9/11

[Espadon]

BTW, am I the only one who sees the irony in the troll getting worked up, instead of the other way around?

Since when did any random wanker with an entrenched, unpopular belief qualify as a troll?

[Veritas]

Do you even know what an argument is? What you are doing is just CLAIMING something, not arguing something. Learn the difference.

loooooooooooooool

[ValiS]

The last 2 posts are TRUE trolling.
No one asked you to participate in this.

[Veritas]

Do you even know what an argument is? What you are doing is just CLAIMING something, not arguing something. Learn the difference.

loooooooooooooool

The last 2 posts are TRUE trolling.

Reminder that the only outside source you've cited as evidence is youtube

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Um, the other argument of mine was the utter idiocy of thinking people could set up enough explosives to take down both towers and remain undetected.  But yeah, we can ignore that.

Let me guess, this "utter idiocy" is also supported by 10 000 pages?
Do you even know what an argument is? What you are doing is just CLAIMING something, not arguing something. Learn the difference.

Alright, go ahead.  Refute my claim.

Getting back to your "point," the video you showed still looked nothing like the collapsing towers.  I'll do a more in-depth comparison when I get home and can watch videos of both again, but suffice to say that there's a significant difference.

That was not the point, the point was that you said that controlled demolition can only be accomplished from bottom to up. I showed you were completely mislead, therefore proving you are full of s**t and making random claims.

I said it looked nothing like a controlled demolition.  The fact that it went down instead of up was just the most obvious indicator to me, but if you want to dig deeper, I'll dig deeper.

BTW, care to elaborate on how they look "nothing" like the collapsing towers?

Yes, when I get home.  Read.

I only find it SAD how you (the troll) got worked up and started calling others (including me) delusional teenagers and retards...

<citation needed>

Okay, just for fun, I have a question.  What do you think of creationists, ValiS?

Why do you even want to go there ?   And what does this have to do with anything?

Well, I would argue the comparison is that both creationists and CTs are looked down on for having rather wild claims that are unsupported by science.  If you have a particular perception about creationists, perhaps that would help you see how the rest of the world feels about you "truthers."

[ValiS]

Reminder that the only outside source you've cited as evidence is youtube

Please point out where i have said that a youtube video proves something. Other than the video of top to bottom demolition proving that top to bottom demolition exists, or did that video suddenly became fake the moment it was uploaded to youtube?

From: September 08, 2010, 05:04:26 pm

Um, the other argument of mine was the utter idiocy of thinking people could set up enough explosives to take down both towers and remain undetected.  But yeah, we can ignore that.

Let me guess, this "utter idiocy" is also supported by 10 000 pages?
Do you even know what an argument is? What you are doing is just CLAIMING something, not arguing something. Learn the difference.

Alright, go ahead.  Refute my claim.

Ok by all means: You are stupid, therefore your claim sucks. (I am playing by YOUR rules here, let's see how you yourself like it)

Getting back to your "point," the video you showed still looked nothing like the collapsing towers.  I'll do a more in-depth comparison when I get home and can watch videos of both again, but suffice to say that there's a significant difference.

That was not the point, the point was that you said that controlled demolition can only be accomplished from bottom to up. I showed you were completely mislead, therefore proving you are full of s**t and making random claims.

I said it looked nothing like a controlled demolition.  The fact that it went down instead of up was just the most obvious indicator to me, but if you want to dig deeper, I'll dig deeper.

And your most obvious indicator was/is still completely misguided. And that is a FACT.

BTW, care to elaborate on how they look "nothing" like the collapsing towers?

Yes, when I get home.  Read.

That's interesting.. I'll be waiting 

Well, I would argue the comparison is that both creationists and CTs are looked down on for having rather wild claims that are unsupported by science.  If you have a particular perception about creationists, perhaps that would help you see how the rest of the world feels about you "truthers."

The difference between us is that you look down on them because "everyone" else does.
But I don't believe creationism, because it completely lacks reason and does not fit with reality.
The same reason why I dont believe office fires (WTC 7) brought down (with no resistance) a steel frame skyscraper for the first time in a century.

[Veritas]

or did that video suddenly became fake the moment it was uploaded to youtube?

Literally every sentence you write contains a straw man and it's hilarious

[ValiS]

or did that video suddenly became fake the moment it was uploaded to youtube?

Literally every sentence you write contains a straw man and it's hilarious

Why didn't you answer my question? Maybe because I never cited youtube videos as proof?
That would make you a liar.

What did your post mean then?
And please, point out a few more straw-men. It shouldn't be hard if literally every sentence contains them.

If you don't have anything meaningful to say, please don't say it ok? Please let's not make this a complete flamewar.

[Mittsu]

In fact I discovered a video that you must have watched repeatedly and by now know by heart, because you are a 1 on 1 embodiment of the tactics described in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXWoXfyi9y8&feature=related

haha i love how that guy makes fun of the conspiracy theory supporters at the same time.
That's your problem, you discuss science knowing nothing about it. I can admit i don't know what are those funny little physics happenings in the tower, like where's the fire from, why does the tower fall like it does, can a plane make it collapse. I don't know it, and im pretty sure neither do you, that's why scientists investigate things like that. What you are trying to do now is make people believe a group of scientists is wrong and some dudes on youtube are right. I think we all realise there are some swindles in the higher levels, but what you seem to fail to realise, is that some people are just hungry for sensation and they set up their thinking approach to the way they twist any information in favor for their theory. The problem is the same information can fit to 1000 other theories.

or did that video suddenly became fake the moment it was uploaded to youtube?

Literally every sentence you write contains a straw man and it's hilarious

Why didn't you answer my question? Maybe because I never cited youtube videos as proof?
That would make you a liar.

What did your post mean then?
And please, point out a few more straw-men. It shouldn't be hard if literally every sentence contains them.

lol you actually did that again

[Veritas]

Maybe because I never cited youtube videos as proof?

Other than the video of top to bottom demolition proving that top to bottom demolition exists

And please, point out a few more straw-men.

Ok by all means: You are stupid, therefore your claim sucks. (I am playing by YOUR rules here, let's see how you yourself like it)

That was not the point, the point was that you said that controlled demolition can only be accomplished from bottom to up. I showed you were completely mislead, therefore proving you are full of s**t and making random claims.

So now all of a sudden you control what I may and may not think??

etc.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXWoXfyi9y8&feature=related

...That narrator sounds so much like me, it's scary. O_O

Okay, on to the controlled demolition stuff.  Here are decent clips of each of the towers falling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpQsX6gm9ms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXCY-ZNWKYQ

Here are some videos and images of demolished buildings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJQRK0JjH70
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGLIi8J0eKU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5IL7ZpatMk
http://www.orangeandbluehue.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/building-demolition.jpg
http://www.treehugger.com/boardwalk-hotel-implosion-las-vegas.jpg
http://www.affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/building_implosion_small.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/77/175117410_3a57f16c90_z.jpg

The first major component of an implosion is just that: IMPLOSION.  The falling building does not have this going on:
http://9eleven.info/wtc_collapse1B.jpg
http://sydney.edu.au/engineering/civil/latest/wtc_collapse2.jpg
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/2nd-hit/518_wtc1-collapse.jpg
http://visibility911.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/wtc15.jpg
All that debris being ejected is a sign that the only reason the building is going down is because the unsupported weight of the stuff above it is obliterating the rest as it falls.  The concrete is being thrown to the side because it cannot immediately go through the structure beneath it.

Second, you see explosions and a general lack of structural integrity throughout the building in a controlled demolition.  Again, consult the links above.  In a controlled demolition, the building collapses because all of its internal support is gone.  You said it's forced to fall on the path of most resistance; I say it does that by removing said resistance and making it the path of least resistance.  Why does the building fall at once, whether it's top-down or bottom up? Because explosives have removed everything holding the building up.  With the WTC towers, you don't see that weakened lower structure, and you don't see any explosions that would cause such a weakened lower structure.  The closest thing to that are little random puffs of debris being ejected out of windows by the sheer pressure of the tower above.  Even this probably wouldn't happen with a controlled demolition, where the pressure is removed by getting rid of the bottom resistance.  In fact, the massive clouds of rubble mentioned in point #1 simply could not occur if a demolition is done properly.

Third, those puffs of debris I mentioned? Sure, they might looks suspiciously similar to the explosions that destroy the lower support of a demolished building.  However, there are two major differences.  The first is that in a controlled demolition, there are more than THREE of these explosion-looking things (especially in a 100-something storey building).  The second is that they don't just occur randomly; there's an obvious pattern as the support is systematically destroyed.

I think those are the three big ones.  If I come up with any more, I'll post them.

[ValiS]

Maybe because I never cited youtube videos as proof?

Other than the video of top to bottom demolition proving that top to bottom demolition exists

So you are saying that the video of a building being demolished top to bottom does NOT prove that top to bottom demolition exists? That's an incredible claim really.
Not to mention you left out a part of my original sentence.
The original quote was this:

Please point out where i have said that a youtube video proves something. Other than the video of top to bottom demolition proving that top to bottom demolition exists

You are just playing with words.

And please, point out a few more straw-men.

Ok by all means: You are stupid, therefore your claim sucks. (I am playing by YOUR rules here, let's see how you yourself like it)

I dont see how this is a straw-man argument. This was a sarcastic remark (NOT an argument) to {LAW} Gamer_2k4.

That was not the point, the point was that you said that controlled demolition can only be accomplished from bottom to up. I showed you were completely mislead, therefore proving you are full of s**t and making random claims.

Didn't he say that that the towers fell top to bottom, but controlled demolition starts from the bottom? Yes he did, and you can read it a few pages back. See for yourself. Again not a straw-man.
Not to mention that WTF 7 DID fell from bottom to top.




From: September 09, 2010, 07:03:40 am

haha i love how that guy makes fun of the conspiracy theory supporters at the same time.
That's your problem, you discuss science knowing nothing about it. I can admit i don't know what are those funny little physics happenings in the tower, like where's the fire from, why does the tower fall like it does, can a plane make it collapse. I don't know it, and im pretty sure neither do you, that's why scientists investigate things like that.

Why you post while admitting you don't know anything about the topic is beyond me. I'm pretty sure I know a lot more than you about science, particularly construction and physics. Why? Maybe because I study it.

What you are trying to do now is make people believe a group of scientists is wrong and some dudes on youtube are right.

No im not.
I am trying to say that the fact they are scientists and they wrote a 10k page report, does not automatically mean it is right.

And what you all fail to realise, and what shows to me you have not studied the materials yourself the LEAST BIT, is the fact that the NIST report does NOT study the collapse itself.
NIST avoids studying the collapses by placing them outside the scope of its investigation, claiming that "global collapse" was "inevitable" after the "initiation of collapse."

NIST does not study why the towers collapsed the way they did (yet you said they did...) they only say that at some point the collapse was inevitable.

But the thing that has made many scientists(not idiots and not thrill hungry teenagers) doubt the official version, and demand independent investigation to be made possible is the way the towers collapsed, and i repeat. NIST DOES NOT STUDY THAT. And independent scientist CAN NOT study the direct evidence because the evidence was quickly removed from the site.

you seem to fail to realise, is that some people are just hungry for sensation and they set up their thinking approach to the way they twist any information in favor for their theory. The problem is the same information can fit to 1000 other theories.

So what exactly makes all the scientists who demand access to evidence and an INDEPENDENT or even international investigation, what makes them "some people hungry for sensation". So far the only reason i can see is that they are not part of the official commite.

And if a clip from a TV interview gets posted to youtube, does not automatically make the interview worthless.

And the photos of molten metal and diagonally cut columns are all photoshopped right?
And all the people's testimonies of explosions in the towers... they must be all actors right? Who hired them then?
Talk about paranoia...

_________________________________________________ ______________________________

So if someone can back up their claims that the manner in which the towers fell is explained by NIST, please point to these reports. So far the manner in which they fell is ONLY explained by the "truth movement"

[Mittsu]

"2.  Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
diagram of composit wtc floor system

    Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

    *

      the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

    *

      the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation. 

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view."

[ValiS]

Why did you paste this here??
I know all this.
You only prove my point, which is that NIST does not say why the towers fell the way they did, they only say that they had to fell. Also the passage you quoted basically argues that "there could not have been explosives because there were planes", which is not a logical assumption. You could as well say that "this food store can't sell bananas because they sell oranges"

Quotes from the actual NIST report:
_______________________________________

    The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39)

The footnote is a re-worded version of a paragraph in the text of the Report's Draft, which read:

    ... although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39 of Draft)

________________________________

So I ask you again, since you did not understand, or you didn't read the text you just posted:
If you have a NIST or any official report on the actual collapse itself then please refer to it.
I only ask you this because you yourself have said this kind of reports exist. So far your claim is unfounded. Which again leaves the impression that you have not studied the materials yourself.

