Finnish Military Expert Explains WTC Demolition

[AGENDA21]

The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707's, which are approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970's.

Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the durability of a steel trunk. With the temperature of carbohydrate fires that reaches only 825 °C (approx. 1517 °F) steel weakens at 800 °C (approx. 1470 °F) and melts at 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F). In the skyscrapers of the WTC the surroundings were not at all ideal as there were far too many steel columns and they led heat away from the burning area. WTC 1 burned for 102 minutes and WTC 2 for 56 minutes only. A fire burning much longer, from 10 to 20 hours, could slowly increase the burning temperature down to perhaps 1100 °C (approx. 2010 °F). Provided there is more substance to burn, such a fire will damage concrete and irons, but not severely heavy steel constructions.

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm

[hack89]

1. Research the fuel loading of a typical office building ...

and you will see why this is BS. The jet fuel argument is a strawman.

[Grateful for Hope]

2. Can I ask you something, Hack89?

I have been reading this forum for some time now, and I have noticed a very distinct pattern of "CT naysayers" jumping into most threads (often very quickly)to debunk whatever topic or theory is contained in the particular thread.

Do you think that the official 9/11 story is the real story of 9/11? If you don't, then I can understand why you hang out in this forum. If you do, however, I really wonder why you post here. If the latter is true, why is it so important that other's hear your viewpoints?

Myself, I am not a proponent of any particular theory, except that I do not believe the official story. And, with each passing day, it seems, the administration is giving me more reason to believe that 9/11 was not what they want us to think.

I think some of the theories in this forum are far-fetched, but, it is very difficult to get at the truth when so much of the evidence was removed before adequate investigation was performed. I have read the various reports (NIST et al), and, I am not impressed.

What I do know is that I have an open mind to alternative explanations because we have been lied to time and again by the Bush cartel, and I have no reason to believe that they told the truth about 9/11. Certainly, their version of 9/11 is by far the biggest CT I have ever heard.

[Mnemosyne]

3. Very well said Hope, thank you. n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

5. Thank you, Vickiss. n/t

[we can do it]

14. I Agree - Thank You Hope

:hi:

[Caution]

6. So disabusing people of ridiculous ideas is unwelcome?

I guess we should shut down schools and have the scientists close up shop and just let the latest nutjob of the week determine what we should and shouldn't believe, rather than demand such silly little things like evidence.

[Grateful for Hope]

7. Why do you feel the need to be insulting?

I asked a very reasonable question. Since there is no evidence either way that I have seen here that is definitive, all ideas are conjecture.

This is exactly what I was talking about. People explore ideas, and there are those who feel the need to belittle the ideas.

Just seems a little strange to me.

[Caution]

11. I didn't insult any DU'ers. The nutjob comment was a reference to the

OP's linked article. Exploring an idea is one thing. Trumpeting it as fact is another. Using hearsay and conjecture in place of evidence is yet another. Why does it bother you so much when people question the prevailing "ideas" in this forum? Why is it "insulting" when people question the MIHOP/LIHOP "ideas" ?

As a skeptic, I am often accused of "having a closed mind" and I hear the constant refrain of those whose "ideas" I would question. "Question everything. Don't ever accept the 'official' story." But the fact is that all scientific progress is made as a result of the use of the scientific method, where reputable scientists and researchers come to a consensus based upon evidence. And all of this is done through a very rigorous process that requires consensus within the wider community. The 9/11 Commission Report follows this method and many many more researchers than the small group of MIHOP/LIHOP theorists, NONE of whom have any actual credibility have ever provided a single shred of evidence as opposed to the massive mountain of evidence which points to 9/11 having been perpetrated by a group of Islamic fundamentalists who held a twisted view on life and on their own religion. Was Bush and his administration culpable? Sure. For gross incompetence. Why isn't that enough?

Why do people like myself come to this forum? For the same reason that people choose to be a voice in the wilderness. For the same reason that every thread on the board that mentions 9/11 eventually attracts someone who posts about MIHOP. Because if no one speaks up, there is a chance that the voice of reason will become lost in the wilderness of non-evidence based conjecture. For the same reason that people file suit against school boards that attempt to teach Intelligent Design. For the same reason that the Democrats make a rebuttal to the SOTU. Because if skeptics don't no one will.

[Grateful for Hope]

20. Look, don't get me wrong

While I believe that 9/11 was MIHOP, I have no proof, and, it could very well have been LIHOP. I also appreciate the rigors of the scientific method as I mentioned in another post.

I think I do now understand why there are strong voices in dissent of some of the theories that are merely conjecture in this forum.

Thank you for your response.

[we can do it]

35. Please Share Your Evidence - We'll Wait

<massive mountain of evidence which points to 9/11 having been perpetrated by a group of Islamic fundamentalists>

[stickdog]

53. What actual hard physical evidence buttresses your claims that

19 Muslims worked together with Bin Laden to cause 9/11?

You've got nothing (except a completely warped sense of skepticism).

[JackRiddler]

135. The 9/11 Commission was scientific?!

I get it. Thanks.

So, science is when you say, can I interview the imprisoned masterminds of 9/11, who are being "held" at an "undisclosed location"? And the government says no. And then you say, okay, let me just use whatever transcripts/summaries/notes you the government provide, as though it's gospel. And then you base a large part of your report on the alleged testimony, as reported to you by the government, of the alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, who may or may not be dead, who may or may not be in US custody, who may or may not be telling the truth, and whom the government has now said spoke under tortured (waterboarding).

Transcribe government's notes and call it a report. That's science. Got it.

Science is when you don't even bother to pose questions that self-evidently matter (the US does not know how the attacks were financed and "the question is of little practical significance," 9/11 CR, p. 172).

Science is when you refer to documents kept secret that will not be released for at least 6 years, and which we are to accept on faith - well, we say so, so it is so.

Science is when you simply ignore all data that does not fit your preconceived theory (collapse of WTC 7, the wargames except to reproduce a self-evidently false denial by Eberhart, insider trading such as puts against the WTC tenants and reinsurers, reports of insider trading internationally, suspicious ties of the Florida flight schools, Atta in the US long before official FBI timeline acknowledges his presence, Able Danger spotting the alleged hijackers as related to the Commission many weeks before the publication, etc. etc.)

Also, very important, science is when you determine from the beginning that you will not assign blame, but write a cool novelistic narrative. That is your task, to make a readable text.

You will not label what you are excluding, you will in fact simply adapt the text so that there is no need of visible redactions, because you didn't bother to let in anything that the White House or CIA would demand to censor. That's science.

Excuse me when I confuse all this with papal pronouncements.

[dchill]

162. I would never claim to be a scientist...

but it would seem to me that a basic foundation in logic would cause any skeptic worth his salt to question the governments "own" scientists when it comes to anything involving the Bush Administration.

