Page 1 of 1
Posted on September 22 at 10:39 a.m.
John Locke, you strike me as paranoid. Why would someone need to make up multiple IDs to post comments here? It's just a local newspaper, for Pete's sake. A comment is a comment. Why don't you have anything to say about the actual content of the article?
On Twin Towers, Twin Myths?
Posted on September 22 at 10:11 a.m.
Here's how family members feel:
Posted on September 22 at 10:06 a.m.
Tegrat commented, "The idea that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition simply does not stand up to one fact: keeping such a project secret is not possible."
Have you forgotten about the Manhattan Project? Operation Gladio? There have been a few whistleblowers, but they have been gagged (Sibel Edmonds) or ignored, esp. by MSM. Why would anyone involved in this terrorist act admit involvement? In operations such as this, everything is compartmentalized; most involved probably didn't realize their role until after the fact, if at all. People have been silenced with death or threat of death, threats to family and job. Others have been promoted and honored for their 'loyalty'.
Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many here have read all of PNAC's documents (Project for a New American Century).
Posted on September 22 at 9:37 a.m.
Kratatoa (did you mean Krakatoa?), judging from your posts, you have nothing to say. So why do you keep saying it? Try posting an intelligent response to the subject matter. Blueprint for Truth is available to watch for free online at ae911truth.org. May I suggest you watch it and then come back here with a rebuttal? You might also check out http://patriotsquestion911.com/, where you will find 200+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials 700+ Engineers and Architects 200+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals 400+ Professors Question 9/11 230+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members 200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media Professionals who all question the official story.
Posted on September 21 at 10:33 p.m.
Your comment that "the idea that modern buildings cannot be brought down by fire is wrong" is in err. No steel-framed structure, other than the twin towers and WTC 7, has ever "collapsed" completely due to fire, in the 100-year history of steel framed structures.
I suggest you review this survey commissioned by NIST. Interestingly, of the 6 structural steel buildings listed in the survey, 4 of those were involved in 9/11. You will find that in the survey, six collapses occurred in buildings over 20 stories, and three of these were the WTC steel-framed buildings (1, 2, and 7).
Only these three were TOTAL collapses, and these three were the ONLY steel-framed of ALL buildings surveyed that totally collapsed.
Furthermore, another example of a longer-lasting and more intense fire with no complete collapse is the Edificio Windsor Fire, Madrid, Spain on Feb 13, 2005, which lasted 20 hours at 100 times more heat output than the fire in the South Tower WTC on 9/11. Every single glass window was destroyed which is an indication of the fury of this fire with unlimited ventilation and adiabatic fire temperatures of at least 1260 degrees C. You can find photos of this inferno online; nothing like this conflagration was seen in any of the WTC buildings. The building sustained a partial collapse of unprotected steel above the 17th floor. It was in the process of being fireproofed and the only portion that failed was completely unprotected. Compare this to WTC 7, a building with minor pockets of fire in a fully fire-proofed structure. I might add, never before in the history of steel skyscrapers has one collapsed at or near or even remotely near freefall. The partial collapse of the Windsor occurred over a period of 3 hours. This is the expected reaction of steel when faced with hours and hours of high temperatures, as steel acts as a heat sink and only gradually begins to deform once the heat has been distributed evenly throughout.
Please, Mr. Greenspan, get your facts straight first to avoid disseminating disinformation. I'm sure that was not your intent.
Posted on September 21 at 10:31 p.m.
Before the trolls come out from under their rocks, yes, I am a new poster here. I am a member of AE 911 Truth. I would like to set Mr. Greenspan straight on a couple things. Regarding the Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel fire, the Institution of Structural Engineers had this to say:
"The recent severe fire at the Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel is a dramatic example of the resilience of high-rise, steel framed structures when subjected to even the most intense infernos.
"The structure of the TVCC tower - like that of its dominant sibling, the spectacular 238-metre China Central Television (CCTV) tower to the south in Beijing's fast developing central business district - is radical in design and immensely strong. Both buildings are built to withstand major earthquakes while using far less steel than conventional skyscrapers. It is this radical structure that gives the towers their irregular, and challenging, look, and at the same time makes them immensely strong and stable."
Interestingly, similar words have been used to describe the twin towers, the design of which, while radical at the time, was adopted across the world due to its strength, economy and optimal use of floor space.
"In contrast, three high rise structures collapsed due to fire on 9/11/01. WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 collapsed due to fires generating a fraction of the heat occurring in the Beijing fire. WTC7 in particular collapsed at virtual free-fall speed into its own footprint although it was not struck by any aircraft. After eight years, and two contradictory investigative reports, we are now being asked to believe this was due to thermal expansion causing longitudinal strain (but not sagging) of a beam, causing a connection to fail, leaving a column unrestrained and ... boom, complete collapse.
"Visual evidence from real fires is giving an entirely different picture of how buildings behave."
In fact, Mr. Greenspan, the hotel was NOT "destroyed and almost toppled". It remained standing perfectly upright, with no structural failure whatsoever. Perhaps you are unaware that the unique design of the hotel had a 'crimp' in the side. Photos of the aftermath of the fire may make it appear that the building was crumpling, but I assure you this was inherent in the design.