opinion that steel does or does not expand when it is heated. I was trying to read it as though you were being facetious but even that way didn't make sense so I concluded you probably just didn't know.

Here's a tip.

Most materials and certainly metals expand when they are heated. Houses, bridges etc and most forms of construction are built with expansion joints for just such a phenomenon. Pretty much all engineers would know that I'd expect. They'd need to. Accountants, perhaps don't need to know it.

If the NIST's computer model didn't have steel expanding when heated though (something you seem to find surprising) its designers probably wouldn't or shouldn't have passed high school science.

I couldn't see any specific criticisms of the NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7 in your article.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 5:10:39 PM

  (0+)

 - it is not clear whether the previous commentor was being sarcastic or was just reading too quickly, but Koch did not say metal did not expand, he simply questioned 'expanding metal oh golly!!!' as the cause of the WTC7 collapse, which is obviously just another idiotic attempt to explain a building that was obviously brought down by controlled demolition by anything BUT controlled demolition, which is kind of like trying to explain the death of a man with a bullet in his brain by anything other than the bullet. If this commentor believes that the 'expanding metal' notion is a logical explanation for WTC7, then perhaps he might have a word of enlightentment as to why the buildings here - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html - are still standing, or at least were after the fires were extinguished?

by siamdave (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 9:58:09 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 7:45:31 AM

  (0+)

If this commentor believes that the 'expanding metal' notion is a logical explanation for WTC7

That metal expands when heated is just a general fact not an explanation of itself.

If WTC 7 was "obviously" (your word) brought down by "controlled demolition" then please show me your own personal evidence for the "obvious". 

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Friday, Aug 29, 2008 at 12:34:24 AM

  (0+)

Do honestly believe there was enough of a fire to cause the steel to melt a few inches?

Now everybody knows it's easier to get the metal top off a jar if you put it under hot water, however follow the physics numbers (extreme simplification) with me:

Increase = (some constant * temp difference * mass of burning material  / mass of steel object) * original length - original length

So hotter temps and larger amounts of fuel create large increases, but larger masses of steel tend to reduce that amount.

The fact is you have to go past Cliff's Notes physics to talk about the collapse.

And he is absolutely correct that the single object trick is in force. That was his message by the way. Unfortunately, left brain bias can only do word problems.

Talk about numbers (220 floors fell not two buildings, ffs) and people just stare.

Reality cares about conservation of energy and thermodynamics, the rest is just the supporting cast of nuances and edge cases.

The lack of pluralism is astounding.

by Intelitary Milligence (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:15:32 PM

  (0+)

Do honestly believe there was enough of a fire to cause the steel to melt a few inches?

I don't know. And I haven't read all the NIST WTC 7 collapse report. Only the first 40 pages or so. But in relation to WTC7 I think a steel girder bending (with heat being applied horizontally whilst it was still supporting weight vertically rather than melting (going molten, going to liquid) is their point.

I don't hate numbers. If you have some relevant numbers for the actual steel girder or girders in WTC 7 to plug into a relevant formula I'll give you a hearing.

If the NIST WTC 7 report makes any claims that you can show defies the laws of physics I'm interested.

But please do be specific as I'm not currently interested in anything other than specific objections that you have with the NISTs WTC 7 collapse report.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 2:39:48 AM

  (0+)

Do honestly believe there was enough of a fire to cause the steel to melt a few inches?

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Saturday, Aug 30, 2008 at 5:18:27 AM

  (0+)

 Just take a gander at the foundation of the Solomon building. Heat goes up, the lower majority of the building was not on fire. Have you ever seen someone brand cattle before? The brand is red-hot, but it holds together just fine. What about refinery heaters? Refinery heaters burn at over 1600 degrees, 24 hours a day for months and months at a time. Here's some footage of wtc 7 on fire; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4SEhMpbo74

by Keystone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 299 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Aug 27, 2008 at 11:05:57 PM

  (0+)

Here's some footage of wtc 7 on fire; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4SEhMpbo74

The footage is not only about WTC 7, where specifically in terms of seconds in, in the footage is the footage, you want me to see?

I know heat rises but on even what I've so far read of the NIST WTC 7 collapse report they say the burning material came in from the south east side from one of the towers and ignited fires that continued to burn in two subsets of ajoining floors. They say if I recall correctly that the first structural failure was in a steel girder on the northern side (the fire burned across to there).  The picture that description puts in my mind is of heat being applied to a vertical girder part way along its horizontal length. The source of the heat coming in from the side would seem to be concentrated on part of the girder and stopped from rising by the floor/roof.

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 3:02:32 AM

  (0+)

   The heat ditribution would need to be evenly distibuted throughout the structure. The video footage clearly shows asymetrical fire, asymetrical heat. Example: Your Barbi mate! Have you ever seen, or heard of a Bar-B-Q collapsing. The Solomon Building was a lattice of steel gurders, a cubic net of steel. The heat would have been dispaced throughout the net, heat moving towards lack of heat. Office chairs, carpet, and desiel fuel can not create tempatures hot enough to smelt steel and the heat had plenty of mass to be displaced into. The cooler areas absorbing heat energy never allowing a constant temperature, or constant distribution. Unless somthing else was use to nock-out all the support collums at the same time would you get the physical results of wtc 7 on that day. I suggest you do your own experiment. Make a fire and set the grill of your Bar-B-Q in it, for 7 hours keep that fire going. After 7 or 8 hours take it out of the fire and test it.

by Keystone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 299 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:47:43 AM

  (0+)

 Without even getting to the issue of what would be the ultimate result, is there any evidence at all to support your statist fantasy that the scattered fires in WTC7 could've somehow heated an insulated 60' steel beam, even semi-uniformly, to anywhere near even your suggested lower temperature of 1100 degrees F? No.

Is there any evidence that there would have been enough fuel load present in the building to make this kind of scenario even remotely theoretically possible, under otherwise ideal conditions? AFAIK, no.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NIST's structural engineers, many with doctorates, say it's not only possible, but highly likely. Is it even remotely theoretically possible that explosives or incendiaries caused the collapse, but didn't leave any severed steel behind with their distinct signatures on it? No. End of story.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:25:34 AM

  (0+)

To do what they propose (and you swear to), would have required the release of many GJ of energy. Short duration flames intermittantly poking out of a few windows of a few floors (as per the empirical evidence) hardly supports the notion of an intense, wide-spread, long burning fire which would have had to occur to make the proposed scenario even remotely plausible in the first place.

In fact, NIST's latest "production" seems so utterly outrageous that I now think some of the people at NIST might be trying to send a message.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:50:04 AM

  (0+)

To do what they propose (and you swear to), would have required the release of many GJ of energy. Short duration flames intermittantly poking out of a few windows of a few floors (as per the empirical evidence) hardly supports the notion of an intense, wide-spread, long burning fire which would have had to occur to make the proposed scenario even remotely plausible in the first place.

In fact, NIST's latest "production" seems so utterly outrageous that I now think some of the people at NIST might be trying to send a message.

Here are some messages from the people who were actually there:

Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 fires
Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 damage
Eyewitness accounts of withdrawal and hold back from WTC 7 due to danger

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:01:29 AM

  (0+)

showing that they lied. It just adds noise (its just a personal attack without evidence) even if it happens to be true which I've no reason to think is the case. 

These 9-11 discussions frequently seem to be almost entirely meaningless noise much of the time. The truth, whatever it is, isn't helped by being cloaked in so much noise. 

If people are learning something, anything, by making all that noise then maybe it has some purpose for them but it doesn't seem to be a purpose that relates to making the truth, whatever it is, of a topic, under discussion, clearer. Which is probably what we want in democracies right? More people knowing what is real versus what is false so better policies are made? 

Maybe some people need their truth delivered in a sort of world wrestling insults flying package to be able to find it interesting.  But if so they take a heck of a lot of packaging/noise to get very little product/message.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 6:56:43 PM

  (0+)

"I had a clear view down Washington Street of Building Seven, which was on the north edge of the site. All forty-seven stories were on fire. It was wild. The MPs said the building was going to collapse. I said, "Nah, I don't know." And then all of a sudden I watched the building shake like an earthquake hit it, and the building came down." –Ground Zero Superintendant Charlie Vitchers (Glenn Stout, Charles Vitchers, and Robert Gray. Nine Months at Ground Zero. Scribner, 2006 15-16) Note: Vitchers may have only seen the building from the north side. Note: Vitchers may have only seen the building from the north side. There may not have been visible fires on most floors there. His quote is included to show how impressive the scene was."

ROTFL! What this quote shows is not "how impressive the scene was", but rather, the excitability of the "eyewitnesses", under these extreme circumstances, and the fact that many apparently didn't see what they thought they saw.

Thanks for that. It may explain why the FEMA study team apparently didn't give much weight to the anecdotes told by "eyewitnesses".

And here's another gem:

"We heard reports ALL DAY LONG of 7 World Trade possibly coming down. ...We heard that all day long, all the warnings." –Firefighter Christopher Patrick Murray
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110327.PDF

Note the key phrase: "ALL DAY LONG"; not an hour or two before the collapse, but apparently many hours before. Which is apparently confirmed by the following:

"We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing.  So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex.  –Chief Frank Fellini" http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110217.PDF

And then there's this:

I remember him screaming about number 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse, they don't know when, but it's definitely going to come down, just get the hell out of the way, everybody get away from it, make sure you're away from it, that's an order, you know, stuff like that.  –Firefighter Edward Kennedy http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110502.PDF

Note the wording: They knew it was "DEFINATELY" going to collapse.

Taken together, this paints a clear picture of inculpatory foreknowledge of the collapse of WTC7.

So, who put out the word WTC7 was coming down? That's one of the things an investigation will have to determine.

BTW, thanks for your efforts in support of the "truther" cause.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Aug 29, 2008 at 12:16:22 AM

  (0+)

Those quotes are indicative of the fact that the FDNY opted not to fight the fires in WTC 7 because they were afraid that it was going to collapse. They also had no water pressure, so risking more lives in there didn't make sense. Are you accusing Chief Nigro and his men of being conspirators in the destruction of the building, or just Larry Silverstein, the US government, and the rest of the usual suspects?

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 1, 2008 at 8:55:24 AM

  (0+)

JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE REPEAT SOMETHING THEY HEARD FROM A SINGLE SOURCE DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE CONSPIRATORS TO ANYTHING

GOT IT?

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:19:22 AM

  (0+)

but the rest of your comment moves us from the specific to the general. I don't want to have a general discussion.

A report has been written by NIST. It is being offered as 'authoritative' and it will be accepted by me (for one) as 'authoratative' unless its findings are refuted or falsified by valid criticism (mine if I bother to read it closely or someone elses if I happen to read their criticism).

Do you have valid criticisms? Its really that simple so far as my interest in this goes.

As an aside - it was other people questioning the 9-11 official story that caused me to be interested in the WTC 7 story specifically.  My own attitude to the possibility that 9-11 might have been an inside job (as opposed to the probability that it wasn't based on what I currently know) will probably turn on the WTC 7 aspect.  I'm not willing to spend lots of time checking every wide story but its my worth while looking at the WTC 7 story over time.

Impeachment for me (for war crimes and crimes against humanity and for undermining the global rule of law and confidence in that body of law) is more important than this and impeachment is not going to be effected by this unless the 'authoritative' WTC 7 story from NIST is shown to be very very wrong.  

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 6:43:29 PM

  (0+)

 Mother of all Bar-B-Q'z  http://www.babcockpower.com/pdf/teisw-05.pdf

by Keystone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 299 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:08:56 AM

  (0+)

It stretches one's imagination to think that a building that was build to withstand a nuclear attack...

Whoa! Where do you come up with this stuff?

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Saturday, Aug 30, 2008 at 5:20:59 AM

  (0+)

I got as far as where you say NIST describes thermal expansion as a "new phenomenon".

I took that as an indicator of the quality (or lack thereof) of this article and concluded there's no point in reading beyond that.

When metal gets hot, it expands. Hardly a "new phenomenon", and NIST certainly doesn't describe it as such.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Friday, Aug 29, 2008 at 9:42:53 PM

  (0+)

The single biggest indicator of a cover up is the fact that the entire area of the WTC complex was not treated as a crime scene, evidence gathered, indictments issued, and an ensuing trial took place. Even if our govt was not complicit - some heads should have rolled anyway for being asleep at the wheel! If no police action took place, then I guess there was really no crime. It was just pure coincidence that two jetliners happened to collide within an hour or so of each other in two buildings that just happened to be standing next to each other. Good grief folks, either connect the dots or go back to kindergarten and learn how. NIST = Naturally Incredibly Stupid Turkeys!

by Cinderfella (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 248 comments [95 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Aug 30, 2008 at 12:54:37 AM

  (0+)

The single biggest indicator of a cover up is the fact that the entire area of the WTC complex was not treated as a crime scene, evidence gathered, indictments issued, and an ensuing trial took place. Even if our govt was not complicit - some heads should have rolled anyway for being asleep at the wheel!

Certainly. I haven't seen anybody suggest otherwise.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Saturday, Aug 30, 2008 at 5:22:33 AM

  (0+)

I bet they did that for Oklahoma City - and probably for the first WTC bombing - but  911 was more on the scale of a military attack.  Nobody worried about indicting anyone after Pearl Harbor.  War  (the terrorists seem to think that's what they're engaged in)  is treated differently..  We thought we knew who was responsible for  9/11, and just about all of them were dead.  We sent the armed forces (because that's who you go to when there's a war, not the police) after the ones that weren't ; the military tends to skip the yellow tape and the indictments.

But heads certainly should have rolled, as you said.

by tim bristol (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments) on Saturday, Aug 30, 2008 at 8:30:51 PM

  (0+)

 According to the NIST report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temeratures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings. WTC 7 used a structual system design in wide use. The coefficient of thermal expansion for structural steel is 12, compared to the coefficient for Aluminium which is 23. How many building's structual system employ Aluminium Trusses and Aluminium Heavy Stringer Beams ? If the NIST report is correct, we have a safety issue of epic proportion on our hands. http://hypertextbook.com/physics/thermal/expansion/

by Keystone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 299 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Aug 30, 2008 at 2:14:43 AM

  (0+)

Yup. Controlled demolition theory aside, the NIST report is still shocking.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Saturday, Aug 30, 2008 at 5:23:55 AM

  (0+)

There is a published and peer-reviewed paper available authored by Kevin Ryan and others, and released publicly about a month ago which shows in great detail from aerial samples collected over a sequence of days covering a 5 month period in lower Manhattan an enormous amount of organic chemical residuals in the air which can only be caused by extremely high temperature reactions of both organic and inorganic compounds.  It is a quite esoteric read for the untrained, however for those with the knowledge to understand, the implications of this study are clear and scientifically unchallengeable:  Extremely large amounts of high temperature explosives were used at some time during the second week in Semptember 2001 in Lower Manhattan and continued for months in their residual hot-spots to transform materials in ways not otherwise possible, which can be and have been traced.  These organic transformations of organic and non-organic materials into chemical signatures which specifically point to the use of very high temperature explosive compounds were subsequently detected, analyzed, and have been peer-reviewed.  

The layman's explanation: The towers were brought down by the detonation of enormous amounts of explosive charges applied to their superstructures.  There are indications that the specific explosive in question is a Thermite/Thermate compound which has been modified into a sprayable form, and which is only available in extremely small circles, primarily from US military sources.

In addition there are several actual samples of thermite and thermate compounds which have been discovered in the few available physical remains of the towers in the possession of several 911 researchers.  

This is conclusive evidence of controlled demolition and is supported by both scientific analysis and direct physical evidence.

Battling these pieces of evidence with conjecture, half-baked science, and "new" or "previously unknown" properties of well known and common materials such as steel is pointless.  Science will prove the "theory" of controlled demolition of the World Trade Center to be true, period, if it has not already done so.

You may waste your time challenging me, my intelligence, or my sources, but you will not be able to disprove the scientific data available.

911 was an inside job. 

by Cassie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 15 comments) on Saturday, Aug 30, 2008 at 1:48:11 PM

  (0+)

Could you provide a link to this peer-reviewed paper you speak of?

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Saturday, Aug 30, 2008 at 11:05:07 PM

  (0+)

Thermite is not an explosive, it's an incendiary, and it burns for a few minutes and then cools. If it or shaped charges had been used to cut steel in the WTC buildings, the evidence would have been on hundreds of column ends in the debris piles. Was everyone working on the cleanup for eight months blind and stupid, or were they all "in on it"?

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:07:05 AM

  (0+)

Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., who was hired for the Building 7
cleanup, said that “molten steel was found at 7 WTC.”5 Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center
structural engineer, stated that on October 5, “21 days after the attacks, the fires were still
burning and molten steel was still running.”6 Fire department personnel, recorded on video,
reported seeing “molten steel running down the channel rails… like you're in a foundry – like
lava from a volcano.”7 Joe O’Toole, a Bronx firefighter, saw a crane lifting a steel beam
vertically from deep within a pile. He said “it was dripping from the molten steel.”8 Bart
Voorsanger, an architect hired to save “relics from the rubble,” stated about the multi-ton
“meteorite” that it was a “fused element of molten steel and concrete.”9

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:02:33 PM

  (0+)

What normal person even uses this word.

What a dipshit!!!

My guess is that A. Smith is actually several different shills taking turns on, or more accurately, changing shifts on these comment boards.

This particular post was written by a woman. Others are much more masculine. 

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:33:01 PM

  (0+)

"This particular post was written by a woman. Others are much more masculine."

Good catch!  It's difficult to see this unless you follow someone closely.  Of course, working in gymnastics would help someone to recognize such subtleties - again good catch.  I'm glad you're on our team!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:28:11 PM

  (0+)

9/11 allowed the Bush crime cartel to foist its illegal war on the american people that in turn guaranteed Halliburton the cash it needed to cover its portion of the liabilities. It also quickly solved the problem of cleaning up the asbestos in the WTC. It enabled the GOP to push through legislation protecting Halliburton. It also consumed the lion's share of evidence the SEC had regarding ENRON, held in WTC7... and it all fits.  Lies and conjecture, unfortunately, don't dovetail quite so well.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.  You can pick apart each and every talking point but the fact will remain that when looked at in broad spectrum, it is undeniably an inside job.

SYNERGY:  combined effects are greater than their individual effects

by bucketslogg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 259 comments [99 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:26:51 AM

  (0+)

Sorry to hear that you find facts and logic so intimidating, Dave, and that the video, World Trade Center Not a Demolition, went so far over your head. I noticed that your video didn't include the sounds during each C/D, and ignored the fact that the towers collapsed from the upper floors down, totally unlike any of the C/Ds it showed. To answer your question, no, you couldn't muffle the sounds of shaped charges powerful enough to sever multiple non pre-cut columns in those buildings, and they'd have been heard thirty miles away at least. And did you just add the media to your list of "conspirators," along with Matthys Levy, Gene Corley, Les Robertson, and Irwin Cantor, four of the top structural engineers in the country, plus Brent Blanchard, a demolitions expert, and the ironworkers at Ground Zero? Geez, along with NIST, Chimpie and the Shooter, Rumsfeld, the CIA, FBI, NYPD, United Airlines, American Airlines, all of the 9/11 Commission members, the NTSB, FAA, FEMA, the entire DoD, Larry Silverstein and his FDNY "pull it" lapdog, Rudy Giuliani, Marvin Bush, the PNAC, Jerome Hauer, the tens of thousands of other people who were at the four crash scenes in the aftermath of the attacks, and the SEC and CBOE for not flagging all of the "suspicious" short selling of UAL and AMR prior to the attacks, that's getting to be quite an impressive list from you folks, and must have taken considerable thought and "research." [note: some of those were listed to accomodate the "no-plane" nuts in your group]

Is there some reason that you think the weight of the towers relative to the planes is significant, other than pure ignorance? Once they severed at least 42 columns in each tower and the fires weakened and bowed considerably more of them, 4500 tons per floor above the damaged area is hardly in favor of your ridiculous argument. And why would these have only been the "smallest of fires"?

Did they just magically self-extinguish right after those photos were taken?

Your "theory" that controlled demolitions brought down the WTC buildings is asinine, for any number of good reasons. You couldn't even get to the perimeter columns without going through building and then tenant security, and there would have been no place to hide anything on them once you did:

But assuming that there was a way, there is NO WAY that columns or other structural members in any WTC building could have been exploded or melted without leaving tons of highly visible evidence in the debris, and ~40,000 people worked at Ground Zero for nearly eight months without reporting any, so we're back to your list of conspirators again. Ask those union ironworkers why they angled their torch cuts, or accuse them of being too stupid to notice them, or of being part of the "plot." Whatever you do, don't blame it on the terrorists who actually caused all of the destruction on 9/11, because that would actually make sense, something you gullible nuts aren't known for. 

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 2, 2008 at 2:13:24 PM

  (0+)

"To answer your question, no, you couldn't muffle the sounds of shaped charges powerful enough to sever multiple non pre-cut columns in those buildings, and they'd have been heard thirty miles away at least."

Doesn't heat weaken steel?  If thermate were used, why would they have to use standard grade shape charges????  You also keep repeatedly insisting that they'd have to use standard industrial demolition techniques.  By doing so, you're implying the Military Industrial Complex wouldn't have any better technology than this.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:14:57 PM

  (0+)

Feel free to explain what "better technology" they had which collapses buildings without leaving columns behind with clear signs that they were severed by controlled demolition techniques, which in the real world don't even include incendiaries. And since the collapses started right where the planes hit, how did all of this alleged material stay undisturbed by either the crashes or the fires? And don't forget to post proof of your previous claim that Dr. Greening said that hot stuff falls faster than cold stuff. I'm still waiting, but that statement appears to be about as honest as the one about your not calling me a shill. You twoofers are a hoot.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Saturday, Sep 6, 2008 at 6:56:03 AM

  (0+)

http://wecanchangetheworld.wordpress.com/

by Keystone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 299 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:32:56 PM

  (0+)

The vid didn't go over my head, but obviously my comments went over yours, you people of limited intelligence ought to be more careful about slagging your superiors, eventually you wind up with a LOT of egg all over your little egos, and you're on a real deadend street here with your support of the pack of lies of the official stupidity theory.

Your 'great fire wow look at that!!!!' pics is the kind of sleazy trick you people are good at, but I guess that's what you get from watching tv and believing people with a lie to push like the official conspiracy people - that fire looks pretty impressive shot with a telephoto lens to exaggerate the size, and in close up, but what about this -

 this one looks a hell of a lot less scary, and you cannot look at this picture with a functioning brain and say, "Oh, yea, sure, obviously the building is on the brink of collapse."

- and size is important here, in terms of credibility, which is why I understand you want people NOT to think about it - but calling me 'ignorant' for noting this is important exposes only your own ignorance - or your attempt to use childish namecalling to intimidate others - as I told you before, you're wasting your time, sport. As I have said, flying that 100 ton plane into your little frame bungalow would be pretty disastrous - but flying it into a 500,000 ton steel and cement structure, bolted and welded big steel beams, is an entirely different proposition. Surely you can see that. There's a weight differential of a factor of 5,000 there, and that is significant, since one of your main planks in your 'official conspiracy theory' is that the plane caused considerable structural damage - but if you think in terms of relative size, you can see that the damage would be much less than your people seem to want to admit to. If I swing a hammer into your head, for instance, the damage will probably be severe - if I swing it into an elephant's head, nothing more than an annoyance. Likewise with your planes - if you put that into perspective, 100 ton plane, 500,000 ton building, the person aware of such things is not going to be thinking fatal structural damage, but only serious blow, but no reason to suppose it should be fatal. And then start wondering what the hell happened to bring all three of them down. (at least thinking people do, obviously some of you are ready to lap up any idiotic story from your government)

- I'm curious as to where you got that '42 severed columns figure' - something else only a tv mind could spout as if it meant something (or perhaps NIST 'scientists' making up models to fulfill impossible criteria). Look at this picture - and use your brain, such as it is.

 The plane - a hollow aluminum tube with hollow wings and two quite solid engines, hit the building, impacting first the outer steel columns, again structural steel, and some number of the cement and steel floors. And exploded from the fuel. This would have taken a great deal of the momentum out of the weight of the plane, before impacting the central columns. And you or nobody else is going to tell me some fragment of a hollow steel tube, I don't really care how fast it is going, is going to take out one of the steel columns in that picture. An engine may have taken out a column, or not, but even if each engine took out a couple, that leaves a lot of columns. Your 42 figure is pure fantasy.

And think about your theory that fire weakened these columns - after most of the jet fuel was used up in the explosions, what was left, along with all of the office supplies on several floors, would not be enough to compromise ANY of those columns, let alone ALL of them, which is what your halfwitted theory depends on. You apparently think structural steel behaves like old 2x4x or something, that will just snap when you put enough weight on them. Steel does not 'snap' like a stick, it resists a huge amount, and then twists and bends - if the plane crash had of weakened enough central columns around the point of impact, the top section of the building would have pivoted on whatever columns remained, and slowly toppled, always with great resistance from the remaining columns. The huge central column area under the impact section would have resisted and prevailed - there is absolutely no way that all of those columns would just, all at the same time, 'snap' like a few 2x4s if you dropped a huge safe on them or something - you try to make that kind of analogy, but if you think of the properties and strength of steel, you see that never, never, never would those steel columns all just give way the way they did in that building without some far more direct help than that relatively small airplane impact and those kerosene and paper fires. You make an issue out of 4500 tons per floor above the impact, which sounds impressive no doubt, but try to remember the strength of the 80 or so floors below the impact, also the same weight more or less (the lower floors had thicker steel), and all of a sudden you have a weight of perhaps 100,000 tons dropping onto a base of 400.000 tons - and with that kind of figure in one's head, your scenario of 'irresistable force' loses about 99% of its credibility. Like pretty much everything else you people say when looked at outside of a tvhead perspective, with some logical analysis.