A few quick mentions - the EPA's air quality assessment of post-9/11 Manhattan's air, the Department of Energy’s claim that Yucca Mountain would be a safe storage site for high-level nuclear waste, the Data Quality Act, which sets up a process by which special interests get to petition agencies to attack scientific information they don't like, and potentially drag it into the courtroom.

What I'm saying is that the so-called "Scientific Method" is being attacked by the same administration that it should be investigating. Whether this is a small point with you or not, I can't say. It's a large point with me, and yes, it seems like yet another conspiracy. This one against science itself.

[beam me up scottie]

17. Take another look around this forum.

We're given two choices at the door, one either buys the PCT du jour or we believe everything bush and his administration tell us.

Anyone who doesn't drink the Conspiracy Kool-Aid is either a Rovian plant or too stupid to know any better, according to the "truth" experts here.

Posters in this forum regularly shit on engineers, scientists and other professionals who are much more knowledgeable and better informed than the quacks who get cited constantly.


In reality, most of the true skeptics HAVE done their homework on this subject, just like they do with other extraordinary claims.

Trying to discuss their opinions here would be like trying to discuss separation of church and state with fundies.

[Grateful for Hope]

21. Isn't there a third option?

Not believing in what the admin tells us AND not believing the PCT du jour?

[beam me up scottie]

27. I think that's where most of us are.

But that's not hip down here.

Anyone who questions a "theory" or voices real skepticism becomes a target.

I have to wonder why so many 911 PCTists, instead of welcoming peer review, need to smear and harass anyone who pokes holes in their "theories".

And that doesn't just happen on DU.

[Grateful for Hope]

30. It had seemed to me

that it was the opposite -- that it was the 911 PCTists who were being regularly smeared far moreso than the naysayers. I have to go back and read the threads with a more even-handed perspective, I think.

[beam me up scottie]

37. From what I've seen,

the engineers, controllers and other professionals who post here are mocked, insulted and ignored.

There aren't many who would stay and put up with it.

Kudos to the ones who do.:patriot:

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackRiddler]

slight punctuation edit

The self-declared "engineers," "controllers" and "other professionals" (of what kind, pray tell) are indeed at times mocked and insulted. But ignored?

And as to your choice of "smiley" - "rocking a motherfucking flag don't make you a hero."

[beam me up scottie]

141. Saluting fellow DUers doesn't make me a hero?

Wow, you're a clever one.

[JackRiddler]

136. slight punctuation edit

The self-declared "engineers," "controllers" and "other professionals" (of what kind, pray tell) are indeed at times mocked and insulted. But ignored?

And as to your choice of "smiley" - "rocking a motherfucking flag don't make you a hero."

[Grateful for Hope]

94. I have done some re-reading of the most recent threads here

And, what I have seen is that, if one counts the number of posts (I did some counting) from all posters (and not multiple posts from the same poster), there is a bias here in this forum against those who would question the official 9/11 story in the form of more posts in the "naysaying" category that are insulting, derogatory, and generally designed to discourage any type of questioning of the official story.

I guess my original impressions were correct.

[we can do it]

96. Yep - Its Prevalent Here

If you question the official story you must be a nut case.

[Grateful for Hope]

99. Not what I am saying n/t

[beam me up scottie]

100. BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

You must be joking.

THis forum is dominated by the PCTists, skeptics are few and far between, how the hell can there be bias against the vast majority?


How many skeptics post here on a regular basis versus how many theorists?

[Grateful for Hope]

112. Your BWAHAHAHAHAHA says it all n/t

[beam me up scottie]

133. Actually, the subject line of this thread

says it all.

[Grateful for Hope]

139. Your BWAHAHAHA in this instance

had nothing to do with the OP. Despite what your response to me said.

It had to do with what I had to say. Go back and look at it.

Just sayin...


And, maybe you should think about who you are trying to undercut, undermine, or otherwise make sure that those "skeptics" never have their say and never see the light of day. Why are you doing this?

Your initial explanation about the fact that there are apparently scientists, controllers, and engineers that come here to post in order to set the 9/11 skeptics straight, and that these same professionals are being chased away by these same skeptics -- first of all, who knows who is real as far as degrees go in the virtual world? So, how can you defend this to me?

It is starting to become very old.

[beam me up scottie]

140. Sorry, but paranoid conspiracy theorists are NOT skeptics.

Skeptics do not proselytize pet theories.

And they sure as hell don't believe in radiation free nuclear weapons...

[Grateful for Hope]

144. Since when

do you have a patent on the word "skeptic"?

[Desertrose]

109. Your original impressions were correct....

There are certain "skeptics" here on DU who are definitely practiced at insulting and ridiculing and their posts are designed to not only discourage questions but in the case of a real conversation, they do all they can to drag it off topic.

Very easy to pick them out.

Their skeptic/debunking group here is one of the few that is allowed to coordinate tag teams to post in other forums in the threads that they deem as CT or PCT. Quite curious to me is how they seem to feel they are the only ones with a grasp (make that the correct grasp) of all things scientific.


DR

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Desertrose]

121. Charming, bmus. Just charming...

.....and as usual you twist everything up in your own inimitable style.

[beam me up scottie]

132. You're saying there was no hit list?

Nice try, but I've got it saved.;)

[Desertrose]

134. What in the world are you talking about?

Hit list??

I have no idea about some supposed "hit list".

Of course we are in the 9-11 forum, perhaps you are caught up in some new PCT or something.
:shrug:

Just another off topic bmus post that makes no sense.

[salvorhardin]

111. Hey it's certain conspiracists here at DU

That love to recycle old Phyllis Schlafly and John Birch Society conspiracy theories. I've even seen the mental midgets here at DU that think fluoridation in the water is some kind of government conspiracy to mind control everyone. We skeptics don't feel we're the only ones with a grasp on things scientific, we don't even think we're the only ones with a grasp on reality. But come on, do you really want to be believing crap that was put out by the John Birch Society 40 or 50 years ago? I mean, if it walks like a loon, and honks like a loon, and looks like a loony far right-wing conpiracy theory, then it's probably a loon. Or something like that. I'm tired.

[DemonFighterLives]

119. you are absolutely right

There are too many official story believers here and they ruin most threads and attempt to run any conspiracy talk off the rails. Also in part answer to Beam Me Up, the so-called experts that show up here are not experts in my mind, but some form of the no child left behind experiments gone bad, science be damned. They proclaim a good position, but play fast and loose with the facts and push the science frontier beyond what is possible.

I usually don't get involved too much, because the flame throwers come out. You are very brave Hope! :yourock:

[stickdog]

54. But when you attack "911 PCTists", that's completely different.

Right?

[beam me up scottie]

87. Attack them?

Everything I said can be observed in this thread.

Radiation free nuclear weapons, anyone?

[trotsky]

23. Spot on, bmus.

I've had that charge leveled at me as well. If you aren't open to EVERY wacky theory, then you must trust the Bush administration 100% on everything it does. The all-or-nothing mentality does no one any good, and will certainly turn any thinking people away from serious discussion.

[beam me up scottie]

29. Quite a few believe that the right is using PCTists

to harm the left.

I'm not quite convinced that's the case, but there is sure a hell of a lot more going on behind the scenes than "truth telling".

[dailykoff]

31. Oh please.

Who are "quite a few"? You?

[we can do it]

34. dk - That Has Been Said Here Before

Be quiet - they will think we are nuts and not believe us about anything - sheeesh

[beam me up scottie]

36. Who said to be quiet?

Be intelligent is more like it.

[stickdog]

56. Yep. The right loves when people talk about about their 9/11 questions!

That's why they keep vigorously investigating all the suspicious events of that day. :eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

84. They love it even more when you discuss radiation-free nuclear bombs.

Nothing like playing into their hands.

Carry on.

[we can do it]

97. Thats About the Only Thing That Doesn't Make Sense In the Article

Insert some other explosive - not so crazy then......

[stickdog]

55. So now you are accusing "PCTists" of being right wing operatives.

How exactly does that differ from the supposed "PCTist" attacks that you're so riled up about?

[beam me up scottie]

86. Nope. Accusing the gullible ones of doing the reichwing's work for them.

Being naturally clueless, they are oblivious to the harm they do.

[we can do it]

74. Conspiracy Kool-Aid, the Official Drink of the Official Story

<Anyone who doesn't drink the Conspiracy Kool-Aid is either a Rovian plant or too stupid to know any better, according to the "truth" experts here.>

[beam me up scottie]

101. Real skeptics don't drink ANY kool aid.

Show me one DU skeptic who completely buys the official version.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

13. And how many building suffered major structural damage..

before the fires started? This argument is intellectually dishonest - unless you really believe that a fully loaded 767 crashing into a building has no impact on its structural integrity.

[we can do it]

32. The Empire State Building Was Hit By A Plane In 1945 Its Still Standing

This is a fair statement, as is the fact that the WTCs were engineered to withstand a 707 impact and hurricane force winds. They also were not fully loaded - half full or less.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/News/News8-0112.html

[hack89]

68. Except...

the empire state building had thick masonary walls. The plane was only 10 tons vice 100 tons. The plane had a fraction of the fuel. The plane was flying a fraction of the speed.

Looks like apples and oranges to me.

[dchill]

165. A little hard science for ya...

The B52 that crashed into the Empire State Building actually weighed a little more than 10 tons. Try 92.5 tons. That's empty. That's provable fact. That's from this website:

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=83

"Weight: Approximately 185,000 pounds empty (83,250 kilograms)"

That's the Air Force. Now gaze into your crystal apples and oranges and divine how thick the masonry walls are - that you live behind.

[hack89]

166. It was a B25 in 1945

1945 plane crash

At 9:49 a.m. on Saturday July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber accidentally crashed into the north side between the 79th and 80th floors, where the offices of the National Catholic Welfare Council were located. The fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. 14 people were killed in the accident.

During the accident, elevator operator Betty Lou Oliver survived a plunge of 75 stories inside an elevator, and currently holds the Guinness World Record for the longest elevator fall recorded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building#1945_plane_crash

[dchill]

176. Yes, it was a B25. I knew that, too.

Still trying to find the source that threw me into that particular tailspin. Maybe I'm dyslexic, but I don't think so...

Anyway, the Madrid tower did not completely collapse, so I don't see your point.

[hack89]

177. The interesting thing about the Madrid fire ..

is the portions that collapsed were all supported by steel columns. The only thing that prevented total collapse were the concrete structures.

My only point is that highrise fires get hot enough to weaken steel to the point of collapse.

[hack89]

167. It was a B25 in 1945

1945 plane crash

At 9:49 a.m. on Saturday July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber accidentally crashed into the north side between the 79th and 80th floors, where the offices of the National Catholic Welfare Council were located. The fire was extinguished in 40 minutes. 14 people were killed in the accident.

During the accident, elevator operator Betty Lou Oliver survived a plunge of 75 stories inside an elevator, and currently holds the Guinness World Record for the longest elevator fall recorded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_State_Building#1945_plane_crash

[stickdog]

57. No plane hit WTC-7. (nt)

[hack89]

65. It still suffered massive structural damage from falling debris. nt

[stickdog]

67. Really? And your evidence for this assertion is what? (nt)

[hack89]

77. Eyewitness accounts of heavy damage..

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd ...

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visc ...


Battalion Chief John Norman:

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. .... but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norm ...

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyl


http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

page 165

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported
that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors:
6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to
approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the
building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified:

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue
operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

[stickdog]

80. Eyewitness accounts. How scientific.

:eyes:

[hack89]

90. So we are to dismiss all eyewitness accounts ...

like those of the firemen hearing explosions? If that is your standard I guess I have no problem with it.

You CTrs are such hypocrites - you will breathlessly trumpet a "smoking gun" based on eye witness accounts yet casually dismiss any eyewitness that disagrees with you.

[jmb597]

138. Why did Silverstein say to "pull" building 7? oh yeah...

To bring building 7 down. I don't know about you, but coming from a guy who not only owned the buildings, but also gave the order...I think its pretty clear as to what happened. See for yourself...

http://www.911sharethetruth.com/extras/SilversteinBdg7.wmv

[WoodrowFan]

145. more BS

as has been explained over and over again, it meant PULL THE FIREMEN OUT?? Are all PCTs deaf and dumb*??

bye bye


*(and I don't mean mute.)

[jmb597]

146. wow...you are really gullible

oh my god...he says "...there was such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do was pull it. They made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

It's funny that your fine with the explanation of "pull it" means all firefighters get out of the building. That is not a common phrase amongst firemen. Jesus... His remark is so straightforward...how can you not question that but instead take that BULLSHIT explanation?

[jschurchin]

147. Please show us the evidentary link between the following.

(Thanks to Killtown)
America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero PBS (9-10-02)
Larry Silverstein: "I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure that they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.
Uh, and they made the decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

(Thanks to Hack 89)
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf
pg. 165

(One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported
that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors:
6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to
approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the
building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified:

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue
operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.) Italics Mine.

WoodrowFan, if you cannot provide a evidentary link between these two, then you cannot state conclusively that "it meant PULL THE FIREMEN OUT??"

Understand?

[hack89]

152. So give us a time for Silverstein's comment. nt

[jschurchin]

155. That would be a good link. Got one?

[hack89]

158. It's your point ..

if you think it is important than give us complete information. As far as I can see they are consistent. The NYFD decided to abandon WTC 7 and Silverstein was in the vicinity and was told of the decision.

