9/11 Where Did All The Rubble Go?

[curtjester1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrXKhcO_7fc

[mainframetech]

On Apr 6, 6:23 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrXKhcO_7fc

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Experts speak out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM

Chris

[Bud]

Nobody pays any attention to Truthers anymore.

[Jason Burke]

Oh cr*p. Are these ****'s STILL claiming demolition based on
Silverstein's "pull it" comment?!?

[mainframetech]

Nope. Based on the tests and calculations of physicists, architects
and engineers, including tests of materials and explosives and
incendiary chemicals. Check out the experts and see what they say,
here, it's off topic.

Chris

[mainframetech]

LOL! It continues to grow based on their count of Architects an
Engineers and supporters that are joining...:)

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, you have to learn to admit simple facts even when they are misused
by the kooks. Controlled Demolition refers to their work as "pulling" a
building. In the old days they actually used to pull down buildings with
cable in a controlled manner to avoid damaging adjacent buildings.
Silverstein agreed with the fire chief that WTC7 should be pulled. But in
the meantime it collapsed on its own.

[Anthony Marsh]

Nobody pays attention to the Truth anymore.

[Bud]

Oh, yeah. The guy went on TV and admitted he had is building rigged
for explosion (and this is one of their better ideas). More akin to a
cult than a viewpoint.

[curtjester1]

Why, because science is too hard to tackle?

CJ

[curtjester1]

Who cares about one man when there is 90 minutes + of film showing
scientific evidence?

CJ

[Bud]

No, because you guys have nothing to offer. This is why you create
these "what happened to the rubble?" issues. It`s more of the "explain
this to my satisfaction or I will believe silly things" approach
developed by CTers in the Kennedy assassination.

[Bud]

On Apr 8, 9:30 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

If it is scientific evidence you should be able to duplicate what is
seen. Go forth and duplicate.

[Bud]

I`ve tried and failed to get you to understand what they document
they are signing actually says.

[mainframetech]

Not a chance in hell. The WTC7 building was standing just fine, and
the fires in it had gone out. The structure was in good shape and could
have stood for a hundred years more. But then you didn't research the
situation, so you wouldn't have a clue.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/7_WTC.html

Chris

[mainframetech]

As usual Bud has no idea what he's speaking about, since he too did
no research.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Chris

[fatol...@gmail.com]

It's not the same pole, dude.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-2jrziqCN45Q/UJ2fnS7EAbI/AAAAAAAAAbc/Tf9xEUxDCMA/s1000/Pole1.jpg

[Anthony Marsh]

No, he didn't. He just agreed that it should be demolished. In the
meantime it collapses on its own.

[Bud]

On Apr 9, 10:06 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 8:44 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4/7/2013 10:46 PM, Jason Burke wrote:
>
> > > On 4/7/2013 2:18 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> > >> On Apr 6, 6:23 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrXKhcO_7fc
>
> > >>http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
> > >> Experts speak out:
> > >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM
>
> > >> Chris
>
> > > Oh cr*p. Are these ****'s STILL claiming demolition based on
> > > Silverstein's "pull it" comment?!?
>
> > Well, you have to learn to admit simple facts even when they are misused
> > by the kooks. Controlled Demolition refers to their work as "pulling" a
> > building. In the old days they actually used to pull down buildings with
> > cable in a controlled manner to avoid damaging adjacent buildings.
> > Silverstein agreed with the fire chief that WTC7 should be pulled. But in
> > the meantime it collapsed on its own.
>
>    Not a chance in hell.  The WTC7 building was standing just fine,

Actually there were people who knew it wasn`t fine prior to it
collapsing.

> and
> the fires in it had gone out.

Says who?

> The structure was in good shape and could
> have stood for a hundred years more.

<snicker> Yah, the Titanic and the Hindenburg were fine also.

[Bud]

On Apr 9, 10:06 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:

As usual you try to make it some fault of mine that your ideas are
silly.

> http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
> Chris

[Bud]

On Apr 9, 10:08 am, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's not the same pole, dude.
>

> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-2jrziqCN45Q/UJ2fnS7EAbI/AAAAAAAAAb...

Don`t take away their toys.

[fatol...@gmail.com]

Here's another view of the same poles.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-z1P-5IANGdo/UWR8BJ-pFtI/AAAAAAAABN8/G-LY8wXWRCI/s765/PoleDance.jpg This was an intentional lie. The "Truthers" who made this video are liars. If you can't accept this fact, then your mind is not open to truth-seeking. You have to admit that you were bamboozled and move on. Maybe 9/11 was an inside job, but these particular Truthers are scum.

[mainframetech]

Apparently you were too afraid to look through the videos currently
available with experts in them. It might affect your mind. If you don't
have the nerve to listen your way through a presentation, how can you
possibly make adult decisions?

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Apr 9, 10:05 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 8:38 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 10:46 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 7, 5:18 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 6, 6:23 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrXKhcO_7fc
>
> > > >http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
> > > > Experts speak out:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM
>
> > > > Chris
>
> > >   Nobody pays any attention to Truthers anymore.
>

> >    LOL!  It continues to grow based on their count of Architects and

> > Engineers and supporters that are joining...:)
>
> > Chris
>
>   I`ve tried and failed to get you to understand what they document
> they are signing actually says.

Oh yes, we've been through that. I take it you've forgotten all that
you learned in that discussion. The involvement grows, and the supporters
grow. And this is around the world, not just in the USA. Anyone that
wants to can go to the site and read what the signing is for.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Apr 9, 10:08 am, fatoldcr...@gmail.com wrote:

> It's not the same pole, dude.
>

> https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-2jrziqCN45Q/UJ2fnS7EAbI/AAAAAAAAAb...
>

True. The cab driver admitted he was being used by federal agents to
create a phony accident where the light pole was supposed to hit his car
and stop him. If you listen to his talk, at one point he admits that they
used him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC3LRdjocmc

>
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrXKhcO_7fc
>
> > > >http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
> > > > Experts speak out:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Were you inside WTC7 to confirm that ALL fires were out? Do you understand
that heated steel takes to time to fail when put under stress? Look at the
National Geographic tests.

[mainframetech]

On Apr 9, 3:31 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 10:06 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 9:27 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 7, 10:46 pm, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On 4/7/2013 2:18 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 6, 6:23 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrXKhcO_7fc
>
> > > > >http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
> > > > > Experts speak out:
> > > > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM
>
> > > > > Chris
>
> > > > Oh cr*p. Are these ****'s STILL claiming demolition based on
> > > > Silverstein's "pull it" comment?!?
>
> > >   Oh, yeah. The guy went on TV and admitted he had is building rigged
> > > for explosion (and this is one of their better ideas). More akin to a
> > > cult than a viewpoint.
>

Nope, won't do. Silverstein did nothing of the sort. But what he
said gave away the whole game by listening to him carefully. Better
to listen to his spiel later after the incident had settled down. He
refused to answer any questions on the subject, even though it would
have quieted a number of people.
First, his statement in an interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk

Both fire commanders reported nothing in their after action reports
about speaking with Silverstein, and they didn't have to. They had
the authority to bring down any building they wanted to help the
situation, without speaking with the owner. Next some demolition
people use the term 'pull' in relation to bringing down a building:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v2yud3aCGQ

> >   As usual Bud has no idea what he's speaking about, since he too did
> > no research.
>
>    As usual you try to make it some fault of mine that your ideas are
> silly.
>

This is all off-topic, so go to the site and look around and see if
you can argue with the information there.

>
> >http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
> > Chris

[Bud]

On Apr 9, 7:15 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 10:05 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 9:30 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 7, 10:46 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 7, 5:18 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 6, 6:23 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrXKhcO_7fc
>
> > > > >http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
> > > > > Experts speak out:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM
>
> > > > > Chris
>
> > > >   Nobody pays any attention to Truthers anymore.
>
> > > Why, because science is too hard to tackle?
>
> > > CJ
>
> >  No, because you guys have nothing to offer. This is why you create
> > these "what happened to the rubble?" issues. It`s more of the "explain
> > this to my satisfaction or I will believe silly things" approach
> > developed by CTers in the Kennedy assassination.
>
>   Apparently you were too afraid to look through the videos currently
> available with experts in them.

As you long as you like the sound of it you are going to buy into it.
What choice do you have, with no capability to think critically.

> It might affect your mind.

You aren`t offering anything that could change it. You have nothing but
nonsense and desperation.

>  If you don't
> have the nerve to listen your way through a presentation, how can you
> possibly make adult decisions?

How can infantile prattling help me make decisions?

> Chris

[Bud]

On Apr 9, 7:16 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 10:05 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 8:38 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 7, 10:46 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 7, 5:18 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 6, 6:23 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrXKhcO_7fc
>
> > > > >http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
> > > > > Experts speak out:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM
>
> > > > > Chris
>
> > > >   Nobody pays any attention to Truthers anymore.
>
> > >    LOL!  It continues to grow based on their count of Architects and
> > > Engineers and supporters that are joining...:)
>
> > > Chris
>
> >   I`ve tried and failed to get you to understand what they document
> > they are signing actually says.
>
>   Oh yes, we've been through that.  I take it you've forgotten all that
> you learned in that discussion.

I learned you didn`t know what those "architects and engineers" were
asserting in that petition they signed. Remember when you said this...

"Over 1,700 architects and engineers have signed off that the
WTC 9/11 catastrophy was done with controlled demolition, and they
can prove it."

Wasn`t true, was it?

>  The involvement grows, and the supporters
> grow.

How would you know?

Interest in the ideas of the Truthers are only of interest to
Truthers. It has cult status now.

[Bud]

On Apr 9, 7:35 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 3:31 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 10:06 am, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 8, 9:27 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 7, 10:46 pm, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 4/7/2013 2:18 PM, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 6, 6:23 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrXKhcO_7fc
>
> > > > > >http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
> > > > > > Experts speak out:
> > > > > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM
>
> > > > > > Chris
>
> > > > > Oh cr*p. Are these ****'s STILL claiming demolition based on
> > > > > Silverstein's "pull it" comment?!?
>
> > > >   Oh, yeah. The guy went on TV and admitted he had is building rigged
> > > > for explosion (and this is one of their better ideas). More akin to a
> > > > cult than a viewpoint.
>
>   Nope, won't do.

No, it won`t. But it is a silly Truther idea. One of their better
ones, really.

> Silverstein did nothing of the sort.  But what he
> said gave away the whole game by listening to him carefully.   Better
> to listen to his spiel later after the incident had settled down.  He
> refused to answer any questions on the subject, even though it would
> have quieted a number of people.
> First, his statement in an interview:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk
>
>   Both fire commanders reported nothing in their after action reports
> about speaking with Silverstein, and they didn't have to.  They had
> the authority to bring down any building they wanted to help the
> situation, without speaking with the owner.  Next some demolition
> people use the term 'pull' in relation to bringing down a building:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v2yud3aCGQ

See? You are trying to support the weight of a massively amazing
idea with the strength of one word.

> > >   As usual Bud has no idea what he's speaking about, since he too did
> > > no research.
>
> >    As usual you try to make it some fault of mine that your ideas are
> > silly.
>
>  This is all off-topic, so go to the site and look around and see if
> you can argue with the information there.

Who arguing? The ideas of Truthers are irrelevant. That Curt has to
start posts like "Where did the rubble go?" shows you guys have
nothing tangible to offer.

>
>
>
> > >http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
> > > Chris

[mainframetech]

On Apr 9, 7:34 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 4/9/2013 10:06 AM, mainframetech wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 8, 8:44 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 4/7/2013 10:46 PM, Jason Burke wrote:
>
> >>> On 4/7/2013 2:18 PM, mainframetech wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 6, 6:23 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrXKhcO_7fc
>
> >>>>http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
> >>>> Experts speak out:
> >>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM
>
> >>>> Chris
>
> >>> Oh cr*p. Are these ****'s STILL claiming demolition based on
> >>> Silverstein's "pull it" comment?!?
>
> >> Well, you have to learn to admit simple facts even when they are misused
> >> by the kooks. Controlled Demolition refers to their work as "pulling" a
> >> building. In the old days they actually used to pull down buildings with
> >> cable in a controlled manner to avoid damaging adjacent buildings.
> >> Silverstein agreed with the fire chief that WTC7 should be pulled. But in
> >> the meantime it collapsed on its own.
>

The 'fire commanders' after action reports say nothing about ANY
conversation with Silverstein, nor do they need any approval from him
to bring down buildings. As well, the WTC7 building was empty as per
the reports by around noontime, but the building came down around
5:20pm. Here's a guy that had an experience on the street:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4z-Wrp1pY8

> >     Not a chance in hell.  The WTC7 building was standing just fine, and
> > the fires in it had gone out.  The structure was in good shape and could
> > have stood for a hundred years more.  But then you didn't research the
> > situation, so you wouldn't have a clue.
>
> >http://www.911conspiracy.tv/7_WTC.html
>
> > Chris
>
> Were you inside WTC7 to confirm that ALL fires were out? Do you understand
> that heated steel takes to time to fail when put under stress? Look at the
> National Geographic tests.

Apparently, you didn't watch the video all the way through showing
the falling of WTC7. It's clear that all the windows that had flame
in them earlier have no flame at the time of collapse. NIST itself
declared that the fires were out by the time of the collapse. They
gave furniture and other office materials 20 minutes to be exhausted.

Marsh, I can show you tests that make the Natgeo tests look silly.
Thermate can do much more than the phony NatGeo video, and this next
video shows that. You apparently haven't researched this topic to any
great degree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kscTVnEcPMk
go to 6:00 to skip ahead if you don't need the education in the
beginning.


Chris

[mainframetech]

Actually, in a fashion, it WAS true. Though the wording was
carefully done so that more people could sign on, the implication is
that the signers did not believe the government story of the collapses
of the 3 buildings and wanted an investigation from an independent
source. That statement shows disbelief in the 'official' story. But
this information is available to all that want to check out the site.

> >  The involvement grows, and the supporters
> > grow.
>
>   How would you know?
>
>   Interest in the ideas of the Truthers are only of interest to
> Truthers. It has cult status now.
>

False. It has gone far beyond that now. You just don't want to
look into it. Your fear that you will be persuaded by facts and
evidence and not theories is obvious.

[mainframetech]

There's no logic in that statement, why would anyone listen to it?
As a constant denialist, you should know better. Supply logic,
evidence, something to back up your words. Otherwise you're just a
naysayer with nothing to back you up. Anyone that has seen all 3
buildings fall almost exactly into their own footprint, and has seen
controlled demolition, will know immediately what happened at the
WTC. But the evidence is there in every bit of the dust from the
buildings, which show nano-thermite, which should not be there under
normal circumstances. Experts say it was controlled demolition,
here's a couple:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc
>
http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

I've looked at that evidence and it is not nano-thermite. It is residue
from the impact of the planes against the rusted steel beams.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/10/2013 9:29 AM, mainframetech wrote:

Nothing wrong with that, but it does not mean that believe whatever
kooky theory comes along.

[Anthony Marsh]

Nor do they have to. If it was only done at the highest level and done
confidentially they would not need to know.

>>> Not a chance in hell. The WTC7 building was standing just fine, and
>>> the fires in it had gone out. The structure was in good shape and could
>>> have stood for a hundred years more. But then you didn't research the
>>> situation, so you wouldn't have a clue.
>>
>>> http://www.911conspiracy.tv/7_WTC.html
>>
>>> Chris
>>
>> Were you inside WTC7 to confirm that ALL fires were out? Do you understand
>> that heated steel takes to time to fail when put under stress? Look at the
>> National Geographic tests.
>
> Apparently, you didn't watch the video all the way through showing
> the falling of WTC7. It's clear that all the windows that had flame
> in them earlier have no flame at the time of collapse. NIST itself
> declared that the fires were out by the time of the collapse. They
> gave furniture and other office materials 20 minutes to be exhausted.
>

I am not talking about flames coming out of the window.
I am talking about the weakening of the steel beams in the interior over
time.

> Marsh, I can show you tests that make the Natgeo tests look silly.
> Thermate can do much more than the phony NatGeo video, and this next
> video shows that. You apparently haven't researched this topic to any
> great degree.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kscTVnEcPMk
> go to 6:00 to skip ahead if you don't need the education in the
> beginning.
>

I have ALL the DVDs. I have seen all the videos. And the reports.
I am unimpressed.
You refuse to address the weakening of the I-beam in that test and that
it took time to fail.

>
> Chris
>

[Bud]

No, it wasn`t.

> Though the wording was
> carefully done so that more people could sign on,

Are you saying that if they worded it the way you are reading it less
people would have signed it? Doesn`t this mean that they wouldn`t want
their name associated with the concept you are assigning them?

> the implication is
> that the signers did not believe the government story of the collapses
> of the 3 buildings and wanted an investigation from an independent
> source.

I`ve decided to read it as them agreeing that the towers were not
rigged with explosives and want that silly idea ruled out.

> That statement shows disbelief in the 'official' story.  But
> this information is available to all that want to check out the site.
>
> > >  The involvement grows, and the supporters
> > > grow.
>
> >   How would you know?
>
> >   Interest in the ideas of the Truthers are only of interest to
> > Truthers. It has cult status now.
>
>   False.

No, it`s true. There is not interest outside of Truther circles. The
country has put this on "ignore".

> It has gone far beyond that now.  You just don't want to
> look into it.  Your fear that you will be persuaded by facts and
> evidence and not theories is obvious.

There is nothing to be afraid of. Look at the header of this post.
After 13 years this is what you have to offer? Talk about shooting
blanks.

[Bud]

Curt supplied all I need in the header he selected. Why is he asking for
something to be provided to him, does he think there is some agency that
exists just to answer every question that pops into someones head? After
13 years you should be showing things, not asking that they be shown to
you.

> Otherwise you're just a
> naysayer with nothing to back you up.   Anyone that has seen all 3
> buildings fall almost exactly into their own footprint, and has seen
> controlled demolition, will know immediately what happened at the
> WTC.

Gravity.

> But the evidence is there in every bit of the dust from the
> buildings, which show nano-thermite, which should not be there under
> normal circumstances.

If you have such a thing why hasn`t it gone anywhere? Not as
impressive outside of Truther circles, is it?

>  Experts say it was controlled demolition,

It probably looked like one to them. How many skyscrapers had they
previously seen collapse due to structural failure?

[curtjester1]

On Apr 9, 10:05 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

> On Apr 8, 9:30 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 10:46 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

>
> > > On Apr 7, 5:18 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 6, 6:23 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrXKhcO_7fc
>
> > > >http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
> > > > Experts speak out:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM
>
> > > > Chris
>

> > >   Nobody pays any attention to Truthers anymore.
>

> > Why, because science is too hard to tackle?
>
> > CJ
>
>  No, because you guys have nothing to offer. This is why you create
> these "what happened to the rubble?" issues. It`s more of the "explain
> this to my satisfaction or I will believe silly things" approach
> developed by CTers in the Kennedy assassination.

It's rather easy to create when rubble is is in all building
disaster...large chunks of many things. So when falling buildings
never have pulverized rubble, why should this be any different?

CJ

[curtjester1]

Even if heat could be a cause, it wouldn't cause a building to fall
straight down, and if it would fall straight down it wouldn't get far
because of the steel that was unburnt.

CJ

[Anthony Marsh]

Wrong. "The steel that was burnt"? No steel was burnt. Like most
Truthers you are promoting a straw man argument. When one tiny little
thing goes wrong the whole building collapses. The remaining structural
elements can not take all that stress.
It's like a house of cards. Pull out one card in the vital place and the
house falls down.

> CJ
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/10/2013 8:50 PM, curtjester1 wrote:

Where did all the gold and diamonds go? were they instantly vaporized? I
suggest that you watch Die Hard which is about a fake terrorist attack.

[Bud]

You don`t attack the concrete when you demolish a building, you
attack the support members. Does that help you any?

[Bud]

On Apr 10, 8:50 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snicker>

[Anthony Marsh]

Ever hear of a cover-up?

[Bud]

Ever hear of bigfoot?

> >>   Experts say it was controlled demolition,
>
> >     It probably looked like one to them. How many skyscrapers had they
> > previously seen collapse due to structural failure?
>

> >> here's a couple:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aAhttp://www.youtube.com/watc...
>
> >>http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
> >> Chris

[mainframetech]

Such a thing exists anmd was collected. A physicist examined the dust
from a number of places around the WTC site and they found nano- thermite
which is not normally in NYC dust. A scientific paper was written up and
accepted into a regular journal on it. They also found melted steel
spheroids which can only be created under extreme heat. There was damage
to steel beams that only an extreme incendiary chemical like nano-thermite
made to steel beams making them look like Swiss cheese.

> >  Experts say it was controlled demolition,
>
>    It probably looked like one to them. How many skyscrapers had they
> previously seen collapse due to structural failure?
>

No steel structures have fallen from fire.

here's a couple of experts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
>
> >http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
Chris

[mainframetech]

The WTC buildings were specifically planned so that if something
such as a plane smacked into the buildings, the surrounding beams and
supports would take the weight around the stricken area.

Chris

[mainframetech]

No. See above post comments.

The amount of molten metal seen in the basements of the 3 WTC
buildings that collapsed was far greater than the amount of aluminum
from the planes, and lasted weeks after the original damage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM

Chris

[curtjester1]

Your the one stating and support people that say applied heat was the
reason for the building to not only fall but fall the way it did, not
I. You didn't even address what I wrote, that even if that happened
as you quoted the National Geographic, that the building wouldn't have
just fallen like other buildings, not straight down when compromised,
and even if it could have fallen straight down, would have just run
into the remaining steel that wasn't affected by any heat. That steel
would have prevented the free fall (only in CD's) and taken much more
time to fall, and would have had all the big rubble pieces that all
buildings have when they come down.

CJ

[curtjester1]

And that's what they did. They attacked with more than the average
ingredients of a usual demolition to obliterate everything as well to
make it appear that something than a usual CD was doing the deed. It
was a Super CD, with things being pulverized like concrete, chairs,
etc, and catipuliting beams outwards at 60 MPH. Buildings with fire
don't cause buildings to collapse and if they did, it would just fall
(not straight down either) and none of these explosion effects would
have been there.

CJ

[curtjester1]

On Apr 11, 11:27 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:

It only falls straight down when there is nothing to hold it! Even
the spot ABOVE the plane strike was pulverized too! Hmmm.

CJ

[Anthony Marsh]

Everything is pulverized once the whole building has collapsed. While it
is collapsing you can see that the floors above the plane strike are
intact as it falls.

[Anthony Marsh]

Nothing can prevent the free fall once it is started. Too many tons of
intact floors above.

[Anthony Marsh]

Was that all from the building above or was it also from structure
below? Maybe subway cars? You only have a subjective guess, no real data.
The molten metal could have been aluminum, but maybe not all from the
planes.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

That's fine in theory and indeed the building did survive the impacts.
They did not survived the extreme heat of the fires.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah sure. And did you see and read the paper for yourself? Of course
not. I have. It is not nano-thermite. It is debris.

>>> Experts say it was controlled demolition,
>>
>> It probably looked like one to them. How many skyscrapers had they
>> previously seen collapse due to structural failure?
>>
> No steel structures have fallen from fire.
>

That's silly. Lots of steel structures have fallen from fire. Especially
barns and sheds.

> here's a couple of experts:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA
> http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Non-experts.

>>
>>> http://www.ae911truth.org/
>>
> Chris
>
>

[mainframetech]

Your point is well taken, that the cool steel structure would have
made the whole thing fall much more slowly, or not fall past a certain
point. NIST themselves said that the fires in WTC7 had died down.
Here's their statement from their 'Final Report' on the collapses:

"The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes”
"Where the combustibles were not significantly relocated by the
aircraft debris, they tended to burn out in about 20 minutes."
"Under these higher combusted fuel loadings, the fires likely would
not have reached the south side of WTC 1 in the time needed to cause
inward bowing and collapse initiation."
(NIST, http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017, page
183)"

Chris

[Bud]

You really think it needs the help of explosives? That would be
nothing compared to the mass of weight coming down.

> Even
> the spot ABOVE the plane strike was pulverized too!

It fell over 100 stories, you think it should be fine?

> Hmmm.

How would explosives explain the things that have you perplexed?

> CJ

[Bud]

Sure. They did whatever your silly ideas require.

>  They attacked with more than the average
> ingredients of a usual demolition to obliterate everything as well to
> make it appear that something than a usual CD was doing the deed.

Ah, they rigged all the concrete and all the steel with explosives. And
they did all this in an occupied building.

> It
> was a Super CD,

Like you read about in comic books.

>with things being pulverized like concrete, chairs,
> etc, and catipuliting beams outwards at 60 MPH.  Buildings with fire
> don't cause buildings to collapse and if they did, it would just fall
> (not straight down either) and none of these explosion effects would
> have been there.