- as I keep saying, I don't know for sure what happened that day, all I do know for sure is that your theory has no place outside of hollywood FX, as I explained briefly here and in the thought experiment http://www.rudemacedon.ca/lgi/911-thoughtex.html . But you're a smart guy, albury, just suppose, for some reason, you really wanted to bring those buildings down in some alternative universe where they were still standing. Do you suppose, if you had pretty unlimited funds, and a brother named Marvin Bush who was running the 'security' in the building and was ready to go along with your scheme, you might be able to figure out something? What if the building was 20% empty at any given time, and we could turn off the power for a few weekends for 'emergency maintenance' or something? Be creative - think you could figure something?

- and actually, we do want to bring terrorists to justice for this monstrous crimes - I just think we need to look a little closer to home than caves in Afghanistan, unlike the gullible idiots who believe the official conspiracy theory. When we do track em down, people like you better be keeping a low profile, because all of this obstructionism as we look for the real perps is making you look and sound an awful lot like an accomplice of some sort. You know, all the little Eichmanns without whom Hitler would have never made it out of Austria. Once the people figure out the truth, you guys get what's comin.

 (PS - I don't know who flagged albury for a moderator's attention, but leave the poor guy alone, obviously has no life, and needs to run around bothering more intelligent people to get some attention - but maybe he can learn something here ..... manners anyway ....)

by siamdave (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 3, 2008 at 8:13:51 AM

  (0+)

I flagged it to alert the editors to the fact that more than 50 posts disappeared here all at once, which is why the reason is "other," and none of them seems to know why.

The photo you posted of the fires is from the absolute best angle, and taken at the perfect time, to give the deliberately false impression that the fires in the towers were minor, which is why it was selected by your conspiracy nut friend. If you ever bothered to read NCSTAR1, you'd know that the planes pushed debris across the floors to sides away from the impact areas and wound up there themselves, fueling the most severe fires in those areas, and the North Tower taken from the north side completes hides them. The South Tower was undoubtedly hit only minutes earlier, the east side is almost completely obscured, and fires on the south side were still developing. You're the one employing a "sleazy trick," and it's reminiscent of you nuts' quoting the radio call from the FDNY's Orio Palmer, who never got past the 78th floor of the South Tower and was in a stairwell, and claiming that it's proof that the major fires were almost out 5 floors above him. You'd also know where I got the 42 column figure if you actually read the NIST report, and most of the severed ones could easily be counted. Of course, there isn't a truther alive who isn't smarter than all 230+ NIST engineers and scientists combined, so those experts and their LS-DYNA and other finite element packages have nothing on you, so 42 columns is "pure fantasy" because you say it is. 

Your claim that Marvin Bush "was running the 'security'" at the WTC is proof positive of how dishonest and desperate you are. He was a board member of Securacom/Stratesec, which was a minor contractor to the Port Authority, and after the 1993 bombing, provided and installed some of the components for the electronic surveillance systems in the WTC. They had the bulk of their work awarded to another company in 1998 because of non-performance, and Marvin Bush left their board more than 14 months before the 9/11 attacks. Board members don't run day-to-day operations in the first place, and the PAPD handled the overwhelming majority of building security by itself, and didn't sub it out to anyone, least of all an electronics firm. The Marvin Bush yarn is just more truther fantasy, and you're not being "creative," you're just lying and being deliberately misleading.

You can also take your threats and shove them, sport, and please stop whining about "childish namecalling [sic]" and intimidation, because you're far more guilty of both than I am. If you're going to level gratuitous attacks on my intelligence while spewing this crap, don't be surprised or unduly offended when I offer my honest assessment of yours.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 3, 2008 at 1:26:26 PM

  (0+)

BAD IMAGE - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc1_woman_impact-area_full_small.jpg (must exist and begin with http)

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 3, 2008 at 2:06:51 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 3, 2008 at 3:03:31 PM

  (0+)

The fires were pushed to the other side of the building?

So furniture fires are responsible for the collapses?

Hey Sport?????

Your hysterical Ms. Smith 

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:38:24 PM

  (0+)

Reading comprehension problem? I said the planes pushed debris across the floors to sides away from the impact areas and wound up there themselves, fueling the most severe fires in those places, and your photo of Edna Cintron standing in the hole where the plane entered the North Tower is grossly misleading, since there were no major fires at that location, and air was being drawn in to feed them in other parts of the building. That's why she was able to survive there until the collapse. It's obvious from the pictures and just using common sense, and the fires, which were only fueled by office combustibles and the contents of the planes after the jet fuel burned off in the first ten minutes or so, easily reached high enough temperatures to cause the floors trusses to sag and the perimeter columns to be pulled in by them. It's in the photos, and only a real nitwit would argue with evidence that clear. What do you think caused the steel to bow inward slowly before the collapses? Bombs? Yeah, you probably do...

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Saturday, Sep 6, 2008 at 10:49:27 AM

  (0+)

The plane exploded in a massive fireball. It didn't slide across the building and smolder for an hour you stupid f#$k!

The "raging" fires went out and the structural integrity of the building was still intact.

Your 40 plus years in construction management should have told you that.

Ohh wait, that's bullshit as well.

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:31:31 PM

  (0+)

 Take two identical cups

    A) The 1st; North-cup

    B) The 2nd; South-cup

 Place a cube of ice in the North-cup at 8:45 am

 Place a cube of ice in the South-cup at 9:00 am

 Which cube will melt first?

 Which tower was hit first?

 Which tower collapsed first?

by Keystone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 299 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:47:38 PM

  (0+)

The tower that was hit ~15 floors lower and therefore had a weakened structure that was supporting about 68,000 tons more, and also had an (estimated) 4 more core columns severed by a plane going roughly 100 mph faster (about 30% more KE) will and did collapse first. Is this another or your futile attempts at logic? Btw,try heating up your barbeque and then putting explosives and incendiaries in the fire. Stand close by so you don't miss anything.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Thursday, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:06:26 AM

  (0+)

I can understand how, from your perspective, showing real pictures that give perspective could be considered 'sleazy', as it tends to blow your half-witted conspiracy theory out of the water, but that's what thinking people do, try to move back from the booga booga of people promoting some brand of snake oil, and get a grip on the facts. Which I notice you shy away from pretty thoroughly when they endanger your little fantasy - as I noted, no person with a functioning brain could look at this picture

and think those towers were on the brink of collapse, yet you don't address this at all, except to say, no no! look at MY picture with all the scary looking smoke!! - the problem is, we have looked at your picture, and the other ones, and these and many other things raise some very serious questions that your crazy theories do not even begin to address, theories which all seem to start from one premise only - how do we explain the destruction of the twin towers without mentioning the dreaded 'controlled demolition' words? - and since all of the primae facie evidence points to some form of CD, and this does not go away by saying 'no way! we're not even THINKing about that!!! - there are not really any credible places to look for other explanations, so the bullshit comes hot and heavy, with lots of mockery and attempted shouting down of the people who can smell such stuff a long ways off and start demolishing your little special FX fantasies, suitable for drooling morons in front of televisions all day long but very quickly understood and seen through by thinking people.

