Oh Goodie! ... More on 911 (inside job) :)

[GrowRebel]

I like to check in here once and while. Very entertaining. Keep up the good work Grow Rebel! NoDrama, nice pics.

Thanks mexi ... you prove that there is indeed a home viewing audience ... and it wouldn't be nearly as entertaining without HW, olosto, natone, and the rest of the bushwhacked clan ... let give them a hand again ladies and gentlemen ...
NoDrama is very good at finding pictures ... No ... I wonder if you can find the picture of the construction of the center beams ... you can see the start of them in the picture I posted of the construction ... I've been looking for this picture ... it's shows the masive center of the building with the beams ... know what I speak of?

Now I think I'm going to ignor olosto because it seems he hasn't produced any source or fact for his arguments

Yes I know ... but that's how delusional the bushwhacked are ... they are so used to fauxnews that they actually believe that all they have to do is make a statement ... doesn't matter how ridiculous ... with no source backing ... they truly believe they are making a valid argument ... but that shit don't fly here ... on corporate news maybe ... but not here ... they have a real problem comprehending that.

If I was so sure on the official story and was willing to come here and disscus with GROWREBEL I sure as fuck would have some links/sources etc.
Peace all!!!!

You got that right ... don't come on this thread like some of these bushwhacked blowing it out their ass as expect to go unchallenged ... It makes it so easy to show their stupidity ... keep checking in.

That was not my question senior strawman. Were it my question that would be a stupid answer. I am not sure how you think steel is made or molded, but it involves fire.

Yeah ... a 3000 degree heat ...which an office fire or jet plane fuel can't produce ...

The question you seem to be attempting to answer, is will a "normal" fire "melt" steel. One of the things I am trying to demonstrate is that very flaw in logic.

Only to the bushwhacked minded ... to people that can comprehend facts and science ... it's not flawed logic at all.

To melt, means to change states from solid to liquid. I am not asking if "normal" fire "melts" steel. I am asking if "normal" fire will weaken steel to the point where it bends and folds under oppressive weight.

Save the bullshit play on words ... that "fire" was not hot enough to produce the damage that was done ... not without the help of thermite. There is no way you can talk around that fact no matter how hard you try.

I am not even asking that actually... I have clearly demonstrated that.

The only thing you have demonstrated is that you are capable of blowing shit out your ass ... nothing more.

What I am asking is if you are capable of admitting that fact, or do you have another reasonable explanation for the weakening and buckling of those beams in that bridge which happened to coincide with the "normal" fire underneath it?

Been there done that ... rebar is no where near the thickness or strength of fireproofed steel ... it is used to reinforce the concrete ... and the fact that the entire bridge didn't collapse proves that a gas fire can't bring down an entire fireproofed skyscraper in it's own footprint in a matter of seconds ... not without help ... It's not my problem that you can't comprehend a simple concept and scientific fact.

Again... I bolded my question, I don't know why you would change it... my question was...
So you accept that the bridges structural steel beams were weakened by the truck fire, which then stressed and buckled under the load of the bridge?
If your answer is no, then can you provide another feasible explanation for the very clearly weakened and folded i-beams in that photo resulting from a single vehicle accident?

Been there ... again ... done that ... again ... next.

Lastly... as to your entire line of pictures of airplane parts evidence (which btw grow rebel insists were planted)...

Once again you are blowing it out your ass ... show us where I insisted the parts were planted ... now watch folks ... he will come back with nothing but his thumb up his ass ... watch now.

If I found un-scorched building debris on the street with those plane parts, would that mean that the building didn't burn?

It is known as a logical non-sequiter.

With a question like that I can legally call you an idiot.

I mean... I can't fix hallucinating. There is an image of bent, buckled, pancaked steel i-beam (1 of 6... 5 obscured from angle) from a single vehicle accident.

Your bridge bullshit doesn't cut it ... different construction ... no where near the damage ... if you want continue to look stupid with this knock yourself out.

Here is the thing... if you both continue to be hypocritical and illogical, it is fruitless to engage you. If you refuse to accept contradictory evidence despite it's blatant and obvious existence... you are heretics.

No if you continue to push bullshit that is easily discredited your going to meet with the same response ... your fucked in the head. Period.

You are like a man standing in a stream trying to keep his feet dry with a broom.

And you are like a woman that thinks she's invisible ... yet everyone can see her.

You are furious, and devoted. You are dedicated and pugnacious. You are arrogant. You are also quite mad.

And you are too stupid to accept the obvious ... so what else is new?

Keep sweeping. It seems to make you happy. Until I am addressed rationally... I will not continue.

Keep making up bullshit no one but a bushwhacked mind will buy if it makes you happy ... I will simply continue to show our home viewing audience how stupid and desperate you are. Lots of fun.

