Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11

And the SDI program was called StarWars by the anti-Reagan
press too. He who gets to name the game often wins.
Hitler named mass murder The Final Solution, luckily he
lost.

You can think of many altered names, intended to fool the
public about what is intended, like Tax Reform or Safe
Streets, or Child Protection...



"Dan" wrote in message
news:OUFRf.61257$Ug4.36007@dukeread12...
| mrtravel wrote:
| Dan wrote:
|
| Wake Up! wrote:
|
| Each Twin Tower was designed withstand the impact on a
FULLY LOADED
| 707! The 767s on 9/11 were UNDERBOOKED! An executive
in the WTC
| Construction Management Company said (on camera) in
his opinion the
| Towers could withstand MULTIPLE 707 crashes! He said a
plane crashing
| into the Towers is the same as a pencil puncturing a
window screen --
| it does NOTHING!
|
|
| 767 is much bigger than 707 and is more massive even
when
| "underbooked." The towers were designed to withstand a
single 707.
| Even if they could were designed to take multiple 707
hits and survive
| those strikes would have been spread out over a larger
area then a
| single 767 strike. Please try thinking logically.
|
|
| Not only that, but the Titantic was designed to be
"unsinkable".
|
| Actually neither White Star Lines nor the builders ever
claimed
| Titanic was unsinkable. That term was started by the
press.
|
| Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
Laurence Doering wrote:

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:15:27 -0500, Scott M. Kozel
wrote:
"Wake UP!" wrote:

Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm

That most likely is melting aluminum. It has been said to be likely
that aircraft wreckage piled up in that corner of the South Tower.

You don't even need aircraft wreckage for aluminum to have been
the source of the sparks and apparently molten material. The
external metal sheathing on the World Trade Center towers was
an aluminum alloy [1].

Aluminum's melting point is around 1,200 degrees F, a temperature
that's easily reached in building fires.

[1] http://americanhistory.si.edu/septem...ord.asp?ID=104

And, as a side note, steel weakens dramatically in fires nowhere close
to its melting point. My VW Bug caught fire a few weeks back, and the
steel carburetor spring went "unspringy." This was for a five minute
fire, with small amounts of gasoline and rubber as the fuels.

There is also the consideration of metals beside steel and aluminum in
the fires - magnesium, for example. There was a good bit in the planes
that hit the Towers, and it melts and catches fire quite easily at a
mere 600 degrees C.

"Dan" wrote in message
news:OUFRf.61257$Ug4.36007@dukeread12...
mrtravel wrote:
Dan wrote:

Wake Up! wrote:

Each Twin Tower was designed withstand the impact on a FULLY LOADED
707! The 767s on 9/11 were UNDERBOOKED! An executive in the WTC
Construction Management Company said (on camera) in his opinion the
Towers could withstand MULTIPLE 707 crashes! He said a plane crashing
into the Towers is the same as a pencil puncturing a window screen --
it does NOTHING!


767 is much bigger than 707 and is more massive even when
"underbooked." The towers were designed to withstand a single 707.
Even if they could were designed to take multiple 707 hits and survive
those strikes would have been spread out over a larger area then a
single 767 strike. Please try thinking logically.


Not only that, but the Titantic was designed to be "unsinkable".

Actually neither White Star Lines nor the builders ever claimed
Titanic was unsinkable. That term was started by the press.

"These two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable." White Star Line
brochure, 1910, for Titanic and Olympic.

"We are absolutely satisfied that even if she was in collision with an
iceberg, she is in no danger. With her numerous water-tight compartments she
is absolutely unsinkable, and it makes no difference what she hits. The
report should not cause any serious anxiety."

"We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is
unsinkable."

"There is no danger that Titanic will sink. The boat is unsinkable, and
nothing but inconvenience will be suffered by the passengers."

"In any event, the ship is unsinkable, and there is absolutely no danger to
passengers."

""We cannot state too strongly our belief that the ship is unsinkable and
the passengers perfectly safe. The ship is reported to have gone down
several feet by the head. This may be due from water filling forward
compartments, and [the] ship may go down many feet and still keep afloat for
an indefinite period."

Statements by White Star Line Vice President P.A.S Franklin, after WSL's New
York office was informed that Titanic was in trouble.

Paul Nixon

khobar wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
news:OUFRf.61257$Ug4.36007@dukeread12...
mrtravel wrote:
Dan wrote:

Wake Up! wrote:
Each Twin Tower was designed withstand the impact on a FULLY LOADED
707! The 767s on 9/11 were UNDERBOOKED! An executive in the WTC
Construction Management Company said (on camera) in his opinion the
Towers could withstand MULTIPLE 707 crashes! He said a plane crashing
into the Towers is the same as a pencil puncturing a window screen --
it does NOTHING!

767 is much bigger than 707 and is more massive even when
"underbooked." The towers were designed to withstand a single 707.
Even if they could were designed to take multiple 707 hits and survive
those strikes would have been spread out over a larger area then a
single 767 strike. Please try thinking logically.

Not only that, but the Titantic was designed to be "unsinkable".
Actually neither White Star Lines nor the builders ever claimed
Titanic was unsinkable. That term was started by the press.

"These two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable." White Star Line
brochure, 1910, for Titanic and Olympic.

"We are absolutely satisfied that even if she was in collision with an
iceberg, she is in no danger. With her numerous water-tight compartments she
is absolutely unsinkable, and it makes no difference what she hits. The
report should not cause any serious anxiety."

"We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is
unsinkable."

"There is no danger that Titanic will sink. The boat is unsinkable, and
nothing but inconvenience will be suffered by the passengers."

"In any event, the ship is unsinkable, and there is absolutely no danger to
passengers."

""We cannot state too strongly our belief that the ship is unsinkable and
the passengers perfectly safe. The ship is reported to have gone down
several feet by the head. This may be due from water filling forward
compartments, and [the] ship may go down many feet and still keep afloat for
an indefinite period."

Statements by White Star Line Vice President P.A.S Franklin, after WSL's New
York office was informed that Titanic was in trouble.

Paul Nixon





Egad, I stand corrected.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote in news:rZzRf.61236$Ug4.16589@dukeread12:

Wake Up! wrote:
mrtravel wrote in news:ZBvRf.521$4L1.486
@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

Wake Up! wrote:
Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel
framed building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,
you are definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know
that steel framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire.
Never. Sorry.
You claim it was thermite.
There is also ample evidence on collapses of steel structures.
But, don't let the facts bother you.
You seem to be ignoring any information provided to you, even the
info you post yourself.




No 1: It was thermite or some other kind of cutter-explosives. It's
the ones who believe the government's nonsense that say it was fire.

Other than Jones provide cites proving thermite is a
"cutter-explosive." You have been told many times by those of us who
have used it that it is not used for cutting nor is it an explosive.

No 2: your comment about "ample evidence on collapses of steel
structures" has absolutely zero relevance on what I'm talking about.



Steel Framed Skyscrapers Do NOT Completely Collapse From Fire Period!

What is so hard for people to understand about that statement?

It never happened before! NEVER!!! IT IS A FACT!!!

Then again no one had ever flown large civilian jetliners into 100
story buildings either. Why do you ignore experts in the relevant
fields and insist on listening to Jones who is not?


According to you pilots it could happen on 9/11 THREE times? My God!


WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane! Is that understood?

No one said it was, but it was struck by debris from WTC1 and WTC2 and
burned for a long time due to fuels inside the building.

WTC 7 collapsed near symetrically, near free fall speed!

Then explain how it leaned over as it fell. Look at the pile of
rubble.

WTC 7 had smoke puffs going up the wall just as it started to
collapse!

Yes, that's what happens when smoke from an ongoing fire is
released
due to collapse. It happens in residential fires too.


The WTC 7 leaseholder said (on camera) that it was pulled! The
leaseholder bought a 99 yr lease on the entire WTC complex just six
weeks before 9/11! He wasn't in his North Tower office on 9/11 due to
a "doctors appointment"! His lawyers successfully sued to get TWICE
the payout claiming it was two separate attacks! The insurance
company's structural engineer said (on camera) that the way the
vertical columns in the Towers severed simultaneously was just like
controlled demolitions! The WTC 7 fire alarm was put into test mode
the morning of 9/11!

So what? Nothing there proves a conspiracy. Suppose your a Cessna
172
drops out of the sky and lands on your house while you are at a
doctor's appointment. Does that make you responsible for the
destruction?


Each Twin Tower was designed withstand the impact on a FULLY LOADED
707! The 767s on 9/11 were UNDERBOOKED! An executive in the WTC
Construction Management Company said (on camera) in his opinion the
Towers could withstand MULTIPLE 707 crashes! He said a plane crashing
into the Towers is the same as a pencil puncturing a window screen --
it does NOTHING!


767 is much bigger than 707 and is more massive even when
"underbooked." The towers were designed to withstand a single 707.
Even if they could were designed to take multiple 707 hits and survive
those strikes would have been spread out over a larger area then a
single 767 strike. Please try thinking logically.



It is time to Wake UP! and face the TRUTH

Take your own advice.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




I think you should go back to dropping bombs and leave the thinking to
those who know how to. For you to simply dismiss the WTC 7 collapse the
way you do shows you are not thinking rationally. And for you to dismiss
the other info as a non-conspiracy and automatically assume it's all pure
coincidence, shows you cannot take things into context. Sorry. But I'll
bet you're a great pilot!

mrtravel wrote in news:MUERf.580$4L1.117
@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

Wake Up! wrote:

The WTC 7 leaseholder said (on camera) that it was pulled!

Right, he admitted he was involved.. SURE.





Watch the video for yourself

http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/wtc7_pbs.WMV




This video (from the same documentary) shows that "pull" means "demolish"

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/vide.../pull_wtc6.wmv

"Keith W" wrote in
:


"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
"Wake Up!" wrote in news:Xns978626A6D8B0Atruth@
130.81.64.196:





Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never. Sorry.

A qualified engineer knows that steel framed buildings can and
do collapse from fire. Indeed the building codes require fire
protection material to be applied to structural members to prevent
such a collapse.

I have in my collection photos of 2 large buildings gutted by fire
during the London Blitz of 1940, one was steel framed the
other was built using beams of Baltic oak. The steel framed
building collapsed, the oak framed building had its timbers
charred to a depth of 1" but stayed upright



Were those complete collapses? Regardless, we are talking about modern
steel framed skyscrapers. Not those from 60 years ago. Sorry.



Moreover trusses such as those used in the WTC buildings are
notoriously prone to such failures, there's an a excellent article
on the risk associated with trusses at

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/



Interesting how that government info was written *after* 9/11




Fire protection cannot ensure that buildings stand indefinitely.
They are designed to ensure adequate time to evacuate the
building which is what happened in WTC 7


Okay.



Of course if the fire is preceded by an impact that pre-weakens
the structure and blocks the stairwells from above the impact
point complete evacuation will not be possible and the building
will collapse early.


Okay.



ALL the qualified engineers who have reviewed the evidence
know what caused the WTC collapse and it wasnt thermite
or explosives, it was fire and impact damage. The evidence
of truss failure is incontrivertable and the subsequant failure
mechanism of buckling is clearly evidenced on the video.



They came to that conclusion because the NIST report "does not actually
include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for
collapse initiation were reached".

According to Dr Jones, the evidence for controlled demolitions comes
after collapse initiation.




The lessons of the WTC collapse is that such truss construction
techniques should be avoided for high rise buildings, fortunately
they are not widely used which is why previous high rise
fires didnt lead to progressive collapse.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms -
Total Privacy via Encryption =----




There's an interesting thread he
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?s...a913744121c597
&showtopic=3108

many different opinions.



Also, this paper from a Mechanical Engineering Professor:
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/me...ssor-from.html

" wrote in
oups.com:

Wake Up! wrote:
[snip]

Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire,

And impact. Yes, they do, and you've got another structural engineer
telling you so.


Who's the other structural engineer?

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 03:37:47 GMT, "Wake Up!" wrote:

mrtravel wrote in news:MUERf.580$4L1.117
:

Wake Up! wrote:

The WTC 7 leaseholder said (on camera) that it was pulled!

Right, he admitted he was involved.. SURE.





Watch the video for yourself

http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/wtc7_pbs.WMV




This video (from the same documentary) shows that "pull" means "demolish"

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/vide.../pull_wtc6.wmv

And when firefighters pull their guys out of a building by saying "pull" that
means that they are going to blow it up when they leave, right?

You're a riot kid.

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 03:56:02 GMT, "Wake Up!" wrote:

Were those complete collapses? Regardless, we are talking about modern
steel framed skyscrapers. Not those from 60 years ago. Sorry.

Apparently over the last 60 years we invented some new sooper dooper sekrit
steel that doesn't expand when heated and violates the laws of physics.