|
MrMolotov
Ganja Patrol


Registered: 06/12/05
Posts: 640
Loc: SoCal
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Catalysis]
#5610045 - 05/09/06 07:33 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Catalysis said:
Quote:
I saw pictures of something molten. From the pictures, the molten substance could have easily been plastic as steel.
LOL, I just watched that video and I would say it might be aluminum from the aircraft or another source. I can't figure out how you guys came to the conclusion that it is steel. The melting point of aluminum is right around the critical temperature where steel loses its strength but it is less than half the melting point of most steels.
That, combined with the fact that multiple people responsible admitted doing it and during the cartoon protests muslims were carrying around signs that said "we will make another 911 happen" pretty much seals the deal for me.
I am not sure what there is to gain by trying to convince people that the US is really the bad guy responsible for 911. That muslims really like Americans and they would never do such a thing even while they routinely kill civilians. It just seems kind of...absurd.
aluminium does not glow red/orange when it melts iot just gets kinda "wet" looking. oh and about the heat, the elevator shafts would have acted like wind tunnels because the fire would have sucked air up through them at a high rate which would easily fan the fire.
bush had been planning on invading iraq before september 11th and you know it they said so in the memo with tony blair which is before the attack i belive. not quite sure.
and god damnit i forgot what i was gonna say... um shit.
--------------------
OI OI OI
Edited by MrMolotov (05/09/06 07:46 PM)
|
David_vs_Goliath
Informer


Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 18 days
|
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: MrMolotov]
#5610188 - 05/09/06 07:59 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
not really, its like saying it in a politically correct way so they can't get F---ed for saying it. Pretty obvious when they say this and then it gets disteriously deleted off the website about 2 months ago. I read it and im pretty sure it didnt just recognize that, But i will give you the benefit of the doubt and try to find it again.
-------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
|
David_vs_Goliath
Informer


Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 208
Loc: Chicago
Last seen: 14 years, 18 days
|
|
A "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51).
Just admit it, that is fucked up.
Check out this site on the PNAC (new american century). To tell you the truth, I would have never been concerned with any of the 9/11 conspiracies or anything dealing with Iraq or Iran untill I read this. Pretty messed up organization expecially when you look at the main people involved.
Even if you dont wana check the site out at least look at the list of people involved and their jobs in the government/media. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
-------------------- "People living deeply have no fear of death." "Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love." "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings."
|
Catalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: MrMolotov]
#5610492 - 05/09/06 09:11 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
aluminium does not glow red/orange when it melts iot just gets kinda "wet" looking.
Thats not true. It all depends on the temperature and composition. Attributing that heated material to steel is nothing more than creating evidence to support a pre-determined conclusion.
In other words, you first come up with the conclusion that the building was pulled and then try to bend the evidence into that framework.
Could it be steel? Maybe. Is it more likely a lower BP metal or plastic, even if thermite was used? Yes. Thats about all I can get from it.
|
Viveka
refutation bias


Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Aldous]
#5610906 - 05/09/06 11:05 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The squibs on WTC7 move UPwards, not down. They move upwards extremely fast, much faster even than the evolution of the collapse. And, get this, those squibs appear BEFORE the building has even started to fall down.
What you are doing now is playing the role of what's been called an armchair physicist. Really, you don't have enough information about the construction of that building, the circumstances of the building's collapse, or the physics of building collapse or demolition in general, certainly not from that video, yet you are making blunt assumptions about a very complex event.
Why is it any less plausible to assume that the "squibs" as you're calling them in that lo res, cropped WTC7 clip are an effect of the structural integrity of the building failing? There is a tremendous mass of material in a building like that and if the stability fails, there is a tremendous amount of energy released as entropy takes the place of structural stability. All that energy could translate to effects you may not be able to anticipate even if you were a strucural engineer.
So some pieces of the building disintegrated just as it was falling to the ground. No big surprise! The fact that it happens on multiple floors in a sequence should also not surprise anyone since buildings are a sequence of floors. You also seem SURE the "squibs" appear "BEFORE the building has even started to fall down", but can you really be sure of that? How do you know that the collapsing event hasn't already started before the building appears to move horizontally downward? Couldn't the structure be compromised enough on certain dimensions so that parts of the buildings face began to disintegrate, BEFORE you are able to perceive horizontal downard movement? Especially when you consider that the video clip is cropped somewhere around the begining of the event? To my eyes, the "squibs" appear just as the building is beginning to fall. It would only require a very minute shift, udetectable to watching eyes, to cause a radical change in the building's cohesion
I am not saying it is impossible that WTC7 was brought down with controlled demolition. I am suggesting that you apply Occam's Razor to your tentative explanations.
|
Viveka
refutation bias


Registered: 10/21/02
Posts: 4,061
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
how can you say displacement when the floors that show the debris shooting out of the windows are 10-15 floors below the subsequent floors which were being collapsed at the same time.
Please see my reply to Aldous as it applies to your question as well.
You are assuming too much about the event and not thinking about so many possibilities. Maybe there is mass inside the building that cannot be seen from the outside that is already 10-15 floors below the level at which the collapsing currently seems to be taking place. Also, the collapse wouldn't necesariily have to be at the floor just above the floor on which air and debris is being ejected from windows for that explanation to be plausible. Have you considered that the dynamics of the air moving through the building at that moment are unknowable by you or anyone else? How do you know that that the collapsing mass isn't enough to displace air 13 floors below? Maybe the ejecta can only be seen on floors where certain windows have been blown out or broken for whatever reason.
Neither you or I have the information to assert anything for sure. But if it is possible that displaced air could explain what you are seeing, how is it logical to introduce the much more convoluted theory that what you are seeing are demolition squibs?
|
quillini
one meanmotorscooter


Registered: 04/18/06
Posts: 255
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Luddite]
#5611264 - 05/10/06 12:48 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
From Popular Mechanics in 1950:
-------------------- No; truth, being alive, was not halfway between anything. It was only to be found by continuous excursions into either realm, and though proportion is the final secret, to espouse it at the outset is to insure sterility. Only connect...
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 977
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 2 months, 1 day
|
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Viveka]
#5611439 - 05/10/06 02:33 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
EvilEye? said: What you are doing now is playing the role of what's been called an armchair physicist. Really, you don't have enough information about the construction of that building, the circumstances of the building's collapse, or the physics of building collapse or demolition in general, certainly not from that video, yet you are making blunt assumptions about a very complex event.
Mmm, let's see. What I have, is info about building failure history, and above all, a pair of eyes and a sense of logic.
But first of all, let's go back to what I wrote before. What I said is that "displacement" can hardly explain the smoke puffs in the video link. Another argument for this is that they're in fact very brief smoke "flashes". If they were caused by displacement, that would mean that building really didn't contain a lot of air. Look at this video, which everyone has seen. The smoke flashes can be seen at the top right, and you'll notice the building has hardly even moved when they appear. In the same video, there is a large cloud which is caused by displacement. It's the one that appears in the trail of the falling building, above the roof as the building falls, in between the right edge and the large black rectangle in the top middle of the building. It develops as the building collapses, and gets ever larger. You can almost see the dust-filled air from inside the building being sqeezed out. See the difference?
Now back to those statistics and that pair of eyes.
a) WTC 1, 2 & 7 were the first (and so far last) buildings in history to completely collapse from "fire". 1&2 were admittedly weakened by plane crashes, 7 wasn't.
b) When small parts of buildings do partially collapse from much heavier fires (see the heavy Windsor building fire in Madrid in 2005), they logically do so in a very disorderly fashion. These three buildings here completely vanished in a matter of seconds, and fell straight to the ground. They didn't topple or fall to pieces, they were pulverized... by fire and unguided collapse. 
c) WTC7 fell very orderly, from very small fires, completely and neatly inside its footprint. The central core of the building fell first and pulled the outer walls to the inside. That's what implosionworld.com describes as a genuine implosion, "by far the trickiest type of explosive demolition project, and there are only a handful of blasting companies in the world that possess enough experience—and insurance—to perform these true building implosions". But a small fire achieved it by chance... it is alleged. One of the three first building collapses by fire in history was an absolutely perfect implosion. You, my friend, are a coïncidence theorist.
d) Take a look at this page: http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm, and browse around. Let's pick a few of them. First, look at the Philips building (top right) and the Schuylkill Falls tower (4th from bottom right). Of course, they look nothing like the collapse of WTC7. Much more like the Madrid fire, right?  Second, look at the collapse of the Southwark (twin) towers (third from top left). Those smoke puffs at regular intervals look every inch like the alleged "displacement puffs" in the WTC Twin towers. (Conceded, this is not about WTC7.)
So on the one hand, we have a hypothesis with no precedent whatsoever: for the first time in history, and on the very same day, three buildings collapsed and were pulverized to ground level, symmetrically, two of them from asymmetrical plane crashes, followed by comparatively limited fires (look at other building fires in history) in all three of them. Strangely, those fires left large pools of molten metal that remained molten for weeks after. On the other hand, we've got a physically logical explanation, that is supported by numerous visual comparative examples, by numerous witness accounts and news reporters' accounts recorded in the spur of the moment, by expert opinion provided in the spur of the moment (google "Van Romero") and withdrawn later, and by a slip of the tongue by the landlord (also withdrawn later).
Pick your theory. It's just that I wonder how supporters of the second explanation can be so systematically derided, while those believing the official explanation get away with it. It must be Occam's razor cutting away the way too horrific idea of government involvement before it even pops up.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Aldous]
#5611572 - 05/10/06 04:36 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
> What I said is that "displacement" can hardly explain the smoke puffs in the video link
Assumption. You do not know if that is smoke or dust.
> Another argument for this is that they're in fact very brief smoke "flashes".
My agrument was that they LACKED flashes that would be seen if explosives were present.
> If they were caused by displacement, that would mean that building really didn't contain a lot of air.
Incorrect. Very little volume of air is needed to stir up large plumes of dust. The building was mostly air, surrounded by glass and concrete held up by steel.
> The smoke flashes can be seen at the top right, and you'll notice the building has hardly even moved
Exactly. The "smoke" is seen at the top right of the building... not somewhere structural. This is not a place that explosives would be used.
Hardly moved means moved a bit. A small move of the building can create a huge volume of moving air.
> In the same video, there is a large cloud which is caused by displacement. It's the one that appears in the trail of the falling building
I don't see a difference, other than volume of dust and direction.
> WTC 1, 2 & 7 were the first (and so far last) buildings in history to completely collapse from "fire". 1&2 were admittedly weakened by plane crashes, 7 wasn't.
Incorrect. Towers 1 and 2 were hit by planes, thus fire cannot be considered the only factor. Tower 7 was damaged when towers 1 and 2 fell, so again, fire cannot be considered the only factor.
> When small parts of buildings do partially collapse from much heavier fires
Again, you are comparing a fire event, which starts small and spreads out, to a much larger event in which tens of thousands of gallons of accelerant were immediately available to feed a fire after the structure of the building had been damaged by a relatively high speed impact. You cannot compare an apple to an orange and expect it to make sense.
> and fell straight to the ground
Again, common misconception. If they had fallen staight into the ground, then none of the other buildings would have been damaged. These were not the clean demolotions that everybody likes to pretend.
> Pick your theory.
No thanks; I prefer science, engineering, and reality.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 977
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 2 months, 1 day
|
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Seuss]
#5611662 - 05/10/06 06:15 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Right, same old tactic I see. And successful at that: I'm not going to pick apart everything you said. I also have a life. I'll just leave it at a few examples to expose the twisted way in which you reply.
Quote:
Seuss said: > What I said is that "displacement" can hardly explain the smoke puffs in the video link Assumption. You do not know if that is smoke or dust.
Right, I said "smoke", I was wrong. In every case, it would be dust. Either coming from the inside of the (not yet really) falling building, which is not my assumption. In case the puffs are from explosives, they would be dust too, from concrete pulverized by small explosions.
Quote:
> Another argument for this is that they're in fact very brief smoke "flashes". My agrument was that they LACKED flashes that would be seen if explosives were present.
Is it my English that's too poor, or do you just pretend you didn't understand? When I say "brief smoke flashes", with flashes in between quotation marks, I don't mean "light flashes", of course. I mean small puffs that immediately stop growing, indicating they're not attributable to "displacement" like the large smoke plume I pointed out, which logically keeps on growing as the building further collapses. BTW, watch the demos at the link I provided. You'll notice a lot of *dust* puffs clearly attributable to explosives, many of which are completely devoid of any light flash whatsoever. Try again.
Quote:
> If they were caused by displacement, that would mean that building really didn't contain a lot of air. Incorrect. Very little volume of air is needed to stir up large plumes of dust.
You see, that's what I mean by "tactics". You claim I said the opposite of what I said. There was, as you correctly say, a large volume of air present, and it allegedly resulted in minute dust puffs, which were allegedly attributable to displacement. I agree that only a "little volume of air is needed to stir up large plumes of dust". What I'm stating is that with the huge volume of air present in the building, the displacement will yield huge dust plumes like the one I indicated, not very brief and minute dust puffs that stop growing as soon as the building starts to collapse proper. Those had another cause. You pretend to debunk something I didn't say with a correct statement to make it look I stated the opposite. 
Quote:
I don't see a difference, other than volume of dust and direction.
Well, there *is* a significant difference then...  Another example of your fishy debating tactics.
With all your science and reality, you cannot explain why the collapses were symmetrical (no significant toppling) as a result of completely asymmetrical and chaotic (cf. fire) events. But that's what it is: your science, and your reality. You're still doing extremely poorly on explaining WTC7, as does all the "science" I've seen deperately trying to explain this while excluding the obvious. I still don't see how controlled demolition would be an "unscientific" explanation here. Its problem is not science, it's political incorrectness.
|
quillini
one meanmotorscooter


Registered: 04/18/06
Posts: 255
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Seuss]
#5612677 - 05/10/06 01:13 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Man, I don't know. I just watched some demolitions at www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm and it seems like actual flashes from explosions is sort of hit and miss, mostly miss. With one or two exceptions, all I'm seeing are plumes of smoke jetting from the buildings (from which it appears all the glass has been removed). These plumes of smoke are arranged differently with different structures, but overall they seem consistent with WTC footage:

I'm just not buying the displacement theory. I mean, if these floors were pancaking ahead of the observable collapse, it seems as though more than one or two plumes of smoke would be produced. How can the volume of air from an entire WTC floor be forced out rapidly such that it would cause only a couple of windows to break? Wouldn't the pressure break all the windows? That just seems more far-fetched than the demolitions theory.
I'm not crazy; I just need an explanation I can be satisfied with.
-------------------- No; truth, being alive, was not halfway between anything. It was only to be found by continuous excursions into either realm, and though proportion is the final secret, to espouse it at the outset is to insure sterility. Only connect...
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
Quote:
David_vs_Goliath said: A "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51).
Just admit it, that is fucked up.
Did you not listen to what I said? That quote DOES NOT call for a new Pearl Harbor to be perpetrated. It merely says that a new Pearl Harbor would bring about different circumstances in the world. There is nothing nefarious in how that quote was used in the essay.
|
TODAY
Battletoad


Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 10,218
Loc: Metropolis City, USA
|
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: barfightlard]
#5612775 - 05/10/06 01:38 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
The winds are very consistently strong at the altitude of the fire. This may provide enough oxygen to raise the temperature of the fire high enough to melt steel. My best guess.
--------------------
ca'rouse (k-rouz) intr.v. To engage in boisterous, drunken merrymaking.
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 977
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 2 months, 1 day
|
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: TODAY]
#5613170 - 05/10/06 02:57 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Thick black smoke and hardly any visible flames do not indicate extremely hot fires. There are instances of building fires with huge infernos, and no reports of molten metal staying liquid for weeks after the fact that I know of. You can tell an extremely hot fire when you see one. Those WTC fires were nothing out of the ordinary. On arrival, the firefighters in the North Tower were confident they could put out the fire with two hoses...
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Aldous]
#5613180 - 05/10/06 02:59 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 977
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 2 months, 1 day
|
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Luddite]
#5617528 - 05/11/06 02:40 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
ehhh... relevance?
|
TODAY
Battletoad


Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 10,218
Loc: Metropolis City, USA
|
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Aldous]
#5618016 - 05/11/06 04:45 PM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
alot of pressure is loaded on the metal beams at the point in the building where the fire burned, heat could cause the pressure and temperature on those parts of the building to increase more rapidly than if there was not a pressure load on it at all.
--------------------
ca'rouse (k-rouz) intr.v. To engage in boisterous, drunken merrymaking.
|
Aldous
enthusiast


Registered: 10/19/99
Posts: 977
Loc: inside my skull
Last seen: 2 months, 1 day
|
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: TODAY]
#5620180 - 05/12/06 05:06 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
...and that's why all steel buildings which suffer fires always collapse. 
What you point out is true of all steel frame buildings...
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Aldous]
#5620297 - 05/12/06 07:07 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
> ...and that's why all steel buildings which suffer fires always collapse.
Exactly, because all steel buildings are identical in design and construction.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
barfightlard
tales of theinexpressible



Registered: 01/29/03 
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
Re: Thermite Caused the WTC to Fall? [Re: Seuss]
#5620334 - 05/12/06 08:09 AM (17 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Seuss said: > ...and that's why all steel buildings which suffer fires always collapse.
Exactly, because all steel buildings are identical in design and construction.
What was so flawed about the "newer" WTC buildings(especially #7)? Even the Empire state building was hit by a B-25 bomber was on fire for awhile and held.
--------------------
"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks
|
|