Originally Posted by eckz

Sorry I guess i got side tracked, first of all calm down, second of all I'm talking about all 3 buildings in the series entirety, not just building 7. My point is that without demolition the buildings would have had resistance, or as you put it another "force" at work causing the top (Damaged) portions to take the path of least resistance, which, unless the bottom floors were blown out deliberately would not have been straight down.

I understood what you said, but it doesn't change the point that i was trying to make. Those buildings were deliberate demolitions and still did not fall straight down, why? Because the bottom floors were undamaged, and in-tact.. Causing the buildings to fall sideways (not straight down).

basically my outlook is this; the top floors of the first two towers were damaged, but the buildings were built with modular units, meaning there was 3 pieces which each had x amount of floors that were free standing objects all by themselves, just stacked on top of one another with a solid "core" that went up through the center of each building with floors built around it. The modular floors that were damaged by the plane and sat in flames would have possibly fallen, and perhaps even the modular unit above that if there was one (not looking at specific floors etc), but they would have fallen sideways, and not straight down, unless the bottom floors were destroyed first.

As far as building 7 is concerned, it does not matter if the penthouses (The top floor) collapsed an hour before the rest of the building, it doesn't change the fact that physics are at work yet again. It would seem to me that the entire building collapse was actually initiated by the penthouse (Again, the top floor) but is that even possible? I beleive that all those subsequent floors would surely be able to support the weight of just one floor at the top, right? Even while considering the penthouse at the very top, a building does not fall that quickly or in that organized of a manner unless the bottom floors are given way on their own. If it was caused by the weight of the above floors you would see a stutter between each floor as it collapsed on top, and there would be a pause. It's quite possible that it would have stopped mid-way, there are many determining factors in such a debate, but I still hold the fact that there were outside forces to blame not related to the airplane strikes, and it's not just because of the manner in which these buildings fell; but also the other information that has been public for a very long time, and simply ignored by the majority, which would be several very high ranking physics professors from various universities finding traces of "Nano-Thermite" on the molten steel. Thermite is an incindiary, meaning it burns hot enough to 'melt' object rather than explode, it would have been perfect for a job like this as you can't see as many squibs or blasts, and anything and everything that gets in it's way is literally burned into a ball of molten muck.

Airplane fires do not create perfect diagonal cuts in 6" thick steel support beams, or leave molten steel laying around for hours (Even days) after it was all said and done... Do they?

Originally Posted by Working Class Patriot

On what charge??????

Obama has already violated his duties of office according to the Constitution.....Naming himself the head of the UN security council....

He has negated the 5th Amendment in regards to contract law...

If anyone should go to prison...it should be Obama........

Originally Posted by roadkill439342

"Melted" Steel

Claim:

FACT:
[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.

Originally Posted by eckz

This is a fact, however if you look at the pictures of the wreckage at ground zero you will see that the steel is, in fact, melted. Bear in mind that the fire was also oxygen starved (the smoke is a telltale sign of this)... If you've ever built a fire you can attest to this as well. The research that i read claims that a regular 'household/office' fire will rarely ever exceed a temperature of 1600 Degrees/F. 1850 is pretty substantial for 'rugs'... Not sure how they could even gauge that other by assumptions.

Originally Posted by Jim Bob

Yeah! Damn right! Especially because that Obama got in the way of distinguished Neocon war hero like Admiral McCain's son getting in there and bombing Iran back to the stone age to protect Israel from feeling threaten that Israel is not the only country in the region with a secret nuclear arsenal!!!

Chickenhawks on the internet....
[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Truck Forum Link.

Originally Posted by eckz

Sorry I guess i got side tracked, first of all calm down, second of all I'm talking about all 3 buildings in the series entirety, not just building 7. My point is that without demolition the buildings would have had resistance, or as you put it another "force" at work causing the top (Damaged) portions to take the path of least resistance, which, unless the bottom floors were blown out deliberately would not have been straight down.

I understood what you said, but it doesn't change the point that i was trying to make. Those buildings were deliberate demolitions and still did not fall straight down, why? Because the bottom floors were undamaged, and in-tact.. Causing the buildings to fall sideways (not straight down).

basically my outlook is this; the top floors of the first two towers were damaged, but the buildings were built with modular units, meaning there was 3 pieces which each had x amount of floors that were free standing objects all by themselves, just stacked on top of one another with a solid "core" that went up through the center of each building with floors built around it. The modular floors that were damaged by the plane and sat in flames would have possibly fallen, and perhaps even the modular unit above that if there was one (not looking at specific floors etc), but they would have fallen sideways, and not straight down, unless the bottom floors were destroyed first.

As far as building 7 is concerned, it does not matter if the penthouses (The top floor) collapsed an hour before the rest of the building, it doesn't change the fact that physics are at work yet again. It would seem to me that the entire building collapse was actually initiated by the penthouse (Again, the top floor) but is that even possible? I beleive that all those subsequent floors would surely be able to support the weight of just one floor at the top, right? Even while considering the penthouse at the very top, a building does not fall that quickly or in that organized of a manner unless the bottom floors are given way on their own. If it was caused by the weight of the above floors you would see a stutter between each floor as it collapsed on top, and there would be a pause. It's quite possible that it would have stopped mid-way, there are many determining factors in such a debate, but I still hold the fact that there were outside forces to blame not related to the airplane strikes, and it's not just because of the manner in which these buildings fell; but also the other information that has been public for a very long time, and simply ignored by the majority, which would be several very high ranking physics professors from various universities finding traces of "Nano-Thermite" on the molten steel. Thermite is an incindiary, meaning it burns hot enough to 'melt' object rather than explode, it would have been perfect for a job like this as you can't see as many squibs or blasts, and anything and everything that gets in it's way is literally burned into a ball of molten muck.

Airplane fires do not create perfect diagonal cuts in thick steel support beams, or leave molten steel laying around for hours (Even days) after it was all said and done... Do they?

Originally Posted by roadkill439342

How did Oblahblah get in the way of McCain's son? Do tell.........

Originally Posted by Gummiente

Normally I ignore uninformed statements like that, as it is quite a common occurrence whenever dealing with Americans. However, one as ignorant as yours desperately needs to be addressed.

Canada has been fighting the Taliban in support of the US effort since December 2001 when commandos from our JTF2 unit were deployed there. In fact, our contribution can arguably be backdated even further, as the roughly 100 Canadian soldiers serving in exchange positions within various US units were sent over with them in the first stages of the war. In March of 2002, Canadian soldiers were deployed alongside US forces as past of Operation Anaconda. You may recall that during this operation an American F-16 pilot killed four and wounded eight Canadian soldiers when he mistook their night training exercise for a Taliban operation and bombed them. As the war progressed, Canadian troops were stationed first at Kabul, then back to Kandahar where they have been since 2005.

We have been fighting side by side with the US right from the start. Comments like yours not only show a gross ignorance of the world outside your own doorstep, but they are an insult to the over 130 Canadian soldiers who have died in battle since this war began.