View Poll Results: How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

Voters
51. This poll is closed
  • Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    22 43.14%
  • Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 0%
  • Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    10 19.61%
  • Allah!

    2 3.92%
  • People keep flogging a dead horse!

    17 33.33%

Thread: WTC Collapses

  1. #1421
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    i've finally been able to view this video.
    nowhere does this man say he was at the debris field, nowhere does he state he was refused access to the debris field.

    if this man was so sure that these "red chips", which we have no idea where they came from by the way, was some kind of incendiary device then why does he wait untill 2005 to publish his findings?????????

    the above video does nothing to prove reliable witnesses was denied access to the debris feild nor does it prove unexploded bomb material was found in the debris field.
    Steve Jones did not get involved in investigating the events in NYC of Sept. 11, 2001 until four years later in 2005. From what I understand, it was the viewing of a video of the collapse of WTC 7 for the first time, in May 2005, that spurred him to look deeper into the events.

    The red/gray chips are contained in several dust samples which were taken from known locations. One was the apartment of artist Janet McKinley which was very close to the WTC site. She saved the dust for a future project she thought she would do called something like "All that remains". Another dust sample was obtained from a young man who was near the Brooklyn bridge and saved the dust sample. The same constituents and characteristics (red/gray chips and iron microspheres) are found in both samples.

    Some of Steve Jones' findings are also confirmed by the USGS analysis of the WTC dust, which was done at the time.
    Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 01-24-09 at 09:10 AM.

  2. #1422
    the red/ gray chips could be nothing more than decades old paint.
    iron microspheres wouldn't be unusual in a collapse such as WTC.

    it all boils down to this:
    when those towers collapsed it was stated ON THE AIR "it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions".
    now, if you were an investigator, cop, fireman, would you look for explosives in the debris field?
    this brings up two very important questions.
    first. who was refused access to the debris field and for what reason.
    second. was any type of explosive found in the pile.
    you simply can not brush these aside.

  3. #1423
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    the red/ gray chips could be nothing more than decades old paint.
    iron microspheres wouldn't be unusual in a collapse such as WTC.

    it all boils down to this:
    when those towers collapsed it was stated ON THE AIR "it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions".
    now, if you were an investigator, cop, fireman, would you look for explosives in the debris field?
    this brings up two very important questions.
    first. who was refused access to the debris field and for what reason.
    second. was any type of explosive found in the pile.
    you simply can not brush these aside.
    You are making big assumptions here, that people would have been looking for explosives. What do you think would be left?

    NIST has admitted they did not test what little steel they got for any exotic accelerant residue or explosive residue.

  4. #1424
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    You are making big assumptions here, that people would have been looking for explosives. What do you think would be left?
    come on tony, you aren't that naive.
    scenario:
    you are an investigator that just witnessed the collapse of WTC and heard the reporter say "it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions".
    and you aren't going to be on the look out for explosives???
    what would be left? haven't a clue, but i'm sure the firemen that were there would know.

    NIST has admitted they did not test what little steel they got for any exotic accelerant residue or explosive residue.
    NIST wasn't the only people on that pile.
    i'm positive that the firemen that were there had hands on knowledge what to look for in regards to the collapse

  5. #1425
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Leopold, I will make an assumption now that if the towers were taken down in covert demolitions one of the first things the perpetrators would worry about is leaving behind tell tale signs.

    I think one of the problems they did have, with at least keeping the initiation quiet by using incendiaries, is that there was molten metal left over. The firemen and many others were perplexed by it and reported it but it wouldn't be obvious to them and most of us, that the rubble fires could not have caused it.

    The molten metal is what let the proverbial cat out of the bag though, that there was more than meets the eye. The official story has pretty much ignored it. The only official pronouncement on it is in one NIST FAQ where the answer to a question about it is that it simply could have happened in the rubble fires. None of this molten metal was ever tested. I find that quite strange and finally suspicious and in the same boat with getting rid of most of the steel before NIST started their investigation.
    Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 01-24-09 at 09:47 PM.

  6. #1426
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Why not?

    Explosives wouldn't explain molten metal either.

    Would thermite, thermate, superthermite, or whichever incendiary are talking about today, explain molten metal?
    Regular fires in the rubble piles could not get hot enough to melt steel, and thermite can explain the molten metal and the intense heat in the rubble piles. It would also explain the corrosion on the horizontal surfaces of cars.

  7. #1427
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    You responded before I added a comment on the bottom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    I think one of the problems they did have, with at least keeping the initiation quiet by using incendiaries, is that there was molten metal left over. The firemen and many others were perplexed by it and reported it but it wouldn't be obvious to them and most of us, that the rubble fires could not have caused it.
    Why not?

    Explosives aren't a good explanation for molten metal either in the rubble.

    Would thermite, thermate, superthermite, or whichever incendiary are talking about today, lead to molten metal?

    The theory relies on the government feeling a need to jeopardize the whole master conspiracy by blowing up the buildings, right in front of everyone’s eyes, where thousands of people could grab the evidence. These are buildings that were going to be smashed into by planes at full speed. Supposedly they have money and capability to pull off such a complex plan, involving thousands of people (none of whom have come forward), yet they leave evidence everywhere bring it down in such a manner where, if you believe the truthers, it is easy to uncover the conspiracy for what it is. To say that it stretches credibility is an understatement.

  8. #1428
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    Regular fires in the rubble piles could not get hot enough to melt steel,
    Steel? Why does molten material have to be steel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    and thermite can explain the molten metal and the intense heat in the rubble piles.
    As could the fires burning the materials within the buildings.

  9. #1429
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Steel? Why does molten material have to be steel?
    There is a high likelihood that it was steel since the molten material coming out of the South Tower moments before collapse fluoresced yellow orange, which aluminum does not do. There were also huge amounts of it.

    I would still like to know why it was not tested. We would know for sure what it was then.

    As could the fires burning the materials within the buildings.
    Diffuse flame fires cannot melt steel. If you don't know that you need to research it.

    The surface temperatures of the rubble piles of not only the towers but WTC 7 also and were 1350 degrees F days after the collapses. If the surface was that hot it was at least 1000 degrees hotter down in the pile according to some estimates. Again diffuse flame fires can't get that hot. Incendiaries burn at 4500 to 5000 degrees F.

  10. #1430
    Just my $0.02...

    I was standing at the base of the towers when it all happened. There were no explosions prior to the buildings going down. The tops of both towers went at the impact point, and lower floors followed one-by-one. It was because of the planes and the weakening of the steel that the towers collapsed.

    The melting point of steel is irrelevant. The melting point is the place where the metal turns to liquid. It is painfully obvious that steel would stop supporting the weight of multiple floors of more steel, glass, furniture, wiring, plumbing etc... LONG before it became a fluid. All it would take is a 40%-50% reduction in strength coupled with the massive physical damage.

    My complete lack of superstition was shaken a tad as I collected burning debris off of the yacht I was captaining at the time. The first piece of paper I picked up was an insurance form and the top sentence read: "In the event of damage to the building..."

  11. #1431
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    929
    The tops of both towers went at the impact point, and lower floors followed one-by-one.
    .
    So why haven't we told the mass of steel and concrete and other material on each level in order to check the conservation of momentum of that <18 second collapse?

    Didn't the designers of the buildings have to figure out such things?

    psik

  12. #1432
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by swivel View Post
    Just my $0.02...

    I was standing at the base of the towers when it all happened. There were no explosions prior to the buildings going down. The tops of both towers went at the impact point, and lower floors followed one-by-one. It was because of the planes and the weakening of the steel that the towers collapsed.

    The melting point of steel is irrelevant. The melting point is the place where the metal turns to liquid. It is painfully obvious that steel would stop supporting the weight of multiple floors of more steel, glass, furniture, wiring, plumbing etc... LONG before it became a fluid. All it would take is a 40%-50% reduction in strength coupled with the massive physical damage.

    My complete lack of superstition was shaken a tad as I collected burning debris off of the yacht I was captaining at the time. The first piece of paper I picked up was an insurance form and the top sentence read: "In the event of damage to the building..."
    What you are saying would all be well and good if the investigation had shown through physical evidence that the steel got hot enough to cause the collapse initiations. The problem is they got rid of 99.7% of the steel before the NIST was commissioned to start it's investigation in Sept. 2002.

    Additionally, the tower columns had design safety factors of 3.00 to 1 in the central core and 5.00 to 1 on the perimeter columns when considering only gravity. In other words they could support over three times what they were carrying. So a 40 to 50% loss of strength doesn't quite hack it. However, I would be satisfied to see that if the small amount of steel evidence provided to the NIST showed it. The problem is it does not. Out of 170 areas tested on the steel they did get only 3 places showed parts of the steel experienced temperatures higher than 250 degrees C, where it has lost no strength, and none above 600 degrees C, where it has lost half it's strength. In other words 98% of the actual steel tested showed it had not reached temperatures where it lost any strength and the remaining 2% lost no more than half it's strength.

    My wife's cousin worked in the upper floors of the South Tower and he was coming in late and watched the whole thing from the street also.
    Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 01-24-09 at 10:32 PM.

  13. #1433
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    .
    So why haven't we told the mass of steel and concrete and other material on each level in order to check the conservation of momentum of that <18 second collapse?

    Didn't the designers of the buildings have to figure out such things?

    psik
    I don't understand a word of this. Please elaborate on what you think the designers should have figured and explain the problem with the time of collapse.

    How long would it take a dropped apple to fall from the top of the WTC? The building went down like a stone once the impact points gave way.

    Again, I was at the Winter Garden when the North Tower went and there were no sounds prior to the collapse, which incidentally sounded nothing like I would have expected. It sounded like a jet engine revving up for take-off.

  14. #1434
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    There is a high likelihood that it was steel since the molten material coming out of the South Tower moments before collapse fluoresced yellow orange, which aluminum does not do.
    Truthers seem keen to rule out all possibilities and grab the conclusion that fits their theory. It could have been aluminium mixed into a molten soup of the contents of the offices. It could have contained iron which had been freed in a eutectic mix. I don’t know for sure what it is but truthers don’t seem interested in other possibilities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    There were also huge amounts of it.
    True. There was many tons of aluminium in the towers though.

    Would thermite have produced that much molten steel? Wasn’t it just intended to cut the columns and weaken the structure? If that was tons of steel then how many tons of thermite would have been used?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    I would still like to know why it was not tested.
    The building came down minutes later. People were somewhat distracted after that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    We would know for sure what it was then.
    Agreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    Diffuse flame fires cannot melt steel. If you don't know that you need to research it.
    Condescension aside, with that comment you are making the assumption that the molten material reported must have been steel.

    Now just to clarify, are we talking about reports of molten material days and weeks after the collapse?

  15. #1435
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    Out of 170 areas tested on the steel they did get only 3 places showed parts of the steel experienced temperatures higher than 250 degrees C, where it has lost no strength, and none above 600 degrees C, where it has lost half it's strength. In other words 98% of the actual steel tested showed it had not reached temperatures where it lost any strength and the remaining 2% lost no more than half it's strength.
    As I have mentioned Tony. That is only one part of the NIST report. Very few of those pieces came from the impact floors.

    Steel was found which showed evidence of much higher temperatures than that. The engineers described seeing steel which had become very soft. Astaneh's estimate was 2000F.

    Those panel tests are not the only evidence of high temperatures.

    250C? That is nothing. An office fire would go much higher than that as I have demonstrated.

  16. #1436
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    As I have mentioned Tony. That is only one part of the NIST report. Very few of those pieces came from the impact floors.

    Steel was found which showed evidence of much higher temperatures than that. The engineers described seeing steel which had become very soft. Astaneh's estimate was 2000F.

    Those panel tests are not the only evidence of high temperatures.

    250C? That is nothing. An office fire would go much higher than that as I have demonstrated.
    As we have discussed before air temperatures are not steel temperatures. There are many factors besides the intensity of the fire that cause a dramatic difference. Astaneh estimated 2000F for how many pieces of steel and how big were those pieces?

    Shaman, you really need to ask yourself why the steel from the fire affected areas, where the collapses initiated, was not kept for a full forensic analysis.

    That would be standard procedure in almost any fire investigation let alone a catastrophic collapse of two of the world's tallest buildings.

    Let us also not forget that NONE of the steel was saved from WTC 7, ostensibly the first high rise steel framed building in history to collapse due to fire alone.

    To not be suspicious of this is somewhat naive.

  17. #1437
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    929
    Quote Originally Posted by swivel View Post
    I don't understand a word of this. Please elaborate on what you think the designers should have figured and explain the problem with the time of collapse.

    How long would it take a dropped apple to fall from the top of the WTC? The building went down like a stone once the impact points gave way.

    Again, I was at the Winter Garden when the North Tower went and there were no sounds prior to the collapse, which incidentally sounded nothing like I would have expected. It sounded like a jet engine revving up for take-off.
    .
    I don't care where you were.

    I have seen pictures of the material hurled at the Winter Garden. That seems like it had to be a pretty dangerous place to be at that time.

    I had one man who claimed to work in the WTC tell me that the columns were the same their entire height and that what Frank Greening wrote made sense. But I found a grade school mistake on the 3rd page of Greening's paper.

    The point is that a skyscraper MUST get stronger farther down and that requires MORE STEEL which unavoidably means MORE MASS. So for the top of the north tower to move that mass downward in addition to overcoming the strength of that mass, which supported the buildings for 28 years, something truly extraordinary had to happen. So not having trustworthy data on that distribution of steel from OFFICIAL SOURCES after seven years is totally absurd. Engineers should have been saying that data was necessary within a few months of 9/11.

    I don't understand a word of this. Please elaborate on what you think the designers should have figured and explain the problem with the time of collapse.
    .
    Try 911 Mysteries

    Fall of Physics

    psik
    Last edited by psikeyhackr; 01-25-09 at 10:55 AM. Reason: Add 911 Mys

  18. #1438
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    Leopold, I will make an assumption now that if the towers were taken down in covert demolitions one of the first things the perpetrators would worry about is leaving behind tell tale signs.
    and this brings us back to admission to the site to outsiders immediately after the collapse and to the fact that no unexploded bomb material was ever found.

    I think one of the problems they did have, with at least keeping the initiation quiet by using incendiaries, is that there was molten metal left over. The firemen and many others were perplexed by it and reported it but it wouldn't be obvious to them and most of us, that the rubble fires could not have caused it.

    The molten metal is what let the proverbial cat out of the bag though, that there was more than meets the eye. The official story has pretty much ignored it. The only official pronouncement on it is in one NIST FAQ where the answer to a question about it is that it simply could have happened in the rubble fires. None of this molten metal was ever tested. I find that quite strange and finally suspicious and in the same boat with getting rid of most of the steel before NIST started their investigation.
    anomalies?
    NASA has never found anomalies but yet exist? did a conspiracy exist concerning those anomalies?
    why do you consider our government so evil?

  19. #1439
    Quote Originally Posted by swivel View Post
    My complete lack of superstition was shaken a tad as I collected burning debris off of the yacht I was captaining at the time. The first piece of paper I picked up was an insurance form and the top sentence read: "In the event of damage to the building..."
    i find things such as this more freaky than the collapse itself.
    how in the hell could those papers ever escape a fireball like that, but yet they did, thousands of them.
    must've been a government conspiracy.

  20. #1440
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    and this brings us back to admission to the site to outsiders immediately after the collapse and to the fact that no unexploded bomb material was ever found.


    anomalies?
    NASA has never found anomalies but yet exist? did a conspiracy exist concerning those anomalies?
    why do you consider our government so evil?
    I don't necessarily say our government as a whole is evil. However, there are criminals in the world and some people just want what they want no matter who it hurts.

    Are you saying our government could not be infiltrated by some
    people like this?

    Why did Dick Cheney keep his National Energy Policy task force meetings secret?

Similar Threads

  1. By Stryder in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 01-21-09, 01:23 AM
    Replies: 2517
  2. By reasonmclucus in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 08-07-07, 12:14 AM
    Replies: 5
  3. By duendy in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 04-19-06, 08:20 AM
    Replies: 381
  4. By Brian Foley in forum World Events
    Last Post: 04-02-06, 05:11 AM
    Replies: 10
  5. By Raven in forum World Events
    Last Post: 01-05-06, 07:27 AM
    Replies: 1

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •