Proof that the Trusses Were Sagging

reply to post by -PLB-


My proof is in the dust analysis of unignited thermitic material, spheres, flowing molten metal, and sulphidization
of steel (as per FEMA) just to name a few.

The absence of a document that states how high the fire temps were is irrelevent as it does not explain the
points I listed (among others).

Have a nice day.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by -PLB-

 

My proof is in the dust analysis of unignited thermitic material, spheres, flowing molten metal, and sulphidization
of steel (as per FEMA) just to name a few.

The absence of a document that states how high the fire temps were is irrelevent as it does not explain the
points I listed (among others).

Have a nice day.

Even if the evidence is uncontroversial, is there proof that there is only one possible method in the entire world to create them? I'm honestly curious about that.

reply to post by Varemia


I urge you to read Jones' paper and also study engineering of nano energetic materials by Tillotson (and other
authors).

There is a thread in this forum called, "Jones' Science Paper: Common Arguments Addressed".

You will find several links to LLNL labs and high magnification images of the material structure.

From that I hope you can conclude that the structure of these chips were not a result of a building collapse.

reply to post by turbofan


But you claimed that the fires were not hot enough. This dust analysis is not evidence of that, even if it is proof of thermite (which it likely isn't, there are very plausible alternative explanations, just search for it on the web). Why did you make that claim in the first place?

Your logic is a bit like saying that a person can never have been shot because they found a knife at the scene. Ignoring the huge gunshot wound in his head.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Your logic is a bit like saying that a person can never have been shot because they found a knife at the scene. Ignoring the huge gunshot wound in his head.

I'm not ignoring anything, my theory accounts for all available data. Yours does not.

I challenge you to follow the same instructions as provided in my previous post. I'd be happy to debate
any concerns you have about alternative explanations for the chips found in the dust analysis.

reply to post by turbofan


What do you think my theory is, how did you come to this conclusion, and why do you think it does not include the subjects you brought up? (these questions are not rhetorical so feel free to answer them). I am willing to discuss any subject, but I try to avoid to mix all subject in one big spaghetti debate, as this will result in the problem we see here right now. I ask question A and you give an answer to question B, which I did not even ask.

I already pointed you to a thread where to discuss the molten steel, but you ignored it. If you like to discuss the dust either make a thread about it or point me to an existing one. If I think I have good questions or am able to contribute otherwise, I am likely to respond there. But neither molten steel nor the dust analysis have anything to do with the question whether the fires were hot enough to initiate the collapse.

Don't bother with this debate technique, I'm not going to waste my time going through a circular argument
upon points I've already addressed and reasons for my answers starting back on page 4.

My initial answer here, was critiqued by you:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In your response you said:

I have never seen any scientific proof why any part of the official explanation can not be correct or possible.

Following your post, I successfully listed scientific sources to prove the official story wrong. Since then
you have ignored those points which were invited by the line quoted in your response.

You then reiterated your curiousity for the science with:

But as stated above, I am curious about the science and prior building fire assessments you talk about.

It is clear that you have not studied both sides of the equation and therefore cannot possibly engage in a debate
while excluding my points of evidence.

Your theory as admittied in your last reply does not account for all of the available data.

Your theory is based on the official story being true and that all three buildings began collapse due to fire/heat
and then totally crushed themselves. Correct?

To answer your final request:

I've shown CFD/FEA analysis that supports the Towers will remain standing despite the damage and temperatures.

I've shown that it took 700 gallaons of jet fuel to reach peak temps of 2000 degrees, yet nobody (including
yourself) can provide an example, or scenario which matches the fuel loading in any tower as suggested in
the original video.

I've listed points about firefighters stating that there were isolated pockets of fire, and progressive video/photos
of increasing black smoke - both indicating temperatures were lower than 700 degrees and the steel must
have been cooling. Firefighters would not report isolated pockets of fire in the area of impact if the temperatures
were 700+ degrees.

Good luck proving otherwise.

reply to post by turbofan


Sigh. The first one couldn't possibly be tested, because how could they know that the towers would stand if they had never actually flown a plane into it? I know it's somewhat backward logic, but really, under the most optimal conditions imaginable with the building designed perfectly, it may have remained standing, but it unfortunately was not built by gods.

No one has to replicate everything about the fuel loading. The argument being addressed was that it was impossible to weaken steel enough to make it fail with jet fuel. It has been pretty conclusively proven that the steel was pretty weakened!

I've heard the radio chatter about the firefighters. Guess what? They were JUST BELOW the impact areas. I remember, because they were trying to make it up the stairs to the higher levels but were blocked off. The isolated pockets of fire were NOT the impact site.

reply to post by turbofan


I could repeat again that random opinions or claims, Youtube videos and eyewitness reports are not a solid ground to base your position on, and that I am looking for written reports based on studies including the involved physics. But I guess it isn't really coming through so I will just leave it with this.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by turbofan

 

But you claimed that the fires were not hot enough. This dust analysis is not evidence of that, even if it is proof of thermite (which it likely isn't, there are very plausible alternative explanations, just search for it on the web). Why did you make that claim in the first place?

Your logic is a bit like saying that a person can never have been shot because they found a knife at the scene. Ignoring the huge gunshot wound in his head.

You're pretty good at mincing words aren't you? For example;

But you claimed that the fires were not hot enough…

Let me show you where you are erring? Your office fires are what is not hot enough, but if you add some thermite into the mix, those office fires are no longer “office” fires? Are you catching up?

. This dust analysis is not evidence of that, even if it is proof of thermite

(which it likely isn't, there are very plausible alternative explanations, just search for it on the web).

And now we have thermite found in dust particles? Nano-thermite no less; military grade.
There’s really no need to jab at your sense of logic, people read these threads, they’re not a bunch of imbeciles like who you think you’re debating with. Thermite
Your game has holes in it, just like the OS, and NIST. Expand your horizons, expand your knowledge- for the sake of your kids if not for yourself.
I hope I wasn’t too harsh?

It doesn't matter if the trusses at that level turned to butter, what ensued thereafter, was utterly impossible, absent the use of explosives. The Zelikow authored official conspiracy theory myth, in terms of the assumption as to the causal mechanism of the destruction of the twin towers of the WTC on 9/11, absent the use of explosives is what I jokingly refer to as "The Foot of God Hypothesis".

Anyone who observes the videos the destruction of the twin towers, without assuming that the plane strikes alone must have been the cause, will note - that it is ONLY in the available DIFFERENCE of time between absolute free fall from the height of the twin towers, and the actual time of destruction, within which every single weld and bolt and core column breakage could have occured, or in about THREE SECONDS, where absolute free fall in air would be just over 10 seconds (with air resistence), and the recorded time for destruction from top to bottom, is about 13, maybe 14 seconds max.

One
Two
Three

What, did all the breakage of the progressive, gravity driven collapse, occur at about the SPEED OF SOUND?

We cannot violate the laws of motion to make the official story work. Sorry.

Absent the use of explosives, and there's plenty of evidence for them being present, what the official story defenders would ask us to believe, is utterly IMPOSSIBLE.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2bd5fc777eb1.gif[/atsimg]

Watch the videos, bring a stopwatch.

Case closed.

It was an elaborate murderous HOAX of the farthest reaching historical proportions and significance, and Bush and Cheney, and many others, they knew the score.

There's even a video of Bush arriving there in NYC at a hanger, without a care, and somewhat pleased, parroting something about twisting and bending steel..

It makes me sick.

There were many innocent people in those buildings, and in Iraq who's death was completely unneccesary, and now we see the US practically brought to its knees economically as a result of all this mayham, this Satanic doctrine for bending history to the will of the USA in cahoots with Israel.

It's a digrace! How DARE people who've looked into this thing closely DEFEND it?! It's indefensible, and a very very serious issue..

Originally posted by -PLB-

I don't find it reasonable that the fire cooled down after 10 minutes at all. In fact, all information I found about office fires is that they raged on for much longer, some even at temperatures as high as 800 degrees, without any jet fuel.

Please provide a link that will corroborate your findings. You sound like you've done a butt-load of research, but where are the remaining links to share? That last link you provided seemed to end before the report was concluded, or it concluded mid-report. I wanted to study it further, I liked the lay-out, oh, all except the * and the ** describing info gathered from NIST and the like to which the report was based upon...As the entire report was indeed based upon the findings of NIST and her cohorts. How about providing an independent source?

Thanks.

reply to post by loveguy


I am not totally sure what you are getting at, but it seems that you suggest that thermite was used to increase the heat of the fires, and not to cut through steel? Does this mean that you think everything happened as stated in the official explanation, with the exception that the fires were made hotter using thermite? If so, do realize that thermite has a low energy density, and is thus a lot less suited to heat steel than for example paper. Thermite's "special" property is the ability to release its energy in a very short time. That means that most thermite would have been burned out not long after impact.

So can you explain why thermite was used to heat up the fires despite it has a low energy density and how ignition on impact was prevented? And if I misinterpreted what you mean, can you explain what you mean exactly?

As for the office fires temperatures, I did not do thorough research on that (nor any other subject on 911). That is the reason I suggested that somebody made or pointed me to an overview of historic office building fire temperatures. That paper bases its figures on (Buchanan A. H. (2001). Structural Design for Fire Safety). I did not read the book though, I just assumed its in there. I also searched the web a bit, and found for example that the Madrid tower reached temperatures of 800 degrees, without jet fuel (first hit on Google). Not a very thorough investigation, I agree, so I am open to be corrected on this (as I earlier already suggested).

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Can you support your claim with a scientific study that proves those speeds are impossible to reach? Thanks.

reply to post by -PLB-


Sure, they exist at the Journal of 911 Studies, although they might just look at the onset of "collapse" for the north tower, showing an acceleration curve, without any "jolt" but they're out there.

But here's the thing, and please keep an open mind here. As the buildings "erupted", jettisoning building materials and steel beams, laterally, at very very high speed, and with enough explosive energy to HURL them so far that they crashed at least half way through the Winter Garden Atrium, a full block and a half away, along with tiny piece of human bone fragments, leaving them on TOP of adjacent buildings - and as the entire contents of the buildings and all building material, including all the steel and the cement, literally poured out, while the decending debris wave continued to descend, without any appreciable loss of momentum, and to within a few seconds of absolute free fall (amortise that over the remaining length of structure in the case of the north tower, and what you're left with is hardly distinguishable from FREE FALL) - little was LEFT in the wake of the occurence of destruction, than mere ATMOSPHERE, above the remaining structure, YET - the exploding debris wave continued, unabated, at near free fall speed, all the way to the GROUND. The buildings exploded and BLEW UP, from around the area of impact yes, but then, in almost precisely the same manner, what they did thereafter, absent the use of explosives, is utterly impossible, and asurd, for any astute observer with so much as a meager appreciation for the three laws of motion.

The upper CHUNK could not have crushed the remaining structure, to within a few seconds of free fall, I'm sorry, but you cannot ask me to accept something that is IMPOSSIBLE, to protect a comfy cozy worldview, wherein such a thing can't happen (mass murder with Gov't complicity and cover-up).

And again, I would like, as much as I don't ENJOY holding Bush's feet to the fire on this, bring to attention a video of him arriving out of a limo, in a hanger in NYC, surrounded by concerned firemen and the like, looking around and simply commenting, without any concern, that there was "lots of destruction" with "MASSIVE steel, twisting and bending", already telling the script (can't locate it at the moment), and then later he stands there, on the pile, his arm around that fireman, and declared retribution and VENGEANCE, to plumb the depths of the American psyche and heart, as per the "vision" of people like Philip D. Zelikow, and Robert Gates, who "imagined" the whole thing, in advance, just a little over a year prior, like prophets or psychics of some kind. Sickening! Talk about the very height of hypocrisy!

here's that video



They're CAUGHT. Plain and simple, and the physical occurance of the destruction of those buildings PROVES it well beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever.

And who would PROTECT or stand guard over such a thing, and try to uphold the Big Lie, who would DO THAT, knowingly..?!!!

That's my big question, for something this serious.. think about it. Set aside your "anti-truther" hatred and disgust for a moment and think it through, from the perspective of a grade 10 physics student.

What I find most disturbing here, or almost as disturbing, given the mass murder there, is that there are a LOT of people now who cannot even evaluate and think for themselves, any more. They simply MUST be told or informed by "experts", when all the while the truth of things is right before their very eyes, in plain sight.

it's a hard thing to look at I realize, and the big lie isn't easy to swallow, or I should say it goes down easy, but aint so easy to throw back up again, once you've already swallowed it. No one wants to be fooled to such a degree over something so heinous. Join the club. Most if not all of us were once in that boat. What you think we WANT this to be true?

Me I just simply cannot divorse myself from my own rational faculties in the process. It is what it is. A terrible murderious HOAX which they KNEW was being perpetrated, and they rolled with it, and for a while they thought that it would provide them with ABSOLUTE POWER.

But it was too bold, too outrageous, too big of a gambit and in the end they fell on their faces, their entire socio-political structure as well, crumbling to DUST, at near free fall speed.

People are NOT stupid.

You may be able to fool some of the people all the time, and all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Doesn't work that way.

They F'd up, not us.

This little chapter of historic insaniry, and mass murder, is on THEM. On Bush, Cheney, and Neocon Cabal mixed with Israel.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by loveguy

 

I am not totally sure what you are getting at, but it seems that you suggest that thermite was used to increase the heat of the fires, and not to cut through steel? Does this mean that you think everything happened as stated in the official explanation, with the exception that the fires were made hotter using thermite? If so, do realize that thermite has a low energy density, and is thus a lot less suited to heat steel than for example paper. Thermite's "special" property is the ability to release its energy in a very short time. That means that most thermite would have been burned out not long after impact.

So can you explain why thermite was used to heat up the fires despite it has a low energy density and how ignition on impact was prevented? And if I misinterpreted what you mean, can you explain what you mean exactly?

As for the office fires temperatures, I did not do thorough research on that (nor any other subject on 911). That is the reason I suggested that somebody made or pointed me to an overview of historic office building fire temperatures. That paper bases its figures on (Buchanan A. H. (2001). Structural Design for Fire Safety). I did not read the book though, I just assumed its in there. I also searched the web a bit, and found for example that the Madrid tower reached temperatures of 800 degrees, without jet fuel (first hit on Google). Not a very thorough investigation, I agree, so I am open to be corrected on this (as I earlier already suggested).

I'm shaking my head as I read your post. We're back to mincing words so soon?

Thermite was found in the dust particles, not far from the dust was a pile of crumbled concrete and steel. A big pile. Underneath that pile was found and reported by more than one eye witness...molten steel. Neither jet fuel, nor office contents contain thermite, which was found at the site, and so- which may very well be the "why" was there molten steel. There was more than one pile which borne the same consistencies...Three piles.

You want all these papers of published studies conducted that have little to no baring on September 11, 2001. This forum is about why did that phenomenal occurrence get so down-played and swept under the rug. I'll bet all those papers you are asking for is at the ready for you to just dive right into, aren't they?

With that same optimism, let's get some papers uncovered, let's get some actual evidence uncovered from the WTC false flag operation, and how well it was a success for those who had their hand in undertaking it. Let's publish it in the history books, shall we?

You want to model other instances against what happened on September 11, 2001. There are no other instances to compare it with. For an intellectual type, you sure are dense. Either that, or you have some sick motivation behind posting in this forum. I suspect you are enjoying yourself. I won't be entertaining anymore of your replies. So with that I leave you in my humble regards. Enjoy yourself.

I hope noone else falls prey to your antics.

reply to post by loveguy


I see you avoid all questions I have asked. I kinda feel like I am talking to a random response generator.

As for thermite found in the dust, if you are talking about the red/gray chips, that has been thoroughly debunked. I can give you links to this debunking if you like. And you can then tell me where the debunking is wrong. If you are talking about other evidence, please share it with me.

reply to post by -PLB-


That thermite was ENERGETIC, and it was published in a peer reviewed journal and no there has not been an adequate debunking of it, and no falsifying experiments performed to prove that it's not what they've identified, given its energetic nature.

Ok you want to defend the indefensible.

Please explain then the atomized iron microspheres also found in the dust, as well as the super high temperatures which MUST have been present to produce such microspheres, as well as molten metal in significant quantities, as well as the temperature in the rubble pile that was recorded thereafter, and for WEEKS.

Super high temperatures PROVEN to be present. Please explain oh 911 official story defender, thank you.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I am willing to discuss that with you, but as I suggested to another debater already, lets do that in a thread about that subject. You can either start a thread about it or point me to a thread. I will read it and see if I can make a useful contribution. I have to warn you though I am no expert in this field, so all my contributions will rely on the research of others. Still I think I do have a reasonable understanding of the flaws in the used methodology.

I did pose a simple question regarding super high temperatures..?

This may be off topic, I don't know, but it's something I posted somewhere, which I think is relevant. It's just a historical viewpiont worthy of consideration, in light of all the evidence.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Had I been POTUS instead of Cheney/Bush, this would have been my thinking:

INSTEAD of making a run at the throne of the earth ie: global geostrategic hegemony, by authorizing the muder of 3000 of my own constituents, in order to wage resource and domination wars as per the PNAC (with a soft c) recommendations, and sacrificing another million innocent souls in the process to a Satanic doctrine..

..I would have looked into the future of the 21st century and noted that the whole world was on the very cusp of entering the technological age, and on the basis that we had a severe CRISIS on our hands, in education and technological innovation, and were about to lose our competitive edge in an increasingly competitive global marketplace, I would have spent that TWO TRILLION dollars on all manner of infrastructure, including a REAL information superhighway in the form of terrabit bandwidth fiber optic cabling to every school and home in the country, as well as various Civil Infrastructure initiatives, including high speed and light commutor rail corridors between all the major urban centers, improving dramatically the speed of exchange of people and goods and services, as well as the continued joy of community living, or a MAJOR national upgrade in other words, on par with JFK's landing on the moon initiative.
Then we could have turnedd our attention to the Education System, recognizing that our HUMAN INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL development, is indeed our greatest national asset and latant potentiality, for securing a vital edge within the larger context of an emerging global civilization / global village.

In other words, I would have tried to discern and do the will of God, instead of Satan, simple as that.

I honestly think there might have been GIVEN the wrong blueprint for success by the wrong people, people like Cheney, Bush Sr. and their ilk. &/or whoever they take their marching orders from..

May there be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth...