Are you guys aware that a Third Tower fell, on 911?

[dogman_1234]

Ignorance prevails because nutjobs open their mouth and normal people wish not to look at the issues...not becasuse of tyrrancial governments.

On the contrary, Ignorance prevails when people put their faith and trust into a media which is 95% owned by 5 Major corporations who decide what news you are allowed to see, the very same corporations who have major conflicts of interest (business interests) when your country goes to war.

Surprise, surprise...Am sure you are ignorant of this fact too!

Yes, I knew that many of our news outlets are owned by a few corporations. Did you also know they spent more on campaign contributions of both dems and republs than on hiring new employees or taxes? Did you know that it is legal to buy out a vote?

Did you know I don't give two shits about your nihilistic views at all and I think you are very ignorant of our nation. I think you should come over and see there a many Americans who are aware of the crap that is occuring, and it is no the ones who are the likes of you. Many are moderate open minded people who genuinly care for their nation.

BTW, what country are you from.

Rey, coudl you do a IP address scan on this guy to see where he is from?

 

[shaqblogs2011]

Here from one of the most respected British Journalist, although it dosen't describe the problem of the american media, maybe it will give you a clue.
30:45 to 32:00 (Audio is out of sync)

 

[shaqblogs2011]

Yes, I knew that many of our news outlets are owned by a few corporations. Did you also know they spent more on campaign contributions of both dems and republs than on hiring new employees or taxes?

Glad we are having a better conversation!

So, you are aware your news is Corporate controlled, meaning censored.
You are aware that all your politicians are being bought off (Mostly by Wall Street).
You made a statement earlier,

The 9/11 commission was a complete blunder under an Adminstration that had no clue how to run a country or investigate an assault on domestic terrirtory.

But, you are having a difficult time adding one up with another to understand that there are some bigger strategies at play! If they were that useless, how do you think they got up there ahead of a lot more capable politicians? Accident? or Strategy?
Capturing an entire political system and media together, wow! You better be capable!! Dont for even a moment think that it was incompetence. They have some of the most highly paid strategists working out there. So don't go by what Bush had to say on TV!

Did you know that it is legal to buy out a vote?

Are you aware Wall Street paid for this to become legal?
In the early part of 19th century, rich people could have multiple votes. Which is now illegal for you to see today. Today, Rich people can instead buy politicians which will be illegal maybe in the next century, which will be easy for your grand-kids to see. In the meantime, the financial con will continue!

BTW, what country are you from.

I am curious. Why do you need to know which country I am from to have an intellectual conversation?

In case you are wondering If i am from Middle East or North Korea or China or Russia...I am not!

 

[dogman_1234]

Then, where are you from?

 

[dogman_1234]

It is not a conspiracy to think that our government is corrupt. All world governments are. It is the condition of human nature to be inherently corrupt. That is why we have regulations.

I don't agree with your standing on 9/11, the US is not your government and I hope it never comes to that. Let me deal with my people. You deal with yours

Capice'?

 

[shaqblogs2011]

It is not a conspiracy to think that our government is corrupt. All world governments are. It is the condition of human nature to be inherently corrupt. That is why we have regulations.

Agreed!

I don't agree with your standing on 9/11

You have not looked at some of the facts I have shared to begin with. Take some time to look into it and your stand on this will change. Mine did! I used to be on the same boat you were until I had a friend who literally had me tied to a chair and made me watch a few reliable videos!

the US is not your government and I hope it never comes to that. Let me deal with my people. You deal with yours

Sadly, the entire world has a dire need to deal with your government! Including most of euro region. One really needs to feel sad looking at the state of some of the one powerful, European countries, who are being made to bow down to Uncle Sam!

 

[riser]

So, because the entire world has a dire need to deal with the US gov't, 9-11 was an inside job eh?

 

[shaqblogs2011]

So, because the entire world has a dire need to deal with the US gov't, 9-11 was an inside job eh?

lol...was that your conclusion or mine?

 

[riser]

So, because the entire world has a dire need to deal with the US gov't, 9-11 was an inside job eh?

lol...was that your conclusion or mine?

You start off talking crazy about the building and you've moved onto the US gov't controlling other regions, blah blah blah... and you avoid stating your country of origin because you want to hide your agenda.

