yeah its pretty crazy to imagine that they couldn't find a plane that had turned off the transponder within the 40 minutes it had turned around and flew back to the pentagon.. Its not like they had alot of space to fly around in or that there weren't hundreds of other planes flying around.

your theory is very compelling

See he still didn't mention an answer or acknowledge our science. He just changed the subject.

It is very hard to debate science with BS.

science are you kidding me? your little chart had on the bottem a disclaimer that said the exact times could not be measured due to the debri yet you call that science?

cracking me up and its 5:00 am gota work, I might suggest you find something better than that

See the Hilarious and Thorough Debunking by....

Penn and Teller on "Bullshyit"



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

Enjoy!! (warning - adult language)

A disclaimer that should be on everything related to any video. Are you saying the conspiracy theorists have magic dust see through eyes to they can time it more accurately? You laughing at a disclaimer like that does show a lot of ignorance on your part. All it is saying is there could be variations in the time but he has lots of calculations if you bothered to read them and understand them. Just like you laughed at a 3 second difference which allotted for 33% more time in the air.

That isn't the only thing. You back nothing up with science. You said the building fell straight down so it couldn't have been a collapse. I asked please explain with science how it would fall anywhere else because Physics dictates it fall down. You also just ignore that.

You talk big for having no answers to anything along with a seeming lack of understanding of physics.

I think the OP might be like the guy in the jumpsuit.

The pattern is clear. The OP puts up one of this junk threads until the overwhelming posting of facts makes him look silly. He stops posting, waits a while, then starts a new thread with the same line of BS. The physics and math have been posted several times. Usually he adds something to each thread as "proof" like the melted steel on the beams that were cut by firemen in the rescue effort until the truth shows itself. Eventually he will end the thread to "erase" in his mind any disproof, wait a while and do it all over again.

The real reason for these threads is the fact that he can't understand any of the math, physics, or common sense... so he thinks other people can't either. In some cases he is right.

The single point column collapse of Building 7 is not new. The animated model of the finite element analysis was posted over a year ago and then removed for a awhile. I don't know why.

There are some problems with the original design of the world trade center that have not gotten airtime. There probably will eventually be some adjustments to the ASCE building code because of the failure.

We talked about this with a civil engineering professor at my college I guess in 2005. At that time he had already said some standards had been changed for buildings of that size since the attacks.

We talked about this with a civil engineering professor at my college I guess in 2005. At that time he had already said some standards had been changed for buildings of that size since the attacks.

You know, one thing that these "truthers" never seem to point out is that an elevator shaft is often the strongest part of a skyscraper. I'm no engineer, but it just seems logical. An elevator shaft requires several columns that rise from the lowest levels all the way to the top level, and they are in a very confined space, making it like a tower within a tower.

The other thing that is not mentioned is that an elevator draft would also tend to create a draft, pulling oxygen up from the lower lowels, and funneling heat towards the upper levels. Because of air flow, it stands to reason that much of the heat would have been concentrated within the elevator shaft.

This also means that the supports in the elevator shaft would tend to heat more evenly that other structural supports. Therefore, there may be no warping or swaying. All these supports would reach roughly the same temperature at roughly the same time. Hence, then entire frame for a specific section of the shaft would suddenly fail at once. With the weight above it, this would mean a straight vertical collapse, just like a demolition.

I can visualize an example using a hydraulic press and a length of bamboo, but I'm not sure I can describe it adequately. I wish I had a video to demonstrate this.

Besides, if you look at the videos closely, there is a slight lean in one of the towers as it collapses. It's a very minute amount, but noticeable. Because of the height, it is probably 1 degree or less of lean, but the overall length is what allows the eye to see it.

If someone was going to demolish a tower, they usually knockout key supports. That includes at the base of the tower. Ever watch one? There's usually a blast ring around the base, plus internal blasts. This allows the building to implode upon itself within a confined zone. It allows the demolition to be neat and orderly minimizing risk of nearby structures.

As for secondary explosions? Um, hello? There were live high voltage lines inside those towers. We are talking thousands of amps and thousands of volts....the kind of power that would vaporize my entire laptop, not to mention a chair or a desk. One those wires began shorting out to steel columns, or even worse to each other to create a dead short, you will get some massive electrical explosions. I know what it's like. I've been inside of an electrical service for a factory building after it had blown up from a short. Three foot long by 2 inch wide by 1/4 inch thick bus bars were completely gone without a trace. Four feet of 250 MCM cable vanished with only a few powder marks to show for it. Just the fireball from that was probably 6 foot wide, and that's 480 volts in a 2000 amp service in a 40,000 sq. ft. factory. So just imagine how much electricity it took to feed just one of those towers. It was probably in the neighborhood of 100x that.

Plus not all electrical fuses cut power instantaneously. Some are time-delayed because motor loads typically draw up to 7x more power when first starting up. And then there are continuous loads which can create heat, which is what causes an electrical fuse to blow, so the fuse has to be designed to take such loads into account. In the 9/11 situation, the only way to prevent electrical explosions would have been to shut off the section of the grid which fed the two towers. That did not happen though because the elevators were still functioning for quite a while after the planes struck the towers. Many who escaped the buildings were able to use elevators unaffected by the fires above. That proves the power was on in those buildings. In fact, authorities probably ordered that the power NOT be cut just so they could get as many people out as possible due to the circumstances.

So, these "truthers" are so fanatical that they are blinding themselves. It's only increasing their own ignorance while dumbing down anyone who believes them.

I didn't read all the posts, so I don't know if any of this was mentioned or covered already. And like I said, I'm no engineer. I was an electrician for several years though.

This alone explains to me that you are ill educated in science to have a professional opinion on the topic.

Theories are the strongest level of scientific confirmation. Accepted scientific theories explain facts better than any other set of explanations.

I read the review, there are no facts that call into question this theory.

My first real job was working in a heat treat this involves hardening of steels. I spent five years doing this. I was also a heat treat straightener. Perhapse you kids havent heard of such a job.

Steel will stretch and warp during heat treat and quenching. Many types of axles and drive shafts will need straightned after the procedure so I learned alot about steel.

Steel will never shatter like glass at its elastic temperature.

IN fact I seriously doubt they could ever reach that temperature in an open air fire.
Go find a nice piece of construction steel and start dumping kerosene on it or even gas in the open air and see if you can get it to break, apply any weight on it you wish. I can guarentee you could pour gas on it for many hours and it will not deform.

It takes a controled fire and a closed furnace to bring steel to its elastic state

I have been working with steel my whole life. I started in a heat treat moved on to a forge and now I am a cnc operator. Just about everyone one I know at work and play simply thinks the official version of 911 is BS if they think about it at all.

Would you allow yourself to be groped at an airport had it not been for 911?

Would you allow people to be tortured by our own government without 911?

Would we be bankrupted by wars in Iraq and afghanistan without 911?

Seriously who hijacked the defences over washington on 911?

We can argueall day over the pancake theory because regardless it is a theory and not scientific law.

"NIST were forced to acknowledge the weakness of the pancake theory when they tested steel samples from the World Trade Center.

"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th," concluded NIST in their Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf


Thats all for me for a while back to the cabin for more grilling and beer

maximum flame temperature of hydrocarbons burning in air without pre-heating or pressurization of the air (estimates of which range from 900°C to 1250°C 1 )

Again you post no facts only what you think you know with no science at all behind it. You don't answer questions you only ask them. You act like you are winning an argument but you have yet to answer any question. All you do is change the subject. Are you training to run for a political office?

The fact that you work in some form of manufacturing is a positive thing.

But... the simple fact that you worked around steel your whole life doesn't mean you are an expert on materials science or solid mechanics.

You continue to neglect the fact that the steel was stuck at high velocity by an object that weighed over 200,000 pounds.

I already now you will come back with the "it was designed to withstand being hit by a 707".

Wait for iiiiiiittttttttttttttttttttttttt...

did they use steel or iron in those buildings? there is a big difference

The perimeter structure was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces, which consisted of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates. The perimeter columns had a square cross section, 14 inches (36 cm) on a side, and were constructed of welded steel plate.[48] The thickness of the plates and grade of structural steel varied over the height of the tower, ranging from 36,000 to 100,000 pounds per square inch[49] (260 to 670 MPa). The strength of the steel and thickness of the steel plates decreased with height because they were required to support lesser amounts of building mass on higher floors.[48] The tube-frame design required 40 percent less structural steel than conventional building designs.[50] From the 7th floor to the ground level, and down to the foundation, the columns were spaced 10 feet (3 m) apart.[51] All columns were placed on bedrock, which, unlike that in Midtown Manhattan, where the bedrock is shallow, is at 65–85 feet (20–26 m) below the surface.[52]

from wiki

Steel loses strength when heated sufficiently. The critical temperature of a steel member is the temperature at which it cannot safely support its load. Building codes and structural engineering standard practice defines different critical temperatures depending on the structural element type, configuration, orientation, and loading characteristics. The critical temperature is often considered the temperature at which it's yield stress has been reduced to 60% of the room temperature yield stress[3]. In order to determine the fire resistance rating of a steel member, accepted calculations practice can be used[4], or a fire test can be performed, the critical temperature of which is set by the standard accepted to the Authority Having Jurisdiction, such as a building code. In Japan, this is below 400°C[citation needed]. In China, Europe and North America (e.g., ASTM E-119), this is approximately 1000-1300F[5]. The time it takes for the steel element that is being tested to reach the temperature set by the test standard determines the duration of the fire-resistance rating. Heat transfer to the steel can be slowed by the use of fireproofing materials, thus limiting steel temperature. Common fireproofing methods for structural steel include intumescent, endothermic and plaster coatings as well as drywall, calcium silicate cladding, and mineral or high temperature insulation mineral wool blanket.

Concrete building structures often meet code required fire-resistance ratings, as the concrete thickness over the steel rebar provides sufficient fire resistance. However, concrete can be subject to spalling, particularly if it has an elevated moisture content. Although additional fireproofing is not often applied to concrete building structures, it is sometimes used in traffic tunnels and locations where a hydrocarbon fuel fire is more likely, as flammable liquid fires provides more heat to the structural element as compared to a fire involving ordinary combustibles during the same fire period. Structural steel fireproofing materials include intumescent, endothermic and plaster coatings as well as drywall, calcium silicate cladding, and mineral or high temperature insulation wool blankets. Attention is given to connections, as the thermal expansion of structural elements can compromise fire-resistance rated assemblies.

i think i can rule out the nano- thermite, super nano- thermite, or any other painted on super explosives nano whatever they come up with next...