Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Geraldo Rivera Discusses 911
InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Fri 11/19/10 09:36 AM
much like many california buildings are built to withstand earthquakes(they have special rollers to help them absorb shifts), I think government buildings in strategic places, like new york, were equipped with emergency 'self destruct' type plans such as implosion devices after the first plane hit, I do believe it probable and possible that these backup emergency measures were taken to decrease fallout(falling straight down instead of exploding outward in a larger radius) ,,,not a conspiracy, just a theory,,,,and like JFK or MLK or Malcolm X assassinations we may never hear the WHOLE TRUTH Did you think up this theory all by yourself? I just realized that this is akin to the doomsday machine in Dr Strangelove.. An all time classic..

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Fri 11/19/10 09:48 AM
much like many california buildings are built to withstand earthquakes(they have special rollers to help them absorb shifts), I think government buildings in strategic places, like new york, were equipped with emergency 'self destruct' type plans such as implosion devices after the first plane hit, I do believe it probable and possible that these backup emergency measures were taken to decrease fallout(falling straight down instead of exploding outward in a larger radius) ,,,not a conspiracy, just a theory,,,,and like JFK or MLK or Malcolm X assassinations we may never hear the WHOLE TRUTH Did you think up this theory all by yourself? I just realized that this is akin to the doomsday machine in Dr Strangelove.. An all time classic.. Ha Ha. I think you are right. I wonder if the wiring is lightning protected?

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Sun 11/21/10 07:53 AM
Pentagon Attack The Pentagon attack defies expectations that this prime terrorist target would have been defended, and that a terrorist would have hit the front side in a simple maneuver, rather than the back side in an extreme precision aerobatic maneuver. Wide-Open Target The Pentagon -- the heart of the military establishment of the world's greatest super-power -- was hit after ample warning without being protected by any defensive action. The 9:37 strike was well over an hour after the first signs of a hijacking and 34 minutes after the South Tower strike confirmed that an attack was underway. The Pentagon is within 11 miles of Andrews Air Force Base, which apparently had two combat-ready fighter wings on 9/11/01. The attack plane was monitored on radar as it approached the capital. Unlikely Super-pilot Alleged Flight 77 pilot Hani Hanjour was not up to the task. The spiral dive approach to the Pentagon was such an extreme maneuver that experienced air traffic controllers thought it was military jet. 13 The tree-top final approach skimmed objects in the yard and crashed the plane into the first floor of the building. Experienced pilots have wondered if any human pilot could have executed the maneuver. Hani Hanjour was considered incompetent by his flight school instructors, and was denied rental of a single-engine plane. 14 http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html

willing2 Joined Sun 06/08/08 Posts: 20221	Sun 11/21/10 08:13 AM
Pentagon Attack The Pentagon attack defies expectations that this prime terrorist target would have been defended, and that a terrorist would have hit the front side in a simple maneuver, rather than the back side in an extreme precision aerobatic maneuver. Wide-Open Target The Pentagon -- the heart of the military establishment of the world's greatest super-power -- was hit after ample warning without being protected by any defensive action. The 9:37 strike was well over an hour after the first signs of a hijacking and 34 minutes after the South Tower strike confirmed that an attack was underway. The Pentagon is within 11 miles of Andrews Air Force Base, which apparently had two combat-ready fighter wings on 9/11/01. The attack plane was monitored on radar as it approached the capital. Unlikely Super-pilot Alleged Flight 77 pilot Hani Hanjour was not up to the task. The spiral dive approach to the Pentagon was such an extreme maneuver that experienced air traffic controllers thought it was military jet. 13 The tree-top final approach skimmed objects in the yard and crashed the plane into the first floor of the building. Experienced pilots have wondered if any human pilot could have executed the maneuver. Hani Hanjour was considered incompetent by his flight school instructors, and was denied rental of a single-engine plane. 14 http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html Now, you bounce from WTC CT to Pentagon. As far as wtc, how many cell phones or other electronic devices used then could have set off detonators?

