Is this 9/11 nonsense going to ever go away? ZERO eveidence but still pushing on!

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
To answer your question of why this matters... What is the probability that you can hit a building with a plane, and hit it so perfectly that it doesn't collapse in pieces or fall toward the corner that took the most direct hit, but instead fall straight down within 90 minutes. What are the chances of that?

edit on 4-10-2010 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)

The chance is 100 % as it happened.
Your interpretation of the facts, doesn't change them only how you view them. Again, this is the problem with lay people trying to analyze what happened to those buildings.

Here is some information about controlled explosive demolition.

The basic idea of explosive demolition is quite simple: If you remove the support structure of a building at a certain point, the section of the building above that point will fall down on the part of the building below that point. If this upper section is heavy enough, it will collide with the lower part with sufficient force to cause significant damage. The explosives are just the trigger for the demolition. It's gravity that brings the building down.
Demolition blasters load explosives on several different levels of the building so that the building structure falls down on itself at multiple points. When everything is planned and executed correctly, the total damage of the explosives and falling building material is sufficient to collapse the structure entirely,

science.howstuffworks.com...

So explosives can damage supports in a building to cause it to collapse. What else could damage supports to cause it to collapse? A plane?

Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories.

science.howstuffworks.com...

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
To answer your question of why this matters... What is the probability that you can hit a building with a plane, and hit it so perfectly that it doesn't collapse in pieces or fall toward the corner that took the most direct hit, but instead fall straight down within 90 minutes. What are the chances of that?

edit on 4-10-2010 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)

The chance is 100 % as it happened.
Your interpretation of the facts, doesn't change them only how you view them. Again, this is the problem with lay people trying to analyze what happened to those buildings.

Well, what I see here is you, a lay person, stating your own opinions as facts, and then criticising other lay people for doing the same thing.

Originally posted by jfj123
Although steel is a metal, not all metals are steel. But again, why does it matter that molten METAL was found?

Are you suggesting pools of molten metal are commonly found burning for weeks after a building collapse due to weakened structure and fire? Molten pools? Why does it matter... because the existence of such molten metal is consistent with the effects of thermite. Thermite will keep burning and burning as long as there is metal to melt... And the molten metal seen flowing from the building minutes and seconds before it's collapse? How do you explain that?

How did the beams lose their strength consistently down the height of the building?
Weight transfer.

Have you seen other examples of the uniformity seen on 9/11? Please direct me to other examples of unintentional/steel frame burning collapse that result in straight down collapse of tall structures.

And they all lost strength in equal fashion? Does this really make sense to you?
Yes.

Why does this make sense to you?

WTC7 was absolutely free-fall speed. WTC1&2 fell consistent with a top-down demolition technique.
Buildings are typically imploded from the bottom up.

Typically, but not always, right? Are you aware that top-down demolition also exists? To use your own judgement, why would they use bottom up collapse for buildings that were supposed to collapse from top down? I notice you didn't comment on the free-fall collapse of building 7. Please scientifically explain the free-fall collapse of building 7.

Are you admitting here in your second sentence that the collapse do indeed resemble demolition style collapse?
I agree it does to the average untrained eye. That is part of the problem.

I would say even to the trained eyes of some architects and demolition experts, yes? Please explain how your eyes were trained to see differently? If you agree that the collapses do indeed resemble controlled demolition 'to the untrained eye' wouldn't isn't reasonable for people to question the events of 9/11?

You're missing the point. Why would they want to make it fall even close to it's own footprint? What would be the advantage? There is a huge disadvantage that you've pointed out by your beliefs.

Why do criminals make mistakes? Why aren't all crimes perfect? Does an imperfect plan guarantee innocence? I would think not.

Give me one scientific argument that supports the way those buildings fell and accounts for the small footprints and even falls. Give me one scientific argument that supports the way WTC7 collapsed. Give me one scientific argument that explains the pools of molten metal.
Big plane damaged a lot of support structures. Fires further weakened those structures. Collapse.
I could spend hours and hours posting source after source but you won't believe me. It is what it is.

Big plane, lots of damage, it is what it is... That's your scientific explanation?

Would anyone else like to help this guy out? Still waiting for scientific plausible explanations for how those buildings feel the way they did including an explanation for the molten metal flowing from the building before collapse and at the bottom of the wreckage for weeks after the collapse.

Still waiting...

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
Now if you want to talk about Nano Thermite... I would like to know why was that found in the rubble? Wouldn't you?

