Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> Henry wrote:
>> rkleinsc@veritas.com wrote:

>>> Again, falling straight down is a common failure
>>> mode in quakes. More common than toppling over.

>> So "common" in fact, that no one can provide even one example
>> of it ever taking place in a steel framed building. <chuckle>

> http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/info/damage/soft_story_e1.htm

> The above example took about 5 seconds googling.

You really have no clue what "soft story" construction refers
to, do you?

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/citycou...0Item%2041.pdf

"Technically referred to as a “Soft, Weak, or Open Front Story”,
large openings or inadequate support in the ground floors and
inadequate connections to the second story of these buildings
can create structural weaknesses subject to collapse in a
significant earthquake, such as that expected in the Bay Area.
The buildings typically have parking or store fronts on the ground
floor. Most deaths and collapses in recent California earthquakes have
been in this type of building. The identified buildings were
constructed prior to the 1997 building code that first adequately
addressed this type of construction."

None of the WTC buildings were "soft story" construction.
Also, the building you cited is still standing, and it doesn't
appear to have a steel frame.
Like I said, no one can produce even one example of a tall
steel framed building that fell straight down through itself
for any reason other than demolition. Not one. Zero
This is how steel framed building typically fall in an
earthquake - precisely the way the experts and I say they
would. Again, reality and hard evidence trump your silly,
reality defying, cartoon fantasy world.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...collapses.html



--

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org



Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm


Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

On Sep 29, 2:40 pm, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> > Henry wrote:
> >> rklei...@veritas.com wrote:
> >>> Again, falling straight down is a common failure
> >>> mode in quakes. More common than toppling over.
> >> So "common" in fact, that no one can provide even one example
> >> of it ever taking place in a steel framed building. <chuckle>
> >http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/info/damage/soft_story_e1.htm
> > The above example took about 5 seconds googling.
>
> You really have no clue what "soft story" construction refers
> to, do you?

> None of the WTC buildings were "soft story" construction.
> Also, the building you cited is still standing, and it doesn't
> appear to have a steel frame.

The building in the picture is a 10-20 story building
supported by bearing walls, just like the twin towers.
It lacks a central core, for whatever that's worth,
but in many ways, it's closer to the twin towers
than the steel skeleton buildings you're looking at.

Each of the twin towers very definitely had a soft
story after the hijackers flew jumbo jets into them.
A soft story as in a big hole in what would otherwise
be load bearing walls.

Quakes involve tremendous lateral forces.You apparantly
believe that when a high rise falls over, it begins with a
strutural failure from unspecified forces. Best of my
knowledge, the building would already be in motion
and flexing well before the failure.

In the '89 quake, my full 2000 gallon water tank
plowed six inches or so due south, snapping the
connection to its steel feed pipe. South facing
bookcases had all tumbled over while east/west
facing ones were sitting there undisturbed. Large
lateral forces present in quakes were not present
in the world trade center collapse. Even in quakes,
many buildings fall straight down.

Yeah stuff falls over in quakes. This is because
inertia leaves objects stationary while the ground
moves underneath them. Like when you're standing
up on a bus. When it stops or starts, you sway forward
or backward.

Special properties of steel framed buildings my ass.
Special properties of earthquakes.

Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2:40 pm, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>>> Henry wrote:
>>>> rklei...@veritas.com wrote:

>>>>> Again, falling straight down is a common failure
>>>>> mode in quakes. More common than toppling over.

>>>> So "common" in fact, that no one can provide even one example

We're still waiting for just *one* example of a steel framed
building that fell straight down through itself due to fires
for any other reason than controlled demolition. You won't find
one, because that has never taken place without demolition.

>>>> of it ever taking place in a steel framed building. <chuckle>

>>> http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/info/damage/soft_story_e1.htm

>>> The above example took about 5 seconds googling.

>> You really have no clue what "soft story" construction refers
>> to, do you?

>> None of the WTC buildings were "soft story" construction.
>> Also, the building you cited is still standing, and it doesn't
>> appear to have a steel frame.

> The building in the picture is a 10-20 story building
> supported by bearing walls, just like the twin towers.

You failed to read and comprehend the definition of
soft story construction. Again, neither the towers
nor WTC7 fit the definition. In fact, in the towers
and WTC7, the first story was the strongest and had
the most support, which is the opposite of soft story
construction.