[Mittsu]

they only say that they had to fell.

no, they don't

Also the passage you quoted basically argues that "there could not have been explosives because there were planes"

no, it doesn't

You could as well say that "this food store can't sell bananas because they sell oranges"

no, you can't and no, they don't say that

i don't know whether you're purposely or subconsciously misinterpeting things, either way it's really annoying

So I ask you again, since you did not understand, or you didn't read the text you just posted:
If you have a NIST or any official report on the actual collapse itself then please refer to it.
I only ask you this because you yourself have said this kind of reports exist. So far your claim is unfounded. Which again leaves the impression that you have not studied the materials yourself.

i didn't say anything like that, which again leaves the impression that you're making things up or misinterpeting them in favor for your point

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

You only prove my point, which is that NIST does not say why the towers fell the way they did, they only say that they had to fell.

Oh my head.  So what's this?

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.

Are you saying that they didn't address the physics of the crumbling tower once it reached that point? Who cares? Really, who cares? Once you prove that a building CAN begin to collapse solely because of an airplane collision, what's more to prove? That gravity exists, and that's how the collapse went from start to finish? Come on.

Also the passage you quoted basically argues that "there could not have been explosives because there were planes"

That's completely wrong.  Completely.  What it argues is this: "There is no evidence for explosives.  There is evidence for a plane."  That's significantly different.  Besides, any casual observer can tell that it wasn't a controlled demolition... *ahem*

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39)

Right.  It's like not analyzing the explosion itself once you prove conclusively that the arsonist poured gas all over the place and dropped a lit match.  It's like not analyzing the extent of brain damage after you've retrieved the bullet and proved it came from a particular gun.  It's like not analyzing the blunt force trauma once you proved the skydiver didn't actually have a parachute.

Seriously.  The report proved that plane impacts by themselves, unassisted by explosives or other intervention, would be sufficient to begin the collapse of the WTC towers.  Surprise! That's what we saw.  Bin Laden admitted to trying to bring down the towers by crashing planes into them.  We saw towers brought down by planes.  We have reports saying such a collapse was scientifically possible.

We have the confession, the witnesses, and the evidence.  What more do you need?

[Veritas]

The original quote was this:

Please point out where i have said that a youtube video proves something. Other than the video of top to bottom demolition proving that top to bottom demolition exists

You are just playing with words.

Ahahaha

"Please point out where I have said a youtube video proves something other than the youtube video I said proved something"

NIST does not say why the towers fell the way they did, they only say that they had to fell.

I think we can conclude Valis doesn't understand cause and effect and move on with our lives

[ValiS]

Are you saying that they didn't address the physics of the crumbling tower once it reached that point?

Yes, but it's 3 towers, not the tower.

Once you prove that a building CAN begin to collapse solely because of an airplane collision, what's more to prove? That gravity exists, and that's how the collapse went from start to finish? Come on.

You should study the properties of steel, and the methods of construction. If you had any idea you would think differently (but you wont, because that does not fit your world"view").

Yes don't worry, it was just gravity that cut the columns and melted metal.

Let me just say that when I was 14 years old the world was much simpler and safer in my eyes too, so I dont completely not understand you.

Besides, any casual observer can tell that it wasn't a controlled demolition... *ahem*

Yes, any casual observer who was told to not think about it because that is not their job and they don't know anything. Using your own head can be dangerous, kids, don't do it!

The report proved that plane impacts by themselves, unassisted by explosives or other intervention, would be sufficient to begin the collapse of the WTC towers.  Surprise! That's what we saw. 

No, the report "proved" that plane impacts by themselves are sufficient to "initialize collapse initiation" after which must come "global collapse" or "progressive collapse". And it "proved" these things while misrepresenting the column layout and not mentioning their dimensions. Can't

Bin Laden admitted to trying to bring down the towers by crashing planes into them.  We saw towers brought down by planes.  We have reports saying such a collapse was scientifically possible.

Bin laden is wanted by the FBI for many things, but 9/11 is not one of them, you can check it. It is still not known who organized it, i wonder why. But obviously you don't, like most people.
Why are you still saying that the reports say that such a collapse was possible? The reports don't describe the collapse. Do you have trouble reading?

