WTC Collapses

Wow, nice going gluon; took us 3 months to put it up, laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There are definitely a lot of unanswered questions concerning 9/11...

Amen

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

that doesn't sound right.

empty weight of a 757 is 58 tons according to this:
http://simviation.com/rinfo75767.htm

exclude the heavy engines which were not aluminum
and the landing gears, plastic, electronics, cables, etc.

I can't say what the amount of aluminum was from the plane, but 200 tons seems way too high.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

aluminum flash powder has different properties to non-powderized aluminum.
non-powderized aluminum will not burn, it will melt.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't hear Scott, I smelted some aluminium barrels down during daylight hours some years back and the molten metal glowed, this was because I went beyond it's melting point, the temperature was around 1100°C.

I know full well the reason why you guys aren't taking this in is because it messes with your understanding and theory of what happened, however I suggest you go find somewhere that smelts metal to check it out yourself rather than dealing in anecdotal evidence either supplied by myself or anyone else.

 

.
But that is the problem RIGHT THERE!!!

In order to take it beyond its melting point doesn't it have to be confined in some way to keep it from flowing away from the heat source?

How is that going to happen in a fire in a building? As soon as it reached the melting point it would start flowing down hill and not reach those higher temperatures. So what sense does this conversation make? What color is it just beyond melting point? How could the fire get it any hotter than that without it being in a container with an even higher melting point?

Can we have some logic of reality here and quit trying to score points in a debate?

psik

 

It's quite possible that it was Aluminium from the Aircraft, there would of been enough debris to keep it from flowing in any particular direction, especially since when people build buildings they tend to use "Liquid levels". (e.g. What hill?)

Since you are talking about floors of a building with an internal temperature of Circa 1200°C it would likely result in a "Blast Furnace" effect, while the metals would indeed melt and pool, they would be enclosed within that temperature which is double it's melting point and the temperature transfers into photon output.

As for Scoring points in a debate?

It's not a debate, it's a three ringed circus with Scott trying to be a ring leader, yourself and a few others playing the clowns and I'm left to try and clean up the Elephant Guano.

 

...and if was contained in stryders container, it would reflect the glow of the container because it has a high reflectivity property, so there would be no way of determining whether the "glow" stryder saw was actual glow radiance or whether it was reflected orange light from the 1100 C container.

not one experiment has been shown to create this aluminum "glow" by pouring molten aluminum. you'd think the debunkers who have spent the last 5 years full time debunking would have put one on youtube by now if it was possible to reproduce.

 

You are obviously making guesses about my opinions. You are not making good correlations with the exact content of my posts.

I am entertaining the notion of melted steel, both possibly seen flowing and claimed to have been found solidified. Melted steel has to be considered the least likely candidate for the metal flows that were seen and photographed. So I am first considering other candidates.

Each tower had very recently had 200 tons (or whatever an airliner weighs) of Aluminum enter it through a breached wall. And Stryder has pointed out that there was Aluminum cladding on the wall exterior. Aluminum melts at a low enough temperature to be easily attained by burning jet fuel. Aluminum has to be the first candidate to explain large flows of molten metal on the outside wall.

I somehow got the impression that you knew a good bit about building construction. Maybe I got you confused with somebody else. I apologize. Somebody who knows a bit about commercial building construction knows that office buildings have a vast amount of copper electric wiring built-in in the ceiling space (coincident with the floor space in a building with a floor structure like the WTC) mainly to serve lighting fixtures. And as tenants rent and customize their spaces, electric wiring also is built-in in the walls to serve wall outlets mainly. WTC was a top-of-the-line office location. I have not researched it, but it is most likely that HVAC was executed by fan coil units in the ceiling serviced by runs of copper pipe to and from central heaters and chillers in the core area. There probably was, although I have admittedly not researched it, built-in runs of stubbed copper water piping and waste piping in regular arrays in the ceiling space to make it easy for tenants to construct executive bathrooms, kitchenets, drinking water fountains, decorative fountains, and whatever other perks the rich and famous tenants of a luxury office building might fancy. WTC was not a bottom of the line sleaze building. The sprinkler may have had steel pipes, but could well have had copper piping. The stand pipe fire department hose supplies may have been copper pipes. The water supply and soil stacks in the core area could have been copper pipes. Copper melts at a low enough temperature to be attained by burning jet fuel.

