billvon 2,990 #126 December 20, 2006 >no one has debunked what i mentioned in the beginning; I did. >puffs of smoke often dozens of floors below the demolition. Compressed air. >-freefall speeds; both towards fell in 8-10 seconds which is physically > impossible without explosives removing any resistance. As I showed, they fell at slower than freefall speeds. >-"rivers of molten steel'' found at the base of the towers Fire = hot. Hot+metal = molten metal. >molten steel seen dripping from one of towers. See above. >experts agree temperatures not hot enough to melt steel. Even without accelerants the temperatures definitely were enough to melt aluminum. Think hard for a second and see if you can think of a possible way for tons of alumimum to end up in the WTC. >(including video footage of ruble in the basement before any >collapse-a fifty ton press demolished in the basement before any > collapse) Debris from the collision fell down the center of the building. Was a pretty big impact. >-no steel skyscraper has ever or since collapsed due to fire despite > much hotter and longer burning fires. Already disproved that. At least one steel-frame skyscraper had its upper structure collapse due to heat (which is exactly what happened with the WTC) and several steel buildings have collapsed due to weakening of the steel. >wtc building 7-a 47 story building mysteriously collapses exactly like a controlled demolition . . . . . due to a fire that had been burning for hours on the fifth floor. Coupled with damage from falling debris, the building eventually collapsed. >-all ruble(evidence) was quickly removed so no one could examine it. That's a load of crap! Hundreds of tons of the debris have been analyzed seven ways to Tuesday. The FBI spent months on the site going over the debris. >-virtually all concrete was pulvarized to dust. Yep; with that much energy you get almost complete pulverization. >all three buildings fell symmetrically into their own footprint. Why would they fall any differently, if they collapsed from the top down? Gravity pulls straight down, and that's the way things fall unless there is some other force acting on them (which there wasn't.) So that's a second time I answered all those questions. Perhaps you should wait at least a day before you post the exact same questions again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #127 December 20, 2006 >building 7 was not hit by any plane nor were there any >floors ''pancaking'' yet there are still visible puffs. >Please explain 1) Massive chunks of concrete raining down on it caused puffs of dust where they impacted 2) When the damage happened near the 5th floor, smoke from the fire there was released Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #128 December 20, 2006 billvon not one of your arguments holds ground; -you failed to explain how compressed air turns concrete into dust and how even though there is no compressed air in b7 there are still puffs. ''1) Massive chunks of concrete raining down on it caused puffs of dust where they impacted 2) When the damage happened near the 5th floor, smoke from the fire there was released '' except that the puffs are only present seconds before and during the collapse many hours after the debris has fallen. and the fires are many floors below. -''As I showed, they fell at slower than freefall speeds'' 110 stories collapsing through themselves in 10-15 seconds is still impossible without explosives. >-"rivers of molten steel'' found at the base of the towers -''Fire = hot. Hot+metal = molten metal.'' even the two official investigations agree that the fire was not hot enough to melt steel and they conveniently left out the reports(video footage)of molten steel. -''Even without accelerants the temperatures definitely were enough to melt aluminum. Think hard for a second and see if you can think of a possible way for tons of alumimum to end up in the WTC.'' aluminum is silver when melted not orange. -''Debris from the collision fell down the center of the building. Was a pretty big impact.'' the building had three seperate sections so this is impossible and none of the investigations claim this. -''Already disproved that. At least one steel-frame skyscraper had its upper structure collapse due to heat (which is exactly what happened with the WTC) and several steel buildings have collapsed due to weakening of the steel.'' your example proved you wrong; you gave an example of a steel highrise that burned hotter and longer and did not collapse aside from the roof.it clearly demonstrates that parts of a building can collapse without causing the whole building to collapse. -''due to a fire that had been burning for hours on the fifth floor. Coupled with damage from falling debris, the building eventually collapsed'' still unexplained by two official investigations -''That's a load of crap! Hundreds of tons of the debris have been analyzed seven ways to Tuesday. The FBI spent months on the site going over the debris.'' it has been well documented that virtually all the steel was immediately shipped overseas to be melted. do your research and fema was prohibited from visiting ground zero. -''Yep; with that much energy you get almost complete pulverization. '' you can't have every floor pulvarized and freefall times -''Why would they fall any differently, if they collapsed from the top down? Gravity pulls straight down, and that's the way things fall unless there is some other force acting on them (which there wasn't.) '' when demolitions bring down a building it is a specialized science, here is how buildings collapse; http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/collapsecases.html none of your points hold up."Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #129 December 20, 2006 As I've said before, DEJA MOO!! Why is there now 6 pages on this when there are other threads that have gone over this again and again? About every six or eight months or so we get another one of these people cropping up on here. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #130 December 20, 2006 speedracer no one said you had to read this thread"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #131 December 20, 2006 It's a good day waster._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #132 December 20, 2006 Quoteit's not that these engineers are part of a conspiracy its that just like most others are unwilling to even question the official story they didn't consider controlled demolition and so they came up with multiple explanations that cannot explain what happened. Why are you so invested in this hokum while ignoring physically sound explanations for what happened? When buildings collapse there are complex chains of events set in motion, some of the details are unknowable, but you're a testament to just how goofy this crap gets. The really big obvious knowable stuff is confounded by statements of "fact" that have no basis in reality. We SAW the fuel laden aircraft fly into the buildings. People who actually know what they're talking about have explained in some detail what happened and the architect anticipated the collapse while watching TV. They haven't refused to look at alternatives, they analyzed the data and came to a conclusion based on sound judgement. Steel buildings are well known to collapse when their steel structures are heated by fire and this obviously contributed to the collapse. Steel frame buildings are required by law to have intumescent fire protection or the equivalent to protect the steel from fire if their contents burn WHY? Because buildings act like furnace ovens when they burn & will weaken the steel, even this protection is rated to give limited protection to facilitate an escape, so quit running around making foolish claims about steel, go buy a book by a qualified engineer & read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intumescent The danger with people running around making these crazy claims is that most citizens are not equipped to understand just how utterly demented the arguments are. Watch the video and you can see debris falling faster than the building, unless you're claiming it magically accelerated faster than 1G until it reached terminal. You don't even need a video just look at a still image and see heavy sections of wall & support structure falling floors below the compaction level. http://www.conservationtech.com/MAIN-TOPICS/5-NYC-World-Trade/FEMA-WTC-photos/08.tower1.collapse.ap.jpg See all that heavy shit falling below the collapse, proving the collapse was not frefall? Look at all the images, they're full of a constant shower of heavy debris falling under the line of collapse. Use your OWN capacity for simple investigation & THINK! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #133 December 20, 2006 >you failed to explain how compressed air turns concrete into dust . . . It didn't. Getting hit by a 757 going 500mph turned concrete into dust. There was debris and dust in the lobby, dozens of floors below the impact point. >except that the puffs are only present seconds before and during the collapse . . . Ah! Then you're talking about the same sort of compressed-air effects you saw in the WTC collapse. >110 stories collapsing through themselves in 10-15 seconds is still > impossible without explosives. Have you tried this? Or are you just making a wild ass guess? There is simply no building structure on earth that can withstand being hit by dozens of floors weighing hundreds of thousands of tons traveling at 100 feet per second. Failure was almost instantaneous. >even the two official investigations agree that the fire was not hot > enough to melt steel and they conveniently left out the reports >(video footage)of molten steel. Why do you think it was steel? Another WAG? >aluminum is silver when melted not orange. a) it's brighter than melted iron; higher emissivity b) why would it be pure aluminum? Whatever finally melted up there stood in a pool of burning jet fuel, aluminum aircraft parts, burning luggage, furniture, engine parts, wiring and carpet. I have no idea what sort of alloy you get when you mix all that, but it sure wouldn't be pure aluminum (or steel.) >the building had three seperate sections so this is impossible . . . No, you're thinking of the "sky lobby" concept. The elevators stop there, but the shafts go all the way up. Think about how the shafting has to work if both the express and local elevators stop on the same floor. >and none of the investigations claim this. Google reports by firefighters. The lobby was full of debris and dust. >your example proved you wrong; you gave an example of a steel > highrise that burned hotter and longer and . . . . . . collapsed. It did not collapse completely, fortunately. Your premise is that fires cannot weaken steel to the point that it will collapse. That example proves you wrong. It did collapse. >parts of a building can collapse without causing the whole building to > collapse. I agree there! Now, had you smashed a 757 into that building, odds are that the collapse would have been a lot more complete. >it has been well documented that virtually all the steel was > immediately shipped overseas to be melted. do your research and > fema was prohibited from visiting ground zero. Here's the video from an NIST test on WTC steel: http://wtc.nist.gov/video/WTC_steelimpact.ram The metal was not immediately shipped overseas. It first went to the Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island, where it was analyzed by the NIST and the FBI. Once they were done it was sold as scrap and shipped to China. A bit of googling can prevent errors like the one you made above. >you can't have every floor pulvarized and freefall times Right - which is why it took longer than that. >when demolitions bring down a building it is a specialized science, >here is how buildings collapse . . . . . . during earthquakes, floods and fires. This was not an earthquake. It was a tremendous impact _and_ a fire near the top of one of the world's largest buildings. To claim that a nine story brick building in an earthquake is exactly like the WTC incident is sort of silly, don't you think? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #134 December 20, 2006 Seen it. It is total bullshit. It keeps getting deleted BECAUSE it's total bullshit. Stop being an ally of Al Queda.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #135 December 20, 2006 If a piece of the structural steel fell straight down into the rubble from a height of about 1/8 mile (about halfway up either tower), and impacted in a vertical orientation without rotation, how much energy could be converted to heat, and by how much could the temperature of that steel be raised. I'm looking for an order of magnitude calculation, not six significant figures. Thanks. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #136 December 21, 2006 Quotenanook ''The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.'' ''The proposal was presented in a document entitled Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba,[1] a collection of draft memoranda written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group. The document was presented by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara'' The plan still was not implemented. Is still public, and still not proof that the govt was in on this. It's a fallacy to believe that the ability to think up something is the same as wanting to implement it. Trust me, everybody here has a distrust for any public officials. Its that it's in various degress of distrust. There is distrust everywhere per Administration, but you have to set standards somewhere. So you watched "Different Pieces" or something similar and was WOW'ed and Moved by the movie. Truthtime; were you aware of the Conspiracy or had major misgivings before these websites and movies popped up? These writers were able to piece together some preemptive telltale signs, why weren't they Good Citizens and alerting us before the Event? You are being taken by some Drama Queens who need attention._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #137 December 21, 2006 jcd11235 i don't know but i'm sure billvon will be able to explain how we ended up with this; http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #138 December 21, 2006 actually i began researching this material so that i could tell some idiot how stupid he was for believing stupid conspiracy theories but i obviously came to a different conclusion."Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #139 December 21, 2006 >billvon will be able to explain how we ended up with this; What's your question? How'd we end up with hotspots? Burning fuel, steel, hydrogen, paper, wood and carpeting, potentially mixed with a bit of pure oxygen supplied by the plane's several hundred oxygen generators. Hydrogen and oxygen, when burned together, is one of the hotter chemical reactions we know about (3200 degrees C.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #140 December 21, 2006 Quoteactually i began researching this material so that i could tell some idiot how stupid he was for believing stupid conspiracy theories but i obviously came to a different conclusion. So did you ever figure out what thermite actually is? Maybe you should look again. QAnd maybe you should also read to see that the only 'evidence' of thermite presented is temperature on that page. As for the heat, when you have insulation in a pile like that there is nop lace for the heat to go and all sorts of stuff burns like that including metals, the heat builds up provided there is still an exothermic reaction which a little air through convection would provide. With aluminium, steel and fuel burning under an insulated pile it's nonsense to claim any evidence of thermite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #141 December 21, 2006 QuoteWhat's your question? It was actually my question: Stated differently, how much of the structural steel's kinetic energy would be converted to heat after falling about an eighth mile to impact, and by by how much could this heat raise the temperature of the steel? My suspicion is that plain old gravity was a significant contributor to the heat of the rubble.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #142 December 21, 2006 ''As for the heat, when you have insulation in a pile like that there is nop lace for the heat to go and all sorts of stuff burns like that including metals, the heat builds up provided there is still an exothermic reaction which a little air through convection would provide'' this has been covered in this thread; all the experts including the two official investigations fema and nist agree that the temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel. they have no explanation oh wait you just solved the mystery it was the insulation burning that melted the steel."Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #143 December 21, 2006 It's be impossible to determine how much of the energy was lost to noise dissipated into the ground through the quake, spend moving air around and breaking chemical bonds in an endothermic way. But just intuit it though, the energy would be proportional to the mass and distributed over the mass approximately, now imagine you fell 1/8 mile & impacted, would you spontaneously combust? Would you expect your temperature to raise even slightly? You might get the odd local bit of damage through friction burns on your clothing but the heat gain would be pretty small overall. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #144 December 21, 2006 >how much of the structural steel's kinetic energy would be >converted to heat after falling about an eighth mile to impact? Assuming freefall of a 100 kilogram girder, energy would be about .13 kilowatt-hours, released in a fraction of a second. (500K w-s.) Alternatively, if it was released in, say, .1 second, you'd have 5 million watts of heat generated during that time, barring mechanical losses (like ejection of material from the melt zone.) I'll let Kallend figure out what that would do the metal in terms of temp rise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #145 December 21, 2006 QuoteEven without accelerants the temperatures definitely were enough to melt aluminum. Think hard for a second and see if you can think of a possible way for tons of alumimum to end up in the WTC. It's from all those hats, right? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #146 December 21, 2006 so billvon the steel falling caused the steel it impacted to melt."Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #147 December 21, 2006 Quoteso billvon the steel falling caused the steel it impacted to melt. Hey! That's my theory. Don't go attributing it to him, cause it's probably wrong.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #148 December 21, 2006 Quote''As for the heat, when you have insulation in a pile like that there is nop lace for the heat to go and all sorts of stuff burns like that including metals, the heat builds up provided there is still an exothermic reaction which a little air through convection would provide'' this has been covered in this thread; all the experts including the two official investigations fema and nist agree that the temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel. they have no explanation oh wait you just solved the mystery it was the insulation burning that melted the steel. My use of the word insulation meant thermal insulation and I was saying that the pile was heavily insulated, but keep bending over backwards to invent a conspiracy. Most of the Earth's rock is still molten because of radioactive decay (it would have cooled long ago otherwise) now ordinarily radiation doesn't generate enough heat but with miles of rock to insulate it the heat is sustained at levels high enough liquify rock. With enough insulation a lot of heat can build from small exothermic contributions. Look under a glowing log the next time you have bonfire, that can melt glass and aluminium. Oh what the heck, you're not interested in science and rational explanations, you have your preferred conclusion and damn the evidence, physics and all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #149 December 21, 2006 >the steel falling caused the steel it impacted to melt. I doubt it. There was certainly a lot of energy imparted to the debris by the height it fell, but the hotspots were likely caused by combustion of the things I listed above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #150 December 21, 2006 like i said dorbie you solved the mystery, it was a combination of radiation, exothermitc contributions and insulation that melted the steel."Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
