It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

page: 60
28
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Again, what published study can you cite that minor steel components could have prevented the collapse of WTC 7. When there was examples of fire induced structural failures at WTC 5?




posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:00 PM
link   
A reply to: neutronflux

Neutronflux, it's amusing to see your use of my Oct. 2014 proposal for an eventual reason for the observed strange steel deformations at WTC steel, in your post at page 59 without giving due credit. My old post :
www.abovetopsecret.com... :

Posted on Oct, 21 2014 : A possible explanation for such a "natural" occurring foundry effect could be the charcoal pit explanation.


The problem with that, has however always been, that even seven weeks after 9/11, and millions of liters of rain and firefighting water was soaked in that rubble pile, red hot heavy beam ends were still pulled from the rubble pile, while professionals expected temperatures still deep down in that pile to be well in excess of 1000° Fahrenheit, after those seven weeks. (Dreger, page 8 / 168)
That's thus far above that proposed 1000° F -538° C, and oxygen starved charcoal pits do not get much hotter than 280° - 300° C.

See Bernardo1871 his post with that excellent link to Dreger's 2008 paper on Ground Zero heat in it, which is certainly worth reading in its entirety.

www.fao.org... :
Big charcoal pits do not burn at their usual low oxidation rates any longer than 20 to 30 days, because the wood is burned inside a clay or earth cover under poor oxygen rates.
However, after three days all the wood is converted to pure charcoal in a small 1 m3 pit. And even if we assume that office debris compacted in reasonable closed off small pockets deep down under Ground Zero, was acting like wood in such a charcoal pit, and then even after three days burned also all the formed charcoal up, that counts for no more than about a week slowly diminishing heat.
Wood sheets as used in WTC offices as cubicle walls and desks tops, would reach a maximum carbonization point, at about 280° - 300°C.
That's by far not hot enough to heat thick, heavy steel beams up to any red hot glowing temperature points, like 871° C (1600° F). These temperatures can only be reached shortly in f.ex. a match its flame, fully fed with 21 % oxygen from all the surrounding and constantly repleted air.



The second link provided by Bernardo1871 :


Temperatures required to melt steel occur around 2,500 degrees F. Jet fuel, which is primarily kerosene, cannot burn much hotter than around 1,500 degrees F. Normal office fires are known to be capable of reaching temperatures of around 1,100 degrees F.(Google) Key to understanding how office fires could not have contributed to the collapse of Building 7, is the fact that steel has a terrific capacity as a heat sink. Heat applied to one section will travel and disperse that heat to whatever other steel it is attached to, necessitating many, many hours to achieve temperatures hot enough to even begin to bend steel, let alone melt it.


Your second point :

neutronflux : Two, you :

Bernardo1871 : I mean, there are even thermal photos by the NASA (EarthData).

Please cite from that evidence where the WTC rubble was hot enough to support molten steel?


NASA told us that their FLIR method did only penetrate about a meter into the rubble piles.
Thus, we do not have temperature measurements from them, from deep below in the piles.
The fact that rescuers their rubber boot soles melted while working the top of the piles, indicates however, how damn hot just the surface already was, at specific spots shown on NASA's diagrams.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

What are you even talking about. Please post the WTC 79 column picture with a list of what parts are cited in a published study that would make the fire related collapse impossible that are discernible in that photo.

And how those steel parts prevented steel from expanding while heated, kept steel from deforming while expanding and lossing strength under load, prevented steel from contracting while cooling, and prevent thermal stress from uneven heating and cooling?

Again, if those minor steel components prevent a building from collapsing during a fire, why bother with insulation.

How tall was WTC 5 versus WTC 7? What floors were the fire related structural failures on? Why didn’t the minor structural components you keep going on about prevent fire related structural failures in WTC 5?



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by: neutronflux
A reply to: LaBTop

Again, what published study can you cite that minor steel components could have prevented the collapse of WTC 7. When there was examples of fire induced structural failures at WTC 5?


There is a NIST study that proposed a column 79 or some other column failure in that same area.
Tony Szamboti explained what was wrong with that. And I expect Prof. Hulsley et al to come up with some damn impressive evidence that it could not have happened like NIST proposed.
So, just exercise some of your own hard needed patience.

And NnN, what the heck has that WTC5 remark to do with that.? That's a totally different subject.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

What are you droning on now. Other than soldering of combustible materials trapped in 1,000,000 tons of rubble would cause smoldering at the WTC.

If the pile was hot from nuclear reactions, you would need a radiation source bigger than the fukushima reactor. The resultant radiation would be deadlier than Fukushima.

If water couldn’t stop the beams from being red hot, what stopped the reaction so they could be hauled off.

Your spinning of facts fails at many levels.

It wouldn’t be thermite. Thermite doesn’t smoldering. Thermite provides its own fuel and is consumed in momentums. Not weeks. If their was any thermite like material not burnt, the WTC pile was never hot enough to reignite the thermite like material.

There is no proof of thermal activity at the WTC indicative of thermite burning at 4000F.

If water was not controlling the smoldering, then why didn’t the steel heat up the beds of dump trucks to make their beds glow.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

Originally posted by: neutronflux
A reply to: LaBTop

Again, what published study can you cite that minor steel components could have prevented the collapse of WTC 7. When there was examples of fire induced structural failures at WTC 5?


There is a NIST study that proposed a column 79 or some other column failure in that same area.
Tony Szamboti explained what was wrong with that. And I expect Prof. Hulsley et al to come up with some damn impressive evidence that it could not have happened like NIST proposed.
So, just exercise some of your own hard needed patience.

And NnN, what the heck has that WTC5 remark to do with that.? That's a totally different subject.


Who does the above answer the below.

What are you even talking about. Please post the WTC 79 column picture with a list of what parts are cited in a published study that would make the fire related collapse impossible that are discernible in that photo.

And how those steel parts prevented steel from expanding while heated, kept steel from deforming while expanding and lossing strength under load, prevented steel from contracting while cooling, and prevent thermal stress from uneven heating and cooling?

Again, if those minor steel components prevent a building from collapsing during a fire, why bother with insulation.

How tall was WTC 5 versus WTC 7? What floors were the fire related structural failures on? Why didn’t the minor structural components you keep going on about prevent fire related structural failures in WTC 5?
edit on 10-10-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:28 PM
link   
A reply to: neutronflux

You should do your homework.
My links to two well known debunker sites, in my points C. and D. Told you already today again, to read them all. It's all in there, and you sure as hell know it. The Tony Szamboti posts there.
Start reading instead of typing. And stop teasing.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: neutronflux

You should do your homework.
My links to two well known debunker sites, in my points C. and D. Told you already today again, to read them all. It's all in there, and you sure as hell know it. The Tony Szamboti posts there.
Start reading instead of typing. And stop teasing.


Again,

What are you even talking about. Please post the WTC 79 column picture with a list of what parts are cited in a published study that would make the fire related collapse impossible that are discernible in that photo.

And how those steel parts prevented steel from expanding while heated, kept steel from deforming while expanding and lossing strength under load, prevented steel from contracting while cooling, and prevent thermal stress from uneven heating and cooling?

Again, if those minor steel components prevent a building from collapsing during a fire, why bother with insulation.

How tall was WTC 5 versus WTC 7? What floors were the fire related structural failures on? Why didn’t the minor structural components you keep going on about prevent fire related structural failures in WTC 5?



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:37 PM
link   
A reply to: neutronflux

Are you losing coherency?
I am not interested in proposed nuclear reactions. You seem to be obsessed with it. Well, have fun with it.
Thermite to me, is only interesting as a possible player in the collapse initiation events.
Anything after those initiation events, will probably be logically occurring further natural collapse events.
And I never said that thermite could be a source for the excessive heat in the debris piles, for three long months.
That's impossible. It's a very fast chemical process. Stay focused.
You are a victim of your own circular reasoning. Seek help.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: neutronflux

You should do your homework.
My links to two well known debunker sites, in my points C. and D. Told you already today again, to read them all. It's all in there, and you sure as hell know it. The Tony Szamboti posts there.
Start reading instead of typing. And stop teasing.


How do the components you keep going on about prevent steel from expanding when heated. How do those components prevent steel losing its strength when heated. How do those components keep steel from deforming when under stress. How do those components prevent steel from contracting when cooling?

Steel will expand when it is heated no mater what. Is that false? Expanding steel will ether deform or break something if it is placed in a bind. Is that false. You cannot prevent the contraction of cooling steel. If placed in a bind, it will deform or break something. Is that false.
edit on 10-10-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: neutronflux

Are you losing coherency?
I am not interested in proposed nuclear reactions. You seem to be obsessed with it. Well, have fun with it.
Thermite to me, is only interesting as a possible player in the collapse initiation events.
Anything after those initiation events, will probably be logically occurring further natural collapse events.
And I never said that thermite could be a source for the excessive heat in the debris piles, for three long months.
That's impossible. It's a very fast chemical process. Stay focused.
You are a victim of your own circular reasoning. Seek help.


You are blinded by incoherent pseudoscience.

If the reaction that kept the WTC rubble smoldering was not similar to the process of creating charcoal in a buried pit, what was the reaction that kept the pile smoldering for three months?
edit on 10-10-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:49 PM
link   
You just repeatedly posted the same spam questions in three posts. Which I answered, but you have no time to read, eagerly and obsessively only wanting to post repetitively the same old questions we by now, know so well from you.
You are clearly losing coherence. There are heaps of posts in my offered C. and D. links, about the missing parts that NIST did not include in their column 70 fairy tale.
Have lots of fun with reading them.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 07:52 PM
link   
A reply to: neutronflux

Bravo. Your first coherent post !
THAT's the worrisome question, my dear Watson !



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
You just repeatedly posted the same spam questions in three posts. Which I answered, but you have no time to read, eagerly and obsessively only wanting to post repetitively the same old questions we by now, know so well from you.
You are clearly losing coherence. There are heaps of posts in my offered C. and D. links, about the missing parts that NIST did not include in their column 70 fairy tale.
Have lots of fun with reading them.


You don’t answer anything, you drone on and spin long rants hoping to drown out reason.

The sad thing. The real argument is not fire related collapse is impossible. It has been proven by real world events.

The real argument for WTC 7 is this. Based on reasonable assumptions and observations, there was enough thermal stress introduced into WTC 7 that caused bolting to fail. The failures resulted in loss of lateral support of columns that resulted in buckling that initiated collapse of WTC. There is the NIST study, and at least two other released studies that shows fire related collapse was the most probable cause.

How many completed release studies shows the components of WTC 7 made fire collapse possible? Care to cite those completed studies and models that have been published?

Now.

If the reaction that kept the WTC rubble smoldering was not similar to the process of creating charcoal in a buried pit, what was the reaction that kept the pile smoldering for three months?



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:04 PM
link   
And lo and behold.
I have news for you :

Why did not one US Institution, investigating 9/11/2001, came up with your beloved BUCKLED columns from ANY of the three WTC towers ? ? ?

Start asking yourself that, my dear Watson.

Because if they had ever found JUST ONE OF THOSE, they would have told the whole world about it, don't you think so ?
Instead they disappeared all essential steel from the collapse initiation floors of all three towers.

NOW start asking yourself, WHY that steel disappearing trick would have been done by your trusted government(s) and military industrial complex CEO's, Nn.

Answer that one first, Nn.
Before ever debating anyone who's sincerely searching for the real 9/11 truth here, again.
edit on 10/10/18 by LaBTop because: Added that nice reddish tint, the color of spilled blood....by the PLANNERS.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: neutronflux

Bravo. Your first coherent post !
THAT's the worrisome question, my dear Watson !


What question? There is no question what caused the rubble pile to smolder for 3 months. Unless you have a more likely cause than the smoldering of material in a low oxygen environment that flared up as it was exposed to fresh atmosphere.



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:12 PM
link   
A reply to: neutronflux

THAT QUESTION, Nn



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
And lo and behold.
I have news for you :

Why did not one US Institution, investigating 9/11/2001, came up with your beloved BUCKLED columns from ANY of the three WTC towers ? ? ?

Start asking yourself that, my dear Watson.

Because if they had ever found JUST ONE OF THOSE, they would have told the whole world about it, don't you think so ?
Instead they disappeared all essential steel from the initiation floors of all three towers, ask yoursewlf NOW, WHY, Nn.

Answer that one first, Nn.
Before ever debating anyone who's sincerely searching for the real 9/11 truth here, again.


Oh, the lie the steel was not inspected. Your whole narrative comes down to a truth movement lie? There are not photos after photos of the piles of columns at the WTC? Not one with evidence of a column cut by charges. Lots of evidence of deformed steel from bending. Is that false. While you ignore the steel was inspected on site by multiple people, and handled by even more people. The steel was hauled off site to lay down yards and inspected and documented. Video taped and sampled.

With completed reports like this.



Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
app.aws.org...




Characterization of Submerged Arc Welds from the World Trade Center Towers: As- Deposited Welds and Failures Associated with Impact Damage of the Exterior Columns
files.aws.org...


There is not one once of evidence of cut columns. Not from the steel. Not from samples. Not from inspections. Not in the photo evidence. Not in the video evidence. No evidence of charges setting of with the power to cut steel columns from the video, audio, seismic evidence. No indication of the 4000 degrees that thermite burns at. No evidence of a pressure wave with the force to cut steel.

edit on 10-10-2018 by neutronflux because: Fixed this and that



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: neutronflux

THAT QUESTION, Nn


That you provide no alternative reaction. There is no other likely explanation than the smoldering was from burning material trapped in over 1,000,000 tons of rubble with a limited supply of fresh atmosphere. Material that flashed when exposed to fresh air. In a pile that made it impossible for any molten material to be pure anything. With no violent steam reactions from water contacting molten steel?



posted on Oct, 10 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   
You're even more pliable than I thought.

SHOW me ONE REPORT that has a photo or a description in it, of a BUCKLED vertical column, just one, Nn, and it must be ORIGINATING from any of the three collapse initiation floors. Be damn sure to use that filter, Nn.

They even could not come up with just ONE. And NONE from any other floor, Nn. !



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join