DanJohnson

I'll give it to you straight again: hot steel is weaker than cold steel. That's why steel is forged and formed with heat. When a passenger jet hits a building at 600 knots, it crashes through and severs structural columns, thus weaking the structure. Add fire to the columns that are still there, and those colums are also weakened to where they cannot support the load. You are right. Hot steel is weaker than cold steel however the steel in the towers was rated to maintain sufficient strength to support the structure even considering the temperatures which could have possibly been generated by the fires of 9-11 . As far as the aircraft (aluminum) impacting the structural steel columns.., have you ever played Rock , Paper ,Scissors?

If your argument were sound, then there would be no reason for the fireproofing (heat resistant/insulating) material to be covering the steel of such buildings. The grill analogy shows there is no need for it, right? Listen Sherlock , here is a clue. Steel doesn't catch fire . It is by nature "fire proof" . That being said steel is a Most Excellent conductor of heat. " Fireproofing" of steel is kinda of a misnomer. The "fireproofing" is meant to keep the steel from transfering high temperature to adjacent combustible materials. You FAIL !

***I don't know the answers to the questions I asked you. I most certainly don't know what things you don't agree with in the "don't add up" category. I asked the questions because some have asserted that it fell at freefall/near freefall acceleration. I say that it is critical to be more specific - to say how fast it did accelerate, and how fast it should have. Without that, then to say it fell too fast shows ignorance. So, have it if you can. Quote How fast *should* the buildings have collapsed seems to be your question. The buildings were designed to withstand an airliner crash and resulting fires. The buildings shouldn't collapse if those were the only factors so any speed of fall is way too fast. Now if you add explosives to the equation and knock out the structural support I would agree that they fell at the exact speed one would expect.

***Don't assume the reason I'm telling you you're wrong is because I don't know what part of the video you're referring to. I'm telling you you're wrong because you don't know what you're talking about and you're just making shit up. Quote Oh , so i should believe you instead of what my lying eyes witness in the video? I'm making up the girder flying off and accelerating horizontally in the video but you know to which part of the video I'm refering? The part where the steel member accelerates horizontally across the sky right? You must be right . The video is surely wrong. The video and I stand corrected. It could only have been A-rabs with boxcutters!

***Excellent videos. Also what people don't seem to notice is that during a controlled demolition you hear a series of explosions before the collapse. Listen to EVERY video of the towers collapsing and in none of them do you hear a series of explosions like you would in a controlled demolition. Why is that? Does the government have some super secret silent explosives? Is everyone in new york deaf? Do video camera microphones not pick up explosions? Come on people. Take off your tin foil hats and step out of your fantasy world and step back into reality. Like this?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y57qHmViTOg Watch at about 2;20 into the video and see if that sounds about right.

***If you're to lazy to find my number, then I'm too lazy to type rebuttals to your nonsense. Quote Whoa ho ho! Now I'm lazy!!! Should I just dial up the operator and tell her to give me grimmie. Is that how you are listed in the book? What a waste of time you are! We are talking about the most nation changing event of our lifertime and you are being coy like a 18 year old girl . Go home! I seek not your arms nor your counsel. May the chains of your servitude rest lightly on your shoulder.

No. Really? Yes, really. I've watched the video numerous times. Nothing shoots anywhere. You'll notice that not only does nothing "shoot away" it's not "perfectly straight down", "orderly", "structured", "with no resistance", or "straight down at near freefall speed" either. ***Got any more adjectives you want to through out there Apollodorus? No just watch again at the 16 second mark. looK at the left of the screen. None are so blind as those who can see.

Seeing a controlled demolition is actually quite commonplace. In fact it is likely the only kind of building collapse we have seen. Not remarkable then that many would think the WTC collapse resembled a controlled demolition. ***How fast (how close to 1g) did the towers fall? How fast (how close to 1g) should they have fallen? QuoteDo you know? I suspect you do. So why are you asking? Here is the question; considering the random events of fire and the chaos of an airplane strike would any one expect a syncronized failure of all 47 structural core columns? Twice in one day? And the 7 building , a totaly different design, and soley from fire?

***I have also never had it explained to me how a Government that cannot keep the most secret of secrets, even secret, keep 911 secret. This would require thousand's of people who would have to be in on it Quote Really? You don't believe that the government is capable of keeping secrets from you? Go Home! I seek not your arms nor your counsel. Bask in your percieved security. May the chains of your servitude rest easily on your shoulders.

Not at all. I believe an airliner hit each of the twin towers. I don;t believe that jet fuel burned hot enough and more importantly in a symetrical enough pattern as to simultaneously melt 47 steel columns resulting in a perfectly straight down freefall .., (wait for it) ..twice in one day. Fire is chaotic and random. The buildings each fell in an orderly and structured collapse. ***Have you ever seen an actual building demolition? The collapse of buildings in a controlled demolition start from the bottom not the top like they did in the WTC collapses. Both collapses in the WTC towers both start right at the point of impact of the planes as well. Quote Yes I have seen controlled demolition. Dan Rather had seen a number of them as well and even commented how closely the twinn towers resembled controlled demolition. Controlled demolition could be well "controlled" and easily choreaograghed as a top down. Fact is that witnesses report explosions in the basement even before the planes hit. All that aside how does one account for the pools of molten steel"like a foundry" as one firefighter describes it in the basement?

***No. Quote Really? youve watched the video you provided and don't see the steel member shoot horizontally at about the 16 second mark? Maybe it is that you don't want to see it. It would only complicate your life. Better to wear blinders and go about your buisiness. That is understandable and Go! I seek not your arms nor your counsel . Go home and bask in your percieved security. May the chains of your servitude rest lightly on your shoulders.

If the fires were hot enough to "weaken" steel how could he have been standing on the same floor as the fire and would a trained firefighter be likely to confuse a fire capable of weakening steel with an office fire easily put out with a couple of hoses? ***I think a few hundred people who jumped to their deaths rather than face the inferno any further disagreed with the assessment of a single trained professional. Quote and I would argue conselor that those people did not leap soley due to the heat. Smoke was a more motivating factor! As a matter of fact if the "inferno" was hot enough to melt steel those base jumpers would have been dead long before the count of three C-Ya !

***Call me. QuoteWell where is your number? But really we can have a discussion here unless you are scared to speak in an open discussion forum. So are you another guy who believes he knows more about the situation at the impact zone then the trained veteran firefighter on site?

It certainly could handle them the same way the Soviets handled KAL 007. Are you sure you'd prefer that collateral damage? LOL! !!! Cheney reports that on 9-11 he did give orders to shoot down any plane not complying with the mandatory stand down . Would I prefer 199 deaths instead of 3000? Absolutely! You? This doesn't actually solve the problem, since he wouldn't have given those shoot orders, or stand down orders, until after 3 of the planes at a minimum had crashed. No, if you wanted this prevented, then you'd need to have patrolling fighter planes in every metropolitan area and set very specific flight corridors, with any deviations met by stern resistance (read one warning and then a sidewinder launch). Private GA flying would need to be banned in populated areas. Already relegated out of major airports to the suburban/rural, now the flying would be equally restricted. ***And figure 1-2 planes shot down per year in error. Sound good, comrade? What ever it takes to keep us safe!!! Isn't that the mantra? Forget Freedom just give me security they say and damn the costs!!!

A couple posts up your questions were rather confusing as you referenced "conspiracy theorist" engineers which as I've attempted to explain may be either main stream conspiracy accepting engineers or alternative conspiracy accepting engineers. . If you would please re submit the questions in terms which are more easily differentiated I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have concerning the events of 9-11. I realize that those whobelieve in the main stream conspiracy theory have many questions as that theory simply does not add up and if you subtract to check your addition there are obviously missing integers. So fire away! I know all and I am here for you!

The top did begin to fall asymmetrically, but it did impact the lower floors in a way that caused all of it to fail. That you can't see how the two are compatible is not a surprise. There is a lot of stuff in the scientific/engineering realm that isn't intuitive. That is why not just anyone can design a building, or analyze why or how it failed. No matter how much you want it to be something naturally analyzed by the seat of your pants, it is not. So let me see if I am following you, The top (the portion above the impact zone) began to fall over to the side but suddenly all that below it just fell straight down at near freefall speed . Is that your take? What you've done is to describe it in a way that sounds implausible, at least to those that don't know what they don't know. You did say it fell at near freefall, but how close to freefall was it? How close to freefall have all the supposed engineers and scientists that support the conspiracy theory calculated that it should have fallen? Quote Before we go any further would you please refrain from refering to alternative theorists as "conspiracy theorists" as that term is somewhat confusing when attempting to dfifferrentiate between those who believe the main stream conspiracy theory and those who believe alternative conspiracy theories. Whether you believe that 19 A-rabs with box cutters brought down the twinn towers or there was a planned demolition event each is a "conspiracy theory". How about if in the future we agree to reference alternative theorists as ATs and the main stream believing theorists as MSs? Will that work and can we agree to do that in an attempt to facilitate rational discussion of 9-11?

So Futuredivot, for all the time you;ve spent in burning buildings how many steel structured buildings have you witnessed falling straight down due to fire? So just to review - when a fire fighter in a shitstorm makes a value judgement that proves to be wrong, you want to stick to his expert opinion. ***But when it comes to how a super skyscrapper collapses, you only want to use your layman's knowledge of structural engineering. Check. not at all ! If you;ll read with comprehension instead of that "gotcha" as the goal you may notice that I do ask for futurevdivots first hand experienced obsevration. What is your malfunction? Sorry if you've had a bad day. I hope tommorrow is better. Relax, get a drink of water, take a deep breath,relax!

Gravity, because they were probably barely stable they way they were, assuming it even happened as you saw in the vid Well look at the 16 second mark. Does one not appear to fold over and then suddenly be blown straight out horizontaly several hundred feet ? How would you reconcile that action with the theory that fire brought down the towers?

***Why else would they grab Dick and not bush? Quote LMOL!

You and I apparently subscribe to different definitions of "orderly and structured" and I don't think reconciling our definitions is worth my time. ...plus it irritates the pig. The videographer who shot the images captured a key detail. Note those core colums still standing 47 or more stories even after the collapse. Watch at about 16 secs into the video. does one fold over and then *shoot* away? What force later brought them down?

It certainly could handle them the same way the Soviets handled KAL 007. Are you sure you'd prefer that collateral damage? LOL! !!! Cheney reports that on 9-11 he did give orders to shoot down any plane not complying with the mandatory stand down . Would I prefer 199 deaths instead of 3000? Absolutely! You?

Do you think that'll hold up in court? I don't know. What I do know is that Dick Cheney is on the record reporting that the Secret Service grabbed him by the belt and the arm and forced him to a secure location. The President was left for about 20 minutes more in an unsecure location which had been announced to the world days earlier. Either the Secret Service knew he was not a target or they failed miserably despite all of their training to perform the one task for which they are assigned.

So Futuredivot, for all the time you;ve spent in burning buildings how many steel structured buildings have you witnessed falling straight down due to fire?

The top did begin to fall asymmetrically, but it did impact the lower floors in a way that caused all of it to fail. That you can't see how the two are compatible is not a surprise. There is a lot of stuff in the scientific/engineering realm that isn't intuitive. That is why not just anyone can design a building, or analyze why or how it failed. No matter how much you want it to be something naturally analyzed by the seat of your pants, it is not. So let me see if I am following you, The top (the portion above the impact zone) began to fall over to the side but suddenly all that below it just fell straight down at near freefall speed . Is that your take?

What time stamp would that be? The time stamp on the recording. Yes it is there on the BBC clip. Amazingly it is missing on the supposed security tapes the gov;t attempted to pass off as the hijackers going through the airport. Have you ever seen a security tape without a time stamp?