was the wtc7 fire somehow magically hotter than all the other skyscraper fires that never resulted in a collapse?
Do they perhaps use some kind of special fireproofing that protects steel from fire in skyscrapers? I mean they did claim that the planes blew this fireproofing off the twin towers thus exposing the steel. This didn't happen for wtc7.

Why didn't this building collapse?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5-DpMObGc

or this one?

http://youtu.be/j4MjsVnasLA

You clearly don't understand structural engineering so I seriously doubt you would have a firm grasp of rocket science.
>> ^Skeeve:

According to the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F, and at 1800°F it is probably less than 10 percent." This is in addition to the expansion of the steel due to the heat (which is great enough to crack any concrete it is reinforcing). A 20' beam will expand 1.5 inches at 1000 degrees.
So, even if we assume the fire wasn't even as hot as your average house fire, you now have cracked and broken concrete and steel beams that are warping and bending. And, just like a pop can (or a paperclip, or any thing else really) once something has started to bend, bending it further just gets easier.
This isn't exactly rocket science.
>> ^Fade:
I believe when architects are designing concrete high-rises the requirement is for the structural steel to be able to support 3 to 5 times the maximum load that will ever be applied to it during its lifetime. Thus a 'theoretical' (since we have no way of knowing what temperature was actually in place) 50% weakening in the strength of the steel cannot result in a complete failure of all the support column at exactly the same time.
>> ^Skeeve:
A house fire can reach 1500 degrees in 3 1/2 minutes but an office fire can't reach the 1000 degrees necessary to bring steel to 50% of it's strength? Bullshit.
>> ^marinara:
I really doubt that a failure of a steel beam, which supports the floor (and nothing else), could take down an entire building.
Otherwise the facts in this video are generally correct, but misleading. (because office fires don't burn over 1000 degrees)

<tin foil hat>

One of VBS.TV's correspondents, who is of Pakistani decent went around the neighborhood and spoke to a bunch of people who lived there and had access to the "compound". A lot of them wished that Bin Laden had been living there because they sounded like they would have been intrigued yet fearful. It was admitted that Bin Laden never lived in that compound. It's an interesting video. The one prior was also interesting as the correspondent had access to places in Pakistan that we could never imagine without him having gone there where blind, tongueless, warriors make machine guns by hand.

I think maybe the reason for this is, Bin Laden had been killed prior - by who? Who knows. But American intelligence knew and I think since Obama was probably fresh in office, the event would highlight "The War on Terror" so Obama and his administration held onto the information for a "better" time.

Anyway, I trust Vice more than our mainstream news, especially when you have a guy on the ground getting information from the source, which VBS.TV has done quite well in their own sort of way in Libya, North Korea and elsewhere.

I also trust Bill Maher but I understand that he is unable to get into tinfoil subjects that make the left look "conspiratorial"... even though our government is absolutely corrupt enough to look the other way as the Twin Towers were bombarded or lie about Osama Bin Laden's death for political gain.


And Haha the last comment Clark makes about "pathological liars".
</tinfoil hat>

>> ^TheJehosephat:

Please tell me you don't think all Christians are like this. I certainly hate the idea of a cross at the twin towers site and I also wouldn't speak like that towards people who disagree with me. And I'm a Christian.
>> ^mfsteele:
Christians, they'll love you unless you don't share their viewpoint.



No, just the ones who are condescending towards non-Christians.

Please tell me you don't think all Christians are like this. I certainly hate the idea of a cross at the twin towers site and I also wouldn't speak like that towards people who disagree with me. And I'm a Christian.

>> ^mfsteele:

Christians, they'll love you unless you don't share their viewpoint.

>> ^MrFisk:

I thought Buddhism was the religion peace.
Oh, and religion doesn't cause violence, it's only used by people who want to do violence.
http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201101/2274226241.html


Very compelling and comprehensive article, pity the opening comparison is so disingenuous. (Speaking of which, I disagree that it's "only those who want to commit violence" that do so. How do you fit the application of sharia law, for example, - and its support from the population - into that narrow point of view?)

Some commentary on one of the conclusive passages (and I quote):

"If religion plays a significant causal role in anything, it is maximizing and maintaining in-group cooperation and identity. But so do sports, political parties, gangs, music, universities, etc. Religion does provide two things beyond what these nontheistic groups can. First, religion can unify much bigger and more varied groups of people than sports teams and the like. Second, religion offers a vaguely defined supernatural agent whose presence is unverifiable and thus unchallengable. While this may increase the likelihood that someone will engage in costly behaviors, these costs are demonstrations of commitment and thus provide reliable indicators that one won't betray the group. Beyond supernatural claims, there is not anything about religion that is not found elsewhere."

There are a few key elements that the author of this article glosses over:

1) unlike sports, gangs, political parties etc., religious belief is instilled into a person practically from birth, acting on a person's belief and behavioural systems long before they are mature enough to make calculated (not to say rational... what's rational about rugby? ) decisions of adherence. As Dawkins points out, religion makes use of a child's primal trust in its parents, transferring that trust onto an unquestionable power.

2) most religious beliefs present a parallel of parental authority, with its motivational corollaries (punishment-reward), but the figure(s) of authority are absolute, unchallengeable because of their supernatural nature. Add to that the fact that the "punishment-reward" usually concerns an eternity of either bliss or torture, and you get a motivator/rationaliser for unethical acts that is effective even when there are practically no other motivations.

Why did these people do what they did? Why did middle-class, educated individuals fly planes into the twin towers? What did they have to gain? If such acts are simply "reliable indicators that one won't betray the group" (how does a dead person do that already?) than maybe that right there is an indicator of religion's particular virulence.

>> ^ForgedReality:

>> ^pmkierst:
AF on that camera is amazingly fast and does amazingly well very close.

That's because it's FAAAAAKE!! See the pixels? Yeah. That's why there's only a few frames. Photoshop frame-by-frame. Yep. That's how they took down the twin towers.


Are you kidding me? They found Mentos residue ALL OVER the twin towers.

>> ^pmkierst:

AF on that camera is amazingly fast and does amazingly well very close.


That's because it's FAAAAAKE!! See the pixels? Yeah. That's why there's only a few frames. Photoshop frame-by-frame. Yep. That's how they took down the twin towers.

ALL of these videos are shot from the same direction.

The other side of the building (the side facing the twin towers) had many floors on fire (note the smoke @1:15) and a huge chunk of the bottom couple of floors gone.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
You find it strange that something primarily used for welding was found in the debris of a steel framed building?
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Jinx:
Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.

No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.

Yes, the clean-up after is the nefarious part.
The bigger cover up is the crashing of airliners into the towers. That act made it look like there were no pre-planted explosives and that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact and fires. Quite convenient if you ask Duckman33

Huh? I never said anything about pre-planted explosives. I just find it strange that thermite was found in the dust samples...


You know what? Troll someone else pal. I'm not in the mood.

Who's trolling?
The two primary civilian uses of thermite are welding and pyrotechnics. Right?
The WTC towers were steel framed structures. Right?
How is thermite residue entirely unexpected in the rubble when the towers collapsed?

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
Enjoy.

Not particularly enjoyable. Their method for collecting dust was to request dust samples from private individuals years after the collapse? Then they, without explanation, decided to analyze the 4 samples that appeared to have unidentified red chips in them. Oh, and did I mention no effort or explanation for methods of verifying or confirming the origins of the samples save the word of the individuals. Right, some real hard science there. It's worth noting that such gross errors don't normally pass peer review teams, luckily for your crew, the journal they published in is known for peer reviewing anything that passes the $800 submission fee 'test'.
Here's a serious analysis, from PubMed, of the WTC dust. They thoroughly analyze the dust, and they collected it themselves, before it was cleaned up. They also released their findings publicly, years before your crew of committed truthers even requested samples from private individuals.


First, what the fuck is your problem with me? Did I do something to you to piss you off? Secondly, they aren't "my crew". I simply Googled for the information and provided a document link. You seem to have some kind of obsession with making people who don't believe the "official story" look like idiots for some reason. Do you have issues with people who don't believe everything they are told? I'm sorry but the "official explanation" is not very believable to me. If you don't like it, tough shit. Think what you want. Just don't try to make me look like a fucking moron because I have a differing opinion. Which, the last time I checked was MY PREROGATIVE.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
You find it strange that something primarily used for welding was found in the debris of a steel framed building?
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Jinx:
Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.

No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.

Yes, the clean-up after is the nefarious part.
The bigger cover up is the crashing of airliners into the towers. That act made it look like there were no pre-planted explosives and that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact and fires. Quite convenient if you ask Duckman33

Huh? I never said anything about pre-planted explosives. I just find it strange that thermite was found in the dust samples...


You know what? Troll someone else pal. I'm not in the mood.

Who's trolling?
The two primary civilian uses of thermite are welding and pyrotechnics. Right?
The WTC towers were steel framed structures. Right?
How is thermite residue entirely unexpected in the rubble when the towers collapsed?

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
Enjoy.


Not particularly enjoyable. Their method for collecting dust was to request dust samples from private individuals years after the collapse? Then they, without explanation, decided to analyze the 4 samples that appeared to have unidentified red chips in them. Oh, and did I mention no effort or explanation for methods of verifying or confirming the origins of the samples save the word of the individuals. Right, some real hard science there. It's worth noting that such gross errors don't normally pass peer review teams, luckily for your crew, the journal they published in is known for peer reviewing anything that passes the $800 submission fee 'test'.

Here's a serious analysis, from PubMed, of the WTC dust. They thoroughly analyze the dust, and they collected it themselves, before it was cleaned up. They also released their findings publicly, years before your crew of committed truthers even requested samples from private individuals.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
You find it strange that something primarily used for welding was found in the debris of a steel framed building?
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Jinx:
Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.

No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.

Yes, the clean-up after is the nefarious part.
The bigger cover up is the crashing of airliners into the towers. That act made it look like there were no pre-planted explosives and that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact and fires. Quite convenient if you ask Duckman33

Huh? I never said anything about pre-planted explosives. I just find it strange that thermite was found in the dust samples...


You know what? Troll someone else pal. I'm not in the mood.

Who's trolling?
The two primary civilian uses of thermite are welding and pyrotechnics. Right?
The WTC towers were steel framed structures. Right?
How is thermite residue entirely unexpected in the rubble when the towers collapsed?


http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Enjoy.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
You find it strange that something primarily used for welding was found in the debris of a steel framed building?
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Jinx:
Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.

No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.

Yes, the clean-up after is the nefarious part.
The bigger cover up is the crashing of airliners into the towers. That act made it look like there were no pre-planted explosives and that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact and fires. Quite convenient if you ask Duckman33

Huh? I never said anything about pre-planted explosives. I just find it strange that thermite was found in the dust samples...


You know what? Troll someone else pal. I'm not in the mood.


Who's trolling?

The two primary civilian uses of thermite are welding and pyrotechnics. Right?
The WTC towers were steel framed structures. Right?

How is thermite residue entirely unexpected in the rubble when the towers collapsed?

>> ^bcglorf:

You find it strange that something primarily used for welding was found in the debris of a steel framed building?
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Jinx:
Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.

No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.

Yes, the clean-up after is the nefarious part.
The bigger cover up is the crashing of airliners into the towers. That act made it look like there were no pre-planted explosives and that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact and fires. Quite convenient if you ask Duckman33

Huh? I never said anything about pre-planted explosives. I just find it strange that thermite was found in the dust samples...



You know what? Troll someone else pal. I'm not in the mood.

You find it strange that something primarily used for welding was found in the debris of a steel framed building?

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Jinx:
Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.

No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.

Yes, the clean-up after is the nefarious part.
The bigger cover up is the crashing of airliners into the towers. That act made it look like there were no pre-planted explosives and that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact and fires. Quite convenient if you ask Duckman33

Huh? I never said anything about pre-planted explosives. I just find it strange that thermite was found in the dust samples...

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Jinx:
Sigh
While I applaud the experiments with thermite and acknowledge that the official findings of 9/11 probably miss something I think its a stretch to conclude that this was some sort of sabotage. Not only is there no proof, but I also fail to see a motive. Where's the money or power in this? Or do you think elements of your own government conspired to bring down the Twin Towers, hire Saudi's to hijack the planes all to pin it on Saddam for support with an occupation of Iraq? Come on, whip out the razer for this one. Plane hit building. Building collapse. Its not hard.

No proof? How do you explain the thermite particles found in dust samples collected by people who lived by the WTC? Also, hard to get any other "proof" since the rest of the material from the collapse was conveniently whisked away before anyone could do a thorough investigation. Quite convenient if you ask me.

Yes, the clean-up after is the nefarious part.
The bigger cover up is the crashing of airliners into the towers. That act made it look like there were no pre-planted explosives and that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impact and fires. Quite convenient if you ask Duckman33


Huh? I never said anything about pre-planted explosives. I just find it strange that thermite was found in the dust samples...