WTC Collapses

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Nov 14, 2008.

?

How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

  1. Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    18 vote(s)
    43.9%
  2. Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    9 vote(s)
    22.0%
  4. Allah!

    2 vote(s)
    4.9%
  5. People keep flogging a dead horse!

    12 vote(s)
    29.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Gregori Urich, Part 12

    This post is in response to the 12th part of shaman_'s post 394 in this thread.

    Continuing where I left off in my response to Gregory's Open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth:
    Nice

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Again, if he comes up with any, I'd be happy to hear them

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Gregori Urich, Part 13

    This post is in response to the 13th part of shaman_'s post 394 in this thread.

    Continuing where I left off in my response to Gregory's Open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth:
    Headspin dealt with his point #4 here.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Gregori Urich, Part 14

    This post is in response to the 14th part of shaman_'s post 394 in this thread.

    Continuing where I left off in my response to Gregory's Open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth:
    Seen and countered here.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Gregori Urich, Part 15

    This post is in response to the 15th part of shaman_'s post 394 in this thread.

    Continuing where I left off in my response to Gregory's Open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth:
    I believe that AE911 is on the right track when it comes to this path of least resistance bit but I can't counter Urich's argument. Headspin, what do you think?
     
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Gregori Urich, Part 16

    This post is in response to the 16th part of shaman_'s post 394 in this thread.

    Continuing where I left off in my response to Gregory's Open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth:
    Perhaps in some buildings, but Kevin Ryan, who worked for the company who certified the steel assemblies in the twin towers, has made it clear that this didn't apply in the case of the twin towers.
     
  9. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Gregori Urich, Part 17

    This post is in response to the 17th and final part of shaman_'s post 394 in this thread.

    Continuing where I left off in my response to Gregory's Open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth:
    These buildings were not structurally damaged to begin with and had different structural designs than the Twin Towers. It would be meaningful to examine whether or not the buildings, which survived serious fires, had concrete cores or not. Does any evidence exist that buildings with similar structural design, damaged in the manner of the world trade center, should not collapse due to fires?[/quote]

    Plenty:
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html


    Here we can agree. The explosives were not conventional. It has been my theory that nano thermite may be quieter then conventional demolitions or more numerous but smaller charges were used so that the sound was not like that of a typical demolition.


    Definitely which is why I took the time to respond, even though I'm not Richard Gage- I am, however, a (non architect/engineer) member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.


    I agree.

    Seen him on JREF, didn't know about the STJ911 forum; may look for it in the future.
     
  10. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    I have never seen any such photograph, If that happened shouldn't there have to be a row of X's on the FEMA map. I have seen pictures of about 6 perimeter panels connected together leaning against the corner of the FedEx Tower.

    psik
     
  11. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    No idea. I just applied for the STJ forum, perhaps I'll be able to ask him about this soon. I know he's on JREF, but I'm a bit antsy about bringing stuff up over there. Oh, and you may find this be a christmas gift of sorts

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ...
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2126251&postcount=593
     
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2008
  12. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Yes, and, still no citation of Thermite, or Nano Thermite, as a explosive.

    1. No mention of Nano Thermite as a explosive.

    2. The confirmation that Thermite is used in welding.

    3. You still haven't provider the burn speed of Nano Thermite or proof of shock wave propagation, which is a signature of explosives.

    Again, Thermite and Nano Thermite are used to control the ignition of explosives and as a enhancer to explosive material, the hotter the explosion the more power released, and nano thermite increases the temperature of the explosive reaction they by increasing the yield of the explosive, it is not in and of it's self a explosive.
     
  13. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    just a thought people who keep mumbling about how the tempeture wasn't hot enough to melt the metal in the towers are forgeting on little thing. It didn't have to melt. as a metal gets hotter it becomes more malleable. all it would take for it to collapse is for the weight to deform the support top the point where it could no longer hold the weight it needed to.
     
  14. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    Who is arguing that "it had to melt"?
    do you not see that you arguing with phantoms?
    your post has been addressed several times in this very thread.
     
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I dont think these people are so stupid as to actually believe their stories but you you never know. One of the greatest mysteries to come out of this whole thing is just how gullible toofers may actually be.
     
  16. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    why didn't the "nanothermite" explode above the impact site?
     
  17. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Still on page 20...
    Can you show me some evidence of that claim?



    He is not an authority on steel. Doing some reading does not make you an expert. He was a chemist who worked on water, he is not an authority on steel.


    That doesn’t seem likely..


    If they were a doctor they had been trained by the most appropriate people and that training had been thoroughly tested to assure that they met a certain standard. Someone who had done a bit of research is not even close to the same level. Just accept that Ryan is not an authority on steel. It’s not even a critical part of your argument but you need to contest every little criticism of your heroes.


