9/11 Truther Debates Official Story Believer/Architect

Hello again, Gary, and thank you for your lengthly response. I appreciate the time you spent writing it, and I appreciate your replys to specific points I made. To save time, I copied and pasted your posting below. My responses are in ALL CAPS so you can differentiate at a glance between your words and mine. (I'm not using the capital letters in order to appear to be shouting.)

Hi Paul,

You seem sincere. So you ready to have a real debate? YES, THANK YOU.
No name calling. AMEN, GARY. Let's stick to arguing our points. LET'S.

OK, let's look more closely at your 3 so-called facts in your 1st paragraph above. "SO-CALLED?" FACTS ARE FACTS.

1. Many steel columns were severed by the planes collisions, leaving a heavier load on those left in place.

YES, THIS IS A FACT. YOU CAN ARGUE THAT THE INCREASED LOADS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDING, BUT THE LOADS WERE IN FACT INCREASED. IF YOU AND FOUR BUDDIES ARE CARRYING A LONG, HEAVY LOG, AND YOU SUDDENLY LET GO, THE WEIGHT YOUR FRIENDS ARE CARRYING WILL SUDDENLY INCREASE.

(I DIDN'T TYPE "IT'S." I TYPED "ITS." THE FORMER IS A CONTRACTION FOR "IT IS," THE LATTER IS POSESSIVE FOR "IT." I'M NOT TRYING TO RIDICULE, BUT INFORM. THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST COMMON PUNCTUATION ERROR IN ENGLISH. I MAKE LINGUISTIC ERRORS, TOO, SO PLEASE ADVISE ME - LIKE JON DID - SHOULD YOU FIND ANY.) YES, THAT IS WHAT HEAT DOES TO STEEL. AGAIN, YOU COULD MAKE A CASE THAT THE HEAT INCREASE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WEAKEN THE STEEL ENOUGH TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDINGS. BUT YOU CAN NOT FACTUALLY STATE THAT THE STEEL DID LOT LOSE STRENGTH.

2. Fires heated the steel causing it to lose it's strength.
(I DIDN'T TYPE "IT'S." I TYPED "ITS." THE FORMER IS A CONTRACTION FOR "IT IS," THE LATTER IS POSESSIVE FOR "IT." I'M NOT TRYING TO RIDICULE, BUT INFORM. THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST COMMON PUNCTUATION ERROR IN ENGLISH. I MAKE LINGUISTIC ERRORS, TOO, SO PLEASE ADVISE ME - LIKE JON DID - SHOULD YOU FIND ANY.) YES, THAT IS WHAT HEAT DOES TO STEEL. AGAIN, YOU COULD MAKE A CASE THAT THE HEAT INCREASE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WEAKEN THE STEEL ENOUGH TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDINGS. BUT YOU CAN NOT FACTUALLY STATE THAT THE STEEL DID LOT LOSE STRENGTH.

3. A building that has sustained severe structural damage, AND has acres of floor space burning, is in danger of collapse. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. NOTE THAT I SAID SUCH CONDITIONS CAUSE A BUILDING TO BE IN DANGER OF COLLAPSE. I DID NOT SY THE CONDITIONS GUARANTEED SUCH COLLAPSE.

Now let me discuss your so-called fact #1.

1a) The Boeings which allegedly (ALLEGEDLY? DID THE TITANIC "ALLEGEDLY" SINK?) hit the Twin Towers had both taken off with enough fuel for a transcontinental flight, but most of the jet fuel in the South Tower impact was consumed in the spectacular fireball, so presumably much more fuel was available for the fire in the North Tower. If the fires were the cause of the collapse then we would expect the North Tower to have collapsed more quickly than the South Tower. But the opposite happened: the North Tower collapsed 104 minutes after impact whereas the South Tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.

