Mr. Smith--I am deeply sorry that my link offended you and others. In my scan of the site I skipped the introduction and went straight to the fact sheet links above. I hope you know that I am not here to insult anyone, and I hope you can forgive me.
Here's a site that's more professional in their mannerisms:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/Here's my interpretation of what it says: The steel structure with spray on thermal coating was certified at a certain temperature. This coating was bypassed on several columns though, when the plane severed them, and caused damage to many others. Severing only a few columns would not make the building come down. Despite the thermal coating being bypassed in these columns, hydrocarbon flames are still not hot enough to melt steel, but they can weaken it enough to the point where the load of the tower would be too much to bear--even with the coating still intact. As the first columns were severed, the others became overly stressed. In the end, the steel frames failed, causing the towers to come down.
The inner and outer cores, although relatively strong, were weakened by the heat, and the falling floors brought them down with them. The inner core would not still be standing with all that weight brought down on them, coupled with the weakening power of the flames. Also, once the momentum built up, the force coming down would be amplified, requiring the steel to be stronger and stronger as time passed.
The pictures of cut steel in the photos of your attached report are from rescue operations. Contrary to what the writer said, acetylene torches can spill the molten metal they cut on the inside and outside of the column--especially if there was weight above the cut. Also keep in mind that the rescuers weren?t concerned with how pretty the cut looked, but rather how they could get to the victims the fastest and most efficiently.
How could this thermite get into the building in the first place? One clean cut of one steel column would require approximately 100 lbs of thermite. However, if the molten flow really is molten steel, then the thermite quantity would have to have been many times more than that. One truther paper I read said he suspected the thermite was brought in on pallets. How could this much explosive material go unnoticed?
The thermite that was in the building was from the construction and building supplies. Also, the center was packed with gypsum.
?Additionally, on February 14, 1975 a major fire occurred, the result of arson, which began on the 11th floor of the North Tower during the middle of the night. Spreading through floor openings in the utility closets, it caused damage from the 10th to 19th floors, though this was generally confined to the utility closets. However, on the 11th floor about 9,000 square feet was damaged. This was about 21 percent of the floor?s total area (43,200 square feet) and took weeks to repair. Some parts of the steel trusses (floor supports) buckled due to the heat. 132 firefighters were called to the tower in response, and because the fire was so hot, many got their necks and ears burned.?
This fire was hot enough to buckle the steel floor, and it wasn?t even feed by jet fuel?just ?paper baskets, etc.? If thermite was used, then it was that which was in the building materials (placed there without a malicious intent). I highly doubt the US government planned this whole thing over 25 years before the fact.
The thought that the towers couldn?t fall into their footprint is false as well. As the center of the tower buckled and fell, and brought down its surroundings as well. It takes a lot of skill to do something like that, and only a few contractors are willing to even do it. Which brings us to why would the government want to do it? If it?s so hard to do, and if a normal building can?t fall like it, then why give the public a ?smoking gun? like that? If they?re smart enough to do all the necessary math and physics to control a demolition that size and put it in its own footprint, then they would know that the public would become suspicious if it didn?t follow the normal laws of physics. And, if their intent was to rally support, why not let the towers fall all over the place to begin with? That?d end more lives, cause more damage, and would be more ?mechanically correct? (according to truthers).
SoL,
Hitler was evil for attacking his weaker peaceful neighbours and for the genocide of the Jews, much like Blair and Bush are evil for attacking the non warring and much weaker Iraq and wiping out vast numbers of the civilian population.
You say the American forces are fighting to redress the murder of thousands of innocents on 9/11 and they would not fight in Iraq without that fire of retribution.
We're not attacking Iraq; we're attacking the terrorist groups and extremist regimes within Iraq. And these people are warring. Also, they're not just fighting for revenge, but to prevent future attacks, and help the oppressed people who were under terrorist control.