[jschurchin]

160. The way I think though, that is ....

making an assumption. I would rather it be "we decided to remove our men from the vicinity of the structure and informed the building owner of the decision". That for me would make it much easier, in my mind, to make that jump.
As it is, there are people willing to make that assumption, I unfortunately, am not.
The statements may be at the same time, but to assume they are without something concrete proving it is not satisfactory to me.

[jschurchin]

70. Hack, that's being kinda....

dishonest. I would not qualify the damage as massive. The evidence presented by the NIST doesn't support that claim.
I will say there is a small area on the parapet slightly sw of the midline of the building (photographic) and a larger area on the sw corner affecting about 3 exterior columns from about the 10 floor down (also photographic) but the large area in the south side of the building about midline of the structure extending almost to the core, they provide no photographic evidence of.
There was damage to WTC 7, that is without dispute. The exact amount though is in question, due to lack of physical as well as photographic evidence.

[hack89]

78. Read this NIST report then...

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

page 165

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported
that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors:
6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30.391 No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to
approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the
building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified:

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue
operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd ...

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visc ...


Battalion Chief John Norman:

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. .... but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norm ...

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyl

[jschurchin]

82. Here's the thing with me.......

I am not saying there was not a hole in the building. What I am saying is I haven't seen evidence of it.
Eyewitness testimony, for me, is a all or nothing proposition. Either I believe all of them or none of them. If I believe all of them then there was massive damage to the front of WTC 7 and there was explosion's that went all the way around the north tower.
Credibility, becomes the issue. Being that all the sited men where NYFD personal their honesty and credibility is without question.

I cannot say eyewitness testimony is not valuable, but it becomes much more so with photographic/video evidence to back it up. I cannot pick and choose who to believe, because their testimony supports what I believe.

I have not seen evidence of explosions ringing the north tower, and I have not seen evidence of the massive hole in WTC 7. So their testimony, although important, is not, in my mind, absolute.

[hack89]

91. But keep in mind there is no evidence or witnesses ..

that point to demolition of WTC7. When it is all said and done, all there is is amateur analysis of internet pictures and video. There is nothing else.

[jschurchin]

93. I agree totally.....

there is no evidence of explosives. What we know for sure is there were fires and structural damage, it's the extent of this damage that I am becoming convinced we may never know.

[canetoad]

168. Hack, you say over and over again

there was no evidence of explosives.

No evidence in what? All the steel from the buildings that was tested?

WTC7 had a hole in it? Show me the modelling of the collapse.

Lets pretend you are the lawyer charged with prosecuting Bin Laden. With which evidence do you begin.

[hack89]

173. The most obvious place to start

is the lack of any explosive residue in the dust that was spread over NYC. If the top of the building was blasted off then there must detectable residue - yet there is none. Here is an analysis of the WTC dust - note that it was not done by any government agency as part of the investigation. No sign of explosives. http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf

This is testing that any 911 researcher could have done. There is still dust to be found on rooftops - why didn't someone gather a sample and have it tested?

Secondly, no one has yet to put forward a reasonable scenario as to how the buildings were wired, who did it and how much explosives were used. A lot of hand waving but nothing of substance.

Here is also an paper to consider - not directly related to your question but indicative of the weakness of many CTs. http://www.erichufschmid.net/WTC_AnalysisRussell.html

[MrSammo1]

124. Show

Proof of what you say shill.

[Ian David]

115. Every other time a fully-loaded jumbo jet slammed into a building...

what happened?

[we can do it]

120. Not Fully Loaded -

[we can do it]

16. Blindly Believing the "Official Story" Is A Ridiculous Idea

What hard evidence has booshco provided? Why do you feel the need to belittle someone who does a little thinking/questioning on their own instead of swallowing a stinking pile of horseshit without question?

[hack89]

26. But the point is that if you did some thinking you wouldn't

believe the crap posted in the OP. There is still room in an open mind for rational thought.

[we can do it]

38. Why Is It Crap - Because You Don't Agree? - No Offense, Just Asking

How do detectives approach a crime - where is the motive? Who benefits? Do you honestly believe that the BFEE is really that incompetent? Booshie may be dumb - but not Cheney et al. If they knew it was coming and did nothing it is still treason....there are just too many coincidences for them not having a hand in it some way.

[hack89]

62. Because his logic is flawed

when he starts talking about kerosene fires. Basic research will show that the jet fuel was used to ignite the contents of the buildings - more research will show that the fuel loading of the buildings were sufficient to start hot fires. 15 minutes in google is all it takes to find basic information fires.

[we can do it]

89. Sorry You Are Wrong

Section 4-8.1 of NFPA section 921 states that wood and gasoline burn to approximately the same flame temperature.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

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

[hack89]

95. It was not a gasoline fire! And who mentioned melting steel?

The gas was the igniter for the contents of the building. And no one is claiming that the fires had to be hot enough to melt steel only hot enough to weaken steel. This MIT professor not only thinks the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel, he has the calculations and references if you care to prove him wrong.

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

[we can do it]

102. OK - Kerosene - ALL HYDROCARBONS Burn at Approxamatly the Same Temp.

The flame temperatures achieved by all hydrocarbon fuels (plastics and ignitable liquids) and cellulosic fuels are approximately the same, although the fuels release heat at different rates” (NFPA 921, 4-8.1).

HYDROCARBON-
A hydrocarbon is any organic compound composed solely of Carbon and Hydrogen. Hydrocarbons include aliphatic compounds, in which the carbon atoms form a chain, and Aromatic Compounds, in which the carbon atoms form stable rings. The aliphatic group is divided into alkanes (e.g., Methane and Propane), alkenes, and alkynes (e.g., Acetylene), depending on whether the molecules of the compounds contain, respectively, only single bonds, one or more carbon-carbon double bonds, or one or more carbon-carbon triple bonds. Petroleum distillation yields useful fractions that are hydrocarbon mixtures, e.g. Natural Gas, Gasoline, Kerosene, home heating oil, lubricating oils, Paraffin, and asphalt. Coal Tar is also a source of hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbon derivatives contain additional elements, e.g., oxygen, and include Alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acids, and halocarbons. (Hydro Cut General Terminology Resource Information)

[hack89]

106. Read this and then you will understand what fueled the fires ...

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire96/PDF/f96080.pdf

[we can do it]

108. What Fueled the Fires? Planes Hits Building Explosion Expends Lots of Fuel

...office furnishings are ignighted.....whats the freaking mystery?

One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. ....T.W. Eagar, MIT - Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and Christopher Musso, graduate research student, are at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

[hack89]

114. So what temperature do office fires get to?

How about a link to a fire science or forensic site? I checked and I think you will be surprised.