Look at the south tower there, the one where the plane almost missed altogether, and only blew out part of a corner - do you have a theory about how the central columns, which provided the main support and strength, could be so compromised that that building was going to crumble to the ground in less than an hour?  Or all that black smoke you find so impressive - you are aware that heavy black smoke means an oxygen starved fire, and thus little heat (or is that a part of science you want to sort of forget here?) Look at those lower 70-80 floors, and think of that solid central core of 47 heavy duty construction steel welded and bolted together columns, with not a sign of fire down there or any other weakening - what is going on in your 'mind' that you can pretend they are going to crumble up like a house of sticks in just a few minutes, when they are obviously as strong as the day they were built? There is no answer to that question, except some form of controlled demolition.

Let me tell you about your beloved NIST report - it is complete bullshit from beginning to end, and this is why - as I noted above, it has one goal - how do we 'prove' that the WTC buildings collapsed due to that plane strike and those relatively insignificant fires that remained after the great showy fireballs? And thus it ignores the evidence of the eyes, and constructs little (or actually extremely abstruse) models that allow for the desired scenario, ignoring everything that casts doubt on those theories (and that's a lot of ignoring, leading to a lot of ignorance in those who walk around waving it like the bible or some other book of secret magic). I don't know and I don't really care why so many high level people would lend their names to this kind of bullshit (I imagine the reasons run the gamut from corrupt to intimidated to just plain stupid, but powerful people do many lying things for reasons related to their power, and many others suck up to them to be close to that power - which category do you fit into, albury?), it does not change the central fact that it is bullshit. And I make this call based on my own intelligence and experience - I do not rely on 'experts' of any sort to make decisions in my life (a lesson you'd do well to think about, as you've obviously tied yourself to some pretty unreliable people) - I listen to every POV, and weigh them against my own knowledge, and some things sound reasonable and some are found wanting. For you or anyone to look at that picture, and tell me that building is about to collapse just like a house of cards because of the plane crash and little fires completely defies belief, and I'll have none of it. If you are serious about your beliefs, back off on the name calling, and just give a short and simple and believable scenario that accounts for the way that building came down - it cannot be done, as I expect you know, so you run and hide behind bogus reports and carefully selected pictures out of context, and 'listen to my expert!!' crap.
Aside from that, get back to your moronic tv with others who choose to enhance their nothing lives with halfwitted fantasies about Arabs in caves plotting heinous things and disintegrating airplanes (except for a special incriminating passport wow!!!) and 'global collapse scenario wow cool!!'.
Some of us prefer facts. Steel doesn't do global collapse, ergo there is something else going on here. Your mind, now., apparently underwent something like that some time ago. 

by siamdave (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:11:48 AM

  (0+)

or at least look at a video of UA 175 hitting the South Tower and stop making a complete ass of yourself. You're clueless if you think it "only blew out part of a corner." It was going 100 mph faster (~30% more KE than AA 11), the entire plane hit the building, taking out only 2 fewer perimeter columns than 11 did because of the much steeper 38 degree roll angle, and it nearly toppled the upper part at impact, leaving it leaning until the tower collapsed less than an hour later, starting right at the impact area. (Jeezus, how did those "explosives" or whatever, survive the crash and fires?) It hit closer to the core than 11, since the cores were rectangular in square buildings and were oriented 90 degrees apart, and its flight path was almost directly in line with the east row of core columns. Simulations by reputable, qualified structural engineers have concluded that 4 more core columns were severed in WTC 2 than in 1, and they're more accurate than your biased speculation, which is based on no information whatsoever. You also refuse to look at facts about the extent of the fires in both towers, and for some reason seem to believe that you can stack most of the inside combustibles and the wreckage from a large plane in multiple 40,000 sq. ft. floors of an office building, instantly ignite them with a few thousand gallons of jet fuel, and the fires will self-extinguish in an hour or so with no water pressure or firefighters. That would definitely be a "first," and I showed you what the fires looked like from the sides where they were most visible, which is not where your photo was taken.

I'll be away until tomorrow afternoon, so have fun posting your asine BS uncorrected for a brief period of time. You "truthers" are incredible (literally).

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Thursday, Sep 4, 2008 at 6:26:08 AM

  (0+)

"You can tell by looking"

I must have missed that chapter in my science book.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:49:31 AM

  (0+)

I can look at a video of Flight 175 slamming into the South Tower at ~540 mph and tell that it didn't just"only [blow] out part of a corner." Must be a gift, huh?

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:57:04 PM

  (0+)

You must have a gift.  No one else can "just tell" the structural integrity of a building.  You must be rich!

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 3:28:23 PM

  (0+)

I can tell by looking that UA 175 didn't just superficially graze the SE corner of WTC 2, doofus. You could too, if you were the slightest bit honest.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:47:00 PM

  (0+)

sarcastic because of how shallow the conversation went.   :-(

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:09:20 PM

  (0+)

It's just plain stupid to claim that UA 175 "just blew our a corner" of WTC 2, which is what your buddy Dave said.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:14:34 PM

  (0+)

