Morgan Reynolds says: Bogus! to WTC Collapse

[illuminati]

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.

Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling."

Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."

[anastrophe]

illuminati wrote: A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.



Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling."



Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."
i presume mr. reynolds is also cuckoo for cocopuffs.

[nvalleyvee]

anastrophe wrote: i presume mr. reynolds is also cuckoo for cocopuffs.


Thank you for putting it soooo politely Paul. I had a bit stronger reaction to the thread.

[Clint]

Washington, DC, Jun. 13 (UPI) -- Insider notes from United Press International for June 8

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."

Wow!! This guy has spent too much time on a ten key.

[turbonium]

So finally the truth comes out from a former Gov't member. I agree with his assessment. I've pored over everything about 9/11 and am convinced the towers had to have come down almost in a free fall only with explosives. The clincher for me was WTC 7 - this building collapsed and no plane even hit it. There were a couple of small fires inside it and suddenly it collapses in something like 8 seconds. There has never been a decent explanation for why this building came down. And all three buildings had molten pools of steel in their basements - fire can't melt steel into molten liquid form.

[turbonium]

I'm going against the popular opinion here, but I am convinced it was a demolition with explosives. Like I posted elsewhere, the clincher for me is WTC 7, which was not even hit by a plane, came down in around 8 seconds, with a couple of small fires within it. The second oddity is the pools of molten steel in the basements of all three buildings that came down. Fire cannot melt steel into a molten liquid state. These hot spots were there for three weeks after 9/11. They have never adequately explained these anomalies. No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, and every controlled experiment done has proven the same thing. They can not duplicate the three collapses.

[spot]

Oh, we're all polite. Especially Paul. But, just so it's been asked at the right moment - You don't find it strange that WTC7 came down? Nothing had hit it. It was 355 feet from the nearest part of the North Tower. WTC6 was between the Towers and WTC7 and stayed up. WTC7 was a broad based, 47-story steel-framed building. No other high-rise in the world ever collapsed as a result of fire. This fire was minimal compared with others that have failed to bring down buildings.

It's a pity the 9/11 Commission didn't feel able to ask questions about WTC7's collapse. It only needs one lie to be outed for the rest to be apparent, and WTC7 is one of the focal points.

Faith, that's what keeps people's minds away from looking and asking. Faith and fear. Much like the jihadis we keep hearing about. Faith, fear and a fanatical devotion to a cause. The world's a puzzle built of mirrors.

[anastrophe]

ahem.

the notion that the collapses - all three of them - were done with explosives is absurd. never mind the logistics that would have been involved in covertly wiring the buildings on each of 110 floors with strategically placed explosives (it would have taken months to do so, and have taken a conspiracy of extraordinary proportions).



the hiroshima bomb, that wiped out an entire city, was the equivalent of about 12,500 tons of TNT. the world trade center collapse(s) represented the equivalent of between 250 and 600 tons of TNT going off at ground level.



for further comparison, the bomb that was used to take off the front half of the building at oklahoma city has been estimated at between 2 and 20 tons of TNT equivalent.



do the math.



fire can't melt steel? how do you think it's melted? the towers were struck by jets filled to capacity with commercial aviation fuel. that fuel burned at more than adequate temperatures to melt metal.



why are people so willing to believe absolutely lunatic conspiracy theories, yet discard the simple evidence that's right there in front of them?

[turbonium]

anastrophe wrote: ahem.

the notion that the collapses - all three of them - were done with explosives is absurd. never mind the logistics that would have been involved in covertly wiring the buildings on each of 110 floors with strategically placed explosives (it would have taken months to do so, and have taken a conspiracy of extraordinary proportions).



the hiroshima bomb, that wiped out an entire city, was the equivalent of about 12,500 tons of TNT. the world trade center collapse(s) represented the equivalent of between 250 and 600 tons of TNT going off at ground level.



for further comparison, the bomb that was used to take off the front half of the building at oklahoma city has been estimated at between 2 and 20 tons of TNT equivalent.



do the math.



fire can't melt steel? how do you think it's melted? the towers were struck by jets filled to capacity with commercial aviation fuel. that fuel burned at more than adequate temperatures to melt metal.



why are people so willing to believe absolutely lunatic conspiracy theories, yet discard the simple evidence that's right there in front of them?


Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two):.

"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A):

"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."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

"If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed."

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

See full calculations at the link at the bottom of this post...

Summarizing

It is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.



Jet Fuel Temps & Calculations

[anastrophe]

turbonium wrote: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).



Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two):.

"The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes"

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A):

"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."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

"If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed."

quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited.

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.



Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).



Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.



It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.





Jet Fuel Temps
now *that's* funny. all that verbiage, and yet it ignores, completely, the existence of *other combustible material that was also present*. you know, it's amazing, but the following things all burn:



carpet

paper

desks

chairs

couches

bookshelves

books

wall trim

pencils

fabric on cubicle walls



additive combustion from multiple sources can generate intense heat. then there's this statement from within that:



"quantity of oxygen within the building was quite limited. "



really? do tell. i noticed two rather gigantic, gaping holes in the buildings from the JET PLANES that rammed into them.



and who said anything about *steel* melting? it's already been determined that the aluminum fusilage melted, and that accounted for much of the melted metal found. and all the laboratory tests notwithstanding, it's already been determined that the floor substructures were unfortunately ideally suited to a failure caused by *bending* of the floor from the heat - not outright melting, but fatigue from being heated, while under great load (the floors were concrete).



but riddle me this: why the hell would they bother with the jet planes in the first place, if they managed to prewire both buildings with enough explosives to bring them down? because it would 'look better'? if they'd wanted maximum kill in the disaster - again, after meticulous planning and deployment for literally months to place charges all over the buildings (and place them so that no visible evidence of supplemental explosions could be seen during the collapse) - well, why didn't they wait to blow the whole thing until say 10am, when the towers would have been full to capacity? as it was, because of the height the jets struck at - and the amount of time between the two strikes - the majority of the 50,000 people who would have been there were able to evacuate.



sorry. all i see is a sea of tinfoil hats. i knew we'd get to this place - it wasn't two days after the disaster that i felt a cringe realizing that the conspiracy nutcases would pop their deluded little heads up all over the place, prattling on about this that and the other. still waiting for the martian conspiracy theory for 9/11, but admittedly i haven't looked hard for it. i'd bet folding money there's a site out there somewhere that claims, in seriousness, that 9/11 was perpetrated by space aliens.

[turbonium]

I forgot to add a couple of points:

FEMA revealed in their final report that, “The heat produced by burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapse.” As well, the FEMA report states that the remaining jet fuel would have burned off within five minutes of the impact.

[Clint]

The list of fuels posted to this point ignore metals such as magnesium that are used in aviation and burn white hot until they are robbed of oxygen completely. The other thing to keep in mind is that the building’s structural components didn’t have to melt to fail. They only needed to get hot enough to bend. Once things started moving, gravity did the rest as one floor slammed into the next doubling the weight when it hit the next, then tripling and so on.

[turbonium]

fire can't melt steel? how do you think it's melted? the towers were struck by jets filled to capacity with commercial aviation fuel. that fuel burned at more than adequate temperatures to melt metal.


and who said anything about *steel* melting?


:rolleyes: Anyway, the pools were described by both witnesses as being "molten steel".

now *that's* funny. all that verbiage, and yet it ignores, completely, the existence of *other combustible material that was also present*. you know, it's amazing, but the following things all burn:carpet paper.... .
That's right, a normal hydrocarbon fire, as we have seen in the past (which, btw, does not burn at higher temps than jet fuel). So let's look at other previous steel framed buildings that had fires. I have found two already that lasted longer and were more intense than the WTC fires, and did not collapse. So when we compare WTC 7 (no plane hit) to the two examples below, we find that WTC 7 was the first ever steel framed building in history to collapse due to nothing but fire......





One Meridian Plaza (1st photo on left) is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss.

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

The 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles (middle photo), which burned out of control for 3 1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7(photo on the right), but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members".

[turbonium]

Clint wrote: The list of fuels posted to this point ignore metals such as magnesium that are used in aviation and burn white hot until they are robbed of oxygen completely. The other thing to keep in mind is that the building’s structural components didn’t have to melt to fail. They only needed to get hot enough to bend. Once things started moving, gravity did the rest as one floor slammed into the next doubling the weight when it hit the next, then tripling and so on.
WTC 7 negates aviation fuel. The fact molten pools of steel were in the basement further negates hydrocarbon fires as the reason for the collapse. Hydrocarbon fires such as in WTC 7 cannot melt steel.

