Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Sulphur is typical in some fuel-oxidizer type mixtures like black powder, thermate etc but those are not 'high' explosives at all. 'High' explosives are compounds with unstable molecules that detonate when they experience a sufficient shock. Some are very sensitive (eg glyceryl trinitrate) and others barely sensitive at all (eg ammonium nitrate, TNT etc) but there's no sulphur in those.

NH4NO3 is a good example of a solid high explosive that can detonate producing huge amounts of gas extremely quickly relative to the amount of solid compound detonated - note that it is a compound of just nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen. It's so insensitive that it was used as oxidizer for simple gunpowder for a long time before its high explosive character was discovered (catastrophically).

The buildings contained a huge amount of sulphur in the drywall material which is made from gypsum (calcium sulphate).

According to FEMA, the sulphur was in a liquid state when it attacked the boundaries of the steel.
That sulfur can be elemental at one time that melted due to high temp or could be sulfur that got released when high explosives got set off. 
RDX is only one high explosive that doesn't use Sulphuric Acid. TNT and PETN high explosives use Sulphuric Acid. 
Gypsum Wallboard was already shown to be a false theory. There a video online showing gypsum wallboard burned for 24 hours using diesel fuel and the steel did not start corroding or melting. 
Debunkers never test their theories- they just throw everything at the wall and leave it there.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

And you still have the problem the demolition systems would never maintain their integrity to actuate after the jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 on the floors with the most damage as captured in the video evidence. Controlled demolition is dead on arrival.

I already gave you an explanation.
You have a reading comprehension problem.
Read the posts correctly. It's annoying when you repeat points already addressed in this thread.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Sulphur is typical in some fuel-oxidizer type mixtures like black powder, thermate etc but those are not 'high' explosives at all. 'High' explosives are compounds with unstable molecules that detonate when they experience a sufficient shock. Some are very sensitive (eg glyceryl trinitrate) and others barely sensitive at all (eg ammonium nitrate, TNT etc) but there's no sulphur in those.

NH4NO3 is a good example of a solid high explosive that can detonate producing huge amounts of gas extremely quickly relative to the amount of solid compound detonated - note that it is a compound of just nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen. It's so insensitive that it was used as oxidizer for simple gunpowder for a long time before its high explosive character was discovered (catastrophically).

The buildings contained a huge amount of sulphur in the drywall material which is made from gypsum (calcium sulphate).

According to FEMA, the sulphur was in a liquid state when it attacked the boundaries of the steel.
That sulfur can be elemental at one time that melted due to high temp or could be sulfur that got released when high explosives got set off. 
RDX is only one high explosive that doesn't use Sulphuric Acid. TNT and PETN high explosives use Sulphuric Acid. 
Gypsum Wallboard was already shown to be a false theory. There a video online showing gypsum wallboard burned for 24 hours using diesel fuel and the steel did not start corroding or melting. 
Debunkers never test their theories- they just throw everything at the wall and leave it there.

Well there are the UPS batteries.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

And you still have the problem the demolition systems would never maintain their integrity to actuate after the jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 on the floors with the most damage as captured in the video evidence. Controlled demolition is dead on arrival.

I already gave you an explanation.
You have a reading comprehension problem.
Read the posts correctly. It's annoying when you repeat points already addressed in this thread.

Your remote detonators would have batteries in them. Batteries don't do well in fires.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

There a video online showing gypsum wallboard burned for 24 hours using diesel fuel and the steel did not start corroding or melting.

And the drywall at the WTC was pulverized to dust. Which would make it react to fire differently. Pulverized drywall has more surface area to react with oxygen.

Sad conspiracists are not honest about the actual physical damage at the WTC?

And how widespread was this corrosion? How many actual pieces was there?

And you missed at least one tower had a battery room? With what kind of battery acid? With how many batteries through the WTC? Phones, electronic devices, computers? With sulfur also being in plastics and synthetic fibers?

You

the sulphur was in a liquid state when it attacked the boundaries of the steel

How long did the actual chemical attack take? Weeks? Months?
So, the chemical attack was only at the boundaries of already existing openings in the steel? With no proof the chemical attack “ate” through the steel? With sulfur coming from pulverized drywall that will react differently than whole pieces of drywall in a smoldering pile. With the limited pieces could be explained by acid from the battery room? Or other sources? And your referencing an oddity that was not wide spread, but limited? B

And you still have no proof of detonations from the video, audio, seismic, physical evidence with the force to cut steel columns columns. With no explanation how a CD system would survive the jet impacts to initiate collapse on the floors with the most damage as captured on video?

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

And you still have the problem the demolition systems would never maintain their integrity to actuate after the jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 on the floors with the most damage as captured in the video evidence. Controlled demolition is dead on arrival.

I already gave you an explanation.
You have a reading comprehension problem.
Read the posts correctly. It's annoying when you repeat points already addressed in this thread.

No. You have an un-credible answer not based in the reality of the collapse initiation on video.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: waypastvne

Do you need a picture to understand things?

I am able to understand some things without a picture.

Lateral displacement of heavy pieces are not caused by gravity.

No I want a video.

Show me on video a WTC wall section flying horizontally 600'. That is what you are claiming happened. Right?

If it was flung 600" by an explosion, It should be tumbling around it's center of mass.

And It should be accelerating horizontally at a rate faster than 9'8 meters per sec per sec.

Show me that.

The photos showing the WTC pieces stuck in adjacent buildings were taken by FEMA and others. For a few days right after the event, they were even published in some of the print newspapers that still existed then. Quickly such pictures were taken from the public sphere, and the FEMA photographer became personna non grata.

The one that caught my eye at the time was the piece stuck in the old American Express Building. It looked like a throwing-star type thing stuck in the building, almost 90 degrees to it, obviously.

And honestly, I don't care what you believe about this subject and any other.

The official story fails close scrutiny, and whether you understand that or not is of no consequence. Your skepticism does not change the facts and it does not change the truth. You are entitled to believe what you want.

a reply to: Salander

You

The photos showing the WTC pieces stuck in adjacent buildings were taken by FEMA and others.

Did you ever reply to the below?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

Kwahakev tried this game and posted this picture.

originally posted by: kwakakev

So far, you haven’t even provide any evidence concerning cut steel columns.

If you are not going to be serious about this i am not going to help you with your silly games.

One. If explosives hurled this massive piece of building, the explosion wound have been massive. The resultant pressure wave would have been obvious, and ruptured eardrums throughout manhattan. There is still intact windows in the building part of the WTC fell into. The pressure waves from explosions hurling ton pieces of building would have completely knocked out windows.

Two. The piece contains broken welds, with no indication of being worked by cutting charges.

Three, why would cutting charges hurl large pieces of building?

Four, the pieces are explained by the tumbling action of the structural steel.

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: Pilgrum
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Sulphur is typical in some fuel-oxidizer type mixtures like black powder, thermate etc but those are not 'high' explosives at all. 'High' explosives are compounds with unstable molecules that detonate when they experience a sufficient shock. Some are very sensitive (eg glyceryl trinitrate) and others barely sensitive at all (eg ammonium nitrate, TNT etc) but there's no sulphur in those.

NH4NO3 is a good example of a solid high explosive that can detonate producing huge amounts of gas extremely quickly relative to the amount of solid compound detonated - note that it is a compound of just nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen. It's so insensitive that it was used as oxidizer for simple gunpowder for a long time before its high explosive character was discovered (catastrophically).

The buildings contained a huge amount of sulphur in the drywall material which is made from gypsum (calcium sulphate).

According to FEMA, the sulphur was in a liquid state when it attacked the boundaries of the steel.
That sulfur can be elemental at one time that melted due to high temp or could be sulfur that got released when high explosives got set off. 
RDX is only one high explosive that doesn't use Sulphuric Acid. TNT and PETN high explosives use Sulphuric Acid. 
Gypsum Wallboard was already shown to be a false theory. There a video online showing gypsum wallboard burned for 24 hours using diesel fuel and the steel did not start corroding or melting. 
Debunkers never test their theories- they just throw everything at the wall and leave it there.

Well there are the UPS batteries.

Disingenuous to upload a view picture of a generator zone that no time connected with the twin towers. There no material information to confirm this floor on the second tower had an extensive operation of Acid batteries. In the early 90s, United Parcel service had an office there- but individuals thought UPS meant a generator room with backup energy systems installed. Generally, generator sectors are located at the basement level for security, safety and fire hazard reasons. 

Problem with Debunkers they believe the fire setting off a few devices early automatically ruins the demolition. Understand it just weakens the steel at this position earlier. You can't force down a building till you reduce adequate supports to allow it to collapse. You have a slowed response that's all. Nobody actually knows if fire indeed approached the devices placed on the steel in this scenario. Like I mentioned before logistically wiring the building for demolition is least feasible explanation for the collapse. It would call for extensive manpower and work time to accomplish this in the building of this size. 

I generally believe the explanation for the collapse is synthetic chemical materials of military-grade were utilized to take down the towers. In this scenario, the fire would be irrelevant and would be set off or igniting effect to advance the collapse. 

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Military grade chemicals caused hot spots visible from space? Such chemicals caused temperatures high enough to keep iron in a molten state for 3 months? Such chemicals caused radiation sicknesses in those working at Ground Zero? Who even introduced the term "Ground Zero" and why?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

There a video online showing gypsum wallboard burned for 24 hours using diesel fuel and the steel did not start corroding or melting.

And the drywall at the WTC was pulverized to dust. Which would make it react to fire differently. Pulverized drywall has more surface area to react with oxygen.

Sad conspiracists are not honest about the actual physical damage at the WTC?

And how widespread was this corrosion? How many actual pieces was there?

And you missed at least one tower had a battery room? With what kind of battery acid? With how many batteries through the WTC? Phones, electronic devices, computers? With sulfur also being in plastics and synthetic fibers?

You

the sulphur was in a liquid state when it attacked the boundaries of the steel

How long did the actual chemical attack take? Weeks? Months?
So, the chemical attack was only at the boundaries of already existing openings in the steel? With no proof the chemical attack “ate” through the steel? With sulfur coming from pulverized drywall that will react differently than whole pieces of drywall in a smoldering pile. With the limited pieces could be explained by acid from the battery room? Or other sources? And your referencing an oddity that was not wide spread, but limited? B

And you still have no proof of detonations from the video, audio, seismic, physical evidence with the force to cut steel columns columns. With no explanation how a CD system would survive the jet impacts to initiate collapse on the floors with the most damage as captured on video?

Widespread since I posted a collection of captures that an engineering firm videoed at one of the dumpsites in Oct 2001. The steel was crushed, torn and split, and shredded open. Some of the steel even rippled into a mysterious curled up ball. This steel is inches deep how did fire accomplish that?
Concrete floors changed to powder in open-air also. The needed power to change concrete to dust would be huge. They're fine particles observed on photographs.
Now according to FEMA the sulfur attacked the surface of the steel and owing to heat- fire: a softening or melting process started. That heat- fire is part of their scenario. Sulfur only would not have produced the gaps and holes in the steel. Their scenario existed at three collapse sites WTC1 WTC2 and WTC7. So the battery acid scenario only works for one scene WTC2.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Military grade chemicals caused hot spots visible from space? Such chemicals caused temperatures high enough to keep iron in a molten state for 3 months? Such chemicals caused radiation sicknesses in those working at Ground Zero? Who even introduced the term "Ground Zero" and why?

Yes, only explanation for the intensity of the heat if there was some chemical reaction occurring in the debris.  The only two possible scenarios my view nuclear or chemical. There practically no fire anymore when the building gave way and fell down. Whatever was continuing the heat was produced by something else

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You just described a building collapse. Then the debris piles suffered chemical attacks from a toxic sound of burning computers, office equipment, synthetic office furniture, burning plastics, batteries from many different sources, powdered drywall, wire insulation, ceiling tiles, janitorial chemicals.....

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Yes, only explanation for the intensity of the heat if there was some chemical reaction occurring in the debris.

Like to cite an actual temperature, or just use innuendo in the face of zero evidence of detonations cutting steel columns.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You just described a building collapse. Then the debris piles suffered chemical attacks from a toxic sound of burning computers, office equipment, synthetic office furniture, burning plastics, batteries from many different sources, powdered drywall, wire insulation, ceiling tiles, janitorial chemicals.....

How come no separate construction collapse workers found steel with holes in the past before 9/11
All the things you specified would be found in separate buildings.
So the fact the observed something strange and was never recognized before indicates the truthers are on the correct road.
Literally hundreds or more buildings have failed partly or entirely owing to fire. None had steel with gaping cracks,  and holes. Steel at WTC scene some of the hardest steel you can recover back then.
Fact FEMA isolated the chemical and alleged it was sulfur that obviously reveals the Sulphar was extraordinarily rich in composition to start attacking distinct sections of steel at three different locations. 
Lets not forget they further believe the temp expected would be 1000c which means the heat had to be 1000c site at WTC7 scene also. 

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You mean like stuff that was found in WTC 5

a reply to: Hulseyreport

And why don’t you want to talk about all the smaller floor connections that where bent down and sheared from the vertical columns?

How many pieces underwent the sulfur attack again? Can you put a number to the amount of pieces? Or you talking an isolated case limited to a few pieces?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You mean like stuff that was found in WTC 5

WTC5 other locations. Steel pieces from WTC1 and WTC2 impacted the construction. Connections will certainly come apart from that. 
What a twisted-column 4.14 it not failed column. That column may have received shot by an object. It a tiny picture with no good view of the surrounding destruction.
Love how Debunkers use WTC5 as evidence when it was on fire and building remained.
4.18 you can determine the floor girders and joists and trusses are still there did not collapse What a weird position its the debunker claim fire led to a failure of comparable joists, trusses and beams and girders at WTC7 scene?
A partial failure caused by tower debris reaching the building, it not evidence to demonstrate the other collapse are possible.. 

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You mean like stuff that was found in WTC 5

WTC5 other locations. Steel pieces from WTC1 and WTC2 impacted the construction. Connections will certainly come apart from that. 
What a twisted-column 4.14 it not failed column. That column may have received shot by an object. It a tiny picture with no good view of the surrounding destruction.
Love how Debunkers use WTC5 as evidence when it was on fire and building remained.
4.18 you can determine the floor girders and joists and trusses are still there did not collapse What a weird position its the debunker claim fire led to a failure of comparable joists, trusses and beams and girders at WTC7 scene?
A partial failure caused by tower debris reaching the building, it not evidence to demonstrate the other collapse are possible.. 

What are you rambling about?

Do you have any evidence that the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was initiated by and sustained by detonations.

Considering the vertical columns fell only after the loss of lateral support of the floor system, with no evidence of being cut, I say no.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

And why don’t you want to talk about all the smaller floor connections that where bent down and sheared from the vertical columns?

How many pieces underwent the sulfur attack again? Can you put a number to the amount of pieces? Or you talking an isolated case limited to a few pieces?

I can merely go by what they released online. I strongly believe there was many more dump locations with identical steel. The photographs were captured at just one location in Oct 2001.