Then why do you persist?
This is really a waste of time, except that you may convince some gullible idiot that you are telling the truth.
Exactly why I'm taking the time to debunk your nonsense now.
As you point out, they were built to withstand smaller planes.
The 707 and 757 are virtually identical in weight, and actually have the same fuselage diameter. Meanwhile, the WTCs were overdesigned by 600% Still want to argue that the 757 is sufficiently different from the 707 to invalidate my point?
And then the top part fell down on the floors below because of the plane, and the building went to the ground.
Setting aside for just a moment that you're presenting the conclusion of your argument as if it was a defense, if the collapse had occured as you suggest, then there would have been a necessary slowdown as the 'top part' impacted the rest of the building, overcame the resistance of the steel structure, and caused the collapse. Video evidence contradicts this, however, instead showing the towers collapsing at free-fall speeds. No stutters or pauses of any type, just a smooth acceleration all the way down.
Again, it doesn't have to melt. It weakens at significantly lower temperatures.
Again, the temperatures of the kerosene fires were far too low to cause the weakening you speak of. Again, the steel in question is ASTM E119 certified. Apparently, you didn't check the link I provided, in which Kevin R. Ryan, Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories, South Bend, Indiana (A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.), states:
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I?m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this st
Your post is the one containing lies, deception, manipulation and general nonsense and unfounded claims, hkmwbz.
Let's go over them one at a time, shall we?
No steel/concrete skyscraper has ever had huge planes smash into them.
Ignoring for just a moment that that statement is patently untrue, the fact is that the WTC towers were specifically designed to be able to withstand a strike from an airliner. The airliner cited is a 707, the largest airliner of the day, and only slightly smaller than the 757s that did strike. At any rate, the towers did in fact weather the strike just fine, only swaying back and forth a few feet.
Straw man. The steel didn't melt. It was hot enough to significantly weaken it (ask a blacksmith), but not to melt it.
Wrong. The steel in question was rated ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F (1100C) for several hours. There is simply no way that a kerosene fire could raise the temperature of the steel that high. And yet, WTC1 collapsed in only 102 minutes, while WTC 2 collapsed in only 56 minutes.
No steel/concrete building has had the top part partly separated from the rest of the building, only to give in and fall down on the floors below.
Wrong again. During the Madrid skyscraper fire (which burned far hotter and far longer than the either WTC tower), the steel warped enough to send the top ten floors crashing down upon the rest of the structure. However, the building did not collapse, and even managed to continue supporting a massive construction crane on the roof.
Yes. It was severely damaged by falling debris from the other buildings.
Wrong a third time. Check this map to see the relative placement of the buildings. Building 7 was never hit with more than incidental debris, yet, it collapsed sudddenly and completely into its own footprint, precisely like the twin towers. Perhaps you're thinking of WTC 6, which stood right next to the north tower, and was severely damaged by falling debris (two gigantic holes punched down enitrely through the structure). Problem is...despite this horrrendous damage, WTC 6 continued to stand until it was demolished during the cleanup.
If you are implying that "explosions" == "bombs", then you are, frankly, a fucking moron. Many things can cause explosions.
I call bullshit. List your candidates.
If you think that "looks like" == "actually is", then you are, frankly, a fucking moron.
Perhaps you'd like to give your explanation of what the firefighters witnessed, then.
When a building collapses, there is lots of air which suddenly finds itself in a lot less space, so it finds its ways out, resulting in what people observed - puffs of smoke, or puffs of dust, debris, etc.
First of all, you're talking about a different point than the parent. Since both points are important, I'll address them both (yours first).
I assume you're referring to the jets of gas and dust that were observed appearing at regular locations down the side of the building during the collapse. Here's where your explanation falls flat:
If the jets were nothing more than escaping air, how is it that they were filled with dust and smoke, despite the inconvenient fact that there was no damage whatsoever on those lower floors? Where could that smoke and dust have come from?
How is it that the jets were so regular in appearance, some even visible from two sides of the tower simultaneously? If this was just pressurized gas finding a way out, as you assert, once it had blown one window, the pressure would decrease, pr
Since I was on an on-site call for much of yesterday, this is the first opportunity I've had to post here. Sorry for the delay.
Well, I've looked very carefully at the newly released video (as I'm sure everyone else in the nation has by now), and like most others, I'm rather disappointed. I was really hoping for some sort of conclusive evidence (one way or another) so we might finally put one of the 9/11 controversies to bed.
Unfortunately, the newly released video shows nothing conclusive...quite the contrary. There is only one frame that contains new information...the alleged 'nose cone'. However, this nose cone certainly does not look like it belongs to a 757, although it is understandable that at the speeds this object was travelling (450-500 mph), there will be a certain amount of blurring.
It's a real shame that the only frame in video 1 that seems to show any of the aircraft has the aircraft hidden behind that yellow column, while the only frame in video 2 that seems to show any of the aircraft shows only a tiny bit of the nose. I realize that these are CCTV cameras whose framerate is not high, but while it's unfortunate that video 1 contains no useful information about the aircraft, the fact that video 2 has no useful info either can only be described as unfortunate squared. How unlucky can you get?
From the BBC article:
"Finally, we hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories involving American Airlines Flight 77," president Tom Fitton said.
Exactly how is a blurry, indistinct shot of a nose cone that doesn't seem to belong to a 757 going to 'put to rest' the conspiracy theories? All this video can do is fan the flames.
This video was not released to attempt to put the conspiracy theories to rest...it was released for one purpose only...to forcefully remind the general public of 9/11. Bush' numbers at the polls are abyssmal, and beating his breast over 9/11 hs been proven to help them. After all, the link to the video on Fox News is titled 'Timely reminder of a clear and present danger'. Timely, indeed.
If the government was truly interested in ending the controversy, why not release the several other videos that were shot that day? Neil Cavuto of Fox News said that 'the other videos didn't pan out', but if that's the case, why does the government need to deny access to them at all? Why can't we see them? It's not like the don't exist.
Another quote from Fox News' Neil Cavuto:
"It is odd that this image hits our senses as the debate over our freedoms hits the headlines."
No, Neil, it's not 'odd' at all. It's what we've come to expect from a President who shamelessly uses the horror of 9/11 to further his own political ends.
Re:GuloGulo's back to his old tricks. Big surprise
on
"H-Prize" Announced
·
· Score: 1
I think I did more than that...I think I scared him off Slashdot entirely.
The assumption is that because the Trojan is only deleting certain file types in specific download directories used by P2P programs -- one of the main sources of inadvertent malware infection -- it is attempting to protect those it manages to infect.
Well, that's a remarkably stupid assumption.
What's more likely?
The Trojan was designed to protect users from malware by deleting contents of P2P directories,
- or -
The Trojan was designed to strike a blow against P2P file sharers deleting contents of P2P directories.
Let's analyze who benefits from each scenario:
No one benefits, since the 'benefits' of having files that might be infected with malware deleted is more than offset by the security problems introduced by the deactivation of antivirus software, as well as the inadvertent deletion of many innocent files. Also, the Trojan writer, (in this scenario, a "Robin Hood" type character), receives no benefit other than a warm fuzzy feeling.
RIAA, MPAA, and various software companies all realize tangible financial benefits as illegal file sharing is dealt a serious blow. Also, the Trojan writer, (in this scenario, a mercenary for hire) takes home a nice fat paycheck for a job well done.
I pick avarice over sloppily executed altruism any day. I find it intriguing that this alternate explanation apparently didn't even occur to PC World.
There were dozens upon dozens of eyewitness reports who say that a commercial jetliner was what crashed into the Pentagon.
This statement is misleading in the extreme. Most of these eyewitnesses were not in the proper position to actually witness the aircraft striking the Pentagon. Also, there are several witnesses who claimed to see a missile...as well as several eyewitnesses who claim to have seen a commuter plane. These differences in testimony are not at all surprising, given the historic unreliability of eyewitness testimony, as well as the simple fact that the object was travelling at approximately 500 miles per hour.
What is telling, however, is what your eyewitnesses didn't report...namely, the terrific blast of turbulence that would have necessarily accompanied a 757 travelling 500 miles per hour mere feet above the ground.
At any rate, physical evidence trumps eyewitness evidence any day of the week, so if we really want to get to the bottom of this, we ought to consider the ample physical evidence present at the site.
All of the "conspiracy" reports talk about how "no wreckage" was found at the scene. That is patently false.
And this is a patent Straw man argument. Certainly, there is wreckage...there are even airplane parts visible within said wreckage. There are other sites that examine those pieces in detail and present compelling arguments that these pieces did not, and could not, come from a Boeing 757, but I'll let you research those in your own time. The assertion that I was making, however, was that there simply is not enough wreckage to acount for the mass of the 757.
There was TONS of Boeing 757 wreckage recovered, in total, from the Pentagon.
I call bullshit. Link, please.
The ONLY place I've EVER seen any claims about supposed video from the Sheraton, gas stations, etc., is in the internet flash video. I have seen no reference or proof ANYWHERE else, from ANY source, that videos have supposedly been confiscated "minutes" later by the FBI.
Funny how I was able to find it...took me all of 30 seconds, too.
Also, stop and think about this: where was the (visible) "wreckage" from the WTC towers? Is the only reason we even believe that commercial planes crashed into the towers is because we were able to see it with our own eyes?
Two things:
This is an utterly ridiculous comparison to make. The impact on the WTC towers happened some 70 stories up, while the Pentagon impact allegedly occured while the aircraft was mere inches from the Pentagon lawn. I'd direct you to sort through the WTC rubble for the aircraft pieces, but there's two problems with that:
The cleanup was done in record time, denying investigators a chance to examine the debris (itself a federal crime). and
Virtually all the steel was sectioned into 30-foot lengths, while all the concrete was completely pulverized into fine dust. It's doubtful the aircraft debris could have survived such total destruction (let's ignore, for just a moment, that steel from buildings involved in accidental collapes does not magically seperate into 30-foot lengths, and that the total kinetic energy generated by the WTC collapse was nowhere near the energy required to pulverize the concrete).
But, if you still insist on drawing this ridiculous parallel, all one needs to do is look at pictures of the WTC impacts. In each impact, the silhouette of the impacting aircraft is obvious, from the fuselage to the wingtips. Remember that these were steel columns that these 'fragile' wingtips sliced through like so much butter. Such is the power of kinetic energy.
However, when we return to the Pentagon, we are now asked to believe that the wings of the impacting 757 magically 'folded up' along the fuselage, to allow the e
That's easy. The Madrid building didn't have the fireproofing insulation blown off of ten floors worth of steel supports.
The ASTM E119 certified steel comprising the structure of the WTC twin towers was able to take temperatures of 1100 degrees Celsius for several hours while maintaining structural integrity, without the benefit of 'fireproofing insulation'...at least, that's the U.L's opinion...and I'm inclined to trust them.
The jet fuel burning in the WTC could not have even come close to softening or annealing the structural steel of the WTC, let alone in as little time as 85 minutes. Please look here for an excellent mathmatical proof of this.
One plane hit near the center of the tower, the other farther off center. The offset was of little ultimate consequence given the load-bearing nature of the open floor plan.
Sorry, but I'm not buying that. It's farfetched enough to believe an airliner crash (which the towers were specifically designed to withstand) plus weak kerosene fires burning in an oxygen-poor environment could somehow make every load-bearing member fail simultaneously, but expecting another airliner crash in a different part of the other tower could somehow yield the same perfectly symmetrical collapse is beyond incredulity.
It seems obvious that it was a less robust design
Really? 'Seems obvious'?
If you've done any research into WTC 7 you would know that due to it a) being built straddling an existing electrical substation, and b) being Mayor Guiliani's doomsday bunker (a $15 million project), a command post from which to operate in case of a total infrastructure breakdown, it was one of the most (if not the most) overdesigned structures on the planet.
that was hit with about 50 stories of debris from the neighboring tower's collapse; have you been to ground zero? Building 7 and Building 6 were both heavily damaged by debris from the north tower.
Apparently you haven't...try checking out this map: You'll see that WTC 7 is significantly farther away from the nortrh tower than WTC 6. In fact, WTC 6 stands directly between the north tower and WTC 7.
So how exactly could '50 stories of debris' jump out from the north tower, over WTC 6, and strike WTC 7?
The answer is: it couldn't, and it didn't. There are no reports of more than incidental debris from the north tower striking WTC 7. In contrast, WTC 6 had two huge holes punched straight through it from top to bottom, but remained standing until it was demolished during the site cleanup.
I don't know where you got your '50 stories of debris' information, but we'd really like to see a link. This assertion runs contrary to all other observations of the event.
I vehemently disagree with your theories on several grounds, the most obvious being that no conclusive evidence has emerged to show any government involvement in this matter
What we have here is conclusive evidence that the incidents surrounding 9/11 did not occur in the fashion described by the official version of events. Since that version was researched, verified, and published by our government, they are, by definition, involved in the matter. QED.
your theories are the ravings of a crackpot
That's hardly helpful. I could call your theories the ravings of a self-deluded Polyanna, but that wouldn't be helpful, either.
What is helpful is stimulating intelligent, informed, honest, and rational debate of the subject. I was once like you....I believed the 'official version of events' unquestioningly. When I was introduced to this information by a friend, I was overwhelmingly skeptical, so I decided to go about debunking the CT claims in favor of the official version.
Steel reinforced concrete construction is not similar to the WTC's construction.
Are you seriously maintaining that steel-reinforced concrete structures are more fire-resistant than steel-framed structures?
There are also many examples of buildings similar to the building in Madrid collapsing due to a fire.
Apparently not. What was your point again?
(BTW, I call bullshit on this FUD. Please give examples of steel-framed buildings that have collapsed due to fire, or admit they don't exist.)
You are basically stating that it impossible for a steel framed building to collapse from a fire. Perhaps you should inform the regulatory bodies who write fire codes and design specifications and inform them that their work is pointless.
Umm, the reason that it is impossible for a steel-framed building to collapse from fire is precisely because of the work done by the regulatory bodies who write fire codes and design specifications. Your contention that steel-framed buildings can collapse due to fire is the contention that would render their work pointless.
By the way, speaking of regulatory agencies, you might want to read this communication from Kevin R. Ryan shortly after the 'collapse by fire' theories began flying.
Conspiracy or not, however, it seems more logical to me that a building which is known to be collapsible by fire did collapse by fire
You can't be serious. The only reason that the buildings were 'known to be collapsable by fire' is because the 'official account of events' maintains that they indeed collapsed from fire, despite the inconvinent fact that this explanation flies violently in the face of all accepted knowledge of architecture, chemistrry, metallurgy, physics, and just plain common sense.
rather than a massive plot requiring shaped charges with fireproof wireless explosive blasting caps in shaped charges placed directly against every support column in 3 buildings.
Several floors in WTC 1, 2, and 7 were closed in the preceeding week due to "security concerns". Bomb-sniffing dogs were also removed during this period. Modern demolition explosive is fireproof, and wireless triggers are commonplace. Yes, it may seem "far-fetched" to someone who hasn't looked critically at the facts, but the longer you look, the more you are forced to conclude that the 'official account of events' does not add up.
If there's another "terrorist act", and the gubmit uses it to try for more inappropriate powers, shouldn't we view it instead that they're simply incompentent with their current powers?
You're assuming that the Congress will act rationally, instead of being drunk on the potent cocktail of fear and outrage that enabled Cheny to ram Patriot Act I and II through post 9/11.
Dubya & Company, however, have shown themselves to be masters of using terror and misguided patriotism to advance their agenda.
<GODWIN ALERT>
When Hitler wanted more power, but the rest of the government refused to acquiesce, he engineered the Reichstag Fire. After blaming the fire on the 'Communists', and trotting out Marinus van der Lubbe to substantiate the claim, the German Government was all too happy to activate the Enabling Act, giving Hitler the power to pass laws by mere decree.
Now make the following substitutions in the above text:
Replace 'Hitler' with 'Bush'.
Replace 'Reichstag Fire' with '9/11 attacks'.
Replace 'Communists' with 'Islamic extremists'.
Replace 'Marinus van der Lubbe' with 'Zacharias Moussaoui'.
Replace 'German' with 'American'.
Replace 'Enabling Act' with 'Patriot Act'.
Replace 'power to pass laws by mere decree' with 'authority to do whatever he deems necessary to defend our nation's security'.
"The situation right now is still of high risk," he added, 10 hours after fire engulfed the Windsor Building in the heart of Madrid's business and banking district. "It will take hours until this fire is declared under control."
At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F), said Javier Sanz, head of Madrid firefighters, on Sunday.
With morning light, the damage from the spectacular blaze that lit up the night and attracted thousands of onlookers was evident. The top floors were little more than charred steel twisted into destroyed shapes. Everything else was burned away.
Amazingly, a construction crane remained perched on the roof.
Now please explain to us how the Madrid skyscraper, which was of a similar truss design to the twin towers, managed to withstand a fire that burned for over 10 hours and reached peak temperatures of 800 degrees Celsius, even continuing to support a heavy construction crane perched on its roof, while WTC 1, which, according to all accounts, had a much cooler fire (roughly 250 degrees Celsius) burning within it, managed to collapse through sudden, total, and synchronous failure of all support structures, causing the building to fall straight down, at a speed only marginally slower than free-fall, into its own footprint, all in only 85 minutes.
When you're done with that, perhaps you can explain how, in a stunning suspension of the laws of probability, WTC 2 collapsed in exactly the same manner, despite having sustaned impact damage and fire damage substantially different from WTC1.
And if you've managed to make it this far, mabye you can then enlighten us on how WTC 7, which was of a completely different design than WTC 1 and 2, collapsed into its own footprint in, again, exactly the same manner, despite the tiny detail that it was never struck by an airplane.
Apologies for the length that this post grew to, but as you can see, there are many questions that need to be addressed. I look forward to your reply.
If we get attacked again, it's just the government solidifying it's position by faking another disaster.
If we don't get attacked again, it has nothing to do with the men and women trying hard to keep it from happening, it's just that the government feels comfortable in their position and there is no need for further selfmade disasters on their part.
Exactly. Your insinuation that this is a catch-22 falls flat in light of the more than ample evidence that the reality of the situation is mutually incompatible with the 'official version of events'.
'the government', composed of millions of people
Specious argument. Not all of the government would need to be involved and complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Or perhaps you're insinuating that my local postman has intimate knowledge of the machinations behind 9/11?
involving every law enforcement, millitary, intelligence, congressional, judicial, etc, etc body
Again, a totally specious argument. Perhaps I should demand answers from my circuit court? Or my DMV? Mabye my meter-reader?
and have managed to keep it a secret for half a decade.
Not especially, since I, and ordinary Joe, managed to hear about it. The reason it's so 'secret' is because it's kept almost entirely out of the press. We haven't had a truly 'free press' in this country for some time. In fact, it is a subject of debate whether or not we've ever had a 'free press'.
Fortunately, it's not necessary to rely on the press to reach conclusions about the events surrounding 9/11. The facts are freely available, and only a moderate application of logic and common sense are required to come to the realization that there is far more to the story than our government is telling us.
While the OP's attack was a bit base, it was far from baseless, and Russ' aprocyphal response did absolutely nothing to remedy the situation.
As I said before, Russ would serve his interests much more effectively if he would present rational arguments, rather than claim a high score on a test taken 24 years ago as a defense.
The reason I "bragged" about my math score on the GRE exam is that a) someone explicitly questioned my math ability in a insulting way, and b) it is an objective measure.
As has been said before, your alleged results of the GRE mean little, although you seem to use this argument on a regular basis. From the linked article:
I don't usually brag about myself, but when I am insulted like that I feel that I have the right to brag to some extent. I scored in the top 1% of the Graduate Records Exam (GRE), which is taken by engineering graduates to get into graduate school.
"Don't usually brag", huh? On the contrary, it looks like 'bragging' is your standard M.O..
I have published many papers since then, but they would be more or less meaningless to someone not in my field.
This claim intrigued me, so I decided to do some research. What I found was intriguing. While the majority of search results seeem to be posts by Russ on various bulletin boards touting his bona fides, very few seemed to be in regards to actual work done by him in his ostensible field of expertise. Several results, however, stood out:
It's nice to see someone else here who refuses to swallow the 'official account' of the events of 9/11 at face value. If you haven't already seen this site, please check it out. There's a lot of information here, and while much of it is questionable, that's the whole point, isn't it? Questioning?
<sarcasm>Curses! All my carefully crafted arguments have been demolished by your stunning 'you are stupid' argument! Everybody knows there's no defense against that!</sarcasm>
If you want to discuss the issue at hand, please do so. If, however, 'you are a stupid-head' is the extent of your debate skills, please don't waste our time.
Slashdot Mirror
You're just adding data, but not improving the viewable image. Why have an image that is higher res than a monitor or your eyeball's ability to process data?
While there is indeed a limit to how good the original image may be, I believe the major benefit of higher and higher res is the ability to blow up smaller and smaller portions of the original image, while still retaining something viewable.
Of course, once you exceed a certain threshold, the accuracy of your camera lens starts playing a major role in your ability to blow up images, so for this application, that could also be considered a 'cut-off' point.
And the study was of the plane striking the building, it made absolutely ZERO study on the effects of the fuel load burning inside the building along with the building conttents, and it did not forsee the heat insulating coatings around the steel being ripped off by the impact.
So let me get this straight...the building was designed to take an airliner strike, but only if said airliner had dry tanks?
What you are saying makes no sense at all. The reason the fuel wasn't taken into account is because it is incapable of burning hot enough to weaken steel, insulated or not.
And if you google for the name of the idiot that wrote that e-mail, he was FIRED by UL for LYING about everything he said in the e-mail!!!
Umm, no. He was fired for speaking out against the 'official version of events'.
Note this choice quote - "UL vehemently denied last week that it ever certified the materials."
Note that this 'choice quote' is a bald-faced lie. UL's CEO, Loring Knoblauch, was quoted as saying that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC buildings, and that everyone involved should all be proud that the buildings had stood for so long under such intense conditions.
In 2003, in a written reply to a communication from Kevin Ryan expressing dismay over the UL's reputation, Knoblauch wrote:"We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them."
In a subsequent communication with Tom Chapin, the manager of UL's Fire Protection division., Chapin reminded Ryan that UL was the "leader in fire research testing". He then went on to say that although the UL does not certify structural steel per se, ther job is to: "produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119."...in short, to certify assemblies of which steel is a component.
FROM THIS MOMENT ON you are not ever allowed to quote this stupid e-mail ever again.
On the contrary, from this moment on, I'll quote Kevin Ryan more than ever. The UL's precipitous termination of his employement and subsequent lies do not invalidate Ryan's argument...they certify it.
The guy was so incompetent that UL FIRED HIM outright.
That is a lie. He wasn't fired for incompetence, he was fired for embarassing the company, by questioning the government's story. (Note: the UL currently enjoys tax-exempt status, courtesy of that same government.)
Yes, a DIFFERENT BUILDING with a different contruction and a different fire. That fire was a fire of the building's contents, not jet fuel.
Exactly. The Madrid fire burned far hotter and for far longer than the jet fuel splashed inside the WTC towers. In fact, from NIST's own fact sheet:
Nor was that building's steel members stripped of their heat resistent coatings by a jetliner impact.
As shown before, the jet fuel was incapable of raising the temperature of the steel enough to weaken it, even uninsulated sections.
NOR where there a FULL 20 floors of building above the floors that were burning.
The Madrid skyscraper was not overdesigned to 600% of specifications (2000% for the core), and yet it still managed to support a massive construction crane perched on its roof.
Pools of fuel that have vaporized in an area not yet connected to the fire, that suddenly catch fire.
Aerosols of dust. (grain elevator explosions)
Air in sealed spaces being heated until the sealed spaces b
That is not a problem at all, since no one claimed that it collapsed when the plane impacted. It collapsed when the top part of the building crashed down on the floors below, which then crashed down, and so on.
The point that I was making was that if the building wasn't immediately destroyed by the impact of the airliner (which it wasn't), then you have to postulate an additional damage vector to explain the subsequent collapse. As I have shown, the fire is insufficient for this purpose.
No mention of the North Tower in your post...I guess you're still chewing on that one.
Because of its construction, yes. Read the Popular Mechanics article.
You mean this passage? Since the theory of 'progressive collapse' has never before or since been observed outside of the events of 9/11, to attempt to dismiss the WTC 7 collapse by use of this dubious theory is putting the cart before the horse.
Yes it could.
Yes it does.
Apparently, we've exhausted your capacity for rational thought.
As for explosions only being caused by bombs, ever, that is of course an insane claim from an insane person. You need to get out more. Seriously.
Yup. We've definitely exhausted your capacity.
Your steadfast clinging to an 'official version of events' that is demonstrably false, as well as your utter refusal to acept even the most elementary of facts, leads me to one of two conclusions regarding your motives:
- or -
Frankly, I don't care which. If the former is true, perhaps I've planted enough doubt to make you start to think for yourself. If the latter, then I can rest assured that your poisonous lies don't deceive anyone else reading this thread.
From my previous post:
There's the tiny problem that the North Tower didn't collapse when the jet impacted...it collapsed 56 minutes later.
That should read South Tower.
Actually, I need to interject a correction here. I misspoke in my earlier responses...the airliners that struck the WTC towers were 767s (the aircraft that allegedly struck the Pentagon and the aircraft whose remains were found near Shanksville, PA were the 757s). That being said, let's do an in-depth comparison of the 707 and the 767:
All in all, fairly similar. The 767 is slightly heavier, but the 707 is slightly faster.
Here's a calculation of the energy each aircraft would release if it struck an object at its cruising speed:
Now isn't that interesting??? Due to its faster cruising speed, the 707 actually hits harder on impact than the 767.
Of course, all this is merely hypothetical. Lets move this into the real world now, by plugging in the speeds of the actual 767s on inpact with the towers:
Now let's see how those numbers stack up against the energy from the impact the towers were designed to take: the 707:
Now, as Flight 175 did in fact deliver energy 11% in excess of the reported design standard, one could conceivably make the argument that the South Tower was felled by the impact. There's just two problems:
- and -
As for the North Tower, Flight 11 only managed to deliver 70% of the required energy. Care to explain that?
No there would not.
Ignoring the laws of physics may serve you well in other arguments, but I'm just not going to let sloppy thinking like that slide. Provide grounds for your contention that debris can slam through a concrete and steel structure (incidentally, pulverizing said concrete to sub-100 micron particles) as fast as said debris fall through air, or admit it is groundless.
No they were not. The text you were quoting talked about "melting steel".
You couldn't be bothered to read the letter when I linked to it initially, and you couldn't be bothered to read the letter when I subsequently posted the relevant passage. No wonder you're so secure in your misconceptions.
Try to read it again:
Just to clarify...the OP didn't pull that sentence out of thin air...
Let's hope the website makes proper mention of the all-important crate. ^_^
Look, the crap you are spewing out has been answered a million times.
Odd, then, that you failed to sufficiently answer them in your response. All we get from you is more distortions and evasions.
Repeating lies won't make them true.
Then why do you persist?
This is really a waste of time, except that you may convince some gullible idiot that you are telling the truth.
Exactly why I'm taking the time to debunk your nonsense now.
As you point out, they were built to withstand smaller planes.
The 707 and 757 are virtually identical in weight, and actually have the same fuselage diameter.
Meanwhile, the WTCs were overdesigned by 600%
Still want to argue that the 757 is sufficiently different from the 707 to invalidate my point?
And then the top part fell down on the floors below because of the plane, and the building went to the ground.
Setting aside for just a moment that you're presenting the conclusion of your argument as if it was a defense, if the collapse had occured as you suggest, then there would have been a necessary slowdown as the 'top part' impacted the rest of the building, overcame the resistance of the steel structure, and caused the collapse. Video evidence contradicts this, however, instead showing the towers collapsing at free-fall speeds. No stutters or pauses of any type, just a smooth acceleration all the way down.
Again, it doesn't have to melt. It weakens at significantly lower temperatures.
Again, the temperatures of the kerosene fires were far too low to cause the weakening you speak of. Again, the steel in question is ASTM E119 certified. Apparently, you didn't check the link I provided, in which Kevin R. Ryan,
Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories, South Bend, Indiana (A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.), states:
If you can't do the math, all you have is wild speculation.
Apparently, you didn't notice the link the parent provided. You'll find the math you're looking for there.
Your post is the one containing lies, deception, manipulation and general nonsense and unfounded claims, hkmwbz.
Let's go over them one at a time, shall we?
No steel/concrete skyscraper has ever had huge planes smash into them.
Ignoring for just a moment that that statement is patently untrue, the fact is that the WTC towers were specifically designed to be able to withstand a strike from an airliner. The airliner cited is a 707, the largest airliner of the day, and only slightly smaller than the 757s that did strike. At any rate, the towers did in fact weather the strike just fine, only swaying back and forth a few feet.
Straw man. The steel didn't melt. It was hot enough to significantly weaken it (ask a blacksmith), but not to melt it.
Wrong. The steel in question was rated ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F (1100C) for several hours. There is simply no way that a kerosene fire could raise the temperature of the steel that high. And yet, WTC1 collapsed in only 102 minutes, while WTC 2 collapsed in only 56 minutes.
No steel/concrete building has had the top part partly separated from the rest of the building, only to give in and fall down on the floors below.
Wrong again. During the Madrid skyscraper fire (which burned far hotter and far longer than the either WTC tower), the steel warped enough to send the top ten floors crashing down upon the rest of the structure. However, the building did not collapse, and even managed to continue supporting a massive construction crane on the roof.
Yes. It was severely damaged by falling debris from the other buildings.
Wrong a third time. Check this map to see the relative placement of the buildings. Building 7 was never hit with more than incidental debris, yet, it collapsed sudddenly and completely into its own footprint, precisely like the twin towers. Perhaps you're thinking of WTC 6, which stood right next to the north tower, and was severely damaged by falling debris (two gigantic holes punched down enitrely through the structure). Problem is...despite this horrrendous damage, WTC 6 continued to stand until it was demolished during the cleanup.
If you are implying that "explosions" == "bombs", then you are, frankly, a fucking moron. Many things can cause explosions.
I call bullshit. List your candidates.
If you think that "looks like" == "actually is", then you are, frankly, a fucking moron.
Perhaps you'd like to give your explanation of what the firefighters witnessed, then.
When a building collapses, there is lots of air which suddenly finds itself in a lot less space, so it finds its ways out, resulting in what people observed - puffs of smoke, or puffs of dust, debris, etc.
First of all, you're talking about a different point than the parent. Since both points are important, I'll address them both (yours first).
I assume you're referring to the jets of gas and dust that were observed appearing at regular locations down the side of the building during the collapse. Here's where your explanation falls flat:
Well, I guess that's my cue.
Since I was on an on-site call for much of yesterday, this is the first opportunity I've had to post here. Sorry for the delay.
Well, I've looked very carefully at the newly released video (as I'm sure everyone else in the nation has by now), and like most others, I'm rather disappointed. I was really hoping for some sort of conclusive evidence (one way or another) so we might finally put one of the 9/11 controversies to bed.
Unfortunately, the newly released video shows nothing conclusive...quite the contrary. There is only one frame that contains new information...the alleged 'nose cone'. However, this nose cone certainly does not look like it belongs to a 757, although it is understandable that at the speeds this object was travelling (450-500 mph), there will be a certain amount of blurring.
It's a real shame that the only frame in video 1 that seems to show any of the aircraft has the aircraft hidden behind that yellow column, while the only frame in video 2 that seems to show any of the aircraft shows only a tiny bit of the nose. I realize that these are CCTV cameras whose framerate is not high, but while it's unfortunate that video 1 contains no useful information about the aircraft, the fact that video 2 has no useful info either can only be described as unfortunate squared. How unlucky can you get?
From the BBC article: Exactly how is a blurry, indistinct shot of a nose cone that doesn't seem to belong to a 757 going to 'put to rest' the conspiracy theories? All this video can do is fan the flames.
This video was not released to attempt to put the conspiracy theories to rest...it was released for one purpose only...to forcefully remind the general public of 9/11. Bush' numbers at the polls are abyssmal, and beating his breast over 9/11 hs been proven to help them. After all, the link to the video on Fox News is titled 'Timely reminder of a clear and present danger'. Timely, indeed.
If the government was truly interested in ending the controversy, why not release the several other videos that were shot that day? Neil Cavuto of Fox News said that 'the other videos didn't pan out', but if that's the case, why does the government need to deny access to them at all? Why can't we see them? It's not like the don't exist.
Another quote from Fox News' Neil Cavuto: No, Neil, it's not 'odd' at all. It's what we've come to expect from a President who shamelessly uses the horror of 9/11 to further his own political ends.
I think I did more than that...I think I scared him off Slashdot entirely.
From TFA: Well, that's a remarkably stupid assumption.
What's more likely?
- or -
Let's analyze who benefits from each scenario:
I pick avarice over sloppily executed altruism any day. I find it intriguing that this alternate explanation apparently didn't even occur to PC World.
There were dozens upon dozens of eyewitness reports who say that a commercial jetliner was what crashed into the Pentagon.
This statement is misleading in the extreme. Most of these eyewitnesses were not in the proper position to actually witness the aircraft striking the Pentagon. Also, there are several witnesses who claimed to see a missile...as well as several eyewitnesses who claim to have seen a commuter plane. These differences in testimony are not at all surprising, given the historic unreliability of eyewitness testimony, as well as the simple fact that the object was travelling at approximately 500 miles per hour.
What is telling, however, is what your eyewitnesses didn't report...namely, the terrific blast of turbulence that would have necessarily accompanied a 757 travelling 500 miles per hour mere feet above the ground.
At any rate, physical evidence trumps eyewitness evidence any day of the week, so if we really want to get to the bottom of this, we ought to consider the ample physical evidence present at the site.
All of the "conspiracy" reports talk about how "no wreckage" was found at the scene. That is patently false.
And this is a patent Straw man argument. Certainly, there is wreckage...there are even airplane parts visible within said wreckage. There are other sites that examine those pieces in detail and present compelling arguments that these pieces did not, and could not, come from a Boeing 757, but I'll let you research those in your own time. The assertion that I was making, however, was that there simply is not enough wreckage to acount for the mass of the 757.
There was TONS of Boeing 757 wreckage recovered, in total, from the Pentagon.
I call bullshit. Link, please.
The ONLY place I've EVER seen any claims about supposed video from the Sheraton, gas stations, etc., is in the internet flash video. I have seen no reference or proof ANYWHERE else, from ANY source, that videos have supposedly been confiscated "minutes" later by the FBI.
Ask, and ye shall receive.
Funny how I was able to find it...took me all of 30 seconds, too.
Also, stop and think about this: where was the (visible) "wreckage" from the WTC towers? Is the only reason we even believe that commercial planes crashed into the towers is because we were able to see it with our own eyes?
Two things:
and
However, when we return to the Pentagon, we are now asked to believe that the wings of the impacting 757 magically 'folded up' along the fuselage, to allow the e
That's easy. The Madrid building didn't have the fireproofing insulation blown off of ten floors worth of steel supports.
The ASTM E119 certified steel comprising the structure of the WTC twin towers was able to take temperatures of 1100 degrees Celsius for several hours while maintaining structural integrity, without the benefit of 'fireproofing insulation'...at least, that's the U.L's opinion...and I'm inclined to trust them.
The jet fuel burning in the WTC could not have even come close to softening or annealing the structural steel of the WTC, let alone in as little time as 85 minutes. Please look here for an excellent mathmatical proof of this.
One plane hit near the center of the tower, the other farther off center. The offset was of little ultimate consequence given the load-bearing nature of the open floor plan.
Sorry, but I'm not buying that. It's farfetched enough to believe an airliner crash (which the towers were specifically designed to withstand) plus weak kerosene fires burning in an oxygen-poor environment could somehow make every load-bearing member fail simultaneously, but expecting another airliner crash in a different part of the other tower could somehow yield the same perfectly symmetrical collapse is beyond incredulity.
It seems obvious that it was a less robust design
Really? 'Seems obvious'?
If you've done any research into WTC 7 you would know that due to it a) being built straddling an existing electrical substation, and b) being Mayor Guiliani's doomsday bunker (a $15 million project), a command post from which to operate in case of a total infrastructure breakdown, it was one of the most (if not the most) overdesigned structures on the planet.
that was hit with about 50 stories of debris from the neighboring tower's collapse; have you been to ground zero? Building 7 and Building 6 were both heavily damaged by debris from the north tower.
Apparently you haven't...try checking out this map:
You'll see that WTC 7 is significantly farther away from the nortrh tower than WTC 6. In fact, WTC 6 stands directly between the north tower and WTC 7.
So how exactly could '50 stories of debris' jump out from the north tower, over WTC 6, and strike WTC 7?
The answer is: it couldn't, and it didn't. There are no reports of more than incidental debris from the north tower striking WTC 7. In contrast, WTC 6 had two huge holes punched straight through it from top to bottom, but remained standing until it was demolished during the site cleanup.
I don't know where you got your '50 stories of debris' information, but we'd really like to see a link. This assertion runs contrary to all other observations of the event.
I vehemently disagree with your theories on several grounds, the most obvious being that no conclusive evidence has emerged to show any government involvement in this matter
What we have here is conclusive evidence that the incidents surrounding 9/11 did not occur in the fashion described by the official version of events. Since that version was researched, verified, and published by our government, they are, by definition, involved in the matter. QED.
your theories are the ravings of a crackpot
That's hardly helpful. I could call your theories the ravings of a self-deluded Polyanna, but that wouldn't be helpful, either.
What is helpful is stimulating intelligent, informed, honest, and rational debate of the subject. I was once like you....I believed the 'official version of events' unquestioningly. When I was introduced to this information by a friend, I was overwhelmingly skeptical, so I decided to go about debunking the CT claims in favor of the official version.
However, the
What an amazing application of circular logic.
Steel reinforced concrete construction is not similar to the WTC's construction.
Are you seriously maintaining that steel-reinforced concrete structures are more fire-resistant than steel-framed structures?
There are also many examples of buildings similar to the building in Madrid collapsing due to a fire.
Apparently not. What was your point again?
(BTW, I call bullshit on this FUD. Please give examples of steel-framed buildings that have collapsed due to fire, or admit they don't exist.)
You are basically stating that it impossible for a steel framed building to collapse from a fire. Perhaps you should inform the regulatory bodies who write fire codes and design specifications and inform them that their work is pointless.
Umm, the reason that it is impossible for a steel-framed building to collapse from fire is precisely because of the work done by the regulatory bodies who write fire codes and design specifications. Your contention that steel-framed buildings can collapse due to fire is the contention that would render their work pointless.
By the way, speaking of regulatory agencies, you might want to read this communication from Kevin R. Ryan shortly after the 'collapse by fire' theories began flying.
Conspiracy or not, however, it seems more logical to me that a building which is known to be collapsible by fire did collapse by fire
You can't be serious. The only reason that the buildings were 'known to be collapsable by fire' is because the 'official account of events' maintains that they indeed collapsed from fire, despite the inconvinent fact that this explanation flies violently in the face of all accepted knowledge of architecture, chemistrry, metallurgy, physics, and just plain common sense.
rather than a massive plot requiring shaped charges with fireproof wireless explosive blasting caps in shaped charges placed directly against every support column in 3 buildings.
Several floors in WTC 1, 2, and 7 were closed in the preceeding week due to "security concerns". Bomb-sniffing dogs were also removed during this period.
Modern demolition explosive is fireproof, and wireless triggers are commonplace.
Yes, it may seem "far-fetched" to someone who hasn't looked critically at the facts, but the longer you look, the more you are forced to conclude that the 'official account of events' does not add up.
If there's another "terrorist act", and the gubmit uses it to try for more inappropriate powers, shouldn't we view it instead that they're simply incompentent with their current powers?
You're assuming that the Congress will act rationally, instead of being drunk on the potent cocktail of fear and outrage that enabled Cheny to ram Patriot Act I and II through post 9/11.
Dubya & Company, however, have shown themselves to be masters of using terror and misguided patriotism to advance their agenda.
<GODWIN ALERT>
When Hitler wanted more power, but the rest of the government refused to acquiesce, he engineered the Reichstag Fire. After blaming the fire on the 'Communists', and trotting out Marinus van der Lubbe to substantiate the claim, the German Government was all too happy to activate the Enabling Act, giving Hitler the power to pass laws by mere decree.
Now make the following substitutions in the above text:
Hitler's estate ought to sue for plagarism.
Here's a good example for you:
The Madrid Skyscraper Fire
From TFA (emphasis mine): Now please explain to us how the Madrid skyscraper, which was of a similar truss design to the twin towers, managed to withstand a fire that burned for over 10 hours and reached peak temperatures of 800 degrees Celsius, even continuing to support a heavy construction crane perched on its roof, while WTC 1, which, according to all accounts, had a much cooler fire (roughly 250 degrees Celsius) burning within it, managed to collapse through sudden, total, and synchronous failure of all support structures, causing the building to fall straight down, at a speed only marginally slower than free-fall, into its own footprint, all in only 85 minutes.
When you're done with that, perhaps you can explain how, in a stunning suspension of the laws of probability, WTC 2 collapsed in exactly the same manner, despite having sustaned impact damage and fire damage substantially different from WTC1.
And if you've managed to make it this far, mabye you can then enlighten us on how WTC 7, which was of a completely different design than WTC 1 and 2, collapsed into its own footprint in, again, exactly the same manner, despite the tiny detail that it was never struck by an airplane.
Apologies for the length that this post grew to, but as you can see, there are many questions that need to be addressed. I look forward to your reply.
If we get attacked again, it's just the government solidifying it's position by faking another disaster.
If we don't get attacked again, it has nothing to do with the men and women trying hard to keep it from happening, it's just that the government feels comfortable in their position and there is no need for further selfmade disasters on their part.
Exactly. Your insinuation that this is a catch-22 falls flat in light of the more than ample evidence that the reality of the situation is mutually incompatible with the 'official version of events'.
'the government', composed of millions of people
Specious argument. Not all of the government would need to be involved and complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Or perhaps you're insinuating that my local postman has intimate knowledge of the machinations behind 9/11?
involving every law enforcement, millitary, intelligence, congressional, judicial, etc, etc body
Again, a totally specious argument. Perhaps I should demand answers from my circuit court? Or my DMV? Mabye my meter-reader?
and have managed to keep it a secret for half a decade.
Not especially, since I, and ordinary Joe, managed to hear about it. The reason it's so 'secret' is because it's kept almost entirely out of the press. We haven't had a truly 'free press' in this country for some time. In fact, it is a subject of debate whether or not we've ever had a 'free press'.
Fortunately, it's not necessary to rely on the press to reach conclusions about the events surrounding 9/11. The facts are freely available, and only a moderate application of logic and common sense are required to come to the realization that there is far more to the story than our government is telling us.
Come to think of it, why *do* I waste my time here?
Simple. Because you're paid to.
I just hope you still get your government paycheck for this week, considering what a poor job you've done in this thread.
People are finally starting to wake up, and it scares your employers silly, doesn't it?
While the OP's attack was a bit base, it was far from baseless, and Russ' aprocyphal response did absolutely nothing to remedy the situation.
As I said before, Russ would serve his interests much more effectively if he would present rational arguments, rather than claim a high score on a test taken 24 years ago as a defense.
The reason I "bragged" about my math score on the GRE exam is that a) someone explicitly questioned my math ability in a insulting way, and b) it is an objective measure.
As has been said before, your alleged results of the GRE mean little, although you seem to use this argument on a regular basis. From the linked article: "Don't usually brag", huh? On the contrary, it looks like 'bragging' is your standard M.O..
I have published many papers since then, but they would be more or less meaningless to someone not in my field.
This claim intrigued me, so I decided to do some research. What I found was intriguing. While the majority of search results seeem to be posts by Russ on various bulletin boards touting his bona fides, very few seemed to be in regards to actual work done by him in his ostensible field of expertise. Several results, however, stood out:
And just in case you're not convinced by now that Russ is a right-wing shill, here's his defenses of Intelligent Design:
Russ Paielli stands exposed as a right-wing astroturfer, and his posts should be weighed accordingly.
And if you are so smart, I recommend you grow up sometime soon.
Excellent parting shot, Russ. Worthy of Brit Hume.
Greetings, fellow moonbat!
It's nice to see someone else here who refuses to swallow the 'official account' of the events of 9/11 at face value. If you haven't already seen this site, please check it out. There's a lot of information here, and while much of it is questionable, that's the whole point, isn't it? Questioning?
That's a dangerously careless attitude. To illustrate why, I refer you to everend Martin Niemoller's famous poem:
<sarcasm>Curses! All my carefully crafted arguments have been demolished by your stunning 'you are stupid' argument! Everybody knows there's no defense against that!</sarcasm>
If you want to discuss the issue at hand, please do so. If, however, 'you are a stupid-head' is the extent of your debate skills, please don't waste our time.