Yet another truther lie, thermite was NOT found in the rubble - care to show a peer reviewed article in a non pay to publish journal that shows thermite was present?

what videos have you seen that show them tipping to one side?

again with the truther lie, who claimed that they tipped over to one side?

I'm just not seeing any evidence to support the official story.

Where is the evidence for mini nukes? explosives being used? holographic aircraft? You have zero evidence, apart from planes hitting WTC 1 & 2, causing fires, structural damage then collapse.

also explain why there were pools of molten metal underneath the wreckage for weeks after the event.

There wasnt! Care to show physical evidence of these pools - how was that metal removed?

There wasnt! Care to show physical evidence of these pools - how was that metal removed?

edit on 4/10/10 by dereks because: fixed quotes

Evidence for molten metal at ground zero...

Corroborating Reports
There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press. Most of these have come to light as a result of a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, which has stimulated interest in the subject of molten steel at Ground Zero. *
A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains."
2
A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel
3
A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel."
4
A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage: When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat. It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off. I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat.

5 A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating: Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.

6 A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated: Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster.

7 An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing a speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.

8 A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based. Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots

. 9 The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage: ... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.

10 A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."

911research.wtc7.net...

again with the truther lie, who claimed that they tipped over to one side?

You did when you said they did not fall straight down.

Where is the evidence for mini nukes? explosives being used? holographic aircraft? You have zero evidence, apart from planes hitting WTC 1 & 2, causing fires, structural damage then collapse.

Have I mentioned anything regarding mini-nukes or holographic planes? Quit trying to sideline the discussion and stick to the subject.

There wasnt! Care to show physical evidence of these pools - how was that metal removed?

Please review...

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
To answer your question of why this matters... What is the probability that you can hit a building with a plane, and hit it so perfectly that it doesn't collapse in pieces or fall toward the corner that took the most direct hit, but instead fall straight down within 90 minutes. What are the chances of that?

edit on 4-10-2010 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)

The chance is 100 % as it happened.
Your interpretation of the facts, doesn't change them only how you view them. Again, this is the problem with lay people trying to analyze what happened to those buildings.

Your answer is that the chances are 100% because that's what happened???
Would you say the chances of a magician really pulling a rabbit out of his magic hat is 100% because you saw it happen? Does David Copperfield actually have the ability to fly because that's what you saw?

I'm done with this guy...

Is there anyone of intelligence who can answer my question above. Again, a person of INTELLIGENCE please. What is the probability that you can hit a building with a plane, and hit it so perfectly that it doesn't collapse in pieces or fall toward the corner that took the most direct hit, but instead fall straight down within 90 minutes. And pull this off two times in a row? And then cause a third building nearby to collapse at free-fall speed 6 hours later? What are the chances of that?

Waiting for a plausible scientific answer....

The reason a building like the towers doesn't collapse like a tree is because of the way the steel is structured. It may begin a tilt, but it is still being pulled down, partly by parts of the building still attached, and partly by gravity.

As per those videos posted a moment ago, looking closely at the molten metal dripping from the tower, you can very clearly see it becoming silvery metallic as it falls, completely following the idea that it would cool rapidly while falling and be made up of aluminum.

And for the other videos, the crews were all talking about finding pockets of flaming rubble, red-hot steel, and sections of molten metal. None of it actually showed or provided evidence of "pools" of molten steel. The fused steel could be attributed to the heat weakening the steel considerably (to a red-hot state) and then having pressure applied. The pressure of an entire collapsed building perhaps? I mean, did you even see the height of that rubble pile? It was at least 6-10 stories. That's a lot of debris. Some people say it should be taller, but a lot of rubble spread to the sides, the concrete mostly exploding under pressure and being spread in the dust cloud.

Presence of thermite at all can be explained by the presence of aluminum (much of it molten, remember?) and any amount of oxidized iron. Papers written long before 9/11 attest to the shoddy job on the fireproofing, talking about some of it flaking off on dirt or rust. RUST. That happens to be the common word for iron-oxide, which reacts given enough kinetic energy with aluminum. Wouldn't you say, oh, a collapsing building could be enough kinetic energy?

reply to post by Varemia


I noticed you completely ignored the eyewitness testimony of molten metal three posts above....

reply to post by jambatrumpet


No I didn't. I agree that there WAS molten metal, but stating that there were "POOLS" sounds like an exaggeration.

reply to post by Varemia


OK...We'll go with 'rivers of molten steel' and 'As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. '

What is your explanation of molten steel flowing in liquid form three weeks after the collapse?

reply to post by jambatrumpet


I honestly can't tell you how steel reacts under the debris of a collapsed building when in a state of extreme heat and with the presence of molten aluminum to begin with. Since you haven't produced any evidence that proves that all the heat would have dissipated out of the ground within the first couple weeks, I think it's safe to assume you don't know how it reacts either.

Since I have been studying the effects of vulcanism in Geology, I've been doing a lot of studying on magma underground. When extreme heat is buried and compressed, or in the case of the towers, buried, compressed, and shot with jolts of flaming oxygen pockets, it usually remains hot like a cinder under the ashes of a fire, but on a bigger scale with more complex materials.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by jambatrumpet

 

I honestly can't tell you how steel reacts under the debris of a collapsed building when in a state of extreme heat and with the presence of molten aluminum to begin with. Since you haven't produced any evidence that proves that all the heat would have dissipated out of the ground within the first couple weeks, I think it's safe to assume you don't know how it reacts either.

You are right, I am no expert. I simply cannot understand where all of that heat came from. I cannot believe the fire from the jet fuel would survive the collapse of the buildings and somehow sustain its intensity for weeks afterward. Defies common sense.

reply to post by jambatrumpet
The contents of the building,the plastics,the carpet,the loose consistency of the debris.........

Would cause it to burn at a very high tempurature,and melt steel over an extended period of time.

Why does anyone even argue about this old # anymore anyway?,it really makes no difference anymore.

It,and we have been just about as used as we can be already to further "it" in any way....

It is no more than a distraction tactic.

Originally posted by wcitizen
Well, what I see here is you, a lay person, stating your own opinions as facts, and then criticising other lay people for doing the same thing.

Actually what you see here is a builder giving his professional opinion about structural damage.
Hope that helps.

reply to post by L1U2C3I4F5E6R


Well, I watched your video...it was uh...contrary to what I expected, but thanks for sharing.

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
Originally posted by jfj123
Although steel is a metal, not all metals are steel. But again, why does it matter that molten METAL was found?

Are you suggesting pools of molten metal are commonly found burning for weeks after a building collapse due to weakened structure and fire? Molten pools?

Could you please provide evidence for the following:
1. Pools of heated liquified metals were found. Not just red, white, etc.. hot but actual "pools" of liquid metal.
2. Could you provide evidence that said "pools" were there for "weeks".

Now is it uncommon that fires continue to burn for a long period of time after a large building collapse? No, underground fires are not uncommon. Depending on air flow and insulation of the fire, you could have a furnace effect that could easily keep metals glowing hot for a long period of time.

Why does it matter... because the existence of such molten metal is consistent with the effects of thermite.

Or a construction debris fire.

Thermite will keep burning and burning as long as there is metal to melt... And the molten metal seen flowing from the building minutes and seconds before it's collapse? How do you explain that?

see this is what I mean. This has been debunked in another 9/11 thread. Now I could go back and reference the thread and source but you'll still say I'm wrong.

How did the beams lose their strength consistently down the height of the building?
Weight transfer.

Have you seen other examples of the uniformity seen on 9/11? Please direct me to other examples of unintentional/steel frame burning collapse that result in straight down collapse of tall structures.

Just because it hasn't happened before, doesn't mean it can't happen.
when you were a child, could you not learn that 2+2=4 because you didn't already know it?

And they all lost strength in equal fashion? Does this really make sense to you?
Yes.

Why does this make sense to you?

The floors above the damage pressed down on the damaged structure until it failed. The mass and momentum caused a global structural failure which resulted in what you see in the videos. Could I go into great detail? Sure but you won't believe me no matter what evidence I present.

WTC7 was absolutely free-fall speed. WTC1&2 fell consistent with a top-down demolition technique.
Buildings are typically imploded from the bottom up.

Typically, but not always, right? Are you aware that top-down demolition also exists?

In what cases are top-down demo used? Why would it be used in these 3 supposed cases over a sideways drop?

To use your own judgement, why would they use bottom up collapse for buildings that were supposed to collapse from top down? I notice you didn't comment on the free-fall collapse of building 7. Please scientifically explain the free-fall collapse of building 7.

Please provide scientific evidence of actual free fall speed of wtc 7.

Are you admitting here in your second sentence that the collapse do indeed resemble demolition style collapse?
I agree it does to the average untrained eye. That is part of the problem.

