Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 12:42am PT
|
Dear friends, please temporarily stop your footsteps
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 12:47am PT
|
All praise to Joseph (healyje): four posts (including two of the first three), 1,016 bites. And they're still snapping away.
Definitely a candidate for clever public service award of the year. Dr. F's anti-Republican thread is a contender, and of course far longer, but he has to post frequently to it, to stir up the whackjobs.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 01:14am PT
|
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 06:57am PT
|
Klimmer,
I sincerely appreciate you reposting essentials of the "inside job" theory. I have to agree with the skeptics on this, however.
If there was indeed a conspiracy to destroy the towers and blame islamic terrorists, why not set off massive charges from the bottom and demolish them as most planned building demolitions are done..... and as terrorists had already attempted? The purported "evidence" of explosions in the basement seems pretty sketchy..... opponents can easily attribute such noise blasts to exploding electrical transformers and compressed gas tanks, (the intensity of which I can personally attest)
The towers coming down from above was hardly a quiescent event, the rumble being more intense than the decibel limit of variable discernment.....many events happening at once....and individuals claiming to hear explosions in the basement??
Why does video and photographic evidence suggest the "conspirators" were very successful in bringing the structures from the top down yet so inept in demolishing the structures from the bottom......when the overwhelming volume of building demolition technology is concerned with the later ?
Thermite? I can find no evidence of ANY building demolitions ever being effected with thermite...only bridge demolitions by the military. Does anyone, here, have such evidence?
Thermite reactions are said to leave residue of aluminum oxide and iron, and such residue was found in WTC debris. It would seem an aluminum jetliner hitting a steel structured building would leave ample amounts of such residue.
Thermite is not explosive, but effects great heat that can melt steel. But there are major problems with the termite hypothesis. One of its early proponents, Dr. D.P.Grimmer (physicist), calculated that 0.439 m3 of termite would be required to cut the largest columns . The cube root of 0.439 = 0.76, thus if all the thermite was stored in a central cube shaped reservoir its internal dimensions would be 76 cm (30 inches) per side....think of the hours involved in preparing the thermite "charges" in the buildings....and without inviting the curiousity of floor managers, maintenance personel and office workers.
Then there is the problem of igniting the thermite reaction..... which is still in infancy and was much more crude in 2001. We're to assume government conspirators had the timing of the thermite ignitions down to exact science, the "melts" occured precisely and the buildings came down top to bottom in apple pie order?
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 07:29am PT
|
"jennie--mechanical compression heating steel to the smelting point of 1510C (2750F)? you're in the wrong business. screw those energy-consuming blast furnaces. just truck the scrap to the top of el cap (about three times the height of the twin towers, btw), heave-ho, and collect the molten slag at the base."
Tony,
I wasn't thinking of pieces of shell structure that fell free to the ground. I was wondering about metal caught in the midst of the falling, churning debris.
Dynamism produces heat ....like a bicycle pump gets hot when it's vigorously pumped. Friction of debris particles moving rapidly under pressure...the tremendous weight and volumetric compression forces....would that build up enough to melt steel? Workers in the debris say many steel supports were contorted and deformed into wild shapes.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 08:40am PT
|
once again, jennie--truck the scrap iron to the top of el cap. make a little slide bin for it so's you can amass a batch of it and dump it loose all at once and get your "falling, churning debris". geeziz, i can't believe this. in 20 seconds of open-air freefall you're expecting to achieve the high smelting heats of a blast furnace?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 12:03pm PT
|
There was molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 02:39pm PT
|
You still have not explained why the heck there would be 'secondary explosives' going off after the collapse?
Did somebody say the there were secondary explosives going off after the collapse? Wasn't me. In the clip, those that witnessed the explosions were IN THE BUILDINGS. Or, did you miss that important point? You're trying to look/be smart, but just the opposite is happening.
And Jeanie, same, the falling mass did not cause compression to create enough heat to cause explosions in the basement because the folks in the basement who witnessed the explosions got out to tell the tale.
Come on folks...
