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.

 

Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

page: 36
172
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Good post Mike /salute, I do see exactly where you are coming from, I think everyone must agree though that no matter how involved the government were, there are definately cover ups.

To be perfectly honest if the OS was to be proved wrong and the Truthers version was indeed the Truth we would all lose what little faith we have left in humanity, but at the same time the whole world deserves to know exactly what happened that day.





posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
Did someone mention no evidence of explosions?.......

911review.org...


Pay particular attention to the flames these are caused by combustible office furniture, my mistake /blush, there`s me thinking that the symmetrically fashioned and perfectly timed explosions were controlled explosions......


There's you/blush, thinking that Hollywood style movie explosions are what demolitions look like. The way it works is that the explosives go off first and then the building collapses, sans flames. When hot carbonaceous gases are expelled through windows via compression of collapsing floors above, they ignite much as in a flashover. Where did those gases come from? Burning jet fuel and....wait for it...office furnishings. On lower floors without fires, the windows are just blown out from compression without the dramatic flames. Demolition of buildings is not done by blowing out windows, even though some misguided souls believe that this is evidence of "squibs."

Focus, Seventh, focus...in demolition we first have lots of sharp explosions and then the collapse happens. Demolition explosions with copious flames are only in those movies that are so disappointing when you discover that they are not much like reality. Check those youtube videos of controlled demolition that the CTer's like to link to. Note any great gouts of flame coming out the windows?

[edit on 7/13/2009 by pteridine]



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
salute, I do see exactly where you are coming from, I think everyone must agree though that no matter how involved the government were, there are definately cover ups.

To be perfectly honest if the OS was to be proved wrong and the Truthers version was indeed the Truth we would all lose what little faith we have left in humanity, but at the same time the whole world deserves to know exactly what happened that day.



My compliments to you and your ability to see other ways at looking at things and constantly wanting to learn more. Not everyone displays these qualities.

There's no question there were dirty deed from many sides in 9/11.

With complex events involving hundreds even thousands of players, there are no simple answers. Much focus is put on the WTC building collapses for the simple reason there are so many difficult to understand phenomena compressed into a short chaotic time and space. Plenty of room for interpretations. And there's a wealth of photos, videos, forensic evidence to play with and try to reconcile.

People can impose their own interpretations and act as detective. A sub-industry feeds this tragic nightmare turned into a videogame. It provides an outlet for outrage and feelings of betrayal to those who seek it.

But 8 years passing and only circumspect evidence and a tiny percentage of professionals supporting it gives an indication of how solid the controlled demolition theory really is.


Mike



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Focus, Seventh, focus

[edit on 7/13/2009 by pteridine]


I`m focusing I really am
. I`m new to all this and my interest has been fuelled by the many indiscrepancies from both sides of the fence depicting that fateful day that is 9/11.

1. Upon initial impact the aviation fuel was ignited, everyone can and did see this, if as we are led to believe that thousands upon thousands of gallons of fuel managed to escape, and not got ignited but spread through the buildings via lift shafts, then ignited and burnt for roughly 45 minutes thus weakening both structures.

2. There is clear evidence via two way radios of a fireman stating `We have it locked down` and then he went on to describe that two lines was all that was needed.

3. Black smoke being expelled again proving the golden triangle of physics and combustion (heat, fuel, oxygen), must be adhered to, black smoke = oxygen starvation.

4. Certain temperatures needed to weaken tempered steel could not be reached by burning anything that the towers had to offer, aviation fuel and office furniture.

5. Explosions heard by enough witnesses to not be ignored including rescue workers, police, news reporters, these explosions were random from the base of the towers and up to and including the storeys where the initial impact happened, what caused them?.

6. If there were controlled demolitions as we are led to believe, how were they placed without the general public noticing them?, there are reports that in the weeks leading up to the 9/11 attacks that there were extensive building work being done in both towers, with whole sections of the buildings closed to the general public.

7. I could mention here that Bush`s brother used to be on the board of the security firm responsible for the safety of the complex, and that there were no sniffer dogs present for the last few days leading up to the attacks, but we will leave circumstantial evidence out of all this, and keep to the facts we know can be proven with evidence.

8. Certain protocols regarding hijacking were not adhered to.

9. NIST and John Gross`s complete denial of molten steel being found, what is the significance here and why the denial?.

10. Nano Thermite and Jones flawed research, the Jury is out on this one.

11. Even though the FBI have not indited Osama Bin Laden for 9/11 as there is no significant evidence whatsoever linking him to the attacks, why have we declared war on Afghanistan?.

12. The video found by the FBI supposed to be Bin Laden has 3 major flaws, the facial structure is mismatched, voice analysis proves it is not Bin Laden, and he is clearly shown writing with the incorrect hand.

13. Key witness videos and vantage points have been shown to be at the very least contradictory to their accounts.

14. Edited news footage.

15. The BBC announcing a tower had fell 20 minutes before the initial collapse.

16. Increased insurance indemnity policies.

17. Stock market put options.

18. Larry Silverstein and the `Pull it` controversy.

19. The ineptness of the pilots, again this is circumstantial I mention this purely because of Hani Hanjour`s assessment by his instructor and his piloting abilities were well below par, but yet the manouveres he managed that day were spectacular at the very least.

20. Passports found by the FBI (need I say more).

21. The 100 plus videos confiscated by the FBI, again why have these not been released? especially with the enormous pressure building up regarding a government cover up.

22. Collapses, imploding, and general laws of physics, when something collapses in on itself where does the kinetic energy come from to expel pieces of buildings in excess of 400k pounds and cause them to inbed in other buildings over 200 metres away?.

Am I focused enough?
, I have more a whole lot more but I have to go now.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seventh
I`m focusing I really am
. I`m new to all this and my interest has been fuelled by the many indiscrepancies from both sides of the fence depicting that fateful day that is 9/11.

You seem to be a reasonable person, and so I will do my best to explain many of the questions / statements you have posted. If you require any clarification, I post here a reasonable amount so I am sure to see any requests.


1. Upon initial impact the aviation fuel was ignited, everyone can and did see this, if as we are led to believe that thousands upon thousands of gallons of fuel managed to escape, and not got ignited but spread through the buildings via lift shafts, then ignited and burnt for roughly 45 minutes thus weakening both structures.

Not exactly. Aviation fuel will burn when it is mixed in the correct ratio with air (which is where the oxygen comes from to allow burning). Upon impact, fuel spewed into the building, but it did not immediately explode or detonate. Because it is in liquid form, it takes some time (not very long of course) for the fuel to be broken up into the correct ratio to allow it to burn. This is why so much fuel 'escaped', because it does not contain its own oxidiser, it requires oxygen in the air to combust.

With regards to the time it burned, NIST estimates it was mostly burned off within 10 minutes, leaving an 'ordinary' office fire, the only differences being the large structural damage, and the wide scale of ignition. A normal office fire will start somewhere, consume the local fuel sources and begin to move through the building. This is true on 911 of course except that the fires were started almost everywhere in the impact zone simultaneously.


2. There is clear evidence via two way radios of a fireman stating `We have it locked down` and then he went on to describe that two lines was all that was needed.

This fireman never said anything like 'we have it locked down'. He had reached the lowest impacted floor of WTC2, the 78th. This floor was a 'sky lobby' and not particularly full of furniture of combustible items. Nevertheless in his radio message he mentions several fatalities. Pictures from the same time show that the 78th floor had relatively little fire compared to the infernos a couple of floors above. NISTs simulations also agree with this.


3. Black smoke being expelled again proving the golden triangle of physics and combustion (heat, fuel, oxygen), must be adhered to, black smoke = oxygen starvation.

The fire triangle says nothing about black smoke. Black smoke is a common result of plastics burning, and while you may be able to say the fire was 'fuel limited', it does not mean that it was not extremely hot. NIST recreated the scene in the WTC and measured temperatures enough to severely weaken steel, in excess of 1000C in the upper fire layer.


4. Certain temperatures needed to weaken tempered steel could not be reached by burning anything that the towers had to offer, aviation fuel and office furniture.

