Something is Happening of Historic Proportions

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by IsolatedSaint

The heat in those buildings was probably the equivalent of a common house fire of about 700 degrees max. As I said, YOUR conspiracy theory just doesn't take into account why them buildings collapsed so perfectly and evenly and symetrically. And 1800F is still not 2750F and it has to be sustained heat to have an effect.
Boy, that last paragraph of yours about creating a heat transfer.....sir you are hopelessly deceived and reprobate concerning this subject so keep believing the lies that Boy George Bush and his new world order henchman at FoxNews O'reilly/hannity/limbaugh etc. Can't prove to you that 3+3=6. Keep believing the official story because that's what you want to believe.

Enjoy your new world order!!!

Probably? That's the best you can do?

You still aren't producing any proof, just making claims over and over.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by IsolatedSaint

The heat in those buildings was probably the equivalent of a common house fire of about 700 degrees max.

First of all houses don't usually have jet liners crash into them at high speed...a quarter of the way down, leaving tons of dead weight above and gravity pulling them down.

The design of the WTC was intentionally light weight. It's purpose was NOT to withstand a jet liner impact but to sway with the wind.

The initial impact produced a huge explosion, which was clearly seen by the photos and video.

Your arguement assumes there was only one factor and then you suppose to disprove it...well actually you offered no proof but an assertion of the tempurature. Well the truth is the temp was only a contributing factor and yes it probably was not high enough to melt steel, but it didn't have to be. It was high enough to begin stressing the steel.

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

This website affirms that the Jet fuel did not burn hot enough to melt steel, but that is clearly NOT the only factor that contributed to the structural integrity being weakened and unable to hold the tons of weight above it.

As I said, YOUR conspiracy theory just doesn't take into account why them buildings collapsed so perfectly and evenly and symetrically.

Did he offer a conspiracy theory?

Here is why and I already explained why. The structural support underneath failed. This was a redundant design. That means if part of a support goes the rest is made to keep supporting what the failed support no longer holds. However that was the ONLY reason the initial impact held up. If enough redundant supports were affected by the impact, the ensuing explosion and then the heat it could only support the upper floor so long and then it would drop straight down.

The force and the energy of several tons of material now crashing down into the entire floor below collapsed the floor below and like a domino effect it comes straight down. I saw this happen to a freeway structure here recently. A semi carrying combustable material crashed and burned the upper ramp till it gave away and slammed straight town. The levels below were not able to hold it and they pancaked straight down.

Here is another good sight that explains how the temp could have been higher and the pancake effect blowing out air and dust particles

http://asmalldoseofreality.bloghi.co...wrong-doh.html

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by IsolatedSaint

Yes....you are right about the men with the real power above Bush.....I never said that Bush planned/did 9-11......I just know it wasn't 17 men with box-cutters that hi-jacked them planes.....you know, the official mainstream media story.

You know this how? Also, remember the cell phone calls...where did those come from? There were eye witnesses on those planes calling in what was going on...where did they go?

The reason why we haven't sited any of the so-called proof that you demand is because the mainstream media hasn't sited any proof for what there saying concerning 9-11.....you see the burden is always on us(well at least me and HappyTown) to prove the official story wrong , when the burden should be on the mainstream media to furnish proof that what they say is true.

ROFL...No the burden of proof is always on the person making the assertions. You guys made a LOT of assertions, the burden of proof is yours to prove your claims.

The mainstream media is always presumed to be right!!!

No, it is not. However what about the flip side? The conspiracy theorist seem in your view to always be right.

The mainstream media posts sayings and histrionics such as, "We are at war with Al Qaueda, we're fighting the war on terror".

So in your view there is no Al Queada? There are no terrorists that want to hurt American lives? We blew up the USS Cole? We blew up our embassies? It was Americans that blew up that disco in Malaysia?

And your an intelligent enough person to do a google search on 9-11 being an inside job. Some of this is just common sense. EX: planes when they fly off course aren't just allowed to stay that way without being intercepted(unless there allowed to ON PURPOSE).

As I already said, I already DID research this via google a long time ago.

