BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 12:42 PM

please do not distort what I have said. I have no 'superstitious belief', and I do NOT assume the govt. cannot lie...I just do not agree that it is obvious that they DID in this case. MY 'conclusion' is that 'it is not obvious'. You may call me stubborn, or dumb, or decide that I am part of the conspiracy, or that *I* am lying....it makes no difference to me.

And..." It is not my conclusion. It is fact"

it IS your 'conclusion' that is is 'fact'.

"further, deponent sayeth not!"

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 12:36 PM

And I might add, photographs and blueprints are evidence. Government generated charts are not evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 12:27 PM

No, Bill. It is not my conclusion. It is fact. Just look at the blueprints and the photographs. To conclude otherwise is magical thinking based on your superstitious belief that the government couldn't possibly be lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 12:18 PM

"Bill, just read my posts. I've already posted the evidence..."

I gather that means that it is your conclusion that the NIST 'falsified' data and that therefore the govt. is lying about something.
Since I have said that *I* do not feel competent to make that determination, and that I see FAR too many problems with the very process of basing a conspiracy theory on data that experts should already have seen, if it were relevant, I must now agree with catspaw and decline to continue this. If YOU feel it is that clear & obvious, I suggest you badger some 'authority', or write your congressman, rather than expecting me to keep answering questions I cannot answer.

MY concerns (as should be obvious) continue to be about the very nature and process OF conspiracy theories.

I may read any future posts, but I will not debate or respond unless I see something really new.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 05:20 AM

Can't imagine why you bothered in the first place, catspaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 04:15 AM

If Bill wants to continue he can but I won't bother with it. Feel free to post another hundred pieces of your valuable information here Carol but remember a lack of response on my part doesn't mean you're right or that you've won some great victory.

Hawk does have that part right.........Each side thinks the other is deluded and at this late date after so many times around the track it is ridiculous to even try to keep going.......kinda' like the old story about numbered jokes. Just yell out your number (Cover-Up 83) and we can respond with our number (Myth Debunker 69).

In the end Carol, arguing with you on this matter is like trying to sew with a broken needle.........You don't really get anywhere and there is no point to it.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 02:28 AM

By the way, you don't just interpret blueprints. The actual information is right there in the blueprints. It's all there for everyone to see. If the government produces a diagram that specifies a certain number of columns, and the blueprint shows a different number, it's not necessary for someone to be able to "interpret" a blueprint to know that the government is lying. If the government produces a diagram that shows an absence of crossbracing, and we can look at a photograph that shows the presence of crossbracing, we know that the government is lying. You don't need to be an expert to understand these things.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Mar 10 - 02:23 AM

Bill, just read my posts. I've already posted the evidence, and then I even listed what evidence I provided in a subsequent post. Really, if you're going to be responding to my posts, the least you could do would be to read them.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 05:55 PM

"...NIST falsified the structure of the core."

Now THAT is a new point...is that your analysis/opinion/conclusion? Or is it from some expert?
If it is true, it is important and should be/have been cited and investigated by someone who knows what to do with such serious 'data'.
If it is just your personal interpretation of the blueprints + your view of how the information is relevant, I can't see why I should be alarmed, as *I* am not competent to evaluate those areas of physics and construction.

**serious accusations require serious evidence**

(clothes changed and heading out the door.)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 05:32 PM

And by the way, falsifying information is not an "anomaly". It's just plain old lying.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 05:29 PM

Bill the NIST falsified the structure of the core. I have provided both the blueprints of the core as well as pictorial proof that the core was not constructed as the NIST has said that it was.

You are using a lot of superstitious gobbldygook as a way of trying to divert attention away from the fact that the NIST has falsified information. Given that the NIST has falsified information, none of us has any reason whatever to regard them as a credible authority on this subject, and we similarly have no reason whatever to take anything you have to say seriously on this subject either.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 05:17 PM

What did I just say?


