johnmuise said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite [Thermite] Burns at up to up to 2500 °C (4500 °F) which can easily melt steel and has been used in many controlled demolitions in the past.
Yes the post made by handy sounds reasonable, but everybody knows a coin has 2 sides.
I'm glad you think I'm being reasonable here. A coin does indeed have 2 sides. However, again, other than the fact that Termite can burn hot enough to melt metal, what does it have to do with the WTC collapse? There is plenty of solid evidence that the buildings were not brought down via a controlled explosion.
[quote:e25e3]There has also been only one recorded incident in the history of the world of massive jumbo jets filled with fuel slamming into building, which no so coincidentally happened on the same day.
Indeed. Then explain to me building number 7.[/quote:e25e3]
Here is a very valid explanation of #7:
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom  approximately 10 stories  about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors  along with the building's unusual construction  were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
[quote:e25e3]Really, who made this statement and upon what criteria was the statement made?
Me, because of all the contradicting evidance. [/quote:e25e3]
John, you are absolutely my favorite Canadian military guy. However, 13 years ago I would have said that the odds of me marrying are more than the odds of evolution, yet here I am. Our opinions of what the 'odds' of something happening are fairly worthless. Only God is permitted to know how likely something is to be.
[quote:e25e3]
hmmmm, shooting down a plane filled with innocent civilians before it was fully understood what events were about to take place?
Protocol. Sometimes its better to shoot the hostage. A civilian airliner thats deviating form course given multiple warnings to correct said course, puts it under great suspicion. Of course
nobody knew *cough* what the planes were going to do, but protocol gives orders to shoot down any aircraft failing to heed warnings given by miltary official."
But lets say that somehow the first plane made it through all this "red tape", the second plane should have been shot down immediately.[/quote:e25e3]
Of course if the planes that slammed into the WTC were shot down, then we'd have the same conspiracy nuts spouting the same nonsense anyway. I'm mean hey, there are conspiracists by the buckload that are claiming that United 93 was shot down and the government is covering up, but yet the government should have shot down the two other flights and the fact that they didn't is part of a cover-up as well. :crazyeyes:
