WTC7 again.

[Rheghead]

The report says three out of 170 samples reached temperatures above 250c and that no sample reached 600c. Nowhere does it say that any sample reached 500c and no logic I know of says it did. <600 != >500.

No that is not what you said the report says, it says that no where was there samples subject to temperatures in excess of 600c, which means that there is a band of temperature of some 100c beyond the critical temperature of steel where it loses its strength.

Anyhow, if you want answers then take a look at this report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

It seems more plausible this explanation

[JAWS]

Large skyscraper, huge aircraft, huge collision, massive fire at the point of impact.
Yes, I would describe that as the fire being "Localised"!

Are you claiming the entire buildings were on fire?

Now I can understand how you become so confused about official reports containing more than a few simple sentences.

[George Brims]

A small group of activists making a public spectacle of their grief for nothing more than political purposes to ensure they can soak up the "glory" of basking in the glare of Media attention is more than I am willing to even try and stomach.

Now Jaws you are coming off sounding a bit like Ann Coulter there. I'm sure that wasn't your intention. The hag Coulter accused the 9/11 widows of enjoying the loss of their husbands, simply because they insisted on an inquiry: the inquiry the Bush administration didn't want because it exposed their criminal level of incompetence: the inquiry Fred and his ilk so stubbornly refuse to believe.

I haven't watched the video in question yet, but it seems to me from the trailer that the women who were insisting on the truth about 9/11, the real important truths such as what a bumbling ideologue G W Bush really is and how he neglected his job from Day One and so got their husbands killed, have been co-opted by the foil hat brigade in their search for their brand of "truth". Maybe when I see the full thing I'll find some of the ladies really have lost a few marbles (and who could blame them if they did) and joined the whole conspiracy bandwagon.

[fred]

No that is not what you said the report says, it says that no where was there samples subject to temperatures in excess of 600c, which means that there is a band of temperature of some 100c beyond the critical temperature of steel where it loses its strength.

They do not say steel reached temperatures above 500c, you just assumed it did.

Look at it this way. At 250c all the paint burns off steel at 600c the molecular structure starts to alter. If you get a piece of steel with the paint burnt off but the molecular structure unchanged then all you know is that it reached a temperature of more than 250c and less than 600c.

Anyhow, if you want answers then take a look at this report.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

It seems more plausible this explanation

They don't answer any of the right questions, like "can you reproduce the effects either physically or on computer simulation using the data you obtained?".

[fred]

Now I can understand how you become so confused about official reports containing more than a few simple sentences.

I am confused, very confused. You and the 9/11 commission are telling me that a plane hitting a building has so much destructive force that it will reduce not only the building hit to dust and twisted metal but also another building two blocks away which wasn't hit by a plane.

Another building was hit on 9/11, the Pentagon, here are some photos of the impact area. If you can explain away the massive destruction of the WTC by plane impact how do you explain how little damage was done to the Pentagon?

[MadPict]

Simple - the Pentagon was constructed to withstand blast damage such as bombs - the WTC was not.

Is that simple enough?

[fred]

Simple - the Pentagon was constructed to withstand blast damage such as bombs - the WTC was not.

Is that simple enough?

Ah they use titanium book stands and books with asbestos pages, never thought of that.

[MadPict]

Didn't you? You seem to know everything else!
Of course they do - it's so the Taliban Black Camels can't infiltrate and read what is on the pages. And we all know how heavy sheets of asbestos are so naturally they'd need some thing strong to put a book full of asbestos pages onto.


D'Oh.........


If you can't figure that out on your own, without the "help" of the reams of virtual pages of idiotic claims churned out by the "TruthseekersTwisters" then there is little hope for you.

Go study some more pics of buildings that have fallen down/been blown up/been abducted by little green men/turned into gingerbread or WHATEVER......

Then look at damage to buildings which have been C-O-N-S-T-R-U-C-T-E-D to withstand bomb damage. Reinforced. Hardened. Armoured. Blast Proof.

[Rheghead]

Look at it this way. At 250c all the paint burns off steel at 600c the molecular structure starts to alter. If you get a piece of steel with the paint burnt off but the molecular structure unchanged then all you know is that it reached a temperature of more than 250c and less than 600c.

So do you accept that the temperatures could have reached 600c which is 40-100c above the critical temperature?