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Sun 11/21/10 08:50 AM
Pentagon Attack The Pentagon attack defies expectations that this prime terrorist target would have been defended, and that a terrorist would have hit the front side in a simple maneuver, rather than the back side in an extreme precision aerobatic maneuver. Wide-Open Target The Pentagon -- the heart of the military establishment of the world's greatest super-power -- was hit after ample warning without being protected by any defensive action. The 9:37 strike was well over an hour after the first signs of a hijacking and 34 minutes after the South Tower strike confirmed that an attack was underway. The Pentagon is within 11 miles of Andrews Air Force Base, which apparently had two combat-ready fighter wings on 9/11/01. The attack plane was monitored on radar as it approached the capital. Unlikely Super-pilot Alleged Flight 77 pilot Hani Hanjour was not up to the task. The spiral dive approach to the Pentagon was such an extreme maneuver that experienced air traffic controllers thought it was military jet. 13 The tree-top final approach skimmed objects in the yard and crashed the plane into the first floor of the building. Experienced pilots have wondered if any human pilot could have executed the maneuver. Hani Hanjour was considered incompetent by his flight school instructors, and was denied rental of a single-engine plane. 14 http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html Now, you bounce from WTC CT to Pentagon. As far as wtc, how many cell phones or other electronic devices used then could have set off detonators? As I have stated before the only way the facts add up on 911 is to assume the buildings were wired to explode, norad stood down and it was an inside job. There is no way so many failures could have occured by coincidence.

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Sun 11/21/10 04:52 PM
Yea you stated that just like people used to state that the world was flat. It doesn't mean they are right.

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Wed 11/24/10 06:14 PM
Yea you stated that just like people used to state that the world was flat. It doesn't mean they are right. Fox Business host Andrew Napolitano revealed on Tuesday that he does not believe the government's account of the 9/11 attacks. Napolitano, who hosts "Freedom Watch" on Fox Business and is frequently seen on Fox News as a legal analyst, told radio host Alex Jones — who is a prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorist —that the attacks "couldn't possibly have been done the way the government told us." The subject came about when Jones noted that Geraldo Rivera had recently raised questions about the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Napolitano's Fox Business Show. 9/11 conspiracy theorists have centered on that building's collapse, contending that it was blown up by government forces. Jones asked Napolitano what his opinion about the issue was. Napolitano replied: "It's hard for me to believe that it came down by itself...I am gratified to see that people across the board are interested. I think twenty years from now, people will look at 9-11 the way we look at the assassination of JFK today. It couldn't possibly have been done the way the government told us." http://mediamatters.org/

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Thu 11/25/10 04:55 AM
yes because he is an expert on structural engineering and material science.

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Sat 11/27/10 09:03 AM
THEORY By Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor When both Judge Napolitano and Geraldo Rivera, biggest names on “fair and balanced” Fox News, agree that calling 9/11 a “wingnut conspiracy” was a mistake, you would expect more to happen. The government should be shaken to its roots, network after network should be picking up the story and something, anything, should be in the newspapers. Instead, everyone, yes, everyone in the media, everyone in government, is pretending it didn’t happen, just hoping it will go away. The reason they are reacting this way is simple, if even part of 9/11 gets out, part of the easily proven truth, there can’t be enough unexpected “heart attacks’ and plane crashes to keep everything from crashing in. 9/11 is the key, the only story. The seeming conspiracy over 9/11 is so far reaching, so many could be involved and, as it seems, are involved. You can’t be a little bit pregnant or slightly dead. WTC 7, or “Building ‘What’” as it is called, simply can’t be explained. Instead, the biggest news story since the Kennedy assassination is being treated like a celebrity drunk driving arrest. America is in two wars because of 9/11 and now we are told it was all a big mistake, the government “may” had done it but that’s just “water under the bridge,” or “forgive and forget.” No way, no how, we aren’t forgetting, no, we aren’t forgiving, not those who did it, not those who covered it up nor the press that lied through their teeth about it, no, inexorable to all but the real “wingnuts,” co-conspirators who need investigation... read the rest at http://redactednews.blogspot.com/2010/11/gordon-duff-911-bill-is-due.html

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Tue 11/30/10 04:24 PM
Pentagon Attack The Pentagon attack defies expectations that this prime terrorist target would have been defended, and that a terrorist would have hit the front side in a simple maneuver, rather than the back side in an extreme precision aerobatic maneuver. Wide-Open Target The Pentagon -- the heart of the military establishment of the world's greatest super-power -- was hit after ample warning without being protected by any defensive action. The 9:37 strike was well over an hour after the first signs of a hijacking and 34 minutes after the South Tower strike confirmed that an attack was underway. The Pentagon is within 11 miles of Andrews Air Force Base, which apparently had two combat-ready fighter wings on 9/11/01. The attack plane was monitored on radar as it approached the capital. Unlikely Super-pilot Alleged Flight 77 pilot Hani Hanjour was not up to the task. The spiral dive approach to the Pentagon was such an extreme maneuver that experienced air traffic controllers thought it was military jet. 13 The tree-top final approach skimmed objects in the yard and crashed the plane into the first floor of the building. Experienced pilots have wondered if any human pilot could have executed the maneuver. Hani Hanjour was considered incompetent by his flight school instructors, and was denied rental of a single-engine plane. 14 http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomalies.html Now, you bounce from WTC CT to Pentagon. As far as wtc, how many cell phones or other electronic devices used then could have set off detonators? As I have stated before the only way the facts add up on 911 is to assume the buildings were wired to explode, norad stood down and it was an inside job. There is no way so many failures could have occured by coincidence. But what you haven't done is explain how this was possible. In fact, no one involved in 9-11 truth has ever offered a realistic explanation as to how it was possible to plant enough explosives in the exact perfect positions to bring down the buildings. The amount of explosives and the miles of wiring necessary is so astronomical that to suggest it was done with no one seeing is just ridiculous.

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Tue 11/30/10 04:44 PM
The only way any of this logicly makes sence is to assume they were rigged to explode. If you think that way you dont need to twist words or twist logic or the laws of physics. They fell exactly as a building would had they been wired for demolition. SImple No, if you go look at some demolition footage the charges are set at the bottom, not at the top or (heaven forbid) at an upper floor you think a plane might hit. The building fell exactly how a hyperbolic catenary bending/shear open web truss failure reacting (causing) lateral torsional buckling of the compressive support structure. This failure mode has been verified by the photographic evidence of the exterior of the building. The failure was accelerated by the use of light commercial construction materials as opposed to the traditional heavy steel beam/column method. The hyperbolic catenary reduced the supported dimension between columns thereby introducing P-delta of sufficient amount to, combined with thermal weakening, to cause "break over" lateral torsional failure due to introduced bending forces. The failure was further accelerated by the mechanical removal of fireproofing material by the aircraft's abrasion to the structure. The failure was further accelerated by lateral torsional failure of upper chord compressive floor elements which had no reserve capacity and were subject to failure by relatively small lateral impact from the aircraft. The majority of the concrete in this structure was merely floor deck of minimal strength and reinforcement and whose primary function was fireproofing between floors, lateral stability of open web truss top chords and diaphragm shear distribution. Some additional concrete was used for shear walls and major fire protection in stairwells. The failure would have occurred if only the fire was present. I just wanted to point out the silence when the actual causes of failure are described using the usual technical terms. It highlights the inability for the CTs to even discuss the actual causes because they lack the technical ability to understand stress/strain analysis, structural deformation, etc., much less the wide disparity between the traditional composite steel beam/concrete deck construction which was a major cause of this building's inability to resist sufficient heat and stress.

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Tue 11/30/10 05:23 PM
The only way any of this logicly makes sence is to assume they were rigged to explode. If you think that way you dont need to twist words or twist logic or the laws of physics. They fell exactly as a building would had they been wired for demolition. SImple No, if you go look at some demolition footage the charges are set at the bottom, not at the top or (heaven forbid) at an upper floor you think a plane might hit. The building fell exactly how a hyperbolic catenary bending/shear open web truss failure reacting (causing) lateral torsional buckling of the compressive support structure. This failure mode has been verified by the photographic evidence of the exterior of the building. The failure was accelerated by the use of light commercial construction materials as opposed to the traditional heavy steel beam/column method. The hyperbolic catenary reduced the supported dimension between columns thereby introducing P-delta of sufficient amount to, combined with thermal weakening, to cause "break over" lateral torsional failure due to introduced bending forces. The failure was further accelerated by the mechanical removal of fireproofing material by the aircraft's abrasion to the structure. The failure was further accelerated by lateral torsional failure of upper chord compressive floor elements which had no reserve capacity and were subject to failure by relatively small lateral impact from the aircraft. The majority of the concrete in this structure was merely floor deck of minimal strength and reinforcement and whose primary function was fireproofing between floors, lateral stability of open web truss top chords and diaphragm shear distribution. Some additional concrete was used for shear walls and major fire protection in stairwells. The failure would have occurred if only the fire was present. I just wanted to point out the silence when the actual causes of failure are described using the usual technical terms. It highlights the inability for the CTs to even discuss the actual causes because they lack the technical ability to understand stress/strain analysis, structural deformation, etc., much less the wide disparity between the traditional composite steel beam/concrete deck construction which was a major cause of this building's inability to resist sufficient heat and stress. I dont buy any of that. I have worked with hot steels of all types all my adult working life. Steel gradualy bends as it rises in temperature. It didnt magicly get to an elastic state in an instant. As it got hotter it got softer slowly. The sudden collapse without any leaning this way or that way takes a huge stretch of imagination and an elaborate explanation that defies what you have seen with your own eyes. In furnace type conditions steel usualy heats to an elastic state at an inch an hour, keep in mind that is going directly into a allready heated furnace. Its verry hard to get to elastic temps in the open air. It would take a firestorm and I saw no rageing inferno after the initial plane impact. Jeese use your brain

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Tue 11/30/10 07:32 PM
The only way any of this logicly makes sence is to assume they were rigged to explode. If you think that way you dont need to twist words or twist logic or the laws of physics. They fell exactly as a building would had they been wired for demolition. SImple No, if you go look at some demolition footage the charges are set at the bottom, not at the top or (heaven forbid) at an upper floor you think a plane might hit. The building fell exactly how a hyperbolic catenary bending/shear open web truss failure reacting (causing) lateral torsional buckling of the compressive support structure. This failure mode has been verified by the photographic evidence of the exterior of the building. The failure was accelerated by the use of light commercial construction materials as opposed to the traditional heavy steel beam/column method. The hyperbolic catenary reduced the supported dimension between columns thereby introducing P-delta of sufficient amount to, combined with thermal weakening, to cause "break over" lateral torsional failure due to introduced bending forces. The failure was further accelerated by the mechanical removal of fireproofing material by the aircraft's abrasion to the structure. The failure was further accelerated by lateral torsional failure of upper chord compressive floor elements which had no reserve capacity and were subject to failure by relatively small lateral impact from the aircraft. The majority of the concrete in this structure was merely floor deck of minimal strength and reinforcement and whose primary function was fireproofing between floors, lateral stability of open web truss top chords and diaphragm shear distribution. Some additional concrete was used for shear walls and major fire protection in stairwells. The failure would have occurred if only the fire was present. I just wanted to point out the silence when the actual causes of failure are described using the usual technical terms. It highlights the inability for the CTs to even discuss the actual causes because they lack the technical ability to understand stress/strain analysis, structural deformation, etc., much less the wide disparity between the traditional composite steel beam/concrete deck construction which was a major cause of this building's inability to resist sufficient heat and stress. I dont buy any of that. I have worked with hot steels of all types all my adult working life. Steel gradualy bends as it rises in temperature. It didnt magicly get to an elastic state in an instant. As it got hotter it got softer slowly. The sudden collapse without any leaning this way or that way takes a huge stretch of imagination and an elaborate explanation that defies what you have seen with your own eyes. In furnace type conditions steel usualy heats to an elastic state at an inch an hour, keep in mind that is going directly into a allready heated furnace. Its verry hard to get to elastic temps in the open air. It would take a firestorm and I saw no rageing inferno after the initial plane impact. Jeese use your brain Every time you post you prove that you know absolutely nothing. You don't even know what the words mean. It's no wonder you don't understand any of the actual engineering explanations. You don't know what hyperbolic catenany deformation means so you just make up garbage that only someone who also knows little might believe. You don't have a clue what stress deformations take place during heating or why. You can't ever recognize a real description of failure using mode analysis. Sad. But what is really sad is you published photos of torch cut steel on this site earlier "proving that the columns were cut by explosives" when anyone with any experience could tell at a glance that they were cut with a standard torch. And now you are an expert on steel? What a joke.

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Tue 11/30/10 08:32 PM
The only way any of this logicly makes sence is to assume they were rigged to explode. If you think that way you dont need to twist words or twist logic or the laws of physics. They fell exactly as a building would had they been wired for demolition. SImple No, if you go look at some demolition footage the charges are set at the bottom, not at the top or (heaven forbid) at an upper floor you think a plane might hit. The building fell exactly how a hyperbolic catenary bending/shear open web truss failure reacting (causing) lateral torsional buckling of the compressive support structure. This failure mode has been verified by the photographic evidence of the exterior of the building. The failure was accelerated by the use of light commercial construction materials as opposed to the traditional heavy steel beam/column method. The hyperbolic catenary reduced the supported dimension between columns thereby introducing P-delta of sufficient amount to, combined with thermal weakening, to cause "break over" lateral torsional failure due to introduced bending forces. The failure was further accelerated by the mechanical removal of fireproofing material by the aircraft's abrasion to the structure. The failure was further accelerated by lateral torsional failure of upper chord compressive floor elements which had no reserve capacity and were subject to failure by relatively small lateral impact from the aircraft. The majority of the concrete in this structure was merely floor deck of minimal strength and reinforcement and whose primary function was fireproofing between floors, lateral stability of open web truss top chords and diaphragm shear distribution. Some additional concrete was used for shear walls and major fire protection in stairwells. The failure would have occurred if only the fire was present. I just wanted to point out the silence when the actual causes of failure are described using the usual technical terms. It highlights the inability for the CTs to even discuss the actual causes because they lack the technical ability to understand stress/strain analysis, structural deformation, etc., much less the wide disparity between the traditional composite steel beam/concrete deck construction which was a major cause of this building's inability to resist sufficient heat and stress. I dont buy any of that. I have worked with hot steels of all types all my adult working life. Steel gradualy bends as it rises in temperature. It didnt magicly get to an elastic state in an instant. As it got hotter it got softer slowly. The sudden collapse without any leaning this way or that way takes a huge stretch of imagination and an elaborate explanation that defies what you have seen with your own eyes. In furnace type conditions steel usualy heats to an elastic state at an inch an hour, keep in mind that is going directly into a allready heated furnace. Its verry hard to get to elastic temps in the open air. It would take a firestorm and I saw no rageing inferno after the initial plane impact. Jeese use your brain Every time you post you prove that you know absolutely nothing. You don't even know what the words mean. It's no wonder you don't understand any of the actual engineering explanations. You don't know what hyperbolic catenany deformation means so you just make up garbage that only someone who also knows little might believe. You don't have a clue what stress deformations take place during heating or why. You can't ever recognize a real description of failure using mode analysis. Sad. But what is really sad is you published photos of torch cut steel on this site earlier "proving that the columns were cut by explosives" when anyone with any experience could tell at a glance that they were cut with a standard torch. And now you are an expert on steel? What a joke. And we all know there is no reason to cut steal at the site. Why would they want to do that? Unless of course make it easier to move or to help someone trapped in the rubble etc. Oh wait there are lots of reasons to cut it. XD

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Wed 12/01/10 02:09 AM
The only way any of this logicly makes sence is to assume they were rigged to explode. If you think that way you dont need to twist words or twist logic or the laws of physics. They fell exactly as a building would had they been wired for demolition. SImple No, if you go look at some demolition footage the charges are set at the bottom, not at the top or (heaven forbid) at an upper floor you think a plane might hit. The building fell exactly how a hyperbolic catenary bending/shear open web truss failure reacting (causing) lateral torsional buckling of the compressive support structure. This failure mode has been verified by the photographic evidence of the exterior of the building. The failure was accelerated by the use of light commercial construction materials as opposed to the traditional heavy steel beam/column method. The hyperbolic catenary reduced the supported dimension between columns thereby introducing P-delta of sufficient amount to, combined with thermal weakening, to cause "break over" lateral torsional failure due to introduced bending forces. The failure was further accelerated by the mechanical removal of fireproofing material by the aircraft's abrasion to the structure. The failure was further accelerated by lateral torsional failure of upper chord compressive floor elements which had no reserve capacity and were subject to failure by relatively small lateral impact from the aircraft. The majority of the concrete in this structure was merely floor deck of minimal strength and reinforcement and whose primary function was fireproofing between floors, lateral stability of open web truss top chords and diaphragm shear distribution. Some additional concrete was used for shear walls and major fire protection in stairwells. The failure would have occurred if only the fire was present. I just wanted to point out the silence when the actual causes of failure are described using the usual technical terms. It highlights the inability for the CTs to even discuss the actual causes because they lack the technical ability to understand stress/strain analysis, structural deformation, etc., much less the wide disparity between the traditional composite steel beam/concrete deck construction which was a major cause of this building's inability to resist sufficient heat and stress. I dont buy any of that. I have worked with hot steels of all types all my adult working life. Steel gradualy bends as it rises in temperature. It didnt magicly get to an elastic state in an instant. As it got hotter it got softer slowly. The sudden collapse without any leaning this way or that way takes a huge stretch of imagination and an elaborate explanation that defies what you have seen with your own eyes. In furnace type conditions steel usualy heats to an elastic state at an inch an hour, keep in mind that is going directly into a allready heated furnace. Its verry hard to get to elastic temps in the open air. It would take a firestorm and I saw no rageing inferno after the initial plane impact. Jeese use your brain Every time you post you prove that you know absolutely nothing. You don't even know what the words mean. It's no wonder you don't understand any of the actual engineering explanations. You don't know what hyperbolic catenany deformation means so you just make up garbage that only someone who also knows little might believe. You don't have a clue what stress deformations take place during heating or why. You can't ever recognize a real description of failure using mode analysis. Sad. But what is really sad is you published photos of torch cut steel on this site earlier "proving that the columns were cut by explosives" when anyone with any experience could tell at a glance that they were cut with a standard torch. And now you are an expert on steel? What a joke. Its no suprise to me that you dont even know I did not post a picture in any way shape or form in this thread talk about not haveing any facts straight (scroll UP) To easy and almost a cheap shot to point that out. In some ways I am an expert at steel being that I have actualy loaded cold steel into a furnace at 1550 watched the temp of the furnace drop as the steel worked like a heat sink. It takes an hour an inch to get a transformation in the steel. I will make it simple for you. a four inch piece of steel takes four hours to transform to an elastic condition to its core. It would be impossible to do this in an open air fire and if you have a memory you will recall neither of the buildings were a rageing inferno at the time of collapse.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 12/01/10 11:08 AM
this is a test

