Why did the WTC buildings collapse?

Well there ya have it folks. Ed has given us the last word of indepth scientific analysis of the WTC collapses. Nevermind reading what real scientists have to say about it, it's a waste of time and if you do you are a terrorist. That's beautiful. Thanks Ed.

 

I believe Ed. :wavey:

It's easier to believe what really happened and what people witnessed than some zany conspiracy theory.

 

That's cool Marcia I understand that people only want easy answers these days. I knew from reading your past posts on 911 that your mind was already made up about this subject. So it's no surprise to me that you agree with Ed. He didn't really say anything of substance at all, nor did he even try to dispute any of the findings in LE's link. But then he didn't really have to say anything at all did he?

Norman Mineta witnessed Dick Cheney in the bunker that day and testified to what he saw to the 911 Commission. Does what he witnessed or his testimony count or is he a zany conspiracy theorist also? It's interesting that you say "Its easier to believe what really happened" when the NIST admit they don't even know what really happened that day or what caused those towers to collapse.

We all know that Osama Bin Laden was behind it all though even when the FBI has come right out and said they have no hard evidence he was even involved. We all know that 19 Muslim highjackers flew those planes into the buildings, this dispite the fact that no middle eastern names appeared on the flight manifests, we know they used ID's to board those flights because the ID's were found at the site after surviving a 350 mph (or better) trip into the buildings and those resulting "massive fires" that could melt structural steel tested to withstand much higher temperatures for much longer periods of time. Magic paper or plastic? Ooookay. We all know exactly who was in those planes and the highjackers names 3 hours after the fact even though our government said they hadn't even dreamed of someone flying planes into buildings, despite the fact that there were up to 5 drills taking place that day at that site practicing a scenerio of planes being flown into buildings by highjackers. We know they never found the flight recorders from those planes even though it was reported in the MSM that they were found and then quickly confiscated by the FBI...that's mainstream media (MSM). We all know that Saddam Hussein was a huge and imminent threat to America with thousands of barrels of WMD's and "nukular weapons" even if we didn't find any of them where Rumsfeld said he knew they would be found. We all know that Hezbollah crossed the border and "kidnapped" two Israeli soldiers even though the MSM reported several times the Israeli soldiers were "captured" well inside the border of Lebanon. We all know what we know because we know it, even if the accounts of it all are contradictory and confused to say the least. And we all know it's easier to believe to "what really happened" even if we don't know what really happened at all and we don't really care if we ever find out what really happened just so long as we can say with all certianty that if you don't believe what really happened you are a zany conspiracy theorist.

But Ed's correct, even if he doesn't actually say anything other than the magic words.

 

I guess we should try and count up all the zany conspiracy theorists there really are now, they would include half of New Yorkers, 90% in CNN polls two or three times over, one third of the population of the United States and most of the world's population outside of the United States. Maybe the rest of the world was quicker to catch on because they have witnessed first hand how our government has used false flag terrorism time and again in their countries killing their people (by the hundreds, thousands, millions?) and using "regime change" covertly (now we do it overtly) to protect the business interests of the corporate elite and consolidating their wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands while fooling us into giving them our children, blessings and tax dollars to do it all for decades. God tells us in His word just exactly what we can expect from an earthly government, do you suppose He should be counted as one of us zany conspiracy theorists also? :wavey:

 

Double Standard Detected

Poncho: //Well there ya have it folks. Ed has given us the last word
of indepth scientific analysis of the WTC collapses.
Nevermind reading what real scientists have to say about it,
it's a waste of time and if you do you are a terrorist.
That's beautiful. Thanks Ed.//

Poncho: //Notice how many go out of their way (and how quick they are)
to use ridicule and hurl childlike language at anyone that questions
the official story? Shows just how pathetically weak their arguements
really are imho. I mean if "you're a tin foil hatter na na na na na na"
is the best they can come up with it should be telling them and us something.//

DOUBLE STANDARD DETECT
DOUBLE STANDARD DETECT
DOUBLE STANDARD DETECT

 

Balanced Opinion from a Balanced Person NOTED :saint:

 

"Hi. I'd like the Whopper Value Meal and a hunk-a hunk-a burnin' onion rings..."

Now, if he'd been replaced with Bruce Campbell, that would have been cool.

In all fairness, there is a kernel of truth to the idea that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor but there is absolutely no evidence that he purposely allowed it to happen.

I think I saw this in the late-night basic cable movie, "Millenium".

 

It boils down to this... if the practice of coating the steel infrastructure with asbestos had not been eliminated before the WTC was built, MANY scientists had stated that the towers would still be standing.

Metal can be made malleable in hot coals, why can't mass amounts of fuels, large quantities of accellerant, and very good airflow (they were way up in the wind,) make steel buckle?

Maybe no one presented "serious scientific thought" because there was no serious scientific argument presented, other than what appeared to the agenda presented in comparative photographs that were of buildings of different compositions, etc.

As far as "it was an implosion", spend some time researching it individually to see what must be determined and done prior to a demolition. I'd discussed this, although not in relation to the WTC, with a former client who has salvaged space program structures and ship yards, and has demolished major government projects such as arsenals, and private things such as major manufacturing plants.

It's a lot more than what they show on a 60 minute Discovery channel show. They would move in trailers as temporary offices due to the effort needed before hand. There are volumes of research and planning, then there are structural modifications (done by heavy equipment over a period of time,) then very precisely placed shape charges. Lets not forget the timing issues of the blasts... how would that be accomplished via RF detonation (which would be almost suicidal in a spectrum rich area like New York)? So if we ruled out hard-wired or RF detonation, did they use timed charges, and how did they organize/inventory/deploy with such precision.

The theory presented had toooo many gaping holes, but if you are so driven by an idea or agenda and your blinders are tight enough, I guess it can be accepted.

 

No airplane hit building seven.

 

A current search on Google for: //WTC "building seven"//
yields some 25,000 'hits'. The first seven (I checked them) are
all CONSPIRACY NUT SITES. Therefore I could find out nothing about
WTC buiding seven except unpatriotic, unChristian, nutty NONSCENCE.
No, I will not further give it credance by chasing wild geese :tear:

 

Yeah, thats right, you can't find nothing out about building seven. Why? Because the evidence was all destroyed. Nevermind that apparently there is a fundamental flaw in modern skyscraper design when a relatively small fire can cause a steel reinforced building to instantaneously collapse in on itself. We don't need to investigate, because we already know what brought down building 7. Islam! Islam is what caused WTC building 7 to collapse!

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html

 

Here is an un-American analysis of some of the steel from WTC 7.

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

This was published in the JOM. You should be suspiciously asking yourself, 'what is the JOM?'

Uh-huh. Obviously a conspiracy cult.

Prof Steven Jones then proceeds to use the unpatriotic scientific method to explain where this sulfur might have come from.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
If you read the whole paper, you will notice how he includes unChristian numbers and 'nutty' scientific facts to make his wild conspiracy theory seem plausible. He ought to be ashamed.

 

More humbug from the author of this report:

Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America by Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University

Rob

 

The fact the man is a mormon is hardly relevant to the issue. But feel free to dismiss everything he has to say about religion.

 

Well, P T Barnum said there's a sucker born every minute. So who cares how many New Yorkers believe whatever? What they believe is not evidence.

I can believe a lot of bad things about our government, especially stuff that happened during the Vietnam War -- but I do not believe our own leaders purposely killed U S citizens or let others kill them, on U S soil.

 

TeeHee, you some kind of anti-terrorist or something, Bro. Deacon?

Misquoted off-site from an undocumented 'expert':
//Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve
1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence
of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite).//

Are there other ways, even more straightforward?
Yes. All oil (yes aviation fuels are made from oil) contian
trace amounts of sulfur. Are these enough to cause the
feature noted?

BTW, this is a well known Conspiracy Terrorist way to cause
doubt, by using the ol' 'bait and switch' scam

 

Yep... if you are a looney leftist, then there is too much sulfur in jet fuel and it's contributing to global warming; um, unless of course it doesn't help your conspiracy theory, then of course there isn't enough. :laugh:

 

His view of what is legitamate "evidence" is certainly relevant.

Bro Tony

 

Tee Hee!! :laugh:

 

Think of the official version as one of the alternatives for what happened. Prove it.