[IsolatedSaint]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

IS the issue and point that's being missed is why??? What that day, why those towers, why the Pentagon, and why kill all those people and blame foreigners for it?

And since the towers were bombed back in 1993, who's fault was that, considering Clinton was in office? The Muslim men named as being responsible, I suppose they were made up too, huh?

Now your beginning to get it!!!

[IsolatedSaint]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You know this how? Also, remember the cell phone calls...

So in your view there is no Al Queada? There are no terrorists that want to hurt American lives? We blew up the USS Cole? We blew up our embassies? It was Americans that blew up that disco in Malaysia?

You mean AL "CIA"DA.....do you believe in the boogie man? Define what you mean by terrorists wanting to hurt American lives......all lies. The only terrorists wanting to hurt american lives are on capitol hill, not the boogie man muslim terrorists. Keep believing in santa claus and the easter bunny. Keep believing that mind controlled dribble coming out of capitol hill concerning the FAKE war on terror.
And for all you "Israel can do no wrong" people on this board, you might want to do a google search reference on the Mossad and 9-11.

[Sherri]

Don't forget that Amazing Grace had several family members die in the 9/11 incidents. I seriously doubt if she's making her stories up!

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by IsolatedSaint

Now your beginning to get it!!!

Thank God for AFF!!!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by IsolatedSaint

You mean AL "CIA"DA.....do you believe in the boogie man?

More sound bites. You have nothing substantial to add.

Define what you mean by terrorists wanting to hurt American lives......all lies.

LOL..you ask me to define it, before I answer you say "all lies", You have closed your mind.

So let me ask again...was it the CIA that bombed the bali disco? Was it the CIA that bombed our embassies? Was it the CIA that bombed the USS Cole? Was it the CIA that tried to blow up the WTC back in 93? Was it CIA that kidnapped Daniel Pearl and butchered him?

The only terrorists wanting to hurt american lives are on capitol hill, not the boogie man muslim terrorists.

So you admit there are Islamic terrorists? I suppose Munich was also the work of the CIA?

Keep believing in santa claus and the easter bunny.

How sophomoric. IF this is your best argument then clearly you don't have a grasp on what is going on

Keep believing that mind controlled dribble coming out of capitol hill concerning the FAKE war on terror.

Who said anything about a war on terror? LOL...but you would be foolish to believe the rest of the Islamic world just loves the US and would never want to do us harm.

And for all you "Israel can do no wrong" people on this board, you might want to do a google search reference on the Mossad and 9-11.

Oh gosh...ok so it was not the US it was the Israelis?!?!?! Wow, how ironic you talk about santa claus the easter bunny

[Praxeas]

You know what is REALLY ironic here? All the hype about the "mainstream media"....Yet the that same media HATES Bush and if Bush had anything to do with this or tried to cover it up, why wouldn't they jump to the chance?

How come the same mainstream media drooled all over Michael Moores Farenheit 911 but ignored "Farenhype 911" a counter to that Moores movie?

And there are arguments against the conspiracy theory on the net that did not come from mainsteam media but independent thought

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You know what is REALLY ironic here? All the hype about the "mainstream media"....Yet the that same media HATES Bush and if Bush had anything to do with this or tried to cover it up, why wouldn't they jump to the chance?

How come the same mainstream media drooled all over Michael Moores Farenheit 911 but ignored "Farenhype 911" a counter to that Moores movie?

And there are arguments against the conspiracy theory on the net that did not come from mainsteam media but independent thought

I've watched a couple of documentaries that go into the analysis of how and why the towers fell. One documentary was on Discovery that revealed that the towers were actually designed to withstand the impact of a commercial airline jet. The buildings both absorbed the impact of the planes that hit them on 9/11.

The problem was they had coated the steel beams of the towers with a fire retardant foam. What they had not considered with this foam was its potential to be removed as a result of the force of the impact of a plane colliding with buildings.

This is exactly what happened when the planes hit the towers. As a result the intense heat generated by the burning jet fuel softened the steel bolts holding together the steel frame of the towers. They buckled, then collapsed and the weight of the top of the buildings caused one floor after another to collapse on top of each until the buildings were completely destroyed.

To deny this to embrace some far fetched conspiracy is being willfully blind.