[Thread title edited by d from "Non Believers Bullshit Excuses, Need help to sink Non believers bullshit excuses" for clarification]

OK... I am a member of a gaming site at OGN http://forums.ogn.com.au/forumdisplay.php?f=886

And I've been posting links to videos and sites in a thread I started there http://forums.ogn.com.au/showthread.php?t=54722 in the hope some ppl will see the truth.... anyway since I'll have to research this info which I really should do I thought some of you guys could just pump this info out off the top of your heads.

This is a quote is response to me saying tower 7 is the smoking gun, how can you overlook that this... he came back with this...

QUOTE (Walshy;709095)

Speaking as an engineer, and having done a quick bit of reading to familiarise myself with the Tower Seven situation, my thought is "Damn, it took that long for that building to collapse?"

The damage to the building was significant. That's significant from an engineering point of view, i.e. it would have severely compromised the load bearing paths within the structure. While it's true they're still not sure why the thing collapsed, it's also true that there is only very sketchy information as to the extent of damage to the structure caused by falling debris from WTC1. The fact that they've identified a 10-storey high "gash" in the building, that completely destroyed a large chunk of two of the five rows of colums in the structure (and probably severely damaged the third) suggests some seriously unbalanced loads were acting on the building before it collapsed. It wouldn't take much to push that over the edge.

And I wouldn't call uncontrolled fires that burned from 10am until the building collapsed at 5pm "2 little spot fires"...

Not to rain on your parade or anything, but I don't see the need for explosives in any of the building collapses that day. Based on my knowledge of structural design (which is admittedly limited, as I majored in mechanical engineering, not civil), I can easily see how the structures failed in the way that they did.

Can someone destroy this guys narrow sighted conclusion so I can post a undeniable response. Its just a request and theres absolutely no obligation. thx guys

video: WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739


And from "Architects and Engeneers for 9/11 truth http://www.ae911truth.org/

Lots of links in the original text.
(Frontpage, right column)

As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1.

Rapid onset of “collapse”
2.

Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse
3.

Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
4.

“Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
5.

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6.

Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (What could have produced all of that molten metal?)
7.

Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
8.

FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
9.

Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
10.

Foreknowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1.

Slow onset with large visible deformations
2.

Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3.

Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4.

High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

WOW... I mean wow... you are a legend Carl, thank you so much... I'm sitting here giggling to myself (perm-a-grim) at the speed of your response and wealth of knowledge... thoroughly impressed

It wasn't even in the same block as the rest of the buildings in the WTC.
If there was a 10 story gash taken out of the building, (which there wasn't,) what did it? A piece of one of the towers that "fell" down, and just happened to fly over to the next block?
Building 7 is rarely mentioned in the popular media, to the point where many people asked, haven't even heard of it, and believe that only the twin towers collapsed that day.

imo, lunk

The famous NYPD photo of the gouged corner of WTC7 is fake, of course. You can tell that just by looking at it. And if it was real, then the building would have fallen over, not down, right?

I can't find it, but somewhere there's a post by waterdancer, our resident photo sleuth. He managed to find another photo of the same corner. A side by side comparison shows a complete lack of damage to the upper floors of the 'gash'. Lower is obscured by smoke.

If the tiny raging fires, which were never below the sixth floor according to FEMA, caused the collapse, why have other steel framed buildings that were literally engulfed by fire for many more hours (like around the clock) not collapsed?

You can also refer to Dr Steven Jones' recently published 'Fourteen Points of Agreement...' paper.

Just a side note about discussing 9/11 on social forums. You will wake some people up, but most of them will remain silent. There are paid agents that inhabit all message boards of any substantial size. They pose as regular people who share the primary interest of the forum, but are actually there to derail any discussion of truth. They use all the disinformation tactics available. There will be flame wars and, depending on which way the admins go, eventually you will be banned. Just so you know, Brother.

If you choose to carry on the fight, I suggest posting The 25 Rules of Disinformation and referring to it and bumping it from time to time. It might help a little with some readers.

http://www.matriots.com/bh/25.html

Generally on social forums the discussions are not about the evidence. That is the job of the agents. It's hard to rise above the bullshit, but if you can control your temper and just keep steering the discussions back on topic, you will help a few people.

Good luck! It would probably take weeks to read everything here, but this place is well organized and finding solid evidence regarding whatever you need does not take long.

Fires - I don't care how long they burn, do not bring down steel-framed buildings. FIRES DO NOT BRING DOWN STEEL-FRAMED BUILDINGS! There have been numerous tests, in Germany, Australia and other places over the years, the one in Australia, conducted by BP, where they stoked the fires to insane temperatures and yet wound up with such minimal damage that they were allowed to erect their office building without any fireproofing. I don't have quick access from my notes from a few years ago when I looked into this, but there have been some incredible fires over the years that were thoroughly looked into - the conclusion? Open air fires have little affect on structural steel. Your "friend" the "engineer" is full of it. If the fires in the towers were hot enough to adversly affect 200 thousand tons of steel in the towers (which was all bolted and welded together, so the heat would have been dissapated throughout the building) then how can Edna Cintron be leaning on a perimiter column, waving for help? How can Fire Chief Orio Palmer radio from near the crash site a few minutes before the collapse of the South Tower to say there's a couple of fires & that he thinks he can dowse them with a couple of hoses?? And how can structural damage (of which there is very little documentation) to WTC7 on ONE corner cause the building to collapse symetrically, straight down, at free-fall speed?? All I gotta say is, give me a break. Anyone who has looked at the evidence and still parrots the official account is in denial - and just simply can't bring themselves to accept that the government could be involved in such a crime. Their counter-arguments are not driven by science or an empirical review of the evidence, but on a world view based on a lifetime of conditioning that they lack the courage to let go of. And, as Carl pointed out, the BBC report is the nail in the coffin.

Here is an experiment that anyone can do;

Hold an iron nail over top of a candle
and see how long it takes to melt.

If the nail doesn't melt,
try lighting the candle.

You will find that, after ignition,
a little bit liquefies, then burns.
...the candle, that is.

The nail just gets hot.

Iron is a poor conductor of heat
so be careful, don't burn your fingers,
or catch something else on fire.


imo, lunk

Hi 1976,

"Anonymous Engineer Dude" does an admirable job of "debunking" himself above, unless you've got a different definition of "sketchy" down under.

As lunk alludes to above (he has been known to speak in Hmmm...), shouldn't North Tower debris fall down, not horizontally across Vesey and/or Washington Street(s) in a gravitational field? I've heard rumors/jokes that you have funny-swirling toilets down in Oz, but I always assumed that your gravity pulled toward the Earth's center of mass, just like mine. Of course the photo and video evidence shows "gravity?" doing something else drastically different in Manhattan on Sep 11, 2001...


Good point- why exactly did Rudy G., FDNY, and Larry Silverstein "pull" the firemen from WTC7 in the morning? What about the radio demolition countdown and police/fire "that building's about to come down" statements caught on various videos? Someone else probably has those video links handy. BBC "Solomon Brothers Building has collapsed" video?

So the NYPD is in on it too?

Skyscrapers don't behave like trees ;-) I highly recommend you consult a physics professor about your theory.

How much weight is the nail supporting in your experiment?

nicepants opined:


Typical nicepants strawman obsufication. The post is about the photo, not the police.

Aren't you referring to the photo that was taken by the NYPD?



Common sense? You mean personal incredulity. ("I believe X, therefore X should have happened")



I agree. Good thing we're not talking about camp fires.



Not directly...How much energy would it take to "eject 200 ton beam formations 300 feet horizontally"?



The fire had something to do with that, as did the system of transfer trusses. Only a few core columns would need to fail and as the additional load overwhelmed the other columns, they would quickly fail as well.



Do you have an example of a 47+ story building behaving in this manner?



I've graduated college and my old physics professor has no reason to come to this message board and argue with people about 9/11. You, however, could go to your local university (or even community college) and sit down for 5-10 minutes with a professor in person and have many of your questions answered. That would be far more beneficial and would clear up any of these assumptions you attribute to "common sense".

None at all.
I was just seeing if I could melt it with a candle flame.
It didn't work.

I did manage to light some steel wool on fire, though.
There was no melted iron left underneath though.
Does that count?

For my next experiment,
I shall attempt to melt concrete into liquid lava,
using a match.
...for lack of a candle.

"Fire temperatures were so intense
that the concrete melted like lava
around anything in its path."

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9-11guns/

cheers, lunk

Don't be deceived, just because people disagree with your views on 9/11 doesn't mean they're "bush supporters". I can't stand Bush, can't wait until he's replaced. The difference is, I don't need to invent other things to blame on him, he does enough stupid stuff on his own.



200 tons for this beam assembly? Where are you getting that number?

So you've also figured out the potential gravitational energy of each tower, and found that to be less than the number you came up with for the movement of the beam assembly?



No. Fires can (and do) weaken structural grade steel. If your assertion was correct, there would be no need to fireproof it.

Too small: Source?
Not hot enough: Source?
The steel doesn't have to melt, it loses strength as it heats long before it reaches a molten state.



- Why do truthers insist on claiming that the collapse was "symmetrical", it wasn't.
- If a few columns fail, the loads they were bearing transfer to other columns, if this additional load exceeds the capability of the other columns, they will also fail.



They've got a pretty good summary on their FAQ. It's not that "secrets are eluding them", it's that their final report requires much greater detail.



Why do you expect me to do something that you aren't willing to do. I'm content to wait & see what NIST has to say on the subject.



Please explain how the laws of physics dictate that WTC7 should have fallen to the side. (Or is that belief only based on what you consider to be "common sense"?)



WTC7 burned for hours.



Who claims that the steel spontaneously disappeared? And which building fell "into its own footprint"? All 3 severely damaged surrounding buildings.




So that's a no?

Zafar pic comparison.

http://wtc7corner.blogspot.com/2007/04/con...-7s-corner.html

I don't claim that gravity alone caused the object to move horizontally, but a vertical force can cause a lateral acceleration (like pushing down on a spring, it can go sideways).



The heavier the projectile, the more vertical kinetic energy gained due to gravity.



Ok, how about 300ft, 2tons, 8 seconds.

The lateral component of force is not the only force that can damage neighboring structures. As that object falls, it gains kinetic energy from gravitational acceleration. The object could have a horizontal speed of 0 by the time it hit WTC7 and, depending on the size of the object, still cause a great deal of damage.



Pretty strong? Absolutely! But as columns weaken, the other columns must bear an increasing amount of the weight.



Whether you find it funny or not, it's the numbers that will tell you whether it was possible or not.

nicepants:


No. I'm referring to the photo that is marked NYPD. As always, you are jumping to conclusions. There is no proof that the photo was taken by a NYPD officer or that it was manipulated by the NYPD. And so what if it was?

Are you saying that we should treat the photo as though it's real and holy just because it supposedly comes from the police? Is your implication that any government authority would not attempt to deceive us, especially not the police?

Look, nicepants, you are getting nowhere here. We're way too smart to fall for your sophomoric linguistic tricks, and that is the only weapon you have. We don't care if the dog ate your homework.

Turbo-fan, forgive me for speaking out of turn, I can't resist.

Nicepants, you're so full of it.



WTC7 fell straight down. Have you ever watched the footage? What would it have to do to meet your definition of symetrical?? And by the way, how would you explain how the BBC knew the building was going to come down 20-odd minutes before the fact???



Are you implying in any way that all, some or any of us here think that Bush was behind 9/11??? LoL. I'd be surprised if he even knew about it. Cheney obviously did, he participated. But no one around here thinks that Bush, or even the Bush administration per-se was really behind 9/11, Nicepants, you haven't been paying attention. It really irks me when people say stuff like, 'Bush can barely tie his own shoes, how can you believe for a second that he could pull off something as big and complicated as 9/11?' I don't, we don't, no one who has done a lick of research into this does. Nor is George Bush in charge of the United States of America, not by a long shot.



Structural steel is said to lose half of it's strength at about 1200 degrees F, the building, as best as I and other people have been able to guess, was rated for 6:1 loads, and worst case it was built for 5:1 loads since that's the rule of thumb for commercial buildings. (In other words, 1200 F degrees doesn't do it - you gotta heat the steel up enough so that the columns and beams lose 80% of their strength.) Not only that, but the fires just being that hot isn't enough either, you gotta get the steel itself up above that temperature ... steel conducts heat away from the source, so you gotta keep cranking up the heat fast and hard enough to get the temperature of the steel up faster than it can carry the heat away to other parts of the building. There have been many field tests and investigations into actual building fires and opportunities to measure the effects of fire on steel-framed buildings that attest to the fact that open air fires just do not get that hot, and steel framed buildings do not fail from fires.

A few of those tests and investigations are:

One Meridian Plaza (Philadelphia) ... fires raged througout the building for 18 hours. According to the report, the exterior granite joint sealant, which melts at less than 500 F, was not severely charred or melted. While the fires did get very hot near the windows where oxygen was prevalent, the fire within the building was estimated not to have exceeded 600F.

Several field tests done in (un-fireproofed) steel framed parking garages in several countries, (source: Corus Construction), fires were hydro-carbon based, steel temperatures fell between 438 and 680 degrees F.

Broadgate Development (investigation), London. Very hot fire, may have reached 1800 F, according to the report, unprotected steelwork was unlikely to have exceeded 1100 F. Some warping of beams, but no significant structural damage and no danger of collapse.

BHP - full scale fire tests done in Australia. Beams un-fireproofed, fires were stoked to atmospheric temperatures of (maximum) 2242 F, maximum steel temperature measured was 1167 F, no significant damage, no danger of failure. (The structural damage observed in the test was so minimal that as a result the insurance company who had paid for the tests was allowed to erect an office building without fire proofing the steel beams.)

Others: Williams Street and Collins Street in Melbourne, and a full scale fire test in Stuttgart, Germany. Same kinds of findings, atmosperic temperatures between 500 and 1000 F, maximum measured steel temperatures about half of that.

Don't ask me for sources, I investigated this in 2002 and wrote it all down in a book I never published, the links are all dead now, I just checked. Just google the names of the buildings and fire tests if you really want to double check my information.



That's a well-published number, I have read it many many times in many places. I'll bet you can find it somewhere in the NIST or ASCE reports (I could be wrong).



For your information, buildings do fall over, just like trees. Granted, buildings are full of air, but they are structurally rigid, kind of like trees. Though the comparison breaks down and I don't want to suggest that buildings behave like trees, they have been known to fall over - and a good way to get one to do that might be to take out it's structural support on one side.



(I've seen other photos of moderate sized building that have toppled over - but I wouldn't know were to find them. BTW please don't try to suggest that a smallish building can topple over but a taller one can't - that would make no sense at all.)



That was a figure of speech, what turbo-fan is alluding to is the fact that the core columns, which carried the majority of the gravitational load for 30 years, and are VERTICAL, had to go somewhere - had to accordion or splinter into pieces or turn to putty (from top to basement) or SOMETHING in order for the top part of the building to fall down through them at near free-fall speed.



WTC7 fell into it's own footprint. And you're wrong, WTC7 did not severely damage the surrounding buildings.

Hi (by limited engagement) nicepants,

Errr- no- not exactly. Since you didn't state it explicitly (I've noticed this pattern here BTW), I'll assume that you mean a coil spring (since there are several types of spring). How about drawing yourself a free body diagram (it's often done in university physics- some professors require one for every problem) of your hypothetical spring and its vertical [downward] compressive force so that you can study it a bit? You might want to draw carefully and take your time doing it. HINT: Don't forget that a coil spring has a helical "pitch" . You need to look at the sums of both the vertical and horizontal forces in a "statics" problem. You might also want to keep Newton's Third Law in mind here- I'll let you look that one up yourself as you'll probably learn more from the experience than I would.

What is it that those Randiites like to say... "Debunked!" or was that "Denied!"

EDIT: Or are you now claiming that WTC1 [and WTC2?] had springs in its structure? I'd like to see some documentable proof of that one nicepants...


So did you just admit that the WTC1 debris was "projectiles" then? Well there you go- that explains one of many curious things about WTC7's collapse. I don't think you explained exactly what the projectile "propellant" that supplied those horizontal velocities was though. I'll wait for your answer here- I'm very curious....

And FWIW, actually the "heavier" an object [more correctly a more massive object] has more potential energy. PE=mgh you know... This potential energy can be converted into kinetic energy in some circumstances. It is those "circumstances" that we have been investigating for the last 6.5 years, and where you likely will disagree with many/most people on this forum.

On the physics professor thing, I was actually raised by one, and I majored in it myself. You might want to keep that one in mind when you appeal to your hypothetical "physics professor" as a source/evidence in the future...

Now some questions from me for you to answer:
1. What exactly is your motivation in posting here in this forum? Financial? Ego? Assignment? ,Governmental? Reading your answers above, are you just an "NIST groupie?" [I personally don't find the government scientists that I've met and worked with all that attractive myself, but whatever displaces the water underneath your boat...]

2. If the "debunkers" are such qualified "critical thinkers," then why can't they test alternate hypotheses by examining all the available 9/11 evidence with an open mind and without the rhetorical sophistry and name calling? Call me strange, but I prefer to have additional evidence beyond that "supplied" by GWB/Rumsfeld/DoD, History Channel/Hearst Publications, James Randi, and one paper written by someone named Ryan Mackey. Those "official" FEMA/ASCE, NTSB/FBI, and NIST explanations have been shown to have some serious shortcomings- possibly if you did a little reading around here and less posting, you might find a few yourself.

Picture of wtc prior to 911:

Hi Turbo,

The equations really aren't too bad (that stuff is on another thread around here somewhere ).

Here are some projectile motion Excel spreadsheet pages that might help. I haven't tried these spreadsheets yet, but you should be able to get a "horizontal" launch for the steel beam above by setting the launch angle to 0 degrees (but Excel likes radians- not sure if it converts for you or not). I'll let you guys sort out exactly what the mass of the beam is here.

http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/Ph...ctileIntro.html

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/5...tilesExcel.html

And the spoiler for the less-technical, more busy, and just plain ol' lazy (his is an excellent page):
http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/ribando/mo...xls/projectile/

http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/ribando/mo...le/projmotn.xls

------
And some "free fall" spreadsheet pages:
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/5...ingInExcel.html

http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/Ph...spsheet_ex1.htm

Are you writing the above down nicepants? All of the above neglect air friction/drag, I believe. Nicepants is welcome to correct the above for air drag (HINT: -b * velocity^2, but b isn't the simplest thing to find).

And lunk- LOL! Sometimes you kill me. That was pretty dry.

ETA:

If you have evidence that this photo was manipulated, or was supplied by someone other than the NYPD, please present it.



No. What I said was that if this photo is faked, the NYPD is in on the conspiracy. (Since it's their photo)

"Spring" is probably not the right word. But yes, the vertical compression caused material from inside the building to eject laterally.



I don't have all of the exact measurements for those numbers, but it's fine with me if you want to use those numbers for the example.



Which NIST publication contains this claim?

The entire police force faked the photo?

You are the one saying it was symmetrical. What was your criteria?
The BBC reported it wrong, just like many other news agencies reported things wrong on 9/11. They had been told that firefighters were worried that WTC7 might collapse and got mixed up.



No, I was responding to someone who lumped me in with "Bush Supporters". Many 9/11 "truthers" like to claim that anyone who is against them is a bush supporter. I guess since you don't think Bush was involved, you don't find fault with his actions on 9/11?



Then why are they fireproofed? Seems like a waste of money, don't you think?



I don't recall seeing anything about a 200-ton steel section having flown 300 feet. If you have a source, I'd love to see it.



And what was this building constructed of? Steel like WTC7?



It makes plenty of sense for a 47 story building to behave differently than a 4 story one. Feel free to run your assertion by a structural engineer.




Define the word "footprint" in the context that you're using it....because if it spilled out into the street, that's not in its footprint.
This building was damaged by WTC7's collapse:

I'm not saying that.
The photo was from the NYPD.
If that photo is faked, it requires NYPD involvement in the conspiracy.

Nicepants, it's too bad you weren't born in the 18th century, the Vatican could have used you. ...you know, arguing against that "round earth" stuff. BTW, after I ban you in the next day or two (... I'm not promising anything, but jeeeze this trigger finger keeps twitching and that big red shiny "ban-nicepants-button" is SOOOO tempting!!!) and you come back as a sock puppet, I really like the 'NIST-Groupie' handle idea. I think it would suit you. Whay'ya think??

I'm really really sorry, I'm not going to bother replying to your replies ... they were pathetic. In all honesty, it's my bedtime and I'm a little drunk, that's part of the reason. But, in Winston Churchill fashion, tomorrow I'll be sober. you'll still be a NIST-groupie, grasping at any and all available, however absurd, straw, to defend an indefensible lie which is being utilised daily to justify the destruction of the America that I love.

In other words, you are a traitor to your country - whether for your stupidity or your insolence or inability to detatch from the (unsupportable) premise that the people who work within the US government are all immune to corruption of the worst kind and/or are working for all of our best interests (and that there isn't a league of billionaires behind them all "suggesting" to them what to or not to do on a regular basis). In other words, you are blind. I cannot make you see, nor do I care to try - because I do know basically what you are - although I truly have a hard time comprehending how people like you keep spewing the same bunk day after day with your blinders on tight. Do you??? Whatever, you made your bed, sleep in it. You are the enemy - Washington was smart enough not to let the enemy into his tent. So, when I ban you, it won't be for any "rule infraction". You're too "professional, you won't break any "forum rules", I know that - it makes me dislike you all the more. Nope, when I ban you, it'll be because you are the proclaimed enemy of those of us who love freedom, America and what it stands for, those of us that read up about the country's founders and what they wrote about and thought and why those concepts are at least as important now as they were then, and know that our country is under attack and, not to put too fine a point on it, being 'hijacked' by bankers and lawyers and oil conglomerates and globalists and - whatever, people trying to usurp the last vestages of American wealth for a dime on the dollar ... while invalidating, executive order by executive order, the Constitution.

But you have no idea what I'm talking about. You thinik that we think that "Bush did it". Seriously, Nicepants, you are so behind.

Well FEMA (who contributed to Gene Corley's ASCE report) for starters.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibr...ails.do?id=3942

"Photograph by Michael Rieger taken on 09/18/2001 in New York"

"New York, NY, September 18, 2001 -- Ohio Task Force workers anchored this 600,000 pound beam from the World Trade Center lodged in a nearby building. Photo by Michael Rieger/ FEMA News Photo"

I'd call the 600,000 lb steel debris section 300 tons, but usage of "ton" tends to vary. The above is discussed in some detail at:

http://www.cloakanddagger.de/_Grossmann/27...ns_Sideways.htm

http://www.cloakanddagger.de/_Grossmann/27..._Ton_Detail.htm


HANDWAVING ALERT!

So are you implying that 47 story buildings are subject to a different form of gravitation than 4 story ones are? How about 110 story ones? How about 2 story ones? I'm going to guess here that you're not too familiar with the concept of superpostion, but that is pure speculation on my part. FYI, I've worked professionally on engineering some structures that see some unearthly-high forces, stresses, and loads. I've also been metalworking for over 2 decades and have a reasonably firm grasp on materials science, statics, dynamics, heat transfer, and thermodynamics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

I think you must have missed a few questions in my post above. (For your convienience, it's at about 13:07 above, dMole). I'll wait.

Perhaps your supervisor would like to answer my questions for you. Enjoy the soup...

P.S. Wouldn't your (structural engineering) questions be better directed toward Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth? You might want to go do a little reading over there first- here's the link for you:

http://www.ae911truth.org

Exactly

I'm starting to wish nicepants behaved like a tree...

He's like a ball of yarn and we're the cats. Everyone needs a play toy i suppose.

Hm, nicepants apparently went away. Must I do all the work here? See my post above at 16:20, but the structural steel "chunk" in question was 600,000 lbs, according to FEMA.gov, in case he missed that part.

4:20P.M.- Hmmm, maybe that's where nicepants went...

EDIT: Say hi to Towelie for me.
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/south-pa...sion/3967820838

[Polishing the dog's nose : d]

Incredulity? I think you mean "wishful thinking."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incredulity
"Noun- unwillingness to believe"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
"Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence or rationality."

Hey, isn't that a little like Fox News, flag waving, Randiite, FEMA, NTSB, and NIST groupies? It certainly isn't "pleasing to imagine" that our own government could have been involved in 9/11 now is it?

I wonder if I'm "lively and friendly" enough for nicepants yet?

No..I want to know what colums NIST claims the debris cut, and where you read that.

Which building did it hit? How far was that from towers 1 & 2?



No...I'm saying that the construction is different. Taller buildings, in general, must be made more lightweight (per floor) than shorter buildings. There's no reason to expect a 47 story building to behave the same way, structurally, as a 4 story building.



You mean the site where they claim that Molten Metal is a "characteristic of controlled demolition by explosives"?

I think you're better off going to a physics professor who is neutral on the issue of 9/11.

As an alternative, to be actually comparable, see if you can find one that turns itself into tiny particles of sawdust.

Source? Or is this your "common sense?"



Who is claiming that the debris damaged all the core columns? (Or is this just a strawman?)



Because that's the direction that gravity was pulling it.



Considering that trees aren't constructed in the same way as 47-story skyscrapers, I don't see the relevance.

HINT: Why don't you try the two links that I provided under the one that you just quoted? They've got plenty of footnotes if you can/will read to the bottom of both articles... You also might try reading Chapter 7 of the FEMA/ASCE report, since you are the one defending the OGCT here. Also, Google Earth has a distance tool by the way...



Ok, that's fair enough, now that you finally answer a question here in a direct manner. That wasn't so hard was it? Which reminds me- I think you have still avoided answering 4 of mine from 13:07 today. Again the post was by dMole in case you forgot... Here's a link so you don't get lost again:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10741168

But uh, have you got any links to blueprints, photos, engineering data to support your 47 story vs. 4 story speculations? Isn't this getting tedious for you by now? Have you noticed a pattern yet? [Many of we "twoofers" here have- you might want to read those forum rules and Sanders' last post again]. I think you might have missed a few more of my questions along the way, why don't you go back and read this whole thread again and call us when you're done? BTW- You might want a notebook and a few pencils handy when you do this...


I see that you are still coming to a site organized by aviation professionals asking materials science and engineering questions. Would you go to a licensed plumber for brain surgery? WAIT- maybe I don't really want you to answer that question...

Just out of curiosity, do you have any "neutral" physics professors that you recommend? I seem to recall some in the "debunking" movement demanding a Ph.D CE expert for anything to have merit- didn't those guys build the universe?

I must admit- I've got to give you some credit for your persistence nicepants. I'm just not certain that you are very B R I T E. [deliberately spelled incorrectly for the benefit of someone on this forum].


EDIT: Nicepants must not have read this part of the Debate forum, so I'll post it here for his/her benefit:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4993

OK, in the interests of time efficiency, I think we've all wasted enough of OURS on nicepants' sophistry. Here are some points from the excellent page linked WAAAY above by OceansFlow IIRC:

http://www.matriots.com/bh/25.html

EDIT: Adding OceansFlow's link:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10740979

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional propagandists by one or more of seven distinct traits:

* They never actually discuss issues head on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

* They tend to pick and choose their opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

* They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussion in the particular public arena. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

* They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

* They express complete disdain for "conspiracy theorists". Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.

* An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a propaganda artist is that emotions can seem artificial.

* There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat Freudian in that they really root for the side of truth deep within.
---------
Another link of basically the same:

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
-----------
OK, now moving to logical fallacies- I won't list them, but read up 1976, Turbofan, and other "twoofers," if you haven't already. I'd advise printing these lists and reading them every day or so as you get time. It will eventually become instinct.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
-----------
OK- let me propose the following: we have asked our questions of nicepants-- now isn't it time to DEMAND the answers to the questions that we have ALREADY asked?

I'll wager that nicepants will either try to badger, goad, and obfuscate further parcels of our time from us, or else nicepants will just "disappear" (and likely come back wearing a fresh "sock puppet" handle over his/her hand as Sanders already suggested). DON'T answer any further "slippery/oily" questions from nicepants or respond to his/her taunts- just provide a link to the previous questions that you have ALREADY asked, maybe quoting your question(s) to make it convenient for nicepants to answer.

Peace "nicepants"

[metaphor]
P.S. Nicepants- "I'M RICK JAMES [GS-]BEEEYOTCH!"
[/metaphor]

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1305108/dave...ck_james_bitch/

EDIT2: Did anyone else notice that it only took nicepants 3 minutes to respond to Turbofan's ~20:40 post above? Hmmm....

EDIT3: 1976 already did an excellent job of describing the "information phishing" that intelligence agents (and others) are specially-trained to do- see 1st page near OP.

EDIT4: Here's the complete quote that nicepants took out of context, conspicuously leaving out the "in some detail" part. Hmmm....:

"Well FEMA (who contributed to Gene Corley's ASCE report) for starters.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibr...ails.do?id=3942

"Photograph by Michael Rieger taken on 09/18/2001 in New York"

"New York, NY, September 18, 2001 -- Ohio Task Force workers anchored this 600,000 pound beam from the World Trade Center lodged in a nearby building. Photo by Michael Rieger/ FEMA News Photo"

I'd call the 600,000 lb steel debris section 300 tons, but usage of "ton" tends to vary. The above is discussed in some detail at:

http://www.cloakanddagger.de/_Grossmann/27...ns_Sideways.htm

http://www.cloakanddagger.de/_Grossmann/27...etail.htm"

But, but, but dMole (he gasps in best debunker fashion) AFTER NEARLY 7 YEARS, YOU'VE GOT NO PROOF

You mean this:



Which columns, according to this image, were cut by the debris?

I'm asking for a distance. If you don't know it that's fine. I'm not doing your homework for you.

I didn't intentionally avoid the 2 questions below, though I will point out that not all of my questions have been answered either...



My motivation, I guess, would be to clear up the waters. I've seen so many people here posting claims that have long ago been debunked or proven false. I think a lot of that misinformation needs to be cleared up.



If you are against name-calling, I suggest you mention that to Rob Balsamo, who feels the need to do that in almost every post. Also, it's not the job of any debunkers to test your alternate hypothesis. An overwhelming majority of evidence supports the OT.



The size & strength of a building don't scale the same way. The taller a building gets, the lighter the materials must be so that it doesn't collapse under its own weight.
For example: The perimeter columns on WTC 1 & 2 were 14"
To scale the WTC down to a 4 story building would require perimeter columns of .5"



Yet these are the questions being discussed.



Not that you would take my suggestions, but:
Richard A. Muller - professor of physics at UC Berkeley

I would still advise you to simply visit with a physics professor at your local university or community college, lest you think the professor I recommended is some type of "shill".

""The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded. You will find it a powerful ally." -- Obi Wan Kenobi

EDIT: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4993

nicepants:


LOL! That's the funniest thing you have said so far.

Prove it, please.

Yeah, I know. I don't detect any sincere questions about the OT emanating from nicepants. We could just ban his ass and may yet, especially given the "overwhelming majority of evidence supports the OT" comment. Yeah, I've been overwhelmed by the government's "evidence"! (NOT) We have buildings that fall at free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance, turning to powder along the way, and leaving molten metal beneath them, all due to gravity acting upon mass; we have disappearing airplanes that leave behind enough body parts for DNA testing in military laboratories; we have FDRs that give data that doesn't match observed damage, provided video, and eye-witness accounts; we have an FBI that isn't sure of the "hijacker" identities and says it has no hard evidence to tie the alleged 'master-mind' to the crime and we have an administration that is willing to lie us into wars but not very interested in finding the aforementioned 'master-mind'.

The truly unsettling thing is it is so OBVIOUS and yet the whole subject and all the details remain "unmentionable" in the corporate owned press and media. (Probably due to the whole thing being shielded by 'national security' designations.) Meanwhile the perps get away with it and make their plans for what is going to happen next. Meanwhile ass hats like 'nicepants' waste our time repeating already established facts as if he/she hasn't heard them all before or as if they have no merit worthy of consideration. Ho hum.

Tell me something, nicepants, are you an agent or just an ignorant troll who has nothing better to do? What is in this for you, anyway? I'd really like to know. Do you actually believe that living under a technological despotism barely masquerading as a Constitutional Republic is going to secure your rights, safety and happiness? Do you really think it is 'ok' for governments to lie to their people, especially about a crime of this magnitude, and do all the things this government is doing to ignore and obfuscate undeniable facts? Just curious. Be cause to me a government like that can't be trusted to do anything but what it has already done and worse. A government like that has broken the most essential pact between them and the governed, has shown itself to be essentially immoral and no longer derives its just powers from my consent.

Just sayn'. What's in this for you?

Was this building steel-framed? 40+ stories?

Remember that size & strength of a structure don't scale the same way.

NO evidence in the 10,000+ pages of the NIST report?

Photos of fires in the buildings aren't evidence?

Physical debris recovered from GZ is not evidence?

Who said that anything "cut" the columns?
NIST, and the FDNY, believe that the damage & subsequent fire weakened the structure to the point that it could no longer support itself.

Source for your claim that fire cannot weaken structural steel?
Where is this stated in the FEMA report?
If fire cannot weaken structural steel, why is it fireproofed?

CHARLIE MURPHY!!!!