YOUR RESPONSE ABOVE RAISES A GOOD QUESTION, AND I BELIEVE I HAVE THE ANSWER. (PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU DID NOT MAKE ANY MENTION OF MY OBSERVATION THAT MANY STEEL COLUMNS WERE SEVERED, THUS WEAKENING THE OVERALL STRUCTURE.) PER YOUR OBSERVATION THAT THE SOUTH TOWER COLLAPSED IN LESS TIME THAN THE NORTH, EVEN THOUGH A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FUEL WAS EJECTED: THE SOUTH TOWER WAS HIT AT A LOWER LEVEL THAN THE NORTH. YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE THIS ON THE PHOTO YOU ATTACHED. THAT MEANS THAT THE DAMAGED PORTION OF THE TOWER WAS HOLDING MORE DEAD WEIGHT ABOVE IT. I BELIEVE THIS EXPLAINS THE SHORTER TIME-FRAME BEFORE THE COLLAPSE. (NOTE: IF EXPLOSIVES INDEED WERE USED, THE VILLAN WHO DETONATED THEM COULD HAVE DONE SO AT ANY TIME OF HIS CHOOSING. WHY WOULD HE AROUSE SUSPICION BY MAKING ONE TOWER FALL MUCH SOONER THAN THE OTHER, AND THUS INVITE THE QUESTION YOU ASKED?)

Now let me discuss your so-called fact #2. AGAIN, IT'S NOT A "SO-CALLED" FACT, IT'S A FACT: STEEL DOES INDEED LOOSE ITS STRENGTH AS ITS TEMPERATURE INCREASES. YOUR NOTE AT 2b BELOW AKNOWLEDGES THIS FACT. YOU CAN - AND DO - ARGUE THAT THE TEMPERATURE INCREASE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRING DOWN THE TOWERS, BUT THE HEATED STEEL CERTAINLY WAS WEAKENED.

2a) Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so when you apply heat to a steel structure the heat spreads quickly. So the heat from the fires would have spread through the entire steel structure of each tower. The Twin Towers contained 200,000 tons of steel. Are we expected to believe that the fires from two loads of jet fuel provided sufficient heat to raise 200,000 tons of steel to the point where it became critically weak? STEEL DOES INDEED CONDUCT HEAT VERY WELL. AND YES, RESIDUAL HEAT WOULD HAVE SPREAD TO PARTS OF THE STRUCTURE FAR FROM THE FIRE. BUT, THE STEEL COMPONENTS CLOSEST TO THE FIRE WOULD HAVE BEEN FAR HOTTER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE HEAT WOULD NOT BE EVENLY SPREAD. IF YOU HOLD THE FLAME OF A BLOW-TORCH AGAINST A CONTINUOUS RAIL OF A RAIL ROAD TRACK FOR AN HOUR, THE STEEL WOULD BE EXTREMELY HOT AT THE POINT OF CONTACT. IT WOULD ALSO BE TOO HOT TO TOUCH WITHIN MANY FEET OF THIS POINT. THE HEAT WOULD TRAVEL FAR DOWN THE RAIL, BUT A QUARTER MILE OR SO FROM THE FLAME, IT PROBABLY WOULD BE COOL ENOUGH TO TOUCH IT. THIS WOULD BE TRUE FOR TWO REASONS: NOT ALL OF THE ENERGY WOULD TRAVEL DOWN THE RAIL, PLUS - AND THIS IS IMPORTANT - MUCH OF THE HEAT THAT DOES TRAVEL DOWN THE RAIL WILL DISIPATE INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. THIS BRINGS UP ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACT ABOUT THE WTC FAILURE: THE FIREPROOFING WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED IN THE VICINITY OF THE CRASHES. THE EXPOSED STEEL HEATED UP MORE QUICKLY, AND THE HEAT TRAVELED TO PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE WHERE THE FIREPROOFING WAS INTACT. THE FIREPROOFING THEN TRAPPED THE HEAT IN THE STEEL, DOING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO, CAUSING THE STEEL TO BE WEAKENED MORE THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE HAD THE FIREPROOFING BEEN INTACT.

2b) Based on data provided by Corus Construction Centre, and assuming that the WTC architects followed the usual safety margins for load-bearing steel structures, we may conclude that even if the fire had heated the steel to 1022°F (550°C) that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse. I'M SURE THE WTC ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOLLOWED SAFETY MARGINS THAT GREATLY EXCEEDED THE USUAL SAFETY MARGINS. THAT'S WHAT WE DO WHEN WE DESIGN ESPECIALLY LARGE STRUCTURES, AND THE TWIN TOWERS WERE THE LARGEST TWO BUILDINGS ON EARTH. I AGREE, THE HEAT - BY ITSELF - WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDINGS. OTHER DAMAGE WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY. YOU INSIST THIS DAMAGE WAS CAUSED BY EXPLOSIVES; I MAINTAIN THAT THE MASSIVE DAMAGE DONE BY THE PLANES WAS ALSO TO BLAME.

2c) Kevin Ryan from UL states "We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours." I CANNOT SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THIS QUOTE, AS I AM NOT AN EXPERT ON ASTM'S PROCEDURES. IF YOU ARE, PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME. IF YOU ARE NOT, YOU ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO JUDGE THE CREDIBILITY OF MR. RYAN'S STATEMENT. HOWEVER, CONSIDER THIS: UL IS ONE OF MANY PROFESSIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS THAT AGREES THAT NO EXPLOSIVES WERE USED TO BRING DOWN THE TOWERS. IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU FOCUS ON THE QUOTE FROM ONE MEMBER OF THIS ORGANIZATION, AND IGNORE ALL THE ORGANIZATION'S RESEARCH. COULD MR. RYAN BE A WHISTLEBLOWER? IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT UNLIKELY. IN ORDER FOR ALL THE OTHER UL EMPLOYEES TO "GO ALONG" WITH THE "OFFICIAL STORY," THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A MASSIVE MOBILIZATION OF THOUSANDS OF PROFESSIONALS. THEY WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE PAID OFF TO LIE. WOULD NOT ANY OF THESE PROFESSIONALS BLOWN THE WHISTLE ON SUCH A CONSPIRACY? I CERTAINLY THINK SO. UNLESS, OF COURSE, THEY WERE THREATENED WITH DEATH. MR. RYAN SEEMED TO HAVE NO SUCH FEAR. IS HE STILL ALIVE? ALSO, IF ALL THE MEMBERS OF US WERE APPROACHED AND ASKED TO LIE, WOULD NOT MR. RYAN TELL US ABOUT THIS?

2d) The jet fuel burned for maybe ten minutes, and thereafter it was not jet fuel that was burning but rather, as Popular Mechanics' "Fact" says, "the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper". Since both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were still standing 50 minutes after the impacts, the alleged weakening of the steel had to be due to the previous 40 minutes of burning of "rugs, curtains, furniture and paper". YES. THE STEEL WAS WEAKENED BY SUCH FIRES. AND THE STEEL WAS OVERLOADED BY THE DAMAGE FROM THE AIRPLANES.

Now let me discuss your so-called fact #3.

3a) According to the Journal of Australian Fire Investigators (see http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html) paper, wood and leather ignite at 475°F (246°C) or less, far below the temperature required to weaken steel significantly. It is thus ludicrous to attempt to attribute the collapse of the Twin Towers to the weakening of its steel supports due to the combustion of "rugs, curtains, furniture and paper". SEE COMMENT IMMEDIATELY ABOVE.

3b) No steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete and nearly symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001, presumably without the use of explosives. ALL THE IMPLODED BUILDINGS YOU REFER TO WERE IMPLODED FROM THE BOTTOM UP. THE WTC TOWERS FAILED FROM THE TOP DOWN. AS FOR YOUR CORRECT OBSERVATION ABOUT NO OTHER STEEL FRAME BUILDINGS HAVING FAILED FROM FIRES, ALL OF THESE TOWERS HAD ALL THEIR STEEL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS INTACT. ALSO, WTC 1, 2 & 7 HAD UNUSUAL STRUCTURAL DESIGNS. MOST OTHER STEEL-FRAME TOWERS HAVE THEIR LOADS DISTRIBUTED ON A REGULAR GRID OF COLUMNS, WHEN VIEWED IN PLAN. THE TWIN TOWERS, HOWEVER, HAD THEIR FLOORS SUPPORTED BY THE CORE COLUMNS AND THE EXTERIOR WALLS. THE FAILURE OF THE FLOORS IN THE VICINITY OF THE IMPACTS PULLED THE EXTERIOR WALLS INWARD. THIS BOWING OF THE NON-SEVERED COLUMNS CAN BE OBSERVED IN MANY PHOTOGRAPHS. EVENTUALLY, THE DEFORMATION OF THESE COLUMNS WAS TOO SEVERE TO KEEP HOLDING THE WEIGHT THEY WERE DESIGNED TO CARRY. A REGULAR GRID OF INTERNAL COLUMNS MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED THIS FAILURE. AS FOR WTC 7: THE UPPER LEVELS OF THIS TOWER HAD A CONVENTIONAL DESIGN OF A COLUMN GRID. HOWEVER, THE BUILDING WAS BUILT OVER A CON-ED SUBSTATION. SO AS NOT TO DISTURB THIS EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, WTC7 WAS BUILT WITH THE STRUCTURE IN ITS LOWER LEVELS SPANNING THE SUBSTATION. THIS UNUSUAL DESIGN MEANT THAT THE FAILURE OF ONE STRUCTURAL MEMBER COULD LEAD TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. (NOTE: THE BOMBING OF THE ALFRED P. MURAH BUILDING IN OKLAHOMA CITY ON 4/19/1995 HAD A STRUCTURAL FAILURE NOT UNLIKE THIS: THE TRUCK BOMB WAS PLACED NEAR ONE REINFORCED
CONCRETE COLUMN WHICH CARRIED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THE BUILDING'S WEIGHT. THE SUDDEN DISTRUCTION OF THIS COLUMN BROUGHT DOWN A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE BUILDING. IF IT WAS 47 STORIES TALL, THE ENTIRE BUILDING WOULD HAVE LIKELY COLLAPSED.) IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE LOWER PORTION OF THE TOWER WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED. SEE THIS LINK FOR ANALYSIS AND PHOTOS:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrin...

I wait for your response to the points I raise. THE WAIT IS OVER.

I'll get to the rest at a later time. I'LL CHECK BACK LATER, GARY.

Regards,

Gary

THE SAME TO YOU,
PAUL

911truthnc.org
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

The debate continues

Hope Life Is Going Well Paul,

Keeping in your tradition. You are all caps. I am in small caps.

1. Many steel columns were severed by the planes collisions, leaving a heavier load on those left in place.

YES, THIS IS A FACT. YOU CAN ARGUE THAT THE INCREASED LOADS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDING, BUT THE LOADS WERE IN FACT INCREASED. IF YOU AND FOUR BUDDIES ARE CARRYING A LONG, HEAVY LOG, AND YOU SUDDENLY LET GO, THE WEIGHT YOUR FRIENDS ARE CARRYING WILL SUDDENLY INCREASE.

Yes, I agree this is a fact. Yet, the underlying assumption is not. That being. That this is related to the collapse. That is why I consider it a "so-called" fact in relation to the collapse.

1a) The Boeings which allegedly (ALLEGEDLY? DID THE TITANIC "ALLEGEDLY" SINK?) hit the Twin Towers had both taken off with enough fuel for a transcontinental flight, but most of the jet fuel in the South Tower impact was consumed in the spectacular fireball, so presumably much more fuel was available for the fire in the North Tower. If the fires were the cause of the collapse then we would expect the North Tower to have collapsed more quickly than the South Tower. But the opposite happened: the North Tower collapsed 104 minutes after impact whereas the South Tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.

YOUR RESPONSE ABOVE RAISES A GOOD QUESTION, AND I BELIEVE I HAVE THE ANSWER. (PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU DID NOT MAKE ANY MENTION OF MY OBSERVATION THAT MANY STEEL COLUMNS WERE SEVERED, THUS WEAKENING THE OVERALL STRUCTURE.) PER YOUR OBSERVATION THAT THE SOUTH TOWER COLLAPSED IN LESS TIME THAN THE NORTH, EVEN THOUGH A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FUEL WAS EJECTED: THE SOUTH TOWER WAS HIT AT A LOWER LEVEL THAN THE NORTH. YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE THIS ON THE PHOTO YOU ATTACHED. THAT MEANS THAT THE DAMAGED PORTION OF THE TOWER WAS HOLDING MORE DEAD WEIGHT ABOVE IT. I BELIEVE THIS EXPLAINS THE SHORTER TIME-FRAME BEFORE THE COLLAPSE. (NOTE: IF EXPLOSIVES INDEED WERE USED, THE VILLAN WHO DETONATED THEM COULD HAVE DONE SO AT ANY TIME OF HIS CHOOSING. WHY WOULD HE AROUSE SUSPICION BY MAKING ONE TOWER FALL MUCH SOONER THAN THE OTHER, AND THUS INVITE THE QUESTION YOU ASKED?)

To summarize your points: 1) lower floor impact caused earlier collapse due to heavier weight.
Your reply makes a couple assumptions. That an office fire can reach temperatures hot enough to melt steel. This point we get into more detail later.

2) The evil doers reasoning : At 9:52 AM there was a radio message from a firefighter Chief Palmer who was on the 78th floor of the South Tower, and reported there was a fire there which he felt could be contained with 2 lines, that means 2 hoses could put it out, so it was not a very big fire. And if there were any fires below the 78th floor he would not have gone past them as no fireman would ignore a fire he saw and climb above it without putting it out first, as that would be like putting yourself on a barbeque spit.

If the entire building was engulfed in a raging fire as our government claims, how could a fireman get up to the 78th floor? And if the fire on 78th was small enough to be handled with only 2 hoses, how could it possibly melt any steel at all, let alone the on the floors below the 78th floor. However at 9:59 AM seven minutes after Chief Palmer sent this radio message from the 78th floor, the South Tower collapses. I would go as far to say. That your hypothesis does not stand up to this scrunity.

What happened was. The fire was being put out. The evil doers had to move their plan up. Or there would be no reason for the South tower to collapse if the fire had been put out. So they pulled it early to avoid this.

So both towers are bellowing hughs amount of black smoke indicating an oxygen straved fire. There is no indication that temperatures reached the level nearly high enough to melt steel.

Paul, you are the one supporting the official explanation. You have to prove your case on every point. If I disprove any point you make. Your argument fails.

2. Fires heated the steel causing it to lose it's strength.
(I DIDN'T TYPE "IT'S." I TYPED "ITS." THE FORMER IS A CONTRACTION FOR "IT IS," THE LATTER IS POSESSIVE FOR "IT." I'M NOT TRYING TO RIDICULE, BUT INFORM. THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST COMMON PUNCTUATION ERROR IN ENGLISH. I MAKE LINGUISTIC ERRORS, TOO, SO PLEASE ADVISE ME - LIKE JON DID - SHOULD YOU FIND ANY.) YES, THAT IS WHAT HEAT DOES TO STEEL. AGAIN, YOU COULD MAKE A CASE THAT THE HEAT INCREASE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WEAKEN THE STEEL ENOUGH TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDINGS. BUT YOU CAN NOT FACTUALLY STATE THAT THE STEEL DID LOT LOSE STRENGTH.

Valid point, I am a little pressed for time. Please forgive the eronous error. Again, the statement is a fact. It is not a fact. That this fact is related to the collapse. That is why I consider it a "so-called" fact in relation to the collapse.

2a) Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so when you apply heat to a steel structure the heat spreads quickly. So the heat from the fires would have spread through the entire steel structure of each tower. The Twin Towers contained 200,000 tons of steel. Are we expected to believe that the fires from two loads of jet fuel provided sufficient heat to raise 200,000 tons of steel to the point where it became critically weak? STEEL DOES INDEED CONDUCT HEAT VERY WELL. AND YES, RESIDUAL HEAT WOULD HAVE SPREAD TO PARTS OF THE STRUCTURE FAR FROM THE FIRE. BUT, THE STEEL COMPONENTS CLOSEST TO THE FIRE WOULD HAVE BEEN FAR HOTTER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE HEAT WOULD NOT BE EVENLY SPREAD. IF YOU HOLD THE FLAME OF A BLOW-TORCH AGAINST A CONTINUOUS RAIL OF A RAIL ROAD TRACK FOR AN HOUR, THE STEEL WOULD BE EXTREMELY HOT AT THE POINT OF CONTACT. IT WOULD ALSO BE TOO HOT TO TOUCH WITHIN MANY FEET OF THIS POINT. THE HEAT WOULD TRAVEL FAR DOWN THE RAIL, BUT A QUARTER MILE OR SO FROM THE FLAME, IT PROBABLY WOULD BE COOL ENOUGH TO TOUCH IT. THIS WOULD BE TRUE FOR TWO REASONS: NOT ALL OF THE ENERGY WOULD TRAVEL DOWN THE RAIL, PLUS - AND THIS IS IMPORTANT - MUCH OF THE HEAT THAT DOES TRAVEL DOWN THE RAIL WILL DISIPATE INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. THIS BRINGS UP ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACT ABOUT THE WTC FAILURE: THE FIREPROOFING WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED IN THE VICINITY OF THE CRASHES. THE EXPOSED STEEL HEATED UP MORE QUICKLY, AND THE HEAT TRAVELED TO PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE WHERE THE FIREPROOFING WAS INTACT. THE FIREPROOFING THEN TRAPPED THE HEAT IN THE STEEL, DOING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO, CAUSING THE STEEL TO BE WEAKENED MORE THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE HAD THE FIREPROOFING BEEN INTACT.

The point you raise here is exactly why the collapse could not be a pancake collapse. Here you are trying to support the notion. That a very localized fire on the 78th floor (spanning at the most 5 floors), cause the steel on the 60th, 50th, 40th, 30th, 20th ... floors to become weak enough to cause complete failure. All the steel sections are no longer than 30 feet. If it was a pancake collapse. We could expect steel pieces of eronous lengths. Some 100s of feet in length.

In my opinion claiming that a localize fire caused the complete failure of the 47 center columns is just plain living in fanasty land.

2b) Based on data provided by Corus Construction Centre, and assuming that the WTC architects followed the usual safety margins for load-bearing steel structures, we may conclude that even if the fire had heated the steel to 1022°F (550°C) that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse. I'M SURE THE WTC ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOLLOWED SAFETY MARGINS THAT GREATLY EXCEEDED THE USUAL SAFETY MARGINS. THAT'S WHAT WE DO WHEN WE DESIGN ESPECIALLY LARGE STRUCTURES, AND THE TWIN TOWERS WERE THE LARGEST TWO BUILDINGS ON EARTH. I AGREE, THE HEAT - BY ITSELF - WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDINGS. OTHER DAMAGE WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY. YOU INSIST THIS DAMAGE WAS CAUSED BY EXPLOSIVES; I MAINTAIN THAT THE MASSIVE DAMAGE DONE BY THE PLANES WAS ALSO TO BLAME.

Wow, is this just a slip on the tongue? "THE MASSIVE DAMAGE DONE BY THE PLANES WAS ALSO TO BLAME." Also to blame. Is this an admission to demolition to being a cause?

2c) Kevin Ryan from UL states "We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours." I CANNOT SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THIS QUOTE, AS I AM NOT AN EXPERT ON ASTM'S PROCEDURES. IF YOU ARE, PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME. IF YOU ARE NOT, YOU ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO JUDGE THE CREDIBILITY OF MR. RYAN'S STATEMENT. HOWEVER, CONSIDER THIS: UL IS ONE OF MANY PROFESSIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS THAT AGREES THAT NO EXPLOSIVES WERE USED TO BRING DOWN THE TOWERS. IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU FOCUS ON THE QUOTE FROM ONE MEMBER OF THIS ORGANIZATION, AND IGNORE ALL THE ORGANIZATION'S RESEARCH. COULD MR. RYAN BE A WHISTLEBLOWER? IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT UNLIKELY. IN ORDER FOR ALL THE OTHER UL EMPLOYEES TO "GO ALONG" WITH THE "OFFICIAL STORY," THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A MASSIVE MOBILIZATION OF THOUSANDS OF PROFESSIONALS. THEY WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE PAID OFF TO LIE. WOULD NOT ANY OF THESE PROFESSIONALS BLOWN THE WHISTLE ON SUCH A CONSPIRACY? I CERTAINLY THINK SO. UNLESS, OF COURSE, THEY WERE THREATENED WITH DEATH. MR. RYAN SEEMED TO HAVE NO SUCH FEAR. IS HE STILL ALIVE? ALSO, IF ALL THE MEMBERS OF US WERE APPROACHED AND ASKED TO LIE, WOULD NOT MR. RYAN TELL US ABOUT THIS?

I am not an expert. It is my understanding that ASTM E119 is a certification that the steel was exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. Kevin Ryan was fired immediately from UL after bringing these discrepancy to light. Kevin Ryan is just a honest individual. Who was proud of his work and was standing up for his position. Yes, he is alive and well and supporting the 911 truth movement.

Paul, I understand the big lie question. I beg you to do some research on false flag operations: Operation Northwoods, Gladio ... ect. I can not address the motives of those who are supporting the official lie. Alex Jones has an excellent documentary with veriable information.

Terror Storm

Realize the people who stand to gain from 9/11 are making trillions of dollars: Miltary Industrial Complex, International Bankers who we are borrowing the money to finance our wars, Homeland Security, CIA, NSA, DIA .... All have had hugh increases in their budgets. Cheney's wealth has increased 30 times since the invasion of Iraq. Bush's wealth has tripled. How many people can you pay off with a trillion dollars?

2d) The jet fuel burned for maybe ten minutes, and thereafter it was not jet fuel that was burning but rather, as Popular Mechanics' "Fact" says, "the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper". Since both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were still standing 50 minutes after the impacts, the alleged weakening of the steel had to be due to the previous 40 minutes of burning of "rugs, curtains, furniture and paper". YES. THE STEEL WAS WEAKENED BY SUCH FIRES. AND THE STEEL WAS OVERLOADED BY THE DAMAGE FROM THE AIRPLANES.

You are providing a theory. Provide some evidence to support your theory.

3. A building that has sustained severe structural damage, AND has acres of floor space burning, is in danger of collapse. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. NOTE THAT I SAID SUCH CONDITIONS CAUSE A BUILDING TO BE IN DANGER OF COLLAPSE. I DID NOT SY THE CONDITIONS GUARANTEED SUCH COLLAPSE.

Again, the statement is a fact. It is not a fact. That this fact is related to the collapse. That is why I consider it a "so-called" fact in relation to the collapse.

3b) No steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete and nearly symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001, presumably without the use of explosives. ALL THE IMPLODED BUILDINGS YOU REFER TO WERE IMPLODED FROM THE BOTTOM UP. THE WTC TOWERS FAILED FROM THE TOP DOWN. AS FOR YOUR CORRECT OBSERVATION ABOUT NO OTHER STEEL FRAME BUILDINGS HAVING FAILED FROM FIRES, ALL OF THESE TOWERS HAD ALL THEIR STEEL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS INTACT. ALSO, WTC 1, 2 & 7 HAD UNUSUAL STRUCTURAL DESIGNS. MOST OTHER STEEL-FRAME TOWERS HAVE THEIR LOADS DISTRIBUTED ON A REGULAR GRID OF COLUMNS, WHEN VIEWED IN PLAN. THE TWIN TOWERS, HOWEVER, HAD THEIR FLOORS SUPPORTED BY THE CORE COLUMNS AND THE EXTERIOR WALLS. THE FAILURE OF THE FLOORS IN THE VICINITY OF THE IMPACTS PULLED THE EXTERIOR WALLS INWARD. THIS BOWING OF THE NON-SEVERED COLUMNS CAN BE OBSERVED IN MANY PHOTOGRAPHS. EVENTUALLY, THE DEFORMATION OF THESE COLUMNS WAS TOO SEVERE TO KEEP HOLDING THE WEIGHT THEY WERE DESIGNED TO CARRY. A REGULAR GRID OF INTERNAL COLUMNS MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED THIS FAILURE. AS FOR WTC 7: THE UPPER LEVELS OF THIS TOWER HAD A CONVENTIONAL DESIGN OF A COLUMN GRID. HOWEVER, THE BUILDING WAS BUILT OVER A CON-ED SUBSTATION. SO AS NOT TO DISTURB THIS EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, WTC7 WAS BUILT WITH THE STRUCTURE IN ITS LOWER LEVELS SPANNING THE SUBSTATION. THIS UNUSUAL DESIGN MEANT THAT THE FAILURE OF ONE STRUCTURAL MEMBER COULD LEAD TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. (NOTE: THE BOMBING OF THE ALFRED P. MURAH BUILDING IN OKLAHOMA CITY ON 4/19/1995 HAD A STRUCTURAL FAILURE NOT UNLIKE THIS: THE TRUCK BOMB WAS PLACED NEAR ONE REINFORCED
CONCRETE COLUMN WHICH CARRIED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THE BUILDING'S WEIGHT. THE SUDDEN DISTRUCTION OF THIS COLUMN BROUGHT DOWN A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE BUILDING. IF IT WAS 47 STORIES TALL, THE ENTIRE BUILDING WOULD HAVE LIKELY COLLAPSED.) IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE LOWER PORTION OF THE TOWER WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED. SEE THIS LINK FOR ANALYSIS AND PHOTOS:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrin...