[turbonium]

but riddle me this: why the hell would they bother with the jet planes in the first place, if they managed to prewire both buildings with enough explosives to bring them down? because it would 'look better'? if they'd wanted maximum kill in the disaster - again, after meticulous planning and deployment for literally months to place charges all over the buildings (and place them so that no visible evidence of supplemental explosions could be seen during the collapse) - well, why didn't they wait to blow the whole thing until say 10am, when the towers would have been full to capacity? as it was, because of the height the jets struck at - and the amount of time between the two strikes - the majority of the 50,000 people who would have been there were able to evacuate.
Your questions go to theory and conjecture, which takes away from physical analysis and measurements, and applying the Laws of Physics to what happened on 9/11. I do have an opinion on it, but would that matter if you don't agree with the scientific analyses and discrepancies between the 9/11 collapses and all previous and subsequent collapses? If you agree with my conclusions on the non-theoretical comparisons, then I will go into the reasons why it would be done.

sorry. all i see is a sea of tinfoil hats. i knew we'd get to this place - it wasn't two days after the disaster that i felt a cringe realizing that the conspiracy nutcases would pop their deluded little heads up all over the place, prattling on about this that and the other. still waiting for the martian conspiracy theory for 9/11, but admittedly i haven't looked hard for it. i'd bet folding money there's a site out there somewhere that claims, in seriousness, that 9/11 was perpetrated by space aliens.
I won't get drawn into a name-calling feud - it isn't productive and lowers the discussion to the schoolyard recess level. I'm only bringing up the scientific data and valid analyses of the investigative reports.

[anastrophe]

turbonium wrote:









One Meridian Plaza (1st photo on left) is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire starting on the 22nd floor, and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss.

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.
so what? was one meridian plaza an entirely exoskeletal structure like the world trade center, with *all* weight borne by the external steel frame? no? then it's an irrelevant "comparison". was one meridian plaza struck by a jet plane, sheering away a large part of the external steel frame? no? then it's an irrelevant "comparison".





The 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles (middle photo), which burned out of control for 3 1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7(photo on the right), but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members".
as above. so what. neither building shared the same structure as the WTC towers. neither of them was a fraction of the height (mass) of the WTC towers. neither were hit by jet planes.

[anastrophe]

turbonium wrote: Your questions go to theory and conjecture, which takes away from physical analysis and measurements, and applying the Laws of Physics to what happened on 9/11.
but these bizarre speculations that the buildings just 'had to' have been brought down by a controlled demolition are *not* theory and conjecture? please. spare me.





I do have an opinion on it, but would that matter if you don't agree with the scientific analyses and discrepancies between the 9/11 collapses and all previous and subsequent collapses? If you agree with my conclusions on the non-theoretical comparisons, then I will go into the reasons why it would be done.
tell me, what other 110 story external weight-bearing frame skyscrapers with virtually no internal reinforcing frame material besides the weight-bearing floors, have been hit by fully laden jetliners flying in excess of 300mph, and have then collapsed? suggesting that there's any "science" behind speculations based upon collapses that bear absolutely no resemblance at all to what is in question is a foul canard. *there are no comparable collapses with which to compare*.





I won't get drawn into a name-calling feud - it isn't productive and lowers the discussion to the schoolyard recess level. I'm only bringing up the scientific data and valid analyses of the investigative reports.
when one sets out to prove a theory, ex post facto, and with an agenda, one is certain to experience confirmation bias.



sorry, but if you believe the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition, then you might as well believe in the tooth fairy as far as i'm concerned. there's just as much "science" behind both beliefs.

[anastrophe]

turbonium wrote: WTC 7 negates aviation fuel. The fact molten pools of steel were in the basement further negates hydrocarbon fires as the reason for the collapse. Hydrocarbon fires such as in WTC 7 cannot melt steel.
see my previous post regarding the 'demolition' force of the WTC towers collapsing within spitting distance of WTC 7.

[anastrophe]

turbonium wrote: And all three buildings had molten pools of steel in their basements - fire can't melt steel into molten liquid form.
please provide a citation for the observation that "all three buildings had molten pools of steel in their basements".

[anastrophe]

anastrophe wrote: please provide a citation for the observation that "all three buildings had molten pools of steel in their basements".
oh, let me tighten that up a bit. please provide a citation from a *reputable* source. a quick google on "molten pools of steel wtc" brings up more than 500 hits, from all the usual suspects. among them of course, those who still maintain that the moon landings were faked.

[turbonium]

anastrophe wrote: oh, let me tighten that up a bit. please provide a citation from a *reputable* source. a quick google on "molten pools of steel wtc" brings up more than 500 hits, from all the usual suspects. among them of course, those who still maintain that the moon landings were faked.
From the American Free Press:

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center.

Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site.

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself “the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures.”

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.

“Yes,” he said, “hot spots of molten steel in the basements.”

These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said.

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

[turbonium]

From this link Thermal Imagery Hot Sports is the below text and image

Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier. Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800oF. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16.



Analysis link below calculates the hottest spot (G) at 1020 degrees Kelvin. In case you're wondering, that is approximately 1376F.....FIVE DAYS AFTER THE COLLAPSE....WTC Analysis

Table 1 Thermal Hot Spot Data

Location Temperature Area

Hot Spot N Latitude W Longitude (Kelvin) % FOV sq meter

A 40o 42' 47.18" 74o 00' 41.43" 1000 15 0.56

B 40o 42' 47.14" 74o 00' 43.53" 830 2 0.08

C 40o 42' 42.89" 74o 00' 48.88" 900 20 0.8

D 40o 42' 41.99" 74o 00' 46.94" 790 20 0.8

E 40o 42' 40.58" 74o 00' 50.15" 710 10 0.4

F 40o 42' 38.74" 74o 00' 46.70" 700 10 0.4

G 40o 42' 39.94" 74o 00' 45.37" 1020 1 0.04

H 40o 42' 38.60" 74o 00' 43.51" 820 2 0.08

[anastrophe]

turbonium wrote: From the American Free Press:

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center.



Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site.



Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself “the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures.”



Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.



AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.



“Yes,” he said, “hot spots of molten steel in the basements.”



These incredibly hot areas were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels,” Loizeaux said.



The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.
that quote is repeated virtually verbatim over and over and over on the conspiracy sites. no sites of any repute repeat that quote.



i believe i'm going to try calling mr. tully tomorrow. i'm curious how he determined it was steel, for one thing.

[turbonium]

so what? was one meridian plaza an entirely exoskeletal structure like the world trade center, with *all* weight borne by the external steel frame? no? then it's an irrelevant "comparison". was one meridian plaza struck by a jet plane, sheering away a large part of the external steel frame? no? then it's an irrelevant "comparison".
tell me, what other 110 story external weight-bearing frame skyscrapers with virtually no internal reinforcing frame material besides the weight-bearing floors, have been hit by fully laden jetliners flying in excess of 300mph, and have then collapsed? suggesting that there's any "science" behind speculations based upon collapses that bear absolutely no resemblance at all to what is in question is a foul canard. *there are no comparable collapses with which to compare*.
You haven't researched the structure of the towers. The WTC 1 and 2 had massive internal steel cores that were the prime support for these buildings. And WTC 7 of course was not hit by a plane....

[turbonium]

that quote is repeated virtually verbatim over and over and over on the conspiracy sites. no sites of any repute repeat that quote.

i believe i'm going to try calling mr. tully tomorrow. i'm curious how he determined it was steel, for one thing.
Please do so. Call Mr. Loizeaux about it too. He came to the same conclusion. The thermal imagery certainly backs up the statements made by Tully and Loizeaux. Unless you think the USGS is making up their data too.

[anastrophe]

turbonium wrote: You haven't researched the structure of the towers. The WTC 1 and 2 had massive internal steel cores that were the prime support for these buildings.
actually, it is true that WTC 1 and two had massive internal steel cores. however, it is false that the cores were the prime support for the buildings. the exoskeletal structure bore more weight than the core.









And WTC 7 of course was not hit by a plane....


here's a question for you. these 'pools of molten steel' seem to be a lynchpin of the argument that these were controlled demolitions.



in what controlled demolitions are pools of molten steel generated? if such are not generated, that what, precisely, are we to conclude is the reason for the molten steel?



i still have doubts about the claim of pools of molten 'steel'. we have one man, repeated ad infinitum, on all the conspiracy sites. the source appears to be americanfreepress.net.



i encourage one and all to visit www.americanfreepress.net . it's a hoot. check out the advertisers at the bottom of the page.



"Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure-grain alcohol?"

[Clint]

Aluminum, magnesium and titanium are aircraft components that burn at very high temperatures. Magnesium burns at a temperature of more than 2,000 C. The components of the airframes and engines of the aircraft containing these alloys and burning inside the building would account for many “hot spots”. Water from the building’s sprinkler system would have provided all the oxygen magnesium needs to burn well, even in a confined space.

[turbonium]

Clint wrote: Aluminum, magnesium and titanium are aircraft components that burn at very high temperatures. Magnesium burns at a temperature of more than 2,000 C. The components of the airframes and engines of the aircraft containing these alloys and burning inside the building would account for many “hot spots”. Water from the building’s sprinkler system would have provided all the oxygen magnesium needs to burn well, even in a confined space.
Theory doesn't hold - WTC 7 not hit by plane.

[turbonium]

in what controlled demolitions are pools of molten steel generated? if such are not generated, that what, precisely, are we to conclude is the reason for the molten steel?
No standard controlled demolitions would create pools of molten steel. C4 is most often used to demolish steel framed structures, but it doesn't leave the steel in a molten state. There are numerous videos on the net that show commercial demolitions with C4 (RDX is the explosive component).

From other options, again we have to speculate without proper investigation and material evidence. A likely candidate, though are thermite charges. Link... Thermite (aluminum and iron oxide, usually) Thermite can produce molten steel, and create temperatures greater than 5400F. There is evidence which corroborates the possibility of thermite being used on 9/11. One is the video here Explosion Smoke at WTC Base which shows the white cloud of smoke characteristic of a thermite explosion, at the base of the tower just before the collapse.

And there are also the many statements made by people near or within the towers who heard secondary explosions just prior to the collapse, three of which I've posted here...

From ther NY Times....

"I can hear explosions below me" - Edmund McNally, talking to his wife just before he died in the collapse. McNally

In People magazine's Sept.12, 2001 tribute to 9/11 issue...

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem...

"We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building."

From an NBC interview with Pat Dawson and NYC Fire Dep't Safety Chief Albert Terry...

"Shortly after 9 o'clock [...] [Albert Turi, the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.

One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building."

This is an audio link for the above text Albert Turi

Will we ever know for sure what was used to bring the towers down? Well, thanks to the flimsy investigation and criminal destruction of almost all the material evidence, we may not. But, imo, with the evidence we do have, we can without a doubt rule out the official story. With so many other serious questions remaining unanswered, that fact alone should mandate a full, proper and independent investigation into the events and true perpetrators of 9/11.

[webbie]

A Normal Fire In A House With No Jet Fuel Involved Will Burn Up 1500 Degrees, Depending What The Fire Load Is. By That I Mean How Is The Room Constructed, Is It Air Tite, Were The Walls Fire Proof Material, Was The Contents Flame Resistant Or Non-rresistant. If The Fire Room Was Built Of Fire Proof Materials, That Would Mean That The Fire Would Not Travel But Stay In The Fire Room, Which Would Cause The Temp To Build To Its Highest Level. At About 1200 Degrees You Would Have Spontanious Combustion, Which Means Any And All Unburned Material Would Burst Into Flames, Thue Raising The Temp Even More. If The Space Was Surrounded With Steel Frame Work, This Would Cause Said Steel To Fall In On Itself, When Jet Fuel Is Added Into The Equation A Temp Of Up To 3000 Degrees F. Is Not Out Of The Question. More Than Enough To Melt Steel. As For Bldg 7, If I Remember The Angle Of Attack There Was Flaming Fuel And Other Debris Flying Thru The Air, And It Landed On Building Tops, Thus The Fall Of Bldg 7. Any Firefighter Taking The Rookies Fire Classes Will Know This. I Have Taught It.

[anastrophe]

I mean absolutely, positively, NO offense - in fact, i find it kind of cool! - but i have never encountered a poster who capitalizes the first letter of each and every word. myself, i'm notorious for failing to capitalize *any* words.



just a little meta-comment.

[webbie]

WOW I THOUGHT I WAS MAKING ALL LETTERS CAPITAL.

[BabyRider]

webbie wrote: WOW I THOUGHT I WAS MAKING ALL LETTERS CAPITAL.
In this post, you are making all letters capital. In the post anastrophe referred to, only the first letter of each word is capitalized. Are you not seeing it like that, webbie?

[webbie]

OK. I see what you are saying. Which way is preferable. I usually type in the upper class so it is easier for me to read, but will be happy to post in the lower, if that is what you want. See I'm easy to get along with.:-6

[downag]

I am a latecomer to this thread, but I have somewhat to add.

As of this date, George W. Bush is looking like a silly drunkard and is about to be impeached.

9/11 was a false flag operation by the CIA/Mossad/Illuminati. We are the dupes of a grand conspirecy to get us to back a war on the Middle East. Its about oil/money and power, over you and me.

The plane that hit the WTC are not the type of planes we are told hit them. Large pieces of the engines found on the street below the WTC do not match up with what is supposed to be on the type of planes they tell us were hijacked. The FBI swooped down on the CITGO gas station overlooking that side of the Pentagon where "something" hit it and they took the video tapes away and they haven't been seen since!

Other buildings have fallen down from earthquakes. They fall over on their sides, they collapse into large chunks (not pulverised to bits).

People who were there say they heard explosions down deep inside the buildings. To SHUT UP the firemen and other rescue workers, those responsible planted a fire engine with a cab full of clothes from a store inside the WTC, a GAP store, down in the hole in the ground. The crewcab was full of Blue Jeans. A HA, looters. Firemen were speechless. It stinks to high heaven, all of it.

How do 4 jetliners get by NORAD? Why was the Navy on manuevers right off Long Island? They have pictures of a helicopter hanging around the WTC the whole time. Nothing hit building WTC #7. Why did it fall? Controlled demolition? Probably. Just yesterday, a former German high official said, the whole thing was controled from #7 and they got rid of the evidence.

Bush is going down. But alas, he is only the figurehead of the "controlers" who will put who they really want next into power, who will lull us some more. They have all the time in the world. This has been going on since the later part of the 19th century. The Battleship Maine was one of these operations. The Richstag Fire in Berlin. Kennedy, (they even say Pearl Harbor was set up by them).

It is said that we really didn't win our "revolution" against England. They just withdrew their Army and sent in their BANKERS.

MONEY TALKS. FOLLOW THE MONEY!

They always win!

The Bible says, "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil"!

d:-5

[anastrophe]

blame anybody/everybody but the perpetrators. believe even the most outlandish conspiracy theories, ignore the crystal clear words of osama bin laden. generate a connection between the jews, the kennedys, and the nazis.



you know what's really interesting? The word "gullible" does not appear in ANY dictionary!

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: blame anybody/everybody but the perpetrators. believe even the most outlandish conspiracy theories, ignore the crystal clear words of osama bin laden. generate a connection between the jews, the kennedys, and the nazis.Having been here before, might I comment on your debating style?

When people raise issues to which you are unduely sensitive, you push their comments beyond the position they have adopted, in a manner of "if you say A then you obviously also say B and C, and since B and C are so obviously bogus then A (being entirely equivalent) is by association bogus too". If you could do people the courtesy of addressing the issues they raise, rather than parcelling all disquieting suggestions into a single category, it would make for far more interesting and illuminating conversation.

In order to function, the capitalist US economy requires an immense sink of consumption into which to pour its production, and for the last sixty years that's been the US military. Were excess production aimed toward consumers the market would dry up as it became satisfied. The military provides a black hole into which unlimited resources can be poured without satisfying demand.

In order to justify the continued maintenance of this military, there has to be an enemy. For decades this was artificially provided by Soviet Communism. A knee-jerk response to "Red" was instilled into the American ethos. Exaggeration of Soviet capability was routine. That all went out the window around 1990.

Who's the enemy today? To whom has this knee-jerk response been transfered in order that the same function be maintained? Step forward international terrorism and whatever named bogeyman can provide a face for the people to hiss viscerally whenever he appears on screen, whether he be Saddam or Osama or whoever else is promoted as their replacement. Promoted, in this sense, by those who orchestrate the reaction, not by any external authority. Neither figure is, in retrospect, a particularly wise choice, since both received aid and support from the US in the days before the need for a replacement bogeyman to the Soviets was perceived.

Is there a solution to international terrorism? No, and why should there be; if international terrorism were by any means defeated, the system would require the promotion of an equally powerful enemy image, why waste the propaganda investment.

Given the total necessity of an external enemy, permitting (and even aiding) Osama to perpetrate attacks on American icons isn't just a possibility, it becomes an essential. We needn't demonstrate any of the strong causation such as bringing down WTC7, though we might well want to see answers eventually to the lack of subsequent investigation. Demonstrating a single weak causation is sufficient to condemn the entire system and hopefully generate sufficient revulsion among the US electorate that the remainder of the criminal facade can finally be analysed from within.

The lack of successful engagement by the Air Defense system is the obvious weak candidate. The idea that planes believed to be hijacked can ever have clear access to the skies of New York and Washington flies in the face of prior practice. It's not a matter of incompetence. There's been no serious formal public enquiry into that failure, no recognition of the points at which it failed, no identification of anyone who should have acted and failed to act. The lack of accountability is a smoking gun, the system failure is a smoking gun, the very events themselves are a smoking gun. Overturning this single aspect of the day is the essential first step to changing the military domination of US policy that's fed itself and bled the world for so many years.

