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. #1481
    Quote Originally Posted by swivel View Post
    Hmmm. I haven't talked about this stuff much. It's weird how much comes back, how cathartic it feels. For a long time I could not stop reacting to the sound of jets overhead. I would have an automatic panic attack.
    can you imagine how a person would feel living close to an airport with all those low flying jets?

  2. #1482
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    can you imagine how a person would feel living close to an airport with all those low flying jets?
    No, I can't.

    The worst part for me was getting on a flight from Ft. Lauderdale to NYC about 10 days later. I took one of the owner's yachts to Florida and had to fly back to grab another one. It was not pleasant.

  3. #1483
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    As we have discussed before air temperatures are not steel temperatures.
    True, but consistently through the Cardington tests the temperature of the steel was not far behind that of the atmosphere. Even within small time frames the steel was able to reach temperatures over 600C.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    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?
    Don’t know. The point is that it is not correct to say that there is no evidence for steel reaching temperatures higher than 600C.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    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.
    I agree that it is disappointing. I don’t see the point of the test otherwise. However they had other evidence of high temperatures long before that.

    Conspiracy theorists regularly mention the results of the test without mentioning that very few of the samples came from the impact area. To do so is disingenuous.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    That would be standard procedure in almost any fire investigation let alone a catastrophic collapse of two of the world's tallest buildings.
    If the buildings just mysteriously collapsed for no conceivable reason then perhaps they would have itemised all the steel from area where the collapse started. However with all the evidence they had (the team investigating had full access to all the steel at the scrap yards and could take whatever samples they wanted) they were able to come to a conclusion regarding what happened. It is completely reasonable for an office fire to reach 1000C and it has been demonstrated that unprotected steel can be drastically weakened by these temperatures.

    I agree that they should have tested more steel from the impact area but I don't think that alone is completely suspicious as there is other evidence of high temperatures (1000C).
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    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.
    If the only thing that happened that day was a normal fire in WTC7 which led to collapse then maybe that would be suspicious. But you need to take into account the many events that happened that day such as a successful terrorist attack causing a major disaster nearby, lack of water pressure, death of hundreds of firemen and a section of one of the tallest buildings in the world colliding with WTC7.

    Hardly normal occurrences. Did any of these things happen during the other high rise fires?

    To the firefighters on the scene there was nothing suspicious about the collapse. They saw the damage, described the building as leaning, and pulled out fearing that it would collapse. They were right.

    It may seem suspicious, years after the event, if you don’t take into account all the information.
    Last edited by shaman_; 01-26-09 at 11:25 PM.

  4. #1484
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    True, but consistently through the Cardington tests the temperature of the steel was not far behind that of the atmosphere. Even within small time frames the steel was able to reach temperatures over 600C.
    .
    The Cardington tests were conducted inside airship hangars so how did that affect the ability of hot air to escape. Actually how did they get the air in to feed the fires. Most real fires don't occur entirely inside another building. Must have kind of made it like a furnace.

    http://cache.wists.com/thumbnails/8/...ea3cb6a2f-orig
    http://www.oobject.com/giant-airship...-hangars/1544/

    psik

  5. #1485
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    you have just described thermite residue!!
    I have also described chemicals which existed in the towers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    You are suggesting that the composition of thermite residue could have naturally formed in the conditions of the building without thermite, this is an absurdity.
    Because it doesn't fit your conspiracy theory? The chemicals could have naturally existed in the towers.

    Have you read http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

    Frank Greening (you're probably not a fan) thinks that there was thermate in the towers but it wasn't placed there...


    Tony is claiming that the flow is molten steel. I have merely theorizing that there are other possibilities that truthers aren’t eager to hear about. I don’t know what it is but the truther logic is
    (a) it is a molten material, wrong color for pure aluminium therefore it must be steel therefore all the reports molten metal are probably also steel or
    (b) it isn’t pure aluminium so it must be the result of thermite/thermate cutting the columns as the charges were set off then, and not affected by the fire blazing away for the previous hour.

    Any thinking stops there because the evidence has been shoehorned to fit the conclusion.


    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    shaman says - "It could have been aluminium mixed into a molten soup of the contents of the offices"

    There is no scientific data to back this up, in fact the scientific data we do have actually contradicts your statement. Aluminum does not emit that color. we have been over this a dozen times.
    You’re right we have been over this a dozen times.
    Pure aluminium can emit that colour but is unlikely to be that orange in bright daylight. I’m not saying it was pure aluminium. I’m saying it could have some slag mixed in with it or a soup of the materials within the towers.


    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    shaman says - "It could have contained iron freed in a eutectic mix"

    <brakes screech to a halt> - Thermate residue is a eutectic (a molten mix) of sulfur and iron.
    Could this not also be produced with temperatures around 1000C?

    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    Diffuse flame fire does not do that to steel!
    Is ‘diffuse flame fire’ the latest truther catchphrase?

    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    To "free iron" to a eutectic melt you need to melt it! iron melts at 1500 Celcius which is impossible from just a diffuse flame fire.

    In order to reduce the melting point of iron from 1500 Celcius to 1000 Celcius you have to mix pure elemental sulfur to the iron at a precise concentration ratio 31.4%.
    There were sources of elemental sulfur such as the drywall.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    The iron has to be mixed with the elemental sulphur in order for the melting point to be reduced, like adding salt to ice. Even a very small deviation of sulfur concentration quantity from 31.4% moves the melting point of iron out of reach of even the most extreme of fires.
    Yes yes completely understood headspin, but it is possible right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    This is just not going to occur at random without the help of Douglas Adam's Improbability Drive.
    I am suggesting that there are other possibilities but you only want to see thermite.


    If it was a result of a thermite (thermate whatever) reaction then how much thermite would have been used? Wasn’t it only used to cut the columns? How much of that stuff do you think flowed out?

    The material was noticed in the area where one of the planes entered, it was noticed in the minutes before collapse when the bowing was observed. ..
    Last edited by shaman_; 01-27-09 at 04:17 AM.

  6. #1486
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
    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
    If the only thing that happened that day was a normal fire in WTC7 which led to collapse then maybe that would be suspicious. But you need to take into account the many events that happened that day such as a successful terrorist attack causing a major disaster nearby, lack of water pressure, death of hundreds of firemen and a section of one of the tallest buildings in the world colliding with WTC7.

    Hardly normal occurrences. Did any of these things happen during the other high rise fires?
    your logic is faulty. these are not reasons to dispose of the steel without examining it.

  7. #1487
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    your logic is faulty. these are not reasons to dispose of the steel without examining it.
    i don't remember reading anything that the steel of WTC wasn't examined.
    maybe you can point me to the source?

  8. #1488
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    i don't remember reading anything that the steel of WTC wasn't examined.
    maybe you can point me to the source?
    The NIST says it in one of the draft reports on WTC 7. Here is the quote

    Physical Properties of WTC 7 Steel

    No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7. Other physical properties are the same as those estimated in Chapter 8 for the WTC steels.

  9. #1489
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    The NIST says it in one of the draft reports on WTC 7. Here is the quote

    Physical Properties of WTC 7 Steel

    No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7. Other physical properties are the same as those estimated in Chapter 8 for the WTC steels.
    NOTE: The NIST investigation of the WTC 7 building collapse is not yet complete. The report on the WTC 7 collapse investigation will be released in draft form for public comment and posted on this web site as soon as it is available.
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

    no drafts for WTC 7 are posted on the above site.

  10. #1490
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    I have also described chemicals which existed in the towers.
    who cares! all the chemicals existed in the towers to produce lemon souflee, there were no lemon souflees falling out of the windows. what is missing is the process in getting from the ingredients to the souflee.

    Because it doesn't fit your conspiracy theory? The chemicals could have naturally existed in the towers.
    what is remarkable is that you consider the possibilty that chemcials randomly break down and randomly come together to reform into thermite chemicals AND you consider the possibilty that conditions difficult to replicate in a controlled laboratory could come together in a chaotic and random way to produce a quantity of thermite residue. you consider all that as plausible...but you dismiss the idea that thermite was placed in the towers as unlikely conspiracy theory.

    not recently. what does it say that you think helps your position?

    Frank Greening (you're probably not a fan) thinks that there was thermate in the towers but it wasn't placed there...
    I think it highly unlikely that he thinks in such a conclusive manner on this issue.

    Tony is claiming that the flow is molten steel. I have merely theorizing that there are other possibilities that truthers aren’t eager to hear about.
    how neat that you divide people into 2 groups. those of rational thinking theorizers that comtemplate carefullly the issues, and those religious "truthers" that always speak in such absolutist terms. oh but wait... isn't dividing people into 2 distinct groups kind of....absolutist?? black/white, beleivers/non believers, with us/against us, truther/debunker ????

    I don’t know what it is but the truther logic is
    (a) it is a molten material, wrong color for pure aluminium therefore it must be steel therefore all the reports molten metal are probably also steel or
    (b) it isn’t pure aluminium so it must be the result of thermite/thermate cutting the columns as the charges were set off then, and not affected by the fire blazing away for the previous hour.
    There you go again- falsely attributing your own rigid absolutist thinking to others.

    Any thinking stops there because the evidence has been shoehorned to fit the conclusion.
    this is certainly true of the NIST report. bloomberg said the steel was not required to investigate the collapse, it would all be done on a computer simulation, if that isn't she-horning, i don't know what is.
    I don't see where that applies to the majority that question the official version.


    You’re right we have been over this a dozen times.
    Pure aluminium can emit that colour but is unlikely to be that orange in bright daylight. I’m not saying it was pure aluminium. I’m saying it could have some slag mixed in with it or a soup of the materials within the towers.
    OK, we agree we can rule out pure aluminium, aluminium cladding, aluminium skin from the plane etc. the experiments to replicate a soup of what was in the building and make it glow yellow orange have failed, so you have even less than unsupported speculation Vs a 100% repeatable match with thermite residue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin
    shaman says - "It could have contained iron freed in a eutectic mix"

    <brakes screech to a halt> - Thermate residue is a eutectic (a molten mix) of sulfur and iron
    Could this not also be produced with temperatures around 1000C?
    you are suggesting that thermite residue could just form in quantity by chance in a fire. the presence of thermite residue in a fire indicates thermite arson. people have been convicted on this. What you are suggesting would have ramifications for the legal system and all those convicted for thermite arson....or alternatively what you are suggesting is an absurdity.
    what do you think is likely?

    Is ‘diffuse flame fire’ the latest truther catchphrase?
    yes, the memo was broadcast yesterday, all hive-truthers recieved the message electronically at the same time and all adjusted their thinking per instructions in the memo. all praise Griffen-Ra our ever watchful eye lord on high <genuflect left brest>

    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin
    The iron has to be mixed with the elemental sulphur in order for the melting point to be reduced, like adding salt to ice. Even a very small deviation of sulfur concentration quantity from 31.4% moves the melting point of iron out of reach of even the most extreme of fires
    Yes yes completely understood headspin, but it is possible right?
    no it is not possible. it fails for many reasons, but i'll give you one - there was no elemental sulfur.

    I am suggesting that there are other possibilities but you only want to see thermite.
    no, thats just your perception. I am interested in other possibilities. if they are not plausible or impossible then i will reject them.

    If it was a result of a thermite (thermate whatever) reaction then how much thermite would have been used? Wasn’t it only used to cut the columns? How much of that stuff do you think flowed out?
    a lot, don't know, some tons at a guess.

    The material was noticed in the area where one of the planes entered, it was noticed in the minutes before collapse when the bowing was observed. ..
    yes i agree with these observations (apart from maybe the last bit)

  11. #1491
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin
    To "free iron" to a eutectic melt you need to melt it! iron melts at 1500 Celcius which is impossible from just a diffuse flame fire. In order to reduce the melting point of iron from 1500 Celcius to 1000 Celcius you have to mix pure elemental sulfur to the iron at a precise concentration ratio 31.4%.
    There were sources of elemental sulfur such as the drywall.
    no there were not sources of elemental sulfur. there were sources of sulfur compounds which is different, again you are missing the process to get from sulfur compound to elemental sulfur.

    Drywall contains gypsum - water plus calcium sulfate (CaSO4)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_sulfate
    the water is given off under heating acting as a fire retardant.

    This is not elemental sulfur. even if you find a process to seperate the calcium ions you still have not got elemental sulfur. the only plausible breakdown process gives you sulfur dioxide gas. this is going to rapidly disperse in the atmosphere. it will dissolve in water to form sulfuric acid. sulfuric acid will react slowly (even at high temperatures) with iron to produce Iron Sulfate. here is the equation:

    Fe(s) + H2SO4(aq) → H2(g) + FeSO4(aq)

    the above means:
    solid Iron + aqueous Sulfuric acid = Hydrogen gas + Iron Sulfate (in solution)

    this is not an Iron-Sulfide (FeS) eutectic as reported by Biederman
    http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...rman-0112.html

    Iron Sulfide here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_sulfide

    an Iron-Sulfide eutectic is a mix of molten iron and sulphur

    it is not iron-sulfide, it is iron-sulfate,
    Iron Sulfate here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron(II)_sulfate

    iron sulfate in solution exists with 7 molecules of water, thermal decomposition occurs above 90 Celcius where it will give off its water molecules and form the green ferrous sulfate crystals you see in the picture:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron(II)_sulfate

    so we can rule out, battery acid from UPS power supplys and gypsum wallboard as a source of the required sulfur.

    we cannot rule out thermate.
    Last edited by Headspin; 01-27-09 at 07:19 AM.

  12. #1492
    is that an analysis of your stool sample?

  13. #1493
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    we cannot rule out thermate.
    find traces and run wild headspin.

    as far as traces go, you can no doubt find traces of every known explosive substance in that pile.

    edit:
    first it was thermite, then it was nanothermite, and now it's thermate.
    hmmm . . . will you make up your mind as to what the substance is?

  14. #1494
    why bother?

    look at this response and relize that this is an exercise in futility:

    Originally Posted by Headspin:
    who cares! all the chemicals existed in the towers to produce lemon souflee, there were no lemon souflees falling out of the windows. what is missing is the process in getting from the ingredients to the souflee.

  15. #1495
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    why bother?

    look at this response and relize that this is an exercise in futility:
    yes, that was in the original videos.
    hard to say exactly what it was. could be some kind of pyrotechnics someone had in their office.

    my question is, if it was indeed thermite, nanothermite, thermate then why is it in only one location, and why on earth would they place it on the perimeter where everyone could see it?

    but of course headspin has labeled me a troll so i doubt he'll have any answers to these questions.

  16. #1496
    I guess that perhaps they dont see that an industry has been created and they are the stooges.

  17. #1497
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    I guess that perhaps they dont see that an industry has been created and they are the stooges.
    misguided perhaps, but a stooge?
    i think what they are over looking is the reasons for a controlled demolition.

    what about that headspin? why would the government destroy WTC 1 and 2?

  18. #1498
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    I guess that perhaps they dont see that an industry has been created and they are the stooges.
    .
    Yeah, how does Richard Gage and his architects and engineers not talk about the distribution of steel in a skyscraper while claiming the top 15% can't collapse and crush the rest?

    But then the NIST can't figure out how much concrete there was.

    Morons vs Imbeciles!

    psik

  19. #1499
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    .
    Yeah, how does Richard Gage and his architects and engineers not talk about the distribution of steel in a skyscraper while claiming the top 15% can't collapse and crush the rest?

    But then the NIST can't figure out how much concrete there was.

    Morons vs Imbeciles!

    psik
    Are you sure that he doesn't mention this? I saw Gage's presentation and I'm fairly sure he did mention that the towers tapered (structurally speaking) to the top. There was a lot i got from his presentation that I have not seen him promote elsewhere. maybe for him, it's just a matter of priorities and what audience he is reaching out to.

  20. #1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    Are you sure that he doesn't mention this? I saw Gage's presentation and I'm fairly sure he did mention that the towers tapered (structurally speaking) to the top. There was a lot i got from his presentation that I have not seen him promote elsewhere. maybe for him, it's just a matter of priorities and what audience he is reaching out to.
    .
    I went to Chicago when Gage did a seminar at Chicago Circle Campus last May.

    http://www.neuworldorder.com/news/ri...-city-may-30th

    I got in the question line after the show and asked him about it. He said the NIST wasn't releasing accurate blueprints. I thought that was kind of lame since with the computing power available today compared to what existed when the buildings were designed. His group should be able to come up with pretty good numbers if they wanted to.

    psik
    Last edited by psikeyhackr; 01-27-09 at 10:26 AM.

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
  •