[Vote] Who did 911?

[Spendulus]

they are ''working'' on a new zionist country (Ukraine)....
zionist hater isnt Jew hater.
Jew's are good peoples, bud zion movement...

So far what I've figured out on this thread is that zionist haters can't use google, can't think simple things out about metal like any guy on an oil rig would immediately know, can't spell, love to talk about their hate, can't work problems at the level of high school chemistry or high school physics, think Non Muslims did 911, make up weird conspiracy theories about the Evil JOOOOEEESSS (but of course it's not the Jews, it's the Zio), like to chop off hands and feet of thieves, like to talk about their Perfect Religion, and like to stone women to death.

I'm glad I am an atheist, and not a hater.

[1715207982]

1715207982

[1715207982]

1715207982

[1715207982]

1715207982

[1715207982]

1715207982

[1715207982]

1715207982

[1715207982]

1715207982

[J. J. Phillips]

eerybody is wrong only what spendulus believe is right is right, right?

Spendulus has been the only participant on this thread who has used mathematics and physics in his arguments. The rest of you argue like Baghdad Bobs.

[Spendulus]

eerybody is wrong only what spendulus believe is right is right, right?

Spendulus has been the only participant on this thread who has used mathematics and physics in his arguments. The rest of you argue like Baghdad Bobs.

Thanks, but to be honest about it, I don't really care if people are crazy or generate crazy conspiracy theories.  I'd just like the crazy theories to pass simple credibility tests from the physics and chemistry and science points of view.

[BADecker]

eerybody is wrong only what spendulus believe is right is right, right?

Spendulus has been the only participant on this thread who has used mathematics and physics in his arguments. The rest of you argue like Baghdad Bobs.

Thanks, but to be honest about it, I don't really care if people are crazy or generate crazy conspiracy theories.  I'd just like the crazy theories to pass simple credibility tests from the physics and chemistry and science points of view.

Look, it definitely was a conspiracy. One guy doesn't pull something like this off all alone. He needs help. When there's more than one collaborating, it's a conspiracy, no matter who did it.

 

[Salman Anjum]

Every person has its opinion...

Everyone is seperate mind of st from others...

So dont blame anyone if you are not sure...

Keep enjoying your life..
THanks

[BADecker]

Every person has its opinion...

Everyone is seperate mind of st from others...

So dont blame anyone if you are not sure...

Keep enjoying your life..
THanks

This is good. Wish we could tell it to the billions who have died since the beginning of time.

[TECSHARE]

eerybody is wrong only what spendulus believe is right is right, right?

Spendulus has been the only participant on this thread who has used mathematics and physics in his arguments. The rest of you argue like Baghdad Bobs.

Thanks, but to be honest about it, I don't really care if people are crazy or generate crazy conspiracy theories.  I'd just like the crazy theories to pass simple credibility tests from the physics and chemistry and science points of view.

Great here is a simple question for you then. How did the jet fuel simultaneously make the giant impact fireballs, flow down the elevator shaft and explode in the lobby (from the 9/11 commission report), and then still have enough energy to weaken fire protected steel in mere hours, and in a way never before seen in architectural history? Please tell me, how is it that physics allows you to use this fuel 3 times? Did alqaeda ask NORAD to stand down too? You act as if you are a supporter of simple logic, science, and chemistry, but when the FACTS argue against you, you simply change the goal posts, pretend they aren't facts, and cry conspiracy again. You are VERY CLEARLY bias here and need to spend some time examining where your beliefs originate from.

[Lauda]

Every person has its opinion...

Everyone is seperate mind of st from others...

So dont blame anyone if you are not sure...

Keep enjoying your life..
THanks

This is good. Wish we could tell it to the billions who have died since the beginning of time.

That's why I don't prefer such attitudes. A lot of people have died on 911. According to this it is 2977: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks
A person can think whatever they want, that doesn't affect something being true or not.
Whoever organized this got away with it.

[btcusury]

It was the fucking Muslim terrorists who did 9-11. I don't think there is much argument there. No one else. Just the Muslim terrorists.

Turn off your TV buddy.

