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

Perhaps the incompetence of a certain few who let this happen and should be. Prosecuted is all I'm saying

You can't argue with the facts. We have created the same level of heating reaction using fiberglass resin and MEKP.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is right. As it was, fires that resulted from the impacts were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. No explosive of any kind was used as many 911 conspiracist have claimed and I have consistently told them why. I might add that the aircraft were not flown into the WTC buildings under remote control.

Do you think it is possible that even without the fires, kinetic energy would have eventually caused a collapse as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snapback.pngjoc, on 18 January 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

Oh, I certainly think they can. Fires burning for a long time like that don't have a constant temperature...the more stuff catches fire the hotter the fire gets, the hotter the fire gets, the more stuff catches on fire, heats up the metal, heats up the metal...we are talking incredible temperatures which of course could melt steel...and please...bodies cremated...how about spontaneous combustion where all is left of the body is a small pile of ashes?

Are you pulling my leg, or do you really think that? :unsure2:

What is there not to believe? You have heard of spontaneous combustion right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me thinks Baberuth need to do a Bill Nye the Science Guy experiment ! re-enact the compression of the WTC towers coming down upon oneself. I bet there will be no parts but little fiddley bits found of BR ?

Edited by DONTEATUS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think it is possible that even without the fires, kinetic energy would have eventually caused a collapse as well?

No, because the WTC buildings withstood the impacts, but damaged structural columns. When that happens, structural loads are redistributed to the remaining columns and that will place additional loads on the remaining columns in the absence of fire protection, which was dislodged by the impacts and that provided fires direct access to the remaining structural columns.

The temperatures did not reach the melting point of steel, but were high enough to weaken the remaining structural columns, which were supporting increased structural loads due to the loss of structural columns damaged by the impacts. Before the WTC buildings collapsed, witnesses noticed the buildings were buckling moments before they collapsed, and that indicated the fires were having an effect on structural steel.

When metal is heated, it expands and a case in point to observe is the airframe of the SR-71, which expands several inches during its flight, but the aircraft was designed that way and explains why the SR-71 leaks fuel when sitting on the ground, but the sealing begins when the aircraft reach airspeeds high enough to heat the skin to a temperature where it expands and seals the fuel leaks.

At the temperatures the steel columns were exposed because of loss of fire protection during the impacts and with the redistribution of added structural loads on the remaining columns, it was just a matter of time before the fires within the WTC buildings weaken the steel structures to the point of failure, which was indicated by external buckling of the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, this is still going on? otoh why not, we still debate who burned Rome, lol

I was there, I personally saw, second plane hit, personally saw, and heard first building collapse, I,m in construction, and high-rise buildings maintenance, for about 15 years. in NYC.

you CT make me laugh, please, keep up the good work, thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not likely at all. After all, a half of ton of explosive planted in WTC1 in 1993 failed to destroy even one structural column, much less caused its collapse.

How was it "planted in WTC1", exactly? Do you mean explosives were "planted" inside a van, or that they "planted" the explosives-laden van in WTC1's basement parking lot?

It was RANDOM. It was in a basement parking lot, inside a van. It does not cause total collapse of the tower.

Same way as RANDOM fires and RANDOM damage do not cause total collapse of the towers .

How are you going to get 100 workers to spend many months cutting structural columns and placing thousands and thousands of pounds of explosives more than 700 feet above street level and do so without anyone noticing? In fact, how would thousands and thousands of pounds of explosives not detonate after aircraft crashed into the area where 911 conspiracist claimed, explosives were planted? Reality is, there were no explosives involved in the collapse of the WTC buildings during the 911 attacks and no bomb explosions were seen, heard nor detected on seismic monitors. .

They needed access to the structural supports, and that requires access to the elevator shafts I guess it's just an amazing coincidence that they decided to 'renovate' the WTC elevators only a few months before 9/11!!

And many witnesses heard explosions. How can you be unaware of the news reports/video clips where they SAY THIS?? I suppose you'll say they are all mistaken on what they 'really' heard, or some other nonsense excuse...

Edited by turbonium
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How was it "planted in WTC1", exactly? Do you mean explosives were "planted" inside a van, or that they "planted" the explosives-laden van in WTC1's basement parking lot?

Yes!

It was RANDOM. It was in a basement parking lot, inside a van. It does not cause total collapse of the tower.

And, there was no way that it would have caused a collapse. Even the steel columns remained standing despite sitting in the crater created by the huge bomb blast. Furthermore, I have posted photos of buildings in Iraq that took direct hits from multiple bomb and missile strikes and yet their structures remained standing.

Same way as RANDOM fires and RANDOM damage do not cause total collapse of the towers

Since some columns were damaged by the impacts, structural loads were redistributed. The remaining columns were exposed to the effects of high temperatures that resulted in failure of the steel columns, which was evident when witnesses reported that the WTC buildings were buckling just prior to their collapse; a clear indication that high temperature was expanding and weakening the steel structures.

They needed access to the structural supports, and that requires access to the elevator shafts I guess it's just an amazing coincidence that they decided to 'renovate' the WTC elevators only a few months before 9/11!!

Even then, there was no way anyone could have prepared the WTC buildings for demolition and not attract a lot of attention. It took about half a year just to prepare a bridge for demolition at ground level.

And many witnesses heard explosions.

Just because they heard sounds like explosions doesn't mean they were. After all, no bomb explosions were seen nor heard on audio nor detected by seismic monitors, and to sum that up, there is no evidence that explosives were used despite what 911 conspiracist have claimed. In fact, they cannot even provide evidence of detonation wires and blasting caps within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

How can you be unaware of the news reports/video clips where they SAY THIS??

Just a matter of doing my homework. I might add not just from the newspapers either, but from demolition experts in the area who reported seeing no explosions when the WTC buildings collapsed and other forms of information. You should also remember people saying that the explosions they heard, were nothing more than crashing elevators and nothing that can be attributed to bombs.

I suppose you'll say they are all mistaken on what they 'really' heard, or some other nonsense excuse...

Of course I will because of my experience on the battlefield, I know what bomb explosions look, sound, and feel like, and I saw no evidence of any such thing in the videos, which once again, brings us back to the fact that seismic detectors did not detect bomb explosions in the area and no evidence was found in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JOC

Yes, spontaneous combustion is an established fact. However, I doubt there are any cases of spontaneous combustion of office furniture and wood trim and assorted fire-code-complying material can spontaneously combust reaching the temperatures required to keep steel in boiling condition, yet that is what we have at WTC.

But look at it this way JOC--all those folks in the Controlled Demolition business learned a valuable lesson that day. They learned that it is no longer necessary to prepare a building for CD. No longer necessary to perfectly place charges, wires, sequential charges, and all that stuff they used to have to do.

No, they learned that all they have to do is to pour some measure of jetfuel in a building, randomly, light it off, and in about an hour, VOILA!, the building will come down at near free fall speeds! Pretty cool, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JOC

Yes, spontaneous combustion is an established fact. However, I doubt there are any cases of spontaneous combustion of office furniture and wood trim and assorted fire-code-complying material can spontaneously combust reaching the temperatures required to keep steel in boiling condition, yet that is what we have at WTC.

But look at it this way JOC--all those folks in the Controlled Demolition business learned a valuable lesson that day. They learned that it is no longer necessary to prepare a building for CD. No longer necessary to perfectly place charges, wires, sequential charges, and all that stuff they used to have to do.

No, they learned that all they have to do is to pour some measure of jetfuel in a building, randomly, light it off, and in about an hour, VOILA!, the building will come down at near free fall speeds! Pretty cool, eh?

I really don't see what is so hard to get about the fires. Spontaneous combustion comments were directed at the human bodies.

But as to your last sentence...if you look at real life controlled demolitions, they are exactly that...controlled. If you had a company hired to wire the WTC building because the owner wanted it gone...the entire building collapse would have been controlled. You would not have had the incredible damage to surrounding buildings...and if you did...guess what...that Demolition Company would have been sued for billions of dollars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they learned that all they have to do is to pour some measure of jetfuel in a building, randomly, light it off, and in about an hour, VOILA!, the building will come down at near free fall speeds! Pretty cool, eh?

Just like fire weakening the steel supports of a freeway, which collapsed.

Fire Collapses Oakland Freeway as Steel Supports Fail

At about 3:30 AM on Sunday, April 29, 2007, a tanker truck collided into the right side guard rail of a freeway ramp from Highway 80 east (Richmond, Berkeley) to Highway 880 gsouth (San José), rolled onto its right side and exploded into fire.

The metal supports below the upper ramp heated and expanded. The heating and expansion were far beyond design expectations.

What have I said about the expansion of metal exposed to high temperatures?

...The lengthwise roadbed supporting framework expanded between the massive spanwise beams at the ends of the section, at the concrete Ys. The constrained lengthwise expansion created very large stresses within the framework...and this framework bowed downward since its ends were pinned. Why not bow up? Because of the downward force of its weight, and that of the roadway it supported. A similar constrained thermal expansion occurred to the spanwise beams at the concrete Ys. They, too, bowed down. The entire section of ramp was curling up like a potato chip being fried.

http://www.counterpu...-supports-fail/

And once again, buckling was noticed in the WTC buildings before they collapsed.

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

Bearing walls and Open floor design

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors.

The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people just cannot understand what great weight above the impact area was there waiting for the weakened steel beams can do. Only very ignorant minds that like to believe in CT theories which in there own description THEORY.

no proof exist not one thread of evidence . Look into the Facts,Look into whats is actually known about the mechanics of this event. Please do yourselfs a favor you will be better for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what's so hard to get about energy required to reach a specific temperature. Burning fuel gives us energy, and getting steel out to boiling is some pretty high numbers, I'm thinking over 2000 degrees. That cannot be done with office furniture and wood trim or anything else. If that were the case, steel foundries would be burning office furniture and wood trim to power their huge ovens and devices to melt steel for a business.

Or maybe they could burn recycled paper cups too, eh? :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people just cannot understand what great weight above the impact area was there waiting for the weakened steel beams can do. Only very ignorant minds that like to believe in CT theories which in there own description THEORY.

no proof exist not one thread of evidence . Look into the Facts,Look into whats is actually known about the mechanics of this event. Please do yourselfs a favor you will be better for it.

That is actually what this thread is about...looking into the facts. I wanted everyone to watch a particular video that, for the . 'ignorant minds' seemed pretty compelling.

I don't see what's so hard to get about energy required to reach a specific temperature. Burning fuel gives us energy, and getting steel out to boiling is some pretty high numbers, I'm thinking over 2000 degrees. That cannot be done with office furniture and wood trim or anything else. If that were the case, steel foundries would be burning office furniture and wood trim to power their huge ovens and devices to melt steel for a business.

Or maybe they could burn recycled paper cups too, eh? :innocent:

That's what you think. I think you are wrong. You are forgetting a few other things at the bottom of that pile of rubble. Miles of Natural Gas lines with gas still in them. All of the toxic and flammable gases from burning substances. The Chimney Effect which considerably increases the temperature of a fire. Other metals with lesser melting points, melting and giving off flammable gases.

It is silly to thing an inferno like that at the bottom of the rubble pile would be the same temperature as a campfire.

Edited by joc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what's so hard to get about energy required to reach a specific temperature. Burning fuel gives us energy, and getting steel out to boiling is some pretty high numbers, I'm thinking over 2000 degrees.

Steel begins to weaken at a temperature much less than 2000 degrees.

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 temperatures 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.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html

That cannot be done with office furniture and wood trim or anything else. If that were the case, steel foundries would be burning office furniture and wood trim to power their huge ovens and devices to melt steel for a business.

Apparently, the temperatures within the WTC buildings were high enough to weaken steel. What do you think was feeding the fire that collapsed the steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skyeagle409

Iron BOILS at some number above 2000, I'm quite sure.

From the air samples taken there by the guys from California, iron was boiling nearby. For weeks afterwards.

You can deny this, and I know you will, but such denial simply illustrates how uninformed you are, or how deeply in denial you are.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skyeagle409

Iron BOILS at some number above 2000, I'm quite sure.

Iron burns and you can use steel wool to start fires as well, and temperatures of 2000 degrees is not required to weaken steel. Once again, you are advertising your lack of knowledge to everyone regarding temperature and the strength of steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in the same class as your direct claim that it wasn't. Quibble as much as you like, you made claims about a document you hadn't read and then accused me of exactly what you yourself had just done.

Are you stupid or deliberately ignoring the part of my post where this was explained? I’m going with the latter – it is your attempt to save face as a result of your argument being well and truly exposed. At any rate, you didn’t quote/respond to the part of my post where it was explained, so here it is again for you to think about. Your claims rely on some as yet unknown detail – if it even exists. My claims, which are completely different to your own, do not. Please go back and check what has been claimed before wasting anymore of my time.

See, my claim: -

“The original authors clearly failed to meet their own requirement for a "detailed study" by 1) not demonstrating a match to the phenomenon at the WTC and 2) lack of consideration to plausible alternative mechanisms.”

http://www.unexplain...60#entry4621058

This is self-apparent from the conclusion and excerpts available.

Your claim: -

“Easy, the sample was being eroded in the debris pile for several weeks. They identify the start of a process that will produced the observed result if left to continue.”

http://www.unexplain...05#entry4625439

This is speculation without viewing the paper and/or ability to answer the fundamental question in my post #108.

I see, it's another of those areas where Q24's imagined technical expertise overrides that of everyone who's actually done any work on the subject. I didn't ask the question to be fobbed off with your personal fantasies, I was hoping for some actual evidence that thermite could have that effect on steel without raising its temperature anywhere near to thermite's reaction temperature. Just heating steel certainly doesn't have that effect, you need the presence of sulphur, so why should the steel have come into contact with the small proportion of sulphur that's in thermite but not with the thermite itself?

As to molten steel, you still have not produced any evidence of temperatures high enough to produce this. All you have is reports from eyewitnesses who would not have been able to distinguish molten steel from any other molten metal.

It’s certainly another one of those areas which flyingswan would like to imagine is all rather more complicated than it really is. Think about it Swanny, what happens to the temperature of thermite after the initial reaction, or after energy is expended melting the steelwork where the hole now exists? But I guess such independent thought requires more ‘technical expertise’ than you can handle.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is absolute evidence of thermite, only one further piece of evidence which could fit and be explained by that answer. Simultaneously, there is no physical evidence of high temperatures in the steelwork caused by the fires at all, i.e. NIST: "no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." These are the facts that I set out in my post #51 before you interrupted by linking to the paper which you haven't even read.

As to molten steel, your speculation is fine if, for obvious reasons of bias, you want to believe that witnesses who reported, beams had just totally been melted and, “when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel were mistaken. Those accounts are a big clue as to identity of the molten metal which you conveniently fabricate excuses for. Yeah it must be an aluminium lollipop on a steel stick, sure Swanny, that's really best fit hmmm.

But oh heck, you find one second-hand/indirect eyewitness/media account of a passenger still strapped to their seat at the Pentagon and it’s nailed on evidence for you, complete with your personal ‘technical expertise’ speculation of how an aircraft can practically disintegrate upon impact with steel-reinforced concrete walls whilst the human body does not. You fit what you want to fit all round, but I'll be consistent and take what's there.

I have better things to do but thanks for the 'discussion'.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you stupid or deliberately ignoring the part of my post where this was explained?

I read your quibble and, like all your previous similar quibbles, it is well worth ignoring.
Your claim: -

"Easy, the sample was being eroded in the debris pile for several weeks. They identify the start of a process that will produced the observed result if left to continue."

http://www.unexplain...05#entry4625439

This is speculation without viewing the paper and/or ability to answer the fundamental question in my post #108.

I don't need to read the paper to learn that, it's a commonplace physical process. However, I've read Sisson's BBC interview and I've seen an earlier paper by him and others, both of which confirm what I've been saying.
It's certainly another one of those areas which flyingswan would like to imagine is all rather more complicated than it really is. Think about it Swanny, what happens to the temperature of thermite after the initial reaction, or after energy is expended melting the steelwork where the hole now exists? But I guess such independent thought requires more 'technical expertise' than you can handle.

Generally, when thermite melts a hole, it falls through it. It doesn't hang around cooling down.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is absolute evidence of thermite,
Just as well, because there isn't any.
As to molten steel, your speculation is fine if, for obvious reasons of bias, you want to believe that witnesses who reported, "beams had just totally been melted" and, "when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel" were mistaken. Those accounts are a big clue as to identity of the molten metal which you conveniently fabricate excuses for. Yeah it must be an aluminium lollipop on a steel stick, sure Swanny, that's really best fit hmmm.

You're doing it again. You accuse me of using a second-hand/indirect eyewitness/media account when "beams had just totally been melted" was from a chaplain who wasn't there.

As to "when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel", as I've asked you before without getting an answer, does the fact that you drip water after you get out of the bath mean that you're made of ice?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is absolute evidence of thermite, only one further piece of evidence which could fit and be explained by that answer.

Are you implying that thermite is more effective than RDX, which is used by demolition companies? Ever wondered why there is no evidence that thermite was used in the 911 attacks and why demolition companies used RDX over thermite? No thermite cuts were found on the steel columns nor was evidence found of structural pre-weakening on the steel columns of the WTC buildings.

"no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure."

Actually, the laws of physics say that you are incorrect because temperatures inside the WTC buildings were high enough to weaken steel, which caused the collapse of the steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain. Buckling of the buildings just prior to their collapse was evidence that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Fire, Not Explosives, Felled 3rd Tower on 9/11, Report Says

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says

http://www.represent...Explosives.html

Buckling Steel

According to Shyam-Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam-Sunder said. The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns.

Police had already ordered a complete evacuation of the north tower at the time those transmissions were made, said Police Department Inspector Michael Coan. Both transmissions came after the south tower was already down, he said.

http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

You backed the work of Steven Jones without doing your homework. Check it out.

BYU Discredits Prof Jones For 911 WTC Paper!

BYU Brass Discredit Physics Professor For Saying WTC Brought Down by Controlled Demolition

Professor Steven E. Jones only was in the public eye for five days before BYU told him to stop giving interviews. Now the university has issued a public statement distancing itself from Jones and even discrediting his work. Critics suggest Bush administration had its dirty hand in forcing BYU to 'shut up' its professor.

http://rense.com/general69/discred.htm

Steven Jones was unaware that compounds of thermite could also be found in materials used in the construction of the WTC buildings.

As to molten steel, your speculation is fine if, for obvious reasons of bias, you want to believe that witnesses who reported, beams had just totally been melted and, “when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel were mistaken.

You mean, like in this picture where workers used torches to cut steel?

cut.jpg

cut2.jpg

cut3.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the air samples taken there by the guys from California, iron was boiling nearby. For weeks afterwards. You can deny this, and I know you will, but such denial simply illustrates how uninformed you are, or how deeply in denial you are.

What have I said about exothermic reactions? I guess you also missed this as well.

Iron Burns

"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction calledoxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

And,

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read your quibble and, like all your previous similar quibbles, it is well worth ignoring.I don't need to read the paper to learn that, it's a commonplace physical process. However, I've read Sisson's BBC interview and I've seen an earlier paper by him and others, both of which confirm what I've been saying.

Right, so you refuse to address the argument; you wilfully ignore it. Thank you, that actually makes a lot of sense.

And what are you talking about? The phenomenon observed at the WTC is not ‘commonplace’ at all, the authors specifically called it a “very unusual event” for heaven sake – you’re fooling yourself there. Simple corrosion is of course commonplace but has not been shown to reproduce the WTC effect to the degree or within the timeframe noted. Why is demonstrating that too much? It’s a fundamental requirement of your argument that you cannot achieve. Why are you being ridiculous about it? Yes you need to read the paper and answer the question posed, otherwise having nothing but an appeal to authority and lack of evidence which critical thinkers are not inclined to accept.

Generally, when thermite melts a hole, it falls through it. It doesn't hang around cooling down.

Just as well, because there isn't any.

Yes the suggestion is that it melted a hole and fell through. Though the adjacent remaining steelwork which was analysed does not experience such high temperature (otherwise that would form a part of the hole too).

Just as well, because there isn't any.

There is no ‘absolute evidence’ of thermite, as there is no ‘absolute evidence’ of fire induced weakening – which is the other half to the argument which you have conveniently ignored. Even after testing samples from the fire zone NIST found not one piece of steelwork exhibiting the required temperature. No, only this severe, high temperature, localised damage to steelwork was discovered.

You're doing it again. You accuse me of using a second-hand/indirect eyewitness/media account when "beams had just totally been melted" was from a chaplain who wasn't there.

As to "when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel", as I've asked you before without getting an answer, does the fact that you drip water after you get out of the bath mean that you're made of ice?

It was a chaplain who spoke to many responders on site and his account is corroborated by others and photographic evidence. So much as you’d like it to be, this has very little in common with your dedicated acceptance of an uncorroborated media statement that isn’t even in quote format.

The question you ask is rhetorical and not congruent to the situation we have here. The eyewitnesses clearly had reason to deduce that the dripping/melted substance was a product of the material it came from. Of course you, not being there (like you didn’t read the Sisson paper before jumping to conclusion), surely know better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q

Even Swanny is incapable of making a silk purse from a sow's ear.

That he chooses to make the attempt provides some measure of insight into the weakness of his position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That he chooses to make the attempt provides some measure of insight into the weakness of his position.

Actually, 911 CT folks speak from a platform of ignorance, which explains why that have duped by 911 CT websites over the years.

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.