Having said that, the grain structure would not necessarily change even if the temperature exceeded 600c unless the cooling was any different to the rate of cooling when the original girders were manufactured, so it is a poor way of judging temperature.

[Rheghead]

They don't answer any of the right questions, like "can you reproduce the effects either physically or on computer simulation using the data you obtained?".

They answer all the questions, it is a Q&A sheet to answer the very daft questions that you keep coming out with.

You are in denial.

Have you got a computer simulation to show the buildings were rigged to collapse which shows that the buildings just so happens to collapse where the planes went in?

[darkman]

George bush and his cohorts are the biggest threat to humanity since adolf hitler and they must be stopped before it is too late.

[fred]

You are in denial.

Why would I be in denial? Do you know the meaning of the word?

All I do is look at the avaiable evidence without the premise that those with the greatest motive and opportunity couldn't possibly have been complicit.

The person in denial would be someone who sees a world of us and them with us as good and them as evil. They would refuse to even consider any evidence which contradicted their view of the world. When irrefutable evidence was presented to them they would just declare it fake. They would refuse to take the path of least resistance and instead try to stretch the realms of possibility, clinging to any chance, any remote possibility which supports their view no matter how unlikely, declaring that's what must have happened while rejecting the obvious because it doesn't support their view.

No, it isn't me in denial.

[Kaishowing]

Just wondering what the people who are the most vocal on the existing WTC7 thread think about the 'official' version of the incident at The Pentagon on 9/11?

[darkman]

The official line is absolute rubbish, nearly as believeable as faye turney's statement.

[Kaishowing]

I was just asking because whichever version you believe (official or not) then logically it would follow that you either believe ALL the official versions regarding 9/11, or regard it ALL as suspect.

[darkman]

I was just asking because whichever version you believe (official or not) then logically it would follow that you either believe ALL the official versions regarding 9/11, or regard it ALL as suspect.

I would say it is all very suspect.

[fred]

I would say it is all very suspect.

Very suspect indeed that a hijacker not even competent to fly a Cesna on reaching the Pentagon instead of ramming right into Rumsfelds office did a turn which made experienced pilots envious so he could hit a part of the Pentagon which was almost empty apart from records of where $2.1 trillion dollars vanished to.

But suspect is all it is, unlike the WTC there is a great shortage of hard evidence for the Commission to ignore. If we had a tape of the BBC reporting it 20 minutes before it happened then we'd have some proof. If the entire Pentagon had suddenly turned to dust along with the building across the street we might have a chance. Even masses of eye witness reports of molten metal and explosions would help.

But then, even if we had all that, chances are people would still refuse to believe it.

[JAWS]

I am confused, very confused. You and the 9/11 commission are telling me that a plane hitting a building has so much destructive force that it will reduce not only the building hit to dust and twisted metal but also another building two blocks away which wasn't hit by a plane.

Another building was hit on 9/11, the Pentagon, here are some photos of the impact area. If you can explain away the massive destruction of the WTC by plane impact how do you explain how little damage was done to the Pentagon?

The answer to the first question is, yes.

The answer to the second question is that I suggest you make a careful study of the minute differences between the Pentagon Building and the WTC Towers. The differences in the buildings are only slight but, with a careful study, are noticeable.
To assist you in the endeavour I suggest you look at the differences prior to 9/11.

[Rheghead]

Why would I be in denial? Do you know the meaning of the word?

All I do is look at the avaiable evidence without the premise that those with the greatest motive and opportunity couldn't possibly have been complicit.

The person in denial would be someone who sees a world of us and them with us as good and them as evil. They would refuse to even consider any evidence which contradicted their view of the world. When irrefutable evidence was presented to them they would just declare it fake. They would refuse to take the path of least resistance and instead try to stretch the realms of possibility, clinging to any chance, any remote possibility which supports their view no matter how unlikely, declaring that's what must have happened while rejecting the obvious because it doesn't support their view.

No, it isn't me in denial.

The fact remaining is that you have no evidence to back up your tripe.

[Blazing Sporrans]

They would refuse to even consider any evidence which contradicted their view of the world. When irrefutable evidence was presented to them they would just declare it fake. They would refuse to take the path of least resistance and instead try to stretch the realms of possibility, clinging to any chance, any remote possibility which supports their view no matter how unlikely, declaring that's what must have happened while rejecting the obvious because it doesn't support their view.

No, it isn't me in denial.

I dunno fred, that sounds like a fairly accurate description of my assessment of you