It is not really comprehensible for you to claim that molten metal could not originate in the core. On two sides of the building, there was only 35 feet between the core and the outer wall And on the other two sides there was only 65 feet. You believe that molten metal could not run across those distances to obtain an exterior wall? Please get serious.

I am much too early in new found interest in 9/11 to have very many definite opinions. My posts largely represent a work-in-progress to try to figure out the matter. As such, it will be very easy for a pundit to read a tentative thought of mine and criticize it unjustly. Please do not do that.

 

http://www.daylife.com/photo/0cTY8791JU2zq
http://www.aluminiumindia.co.in/aboutus.php
http://pro.corbis.com/search/Enlarg...diauid={2CEDE93D-2886-43D4-B14B-5FF4116C6C4C}
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/ar...ng-aluminiums-environmental-impact-2008-09-26
http://pro.corbis.com/search/Enlarg...diauid={41326EE0-BBCA-4592-A530-EE6A5CE10F28}

I really do wish you kids would do your own homework.

 

Thanks for you in your correction of my numbers. I was writing too fast and relying too much on a tired brain with an old worn out memory in the first place.

58 tons is not much, after all, is it? I bet it would make such a small flow down the wall that nobody would even notice it. :bugeye:

 

You did not know what they were. I pointed you to the document. Are you refusing to even acknowledge that it exists? I don't expect you to read the whole thing but to refuse to even look at it because it is too long is just another dodge. Again you ignore any evidence that might damage your conspiracy. You aren't after the truth you just want to maintain your 911 religion.

Perhaps when someone releases 'The NIST Report for Dummies' you will have less opportunity to make excuses.

 

smelting bauxite aluminum-ore, molten aluminum in a glowing container, darkened conditions.

none of these show molten aluminum being poured in daylight conditions.

we've been here before months ago.

 

So it is quite possible that parts of the plane were nearby? You know where I’m going with this.

Firefighters don’t go through a ‘spot the molten metal’ course.

Because there have been many cases where claims of ‘molten steel’ are shown to be doubtful. There have been several attempts to pass photos and accounts of glowing metal as molten steel. It is clear that scepticism is needed here because Jones and the others are trying very hard to pass off any account of molten or red material as evidence for molten steel.

Firemen are not experts at identifying the contents of molten material by looking at it.

That only reinforces my point. If there was molten steel wouldn’t there have been other molten metals with a lower temperature as well? If you have molten steel at those temperatures there must have been some other metals affected. Why did no one mention these? According to you the members of the clean up crews can identify the contents of molten material simply by looking at it. Could it be that when people, yes even firefighters, see molten material they tend to refer to is as steel?

It is interesting how truthers pick and choose when to rely on witness testimony.

There is plenty of testimony from the firefighters of the gradual decline of WTC7 and how they were sure it was going to collapse because of the damage and the fires. Do you need me to find some for you? They were there. You were not. They are more likely to be able to conclude that a building is leaning and damaged to the point where it might collapse than they are going to be able to analyse molten material by looking at it.


There are also witness accounts of bowing seen minutes, not seconds, but minutes before the collapse of one of the towers. People are capable of recognizing when a line isn’t straight. This is also more likely to be accurate than cleanup crews being able to identify molten steel simply by looking at it.

These last two, particularly the testimony of WTC7 support the official story but are ignored by truthers. Yet they vigorously defend the clean up crews and their testimony when they think it is going to support the conspiracy.


...and once again, how does molten material, seen significant time after the collapse support the idea of bombs or thermate/thermite/nanothermite? That stuff doesn’t burn slowly for great lengths of time. Does it?

Why was this dust sample collected?

Has Jones compared the results to dust taken from other building fires where the was severe structural damage?

Oh here we go… You need to latch on to words and play games with their interpretation just so you can form a response.. You knew what I meant. It is clear what they thought happened; you just don’t like their conclusions.

They are experts in structural and fire protection engineering. They were at ground zero and the scrap yards. They found no evidence for high temperatures, incendiaries or explosives at all. Further analysis on some of the steel was entirely consistent with this. Were you there? What makes you think your analysis is worth more than theirs?

In the document posted they said the temperature approached 1000C. The ‘above 1000C’ was your interpretation.

Even if we run with your interpretation you are still shoehorning evidence to fit your conclusion. Above 1000C means above 1000C. It does not mean ‘probably 2000’ it just means above 1000C. So you are still without any compelling evidence for extremely high temperatures.

Okay, but 940C is not unusual.

Actually I retract that, they gave no estimates of temperatures for the steel analyzed from WTC1+2. The only comments I can find is that it was subjected to different conditions.

 

Well the World Trade Center collapsed years ago and we are still going on about it. Haven't you got some Volcano's to worry about or something more current and imminent in regards to being a threat?

I place is as plain as possible to you:

If there was to be a Truth Movement or Conspiracy, then you really should be focusing on "Why wasn't the attack detected considering the potential surveillance operation's?" (Based upon the current available technologies and methods available to most countries now), if there was any failings or hidden agenda's done by any rogue element of a government, it would of occurred right at the very beginning.

Why put demolitions in a building if you could actually manipulate people to hijack aircraft in the first place with the plan of flying into specific targets? (I guess you could place this as an Occam's Razor point.)

 

I have an interesting personal anecdotal experience to tell you about fluorescing in daylight and in the dark.

All my life i have been a car enthusiast. Long ago and far away, I owned one of the most cherished of the Chrysler 300s. I ran the car hard at times. It had the stock cast iron exhaust manifolds. Many times i ran the car hard and soon after popped the hood to make sure nothing really important had fallen off. Always in daylight. The cast iron exhaust manifolds never caught my attention. They always looked perfectly normal even though they were obviously quite hot.

One fine night i took my car out for a romp and shamefully illegally again did the ton and more. (Do not drive illegally!. I am not telling this tale to encourage illegal driving!.) For one reason or another i pulled off the road and looked under the hood. The cast iron exhaust manifolds were glowing bright red. Pretty as a Christmas tree. They never had looked that way in daylight.

 

"Why put demolitions..."

Since I have finally found a site displaying the Structural Blueprints, I have been impressed with the great structural strength, generally speaking, designed into the twin towers.

It is entirely likely that any villains who studied these Blueprints would have doubted that an airplane strike alone would be sure to do the dirty job. The twin towers were a hell of a strong structural design, even if including anticipations of what would happen in the exact moments of a strike by a huge, fast airplane. Since such a strike might be anticipated to have, let's say, a 50-50 chance of bringing them down, villains could have decided to make it a sure bet by placing demolition material. Then the villains could have a plausible cover story, plus they could be certain of the success of their foul deed.

 

the videos that i've seen shows the showers of sparks coming from one window of one corner, no other such showers are obvious. i have no idea how this unknown man can claim otherwise.

i have no problems with the evidence you offer.
i begin to question it when it seems to come mostly from one source though.

i didn't know (Q) was no longer a mod.

 

When i read of this evidence of iron spheres on one of the sites i have researched, I was very impressed that something highly unusual must have taken place on 9/11.

 

.
So we are supposed to believe the floor is LEVEL after being hit by an airplane doing 500+ mph but at the same time believe the plane could make the entire building with this LEVEL floor collapse in less than an hour.

I can see who the clown in the circus is.

Debating bullshit that can "rationalize" anything. ROFL

psik

 

what's this achilles heel you mentioned?

keystone kop konspirators? do you realize what would be involved if this was an inside job? you not only have to rig the building for demolition but you must also find someone willing to fly a planeload of passengers into it, all without anyone saying a word.