 

[what... huh?]

Yeah ... a 3000 degree heat ...which an office fire or jet plane fuel can't produce ...

Yes... and nobody is claiming that the steel was melted.

Only to the bushwhacked minded ... to people that can comprehend facts and science ... it's not flawed logic at all.

It is the convenient use of a misnomer. Don't get mad at me because you either don't understand what melt means, or you are incapable of understanding that metals weaken under heat.

Save the bullshit play on words ... that "fire" was not hot enough to produce the damage that was done ... not without the help of thermite. There is no way you can talk around that fact no matter how hard you try.

I am not playing with words, I am using them correctly, and demonstrating your inappropriate use of them, by which your "scientific facts" are based on. You do not understand the terms being used. I am attempting to make them clear.

You don't believe in this.

They call it fatigue.

Been there done that ... rebar is no where near the thickness or strength of fireproofed steel ... it is used to reinforce the concrete ... and the fact that the entire bridge didn't collapse proves that a gas fire can't bring down an entire fireproofed skyscraper in it's own footprint in a matter of seconds ... not without help ... It's not my problem that you can't comprehend a simple concept and scientific fact.

I am not asking you about rebar. See "fat crayon writing"

Once again you are blowing it out your ass ... show us where I insisted the parts were planted ... now watch folks ... he will come back with nothing but his thumb up his ass ... watch now.

I said there were all kinds of sh1t in the streets... including a jet engine... and you asked for a source... to which I replied...

You weren't watching the news live that day I guess.

To which you replied...

Oh you mean the corporate news that lied about this event from the start?

What did I miss there? Didn't seem like a real subtle post.

Your bridge bullshit doesn't cut it ... different construction ... no where near the damage ... if you want continue to look stupid with this knock yourself out.

For the fifth time, whether you understand it or not... I am not asking you to equate this event to 9/11. I am trying to determine if you are rational... or irrational. Now... if you deny the fatigue of steel... as that seems to be your position... on that bridge, then please explain the bent squished metal in the fat crayon post.

 

[motorboater]

this thread is too funny. 51 pages of GrowRebel argument, which consists of nothing more than calling people "bushwhacked" and insulting them.

cannabis tends to worsen the effects of paranoid schizophrenia.

ad hominem eh?

 

[GrowRebel]

this thread is too funny. 51 pages of GrowRebel argument, which consists of nothing more than calling people "bushwhacked" and insulting them.

cannabis tends to worsen the effects of paranoid schizophrenia.

ad hominem eh?

Join the club then bushwhacked ... there a bit more in this thread other than insults ... but someone with your "bushwhacked" mind wouldn't be able to see that ... if fact you people go out of you way to avoid any facts ... nothing new here ... move along. And cannabis tends to heighten your perception of truth ... so I take it you don't smoke.

 

[what... huh?]

*Notes the distraction only makes the silence louder.

 

[NoDrama]

No Drama...

3 pages ago you were insisting that a janitor, and others HEARD explosions which to you seemed to be a significant indication that explosives were used. NOW it is thermite. Show me large demo.... phuck it... show me SMALL controlled demo with thermite. Operative word there being "controlled".

Being a pilot... again... you do NOT correct your friend on HIS erroneous information... and IMPLY that he is STILL correct in trying to correct ME on pilot deviation without addressing the FACTS which I have lain out... facts that, if you are a pilot, you either know to be true or can find out with a phone call if you are just a weekend joy rider.

You are intellectually dishonest. I seek the truth in my debates unless devils advocacy is noted. You seek to make yourself right by ignoring facts, and withholding information that you find damaging to your case. I believe in full disclosure. You don't have to... but I will call it when I see it.

So, you agree then, by your current line of argument, that thermite is all that could have been used, otherwise we would have all born witness to detonation... yes?


So make up your mind how you think it was done, and I will argue it...

because C4 don't burn... but it goes boom pretty good...
and thermite burns.

Awaiting your reply.

I don't really see how you can get after me for not scolding Growrebel on his misinformed airliner procedures when you yourself say nothing about Olosto and his "Theories" that defy all laws of physics, Am I to conclude that you too are a proponent of the plane flew really fast into the building that it vaporized aluminum and rust from steel and created thermite theory? It matters not if a pilot can go off course in a private plane and not get shot down. Guess what? terrorists do not take over small private planes, thats why the FAA has had special procedures for airliners since the Iran hijackings back in the 70's, no Ifs ands or buts, EVERY COMMERCIAL AIRLINER has to follow the rules. Yeah your right, a small private single engine aircraft CAN go do some flying without a flight plan being submitted, but an airliner certainly cannot. The last time I checked and absolutley NO ONE refutes the fact that they were airliners that flew into the towers.n Hell i watched the second one fly right into the building, and according to good ole former president Bush, he watched the first plane fly into the building while no one else did, and he saw it on TV...here he even admits it...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60 its a big ass LIE. Now don't try to defend him because hes Dim Witted, he knows he is lying.

as far as how the towers were constructed, well here are some pics

Everything is Steel here, no concrete has been poured yet, See all the massive beams on the left side? thats the core.

Even the outside walls are constructed of huge steel meshed beams, you can see the core beams sticking out of the decking here.

Another good pic showing the core and surrounding mesh of interconnected steel beams. Thats a whole lotta metal there, so much that it should easily be able to dissipate heat from an office fire and even a few minutes of fuel fire

• The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with “controlled demolition” — and even then it’s very difficult. Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when ‘toppling over’ falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan? And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? strong evidence for an ‘inside’ job.”
• No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns.
• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns , the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The paradox, is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses. These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission.
• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling. How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon.
• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings.
• Steel supports were “partly evaporated,” but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location.
• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite. Buildings not felled by explosives have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.
• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck.

Now think about this, the airplane is lightweight, it has to be to be able to fly. Its made of some of the lightest metals known to man, aluminum and titanium and magnesium. Now theres some plastic and other crap too, but for the majority its mostly aluminum, engines are titanium and the wheels are usually magnesium. Now probably 60% is aluminum and the towers are made of mostly steel, when did aluminum become so damned hard that it can sever huge steel beams in the core? it just makes no sense, i can see it knocking down the outer wall from all the momentum, but once it got to the core there is so much steel there that I doubt it made much of a dent, it certainly did not go all the way through thats pretty obvious from what we all saw with our own eyes, so how does damage to 1% of the building really casue it to fall, after all they are designed to be hit by airplanes, thats taken into consideration when they are being built. Also you do realize that these buildings have fire sprinkler systems correct? For some reason they didn't work. guess what? those big buildings have there systems inspected and tested every month by qualified professionals, if anything on a fire alarm isn't working it sends a trouble signal and gets repaired pronto. For some reason none of the systems worked in any of the buildings?

if the fire was so hot, why is this woman (Edna Clinton) able to bear the heat and wave at us? if it were really hot enough to cause steel to bend and deform how is she able to withstand it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3151MqXu52s

This video is VERY hard to refute, she must be a "SuperWoman" or something to just stand there in the 5000F heat and wave at us? How is that explained away?

 

[what... huh?]

I am of the opinion that there was a sh1tload of rust and aluminum in that building, and when it collapsed on itself there was pulverization on a monolithic scale.

As to whether you are a commercial or private plane, well that depends on what your transponder says. The transponders being switched off were the second things to happen... after killing the pilots.

They do not send jets after a NON COMMUNICATING, NON TRANSPONDING PLANE unless it behaves erratically or enters restricted airspace... which, btw, is sort of the point of restricted airspace. (which again... is not around the pentagon or DCA).

Once they knew they had at least 3 go rogue, they did scramble.

Now, please answer my simple yes or no question before I continue to address any more of yours.

 

[NoDrama]

LOL once they knew they went rogue, LOL that means after they hit their targets of course. Let me answer your question about the bridge, yes its true that a very hot fire burning long enough can cause metal to soften as it were. but here is the problem... read on...

A tanker truck carrying approximately 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline caught on fire on the Interstate 80/880 interchange in Oakland, California early Sunday morning around 3:40 AM. The fire resulted in the collapse of at least two sections of bridges at the interchange, including one carrying I-580. The multi-level freeway interchange known as the MacArthur Maze connects the Bay Bridge (Interstate 80) to Interstates 580, 880, and 980 and California State Highway 24, and as such it connects several major cities in California, including San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley.
The driver, James Mosqueda, 51, of Woodland, California, escaped from his truck before the fire. He was the only person reported to be hurt, suffering second-degree burns. No other vehicles were involved in the crash.
The driver was believed to be speeding, resulting in a loss of control of the truck, causing it to flip over and subsequently burst into flames. As the truck was traveling on the interchange of I-80 eastbound to I-880 southbound near the San Francisco Bay Bridge, it is speculated to have hit a guard rail or column during a turn. Shortly thereafter, it exploded into a fire that lasted SEVERAL HOURS.



Emphasis added to the several hours of burning Unleaded gasoline fuel, compared to the several minutes of burning fuel in the towers and in the case of WTC #7 no hydrocarbon based fuel at all.


Your example does not lend much creedence to explain anything about the towers since the circumstances and the structure are nothing alike. But yeah I can agree with you that given hours of a hot intense flame metal can soften enough to deform them. In the WTC attacks the flames never persisted for long enough, nor were intense enough to cause Many many multiple HUGE steel beams to all fail at once, and then there is the free fall factor that is impossible in that scenario also.


Hey what ...Huh? do you believe that we got into the Vietnam war becasue they fired upon us in the gulf of tonkin too, or do you suppose that we just made it all up so we could get into the war in the first place?

 

[what... huh?]

LOL once they knew they went rogue, LOL that means after they hit their targets of course. Let me answer your question about the bridge, yes its true that a very hot fire burning long enough can cause metal to soften as it were. but here is the problem... read on...

A tanker truck carrying approximately 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline caught on fire on the Interstate 80/880 interchange in Oakland, California early Sunday morning around 3:40 AM. The fire resulted in the collapse of at least two sections of bridges at the interchange, including one carrying I-580. The multi-level freeway interchange known as the MacArthur Maze connects the Bay Bridge (Interstate 80) to Interstates 580, 880, and 980 and California State Highway 24, and as such it connects several major cities in California, including San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley.
The driver, James Mosqueda, 51, of Woodland, California, escaped from his truck before the fire. He was the only person reported to be hurt, suffering second-degree burns. No other vehicles were involved in the crash.
The driver was believed to be speeding, resulting in a loss of control of the truck, causing it to flip over and subsequently burst into flames. As the truck was traveling on the interchange of I-80 eastbound to I-880 southbound near the San Francisco Bay Bridge, it is speculated to have hit a guard rail or column during a turn. Shortly thereafter, it exploded into a fire that lasted SEVERAL HOURS.



Emphasis added to the several hours of burning Unleaded gasoline fuel, compared to the several minutes of burning fuel in the towers and in the case of WTC #7 no hydrocarbon based fuel at all.


Your example does not lend much creedence to explain anything about the towers since the circumstances and the structure are nothing alike. But yeah I can agree with you that given hours of a hot intense flame metal can soften enough to deform them. In the WTC attacks the flames never persisted for long enough, nor were intense enough to cause Many many multiple HUGE steel beams to all fail at once, and then there is the free fall factor that is impossible in that scenario also.

Great. That is awesome. Thank you for answering the question. Odd that it took almost 10 pages, asking the same question over and over again don't you think?

First of all... to address your "SEVERAL HOURS" emPHAsis.

"The single-vehicle crash occurred on the lower roadway when the tanker, loaded with 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline and heading from a refinery in Benicia to a gas station on Hegenberger Road in Oakland, hit a guardrail at 3:41 a.m."

"Firefighters immediately noticed the upper connector ramp was buckling and seven minutes after they arrived -- at 4:02 a.m. -- it collapsed, Price said."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL

So let's first knock those several hours down to a much more respectable 21 minutes.

Then let us marry that fact with a couple of others, presuming you do not object.

8600 gallons of gasoline on an empty roadway heated to the point of self-destruction, 6 i-beams in an open air fire in 21 minutes. Road seems less damaged than those big assed beams... with a lot of impact too. Looks like it just slid off... probably off all that gooey rebar grow was talkin about...

"Engineers said the green steel frame of the I-580 overpass and the bolts holding the frame together began to melt and bend in the intense heat -- and that movement pulled the roadbed off its supports."

Structural steel (as in multiple story large steel structures) looses half of its rigidity at 1000F (that's about 538C).
Source: The Structural Engineer. "Stainless steel in fire" p77. The Institute of Structural Engineers' library. (Sorry... it's a book. I actually asked a structural engineer. He showed me the equation... and I realized pretty instantly why I am not an engineer. I did not discuss 9/11 with him, because frankly the knowledge that I wasted this much time doing this would damage my image.)

As opposed to 5 floors of combustibles and fire from more than 20,000 lbs of jet fuel which burned for 56 minutes, and 102 minutes respectively, not to mention collisions of about 200,000 lbs (half max takeoff weight, there may be more accurate information out there but this seemed ok to throw around inconsequentially) at several hundred mph.


I am not making the great leap yet... don't get excited... I am just trying to find some common ground... a pool of facts that we can agree on. Let me know where we are so far, and if you want to jump ahead and ask me a question I will answer it, unless it requires this little foundation I am building before throwing up the walls.

Frankly, I'd rather go back to aviation. NORDO SOP. Was VFR like a mofakka. You need to bone up mang. Gotta know NORDO procedures cold. You don't wanna be up there fishing out your flight manual deaf.

If you want to let that argument go so we can get to the meat I'll understand.

If you take umbrage with ANYTHING I have stated as fact above... please address that first.

Hey what ...Huh? do you believe that we got into the Vietnam war becasue they fired upon us in the gulf of tonkin too, or do you suppose that we just made it all up so we could get into the war in the first place?

Man... remember when an attack on a US vessel was a reason to go to war? Wikipied for your protection

I dunno... do you think the Jews really did it? What about alien involvement? Tell ya what... I won't invent what you think, and you don't contrive what I think. Fair enough?

Side note... I need to know if I can reference NIST as a credible source, or if you will also not use NIST or sources which site NIST for that specific information? As I see it, the conclusions drawn from the evidence are not influential of the evidence itself. Not referencing NIST is going to get difficult... for both of us.

Last thing I have to address... you are absolutely correct to point out that I did not address the Ostlo. I realized that I was just focusing on what I was saying and casually observing him... as were you. While I didn't think he was correct as to how aluminum and iron oxide powder came to be... I felt he was on the right track... Point taken.



(Damn though Grow... it looks like your more reasonable friend directly contradicts your earlier avoidance of reality. I betcha he got bushwacked... whaddaya think? You probably just witnessed some sort of bushwack jedi mind trick... from here on out... I am going to refer to this obvious telepathic ploy of mine as "fact finding"... just so you know what I really mean...)

 

[what... huh?]

Ok... wtf?

I clearly see the same UFO in both of these pictures. FFS PEOPLE!!! OPEN YOUR EYES!




Sponsored by: Wife of what... huh?

 

[NoDrama]

Frankly, I'd rather go back to aviation. NORDO SOP. Was VFR like a mofakka. You need to bone up mang. Gotta know NORDO procedures cold. You don't wanna be up there fishing out your flight manual deaf.

Oh jeezus that made me laugh. LMFAO!



You gotta know 1 thing, the fires were only fed by the fuel for a few minutes, not 56 and 102 respectively. The fuel burned off FAR sooner than that, in fact 95% was used up in the original
crash and explosion, it did not continue to burn. You aren't really trying to make the argument that fuel burns forever right? The truck you have as an example never blew up, the fuel burned for hours and hours as it was just sitting there under the bridge. Since the circumstances are completely different we can't really use the truck accident as precedent for what happened to the towers. And it does NOTHING to explain WTC #7.

As far as explosions go, here is proof in thuis video I dug up. you hear the explosions go off. I did not watch the whole thing so I am not sure what all is covered, but you sure can hear the explosion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

Just watch the first minute and let me know what you think.

FWIW when demo charges go boom, they don't make a big hollywood explosion, they make a very defined fast loud crack sound, no fire involved like you see in hollywood.


My biggest question for you right now is why? There have been other high rises tht have burned for 30 hours with flames much more intense than those of the WTC. I gave you pictures of these " Towering Infernos". Yet these buildings after burning for 15 times longer than WTC and completely gutting the building so that the only thing left is the steel. Yet these buildings did not fall, why? Did the people who built the Trade center buildings do a bad job? I mean were the engineers who designed them have a bad design that could not withstand some smaller fires? And for the most part those are smaller fires, the amount of smoke has nothing to do with it, ever seen a hay bale burn...shitloads of smoke, looks like a house was on fire.

Then we have WTC building # 7. by all accounts it should never have fallen, there were no large fires, the interior of the building was completely intact, therefore the core was unharmed. Sure there was a gash in the facade, but that did not affect its integrity at all, you could remove every wall in the building and it would not fall because these buildings are supported by the CORE of the building...massive multiple steel columns that could withstand a 800C fire for weeks and not deform. How? well because metal conducts heat, and it will conduct it over its whole area, so 1 small fire affecting 1 beam does not make 500 feet of the beam soften and melt. the beam is able to conduct that heat away from the point of the fire.

Its almost believable that the towers fell because of the planes, they did a good job of making that one Almost legit. good enough for the masses of sheep anyway. But they really fucked up with building #7, its a blatant demolition and the only people who refute it are those that are either Shills, sheep ,Uneducated or just plain brainwashed. C'Mon dude look at that building fall!! These aren't buildings made out of brick or cement, they have fire suppression systems in them, fire sprinklers you know? The steel is all covered with a spray mixture of concrete and asbestos ( Yes it still had the asbestos in them), its terribly difficult to get that spay on fire retardant off. Asbestos is one of the best fire proofing materials known to man and ALL the beams are coated in it. This makes them VERY VERY fire resistant.Yet somehow it fell, I don't buy it, I never will. All the evidence points to something sinister in our country, a pervasive evil lurking in the highest offices of our Republic!

 

[what... huh?]

Oh jeezus that made me laugh. LMFAO!

Good. Humor is good. Did you actually read it? It will come up again later.

You gotta know 1 thing, the fires were only fed by the fuel for a few minutes, not 56 and 102 respectively. The fuel burned off FAR sooner than that, in fact 95% was used up in the original
crash and explosion, it did not continue to burn.

Gas burns faster than jet A. It is basically kerosene.

You aren't really trying to make the argument that fuel burns forever right?

Nah... I am a clever duck.

The truck you have as an example never blew up, the fuel burned for hours and hours as it was just sitting there under the bridge.

Oh... I see... you didn't bother to read my post or look at my evidence. You are clearly misinformed. 21 minutes. That is all it took.

Since the circumstances are completely different we can't really use the truck accident as precedent for what happened to the towers. And it does NOTHING to explain WTC #7.

We aren't really addressing any coincidental circumstance other than the effects of heat on steel. The rest of the facts I laid out are really in opposition.

As far as explosions go, here is proof in thuis video I dug up. you hear the explosions go off. I did not watch the whole thing so I am not sure what all is covered, but you sure can hear the explosion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

So... we are going back to regular ordinance and dropping the thermite argument?

Just watch the first minute and let me know what you think.

Will do.

FWIW when demo charges go boom, they don't make a big hollywood explosion, they make a very defined fast loud crack sound, no fire involved like you see in hollywood.

No... there is (obscurable) flash and are ear piercingly loud.

My biggest question for you right now is why? There have been other high rises tht have burned for 30 hours with flames much more intense than those of the WTC. I gave you pictures of these " Towering Infernos". Yet these buildings after burning for 15 times longer than WTC and completely gutting the building so that the only thing left is the steel. Yet these buildings did not fall, why? Did the people who built the Trade center buildings do a bad job? I mean were the engineers who designed them have a bad design that could not withstand some smaller fires? And for the most part those are smaller fires, the amount of smoke has nothing to do with it, ever seen a hay bale burn...shitloads of smoke, looks like a house was on fire.

I will get back to that. Still got to get over this little stumbling block where you do not actually read my posts and stick to disproven statements. Foundations and whatnot.

Then we have WTC building # 7. by all accounts it should never have fallen, there were no large fires, the interior of the building was completely intact,

What accounts are these? Because every account I read said they were expecting it to fall. Fires raged unchecked in that building for 7 hours.

therefore the core was unharmed.

Not logical.

Sure there was a gash in the facade, but that did not affect its integrity at all, you could remove every wall in the building and it would not fall because these buildings are supported by the CORE of the building...massive multiple steel columns that could withstand a 800C fire for weeks and not deform. How? well because metal conducts heat, and it will conduct it over its whole area, so 1 small fire affecting 1 beam does not make 500 feet of the beam soften and melt. the beam is able to conduct that heat away from the point of the fire.

A very interesting argument... that I will address again later.

Its almost believable that the towers fell because of the planes, they did a good job of making that one Almost legit. good enough for the masses of sheep anyway. But they really fucked up with building #7, its a blatant demolition and the only people who refute it are those that are either Shills, sheep ,Uneducated or just plain brainwashed. C'Mon dude look at that building fall!! These aren't buildings made out of brick or cement, they have fire suppression systems in them, fire sprinklers you know? The steel is all covered with a spray mixture of concrete and asbestos ( Yes it still had the asbestos in them), its terribly difficult to get that spay on fire retardant off. Asbestos is one of the best fire proofing materials known to man and ALL the beams are coated in it. This makes them VERY VERY fire resistant.Yet somehow it fell, I don't buy it, I never will. All the evidence points to something sinister in our country, a pervasive evil lurking in the highest offices of our Republic!

I know. All far too advanced to get into without addressing these core facts again.

I didn't suggest that the same thing happened to the bridge as the wtc. I simply laid out the following facts...

1. The truck struck the guard rail at 3:41 am

2. The 6 i-beams became weakened and collapsed under its own weight in only 21 minutes. I sourced all of this.

3. The truck was carrying 8600 lbs of unleaded.

4. The jets had about 20,000 lbs of jet A.

5. Structural steel looses half of its rigidity at 1000F.

6. Towers 1 and 2 burned for 102 and 56 minutes respectively.

7. There was nothing else on the road.

8. The building was full of stuff.


I have not waged an argument yet. I would ask that you quit trying to anticipate one. I assure you, you have no idea where I am going.

 

[NoDrama]

1. I can agree with you there.
2. Your sources either didn't give the amount of I beams that deformed, or I missed so i can't agree with ya there.
3. 8,600 GALLONS, again you have the facts wrong.
4. Maybe more than that, most of it vaporized and burnt up in the big fireball, look at jets that have crashed on the ground, the fuel doesn't burn for very long before it is used up.
5. actually its 800C which is 1400 F
6. agreed, hardly enough time to affect the THOUSANDS of steel beams, remember the whole of each building came down at near freefall speed which could only happen if nearly all of the thousands of steel beams on every floor simultaneously deformed.
7. sure, just a small intensely burning tank of 8,600 GALLONS of fuel ( 64,000 lbs of fuel which is 3 times the planes carried according to YOU, 1 gallon of unleaded weighs about 8 lbs)
8. Define full. You mean packed to the gills stuffed full, or just normal office furniture, steel filing cabinets, paperwork, computers, chairs and the like full? Define stuff, You mean cotton doused with dynamite and gasoline , oily rags, perhaps a giant 50 million bottle collection of everclear? Or do you mean every day ordinary office furniture like you would find anywhere else?

 

[NoDrama]

I read your posts, are you saying the fire for the truck only burned for 21 minutes, or are you saying the metal deformed in 21 minutes, please make it clear, its important.

Take a 500 gallon drum of fuel and cut the top off, light it on fire. How long will it burn? Now take the 500 gallon drum of fuel and atomize it into a vapor in the air and light it on fire, how long will it burn? I won't even ask you which burns longer because there is only 1 answer and from your posts i can tell your a educated person. You should know that our government makes shit up all the time to use as an excuse to go to war, just like they have now admitted that the whole incident that got us into the Vietnam war was a completely made up incident. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261

And I have now said that it was TWO types of devices that were used to take the buildings down, I have said this from the beginning. Thermite to weaken the main structure, and cutting charges to get the momentum going for it to fall. I really do read your posts, but I don't think you reciprocate at all.

 

[what... huh?]

1. I can agree with you there.

Sweet.

2. Your sources either didn't give the amount of I beams that deformed, or I missed so i can't agree with ya there.

My bad... I have just been looking at the pics so long I know.

Now I feel like a prick for being... well a prick and suggesting you weren't reading.

3. 8,600 GALLONS, again you have the facts wrong.

You are absolutely correct... sorry. Tired. Gallons of course, for both.

4. Maybe more than that, most of it vaporized and burnt up in the big fireball, look at jets that have crashed on the ground, the fuel doesn't burn for very long before it is used up.

Yes... I mislabeled the units.

5. actually its 800C which is 1400 F

Source? I know mine wasn't fair because it was in a real book... but I found this...

http://books.google.com/books?id=gElhqbvL1J0C&printsec=frontcover#PPA265,M1

6. agreed, hardly enough time to affect the THOUSANDS of steel beams, remember the whole of each building came down at near freefall speed which could only happen if nearly all of the thousands of steel beams on every floor simultaneously deformed.

Again, I am simply stating facts. You are incorrectly asserting them into an argument I am not waging.

7. sure, just a small intensely burning tank of 8,600 GALLONS of fuel ( 64,000 lbs of fuel which is 3 times the planes carried according to YOU, 1 gallon of unleaded weighs about 8 lbs)

Again... I used the wrong measure for both. That also was sourced.

8. Define full. You mean packed to the gills stuffed full, or just normal office furniture, steel filing cabinets, paperwork, computers, chairs and the like full?

Fair question, I meant typical office environment.

 

[NoDrama]

Ok you got gallons and lbs mixed up, fair enough, you've been up all night devising an argument to make that's going to blow my socks off right?

 

[GrowRebel]

Yes... and nobody is claiming that the steel was melted.

Ah hello ... there were reports of melted steel at the WTC site. Unless you are still harping on your bridge ...

It is the convenient use of a misnomer. Don't get mad at me because you either don't understand what melt means, or you are incapable of understanding that metals weaken under heat.

When did I say metals don't weaken under heat? It depends on the size of the metal and whether or not they been treated with a fireproof material which was done at the WTC. So don't have a cow because you can't comprehend the difference between what happen at the bridge and the WTC.

I am not playing with words,

You haven't stop.

I am using them correctly, and demonstrating your inappropriate use of them,

Only in your whacked out mind.

by which your "scientific facts" are based on. You do not understand the terms being used. I am attempting to make them clear.

You are making an attempt to side step the issue which is 911 ... nothing more ...

I am not asking you about rebar. See "fat crayon writing"

Yeah ... well I'm telling you about the rebar ... which is way different than the steel in those buildings ... and the crayons suit you ... really.

I said there were all kinds of sh1t in the streets... including a jet engine... and you asked for a source... to which I replied...

Sorry but your interpretation of what I said and what I actually said are obviously two different things. So once again you are blowing it out your ass ... what did I tell you folks!

What did I miss there? Didn't seem like a real subtle post.

Well you missed my comment about corporate media and in your whacky mind convinced yourself that I said the aircraft parts were planted ... how you got that only the bushwhacked know ... but for the rest of us ... it's more proof of how you make shit up.

For the fifth time, whether you understand it or not... I am not asking you to equate this event to 9/11.

And for the upteen time ... this thread is about 911 ... not about some bridge where a couple of sections fell ... and whether you understand or not the event does not dismiss what happen on 911 case close.

I am trying to determine if you are rational... or irrational.

I was able to figure you are irrational in your first post.

Now... if you deny the fatigue of steel...

No ... I'm denying the steel came down the way they say it did ... what part of that don't you get?

as that seems to be your position... on that bridge, then please explain the bent squished metal in the fat crayon post.

I didn't see any "squished" metal ... but the bent metal was due to the fire weakening the rebar and concrete plus the weight of the asphalt and concrete on the bridge. The crayons characterizes your simple mind.

(Damn though Grow... it looks like your more reasonable friend directly contradicts your earlier avoidance of reality.

Oh really? ... and when did she/he do that? ... it's obvious you don't see the same things us regular folks see ... so you will have to specify for the folks at home and me.

I betcha he got bushwacked... whaddaya think?

As far as I'm concerned No gets it. And she/he has been very articulate in her/his post. Plus No is able to scope out some awesome pictures. Thanks so much for those constructions pictures No... you see folks ... see all the massive steel involved? And unlike the rebar in a bridge ... all that steel is coated with fireproof material so that blow oloso bullshit about rust and aluminum causing the traces of thermite. Like I said before ... looking at those pictures there is no way on God's green earth that those buildings came down due to fire and plane impact ... no way ... at best there would be damage to the upper floors ... but no way are those buildings going to come down in seconds ... only after burning for less than 2 hours... no way. Not without help. That is why I am simply amazed how stupid some people are to believe such bullshit.

You probably just witnessed some sort of bushwack jedi mind trick... from here on out... I am going to refer to this obvious telepathic ploy of mine as "fact finding"... just so you know what I really mean...)

Refer to it anyway you'd like ... we all pretty much know how delusional you are. Knock yourself out.

 

[NoDrama]

You tell em Grow!

 

[huffy420]

wow im getting in to this real late but Im an ironworker and have worked with steel my entire life.

Structural steel melts at roughly 2500F, and uncontrolled burn MAX temperatures reach about 1400F. Not nearly enough to melt steel. The temp of your material can only be as high as the temp of the burn applied. Steel does loose some strength at around 1000F but not enough for it to deform and collapse. If that were so, OSHA would not allow these materials to be used for high rise construction. Plus everything is covered in fire proofing. The "Official Report" said the fire proofing was "blown off" on impact, which is obviously a LIE. To reach temps high enough to melt steel you need a controlled burn aided by a compressed gas. Like your stove... Its made of steel yet it doesn't deform under the controlled "blue flame" burn of natural gas... Which is way hotter then a nasty uncontrolled burn.

No high rise in history has fallen due to fire..... On 9/11, three towers smoldered for 90 minutes....then fell... and everyone bought it. Does anyone know the sign of an unhealthy fire?... its smoke.

If anyone believes fire brought those towers down is a helpless puppet....Hell most of the jet fuel went up in flames immediately upon impact, hence the gigantic fireball....

Those buildings were designed to withstand several airplane impacts, its like a mesh of 3-4" thick steel tubes.

Peace out, Educate yourselves, Dont get caught up in the media.

 

[what... huh?]

Ok you got gallons and lbs mixed up, fair enough, you've been up all night devising an argument to make that's going to blow my socks off right?

Time will tell.

... oh and I mean that the bridge took 21 minutes to collapse due to heat.

Hush now Grow, the adults are talking...






The problem with my apparent argument is that heat fatigue isn't what brought that bridge down.

The steel melted.

In 21 minutes.

"Engineers estimated that the flames reached close to 3,000 degrees -- hot enough to melt the green steel frame and bolts of the I-580 overpass. "

But wait... what is that nonsense? What temp does gas burn at?

How is this possible? Are they mad? Perhaps here is a clue...

"No sign of the truck remained by daybreak. A Caltrans worker held up his thumb and forefinger an inch apart to describe how big the tanker was by then."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/30/MNGK8PI1CI1.DTL

So... let me get this straight... since we know that gas does NOT burn at 3000 deg... that would have to mean that something else capable of reaching that temperature must have been on fire... Perhaps the truck? Perhaps the road itself?

So in 20 minutes a faster burning fuel manages to ignite a truck/road fire so hot that it reaches 3000 degrees.


Ooh... lookey there... they say that steel looses half its rigidity at 1000 too.

It really does all come full circle. The first argument I waged. House fires get hot enough to incinerate bone.

Office fires begun in an explosive ball of fuel do so quicker.



I don't think any of that was too devastating.