You have asked not one new question this entire time, and they were all answered in the previous threads. Unless this is a matter of your ego telling you that all answers must be directed at you personally, otherwise they don’t count, i suggest you go back and read those all threads you avoided…and quit wasting our time.
Oh yea, um, the hijacked planes had their transponders turned off! Where where those scrambled jets supposed to go?
ATC wouldn’t care because the drill was military, which uses a completely different system. Perhaps you mean NORAD had no clue? At least until it was confirmed that it wasn’t part of any drill.
Ok, the main topic of dispute is WTC 7. No planes hit it, no kerosene fires burning across many floors. It recived minor damage from debris from the big towers.
Video shows that the fires in this building were no where near as intense a the AON Center, which still stands to this day and burned more than twice as long.
The steel truss explainaiton is just not good enough. I can pull just as many cites saying that there is no way the building could collaspe that way.
In fact, most of your own experts say they have no clue why 7 collasped.
Listen to the tapes. ATC inquried right away, a background voice in the same room asks if it’s a drill.
Mass confusion.
:rolleyes:
No most “experts” do not dispute it.
Umm… we do know why it collapsed. The fact that it stood so long is pretty freak’n amazing.
It’s funny, something happened here in the US in regard to science.
I want to believe that at some point, people would have been in astonishment that the buildings stood as long as they did, and maybe heep praise on those engineers and designers responsible.
Instead, we get inept reasons for why they actually fell down.
You’ve only quoted one of my posts.
“Hey everyone! Look over there!”
The fires were quite intense. Burned for hours, and most importantly were not fought
Why? Because you, the knower of all things engineering say so?
Not by experts and not with anything resembling peer review, professional analysis, etc.
In fact, that is objectively untrue.
If I say what I want to say right now, then I get banned.
The damage wasn’t minor. It appeared minor in some video footage, but others showed the whole building buckled.
I bet you could - but so far I think every one of your cites has either been wrong or distorted.
And?
Unexpected events do cause confusion.
I’d like to know what the military in its 2001 state of readiness was supposed to do, exactly? I doubt that pilots at the equivalent ready state of British pilots during the Battle of Britain would have been able to arm, take off and intercept in time.
Can we see your professional engineers’ degree and your civil and structural engineering experience please?
Otherwise you are blowing smoke out your ass. You have no credentials, no experience, no background, and no basis for your argument.
You are ill-informed and ignorant.
You are Archie Bunker with an intellectual problem on a bad day.
Since this discussion is going around in circles, I think this will be the last time I make this announcement: no more insults. I will close the thread if this continues.
Okay.
So now you’ve given up on the collapse of the main WTC buildings 1 and 2 being from demolition charges? The ones that the secret team had to put on every level of the building so they could make it collapse at the exact point that the planes hit?
Now you’re focusing on WTC 7, and why it collapsed. You seem to think that since you don’t believe the official explanation by scientists and engineers, that therefore it follows that it must have been a complex hoax by demolition experts.
The question that has been asked before by others in this thread is… Why? What would possibly have been the point?
Picture this scenario:
Crack Team Leader: “Okay men, you’re all demolition experts, and have been prepped on how to sneak into buildings without being noticed, avoiding security and measures designed to foil people from sneaking explosives into buildings. You’re a crack team, prepped for this task. We’re going to put explosives into WT7 and bring it down.”
Team Member: " So we detonate the charges and WT7 comes down. Why are we doing this again?"
CTL: “Your job is not to ask questions. Just do as you’re told”
TM: “OK boss. How will we know when to detonate?”
CTL: "After a couple of planeloads of terrorists slam fully loaded planes into WT 1 and WT2, causing massive damage and fires to WT7.
TM: “Wait, what now? How do you know this?”
CTL: “Never mind that. I just know.”
TM: "How do you know that WT7 will be damaged?
CTL: “Never mind that. I just know.”
TM: “How do we make sure that all the evidence of demolition is covered up? It’s gonna be pretty obvious to investigators afterwards”
CTL: “Never mind that. It will be taken care of by our second secret strike force”
TM: "What’s the point of this again? Are we helping the terrorists? If WT1 and WT2 are taken out, what’s the big deal with us blowing up WT7?
CTL: "Never mind that. It’s a secret. Someone wants that tower down, that’s all you need to know.
PS It is spelled “collapsed”, NOT collasped. Thank you for your attention to this detail.
"
There exists video footage in which a firefighter can be heard talking about fires on several floors. Fires which went unfought for over six hours because there was no water pressure.
Really? Then what’s this big, black mark? It wasn’t built that way.