@Mr. Lehman
>No, I'm referring to Cheney-Bush lying to invade a non-involved country,
>in pursuit of a different agenda, which they had been planning well prior
>to the terrorist attacks of 2001-09. Their focus was on Iraq and not Al
>Quaida, to the dismay of some of those in the administration, such as
>Richard Clarke (who cited the gratuitous attack on & invasion of Iraq
>as a great boon to Osama bin Laden's radical Islamist goals -- HE, after
>all, was after Hussein's hide and the Bathists' rule). Bush was bin Laden's
>pawn in this, and provided a great rallying event for anti-American sentiment.
I guess we?ll never have any proof of what the Cheney-Bush administration was trying to accomplish by going to war, since we can?t see inside their heads. I can say for certain though, that the reason I?ll be there soon is to help and heal my fellow soldiers, as well as the innocent people of the Middle East who were either caught in the cross fire or abused by terrorist regimes.
>As ridiculous as the fact that the invading US army secured the oil
>industry building while not guarding weapons depots. Yeah, right,
>oil was maybe a coincidence.
I don?t remember seeing that. Are you referring to allied weapons depots, or enemy weapon depots? Either way, an oil field should be secured?otherwise it?s nothing more than a big bomb.
>Yeah, right. Just like those Blackwater guards loved to drive in
>places without traffic cops. And some of those prison guards just
>liked to make the odd home video ... (higher ups may be excused
>for all this, tsk tsk).
Blackwater is a private contractor, not the US military. Private contractors usually have a record of little digression, and probably shouldn?t have been hired in the first place. Also, those ?home videos? were isolated incidents?you can?t assume every soldier would do that. The fact that they were punished shows the military doesn?t approve of it.
>With incredible --that means unbelievable, indefensible-- misnavigation!
I?m not sure what you mean. There were actually reports that a lead terrorist was at the towers a day before to input the coordinates into a GPS system.
>... were on the USA payroll with gifts of war gear not so long prior.
>The list of terrorist nations is a rather politically convenient one
>depending on what some in power see as their (in *our* name) interests.
At that time they were on our side. People betray each other everyday.
>Which good Christian verse will you cite for this? Whom would
>Jesus kill first (I thought he turned the other cheek)? You must
>have a lot of asterisks in your book of love.
I will cite no Christian verse. War is not a Christian matter, and wars should never be fought under the flag of any religion. Also, water boarding is a non-lethal, non-perm ant-damaging method that could save lives by obtaining important info. In a perfect world no one would have to get hurt, but I would sacrifice the comfort of the evil to save innocent lives any day.
>
Where do you come up with such nonsense? Why not say that
>they eagerly suggest that they've more secrets to tell, each time they
>get thirsty! (It is an amazing thing that Khalid was tortured some 180
>times, and this we are supposed to believe indicates an efficacious
>practice, nevermind morals &, at least, laws/treaties!) And do keep
>track of how many so-called "terrorists" are ever really shown to be
>such (such as the poor Syrian taken captive en route Canada by US
>and sent to Egypt to be, uhm, maybe given back rubs?, on some
>belief --unfounded, wrong-- that he was a "terrorist" or maybe knew
>one or ... . No apology from this moral country that I know of
>(Canada at last did).
Actually, Khalid was boarded 266 times. First off, the fact that he survived that many times indicates that boarding doesn?t do permanent damage?it only creates the sensation of drowning. Keep in mind though; he was one of the plotters behind the attacks, so we knew he was an enemy.
As for that Syrian you mentions: I said that I would board every prisoner of war that we have, if I thought it would save a life. This Syrian didn?t pick up a gun and shoot as us, so you can?t claim I would support boarding him. Just because someone has darker skin than us doesn?t mean he?s a terrorist.
>No, I meant what I wrote: you live in Iran, you see the USA
>drum up an excuse and go invade Iraq, and you hear the good
>Christian words of Bush cite you as one of a trio of "Axis of Evil"
>states, and ... : let's see, Korea has a nuke, no invasion; Saddam
>didn't, oops!