And like Werner said, molten steel 21 days after the event. Somebody care to take a stab at that? I have not seen that addressed anywhere yet.
|
|
Jennie
Trad climber
Elk Creek, Idaho
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 06:57pm PT
|
This is quoted from: http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnsandb
Was molten metal in the basements caused by demolitions materials?
There is anecdotal evidence of molten metal in the basements of WTC buildings 1, 2, 6, and perhaps 7 in the days and weeks after 9/11. CTs often call this “molten steel,” although the metal in question was never tested and its composition is unknown. Infrared spectrometer readings taken shortly after the collapses showed temperatures near the surface of the piles of up to 1375 F: hot enough to melt aluminum.
It was at least that hot at points within the pile that were away from the hottest zones. William Langewiesche, the only journalist who was allowed to go with the engineers in their explorations beneath the debris, writes in “American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center” of a subterranean parking lot:
"Along the north side, where the basement structure remained strong and intact (and was ultimately preserved), the fire had been so intense in places that it had consumed the tires and interiors, and had left hulks sitting on axles above hardened pools of aluminum wheels."
I don’t think the terrorists were placing thermate on car wheels. It was simply that hot.
The presence of molten metals is not an indication of planned demolition work. Explosives do not produce pools of molten metal, and incendiaries like thermite burn themselves out in seconds even in the absence of oxygen and would not be available for weeks as fuel.
A long-lasting source of fuel was available within the well-insulated piles: the contents of the buildings. According to a study by the U.C. Davis DELTA team, the tower collapses, as destructive as they were, expended less than 1% of the potential chemical energy that was stored in building contents, oil spills, and automobiles in the WTC parking garages.
Analysis of Aerosols from the World Trade Center Collapse Site, New York, October 2 to October 30, 2001
http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC%20aersols%20ACS%202003.ppt and http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm
"The debris pile sat cooking for weeks, with the materials at the bottom of the pile getting incresingly hot beacuse the fires were confined and lost minimal heat to the atmosphere. As a result the fires could have easily reached temps sufficient to melt steel, not to mention most other metals found in the buildings."
(Popular Mechanics: Debunking 9/11 Myths p.41)
"It is no mystery why the fire has burned for so long. Mangled steel and concrete, plastics from office furniture and equipment, fuels from elevator hydraulics, cars and other sources are all in great supply in the six-story basement area where the two towers collapsed.
Water alone rarely can quench this kind of fire, which will burn as long as there is adequate fuel and oxygen and as long as heat cannot escape, fire experts said." With Water and Sweat, Fighting the Most Stubborn Fire
NIST weighs in on the “Molten steel” question:
"NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."http://tinyurl.com/pqrxt
When it comes to steel, looks can be deceiving:
"A study of the 1991 Oakland fire that burned 3,000 homes revealed the presence of melted copper in over 80% of the burned structures, and what appeared to be melted steel in over 90% of the burned structures. With respect to steel, looks can be deceiving. What appears to be melted may be merely oxidized. Interpret melted metals, particularly steel, with caution, and interpret the temperatures you infer from these melted metals with extreme caution." http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf
"It is not possible to tell by visual examination alone whether a piece of steel has melted or merely oxidized." http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/MeltedSteel.pdf
In addition, many conspiracists have suggested that the molten material seen in photos of the south tower while it was standing, and described in the basement levels of the rubble, could not have been aluminum, because aluminum does not glow when molten. It's true that aluminum is a dull silvery color at its melting point of approximately 660 C, but continue to heat it and it does glow, as shown in the photos below. This is especially true if the metal is adulterated with impurities, as any molten material in the WTC buildings would likely have been.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 07:15pm PT
|
NIST was a total fraud during the 911 ...
So was FEMA
So was 911 commission.
All their stuff is a conspiracy and worthless. Null and void!
They're 1000 times worst than the truthers ever were.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 07:24pm PT
|
I don’t think the terrorists were placing thermate on car wheels. It was simply that hot.
Funny, but I don't know anybody who thinks car tires were targeted, but nice try at being smug. The question is, how did it get so hot that even tires were burning? (I'm actually kinda amazed that I have to spell that out). Weren't the fires at the top of the building?
Personally, I find it odd that nobody bothered to test that molten stuff.
But OK, I will give this one to the Believers. The speed at which the Towers collapsed was so great, it was like rubbing concrete sticks together. It just generated a F' of a lot of heat. Kept that stuff burning and melting for weeks. So hot was it at the top of the Towers, that it caused explosions in the basement. OK, fine, I can see that. A plane exploding causes GREAT heat.
So OK. That makes this next puzzle even more odd. On the subject of things burning due to the planes exploding, have you looked at all the fire damage at the Pentagon? In plane view in the rooms exposed due to the collapse are books, wooden desks, and other things that burn easily. No real fire scorching on the building. Yet, the fire was said to be hot enough to vaporize the plane's engines. In the Towers, the exploding planes were enough to bring down the buildings and cause explosions in the basement. Yet at the Pentagon, the same scenario wsan't hot enough to burn books that are right there at the impact zone. I don't know, common sense says something is not right.
So, are the fires so hot that they cause major damage, or not so hot that they don't burn books, stools, and such. I'm not sure you can argue both with a straight face.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 07:29pm PT
|
Glad you like it Locker.
Isn't it fun to figure this stuff out ... :-)
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 07:37pm PT
|
Ho man, do I understand this:
"NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
In other words, let's just ignore that. And beside, it's been shown that fires can melt stuff... (yeah, but we're talking molten for 3 weeks, underneath the heaps of rubble where there was little oxygen).
BTW, Thanks for that quote. Also really interesting is this:
... found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse.
Right, got it.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 07:48pm PT
|
Hey, I'm lost. Have we figured anything out?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 08:02pm PT
|
We know you're all closet truthers .....
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 08:14pm PT
|
The question is, how did it get so hot that even tires were burning? (I'm actually kinda amazed that I have to spell that out). I don't know the ignition temperature of synthetic rubber, but do know that it's not hard to get it burning. All you do is stuff the insides of the tires with crumpled newspaper, and light it. Burns just fine.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 08:41pm PT
|
glad you're entertained, locker. people in the roman coliseum found it entertaining to watch other people die. for me there's too much at stake, like justice and a credible system of government and the integrity of my country and my personal responsibility to do something about things that seem terribly wrong.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 10:06pm PT
|
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2010 - 10:58pm PT
|
Naw, not personal. The way the post was written, it looked like that was your phrase. Later, I saw your link and realized that you were quoting the article. I'm sorry that I jumped on you.
Still, I think it's a pretty smug statement.
Funny how when most folks see the word "terrorist," they have a mental picture of a person. I view a bald white guy with bad teeth, who do you see?
!~!~!~!
Alas, I am tiring of this little exercise, trying to get people to open their minds. I do look at all the CT debunking articles, and I see holes. Many times, they raise more questions than they answer. Much like the ones I pointed out in the article that Jennie posted.
Sometimes I admit, "Yeah, that is plausible..." However, the Believers cannot for a second alter their stance, too much is at risk--belief in the system cannot falter.
As I read through this thread and review Truther sites, I see many unanswered questions and a lot of physical evidence (including photos and eyewitness testimonials) gets completely ignored.
= A NYPD police captain telling is crew to clear out of the building due to the presence of a secondary device
= A small crater in the ground with not a single airplane part, yet portrayed as an airliner crash site
= An incredibly small hole in the Pentagon with virtually no plane wreckage, yet we are told an airliner crashed there
= On and on, so many hard "facts" to swallow.
As a sheep, I can swallow the "pill" they are feeding me. But as a thinking individual, I know something is terribly wrong.
Go ahead and try this out. Look at the [few] pictures of the Flight 93 crash site, and try to imagine that nobody has yet told you the pictures are of an airliner crash site. Look at the pics and think "What am I looking at?" Then, pretend that somebody tells you a big commercial airliner crashed there.
What is your first reaction?
Do you know the reaction of the news folks who saw that site that day?
For easy access, check out the 2nd sequence in this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pA
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!