Of course 9/11 was done by the people who benefited from it... and not by people who didn't benefit from it. Elementary.

[BADecker]

Every person has its opinion...

Everyone is seperate mind of st from others...

So dont blame anyone if you are not sure...

Keep enjoying your life..
THanks

This is good. Wish we could tell it to the billions who have died since the beginning of time.

That's why I don't prefer such attitudes. A lot of people have died on 911. According to this it is 2977: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks
A person can think whatever they want, that doesn't affect something being true or not.
Whoever organized this got away with it.

I would go along with this except that everyone is dead. The life we live is a postponement of our impending death.

Consider, we can't stop death. Probably we can't even come close to stopping death. The thing we can easily do is stop life. Since death is so penetrating and so easy to "do," and life is so impossible for us to make and so difficult to maintain, isn't it amazing that there is any life at all?

Since we don't know what the "thing" is that causes all the abundant life, especially when death is so extremely more easy, how do we know that anybody gets away with anything? I'd say that there will come a time after death that we will somehow be made to answer for everything.

[Spendulus]

eerybody is wrong only what spendulus believe is right is right, right?

Spendulus has been the only participant on this thread who has used mathematics and physics in his arguments. The rest of you argue like Baghdad Bobs.

Thanks, but to be honest about it, I don't really care if people are crazy or generate crazy conspiracy theories.  I'd just like the crazy theories to pass simple credibility tests from the physics and chemistry and science points of view.

Great here is a simple question for you then. How did the jet fuel simultaneously make the giant impact fireballs, flow down the elevator shaft and explode in the lobby (from the 9/11 commission report), and then still have enough energy to weaken fire protected steel in mere hours, and in a way never before seen in architectural history? Please tell me, how is it that physics allows you to use this fuel 3 times? Did alqaeda ask NORAD to stand down too? You act as if you are a supporter of simple logic, science, and chemistry, but when the FACTS argue against you, you simply change the goal posts, pretend they aren't facts, and cry conspiracy again. You are VERY CLEARLY bias here and need to spend some time examining where your beliefs originate from.

No, my friend.  Any architect will tell you a steel frame building collapses much sooner than a wood building, because only the wood that burns loses structural strength.  Any manual of firemen.

I can't see a problem with a tremendous impact of 185 tons hitting "fire protected steel" rendering them "unfire protected steel."  Quite the opposite - it's puzzling to me why that wouldn't be obvious.   But you don't even have to take my word for it - next time you are doing a barbecue stick a piece of rebar in the coals.  Then see for yourself how easy it is to bend.

Here's an explanation from a fire chief.  I suggest you read it before responding.

The trend over the past half-century is to create lightweight high buildings. To do this you use thin steel bent bar truss construction instead of solid steel beams.  To do this you use hollow tube steel bearing walls, and curved sheet steel (corrugated) under floors. To do this you eliminate as much concrete from the structure as you can and replace it with steel.  Lightweight construction means economy. It means building more with less. If you reduce the structure’s mass you can build cheaper and builder higher. Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

[TECSHARE]

No, my friend.  Any architect will tell you a steel frame building collapses much sooner than a wood building, because only the wood that burns loses structural strength.  Any manual of firemen.

I can't see a problem with a tremendous impact of 185 tons hitting "fire protected steel" rendering them "unfire protected steel."  Quite the opposite - it's puzzling to me why that wouldn't be obvious.   But you don't even have to take my word for it - next time you are doing a barbecue stick a piece of rebar in the coals.  Then see for yourself how easy it is to bend.

Here's an explanation from a fire chief.  

The trend over the past half-century is to create lightweight high buildings. To do this you use thin steel bent bar truss construction instead of solid steel beams.  To do this you use hollow tube steel bearing walls, and curved sheet steel (corrugated) under floors. To do this you eliminate as much concrete from the structure as you can and replace it with steel.  Lightweight construction means economy. It means building more with less. If you reduce the structure’s mass you can build cheaper and builder higher. Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Way to avoid my questions and answer what you WISH I had asked. Furthermore you didn't address NORAD standing down at all. I wonder how they got that done with a box cutter. Sure you can melt steel with fuel, the only problem is it takes MANY HOURS even under perfectly ideal circumstances, regardless of impact damage. Impact damage does not make steel heat faster. Additionally the steel framework for this building was MASSIVE, it could have burnt for days and easily had most of the heat lost as the framework turns into a giant heat sink and conducts it away.  You keep arguing that the steel was weakened enough to create COMPLETE STRUCTURAL FAILURE OF 3 BUILDINGS. What a coincidence that these perfect conditions were met to melt steel enough to weaken all 3 of them, especially when jet fuel wasn't even in building 7, all in a few hours no less. If it was this easy to bring skyscrapers down, don't you think there should be some changes to the building code in the very least? I wonder why that hasn't happened...

You accuse everyone else of basing their logic on flimsy theories yet your own argument is based on such. The only "official" attempt at explaining the structural properties of the building's destruction were conducted by NIST, and the real models they used could not reproduce the effect! To get the officially reported "pancake collapse" effect, the models were completely manipulated to get anything close to what what was stated in the original report. Problems with the NIST models are documented here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf

You claim the protections of physics, chemistry, and architecture in your arguments, yet you completely ignore those fields of study when they do not work in your favor. That is not science.

[BADecker]

No, my friend.  Any architect will tell you a steel frame building collapses much sooner than a wood building, because only the wood that burns loses structural strength.  Any manual of firemen.

I can't see a problem with a tremendous impact of 185 tons hitting "fire protected steel" rendering them "unfire protected steel."  Quite the opposite - it's puzzling to me why that wouldn't be obvious.   But you don't even have to take my word for it - next time you are doing a barbecue stick a piece of rebar in the coals.  Then see for yourself how easy it is to bend.

Here's an explanation from a fire chief.  

The trend over the past half-century is to create lightweight high buildings. To do this you use thin steel bent bar truss construction instead of solid steel beams.  To do this you use hollow tube steel bearing walls, and curved sheet steel (corrugated) under floors. To do this you eliminate as much concrete from the structure as you can and replace it with steel.  Lightweight construction means economy. It means building more with less. If you reduce the structure’s mass you can build cheaper and builder higher. Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Way to avoid my questions and answer what you WISH I had asked. Furthermore you didn't address NORAD standing down at all. I wonder how they got that done with a box cutter. Sure you can melt steel with fuel, the only problem is it takes MANY HOURS even under perfectly ideal circumstances, regardless of impact damage. Impact damage does not make steel heat faster. Additionally the steel framework for this building was MASSIVE, it could have burnt for days and easily had most of the heat lost as the framework turns into a giant heat sink and conducts it away.  You keep arguing that the steel was weakened enough to create COMPLETE STRUCTURAL FAILURE OF 3 BUILDINGS. What a coincidence that these perfect conditions were met to melt steel enough to weaken all 3 of them, especially when jet fuel wasn't even in building 7, all in a few hours no less. If it was this easy to bring skyscrapers down, don't you think there should be some changes to the building code in the very least? I wonder why that hasn't happened...

You accuse everyone else of basing their logic on flimsy theories yet your own argument is based on such. The only "official" attempt at explaining the structural properties of the building's destruction were conducted by NIST, and the real models they used could not reproduce the effect! To get the officially reported "pancake collapse" effect, the models were completely manipulated to get anything close to what what was stated in the original report. Problems with the NIST models are documented here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf

You claim the protections of physics, chemistry, and architecture in your arguments, yet you completely ignore those fields of study when they do not work in your favor. That is not science.

Some government shills are like sleeper spies. They sit around, waiting for just the right time, and the right thing that matches their skills the best. Then they strike, when least expected, after they have built up a reputation for good sense and honesty in general. Spendulus is starting to fit such a category more and more.

[Spendulus]

No, my friend.  Any architect will tell you a steel frame building collapses much sooner than a wood building, because only the wood that burns loses structural strength.  Any manual of firemen.

I can't see a problem with a tremendous impact of 185 tons hitting "fire protected steel" rendering them "unfire protected steel."  Quite the opposite - it's puzzling to me why that wouldn't be obvious.   But you don't even have to take my word for it - next time you are doing a barbecue stick a piece of rebar in the coals.  Then see for yourself how easy it is to bend.

Here's an explanation from a fire chief.  

The trend over the past half-century is to create lightweight high buildings. To do this you use thin steel bent bar truss construction instead of solid steel beams.  To do this you use hollow tube steel bearing walls, and curved sheet steel (corrugated) under floors. To do this you eliminate as much concrete from the structure as you can and replace it with steel.  Lightweight construction means economy. It means building more with less. If you reduce the structure’s mass you can build cheaper and builder higher. Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Way to avoid my questions and answer what you WISH I had asked. Furthermore you didn't address NORAD standing down at all. I wonder how they got that done with a box cutter. Sure you can melt steel with fuel, the only problem is it takes MANY HOURS even under perfectly ideal circumstances, regardless of impact damage. Impact damage does not make steel heat faster. Additionally the steel framework for this building was MASSIVE, it could have burnt for days and easily had most of the heat lost as the framework turns into a giant heat sink and conducts it away.  You keep arguing that the steel was weakened enough to create COMPLETE STRUCTURAL FAILURE OF 3 BUILDINGS. What a coincidence that these perfect conditions were met to melt steel enough to weaken all 3 of them, especially when jet fuel wasn't even in building 7, all in a few hours no less. If it was this easy to bring skyscrapers down, don't you think there should be some changes to the building code in the very least? I wonder why that hasn't happened...

You accuse everyone else of basing their logic on flimsy theories yet your own argument is based on such. The only "official" attempt at explaining the structural properties of the building's destruction were conducted by NIST, and the real models they used could not reproduce the effect! To get the officially reported "pancake collapse" effect, the models were completely manipulated to get anything close to what what was stated in the original report. Problems with the NIST models are documented here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf

You claim the protections of physics, chemistry, and architecture in your arguments, yet you completely ignore those fields of study when they do not work in your favor. That is not science.

If it was this easy to bring skyscrapers down, don't you think there should be some changes to the building code in the very least? I wonder why that hasn't happened...

It has.  Of course not enough, though.



Sure you can melt steel with fuel, the only problem is it takes MANY HOURS even under perfectly ideal circumstances, regardless of impact damage. Impact damage does not make steel heat faster.

Why are you talking about "melting steel"?  The steel beams could not have melted before the building collapsed.

Additionally the steel framework for this building was MASSIVE, it could have burnt for days and easily had most of the heat lost as the framework turns into a giant heat sink and conducts it away.  

Are you kidding me?  Steel does NOT conduct heat away easily at all.  

Was the steel framework "MASSIVE"?  I don't know what that means.  The steel framework varied in thickness from 0.25" to 4.00" top to bottom.

Let's say it was 1" thick where the planes hit and use a box beam 12" x 36".  What amount of jet fuel would it take to cause 2' of this beam to reach a temperature where it's strength was ridiculously degraded?

Steel - to raise 1C needs 448 J/kg
Oil - 5.3 X 10^7 joule/kg

Material - 12x36x2x24 = 20,736 cubic inches of steel (about 0.29 lb/cu in)
Taking result and converting to kg 2,733 kg.

Say initial T was 60C raise to 1000C difference is 940C

940C x 2733kg x 448 J/kg = 1.15 x 10^9 J

How much oil?

5.3 x 10^7 j/kg and 115 x 10^7 J required --> 22 kg

EG to buckle that MASSIVE beam requires 22 kg of fuel.

NOTE:  This is WHY WE USE STEEL - it's easy to work with, form at a raised temperature, then cools down to ambient and it's very strong.  



 The only "official" attempt at explaining the structural properties of the building's destruction were conducted by NIST
No, NIST was not the "only" study, I guess depending on what you mean by "official."  