Stop talking about melting steel - NIST (or nobody else for that matter) says the steel was melted. Stop talking about the jet fuel - it was not a jet fuel fire.

[stickdog]

52. What do you believe happened on 9/11?

Isn't your pet THEORY that 19 Muslims CONSPIRED with Bin Laden to do the damage?

[hack89]

8. I post because posts like the OP..

simply serve to distract from Bush's real crimes. The intelligence failings and their subsequent cover up are sufficient to impeach Bush - crap like this only serves to muddy the waters and delay justice.

What is wrong with rigorous standards of logic and evidence? I vehemently reject the prevailing attitude that as long as your heart is in the right place then we won't criticize you. The fact of the matter is that any CT will be accepted here as long as it is packaged with the appropriate BFEE, Operation Northwoods, etc, etc sentiments. Not everyone and every theory can be right - there can only be one truth. Yet any effort to separate the chaff from the wheat is deride as disinfo.

As to the official story, well reject it. However, could you at least be prepared to tell me what you think happened - and then defend that belief.

I don't care what you think about Bush - I have never defended him. I am led to believe that the official story, while not complete, is basically correct. The reason I believe that is no one can give me a single consensus alternative - for example, from this forum one would be led to believe that the Pentagon was hit by a missile/Global Hawk/remote controlled 757/some other plane. If the evidence can support all alternatives, than I say you don't understand the evidence.

Open minds can still reason. You should welcome people like me - do you think truth comes out of an echo chamber?

[Grateful for Hope]

18. I appreciate your response

I'll try to answer your questions.

There is nothing wrong with rigorous standards of logic and evidence. I have a research background myself, and wouldn't have gotten this type of degree if I didn't believe in the need for rigor in research and investigation. What bothers me is the demand for evidence when it is impossible to produce it.

And, I agree that some of the theories here are way out there. But, I do understand that some are innocently exploring these theories, while others may be using them for sinister reasons.

I don't pretend to know what happened, but, what I have done is look at the official story, and these are some of the reasons why I don't believe it:

1. The boxcutter story is very difficult to believe. There were supposedly not one, but four planes hijacked by men wielding crude weapons. To me, the probability that one plane could be hijacked in this fashion is remote, but possible. But four planes? I don't think so.

2. I work for a wireless phone company. The likelihood that cellphones can have reception at the altitudes that flight 93 purportedly was flying at when some of the calls were supposedly made is very, very highly unlikely.

3. I have looked at the arguments for and against the demolition of wtc1, wtc2, and wtc7. Since all three buildings pretty much collapsed within their own footprints, it does seem likely that their respective collapses were aided by explosive devices. I don't think this is an important point, however, as I think the outcome of the events of 9/11 is far more significant than how it was accomplished.

4. There are other reasons (NORAD standing down, Bush's behavior at the Florida school, the fact that Bush flew around the country after the attack), but, again I don't consider any of these that important.

5. Which brings me to the main reason why I believe 9/11 was MIHOP.

The extent to which the Bush administration has used 9/11 to justify war, wiretapping, torture, and the Patriot Act, and the extent to which this administration continues to spew fear-inducing statements concerning the threat of terrorism to keep the population in a state of fear, has me convinced that 9/11 was indeed a very welcome event to those concerned.

Also, the fact that Bush was talking about going to war with Iraq long before 9/11 tells me that they were definitely looking for a way to convince us that such a war was necessary. I don't believe they would have left this to chance, but, in order to ensure that war could happen, they would need to be actively involved in an event so catastrophic that it would leave America reeling for quite some time -- long enough for many to allow themselves to fall for the spurious connection between Iraq and 9/11 that was promoted by the administration.

I realize I haven't proven anything, but, I am relying on my instincts and common sense since I believe very little of the last six years has been what it has seemed.

[we can do it]

40. I Do Like Reading Different Ideas - That Only Inspires More Thought

However - some things that bother me -
Why did the Secret Service let * continue his publicized photo op (and endanger the children he didn't want to frighten while our country was "under attack"?
Why don't we see the actual video footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon?
How did Condi Rice know to call Willie Brown and tell him to cancel his flight the day before?
Who profited by the "short options" on the airlines stock?
Who gave NORAD and the Air Force he order to stand down?

[stickdog]

58. Yes. BushCo's REAL crimes are lying to start a war that's needlessly

murdered tens of thousands, trampling on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, letting hundreds dies in the aftermath of Katrina, bankrupting the US treasury with tax cuts, corporate welfare and military boondoggles, and hastening the deaths of thousand of New Yorkers by telling them it was just fine to breathe poison in the aftermath of 9/11.

But they couldn't possibly have had anything to do with 9/11 itself. That suggestion is simply absurd.

[hack89]

64. Not absurd - just unproven..

besides the issue is not the CTs but the lack of sound science behind them. We have non engineers making absolute pronouncements about things they know nothing about while smearing those trained professionals that disagree with them.

There is also the minor fact that four years after the fact - not a single name of a mid or low level conspirator has been revealed. You expect me to believe that the most inept administration in history could pull off a perfect cover up - I don't share you faith in the competence of the Bush white house.

[stickdog]

72. It's not that kind of a cover up. NIST & FEMA didn't do a cover up.

All that happened was that the scope of their studies was limited. Rather than doing a full examination of the physical evidence, they did a cursory examination of less than 2% of the physical evidence. And none of the tiny portion of physical evidence that they actually looked at supported their collapse theories, which were based almost completely on computer models that were reverse-engineered to achieve the desired results and subjective interpretations of photographs and video. NIST and FEMA were simply tasked with explaining how two plane crashes and the resulting fires could have caused three buildings to basically implode in their own footprints. So that's what they did. Considering what their task was, the complete lack of physical evidence to constrain their speculative "scientific" models certainly came in handy.

[we can do it]

75. Distract from Bush's Real Crimes? - When They Use 9/11 As Their Reason for

...everything they do? Come on, you need to think for yourself a little.

Show us some actual evidence for a change....

[jschurchin]

85. I, for one do welcome .......

your opinion's. I may not always agree with them but you have convinced me to look at each case technically, instead of "look it fell down and it is OBVIOUS explosives caused it" without proof of that cause. For this sir I Thank You.

[mirandapriestly]

39. I have wanted to say the same thing so many times

The same people derail and disrupt every post and I do not understand why they are interested in this forum, because they don't add anything.

[hack89]

66. If you want an echo chamber look some where else. nt

[mirandapriestly]

149. I didn't say I "wanted" anything.

Just saying that I agree, don't tell ME where to look (self edited word)

[dailykoff]

4. Then research "automatic fire sprinklers"

to see why this tired old talking point bit the dust years ago.

[hack89]

9. So that piping ..

can resist the impact of a fully loaded 767? Pull the other one!

There is also the minor fact that they were not designed for very large fires that encompassed more than 15% of the area of a single floor.

• The water flow capacities of the sprinkler systems installed in WTC 1, 2, and 7 were designed to provide densities considerably greater than typically provided for high-rise office buildings. Based on hydraulic calculations, it was estimated that the sprinkler systems could have controlled a typical fire at a coverage area up to two to three times the specific design
area of 1,500 ft2. However, a coverage area of 4,500 ft2 constitutes less than 15 percent of the area of a single floor.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-4ExecutiveSummary.pdf

[dailykoff]

19. Yes, and it did.

Or maybe you're thinking the supply lines were strung in the windows like Christmas lights? And what makes you think fires would have covered more than 15% of any floor while all those fire sprinklers were soaking them?

[hack89]

24. If you read my link

you would have also seen that every floor had a single connection to the vertical standpipe - the standpipe in the core of the building next to the elevators that were destroyed.

Well, if a 767 spewing fuel everywhere doesn't simultaneously start fires over more than 15% of the floor, I'm not sure what would. Parts of the plane went through the building - a very large area was instantly engulfed in flames.

[dailykoff]

28. I did, and you're making things up.

Here's what it says:

"The supply risers for automatic sprinkler systems in WTC 1, 2, and 7 were configured to provide redundant capabilities. However, the sprinkler floor level controls were installed with one connection to the sprinkler water riser. This represented a single point of failure location for the water supply to the sprinklers on that floor."

Note that it does not say that that this "single point of failure location" actually failed, or that any of the sprinklers on the fire floors didn't operate as they were designed to on 9/11.

In any case, operating fires sprinklers were reported by firemen and survivors, and it's clear that they controlled the fires in all three buildings.

[we can do it]

42. Which Could Be Why the Smoke Had Turned Black

And why the firefighter in charge was only calling for 2 engine companies to knock it down.

[hack89]

60. Black smoke is indicative of fires fed by

oil and oil based products - like plastic. Burn a bunch of computers, cabling, synthetic material and tell me what color the smoke is.

Here is a paper from MIT - he says the fires were big and hot. Are you as knowledgeable as an MIT professor?

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

[stickdog]

69. "Big & hot" is a new scientific term.

Qualitative and semi-quantitative analyses (read: stuff I pulled out of my ass and have no proof of whatsoever) presented in this article suggest that the massive fires caused by the crash of the planes into the World Trade Center Towers and the spillage of large amounts of jet fuel inside the buildings played a major role in their quick collapse on September 11, 2001.

It's amazing how easy science is when you can simply work backwards from your conclusions.

[hack89]

79. I didn't think you were. nt

[dchill]

164. The fires HAD to have been...

"big & hot" - they melted both towers AND building 7. Plus, a Scientist from M.I.T. SAID they were "big & hot" - so only chucklehead CT believers would pooh-pooh* it.

(*Pooh-pooh: Advanced scientific term meaning "Yeah, right.")

[hack89]

169. No - it is simply a known fact that office and house fires.

routinely reach temperatures that weaken steel. The fact that you believe the steel was melted simply demonstrates that you have not read (or not understood) any of the reports.

Fire science has been around for a long time - engineers know how fires act in office buildings. What do you think all our building and fire safety codes are based on? Why do you have such a hard time with this? Grade school insults on your part don't change this simple fact.

[hack89]

170. Why don't we look at the Madrid fire, beloved by all CTrs ..

certainly looks like high rise building fires get hot enough to weaken steel and collapse buildings to me.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

[we can do it]

83. And Short Lived, Black Smoke Can Also Indicate That A Fire Is Dying Out

So isn't your argument here a bit weak - he is a mechanical engineer. Does this make him an expert on fire behavior? I think not. I would however think the NFPA - National Fire Protection Assoc. would be the definative source.

“Wood and gasoline burn at essentially the same flame temperature. The flame temperatures achieved by all hydrocarbon fuels (plastics and ignitable liquids) and cellulosic fuels are approximately the same, although the fuels release heat at different rates” (NFPA 921, 4-8.1).

www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

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

[hack89]

98. Show me something relevant to the WTC

it was not a gasoline fire - the fuel was burned out in minutes. The fact you have not grasped this fact tell me you have not read any of the reports on the WTC - not a single one makes the claim that the jet fuel burned for more then a few minutes.

Here is a report modeling the WTC fires - it has the calculations and references if you question their results. It determines that giga-watts of energy were feeding the smoke plume. That was not a small, dying fire. This is real science.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC_total__rept.pdf

[we can do it]

103. TRY READING AN ENTIRE POST before spewing OK?

The flame temperatures achieved by

all hydrocarbon fuels (plastics and ignitable liquids) and cellulosic fuels are approximately the same,

although the fuels release heat at different rates” (NFPA 921, 4-8.1).

HYDROCARBON-
A hydrocarbon is any organic compound composed solely of Carbon and Hydrogen. Hydrocarbons include aliphatic compounds, in which the carbon atoms form a chain, and Aromatic Compounds, in which the carbon atoms form stable rings. The aliphatic group is divided into alkanes (e.g., Methane and Propane), alkenes, and alkynes (e.g., Acetylene), depending on whether the molecules of the compounds contain, respectively, only single bonds, one or more carbon-carbon double bonds, or one or more carbon-carbon triple bonds. Petroleum distillation yields useful fractions that are hydrocarbon mixtures, e.g. Natural Gas, Gasoline, Kerosene, home heating oil, lubricating oils, Paraffin, and asphalt.

[hack89]

105. Read this and then you will understand what fueled the fires ...

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire96/PDF/f96080.pdf

Then go back to my original answer and explain why the plume analysis was wrong. There is real science behind fire analysis - it is much more complex then your post.

[hack89]

59. So there were fireman in the impact zone?

link please? Show me where the sprinklers were working where the plane hit. Those are the only floors we are talking about.

[we can do it]

104. Firefighters One Floor Below Impact Call for Hand Line to Knock Down Fire

Quick transcript of firefighters' tape extract
Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."
Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."
Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."
Battalion Seven Chief: "Tower one. Battalion Seven to Ladder 15.
Fifteen."
Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay."
Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."
Battalion Seven Operations Tower One: "Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."
Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up Orio."
http://www.physics911.ca/Complete_Firefighters'_WTC_Tape_from_9/11



Accounts of WTC 2 Impact Area Survivors
"Remembrance of Vijay" - a WTC victim on the 78th floor:
They had to head to the 78th floor elevator lobby. While in the lobby waiting for the elevator with a whole bunch of people, the second plane hit their tower. The lights went out on the floor and many people were hurt, some killed. The emergency lights came on and people were checking to see who was OK. Vijay was apparently unhurt, just covered in dust. He then got a fire extinguisher to put out some of the fires that were on the floor but the fire extinguisher didn't work!

