I am sorry to both the construction worker and the welder...


The engineers disagree with you. Nothing personal, but I am going to defer to their judgment.


If you want to link me to a structural engineer who agrees with you I will be happy to look at it... but that is basically like me saying I have been smoking all my life, and if you burn one side of your seeds before you plant them, they will double your yield.

I would assume you would defer to the horticulturist.


More engineers.
http://www.pecg.org/Download/Informer-7-2007.pdf

The Federal Highway Administration agrees.
http://sfchronicle.us/cgi-bin/articl...NGQUPII791.DTL

More engineers for the FHWA.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/Structu...arned_v1-1.pdf

__________________

Ah ... another member of our viewing audience ... welcome ... an iron worker ... I overcame my fear of heights thanks to the iron workers ... you guys are awesome ... ladies and gentlemen ... you should see these guys at work ... 47 stories up and if not for their safety harnesses you would think they behaved as thought they were working on the ground! Kudos to the iron workers!

Thanks for the input on this ...

That fact is jaw dropping to me ...

No argument here ... and those that are presented with the evidence that shows the obvious and still accept the bullshit story are

You think they would be able to comprehend that with pictures of all that massive steel ...

Thanks for posting ... you iron workers are okay by me ...

The engineers disagree with you about the WTC ... but I don't see you "defer to their judgment" ... I wonder why?

Oh you mean like the structural engineer Richard Gage ... who you claim was lying ... even though you couldn't tell us why or how ... you mean like him?

I don't give a damn about this bridge ... it has nothing to do with 911 ... there were no inconsistencies to the event that occurred ... there is no evidence of foul play .... yet there is plenty of evidence of foul play on 911 ... The bridge was an accident no ifs ands or buts about it ... totally different than what happen on 911 ...

__________________
Our Beautiful Ladies ...
Keep Them Safe Keep Them SECRET!
911 ... inside job!

Yeah im kinda tired of the bridge thing too, there isn't really any similarities to WTC buildings. Sure fire can melt steel, of course, how do you think they melt it in the first place, no one argues that point with you what...huh. The point we are trying to make is that its so not possible to happen to the towers, I linked you really good sources that showed the tower fires looking like girlscout weiner roasts compared to the fires some of these high rises suffered, and none fell down. So if all other high rises that have caught fire and not fallen down, then how is it that you are trying to state that these ones somehow did? Even the government itself and all the paid engineers and NIST can't explain it either in fact the commision even states that they can't figure it out, what do you say to that?

As far as engineers not agreeing with me, well I got at least 696 bona fide engineers and architects who agree that 911 was a sham. No not just a sham, but also a mockery, a Shamockery if you will. http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

Not to open another bag of worms. Something tells me that IF and by some crazy theory IF those core beams did get hot enough to melt and deform I have trouble seeing them all at once deform or melt into itself? I'm lost on how to describe? Umm? I don't know really what I'm trying to say but wouldn't the building have maybe doubled over? Bent over?

What about Building 7? That one is the one to focus on. Maybe the pentagon and the other"plane" Sorry for the insensitivity but there are soooo many things that I cannot ignor. I don't even bother arguing much really I'm happy!!!

__________________
I am a very giving person. I'll throw my 2 cents in.
SideWazeDaze!!!!!

You are bored? It took me 10 pages of insisting you answer my single question... and YOU are bored of the bridge? Cry me a phucking river. I am so sick of this bridge you couldn't imagine. You force this to be laborious.

I seem to remember before I entered this thread the position you have just accepted (though you do not yet understand the relevance) was heralded as "defying the laws of physics". "Lies". "Stupidity". I have fought tooth and nail for what? My agenda? My plot to become closer endeared to GWB? For accuracy. That is all. You are bored. With all due respect go phuck yourself with your boredom. You FORCE me to dredge the lake of this fairytale... and you are bored... I am bored. I am bored of you, and those like you telling me our friends didn't die. That my family is involved in a treasonous conspiracy to betray their country and engage in active murder of her people... and you are bored? lol.

I am bored of dragging you people by your hair across the jagged edge of truth. I have been here 2 weeks and I have undone this bit of rhetoric which you ALL have been espousing for the last 8 years as science. You think you are bored? Get used to disappointment. I will continue to bore you by God... this is just the beginning. I am not done by damn sight.

I say I told you I will address any concern of yours. Give me a schematic of the building in asia. Did it have a cement core? There could be a hundred reasons. I will try and find one that appeases. Maybe it's fireproofing was better than the 60s aspestos spray which seems to be coming apart all over the country creating health hazards etc... or maybe... just maybe... for all your research and presumed understanding, you really just don't grasp the concept of specific energy, and why a fire that works its way into a flame is not the same as one ignited with the explosive energy of hydrocarbons. Maybe because a 200000 pound jet didn't slam into the fucking thing before releasing 43 megajoules per kg of fucking energy from 20,000 GALLONS of fuel... ya know... for starters. Maybe you are just a jackass on a computer playing forensic scientist. Maybe I am too.

Maybe that building and the WTCs just don't have enough in common.

Ask more interesting questions if you are mired in the tedium of truth and some unanswerable questions. Wah... reversing my belief structure is boring.

LOL. Funny that the weak position finds strength in some minds for sake of being the minority. I like to root for the underdog as much as the next guy... but the scientific and engineering community at large rejects these notions resoundly. Either there is safety in numbers or there is not. You cannot have it both ways.

Einstine couldn't bring together the principals of general relativity and quantum physics. Does that mean there was no answer or was he wrong? Was he an idiot? There are simply things that are unknowable at this point about 9/11 given the chaotic nature of the situation and the wholesale destruction of that which we are attempting to comprehend. This was not a science experiment. It was an event.

I am going to try and inspire just a wee bit of understanding here with a rhetorical question.

What if the maze fire had never happened? What possible evidence could I have demonstrated which would have made you come to the understanding you now have of the temperament of steel?

Nothing.


You think you are bored.

__________________

Like this?



Tip due to structural weakness then fall on itself with the downward force of 20 stories, an acre of sq. footage per story, falling from the sky onto a building of equal footprint? Yeah... that is about what I might expect too.

Ever wonder why 1 took twice as long to fall as 2?

Think it might have had to do with the weight/number of in tact floors above and that magic elasticity point of steel weakening? Makes a little more sense. If it were demo'd... way to think ahead... and aim those planes... just to give me a logical argument 8 years later.



No problem at all. Most agree that 7 is the tricky one.

Doesn't seem that tricky to me. They say there were 3 diesel generators with upwards of 43000 gallons of fuel in them.. but I have not found anything corroborating any kind of explosion. It is noteworthy that it was there. Don't know how that would work into it really. I had decided not to "do" 7 till I was done with 1 and 2. You might notice I like to move one thing at a time. Much harder to avoid reality that way.

There were three main web trusses which supported the entire weight of the building. As the main truss began to fail, the weight of the building shifted backwards, creating the bulge between floors 10 and 13. Less than an hour later, after having been burning for 7 hours unbattled... it failed. They all knew it was going to fail. They had bigger problems. They just cleared the area and did their jobs.



That is another problem with conspiracists.

You have to assume the firemen, who lost more than 300 fellow brethren, were complicit in all of this.

NYFD is a pretty tight group. I have issues with that on principal.

"They were going up as we were coming down. I kept thinking, 'how are they going to put those fires out?'. They all looked as they passed. They all had blue eyes. They were all beautiful."

-WTC occupant wandering the street on 9/11

It's offensive.



And that is why I continue to engage... and will continue to engage. It is offensive to the thousands of fire and rescue, cops, building maintenance crews, security, ground crews, passengers, flight crews, reporters, camera crews, drivers, politicians, commercial enterprises, secretaries, demolition experts, servants, engineers, air traffic controllers, airport administrators, scientists, lab technicians you accuse of complicity, required for your beliefs to be possible.

How many would it require? How would you coordinate such an enterprise? I guess you would need programmers and modelers too... I will add some more to this list every time I post.

There is no single goal which all of these people could possibly have to gain from this treason, this horror.

Do I have to rule out mind control too?

Every one of the people required in these groups can not possibly keep this a secret. It is ridiculous to even have to argue this... and yet... here I am.

We must question our government. We must also be just in judgment... even if you think it "sounds like something they would do." If for no other reason because it would require TOO MANY AMERICANS COOPERATION to be feasible.

I cannot prove a negative, but I can demonstrate it's implausibility.

It is implausible. It is impossible. It is offensive.

__________________

I wonder if in the distant future, if there will be those who deny it even happened... like the moon landing. A hollywood stage... the wool pulled over the worlds eyes. I wonder how I would argue that.

"my great grandma lost an uncle"

"Bullshit. Was she there? What is his name? ... Yeah... He retired to the Cayman Islands with a masseuse. There is his picture... the fat guy on the left."

The futility of arguing a subject with people who ignore truth if it interferes with their dogma is frustrating... but maybe someone on the fence goes "oh... yeah... how bout that?"

Cleaning crews.

__________________

Hey buddy, you could take 1 girder and poke it in the ground, take 1 trillion billion gazillion TONS of jet a and light her up and let it burn around the girder, come back in 20 minutes when the fuel is all burnt out and I will take wagers that the girder is still there intact.

The diesel fuel in WTC #7 is a non issue, its already been proven that the diesel never ignited. Nope they made these buildings out of sticks and cardboard that's why they fell. Hey if the fires were so fucking hot, howe come the windows didn't all blow out like they should have?