I’ve heard the tapes. Boston ATC called DoD about what was going on and Tech. Sgt. Jeremy Powell asked Boston Center, “Is this real-world or exercise?” Hardly the same room.
Have you ever seen a blacksmith work?
They almost never deal with molten steel. Instead, they heat the steel in a hot fire. Then what do they do? They take the hot metal and pound it. What was the point of heating the steel? Heating the steel makes it malleable. That means it bends a lot more easily when hot than it does when cool.
Take a steel bar and try to bend it with a hammer and anvil. Very difficult. Now heat the steel bar and try to bend it. Very easy. The steel bar never comes close to the melting point of steel, but it changes its physical properties. It isn’t rigid anymore, but plastic.
Everyone in America has seen demonstrations of this physical property of steel. Cold steel is rigid. Hot steel bends. Take an iron bar and heat it, and it starts to droop. When the steel beams that hold up a skyscraper start to droop, the whole thing catastrophically collapses. It doesn’t slowly sag to the ground like a smaller structure might, because a skyscraper is much heavier. A steel beam that can support a ton would simply sag under its own weight if heated, because a steel beam that can support a ton weighs a lot less than a ton. A steel beam that can support a ton, that actually is supporting a ton of concrete, will collapse catastrophically when heated above a critical temperature, because it is right at the edge the strength of the material already. Change the phsical properties of the steel by heating, and the weakened material can’t stay up. And then the hundreds of tons of material overhead collapse onto the materials below.
[QUOTE=split p&j]
Ok, the main topic of dispute is WTC 7. No planes hit it, no kerosene fires burning across many floors. It recived minor damage from debris from the big towers.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure this has shifted to the ‘main topic of dispute’ because you figure it’s an easier target. Sadly, you are again wrong. It didn’t receive ‘minor damage’…it had a big ass building fall on it and do substantial structural damage. During which several very large fires were ignited. Said structural damage also rendered the fire suppression system inoperative. In addition (as if all this wasn’t enough), the fires burned out of control for many hours. Far from your ridiculous ‘minor damage from debris from the big towers’, the reality is to wonder how the fuck it stayed up as long as it did.
Of course, you are relying on folks being as ignorant as you are of what really happened by even making so foolish a statement that is clearly contradicted by actual fact. And this is the theme with most 9/11 Truthers…their ridiculous claims fade away once the facts are shown. They rely on ignorance and distortion to get any traction at all.
Horseshit. There are zero examples of buildings taking the types of systemic structural damage AND having fires rage completely out of control and without a working fire suppression system doing at least minimal mitigation. Zero.
Feel free. I should warn you though, that your cites will most likely be from clueless idiots who don’t know what they are talking about. I can predict what they will say…in a nut (heh) shell it will be something along the lines of ‘well, steel doesn’t melt until much higher temperatures, so it’s impossible for that to cause a collapse’. That, of course, is complete horeshit and relies on the folks listening to be completely ignorant of what happens to steel when it gets heated. The truth, of course, is that the steel doesn’t have to melt in order to lose structural integrity. It merely has to soften…once it loses structural integrity and even starts to deform you are going to have a collapse because of the amounts of mass involved (look up ‘potential energy’ sometime).
Complete horseshit. Most REAL experts know exactly why it collapsed. Here, try this one. Or this one. Or, hell, just do a quick Google search of ‘debunking 9/11 building 7’ and click on a few links…then you’ll see how silly it is to claim that experts don’t know why the freaking building collapsed. What you mean is 9/11 Truthers need to feel that experts don’t understand it, because then they can attempt to throw some doubt into the discussion. Otherwise they look like complete idiots when shown the facts, and what fun would that be for them? They don’t want to LOOK like crazy assholes after all…they want to look like rational people ‘just asking questions’. Hard to do, though, when all the evidence is against them…
-XT
Every time a large building is brought down in a controlled demolition, there is auditory evidence immediately prior, in the form of a series of dozens of loud bangs indicative of demolition charges being ignited. Since this did not occur immediately preceding the collapse of WTC 7, we can confidently say that it was not brought down in a controlled demolition.
Now, what do you think was the primary contributing factor in the collapse of WTC 7?
Well, there was that one case at Shaka…
I think this video may help explain your point in terms more understandable to the OP.
Not if you say it in the Pit. G’wan, shoo, get thee hence.
Not to mention that AON was burning for fewer hours and the fire was basically confined to five floors (one-fifth). Fires spread throughout nearly one-third of 7 and there was no suppression being done because the sprinkler system in the building had been severed and outside water was being used to fight fires in 3, 4, 5, 6, and Deutche Bank. Fires that started when 2 and/or 1 ejected smoldering debris into them.