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.

 

Larry Silverstein question

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
The question remains.....at what temperature does aluminum glow in broad daylight and were the hotspots hot enough to keep this aluminum glowing for days and weeks as eyewitnesses have said the molten metal was there for days and weeks?

[edit on 8/15/2006 by Griff]




posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy



911myths.com...


You still haven't commented on the fact that the water pressure was low, meaning the sprinklers and hoses couldn't be used effectively to put out the fires.


If that's in fact true, then holy cow, that changes the whole way I look at 9/11, thanks Pointy for address the most critically reviewed issue about 9/11.






posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
The question remains.....at what temperature does aluminum glow in broad daylight and where the hotspots hot enough to keep this aluminum glowing for days and weeks as eyewitnesses have said the molten metal was there for days and weeks?


Also Griff, what could CAUSE so much heat and the temperature range projected from the hot spot readings and to provide the molten material? Interesting hmmm..?



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy

Where do they say the molten metal was at WTC7, and there are more sources of aluminum that just the planes at WTC1&2, such as the panels covering the building. You have to show the metal refered to is from WTC7, and that there are no other sources of metal.





Can you provide then how the temperatures got that hot? But not to mention, notice the luminousity, the pictures of molten metal were more yellowish and brighter rather than the orange colors, not to mention, in one of the links I provided and what from Griff said, engineers and clean up workers found molten iron/steel, one of the two, read the Steven Jones link.

And by the way, mixing metals, what's that going to do? Form a chemical reaction at those temperatures to raise or lower some melting point? haha wtf, give me a break.

There still needs to be a source for the intense heat?



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   


The question remains.....at what temperature does aluminum glow in broad daylight and were the hotspots hot enough to keep this aluminum glowing for days and weeks as eyewitnesses have said the molten metal was there for days and weeks?


That's presuming it's pure aluminum, given that other materials could have mixed with it, then the question is hard to answer.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy

4. Pulling a building means to attach cables and pull it down, no explosives


You keep claiming that, where's your reference point because from attribution sites to the matter of "Pull it", it's been claimed that when referring to pull it, refers to demolition, not pulling down the building with cables. And if its slang, how often to they bring down huge buildings like that with cables? Isn't sort of unconventional and safe, and no I'm not talking about broken down shanties and 2 story buildings either


Pull it is a reference to a demolition cause.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy

That's presuming it's pure aluminum, given that other materials could have mixed with it, then the question is hard to answer.


How do you expect it to just mix and mash with other metals to form different chemical compositions, unless you refer to thermite. that's ridiculous Mr_Pointy, color differences are all the matter here now and what could of even PRODUCED that type of heat anyways?

[edit on 8/15/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   


Also Griff, what could CAUSE so much heat and the temperature range projected from the hot spot readings and to provide the molten material? Interesting hmmm..?


The fires, which by all accounts were massive, house fires routinely produce molten aluminum. Given the office building have hysrocarbons, which burn hotter, the molten metal is easily produced. And the the rubble would insulate the fires after collapse, like the underground coal fires.
www.offroaders.com...



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Yes but you still need a strong source to produce the heat don't you, while it's being dumped on by gallons of water. The underground coal fire is completely irrelevant as discussed before on this forum, if you want to discuss that and if it has relevance to this, then we might as well compare the Madrid building to WTC 7 and say it shouldn't of fell because the Madrid building didn't, you're not coming up with a source for the heat Mr_Pointy.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
May I reference a post from the 9/11 God - Wecomeinpeace, many praises to you sire:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   


Can you provide then how the temperatures got that hot? But not to mention, notice the luminousity, the pictures of molten metal were more yellowish and brighter rather than the orange colors, not to mention, in one of the links I provided and what from Griff said, engineers and clean up workers found molten iron/steel, one of the two, read the Steven Jones link.


Jones remains a crackpot, who's papers are never peer reviewed and are reject by the scientific community.



www.debunking911.com...


Here's the link again, given your past record I'll presume you never read it.



And by the way, mixing metals, what's that going to do? Form a chemical reaction at those temperatures to raise or lower some melting point? haha wtf, give me a break.


I never metioned the melting point or thermite, different materials glow at different temperatures.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   


You keep claiming that, where's your reference point because from attribution sites to the matter of "Pull it", it's been claimed that when referring to pull it, refers to demolition, not pulling down the building with cables. And if its slang, how often to they bring down huge buildings like that with cables? Isn't sort of unconventional and safe, and no I'm not talking about broken down shanties and 2 story buildings either


You ask where my reference is, yet you never produced one of your own.

xbehome.com...



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy


Jones remains a crackpot, who's papers are never peer reviewed and are reject by the scientific community.


Well the relevance of that opinion shows your direct ignorance to the 9/11 issue in that you can not simply take a critical or objective view to anything contrary to the official story. When I consider works or papers from the otherside, I do so objectively and not with pre-concieved criticsm.

Mr_Pointy with that attitude, furthermore, I am not to argue with anything you have to provide anymore because you remain ignorant.

Have a nice day.

Welcome to ignore.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   


Yes but you still need a strong source to produce the heat don't you, while it's being dumped on by gallons of water. The underground coal fire is completely irrelevant as discussed before on this forum, if you want to discuss that and if it has relevance to this, then we might as well compare the Madrid building to WTC 7 and say it shouldn't of fell because the Madrid building didn't, you're not coming up with a source for the heat Mr_Pointy.


I have a source of heat, the fires, the coal fires are relevent they show that an underground fire will produce hotspots while burning slowly.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   


Well the relevance of that opinion shows your direct ignorance to the 9/11 issue in that you can not simply take a critical or objective view to anything contrary to the official story. When I consider works or papers from the otherside, I do so objectively and not with pre-concieved criticsm.


Given that you refuse to look at the evidence I present, and that his findings are not peer reviewed and rejected by the scientific community, you are the ignorant one. I don't have the qualifications to comment on his work, I have to rely on those that do, they say he's full of crap.

[edit on 15-8-2006 by Mr_pointy]



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
I don't have the qualifications to comment on his work, I have to rely on those that do, they say he's full of crap.


Can you actually point me to the quotes of these people who say he's "full of crap"? Thanks. BYU department of engineering will not do for me. Why? Because the engineering department at any college relies on the government to fund it. Being under the government's fiscal control, I don't think anyone would want to stir the pot. Jones can because he is doing it alone (meaning without the backing of the school). I'd like to go to that college and actually sit in a room where Jones and his collegues (specifically structural enginnering professors) talk about Jones' theories. I'm willing to bet that alot agree with him but have to put up the false facade to keep their government grants. Just my opinion.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
The thread was about sliverstein making the decision to pull the building was more in favor of insurance recoop. Even if silverstein had asked the firemen or who ever to pull the building should it not take a lot of time connecting the cables to the supports and then to really big trucks to do the job. No mention of cables being readied or large trucks, yet very shortly after he stated this the building behaved like towers 1 and 2, exactually the same mo. We had no official investigation of the buildings from any one. NTSB never was allowed on site, the ATF was not allowed on site but a volunteer explosive team and a so called academy of science
were the only tests team to be allowed to make decisions yet even they were not allowed to make tests of metals. Just think the news teams were allowed to fill in the blanks. wtc7 should not have fallen sliverstein gave orders to set off explosives
to bring down the building period.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   


Can you actually point me to the quotes of these people who say he's "full of crap"? Thanks. BYU department of engineering will not do for me. Why? Because the engineering department at any college relies on the government to fund it. Being under the government's fiscal control, I don't think anyone would want to stir the pot. Jones can because he is doing it alone (meaning without the backing of the school). I'd like to go to that college and actually sit in a room where Jones and his collegues (specifically structural enginnering professors) talk about Jones' theories. I'm willing to bet that alot agree with him but have to put up the false facade to keep their government grants. Just my opinion.


Wow, your saying that the the people at BYU are so morally corrupt, that they'll suppress Jones and cover up the murder of 3000 people, adding more people to the conspiracy. I noticed you didn't address the fact that his papers aren't peer reviewed.
www.debunking911.com...



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr_pointy
Wow, your saying that the the people at BYU are so morally corrupt, that they'll suppress Jones and cover up the murder of 3000 people, adding more people to the conspiracy.


No, I'm saying people will hush up if they want to keep their job. Nothing more.


I noticed you didn't address the fact that his papers aren't peer reviewed.
www.debunking911.com...


Since his papers are of physics and have been reviewed by physicists....I would say that they certainly have been peer reviewed.

Since you are going to say that physicists aren't qualified and only structural engineers are, go ask a structural engineer about the physics and dynamics of a failing building. I bet you'll get the answer "I'll get back to you" while they go ask their physicist/mechanical engineer friends. Since structural engineers study statics (stationary physics) they aren't more qualified than a physicist who studies dynamics (physics in motion). I should know...I'm a structural engineer but couldn't tell you squat about dynamics until I relearn dynamics. Physics professors teach about dynamics and know a heck of alot more than a structural engineer would about dynamics.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Just read your link Mr_pointy. I liked the bottom paragraph where it says why don't these engineers debunk his paper. I'd like to know the same thing. It's one thing to wave your hand and say no....it's another to actually look at the given evidence and then refute it.

BTW, I'm not in total agreement with Dr. Jones either. I don't believe explosives were used in the towers at all.




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join