GOP CONGRESSMAN SEES THE LIGHT!!!

[Slaughtermeyer]

To clarify my previous post, I agree with you that there was a controlled demolition but I believe that the demolition charges were placed prior to 9/11 on the orders of someone who knew that the 9/11 attacks would take place. This is why the fire department refuses to admit that there was a controlled demolition.

[lch]

Originally Posted by Slaughtermeyer

If there was a controlled demolition, that means that demolition charges would have had to be placed in the building while it was on fire.

As I said, I didn't really read the article much, nor did I read it again now, but from what I grasped from it the building never really was on fire, or at least not critically so that it would have made trouble to place the charges. They wanted the building out of the way so that the fire wouldn't get there and spread around from there. The same like they'd remove pastures in the event of bush fires, even going as far as burning the grass down in a controlled way, so that it doesn't spread over there.

[Ballbarian]

Well, I did read it and probably the most telling piece is the following:

Here is an e-mail from Chief Daniel Nigro

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

It wasn't controlled. It was abandoned to prevent losing more firefighters.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally Posted by Ballbarian

It wasn't controlled. It was abandoned to prevent losing more firefighters.

I suggest you notify Dutch demolitions expert Danny Jowenko that his conclusion that the demolition was controlled is erroneous.

[Edi]

Link

That article makes a thorough hash of the controlled explosion theories and points out some of the reasons why the towers collapsed the way they did.

Jowenko might be in the explosives and demolitions business, but he is not infallible and since he seems to be the ONLY source the 911 Truther movement uses for their claims of controlled demolition, his testimony is suspect at best. The problem with trying to find anything other than Truther bull**** is considerable, because almost everything that comes up is conspiracy theories.

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally Posted by Edi

Link

That article makes a thorough hash of the controlled explosion theories and points out some of the reasons why the towers collapsed the way they did.

And the comments section of that article makes a thorough hash of the lame attempt to explain away the collapse.

Jowenko might be in the explosives and demolitions business, but he is not infallible and since he seems to be the ONLY source the 911 Truther movement uses for their claims of controlled demolition, his testimony is suspect at best.

So the hundreds of architects and engineers who are members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth somehow don't count by your reckoning?
http://www.ae911truth.org

[Edi]

No, they don't count because their claims have been thoroughly discredited. When you consider that there are hundreds of thousands of engineers and architects, if you got a few thousand to back up the 9/11 Truther movement, who cares? Out of a field of people with actual higher education and qualifications to give expert opinion on the subject, some few voices in the wilderness accept crackpot ideas, therefore the crackpot ideas are valid?

It's just like Michael Behe and other creationists who have actual credentials in their respective fields and who have used those credentials in an attempt to promote completely unscientific bullcrap, it's much the same with the 9/11 Truthers.

It's also telling that you dismiss the substance of the article simply because some people made comments on it that you don't like. Would you like to address the point, or will you concede?

Another piece of well researched evidence on the WTC 7 fire. So much for the claims that "there were only small fires that could not have caused a structural collapse".

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally Posted by Edi

It's also telling that you dismiss the substance of the article simply because some people made comments on it that you don't like. Would you like to address the point, or will you concede?

Another piece of well researched evidence on the WTC 7 fire. So much for the claims that "there were only small fires that could not have caused a structural collapse".

Very well, i'll get specific. The material you reference doesn't even try to explain away the fact that FEMA found something never before observed in building fires. "A novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times reported the FEMA statement that "steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures" and that these findings are "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." Steel does not evaporate unless it is heated to at least 5000 degrees Fahrenheit.

The Scheuerman article which you linked earlier cleverly tries to get us to believe that perhaps there was no molten steel at all, despite FEMA's confirmation that steel was "partly evaporated." He does this by saying that the molten metal was actually "lead or the aluminum from the plane which were probably the metals that were seen flowing through the pile" and/or "lead, tin, silver and even gold used in the computer circuit boards."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...rgy/index.html

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...80829205835711

[Edi]

The first of your own links actually disproves the assertion you are making that there was partly evaporated structural steel. That is clear to anyone who has an even cursory understanding of chemistry and physics.

The quoted analysis there speaks specifically of the steel girders being exposed to an eutectic mixture formed of iron, oxygen and other substances. The substance is being referred to as liquid and having corrosive properties. Exposure to spatters of corrosive liquid would result in steel girders looking like Swiss cheese without temperatures ever getting anywhere near close to the vaporization point of steel.

Furthermore, it is stated in your own articles that it is unknown whether the exposure happened during the fire or afterward in the pile of rubble, but all the references are to a corrosive liquid.

It's a sad testament to the utter incompetence and ignorance of 9/11 Truthers that they actually present as evidence material which by itself debunks their claims.

I also do not want to hear any bleating about an NYT article referencing "partly vaporized steel girders", because it is extremely common for reporters to get technical terminology completely wrong. In this case, vaporized, corroded, melted and so forth are all technical terms that have very specific definitions from a materials science standpoint, and it is materials science that has been used as a basis in the reports. If some reporter paraphrases that wrong due to ignorance, it is NOT evidence of a government coverup.

As far as the second links assertions, the one that says "There have been other fires that didn't result in structural collapse!" says it all. It is an idiotic comparison, because it says nothing of the structures of these other buildings or how the fires occurred there, so it is an absolutely useless comparison. Totally worthless. The rest of the material behind that link seems to consist of similar drivel.

Kindly try to provide better evidence in your next response.