Rosie O'Donnell, fire does melt steel

parados, I never said WTC 7 was brought down by fire alone. I dont think fire had anything to do with it and I think the damage from collapsing buildings is highly exaggerated. I have posted articles that tell of explosions in WTC 7 long before the collapse of any buildings. And the eyewitnesses describe severe damage. So your post is not honest. I haven't failed to mention debris as you claim because we've posted on that on this thread. And I certainly never said 7 was brought down by fire alone. Why would you tell fibs like that?

blueflame. You missed the shots on TV? whaddya mean allegedly??
WHen you densely refuse to draw the parallels between Meridian and WTC (the only point that beams were bent by the heat-which is what you guys have been denying all along). I dont need to go further with you, you are out of ammo.

video

farmerman, I've already stated my view and backed it up. Comparing the 2 fires is an extreme reach. The Meridain fire was one of the biggest such fires in history. It burned for 18 hours and failed to collapse the building. Your comparisan is desperation at best.

LEts see what some of your arguments have been bf.

Fire had nothing to do with WTC7 collapsing
Fire alone has never brought down a building. (WTC7 sustained heavy damage from falling debris so that argument is moot since fire alone didn't bring down WTC7.)
Fire can't weaken steel (except when it does.)
There was no visible damage on WTC7 from the towers collapsing. (We should believe you instead of our lying eyes.)
The visible damage was caused by explosions caused by set explosives that occurred prior to the towers collapsing.
The lobby was completely destroyed but it wasn't visibly destroyed. (One eyewitness claims the damage was slight. The other claims it was like a bomb went off.)
We should call for a new investigation because the one that has been done isn't good enough. (The ongoing one isn't complete and is due out this year.)

Your contradictions are endless bf.

parados, what's endless is your denial that new investigations aint needed. There are enough of tens of millions Americans disagreeing with you to make new investigations happen. You might as well try to stop the sunrise. cnn

I agree , you have. However,the opinion that the temperatures were too low to cause fatigue in steel was obviously wrong no? Are you going to deny that the beams in the Meridian did not sag?
and isnt that the very point that your beloved Dr jones had used to serve as a basis for his (and your) opinion?/

I dont give a crap abiout how yo wish to obfuscate the point, do you deny that steel beams can defrom being exposed to a normal fire . Once a curie point is reached, additional time merely cause greater deflection. If the beams in the WTC were of a lesser gage than at Meridian, wed expect their deflection to occur much more quickly.
And of course theres always the jet plane missile thing.

Now you seem to be changing your direction by appearing to merely wish another investigation. What happens when this one finds that investigation 1 was competently done? Do you walk away satisfied?

farmerman, I suggest you read the article I posted on the Meridian fire. Because that's all I have to say on it. You're comparing 2 cases that have little in connection with each other. The Meridian fire burned for 18 hours and was one of the biggest fires of it's kind in history. The building did not collapse. The fires in WTC were nowhere near the intensity and burned fior a short time. You're desperation is showing comparing apples with oranges. The 991 truth people have countered every one of those desperate attempts at debunking. You show you're lack of interest in anything I post when you say, "If the beams in the WTC were of a lesser gage than at Meridian" I just posted this comment by experts, "What struck us - guys like Warren Jennings and myself, who have spent basically all our lives in the scrap business - we'd never seen steel this heavy, this huge, this massive. It was just unbelievable." You ignored that testimony completely. The steel at WTC was far from a lesser quality and instead was just unbelievablely heavy, huge, massive.

See how youre backtracking? First you said that the fire from the jetfule and office fire COULDNT deflect the metasl. Then, when we see that it could, your entire argument then becomes one of duration.
"Well yeh the beams actually Can deflect, but because the Meridian fire was 17 hours longer that made all the difference"--Youre losing the toe hold here fella. Your "Data and evidence" is in doubt and youre merely tap-dancing From the picture of the MEridian those beams looked a lot hesvier than the cross braces at WTC. Also, just when did the MEridian bems deflect? did it take all 18 hours or did the fire,as they said, just move on to anotjher floor and burn itself out in any particular floor.

I can play the harmonica while you shuffle

.

farmerman, you can fiddle to your hearts content. By saying what if the steel at WTC was lesser you prove how badly you do fiddle. And that's typical of those who support the government's theory. In the end both sets of scientists will debate this in public. And I'll be glad. Will you? Apparently not.

This week really showed up the battle between those who buy the government's 911 theories and those who dont. I was surprised to not see this report here, "Simulation Finds 9/11 Fireproofing Key"

By STEVE HERMAN
Associated Press Writer

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- A computer simulation of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks supports a federal agency's findings that the initial impact from the hijacked airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight.

The two-year Purdue University study, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, was the first to use 3-D animation to provide visual context to the attacks, said Christoph Hoffmann, a professor of computer science and one of the lead researchers on the project.

"One thing it does point out... is the absolute essential nature of fireproofing steel structures," Hoffmann told The Associated Press. "This is something that wasn't done originally in the World Trade Center when it was built. It wasn't code at that time." link

Of course I knew the 911 truthers would rebut the claims and of course they did, "New Study Props Up Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory"
Does not refute a single issue the 9/11 truth movement has raised
Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, June 20, 2007


A new study into the collapse of the World Trade Center towers has been released that correlates with the findings of the 2005 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report and supports the theory that intense fires weakened the structure and initiated "global collapse". Much like the NIST report however, it is fatally flawed.

The AP reports:

A computer simulation of the 2001 World Trade Center attacks supports a federal agency's findings that the initial impact from the hijacked airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight.

In reality the new study by structural engineers at Purdue University does not provide any scientific evidence to explain the collapses, it merely confirms the NIST fireproofing claim in its animation and then jumps to the same conclusions as NIST, conclusions that fly in the face of the laws of physics.
link And now the truth about this "independant" study reveals how desperate and misleading the Bushies are when it comes to 911 truth. And once again their deception is exposed. More lies, more cover-up and more amateurishness. I would have thought after the fake Niger Report they would get into a more major league path to deception. But no it's still very much Bush League. "New 9/11 Study Has Direct Links To Government, Pentagon Black Ops"
"Independent" study financed by Feds
Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, June 22, 2007


A newly released Purdue University animation showing how fire caused the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11 claims to be independent but in reality has been federally funded and was conducted by individuals with direct links to the Pentagon and the White House.

Earlier this week we covered the news that the new study roughly correlates with the findings of the 2005 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report and supports the official line that the airplanes stripped away crucial fireproofing material and that the weakened towers collapsed under their own weight.

While the New York Times today lauds the study as "a counterpoint to the conspiracy theories promulgated by such outspoken figures as Rosie O'Donnell", Prisonplanet.com has actually done some research into the origins of the study.

In addition to the inerrant flaws and conflicts we pointed out in our previous article, it has now come to light that the so called "independent" structural engineers behind the study are anything but.

The Study was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), a federal agency created by Congress in 1950 "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…".


The board of the NSF was appointed by George W. Bush and confirmed by the United States Senate. Its director, Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr, has worked for the Department of defense, where he was under secretary for research and engineering, and DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), which is responsible for the development of new technology for use by the military and famed for its black op projects and offshoot offices.

Last year the Bush Administration doubled the NSF's budget to $6.02 billion.

At the time Arden L. Bement, Jr. stated:

"This is a great day for NSF, and that means it's a great day for the nation, there has been a lot of rhetoric about doubling the NSF budget, but now the Administration is behind it. The FY 2007 Budget Request is the first installment. We are grateful to the Administration for its recognition and leadership,"

In addition it turns out that structural engineer Mete Sozen, the lead investigator in the Purdue study, was also on the American Society of Civil Engineers research team that confirmed the government's story about the OKC bombing in 1995, despite the huge amounts of inconsistencies and conflicting testimony.

Coincidence?

From the ASCE web site

Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University
Specialty: Behavior of reinforced-concrete structures

Dr. Sozen is currently the Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. Prior to joining Purdue in 1994, Dr. Sozen was a professor of civil engineering at the University of Illinois for over 35 years. Dr. Sozen also served on the ASCE team that studied the Murrah Federal Office Building collapse.

So while it claims to be independent the study was in fact funded by the government and carried out by long time government hired hands. The study clearly set out not to attempt to discover anything new but to prove the preconceived official fire theory.

Again this underscores the fact that a truly independent investigation into 9/11 is the only way the mountains of evidence pointing towards a controlled demolition will even be considered.

Now that is a very good point, blueflame. But why didn't you complain about that and state that "comparing the 2 fires is an extreme reach" when the guys over at 9/11 Truth did so?

(Of course you would have to say that comparing any other high rise building fire to the 9/11 attacks is an extreme reach, because there's not a single time that a high rise building was hit by a fully fuelled Boeing 767-200. Do you complain about the obvious stretch of that kind of comparison?)

I mean, you claim to be open and that you want to see new research done. And yet you only complain when the research renders results that just even seem to confirm the official story.

Maybe you should ask yourself this: If a new, independent study was done, and the result would completely confirm the official story - how would you react?

- Would you believe the study?
- Or would you rather discard the new study, too, and go out and look for evidence that the study was corrupted by government agents and spies?

old europe, 911 truth compared the 2 fires in reaction to desperate attempts by believers in the government's theory to use the Meridian fire to discount serious questions raised by the 911 truth movement. And they showed just how very different the two situations were. Should the day come when the 2 sets of scientists tee off against one another in public I'll keep an open mind. I cant tell you how I would react until it happens. I want to know the truth as much as possible and I dont feel I know the truth at present. I've seen enough contradictory evidence to call for new investigations using scientists from all sides but I dont know exactly what brought down the towers or WTC 7. The controlled demo side raises important points that should be debated publically. NIST has so far failed to counter demo evidence sufficiently. FEMA says the government's theory has only a low probability of being what happened and that further review is needed. So I take the FEMA side on this. By the way what of the Purdue Report? It looks like it was more of a cover-up than an independant investigation. Once again the public was deceived and once again 911 truth has caught them in deception. Of course stuff like that makes me wonder. And imo 911 truth has once again proven to be extremely resourceful in hunting down the evidence on that. That's why I'm happy they're there.

blueflame,

concerning the two fires: I agree that they were very different. The WTC towers were hit by fully fuelled Boeing 767-200s, the Meridian One building wasn't. Nevertheless have the 9/11 Truth guys used the Meridian fire to compare it to the towers, and said that the important thing we can learn from the Meridian fire is that the building didn't collapse.

I fully agree. But you can't cherry-pick your facts. If you want to look at this particular fire and what has been learned from it, you can just pick one isolated fact (building didn't collapse) - you have to look at all the facts. And some of these facts are in direct contrast to what has been forwarded by the "9/11 Truthers", namely that:

• office materials can fuel a fire hot enough that steel beams will loose their structural integrity (the 9/11 Truthers keep on denying that that would be possible)
  
• even fire-proofed steel beams will loose their structural integrity in an office building fire (the 9/11 Truthers keep on denying that that would be possible)
  
• their is enough air in an office tower building to keep a fire burning (even when there are no 4-story holes in the building) that is hot enough to endanger the structural integrity of the whole building (the 9/11 Truthers keep on denying that that enough air would have been available in the towers to keep the fire going)
  
• a high-rise building will loose its structural integrity to the point where it is in danger of collapsing (the floors of the Meridian building had to be propped up with hundreds of additional steel beams), even when not a single support beam has been knocked out previously (the 9/11 Truthers keep on denying that a modern high-rise would ever loose its structural integrity)
  

If you accept all of the above facts, then I don't doubt that we can agree on the differences between the fires as well (the Meridian wasn't hit by planes, it didn't have 25 percent of the support beams on several floors knocked out, the fire wasn't fuelled by jet fuel, it burned longer, it didn't collapse).

But, again, you can't just use one or two "convenient" facts. You have to look at all of them.

old europe, seems you still want to compare the 2 fires. One burned for 18 hours. The others burned for a short time and were nowhere near intense enough to do the damage claimed by NIST. Even FEMA admits that. So 2 government agencies are in conflict. According to FDNY tapes the South Tower had small fires that were pretty much contained. I put a lot more respect on eyewitness testimony than the 911 Commission did. WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and the NIST report puts more emphasis on fire than anything else. FEMA says that is a low probability. NIST has attempted to debunk 911 truth theories and they in turn were answered. There's a back and forth going on there. But it should be official and public. Meanwhile we can follow the debate on the internet.
"NIST's World Trade Center FAQ"
A Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
by Jim Hoffman link

The Bushie administration that lied us into war continues to mislead and deceive to best of their ability. They aint great at not getting caight because their lies are so blatant and easily exposed. The latest example is a huge insult imo to those who try to defend the government's 911 theories. I can understand why no one seems to want to address the facts of the Purdue Report. "A newly released Purdue University animation showing how fire caused the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11 claims to be independent but in reality has been federally funded and was conducted by individuals with direct links to the Pentagon and the White House."

I only want to know what you are saying about the rest of what has been learned from the Meridian fire. In your own words.

See, that's another thing with the 9/11 conspiracy people: they accuse others of blindly following one entity (the US government) - but whenever something new comes out (like e.g. the Purdue simulation), they won't comment on it until the gurus at the 9/11 Truth headquarters issue a "report" denouncing the facts.

Subsequently, that gets echoed all across the internet. Nobody is able to voice the concerns in his own words.

And you, blueflame, are no exception. I don't have a problem when people can point out what they find suspicious, and back it up with links. But merely saying "all the arguments are made here, by this group, and there, but those people, just go there and look at it, because I have nothing to add" is, frankly, a bit pathetic.

So let's see what you have say about the Meridian fire, and then we can move on to the Purdue people, shall we?

old europe, this is a funny statement, "but whenever something new comes out (like e.g. the Purdue simulation), they won't comment on it until the gurus at the 9/11 Truth headquarters issue a "report" denouncing the facts." A report comes out from a supposedly independant source. I saw it and could see that it was propping up the NIST theories. It added nothing to the debate because what they stated had already been refuted by 911 truth scientists. The NYTimes accepted the reort as debunking 911 truthers. They failed to discover just how not an independant report it was. It's an outrage that this report was passed off as independant when it was easy to discover how connected to the White House and the government's 911 report the authors were. The NYTimes once again showed they will go far to keep truth from the public. As journalists they failed considerably to investigate the sources of the report who greatly lose credibility when it's discovered the connections of the authors. Once again the NYTimes shows just why so many millions of Americans cry conspiracy. And you instead of being angry at such an obvious attempt to manipulate public opinion choose to ridicule those who so easily saw through the attempted manipulation. I find that sad. Surely there is reasonable doubt to the government's theories. The scientists and millions of Americans who call for new investigations are not unpatriotic crackpots or unreasonable about any of this. There is reasonable doubt and plenty reason for new and open investigations. With your ridicule you are putting down millions of very bright and highly patriotic Americans who certainly have not come to their conclusions lightly.

"old europe wrote:
So let's see what you have say about the Meridian fire, and then we can move on to the Purdue people, shall we?" Why pretend I haven't done that already? Propping up? When? Well after the fire it was propped up. That doesn't mean it would have collapsed if not propped up. Why didn't it fall in it's own footprint immediately after 18 hours of some of the most intense fire in American history. You need something less lame and more pertaining to WTC than that worthless argument. It's terribly wrong to discount the suspicions of over 70 million Americans who call for new investigations. That number grows with every 911 truth town hall meeting. In addition it is an international concern and internationally the call is huge. Incredibly many Americans would accept international investigations.
"45% think "Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success" link