Learn the truth about 9/11!

[Headrush69]

What if mine was humor as well?

"What if?" That doesn't sound like an admission to humour.

 

Make it obvious please. A simpleton like me needs a smiley face or something. Even in the OSx86 scene we see how easy it is to read the wrong tone into posts.

[Alessandro17]

"What if?" That doesn't sound like an admission to humour.

 

Make it obvious please. A simpleton like me needs a smiley face or something. Even in the OSx86 scene we see how easy it is to read the wrong tone into posts.

 

Sometimes I don't want to make my posts too obvious. I want to leave them open to more than one interpretation

[Headrush69]

Sometimes I don't want to make my posts too obvious. I want to leave them open to more than one interpretation

lol.

[iDerf2006]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

 

Normally, I realize that's a sarcastic article, but really, it has some good points.

[cringemaster]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

 

Normally, I realize that's a sarcastic article, but really, it has some good points.

 

Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid.

whats bukakked? jkjk, dont tell me.

[OryHara]

I'm sure anti-government is a new religion, isn't it? Or is that just the current Democratic slogan?

 

The Constitution is anti-government, and America's forefathers were too.

 

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_moronsNormally, I realize that's a sarcastic article, but really, it has some good points.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%...amp;btnG=Search

 

lol, "When do you know when a politician is lying? When they open their mouths.@headrush, "theoligans", nice word

 

When they tell you "This is what the people want", or "this is good for you", or when they say "Terrorists", "Terrorism", or "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

 

Reminds me very much of our local SNP...

And Bush/Cheney.

[OryHara]

if it wassnt by arab terrorists why was a video of the towers falling sold all around the middle east and why does osama bin laden claim to be the attacker... his life would be so much easier if he didnt do it - bc then he could take care of that kidney

 

Everytime these sick sons of {censored} want to pull a Bin Laden out of their hat, and pull off another mass murder, their doctored videos start showing up in the Mainstream Media to scare people into thinking they are going to attack again. Then they declare martial law and put us all in FEMA camps.

 

I don't care how many people believe it or not, but they will believe it when it happens, and by then it will be too late.

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=P...G=Google+Search

 

New Orleans was an excuse for them to practice confiscation of guns.

[Alessandro17]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=P...G=Google+Search

 

Wow! That is scarier than I thought.

[Paranoid Marvin]

New Orleans was an excuse for them to practice confiscation of guns.

 

Right, that wouldn't have been to stop the murders, looting and violence that followed the chaos of hurricane Katrina?

 

Sounds like the best thing to do, IMHO

[bofors]

Getting back to proof that WTC Building 7 was felled by a controlled demolition and not fire. Here is picture of WTC Building 7 after it was demolished, note that pieces of the sides are clearly visible on top of the rubble heap, a tell-tale sign of controlled demolition:

 

 

As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:

 

1. Rapid onset of “collapse”

 

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)

 

3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

 

4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos

 

5. “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment

 

6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

 

7. Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)

 

8. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

 

9. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

 

10. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

 

11. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

 

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

 

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

 

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

 

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

 

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

 

Reference Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

bofors, you care to elaborate on the CIA arrest or is that a 'cover-up' too? you've been somewhat vague about it so far.

 

I will do this but I do not want to do it in this thread. Again, my purpose in this thread is to try to present and explain the evidence the 9/11 was an "inside job" to the members of InsanelyMac and engage in serious debate with those who disbelieve.

 

ill tell you what, im not going to be some ignorant {censored}, so im gonna go nuteral, and take a good look at all your evidence, the "mainstream" stuff, and get back to this

because you unlike most people who post (seemingly) odd stuff, or (seemingly) counter normal stuff actually have 3rd party places, images, quotes and everything to back up your clames, so im going to take you totally seriously, if you didnt have stuff to back it up, i would think you were a nut

 

Thanks, Max... this is really my purpose here. To convey to people like you an idea, which is an insane conspiracy theory on its face, is actually the horrible truth.

 

Like I mentioned earlier, I don't need bofors or anyone else to repeat everything from the other sites, I can read and have read.

I have also read some of the more popular responses to these arguments like the Popular Mechanics article. I would find a direct counter argument to that to be more use.

 

That's great, I am glad you are looking into this. I am posting pictures and repeating things from other sites to try convince more people to look into this very serious issue. I also hope that some of the doubters here will try to engage me in serious debate.

 

@iDerf2006 - I would really like a fair oppurtunity to convince that the World Trade Center was level by controlled demolitions and that 9/11 was an "inside job". With to reasons, links and pictures, I have provided above, can you explain to us why you do not believe that Building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition?

[Paranoid Marvin]

Getting back to proof that WTC Building 7 was felled by a controlled demolition and not fire. Here is picture of WTC Building 7 after it was demolished, note that pieces of the sides are clearly visible on top of the rubble heap, a tell-tale sign of controlled demolition:

 

 

As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:

 

1. Rapid onset of “collapse”

 

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)

 

3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

 

4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos

 

5. “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment

 

6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

 

7. Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)

 

8. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

 

9. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

 

10. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

 

11. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

 

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

 

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

 

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

 

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

 

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

 

Reference Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

 

 

I will do this but I do not want to do it in this thread. Again, my purpose in this thread is to try to present and explain the evidence the 9/11 was an "inside job" to the members of InsanelyMac and engage in serious debate with those who disbelieve.

 

 

 

Thanks, Max... this is really my purpose here. To convey to people like you an idea, which is an insane conspiracy theory on its face, is actually the horrible truth.

 

 

 

That's great, I am glad you are looking into this. I am posting pictures and repeating things from other sites to try convince more people to look into this very serious issue. I also hope that some of the doubters here will try to engage me in serious debate.

 

@iDerf2006 - I would really like a fair oppurtunity to convince that the World Trade Center was level by controlled demolitions and that 9/11 was an "inside job". With to reasons, links and pictures, I have provided above, can you explain to us why you do not believe that Building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition?

 

 

1. As I said before, due to the construction of the building, if a few or more columns were damaged enough, it could cause the building to collapse rapidly. A column failure would not be a gradual thing, it could happen in an instant. The way the build twisted and bulged as it collapsed shows that the forces were unbalanced, therefore a random collapse of a few columns, and not a controlled explosion. Whilst column failure would have been quick, the damage would have been slower, causing the buckling and twisting of the building, where the forces were unbalanced

 

2. Rapid failure of a steel structures doesn't happen quietly.

 

3. The building weighs a lot and the steel was weak. I didn't see you in there measuring the force at which the building came down, so you can't say they gave no resistance.

 

4. Fires are unpredictable things. Sudden rush of air could have made the fire bigger?

 

5. If the building was damaged enough at most the columns, it could collapse inwardly.

 

6. Building goes down, dust goes out. Building gets smaller, less space inside for air and debris. Building goes down quickly, debris comes out quickly.

 

7. Isolated hot spots could be the explanation.

 

8. First of all, thermite is not high tech. Anyone can make it with aluminum foil and rust. Rust and aluminum dust would not in a million years be able to be separated out and deduced to be thermite. It's like finding a rusty needle in a haystack full of needles, and debris, and dead people.

 

9. I'm not sure what you mean by that, so I'll pass...

 

10. Did he put his hands up and say he did it himself? No.

 

11. They would have been planning for worst case scenario, wouldn't you?

 

1B. The building could survive with some columns destroyed, but after many were destroyed or damaged in a random way, the building would, of course, shear and twist and buckle, due to the extreme unbalanced forces

 

2B. The building weighs a lot and the steel was weak. I didn't see you in there meaning the force at which the building came down, so you can't say they gave no resistance.

 

3B. Steel softens or loses it's integrity at over 1000˚C and a fire from jet fuel can burn at up to 1100˚C.

 

4B. Care to give me a list? I would be more than happy to see them.

[bofors]

Just to make it clear, the above is not my list, but something I copied from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

They are lead by Richard Gage and the AE911Truth membership of 138 Architects & Engineers is listed here: http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php

 

Building 7 was a 100% steel frame building. Like most modern skyscrapers, it had a series of columns ringing its perimeter, and a bundle of columns in its core structure. Its perimeter columns numbered 58 and its core columns numbered 25, according to the rather vague description provided in FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study. The following figure from the report shows the shape of the building and some details about the structural system. The top four illustrations show the perimeter structure, the middle one shows the footprint, and the bottom three show seven floors of part of the core structure. However, it does not combine views of the core perimeter structure (above) and the core structure (lower portion of below).

 

Building 7 Schematic:

 

 

Reference: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/wtc7.html

 

1. As I said before, due to the construction of the building, if a few or more columns were damaged enough, it could cause the building to collapse rapidly. A column failure would not be a gradual thing, it could happen in an instant.

 

As per above, there is nothing about the design of Building 7 the would make particularly vulnerable. If anything but all of the columns were being cut simultaneously, that's 58 perimeter and 25 core, we would not have seen a symmetric, uniform collapse. Buildings like 7 are "over-engineered" for protection, if only a "few or more columns" were cut nothing would have happened to building. If enough columns were compromised, some how by debris from the North Tower, Building 7 would have tipped over. Please that neither FEMA nor NIST, the two US goverment agencies which have studied the collapse of Building 7, have a working theory as to why it collapsed.

 

See, Richard Gage's talk at 17:00 here: http://blip.tv/file/306082/

 

The way the build twisted and bulged as it collapsed shows that the forces were unbalanced, therefore a random collapse of a few columns, and not a controlled explosion. Whilst column failure would have been quick, the damage would have been slower, causing the buckling and twisting of the building, where the forces were unbalanced

 

Just to be clear here, a controlled demolition is not caused by a single explosion but perhaps by hundreds of them. I am not sure what you mean by "the buid twisted and bulged as it collapsed". However, if you are taking about the crimp that developed in the middle, this is another tell-tale sign of a controlled demolition:

 

 

2. Rapid failure of a steel structures doesn't happen quietly.

 

Sure but it sounds differently than explosions per se. More over, the explosions happened first before the strucuture began to fail.

 

3. I didn't see you in there measuring the force at which the building came down, so you can't say they gave no resistance.

 

False, we know Building 7 came down at almost free-fall speed: 6.5 seconds. If you dropped a bowling ball off the top of Building 7 when it began to collapse, it would have hit the ground only half second before (5.96 seconds). That means there was almost resistance to the collapse.

 

References: http://wtc7.net/

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/vertical.html

 

4. Fires are unpredictable things. Sudden rush of air could have made the fire bigger?

 

This issue has to with the "squibs" emitting from the top of building. "Squibs" are yet another tell-tale sign of controlled demolition. Here we see five of being emitted from the top right side of Building 7 at the onset of collapse. Note that there no fire at the top of Buiding 7:

 

 

Here is another video which shows the "squibs": http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=34...h&plindex=0

 

Here is a video close-up of the "squibs": http://911wideopen.com/videos/7squibview.wmv

 

One more thing... on can see that these "squibs" are timed, they are going in apparently controlled sequence, not randomly.

 

5. If the building was damaged enough at most the columns, it could collapse inwardly.

 

This is not just a matter of Building 7 collapsing inward. The point is that it takes demolition engineers months of planning to get a bulding to collapse into its own "footprint". It is a statistically impossibility for Building 7 to have so neatly collapsed without precision demolition.

 

6. Building goes down, dust goes out. Building gets smaller, less space inside for air and debris. Building goes down quickly, debris comes out quickly.

 

Building 7 emits a "pyroclastic flow" which is only produced by explosions, volcanic or otherwise, see video:

 

 

 

7. Isolated hot spots could be the explanation.

 

Isolated hot spots from fire? No, open air fires only get up to about 500F, some 3000F is required to melt steel and it would have to be much hotter for the metal to remain molten for weeks.

 

8. First of all, thermite is not high tech. Anyone can make it with aluminum foil and rust. Rust and aluminum dust would not in a million years be able to be separated out and deduced to be thermite. It's like finding a rusty needle in a haystack full of needles, and debris, and dead people.

 

Thermate leaves distinct chemical "fingerprints" which inlude unusual elements in the like Flourine, Sulfur, Manganese and Potassium in the steel.

 

See, Richard Gage's talk at 90:00 here: http://blip.tv/file/306082/

 

Moreover, the sol-gel use in shape charges leaves a residue which was found in aboundance, 1,3-Diphenylpropane, by the US goverment disaster agency, FEMA, and other 9/11 researchers:

 

See, Richard Gage's talk at 91:00 here: http://blip.tv/file/306082/

 

9. I'm not sure what you mean by that, so I'll pass...

 

FEMA found "evidence for a severe high tempetature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation.." Likewise, the steal samples analyzed were found to have intergranular melting which fire does not cause.

 

See, Richard Gage's talk at 87:25 here: http://blip.tv/file/306082/

 

10. Did he put his hands up and say he did it himself? No.

 

A top European demolition expert has said that Building 7 was taken down in a controlled demolition. (Working on getting reference and name of the expert).

 

EDIT: The guys name is Danny Jowenko, he is interviewed here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7778438571360742389

 

11. They would have been planning for worst case scenario, wouldn't you?

 

As steal buildings never collapse from fires, there was no legitimate reason to suspect Building 7 would come down.

 

1B. The building could survive with some columns destroyed, but after many were destroyed or damaged in a random way, the building would, of course, shear and twist and buckle, due to the extreme unbalanced forces

 

This point was that fire affects buildings in a much different way. Fire damages buildings much slower and with clear visible deformations.

 

3B. Steel softens or loses it's integrity at over 1000?C and a fire from jet fuel can burn at up to 1100?C.

 

I need to check and get the exact tempatures possible for the jet fuel fire (for the twin towers) and office fire (for building 7). I will post them in this thread.

 

However, as evidence by the dark color of the smoke and red flames, all the fires at the World Trade Center were less hot than the blue flames on a gas stove (which is simply not hot enough to melt a frying pan)

 

4B. Care to give me a list? I would be more than happy to see them.

 

1 New York Plaza - New York 1970

 

First Interstate Bank Building - Los Angeles 1988.

 

One Meridian Plaza - Philadelphia 1991.

 

Caracas Tower - Venezuela 2004

 

Windsor Building - Madrid, Spain 2005 (note this is a weaker steal-reinforced concrete building, steal framed building like the WTC are stronger).

 

Reference: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

 

See, "Loose Change" 2nd Edition at 31:00 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

 

[Paranoid Marvin]

Nice points there Bofors. Shame I'm not an engineer, so I can't get into the complexities of stuff (just following logical steps)

 

I don't have time to go through the whole list, but the one thing I would like the stop you on is your definition of a Pyroclastic flow. The video that you gave as 'evidence' states:

The US Geological Survey website provides us with a definition of a Pyroclastic flow, as a ground hugging avalanche of hot gas and debris

when in fact the, USGS website says:

A pyroclastic flow is a ground-hugging avalanche of hot ash, pumice, rock fragments, and volcanic gas that rushes down the side of a volcano as fast as 100 km/hour or more.

 

By that definition, no matter what you say, a pyroclastic flow was not formed, and cannot be formed by demolitions!

 

Another source states:

A pyroclastic flow (also known as a pyroclastic density current) is a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions. The flows are fast-moving currents of hot gas, ash and rock (collectively known as tephra) which can travel away from the volcano at up to 700 km/h. The gas is usually at a temperature of up to 1000 degrees Celsius

 

So saying there was a pyroclastic flow does not give any evidence whatsoever of demolitions.

What it shows, that there was perhaps a volcanic eruption in WTC7

 

Pyroclastic sruges happen at at over 100mph, it was obvious that your 'surge'in the video was not moving that fast.

 

If it was a pyroclastic flow, it would have destroyed the buildings around and and spread fires. This, was clearly just a cloud of dust and debris!

 

 

EDIT: Maybe I should touch briefly on the damage that pyroclastic flows cause:

If a pyroclastic flow hit New York, we'd know about it for sure.

[Mebster]

There are a few things from the video Loose Change that just didn't add up.

 

One of the ones I remember is where Bin Ladin is on camera and he is clearly wearing a gold ring.

 

Gold is forbidden for men to wear under Islamic laws. Only women can wear it. If Bin Ladin is doing all what he claimed to have done in the name of Islam then it's a little foolish to be sinning also in the process while wearing a gold ring.

 

I know it's not enough to say this was definitely a conspiracy but just from a Muslims point of view that section was odd and I thought I'd share why.

[bofors]

Nice points there Bofors....

Thanks...

Shame I'm not an engineer, so I can't get into the complexities of stuff (just following logical steps)

 

That is the really problem here, people in general are so ignorant that are not able to understand the arguments and data which prove that the official story is a lie.

when in fact the, USGS website says:By that definition, no matter what you say, a pyroclastic flow was not formed, and cannot be formed by demolitions!

That because you are looking at the US Geological Survey website, they are only considering natural phenomena. There is no debate as to whether: (1) pyroclastic flows are caused by controlled demolitions and (2) pyroclastic flows emitted from the collapse of Building 7 (and the twin towers). The pulverization of the concrete flooring into a fine dust by the explosives is what creates pyroclastic flows. The point is that an explosive mechanism, volcanic or chemical, is required.

 

Again, this video covers the pyroclastic flow evidence well:

One of the ones I remember is where Bin Ladin is on camera and he is clearly wearing a gold ring.

I want to talk about Bin Ladin in thread but later on, first I want to finish with Building 7. Here is what I think are the remaining issues to be covered:

(1) An exact description of damage to Building 7 with more pictures.

(2) The temperature of the fires in Building 7 with respect to the properties of steel.

(3) Videos where Silverstein admits on PBS that Building 7 was demolished and that BBC prematurely announces that Building 7 has collapsed.

[Paranoid Marvin]

.That because you are looking at the US Geological Survey website, they are only considering natural phenomena. There is no debate as to whether: (1) pyroclastic flows are caused by controlled demolitions and (2) pyroclastic flows emitted from the collapse of Building 7 (and the twin towers). The pulverization of the concrete flooring into a fine dust by the explosives is what creates pyroclastic flows. The point is that an explosive mechanism, volcanic or chemical, is required.

 

Again, this video covers the pyroclastic flow evidence well:

 

No.

 

If I am going to put my Geography and qualifications to use, I am going to tell you now two things.

 

1. Pyroclastic flows are caused by volcanoes. There is not way you can claim that this natural disaster could be caused by a demolition.

2. The cloud only resembled a pyroclastic flow in appearance, but not in chemical composition, speed, size and temperature.

 

This matter is not open for debate of any kind, because scientifically, that was not a pyroclastic flow.

 

Man made explosions of any kind do not and can not make pyroclastic flows.

 

No reasoning that you put forward can change the fact that only volcanic eruptions cause pyroclastic flows.

 

A real pyroclastic flow can travel at up to 700km/h and is up to 1000˚C. If this was a pyroclastic flow, I doubt there would be very much standing in the area....

 

This is a picture of a dog that was inside during the pyroclastic flows at Pompeii in 79AD. Those outside would be cooked alive, and have their lungs filled up with a cement like substance, made of volcanic ash and pus from their burning lungs.

Very unpleasant - this definitely didn't happen on the 11th of September.

 

 

EDIT: a quick google has proved to me just what I thought. I cannot find any documented report of controlled demolitions causing what has been called a pyroclastic flow. The collapse of the WTC7 was the first time the phrase was (quite incorrectly) used.

[bofors]

No.

MIT Engineer Jeff King describes "pyroclastic flows" at 9/11 at about 9:30 into this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6069212232240444968

 

Here is what I think are the remaining issues to be covered:

(1) An exact description of damage to Building 7 with more pictures.

...

(3) Videos where Silverstein admits on PBS that Building 7 was demolished...

 

EDIT: These images shows the extent of damage to Building 7.

 

 

Reference: http://911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html

 

 

Reference: http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/wtc-7.html

 

This video, "Improbable Collapse: The Demolition of Our Republic" covers collapse of Building 7 and the damage in detail starting at 44:20: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782

(It also covers the materials science which shows thermate was used in the WTC in detail).

 

This video covers these two issues. Silverstein admits Building 7 was demolished on PBS and damage to Buildings 3, 4, 5 & 6 is compared to Building 7. Note the gross contrast between the other buildings and 7 both before the collaspse and after:

 

 

Buildings 5 & 6, right across the street from Buiding 7, damaged much worse but they did not collapse:

 

 

(3) ... BBC prematurely announces that Building 7 has collapsed.

 

This seem to indicate that the media (BBC) was being feed information on 9/11, note that the BBC calls Building 7 the "Salomon Brothers" Building which you see over the reporter's left shoulder: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7n7Gud5TeA

 

Alex Jone covers this unusual BBC report here (with more from BBC channel 24 and CNN): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3953448189421450003

 

(2) The temperature of the fires in Building 7 with respect to the properties of steel.

 

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.

 

Reference Kevin Ryan: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

 

So, I think we can take the temperature of fire in Building 7 to be about 500F (260C). We can assume this was fireproof steel which met or exceeded the ASTM E119 standard. This mean it would be able to withstand 2000F (1100C) for hours while it take well over 3000F (1650C) to melt the steel.

 

More references on Bulding 7 fire with respect to steel properties:

http://www.wtc7.net/buildingfires.html

http://www.wtc7.net/b7fires.html

[Paranoid Marvin]

MIT Engineer Jeff King describes "pyroclastic flows" at 9/11 at about 9:30 into this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6069212232240444968

 

Look, the facts are clear and you have got them wrong.

 

 

I'll quote a few more reliable sources (conspiracy sites are not reliable)

 

py·ro·clas·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-klstk)

adj.

Composed chiefly of rock fragments of volcanic origin.

- dictionary.reference.com

 

pyroclastic

Pyroclastic (meaning "fire fragmented") refers to broken-up rocks, pumice, ash, and other bits of material that are formed in a volcanic eruption.

- www.enchantedlearning.com

 

Pyroclastic Rock formed of material from volcanic explosion.

- www.minefinders.com

 

Pyroclastic rocks and deposits comprise the entire range of fragmental products deposited directly by explosive or effusive volcanic eruptions. Pyroclastic deposits consist of pyroclasts which are not cemented together. Pyroclastic rocks (tuff) are pyroclastic deposits which have been lithified. The word 'pyroclast' is derived from Greek pyr, meaning fire, and klastos, meaning broken.

- wikipedia

 

A hot, dry, fast-moving, and high-density mixture of of ash, pumice, rock fragments, and gas that formed during explosive eruptions or from the collapse of a lava dome.

- craterlake.wr.usgs.gov

 

Mixtures of hot volcanic ash, boulders and gas. Temperatures can be from 100 to 600 degrees C. Typically travel at 70 mph or faster down the volcano.

- www.bgs.ac.uk

 

Lateral flowage of a turbulent mixture of hot gases and unsorted pyroclastic material (volcanic fragments, crystals, ash, pumice, and glass shards) that can move at high speed (50 to 100 miles an hour.)

- www.hull.ac.uk/geogmods/html/glossary.html

 

A rapid, extremely hot, downward stream of pyroclastics, air, gases, and ash ejected from an erupting volcano. A pyroclastic flow may be as hot as 800ºC or more and may move at speeds exceeding 150 kilometers per hour.

- college.hmco.com/geology/resources/geologylink/glossary/p.html

 

 

 

Pyroclastic flows do not and never will be cause by building demolition.

 

 

It makes me wonder, if you can't understand a simple fact like this, I wonder how many more holes your theories are riddled with.

 

That is the really problem here, people in general are so ignorant that are not able to understand the arguments and data which prove that the official story is a lie.

Seems like quite a hypocritical thing to say. You don't even know what a pyroclastic flow is!

 

 

EDIT: you claim that in this video, the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 before it happened. The video proves nothing, as there is no time on the screen.

[bofors]

Pyroclastic flows do not and never will be cause by building demolition.

 

I am not here to debate the definition of "pyroclastic flow" but rather present the evidence that proves beyond any doubt that 9/11 was an "inside job". However, perhaps you would agree that the billowing, fluid plumes of dust observed in 9/11 are like a pyroclastic flow in some regards.

 

EDIT: you claim that in this video, the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 before it happened. The video proves nothing, as there is no time on the screen.

 

It proves that people knew in advance the WTC 7 was going to collapse for no obvious reason and that the media was being feed this information.

 

 

Now, I think I have presented all the evidence which indicates beyond any doubt that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, which should be obvious by just looking at the collapse video and using "common sense". This is a keystone to understanding 9/11, it proves there was a conspiracy and it opens the mental doors to considering controlled demolition in the twin towers themselves.

 

EDIT: One more thing... here is a New York police officer who walked around WTC 7 and was next to it when it collapsed describing what he saw at about 10:50: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2283625397351664218

 

So, next I want to move on to the evidence for controlled demolition in World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers.

[Paranoid Marvin]

I am not here to debate the definition of "pyroclastic flow" but rather present the evidence that proves beyond any doubt that 9/11 was an "inside job". However, perhaps you would agree that the billowing, fluid plumes of dust observed in 9/11 are like a pyroclastic flow in some regards.

 

Yeah, also looks like cauliflower.

 

 

It proves that people knew in advance the WTC 7 was going to collapse for no obvious reason and that the media was being feed this information.

 

No, what I mean is that in the recording, there is no time on the screen (must have been the way the BBC used to do it). Therefore, you can't pin down the exact time that the video was broadcasted, therefore it is not reliable evidence for that point.

 

 

 

So, next I want to move on to the evidence for controlled demolition in World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers.

 

Bah, we all know what caused it - it was a nuke!!

 

Just look at these two pictures, it's perfect evidence - it looks the same!!!

 

 

 

Of course, that would be completely irrational, and there is no substantial evidence for it, but I'll go ahead and claim it as gospel, anyway. It looked like a nuke, so it must be! But then again, you can make anything look like something if you draw red lines on it and make 'evidence' up and don't even know what a pyroclastic flow is....

[bofors]

 

 

 

I want to start by describing the twin towers architecture. Richard Gage give an excellent overview in his talk "How The Towers Fell" at 37:50: http://blip.tv/file/306082/

 

Jim Hoffman's 9-11 Research .com site covers the architecture in detail: http://www.911research.com/wtc/arch/index.html

 

It was tube structure of 240 perimeter columns: http://www.911research.com/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

 

 

A dense grid of 47 immense core columns in the center, which were 4 inches thick at base, 2 inches at mid-height, narrrowing 1/4 inch at the top: http://www.911research.com/wtc/arch/core.html

 

 

 

Pre-fabricated flour assemblies, 20 gauge steel deck over 29 inch steel web-joists with 4 inch thick concrete were used: http://www.911research.com/wtc/arch/floors.html

 

 

The steel frame was 100,000 tons, it acted as a massive heat sink. Blueprints are available at AE911Truth.org: http://www.ae911truth.org/twintowers.php

[bofors]

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11

 

http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/genera_...ief_of_nist.htm

 

 

Interview w/ former Boston Center Air Traffic Controller regarding 9/11

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9147890225218338952

[bxsci(macuser)]

Paranoid Marvin you are a god at fighting this stuff

[OryHara]

I have the original Blue Prints to the towers if you want them.

Right, that wouldn't have been to stop the murders, looting and violence that followed the chaos of hurricane Katrina?Sounds like the best thing to do, IMHO

Yes. We know you support Police murdering Civilians, you have made that clear. You are starting to sound like Bush.

Those outside would be cooked alive, and have their lungs filled up with a cement like substance, made of volcanic ash and pus from their burning lungs.

Ask the firefighters from 9/11 why they are suffering from breathing problems.

http://shadowpress.org/911_hidden_victims.52.htm

[bofors]

Tons of interesting videos here, including 9/11 videos: http://www.a2planet.com/video/