There are bogus notions associated with what happened, obviously. If you can constrain your reaction to what I've written, instead of falling back on your usual blackening by implication, you might like to start by temperately agreeing that the NORAD response should be closely looked at. I'd quite like to do that. If we agree that it was actually atypical, we could also discuss both the extent of the failure and the levels of responsibility for it.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: Having been here before, might I comment on your debating style?



When people raise issues to which you are unduely sensitive, you push their comments beyond the position they have adopted, in a manner of "if you say A then you obviously also say B and C, and since B and C are so obviously bogus then A (being entirely equivalent) is by association bogus too". If you could do people the courtesy of addressing the issues they raise, rather than parcelling all disquieting suggestions into a single category, it would make for far more interesting and illuminating conversation.


that's nice. too bad i made no such fallacious 'If A then B and C' construct in my comment.



believe what you want to believe. believe that we never landed on the moon - it was done on a hollywood set. believe that the world is flat - i've seen no evidence to show otherwise!



credulity at this level baffles me, frankly. it's all a vast conspiracy.



i'll say it flat out: you should be wearing a tinfoil hat if you believe this nonsense.



just my humble opinion!

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: that's nice. too bad i made no such fallacious 'If A then B and C' construct in my comment.



believe what you want to believe. believe that we never landed on the moon - it was done on a hollywood set. believe that the world is flat - i've seen no evidence to show otherwise!



credulity at this level baffles me, frankly. it's all a vast conspiracy.



i'll say it flat out: you should be wearing a tinfoil hat if you believe this nonsense.



just my humble opinion!I quoted the fallacious 'If A then B and C' construct in my comment. Your "believe that we never landed on the moon" is exactly another such equation. You mention something blatantly inane, and imply that it's equivalent. It's your style, it's pervasive, it's abhorrent, it's uncalled for, it's an easy way out, it allows you to believe you've addressed the post when in fact all you've done is refused to engage.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: I quoted the fallacious 'If A then B and C' construct in my comment. Your "believe that we never landed on the moon" is exactly another such equation. You mention something blatantly inane, and imply that it's equivalent. It's your style, it's pervasive, it's abhorrent, it's uncalled for, it's an easy way out, it allows you to believe you've addressed the post when in fact all you've done is refused to engage.


i'm not interested in engaging in discussion with the mentally ill. my choice.



there are legions of people who truly do believe the moon landings were fake. there is a Flat Earth Society.



"The plane that hit the WTC are not the type of planes we are told hit them."



yeah. sure. all the video we saw LIVE while it happened shows a passenger jetliner hitting the tower. it would require a conspiracy of mind numbing proportions to take the hundred or more people on flight 93, for example, and relocate them in safe havens, where their families will never find out that they're alive. of course - there was nobody on the planes. they were remote controlled. the surviving family members, who have shared their intense grief and pain, their tears, before us? paid actors.



there is nothing of any credibility in the inane ranting conspiracy post worth my serious discussion.



and here i am, getting sucked into even entertaining that these fantastic illusions have credibility.



live your life. dream your dreams. convince yourself of whatever you want to convince yourself of. believe what you want to believe.



bye bye!

[anastrophe]

correction, flight 93 is the one where the passengers overpowered the hijackers and the plane crashed in a field in pennsylvania - rather than the second jet to hit the towers.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: i'm not interested in engaging in discussion with the mentally ill. my choice.And this doesn't qualify as a personalised attack? I'll say it again, you're refusing to engage and you're using abusive means to justify doing so. Your vested interest, your decades of trust invested in this corrupt regime, obliges you to defend the indefensible, and if you can't do it by fair means you'll do it by foul. It suggests a lack of integrity and a refusal to take your head out of the comforting sand. Your leadership needs to be purged, your corridors of power scoured clean, and it's self-deluded wretches like you who keep putting off the day of accounting. That's a heavy responsibility to shoulder. You and your fellow apologists set yourself up as guardians of a system which will eventually be recognised as odious. That would happen sooner if you'd apply your mind rather than flaunt your unwarranted faith. What happened to your sense of responsibility, that you prefer to describe me as "mentally ill" in reference to a perfectly rational post which upsets you than to address its content?

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: And this doesn't qualify as a personalised attack? I'll say it again, you're refusing to engage and you're using abusive means to justify doing so. Your vested interest, your decades of trust invested in this corrupt regime, obliges you to defend the indefensible, and if you can't do it by fair means you'll do it by foul. It suggests a lack of integrity and a refusal to take your head out of the comforting sand. Your leadership needs to be purged, your corridors of power scoured clean, and it's self-deluded wretches like you who keep putting off the day of accounting. That's a heavy responsibility to shoulder. You and your fellow apologists set yourself up as guardians of a system which will eventually be recognised as odious. That would happen sooner if you'd apply your mind rather than flaunt your unwarranted faith. What happened to your sense of responsibility, that you prefer to describe me as "mentally ill" in reference to a perfectly rational post which upsets you than to address its content?


my reference to the mentally ill is to those who promulgate these inane fantasies of conspiracy.



sorry, you're not going to suck me into this poppycock. i have a right to consider such rantings as those of the credulous mentally ill. you can believe i'm a self-deluded wretch all you like; likewise, do i believe the same of you who actually give a moment of serious thought to these conspiracy theories.



hell, feel free to refute the visual evidence. ignore my reference to the plane that hit the towers. the video must have been faked. all the news organizations were complicit in the conspiracy.



i stopped believing in the tooth fairy around age ten i think.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: my reference to the mentally ill is to those who promulgate these inane fantasies of conspiracy.Then why did it appear as your first paragraph in your reply to my post, immediately after quoting my text?

"feel free to refute the visual evidence. ignore my reference to the plane that hit the towers. the video must have been faked. all the news organizations were complicit in the conspiracy" has nothing whatever to do with the issue you're squirming away from:

The idea that planes believed to be hijacked can ever have clear access to the skies of New York and Washington flies in the face of prior practice. It's not a matter of incompetence. There's been no serious formal public enquiry into that failure, no recognition of the points at which it failed, no identification of anyone who should have acted and failed to act. The lack of accountability is a smoking gun, the system failure is a smoking gun, the very events themselves are a smoking gun. Overturning this single aspect of the day is the essential first step to changing the military domination of US policy that's fed itself and bled the world for so many years.

There are bogus notions associated with what happened, obviously. If you can constrain your reaction to what I've written, instead of falling back on your usual blackening by implication, you might like to start by temperately agreeing that the NORAD response should be closely looked at. I'd quite like to do that. If we agree that it was actually atypical, we could also discuss both the extent of the failure and the levels of responsibility for it.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: Then why did it appear as your first paragraph in your reply to my post, immediately after quoting my text?


i'm not responsible for your (mis)interpretations.





"feel free to refute the visual evidence. ignore my reference to the plane that hit the towers. the video must have been faked. all the news organizations were complicit in the conspiracy" has nothing whatever to do with the issue you're squirming away from:


there is no issue. had jetliners ever been used as piloted bombs before? no. the planes were hijacked. the hijackers maintained radio silence for most of the flight. it is not policy in the US, nor any other nation that i'm aware of, to simply shoot down any jetliner that is straying from its course. the amount of time that transpired between hijack and crash was brief. too brief to scramble jets, based upon jets that may have been hijacked, but without evidence that they had been hijacked, and without the intent of the hijackers known.



it's great to second guess all this with the perfect 20/20 vision hindsight provides.



and here i am, engaging. pointing out the obvious, rational, non-paranoid reality.



there is no convincing those who want to believe in the darker conspiracy behind it all.



i leave you to your fantasies. again.

[anastrophe]

actually, he and i conversed at length, with civility, in email last year, on these matters. at that time, i DID give his comments serious consideration - again at length. i'm interested in facts, and in speculations that a reasonable person would entertain. he believes it was a conspiracy, that Bush was complicit in 9/11 happening. I do not believe that.



yes, he's doing a dandy job of tweaking me. no single person on FG has ever succeeded as well as he in that endeavor.



and i fall for it every time.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: yes, he's doing a dandy job of tweaking me. no single person on FG has ever succeeded as well as he in that endeavor.Were you less polite, dear boy, it would be impossible. If you want to rankle less you need a thicker skin. It's entirely to your credit that you feel the sting.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: Were you less polite, dear boy, it would be impossible. If you want to rankle less you need a thicker skin. It's entirely to your credit that you feel the sting.


i've never made a secret of the fact that i have a thin skin.



ignoring, of course, that it's easier for the thick of skin to feign a thin skin, than the other way around.