kallend 2,026 #226 December 21, 2006 QuoteIsn't also used to weld Railway tracks? In remote places, yes, I believe it is still used. It tends to leave a rather slaggy, dirty weld.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #227 December 21, 2006 Quote>If you want to understand more about the forces that can make a building collapse, I'd recommend a basic physics course followed by a civil engineering course. Conspiracy theroists don't go for any type of education that might contradict their beliefs. They can smell evidence and run like hell from it." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #228 December 21, 2006 did you miss me? despite all your insults and ridiculing none of you provided any scientific reasoning. no billvon i don't need to hear; ''Fire = hot. Iron/steam reaction = hot. Hot = molten metal'' again because science says; ''~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel   ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)'' the proof is in building 7 which was not hit by any jet liner, what's that you say, it was the ruble from the collapsing buildings, fema-''The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers.'' so a fire caused all the columns to simultaneously fail making it look EXACTLY LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, boy thats quite a coincidence, well, astronomical, improbable, ridiculous coincidences are the order of day so whats one more to the pile. so since this is the third largest engineering failure in history after the two towers how exactly did failure occur? fema-''the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.'' follow the slide show; http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/introduction.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
jakee 1,489 #229 December 21, 2006 Quotefema-''The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers.'' so a fire caused all the columns to simultaneously fail making it look EXACTLY LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, boy thats quite a coincidence, well, astronomical, improbable, ridiculous coincidences are the order of day so whats one more to the pile. so since this is the third largest engineering failure in history after the two towers how exactly did failure occur? fema-''the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.'' Thats bullshit and you know it. Maybe you could source and date those FEMA quotes so we know at what stage of the investigation they were made. While you're at it type "nist wtc-7" into google (the search box is in the middle of the page, you can't miss it) and take a flick through the progress reports (the most recent one came out this month). If you did that you would know (for one thing) that the collapse was progressive, not simultaneous. Only one column needed to go to transfer enough extra load to the next and the next etc... How's that 'co-incidence' looking now? Like I said, look at actual reports - not what paranoid lunatic theorists are telling you is in the reports.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #230 December 22, 2006 >''~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel Are you now claiming the steel MELTED? You have no evidence of that. All anyone saw was molten metal. Aluminum melts at 660C. >  ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon > fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre >heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)'' Very good. Now look up the maximum temperature of kerosene burning with oxygen as an accelerant, and the maximum temperature of a hydrogen/air fire. >the proof is in building 7 which was not hit by any jet liner, what's >that you say, it was the ruble from the collapsing buildings, Right. Fire = weakened building. Rubble = additionally weakened building. >so a fire caused all the columns to simultaneously fail making it >look EXACTLY LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION . . . It also looks exactly like structural failure of several central elements, causing failure of the adjoining elements. I don't blame you for believing all this. The video has a very credible sounding woman reading their "facts", and they did an excellent job with sound effects. (Loved the creepy chanting during the collapses!) But it sounds like you're not an engineer, so I think a lot of the deceptions in the movie are not obvious to you. But hey, believe whatever you want. As long as you're not working as a civil engineer, your beliefs won't hurt anyone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #231 December 22, 2006 ''It also looks exactly like structural failure of several central elements, causing failure of the adjoining elements.'' its funny how it looks exactly like something thats never happened before.your arguments keep getting stronger.keep it up. ''..., believe whatever you want'' this one almost has me convinced."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 #232 December 22, 2006 >this one almost has me convinced. ?? Of what? You've explained your convictions here. Like I said, believe whatever you like. There are plenty of conspiracy-theory fans out there, on topics from TWA flight 800 to Area 41 to the "faked" moon landing. You're in good company. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #233 December 22, 2006 billvon you've now resorted to using straw man arguments. aren't you the moderator?"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
warpedskydiver 0 #234 December 22, 2006 QuoteQuote a substance known as thermide fe2o3 (available to the military only) in conjunction with sulphur fe2o3+2a1 was believed to be used. It's "thermite", Fe2O3 is rust, and Al (not A1) is aluminum, obtainable in powder form trivially easily. Thermite can be made in anyone's kitchen. I have made it. Picture of me setting some off is here. Saying it's only available to the military is utterly ridculous. It could also be produced by the recombinations of chemicals found in the building during the crash and subsequent fire. That is not entirely impossible is it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #235 December 22, 2006 Thermite welding is the current state-of-the-art in continuous welding rail here in the US. Its not slaggy at all. I've seen it done many times, and I work for the largest railroad company in the United States.--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #236 December 22, 2006 well here are nasa thermal satellite images 9/11 and the days after. notice the hot spots under wtc 1+2 and BUILDING 7 which immediatedly rules the ridiculous idea that these were caused by aluminum from the planes. multiple hot spots estimated to be from 800-1300F were observed. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=robert_shaler if you're suggesting that the elements spontaniously came together to create thermite and melt the steel this strikes me as being highly unlikely and probably impossible."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 #237 December 22, 2006 the steel didn't need to melt. read the NIST report. It loses 90% of its strength at temperatures MUCH lower than melting point. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #238 December 22, 2006 also from that article ''almost 12 weeks after 9/11 at least one fire is still burning, making it the longest-burning structural fire in history. [New Scientist, 12/3/2001; CBS News, 12/19/2001] As well as the hot spots, numerous witnesses describe molten metal being found at Ground Zero (see September 12, 2001-February 2002). ''"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 #239 December 22, 2006 if you study the nist report carefully it concludes that most of the fires did not exceed 200-300C but then their collapse model goes on to say that the steel had to reach 700C to lose enough support."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 #240 December 22, 2006 Quoteif you study the nist report carefully it concludes that most of the fires did not exceed 200-300C but then their collapse model goes on to say that the steel had to reach 700C to lose enough support. from the NIST report:QuoteBased on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #241 December 22, 2006 >billvon you've now resorted to using straw man arguments. No, a straw man argument is a premise one constructs that's easy to knock down. This is a straw man: "You claim that molten steel was dripping down the building. Well, steel melts at X degrees, and it couldn't get that hot, so therefore you're wrong!" Now, no one suggested that molten steel was dripping down the building; that was an argument that the arguer made up so it would be easy to defeat (i.e. a straw man.) Instead I was making an analogy between this particular conspiracy theory and other famous ones. In all of them, proponents claim to have reams of documentation. They list hundreds of anomalies i.e. "the earth doesn't look like that from the moon!" "If that's a thruster firing, then why do the shuttle's thrusters look completely different? Cause it's not on a sound stage, that's why!" There are books written, movies produced and experts trotted out. Eyewitnesses are produced that purport to say that it was all a fake. (Their stories don't really hold together under scrutiny, but they don't have to - they just have to 'hook' people.) Almost universally, proponents claim to be the only ones "in the know", that all others have been "duped" by nefarious organizations, or by reputable organizations being run by nefarious forces. Many people believe in conspiracy theories because of a deep seated need to make sense of major events in terms of secret evil causes. Simple explanations that involve coincidence, natural phenomena, accidents, mistakes or the actions of a single individual do not provide the meaning that people look for in their lives. Instead they choose to believe that hidden evil forces are at work, because the alternative is to believe that such things can happen again for no good reason. Decades ago, these events were thought to be the work of god or the devil or some other supernatural force. More recently, with the availability of vast amounts of information available through the media and internet, conspiracy theories have emerged as alternative explanations. They are easy to set up, because "proof" of almost any sort is available if you look hard enough. Somewhere, someone has a blog that is saying exactly what you want to hear, and somewhere else, someone has photoshopped a picture to prove your case. But like I said, you are not alone. More than 50% of the population of the USA believe in at least one "big" conspiracy theory, like the faked moon landing or the 9/11 conspiracy. And as long as these people aren't becoming astronauts, civil engineers or pilots - they're not doing anyone any harm. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #242 December 22, 2006 >ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) geez, you weren't supposed to actually _read_ the report . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewGuy2005 53 #243 December 22, 2006 That was one of the most asinine pieces of propaganda I've ever watched. What I like best was all the eyewitnesses saying "explosion." What else would they say? As if: "And then there was the sound of 150,000 pounds of concrete and steel dropping approximately 14 feet onto another 150,000 pound concrete and steel surface." Nope, I think they would say explosion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #244 December 22, 2006 billvon-''You claim that molten steel was dripping down the building. Well, steel melts at X degrees, and it couldn't get that hot, so therefore you're wrong!" Now, no one suggested that molten steel was dripping down the building; that was an argument that the arguer made up so it would be easy to defeat (i.e. a straw man.) '' another great one billvon except; http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet%2B9/11"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 #245 December 22, 2006 It shows showers of red stuff (might be sparks, burning plastic or molten metal) cascading down the side of one of the towers. I can get the same effect burning a piece of styrofoam, or using a cutting wheel on my drill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #246 December 22, 2006 OK, something was dripping from the building. and you are SURE that this molten substance is steel because.....???? or what are you saying? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #247 December 22, 2006 this is from nist 2005( note that its difficult to keep track as they keep changing their theories over and over. ''Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (p 90/140) ''"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 #248 December 22, 2006 not to forget but these nist experiments completely failed to take into account the xthousands of tons of steel and its thermal conductive ability."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 #249 December 22, 2006 I would also like to point out that at the dropzone I used to go to in Chambersburg, PA, people would throw their beer bottles into the huge bonfires they had there (sometimes started with the help of a little Jet-A). And the glass would melt. Bottles are made from soda-lime glass which has a melting point of about 1000 degrees Celsius. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #250 December 22, 2006 >not to forget but these nist experiments completely failed to take >into account the xthousands of tons of steel and its thermal >conductive ability. Careful there; you're arguing against your own thesis here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