<snicker> Or so you figure.

> CJ

[Bud]

This Truther nonsense isn`t as impressive outside of Truther
circles, is it?

> > >  Experts say it was controlled demolition,
>
> >    It probably looked like one to them. How many skyscrapers had they
> > previously seen collapse due to structural failure?
>
>   No steel structures have fallen from fire.

Every single building under the same circumstances as the Twin
Towers have collapsed. Doesn`t really matter if the collapse appeared
similar to the controlled demolitions your experts were familiar with,
as both varieties are structural failure.

> here's a couple of experts:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aAhttp://www.youtube.com/watc...
>
> > >http://www.ae911truth.org/
>
> Chris

[Bud]

On Apr 11, 10:13 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:

More Truther nonsense. Have you ever seen these calculations? Have
they ever been compared to the actual event?

[Bud]

On Apr 11, 10:13 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Exactly how much molten metal was there?

[mainframetech]

While I'm a firm believer in the evidence for Controlled Demolition in
the WTC 3 buildings, I also don't believe that someone caused explosive
material to be placed everywhere to pulverize all the concrete, which
would be an impossibility. There were both explosions heard and seen in
the 3 buildings, and molten metals seen in the buildings, but not anything
that might explain pulverizing. It more than likely happened just as a
result of the pieces of structure losing their support when the incendiary
devices weakened the structure and started the fall. As the fall
proceeded, the concrete was crushed at all levels. Obviously, that's a
possibility and not a fact.

For those that believe the chatter from NIST that there were NO
explosions in the 3 buildings, here's some fun video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM
At the end of the above video you can again hear the talk from the cops
and firemen when they were told in advance when the building was going to
come down. It had stood all day since the damage from the other buildings
falling, and it was ready to stand for another hundred years, but when
they said it was coming down, it did. That is planning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

In this next one the firemen describe what they saw, which was
exactly like one of the steps in a controlled Demolition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64

It's off-topic here, but go research this stuff yourself and you'll
see things that will surprise you.

Chris

[Bud]

<snicker> Do you know anything about physics?

> NIST themselves said that the fires in WTC7 had died down.

You don`t even understand what you read. Or that a fire that has died
down can still be hotter than a raging fire. You don`t see blacksmiths
working over a raging fire.

> Here's their statement from their 'Final Report' on the collapses:
>
> "The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes”
> "Where the combustibles were not significantly relocated by the
> aircraft debris, they tended to burn out in about 20 minutes."

What about where the aircraft did gather all the combustibles
together, Chris?

And you don`t need flame for heat. Coal walkers walk on coals that
are 2,000F. They typically burn the wood during the day to make the
coals for nighttime firewalking.

> "Under these higher combusted fuel loadings, the fires likely would
> not have reached the south side of WTC 1 in the time needed to cause
> inward bowing and collapse initiation."

In typical Truther fashion you take a snippit of information out of
context and misrepresent or misunderstand it.

> (NIST,http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909017, page
> 183)"
>
>  Chris

[Bud]

Show where NIST claimed there were no explosions in the three
buildings.

>    At the end of the above video you can again hear the talk from the cops
> and firemen when they were told in advance when the building was going to
> come down.  It had stood all day since the damage from the other buildings
> falling, and it was ready to stand for another hundred years, but when
> they said it was coming down, it did.  That is planning.

It was showing signs of imminent structural failure.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o
>
>    In this next one the firemen describe what they saw, which was
> exactly like one of the steps in a controlled Demolition:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64

This was a structural failure. A controlled demolition is a
structural failure also.

[curtjester1]

Actually, I'm going a lot by the youtube Explosive Evidence you posted.
IMO, the detonations would have had to be timed and going from top to
bottom, and they would have had to be detonations that were highly
powerful in nature to demolish to powder the concrete. It was
'pulverizing' from the top and that was above the fires. The
explosiveness couldn't have been caused by pancaking floors as the beams
were catipulted some 60 MPH, and I believe they showed if not mistaken how
the elevator shaft could have played a part in making a lot of set up work
for this to happen.

CJ

[curtjester1]

Your missing the point. Everything SHOULDN'T be pulverized. You are
right that the very beginning of the collapse shows the building intact,
but it doesn't last long. It pulverizes just after the descent of the
building. It should have never pulverized at anytime during or during the
landing of all the building. It simply should have been large pieces of
concrete rubble, which it was not.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread235013/pg1

[curtjester1]

There is only free fall when there is no resistance. Only air can be a
non-resistant force. The plenty of uncompromised steel in a huge amount
of tons would have had much resistance power to thwart a free fall. Even
in CD's where the resistance is quite low, there still is rubble.

CJ

[curtjester1]

It would explain all the catipulting of beams and debris sideways out the
building because the speed was too phenomenal. It would explain how key
points in the building would have had to be compromised from top to bottom
to 1) pulverize and to 2) keep the building falling fast. It was why they
saw flashes of light as the building fell, and why there were multi
explosions observed and spoke about.

CJ

[curtjester1]

It really wouldn't be that difficult with all the time there was when the
building wasn't occupied or even when there were 'contracted projects'
going on at the time. When they found nano-thermite, and the steel
extremely twisted and burnt, it gave them all the evidence they needed.

CJ

[curtjester1]

And yet buildings that are tall have burnt with higher flame because
of the oxygen for hours into days, and nothing caused the steel to be
compromised. Why?

They say the jet fuel which is kerosene would have burnt its largest
amount on impact, which is supported on film, and the black ensuing
smoke would have shown that as well, and been the setting for a low
heat fire, as compared to the example I gave.

CJ

[Anthony Marsh]

Controlled demolitions usually take out successive floors, starting with
the bottom. On 9/11 the collapses started at the top where there planes
had crashed. There is absolutely no way to know beforehand exactly where
the planes will crash and plant explosives only there.

[Anthony Marsh]

That explains the concrete turning into dust which we can see wafting
down the streets, but what happened to all the gold and diamonds? Before
and during the collapse we can see mountains of papers floating through
the air. And we can see steel beams under the rubble.
So we know they did not melt.
So where did your molten metal come from?
Did the planes just vaporize on impact. Is that what
they're made to do?

> For those that believe the chatter from NIST that there were NO
> explosions in the 3 buildings, here's some fun video:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM
> At the end of the above video you can again hear the talk from the cops
> and firemen when they were told in advance when the building was going to
> come down. It had stood all day since the damage from the other buildings
> falling, and it was ready to stand for another hundred years, but when
> they said it was coming down, it did. That is planning.
>

You still don't understand that it may take minutes or hours before a
building collapses on its own. Study some of the collapses after an
earthquake.

[mainframetech]

Education time. How hot is "hotter than a raging fire"? Don't add
silly comments to what NIST said as relates to the fires in the buildings
unless you can be more specific. It was clear from their statements that
the fires in the buildings had died down. That is generally understood.
Trying to twist it around isn't helping your case. There were photos and
videos of heat and molten (or almost molten) metal in the basements of the
3 buildings, but not in the form of furniture or desks burning. And by
the way...blacksmiths work with a 'raging fire' hot enough to melt metal
all the time, but it is kept in control in their furnaces.

> > Here's their statement from their 'Final Report' on the collapses:
>
> > "The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes”
> > "Where the combustibles were not significantly relocated by the
> > aircraft debris, they tended to burn out in about 20 minutes."
>
>   What about where the aircraft did gather all the combustibles
> together, Chris?
>

Nope, won't do. The amount of combustibles that would be pushed
forward into a clot by the planes is in a small area and like all the
rest would burn away in short order. You could figure that out if
you wanted.

>   And you don`t need flame for heat. Coal walkers walk on coals that
> are 2,000F. They typically burn the wood during the day to make the
> coals for nighttime firewalking.
>

As noted before, there were strange cases of molten metal in the
basements of the 3 buildings that fell. It lasted for weeks after the
original incident. But the parts of the twin towers that were burning
where the planes hit didn't display any 'coals' of 2,000 degrees. This
wasn't a BBQ with Kingsford charcoal briquettes. The jet fuel and the
furniture burned and died down as any building fire would do. After a
while the fuel burns away.

> > "Under these higher combusted fuel loadings, the fires likely would
> > not have reached the south side of WTC 1 in the time needed to cause
> > inward bowing and collapse initiation."
>
>   In typical Truther fashion you take a snippit of information out of
> context and misrepresent or misunderstand it.
>

Show misrepresentation please. Not nice to make statements and not
explain yourself. And some backup would be nice, but my experience with
you is that you try and work as little as possible while representing the
government. I've already done some of your work for you by giving you a
link to the NIST report. Go from there...:)

[mainframetech]

No problem at all. Here's the statement from the NIST website:

"Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion
caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that
blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence
supporting the existence of a blast event."
From: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

Makes you wonder how they could say that with all the statements of
fire personnel and witnesses to all the explosions. Including in the
WTC7 building that wasn't hit by an plane!

> >    At the end of the above video you can again hear the talk from the cops
> > and firemen when they were told in advance when the building was going to
> > come down.  It had stood all day since the damage from the other buildings
> > falling, and it was ready to stand for another hundred years, but when
> > they said it was coming down, it did.  That is planning.
>
>   It was showing signs of imminent structural failure.
>

And you deduced that how? Are you a structural engineer? The
building stood long and strong all day after being hit with debris
from a nearby building. When it came down the police and firemen in
the street knew it in advance and were warning people to get away from
it (WTC7).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o
>
> >    In this next one the firemen describe what they saw, which was
> > exactly like one of the steps in a controlled Demolition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64
>
>   This was a structural failure. A controlled demolition is a
> structural failure also.
>

Baloney. How did YOU of all people deduce it was structural
failure, since the building stood just fine all day until 5:20pm when
the order was given to 'pull it'?

>
   It's off-topic here, but go research this stuff yourself and you'll

see things that will surprise you. It seems obvious that you haven't
done much actual research on this.
>
Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Excuse me? What other building experienced EXACTLY the same
circumstances? Remember the plane that crashed into the Empire State
Building?

[Anthony Marsh]

The idea of a controlled demolition is to control how and where it
collapses.

[Bud]

You are taking a page from Tony Marsh, producing a cite that doesn`t
support your claims. You claimed that NIST said there were no
explosions and what you offered to support that had NIST saying there
were no explosions that contributed to the collapse. An ordinary house
fire can have explosions, with aerosol cans and such exploding from
the heat. I`ve explained to you before that explosions do not equal
explosives.

> > >    At the end of the above video you can again hear the talk from the cops
> > > and firemen when they were told in advance when the building was going to
> > > come down.  It had stood all day since the damage from the other buildings
> > > falling, and it was ready to stand for another hundred years, but when
> > > they said it was coming down, it did.  That is planning.
>
> >   It was showing signs of imminent structural failure.
>
>   And you deduced that how?

I didn`t. The people who were there did. They deduced this by
observing the building.

>  Are you a structural engineer?

Are you? Did any structural engineers go in and examine the
structural elements? Yet you claimed it would have stood for a hundred
years (which is similar to saying JFK should have survived his wounds
50 years after dying from them).

> The
> building stood long and strong all day after being hit with debris
> from a nearby building.

It was weakening all day long. When it reached the point where it
was too weak to stand it fell.

And what is your piss-poor counter idea, Chris? That they rigged it
with explosives and then they got so incredibly lucky that it received
damage when the Twin Towers fell, caught fire and was remarked upon by
various people that it was going to collapse? What a stroke of luck to
received so much independent and unforeseeable support to cover up
those explosives!

>  When it came down the police and firemen in
> the street knew it in advance and were warning people to get away from
> it (WTC7).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

It was showing signs of imminent structural failure.

> > >    In this next one the firemen describe what they saw, which was
> > > exactly like one of the steps in a controlled Demolition:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64
>
> >   This was a structural failure. A controlled demolition is a
> > structural failure also.
>
>   Baloney.

No, it`s true. Get up to speed on the basics.

> How did YOU of all people deduce it was structural
> failure, since the building stood just fine all day until 5:20pm when
> the order was given to 'pull it'?

Lets break this down, you are piling up the misunderstand and
misrepresentation.

First, I deduce the building fell from structural failure because I
know the building was damaged structurally. I know that heat weakens
steel, and I know that component was present all day.

Secondly, you don`t know when Silverstein had his discussion with
the fire chief. You`ve decided to believe something is a fact that is
unestablished.

Thirdly the more reasonable and less fantastic explanation for the
"pull it" comment was the the fire fighting effort, which was
discontinued.

>    It's off-topic here, but go research this stuff yourself and you'll
> see things that will surprise you.

I am often surprised at the lengths of self-deception people will go
to when they really like an idea.

> It seems obvious that you haven't
> done much actual research on this.

Its a bunch of blanks being shot. Apparently some people like the
noise.

> Chris

[Bud]

The force of the floors falling is much greater than the forces
needed to collapse them would be.

> It would explain how key
> points in the building would have had to be compromised from top to bottom
> to 1) pulverize and to 2) keep the building falling fast.

Nothing could stop the collapse once it started.

> It was why they
> saw flashes of light as the building fell, and why there were multi
> explosions observed and spoke about.

These things are easily explained without explosives.

> CJ

[Bud]

Apparently you have no evidence, as this issue hasn`t moved
noticeably in 13 years.

[Bud]

I made my arguments. That you can`t refute them is your problem.
They were specific, and showed the fallacy of your position.

> It was clear from their statements that
> the fires in the buildings had died down.
> That is generally understood.

Not by you. No fires does not mean no heat. No fires does not mean
the steel has stopped being weakened. They would understand this, even
if they didn`t dumb it down to within your reach.

> Trying to twist it around isn't helping your case.  There were photos and
> videos of heat and molten (or almost molten) metal in the basements of the
> 3 buildings,

There were fires. Fires produce heat. Fires can produce heat high
enough to melt metals that have a low enough melting point to be
melted by them. Got that?

> but not in the form of furniture or desks burning.  And by
> the way...blacksmiths work with a 'raging fire' hot enough to melt metal
> all the time, but it is kept in control in their furnaces.

They also use hot coals. Look up sword making.

> > > Here's their statement from their 'Final Report' on the collapses:
>
> > > "The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes”
> > > "Where the combustibles were not significantly relocated by the
> > > aircraft debris, they tended to burn out in about 20 minutes."
>
> >   What about where the aircraft did gather all the combustibles
> > together, Chris?
>
>  Nope, won't do.

They didn`t say all the debris burned out in 20 minutes, did they?

>  The amount of combustibles that would be pushed
> forward into a clot by the planes is in a small area and like all the
> rest would burn away in short order.   You could figure that out if
> you wanted.

You can figure things all day, it doesn`t amount to anything.

> >   And you don`t need flame for heat. Coal walkers walk on coals that
> > are 2,000F. They typically burn the wood during the day to make the
> > coals for nighttime firewalking.
>
>   As noted before, there were strange cases of molten metal in the
> basements of the 3 buildings that fell.

Things like this need testing to determine, not "figuring".
"Figuring" is never going to come to a definitive answer. Its just
another blank, a dead end that can never take you anywhere. That you
stop and stare at it shows more about you than the event.

>  It lasted for weeks after the
> original incident.

I`m smart enough to be skeptical about this.

> But the parts of the twin towers that were burning
> where the planes hit didn't display any 'coals' of 2,000 degrees.

You are looking at it from the outside.

> This
> wasn't a BBQ with Kingsford charcoal briquettes.  The jet fuel and the
> furniture burned and died down as any building fire would do. After a
> while the fuel burns away.

After igniting all the flammables in a large area, all at once.

> > > "Under these higher combusted fuel loadings, the fires likely would
> > > not have reached the south side of WTC 1 in the time needed to cause
> > > inward bowing and collapse initiation."
>
> >   In typical Truther fashion you take a snippit of information out of
> > context and misrepresent or misunderstand it.
>
>   Show misrepresentation please.

For one thing it is talking about a specific area of one building.

>  Not nice to make statements and not
> explain yourself.  And some backup would be nice, but my experience with
> you is that you try and work as little as possible while representing the
> government.

NIST determined that the Twin Towers fell as a result of structural
failure due to the steel being weakened from the heat of the fires and
the initial damage inflicted by the planes. Therefore that snippit has
to have been carefully chosen for it`s ability to distort NIST`s true
meaning.

>  I've already done some of your work for you by giving you a
> link to the NIST report.  Go from there...:)

I don`t have to going running to the NIST report to untangle Truther
distortion. It`s enough to know it for what it is.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. They had just seen two towers collapse and worried that it might
also happen to WTC. If they were part of the inside job why would they
warn people that they would be killed? When someone is planning to make
a terrorist attack do they put an ad in the newspaper to warn everybody?
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of trying to kill lots of people?

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o
>>
>>> In this next one the firemen describe what they saw, which was
>>> exactly like one of the steps in a controlled Demolition:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64
>>
>> This was a structural failure. A controlled demolition is a
>> structural failure also.
>>
> Baloney. How did YOU of all people deduce it was structural
> failure, since the building stood just fine all day until 5:20pm when
> the order was given to 'pull it'?

A building can stand just fine for 100 years and then be weakened enough
that it collapses on its own.
Do you have any proof that the "pull it" order was given at 5:20PM just
before WTC7 collapsed?

[Anthony Marsh]

For example, a blast furnace. Or an industrial oven. Or a smelting pot.
1700-2000 degrees.

> silly comments to what NIST said as relates to the fires in the buildings
> unless you can be more specific. It was clear from their statements that
> the fires in the buildings had died down. That is generally understood.
> Trying to twist it around isn't helping your case. There were photos and
> videos of heat and molten (or almost molten) metal in the basements of the

Different metals melt at different temperatures.

> 3 buildings, but not in the form of furniture or desks burning. And by
> the way...blacksmiths work with a 'raging fire' hot enough to melt metal
> all the time, but it is kept in control in their furnaces.
>
>
>>> Here's their statement from their 'Final Report' on the collapses:
>>

>>> "The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes�

[Anthony Marsh]

Then why do the top floors stay intact all the way down?

[Anthony Marsh]

You are missing my point. Everything was NOT pulverized.
So where did all the gold and diamonds go?

> right that the very beginning of the collapse shows the building intact,
> but it doesn't last long. It pulverizes just after the descent of the
> building. It should have never pulverized at anytime during or during the
> landing of all the building. It simply should have been large pieces of
> concrete rubble, which it was not.
>

You've never seen any controlled demolitions, have you?

> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread235013/pg1
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Got any examples? Did you look at the Madrid fire? That was a partial
collapse.

>
> They say the jet fuel which is kerosene would have burnt its largest
> amount on impact, which is supported on film, and the black ensuing
> smoke would have shown that as well, and been the setting for a low
> heat fire, as compared to the example I gave.
>

So you think jet fuel burning at 2000 degrees is what they call a
"low heat fire"?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5f1_1339245164

> CJ
>

[Bud]

<snicker> You think that is the same as this event?

[Bud]

And the way you bring this about is by causing structural failure.

[mainframetech]

My oh my. Do you think that terrorists had something to do with the
collapses? They MAY have flown the planes, though there is argument
about some of the supposed pilots calling in from various places in
the world and complaining that they had nothing to do with the falls.
But if someone that Silverstein knew was aware that the building was
going to be brought down intentionally, they would want to limit the
deaths of anyone nearby. The purpose wasn't to kill people anyway, it
was to destroy the buildings for various reasons. Money and false
flag are the 2 main ones.

[mainframetech]

There were no blast furnaces, smelting pots or industrial ovens
reported on site.

> > silly comments to what NIST said as relates to the fires in the buildings
> > unless you can be more specific.  It was clear from their statements that
> > the fires in the buildings had died down.  That is generally understood.
> > Trying to twist it around isn't helping your case.  There were photos and
> > videos of heat and molten (or almost molten) metal in the basements of the
>
> Different metals melt at different temperatures.
>
> > 3 buildings, but not in the form of furniture or desks burning.  And by
> > the way...blacksmiths work with a 'raging fire' hot enough to melt metal
> > all the time, but it is kept in control in their furnaces.
>
> >>> Here's their statement from their 'Final Report' on the collapses:
>

> >>> "The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes”

[Anthony Marsh]

No, my point was that it was not exactly the same as 9/11. That there are
no other examles that happened under the same circumstances.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes. I watched it live in the office and told everyone that it was al
Qaeda. And everyone said what the Hell is an al Qaeda.

> collapses? They MAY have flown the planes, though there is argument
> about some of the supposed pilots calling in from various places in
> the world and complaining that they had nothing to do with the falls.
> But if someone that Silverstein knew was aware that the building was
> going to be brought down intentionally, they would want to limit the
> deaths of anyone nearby. The purpose wasn't to kill people anyway, it

No, that makes no sense. If you are going to fake a terrorist attack you
need lots of victims.

> was to destroy the buildings for various reasons. Money and false
> flag are the 2 main ones.
>

So did you ever see Die Hard?
Did you ever see The Long Kiss Goodbye?

[mainframetech]

The above is not true. The temperature that jet fuel (A or A-1)
burns at in an open area at no more than 599 degrees F.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel#Typical_physical_properties_for_Jet_A_and_Jet_A-1

Another way to look at it is:
"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research
Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to
investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments
were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel
beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams
reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above
the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F),
no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."
From: http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm

Maximum temp reached was 1700 F. with NO collapse in any
experiment. The steel beams were NOT protected with insulation. In
the WTC, although a plane coming into a building might blow away some
of the beam insulation, much of it would stay where it was put,
especially on other floors where the pane didn't hit.

Chris

[mainframetech]

None collapsed to the ground under the same or even different
conditions where fire was ruled the cause of damage.

[mainframetech]

So almost 3,000 people dead isn't enough? No terrorist bomb ever killed
nearly that many people at one shot. I'm talking about Americans killing
Americans. A 'false flag' operation is what it's called. If you think
about it, the fires in the buildings were dying out for the most part and
it had been an hour they were sitting there burning and past their highest
point of temperature based on NIST statements. Enough time for many
people to get out of the buildings before the collapse. The WTC 7
building had all day to clear out, but they had it cleared of people
before noontime. They finally dropped it at about 5:20pm on a countdown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4z-Wrp1pY8

was to destroy the buildings for various reasons.  Money and false
flag are the 2 main ones.
>
> So did you ever see Die Hard?
> Did you ever see The Long Kiss Goodbye?
>

So what? Is there a story there, or just interested in our TV
watching choices?

> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o
>
> >>>>>      In this next one the firemen describe what they saw, which was
> >>>>> exactly like one of the steps in a controlled Demolition:
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2A8VMg_B64
>
> >>>>     This was a structural failure. A controlled demolition is a
> >>>> structural failure also.
>

I wouldn't call it a 'failure', rather an intended use of structural
elements to cause a desired result.

[Anthony Marsh]

Didn't you see the temperature gauge reac=hing 2000 degrees? So you are
saying that National Geographic just faked that whole thing? Then
wouldn't Jones and the other Truthers be quick to point out the lie?

> burns at in an open area at no more than 599 degrees F.
> From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel#Typical_physical_properties_for_Jet_A_and_Jet_A-1
>
> Another way to look at it is:
> "In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research
> Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to
> investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments
> were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel
> beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams
> reaching 800-900� C (1,500-1,700� F) in three of the tests (well above
> the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600� C (1,100� F),
> no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."
> From: http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm
>
> Maximum temp reached was 1700 F. with NO collapse in any
> experiment. The steel beams were NOT protected with insulation. In
> the WTC, although a plane coming into a building might blow away some
> of the beam insulation, much of it would stay where it was put,
> especially on other floors where the pane didn't hit.
>
> Chris
>
>

A lot of assumptions in there and not much proof.

[curtjester1]

> house falls down..
>
>
>
> > CJ

You fail to catch the point. There was a lot of 'uncooked' steel.
All that would have stayed intact, with the lower acting as
resistance. Even IF your cooked steel could have compromised a spot,
it would have done just that, compromised A spot which would have made
the building instantly go to that one spot, and tilt. Those 'cook'
theories all seem to think that the floors burning would have
compromised the steel all around it at the same time, to get a
miraculous vertical drop going.

CJ

[Bud]

>   From:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel#Typical_physical_properties_for...

>
>    Another way to look at it is:
> "In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research
> Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to
> investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments
> were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel
> beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams
> reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above
> the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F),
> no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."
> From:http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm
>
>    Maximum temp reached was 1700 F. with NO collapse in any
> experiment.  The steel beams were NOT protected with insulation.  In
> the WTC, although a plane coming into a building might blow away some
> of the beam insulation, much of it would stay where it was put,
> especially on other floors where the pane didn't hit.
>
> Chris

http://rustylopez.typepad.com/newcovenant/2007/03/history_is_made.html

[Bud]

Who said fire alone brought down the Twin Towers?

> >   <snicker> You think that is the same as this event?
>
> > > >> here's a couple of experts:
>