hotcommodity

I always wanted to ask who that guy was in your avatar, I gotta know. Have fun on your mission and take it easy.

I back up my assumptions with articles and other forms of media. You back up your assumptions with rationalizations, and the fact that most people here think like you do. But that is not evidence. I talk and discuss, and I even listen, but all you do is talk. If you listened, you would be able to discuss the issues at hand. Posting a smiley face at the end of your statement wont confirm your assumptions, it just makes you look smug. If you attack the issues in detail, rather than trying to attack my character, we may actually get somewhere. Your problem is that your posts lack thought and documentation. They have too much to do with me, and not enough to do with the issues at hand.

If it was only a minor imbalance, it would also be regarded as minor damage. And if only slightly imbalanced, then it should have held its own as other steel structure tend to do. Plus, many people have said it was the fire alone that did the damge. Insane was the first to bring up the idea of a chunk of the building missing.

If building 7 had a chunk out of its side, it would have collapsed sideways. Edit: I can see you have your own opinion on the collapse of these towers, but I'm also curious where you stand with respect to the other issue brought up, such as, pentagon officials having prior knowledge, etc.

Bascule, the buildings did collapse inward, not perfectly inward, but inward enough so as not to fall into buildings next to it. Additionally, you've come up with a semi-plausible explanation for the collapse of the wtc's, but you still haven't addressed the collapse of building 7 sufficiently. You say just because its never happened is not to say it couldnt happen. So are you saying that building 7 is the first steel structure to collapse from a few office fires? Also, Silverstein didn't say "pull out," he said "we made the decision to pull, just pull it, and we watched the building collapse." Listen to his words carefully and in the context portrayed. Pangloss, again, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm not like others who think they know the whole story. Something like this needs to be discussed in great detail, because the people who lost their lives on that day deserve to have every aspect of the incident examined in an open-minded fashion. I think its sad that debates on 9/11 are usually catagorized as official story vs. conspiracy theorist. Instead of coming in here and poking fun at the conspiracy side of the issue, I think ones time would be better spent searching for other issues surrounding the event because again, the victims deserve it. Edit: Look, either you care enough about the issue to research every aspect of it or you don't. Sitting on your tail and waiting for others to bring you information just so you can rationalize it and/or poke fun at it doesn't count as investigation. I can bring you articles that show officials had prior knowledge of 9/11, or show video of people claiming they heard bombs go off in the towers, or show video that fema was in the wtc the night before the event, or show Silversteins interview, and his timely insurance deal, or show that NORAD was running drills that parallel 9/11 style events, or point out that former president Bush was meeting with bin Ladens brother on the morning of 9/11, or that the bin Laden family was allowed to exit the U.S. even when others were not allowed to fly, or I could attemp to disprove the notion that U.S. officials would never attack U.S. citizens for political gain by showing the Northwoods Joint Chiefs of Staff documents, and alot more, but at the end of the day, its all rationalized, our elected officials are still credible, because everything can be explained by mere coincidence. I can't force you to think. So again, if you really care, you'll go out and look at every piece of material surrounding the event that you can get your hands on, and if you don't, you'll find some way to stick your head in the sand.

Coincidental doesn't prove anything, but the links listed above show that steel structures withstand fires, and the fact that no one has provided evidence of a steel structure collapse from fire alone, should count in the way of logic at the very least.

No need to get contentious. We're allowed to disagree on things and still be nice to eachother Come on, you know you wanna give one back Edit: I fixed the links too.

Four airliners being hijacked in one day would be highly coincidental if no one had ever heard of such a thing as terrorists on airplanes. However, I have yet to see a building that has collapsed from an office fire alone. The links above show just how unlikely this is. Now you have three steel structures collapsing from fires, which isn't heard of, and 2 collapse for one supposed reason, and the third collapses for a regular office fire. So yes, its highly coincidental that we have 2 buildings collapse under one criteria, and a third collapse under a second criteria, when both criteria ( impacting airliners and office fires) are unheard of with respect to the collapse of steel structures.

