Ground Zero Footage

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Not my buddies blog. Don't even know who the writer is. I'm on my phone. It's nearly impossible to copy paste links with any degree of ease. As such I won't. I think you asked about molten metal. I linked you to a page. About half way down on the classic view is a whole load of stuff related to that.

What part of the blog is full of b.s.?

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Not my buddies blog. Don't even know who the writer is. I'm on my phone. It's nearly impossible to copy paste links with any degree of ease. As such I won't. I think you asked about molten metal. I linked you to a page. About half way down on the classic view is a whole load of stuff related to that.

What part of the blog is full of b.s.?

That was regarding the molten metal pouring out the side near the impact crater, not the temp. recorded in the debris months after the collapse. That is what the poster you responded to was referring too. You made it sound ike the blog had an answer for that but was talking about something different and since you didnt quote anything from your source it gave the impression that the blog had an answer to the posters question when it didnt appear to address it at all.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Not my buddies blog. Don't even know who the writer is. I'm on my phone. It's nearly impossible to copy paste links with any degree of ease. As such I won't. I think you asked about molten metal. I linked you to a page. About half way down on the classic view is a whole load of stuff related to that.

What part of the blog is full of b.s.?

That was regarding the molten metal pouring out the side near the impact crater, not the temp. recorded in the debris months after the collapse. That is what the poster you responded to was referring too. You made it sound ike the blog had an answer for that but was talking about something different and since you didnt quote anything from your source it gave the impression that the blog had an answer to the posters question when it didnt appear to address it at all.

Yes it does. It talks about molten aluminium. The main component of aircraft bodies.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Sorry..I misunderstood. You want the temps in the crater justified? Water on hot steel, runaway exothermic reaction, splits into h and o. I think that's what it says, I'm not going back to check. I'd rather watch 'the great British bakeoff'.

In the interim, maybe you can give me your opinion.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Sorry..I misunderstood. You want the temps in the crater justified? Water on hot steel, runaway exothermic reaction, splits into h and o. I think that's what it says, I'm not going back to check. I'd rather watch 'the great British bakeoff'.

In the interim, maybe you can give me your opinion.

My opinion? That is a trap. If I were to point fingers it would be in the direction the money went and where the motives are. As I am sure would be the start of any investigation.

Anyway. Post the parts of your sources to show what you mean to say so we dont have to read through so much to find it. Im at work FFS. What you are doing is like claiming CNN as a source and then linking to their homepage rather than a specific article.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

www.debunking911.com...

Look! The whole page is called molten steel. It's all about molten steel. I didn't just say go look at this site.

Go on, be a sport, give me your theory as to the steel. You said earlier you worked with steel. 5th biggest in lower mainland B.C. from what I recall. You must have a clue.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
a reply to: MALBOSIA

www.debunking911.com...

Look! The whole page is called molten steel. It's all about molten steel. I didn't just say go look at this site.

Go on, be a sport, give me your theory as to the steel. You said earlier you worked with steel. 5th biggest in lower mainland B.C. from what I recall. You must have a clue.

Nope. I'm not an investigator. I ask questions and present solutions but it is not my call. I don't get paid enough for that.

originally posted by: thabusiness00
september clues does raise some questions

Every "issue" it raises is easily debunked with facts. You can find all of the "September Clues" and other "no planes at the WTC" threads in the HOAX Bin.

You can also find more information in my thread here:

DEW/Energy Weapons? Holograms? TV Fakery? No Planes at the WTC? -- A 9/11 Disinfo Campaign

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Sorry..I misunderstood. You want the temps in the crater justified? Water on hot steel, runaway exothermic reaction, splits into h and o. I think that's what it says, I'm not going back to check. I'd rather watch 'the great British bakeoff'.

In the interim, maybe you can give me your opinion.

I read the part that discusses that (10,000 words later) and it sounds like the author is suggesting centrifugal force. Heat creates steam, creates more heat which creates more steam... that is pretty amazing to say the least. But isn't that reaching a bit far. The process the author suggests was done in a lab and it is a great theory but I don't see it being better than any other theory. Well, except the no-plane theory. Thats a wack theory and only serves to discredit any theory not agreeing with the official one.

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire! 

wouldn't this reaction be seen in regular fire scenarios? Like a warehouse fire. Wouldn't fire fighters NOT be spraying water on these buildings? Should we add this to the long and ever growing list of firsts taking place on the morning of 9/11?

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Lets state some FACTS , first I am NOT from the USA .

This is the MOST IMPORTANT FACT nobody on EITHER SIDE can ever know the extent of the damage done by the aircraft.


So was structural damage done YES
Can office fires reach temperatures to weaken steel YES
Can a progressive collapse happen YES.

So could what we saw that day happen YES!!!

There was NO personal attack directed towards YOU, if so please point it out!

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Lets state some FACTS , first I am NOT from the USA .

This is the MOST IMPORTANT FACT nobody on EITHER SIDE can ever know the extent of the damage done by the aircraft.

The second most important thing to remember is that there was ZERO structural damage to any floors below the impact. There was no heat below impact

So was structural damage done YES

Not to any floors below the impact.

Can office fires reach temperatures to weaken steel YES

in certain areas of the fire yes but this was not magical fire that finds the weak points of the structure to concentrate its most efficient heat and spread evenly to each major connection to make sure they all collapse at the exact same time, so the building can enjoy a perfect vertical collapse.

Can a progressive collapse happen YES.

sure but I want to see a video of it and that doesn't explain how concrete became dust.

So could what we saw that day happen YES!!!

With magic fire and forces strong enough to pulverize concrete to dust... maybe.

There was NO personal attack directed towards YOU, if so please point it out!

When you type "YOU" in capitals like that it sort of makes it personal.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
Can office fires reach temperatures to weaken steel YES
Can a progressive collapse happen YES.

Has an office fire ever caused a progressive collapse in a steel-structured highrise? NO.

a reply to: _BoneZ_

Has an office fire ever caused a progressive collapse in a steel-structured highrise? NO.

Yes there has.
Delft
And to think it all started when a vending machine overheated.


Look familiar?
Complete with light smoke before and clouds after.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: _BoneZ_

Has an office fire ever caused a progressive collapse in a steel-structured highrise? NO.

Yes there has.
Delft
And to think it all started when a vending machine overheated.

Look familiar?
Complete with light smoke before and clouds after.

That is exactly what SHOULD have happened at the WTC. The section that had the damage and fire should have collapsed and the top spilling off the side leaving the bottom standing.

Thanks for posting.

a reply to: ShadowLink

I didnt hear any jumpers, or am i deaf?

In the other videos I've seen the jumpers can clearly be heard

originally posted by: MALBOSIA


The second most important thing to remember is that there was ZERO structural damage to any floors below the impact. There was no heat below impact

It was not necessary for any of the lower structure to have heat or structural damage. After collapse initiation the floors failed one on top of the other and sheared these thingies (called truss seats) off of the exterior columns. This is what held the floors in place.



Its easy to tell this was the failure point that caused the progressive collapse because when you look at the photos of the exterior columns, all of the truss seats are bent broken or missing.



This is how NIST describes the collapse and the physical evidence obviously backs it up.

NIST
Immediately after collapse initiation, the potential energy of the structure (physical mass of the tower) above the impact floors (94th to 99th in WTC 1 and 77th to 85th in WTC 2) was released, developing substantial kinetic energy. The impact of this rapidly accelerating mass on the floors directly below led to overloading and subsequent failure of these floors. The additional mass of the failed floors joined that of the tower mass from above the impact area, adding to the kinetic energy impinging on the subsequent floors. The failure of successive floors was apparent in images and videos of the towers’ collapse by the compressed air expelled outward as each floor failed and fell down onto the next. This mechanism appears to have continued until dust and debris obscured the view of the collapsing towers.
As the composite floor decking was most likely quite rigid due to the continuous concrete floor, the transverse bridging trusses, and the intermediate deck support angles, failure of the floor as a whole would be expected at the connections attaching the floor to the exterior wall and core.

The truss seats were designed to hold up only one floor not 15+,

With magic fire and forces strong enough to pulverize concrete to dust... maybe.

Before the collapse, almost all of the steel in the building was covered with spray on fireproofing. After the collapse, almost none of the steel was covered with spray on fireproofing. It doesn't take a genius to figure out where most of the dust came from.

originally posted by: _BoneZ_

originally posted by: wmd_2008
Can office fires reach temperatures to weaken steel YES
Can a progressive collapse happen YES.

Has an office fire ever caused a progressive collapse in a steel-structured highrise? NO.

YET again bonez like all the OTHER mislead individuals on here YOU always seem to forget about the structural damage caused by the plane's it wasn't just the fire was it, how many years will it take for that fact to sink into YOUR head!

a reply to: MALBOSIA

REALLY is that what you think

Floor design different, height different & no impact from planes !

It had REINFORCED concrete colums, it had REINFORCED concrete floor beams.

The columns were 50cm x 50cm over the full height of the building, with the amount of reinforcement decreasing with height.

The floor system consisted of a series of reinforced concrete joists running in the east-west direction between girders. Typical details are shown in Fig. 12.

That's the trouble with you guy's a building fire, is a building fire, is a building fire.

None of the building fires ever shown on here AS A COMPARISON ARE of a 110 storey tube in tube, STEEL FRAMED building, with floors suspended between the outer wall & core that have been struck by aircraft.

YOU claim your in the building trade COMPARE like with LIKE !

a reply to: psychonautn

I've read every reply to this thread since I started it and I don't recall anyone once mentioning hearing "jumpers".

Were you supposed to hear "jumpers" hitting the ground?
Did something lead you to believe the video was about the "jumpers"?

I can't help but feel that your post has a hint of disappointment in it, please tell me I'm wrong cause that's not what this thread is about.

a reply to: waypastvne

So what destroyed the core then?