We are going off to the Royal Mile to sing Sea Chanties tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 05:04 PM

I should rephrase:


So once again, Bill, where is the proof that the towers fell the way you are saying they fell? In order for us to be able to say that they fell in that way, there needs to have been an investigation into the structural deficiencies that would allow the core to simply disappear. Your sources of information do not mention such an investigation. The official sources of information do not discuss it either. Their only method of dealing with the problem of the massively built and reinforced core is to pretend that it didn't exist. Now, you please explain to me with your superior reasoning skills and logic, how ignoring evidence is the same thing as conducting a rigorous scientific investigation.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 05:02 PM

So once again, Bill, where is the proof that the towers fell the way you are saying they fell? In order for them to have fallen in that way, there needs to have been an investigation into the structural deficiencies that would allow the core to simply disappear. Your sources of information do not mention such an investigation. The official sources of information do not discuss it either. Their only method of dealing with the problem of the massively built and reinforced core is to pretend that it didn't exist. Now, you please explain to me with your superior reasoning skills and logic, how ignoring evidence is the same thing as conducting a rigorous scientific investigation.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 04:55 PM

Well done Bill.......and thank you.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 04:47 PM

ummm...Carol.... since Wolfgang and Catspaw & I are not technical experts in structural architecture, physics, metallurgy, demolition, photo enhancement or firefighting etc... and since we have no knowledge of or access to any secret documents which may or may not exist, we cannot personally answer questions like..."..what caused the towers to fall? Give us the easily proven scientific explanation."

Wolfgang IS trained in and teaches how to analyze argument forms in various contexts, and I had a number of courses in such things...and Catspaw is no slouch in seeing thru slippery reasoning, either.

All we can do is read the various explanations on all sides of an issues and see who we think makes the most sense and answers the most questions with the fewest dangling, unanswered parts.

What we DO see is much like the fellow said in the article you say "doesn't address the core" (I have no idea whether you actually read it, so I will C&P some here.

"Argument by Anomaly

In an article about the Popular Mechanics 9/11 report, Scientific American columnist Michael Shermer makes an important observation about the conspiracist method: "The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the 'evidence' for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy."

A successful scientific theory organizes masses of information into a coherent, well-tested narrative. When a theory has managed to explain the real world accurately enough for long enough, it becomes accepted as fact. Conspiracy theorists, Shermer points out, generally ignore the mass of evidence that supports the mainstream view and focus strictly on tiny anomalies. But, in a complex and messy world, the fact that there might be a few details we don't yet understand should not be surprising.

You Carol, are over & over asking us to explain anomalies which YOU are not happy with...even in the face of expert testimony which does explain them.
This begins to 'feel' like a child who can't have what he wants demanding "why, Mommie?", over & over. If he doesn't LIKE the answer, there's little one can do.

(and to Lizzie...that building 7 nonsense about "...Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion" **HAS** been explained, and it was NOT "..a few...small fires..."...it was many fires which grew very large and burned for hours! Read ALL the sites and look at the images!!! There are interviews with firefighters which TELL you how it happened!)


So..... I will repeat one-last-time. There ARE coherent, expert, scientific explanations to all your questions and doubts. If you have read them and either don't understand or just have a strong 'need' to distrust them, there's little *I* can say to reassure you. When I see...over & over... repetition of false data & disproven claims, gleaned from conspiracy sites, I can only shrug.

I will NOT be badgered into a circular, redundant process of 'answering' hypothetical questions forever. I accept that 19 guys hijacked 4 planes and with a bit of luck, did a lot of damage. I do NOT accept, with the evidence I have seen, that any complex plot involving our own government was coordinated with the terrorists and aided the destruction with 'controlled demolition'!
If you should discover any new information that gets us out of this cycle, feel free to contact me.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 04:04 PM

Yes, I get that. That's fine with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 04:00 PM

Different strokes, LH. Obviously I see it differently or I wouldn't be participating in this thread. While I don't expect that I will sway the minds of those who are firm in their belief about what happened, I do nevertheless feel that it's important, when legitimate questions about the official version exist, to put those questions where people can see them.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 03:46 PM

I pretty much agree with you, Carol...but I have come to the conclusion that it's totally useless for me to argue endlessly with the people on this forum who wish to believe the official version of 911. Therefore I don't intend to consume any of my energy in doing so.

I might as well pound sand with a hammer. ;-) Empty the ocean with a bucket. Build a bridge to the moon. Get Woody Allen to convert to Islam. Etc.

***

Think about the arguments that have raged over the Kennedy assassination (JKF) ever since the Warren Commission made its report. Has a final answer been found that puts those arguments to rest. No. And it's been 46 years!!!

This 911 thing is rather similar, though even more serious. I bet we'll all be dead and gone, and people will still be arguing over the same stuff about 911. I'd rather focus on doing something possible than waste a large amount of my time engaging in futile verbal battles with people over stuff like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 01:39 PM

So tell us, Wolfgang, what caused the towers to fall? Give us the easily proven scientific explanation.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 01:28 PM

9/11 myths...Reading between the lines

The web is full of sites covering various conspiracy theories. Many seem well-researched, and appear to have plenty of detailed documentation to prove their claims. But are they really true?

