BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 03:10 PM

That should read Stratus Ivy.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 02:59 PM

Where did the energy come from to turn the concrete floors of the towers into such a fine dust? (That dust cloud wasn't from the dryywall folks.)

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 02:58 PM

So when do you think this administration will decide to encourage independent, peer reviewed investigations into what happened on 9/11, and to cooperate in those investigations by sharing their methods and whatever evidence they are using to arrive at their conclusins, beardedbruce? (My guess is 'never'.)

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 02:53 PM

CarolC,

"to not submit their work to any scrutiny or review, and to marginalize and/or demonize anyone who questions their methods or conclusions."


This is what I see those who state that there must be a coverup, and that only explainations that blame the Bush Administration are acceptable are doing.

I have no problem with investigation: But I object to the idea that the only acceptable results are those that blame the Bush administration BEFORE the investigation has been made as to what happened. It is likely that there is information that the government has NOT released about what happened: In general, I think it should be made available. But NOT if it contributes to a higher death toll in the next- and there will be a next- terrorist incident.

As far as I have seen, looking at the points presented both here, on the various sites, and the DVD sent out about it ( from an earlier thread) There is no EVIDENCE that this was a Bush conspiracy. That does NOT mean I oppose a detailed review of the various reports- but it does mean that the BURDEN OF PROOF is on those who make claims that are only speculation.

My hypothosis about aliens has MORE proof than any claim of explosive charges: The simple claim that the tower fell too fast is evidence that ONLY an increase in gravity could have brought it down. There were NO visible rocket engines PUSHING it, and any explosive charges IN the building would have DELAYED the fall, since they would have provided a force upwards, slowing the fall of material above them.


Yet the claims are made that it "MUST" have been controlled demolition, in spite of the evidence against it.

"The approach being used ...is not how we do science."

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 02:47 PM

Why is there no mention of either Able Danger or Ivy Stratus in the 9/11 Commission Report?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 02:33 PM

Other than your cheap shots, Captain Ginger (what a name), what do you have to add other than derision? It seems you speak from the gallery but know bugger all about any of it. Please do enlighten the great washed and unwashed alike.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 02:32 PM

The beauty of the approach that I am advocating is that with this approach, the work of Dr. Wood can be peer reviewed. If it is faulty, this will come out in the peer reviews of her work. Unlike the official approach, which is to try to keep most of the methods used to arrive at their conclusions to themselves, to not submit their work to any scrutiny or review, and to marginalize and/or demonize anyone who questions their methods or conclusions.

The approach being used by the government is not how we do science. And as long as they cling to this approach, they invite accusations that they are participating in a cover-up. Which leads us to the next obvious conclusion, which is that they have something to cover up.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 11:19 AM

I think the reason people appear paranoid or have trouble coping is because we have been lied to so many times in the past. It is easy to assume that the government is to blame (and in many respects they are) and people will blindly follow doctrine and make a case to fit their predetermined conclusions.

I do believe in "innocent until proven guilty", but I do not advocate ignoring investigation.   Investigating requires logic.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 11:05 AM

there seems to be a smokescreen that is covering up the real crime that was committed here - the incompetance of people in charge
Amen to that.
I suppose what really gets on my chimes is that the very democracy and openness of the internet has come round to bite the behind of those who are actually interested in truth and accountability.
We now see that the paranoid ramblings of conspiracy theorists on the farther shores of reason have as much standing as the saner concerns of ordinary people. And often more so, because they shout louder and their stories are more lurid, lending them to feverish cut'n'paste circulation. There really does seem to be no story so fabulous that some gull somwhere won't believe it and repeat it. To paraphrase Hannah Arendt, people today seem to have trouble in coping with the very ordinariness of the extraordinary.
It's certainly true that we need to seek the truth, but I fear it may be overlooked in its simple dullness while the seekers are distracted by a brighter lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 10:49 AM

We should not make fun of anyone that is digging for the truth. "Tinfoil hat" does not fit most people in this discussion.   Unfortunately some people have blinders on, and there are neocon plants at work such as the poster toot sweets, but most people want to find out what really happened so that it won't occur again. That is honorable.

While I have yet to read any "theory" of government conspiracy that makes sense, I think it is important to search for the truth.   There are a number of unanswered questions - and there seems to be a smokescreen that is covering up the real crime that was committed here - the incompetance of people in charge.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 10:44 AM

Tin foil does not work, anyway- you need a specific nickel/copper alloy for it to be effective in blocking thought waves.


Trust me, I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 10:40 AM

Crikey there are some seriously paranoid folk out there in cyberspace!
How difficult is it to accept that what happened was what happened? The 'how' is really quite simple - two jets were flown into the towers and they collapsed, annihilating thousands. Any talk of shaped demolition charges, thermite blocks, space rays, men in black or whatever is simply wishful fantasy resulting from a wilful refusal to accept the enormity of the hijackers actions.
The 'why' is what should be of more concern.
If the conspiracy freaks like soosweet and others would address themselves intelligently to that question and involve themselves in the democratic process rather than taking refuge in la-la land, then something might be achieved. But, of course, that takes a little more bottle and balls than simply trawling the loopier fringes of the internet for crackpot theories to regurgitate as received opinion. Ye gods, the number of armchair experts this event has thrown up is remarkable - people prepared to argue the finer points of structural engineering when they can't even spell properly!

However, I hear them muttering darkly, I may simply be one of the men in black trying to keep a lid on all this for the Illuminati, the Jews, the Purple Lizards, the House of Windsor and all the little chipmunks in Bohemian Grove! So be it. Be afraid, my dears, be very afraid. Don't take that tinfoil hat off until the all-clear sounds...

Now, about that Lady Di...mwa-ha-ha-hah!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 10:04 AM

"Entire floors were pulverized. "

If you read the article, you will see that the ONLY way the author could have the collapse occurr in the TIME OBSERVED was for ALL the floors to be pulverized BEFORE the top hit them.

This does NOT account for the volume of rubble, nor air resistance.

The explosions you claim were pulverizing the building ( as it stood for how many minutes ) were the transformers shorting out, and items burning. No need to postulate any explosives.

ONLY the increase in the pull of gravity could have caused the collapse in LESS than free fall time- Or will you now claim there were invisible rocket engines pushing the top stories down?

I have presented a postulate that explains the facts as observed, and that is supported by the arguement YOU have choosen to show that the report was wrong. YOUR failure to accept this as what really happened is proof of your complicity in a coverup of the real facts.


Right?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 09:50 AM

They did not.

You have no clue as to what you are talkign about. You are the one supporting the murders by putting up this smokescreen. You have no fucking clue lady.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,sooo sweet
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 09:45 AM

They fell FASTER than freefall speed, Olesko.

You work for a university that benefits from all this with its Homeland Security torture programs. Of COURSE you're going to argue in favor of these murderers.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,sooo sweet
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 09:42 AM

Not sure what you're getting at, but explosions were heard almost constantly that morning. And whatever the series and timings of the explosions, they worked.

Entire floors were pulverized. No one knows what type of demolition techniques were used, though the presence of thermate in the debris has been proven. Most likely a combination of old and new techniques. Blasting may have been needed around key points outside (squibs), while the interior was pulverized with no telling what.

The important thing is that it has been shown the buildings could not have fallen at the speeds they did if they simply "collapsed." They had help. We may never know what that "help" was, but the buildings didn't fall from one floor simply dropping down onto the next.

I personally don't think an advanced beam was used. Not space-based, at any rate. The atmosphere holds the equivalent of 30 feet of water and several inches of dense particulate matter. Too thick for pinpoint aiming. There were some odd events around NYC that morning, like cars blocks away from the WTC complex being burned up, and that's led to some speculation of new weaponry being involved, but when facts are witheld, the mind is forced to speculate.

Important thing is floor hitting floor a hundred stories to the ground would take much, much, much longer than the filmed collapse times.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 09:26 AM

... and also the fact that the buildings did not fall at "freefall" speed, nor does the report say they did.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 08:41 AM

GUEST,sooo sweet ,

If you read the presented arguement that the towers could not have fallen in the observed time, you might notice that they ALSO prove that, unless the demolition occurred at least 18 seconds BEFORE the observed collapse, the collapse could not have been caused by controlled demolition. Since the "squibs" were observed as the towers were falling, controlled demolition could NOT have been the cause of the collapse.