I could not get the link above to work. Paste the whole link.

Again, I restate that your hypothesis does not answer. How the complete 47 steel columns reached temperatures high enough to cause complete failure of the columns along the whole tower. Look at the pile of steel below. You are claiming an office furniture fire caused temperatures hot enough to cause this type of damage.

Please explain how a fire on the 78th floors and above cause this type of damage on the ground? Blocks away from the collapse.

Your hypothesis does not address WTC7 which was not hit by a plane.

Paul, I urge you to go down the rabbit hole related to the Murrah Building. It is also an inside job. 9/11 has many of the same patterns in as the Murrah Building explosion. e.g. Many eyewitness accounts of multiple explosions that were aired the day of the event and never heard from again.

Here is a credible documentary on the Murrah Building.

I look forward to your response.

Peace!

Kevin Ryan

Paul,
I hoping you have not cut & run. After all, you came into this debate. Exclaiming how happy you were to be able to display your ahitectural skills. Seeing how you are a architect, right?

So not to return is in bad taste. Not to mention casting a questionable light on the architectural industry. You would be a boob not to return. What kind of boobs are they hiring as architects these days.

Anyway, I want to bring to your attention Kevin Ryan's interview on the web.

Have you bitten off more than you can crew? Please, don't be a boob. Show up. Defend your position. Be a man.
Gary
911truthnc.org
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

careful

"Paul, you are the one supporting the official explanation. You have to prove your case on every point. If I disprove any point you make. Your argument fails."

This is a logical fallacy. This is not how science works. In an attempt to formulate a theory you would do experiments and build large amounts of data. We have a mountain of data about the September 11th attacks. From this data you would formulate a hypothesis, and then attempt to prove that hypothesis through more research, and more studies of the data. This has in fact happened in response to 9/11. Society in general (this includes the mainstream media, US government agencies, independent engineering firms, research institutions and regular people as well) has established an accepted account (you could call it a hypothesis) of what happened. There is no "official account"-- it is more of a general consensus. Anyway, when a researcher wants to *disprove* an already promoted and generally accepted theory he must in fact accumulate and present enough evidence to overrule the majority or all of the arguments that support the old theory. It works pretty much the opposite of the way you say. The fact that you may be able to disprove a single point says nothing aboutf the soundness of the original argument, which is built on thousands of facts, not just one.

according to the 9/11

according to the 9/11 commission "wtc2 collapsed totally in 10 seconds".
since this is the same amount of time that it would take a bowling ball to reach the ground if dropped from the same height (1368 ft.) we know that the 1/4 mile worth of steel support members offered no resistance whatsoever to the top of wtc2 as it fell to the ground at the astounding rate of 11 floors per second.

so. confronted with the phenomenon of the the 47 extra massive core columns, 200+ regular massive perimeter columns, 110 stories worth of massive spandrel plates and extra sturdy corner assemblies providing absolutely no resistance as the top of wtc2 plummeted to the ground as fast as a bowling ball falling the same distance thru the air would we are faced with 3 choices:

1) every single piece of steel was terrified of all that pulverized concrete suspended in the air above it and simply unhooked from each other and leapt out of the way in a sequential order from top to bottom -

2) all of the steel was unhooked from each other and spirited away by magic -

3) all of the steel was assisted out of the way by explosives.