World Trade Center #7

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 81 - 100 of total 210 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Nov 18, 2011 - 07:39pm PT

they only put that specific ammount in the tanks

Pretty dang interesting.

Reilly

Mountain climber

The Other Monrovia- CA

Nov 18, 2011 - 07:41pm PT

As I asked the know-it-alls before - what were the conspirators' motives?
To make us paranoid about arabs? To invade Iraq and thereby stem islamic
hegemony? Please illuminate me.

rockermike

Trad climber

Berkeley

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 18, 2011 - 07:47pm PT

Project for a New American Century

From Wiki:
"The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that lasted from 1997 to 2006. It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by neoconservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."[1] Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[2] The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War."

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

signatures include

Elliott Abrams
John Ellis "Jeb" Bush
Richard B. Cheney
Steve Forbes
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz and most other well known neo-cons

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Nov 18, 2011 - 07:56pm PT

Since we're talking about WTC 7, thought this section from the original FEMA report on the building's collapse might lend to the discussion:

APPENDIX C : Limited Metallurgical Examination

This line is particularly fun:

This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

monolith

climber

berzerkly

Nov 18, 2011 - 07:58pm PT

And steel has lost 90% of it's strength at 1800 degrees F.

Batrock

Trad climber

Burbank

Nov 18, 2011 - 07:59pm PT

I have been in a few hot high-rise fires and have talked to other fireman who have been in other much worse fires, we all can't see how just a fire alone would cause a collapse without some type of force or impact. Look up the Madrid high-rise fire a few years back, total burn out from the 2nd floor up and no collapse. I don't know what caused 7 to collapse but it just doesn't make sense, there was just not that much fire in the building.

monolith

climber

berzerkly

Nov 18, 2011 - 08:01pm PT

Madrid building was totally different architecture. Concrete core, several strength/firewall floors. Still, the steel only portion collapsed to the strength/firewall floor.

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Nov 18, 2011 - 08:02pm PT

Losing strength =/= melting.

monolith

climber

berzerkly

Nov 18, 2011 - 08:03pm PT

Losing strength == collapse

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Nov 18, 2011 - 08:05pm PT

Perhaps collapse, but not simultaneous failure of all the supporting members. Remember, free-fall speeds for over 100'.

And the steel is melted.

monolith

climber

berzerkly

Nov 18, 2011 - 08:05pm PT

Losing strength eventually leads to overall failure.

When one support is no longer available, the load is transferred to other supports. Continued transfer leads to collapse.

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Nov 18, 2011 - 08:10pm PT

Including supports that have not lost a significant percentage of their strength.

It's the simultaneous failure that is a give away. Another is the melted steel. Or did you forget about that already?

monolith

climber

berzerkly

Nov 18, 2011 - 08:13pm PT

So what are you saying?

Did steel melt at 1800 or 2700 degree F?

You seem to be making the case that steel is even more susceptible to heat then we thought.

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Nov 18, 2011 - 08:28pm PT

As a doctor, you'd think you'd be interested in the scientific method, where fact trumps opinion. Yes, even Your opinion, Dr. F.

You seem to be making the case that steel is even more susceptible to heat then we thought.

Don't be a fool. We know through study the scientific properties of steel. The FEMA report shows that something was very fishy, as in steel melting at 1,000 degrees C.

Forget that office fires don't get close to that temperature.

There is evidence to suggest explosives. Why not test for them?

Or are you afraid what the results might show?

We know what independents have found. Maybe they were wrong.

You know, Fact vs. Opinion.

All you have is Opinion, the Truthers are asking for Facts.

monolith

climber

berzerkly

Nov 18, 2011 - 08:29pm PT

This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

What was your point, K-Man?

Are they saying that the steel 'melted' at 1800 F?

Are you saying the temps were higher then 1800 F?

There is little structural difference between 90% strength loss and 'melting'

They seem to be saying that under some circumstances, 'melting' can happen at lower temperatures, but why does it matter?

BTW, it is recognized that highrise office fires can reach 1800 F.
'

Betelnut

Mountain climber

So. California

Nov 18, 2011 - 08:48pm PT

Oh no, the Santa believers are back on ST.

rockermike

Trad climber

Berkeley

Topic Author's Reply - Nov 18, 2011 - 09:41pm PT

They got away with the biggest crime in history because some morons just won't think outside the box. We don't have to layout the sequence - the point is just that it didn't happen anything like the government says.

And a point I've made before, one of the worst outcomes of the whole event - including the blatant cover-up - is that the government managed to completely destroy the faith that most Americans once had in their government. Even if you accept the idea that 17 Saudis with box cutters can defeat the most powerful and expensive defense system ever seen in the history of humanity, you can't justify the cover-up. Hell, even members of the hand picked 911 commission resigned they were so disgusted with the procedures and insincere examination of the facts.The cynicism and distrust of the government has reached such a degree that people won't even take flu shots. How can a country stand when there is no faith left in our leaders. If it was the biggest crime, why was it buried? The destroyed evidence is IN ITSELF a crime.

Jay Wood

Trad climber

Land of God-less fools

Nov 18, 2011 - 09:55pm PT

Look at the video of bldg 7 collapse.

The side opposite the fires/damage, where there is no plane, no heat, no falling debris, falls to the ground in the same span of seconds.

Quibbling over temperatures obscures the fact that the majority of all three structures would not have had any heating at all, yet this mass of engineered steel is supposed to have collapsed like a house of cards because there was a fire on the other side of the building?