We don't know, but one good way to start is by checking a few claims for yourself. We tried that with a number of 9/11 sites, with surprising results. Many of the "facts" we read were distorted, or simply wrong. Quotes were routinely taken out of context. Relevant information was often ignored. And much of this could be discovered with a minimum of online research.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 11:35 AM

Have you listened to or read any of the evidence presented that has been provided in this thread, Greg, that contradicts the official story line? That's really all that is needed to question the official version. No belief that the US is exempt is needed for that. The evidence speaks for itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 11:25 AM

Part of what's operating here, Spaw, is the firmly intrenched belief by citizens of the Good Ol' US of A that the United States is and always has been somehow EXEMPT. These kinds of things may happen in other parts of the globe, but NEVER in or to the Red, White and Blue. Hence the refusal to accept what has actually happened.

Couple this with the insane belief that these random acts of terrorism can somehow all be prevented and that they require super-intelligence and planning to execute (couldn't a been a buncha guys with box-cutters, - had to be some MENSA-types ( Or Dr. No?)somewhere.

Get over it, gang! The US is NOT EXEMPT and it will ALWAYS be vulnerable to some extent.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 10:41 AM

LH, the ones who are not going on belief are the ones who are saying we don't know what happened, so we want an investigation to find out once and for all. That's the opposite of the religious kind of belief that you are talking about. The only ones in this discussion who are going on belief are the ones who believe they know what happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 09:17 AM

By the way, as most of you probably know, I think it was an inside job and that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition...as well as hit by the airplanes (in the case of buildings 1 & 2).

However, I am not going to waste my time arguing about it further with anyone here on this forum, because it's like pounding sand with a hammer...completely useless. And it won't change anything anyway, and I know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 09:11 AM

People's reactions to this are mostly pretty much like deeply religious people's reactions towards anyone who questions their FAITH!

And I mean that regardless of whether they the ones who support the official explanation...or the ones who support the various challenges to it by 911 Truthers which propose other theories of a larger conspiracy.

You get the same reaction in both cases. The same contempt and total dismissal of arguments and theories put forth by those on the other side. The same jaw-dropped amazement and disbelief that the "other guy can't see the plain truth!!!".

It's sad watching people do this to each other. How can this many people be so utterly sure they are right about something they didn't personally witness? How can they be so sure that all the authorities they've decided to trust are trustworthy...or well informed?

In short, it's a complete waste of anyone's time debating about 911 on this forum.

In my opinion.

But if it turns your crank to do so, go right ahead.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 04:46 AM

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

--Joseph Goebbels

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 04:17 AM

Mysterious Deaths of 9/11 Witnesses - Youtube


So, Spaw, are you asking me to believe the politicians? Are you asking me to believe the George Bush Administration? Are you asking me to believe the Corporate Bastards?

The 'official' investigation was just that, an 'official' one. It was one, so it would seem that was a complete cock-up and cover up.

WHY, in this, of ALL disasters, would ANY evidence...***ANY*** evidence be removed before it had all been carefully investigated, let alone DESTROYED???   Geez, this investigation should STILL be going ON, even after all this time, in an effort to ensure that NO stone has been left unturned, that NOTHING has been overlooked.

Why were the bin Laden family allowed to leave the country before any announcements were made? The very family that Bush Snr was so chummy with were allowed to leave by Bush Jnr.   How did they know the bin Laden's were even involved?

The death of the babysitter of Marvin Bush's family, the death's of so many of the others in that video there? Yes, people die, all the time, that's what we do, as a species, but so many 'suicides'? So many mysterious deaths? The woman who, just a few days before was found hanging from a tree, publicly stated that she had no thoughts of suicide whatsoever, just to set the record straight, in case she was found to have 'apparently done exactly that' prior to giving evidence in court?

I mean???????

The Enron scandal suddenly disappeared into oblivion pretty much....and wasn't there a guy who'd just taken out new insurance on one of the buildings?


What I DO know though, is that we are living in an age of corruption, the likes of which has never been known before, on such a worldwide scale...and 9 years down the line, questions still remain unanswered and the whole world is falling apart because of the Evil Bastards who've stitched this world up so tight!

At the time of 9/11 did you EVER envisage banks losing hundreds of billions of pounds/dollars, being bailed out by a public who are so unquestioning that they don't even take to the streets when these bastards STILL give themselves billions of pounds/dollars in bonuses????

I don't believe that 9/11 has been investigated correctly, and the very fact that so many hugely intelligent people have come together, nationwide, indeed, worldwide, to ask questions, on the same day, in order to create maximum publicity, means that there is a huge unease about the whole thing.

