9/11 Conspiracy Theory Question

[jamesrwright3]

Hi James:



See what I mean? :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

I asked you questions in a prior post regarding the Pentagon
Please answer them

 

[Terral]

Hi James:

I asked you questions in a prior post regarding the Pentagon. Please answer them

James is my debating 'adversary' in these 911Truth deliberations and I could not care less about answering 'your' off-topic questions. If you really think James has an Official Cover Story Pentagon Case, then by all means do us all a big fat favor and start a thread on 'that' topic. Again, I have already answered Steezie's WTC-7 questions in Post #147 and have supported that 911Truth testimony by highlighting the inconsistencies in the Official Cover Story and the related Flight 93 and Flight 77 cases for the benefit of these 'unbiased' third-party readers and judges.

From my very well-informed 911Truth position, then James is nothing more than a deluded Loyal Bushie troll with nothing better to do than harass CF.com members with his name-calling rhetoric and nonsense. Try asking questions to your Loyal Bushie sidekicks and supporters in these debates, and perhaps they will be entertained by sharing their answers.

God knows you guys can make this bible thumper laugh out loud with the best of them. :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Terral, I must say that I admire your perseverance. Passion and perseverance coupled with patience are what defines true success from superficial successes. Quite often I am driven to the edge of giving up by ridicule such as that which James has presented. Ridicule builds a mighty wall, which even reason can find difficult to break down. And yet ridicule is often a defense employed by those who do not wish to hear any idea or notion that runs counter to their own accumulated opinions - the cognitive dissonance can be far too great. But I'm none-the-less pleased by your efforts, inspired even. Too often, through-out the pages of history, those who have sought truth have encountered sensitive lies and ridicule. But had it not been for their persistence, passion and patience, would the truth ever be made fully known? Would people even examine their own perceptions?

 

[Btodd]

The reason is that no precedent exists for 47 story steel-framed skyscrapers burning down and collapsing CD-style outside of 9/11. :0)

There's no precedent for 9/11 either, is there? Do you have another scenario where terrorists crashed two jetliners into a skyscraper at full speed? I didn't think so, so create another false dilemma.

Everyone here is aware of the 911Commission Report. Right? Okay then. My distinguished debating adversaries have every opportunity to use that 585 Page Report to support their “Building Fires/Debris Did It” case. Right? Wrong! :0) Those Loyal Bushie LIARS never bothered to mention the WTC-7 controlled demolition, even though the skyscraper was not hit by any plane and is 350 feet from the nearest of the Twin Towers. Then these guys have the NIST Report to use in making their “Building Fires Did It” case. Right? Wrong! Anyone can go to the Wiki page and see “NIST anticipates the release of a draft report of 7 World Trade Center in 2008.” The top of the

NIST Official Website Page says, “NOTE: The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete. The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available.” If these so-called ‘experts’ cannot conclude that WTC-7 was taken down by Building Fires/Debris, then how do James, Todd and Steezie draw that conclusion and from what evidence? :0)

You're not arguing that ONLY WTC 7 was demolished, but that all three were. If you can't evidence how the first two were demolished, then a WTC 7 demolition makes even less sense (and it makes NONE in the first place, since it occurred hours later after being evacuated, and they announced the collapse before it did). I assume you are going with the usual idea that they blew up an entire building because there were some damning computer files, right? Yeah, good one.

No sir. These WTC-7 trolls have NO CASE and no ‘goalposts’ to even move around. If you really want to understand the reason for all of the combined whining by my distinguished debating adversaries, then here it is in a nutshell:

The Apostle Paul’s teaching on the “Mystery of Iniquity” (2Thes. 2:7-12) has MUCH more application to these 9/11 events than many realize. The ‘god of this world’ is blinding the minds of the unbelieving (2Cor. 4:3-4) and forcing them to “believe what is false” (2Thes. 2:11) all of their days and NOTHING anyone here says or does will allow them to see ‘the Light.’ Period! Some of you see an empty 20-feet diameter hole in this picture like I do, but those blinded by the “deluding influence” will claim a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in that empty field no matter how many times you show them the ‘clear evidence’ saying otherwise. The Wiki Site has a high resolution picture (here) where you can zoom in and look at things very up-close and personal, but there is still no 100 Jetliner crashed anywhere. In fact, the grass is growing all the way down to the bottom of the hole (pic), but these guys are blinded by Loyal Bushie/DoD/FBI Disinformation and Propaganda with NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in this empty field.

The same goes for the Flight 77 case where no 100-Ton Jetliner ever crashed (CNN News Video) (my thread and another). You will find that the same ‘deluded’ (heh) trolls acting out in these WTC-7 deliberations also believe a real 100-Ton Jetliner crashed in the empty Shanksville field ‘and’ at the Pentagon, because that is what the ‘deluding influence’ is forcing them to see. You are witnessing the “Grand Delusion” being perpetuated by the “god of this world” and his “deluding influence” using Senor Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Larry Silverstein, the joint-chiefs, NORAD, FEMA, 911Commission cronies, NIST cronies, ACAAR cronies and their cohorts to spread nothing more than Official Cover Story LIES. These readers stand between all of these LIARS ‘and’ my presentations of ‘the’ 911Truth to make up their own minds about what really happened on 9/11. I quite frankly do not care one way or the other what any of you believe, but my obligation to the members of Christ’s Body and to ‘the’ Truth have been served.

If you want to sit there and claim 100-Ton Jetliners crashed where NONE ever crashed, then go right ahead and follow that NONSENSE. While I disagree with everything coming from the mouths of these deluded souls, I will stand and defend their right to present their points of view in these discussions. This Board was founded upon the principle that every registered member has the right to give his or her side of the story from ‘their’ perspective and everyone else can make up their own minds for themselves.

If all these 9/11 trolls can do is whine and cry like babies, with no case for anything, then by golly that is their God-given right, so long as they obey the posted COC guidelines governing these deliberations. Our Lord Jesus Christ said it best, saying, “Father, forgive them; for they DO NOT know what they are doing.” Luke 23:34.

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

Awesome! You've connected belief in 9/11 Truth with being a good follower of Jebus, and belief in reality as being 'blinded by Satan'. Not only are you going to throw in unnecessary steps for the buildings collapsing, like controlled demolitions on top of thermate demolitions, but you're going to even throw in some supernatural causes too! It was Satan + controlled demolitions + thermate demolitions. Will that be in a peer-reviewed paper submitted by AE911Truth.....you know, the Satan defense paper?

Now we see the depth of that 'expert' analysis. Thank you for going completely off the deep end, and proving what a joke your organization is. The best part is that you can use this argument to rebut anyone who believes in evolution, too......it's Satan's fault!

I can't wait to see Steven Jones' Mormon-influenced ideas on the matter. Perhaps Jebus left us clues when he visited Missouri?

Also: Is 'Bushie Loyalist' an engineering or architectural term? Just wondering.


Btodd

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Actually, there has been a peer-reviewed paper submitted to The Open Civil Engineering Journal, beginning with "Fourteen Points of Agreement with... (long title)."

 

[Btodd]

Actually, there has been a peer-reviewed paper submitted to The Open Civil Engineering Journal, beginning with "Fourteen Points of Agreement with... (long title)."

A few points regarding this public-relations stunt.

1. It's an open-access journal in which you pay $600 to publish your work in.
2. Since they're constantly called out on refusing to submit any work to peer review, they submitted a paper that IS IN AGREEMENT with NIST and FEMA, so they could say, 'The 9/11 Truth Movement has submitted its ideas to peer-review', while they haven't. They've submitted NIST's and FEMA's ideas.
3. No controlled demolition hypothesis, nor any thermate hypothesis, has ever been submitted to peer-review.
4. None of the people submitting to a civil engineering journal are civil engineers! Nor even engineers at all! David Ray Griffin is a freaking THEOLOGIAN.

This still reeks of public relations fraud. What would you do if NIST released a science paper, and included a theologian as a scientist? I hope you would be outraged. This is still the type of blatant dishonesty that would make the Discovery Institute proud.


Btodd

 

[Archaeopteryx]

By the sounds of it, you have even read the article. Because if you had, then you would be aware that Griffin is not one of the authors, at all. And the abstract states that: "In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses." The Letter clearly desires to highlight what it can validate about ideas that NIST and FEMA has presented and what it cannot - therefore, what it can scrutinize and leave the door open to further dialogue, research and discussion. Isn't that a good thing? I mean, what harm could come from further research and deeper investigation? We are after the truth are we not? Are you trying to shift the goalposts by declaring that now that there is a peer-reviewed journal article, it STILL isn't satisfactory to your standards. http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/governement-apologists-keep-moving-goal.html

 

[Btodd]

By the sounds of it, you have even read the article. Because if you had, then you would be aware that Griffin is not one of the authors, at all.

I stand corrected. I read the authors, and then noticed Griffin as a source at the end, and erroneously remembered him as a fellow author.

And the abstract states that: "In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses." The Letter clearly desires to highlight what it can validate about ideas that NIST and FEMA has presented and what it cannot - therefore, what it can scrutinize and leave the door open to further dialogue, research and discussion. Isn't that a good thing? I mean, what harm could come from further research and deeper investigation?

Sure, if they want to do further research......tell them to get to it. And when they're done with it, submit it to a peer-reviewed science journal.

If Steven Jones wants to present his thermate ideas, let him present the science to relevant experts, and let's start the scientific process. This is a publicity stunt, designed to give them the credibility they wish for, by simply stating agreement with someone else's actual work. His previous response to this problem was to create his own journal, and call it peer-reviewed. Honesty and integrity is not one of his greater priorities.

We are after the truth are we not? Are you trying to shift the goalposts by declaring that now that there is a peer-reviewed journal article, it STILL isn't satisfactory to your standards. http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/governement-apologists-keep-moving-goal.html

[/quote]

This isn't shifting the goalposts, because we weren't asking them to present NIST's work for peer-review. We want them to submit THEIR OWN.

Again, they haven't put any of their ideas to peer review....they've simply re-stated NIST's and FEMA's work, and said, 'We agree with that'. Do you really think that is impressive on any level?

They merely want to be able to say 'We've published peer-reviewed articles' in response to our objections, and you're now boasting of it in the manner they hoped for. But if their article simply re-states NIST and FEMA, they haven't done anything.

But now they can say, 'Peer reviewed journal'. It's a public relations stunt. If Steven Jones had published his thermate nonsense for peer review, you would have a point. He won't do that, and so we 'debunkers' have a point. If his work is credible, then submit it to peer review. Don't bother co-opting someone else's work in order to claim peer-review.

The Discovery Institute mostly believes in evolution, too.....they just think God jumped in the process every so often. If they were to publish a peer-reviewed article that simply agrees with some of Richard Dawkins' work, and skip the crucial part- the part about the designer, would they have done anything?


Btodd

 

[jamesrwright3]

Hi James:



James is my debating 'adversary' in these 911Truth deliberations and I could not care less about answering 'your' off-topic questions. If you really think James has an Official Cover Story Pentagon Case, then by all means do us all a big fat favor and start a thread on 'that' topic. Again, I have already answered Steezie's WTC-7 questions in Post #147 and have supported that 911Truth testimony by highlighting the inconsistencies in the Official Cover Story and the related Flight 93 and Flight 77 cases for the benefit of these 'unbiased' third-party readers and judges.

From my very well-informed 911Truth position, then James is nothing more than a deluded Loyal Bushie troll with nothing better to do than harass CF.com members with his name-calling rhetoric and nonsense. Try asking questions to your Loyal Bushie sidekicks and supporters in these debates, and perhaps they will be entertained by sharing their answers.

God knows you guys can make this bible thumper laugh out loud with the best of them. :0)

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

LOL are you still saying a plane didn't hit the Pentagon? If so, how did the plane parts get there? Why were there hundreds of witnesses that saw the plane? You are a joke and a parody at the same time

 

[Steezie]

If Steezie wants to try and prove that “Building Fires / Debris” brought down WTC-7 in 6.6 seconds, then give us your best shot.

I never claimed it was entirely the fires or entirely the debris. Its a combination of the two plus the impact of millions of tons of rubble on its foundations.

There are only TWO explanations for what took WTC-7 down into its own footprint (Controlled Demolition and Building Fires / Debris) and my case was made above. Yes. I am very interested to see how a welder defends the “Building Fires Did It” theory. :0)

Concentrate enough heat for long enough on exposed steel structural beams and you will weaken them enough to cause failure, especially if the system of support is comprimised by having parts of itself torn out

No sir. You are attempting to spout off Loyal Bushie LIES having no basis in structural steel reality whatsoever.

**Snort** Bud, if you're callin' me a "Bushie" then your pay attention skills are apparently lacking.

We are NOT talking about how a little piece of iron acts in your controlled laboratory situations!

And neither am I. I've worked with structural steel in non-labratory conditions out in the dirt and dust. I've seen what it can do under heat.

By the way, Im not talking about iron either. A36 is structural steel which does contain, but is not exclusively composed of, iron.

We ARE talking about how 2800-degree structural red iron steel (like this only much bigger) behaves in a steel-framed network (like this)!

You...have no idea what you're talking about do you? "Red iron steel"? Can you even tell me what grade that steel is? Whats the carbon content?

WTC-7 was comprised of thousands of massive columns (like this), girders, beams (some 9 feet tall) bolted and welded together into one massive network (like this). This means that any heat energy introduced to any given component would be spread out evenly throughout the entire steel-framed network. There is NO SUCH THING as one of these network components ‘losing strength’

Provided the heat was introduced slow enough to give it time to spread out over the structure. If the heat was introduced faster than the thermal conduction rate of the steel then you have heat concentrating in one area that will weaken the steel. Thats why a cutting torch works, because it very quickly introduces a large ammount of heat to a very specific area to punch through the metal and cut a small part before the rest of the steel melts.

Also, thermal expansion, in a rigid system, can cause failure. Thermal expansion is an inherant quality of metals and if you have a system thats under great stress and held together tightly, failure of one component can, if the design is ill-suited, cause failure of the whole structure.

at any 900 degrees, because the heat energy never remains in any one location long enough to weaken anything.

Again if that were true then I couldnt cut an I beam twenty feet long in half without heating the entire beam up to just under melting. And since I have successfully cut steel I beams many times without doing so I would then have to conclude that you are, in fact, wrong.

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat and the heat energy in any given column would be transported ‘away’ from the heat source to heat the ENTIRE NETWORK. While your single column or beam is heating up to 300 degrees, then the energy is passing into the adjacent beams more quickly than the fire can introduce more energy into the network. Building fires simply do NOT have sufficient energy to produce the kinds of temperatures required to bring down ANY steel framed network. Period!

Wow...I just...I dont know where to start. This...has got to be the most off-base post I have seen in a while.

Again, as someone who's job it is to know this, I dont know why you DONT, but if "wrong" was money my friend you'd be a millionare.

Steel is a TERRIBLE conductor of heat. SILVER is an excellent heat conductor and a sample of pure iron has only 16% of the thermal conductivity of the same sized sample of silver and steel is worse yet with just under 11%.(Metals and How To Weld Them, James F. Lincon Welding Foundation)

Your job is to show us how building fires ‘severed’ literally thousands of connections in this steel-framed network simultaneously causing WTC-7 to symmetrical collapse into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds.

Its a cascade effect. One failure causes two, two causes four etc etc. When you have an un-stable structural system under high pressure, one failure CAN bring the structure down. Does it happen often? No it doesnt. Is it impossible? Not at all.

Your problem is that WTC-7 was built using Compartmentalization of all steel supports (see 5.3.3 Compartmentalization) using solid concrete slabs horizontally ‘and’ curtain walls (2 to 10 inches thick) vertically. This means any given building fire is contained within concrete boundaries to extinguish the fuel source WITHOUT having the ability to pass through into the adjacent sub-compartments. Your next problem is that WTC-7 had very little in the way of building fires (video) that were limited to just a few floors. :0)

Compartmentalization is a great method of building a steel skyscraper provided that no supporting sections from somewhere in the middle or bottom fail.

If you have a compartmentalized system that is intact, its very strong. However if you start knocking pieces out, it looses much of its strength. Most people think of it like a Jenga tower, pull pieces out and inevitably it will fall to the side. Thats not how it works. A tower is designed with each level to support the weight of the levels above it. But its designed to support that weight as a static force.

That static force is being held up by colums that evenly distribute the weight and share the load. When colums begin to fail or are knocked out, you un-balance the load and the more colums you lose, the greater your chance of failure. Eventually the colums cannot support the weight above them anymore and fail. The force that WAS a static force has now become a dynamic force and the lower structures were not designed to cope with that sort of force.

A good example. Take a 20lb weight and hoist it above your head. Simple, right? Its not moving, constant force. Now have your friend drop that 20lb weight from even a few feet above your head and catch it with your hands. You'll probably drop it or break your arms. The only thing you've done is given the object velocity. That alone, when you're talking about billions of tons of concrete, can overcome the upward force of support colums, especially if they are weakend by fire.

Your problem is that steel-framed skyscrapers have burned like a Roman Candle for over 24 hours without any CD-like collapse (Madrid story = pic).

Madrid also didnt have any supporting colums torn out, fireproofing knocked off, or its foundation shaken.

Go ahead and try to explain how “Building Fires Did It.” :0)

I just did

Please help me stop laughing . . . WTC-7 was NOT hit by any Jetliner or anything similar! Also, as a welder, you should know ‘sustained’ temperatures are required to begin cutting massive red iron connections.

My mistake, I mixed up the tower names. And depending on the heat involved and the stresses on the metal already, that "sustained" can be as long as hours or as short as seconds

Building fires have NEVER caused the symmetrical collapse of ANY steel-framed skyscraper in the history of this planet before or after 9/11

Riddle me this, how many situations like 9/11 have we had prior TO 9/11?

If you want to continue embarrassing yourself with all of this “plane” and “jet fuel” nonsense, then please be my guest.

And as I explained, I mixed up building names, it was my error and I have corrected it.


I would like to address something that goes to your competency. You CLAIM you are a demolitions supervisor yet you show no technical knowledge on the subject, you use terms that have no meaning, the science behind metals and their behavior seems to elude you....I cant help but think if I handed you a rope of 500 grain det cord you'd try to climb a mountain with it. I dont think you know anything about this subject and I think you lied initially to make yourself seem more credible.

 

[Btodd]

I would like to address something that goes to your competency. You CLAIM you are a demolitions supervisor yet you show no technical knowledge on the subject, you use terms that have no meaning, the science behind metals and their behavior seems to elude you....I cant help but think if I handed you a rope of 500 grain det cord you'd try to climb a mountain with it. I dont think you know anything about this subject and I think you lied initially to make yourself seem more credible.
[/size][/font]

That's AE911Truth in a nutshell.


Btodd

 

[Terral]

Hi James:

LOL are you still saying a plane didn't hit the Pentagon? If so, how did the plane parts get there? Why were there hundreds of witnesses that saw the plane? You are a joke and a parody at the same time

My views on that topic appear here with the Topic that got me banned from LooseChange posted here. for your viewing pleasure. For the last time: If you have a "Flight 77 Crashed Into The Pentagon" case to make using anything 'you' call credible evidence, then start that thread and I will be more than happy to write my rebuttals to that nonsense.

Nobody here is taking up that challenge, because nobody here has that kind of CASE (the 6 minute expert testimony video). Period! Please try to prove me wrong. :0)

Are we chicken or what? Heh . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi Steezie:

I never claimed it was entirely the fires or entirely the debris. Its a combination of the two plus the impact of millions of tons of rubble on its foundations.

Bullony! The Controlled Demolition collapse (link) had to be ‘initiated’ by ‘severing’ thousands of bolted and welded red iron steel connections comprised of 2800-degree columns (like these) and beams and girders (up to 9 feet tall) and bar-joists making up the steel-frame network. The ‘impact’ of millions of tons of rubble takes place ‘after’ those connections are already severed making your explanation just as false as any can be. BTW, your Opening Post contains ‘questions’ for which you received an answer in Post #147 . . .

Concentrate enough heat for long enough on exposed steel structural beams and you will weaken them enough to cause failure, especially if the system of support is comprimised by having parts of itself torn out.

Hopefully your ‘case’ has more substance than your mere assertions of this post. WTC-7 was struck by no Jetliner and the pictures taken during the collapse show no signs of fire or even a broken window (pic from this website). You are rambling aimlessly about ‘enough heat’ (heh) speaking to a third-generation builder with over 30 years of commercial building demolition experience knowing full well that you have no idea of what you are even talking about. Take one gander at the size of the massive steel columns and beams we are talking about (pic and pic), then explain how all of these connections were ‘severed’ to reduce a 47-story overbuilt steel-framed skyscraper (pic) into this tiny little pile (pic) in 6.6 seconds (video). Look at the faces of the adjacent buildings to realize WTC-7 collapsed ‘symmetrically’ straight down into its own footprint! Then try to explain how that is even possible using 800-degree building fires (SchwabCorp/UL link) to sever 2800-degree steel connections (nothing but pure fantasy).

**Snort** Bud, if you're callin' me a "Bushie" then your pay attention skills are apparently lacking.

At this point Steezie is a guy with a few WTC-7 questions . . . The “Loyal Bushies” (link) around here are those regurgitating “Official Cover Story LIES” that WTC-7 collapsed from building fires/debris.

And neither am I. I've worked with structural steel in non-labratory conditions out in the dirt and dust. I've seen what it can do under heat.

None of your laboratory experiments on steel segments mean ANYTHING at all in this debate, as red iron within a steel-framed network conducts heat ‘away’ from any building fire fuel source into the cooler areas of the network. Here is a challenge to everyone here: I will give you tons of red iron steel (like this) and 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (kerosene) and you head off to your laboratory to produce one of these WTC biscuits (pic). You will blacken a few red iron segments and melt NOTHING, because the temperatures of burning hydrocarbons do NOT burn hot enough to melt iron. Period! Watch the video.

By the way, Im not talking about iron either. A36 is structural steel which does contain, but is not exclusively composed of, iron.

Someone please help me stop laughing . . .

You...have no idea what you're talking about do you? "Red iron steel"? Can you even tell me what grade that steel is? Whats the carbon content?

Who cares? 800 degrees building fires do NOT burn hot enough to melt or weaken 2800-degree structural red iron steel! The fact that you want to engineer ‘weak’ red iron components to accommodate ‘your’ bogus ‘Building Fires Did It’ nonsense is ‘your problem’ and not mine. :0) If you have a “Building Fires Did It” case to make, then by all means MAKE IT and stop asking ridiculous questions . . . The funny part is you resent being called a "Loyal Bushie," but then set out to regurgitate his very same LIES about this WTC-7 case. :0)

Provided the heat was introduced slow enough to give it time to spread out over the structure. If the heat was introduced faster than the thermal conduction rate of the steel then you have heat concentrating in one area that will weaken the steel.

If frogs had wings, they would not bump their butts every time they hop! :0) “The heat” you are talking about from building fires simply do not burn hot enough to melt one component of any red iron steel-frame network. Period! The adjacent steel components ‘transfer’ the heat energy ‘away’ from the fuel source more rapidly than new energy can be introduced into the network, so sustained temperatures ‘above’ 800 degrees are very much IMPOSSIBLE.

Thats why a cutting torch works, because it very quickly introduces a large ammount of heat to a very specific area to punch through the metal and cut a small part before the rest of the steel melts.

Lord-Have-Mercy . . . Cutting torches utilize controlled amounts of oxygen and compressed gasses (wiki) that must be calibrated and set perfectly to achieve sustained temperatures ‘above’ 2800 degrees. Are you now saying that someone ran around and ‘cut’ thousands of the WTC-7 connections using a cutting torch? :0) No sir. You are just talking . . .

Also, thermal expansion, in a rigid system, can cause failure. Thermal expansion is an inherant quality of metals and if you have a system thats under great stress and held together tightly, failure of one component can, if the design is ill-suited, cause failure of the whole structure.

LOL! Thermal expansion? We are talking about a massive 47-story overbuilt skyscraper and a few building fires . . . Anyone buying your story based upon nothing is far beyond the reach of any 911Truth lifeline (my 911Truth.org WTC-7 Thread) from me . . . Perhaps you should continue asking the questions . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[jamesrwright3]

Hi James:



My views on that topic appear here with the Topic that got me banned from LooseChange posted here. for your viewing pleasure. For the last time: If you have a "Flight 77 Crashed Into The Pentagon" case to make using anything 'you' call credible evidence, then start that thread and I will be more than happy to write my rebuttals to that nonsense.

Nobody here is taking up that challenge, because nobody here has that kind of CASE (the 6 minute expert testimony video). Period! Please try to prove me wrong. :0)

Are we chicken or what? Heh . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

Dude you have been proven wrong. You are denser than lead.

You avoid questions
Explain the pictures of plane debris on the Pentagon lawn and the hundreds of witnesses that saw a plane.

We are waiting. If you avoid the question, you concede the debate

Checkmate. You lose

 

[Steezie]

Bullony! The Controlled Demolition collapse (link) had to be ‘initiated’ by ‘severing’ thousands of bolted and welded red iron steel connections comprised of 2800-degree columns (like these) and beams and girders (up to 9 feet tall) and bar-joists making up the steel-frame network. The ‘impact’ of millions of tons of rubble takes place ‘after’ those connections are already severed making your explanation just as false as any can be. BTW, your Opening Post contains ‘questions’ for which you received an answer in Post #147 . . .

As the structure starts to lean one way, you put tension strength on beams that were never meant for that much tension.

In engineering, things are under one of two forces. Tension, which is a pulling force, and compression, which is a pushing force. Steel buildings are designed to withstand massive compression forces but very limited tension forces. As colums give way or weaken, loads are shifted to other columns, which un-balances the load they have to hold. This puts other beams into much greater compression than they were designed for and others into greater tension than they were designed for. The result is a large systemic failure as the load of the above floors gets transfered around to columns and groups of columns that were not built to hold that much weight.

Hopefully your ‘case’ has more substance than your mere assertions of this post. the pictures taken during the collapse show no signs of fire or even a broken window (pic from this website).

Thats also the OPPOSITE side of the tower that the damage was on and if theres no sign of fire, I'd ask what the smoke billowing from the roof was.

You are rambling aimlessly about ‘enough heat’ (heh) speaking to a third-generation builder with over 30 years of commercial building demolition experience

And see Im having the hardest time believing you because if you actually were what you claim you are, you'd actually understand what I was talking about. You use terms like "red iron" thats not even a term or a classification, its not even the right MATERIAL.

Take one gander at the size of the massive steel columns and beams we are talking about (pic and pic), then explain how all of these connections were ‘severed’ to reduce a 47-story overbuilt steel-framed skyscraper (pic) into this tiny little pile (pic) in 6.6 seconds (video). Look at the faces of the adjacent buildings to realize WTC-7 collapsed ‘symmetrically’ straight down into its own footprint! Then try to explain how that is even possible using 800-degree building fires (SchwabCorp/UL link) to sever 2800-degree steel connections (nothing but pure fantasy).

I already explained it in my previous post

None of your laboratory experiments on steel segments mean ANYTHING at all in this debate

Wow...you dont listen to a thing Im saying do you?

as red iron within a steel-framed network conducts heat ‘away’ from any building fire fuel source into the cooler areas of the network. Here is a challenge to everyone here: I will give you tons of red iron steel (like this) and 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (kerosene) and you head off to your laboratory to produce one of these WTC biscuits (pic). You will blacken a few red iron segments and melt NOTHING, because the temperatures of burning hydrocarbons do NOT burn hot enough to melt iron. Period! Watch the video.

Apparently not. I've already addressed this.

Who cares?

I do, you're the big bad demolitions dude, I want to see some of your knowlege.

800 degrees building fires do NOT burn hot enough to melt or weaken 2800-degree structural red iron steel! The fact that you want to engineer ‘weak’ red iron components to accommodate ‘your’ bogus ‘Building Fires Did It’ nonsense is ‘your problem’ and not mine. :0) If you have a “Building Fires Did It” case to make, then by all means MAKE IT and stop asking ridiculous questions . . . The funny part is you resent being called a "Loyal Bushie," but then set out to regurgitate his very same LIES about this WTC-7 case. :

This is ridiculous.

Jet A (Which is the most commonly used jet fuel in the US) burns at just under 1800 degrees F. Fuel that with plastics, cleaning fluids, computers, carpets, paper, desks, and you have a fire of probably 2000 degrees. A36 structural steel melts at 2600-2800 F. A36 is a low-carbon steel and low carbon steels can be heated to even white-hot with very little loss of strength...provided there is no or low stress load on it. However once it starts approaching the 2000 F mark, it beings losing strength under pressure and will fail.

You arent even reading what Im writing and you have shown no actual knowlege of what you claim you've done for 30 years. You've attacked me personally, used made-up terms, and flat ignored massive problems with your own theory.

As in the OP, why did no one hear the explosions?

 

[Terral]

Hi Steezie:

As the structure starts to lean one way, you put tension strength on beams that were never meant for that much tension.

More hypothetical NONSENSE. WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition, just like over 400 architects and engineers say (here) and just like the Scholars For Truth say (here) . Steezie started this thread asking questions, but now he insists that ‘his answers’ are the right ones. :0) None of your ‘lean one way’ nonsense means anything in any “Building Fires/Debris Did It” Explanation. You pretend that Demolition Experts toss in a can of gas and run like heck, until the 47-story skyscraper starts leaning to fall down into its own footprint. Where is your precedent for that kind of NONSENSE? :0)

In engineering, things are under one of two forces. Tension, which is a pulling force, and compression, which is a pushing force. Steel buildings are designed to withstand massive compression forces but very limited tension forces.

Let me see here . . . the professional architects and engineers over at AE911Truth.org are all wrong ‘and’ WTC-7 could NOT have possibly be taken down using Controlled Demolition, like ALL the evidence says, because . . . .??? Go right ahead and fill in the blank! :0) Rambling off nonsense about steel buildings and compression forces (heh) is doing nothing to make your “Building Fires/Debris Did It” case . . .

As colums give way or weaken, loads are shifted to other columns, which un-balances the load they have to hold.

Really? Is that why we have a dozen or two dozen steel-framed skyscrapers fall down every day from shifting loads? :0) Here is a picture (pic) of the Madrid skyscraper that burned for over a day and did not fall down (story). Here is a picture (pic) of WTC-7 collapsing freefall speed into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds (pick any WTC-7 collapsing video). Again, where is your precedent for ANY steel-framed skyscraper burning down or collapsing under shifting loads or from anything else? Good Luck!

This puts other beams into much greater compression than they were designed for and others into greater tension than they were designed for. The result is a large systemic failure as the load of the above floors gets transfered around to columns and groups of columns that were not built to hold that much weight.

Bullony! This guy just talks, talks and keeps on talking about shifting loads and NONSENSE, as if steel-framed skyscrapers are designed and built to the specifications of a house of cards!

Thats also the OPPOSITE side of the tower that the damage was on and if theres no sign of fire, I'd ask what the smoke billowing from the roof was.

Now your case is even weaker than before! WTC-7collapsed ‘symmetrically’ (WTC7.net) straight down into its own footprint. You claim that building fires and debris damaged just ‘one’ side, but the entire structure collapsed straight down and did NOT lean towards your damaged side. Of course ‘your’ side of this debate will ask a thousand questions, because your “Building Fires/Debris Did It” explanation has more holes than Swiss Cheese. :0)

And see Im having the hardest time believing you because if you actually were what you claim you are, you'd actually understand what I was talking about. You use terms like "red iron" thats not even a term or a classification, its not even the right MATERIAL.

You cannot be serious! Please forgive if I must step outside to bend over laughing again . . . Now I must educate my “Building Fires/Debris Did It” debating adversary about red iron structural steel . . .

SteelBuilding.com

Primed Versus Galvanized Components

Despite some exaggerated claims to the contrary, steel that is protected by red-oxide primer is a better product than galvanized steel for the vast majority of builders. That is why "red iron" is used in most commercial construction -- from sheds to skyscrapers.

The forklift (have you heard of those?) is lifting a large section of ‘red iron’ structural steel (pic) over on the right, if Steezie wants to take a little time and look around. You can see the differences between Galvanized Steel and “Red Iron” Steel on this webpage (link) to note their use of the “Quotes” around “Red Iron,” because THAT is the commonly used term for the same steel columns and beams used in ALL steel-framed skyscrapers. I provided you with a picture of ‘red iron’ structural steel with this picture (pic), but apparently you did not connect the dots. The difference is that these WTC skyscrapers were built using MASSIVE steel components like this:

AMNY.com Gallery:

This is the caption beside Pic #1

Large pieces of steel called tridents recovered from the World Trade Center site, and once a structural part of the ground level exterior arches of the twin towers, are preserved in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport. There are about 1,350 pieces of steel, many weighing over 30 tons. (Photo by Lane Johnson)

And yet, Mr. Steezie is going to sit there and claim that “Building Fires/Debris Did It,” as if massive columns and beams weighing over 30 tons each are leaning and swaying from loads (heh), as if building fires can introduce enough heat into these columns to cause a catastrophic collapse. :0)

I already explained it in my previous post. Wow...you dont listen to a thing Im saying do you? Apparently not. I've already addressed this.

I am quoting your every word and there are no supported statements ANYWHERE. You are the guy asking questions about WTC-7 in the Opening Post. Right? Okay then. I am sorry you do not even know what ‘red iron’ means and that your “Building Fires/Debris Did It” case has no precedent in the history of this planet. I am sorry the professionals at AE911Truth.org and ScholarsForTruth.org all agree with me.

I do, you're the big bad demolitions dude, I want to see some of your knowlege. This is ridiculous.

I would settle for a debating adversary that knows what ‘red iron’ means in this WTC-7 debate . . . or a guy that can actually spell “knowledge.” :0) Please provide two websites (like AE911Truth.org and ScholarsForTruth.org) where we can run through ‘their’ Building Fires/Debris Did It explanations for how WTC-7 collapsed CD-style into its own footprint. Perhaps that would help your flimsy case. :0)

Jet A (Which is the most commonly used jet fuel in the US) burns at just under 1800 degrees F.

Oh, so now you are saying a Jetliner struck WTC-7! That is really funny too . . . I cannot stand this any longer . . . My side is going to bust . . .

In Christ Jesus,

Terral

 

[oldbetang]

More hypothetical NONSENSE. WTC-7 was taken down using Controlled Demolition,

Yup! Hypothetical nonsense!

 

[Steezie]

Ok since you've flat ignored half of what I said, I have chopped out large sections of your response. I've removed what I've already answered.

Let me see here . . . the professional architects and engineers over at AE911Truth.org are all wrong ‘and’ WTC-7 could NOT have possibly be taken down using Controlled Demolition, like ALL the evidence says, because . . . .??? Go right ahead and fill in the blank! :0) Rambling off nonsense about steel buildings and compression forces (heh) is doing nothing to make your “Building Fires/Debris Did It” case . . .

Let me see their credentials and qualifications.

Also, why is what they say MORE valid than the architects and engineers that agree that 9/11 was not a demo?

Okay then. I am sorry you do not even know what ‘red iron’ means

I have never in my years of welding heard of the term "red iron". I have never heard any professional person in any capacity use that term EVER. It is, at best, slang. And incorrect slang at that.

Please provide two websites (like AE911Truth.org and ScholarsForTruth.org) where we can run through ‘their’ Building Fires/Debris Did It explanations for how WTC-7 collapsed CD-style into its own footprint.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fahrenheit-2777

http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk27.html


Ok, so lets entertain your idea for a moment.

Explain these very serious problems with your demo theory

One, you would have to tear out and remove large sections of structure, drywall, and offices to get at the structural components necessary to plant explosives. How do you do this and NOT disrupt or even hint to the people in the office that this is going on?

Two, as you should know, demolition explosives are extremely loud and can be heard, definitively, for miles around. Why were no such explosions heard by MILLIONS of people or caught by any verifiable video source or siesmic source?

 

[Btodd]

Steezie, you're wasting your time. Terral doesn't get banned from forums for being a reasonable person with intellectual integrity. He's a member of AE911Truth, the antithesis of honesty and integrity.

You're talking to someone who repeatedly throws out electrical engineers and landscape architects as 'experts' on structural engineering and controlled demolitions.

It doesn't matter how many times you tell him that the collapse was a combination of structural damage, fire damage and gravity.....he's still going to characterize it as if you said 'fires melted the steel and the building came down'. There is no honesty coming from Terral, ever.

There's no debate here, and it's much like what Richard Dawkins says about debating Creationists......they simply want a public platform, and we give it to them. If it were a real science issue, they would be doing science and taking part in the scientific method. This is about appealing to the public in order to circumvent science.....just like Creationism and Intelligent Design.

If these 'architects and engineers' had relevant scientific arguments to make, they would submit their science to peer-reviewed journals. They won't do it. Ever. This game will be played out ad nauseum, until it resembles the Kennedy assassination crap of today.....just another tired conspiracy theory that people wasted much of their lives on.

You will get no answer about where those explosions that signify a controlled demolition were on 9/11. He's going to simply ignore that, and ask you more questions, throw out some more LOL's, and think he's done something special.

And don't forget.....at the base of his thinking, you can't grasp the truth, because you are being blinded by Satan. There's no rational argument to be had with such a nutball. Leave him with the Creationists, the Holocaust Deniers, and the Moon Landing people.....where he belongs.


Btodd

 

[Steezie]

Steezie, you're wasting your time. Terral doesn't get banned from forums for being a reasonable person with intellectual integrity. He's a member of AE911Truth, the antithesis of honesty and integrity.

He's ably demonstrated that by lying about his profession. It just...I guess its hard to get my head around how someone who is so committed to what they believe they wont even consider other options