    I scanned for three seconds and found one….. It wouldn’t matter how many mistakes this guy made you would still worship him.


    Big deal. So have you and I. We’re not experts on the behaviour of steel are we? Could someone cite your comments as evidence? That is what you are trying to do with Ryan.


    lol What great additions to your team of experts, the theologian and the ufo guy.



    So you agree that Mackey saying it so is not evidence right?



    The problem here is that you are quoting Ryan’s comments on steel as if that alone is evidence. I am trying to point out to you that Ryan saying the building shouldn’t have collapsed is not compelling evidence because he was a chemist who worked with water. I have gone in circles trying to get you to understand this and you can’t. So I came up with the hypothetical situation of me doing the same thing with Mackey and you still don’t seem to get it. I can’t break this down any simpler for you Scott.


    Mackey’s document on David Ray Griffin's claims is an excellent work of debunking. The truthers have made an attempt to return fire on a few points, and Mackey has been addressing their critiques. So no he hasn’t been 'debunked'.


    NIST did an investigation and presented their findings. It was done, over. There is no need for them to do another one. Debunkers however may continue to release material. Somehow you think that is irony? :shrug:

    I said, ‘it is something you seem to be trying’. Every time I refer to Mackay’s work you can’t respond so you just claim that Mackey has been debunked as if that somehow a good enough response. It's not. Address the argument.


    Don’t you? When I used the Mackey example you asked to see the evidence. You thought that his words alone were not evidence. Get it?
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2008
  18. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    Controlled demolition and concrete comminution

    Any controlled demolition would have used the least amount of explosive possible and the argument about concrete communition or dust generation being a basis for saying explosives were used is not a good one.

    There is some concrete comminution in any controlled demolition but the vast majority of it is caused by impulsive loads due to the impacting masses of structure. Most of the energy in a controlled demolition is due to gravitational potential energy being released by taking out the columns.

    The calculation of the amount of concrete which was comminuted does not mean that the bone fragments, which were found on top of the Deutsche bank building, could not be due to explosives propelling them there. However, the bone crushing and body fragmentation could easily have been due to being caught in the impacts. The pressures to do this could easily have been there ten stories into the collapses once enough kinetic energy was available.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2008
  19. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Like stomping on a packet of catsup? a pressure squirt.
     
  20. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    A NORMAL controlled demolition uses the least amount of explosives which is partly why it takes so long to calculate and set up. I do not think what happened to towers 1 & 2 can be regarded as NORMAL. Whoever did that did not care how much external damage was done and made no attempt to minimize anything.

    That does not necessarily mean it was not CONTROLLED however.

    psik
     
  21. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    This is suppose to pass for logic?

    :roflmao:
     
  22. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    It is quite logical. However, the logic involved may currently be beyond your grasp. Hopefully this may change in the future.
     
  23. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    But you are not supporting your statements or addressing mine. That article doesn’t do this either and yet you keep linking to it.

    The Windsor Tower was held up by its concrete core which the twin towers did not have. Now tell me how that article disproves or addresses this.

    The final test was fuelled only by office materials. The results were consistent with NISTs own office tests and the one which Kenny linked to. These have been shown to you many times and you have come up with every excuse in the book to avoid acknowledging them.

    haha. Like that. The tests were performed in the corner of a building and the temperatures reached near 1000C. That the building was smaller than the WTC is irrelevant when we are talking about the temperatures of the fire. However many stories were above or below does not change the temperatures.

    That paragraph is gibberish so I will repeat my point in hope that you will understand. Your article makes a point that concrete buildings can be susceptible to spalling during fire. I am saying that isn’t an important issue here because the concrete core of the Madrid tower stayed up. The spalling did not appear to be an issue. The steel however was affected by the fire. It collapsed.

    If the WTC had the same concrete core then it might still be standing. You are still avoiding the point..



    As has been pointed out once or twice the construction of these two buildings was quite different. . The WTC relied on fireproofing which was not intact after the full speed collision of the 767s. The Windsor Tower was not hit by any large planes, and the fires still caused the steel to weaken and collapse. That only a small percentage of the WTC is visibly on fire is irrelevant. It was one of the tallest buildings in the world. Only one floor had to fail for the collapse to start.

    Clearly the spalling at the Madrid tower was not a problem was it Scott? The concrete core held firm while the steel collapsed.


    That's right, just as with the steel at the Madrid Tower, the steel at the WTC reached temperatures when the steel was sufficiently weakened so that it could no longer bear the load.

    It's really not complicated.


    The problem you have is that the behavior of the Madrid tower supports the official story and you are still trying to say otherwise but you are unable to.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page