See this?


The most recent example of a spectacular skyscraper fire was the burning of the Hotel Mandarin Oriental starting on February 9, 2009. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight. Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed. That fire makes any of the WTC fires look like a fucking weeny roast! You sure as fuck can't deny that is one mutha fucka of a fire, probably has temps in the thousands of degrees.

but your trying to convice all of us that this (10 seconds before its collapse)


Was somehow worse? You sir, have to be blind!

It is tempting to draw parallels between this spectacle and the destruction of WTC 1, 2, and 7 because of the stark opposites: on 9/11/01, three skyscrapers were transformed into piles of rubble primarily as a consequence, supposedly, of fires -- fires spanning small fractions of each building; and on 2/09/09, a skyscraper remained intact after burning like a torch for hours. However such parallels may be limited by major structural differences between the buildings in the two cases -- one being that the Hotel Mandarin Oriental, designed by the famous Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas, had a full-height interior atrium, and thus had the hollowness that the 911 Commision deceptively attempted to attribute to the Twin Towers.

Column failure theory proponents usually invoke some combination of structural damage and fire stress to explain total collapse. Structural damage is used to explain the insufficiency of fire stress and vice versa, in a kind of circular argument.

You just can't rationally explain it can you? And it is eating away at you like it has for all of us the last 8 years. Something in the back of your mind wants to believe the truth, but the conscious mind retches at the thought of accepting such.

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

Hey I just noticed something from your pics that supposedly show the tipping you are trying to explain to mexi, I think he was actually wonder why something like this didn't happen.


But now that I look at your time lapse set of 4 pics

I see that in examining the middle edge of the falling portion of the tower shows that its angle of tilt from vertical remains about the same between the second and third frames, and therefore the top has stopped rotating. But unless the top had already been shattered, it should have continued to rotate in accordance with the law of conservation of angular momentum. A gravity-driven collapse cannot account for that disintegration, nor for how a cloud of rubble could crush the intact structure below the impact zone.

Consider getting ankle straps to keep your socks on!

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

Because that one had a structural problem at the base... the WTCs structural problems all happened at mid point, so you have the full weight of ten times that collapsing into a hole, and gathering weight... and so on. You will notice the top of the building DID do that. I assume you have seen the rest of the clip where the building caves and collapses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm9uNfAJ9G4

Notice the sharp corners of that building as it hits the other one? See the damage to the other building is not squared... but as the two structures collided (lateral force, so not as good an example as dropping it crooked on another building) they destroyed each other only enough to equalize the collision and resistance?


That is what the top of the wtc was doing... only it was crashing into floors beneath, each not capable of baring the load of 10 more stories, 11, 12, 13, 14, on down to the ground. You do realize that is WHY there is so much steel work in the building... to balance the load... because if one piece of the foundation could do it, it would be designed like the space needle.

We are dealing with MASSIVE pulverizng forces on earth. Do you have the slightest guess of the weight of 15 stories with a square footage of an acre each, full of crap... wiring... people... elevators... AC units... would weigh? How SHOULD it behave when falling effectively on top of another building?


sigh... for you this is all just an article of faith. Your entire line of reasoning is still the same.

"I didn't expect them to fall that way."

"It sounds like something the government would do."

You just keep throwing darts, hoping something will stick to your theory... and you think that is method.

The upper floors are collapsing some during this immense collision of floors trying to making an accordian. The sharp corners of the building are pulverized against the massive resistance of the floors beneath as they are crushed.

It equalizes against the other side until it is a mass of debris being impacted between the flattened floors from above still in tact but slightly reshaped top of the building builds momentum as the buffer dibris is equal to the top portion which grinds them both down to the ground.

Massive forces at work.

Bring it, lest it be brougten.

I have answered several questions now, or at least addressed them, to my one question. I have asked a second and would like an answer before I continue to engage new questions.

Your entire argument is based only in two beliefs, and you will continue to search for anything that signifies evidence to support your beliefs. Nothing will convince you otherwise. Your faith is unshakable. I do not expect to ever win this... so you know.

Sound famliar?

That is another thing... I do not need to provide and prove an alternative theory to disprove one. I do not have to be at the ready in order to contrive a scenario in a scope above both of our pay grades to DISPROVE yours. If you were to say "there is no chocolate in m&m's" and I, through some painstaking method demonstrate to you that there is indeed chocolate... and you say "Then why does it taste funny?"... I don't have to know that answer. I am not proposing theories. You are. I am happy to demonstrate a rational answer if I think I have one... but I am not required to have one... I am not positing a theory. I believe what happened was what we all witnessed.

Thousands of volunteers who flooded in to help.
- They hid and destroyed evidence.

__________________