If you agree that the collapses do indeed resemble controlled demolition 'to the untrained eye' wouldn't isn't reasonable for people to question the events of 9/11?

That's why I said, it's part of the problem. Now lets assume it was an inside job. Why would the government who has pulled off the largest conspiracy in mans history, purposely make it look like controlled demo? If the buildings were indeed demo'd, that means they must have intentionally decided to make them fall this way. So they would have known that it would have looked, "controlled" to some people. Isn't that a horrible risk? Why would they choose to drop it like that instead of having them fall over on their sides and cause even more death and damage and even further enrage the American people?

You're missing the point. Why would they want to make it fall even close to it's own footprint? What would be the advantage? There is a huge disadvantage that you've pointed out by your beliefs.

Why do criminals make mistakes?

But this wouldn't have been a mistake. It must have been intentionally done that way. So why?

Why aren't all crimes perfect? Does an imperfect plan guarantee innocence? I would think not.

But according to truthers, everything must have been perfect for it all to happen the way it did. Remember out of all the thousands of personnel, all the material, all the memos, invoices, etc.. involved, we have ZERO evidence.
Not one email.
Not one person coming forward.
Not one invoice for a shipment.
etc...
So everything else went perfect and they intentionally decide to make it look suspicious? That doesn't make sense.

Give me one scientific argument that supports the way those buildings fell and accounts for the small footprints and even falls. Give me one scientific argument that supports the way WTC7 collapsed. Give me one scientific argument that explains the pools of molten metal.
Big plane damaged a lot of support structures. Fires further weakened those structures. Collapse.
I could spend hours and hours posting source after source but you won't believe me. It is what it is.

Big plane, lots of damage, it is what it is... That's your scientific explanation?

That is my explanation. A big plane hit wtc tower 1 and 2. The planes caused structural damage to both structures. The fires further weakened the structures until global structural failure.
Again, I could give you details, reference reports but you've already decided we're all wrong not matter what.

Would anyone else like to help this guy out? Still waiting for scientific plausible explanations for how those buildings feel the way they did including an explanation for the molten metal flowing from the building before collapse and at the bottom of the wreckage for weeks after the collapse.

Still waiting...

Not matter what evidence is presented to you, you will still be waiting because you won't believe it.

Furthermore, here is another wall we as skeptics (truthers description of people like myself) have to hurdle. Truthers don't have any type of official story. Their hypothesis' are all over the map so people like myself must deal with any and every crazy hypothesis and if we don't then we're "disinfo" agents. Whereas we can present all the logical arguments we like and all the science we can find and truthers get to simply dismiss it and state the source is from the same government that created 9/11 or whatever.
So we can level the playing field a bit,
what is the official truther hypothesis as to what happened ?

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
Your answer is that the chances are 100% because that's what happened???
Would you say the chances of a magician really pulling a rabbit out of his magic hat is 100% because you saw it happen? Does David Copperfield actually have the ability to fly because that's what you saw?

What a very astute observation !!!!
What you're saying here is that what you see may not be what really happened? Great point !
So what looked like controlled demolition to you, may not actually be controlled demolition?

What an excellent point you've made

Waiting for a plausible scientific answer....

edit on 4-10-2010 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)

Read the NIST reports. If you disagree with their scientific answers, please provide your contradictory science to disprove their report. I'll be waiting for your plausible scientific refutal.

Originally posted by jambatrumpet

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by jambatrumpet

 

I honestly can't tell you how steel reacts under the debris of a collapsed building when in a state of extreme heat and with the presence of molten aluminum to begin with. Since you haven't produced any evidence that proves that all the heat would have dissipated out of the ground within the first couple weeks, I think it's safe to assume you don't know how it reacts either.

You are right, I am no expert. I simply cannot understand where all of that heat came from. I cannot believe the fire from the jet fuel would survive the collapse of the buildings and somehow sustain its intensity for weeks afterward. Defies common sense.

Most people are not used to seeing destruction on this level. Let me downscale it a bit. I've demo'd house fires. One of the things I will do is go in after a complete burn and remove the debris. The fire dept. hosed everything down and usually nothing would be smoldering when they left. In many cases when pulling debris off, we find smoldering piles especially if there was a basement. And what else do we find? Fused metals, red hot metals, etc... And this is from a standard house fire.

It defies common sense based on what you've seen. But not if you can put it in proper context based on real world experience. Hope this helps.