Kind of like chasing a squealing pig around a field, trying to get any of these OCTers to deal with some straight questions, always dancing away from the serious ones and running back to some other irrelevancy. But that's how it always is - we have honest questions and concerns, they duck and dodge and spout dogma and insults. All hail the OCT!!!!
Your pics of smoke are very impressive in closeup - but what I want to see is a pic of the whole building, any perspective you like if you can find something better than the ones I have used but the whole damn thing and not some closeups of something you think will scare the impressionable tv watchers, to see the full extent of the 'conflagration' in some perspective. Your closeups of smoke aren't even that impressive, really, as I have said, to the mind which has any understanding of science and the way things work (which you hollywood FX conspiracy people quite obviously are pretty lacking in, and your bogus 'scientists' contructing booga booga 'models') - but factually speaking, black smoke indicates small, oxygen-starved fires, smouldering rather than actively burning, black smoke rising up over the walls of the top 10-15 floors does not mean all those floors were on fire (you remember your science? Smoke rises.....). That is why the perspective is important - with perspective, one sees that the fires were relatively small (relatively compared to the whole 100+-story buildings). Don't tell me to read 'reports' where some flunky 'scientist' has constructed some 'model' to prove anything, these guys have no credibility, show me a pic of the whole building, with the 'massive fires' you talk about raging up and down the whole height of it, weakening all the construction steel... And while you're doing pics, show me a pic of the upper section of the south tower almost falling over after the impact (not the one we've all seen just as it started collapsing, now - a longer perspective one, with it 'almost falling over' just after impact - this appears to be complete fantasy on your part, there is no such picture I am aware of) - in the pics I have, as I have posted earlier, it really does look like only a corner has been damaged, and the rest of it, the rest of the building, is standing pretty tall and strong. You don't look or sound very impressive, telling people not to believe their eyes, but to believe 'reports' with fabricated 'models' that attempt to prove something everyone can see is not true.
About fires self-extinguishing - it's just a natural sort of process, there, bud - as fuel gets consumed, fires die down - it happens all the time - and the black smoke indicates this is what was happening at the WTCs. Try it some day - get your face out of lying reports, get a few gallons of gas, an old desk, a bit of paper, set it up on a highway or cement parking lot somewhere, and light er up. I'll bet you anything you want that it will make a big impressive bang when you toss the old match on her (stand well back, there, bud, I wouldn't want to be accused of trying to do you damage), and burn really impressively for a few minutes, but pretty soon, as the gas burns out and the paper and wood get consumed, it will start to die out. Or does the NIST report have some magical ingredients here - combustible airplane frames new scientific finding wow!!!! dislodged fireproofing turns construction steel and cement into firetrap cool!!!
- does the NIST report explain how a kerosene and paper fire can generate temperatures hot enough to melt or even weaken steel? In the real world, a kerosene and paper fire won't melt much metal - and yet here we have a small amount of kerosene and a small amount of paper and wood magically weakening huge amounts of steel on this one day in history so it breaks apart like old sticks of wood!!! - you'll have to explain that someday. How's your BBQ holding out there, big guy? You must go through quite a few, considering how fragile that metal stuff is when exposed - me, the metal in the BBQs I have had have been quite fire resistant .... maybe you could round up some quotes from some guys who work in steel foundries about how they smelt all their steel using kerosene and paper fires .... some great new finding or something ...

geez you guys are brainless. don't forget your doggy chow. Or should that be addressed to your handler - they're not really letting you out alone, are they?

by siamdave (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 4, 2008 at 9:33:00 AM

  (0+)

Glad to know that office fires just go out by themselves in a few minutes, and that we no longer have to worry about fireproofing structural steel in hi-rises, especially stuff like the lightweight bar joists in the WTC towers. By all means, look at anything but the areas where the fires were most intense to determine how severe they were. ANY fire consuming plastics will produce black smoke, and it has nothing to do with the heat being generated. In the real world, the upper level temperatures of normal office fires are 1100 F or more, and NIST didn't just speculate that they weakened the bar joists, which then sagged and pulled in perimeter columns, they based that scenario on ample photographic evidence, but you'd prefer to look at shots taken from a distance and from the other side. No one has ever claimed that all of the upper floors were on fire, so that's just a blatant straw man argument, as is your reference to melted steel. With "perspective," a normal person would see that it doesn't take widespread damage on multiple floors, but just sufficient damage on one or two floors to cause everything above to crash down on the floors below, which is exactly what happened in the WTC towers. If you have evidence of any other factors in the collapses, please feel free to enlighten the tens of thousands of people at Ground Zero who were too dumb to notice it, or just accuse all 40,000 of them of being in on the conspiracy too.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:18:06 PM

  (0+)

http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Saturday, Sep 6, 2008 at 2:41:13 PM

  (0+)

If there are any insomniacs still following this little spat, there is a good response to the NIST political report here - click here . Another very interesting take on the fires and other things here - http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_i.htm 

by siamdave (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:20:05 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Saturday, Sep 6, 2008 at 6:43:34 AM

  (0+)

Obviously this little computer simulation is bullshit since the nose cone of the plane came out the other side of the building. At least temporarily, until FOX pulled the video.

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:07:45 PM

  (0+)

That was emerging debris passed off as a nose cone to idiots like you by other truther nuts, who froze the frame right there so that you can't see it dispersing a split second later. Jeezus, "your" gullible.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:23:02 PM

  (0+)

Of course, why didn't I think of that.

Emerging debris in the same cylindrical shape as a plane's nose cone?

Ohh Ms. Smith, you're such a dunce! 

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:59:09 PM

  (0+)

believe Internet crap purporting to show that a huge 767 could be faked not only in dozens of videos taken by as many different people, but could also fool thousands of live eyewitnesses. They're the bottom of the heap among truther nuts. Not just stupid, but scary stupid.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:28:20 PM

  (0+)

If you think it's scary stupid then there must be some truth in it. I'll have to look into this further. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction Super
Spook.

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:11:36 AM

  (0+)

It's scary to think that any reasonably normal adult human being could possibly believe that the hijacked planes were faked, and that the towers were brought down by planted explosives. Laughable, but scary, since it transcends regular, run-of-the-mill stupidity.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:51:43 AM

  (0+)

in the shape of a planes nose cone of course

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:03:34 PM

  (0+)

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:21:12 PM

  (0+)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ

Bummer that this video contradicts your little computer animation.

Reality sucks doesn't Ms. Smith.

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:24:02 PM

  (0+)

Are you REALLY a "no-plane" nut? I thought you had at least a little sense.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:31:45 PM

  (0+)

If I could gain the acceptance of a subhuman piece of sh*t like yourself, I could sleep at night.

See the nose cone????

Do you look stupid????

Now take your little computer simulation and shove it up your ass.

"emerging debris"

WOW! what an a**hole 

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:08:16 PM

  (0+)

Have you contacted United Airlines to tell them the good news about their 767, moron? Be sure to tell the NTSB and FAA too. They all think they recovered the wreckage of Flight 175 in NYC, but you nuts are way smarter than they are. 

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:23:32 PM

  (0+)

always a good move when someone makes you look like an a**hole.

Blurry or not, that's the planes nose.

Maybe United can produce some documentation that flight 175 even flew that day. That would probaly be a good starting point. Don't you think?...

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:06:46 AM

  (0+)

The WTC towers never existed, but were holograms, the photos and videos of them were faked, and anyone who claims to have seen them was brainwashed or intimidated by the US government. That's why the alleged planes flew right through them unscathed. And while the real perps scrambled to plant plane debris for blocks around the so-called crash sites to pull off this hoax, they forgot to truck in enough building debris to account for both towers. The steel and concrete weren't turned to fine "talcum powder" dust by planted explosives and then carried away by the wind, as your "researcher," Richard Gage claims, or vaporized by a "Star Wars" beam, as another luminary of your "movement," Judy Wood has stated, they were just simply never there in the first place. Top that one, you frickin' LooneyTune.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:42:59 AM

  (0+)

Who said anything about no plane accept your stupid ass.

It's a plane and that's the nose coming out the other side.

Is Ms. smith trying to muddy the waters like a good little shill?

You're so sad.

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:09:17 AM

  (0+)

Who said anything about no plane accept [sic] your stupid ass.

It's a plane and that's the nose coming out the other side.

So a plane other than UA 175 went completely through the South Tower and out the other side and its nose was still intact? What happened to this intact nose? Do you have any photos of it, or did it just keep flying? 

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:31:32 PM

  (0+)

I just proved your computer animation was complete bullshit.

Case closed on that weak piece of analysis.

Are you saying that isn't a nose cone appearing from the building?

If so, we need to talk about about updating your vision benefits.

Most policies have a free eye exam when your purchase new contacts or glasses. Check out this link: http://www.vsp.com/

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:06:29 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:37:33 PM

  (0+)

Did your stupid ass see how many rings of the Pentagon that Flight 77 was purported to have gone thru?

Make up your mind, are you saying a commercial jet can pass thru 6 walls/3 seperate buidlings of reinforced concrete specifically designed to handle explosives like the pentagon, but it can't make it thru the WTC?

Where did the nose cone go? That's a good question, as it appears to simply disappear?

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 6:53:05 PM

  (0+)

Jerkwad says: Where did the nose cone go? That's a good question, as it appears to simply disappear?

I think you're finally starting to get it. A real, intact nose cone from a plane wouldn't "simply disappear" after penetrating a building, nor would it even be intact at that point, but a mass of emerging debris misrepresented as one would certainly disperse quickly once it got outside, which is why your "researcher" stopped the action ~10' past the building line. And I don't look at things with my "stupid ass." The fact that you do probably explains most of your ridiculous comments on here. 

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 8:17:48 PM

  (0+)

they could produce the black box for 175?

Maybe it's under your bed.

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:21:30 AM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:56:49 AM

  (0+)

 Miss Smith, can Albury come out to play?             http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

by Keystone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 299 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 4, 2008 at 5:49:53 PM

  (0+)

by siamdave (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:14:02 AM

  (0+)

Sunder only has a doctorate in structural engineering from MIT. Ordinarily, I'd believe him, but you sound so much smarter...

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:32:54 PM

  (0+)

Someone should call all of the engineering schools and notify them of this new thing called "thermal expansion" and "fire".  Thank you NIST.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:33:49 AM

  (0+)

NIST didn't claim that thermal expansion or fires were new phenomena, they explained the part they played in the collapse of WTC 7. Do you truther nuts EVER tell the truth?

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Saturday, Sep 6, 2008 at 9:31:46 AM

  (0+)

Watch this:

 click here

And this corroberating video:
  click here

All of the firefighters corroberating testimony:

 http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html

Enjoy!

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 11:24:58 AM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:48:35 PM

  (0+)

that you don't realize how far the second camera is.  It takes time for the sounds to get there.  I found another video that adjusts the time so that you see what's happening when you hear it too.  You can do the calculations yourself.  This is amazing corroberating video AND audio.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 2:53:39 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:16:32 PM

  (0+)

for you.  When you see and hear the loud "BOOM" as the building collapsed was actually generated a few seconds before, at the exact same time the other camera shook on its tripod.

As for the seismic data.... I never took any classes on it.  It seems strange that an earthquake of that magnitude could even occur because a buidling collapsed.  Has anything similar like this even happened ever in history, just to compare notes?

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:24:10 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:18:56 PM

  (0+)

advertent

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:14:01 PM

  (0+)

Corroborating.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:21:32 PM

  (0+)

The question isn't about collapse.

The real question is about government collusion, the Mossad, Saudi Arabia and why 9/11 took place. Who cares how the buildings collapsed. Maybe they collapsed naturally. I care about how and who was behind 9/11, and it wasn't 19 people completely lacking ability and intellect. They couldn't even fly!

by jeff prager (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 188 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 3:05:02 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:46:19 PM

  (0+)

Let's see some proof that they had commerical pilots licenses. Hanjour's flight instructor said he couldn't fly a Cesna.

Let's see the proof? and if you quote a FOX NEWS piece, then don't even bother posting it. Any intelligence agency can lie to the media and have them state it as fact.

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:55:38 PM

  (0+)

Hanjour had a commercial pilot certificate from the FAA, issued in 1999. Do you have proof that the Pentagon exists, and that American Airlines is missing a 757 and some passengers and crew? It makes just about as much sense as your question. 

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Friday, Sep 5, 2008 at 8:12:02 PM

  (0+)

Isn't it on record, besides at Fox News? I'd like to know.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:50:01 PM

  (0+)

I can't stand Faux News.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 5:51:36 PM

  (0+)

we agree on something.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:03:14 PM

  (0+)

Actually, I do watch it, and I even listen to hypocrite druggie Limpballs occasionally, but I'm about as far from a Bush Republican as you could possibly get. He's the worst president we've ever had, by far.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:28:08 PM

  (0+)

 Porter Goss - Barry Seal  http://www.madcowprod.com/05072006.html

by Keystone (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 299 comments [78 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Sep 6, 2008 at 4:54:57 AM

  (0+)

 click here

How do Muslims with airplanes do that?  oh well.....

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 3:20:32 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:02:04 PM

  (0+)

isn't on me.

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:04:27 PM

  (0+)

because you have no evidence to back up any of your claims. NIST met theirs, and they don't have the burden of forcing people to look at it.

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:33:27 PM

  (0+)

all of these firefighters and call them "nut jobs" too:

 http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:07:19 PM

  (0+)

Maybe someone "edited" their memory?  HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 6:10:43 PM

  (0+)

While you're at it, accuse them of "pulling" WTC 7. Then ask them why they don't believe any of your absurd nonsense about controlled demolitions in the WTC, since the FDNY isn't supporting your "theories."

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:48:06 AM

  (0+)

Pre planned, controlled, military grade demolition charges brought down the towers. A bomb was what the FBI used in 1993. That didn't work out to well, did it a**hole.

by Albvry Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 74 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 7:35:37 PM

  (0+)

You're absolutely right, Alburara!  When are these faithers ging to accept the logic and truth of 9/11 being an inside job?!?  Personally, it gives me hop to see people such as you willing to call these folks for what they are - shills and paid stormtroopers! 

Keep up the great work and don't stop the confusion!

by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2100 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:18:35 PM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Monday, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:17:34 PM

  (0+)

From where did you acquire that nose-out shot???  I've been looking for something like that.  You notice the nose-size exit hole at the PentaCon too?  Whatever they did at the WTCs, there's no reason that they wouldn't have done the same thing there too.

Thanks

by Bob Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 270 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:33:46 AM

  (0+)

by albury smith (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:25:32 PM

  (0+)