 

[shaqblogs2011]

You start off talking crazy about the building and you've moved onto the US gov't controlling other regions, blah blah blah... and you avoid stating your country of origin because you want to hide your agenda.

Arent most of your current foreign policies directly related to....911, which is affecting quite a few countries and killing 100's of thousands of innocent people?

If official story of 911 was a lie, a coverup, then the entire foreign policy falls apart. As it turns out, 911 was a massive coverup by media.
For those willing to have a look, It is so darn easy to see that it was an inside job! It is out in plain sight for those who are willing to take a look at it with an open mind.

Building 7, was hands down a classic case of controlled demolition. That is why it is so imporatant.

And, I have zero conflicts of interest here. So what you are getting from me is an outside view of what is happening in Middle East and your country!

 

[riser]

WTC 7 was a poorly designed building on a poor platform. The building structure itself was uncommon. The design didn't account uncontrolled fires burning; it suspected the sprinkler system would run.

Given the massive amount of damage to the building after the collapse of the towers, why wait until.. what 5:30 in the afternoon to demolish it? Why not do it about the same time as the others? I mean, 8 hours of uncontrolled burning would have pretty much destroyed anything in that building anyhow so there really wasn't a need to collapse it.

I don't know that our foreign policy has caused 100's of thousands of deaths. I suspect the people in those regions are responsible for those deaths regardless of the US's position.

The twin towers collasping I understand. A huge jet, full of jet fuels crashes into the buildings going 300+mph. Structural damage along with jet fuel burning, having them collapse is understandable. Having all that force fall down and rip a giant gap.. was it 25 stories long? down the side of WTC7 along with uncontrolled fires burning? Very plausible.

I worked in a building that had a similiar design from the same period of time. It didn't collapse, but due to the amount of weight on some floors, the outer portions of floors were starting to bend. Introduce a fire burn to that structural steel with excessive weight on it, it would have collapsed as well.

You're taking today's standards on a building from 1960s, the heyday of America when the decline started. Steel and fire codes have changed drastically. Again, the platform the building was sitting on was designed to support the weight of a 25 story building, not a 49 story or whatever it was. If you look at it, there are plenty of faults with the building design but when lacking space, corners and codes are cut. Also, if you look at the pictures of the towers falling, you see WTC7 took the brunt of the force because of how it was positioned while other buildings were more protected by their angles to the towers. The shock of the towers falling, the damage to the building from the weight of everything falling on it.. you're telling me some girders didn't snap or weakened which allowed the fire to push it to failure? C'mon. That's a far more plausible that a controlled explosion in the building.

Let's take a look at construction in the US from the 1960s. How many steel bridges have failed here in the last 10 years? 4-5 or so now at least? The 1950s-1960s and into the 70s, steel has come a long way with standards since then. Perfectly plausible that fire took down the damaged structure.

 

[shaqblogs2011]

Wonderful theory!
At best it is a wild theory. Theories must be backed by evidence, facts and be proved by scientific experiments.

the platform the building was sitting on was designed to support the weight of a 25 story building, not a 49 story or whatever it was.

Buildings are designed to take loads 3-5 times the static + dynamic load! Meaning 3-5 times the actual weight + weight (load rather) of other objects that come and go!
If we go by your statement, A building cannot stand even for a second, let alone years. If it could not take the full 49 story weight of the building, It would have fallen before it was even finished being built!

 

[riser]

Well, given how much you researched WTC 7 and all, you should have realized the building is really 47 stories high. The damage done to the structure was 10 stories, not 25 stories. So, the substation was designed to allow for a building of 25 stories to be built on it. Instead, a 47 story building was built. Given you mathmatics, it was destined to fall with the combination of structure damage and the fires. At 1100 degree, steels loses 50% of its integrity. They said some of the fires burned up to 1800+ degrees from the mixture of the diesel tanks and office furniture, wood working in the building, etc. The average wood fire burns at over 1000 degrees. After 7 hours of burning (I originally said 9, again you missed that), it is reasonable to expect that some of the fire retardant foam was removed during the structural damage, 7 hours of burning say between 800-1000 degrees, that's very reasonable to expect that some areas of the steel weakened, warped, or sagged, causing extra force on other areas resulting in the collapse.
In watching the video, you see that only one side of WTC 7 actually collapses. The collapsing side brings down the other end. Looking at the structural diagram presented online of the floor plan, you can easily see how one side could bring down the other. In fact, I once played a game called Crush the Castle that used these physics to destroy castles. When I was in engineering, I had a bridge game that the object was to design and build a bridge that could support a train moving across it without collapsing. Using that game and the physics engine in it, you could see structural weak points. If a weak point failed, you would see where the new weak spots would be generated prior to the collapse of the bridge. Same concept. When half the building collapses, the other half, already comprised, wasn't enough to hold it up, therefore it collapsed in two parts.

Maybe you need to open your mind and look at both sides again. Clearly you are only looking at the conspiracy side of it and not the physics side of it. Look at the damage to the building after the towers fall. Look at the floor plan. Look the duration, the fire building, and the collapse. You can see the fires burning. Where exactly would the explosives have been for 7 hours that they wouldn't have been compromised by the fire and prior to the damage to the building from the towers falling?? They didn't know where the damage was going to be, or to what extent. Then the fires burning on multiple floors for 7 hours.. Eh, c'mon. Video evidence of it burning for 7 hours.. can't argue that one.

 

[johnsonma]

I like how shaq says he has an outside view yet all his "facts" come from conspiracy theorists' sites. I watched one of the videos where it said they were going to bring it down and then it cuts off, interesting that it cuts of there because if you watch the whole video they are talking about pulling down one of the other WTC buildings with cranes and cables.

You should try researching it from a non biased perspective and stop believing everything you read on conspiracy sites. If you read some of the comments from the firefighters they even said the building was creaking and leaning before it collapsed.

Also, in one of your videos the presenter uses a video from some jackass in a window a few miles away from the site saying it had to be an explosion as evidence. You somehow equate this with evidence, its quite ridiculous.

Lastly, given your comments about the U.S. you obviously have a preconceived bias towards all things American. This most certainly means that although you may be looking at it from an outside perspective it is limited in scope by your bias towards anything American.

 

[riser]

OMG - There were only 2 structural supports of which one was in the fire. On the higher levels the supports branched out more, but ultimately all the supports relied on the 2 supports at the lower levels. The steel didn't melt - melting point is around 2700-2800 degree. 50% degrade in steel strength at 1100 degrees. Typical wood fires burn at 1500-1800 degrees. Given that, the single support had to heat up to hundreds of degrees, probably even less than 1000 for the collapse to occur. Remember, the 10 story gash in the building that had horizontal support, not vertical support, so even more weight was being put onto the support structure. My assumption would be that some steel support beams were already bending under the extra weight. That extra weight being transferred back to the main structure supports instead of being balanced out. Now you haev an extra load which the support beam was able to handle. Introduce the fire, burning uncontrolled for 7 hours, it probably was able to heat up to 700-800 degrees, enough to cause the steel to warp or bend, resulting in the one side collapsing. Based on the support design, when one support failed, all the weight would be transferred to the other support which couldn't handle it and it would be ultimately pulled down from the falling side. The video evidence supports that one side collapsed, the other side was pulled down by it. The fire expert even stated that he didn't find melted steel, but he did find sagging steel at the concrete joints. First the steel expands, once done expanding, it starts to sag and caused the concrete joint to crack. The support beams were bent and sagging which leads to the result that the beams were heated up to a certain temperature, resulting in the steel failure. At 1100 degrees, 50% degrade in strength according to structural engineers on steel. I wonder what 500, 700, and 900 degrees would be?

 

[shaqblogs2011]

I watched one of the videos where it said they were going to bring it down and then it cuts off, interesting that it cuts of there because if you watch the whole video they are talking about pulling down one of the other WTC buildings with cranes and cables.

Kindly share the video

According to you, they are basically discussing of pulling one of the other buildings down, where people are still trapped or sadly dead!
So, well...the priority is to pull down and clean up the site before rescue can even be attempted. Keep going!

I like how shaq says he has an outside view yet all his "facts" come from conspiracy theorists' sites.
....
You should try researching it from a non biased perspective and stop believing everything you read on conspiracy sites.

I don't make my statements and views based simply on belief and trust and what i read. I make it based on science and facts.

If you read some of the comments from the firefighters they even said the building was creaking and leaning before it collapsed.

Pls share them

also, consider watching this.
from 31:20
And this, the First 20 mins.

Are you aware close to 150 firefighters and new york policemen plus new reports from that day, reported of explosions? The investigations that followed completely ignored all of this. Eyewitness reports should be first of the few things to be investigated in any crime, and it usually is. Except for 911 where it was ignored.
Am curious what you have to say about this.

 

[shaqblogs2011]

OMG - There were only 2 structural supports of which one was in the fire. On the higher levels the supports
...
in strength according to structural engineers on steel. I wonder what 500, 700, and 900 degrees would be?

Interesting theory yet again.

This is how steel behaves in fire.

Actual building with actual loads, and a fire with no water for hours!
A real Experiment! This is how science is done. Theories are backed by valid experiments.
Any valid experiments to back your theory?

Also, From NIST itself, max temperatures of fire did not reach what you have claimed. So not sure from where are you pulling those magic numbers from.
(It is a known fact that steel looses its strength with high temperatures. But the steel in those WTC buildings were fireproofed steel and with a certain bond strength)

 

[riser]

I pulled the structural information from the NIST report and from PopularMechanics. I pulled the fire information from various sources on the web. For the steel temps, I pulled them from various sources but went with modern day numbers. For modern steel I actually glanced over a report for the conclusion on modern structural steel. From 22 degrees to 540 degrees, structural steels remains nearly identical. After exceeding 540 degrees, structural steel degrades quickly, down to 50% at 1100 degrees.

I'm basing my argument on physics, physical properties, video evidence, and time factors mainly. All of which are factual, correct? We know how physics work, right? We know what physical properties were holding the building up and the structural design, right? We have video evidence of the fire, the structural damage, the duration, and a good indication that no one entered the building, right? Then we have the time frame from the start of the fire to the collapse of the building.

I can't watch your video, but I'm going to suspect that the structure design was different and probably wasn't compromised by debris crashing through it, nor 45 year old steel, right? They're likely using new steel. Maybe I'll get bored enough to watch the video later. But I highly doubt that the weight, fire, and duration was the same. Was diesel fuel also put into the mix for a short time?

If you had bothered reading the NIST report, you would have noted that it was common practice to have 2 to 3 hours of burn material attached to the steel. The fire burned for 7 hours without any water to suppress the fire. The building is damaged, integrity is compromised, along with a fire burning on multiple floors inside, and it stood for 7 hours.

Please explain to me your 'theory' on how explosives were placed in the buidling, how they were able to withstand the extensive damage from the falling towers, and were later set off at 5:xxpm in the afternoon? That is such a far stretch to believe that all the wiring made it through the fire and the destruction of 10 floor. I mean, really? I have a bridge to sell you and cheap.

 

[riser]

Putting the NIST report out there. They even note that the place wasn't fire resistant to current standards. They report that things happened hundreds of degrees less than what was considered fire resistant. I speculate that 500-900 is reasonable.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

Here are some facts for you:

No jurisdiction demands longer than 4 hour of fire resistance.
The common room fire is generally at 2000 degrees at the 4th hour mark.
The common room fire has peaked at 2300 degrees at the 8th hour mark.
Post-Flashover temperatures range from 1600-1800 degrees.


Ninja edit: At this point I started reviewing the NIST report after pulling the above information from FireDoctor.com.
And here you go:
How hot did WTC 7's steel columns and floor beams get?

Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees C (570 degrees F), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F). However, fire-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections-that caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapse-occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees C where thermal expansion dominates. Above 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F), there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. In the WTC 7 collapse, the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat.

I found that in the NIST report after providing my information from 3rd parties. The thermal expansion (sagging) resulted in the collapse. The design structure did not compensate for a partial collapse, therefore the entire structure comes down together. If you read the NIST report even more, you'll notice that the building collapsed 40% slower than if in a free fall (such as an explosion took out the building down). So the building was never in a free fall, it was an internal collapse, which by video evidence you can see preceded by the collapse of the penthouses, one after the other, on the roof, prior to the collapse of the building.

You sir have been de-bunked.

 

[shaqblogs2011]

you still dont seem to get the point.

Steel definitely gets weak in fires.
The point is, steel when it becomes weak, will not just fall like a pack of cards.
It slowly, progressively bends, sags, you will hear loud creaking sounds & give enough time for occupants to leave.
Most importantly, fire being a chaotic process will cause uneven damage, or non symmetrical damage. Non symmetric damage will cannot cause a perfectly symmetric collapse, and that too at free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance.

NIST report very explicitly mentions it was failure of one column which caused an entire building to fall. That column was on one side of the building. If that column failed, than the building should have tilted towards that side because that part of building was what failed.

 

[shaqblogs2011]

You sir have been de-bunked.

Here is what you basically did, You used the NIST theory (which is the suspect) to prove that the NIST theory is not a suspect.

To put in in perspective. Imagine i write a thesis, that says Time travelling is possible. I then use this thesis to prove that the same thesis is correct. Does it seem reasonable to you?

If you went through the trouble to read the NIST report you most certainly are capable to understand this.
Here is how NIST did its investigations. See from 41:00
The way NIST went ahead trying to prove their hypothesis was a complete joke.

 

[riser]

Can't watch youtube videos right now.

 

[riser]

Dude. http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

Everyone is watching from the same video from one direction. If you watch the other video, you can see that the exterior is the last to fall; the interior has already been collapsing.

Oh, and another thing on it. 3 hours PRIOR to the collapse, authorities pulled back resources to fight fires in other areas since the water pressure was low. They wanted people away from it because they predicted it was going to collapse based on the ground floor assessment. If you believe that it was an inside job, you also have to believe that the FDNY was involved at some level because their chief made the call it would collapse.

 

[riser]

You sir have been de-bunked.

Here is what you basically did, You used the NIST theory (which is the suspect) to prove that the NIST theory is not a suspect.

To put in in perspective. Imagine i write a thesis, that says Time travelling is possible. I then use this thesis to prove that the same thesis is correct. Does it seem reasonable to you?

If you went through the trouble to read the NIST report you most certainly are capable to understand this.
Here is how NIST did its investigations. See from 41:00
The way NIST went ahead trying to prove their hypothesis was a complete joke.

No. What I did was looked over the evidence, provided my own information on what likely happened, and THEN I went to the NIST report to find that I was pretty close to what they reported. I worked a few years around a lot of structural engineers and I did learn a thing or two about buildings.

The structure of the building was at fault and was not capable of withstanding the two factor compromise. By the link I posted, you can see that support columns were damaged. The floor plan based on the structure would exert even more weight on other supoprt columns. Then you'll notice that the structure is hodgepodged together to utilize new supports and existing supports from the sub station below it. The link I posted provides a very good explanation of how the collapse happened from their own modeling the building's structure! You can throw your conspiracy theory around all you what, physics prove this to be very plausible, far more than your little theory of bombs being planted.

 

[riser]

you still dont seem to get the point.

Steel definitely gets weak in fires.
The point is, steel when it becomes weak, will not just fall like a pack of cards.
It slowly, progressively bends, sags, you will hear loud creaking sounds & give enough time for occupants to leave.
Most importantly, fire being a chaotic process will cause uneven damage, or non symmetrical damage. Non symmetric damage will cannot cause a perfectly symmetric collapse, and that too at free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance.

NIST report very explicitly mentions it was failure of one column which caused an entire building to fall. That column was on one side of the building. If that column failed, than the building should have tilted towards that side because that part of building was what failed.

You clearly can't think for yourself outside of your soundbyte videos.

Review the link I posted. Look at the structure. You get a view of the top level and lower levels. You get to see how the top would start to collapse first, putting extra weight on the floors below it. Then, if you actually look over the floor plan, you would notice they're not a stick built structure, meaning a box. They're extending out from the center, which would make for a really easy straight down collapse. If the building was frame in steel, I would think it would have leaned and fallend if a support had been compromised. The supports are in the middle of the building. Go play Jenga, learn some physics.