Right.  It's like not analyzing the explosion itself once you prove conclusively that the arsonist poured gas all over the place and dropped a lit match.  It's like not analyzing the extent of brain damage after you've retrieved the bullet and proved it came from a particular gun.  It's like not analyzing the blunt force trauma once you proved the skydiver didn't actually have a parachute.

Yes and if a burned man is found after a fire, there is no need to question why he has bullet holes in him.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Are you saying that they didn't address the physics of the crumbling tower once it reached that point?

Yes, but it's 3 towers, not the tower.

The two towers fell because the heat from the jet fuel weakened (WEAKENED, not melted) the steel to the point that it was no longer able to support the weight above it.  WTC7 was expected to collapse for HOURS before it actually did.  There were fires raging inside it, steadily reducing its structural integrity (which was already strained due to its unusual architectural design).  No one died in WTC7 because no one was surprised when it fell.  It wasn't a sudden controlled demolition.  It was the natural result of fire damage and structural damage.

You should study the properties of steel, and the methods of construction. If you had any idea you would think differently (but you wont, because that does not fit your world"view").

Yes don't worry, it was just gravity that cut the columns and melted metal.

What's the deal with the hundreds (thousands?) of scientists who disagree with you? And can you provide evidence that there were cut columns and liquid metal?

Besides, any casual observer can tell that it wasn't a controlled demolition... *ahem*

Yes, any casual observer who was told to not think about it because that is not their job and they don't know anything. Using your own head can be dangerous, kids, don't do it!

Is that why thus far you've refused to respond to my controlled demolition analysis?

Bin laden is wanted by the FBI for many things, but 9/11 is not one of them, you can check it. It is still not known who organized it, i wonder why. But obviously you don't, like most people.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/30osamaCND.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1362113/Bin-Laden-Yes-I-did-it.html

Three legitimate news sources, all with a five second Google search.

[ValiS]

Are you saying that they didn't address the physics of the crumbling tower once it reached that point?

Yes, but it's 3 towers, not the tower.

The two towers fell because the heat from the jet fuel weakened (WEAKENED, not melted) the steel to the point that it was no longer able to support the weight above it.  WTC7 was expected to collapse for HOURS before it actually did.  There were fires raging inside it, steadily reducing its structural integrity (which was already strained due to its unusual architectural design).  No one died in WTC7 because no one was surprised when it fell.  It wasn't a sudden controlled demolition.  It was the natural result of fire damage and structural damage.

You still did not say why it fell in the manner it did. Which was the point of the discussion right from the start and which you ignore completely.
Unusual architectural design?? I hope you meant structural.
I have not said that the steel did not weaken. Or that it needed to be melting to become weaker.
Steel is a good condutor of heat. It doesn't just work so that when you have a X degree fire in one spot (Y amount of floors) that the steel in that spot gets also X degrees hot. That heat will transfer along the whole steel core, which is a lot of steel to warm up. And I have not seen calculations that account for this. Its always like this "the fire was X degrees hot, and that is enought to weaken steel enough"

Besides, any casual observer can tell that it wasn't a controlled demolition... *ahem*

Yes, any casual observer who was told to not think about it because that is not their job and they don't know anything. Using your own head can be dangerous, kids, don't do it!

Is that why thus far you've refused to respond to my controlled demolition analysis?

Maybe I will, but I dont feel like it 5 am in the morning. Sorry, i try to remember to do that.

What's the deal with the hundreds (thousands?) of scientists who disagree with you?

What's the deal with the hundreds who disagree with you? I guess they are all delusional teens  .
Anyway, notice that I have not actually said that I am absolutely sure it was an "inside job" or however you want to call it. If I was, I would not be having this discussion. So "disagree with me" is a misnomer, a bit. I am just interested in what happened, and the manner of the collapses is unexplained ATM.
 

Bin laden is wanted by the FBI for many things, but 9/11 is not one of them, you can check it. It is still not known who organized it, i wonder why. But obviously you don't, like most people.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/30osamaCND.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1362113/Bin-Laden-Yes-I-did-it.html
Three legitimate news sources, all with a five second Google search.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
Yet he is not wanted for it. If I make a video tape where I say that I did it, does that PROVE I did it? Seems not, according to FBI.


What do you think of this?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html
I haven't yet seen anyone debunking this.

All this quoting posts is hard work.

From: September 09, 2010, 09:48:26 pmHere is something to lighten the mood around here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w53TMpk6QNc