With respect to the first and second links you provided, yes, it is minor damage compared to the burning of the other steel structures I spoke of. What looks more intense? Building 7: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/WTC7.jpg/300px-WTC7.jpg or the Windsor Building we spoke of : http://colt.cache.el-mundo.net/fotografia/2005/02/incendio_windsor/img/inc5.jpg which survived after burning for 2 days: http://www.cadenaser.com/composicion/images/portada/200502/13/1108304834.jpg You said you "assume" building 7 was damaged from the collapse of the towers, but all that came from the towers was smoke. How does smoke cause fire? And again, the wtc's fell inward. If they had fallen sideways into other buildings, then the fire in building 7 would be more plausible. And this is whats wrong with the 3 buildings meeting the above criteria in such a short period of time. They all collapsed inward, and opposed the notion that steel structures dont collapse from fire damage. Again, we have Silverstein on video speaking of the damage done to building 7 and say they decided to "pull it...just pull," and next they show the collapse of the structure. We have Silverstein taking out a billion dollar insurance deal a few months before the event, and buying up the rest of the complex moths before the event. Additionally, if the floors pancaked, it would have taken longer for the buildings to collapse. Here's an interesting video: . I'm not saying EVERYTHING in the video is true, but it's something that deserves attention, it's something that needs to be addressed. How are we supposed to examine the evidence from the buildings now that the rubble was shipped to China and the middle east? This is an American event, and thus an American investigation. You have to ask why these issues are being ignored by the very officials that should be looking into them.

If you could find a picture of the damage you speak of regarding building 7, and tell me what caused that damage, I'd sure like to know. Building 7 is so far away from the wtc's, I'm interested in how it got damaged. How did a big chunk of it get shaved off when it wasnt hit by anything? You say the structures "can" collapse, but I have still not seen any example that shows when a steel structure "did" in fact collapse due to fire. Again, they dont spend millions of dollars to build structures that can be taken down by office fires. If that were the case, I doubt any self-respecting insurance company would insure them for any large amount of money. It would be bad business. Larry Silverstein was awarded 5 billion dollars for the wtc's alone. You say "alot" of things have to happen for a buildings structure to completely fail, so I guess you're assuming that 3 buldings met this criteria, all within a nine hour period. That's extremely coincidental at best.

Feel free to expand on his post, otherwise you might as well let him respond.

If I understand what you're saying, you're saying that steel structures tend not to collapse, just as I stated. The first link you provided spoke about the Windsor Building in Madrid, which I provided a link for as well in my previous post, and the building did not collapse. You say that steel structures are equipped with fire resistance around the steel itself, which would reduce the likelihood of a collapse. I would take into account that there was jet fuel accompanied with the burning in the wtc's, but the fact that building 7 collapsed without being hit by an airliner/fuel explosion is suspicious. I haven't seen, or found one example of a steel structure collapsing due to an office fire. In fact, given the links provided above, we've seen quite the opposite.

I thought my quote might be misinterpreted, but thats my fault. This is what I'm getting at... He says steel structures collapse from fires all the time, I'd like to know what buildings he's speaking of. Steel structures do not collapse from fires, that's just common sense. -In 1988, the Interstate Bank Building burned for 4 hours, and did not collapse. http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/la.jpg -In 1991, the Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours, but did not collapse. -In 2005, the Windsor Building in Spain burned for 2 days, and still did not collapse. http://www.cadenaser.com/composicion/images/portada/200502/13/1108304834.jpg http://colt.cache.el-mundo.net/fotografia/2005/02/incendio_windsor/img/inc5.jpg These are all steel structures, and not a single one of them collapsed. I've never heard of a steel structure collapsing from an office fire. Now you may say "wait! the wtc's were hit by airliners packed with jet fuel." Well, yes, but building 7 was not hit by an airliner, so you cant have it both ways. Look at the damage done to building 6: http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/911/images/disaster1.jpg. Now look at the damage done to building 7: http://members.aol.com/erichuf/eh_wtc16.jpg Which one seems more likely to collapse? That is, if steel structures do indeed collapse from office fires alone.

It sounds like you've seen steel buildings collapse from fires, and if so I'm quite interested because it seems inconsistent with what you've stated. The wtc takes an impact from a multi-ton airliner along with an explosion, and eventually comes down. Steel structures are brought down all the time by fires? Are the steel structures you speak of also hit by multi-tons airliners all the time? You have two opposing sets of logic here. GW and Osama planned 9/11?! Yes, we all know what a diabolical super genius George Bush is, and you cant forget about the desert dwelling diabetic. Boy, when you put those two together, theres no stopping them! Its because of assertions like these that makes people suspicious about those who question the official story. If you truly believe in something, you've got to back it up with some type of evidence and/or logic. I'm suspicious about the pentagon crash myself, but until all of the pentagon surveillance videos are released, I'm not so sure we can be definite about what happened there. But the fact that they are withholding footage should raise some suspicions.

Did I make an attempt to mock you? If no, then it automatically ranks better. I have more respect for you than to mock your position. I see I see, I think you mean just because tv shows infered 9/11 style events doesnt mean we should expect it to happen, and I agree. I simply posted the video to counter the idea that no one ever expected terrorists to use airliners as weapons. I believe condellizza rice made that comment when she testified, but I'll have to double check.

Well when your post lacks substance, its considered spam. You mocked your opposition and offered nothing to back it up. In any other case I'd approve of its deletion, but to a degree I'm glad you posted it, as it shows the mindset of my opposition. And what point do you think you made?...The second part of your post makes no sense to me, please elaborate.

We're all armchair engineeers? Well God forgive us as we speculate and share ideas. You shared your thoughts on the collapse as well, I suppose that makes you guilty too. When logic fails, resort to mocking your opponent. Yes, a winning strategy indeed. It was Mark Twain who said "In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave and hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Your freedom to express your thoughts so openly is a product of the bravery of those who were once hated and scorned. Yet you use that privilage to mock others, and make statements of no substace. Come back when you have something to offer. What story am I claiming to be true? I thought Cap'n, implied "as a whole," so I addressed it. What unnamed sources are you speaking of? I've spoken off a handful of articles and issues, so you'll have to be more specific. Noted. What relevance does that have here? Again, you'll have to be specific, the argument won't make itself for you. Did i ever say "here! I have proof" ? Or did I say that I'm pointing out inconsistencies and/or issues that need to be addressed promptly. If you stop worrying about what my motive is, you may be able to address the issues stated above in a progressive manner.

* When the attractions of ions are strong, energy is released in their formation. We call the energy related to the formation of a lattice structure its lattice energy, and these energies are always negative because they give off energy when formed. *Water molecules are very polar, which is to say the molecules have both partial positive and partial negative areas. When ions are placed into the water, these partial positive and negative areas of the water molecules attract the partial negative and positive areas of the ionic compound, respectively. When the bonds are broken, energy is released. *In the case above, water is the solvent, and therefore when the water molecules break up and surround the ions that once were the ionic compound, we call it hydration. Hydration is just a specific case of solvation that implies water is the solvent. *Heat of solution is the energy involved in breaking up these ionic compounds we're speaking of. In other words, its the heat that accompanies the dissolution process. The heat of solvation is just the heat of solution plus the crystal lattice energy that was mentioned above. The heat of hydration is the heat of solvation, only it implies that we're using water as the solvent. *Energy is released whenever bonds are broken in the dissolution process. I'm not exactly sure what your book means by part, but they may be refering to the fact that not all of the ionic bonds are broken, reactions dont always go to 100% completion. I hope that helps.

I'm afraid reading articles from qualified news sources counts as "real investigation," and you have no idea just how much investigation I've done. I'm not trying to find evidence so I can point the finger at the government as a whole, or any one government official. I'm pointing out inconsistencies in the official story, and if anyone can point them out, then why are they being overlooked by an official committee of intellectuals? Let me say that I think its highly inaccurate to say the government was behind the attacks, thats just plain stupid. You have thousands of smart, patriotic men and women dedicated to serving their country, and they suddenly turn on their country? I wish you would have given me more credit, instead of assuming I would make that kind of assertion.

To insane_alien: Your point is noted regarding kerosene. I'm learning from all of you, insane included, but you still cant logically argue the inward collapse of the 3 wtc buildings. And this is my main point with respect to the wtc site, you cant say that it takes an extreme amount of heat and damage to collapse one building, and say a few office fires can collapse another. Yes, "uniform" implies a perfect spread of the jet fuel and heat, "fairly uniform" implies a fairly perfect spread of jet fuel and heat. It would be quite a trick to slam a multi-ton airplane into a building and get its jet fuel to spread and burn "fairly uniform" over the entire floor. If you want to continue talking about the burning of the fuel, thats fine, but we aren't getting very far so I'll say that I note everyones opinion on the fuel issue. Beyond that, you haven't addressed my last points on the collapse of the building and the overly suspicious ( to put it lightly) actions of the wtc owner. I'll also throw this into the mix: Government officials said that no one ever thought of terrorists using hijacked airliners as weapons, yet two years before 9/11, NORAD practiced drills of shooting down hijacked airliners that would be used as weapons and smash into targets such as the wtc, and the pentagon (pm me if you want this usa today article, and other articles below, the links may stretch the page uncomfortably). Additionally, top pentagon officials canceled their flights for the next morning on September 11, as MSNBC reports. Another interesting thing is that before 9/11, a tv show on fox called The Lone Gunman aired a show where terrorists hijack an airliner and plan to crash it into the wtc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB6EWF3vulc . Again, this is just a small piece of all of the supposed coincidences surrounding the event, I hope we can use logic to figure out whats really going on here.

You dont care about doing much of anything when you're tired, but think of how great you feel when you're rested, you have energy, and you care about your work. My advice would be to set aside 8 hours a night to sleep, and no less than 8 hours. If you do this, might you miss a few current assignments? Yes, but its better that you're on a schedule that gives you energy to do your work. I go to bed around 10pm at the latest, this way I'm well rested and ready to take on my workload the next day. Just schedule your time better, write it down on a piece of paper if you have, thats what I do. This way nothing will get past you

All of the above is an illogical guess. Again, fuel burns up rapidly, thats why it so explosive. In other words, when the fuel is heated, the reaction is very exothermic, it disperses energy into the atmosphere. The atmosphere has a much higher heat capacity than does the metal, as the atmosphere is expansive, and thus can consume the heat more easily. The heat energy doesnt cling to the metal until all of it is absorbed.There was nothing uniform about the absorbtion of the heat energy, not within the atmosphere, and not within the steel structure. By your own admition, it takes a great deal of damage and energy to bring down a steel structure. Building 7 didnt take on alot of heat or damage, yet it collapsed too, also in an inward fashion I might add. The owner of the building comes on television and speaks about the damage done to building 7, and says "we decided to pull it....just pull it," and it shows the destruction of building 7. He also buys up the remaining buildings in the wtc complex and takes out a multi-million dollar insurance deal just months before the event. Now these are just some of the coincidental events that took place with respect to the collapse of the buildings and the entire event of 9/11. But I guess it was just one of those coincidental days.

As was stated above, fuel burns rapidly. All of the jet fuel had to be burnt up within a very short period of time. Unless we're living in the twilight zone, the only fires that could have been present after the explosion are office fires. Again, as stated above, the burning of papers/wood/etc. are not sufficient to melt steel. Additionally, Callipygous, this would not explain why the building didn't fall sideways. If you chop a chunk out of the side of a tree, it falls sideways. Think of the game jinga: http://ajalbv.free.fr/dotclear/images/jinga.jpg . If I pull a a few wood blocks out from one corner, it will fall sideways. If I douse that same corner in lighter fluid, the entire wood structure wont collapse inward, in fact, it wont collapse at all, logic will tell you that a steel structure built by engineers will hold much better than a wood structure.

I retract my statement, saying you're going to prove people wrong is not science. Why even post when you know any scientific community would reject your assertions? This has going from semi-science to full blown attention whoring, imo.

I grew up around that non-sense. Those who say there are only 144,000 going to heaven and a bunch of other illogical assertions. However I wouldnt compare what lady helix is saying to that stupidity. She makes an interesting assertion, and I take it into consideration. I agree that there are hidden ideas within the Bible, but the Bible is such a massive compilation of various books, I dont believe we can look at it in any one context. I also believe that lady helix hit on the idea of energy, making the thread semi-scientific. Do we really know everything there is to know about energy? If not, then I dont believe we should belittle the ideas of others. Lady helix, you made the assertion that people will see that your ideas are correct in time, and at a specific date. I must say that this statement throws up a red flag to anyone with any common sense, and if you want people to consider your ideas, then i would be careful of how you present them. The ideas behind your concepts of energy may very well be documented in the Bible, but who knows. No one can believe you 100% because this is something you cant prove. Its good to present ideas, but dont try to prove them to others, as ideas and concepts on this level, and a personal level, are meant to self-sought. If people do enough research, they can find what the bible means for them, both personally and spiritually.