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Wed 12/01/10 01:54 PM
The only way any of this logicly makes sence is to assume they were rigged to explode. If you think that way you dont need to twist words or twist logic or the laws of physics. They fell exactly as a building would had they been wired for demolition. SImple No, if you go look at some demolition footage the charges are set at the bottom, not at the top or (heaven forbid) at an upper floor you think a plane might hit. The building fell exactly how a hyperbolic catenary bending/shear open web truss failure reacting (causing) lateral torsional buckling of the compressive support structure. This failure mode has been verified by the photographic evidence of the exterior of the building. The failure was accelerated by the use of light commercial construction materials as opposed to the traditional heavy steel beam/column method. The hyperbolic catenary reduced the supported dimension between columns thereby introducing P-delta of sufficient amount to, combined with thermal weakening, to cause "break over" lateral torsional failure due to introduced bending forces. The failure was further accelerated by the mechanical removal of fireproofing material by the aircraft's abrasion to the structure. The failure was further accelerated by lateral torsional failure of upper chord compressive floor elements which had no reserve capacity and were subject to failure by relatively small lateral impact from the aircraft. The majority of the concrete in this structure was merely floor deck of minimal strength and reinforcement and whose primary function was fireproofing between floors, lateral stability of open web truss top chords and diaphragm shear distribution. Some additional concrete was used for shear walls and major fire protection in stairwells. The failure would have occurred if only the fire was present. I just wanted to point out the silence when the actual causes of failure are described using the usual technical terms. It highlights the inability for the CTs to even discuss the actual causes because they lack the technical ability to understand stress/strain analysis, structural deformation, etc., much less the wide disparity between the traditional composite steel beam/concrete deck construction which was a major cause of this building's inability to resist sufficient heat and stress. I dont buy any of that. I have worked with hot steels of all types all my adult working life. Steel gradualy bends as it rises in temperature. It didnt magicly get to an elastic state in an instant. As it got hotter it got softer slowly. The sudden collapse without any leaning this way or that way takes a huge stretch of imagination and an elaborate explanation that defies what you have seen with your own eyes. In furnace type conditions steel usualy heats to an elastic state at an inch an hour, keep in mind that is going directly into a allready heated furnace. Its verry hard to get to elastic temps in the open air. It would take a firestorm and I saw no rageing inferno after the initial plane impact. Jeese use your brain Every time you post you prove that you know absolutely nothing. You don't even know what the words mean. It's no wonder you don't understand any of the actual engineering explanations. You don't know what hyperbolic catenany deformation means so you just make up garbage that only someone who also knows little might believe. You don't have a clue what stress deformations take place during heating or why. You can't ever recognize a real description of failure using mode analysis. Sad. But what is really sad is you published photos of torch cut steel on this site earlier "proving that the columns were cut by explosives" when anyone with any experience could tell at a glance that they were cut with a standard torch. And now you are an expert on steel? What a joke. Its no suprise to me that you dont even know I did not post a picture in any way shape or form in this thread talk about not haveing any facts straight (scroll UP) To easy and almost a cheap shot to point that out. In some ways I am an expert at steel being that I have actualy loaded cold steel into a furnace at 1550 watched the temp of the furnace drop as the steel worked like a heat sink. It takes an hour an inch to get a transformation in the steel. I will make it simple for you. a four inch piece of steel takes four hours to transform to an elastic condition to its core. It would be impossible to do this in an open air fire and if you have a memory you will recall neither of the buildings were a rageing inferno at the time of collapse. You can put as many pieces of steel in a blast furnace as you want, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of that steel to support tons of load after you pull it out of the fire. The fires that occurred meant very little to cause of the collapse. It's obviously an important point to keep the truther movement going, but in reality it was the excess loads transferred to the compromised columns that caused the collapse. WTC2 collapsed before WTC1 even though it was compromised later than WTC1. Less time for fires to burn, but what mattered most was the fact that it was struck lower than WTC1 meaning more load on the compromised areas resulting in a more rapid collapse.. This debate is futile... haha

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Wed 12/01/10 04:36 PM
The only way any of this logicly makes sence is to assume they were rigged to explode. If you think that way you dont need to twist words or twist logic or the laws of physics. They fell exactly as a building would had they been wired for demolition. SImple No, if you go look at some demolition footage the charges are set at the bottom, not at the top or (heaven forbid) at an upper floor you think a plane might hit. The building fell exactly how a hyperbolic catenary bending/shear open web truss failure reacting (causing) lateral torsional buckling of the compressive support structure. This failure mode has been verified by the photographic evidence of the exterior of the building. The failure was accelerated by the use of light commercial construction materials as opposed to the traditional heavy steel beam/column method. The hyperbolic catenary reduced the supported dimension between columns thereby introducing P-delta of sufficient amount to, combined with thermal weakening, to cause "break over" lateral torsional failure due to introduced bending forces. The failure was further accelerated by the mechanical removal of fireproofing material by the aircraft's abrasion to the structure. The failure was further accelerated by lateral torsional failure of upper chord compressive floor elements which had no reserve capacity and were subject to failure by relatively small lateral impact from the aircraft. The majority of the concrete in this structure was merely floor deck of minimal strength and reinforcement and whose primary function was fireproofing between floors, lateral stability of open web truss top chords and diaphragm shear distribution. Some additional concrete was used for shear walls and major fire protection in stairwells. The failure would have occurred if only the fire was present. I just wanted to point out the silence when the actual causes of failure are described using the usual technical terms. It highlights the inability for the CTs to even discuss the actual causes because they lack the technical ability to understand stress/strain analysis, structural deformation, etc., much less the wide disparity between the traditional composite steel beam/concrete deck construction which was a major cause of this building's inability to resist sufficient heat and stress. I dont buy any of that. I have worked with hot steels of all types all my adult working life. Steel gradualy bends as it rises in temperature. It didnt magicly get to an elastic state in an instant. As it got hotter it got softer slowly. The sudden collapse without any leaning this way or that way takes a huge stretch of imagination and an elaborate explanation that defies what you have seen with your own eyes. In furnace type conditions steel usualy heats to an elastic state at an inch an hour, keep in mind that is going directly into a allready heated furnace. Its verry hard to get to elastic temps in the open air. It would take a firestorm and I saw no rageing inferno after the initial plane impact. Jeese use your brain Every time you post you prove that you know absolutely nothing. You don't even know what the words mean. It's no wonder you don't understand any of the actual engineering explanations. You don't know what hyperbolic catenany deformation means so you just make up garbage that only someone who also knows little might believe. You don't have a clue what stress deformations take place during heating or why. You can't ever recognize a real description of failure using mode analysis. Sad. But what is really sad is you published photos of torch cut steel on this site earlier "proving that the columns were cut by explosives" when anyone with any experience could tell at a glance that they were cut with a standard torch. And now you are an expert on steel? What a joke. Its no suprise to me that you dont even know I did not post a picture in any way shape or form in this thread talk about not haveing any facts straight (scroll UP) To easy and almost a cheap shot to point that out. In some ways I am an expert at steel being that I have actualy loaded cold steel into a furnace at 1550 watched the temp of the furnace drop as the steel worked like a heat sink. It takes an hour an inch to get a transformation in the steel. I will make it simple for you. a four inch piece of steel takes four hours to transform to an elastic condition to its core. It would be impossible to do this in an open air fire and if you have a memory you will recall neither of the buildings were a rageing inferno at the time of collapse. You can put as many pieces of steel in a blast furnace as you want, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of that steel to support tons of load after you pull it out of the fire. The fires that occurred meant very little to cause of the collapse. It's obviously an important point to keep the truther movement going, but in reality it was the excess loads transferred to the compromised columns that caused the collapse. WTC2 collapsed before WTC1 even though it was compromised later than WTC1. Less time for fires to burn, but what mattered most was the fact that it was struck lower than WTC1 meaning more load on the compromised areas resulting in a more rapid collapse.. This debate is futile... haha of course it is pointless. You must keep in mind the steel was of a tensile strenght to support the load and then some. Sure it was possibly severly stressed with impact but it still stood. Thefires were mostly out when they collapsed into their own basement straight down if you recall. With the propaganda barage I am suprised I believe what my lieng eyes tell me. Love to here your explanation for building 7.

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Wed 12/01/10 05:39 PM
The only way any of this logicly makes sence is to assume they were rigged to explode. If you think that way you dont need to twist words or twist logic or the laws of physics. They fell exactly as a building would had they been wired for demolition. SImple No, if you go look at some demolition footage the charges are set at the bottom, not at the top or (heaven forbid) at an upper floor you think a plane might hit. The building fell exactly how a hyperbolic catenary bending/shear open web truss failure reacting (causing) lateral torsional buckling of the compressive support structure. This failure mode has been verified by the photographic evidence of the exterior of the building. The failure was accelerated by the use of light commercial construction materials as opposed to the traditional heavy steel beam/column method. The hyperbolic catenary reduced the supported dimension between columns thereby introducing P-delta of sufficient amount to, combined with thermal weakening, to cause "break over" lateral torsional failure due to introduced bending forces. The failure was further accelerated by the mechanical removal of fireproofing material by the aircraft's abrasion to the structure. The failure was further accelerated by lateral torsional failure of upper chord compressive floor elements which had no reserve capacity and were subject to failure by relatively small lateral impact from the aircraft. The majority of the concrete in this structure was merely floor deck of minimal strength and reinforcement and whose primary function was fireproofing between floors, lateral stability of open web truss top chords and diaphragm shear distribution. Some additional concrete was used for shear walls and major fire protection in stairwells. The failure would have occurred if only the fire was present. I just wanted to point out the silence when the actual causes of failure are described using the usual technical terms. It highlights the inability for the CTs to even discuss the actual causes because they lack the technical ability to understand stress/strain analysis, structural deformation, etc., much less the wide disparity between the traditional composite steel beam/concrete deck construction which was a major cause of this building's inability to resist sufficient heat and stress. I dont buy any of that. I have worked with hot steels of all types all my adult working life. Steel gradualy bends as it rises in temperature. It didnt magicly get to an elastic state in an instant. As it got hotter it got softer slowly. The sudden collapse without any leaning this way or that way takes a huge stretch of imagination and an elaborate explanation that defies what you have seen with your own eyes. In furnace type conditions steel usualy heats to an elastic state at an inch an hour, keep in mind that is going directly into a allready heated furnace. Its verry hard to get to elastic temps in the open air. It would take a firestorm and I saw no rageing inferno after the initial plane impact. Jeese use your brain Every time you post you prove that you know absolutely nothing. You don't even know what the words mean. It's no wonder you don't understand any of the actual engineering explanations. You don't know what hyperbolic catenany deformation means so you just make up garbage that only someone who also knows little might believe. You don't have a clue what stress deformations take place during heating or why. You can't ever recognize a real description of failure using mode analysis. Sad. But what is really sad is you published photos of torch cut steel on this site earlier "proving that the columns were cut by explosives" when anyone with any experience could tell at a glance that they were cut with a standard torch. And now you are an expert on steel? What a joke. Its no suprise to me that you dont even know I did not post a picture in any way shape or form in this thread talk about not haveing any facts straight (scroll UP) To easy and almost a cheap shot to point that out. In some ways I am an expert at steel being that I have actualy loaded cold steel into a furnace at 1550 watched the temp of the furnace drop as the steel worked like a heat sink. It takes an hour an inch to get a transformation in the steel. I will make it simple for you. a four inch piece of steel takes four hours to transform to an elastic condition to its core. It would be impossible to do this in an open air fire and if you have a memory you will recall neither of the buildings were a rageing inferno at the time of collapse. You can put as many pieces of steel in a blast furnace as you want, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of that steel to support tons of load after you pull it out of the fire. The fires that occurred meant very little to cause of the collapse. It's obviously an important point to keep the truther movement going, but in reality it was the excess loads transferred to the compromised columns that caused the collapse. WTC2 collapsed before WTC1 even though it was compromised later than WTC1. Less time for fires to burn, but what mattered most was the fact that it was struck lower than WTC1 meaning more load on the compromised areas resulting in a more rapid collapse.. This debate is futile... haha of course it is pointless. You must keep in mind the steel was of a tensile strenght to support the load and then some. Sure it was possibly severly stressed with impact but it still stood. Thefires were mostly out when they collapsed into their own basement straight down if you recall. With the propaganda barage I am suprised I believe what my lieng eyes tell me. Love to here your explanation for building 7. They stood because the design took into account the variability associated with such tall buildings. Which is amazing since the design team did not have computerized drafting software like AutoCAD. You would be hard pressed to find a building being constructed today without the use of this type of software. Buildings are designed to handle static loads. Modern buildings are designed to withstand a percentage of loads transferred by a failure somewhere in the localized area. Let's not forget that this wasn't one massive structure machined out of a solid block of steel. There were horizontal columns connected by flanges and flange bolts. I believe they were also welded, but it again goes back to the difference between designing for static loads opposed to dynamic loads. You are dealing with 60s technology. Load testing has come a long way since then. As far as Building 7 is concerned I believe that the NIST report is plausible even though it is done with little actual physical evidence. It was damaged by the collapse of WTC1. Fires were visible on several floors and spread to other floors over a period of time. I have never seen any pictures showing the damage inflicted by the collapse of WTC1, but the NIST report shows their assessment of the probable damage based on video and photo evidence. Until someone shows me more than a theory of controlled demolition I am comfortable with the conclusions of NIST.

Chazster Joined Tue 08/28/07 Posts: 6206	Wed 12/01/10 06:26 PM
I already posted an article a link or article on building 7 a while back. It was on fire for hours and hours. Firefighters decided to let it burn since noone was inside. They spent their time trying to save the people that were trapped instead.