You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can someone explain something to me? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-31-06 03:25 PM
Original message
Can someone explain something to me?
Advertisements [?]
More and more these days, I get people telling me they believe in the controlled demolition theory. I ask why, and they say they saw a documentary. Then I ask them to explain how it was done, and I never seem to get a clear response.

So here's what I always offer.

When those planes hit, they did four things:

1. Started a big fire;

2. Caused the building to torque around, damaging the superstructure;

3. Knocked the insulation off the steel reinforcements underneath the floors above and below the impact;

4. Disrupted the sprinkler system.

Steel melts at about 1,400 degress. The fire within the buildings was reported to have reached somewhere around 2,000 degrees. No sprinkler system was working to decrease the heat. With the insulation knocked off the steel struts under the floors, they melted and collapsed inwards and down. Thus, the buildings folded up on themselves and collapsed straight down and in.

As for WTC7 - the building I am always handed as the irrefutable proof - I have seen pictures that show severe damage and fire before it collapsed. Also, there were two 30,000 gallon tanks of fuel under the basement, there to be used by emergency generators if the power got cut. Between the damage to WTC7 from the hits on the main WTC buildings, and the explosion of those two tanks (i.e. the suspicious explosions reported by firefighters), it is entirely concievable that the building would fall into its own footprint.

This all makes a hell of a lot more sense than the idea that nefarious shadow people wired a bunch of buildings to explode without anyone seeing them, hearing them, noticing anything amiss, and without this massive undertaking coming to light at some point. Remember, this is the admin that failed to keep relatively simple secrets like the Wilson leak and the NSA wiretapping. I don't think they have the brain wattage to keep something like this under wraps.

