there were eye witnesses to explosions!

that's exactly how demolitions work. remove the right supports and let gravity do the rest.

... and just watching the top third of the building fall won't tell you why, either. However, there is a very simple way to figure out that WTC 7 wasn't brought down by explosives, but you seem to be very determined to not understand it. Suit yourself, but you can't really expect to be taken seriously by any moderately observant person who knows that there's no such thing as magical silent explosives.

It wasn't silent, and fire has NEVER brought down steel and concrete buildings EVER! You can't be taken seriously. So what is your understanding of how fire ALONE can take down steel and concrete buildings? Buildings that are reinforced to boot. Where is your video of a building collapsing to the ground at 10 stories a second due to fire?

That would be a good place to start.

trumps engineering training and experience. I guess I have bad news for all the fresh engineering school grads now.

but I do!

due to the dangers of fighting the fires in WTC7. The sleazy "truthers" accuse the firemen of being involved in mass-murder, including the murder of a few hundred firemen.

of

when he used the term "pull-it". He then said: "they (referring to the fire department) made that decision to pull". The "truthers" use this video to implicate Larry Silverstein (which also implicates the fire department) in the plot to commit mass murder.

It's extremely obvious that Larry Silverstein was supporting the idea of removing the firemen from WTC7 for safety reasons. WTC7 was badly damaged, heavily on fire, and doomed at that point.

Larry Silverstein is the sleazy one. He has no say if the firemen get "pulled". Since when does the owner of the buildings that just recently had more insurance put on those towers get to tell the firemen what to do. Even the firemen were talking about the building coming down before it did, and there was a countdown and explosions. The firemen were Bush/Cheney's collateral damage. You need to study more "facts" and video of that day. You accept only ONE video shown to us at the Pentagon. LOL! If it was what they said it was, why not shut us the fuck up already? There must have been cameras facing the oncoming plane somewhere on our biggest DEFENSE building that had 40 minutes since the second tower was hit. Video feed is run through computers, so even if the cameras were destroyed, there should be "some" video somewhere. Oh that's right, there was. It was at businesses across form the Pentagon that was quickly taken by federal thugs. Yes, nothing to hide here.

You are accusing the FDNY of being in on the 9-11 plot, which would include mass-murder against over 300 of their own. That is some crazy stuff.

So you are a no planer. Google "pentagon debris" and you will find massive evidence for that plane that hit the Pentagon. There were also thousands of witnesses.

We're at the point where the remaining people who don't believe the commonly accepted narrative are entrenched in their beliefs enough that the only evidence that matters is the evidence (or lack of evidence) supporting their beliefs. Anything else is dismissed (as insufficient, propaganda, fake, etc).

There is a lack of evidence. You guys think planes just magically sink into buildings with NO resistance, and don't fall apart and fall to the ground. I'm tired of people who are entrenched in their beliefs that fire can take down steel and concrete buildings at 10 stories a second again with NO resistance. Or believe the NIST report that shows the center columns still standing while the floors stack on top of each other. But where is the 50 story of stacked debris? Yes evidence. With the governments "evidence" it wouldn't make a Forensic File TV show because it's so far fetched.

Thanks for confirming my post. Someone like you is never going to be convinced by evidence, no matter how much, because you don't have the skill set necessary to understand what that evidence means. Most people don't, really - this is why engineers and other sciency-types spend lots of years in school. But instead of leaving the discussion to those who are qualified, you think that somehow you should be able to evaluate, and dismiss, evidence because it just doesn't make sense to you.

They were only doing what they were told. So where are these pictures of plane "debris"? You mean that blue tarp that was carried out buy about 10 guys. LOL! No SEATS! You think a fragile plane can penetrate steel and concrete through 3 rings of the Pentagon. Now that's crazy. Planes break and fold and the seats get thrown all over the place. No seats but they ID EVERYONE. Now that's even crazier. Human DNA can burn so hot, and still be good to ID. And no planes were reconstructed in ANY form. That reconstruction on the google page is TWA flight 800.

