11-08-08, 09:00 PM #2201
11-08-08, 09:10 PM #2202
If you actually read the article it says they found the cause of the collapse. The cause had nothing to do with explosives. They later released their report stating that they found no evidence of temperatures anywhere near the 2700C needed to evaporate steel.
11-08-08, 09:29 PM #2203
And here is a video on the evidence:
11-08-08, 09:44 PM #2204
But you are still playing dumb. There is evidence that the steel reached a temperature that caused it to get very soft. Abolhassan Astaneh commented that he thought the steel reached temperatures over 1000C.
Once again, explosives explode, they don’t just make the temperature higher.
11-08-08, 10:01 PM #2205
There was steel at the WTC site for about six months and thousands had access to it. To say that is was rapidly removed or destroyed is wrong. You will no doubt keep saying it though as facts are not important to your conspiracy fantasy.
11-08-08, 10:11 PM #2206
Originally Posted by scott3x
For office fires, yes, but not for a thermate induced demolition. Surely you realize that if evaporated steel were truly found, it would be fatal to the official story?
Though I'm not sure how you would even identify something that has been evaporated.
All the credible evidence points to the temperatures being not much over 1000C.
Originally Posted by scott3x
There was, as I have already mentioned; the fact that NIST didn't include it in their report should be something you should consider deeply.
2- Based on your previous statement, I believe my response made sense.
That is what it looks like when one of the tallest buildings in the world collapses from the top down.
11-08-08, 10:17 PM #2207
You are just altering the argument by then saying 'oh bit it's possible'.
11-08-08, 10:35 PM #2208
Originally Posted by scott3ximagine dumping dust on a structure- would it demolish the structure beneath it or would it simply run off the sides of the structure?
If you want a technical argument as to why the pancake theory is hopelessly flawed, you may want to attempt to understand an article from Gordon Ross, who holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering:
I personally don't understand it, but I've seen other arguments regarding the conservation of momentum that are certainly simpler, such as physicist Steven Jones' argument:
The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several engineers/scientists (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...fs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the southwest corner) falls to earth in less than 6.6 seconds, while an object dropped from the roof would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...fs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum — one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case — somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans.
How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses (Harris, 2000).
Originally Posted by scott3xThere is apparently one example in the collapses where the explosives weren't detonated quite fast enough to avoid a bit of angular momentum:
Originally Posted by scott3xTop ~ 34 floors of South Tower topple over.
What happens to the block and its angular momentum?
We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then — and this I’m still puzzling over — this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)
can knock over lamp posts
and they turn concrete to dust while it is collapsing.
Is there anything explosives can’t do?
"The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites"
11-09-08, 12:21 AM #2209
So the temperatures reached that high, just as seen in the tests and the simulations. This is corroborated by the other evidence such as the bowing, molten material, soft steel ect. All the different pieces of evidence point to the temperatures being near 1000C.
Last edited by shaman_; 11-09-08 at 03:53 PM. Reason: below not begin
11-09-08, 12:34 AM #2210
11-09-08, 02:16 AM #2211
Last edited by shaman_; 11-09-08 at 02:30 AM.
11-09-08, 08:11 AM #2212
Search and Rescue teams often use Cutting torches to remove beams that the "Jaws of Life" weren't designed to cut through. It would explain "Melting".
11-09-08, 08:23 AM #2213
Besides all this is the fact that UNREACTED nano-thermite has been found! that is not part of any cleanup cutting!
Pictures of unreacted thermite 1 minute 25 seconds into this clip:
You are only able to dismiss evidence of molten metal as being from cutting torches because the very first person whose job it was to inspect the steel only arrived on site 10 days after 911! so any molten material seen after that can be assumed to be from cutting torches by people who wish to believe the official story.
11-09-08, 08:24 AM #2214
11-09-08, 09:39 AM #2215
Scott, HS, Psi...meet Stryder...he's a super mod here...and the mod of my computer forum. Sooo...have a little respect
So..Stryder...you must be feeling the need to for massive frustration, to be posting here....now if I can only get Ben the Man in here.
11-09-08, 09:46 AM #2216
But does not reach temperatures high enough to vaporize steel. Nanothermite, and regular thermite are chemically identical. The only difference between the two is nanothermite is ground into microscopic size particles, massively increasing the surface area for burning. It only makes the reaction happen much much faster. (not the best thing for cutting through stuff..see the video where they had to use a flower pot to slow the thermite reaction down, so it could cut through the car). The explosive force created by superheating of the air around the nanothermite would do nothing to the support columns.
11-09-08, 10:53 AM #2217
I'd like to make another common sense argument on why I don't think thermite, nanothermite, or thermate was used. I'll tell a little story to illustrate my point.
Scott, HS, Psi...You're wife has been bugging you for months to build her a garden shed in the backyard to store her gardening stuff in. You have been putting it off for months. You poured the slab foundation this summer, but that's about as far as you got. It is now time to frame out the shed...so you've gone down to Home Depot and bought 50 or so 8 foot long 2x4's to build the frame....but this is really a two man job...and you know ole Mac is quite handy, and has a set of tools that rivals Bob Villa's...so you give me a call and ask me to come over to help.
The first job that we need to do is cut the 2x4's to length. I go to the back of my truck and offer you 3 choices of tools to cut the boards:
A. A laser guided miter saw:
B. A hack saw:
C. A steak knife:
Please select which tool you would use to cut the boards. We'll continue in the next post...as you can only post 3 picture per post...
11-09-08, 10:53 AM #2218
After we have cut the boards to their proper length, we will have to attach them together with large framing nails. Again..I give you 3 choices for tools to drive the large framing nails into the boards.
A. A compressed air driven framing nail gun:
B. An 8oz. ball pin hammer:
C. A wing-tipped loafer:
Please choose your tool.
If you chose "A", then you chose correctly, Why? because these are the tools that professionals use. After years of doing the job everyday, they have determined these tools to be the best.
If you chose "B", then you're kinda right. These tools are really made to do other jobs, but could possibly be used to do this job. They would take much longer to do the job and not give as precise as results...not the best chose, but at least feasable.
If you chose "C", then you're an idiot, or your a contestant on "Survivor", because the only time you would use "C" class tools, is if you were stranded on a desert island, and had nothing else.
To me thermite, nanothermite, and thermate are all "B" class tools. They really aren't designed to do the task at hand. It doesn't make sense to choose a "B" class tool, when "A" class tools are readily available. Professionals use high explosives to cut through structural steel, that's the "A" class tool for the job. It's specifically designed for it.
It would be so much easier to get a hold of commercial-grade demolition charges, tools made for the job, than it would be to design a system that would allow thermite or the likes to cut horizontally.
People do things the easiest way possible. Just as you would have chosen the mitre saw over the hack saw....the insiders would have made then same choice.
11-09-08, 02:12 PM #2219
In honesty the only way that any conspiracy like this could bare any weight is if the building did have charges fitted in case the building couldn't be saved so as to create a kind of controlled collapse so as to save the surrounding area, but even then that would pushing it.
After all for people to plant such charges that would just sit there in the event of such an occurrence is bound to allow someone to have a slip of a confidentiality agreement and a statement made to someone that would have fear mongered about such explosives existing prior to 9/11.
All I can see with this conspiracy is a dead horse being flogged repeatedly, there is no way it's going to get up and pull a cart.
Btw MacG, Great Anology.
11-09-08, 02:29 PM #2220
By Jozen-Bo in forum The CesspoolLast Post: 08-02-08, 03:09 PMReplies: 81
By Tnerb in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 07-16-08, 02:06 PMReplies: 33
By Thoreau in forum PoliticsLast Post: 12-09-07, 12:19 PMReplies: 18
By Lord Hillyer in forum The CesspoolLast Post: 11-13-07, 02:33 PMReplies: 11
By Orleander in forum Site FeedbackLast Post: 10-27-07, 11:45 PMReplies: 16