>Much of Iran would like to be rid of ... whom we'd like to be
>rid of, just as much of USA wanted to be rid of Cheney-Bush.
>Christian crusades aren't the answer.
Ok, my mistake. I thought you were referring to the beginning of the conflict in the Middle East itself.
Iran was labeled as such because they supplied weapons to our enemies. That?s indirect warfare.
Korea wasn?t attacking us at the time.
There is no such thing as a true Christian crusade. It is fine to prey to your God in war, but to claim that you?re fighting because of God (which I didn?t state in my reasons for the war) is an insult to your religion.
>Whose home do you think Afghanistan is? Not that you (or I) might
>like the way they managed it, but it was their home
Germany was Hitler?s home as well. That didn?t give him the right to kill his citizens who didn?t match up to his idea of ?perfect.?
>Hey, they WERE IN CHARGE for 8 years. Where was THEIR bill,
>nevermind their nuisance attempts to thwart others' efforts.
They?re thwarting other?s effort because they think the bill will be a hazard to America. Rushing to fix something isn?t the answer, if your rush will cause you to mess things up even more.
>As though this is a novel thing, for Congress?
Passing a bill you haven?t fully read is never acceptable.
>Uh-huh, surely you cannot be so unware of their meeting in which what
>was told was how to Stop Obama, fearing the momentum his election
>brought? There was no desperate will to work with anything.
I was referring to the bill, not Obama?s election. That?s a different can of worms.
>... give the answers pollsters seek. There are many polls out there,
>and a science to how to ask for what you want to hear.
It is true that many polls are written to get the answers the pollsters want, but this particular poll was conducted by Quinnipiac University as a national service, not to sway opinion. If I had taken this poll from a Republican website, I would have been more cautious to believe it?s outcome.
>Earmarks are not "aka bribes" any more than anything else:
>they are ways to target funds -- for good or bad motives
>(e.g., one could be targeting funds to ensure that a good
>project got them, and not that funds leaked into areas not
>part of the rationale for their award).
These earmarks are incentives for certain congressmen to vote for the bill. This is buying a vote.
>And you see this happening, in any likelihood?
>Jimmy Carter decades ago in some interview lamented that
>people have no clue as to how much of our government is
>essentially one of bribery. And it's a price demanded by the
>high cost of campaigning, under that great "free speech"
>protection George Will luvs to rant about -- those hugely
>costly, emotion-tingling, empty rhetoric PR boosts over
>the airwaves, pumped up at the last minute, timed just
>so by the experts on marketing.
Of course I don?t see it happening?I was merely stating that to show the significance of the matter. Jimmy Carter should have reported the incidences he saw if he really disapproved of it.
>There is an economics of such a system that needs the cash
>flow. When your corporation finds an *out* on your insurance
>to avoid a claim, or bumps your rates to put you in bankruptcy,
>I don't think you'll be so happy. So, far, so good for you?
I?m not sure how corporations finding an ?out? relates to forcing the public to buy a product. Just because the universal healthcare system needs funds to operate doesn?t mean it?s right to force the public to buy a product.
>They weren't charged for being successful. You need to read the
>case against them. They were putting the screws to even Intel,
>and it certainly wasn't because they were such great innovators
>and could win business easily with their superior products. Rather,
>they forced themselves in.
That was my mistake?I should have elaborated more. I was referring to how a company that follows legal guidelines becomes a monopoly, but then is charged with antitrust laws at its height. As I said, corporations should follow moral and legal guidelines when operating their businesses.
>There is a gulf of difference between healthy eating and what our
>food industry markets for us.
They don?t hold a gun to our head and make us eat chocolate bars. But I agree they are VERY effective in their advertising. Unfortunately, many people don?t have the self-control to know when to stop, or when to eat better?but the companies can?t be blamed for their lack of discipline.
>"murder" is a legal term, and clearly abortion isn't murder.
>That's your belief. And it's a tough nut to deal with, when
>such beliefs differ. We don't all share that belief.
It still remains that abortion is the taking of a life. What defines life? Is it when one is able to defend themselves, or when we see a face so we feel guilty?
>This is patent nonsense. That data on guns show that they cost
>lives, not save them. -- the accidents, the heated arguments, ... .
>A person doesn't go around and point a gun at every stranger,
>and the criminal gets the jump; with a gun in your back, you
>aren't reaching for one of your own -- too late. And AK-47s
>aren't hunting tools, either.
No matter how much gun control you enact, criminals will still get a hold of them. Taking them away from the civilians just makes them more susceptible to attack. As for the data, more violent crimes take place in Washington DC than the national average?and DC is a gun-free zone. I assume you?re taking your stats from the UK? (Correct me if I?m wrong). The US and UK are two different countries though, and those numbers can?t be conclusive without taking them from within the culture being studied.
>Brothels create jobs, so do drugs. What happened to your
>desire to save lives? Tobacco was long ago cited as a major
>life stealer, slowly, painfully.
I just stated that tobacco is a horrible product. I obviously don?t want anyone to use it, but the government doesn?t have any right to tell them what they can or can?t do to their bodies. Just because tobacco takes lives, doesn?t mean you can count out the one positive aspect of it?its job creation.
>"They"? The great govt. of, by, & for the People? They do
>this? Maybe democracy is a bad idea? Maybe the Texas books
>can say that tabaccy is fine & dandy, light up and make a job
>-- one for the grower, one for the wholesaler, one for the marketer,
>several for healthcare! And then we can all vote for that.
Actually I meant the user of the product. And what I meant was, they might turn to a tobacco alternative that burns and tastes similar?especially with all the flavors they can put in them now-a-days.
>No, no. We have a stupid voting system that makes 3rd parties
>problematic (and a 2-party deathgrip on maintaining status quo).
>Voters should vote
preference, to influence ANY possible
>candidate A v. B choice, not have to guess who might have the
>best chance of those having your favor -- Bush over Buchanon, say.
>But we're talking about PERCENT WHO VOTED FOR ... and that
>is of ALL electorate: i.e., many did not vote. That has nothing to
>do with 3rd-party detractions.
From what I can understand, we don?t have differing views on this. I don?t like the fact that people vote just because of party ties, and in this case 51% of the population wasn?t required to vote in a new candidate (only 34%, assume two other candidates got 33% each.)
All I'm going to say is that if we continue to allow governments to push their Utopian agendas by stepping in and curtailing the actions of commercial entities, we're eventually going to end up with a idyllic world society like Roddenberry and others envisioned. And where will that get us? So happy and peaceful that we become bored enough to search out trouble and challenge amongst the races already populating the stars?
No.. I say to you the answer is too allow commerical entities to run amok unleashed. Only then will we achieve the Mega-corp ruled dystopian futures of Bladerunner, Rollerball, Soylent Green, Shadowrun, and other such visions. Only then can we see the dark, gritty, desparate livelihoods set forth in those epic ideals.
Let's face it, which is going to have a greater need for our kind and our knowledge? One where ships are 'tied up in port' with tractor beams? Or one where life and death is determine by being able to quickly and skillfully use electrical wire to tie that prosthetic leg back on till you can get it fixed by some back alley butcher with a medical book and a soldering iron.
If you want to cite fictional works, how about
The Giver, where the governent tries to silence a boy for finding out the truth. Or
Harrison Garrison, where a man who chooses not to wear his clown makeup and weights (used to make everyone equal and to completyly redistibute not only the weath, but every quality of life) is hunted down and killed in a haze of government gunfire?
I love threads like this
Dan Lehman
Well stated I think we must have very similar beliefs on the value of life and the uselessness of war.
Mr. Justin. I hate war as well, but I don't think it's useless. If you were in charge, what would you have done in response to Pearl Harbor, or an unpromted invasion of Huns, etc? Not to be sarcastic--I'm truly interested in what other logic might be used on the matter.
--Son of Liberty