    Banovic, S. W., et al. "The Role of Metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center Towers collapse." JOM. (Sept. 8, 2011) http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html
    Barsom, John M. "High-performance steels." Advanced Materials & Processes. Mar. 1, 1996. (Sept. 8, 2011) http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18387020.html
    Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm and Oral. "Materials and structure." MIT (Sept. 8, 2011) http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18387020.html
    Engineers Edge. "Yield Strength - Strength (Mechanics) of Materials." (Sept. 8, 2011) http://www.engineersedge.com/material_science/yield_strength.htm
    FEMA. "World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations." September 2002. (Sept. 8, 2011)
    Gayle, Frank W., et al. "The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers." Advanced Materials and Processes." Oct. 1, 2004. (Sept. 8, 2011) http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-123583397.html
    Leeco Steel. "High-Strength Low-Alloy (HSLA) Structural Steel Plate." (Sept. 8, 2011) http://www.leecosteel.com/products/high-strength-low-alloy-structural.html
    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). "World Trade Center Disaster Study." (Sept. 8, 2011) http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm
    Popular Mechanics. "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report-The World Trade Center." Mar. 2005. (Sept. 8, 2011) http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

[BADecker]

Do you know how difficult it is to construct a building, so that if it falls down through the fault of some partial destruction, that it falls down into its very own footprint?

The wind might blow a building over. An airplane might knock a building over. Fire might burn a building down. But to construct a building that will collapse at almost the speed of freefall, into its own footprint when damaged, is really a fantastic thing. Controlled demolition has a difficult job of doing this.

Anyone who thinks that the Twin Towers and Building 7 came down the way they did through some action other than controlled demolition, is somebody out there buying all the lottery tickets he can get so that he is assured of winning something.

The point isn't about demolition or not. The point is about who did the demolition, under whose orders, and why?

[Spendulus]

Do you know how difficult it is to construct a building, so that if it falls down through the fault of some partial destruction, that it falls down into its very own footprint?....

No, I don't.

Last I heard, gravity pointed down? 

That's the direct things should fall.

[Mt. Gox]

Do you know how difficult it is to construct a building, so that if it falls down through the fault of some partial destruction, that it falls down into its very own footprint?

The wind might blow a building over. An airplane might knock a building over. Fire might burn a building down. But to construct a building that will collapse at almost the speed of freefall, into its own footprint when damaged, is really a fantastic thing. Controlled demolition has a difficult job of doing this.

Anyone who thinks that the Twin Towers and Building 7 came down the way they did through some action other than controlled demolition, is somebody out there buying all the lottery tickets he can get so that he is assured of winning something.

The point isn't about demolition or not. The point is about who did the demolition, under whose orders, and why?

What about the Sampoong Department Store collapse in Korea? It looks like it fell straight into its own footprint. Notice how the shrubs on the footpath are undamaged. Perhaps the fire was burning for long enough that the whole structure came crashing down all at once in some type of a cascading event:

[J. J. Phillips]

No, my friend.  Any architect will tell you a steel frame building collapses much sooner than a wood building, because only the wood that burns loses structural strength.  Any manual of firemen.

I can't see a problem with a tremendous impact of 185 tons hitting "fire protected steel" rendering them "unfire protected steel."  Quite the opposite - it's puzzling to me why that wouldn't be obvious.   But you don't even have to take my word for it - next time you are doing a barbecue stick a piece of rebar in the coals.  Then see for yourself how easy it is to bend.

Here's an explanation from a fire chief.  

The trend over the past half-century is to create lightweight high buildings. To do this you use thin steel bent bar truss construction instead of solid steel beams.  To do this you use hollow tube steel bearing walls, and curved sheet steel (corrugated) under floors. To do this you eliminate as much concrete from the structure as you can and replace it with steel.  Lightweight construction means economy. It means building more with less. If you reduce the structure’s mass you can build cheaper and builder higher. Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees F.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Way to avoid my questions and answer what you WISH I had asked. Furthermore you didn't address NORAD standing down at all. I wonder how they got that done with a box cutter. Sure you can melt steel with fuel, the only problem is it takes MANY HOURS even under perfectly ideal circumstances, regardless of impact damage. Impact damage does not make steel heat faster. Additionally the steel framework for this building was MASSIVE, it could have burnt for days and easily had most of the heat lost as the framework turns into a giant heat sink and conducts it away.  You keep arguing that the steel was weakened enough to create COMPLETE STRUCTURAL FAILURE OF 3 BUILDINGS. What a coincidence that these perfect conditions were met to melt steel enough to weaken all 3 of them, especially when jet fuel wasn't even in building 7, all in a few hours no less. If it was this easy to bring skyscrapers down, don't you think there should be some changes to the building code in the very least? I wonder why that hasn't happened...

You accuse everyone else of basing their logic on flimsy theories yet your own argument is based on such. The only "official" attempt at explaining the structural properties of the building's destruction were conducted by NIST, and the real models they used could not reproduce the effect! To get the officially reported "pancake collapse" effect, the models were completely manipulated to get anything close to what what was stated in the original report. Problems with the NIST models are documented here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf

You claim the protections of physics, chemistry, and architecture in your arguments, yet you completely ignore those fields of study when they do not work in your favor. That is not science.

If it was this easy to bring skyscrapers down, don't you think there should be some changes to the building code in the very least? I wonder why that hasn't happened...

It has.  Of course not enough, though.



Sure you can melt steel with fuel, the only problem is it takes MANY HOURS even under perfectly ideal circumstances, regardless of impact damage. Impact damage does not make steel heat faster.

Why are you talking about "melting steel"?  The steel beams could not have melted before the building collapsed.

Additionally the steel framework for this building was MASSIVE, it could have burnt for days and easily had most of the heat lost as the framework turns into a giant heat sink and conducts it away.  

Are you kidding me?  Steel does NOT conduct heat away easily at all.  

Was the steel framework "MASSIVE"?  I don't know what that means.  The steel framework varied in thickness from 0.25" to 4.00" top to bottom.

Let's say it was 1" thick where the planes hit and use a box beam 12" x 36".  What amount of jet fuel would it take to cause 2' of this beam to reach a temperature where it's strength was ridiculously degraded?

Steel - to raise 1C needs 448 J/kg
Oil - 5.3 X 10^7 joule/kg

Material - 12x36x2x24 = 20,736 cubic inches of steel (about 0.29 lb/cu in)
Taking result and converting to kg 2,733 kg.

Say initial T was 60C raise to 1000C difference is 940C

940C x 2733kg x 448 J/kg = 1.15 x 10^9 J

How much oil?

5.3 x 10^7 j/kg and 115 x 10^7 J required --> 22 kg

EG to buckle that MASSIVE beam requires 22 kg of fuel.

NOTE:  This is WHY WE USE STEEL - it's easy to work with, form at a raised temperature, then cools down to ambient and it's very strong.  


 The only "official" attempt at explaining the structural properties of the building's destruction were conducted by NIST
No, NIST was not the "only" study, I guess depending on what you mean by "official."  


    Banovic, S. W., et al. "The Role of Metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center Towers collapse." JOM. (Sept. 8, 2011) http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html
    Barsom, John M. "High-performance steels." Advanced Materials & Processes. Mar. 1, 1996. (Sept. 8, 2011) http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18387020.html
    Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm and Oral. "Materials and structure." MIT (Sept. 8, 2011) http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-18387020.html
    Engineers Edge. "Yield Strength - Strength (Mechanics) of Materials." (Sept. 8, 2011) http://www.engineersedge.com/material_science/yield_strength.htm
    FEMA. "World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations." September 2002. (Sept. 8, 2011)
    Gayle, Frank W., et al. "The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers." Advanced Materials and Processes." Oct. 1, 2004. (Sept. 8, 2011) http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-123583397.html
    Leeco Steel. "High-Strength Low-Alloy (HSLA) Structural Steel Plate." (Sept. 8, 2011) http://www.leecosteel.com/products/high-strength-low-alloy-structural.html
    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). "World Trade Center Disaster Study." (Sept. 8, 2011) http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm
    Popular Mechanics. "Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report-The World Trade Center." Mar. 2005. (Sept. 8, 2011) http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

Do you know how difficult it is to construct a building, so that if it falls down through the fault of some partial destruction, that it falls down into its very own footprint?

The wind might blow a building over. An airplane might knock a building over. Fire might burn a building down. But to construct a building that will collapse at almost the speed of freefall, into its own footprint when damaged, is really a fantastic thing. Controlled demolition has a difficult job of doing this.

Anyone who thinks that the Twin Towers and Building 7 came down the way they did through some action other than controlled demolition, is somebody out there buying all the lottery tickets he can get so that he is assured of winning something.

The point isn't about demolition or not. The point is about who did the demolition, under whose orders, and why?

Just contrast the post of Spendulus above with the one of TECSHARE before it and BADecker after it. I highlighted a few points to make it easy to see the difference in quality. Believe whatever you want, but I don't understand why you guys aren't just embarrassed. For example, BADecker is implying that it is highly improbable for the Twin Towers and Building 7 to collapse in the manner they did. (I'm assuming you guys actually believe they collapsed, but who knows.) Well, probabilities can be calculated based on assumptions. What are your assumptions and what are the calculations? How low is that probability based on your assumptions? It's rhetorical, I'm not expecting you to show any actual work.

[no-ice-please]

Do you know how difficult it is to construct a building, so that if it falls down through the fault of some partial destruction, that it falls down into its very own footprint?

The wind might blow a building over. An airplane might knock a building over. Fire might burn a building down. But to construct a building that will collapse at almost the speed of freefall, into its own footprint when damaged, is really a fantastic thing. Controlled demolition has a difficult job of doing this.

Anyone who thinks that the Twin Towers and Building 7 came down the way they did through some action other than controlled demolition, is somebody out there buying all the lottery tickets he can get so that he is assured of winning something.

The point isn't about demolition or not. The point is about who did the demolition, under whose orders, and why?

What about the Sampoong Department Store collapse in Korea? It looks like it fell straight into its own footprint. Notice how the shrubs on the footpath are undamaged. Perhaps the fire was burning for long enough that the whole structure came crashing down all at once in some type of a cascading event:

That doesn't compare to any other disaster.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampoong_Department_Store_collapse

Here is just the first paragraph
"The Sampoong Group, a South Korean trade company began construction of the Sampoong Department Store in 1987 over a tract of land previously used as a landfill. Originally designed as a residential apartment with four floors, it was changed to a large department store during its construction by Lee Joon, the future chairman of the building. This involved cutting away a number of support columns in order to install escalators.[2] When the original contractors refused to carry out these changes, Lee ignored their warnings and fired them, instead using his own building company to complete construction."

[Mt. Gox]

Do you know how difficult it is to construct a building, so that if it falls down through the fault of some partial destruction, that it falls down into its very own footprint?

The wind might blow a building over. An airplane might knock a building over. Fire might burn a building down. But to construct a building that will collapse at almost the speed of freefall, into its own footprint when damaged, is really a fantastic thing. Controlled demolition has a difficult job of doing this.

Anyone who thinks that the Twin Towers and Building 7 came down the way they did through some action other than controlled demolition, is somebody out there buying all the lottery tickets he can get so that he is assured of winning something.

The point isn't about demolition or not. The point is about who did the demolition, under whose orders, and why?

What about the Sampoong Department Store collapse in Korea? It looks like it fell straight into its own footprint. Notice how the shrubs on the footpath are undamaged. Perhaps the fire was burning for long enough that the whole structure came crashing down all at once in some type of a cascading event:

That doesn't compare to any other disaster.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampoong_Department_Store_collapse

Here is just the first paragraph
"The Sampoong Group, a South Korean trade company began construction of the Sampoong Department Store in 1987 over a tract of land previously used as a landfill. Originally designed as a residential apartment with four floors, it was changed to a large department store during its construction by Lee Joon, the future chairman of the building. This involved cutting away a number of support columns in order to install escalators.[2] When the original contractors refused to carry out these changes, Lee ignored their warnings and fired them, instead using his own building company to complete construction."

But both 9/11 and the Sampoong disaster were caused by failure of the support columns. In Sampoong's case, there were too few columns. In 9/11, they became too weakened. Both buildings ended up collapsing into their own footprint instead of being blown over by the wind or falling down onto their sides.