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/citycou...0Item%2041.pdf

"Technically referred to as a “Soft, Weak, or Open Front Story”,
large openings or inadequate support in the ground floors and
inadequate connections to the second story of these buildings
can create structural weaknesses subject to collapse in a
significant earthquake, such as that expected in the Bay Area.
The buildings typically have parking or store fronts on the ground
floor. Most deaths and collapses in recent California earthquakes have
been in this type of building. The identified buildings were
constructed prior to the 1997 building code that first adequately
addressed this type of construction."

> Yeah stuff falls over in quakes.

Without controlled demolition, no tall steel framed building
has ever fallen in a matter even remotely close to WTC7, which
was straight down through itself at virtual free fall speed and
perfect symmetry. Not one, not ever. That's why no one can provide
an example of such a collapse ever taking place unless it was
controlled demolition.
That's also why it's so silly for magic fire cartoon conspiracy
kooks try to claim that it's normal and common place. Obviously,
it isn't. There are no examples. None anywhere - ever. Here's what
happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for
hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm


Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2:40 pm, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>>> Henry wrote:
>>>> rklei...@veritas.com wrote:

>>>>> Again, falling straight down is a common failure
>>>>> mode in quakes. More common than toppling over.

>>>> So "common" in fact, that no one can provide even one example

We're still waiting for just *one* example of a steel framed
building that fell straight down through itself due to fires
for any other reason than controlled demolition. You won't find
one, because that has never taken place without demolition.

>>>> of it ever taking place in a steel framed building. <chuckle>

>>> http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/info/damage/soft_story_e1.htm

>>> The above example took about 5 seconds googling.

>> You really have no clue what "soft story" construction refers
>> to, do you?

>> None of the WTC buildings were "soft story" construction.
>> Also, the building you cited is still standing, and it doesn't
>> appear to have a steel frame.

> The building in the picture is a 10-20 story building
> supported by bearing walls, just like the twin towers.

You failed to read and comprehend the definition of
soft story construction. Again, neither the towers
nor WTC7 fit the definition. In fact, in the towers
and WTC7, the first story was the strongest and had
the most support, which is the opposite of soft story
construction.

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/citycou...0Item%2041.pdf

"Technically referred to as a “Soft, Weak, or Open Front Story”,
large openings or inadequate support in the ground floors and
inadequate connections to the second story of these buildings
can create structural weaknesses subject to collapse in a
significant earthquake, such as that expected in the Bay Area.
The buildings typically have parking or store fronts on the ground
floor. Most deaths and collapses in recent California earthquakes have
been in this type of building. The identified buildings were
constructed prior to the 1997 building code that first adequately
addressed this type of construction."

> Yeah stuff falls over in quakes.

Without controlled demolition, no tall steel framed building
has ever fallen in a matter even remotely close to WTC7, which
was straight down through itself at virtual free fall speed and
perfect symmetry. Not one, not ever. That's why no one can provide
an example of such a collapse ever taking place unless it was
controlled demolition.
That's also why it's so silly for magic fire cartoon conspiracy
kooks try to claim that it's normal and common place. Obviously,
it isn't. There are no examples. None anywhere - ever. Here's what
happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for
hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm


Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

On Oct 1, 5:21 pm, Henry <9...@treason.gov> wrote:
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 2:40 pm, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
> >> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> >>> Henry wrote:
> >>>> rklei...@veritas.com wrote:
> >>>>> Again, falling straight down is a common failure
> >>>>> mode in quakes. More common than toppling over.
> >>>> So "common" in fact, that no one can provide even one example
>
> We're still waiting for just *one* example of a steel framed
> building that fell straight down through itself due to fires
> for any other reason than controlled demolition. You won't find
> one, because that has never taken place without demolition.

So show me an example of a top down thermite demolition.
Show me an example of any kind of thermite demolition.

We both know that in the Madrid fire, authorities felt collapse
was a real possibility and took appropriate precautions. The
fact that it did not collapse as feared doesn't negate the fact
that all present felt this was a real possibility.

You apparantly believe that having survived the initial plane
strike, it would have been perfectly safe to send people
back into the building once utilities had been restored
and rebuild the damaged structure as time permitted.

As I've said before, I have no more expectation of talking
you out of your demolition beliefs than I would of talking
a creation scientist out of his slightly different religious
beliefs.

You will likely continue in this same vein until Bush
leaves office and probably for some time afterwards as
the world gradually looses interest and decides that
no crime took place and you're irrelevant. Think I'm wrong ?

On Oct 1, 5:21 pm, Henry <9...@treason.gov> wrote:
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 2:40 pm, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
> >> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> >>> Henry wrote:
> >>>> rklei...@veritas.com wrote:
> >>>>> Again, falling straight down is a common failure
> >>>>> mode in quakes. More common than toppling over.
> >>>> So "common" in fact, that no one can provide even one example
>
> We're still waiting for just *one* example of a steel framed
> building that fell straight down through itself due to fires
> for any other reason than controlled demolition. You won't find
> one, because that has never taken place without demolition.

So show me an example of a top down thermite demolition.
Show me an example of any kind of thermite demolition.

We both know that in the Madrid fire, authorities felt collapse
was a real possibility and took appropriate precautions. The
fact that it did not collapse as feared doesn't negate the fact
that all present felt this was a real possibility.

You apparantly believe that having survived the initial plane
strike, it would have been perfectly safe to send people
back into the building once utilities had been restored
and rebuild the damaged structure as time permitted.

As I've said before, I have no more expectation of talking
you out of your demolition beliefs than I would of talking
a creation scientist out of his slightly different religious
beliefs.

You will likely continue in this same vein until Bush
leaves office and probably for some time afterwards as
the world gradually looses interest and decides that
no crime took place and you're irrelevant. Think I'm wrong ?

Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> On Oct 1, 5:21 pm, Henry <9...@treason.gov> wrote:

>> We're still waiting for just *one* example of a steel framed
>> building that fell straight down through itself due to fires
>> for any other reason than controlled demolition. You won't find
>> one, because that has never taken place without demolition.

> You apparantly believe that having survived the initial plane
> strike, it would have been perfectly safe to send people
> back into the building once utilities had been restored
> and rebuild the damaged structure as time permitted.

Wow. Where did that silly fantasy come from? It's really
quite telling that Bush parroting magic fire conspiracy
theorists can't seem to discuss the hard evidence in
a logical and coherent manner or produce any sort of credible
references to support their wild claims.

> As I've said before, I have no more expectation of talking
> you out of your demolition beliefs than I would of talking
> a creation scientist out of his slightly different religious
> beliefs.

Well, you certainly won't convince anyone if you continue
to insist that even if supports on only one side of a tall
building are removed, the building will still drop straight
down onto it's it's own footprint. The fact you "support"
such a wild, easily debunked theory with some meaningless
babble about falling blocks and sticks only makes your
position more comical and absurd.
That Pete "I'm not psychotic at all" Roehling, a known
liar, coward, and psychotically obsessed nut case is your
main sock puppet doesn't help your credibility much either.
Also, why do you ignore the detailed, irrefutable, quality
research of experts and put your blind faith in quacks like
Thomas "flat slab core" Eagar?


http://georgewashington.blogspot.com...-collapse.html

Structural Engineers Question Collapse of the World Trade Center
One of the arguments that government apologists have used in trying to
prop up the official story of why the World Trade Centers came down on
9/11 is that no structural engineers have questioned the government's
version of events. However, that is now changing.

The following structural engineers have now publicly challenged the
government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11:

Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider, both emeritus professors in structural
engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (translation here)

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Joseph M. Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member,
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont
Technical College

When considered along with the other prominent scientists who question
9/11, it becomes impossible for any thinking person to accept at face
value the government's version of the destruction of the World Trade Center.

More engineers and experts who explain why the Bush regime's
magic fire theory is physically impossible.

http://ae911truth.org/

Another one:

http://www.vermontguardian.com/comme...inTowers.shtml

And quite a few more:

http://911proof.com/10.html

And still more:

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/0...-of-wtc-7.html







--

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org



Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm


Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> On Oct 1, 5:21 pm, Henry <9...@treason.gov> wrote:

>> We're still waiting for just *one* example of a steel framed
>> building that fell straight down through itself due to fires
>> for any other reason than controlled demolition. You won't find
>> one, because that has never taken place without demolition.

> You apparantly believe that having survived the initial plane
> strike, it would have been perfectly safe to send people
> back into the building once utilities had been restored
> and rebuild the damaged structure as time permitted.

Wow. Where did that silly fantasy come from? It's really
quite telling that Bush parroting magic fire conspiracy
theorists can't seem to discuss the hard evidence in
a logical and coherent manner or produce any sort of credible
references to support their wild claims.

> As I've said before, I have no more expectation of talking
> you out of your demolition beliefs than I would of talking
> a creation scientist out of his slightly different religious
> beliefs.

Well, you certainly won't convince anyone if you continue
to insist that even if supports on only one side of a tall
building are removed, the building will still drop straight
down onto it's it's own footprint. The fact you "support"
such a wild, easily debunked theory with some meaningless
babble about falling blocks and sticks only makes your
position more comical and absurd.
That Pete "I'm not psychotic at all" Roehling, a known
liar, coward, and psychotically obsessed nut case is your
main sock puppet doesn't help your credibility much either.
Also, why do you ignore the detailed, irrefutable, quality
research of experts and put your blind faith in quacks like
Thomas "flat slab core" Eagar?


http://georgewashington.blogspot.com...-collapse.html

Structural Engineers Question Collapse of the World Trade Center
One of the arguments that government apologists have used in trying to
prop up the official story of why the World Trade Centers came down on
9/11 is that no structural engineers have questioned the government's
version of events. However, that is now changing.

The following structural engineers have now publicly challenged the
government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11:

Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider, both emeritus professors in structural
engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (translation here)

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Joseph M. Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member,
Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont
Technical College

When considered along with the other prominent scientists who question
9/11, it becomes impossible for any thinking person to accept at face
value the government's version of the destruction of the World Trade Center.

More engineers and experts who explain why the Bush regime's
magic fire theory is physically impossible.

http://ae911truth.org/

Another one:

http://www.vermontguardian.com/comme...inTowers.shtml

And quite a few more:

http://911proof.com/10.html

And still more:

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/0...-of-wtc-7.html







--

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org



Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm


Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

Henry wrote:
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 5:21 pm, Henry <9...@treason.gov> wrote:
>
> >> We're still waiting for just *one* example of a steel framed
> >> building that fell straight down through itself due to fires
> >> for any other reason than controlled demolition. You won't find
> >> one, because that has never taken place without demolition.
>
> > You apparantly believe that having survived the initial plane
> > strike, it would have been perfectly safe to send people
> > back into the building once utilities had been restored
> > and rebuild the damaged structure as time permitted.
>
> Wow. Where did that silly fantasy come from? It's really
> quite telling that Bush parroting magic fire conspiracy
> theorists can't seem to discuss the hard evidence in
> a logical and coherent manner or produce any sort of credible
> references to support their wild claims.

Cutting through that last batch of bullshit rhetoric, we
come down to one simple question:

After being struck by planes and having fires burning
for an hour or so, the twin towers either were or were
not in danger of collapse.

Had they not collapsed immediately and utilities, elevators
and all that stuff been restored, I suggest few if any people
would have felt safe from danger of collapse if asked to go
back to work.
>
> > As I've said before, I have no more expectation of talking
> > you out of your demolition beliefs than I would of talking
> > a creation scientist out of his slightly different religious
> > beliefs.
>
> Well, you certainly won't convince anyone if you continue
> to insist that even if supports on only one side of a tall
> building are removed, the building will still drop straight
> down onto it's it's own footprint.

I'm not the one desperately spamming every newsgroup
in sight Mr. Hansteen. When's your groundswell of public
opinion due to arrive anyway ?

If supports are removed from one side of a building such
that supports on the other sides are loaded past their point
of failure, the other sides will also fail. Nothing to do with
any magic properties of steel frame buildings either.

Henry wrote:
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 5:21 pm, Henry <9...@treason.gov> wrote:
>
> >> We're still waiting for just *one* example of a steel framed
> >> building that fell straight down through itself due to fires
> >> for any other reason than controlled demolition. You won't find
> >> one, because that has never taken place without demolition.
>
> > You apparantly believe that having survived the initial plane
> > strike, it would have been perfectly safe to send people
> > back into the building once utilities had been restored
> > and rebuild the damaged structure as time permitted.
>
> Wow. Where did that silly fantasy come from? It's really
> quite telling that Bush parroting magic fire conspiracy
> theorists can't seem to discuss the hard evidence in
> a logical and coherent manner or produce any sort of credible
> references to support their wild claims.

Cutting through that last batch of bullshit rhetoric, we
come down to one simple question:

After being struck by planes and having fires burning
for an hour or so, the twin towers either were or were
not in danger of collapse.

Had they not collapsed immediately and utilities, elevators
and all that stuff been restored, I suggest few if any people
would have felt safe from danger of collapse if asked to go
back to work.
>
> > As I've said before, I have no more expectation of talking
> > you out of your demolition beliefs than I would of talking
> > a creation scientist out of his slightly different religious
> > beliefs.
>
> Well, you certainly won't convince anyone if you continue
> to insist that even if supports on only one side of a tall
> building are removed, the building will still drop straight
> down onto it's it's own footprint.

I'm not the one desperately spamming every newsgroup
in sight Mr. Hansteen. When's your groundswell of public
opinion due to arrive anyway ?

If supports are removed from one side of a building such
that supports on the other sides are loaded past their point
of failure, the other sides will also fail. Nothing to do with
any magic properties of steel frame buildings either.

Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2:40 pm, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>>> Henry wrote:
>>>> rklei...@veritas.com wrote:

>>>>> Again, falling straight down is a common failure
>>>>> mode in quakes. More common than toppling over.

>>>> So "common" in fact, that no one can provide even one example

We're still waiting for just *one* example of a steel framed
building that fell straight down through itself for any other
reason than controlled demolition. You won't find one, because
that has never taken place.

>>>> of it ever taking place in a steel framed building. <chuckle>

>>> http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/info/damage/soft_story_e1.htm

>>> The above example took about 5 seconds googling.

>> You really have no clue what "soft story" construction refers
>> to, do you?

>> None of the WTC buildings were "soft story" construction.
>> Also, the building you cited is still standing, and it doesn't
>> appear to have a steel frame.

> The building in the picture is a 10-20 story building
> supported by bearing walls, just like the twin towers.

You failed to read and comprehend the definition of
soft story construction. Again, neither the towers
nor WTC7 fit the definition. In fact, in the towers
and WTC7, the first story was the strongest and had
the most support, which is the opposite of soft story
construction.

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/citycou...0Item%2041.pdf

"Technically referred to as a ?Soft, Weak, or Open Front Story?,
large openings or inadequate support in the ground floors and
inadequate connections to the second story of these buildings
can create structural weaknesses subject to collapse in a
significant earthquake, such as that expected in the Bay Area.
The buildings typically have parking or store fronts on the ground
floor. Most deaths and collapses in recent California earthquakes have
been in this type of building. The identified buildings were
constructed prior to the 1997 building code that first adequately
addressed this type of construction."

> Yeah stuff falls over in quakes.

Without controlled demolition, no tall steel framed building
has ever fallen in a matter even remotely close to WTC7, which
was straight down through itself at virtual free fall speed and
perfect symmetry. Not one, not ever. That's why no one can provide
an example of such a collapse ever taking place unless it was
controlled demolition.
That's also why it's so silly for magic fire cartoon conspiracy
kooks try to claim that it's normal and common place. Obviously,
it isn't. There are no examples. None anywhere - ever. Here's what
happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for
hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm


Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2:40 pm, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>>> Henry wrote:
>>>> rklei...@veritas.com wrote:

>>>>> Again, falling straight down is a common failure
>>>>> mode in quakes. More common than toppling over.

>>>> So "common" in fact, that no one can provide even one example

We're still waiting for just *one* example of a steel framed
building that fell straight down through itself for any other
reason than controlled demolition. You won't find one, because
that has never taken place.

>>>> of it ever taking place in a steel framed building. <chuckle>

>>> http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/info/damage/soft_story_e1.htm

>>> The above example took about 5 seconds googling.

>> You really have no clue what "soft story" construction refers
>> to, do you?

>> None of the WTC buildings were "soft story" construction.
>> Also, the building you cited is still standing, and it doesn't
>> appear to have a steel frame.

> The building in the picture is a 10-20 story building
> supported by bearing walls, just like the twin towers.

You failed to read and comprehend the definition of
soft story construction. Again, neither the towers
nor WTC7 fit the definition. In fact, in the towers
and WTC7, the first story was the strongest and had
the most support, which is the opposite of soft story
construction.

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/citycou...0Item%2041.pdf

"Technically referred to as a ?Soft, Weak, or Open Front Story?,
large openings or inadequate support in the ground floors and
inadequate connections to the second story of these buildings
can create structural weaknesses subject to collapse in a
significant earthquake, such as that expected in the Bay Area.
The buildings typically have parking or store fronts on the ground
floor. Most deaths and collapses in recent California earthquakes have
been in this type of building. The identified buildings were
constructed prior to the 1997 building code that first adequately
addressed this type of construction."

> Yeah stuff falls over in quakes.

Without controlled demolition, no tall steel framed building
has ever fallen in a matter even remotely close to WTC7, which
was straight down through itself at virtual free fall speed and
perfect symmetry. Not one, not ever. That's why no one can provide
an example of such a collapse ever taking place unless it was
controlled demolition.
That's also why it's so silly for magic fire cartoon conspiracy
kooks try to claim that it's normal and common place. Obviously,
it isn't. There are no examples. None anywhere - ever. Here's what
happens to steel framed buildings exposed to raging infernos for
hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm


Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

On Oct 4, 5:13 pm, Henry <9...@treason.gov> wrote:
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 2:40 pm, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
> >> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> >>> Henry wrote:
> >>>> rklei...@veritas.com wrote:
> >>>>> Again, falling straight down is a common failure
> >>>>> mode in quakes. More common than toppling over.
> >>>> So "common" in fact, that no one can provide even one example
>
> We're still waiting for just *one* example of a steel framed
> building that fell straight down through itself for any other
> reason than controlled demolition. You won't find one, because
> that has never taken place.

The first and second stories of a metal frame office building
collapsed. This photo demonstrates the lateral force of the quake and
the structural damage caused by the sine wave effect of the force.
Note the unbroken windows.

(kobe quake)
http://tinyurl.com/2bscko

Interesting shot of buckled steel column from Mexico City.
Note the resemblance to a squashed soda can.

http://tinyurl.com/ywjhm6

Four common failure modes in quakes.
http://tinyurl.com/35etfv

Two urls explaining why the architecture of the
towers is not the same thing as an ordinary
steel framed building. (Hint, think bearing
walls vs. skeleton)

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6363426.html



> You failed to read and comprehend the definition of
> soft story construction. Again, neither the towers
> nor WTC7 fit the definition. In fact, in the towers
> and WTC7, the first story was the strongest and had
> the most support, which is the opposite of soft story
> construction.


"A soft story is a story in a building (often the first story)
with few partitions and/or open exterior walls (such as
garage doors, large windows, etc.). This openness makes
it vulnerable to earthquake damage. "

Often but not necessarily the first floor. Any weak floor
can collapse the same way.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/cdroms/...ent/647022.htm

http://tinyurl.com/36r8f6

On Oct 4, 5:13 pm, Henry <9...@treason.gov> wrote:
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 2:40 pm, Henry <9...@insidejob.gov> wrote:
> >> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> >>> Henry wrote:
> >>>> rklei...@veritas.com wrote:
> >>>>> Again, falling straight down is a common failure
> >>>>> mode in quakes. More common than toppling over.
> >>>> So "common" in fact, that no one can provide even one example
>
> We're still waiting for just *one* example of a steel framed
> building that fell straight down through itself for any other
> reason than controlled demolition. You won't find one, because
> that has never taken place.

The first and second stories of a metal frame office building
collapsed. This photo demonstrates the lateral force of the quake and
the structural damage caused by the sine wave effect of the force.
Note the unbroken windows.

(kobe quake)
http://tinyurl.com/2bscko

Interesting shot of buckled steel column from Mexico City.
Note the resemblance to a squashed soda can.

http://tinyurl.com/ywjhm6

Four common failure modes in quakes.
http://tinyurl.com/35etfv

Two urls explaining why the architecture of the
towers is not the same thing as an ordinary
steel framed building. (Hint, think bearing
walls vs. skeleton)

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
http://www.designnews.com/article/CA6363426.html



> You failed to read and comprehend the definition of
> soft story construction. Again, neither the towers
> nor WTC7 fit the definition. In fact, in the towers
> and WTC7, the first story was the strongest and had
> the most support, which is the opposite of soft story
> construction.


"A soft story is a story in a building (often the first story)
with few partitions and/or open exterior walls (such as
garage doors, large windows, etc.). This openness makes
it vulnerable to earthquake damage. "

Often but not necessarily the first floor. Any weak floor
can collapse the same way.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/cdroms/...ent/647022.htm

http://tinyurl.com/36r8f6

Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> Henry <9...@treason.gov> wrote:

>> We're still waiting for just *one* example of a steel framed
>> building that fell straight down through itself for any other
>> reason than controlled demolition. You won't find one, because
>> that has never taken place.

> The first and second stories of a metal frame office building
> collapsed. This photo demonstrates the lateral force of the quake and
> the structural damage caused by the sine wave effect of the force.
> Note the unbroken windows.

> (kobe quake)
> http://tinyurl.com/2bscko

> Interesting shot of buckled steel column from Mexico City.
> Note the resemblance to a squashed soda can.

> http://tinyurl.com/ywjhm6

> Four common failure modes in quakes.
> http://tinyurl.com/35etfv

None of those buildings completely collapsed in a manner
even remotely close to WTC7 or the towers. Did you post
those examples just to be silly?

> Two urls explaining why the architecture of the
> towers is not the same thing as an ordinary
> steel framed building. (Hint, think bearing
> walls vs. skeleton)

> http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Did you even bother to read it? As always, it's full of
errors because it's attempting to defend what has been
proved beyond any doubt to be impossible by a large
number of highly credible and irrefutable experts.

From your link:

"The Twin towers are radically different in structural design
as the exterior wall is used as the load-bearing wall. (A load
bearing wall supports the weight of the floors.)"

Your new "expert" is a fool, a liar, or both. The central
cores obviously carried vertical loads since the floor trusses
were attached to the core columns at one end and the perimeter
columns at the other end. How can you fail to comprehend such a
simple, easily verified, common sense fact, and why would you
cite a clown who can't as an "expert"?
Magic fire cartoon conspiracy kooks often try downplay
the strength, size, and significance of the massive central
core structures. Bush's 9-11 commission, and your clownish kook
hero, Thomas Eagar, actually denied their very existence.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

Here's more idiocy from your new "expert".

"The only interior columns are located in the core area, which
contains the elevators. The outer wall carries the building vertical
loads and provides the entire resistance to wind. The wall consists of
closely spaced vertical columns (21 columns 10 feet apart) tied together
by horizontal spandrel beams that girdle the tower at every floor."

There were not 21 perimeter columns spaced 10 feet apart
on each wall. There were 59 columns spaced just over three
feet apart on each wall.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

Yet again, you have shown us that you know little to
nothing about the towers' construction or their collapse,
and you rely on blatant disinformation for your "facts".

>> You failed to read and comprehend the definition of
>> soft story construction. Again, neither the towers
>> nor WTC7 fit the definition. In fact, in the towers
>> and WTC7, the first story was the strongest and had
>> the most support, which is the opposite of soft story
>> construction.

> "A soft story is a story in a building (often the first story)
> with few partitions and/or open exterior walls (such as
> garage doors, large windows, etc.). This openness makes
> it vulnerable to earthquake damage. "

The lower floors of the towers and WTC7 were the strongest,
not the weakest. That's still the opposite of soft story
construction. You sure do get stupid when you attempt
to defend the Bush regime's impossible lies.


--

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org



Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm


Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> Henry <9...@treason.gov> wrote:

>> We're still waiting for just *one* example of a steel framed
>> building that fell straight down through itself for any other
>> reason than controlled demolition. You won't find one, because
>> that has never taken place.

> The first and second stories of a metal frame office building
> collapsed. This photo demonstrates the lateral force of the quake and
> the structural damage caused by the sine wave effect of the force.
> Note the unbroken windows.

> (kobe quake)
> http://tinyurl.com/2bscko

> Interesting shot of buckled steel column from Mexico City.
> Note the resemblance to a squashed soda can.

> http://tinyurl.com/ywjhm6

> Four common failure modes in quakes.
> http://tinyurl.com/35etfv

None of those buildings completely collapsed in a manner
even remotely close to WTC7 or the towers. Did you post
those examples just to be silly?

> Two urls explaining why the architecture of the
> towers is not the same thing as an ordinary
> steel framed building. (Hint, think bearing
> walls vs. skeleton)

> http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Did you even bother to read it? As always, it's full of
errors because it's attempting to defend what has been
proved beyond any doubt to be impossible by a large
number of highly credible and irrefutable experts.

From your link:

"The Twin towers are radically different in structural design
as the exterior wall is used as the load-bearing wall. (A load
bearing wall supports the weight of the floors.)"

Your new "expert" is a fool, a liar, or both. The central
cores obviously carried vertical loads since the floor trusses
were attached to the core columns at one end and the perimeter
columns at the other end. How can you fail to comprehend such a
simple, easily verified, common sense fact, and why would you
cite a clown who can't as an "expert"?
Magic fire cartoon conspiracy kooks often try downplay
the strength, size, and significance of the massive central
core structures. Bush's 9-11 commission, and your clownish kook
hero, Thomas Eagar, actually denied their very existence.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

Here's more idiocy from your new "expert".

"The only interior columns are located in the core area, which
contains the elevators. The outer wall carries the building vertical
loads and provides the entire resistance to wind. The wall consists of
closely spaced vertical columns (21 columns 10 feet apart) tied together
by horizontal spandrel beams that girdle the tower at every floor."

There were not 21 perimeter columns spaced 10 feet apart
on each wall. There were 59 columns spaced just over three
feet apart on each wall.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

Yet again, you have shown us that you know little to
nothing about the towers' construction or their collapse,
and you rely on blatant disinformation for your "facts".

>> You failed to read and comprehend the definition of
>> soft story construction. Again, neither the towers
>> nor WTC7 fit the definition. In fact, in the towers
>> and WTC7, the first story was the strongest and had
>> the most support, which is the opposite of soft story
>> construction.

> "A soft story is a story in a building (often the first story)
> with few partitions and/or open exterior walls (such as
> garage doors, large windows, etc.). This openness makes
> it vulnerable to earthquake damage. "

The lower floors of the towers and WTC7 were the strongest,
not the weakest. That's still the opposite of soft story
construction. You sure do get stupid when you attempt
to defend the Bush regime's impossible lies.


--

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://stj911.org
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
http://www.911truth.org



Here's what happens to steel framed buildings exposed
to raging infernos for hours on end.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

On 9-11-01, WTC7, a 47 story steel framed building, which
had only small, random fires, dropped in perfect symmetry
at near free fall speed as in a perfectly executed controlled
demolition.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html
http://wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm


Ever wonder who benefits from the 300 MILLION
U.S. taxpayer dollars spent each DAY in Iraq?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-08.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=21

"They are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And
there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to
take... men with blind hatred and armed with lethal weapons
who are capable of any atrocity... they respect no laws of
warfare or morality."
-bu$h describing his own illegal invasion of Iraq.
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/
http://counterpunch.org/
http://responsiblewealth.org/

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things
that matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

Henry wrote:
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:

> > (kobe quake)
> > http://tinyurl.com/2bscko
>
> > Interesting shot of buckled steel column from Mexico City.
> > Note the resemblance to a squashed soda can.
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/ywjhm6
>
> > Four common failure modes in quakes.
> > http://tinyurl.com/35etfv
>
> None of those buildings completely collapsed in a manner
> even remotely close to WTC7 or the towers. Did you post
> those examples just to be silly?

Point being that steel framed buildings drop
just like any other building. They don't "fall over"


> "The Twin towers are radically different in structural design
> as the exterior wall is used as the load-bearing wall. (A load
> bearing wall supports the weight of the floors.)"
>
> Your new "expert" is a fool, a liar, or both. The central
> cores obviously carried vertical loads since the floor trusses
> were attached to the core columns at one end and the perimeter
> columns at the other end.

Uhh... no. Both the center and perimeter columns
were load bearing. The trusses tied the two together.
This differs from traditional skeleton framing which
uses a grid of columns.


> > "A soft story is a story in a building (often the first story)
> > with few partitions and/or open exterior walls (such as
> > garage doors, large windows, etc.). This openness makes
> > it vulnerable to earthquake damage. "
>
> The lower floors of the towers and WTC7 were the strongest,
> not the weakest. That's still the opposite of soft story
> construction.

I was looking specifically at the twin towers, both
of which collapsed at their weakened floor.

>You sure do get stupid when you attempt
> to defend the Bush regime's impossible lies.

Stupid is being the kind of asshole who figures
he's going to instruct architects, demolition firms,
and engineering faculties about building construction.
That would be you sir.