OK five star--Your answers are that over 80 stories pancaked on top of one another and the resistance was .08 seconds total.  WTC 7 could’ve been wired to implode in 8 hours while there were fires burning in the building and chaos all around and that I didn’t ask around to find out who did it.  And finally that 1800 degrees farenheit was wrong.  Actually that is a low figure and the steel was tested over an 8 hour period in an enclosed vessel in order to attain that sort of heat.  Poked full of holes--I think not--but, submit it--what do I know?

Rune Nordsman - 06 June 2006 03:36 PM

OK five star--Your answers are that over 80 stories pancaked on top of one another and the resistance was .08 seconds total.

No, you’re the one saying it was only 0.08 seconds.  I’m saying that the building took longer to fall than it would take in free-fall.  Exactly how much longer I don’t know, and neither do you.  You simply pulled that 10 second limit out of thin air, really.  Nobody’s really sure how long it took for the building to fall; I’ve seen equally reliable reports claiming durations of 10, 15, or even more seconds.  All of the videos aren’t clear enough to tell.  And also, what alternative are you providing?  Any way that the building fell down like that would have resulted in resistance from floor hitting floor, unless all the intervening matter was instantly vapourised just before contact (which clearly didn’t happen).

WTC 7 could’ve been wired to implode in 8 hours while there were fires burning in the building and chaos all around

Why not?  The fires weren’t through the entire building, so the demolitions people could have gone into the building and placed their charges.

and that I didn’t ask around to find out who did it.

Maybe you should, then.

And finally that 1800 degrees farenheit was wrong.  Actually that is a low figure

Exactly.

and the steel was tested over an 8 hour period in an enclosed vessel in order to attain that sort of heat.

And which steel is this, exactly?  The support columns?  The support columns themselves don’t matter.  It’s the parts that hold the columns together, the bolts and rivets, that are the weak part.  All you have to do is soften or distemper those a little, and you could have the support columns falling.

The south tower fell in 10 seconds--I’ve watched the tape in real time.  You’ve seen reliable reports claiming durations… C’mon--look at the tape and time it yourself.  If even a fraction of time..say half a second per floor resistance occured--it would’ve taken conservatively 40 seconds to fall.  Don’t just argue--think and research.

WTC 7 could’ve been wired to implode in 8 hours while there were fires burning in the building and chaos all around
Why not?  Maybe you should do a little research into what it takes to wire a building for perfect implosion and then you wouldn’t make such careless comments.  Why don’t you ask someone at Controlled Demolition--they imploded the other trade center buildings in the ‘clean up’--I’ll bet you could find some info.

And finally that 1800 degrees farenheit was wrong.  Actually that is a low figure
Exactly. 
I actually misspoke here--it would’ve taken temperatures of 2000 degrees for over eight hours within an enclosed vessel in order to see any degree of warping--and according to the NIST report, even that wasn’t enough--they had to double the time and increase the temp--and by the way both the columns and the floor supports were tested--bolts rivets?, no--if this were the case--the columns would’ve been standing after the collapse--you see the columns were built as the core of the building and the floors were attached—either the floors pancaked down or the columns fell over--we both know the building didn’t fall over--and so you are left again with resistance of .08 seconds total.

Ok if there is a consipiry, how can it be kept secret?  It will be reveled soon because someone wlil talk if there is one.  I have a feeling that the amount of stress the buildings went thru would have collapsed them.  No one commented on the fact that these buildings were 30 yrs old. wear and tear are also factors.

Rune Nordsman - 06 June 2006 04:56 PM

The south tower fell in 10 seconds--I’ve watched the tape in real time. You’ve seen reliable reports claiming durations… C’mon--look at the tape and time it yourself. If even a fraction of time..say half a second per floor resistance occured--it would’ve taken conservatively 40 seconds to fall. Don’t just argue--think and research.

Ummm, I did research.  How else could I have known that the estimates for the fall were up to 15+ seconds?  And what tape did you look at?  Provide us a link to a copy of the video you used.  From all the videos I’ve seen, there’s no way to know for sure exactly how long it took to fall.  There were always buildings in the way, or dust and smoke, or the picture just wasn’t clear enough.

And once more, what alternative theory are you offering, if you say that it couldn’t have fallen that fast with all the floors in the way?  Because knocking down the building with explosives would result in the exact same resistances that the building falling as a result of the fires, unless you used such massive amounts of explosives that you simply obliterate every floor (which clearly didn’t happen).  Regardless of whether it fell due to the fires weakening the supporting structure so that it collapsed, or if it fell due to explosives simulating such a collapse, it would have fallen at the same speed.  So the speed at which the building fell, whatever speed it may have been, was the speed at which it would collapse under its own weight.  There isn’t another possibility that will fit.

WTC 7 could’ve been wired to implode in 8 hours while there were fires burning in the building and chaos all around
Why not? Maybe you should do a little research into what it takes to wire a building for perfect implosion and then you wouldn’t make such careless comments. Why don’t you ask someone at Controlled Demolition--they imploded the other trade center buildings in the ‘clean up’--I’ll bet you could find some info.

Buildings don’t fall nicely into their own footprint only after days of planning and dozens of hours of setting up charges.  Sometimes it happens spontaneously.  It can also be done intentionally, if you’re willing to skip all the careful exact calculations and the double- and triple-checking that goes into more leisurely controlled demolitions.

And finally that 1800 degrees farenheit was wrong. Actually that is a low figure
Exactly.
I actually misspoke here--it would’ve taken temperatures of 2000 degrees for over eight hours within an enclosed vessel in order to see any degree of warping--and according to the NIST report, even that wasn’t enough--they had to double the time and increase the temp--and by the way both the columns and the floor supports were tested--bolts rivets?, no--if this were the case--the columns would’ve been standing after the collapse--you see the columns were built as the core of the building and the floors were attached—either the floors pancaked down or the columns fell over--we both know the building didn’t fall over--and so you are left again with resistance of .08 seconds total.

Okay, now you’re switching things around.  First, you said:

The maximum temperature of a flame in open air is 1800 degrees.

So you were talking about how hot a flame can get, and how that wasn’t hot enough to effect steel.  Then you said that you’d made a mistake, and that it’s actually higher than 1800°F.  And now you’ve done something else with that data, apparently saying that the original 1800°F you mentioned isn’t the temperature at which a flame burns, but rather that it’s the temperature at which the steel was tested.  What are you talking about?

Also, you’re saying that after the bolts and rivets that hold the support columns together and in place break, that the columns would have remained in place?  That makes no sense.

By the way:  after checking around a bit, it looks like various types of steel will soften noticeably or turn brittle at temperatures ranging from just 500° to 800°C (932° to 1472°C) in only a matter of minutes, especially if they’re under a lot of strain. . .such as a rivet or bolt would be on a supporting column.  And jet fuel fires can easily burn at temperatures from 2000° to 6000°C.

Wait, I’m confused LN.  Are you claiming that the only way for the building to fall would be for the top floor to first fall, then fall on the one below it causing that one to fall, etc etc.  Isn’t it more likely that the stress was on the sections of the support columns and that when stressed to the point it was, many sections collapsed at once?  Wouldn’t that cause the entire building to collapse quicket then it would if each floor collapsed seperately?

sorry, that was “quicker” not “quicket.” I should have spellchecked.

I rather prefer “quicket”, Razela.  It sounds like it ought to be the name of some sort of a small dog.

Let me try to sum it up for you.  What controlled demolition does is knock out the structure from underneath, so that it falls in on itself.  Watch Loose Change--there is a nice shot of the collapse in real time.  The steel at the WTC was certified to sustain temperatures exceeding 2000 and up to 3000 (in a closed vessel)--this is the only way to achieve heat at this temperature-- an open air flame such as at the WTC will not reach this temperature.  Jet fuel does not burn at this temperature.  As to your WTC question--shouldn’t you be asking why in the world someone would be wiring a 47 story building to implode because it had 2 small fires in it?  Obviously, there is no way the buildings fell without thermite charges that severed the floors beneath in a carefully, precisely controlled demolition.
Another poster asked if there wasn’t any other way for buildings to fall--well, of course there are--but, we’re talking about the official explanation here--and keep in mind that never in the history of modern architecture before or since 911 has a building collapsed due to fire--yet 3 fell on 911 and one of them wasn’t even hit by a plane.

I thought this thread had been deleted. These pretty much say it all:

THE TOP 40 REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

115 ommissions and distortions of the 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404

Complete 9/11 Timeline- Mainstream sources, only.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

And it’s not just these- on the Web there are thousands of video hours and website pages of information that expose 9/11 as an inside job. A lot of it is mis and disinformation, but it’s easy to find the credible stuff. The official story is supported by holes and lies. This is the world we live in; serial killers, mass murderers, child molesters all exist- so do the kind of pyschopath that likes to charm their way into high office, conspiring with likeminded others on a ruthless quest for wealth and power. They’ve been destroying democracy in other countries for 50 years with the CIA- assassinations, friendly dictators, death squads, coups- why wouldn’t they do it here, if they can get away with it- type “Gulf of Tonkin” and “declassified documents” into an engine and you’ll find the NSA’s site and the places that have published them. Over 50,000 American Soldiers died in Vietnam.

No, not deleted.  Just moved.  We do get a number of 9/11 threads, though...and we have had to close some down for various reasons.  But if everyone plays nice, we won’t need to close anything.