World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

a reply to: skyeagle409

truther ignorance

Wait! You mean things like your pictures of horseshoe-steel, which ought to prove weakened steel due to fires? That one was awesome indeed.
The one-eyed may be a prophet for the blind, but I sense a serious lack of depth perception in your observations.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Wait! You mean things like your pictures of horseshoe-steel, which ought to prove weakened steel due to fires?

That is correct. That horseshoe beam was annealed by fire which is why you don't see huge cracks on the outer edge of that steel beam.

Notice that the outer edge of the flanges on these steel beams are not cracked.

Fire Weakened Steel Beams

a reply to: skyeagle409

Notice this:

He notes that steel has bent at several connection points that had joined the floors of the WTC to the vertical columns. He describes the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, “If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted—it’s kind of like that.” He adds, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot—perhaps around 2,000 degrees.”

www.historycommons.org...

We know the Toldya (TM) easily reaches said temperatures without leaving any traces in the microstructure of melted clocks... ähm.... steel.
Case closed, solid proof via picturesque evidence smowhere and those Dali paintings of course. I love surrealism.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: skyeagle409

Notice this:

He notes that steel has bent at several connection points that had joined the floors of the WTC to the vertical columns. He describes the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, “If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted—it’s kind of like that.” He adds, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot—perhaps around 2,000 degrees.”

www.historycommons.org...

We know the Toldya (TM) easily reaches said temperatures without leaving any traces in the microstructure of melted clocks... ähm.... steel.
Case closed, solid proof via picturesque evidence smowhere and those Dali paintings of course. I love surrealism.

Weak. Magic materials you have no proof were ever there. Hooray for baseless speculation and denial in the face of actual proofs!!!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

We know the Toldya (TM) easily reaches said temperatures without leaving any traces in the microstructure of melted clocks... ähm.... steel.
Case closed, solid proof via picturesque evidence smowhere and those Dali paintings of course. I love surrealism.

I don't think that you understand where I was going. That horseshoe steel beam was proof that fire, not explosives, was responsible for its shape.

Now, let's take a look here.

Temperature and Strength of Metals

Influence of temperature on the strength of metals

Some common types of steel lose 10% of their strength at 450 C (840 F), and 40% at 550 C (1022 F). At temperatures above 800 C ( 1475 F), it has lost 90% of its strength.

Other types of steel are made to stand higher temperatures before losing 10% of their strength, but they are much more expensive (and are weaker at room temperature).

And there are types which actually get stronger, up to 450 F (but then get a lot weaker at higher temperatures

www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

Which also explains how fire weakened the steel structure of an overpass in Oakland, CA. until it collapsed.

Overpass Near San Francisco Collapses After Fire Weakens Steel Structure

a reply to: skyeagle409

I don't think that you understand where I was going. That horseshoe steel beam was proof that fire, not explosives, was responsible for its shape.

And now you keep bending scientific standarts for your convenience. No, your picture adds not a single shred of proof. You just happen to have some pictures and a completely made-up story to tell. Or can you offer a hardness evaluation to prove your point? No? Thought so, we may also safely assume the Toldya (TM) did this then. I can offer some picturesque evidence for that theory as well.

Do you understand why your method is considered to be a no-go (with regards to scientific standarts)?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

And now you keep bending scientific standarts for your convenience.

Let's just say reality.

No, your pictures adds not a single shred of proof.

Why of course it is proof. Explosives cannot bend steel in that manner, but fire can. I know, because one of my specialties in the Air Force was working with aerospace metals.

You just happen to have some pictures and a completely made-up story to tell.

Ah, that is what I expect from someone who cannot refute the facts.

What Fire Can Do to Steel Beams

a reply to: skyeagle409



Awesome. Fire can bend steel but explosives 'somehow' can't. Sure, and you are the Prince of Persia who flew Me's in the Luftwaffe before you joined the Air Force via Operation Paperclip. I know... *sigh*

Why of course it is proof. Explosives cannot bend steel in that manner, but fire can. I know, because one of my specialties in the Air Force was working with aerospace metals.

Well, no. A lot of mass/ aka debris can do that as well. And yes, the shockwaves (explosives) could have done that also. I don't care if you bend reality or scientific standarts to your convenience, it's actually disingenuous and laughable on both occasions.
Your 'facts' were refuted a long time ago, you just happen to 'accidentally' deny that part constantly. Again: search for the hardness evaluation in the Nist-report and I promise you won't be able to find any evidence for the "weakened steel due to pre-collapse fires". Not that you can't search, microstructural changes due to pre-collapse-fires are non-existent in the steel they examined. Thus you simply have no evidence.

Yes. I am entertained, thank you.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Awesome. Fire can bend steel but explosives 'somehow' can't.

Not in that manner, which was evident by the fact there are no cracks on the outer edge of that steel beam. It is all very simple to understand by those who understand the annealing process of steel.

What Fire Did To These Steel Beams

Fire Weakens Steel Support Structure of Roof, Which Collapsed.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Your 'facts' were refuted a long time ago, you just happen to 'accidentally' deny that part constantly.

There you go posting more disinformation and as proof, I will challenge you to post evidence that my evidence has been refuted, and if you fail to provide that evidence, be prepared for the consequences.

Lets not forget:

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

vincentdunn.com...


American Society of Civil Engineers

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

911-engineers.blogspot.com...


Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

* Controlled Demolition Inc

* D.H. Griffin Companies

* Mazzocchi Wrecking

* Gateway Demolition

* Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal

To sum it up, you have no case.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Challenge for Idiocracy? Not accepted, I propose you try to find somebody else who believes in your 'evidence' instead. We already agreed to disagree a while ago, remember? Take it easy, hope you are entertained as well.

To sum it up, you have no case.

Nah... some people beg to differ. I would continue to state that you even didn't bring up one solid source to begin with, but that's just me being in my head.




(and thx 4 all the fish)

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Challenge for Idiocracy? Not accepted,

Very amusing!! You don't seem to understand that reality doesn't depend on whether you accept it or not.

Now, where's your evidence that refutes my evidence?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Challenge for Idiocracy? Not accepted, I

Exposing the idiocracy of the Truth Movement is exactly what I had in mind had you decided to take up that challenge.

BTW, I was watched a TV program a short time ago that featured architects, forensic structural engineers, and even an interview with Chief Daniel A. Nigro. He was the person who made the decision to create the safety zone around WTC 7 because they were aware that WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing due to structural movements, the huge impact hole on the south wall of WTC 7 that spanned several stories, and indications of structural weakening from the fires.

In fact, firefighters could hear the structural weakening from the fires and another reason how they determined that it was just a matter of time before WTC 7 would collapse and it had nothing to do with explosives, which is understandable considering there are no demo explosions as WTC 7 collapsed.

Just to let you know that the claim of demo explosives bringing down WTC 7 was fabricated. I just thought that you would like to have known that since you are not interested in accepting my challenge. BTW, there was no reason to place mufflers on demo explosives. Take that as a hint.

What have I been telling truthers about disinformation planted in order to discredit the Truth Movement?

a reply to: skyeagle409

Exposing the idiocracy of the Truth Movement is exactly what I had in mind had you decided to take up that challenge.

Big words, as usual. Let's see on which base you started this "challenge"...

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

The steel truss floor supports probably started ...

Another opinion. Many firemen come to mind who would beg to differ.

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Fine, I remember some experts who actually think that, yes. Am I supposed to repeatedly copypasta their statements here as well? I don't see any evidence, all I see are some opinions. What kind of challenge did you have in mind exactly? Your 'evidence' is exposed by now, opinions and solid proof are two different things in reality.

Straighten up your bended realities of Idiocracy and we might find a common base to start with.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Another opinion. Many firemen come to mind who would beg to differ.

If you had done your homework, you would have found that the firemen later attributed the sound of explosions that had nothing to do with explosives and I even posted their comments as well, but I guess you missed them. Let's take a sample.

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem

Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.


Jay Swithers

An ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.


Dominick Derubbio

t was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.
So this guys is guessing that the explosions were floors pancaking.


FDNY Batallion Chief Brian Dixon

I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.


Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

What better way to discredit truthers than to let them do it themselves.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Fine, I remember some experts who actually think that, yes. Am I supposed to repeatedly copypasta their statements here as well? I don't see any evidence, all I see are some opinions. What kind of challenge did you have in mind exactly? Your 'evidence' is exposed by now, opinions and solid proof are two different things in reality.

it is easy to prove. First of all, we have evidence of fires in WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, and such fires generate temperatures high enough to weaken steel, as evident in the following photos.

Photo 1: Fire Weakens Steel

Photo 2: Fire Weakens Steel

Photo 3: Fire Weakens Steel

And of course, the Kaden Toy Factory.

Kader Toy Factory Fire

The building was reinforced with un-insulated steel girders which quickly weakened and collapsed. This part of the building was dedicated to the storage of finished products and the fire spread quickly. Other parts of the factory were full of raw materials which also burnt very fast.

Fire-fighters arrived at the factory at about 4:40pm, to find Building One about to collapse.

The Kader buildings,...collapsed relatively early in the fire because their structural steel supports lacked the fireproofing that would have allowed them to maintain their strength when exposed to high temperatures. A post-fire review of the debris at the Kader site showed no indication that any of the steel members had been fireproofed.

Now, you have been made aware just how easy fire can weaken steel.

a reply to: skyeagle409

evident in the following photos.

For your consideration: photographic evidence is not exactly what we were talking about here, it never was. Show me the hardness evaluation of this steel, which might be able to actually prove the microstructural changes due to pre-collapse fires. You don't get it, do you?

That's all you've got? Pictures, opinions and some discrediting for witnesses who contradict your story? What a joke. Fire is able to weaken steel you say? Nah. Really? Nobody knew it could, this is mind-blowing... oh my gosh... you are going to invent the wheel next, are you not?

Käptn Obvious striked again. You make me giggle constantly, much appreciated and very amusing talking to you. Alas!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

That's all you've got? Pictures, opinions and some discrediting for witnesses who contradict your story? What a joke

And just what does the conspiracy side have in the way of proof?

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: skyeagle409

evident in the following photos.

For your consideration: photographic evidence is not exactly what we were talking about here, it never was. Show me the hardness evaluation of this steel, which might be able to actually prove the microstructural changes due to pre-collapse fires. You don't get it, do you?

That's all you've got? Pictures, opinions and some discrediting for witnesses who contradict your story? What a joke. Fire is able to weaken steel you say? Nah. Really? Nobody knew it could, this is mind-blowing... oh my gosh... you are going to invent the wheel next, are you not?

Käptn Obvious striked again. You make me giggle constantly, much appreciated and very amusing talking to you. Alas!

Yes fire can weaken steel ask any blacksmith but sometimes timber suffers less !

a reply to: skyeagle409

You don't get it. As PO has alluded to, your pictures and stuff are not evidence of anything, not proof of anything except perhaps your utter lack of understanding of what happened that day. And of course, what didn't happen. You come across as some sort of automaton posting old pictures that "prove" virtually nothing.