Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
joc

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

3,684 posts in this topic

Have him mix contents found in the cabin of airliners and inside office buildings and see what happens to the color.

Where is your evidence that if you do this, it changes the colour of aluminium?

Notice the color in the cup at time line 2:02. and notice the silvery droplets, which is exactly what is depicted falling from WTC2.

No it doesn't. lol

None of that spam backs up what you claim as the photos show it glowing in darkened conditions. lol Not in daylight conditions and we know that the temperature for the source is over 1200C, so chances are it's molten steel.

Now you said that glowing aluminium can be made by mixing it with different materials, so PROVE IT??? lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where is your evidence that if you do this, it changes the colour of aluminium?

Simple! Look at the aluminum chart. At what temperature does aluminum glow yellow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Now you said that glowing aluminium can be made by mixing it with different materials, so PROVE IT??? lol

Go back and read my response in that respect because you missed it. In other words, you are not paying attention. Then, come back and review this video.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ethg2.jpg

THERMITE!

Lower-right picture the molten flow from WTC2 which initiated in the minutes prior to collapse.

Centre picture shows what thermite reaction can do to structural steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

ethg2.jpg

THERMITE!

Lower-right picture the molten flow from WTC2 which initiated in the minutes prior to collapse.

Centre picture shows what thermite reaction can do to structural steel.

I might add that those silvery droplets are not molten steel and there is no evidence that thermite or thermate were used. I might add that Steven Jones and Richard Gage were caught lying and as a result, there were those who were duped. Even the colleagues of Steven Jones have distanced themselves from him and do not agree with his thermite assessment. . Ever wondered why demolition companies use RDX and dynamite to demolish tall buildings?

Now, let's take a look at the WTC towers. Given their unique design, what would happen if I used a torch to cut every steel column in their cores? Will they collapse or simply remain standing? The fact the buildings were buckling just prior to their collapse event was an indication that fires were weakening their steel structures and nothing to do with explosives.

Did Experts on the scene think that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7's collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? :

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

No explosive sounds like these were reported or recorded when WTC 7 collapsed.

My link

Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories

Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries.

Vibration monitoring performed by independent experts has long been considered crucial for companies carrying out explosive demolition, because owners of nearby buildings are keen to sue if any cracks or other structural damage appears. The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites.

Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse. In his words:

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.

My link

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ethg2.jpg

THERMITE!

Lower-right picture the molten flow from WTC2 which initiated in the minutes prior to collapse.

Centre picture shows what thermite reaction can do to structural steel.

This video shows what 175 pounds of thermite could not do.

I might add that the corner of WTC2 where the molten flow originated, is the location where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might add that those silvery droplets are not molten steel and there is no evidence that thermite or thermate were used. I might add that Steven Jones and Richard Gage were caught lying and as a result, there were those who were duped. Even the colleagues of Steven Jones have distanced themselves from him and do not agree with his thermite assessment. .

What sort of blinkered nitwit looks at some “silvery droplets” in preference to the great flow of fiery molten metal pouring from the building? I guess the same sort of blinkered nitwit who thinks an ideal physical match to thermite is not useful evidence. The same sort of blinkered nitwit who mentions nothing of NIST’s Shyam Sunder when he deceptively and unashamedly describes the fiery molten flow as, “a silverish colour molten material” but has the nerve to call Jones and Gage liars.

Ever wondered why demolition companies use RDX and dynamite to demolish tall buildings?

I wonder more why you ask such pointless questions.

Now, let's take a look at the WTC towers. Given their unique design, what would happen if I used a torch to cut every steel column in their cores? Will they collapse or simply remain standing? The fact the buildings were buckling just prior to their collapse event was an indication that fires were weakening their steel structures and nothing to do with explosives.

First, refer to response above.

The buckling appeared or increased at just the timeframe the WTC2 molten flow began. What a coincidence. Indication that thermite was responsible for the collapse initiations.

Err... random skyeagle-esque sidetrack...

“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building........ ”

WTC7.gif

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/22/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/

That is all it needs for any rationale person to expect a full investigation and questioning of Silverstein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might add that those silvery droplets are not molten steel and there is no evidence that thermite or thermate were used. I might add that Steven Jones and Richard Gage were caught lying and as a result, there were those who were duped. Even the colleagues of Steven Jones have distanced themselves from him and do not agree with his thermite assessment. . Ever wondered why demolition companies use RDX and dynamite to demolish tall buildings?

And furthermore!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might add that those silvery droplets are not molten steel and there is no evidence that thermite or thermate were used. I might add that Steven Jones and Richard Gage were caught lying and as a result, there were those who were duped. Even the colleagues of Steven Jones have distanced themselves from him and do not agree with his thermite assessment. . Ever wondered why demolition companies use RDX and dynamite to demolish tall buildings?

And this is proven incorrect as thermite was used.

NIST initially denied the fact of

free-fall in its final draft report released

in August 2008. In the technical briefing

that followed, NIST’s lead investigator,

Shyam Sunder explained, “A free-fall time

would be an object that has no structural

components below it.” He claimed that

WTC7 took 40% longer than “free-fall

time” to collapse, “and that is not at all

unusual because there was structural

resistance that was provided in this

particular case. And you had a sequence

of structural failures that had to take place

and everything was not instantaneous.”

However, physics instructor and

AE911Truth associate David Chandler had

used network television videos to carefully

measure the acceleration of the building during its fall and shown conclusively

that a significant period of free-fall was an indisputable fact. He publicly

challenged NIST’s claims at the technical briefing. Along with several others,

he filed formal requests for corrections during the public response period.

In its final report NIST reversed itself on its denial of free-fall, but it

couched its revised statement in deceptive language and failed to address

how free-fall could be compatible with its fire-induced progressive collapse

analysis. For the observed straight-down collapse, a thick network of heavy

steel columns and beams, had to be forcibly

removed and more than 400 structural

steel connections had to fail per second,

evenly all across each of the eight floors

involved. These failures had to occur

ahead

of the collapsing section – NOT caused by it

– because a free-falling object cannot exert

force on anything in its path without slowing

its own fall.

http://www2.ae911tru..._AE911Truth.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And furthermore!

That video is highly flawed. Check out time line 11:53. What is he saying? Now, let's take a look at WTC7, and tell us, what is it that you don't hear?

[media=]

What you didn't hear are explosions as WTC7 collapsed, which automatically debunks his claim of explosives.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That video is highly flawed. Check out time line 11:53. What is he saying. Now, let's take a look at WTC7, and tell us, what is it that you don't hear?

What you didn't hear were explosions as WTC7 collapsed, which automatically debunks his claim of explosives.

Your answer is flawed because apparently you did not get the hint that thermite was used to initiate the collapses.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That video is highly flawed. Check out time line 11:53. What is he saying. Now, let's take a look at WTC7, and tell us, what is it that you don't hear?

What you didn't hear were explosions as WTC7 collapsed, which automatically debunks his claim of explosives.

And here is why you are mistaken: -

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What sort of blinkered nitwit looks at some “silvery droplets” in preference to the great flow of fiery molten metal pouring from the building?

Well, let's take a look at the photo.

Moltenal.jpg

Yes indeed, those silvery droplets are aluminum and they originated from the same corner of WTC2 where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest.

I guess the same sort of blinkered nitwit who thinks an ideal physical match to thermite is not useful evidence. The same sort of blinkered nitwit who mentions nothing of NIST’s Shyam Sunder when he deceptively and unashamedly describes the fiery molten flow as, “a silverish colour molten material” but has the nerve to call Jones and Gage liars.

Others have also called them liars as well. Let's take a short look at Steven Jones.

Letter to the Editor

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

Now, let's' take a look at Richard Gage.

ARCHITECT Magazine

The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

The boardroom at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the American Institute of Architects is an impressive place: Beautiful concentric wooden desks, with microphones in front of every seat, encircle a small central dais, offering the impression that important discussions are had here. “It feels like the United Nations,” a guest recently commented.

This room recently served as a peculiar venue for the 23rd stop on the 30-city “world premiere tour” of AIA member Richard Gage’s new film 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out: Final Edition. Since 2006, Gage has been traveling all over the world under the banner of his organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth—an organization that has no affiliation with the AIA, express or otherwise—to preach the theory that the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were actually brought down by explosives on September 11, 2001, and not the impact of two hijacked jetliners and the resulting fires and debris.

“I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into believing that our government and the Israeli government, the Israeli Mossad, could be responsible for the Twin Towers demolition,” one member of the DC chapter of 911truth.org declared from the AIA-emblazoned podium.

The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims. Along with other esoteric and debunked technical arguments, he says that melted steel was visible at the Ground Zero site proving that the fires burned too hot to have been caused by jet fuel; that because the buildings collapsed at “near free fall speed” there must have been a controlled demolition; and that traces of athermitereaction found in the World Trade Center debris proves that explosives were used.

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let's take a look at the photo.

Yes indeed, those silvery droplets are aluminum and they originated from the same corner of WTC2 where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest.

Let's take another look at the pictures at the top of the page.

The glowing molten metal is an ideal match to thermite.

Others have also called them liars as well. Let's take a short look at Steven Jones.

Now, let's' take a look at Richard Gage.

No one called them "liars" in those articles so you must be a liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let's take a look at the photo.

Ottawa_Citizen.png

skyride.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And this is proven incorrect as thermite was used.

[/size][/font]

http://www2.ae911tru..._AE911Truth.pdf

About free speed and the WTC towers. Why does this photo debunk claims the WTC buildings fell at free fall speeds?

site1085-20120628-111320.jpg

Notice in the photo that dust plumes and debris are outpacing the collapse of the WTC building, in which case that photo automatically debunks the conspiracist claim the WTC buildings collapsed at free fall speeds.

Now, let's review this video and tell us; How long did it take WTC1 and WTC2 to collapse?

.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ottawa_Citizen.png

skyride.jpg

You have just committed another serious error (which is what I was looking for). Those towers are not constructed of the same design as the WTC buildings, and I could have taken a simple torch and down those towers without thermtie. Your error depicts your lack of knowledge on structural issues because given the construction technique of each WTC tower, there was no way that thermite could have been responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Now, tell us, why do demolition companies use RDX and dynamite rather than thermite for demolition implosions of tall buildings?

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have just committed another serious error (which is what I was looking for). Those towers are not constructed of the same design as the WTC buildings, and I could have taken a simple torch and down those towers without thermtie. Your error depicts your lack of knowledge on structural issues because given the construction technique of each WTC tower, there was no way that thermite could have been responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Now, tell us, why do demolition companies use RDX and dynamite rather than thermite for demolition implosions of tall buildings?

You have just demolished your own argument (which you would notice if you were more observant). Your lack of knowledge has led you to compare 1,500lbs of thermite melting a 10ft section of steel with a silly little blowtorch! And that is why thermite was responsible for collapse of the steel core structures of the WTC towers.

Now tell us, why are you asking pointless questions again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And here is why you are mistaken: -

[media=]

[/media]

I am not mistaken by any means. Let's examine these facts.

For thermite to be effective against steel columns, like explosives, thermite must be firmly attached to a steel column. Secondly, the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 were initiated at the locations where each tower was struck an B-767. Thirdly, the collisions were so violent that they dislodged fire protection from the structures of the WTC towers which directly exposed them to raging fires, and such violent collisions would have dislodge any thermite, or explosives for that matter, if attached to steel columns at those locations thus rendering them totally ineffective as in this case if explosives are not firmly attached to the steel structure of a building.

WTC_1993_ATF_Commons.jpg

As you can see, there are steel columns sitting within the crater of that huge bomb. And finally, there was no evidence of thermite cuts on the structural columns of the WTC towers.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You have just demolished your own argument (which you would notice if you were more observant). Your lack of knowledge has led you to compare 1,500lbs of thermite melting a 10ft section of steel with a silly little blowtorch! And that is why thermite was responsible for collapse of the steel core structures of the WTC towers.

Now tell us, why are you asking pointless questions again?

On the contrary, here is another point that reinforces what I meant.

What do you think clean-up crews were using to cut up those huge steel columns of the WTC buidings?

cut.jpg

[media=]

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now tell us, why are you asking pointless questions again?

I wish to add to the argument.

Temperature and Strength of Metals

Influence of temperature on the strength of metals

Some common types of steel lose 10% of their strength at 450 C (840 F), and 40% at 550 C (1022 F). At temperatures above 800 C ( 1475 F), it has lost 90% of its strength. Other types of steel are made to stand higher tmperatures before losing 10% of their strength, but they are much more expensive (and are weaker at room temperature).

And there are types which actually get stronger, up to 450 F (but then get a lot weaker at higher temperatures

http://www.engineeri...gth-d_1353.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And here is why you are mistaken: -

Mistaken??? There were no explosions as WTC7 collapsed and if you are not sure, you can go back and review the video. In regards to the WTC buildings there was no way thermite could have been responsible because the WTC towers were of 'tubular box and core' structures.

In addition:

IMPLOSIONWORLD

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER COLLAPSE

Questions & Answers

Implosionworld.com has received numerous inquiries from around the world requesting information and commentary relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, and specifically the felling of the World Trade Center towers. We have been contacted by media outlets, structural engineers, schoolteachers, conspiracy theorists and many others who are searching for answers and some “perspective” regarding these significant events that have evoked deep emotions and undoubtedly changed our world forever.

DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”?

No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site.

WHY DID THEY COLLAPSE?

Each 110-story tower contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space, with 18-inch steel tubes running vertically along the outside of the building. These structural elements provided the support for the building, and most experts agree that the planes impacting the buildings alone would not have caused them to collapse. The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level.

DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE?

To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack.

http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cnn.com

Tod Rittenhouse: Why the World Trade Center collapsed

Tod Rittenhouse is an expert in blast engineering from the international consulting engineering firm Weidlinger Associates and has been the blast engineer for a number of embassies and government buildings. He has been called to discuss such problems as the Oklahoma City bombing and the previous World Trade Center calamity.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Can you explain why the buildings collapsed?

RITTENHOUSE: The exterior structure is comprised of columns. The vertical load bearing members and the horizontal elements called "beams." When the plane impacted the building, it severely damaged those exterior columns. The following fire further damaged the support columns. So it was a two step event; initial damage by plane and further damage or subsequent loss of structural stability that caused the building to fail.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Was it due to the structural engineering that the building collapsed relatively straight down?

RITTENHOUSE: There are two reasons why it fell straight down. One is the structural engineering --how it was designed. And how it fell is really a phenomenon. The other reason is because the impact zone was so high up in the building that the weight of the uppermost floors fell onto the impact zone. Had the impact zone been lower in the building, the structure may have fallen in a tree-like effect, rather than crushing down on itself.

http://archives.cnn....ttenhouse.cnna/

Edited by skyeagle409
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That says it All Skyeagle ! on your Six ! :gun:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That says it All Skyeagle ! on your Six ! :gun:

I heard that!! :tu: Check this out in regards to Steven Jones, the person who has been throwing his thermite claim around the Internet.

Fulton College of Engineering and Technology

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

- The College of Engineering and Technology department

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members.

Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

- A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

And now, we have this:

Van D. Romero, Ph.D

"Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

- Van D. Romero, Ph.D. in Physics

http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professor Forman Williams

"But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

http://www.debunking911.com/civil.htm

It is very clear that Steven Jones was the driver of the vehicle that took 911 truthers to the cleaners.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish to add to the argument.

Funny how you should neglect to mention this: -

Conclusions

Since there was molten steel in the wreckage of the World Trade Center, and since the temperatures of the fires were insufficient to melt steel, and since the gravitational energy was shown to be very much smaller than the energy needed to melt steel, the Twin Towers and 7 WTC could only have been brought down by explosives or cutter charges.

http://www.journalof...ingWTCsteel.pdf

Conclusions

This paper has discussed some physical chemistry aspects of thermite and thermate and shown how science explains the existence of iron-aluminum-rich microspheres, why some microspheres are hollow, and why the metallurgical forensic study produced the results it did. The thermodynamic analysis has provided an understanding of how much thermite is needed to cut away a given amount of steel at 100% efficiency. The complexity of the chemistry involved has been illuminated.

These analyses enhance our understanding of the evidence that proves the use of incendiary devices in demolition of the WTC buildings.

http://www.journalof...hemistryWTC.pdf

Now why did you fail to take notice?

In addition the official story has been shown to spread misinformation and disinformation by claiming the fire brought down the WTC buildings when it was in fact thermite which goes to show that some official theorists haven’t done their homework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.