So, explain to me why I'm wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Can someone explain something to me? WilliamPitt  Aug-31-06 03:25 PM   #0 
  - Hi, I can see you're new down here  DoYouEverWonder   Aug-31-06 03:31 PM   #1 
  - There were at least 9 tanks, not all were found intact,  greyl   Aug-31-06 03:51 PM   #2 
     - There were other day tanks throughout the building  DoYouEverWonder   Aug-31-06 03:55 PM   #5 
        - I know. There are 2 other points I made that you aren't addressing.nt  greyl   Aug-31-06 04:00 PM   #6 
           - There was a small amount found around the tanks  DoYouEverWonder   Aug-31-06 04:12 PM   #8 
              - Ok, there's one more point re: "found intact"  greyl   Aug-31-06 04:17 PM   #11 
                 - Jeez, do I have to hold your hand for you?  DoYouEverWonder   Aug-31-06 04:26 PM   #12 
                    - Are you suggesting that "intact" equals "damaged and empty"?nt  greyl   Aug-31-06 04:50 PM   #16 
                       - Intact has in not exploded  DoYouEverWonder   Aug-31-06 05:05 PM   #18 
                          - Ok, so what have we come to agreement on?  greyl   Sep-01-06 12:07 AM   #39 
  - I am agnostic on demolition.  Bushwick Bill   Aug-31-06 03:54 PM   #3 
  - The Truth movement is fractioned  FoxOnTheRun   Aug-31-06 09:11 PM   #32 
  - You have heard Silverstein's "Pull it" comment right? What do you think?  pauldp   Aug-31-06 03:54 PM   #4 
  - well, here's my two cents...  theanarch   Aug-31-06 04:28 PM   #13 
     - makes sense except for 1 thing  MissWaverly   Sep-02-06 01:20 PM   #97 
        - only a guess, of course,  theanarch   Sep-02-06 11:54 PM   #117 
           - Actually, "Stay where you are" is standard proceedure in an emergency  TheWraith   Sep-06-06 05:42 PM   #148 
  - A Crime has been comitted and there is not much evidence left, but  FoxOnTheRun   Aug-31-06 04:11 PM   #7 
  - Yet, the ground floor windows at WTC5  DoYouEverWonder   Aug-31-06 04:16 PM   #9 
  - This might be because no jet fuel got spilled...  Carefulplease   Aug-31-06 04:42 PM   #15 
  - Where is the evidence that fuel poured down  DoYouEverWonder   Aug-31-06 05:06 PM   #19 
     - Proof of jet fuel in the elevator shafts...  Carefulplease   Sep-01-06 12:32 AM   #40 
     - Actually, only 1 elevator went from top to bottom  Old and In the Way   Sep-01-06 01:33 AM   #42 
     - This is just a shematic view...  Carefulplease   Sep-01-06 01:44 AM   #43 
        - I stand corrected on the elevators.  Old and In the Way   Sep-01-06 10:00 AM   #66 
     - I don't doubt people smelled fuel  DoYouEverWonder   Sep-01-06 07:17 AM   #62 
     - Not to mention, the planes were on the outer edges of the buildings-  lulu in NC   Sep-01-06 02:33 PM   #75 
        - I don't see how jet fuel moving at 450 mph can be persuaded to  petgoat   Sep-02-06 12:16 AM   #86 
  - Supposedly the fuselage from UA 175 hit the roof at 5 WTC  TomClash   Sep-06-06 05:21 AM   #131 
  - welcome to DU  sabbat hunter   Sep-01-06 06:55 AM   #61 
     - Thanks  FoxOnTheRun   Sep-01-06 07:38 AM   #63 
        - Is it true  marions ghost   Sep-02-06 08:06 AM   #88 
           - I haven't looked much into it  FoxOnTheRun   Sep-02-06 11:06 AM   #91 
              - OK thank you for that info  marions ghost   Sep-02-06 12:54 PM   #94 
              - mg, welcome to the dungeon..  wildbilln864   Sep-02-06 07:23 PM   #109 
              - this 3 part video series examines some of the seismic and explosive q's  momzno1   Sep-07-06 03:11 PM   #165 
  - Steel melts at 1400 degrees!?  wildbilln864   Aug-31-06 04:17 PM   #10 
  - here's one link...  wildbilln864   Aug-31-06 04:52 PM   #17 
  - The issues of temperatures and steel's melting point...  Carefulplease   Aug-31-06 04:35 PM   #14 
  - There's no evidence that any steel was exposed to even 600C  mhatrw   Aug-31-06 05:19 PM   #21 
  - Actually there is plenty of evidence the fires were over 600C  LARED   Aug-31-06 08:06 PM   #29 
     - Yes, they are typically 650C to 900C.  mhatrw   Aug-31-06 11:10 PM   #38 
     - read this  LARED   Sep-01-06 04:06 AM   #53 
        - The paper proves MY point.  mhatrw   Sep-01-06 01:11 PM   #74 
           - It does????? How?  LARED   Sep-01-06 05:44 PM   #77 
              - See figure 3.  mhatrw   Sep-01-06 07:31 PM   #84 
                 - I saw figure 3. I was not impressed  LARED   Sep-02-06 08:29 AM   #90 
                    - Here's a simple question. Were the WTC towers  mhatrw   Sep-02-06 12:32 PM   #92 
                       - Pay attention.  LARED   Sep-02-06 04:26 PM   #104 
                          - Please explain those reasons in your own words.  mhatrw   Sep-02-06 04:50 PM   #105 
     - There is no evidence that any WTC steel ever reached temperatures  mhatrw   Sep-01-06 05:42 PM   #76 
        - There is abundant evidence that the fire were over 600 C  LARED   Sep-01-06 06:37 PM   #79 
           - Is that sort of like the  whereismyparty   Sep-01-06 07:00 PM   #80 
           - self-delete  whereismyparty   Sep-01-06 07:23 PM   #82 
           - Yes. It's a simple empirical measurement.  mhatrw   Sep-01-06 07:01 PM   #81 
              - Why not actually expand your vision to  LARED   Sep-02-06 08:26 AM   #89 
                 - Funny that you'd mention reality. Name one real world building  mhatrw   Sep-02-06 12:48 PM   #93 
                 - If your interested I'd check  LARED   Sep-02-06 06:47 PM   #108 
                    - Yes, of course. The "it was unique in all history" excuse.  mhatrw   Sep-02-06 08:39 PM   #112 
                 - That NIST is an authority does not mean that they're  petgoat   Sep-02-06 12:56 PM   #95 
                 - You have said this a lot better than I could have  Hope2006   Sep-02-06 01:18 PM   #96 
                 - Kevin Ryan pointed that out in his address at the  petgoat   Sep-02-06 01:33 PM   #100 
                    - It will take me some time to go through all of this  Hope2006   Sep-02-06 01:36 PM   #101 
                    - Petgoat, ought you not to remove items that were shown...  Carefulplease   Sep-02-06 11:59 PM   #118 
                 - One thing I have also been thinking about  Hope2006   Sep-02-06 01:21 PM   #99 
                 - So what?  LARED   Sep-02-06 06:44 PM   #107 
                 - EPA is an authority on air sampling. So what went wrong?  John Q. Citizen   Sep-02-06 08:00 PM   #110 
  - Why doesn't any building collapse due to fire?  treestar   Sep-06-06 10:40 PM   #150 
  - Steel melts at about 1500C. No office fire has ever reached 2000C.  mhatrw   Aug-31-06 05:10 PM   #20 
  - Hi Will!  whereismyparty   Aug-31-06 05:27 PM   #22 
  - See this video  democraticinsurgent   Aug-31-06 05:28 PM   #23 
  - See the remains of the Windsor Building fire  whereismyparty   Aug-31-06 05:59 PM   #24 
  - Another way of looking at it  bmcatt   Aug-31-06 06:11 PM   #25 
  - I 'm pretty sure WTC 7 wasn't wired for demolition  DoYouEverWonder   Aug-31-06 06:26 PM   #27 
  - Excuse me for saying this  Jim4Wes   Aug-31-06 06:21 PM   #26 
  - Why is he wasting his time?  democraticinsurgent   Aug-31-06 09:01 PM   #31 
  - yet here you are  frylock   Aug-31-06 10:15 PM   #36 
  - Good luck, Will...  SidDithers   Aug-31-06 06:51 PM   #28 
  - More photos and info  whereismyparty   Aug-31-06 08:26 PM   #30 
  - Explained  hpot   Aug-31-06 09:28 PM   #33 
  - Pst  DoYouEverWonder   Aug-31-06 09:37 PM   #34 
  - yes you may be right DYEW...  wildbilln864   Aug-31-06 10:06 PM   #35 
  - Yep!  whereismyparty   Aug-31-06 10:30 PM   #37 
  - People are ill informed, aren't they?eom  mirandapriestly   Sep-01-06 02:44 AM   #50 
  - I'm sure he already has his mind made up  mirandapriestly   Sep-01-06 02:41 AM   #48 
  - The heat conductivity of steel is low...  Carefulplease   Sep-01-06 01:18 AM   #41 
     - Carefulplease, I do wish you'd be...  wildbilln864   Sep-01-06 01:51 AM   #44 
        - Wicked experiments...  Carefulplease   Sep-01-06 02:22 AM   #45 
        - I have the wax and a fire pit.  greyl   Sep-01-06 02:30 AM   #46 
        - The wick provides the wicking action  greyl   Sep-01-06 02:31 AM   #47 
  - Can you post a picture of this tremendous damage?  mirandapriestly   Sep-01-06 02:43 AM   #49 
  - He used the word "severe" not tremendous, and  greyl   Sep-01-06 02:54 AM   #51 
     - That Video has not been authenticated, AFAIK nobody can say  petgoat   Sep-01-06 04:25 AM   #56 
     - And of the other vids and photos at my links, what say you?  greyl   Sep-04-06 09:41 PM   #121 
        - Popular Mechanics claims they have  FoxOnTheRun   Sep-05-06 09:37 AM   #122 
           - No, they don't.  greyl   Sep-05-06 03:01 PM   #124 
              - The problem is people  FoxOnTheRun   Sep-05-06 03:32 PM   #125 
                 - I think many do know, but that too many  greyl   Sep-05-06 03:42 PM   #126 
                    - The left always knew the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy..  John Q. Citizen   Sep-05-06 04:13 PM   #128 
                    - Sure but the same power structures exist today  FoxOnTheRun   Sep-05-06 04:26 PM   #129 
     - bwahaha, well excuse me...that video  mirandapriestly   Sep-01-06 12:37 PM   #72 
  - The reason the WTC north and south fell  mogster   Sep-01-06 03:57 AM   #52 
  - How good are your logical argument...  Carefulplease   Sep-01-06 04:06 AM   #54 
  - I prefer to stay in the realm of  mogster   Sep-01-06 04:56 AM   #59 
  - Was the building in Madrid constructed like WTC7?  greyl   Sep-01-06 04:12 AM   #55 
  - Well  mogster   Sep-01-06 04:32 AM   #57 
     - 50 sour grapes  greyl   Sep-01-06 04:36 AM   #58 
        - The stats  mogster   Sep-01-06 04:57 AM   #60 
           - The statistics you apply are actually the laws of probability...  Carefulplease   Sep-01-06 11:26 AM   #67 
              - The bullseye  mogster   Sep-01-06 06:08 PM   #78 
                 - The case of WTC7 as compared to WTC1 and WTC2  Carefulplease   Sep-01-06 10:40 PM   #85 
                    - Your post is the best example why I don't debate tech evidence much  mogster   Sep-02-06 04:02 AM   #87 
                       - Damn is that chaff silly.  petgoat   Sep-02-06 01:20 PM   #98 
                       - "I don't debate tech"  Carefulplease   Sep-02-06 09:15 PM   #113 
  - Madrid  vincent_vega_lives   Sep-01-06 08:16 AM   #64 
  - What about the Empire State Building?  FoxOnTheRun   Sep-01-06 08:31 AM   #65 
     - Look up the differences between a B-25 and the WTC planes.  OldSiouxWarrior   Sep-02-06 04:19 PM   #103 
        - Sadly we will never know,  FoxOnTheRun   Sep-02-06 04:50 PM   #106 
           - Getting shot with a .22 handgun is similar to a .300 Magnum rifle.  OldSiouxWarrior   Sep-02-06 09:59 PM   #115 
  - Also the redundancy of the building construction  mirandapriestly   Sep-01-06 12:43 PM   #73 
  - That fire has nothing above it.  OldSiouxWarrior   Sep-02-06 04:11 PM   #102 
     - If you look on the right side of the building you can see some of  John Q. Citizen   Sep-02-06 08:13 PM   #111 
        - A little bit of structure is NOT bunches of stories.  OldSiouxWarrior   Sep-02-06 09:56 PM   #114 
           - It looks like at least 8 or 10 stories to me that are no longer there. But  John Q. Citizen   Sep-02-06 10:01 PM   #116 
              - The impact zone in WTC 1  DoYouEverWonder   Sep-04-06 08:50 PM   #120 
  - ALL PLEASE READ  WilliamPitt   Sep-01-06 11:38 AM   #68 
  - No, Thank YOU, Will!  whereismyparty   Sep-01-06 11:59 AM   #70 
  - It is a lot to digest  DoYouEverWonder   Sep-01-06 12:26 PM   #71 
  - Thanks for staying so involved with it. nt  greyl   Sep-03-06 03:26 AM   #119 
  - I think just to be safe, we should claim  leftofthedial   Sep-01-06 11:50 AM   #69 
  - Dust  whereismyparty   Sep-01-06 07:25 PM   #83 
  - With experts on all sides  Generator   Sep-05-06 02:55 PM   #123 
  - 900C = 1400C? Please advise.  truthmover   Sep-05-06 04:07 PM   #127 
  - IMHO, fires burned at a sustained temperature of 550 to 900C.  mhatrw   Sep-06-06 01:51 AM   #130 
  - Your humble opinion is based on .........  LARED   Sep-06-06 06:38 AM   #132 
     - The entire recorded history of office building fires.  mhatrw   Sep-06-06 07:44 AM   #133 
        - Based on the entire recorded history of office fires started by  LARED   Sep-06-06 09:49 AM   #134 
           - Yes, you have your "unique in all of history" fallback.  mhatrw   Sep-06-06 12:23 PM   #136 
           - Sorry you can't have it both ways  LARED   Sep-07-06 06:58 AM   #157 
              - I didn't say it was a false argument.  mhatrw   Sep-07-06 09:15 AM   #159 
                 - There were not modeled as fuel container fires.  LARED   Sep-07-06 12:12 PM   #161 
                    - Oh, let's see. The temperature vs. time curve?  mhatrw   Sep-07-06 01:39 PM   #162 
                       - Notice the use of the term standard  LARED   Sep-07-06 05:12 PM   #166 
                          - They were office building fires.  mhatrw   Sep-07-06 05:28 PM   #167 
                             - How do you know that *all* other office fires...  Carefulplease   Sep-07-06 05:50 PM   #168 
                             - You tell me.  mhatrw   Sep-08-06 12:39 AM   #171 
                                - Office fires that produce air temperatures above 1000C  Carefulplease   Sep-08-06 01:27 AM   #172 
                                   - How long did it take to reach the maximum temperatures ...  mhatrw   Sep-08-06 01:30 AM   #173 
                                      - This article does not say...  Carefulplease   Sep-08-06 02:19 AM   #174 
                                         - None whatsoever.  mhatrw   Sep-08-06 09:56 AM   #175 
                                            - "Time curve of real office building fire" ?  Carefulplease   Sep-08-06 01:50 PM   #176 
                                            - Do you really believe what you just posted?  mhatrw   Sep-08-06 05:12 PM   #178 
                                            - The use of the envelope curve is indeed conservative.  Carefulplease   Sep-08-06 11:40 PM   #180 
                                            - 1) It's not a real building fire; it's a tiny test fire.  mhatrw   Sep-09-06 11:01 AM   #181 
                                            - Didn't you notice that...  Carefulplease   Sep-09-06 10:27 PM   #182 
                                            - The fact that not a single actual office fire in history has  mhatrw   Sep-11-06 12:40 AM   #183 
                                            - So you are willing to dismiss all existing empirical data...  Carefulplease   Sep-11-06 12:54 AM   #184 
                                            - Wrong. You are willing to dismiss all the existing empirical data  mhatrw   Sep-11-06 10:14 AM   #185 
                                            - Every one?  Carefulplease   Sep-11-06 11:46 AM   #186 
                                            - Actual office building fire = actual office building on fire  mhatrw   Sep-11-06 12:23 PM   #187 
                                            - What is not clear for me?  Carefulplease   Sep-11-06 01:53 PM   #188 
                                            - Your fire tests weren't actual office buildings.  mhatrw   Sep-11-06 02:18 PM   #189 
                                            - Are you making things up?  Carefulplease   Sep-11-06 02:44 PM   #190 
                                            - Nothing is wrong with our international standards.  mhatrw   Sep-11-06 04:53 PM   #192 
                                            - Nothing is wrong with them indeed...  Carefulplease   Sep-11-06 10:36 PM   #193 
                             - Did you bother reading the report or did you just look at  LARED   Sep-08-06 10:04 PM   #179 
           - The jet fuel burned off in ten minutes. After that it was just a  petgoat   Sep-06-06 02:33 PM   #139 
              - Correction  LARED   Sep-07-06 06:53 AM   #156 
  - steel loses half of its strength at 583C  Snivi Yllom   Sep-11-06 03:24 PM   #191 
  - Will, common sense, logic and two errors.  MervinFerd   Sep-06-06 10:14 AM   #135 
  - About your "logic" and "common sense"  mhatrw   Sep-06-06 01:09 PM   #137 
  - Very good points and questions. EOM  Nozebro   Sep-06-06 05:34 PM   #147 
  - Burden of Proof: Common Conspiroid Fallacy  MervinFerd   Sep-07-06 07:57 AM   #158 
  - Did you watch his presentation? I doubt it.  dfgrbac   Sep-06-06 02:28 PM   #138 
  - The outside structure was heavily redundant, and built  petgoat   Sep-06-06 03:08 PM   #140 
     - On the reserve capacity of the core.  Carefulplease   Sep-06-06 10:48 PM   #152 
        - I didn't say the core was designed to resist the wind loads.  petgoat   Sep-06-06 11:56 PM   #153 
           - Reserve capacity of the core...  Carefulplease   Sep-07-06 06:04 PM   #169 
  - You're not wrong.  TheWraith   Sep-06-06 04:17 PM   #141 
  - Even  FoxOnTheRun   Sep-06-06 04:31 PM   #142 
  - Are you trying to rape and mutilate the facts?  TheWraith   Sep-06-06 04:41 PM   #143 
     - Vigilant Guardian for example is normally once a year sometimes twice  FoxOnTheRun   Sep-06-06 04:45 PM   #145 
        - And how many other wargames do they run?  TheWraith   Sep-06-06 05:28 PM   #146 
           - I don't know  FoxOnTheRun   Sep-06-06 05:58 PM   #149 
              - If I remember right, Bronner in that Vanity Fair piece was  petgoat   Sep-07-06 12:03 AM   #155 
                 - Let's assume they lied  FoxOnTheRun   Sep-07-06 09:39 AM   #160 
  - Please share all of these photos with us. n/t  mhatrw   Sep-06-06 04:45 PM   #144 
  - Then buildings that sustain fires collapsing should be rather  treestar   Sep-06-06 10:42 PM   #151 
  - And so it is, steel frames or not.  TheWraith   Sep-07-06 02:57 PM   #164 
  - The critical temperature is beside the point.  petgoat   Sep-07-06 12:00 AM   #154 
     - It obviously wasn't much of a mystery.  TheWraith   Sep-07-06 02:53 PM   #163 
        - It was a very great mystery. FDNY's stories of damage were all over the  petgoat   Sep-07-06 06:38 PM   #170 
  - They used an INVISIBILITY CLOAK!!!!!  antfarm   Sep-08-06 02:59 PM   #177 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC