WTC Collapses

air is invisible, you wouldn't see it, compressed or otherwise.

edit - syringe analogy is not compatable with any notion of elevator-basement fireballs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

...and your explanation(s) for the alumino-iron microspheres would be?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A truther taking the interpretation that suits them? Headspin I'm shocked.

Then let me clarify for you. The collapse began when a column buckled somewhere between floor 5 - 14.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How do you explain the freefall in WTC 7's collapse? Watch David Chandler's, the physics teacher who made NIST admit it for WTC 7, latest explanation here

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4

 

eh? I was pointing to how your statement "One of the bottom floors completely gave way and gravity did the rest" negates common anti-truther arguments. This is in no way even similar to using information selectively.

You are happy to promote the idea that failure on a single floor causes complete catastrophic freefall collapse, but arguments abound here that it would take too long to rig "every floor", "someone would have seen", "miles of wiring" etc. these arguments are rendered bogus if you accept a single floor failure could cause catastrophic collapse. the only issue then is whether the single floor was destroyed by demolition devices or from assymetrical damage from fire.

so how does a single column buckling cause a catastrophic symmetrical freefall collapse?

if the columns were made of wet spagetti, the building would not have come down faster.

 

In that report they estimate that the temperatures were around 1000C.

There are other possible causes for those spheres.
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm#Iron Spheres

 

bump: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2084666&postcount=2264

 

OMG, that's a slam dunk!

 

Its actually hard to find decent footage in youtube. I looked for a while and will take your word on it. I can’t find any clear footage of WTC1 in the minutes leading up to the collapse at all, which leaves it somewhat unresolved. For the moment, I will trust the photos and the testimony.

Are you suggesting that documents such as this are fraudulent? http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf

He mentions melting of girders. Melting girders is not the same as liquid metal.

Astaneh-Asl is not quoted saying that it vaporised. That is paraphrase.

If you read Astaneh’s work there is no mention or molten or vaporised steel. He has made it very clear that he believes the fires alone were responsible for the collapse.

http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm
“Mr. Astaneh-Asl also rejects such alternative theories. "I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff," he says.
"Those are lightweight buildings," he adds. "There was no need for explosives to bring them down."”

He goes into more detail as to what he means here –

“To support his theory, he cites the way the steel has been bent at several connection points that once joined the floors to the vertical columns. If the internal supporting columns had collapsed upon impact, he says, the connection points would show cracks, because the damage would have been done while the steel was cold. Instead, he describes the connections as being smoothly warped: "If you remember the Salvador Dalí paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted -- it's kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees."
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i15/15a02701.htm

Softened steel but not liquid steel.

Molten metal is not automatically molten steel. There were other metals which were of a lower melting point. People, even firefighters generally aren’t able to tell the difference simply by looking at it.

There have also been quotes regarding molten metal or steel that when scrutinized were clearly referring to red hot steel/metal and not molten. So some skepticism here is most certainly advised.

They were able to determine enough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyRw7gEKpBQ

What sort of ‘tests’ should they have been performing?

I will look into it. I never finished the last document you gave me to read.

You are incorrect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w6HWJ476z4

I’ll say it again, Astaneh-Asl and others inspected the steel for weeks and what they found supported the official story. The steel wasn’t spirited away and it wasn’t destroyed quickly.

It took six months to remove it all. Anyone could have grabbed a piece.

But that is not evidence for anything. Saying it over and over doesn’t change that. No 767 has ever smashed into a high rise at 500mph before. That doesn’t prove it can’t happen.

Don’t know what building you are referring to. The critical point of the analogy is that fire reaches temperatures high enough to weaken steel and cause it to collapse. There are more than two examples of this.

There was water but the pressure was weak. There is plenty of firefighter testimony of this.

The collapse began on one of the lower floors and the upper floors followed. The whole building was not in freefall, a section of the building was for a few seconds. This however does not automatically equal a controlled demolition.

Do you ever think that if the government could pull this off, and would even bother blowing up a building not hit by the plane, after seven hours (lets ignore that the firefighters could see it was going to collapse

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) don’t you think they would do it in a manner that didn’t look like a controlled demolition?

They were not designed to carry all the floors above them once they had gained some momentum.

The firefighter testimony contradicts your claim.

Not the velocity you would expect from a squib though.

It’s air, dust and other materials coming out the windows.

Would squibs be ‘focused’ anyway?

There are a few points to be made there. 1. Where is the actual evidence of the analysis? I’m not suggesting that one wasn’t done but that it would need to be checked. 2. Why would Robertson contradict his boss? 3. The building did stand for an hour and tens of thousands of lives were saved. 4 (Most importantly) Structures have failed before when tested with conditions that they were supposedly designed for.

 

Nicely said. I'd imagine he might argue that the compressed air is what's expulsing the pulverized dust. In a way, ofcourse, that'd be right. However, seeing that some were created before the building collapse even reached that far, the only logical explanation is that the collapsing building had nothing to do with their creation.

 

You need to read it closer. In FEMA Appendix C they say intergranular melting occurred at 1000 degrees C. That is far more reaching than what you are trying to show. The melting temperature of steel is 1500 degrees C so this steel melting at 1000 degrees C was highly unusual and they said it happened because a eutectic reaction with sulfur had occurred.

There have been experiments done to see if sulfur from gypsum could have been the cause and the answer is no as it does not come out of the gypsum solution in a monotomic state. This wouldn't be the case with thermate, which was developed to cause a lower melting point for steel when cutting it with incendiaries, using sulfur to cause a eutectic to form.

You had also asked for reliable sources for molten metal earlier and whether it was steel or not. It looks like FEMA Appendix C answered both.

 

I admit that at this point i am just scanning through the posts.

One thing i noticed is gysum. What is gysum?

 

Fire proof under wall board, very chalky, and has a normal moisture content that resist fire.

 

Thanks. I thought maybe he meant gypsum but that is too obvious. I cant find much about it on google.

 

It is a recognized fire resistant safety material.

 

Yes he did miss the

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

National Gypsum Company: Fire Safety Information
Important Fire Safety Information 5/8” Type X Gypsum Wallboard Standards, Testing, and Certification. Summary. Type X gypsum wallboard, 5/8" in thickness ...

www.nationalgypsum.com/resources/safetyinformati... - 63k - Similar pages

http://www.nationalgypsum.com/resources/safetyinformation/

 

:bugeye:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Though you would get a laugh.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, I did have a typo and missed the "P" in gypsum. Thanks for pointing that out. It is fixed so nobody else misunderstands.

 

Demolition devices?

With the appropriate expertise they were able to identify signs of cutting and signs of fire. These are the two links I posted in a reply to Tony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyRw7gEKpBQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w6HWJ476z4

That is certainly possible. They still had access to thousands of tons worth though. They found clues that supported the official story. They found nothing that implied demolition.

He was asked to be part of an investigation team with FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers. There was a non disclosure agreement so that the findings would not be used against the owners and designers of the buildings. So he refused.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007_05_27_archive.html