Thousands of witnesses, but why did the FBI confiscate film from surrounding businesses? They give us ONE blurry video of the most protected building in the US and we're supposed to buy that shit. Larry Silverstein would NEVER decide if the firemen can pull out from the building. And the fact that Rumsfailed announced the day before that the Pentagon misplaced 2.3 TRILLION dollars on 09/10/01. And they way to possibly track it, went up in flames. There is a video of explosions before WTC 7 fell, but if you can't or won't watch them, that's your problem.

Ignore them if you wish: https://www.google.com/search?q=pentagon+debris&rlz=1C2AFAB_enUS468US468&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=D7pzU7LqNLDksATnRw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=628

Science works on the evidence that you have, not on the evidence that you allegedly don't have. The thousands of witnesses and tons of debris make for a compelling case for an aircraft striking the Pentagon.

Have you ever inspected an aircraft? Apparently you haven't. The landing gears are heavy and extremely solid, so not surprisingly they were found in the debris.

There you go again, accusing the FDNY of participating in a 9-11 conspiracy. That's not very nice.

And Larry Silverstein does NOT tell the fire dept what to do. He meant pull the building. He got a ton of money over this. He's a Bush and Cheney boy. He along with Bush/Cheney should be in jail over this.

and her evening appearance is almost as curious as her 5pm early calling of the collapse

Here she is at ~8pm EST only to be "cut off" again. Twice in one day, one BBC anchor is "cut off" due to "satellite timing"- when talking about the Solomon building (WTC7). In the other hours of the BBC's coverage that I've seen (haven't seen all 24) no other reporters were "cut off" due to "satellite timing".
Archive.org full day of BBC coverage:
https://archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

That fact was passed to the reporters.

When it was taken down. Get real. NOBODY is implicating the FDNY. I guess you don't believe the FDNY when they said the basement of the towers had an explosion just before the tower was hit. So you are saying the FDNY are lying. You are saying when the FDNY said they heard explosions and felt them inside the towers were lying too. I guess the FDNY was lying when on the 72nd floor there were pockets of fires that could have been put out according to one of the firemen. And I guess you think all those FDNY were stupid for going into such fragile buildings to save people who were doomed.

I've seen and heard enough buildings, (houses and commercial) come down to know that sometimes there are what sounds like explosions inside and then they collapse on themselves.
That's why I scoff at those that forward these ridiculous CT's, and I never engage them, I let them live in their little fantasy world while I live in the real world.

Where fire takes down steel and concrete. LOL! Yes the real world. I wish I could live there too.

with buildings coming down due to fire than you do.

Steel will soften under intense fire and concrete will literally explode if hot enough, I know, I've seen it and I've been trained through numerous classes to recognize it when it does happen.


Go ahead and live in your CT world, I'll live and work in the real world.

Have to ask, what's your training in this field?
Mine is over 20 years of on the job plus numerous courses in aspects of the fire service.

In this day and age, I can't believe that people still actually believe this shit.

we just don't believe it! or I don't I guess I should say.

Last edited Wed May 14, 2014, 10:31 AM - Edit history (1)

But just google the effects fire has on steel and concrete and you'll see that I'm correct, if you choose to believe it.

I've just got to ask, what's your experience in this field? Other than listening to and believing other CT idiots?

show us a link that shows where a hydrocarbon fire burning wildly can melt and vaporize steel.
The only idiots I know keep trying to convince me it wasn't MIHOP!

Summary from NCSTAR 1A WTC 7 Investigation (PDF)
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

"...Thus, WTC7 did not collapse due to fire-induced weakening of critical columns"...

"...Temperatures did not exceed 300 °C (570 °F) in the core or perimeter columns in WTC7"...

"...The thermal expansion of the WTC7 floor beams...occurred primarily at temperatures below ~750 °F"...



We are asked to believe that temperatures lower than those seen in self cleaning ovens caused a 47 story building to collapse in a matter of seconds.

A self-cleaning oven is an oven which uses high temperature approximately 500° Celsius (900° Fahrenheit) to burn off leftovers from baking, without the use of any chemical agents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-cleaning_oven

The two things you compare in your post are not equivalent enough to draw any sort of logical conclusion, yet you attempt to do so. Fortunately most professionals in the building science community aren't susceptible to the same poor logical methodology, and we continue to provide fire resistive materials where necessary.

if hydrocarbon fires can just melt it like happened on 911 then kerosene heaters would just melt in peoples floors. Aluminum & steel engines wouldn't last an hour, etc, etc, etc.....
you do know that jet fuel IS mostly kerosene! Or do you?

Again, this is why a layperson's opinion is pretty much worthless regarding the technical details of September 11th. You aren't even aware of some of the principles that are involved, much less understand them. Did you know, for example, that gas temperatures in some combustion engines are high enough to melt the materials that comprise the engine? By managing the flow of fluids, though, engineers can keep the high temperature gases away from the walls of the combustion chamber. It takes that sort of knowledge to understand why examples like yours are irrelevant, and to understand what really is important regarding the collapses.

No steel melted on 911, no rational people say so.

The jet fuel was found to be trivial compared to the office fires. Look at the heat energy...
Heat energy before collapse from office fires - Estimates for WTC 1, 8,000 GJ, and 3,000 GJ for WTC 2 - jet fuel 1,300 GJ.
Office fire win, they were much more heat than the jet fuel. The jet fuel was only equal to the heat energy of 315 TONS of thermite, or TNT. Do you know what a joule is? A gigajoule, GJ? Science beats 911 truth claims of CD born in ignorance.

Steel fails quickly in fire, and that is why it is insulated to survive 2 hours with insulation in place.

Steel fails in fire.

This is so simple, steel fails in fire, why did the structural wood beat steal in fire?

Not once, but 3 times? In this day and age I can't believe you believe this shit.

What's your experience in this field?

It's only the willfully ignorant who seem to believe otherwise.

The last being in Carlin, NV where we studied the WTC attacks and the effects of the impact and resulting fires on the steel columns, I've also seen enough multi story buildings collapse in on themselves due to fire impingment on the steel in the structures.
So, when I see these CT idiots, and, IMO and experience, they are idiots, I just scoff at them and shake my head in wonder that they actually believe this tripe.

So, when I see these Official CT suckers, and, IMO and experience, they are suckers, I just scoff at them and shake my head in wonder that they actually believe this tripe. All it would take though would be a full investigation to clear the whole matter up.

Once again, what's your experience, real world and classroom?
Mine 20+ real world experience, where I've actually seen, heard, experienced it.

There's been a full investigation, you and your CT buddies just refuse to accept the conclusions.

Framing, drywall, steel erection, etc since 1988!
My experience is with putting gasolene in my car's gas tank. Cranking the engine and guess what. The engine did not melt!
I've been a science nerd since I was a kid. I know the characteristics of most of the elements. I understand that when two objects collide. The first object is slowed down from the impact due to the energy needed to overcome the inertia in the second object! That didn't happen on 911. They went down and never slowed. You can spend every hour of every day along with the few other anti-truther here and elsewhere trying to convince me or others otherwise but you fail.

No wonder you don't understand WTC 7, you are not a structural engineer.

Your engine would melt/fail if it did not have a cooling system, your analogy fails.


You don't understand physics, did you skip physics.

You got one thing right, some 911 truth followers will never understand 911, and never will give up their failed fantasy of CD and inside job.

> The first object is slowed down from the impact due to the energy needed to overcome the inertia in the second object! That didn't happen on 911. They went down and never slowed.

Uh, yes they did. One of your heroes, David Chandler, says the building only fell at 64% of free-fall. That other 36% is the slowing down that you claim didn't happen. Why only 36%? It's unfortunate that Chandler is too clueless about structures that he can't figure that out: It's because it only took milliseconds to buckle columns or rip floors away from columns, after which the debris took on the velocity required by the conservation of momentum (which you only pretend to understand), and then continued at free-fall to the next floor. The collapses were "near free-fall" because they mostly were free-fall! In his ignorance, Chandler imagines that a "natural" collapse should happen slowly, for some completely unexplained reason. A "science nerd" should be able to figure that out. The kicker is that you and Chandler completely ignore that in an actual controlled demolition, after the charges have gone off and started the collapse, gravity alone brings down buildings at that same rate, for that same reason. Like most "truthers" Chandler makes claims based on personal incredulity, which in turn are based on willful ignorance. And you refuse to examine those claims rationally, for no apparent reason other than you like his "conclusions."

Don't care what Chandler says! I see those building disintegrating to the fucking ground. That never happened before or since! Won't again either!
Building 7! Symetric collapse just like CD til out of sight.
I know! Anti-truthers fail. Millet is a fraud!

Yep, the top of the building falling looks just like a CD after the explosives have started the collapse and gravity is doing the rest. It falls at the same rate as a Verinage demolition, which doesn't use any explosives, but instead collapses some walls with hydraulic jacks to start the collapse and lets gravity do the rest. That's why it's so truly bizarre when "truthers" claim some "law of physics" was violated by WTC7 but not by a CD.

The towers were demolished also. But not from the bottom as with 7. They were blown to smithereens by probalty computer sequencing the ignitions.

And I suppose those planes flying into the sides of the towers were figments of our imaginations?

Once again, what is your real world, hands on experience with the effects of fire on steel?

It burned for hours and then finally collapsed, what's the mystery? Where's the CT?
That's what buildings do after burning for several hours, they collapse.

So, one last time, what's your real world, hands on experience with the effects of fire on steel?
How many buildings have you personally seen burn, collapse?
How many Fire Science Academy's have you attended?

weakens and warps steel.
Thanks for admitting and now, we're done as far as I'm concerned.
Get back to me when you acquire the experience that I've gained over 20+ years in the Fire Service.

I'll get back to you now! I have enough experience in the real world to know you're spreading it.

the last gasp of someone who knows they've been schooled and can't come up with an intelligent answer.
Have a nice life in your CT world with all your other CT buddies.

have a nice one yourself. I know I will.

not! The WTCs were nothing like an engine. The fires were weak and oxygen starved...
The towers didn't stand long enough to get hot enough to melt any steel. Yet steel melted. Neither building 7. * weeks after the event the temperatures were still unusually high.
I know exactly what I'm talking about. What does your opinion matter?
It doesn't.

LOL, yeah, because there wasn't those gaping holes in the side of the buildings to provide the oxygen for the fires to breath, because the impacts didn't knock the fire retardant off of the steel, because the jet fuel didn't splash everywhere and cause the fires to immediately burn much hotter.

Your ignorance of fire and the effects of it on steel knows no bounds.

You're providing pure comedy gold, please, by all means, keep going, we need a good laugh.

makes you think you're more superior.
See, here's the thing, I've been there, done that, you, on the other hand, have zero experience with burning structures, zero experience with structures collapsing, zero experience on how fire will impact steel, so keep on with your little friends living in your little CT fantasy world, we all need a good laugh every now and then, I'll live and continue to work in my real life world.

unlike the towers

Was it in the portions that were damaged from the impacts of the aircraft and subsequently exposed to fire? Because that's the only way your post would be relevant to the collapses.

How dare us blame these poor innocent men:



Truthers have found the real perpetrator of 9-11:



and his collaborators:

truthers as you call them/me simply want the total truth surrounding the facts of what happened that day. We want an unbiased investigation. Anti-truthers do not want the truth. They want to hold on to the official conspiracy theory.

the investigation are done, 911 truth missed them or they need 10 more seconds on the clock

including people that were also the victims of the same crime.

People that care about facts don't disregard massive evidence because the evidence doesn't fit their conspiratorial fantasies.

which I first used in post #6: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11357292#post6
in which I was criticizing a poster for accusing obviously innocent people of committing a terrible crime. So instead of going after the poster that was accusing innocent people, you made fun of me instead. I have a good reason to make assumptions on whose side you are on.

... that begins by assuming that the "official conspiracy theory" is not the truth? That's a peculiar definition of "unbiased."

> truthers as you call them/me simply want the total truth surrounding the facts of what happened that day.. Anti-truthers do not want the truth. .

And yet, time after time, you demonstrate that you really prefer bullshit, even from frauds like Balsamo. The reason I call you a "truther" rather than a truther is that you are allergic to facts and reason. You are so far down the delusional spiral of conspiracism that you call people "anti-truthers" for simply pointing out that you've been deceived by hucksters.

Every time I ask him what his experience is concerning the effects of fire on steel, or his experience with buildings collapsing, all I get is the run around or no answer, so at this point, I think it's safe to say that he knows nothing about what he's talking about.

No explosives, no thermite, fire did it. 13 years of fail for 911 truth in the can. Another dumb fantasy from 911 truth, the movement of lies.

Not a creative lie, a lie based on ignorance.