They have NOTHING to gain from this, nothing, other than answers!

I really do believe that Evil has crept right in and smothered this world in the last 2/3 generations, and it's happened because the Good Men and True have become so stressed out, so run down, so weighed down with trying to pay their bills, keep their jobs, pass their exams, be consumers, whatever has been 'worked out' for them...that there is little strength left, en masse, for people to take to the streets.

These people are trying to do just that, in their own way, to raise public awareness, to raise public anger, to get people to SEE and to get people to QUESTION!

Here, again, (from my first post) is one of the people that I choose to follow...because he has NO agenda, other than finding The Truth.

"....However, in short, the official explanation of the events of that day are not only insufficient, they are fantastic and cannot bear rational examination. We are asked to believe that on that day three structural steel buildings, which have never before in history collapsed because of fire, fell neatly into their basements at the speed of gravity, their concrete reduced to dust. We are asked to believe that jet fuel (kerosene) can melt steel. We are asked to believe that the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, that responded to sixty-eight emergencies in the year prior to 9-11 in less than twenty minutes allowed aircraft to wander about for up to an hour and a half. We are asked to believe that the steel and titanium components of an aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon "evaporated". There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the "smoking gun". Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare. The 9-11 Commission didn't even mention it, and F.E.M.A. actually stated they DIDN'T KNOW WHY IT COLLAPSED AND LEFT IT AT THAT.

Brothers, I know that the implications of the above are hard, almost unthinkable, but the official explanation is utter nonsense, and three hundred and forty three murdered brothers are crying out for justice. Demand a genuine investigation into the events of September 11!" -Anton Vodvarka, Lt. FDNY (ret)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 01:19 AM

Looks like some of your brothers and sisters don't agree with you, Dave. They want an investigation.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 01:17 AM

The cores of the twin towers were massively built and thoroughly reinforced skeletons of immense steel columns and massive bracing. They were designed to carry the full load of the buildings several times over. Just the fact that they're misleading and lying about, and suppressing information about the actual construction of the cores of the towers is evidence enough of a cover-up, and reason enough for a proper investigation.

Here's the blueprint of the 110the floor core of the north tower. It shows the placement of the columns and bracing. You can change the resolution so you can see them in much greater detail...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html


Here's some pictures of the core as it's being built. You can see the columns and the bracing...

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_core.jpg

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/docs/low_core.jpg


Here's more information about the construction of the cores...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html


This video graphically shows how the cores were constructed...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: Dave Swan
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 12:52 AM

OK, everybody take a deep breath. There are too damn many variables here. It would be great if we could answer this once and for all of us.

I'd love to think that debate and investigation and speculation could keep crews safe the next time the horror strikes. In the fire service we talk a lot about lessons learned in hopes that we can save the next crew in a similar situation. We've learned some new lessons, revisited others, and been stunned by what we couldn't have imagined.

343 of my kind were killed. It would be nice it we could keep it from happening again.

No one in this conversation is an expert.

At many levels, this remains a personal matter and many of us in the fire service would be happy to keep it that way.

D

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 11:18 PM

Massively built? What is that?

Like I said, and I should have stayed with it, go investigate the crap out of this but don't spend my money on it.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 10:29 PM

By the way, Bill, that's the tactic you used last time we had this discussion. Rather than deal with the very real problems I have pointed out that are inherent in the version of events that you have chosen to embrace, you tried to change the subject. Both times.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 10:25 PM

Catspaw, if your sources didn't have anything to hide, they wouldn't be pretending that the massively built and thoroughly reinforced core structure doesn't exist. In your graphic, they make it look like it's just hollow in the middle, and that's simply a lie.


Bill, your article doesn't address the core at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 10:16 PM

then....read this follow-up report by James B. Meigs, Editor-In-Chief, Popular Mechanics,(read all 4 pages!) as he explains in DETAIL what *I* have been trying to say about the process of dealing with conspiracy theories, and why it is (my language) like fighting ants at a picnic.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 10:07 PM

Carol....Look at the info on the USA Today site......Note the inner and outer cores......Go through the sequence. I can't see what it is that doesn't make sense.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:55 PM

Here's one of your posts were you reference the article I'm talking about, Bill...

http://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=102658&messages=715&page=11&desc=yes#2102836

And here's the article...

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html

You were citing this as your proof of how the buildings fell. As you can see, they are saying the angle clips (the things I was describing as functioning like brackets) are the week point. In the illustration, we can see the the angle clips were positioned at the ends of the joists, where the joists were affixed to the outer perimeter, and also the core structure. If the angle clips were the week point, they would have given way at the point where they joined the joists to the core structure, and the core structure would have remained standing...

"Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips."


These are YOUR experts, Bill, that you were waving around as proof that all questions have been answered. Anyone with any grasp of physics, and with the explanation being given by these "experts", can see that what these people are suggesting happened is not possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:51 PM

Just a note... I have other things to do than continue to refute conspiracy theories and follow doubters in circles as they repeat the same conjectures over & over.

I leave you with the reminder that:

The burden of proof is on the asserter! If you have a better answer than the official one, YOU need to provide something more than repetitive claims expressing doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:29 PM

Thanks, 'spaw...I didn't have time to dig up the whole story...but I do remember that building 7 had an interior atrium which was not like most buildings....it meant less support in the center of lower floors.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:26 PM

1) Building 7 was a separate issue..it caught fire and burned for hours under different conditions.

2)WHO says molten steel was found, and what did 'they' say was the source of it? If steel from the upper floors were in fact melted, it seems to me it would be on top the debris, not under it.

Remember, it is not required for me to 'prove' that the official explanations are wrong...it is for those who insinuate otherwise and claim a conspiracy to provide reasonable reasons! (reasons which must explain HOW beyond just assertions of 'planted explosives'.... you just cannot assert 'it couldn't have happened the way you say' without better evidence than amateur conjecture.)

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:23 PM

It was also a case of the distortion of the steel as well as the softening of it. The WTC was like a monocoque chassis you find in some cars. The entire structure relies on the other pieces to retain the integrity of the whole. This make for a very strong assembly or structure until a part of it becomes so compromised as happened in here by softening and distortion that the structure fails. The inner core was not some monstrous self-standing monolith any more that the outer core was.

AS for WTC7.......

"Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: michaelr
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:13 PM

I'm finding two things wrong with that just skimming it:

1. "...spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets"

Problem: No jet crashed into Building 7.

2. "'I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn"

Problem: Large puddles of molten steel were discovered under the towers' debris.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:08 PM

That's NOT how they explained it in the link YOU provided, Bill. In the link you provided, giving what you claimed was the official "explanation", it was a structure that functioned as a bracket, holding the floors up, that warped and allowed the floors to slip off, in the same way that a shelf might slip off a bracket holding it up to a wall. That's from the source that YOU said you endorsed.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:08 PM

Now... 20 seconds of Googling got me this from experts. Am I expected to do better and find MORE?

"Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:05 PM

ummm.. "that report"?? Which report? The 9/11 report? There were many reports and studies.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:03 PM

*sigh* It was not just "slip off", and it was not "brackets".... certain areas collapsed when structural beams lost integrity and allowed the weight of the roof and upper floors to start downward. This was not a 'totally' symmetrical collapse, but due to fire having 40 or so minutes to heat beams which had no fireproofing left, it was close....and those beams were connected to the core! It was not two separate structural entities....but the ROOF, when it fell, hit ALL areas.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:52 PM

They don't address the issue of the core in that report. But you tell me anyway. How would the core not remain standing if the floors simply slip off the brackets on which they were hanging from the core? If you have a shelf hanging from your wall, and the hanger bends and the shelf slips off, does your wall fall down with the shelf? If so, why?

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:51 PM

Remember...any theory that involves more than Osama, 19 young terrorists, several planes and a lot of luck, involves also theorizing HOW such a vast conspiracy could be put together with no leaks and explaining WHY anyone would do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:46 PM

?? That explanation was not my invention....it was part of the explanation of the designers of the building and structural engineers. Why should your 'opinion' the "the core would remain" override them?

I don't have a complete answer right at hand...but my 'off the top of my head' image is of the roofs of the towers, with lots of machinery on them, not realizing they were supposed to avoid the cores.

(Smart alec answer? No... I mean that...and remember, parts OF the cores were damaged by initial impact...and all sorts of other stresses.)

Why not look for the answer to your question by doing a search as if you were on my side and trying to convince doubters? *I* am already convinced....*I* need a BETTER contrary answer to change my mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Firefighters for 9/11 T Press Conference
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:35 PM

Bill, you never answered my last question on this subject. At that time, you were claiming that the then current official "explanation" was that the brackets that held the floors up in the twin towers had softened just enough to allow the floors to slip off of them, and then the floors pancaked down one on top of the other. I pointed out that had that been the case, the core would have been left standing. You never "explained" how the official "explanation" of the day that you had chosen to accept could account for the core not remaining intact.