This is entirely false. Normal office fires can easily exceed 1000C, tests done at Cardington in the UK confirm this, and uninsulated beams were rapidly heated. Steel will lose approximately 90% of its strength by this stage, and even with substantial fireproofing can lose up to 50%.


5. Explosions heard by enough witnesses to not be ignored including rescue workers, police, news reporters, these explosions were random from the base of the towers and up to and including the storeys where the initial impact happened, what caused them?.

There are many potential causes of explosions in a fire, from pressurised vessels, to ammunition which was actually stored in the towers. The problem with these statements is that they describe explosions occuring everywhere, and even describe bodies landing in the plaza as sounding like explosions. Hearing an explosion is not evidence of explosives unless there is no other explanation, and there are lots of explanations for explosive sounds in a large fire.


6. If there were controlled demolitions as we are led to believe, how were they placed without the general public noticing them?, there are reports that in the weeks leading up to the 9/11 attacks that there were extensive building work being done in both towers, with whole sections of the buildings closed to the general public.

Actually there is a single report from a single worker indicating that the upper section of WTC2 was shut for cabling upgrades. There is as far as I am aware literally no more detail available than this, and even if this were the case, people were actually at work that day, and there are no reports of suspicious devices or damaged fittings etc that I am aware of.


7. I could mention here that Bush`s brother used to be on the board of the security firm responsible for the safety of the complex, and that there were no sniffer dogs present for the last few days leading up to the attacks, but we will leave circumstantial evidence out of all this, and keep to the facts we know can be proven with evidence.

This is kinda incorrect, the security firm was no longer responsible for the security, nor was it physical. The only bomb sniffing dogs to be removed were extra ones added due to various threats in the weeks leading up to 911. Indeed at least one bomb sniffing dog died at the towers that day.


8. Certain protocols regarding hijacking were not adhered to.

Which protocols? If you are referring to the transponder ident, this was designed to be used in cases where a hijacker would demand to be flown to an aiport, not kill or remove the pilot and replace them.


9. NIST and John Gross`s complete denial of molten steel being found, what is the significance here and why the denial?.

The denial is simply that the only evidence of molten steel comes from people identifying it as steel by eye. This is not an easy thing to do and there are many metals and materials which glow similarly at the same temperatures which could have been mistaken. There is just not enough evidence to know for sure, and no explanation of the phenomena from either side.


10. Nano Thermite and Jones flawed research, the Jury is out on this one.

Indeed it is, but of note is the fact that even if we accept his research to be accurate, no theory exists to how such thin sheets of thermite could do any damage whatsoever to such large columns.


11. Even though the FBI have not indited Osama Bin Laden for 9/11 as there is no significant evidence whatsoever linking him to the attacks, why have we declared war on Afghanistan?.

I guess this depends on your definition of significant, but the US' reasons for declaring war on Afghanistan may well be argued to be unconvincing, that would not prove an 'inside job' though.


12. The video found by the FBI supposed to be Bin Laden has 3 major flaws, the facial structure is mismatched, voice analysis proves it is not Bin Laden, and he is clearly shown writing with the incorrect hand.

None of these are accurate, 'fatty bin laden' is caused by bad media conversion and people watching low quality youtube videos. The incorrect hand theory is simply speculation and there are photos and an islamic rationale supporting him using both hands for differing tasks.


13. Key witness videos and vantage points have been shown to be at the very least contradictory to their accounts.

I obviously need more detail to be able to address this


14. Edited news footage.

This also


15. The BBC announcing a tower had fell 20 minutes before the initial collapse.

I don't see why this should be suspicious? Firefighters were warning of a collapse for hours beforehand, and the BBC picked up a report by Reuters that incorrectly labelled it as having collapsed



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
^^^ Exactly 8000 characters



Originally posted by Seventh
16. Increased insurance indemnity policies.

There is nothing special about this, the WTC was attacked in 1993, why wouldn't you take out good terrorism insurance? It was even reported that Silverstein wanted to take out significantly less insurance than his backers insisted upon.


17. Stock market put options.

This was thoroughly invested and was found to be the result of a mass market trading tips publication, although a german website existed bringing up some doubts about financial fraud, but there is nothing concrete and the initial speculation has been shown to be unproven.


18. Larry Silverstein and the `Pull it` controversy.

You seem smart enough to figure this out on your own. Would a key conspirator really go on a documentary and essentially admit to his part in things? Could anyone capable of such evil and scheming really be that stupid? Of course 'pull it' doesn't mean 'bring down with explosives', the only similar controlled demolition term is 'shoot', as in "Ready to shoot".


19. The ineptness of the pilots, again this is circumstantial I mention this purely because of Hani Hanjour`s assessment by his instructor and his piloting abilities were well below par, but yet the manouveres he managed that day were spectacular at the very least.

The first part of this is correct, but I would bet you have not heard the rest of what Marcel Bernard had to say. The manoeuvre performed by him was not exceptional and in fact a danish (i think?) tv show recreated the impact into the pentagon in a flight simulator with amateur pilots and they managed it without issue. He descended in a turn, levelled out and accelerated. No loops or banks close to stall, nothing that I would consider 'exceptional' in the least.


20. Passports found by the FBI (need I say more).

Yes! There were many personal items found by the investigators at all sites, and if you are referring to the 'pristine' passport at the WTC, it was ejected from the buildings in the initial impact, not found after collapse.


21. The 100 plus videos confiscated by the FBI, again why have these not been released? especially with the enormous pressure building up regarding a government cover up.

There were 85 videos, all relevant ones have been released. Lawsuits are pending for the others I believe.


22. Collapses, imploding, and general laws of physics, when something collapses in on itself where does the kinetic energy come from to expel pieces of buildings in excess of 400k pounds and cause them to inbed in other buildings over 200 metres away?.

The kinetic energy comes from what is called 'stored gravitational potential energy'. When you raise an object, say by walking up the stairs. Your legs work to move it against gravity, by doing this you are storing 'potential energy' in it. If you are then to let go of this item, gravity will accelerate this object at 9.81m/s/s, gradually releasing this stored energy in the form of kinetic energy.


Am I focused enough?
, I have more a whole lot more but I have to go now.


I appreciate your enthusiasm, but every single one of your points could be taken verbatim from any number of conspiracy websites. It sounds to me like you have simply been reading 'one side of the story'.

Please take time to examine the evidence available on the other side, it is extensive.

www.gpoaccess.gov...
wtc.nist.gov...
911myths.com...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

Please also come back with any questions you have about any aspect of 911. Education is far more fun than pointless bickering



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but every single one of your points could be taken verbatim from any number of conspiracy websites.


As opposed to all of the things you responded with, which all came from personal experiences and insight and not from things you have read online from other "debunkers," or "debunking" websites, right? I am saying you are no different. There are two apparent sides to this issue and don't even act like you walk between them.

Btw, the presence of molten metal was established in the FEMA report. It was not simply a matter of having to LOOK at something molten and guess what it is. There is a chemical analysis in appendix C.

When NIST "recreated the scene" they used megawatt burners and applied them consistently for a period of time before an amount of heating was reached, and what was that heating in the steel? You said the fire temperature reached 1000 C but if I remember correctly they only heated the truss to around 700 C in all that time.

All of this stuff is petty to argue about, and only applies in a limited way to what actually happened anyway. An enormous number of assumptions had to be made in order for NIST to reach any conclusion at all, which is their entire problem. They know the fires were not present across all floor space for the entirety of the time the towers burned. They know the fires roamed and didn't stay in the same places for the whole periods of time, which were already less than an hour in WTC2. They even admit in their report that they had to adjust things until the conclusions they were LOOKING FOR were reached. And they also admitted that it was very unlikely that all the truss connections around an entire floor should fail simultaneously so as to produce such a symmetrical initiation. It was not a real investigation, they just took a pre-existing theory from FEMA and tried to clean it up and establish that it was possible. They even admit in their report that using slightly different variables in some cases did NOT give them the results they were looking for, and on that reason alone did they discard the data!! The only defense to this is, "Oh, well, that's because we are right anyway! No use in producing a faulty model!" Same as when accurate variables are used in energy models but yet produce results that contradict reality. No use in trying to analyze the global collapse, either. Maybe what's needed is for you to sit and meditate on exactly what the implications of this arrogance are. It is total academic arrogance, and it has what's been keeping so many numb-skulls afloat for this long. No different than any other investigation in the course of history that has eventually been overturned, and the only reason it took so long was because so many damned people were so stupid and biased the whole time before that.


It sounds to me like you have simply been reading 'one side of the story'.


You know just as well as I that we have all here been reading both sides of the story just as well as we have been responding to one another. Like I said before, you don't need to act like you have figured all this out yourself and sit as the neutral 3rd party. You have an identity with a certain set of beliefs no different than anyone else here, and you only seek to defend them. That is why hardly anyone is ever "converted" on these forums either way, not because no one here knows what logic is. If you don't think there are intelligent and respectable people on both sides of this fence, then your slip is showing.

[edit on 14-7-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Another thing, that I forgot to even mention, strength loss from heating is completely irrelevant to what NIST was trying to show. Expanding trusses, remember?

See, no one has been saying the columns failed from being heated, but yet you espouse this garbage anyway simply because other people have been erroneously bringing up such information for years now. That is why you are still talking about strength loss from heating as opposed to load-bearing capacity being lost due to deflections, which was the actual (unproven) theory. Because you are subject to the exact same copy-catting. If you were really as objective and impartial as you put on then you would've realized what you were saying was erroneous to the topic. You're just playing a side that has existed since day 1, that you aligned yourself with on day 1.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Expansion was likely the cause of WTC7 collapse. WTC 1 and 2 support joists sagged and pulled the outer walls inward right before collapse.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
As opposed to all of the things you responded with, which all came from personal experiences and insight and not from things you have read online from other "debunkers," or "debunking" websites, right? I am saying you are no different. There are two apparent sides to this issue and don't even act like you walk between them.

Perhaps you misunderstood the word 'verbatim'. Everything I typed above was original material. The sources are of course occasionally from debunking websites or similar, but I have actually read both sides of the issue and I have a good understanding of the points made by both sides. Seventh's post indicates that in fact he does not have this, as several errors are present which should not be if he has done his research fully.


Btw, the presence of molten metal was established in the FEMA report. It was not simply a matter of having to LOOK at something molten and guess what it is. There is a chemical analysis in appendix C.

Which indicates that the sample never actually approached the melting point of steel, it was corroded. This is a common logical error when discussing 'molten metal'. The whole reason it's supposed to be significant is that 1500C should be practically unreachable without Thermite or similar. When you point out that some metal was destroyed below 1500C it doesn't disprove this or poke holes in a theory or anything. NIST also examined steel that had been affected, there is no evidence of any 'thermite attack' or anything particularly suspicious.

I know we went through this topic before, and I know I am not qualified to state this with any authority, but the resources are out there to help you understand what happened, and I sure found them.


When NIST "recreated the scene" they used megawatt burners and applied them consistently for a period of time before an amount of heating was reached, and what was that heating in the steel? You said the fire temperature reached 1000 C but if I remember correctly they only heated the truss to around 700 C in all that time.

Why are you repeating this statement? We have discussed this before! NISTs use of burners is consistent with their modelling goals. How exactly are they supposed to recreate the plane impact other than ensuring good ignition? They know the magnitude of the heat output of the burner and so it is factored into their simulations.

Would you like me to quote the section you're talking about and explicitly explain why your criticism is completely invalid?


They even admit in their report that using slightly different variables in some cases did NOT give them the results they were looking for, and on that reason alone did they discard the data!!

Here lies a critical misunderstanding of science.

Let us say that we have a video tape of an event, a ball rolls off a table, and lands upon a wooden structure. It smashes through this wooden structure and hits the ground.

We wish to recreate this scenario, so we find a ball which looks superficially similar, roll it off the table and it does not collapse the structure. Using your logic above this is a completely appropriate test and proves that the ball could never have demolished the original structure.

But do we know the physical attributes of the ball well enough? Perhaps the ball in the video is steel, wheras the ball we used is aluminium. Maybe it is lead and we used steel. As the variable is unknown or at least has a margin of error perhaps we should repeat the experiment with variables within this margin of error.

This is standard procedure in science, and the fact that you mock the NIST report for correctly applying this procedure is telling. Yes, when they simulated the impacts of the aircraft into the towers, two out of the three simulations did not match the visual evidence. They didn't suddenly assume this should be explained by pre-planted explosives to weaken the building as the plane impacted. They checked to make sure their initial values were correct. Considering one of their scenarios did produce the right result, they can have confidence that the values used in that simulation are the closest to reality.


No use in trying to analyze the global collapse, either. Maybe what's needed is for you to sit and meditate on exactly what the implications of this arrogance are. It is total academic arrogance, and it has what's been keeping so many numb-skulls afloat for this long.

The global collapse is probably not capable of being analysed to this day, despite the massive increase in computing power. Simulations like this are insanely complex and I speak from a position of authority on this.


It sounds to me like you have simply been reading 'one side of the story'.



You know just as well as I that we have all here been reading both sides of the story just as well as we have been responding to one another.

You may have read the NIST report, that does not mean everyone who supports your argument has. Your post has 8 or so stars, would you like to guess at what proportion of those people have read the NIST report well enough not to make the error you yourself made above?


Like I said before, you don't need to act like you have figured all this out yourself and sit as the neutral 3rd party. You have an identity with a certain set of beliefs no different than anyone else here, and you only seek to defend them.

Not at all, what I believe in is mostly irrelevant, and I do sit as a neutral third party. I am advocating no action, I have no connection with NIST, I have no connection with the USA. What else am I if I am not a third party?


That is why hardly anyone is ever "converted" on these forums either way, not because no one here knows what logic is. If you don't think there are intelligent and respectable people on both sides of this fence, then your slip is showing.

Of course there are intelligent people on both sides. You are clearly intelligent enough to be able to reply civily, something that people often entirely fail at. It doesn't mean you're right though.


Another thing, that I forgot to even mention, strength loss from heating is completely irrelevant to what NIST was trying to show. Expanding trusses, remember?

No? Perhaps you're talking about WTC7 rather than WTC1+2, in which cases it was expanding beams, not trusses, and at a lower temperature.


See, no one has been saying the columns failed from being heated, but yet you espouse this garbage anyway simply because other people have been erroneously bringing up such information for years now.

This makes no sense, several theories for column failures exist, and NIST predicts a loss of column strength in all buildings. What point are you trying to make here?


That is why you are still talking about strength loss from heating as opposed to load-bearing capacity being lost due to deflections, which was the actual (unproven) theory. Because you are subject to the exact same copy-catting. If you were really as objective and impartial as you put on then you would've realized what you were saying was erroneous to the topic. You're just playing a side that has existed since day 1, that you aligned yourself with on day 1.

This also makes no sense. I am well aware that NISTs initiation theory involves eccentric load being placed on exterior columns. That is the very reason I have questioned so many people like hgfbob (maybe spelt that wrong, apologies if so) to try and determine if they know this. What they read on conspiracist sites never mentions it, and so the lack of knowledge of this is telling that they have not read the NIST report. You know damn well I have read it, and in full, repeatedly. So I don't get your point. (8000
)



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:55 AM
link   
Hey BsBray, If you want to stop these 8000 character posts, ask 'them'
what force stopped the upper block of WTC2 from tilting further.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Hey BsBray, If you want to stop these 8000 character posts, ask 'them'
what force stopped the upper block of WTC2 from tilting further.


Resistance from the lower section. What else could possibly have caused it? The upper section weighed several thousand tons, an accurate value I cannot give off-hand. If you think you know of any other way of stopping that energy, let us see the calculations please!



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
what force stopped the upper block of WTC2 from tilting further.


Maybe you, or anyone, can explain with some detail why this is inconsistent with the NIST provided explanation of how the buildings collapsed but is consistent with a controlled demolition. Particularly a thermitic material induced one.


M



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Maybe you can stop avoiding the question and stop answering with
questions.

What FORCE stopped the tilting of WTC 2?



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


There is nothing you can say that would shut them up, trust me.

There is also no way you can quantify the amount of "resistance" the structure should have provided because we are lacking the structural documentation. That fact alone spoke volumes to me when I was first getting into all this, but you either get it or you don't.


Only two things I even care to mention in response to exponent:

1) The steel WAS melted, this is in FEMA appendix C, again, from a eutectic reaction. The melting point of the steel was lowered by the reaction (cut in half, actually), and it did melt. Maybe you don't understand the technical definition of melting. More to the point I don't think you would recognize a nano-composite if someone stuck your face in one and melted it. NIST did not examine or comment on the "corrosion" analyzed in the FEMA report. Deafening silence.

2) Fudging variables to get a model to work does not make the model evidence of anything, no matter what you think it matches. Even if they DIDN'T fudge variables it would still only be a theory until proven. Yes, they came up with a theory (they called it their "hypothesis"). I could've told you that much, I have no problem admitting it. Does it prove anything? No. That is the point. I was under the impression you thought you had proven something. Let me fudge some numbers and I can give you several different theories that 'match observations.'

Saying the global collapses are too complex to analyze is BS. They didn't even try, so how would they know? I'm not even going to ask how YOU would know because you wouldn't have even been able to analyze the initiations yourself. Was looking for explosive residue also too complex? Or analyzing the samples in FEMA's report? The global collapses supposedly were so chaotic and random that they can't be analyzed or understood in any specific way, yet I am expected to believe despite this lack of order the exact same thing happened twice in a row. Something tells me there is a pattern here.



All in all I am pretty much done on the 9/11 threads anyway. At least with the massive point-counterpoint posts that accomplish absolutely nothing. We might as well all be talking to walls because face it, none of us realistically post here to learn anything.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Maybe you can stop avoiding the question and stop answering with
questions.

What FORCE stopped the tilting of WTC 2?




This is just repetitous. You continually avoid the question of how a thin layer of may thermitic material could significantly effect a collapse.

Your chosen deflection is asking about the tilting. Then refusing to state why this is inconsistent with the explanations of the collapses. So we get two levels of implication of controlled demolition with no explanation of the actual dynamics.

Are there comparative examples of how building with these unusual structural designs normally collapse when impacted by airplanes or massive debris? Or is this a matter of guessing how things should or should not occur?


Mike




[edit on 15-7-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Wong MMicheal!

I already said I don't know how it was applied a few freakin' pages ago.

I also said, it does not matter how it was applied...the point is nano-thermite
was found in the dust, therefore it played a role!

Now, it's your turn. What force stopped the upper portion of the tower
from tilting further?



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by turbofan
 


You are completely missing the points.
First, the evidence that this is anything but paint is non-existent. Second, thin layers of thermite are: a. difficult to ignite when on heat sinks like beams; b. difficult to keep ignited when on heat sinks like beams; and c. don't do anything to effect demolition.

By the way, any news from your sources on the DSC analysis, yet?



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Hey BsBray, If you want to stop these 8000 character posts, ask 'them'
what force stopped the upper block of WTC2 from tilting further.


This is one of the stranger questions asked on these forums.

When I watch a video showing the complete building's collapse, I see the top tilting a little, global collapse beginning, and the top continuing to tilt as it falls.

To me, as it disappears into the dust, it looks like it continues its rotation as it falls.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbofan
Wong MMicheal!

I already said I don't know how it was applied a few freakin' pages ago.

I also said, it does not matter how it was applied...the point is nano-thermite
was found in the dust, therefore it played a role!

Now, it's your turn. What force stopped the upper portion of the tower
from tilting further?


turbo,

I don't have an answer for everything that occurred in the WTC building collapses. I don't think anyone can make that claim.

Only with a controlled demolition could a building fall with some predictability. In the violently chaotic events that day there were many anomalies - not fully understood details.

The fires cause steel beam weakening and expansion more at certain junctures than others. There were constant shifts of weight distribution. Obviously the support structure was able to hold things together better in certain areas than others.

Still unaddressed is how this could be construed as an indication of a controlled demolition. And how a thin layer of thermite can be construed as contributing factor.

We have a researched analysis of what made the buildings collapse the way they did with as many specifics as possible. So far it's the only explanation that is consistent with the forensic evidence.


Mike



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join