My postulate, that we.. the aliens used gravity generators to increase the speed of the collapse is the ONLY way that the arguement as presented can be true AND fit the facts as observed. The 'squibs' were the implosions of the gravity generators AFTER they had performed thier task of bringing down the tower(s).

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,sooo sweet
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 01:11 AM

Well, she proved the government's version WASN'T possible, so she's investigating what WAS possible. That's what a scientist should do.

But most importantly, she shows that the buildings couldn't have fallen the way the government says they did.

She proved that, and she proved the government is lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 12:51 AM

Biographical information about Dr. Judy Wood, the author of the "Billiard Balls" page...


Brief Biographical Sketch for

Judy D. Wood, Ph.D.

Website: http://drjudywood.com/
email: lisajudy [at] nctv.com

Judy D. Wood is a former professor of mechanical engineering with research interests in experimental stress analysis, structural mechanics, optical methods, deformation analysis, and the materials characterization of biomaterials and composite materials. She is a member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM), co-founded SEM's Biological Systems and Materials Division, and currently serves on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division.

Dr. Wood received her

* B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),

* M.S (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and

* Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including

* Experimental Stress Analysis,

* Engineering Mechanics,

* Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)

* Strength of Materials Testing

From 1999 to 2006 Dr. Wood has been an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. Before moving to Clemson she spent three years as a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Tech. Dr. Wood is currently writing a book with Morgan Reynolds on the physical evidence explaining the events on 9/11.

One of Dr. Wood's research interests is biomimicry, or applying the mechanical structures of biological materials to engineering design using engineering materials. Other recent research has investigated the deformation behavior of materials and structures with complex geometries and complex material properties, such as fiber-reinforced composite materials and biological materials. Dr. Wood is an expert in the use of moiré interferometry, a full-field optical method that is used in stress analysis. Dr. Wood has over 60 technical publications in refereed journals, conference proceedings, and edited monographs and special technical reports.

Dr. Wood started to question the events of 9/11 on that same day when what she saw and heard on television was contradictory and appeared to violate the laws of physics. Since that day she has used her knowledge of engineering mechanics to prove that the collapse of the World Trade Center twin towers could not have happened as the American public was told.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,CB_Brooklyn
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 12:37 AM

Government Official Says 9/11 Directed Energy Weapon Research "Worthy"

The Director of Public Affairs at the Directed Energy Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory/DEO-PA, Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, says Dr Judy Wood's research on directed energy weapon usage at the World Trade Center is "interesting and worthy of further consideration".

See here for an image of the FAX sheet sent to Dr Wood's attorney, Jerry Leaphart: http://drjudywood.com/home/Garcia4.jpg

The above FAX followed a letter sent by Dr Wood to a number of directed energy professionals: http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/DEW_letter.html



Also of note: NIST emailed Dr Wood stating they need more time to respond to her Request for Correction: http://drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_letter.html

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 12:17 AM

Yeah, and it's elegant, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,sooo sweet
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 12:15 AM

It's the bestest. She makes the point that to disprove a story, you just have to show it's not possible. You don't have to give an ALTERNATE explanation to disprove, you just need to show that what you've been told doesn't make sense. Then she shows that freefall speeds weren't possible. Incredible work. So, so obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 12:06 AM

Thanks for that link, sooo sweet. Never saw it before.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,sooo sweet
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 11:43 PM

My favorite refutation of the "pancake theory". This lady makes it REALLY simple:

Let's say I tell you that I ran, by foot,
to a store (10 miles away), then
to the bank (5 more miles), then
to the dog track (7 more miles), then
to my friend's house (21 more miles), then home ...all in 2 minutes.

To disprove your story, I could present to you a simple case. I would present to you that the world's record for running just one mile is 3:43.13, or just under four minutes. So, it does not seem possible that I could have run over 40 miles in 2 minutes. i.e. It does not seem possible for me to have run 43 miles in half the time it would take the holder of the world's record to run just one mile. Even if you gave me the benefit of having run all 43 miles at world-record pace, it would not have been possible for me to have covered that distance in two minutes.

Remember, the proof need not be complicated.   You don't need to prove exactly how long it should have taken me to run that distance. Nor do you need to prove how much longer it would have taken if I stopped to place a bet at the dog track. To disprove my story, you only need to show that the story I gave you is not physically possible.

Now, let us consider if any of those collapse times provided to us seem possible with the story we were given.

If we assume the second mass is initially at rest [(v2)i = 0], the equation reduces to

(m1 * v1)i = (m1 * v1)f + (m2 * v2)f

As you can see, if mass m1 = m2 and they "stick" together after impact, the equation reduces to ,

(m1 * v1)i = (2m1 * vnew)f

or vnew = (1/2) * v1

If two identical masses colliding and sticking together, they will travel at half the speed as the original single mass.

Etc.

http://drjudywood.com/articles/BBE/BilliardBalls.html

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 11:25 PM

The stolen elections are a piece of history. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that Republicans will again control the White House for at least two more terms. Unfortunately, the Democrat ticket may be an equal amount of garbage. So even with a fair election the people will lose. Assuming of course that the Neocons allow it to reach an election. I ain't convinced about that. No sir!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 11:13 PM

I do not casually dismiss the theories that 9/11 had US government complicity, if not active assistance. However, I am far more troubled by the fact (readily and voluminously proven by non-partisan statisticians and *eye witnesses*) that the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 were both positively stolen. Although it did not lead directly to the deaths of 1,700+/- people (only, perhaps 3,500 to 650,000 so far), this is a far more dangerous precedent. Let's spend equal time on THIS conspiracy fact (not theory).

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 10:48 PM

... which cleverly ignores the documentation that the fire proofing had been falling off by itself for years, only some of it having been replaced prior to 9/11 - also how fragile it was to even the slighest impact, shedding easily.

The part that was actually tested didn't behave that way. They had to shoot it several times with a shotgun to get the fireproofing off.


Once the wood had burned down to have the embers on the mesh, I checked about 20 mins later and the mesh had vanished, the coals now having no support were starting to fall thru as they normally do.


Are you really suggesting that your scale modeling was in any way comparable to the conditions in the WTC on 9/11?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 10:03 PM

"That's why the attack had to be during the day - it wouldn't work at night... "

Now THAT is funny. Good one, FT.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 10:03 PM

... oh yeah, and after the black smoke, the new pope comes out on the balcony in St. Petersburg square. If he sees his shadow, we have six more weeks of winter.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 10:01 PM

when they elect a new pope they burn straw after every ballot. If the smoke is white, they have not come to a decision. If the smoke is black, they have a new pope. Or vice versa.

Thermite would be more Rambo-esque, but a frickin laser beam would smack of James Bond. Perhaps it was a Bizarro Superman using his heat vision.    Also, the steel did not look cut, so perhaps it was someone dropping acid in little packets of sugar causing it to melt into liquid pools in a Dali-like dream sequence that would have some people seeing airplanes and others seeing missles.

I saw this magician on TV last night, the Mindfucker or something like that. He made an elephant appear out of thin air. Perhaps him or David Blaine actually created this illusion. The WTC was never there to begin with. Wait a second - that was how the Alec Baldwin "Shadow" movie ended. That came out a few years before 9/11. There is our smoking gun! Hollywood did it in!!!!! Screw this termite and Al-Quiet crap, it was a fignewton of our imagination. George Bush isn't real - Ronnie Raygun is still alive and simply filming a sequel in DC!!!   Somebody get me Walt Disney on the line....

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:59 PM

"The problem, Ron, with using the sun would be"

That's why the attack had to be during the day - it wouldn't work at night...

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:58 PM

Here ya go, LH.
Bottom of page 1 and top of page 2.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0401_050401_popeelection.html

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:53 PM

Okay, guys, let me in on the joke. ;-) What does "the pope" reference mean?

The problem, Ron, with using the sun would be...we don't have a lever long enough to move it to New York. Or a fulcrum to put the lever on. Thermite, however, can be contained in small portable incendiary devices, and it's great if you want to slice right through solid steel. Lasers are an okay idea, I guess, but wouldn't thermite be fundametally more Rambo-esque? Lasers are for sissies.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:46 PM

Good thing you didn't step in it... eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:39 PM

Man, that ain't what I had lit, man. Like, SARA LEE! I'm in.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:38 PM

we did see the devil in the smoke after all

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:37 PM

LOLOL

Good one, Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:35 PM

" The smoke coming from the towers gets really black."

new pope??

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:33 PM

couldn't we get just one frickin laser?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:33 PM

That's the problem I'm having with the story. The smoke coming from the towers gets really black. Notice no flames visible. Smoke was billowing OUT of the building, and not that much O2 was getting in. So the fire was suffocatiing OR the fuel load had been msotly consumed. However, it's not all about fuel. The structure had been damaged at one corner--on one of the buildings. Fifty floors above is lots of weight. And that weight falling straight down--which it didn't (photographs on one site show the entire top of the building at about a 25 degree angle off perpendicular)--yet the report would have us believe the buildings, both of them, pancaked down. One just like the other.

There were no major cross supports in either building. The sturdy parts of the structure were the corners and the core. Assume the buildings DID pancake down. Why did the core pancake with the rest of the building?

Sorry, buddy, but too many questions didn't get asked at the time and too many questions were NOT addressed in the official report. The report reads lots like fantasy or sci-fi to me: First you suspend your disbelief and THEN ya get led where the author wants to take you.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:32 PM

how hot does lava get?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:31 PM

Thermite is good. So is the center of the sun.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:28 PM

You want really intense heat? Try thermite.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:21 PM

"most of the jet fuel which managed to enter the towers was consumed within ten minutes."

...so what else burned and caused such intense heat for so long?

And the towers collapsed only when the fires died down... allowing the heat expamded distorted steel beams to shrink and fail...

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:12 PM

"Much (perhaps, in the case of the second impact, as much as two-thirds) of the jet fuel was consumed immediately in the fireballs which erupted when the planes hit the towers. Furthermore, according to one FEMA investigator (Jonathan Barnett), most of the jet fuel which managed to enter the towers was consumed within ten minutes."

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:08 PM

'Fires Versus Steel Buildings
The official explanation that fires caused the collapse of Building 7 is incredible in light of the fact that fires have never caused a steel-framed building to totally collapse, before or after September 11th, 2001.

Steel-framed high-rises (buildings of fifteen stories or more) have been common for more than 100 years. There have been hundreds of incidents involving severe fires in such buildings, and none have led to complete collapse, or even partial collapse of support columns.


The Interstate Bank Building fire consumed several floors but did not damage the steel superstructure.
Recent examples of high-rise fires include the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38-floor building; 1   and the 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3-1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members". 2 '

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:03 PM

"'Ya burn 70 tons, and whadda ya get?' "

Lots of people wondering how the planes got there.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:02 PM

"but it vented to the atmosphere"

... and that combined with the ready access to the oxygen caused a draught that intensified the heat, like in a blast furnace, an object which is also larger that your defintion of 'confined space', but gets so hot internally when fired by low temperature burning fuels that it even melts steel rather nicely...

Confined

Confine \Con*fine"\ (k[o^]n*f[imac]n"), v. t. [imp. & p. p.
   {Confined}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Confining}.] [F. confiner to
   border upon, LL. confinare to set bounds to; con- + finis
   boundary, end. See {Final}, {Finish}.]
   To restrain within limits; to restrict; to limit; to bound;
   to shut up; to inclose; to keep close.
   [1913 Webster]

         Now let not nature's hand
         Keep the wild flood confined! let order die! --Shak.
   [1913 Webster]

         He is to confine himself to the compass of numbers and
         the slavery of rhyme.                   --Dryden.
   [1913 Webster]

   {To be confined}, to be in childbed.

   Syn: To bound; limit; restrain; imprison; immure; inclose;
       circumscribe; restrict.
       [1913 Webster]

        -- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

confined \confined\ adj.
   1. having movement restricted to within a certain area; --
      usually a building. Opposite of {unconfined}.

   Note: [Narrower terms: {claustrophobic}; {close, confining};
         {homebound, housebound, shut-in}; {in
         childbed(prenominal)}; {pent, shut up(predicate)};
         {snowbound}; {weather-bound}; {stormbound,
         storm-bound}]
         [WordNet 1.5]

   2. deprived of liberty; especially placed under arrest or
      restraint.
      [WordNet 1.5]

   3. having movement restricted to within an enclosed outdoor
      area; -- of animals.

   Syn: fenced in, penned.
       [WordNet 1.5]

   4. (Med.) not invading healthy tissue.
      [WordNet 1.5]

   5. held prisoner.

   Syn: captive, imprisoned, jailed.
       [WordNet 1.5]

   6. having movement or progress restricted to a certain area;
      as, an outbreak of the plague confined to one quarter of
      the city; wildfires confined to within the canyon.
      [PJC]

        -- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

confined
    adj 1: not free to move about [ant: {unconfined}]
    2: enclosed by a confining fence [syn: {fenced in}, {penned}]
    3: not invading healthy tissue [ant: {invasive}]
    4: deprived of liberty; especially placed under arrest or
       restraint
    5: in captivity [syn: {captive}, {imprisoned}, {jailed}]

        -- From WordNet (r) 2.0

113 Moby Thesaurus words for "confined":
   angustifoliate, angustirostrate, angustisellate, angustiseptal,
   authoritative, barred, bedfast, bedridden, beleaguered, beset,
   besieged, blockaded, bound, bounded, boxed in, cabined, caged,
   circumscribed, cloistered, close, close-fitting, closed-in,
   conditioned, constricted, cooped, copyrighted, cordoned,
   cordoned off, corralled, cramp, cramped, cribbed, crowded,
   detained, disciplined, down, enclosed, expert, feature, featured,
   fenced, finite, geographically limited, hedged, hedged about,
   hedged in, hemmed, hemmed in, hospitalized, icebound, immured,
   impounded, imprisoned, in childbed, in confinement, in hospital,
   incapacious, incarcerated, incommodious, insular, invalided,
   isthmian, isthmic, jailed, kept in, knowledgeable, laid up,
   landlocked, leaguered, limited, local, localized, meager, mewed,
   moderated, narrow, near, of a place, paled, parochial, patented,
   penned, pent, pent-up, prescribed, proscribed, prostrate,
   provincial, qualified, quarantined, railed, restrained, restricted,
   scant, scanty, shut-in, sick abed, slender, snowbound, specialist,
   specialistic, specialized, stinted, strait, straitened, technical,
   tight, topical, under restraint, vernacular, walled, walled-in,
   windbound




        -- From Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0


'Ya burn 70 tons, and whadda ya get?'

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job
From: Peace
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 08:43 PM

Fire tetrahedron: Heat, fuel, oxygen, sustained chemical reaction. Remove one and the fire goes out. On a smaller scale, one can picture it like this. Water gets sprayed on fire in a house. The expansion of water to steam is 1:1700. That is, one cubic foot of water becomes 1700 cubic feet of steam. The function of the steam is to cool the heat and hopefully drop it to a temperature that is below the ignition point of whatever is burning. Thanks to Ray Bradbury, the whole world knows that the ignition point of paper is 451 degrees F. Keep it at 450 degrees and it won't flare up and burn. Flashover is a phenomena that occurs in less than 1 1/2 seconds. Literally, everything that can burn bursts into flame in that 1 1/2 seconds. It's a killer, because from the middle of even a small room, no one will get to the point of egress.

******************************************************

"In addition to ignition temperature, other properties associated with the flammability of a liquid are its flash point, flammable range, and vapor density. The flash point is the temperature at which a flammable liquid vaporizes and is therefore able to ignite. Liquids with a flash point under 40 °C are considered combustible liquids. Gasoline has a flash point of about -45 °C. The flammable range of a liquid is the ratio of the flammable liquid to air that would create a volatile mixture. The flammability range of gasoline is between 1.4 and 7.6%. If the ratio of gasoline to air is less than 1.4%, then the mixture is to thin to burn. The mixture cannot burn when it contains more than 7.6% gasoline because it is too rich to burn. The vapor density is the weight of a vapor relative to the weight of air. The vapor density of gasoline is heavier than air and therefore will sink when in air."

Just some food for thought.