An account by Stanley Praimnath, a survivor from the 81st floor of WTC 2:
As he curled into a fetal position under his desk, the plane tore into the side of the building and exploded. Miraculously, Stanley was unhurt. However, he could see a flaming wing of the plane in the doorway of his department.
Stanley's office resembled a battle zone--walls flattened into dusty heaps, office equipment strewn violently, flames flickering about and rubble everywhere.
Have a good think about the account of Mr Praimnath. The WTC floors were open planned - there were no solid walls. If the official account of the WTC fires were true then Mr Praimnath would not have survived because the floor he was on would have been consumed by an 800ºC inferno.

The fact that he is alive proves an inferno did not exist.

"The Ashen Guy" - another survivor from the 81st floor: "There were about 230 people on the 81st floor and I was one of the last ones out. We took the stairs. There was smoke, but it wasn’t fire smoke, it was dry wall smoke and dust. The fire was above us."

Okay, let's go up:

The office of Euro Brokers on the 84th floor: Most of the company's trading floor there was annihilated. Yet even there — at the bull's-eye of the airplane's impact — other people were alive.

An account by Brian Clark, an 84th floor survivor: "You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames just, just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall."

The sprinkler system had turned on and had started to do something, but it wasn't doing its job as it should, so there was water sloshing down the stairways.

There were fires on floors 78 - 84 when Flight 175 hit the building, but there was no inferno.

[hack89]

61. Talk to this professor from MIT ..

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf about the fires.

[stickdog]

71. How about if I talk to you about his bullshit?

He doesn't present a SHRED of physical evidence for his musings. He simply postulates that a worst case scenario (spilling some jet fuel in a giant tower = a bunch of small, raging fuel compartment fires) and works backwards from his dubious postulate.

[hack89]

76. What a hard choice...

on one hand a MIT scientist and on the other an anonymous, non-technically educated layman. :eyes:

You should shoot this over to Dr Jones and his merry band of 911 "scholars" - it would be interesting see what they would have to say. If nothing else it would show them what real scientific papers contain - you know, calculations and references.

[stickdog]

81. It ain't real if it isn't rooted in reality. All the calculations in the

world don't change the fact that the paper is FOUNDED on a completely unsupported postulate (the idea that the WTC fires are best modeled as a group of small, raging fuel container fires).

[hack89]

92. Like I said - non-technically educated layman.

it is telling that you are unable to address the technical arguments of the paper - can you even understand them?

[MrSammo1]

47. Then research "automatic fire sprinklers"

Are you talking about the explosions that went off before the impacts that took out the pumps?

[we can do it]

12. So Is the Fuel Load In An Office Building

:crazy:

[hack89]

15. The point is some basic research can...

help keep one from looking stupid. It took all of 10 minutes to find this document:

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire96/PDF/f96080.pdf

There was plenty of fuel for a hot fire in the WTC.

[dailykoff]

22. And that's why they installed those heavy-duty sprinklers

and that's why they controlled the fires on 9/11.

[hack89]

25. Thanks for proving my point about the need for research! nt

[dailykoff]

33. Sorry, the NIST doesn't back you on this.

They go as far as they can to insinuate that the sprinklers failed but can't quite bring themselves outright lie. On that score, anyway.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

63. I can't see in the picture where the 767 hit the building..

oh wait - it didn't! Why are CTrs completely unable to grasp this basic fact?

Go argue with a professor from MIT - http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20IV%20Aircraft%20Impact.pdf

[we can do it]

107. Enough Circular Logic

You say fire weakens steel - and causes it to fail, resulting in building collapse....funny how this only happened on 9/11. When you are presented with buildings which presumably had similar office furnishings which burned for much longer - no failure.

[hack89]

127. No - I said that structural damage plus the fires ...

caused the collapse. This isn't rocket science - each floor of a building is designed to hold the weight of the building above it with a safety margin designed in. Remove some of the structure and that safety margin disappears as fewer columns support the same weight. Heat those remaining supports and they collapse faster than they normally would.

Remember: it was a combination of weight, fire and structural damage.

[Make7]

129. May I ask a couple of questions?

Some of the top floors of the Windsor Building did suffer from a partial collapse. What was that portion of the building made of? And what do you think was the cause of that structural failure?

- Make7

[tocqueville]

43. Nukes.... Has anybody read the WHOLE document ???

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm

the guys says that the WTC towers were brought down by 2 small nuclear bombs (new generation, no radioactivity, shaped charges)...

besides he has a complete theory and explanations over ALL events regarding the 9/11 tragedy...

put things in another perspective doesn't it ?

[beam me up scottie]

44. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

I can't stand it!

[Snivi Yllom]

123. this writer is a complete LOON

NUCLEAR WEAPONS BROUGHT DOWN THE WTC!?!?!?!?!?!

pics from his report. See they look similar, so it must have been a nuke.

[WoodrowFan]

125. and it was an ANTI-MATTER BOMB

and it was not just a small nuke, but an anti-matter bomb! "They" also planted 10,000 cutting charges in the WTC, somehow without being noticed! http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier2.htm

Oh my, there really is one sucker born every minute, and this guy is playign to all of them!! :rofl:

[rman]

143. Misrepresentation

The source claims that anti-matter could have been used as a trigger for nuclear detonation.
That's not the same as it being an anti-matter bomb.

[Christophera]

45. Finnish Expert Calls For Nuke, No Way, But Has Good INFO. On What Is Requ

ired to cut the steel core columns. The nuke is out of the question. It's blast cannot be delayed or slowed or diminished to match the event. Radiation not present after 2 nukes? I dont think so.

Below the Finnish officer makes acorrect observation and incorrectly concludes, (not copied) that because the cutting charges would have been detected during installation, that a nuke was used. He's right about the installation, but there were no steel cores so there were no cutting charges.



In video tapes taken of the so-called collapses of the WTC, more explosions of these cutting charges can be seen. The explosions advance quickly, with a gap of a couple of floors, cutting the strong steel pillars in the outer wall. The explosions are timed so that it appears that the tower collapses occur in the same timing as in a gravitational collapse. The explosions are not completely synchronized in timing, probably a few charges are triggered by radio, and other charges explode out of the impulses of one of these charges (infrared, pressure wave).

More challenging problems to the demolition men, however, were the central cores of the buildings and the 47 steel pillars more robust than the ones on the outer rounds. The pillars of the central cores were made of steel even 100 + 100 mm thick, thicker than the side armours of a battle tank. Cutting those, even with explosives, is extremely difficult. One would need to surround the whole pillars, every single pillar on every floor intended to get blasted, with powerful cutting charges. These charges would have needed to be placed in such a way that the users of the skyscrapers could not notice these preparations.

[tocqueville]

46. The problem with that nuke is that it doesn't exist...

Pure fusion weapon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A pure fusion weapon is a hypothetical hydrogen bomb design that does not need a fission "primary" explosive to ignite the fusion of deuterium and tritium, two heavy isotopes of hydrogen (see Teller-Ulam design for more information about fission-fusion weapons). For many years, nuclear weapons designers have researched whether it is possible to create high enough temperatures and pressures inside a confined space to fuse together deuterium and tritium for the purposes of a developing such a weapon. Pure fusion weapons offer the possibility of generating very small nuclear yields and the advantage of reduced collateral damage stemming from fallout because these weapons would not create the highly radioactive byproducts associated with fission-type weapons. Yet, the lethality of these weapons due to prompt nuclear radiation and explosive force would still be great. For instance, a pure fusion weapon with an explosive force equivalent to one ton of TNT would affect an area nearly a hundred times larger than a conventional bomb with the same explosive force.

Despite the many millions of dollars spent by the U.S. between 1952 and 1992 to produce a pure fusion weapon, no measurable success was ever achieved. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Energy released a statement that "no credible design for a pure fusion weapon resulted from the DOE investment." The power densities needed to ignite a fusion reaction still seem attainable only with the aid of a fission explosion or in large apparatus such as the Sandia Z-pinch, the Livermore National Ignition Facility, or various tokamaks.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

what amazes me the most is that this thread has a half-flame war about beliefs or non-beliefs, without even reading the fucking article. No wonder that outside observers are going to diss a necessary discussion about 9/11 as tinfoil...

[beam me up scottie]

48. That theory was already posted here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=65477&mesg_id=65477

They keep recycling old theories.

[Make7]

49. Ah, 'tis even older than that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x37087

Although to be fair, sometimes newer people post theories without knowing they have been discussed previously. AGENDA21 hasn't been here very long.

- Make7

[beam me up scottie]

88. I saw that.

Whatever happened to critical thinking?

If they're so worried about skeptics dissing the theories posited here, they should do their homework.

[Make7]

130. Homework and critical thinking require effort.

Perhaps it's just easier for some people to complain, ridicule and/or accuse. Although a lot of it is probably borne of frustration. On both sides.

- Make7

[Old and In the Way]

50. Slightly off topic, but with regards to fire supression-

Anyone know if Halon systems were in place in the WTC? Halon is used to suppress fires in computer datacenters. It eats the oxygen to starve a fire and minimizes damage to sensitive computer systems. I'd think the WTC would have had lots of these systems in the building. Given the cost and capacity of getting adequate water pumped up to these locations, Halon would seem to be a logical choice. Of course, the downside to dumping Halon is that it also starves oxygen for breathing.

[Dunvegan]

51. I work in information security as a consultant...re. Halon...

Most buildings of the WTC class have been required to decommission from Halon in the past decade.

If anyone has a continuing interest I'll grab the specs and code for the WTC and NYC.

Let me know.

[Ian David]

113. Smart people can believe dumb things....

which is why I have no problem at all believing someone with your intelligence can believe something this profoundly and stunningly moronic.

[dailykoff]

116. ...like "explanations" that defy the laws of gravity and probability?

Or did you have something else in mind? :eyes:

[Ian David]

117. Precisely my point! And explanations that involve invisible Jewish elves..

scurrying about the WTC for days planting explosives in precise locations with nobody noticing.

Or the Japanese mafia using a Russian weather control device to create hurricanes.

[dailykoff]

118. Let's stick to physics. Please explain to me

why the upper sections of the towers did not complete the rotations they began.

Take your time. I'll check back tomorrow. :)

[hack89]

137. Wouldn't a complete rotation indicate demolition?

For it to rotate cleanly, wouldn't all the connections at the point of rotation have to be severed at the same time? If parts of the upper sections were still connected to the rest of the building wouldn't that rip the upper sections apart? I mean - the upper section is not a homogeneous piece of anything - it was made up of tens of thousands of structural elements welded and bolted together. If part of the upper section was rotating while the rest of it was still connected to the lower section, surely it would rip those connections apart. You don't believe that the steel structure could withstand those stresses and maintain its integrity?

Incomplete rotation does not equal demolition - quite the opposite.

[dailykoff]

142. Probably, but the incomplete rotations prove it. (n/t)

[hack89]

151. No, incomplete rotation support collapse due to fire ..

read my post again.

[dailykoff]

156. Once was plenty, thanks.

Here's a suggestion. If you insist on writing nonsense, why not make it rhyme? It worked for Dr. Seuss!

[hack89]

157. I knew you had no answer. nt

[dailykoff]

161. I answered politely. (n/t)

[hack89]

163. Your manners are impeccable. nt

[Snivi Yllom]

122. wrong figures, steel weakens at 230C

Average building fire temperatures range from approximately 700º to 900º Celsius. Steel weakens dramatically as its temperature climbs above 230ºC, retaining only 10% of its strength at about 750ºC.

[jschurchin]

126. Thank god my oven is ......

made of rock. If not my christmas turkey would fall thru the steel rack and probably go right thru the bottom of my stove.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[hack89]

128. Here is a good primer on steel and structural fire protection

At what temperature does steel lose all of its capacity?

The strength of steel remains essentially unchanged until about 600°F. Steel retains about half of its strength at 1100°F, and loses all of its capacity when it melts at about 2700°F. For design purposes, it is usually assumed that all capacity is lost at about 2200°F.

http://www.aisc.org/template.cfm?template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=21208

[jschurchin]

131. Thanks a lot Hack.

You know I search and search for stuff like this, but I have only had a computer for about 2 months now and I am still really learning how to navigate around the internet and different web sites. It can be frustrating at times and comical at other times, but I truly do thank you for the link's. They are enlighting.

[MrSammo1]

148. You know........

the government has all you need!

[hack89]

153. Except AISC is not a government agency

American Institute of Steel Construction

[MrSammo1]

154. No.........

but you can create documents as needed!

[hack89]

159. Then show us the correct facts..

if you are so certain these are lies. Surely research on the impact of high temperatures on steel was done before 911.

[MrSammo1]

171. Professor Jones

explains it all very well.

Have you bothered to watch it yet?

That's not in the neocon playbook........is it?

[hack89]

172. He explains nothing of the sort ..

unless you are referring to his strawman argument about jet fuel and steel melting.

[MrSammo1]

174. I see..........

A physicist explains nothing..........because a government shill says so.

You're coming in loud and clear Agent hack89!

[hack89]

175. Does Karl know that you are over doing it?

if people like you didn't exist Karl Rove would invent them - Bush's survival depends on you distracting everyone else from his real crimes.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.