Who's the nutjob--the one who thinks a short concrete building can fall vertically & pulverize due to fire..

Question

...or those who question the "official story?"

I'm referring to WTC Building 7.

And to those who dismiss the American people as being "crazy" for demanding answers to these questions. It's only lost lives, cancers, and broken families after all--not important!!!!

Sara: Was I asking about the Pentagon? Read before you answer.

If you think that fire can cause concrete to fall vertically in seconds...I rest my case on the nutjob question.

Name an "expert" who said that Building 7 could fall that way due to a fire. Even Popular Mechanics (Chertoff cousin, Benjanim Chertoff was one of the writers, by the way) wouldn't touch that!

Pentagon, Twin Towers...anything else that I wasn't asking about to avoid answering the question????

Answer 1

Here are a few questions on 9-11 for which a media not
involved in a cover-up would be demanding answers:

Why is the mainstream media not demanding a coherent
answer from Larry Silverstein, who profitted
handsomely from 9-11 and who admitted on camera that
World Trade Center 7 was a controlled demolition?

-----------------------------------------------

Only a few weeks prior to 9-11 both trade center
towers were powered-down leaving them completely
without security cameras for long periods of time.
This unprecedented action and amazing coincidence goes
unchallenged by the mainstream media.

-----------------------------------------------

Many people reported on camera of hearing massive
explosions. Some reported those explosions came from
the basement. Why hasn't the media interviewed these
people? Why isn't the media demanding answers as to
what caused those explosions?

-----------------------------------------------

Why does the mainstream media on their many news
opinion programs always resort to name-calling and the
demonizing of any guest who questions the official
9-11 report? Why are they completely unable to
rationally explore the objective facts presented by
those who offer proof of a government conspiracy?

-----------------------------------------------

Why isn't the media demanding an explanation as to why
the bomb-sniffing dogs who were part of normal
security at the World Trade Center buildings were
removed just prior to the 9-11 attacks?

-----------------------------------------------

Why isn't the mainstream media demanding an
explanation as to what happened to the World Trade
Center buildings steel core? The supposed "pancake
collapse" theory should have left the massive steel
core in place.

-----------------------------------------------

Instead of demanding an explanation as to the
unprecedented collapse of 3 steel frame buildings --
one of which hadn't been hit by any planes -- the
mainstream media accepts as good coin the impossible
explanation that the fire melted the steel. Why
doesn't the media investigate this?

-----------------------------------------------

On 9-11, four planes supposedly disintegrated upon
impact. This is unprecedented. Planes have crashed
into mountains and not disintegrated. Where are those
planes and the bodies of the victims? Where is the
plane and where are the bodies of the victims that
were inside the plane which crashed into the Pentagon?
Why is the media not demanding an answer as to why
there is no plane wreckage at the site of the plane
that crashed in Pennsylvania and why there are no
bodies of the victims of that crash?

--------------------------------------------

Rudy Giuliani said that he received a warning that the
buildings were going to collapse? Why is the media not
demanding to know who warned him of this?

--------------------------------------------

Why has the media failed to investigate the war games
that were in progress on the morning of 9-11 which
simulated hijacked planes.

Answer 2

MR. MINETA: There was a young man who had come in
and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles
out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down
to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also
said to the vice president, "Do the orders still
stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his
neck around and said, "Of course the orders still
stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well,
at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --


MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.

MR. MINETA: And so I was not aware that that
discussion had already taken place. But in listening
to the conversation between the young man and the vice
president, then at the time I didn't really recognize
the significance of that.

And then later I heard of the fact that the airplanes
had been scrambled from Langley to come up to DC, but
those planes were still about 10 minutes away. And so
then, at the time we heard about the airplane that
went into Pennsylvania, then I thought, "Oh, my God,
did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the
vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that
out.

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane
that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles
away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but
I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from
Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did
not know about the orders specifically other than
listening to that other conversation.

MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to
shoot commercial aircraft down.

MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out. …

My own brief analysis of Cheney’s remarks is
straightforward:

The young man's reports to Cheney of the airliner's
impending approach is followed by his urgent question
whether "the orders still stand?" The young man was
questioning the order. That question had to be about
whether the order NOT to destroy the approaching plane
still stood. Given the two prior attacks against the
Twin Towers using commercial airliners as weapons, an
order to destroy the plane approaching the Pentagon
would be the only order to give and would not be
subject to question by the young man as the plane
approached. Furthermore, had Cheney's order been to
fire on the plane approaching the Pentagon (which
first came near the White House), the anti-aircraft
capacity of the Pentagon (or White House) would have
sufficed to take out that plane. Since the
Langley/Norfolk jets are at least 10 minutes away and
out of range, Cheney’s order is about the on-site
Pentagon or White House defenses. Neither a shoot-down
nor an attempted shoot-down occurred, and since Mineta
does not speak of a last-second change in orders by
Cheney, the only supportable conclusion is that
Cheney's order was NOT to defend the Pentagon, an
order so contrary to both common sense and military
defense that it, and it alone, explains the
questioning by the young man.

Answer 3

The World Trade Center buildings did not collapse due to fire alone. The fire certainly helped, and yes large amounts of heat can weaken steel. But in this case, there were two large airplanes that crashed into the building, undoubtedly causing structural damage by putting a large moment on the core supports of the building and damaging it, which could allow the ten or so floors above the point of impact to collapse down, causing a large force on the floors below in places that weren't meant to hold so much weight. In addition, the two heavy airplanes were lodged near the top of the building, thus putting extra force on the supports and raising the building's center of gravity. All of these factors could have contributed to a collapse. Osama bin Laden is technically a civil engineer, he's no idiot. That thing was well planned out. Might not have killed as many people as those terrorists may have hoped though though.

Answer 4

I guess I'm one of those "nutjobs".

Concrete contains moisture and if a fire creates high enough temperatures the concrete will become weakened and might even explode. It can cause spalling, or flaking. Thus, a concrete building on fire could fall vertically because the concrete flakes. It would be like a sand building.

The process of heat-induced spalling is fairly simple. When concrete is exposed to temperatures above 212[degrees] F, the boiling point of water, the moisture in the concrete turns to steam. If the temperature rises more rapidly than the steam can escape, the rising pressures cause the concrete to spall. In the extreme, this spalling can be explosive.

Answer 5

Speaking of nutjobs. Some of the answers above really make me doubt if there is any hope left for the human race.

Answer 6

concrete has very intense reactions when introduced to high heat im not sure what building u are refering to but i would say yes its possible ok so now we have details the concrete is not what failed its the steel if the heat reaches a high enough level to begin to melt the stell then concrete would actually hurt the situation more than it would help the steel is what failed the concrete just added insulation weight and leverage to help it fall faster

Answer 7

Perhaps the so called "nut jobs" are my sister in law and friends who work at the Pentagon and SAW it happen, the plane hitting the building.

Or my colleagues who got out of the towers and the one who didn't.

Answer 8

you must remember that these concrete buildings have a lot of re bar inside the concrete and as you know re bar being metal heats up and metal softens when heated that is what would cause the building to collapse the metal is to soft to hold the weight.

Answer 9

No one who has seen any of the quality 9-11 videos circulating around the Internet can possibly believe the official line of crap. Our govenment is responsible for an extraordinary crime committed in pursuit of an otherwise stillborn agenda.

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." -- J. Edgar Hoover (former head of the FBI)

9-11 Mysteries
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9-11+mysteries&total=550&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Answer 10

Neither.

We need those who question.

The nutjobs are the ones who assume that it was a conspiracy without bothering to read the official reports by the engineers, the debunking of the conspiracy theories, and assumes that all our representatives are "guilty until proved innocent".

Why? I do hope that's not you!