|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 39)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by skot_e
Possibility of fire extinguishers being exposed to extreme heat? just a thought, what do you think. |
Oh yes... What do I think? Gee, let me think. William Rodriguez heard explosions BEFORE AND AFTER the planes hit the WTC. Let's see, a fire near the 80-85th floor would cause explosions near the 2-5th floors where he was resuing people from in less than 5 minutes? So what do I think? Impossible, atleast BEFORE the planes crashed. Just a thought, what do you think? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
That's a nice little theory. Unfortunately, a simple statement backed up by no evidence won't make me beleive it. And don't bother trying to find a similar example. The closest one's I can think of, was a) the B25 bomber crashing into the Empire State Building, and b) the building in Madrid that burned for over a week (or something close to that). In both cases, the structural integrity of the building were not compromised and the didn't collapse, especially in a manner that looks exactly like a controlled demolition. The tower's came down at nearly freefall speed. And the obvious implication of that is the extremely low probability (more like impossiblity) of the pancake theory.
|
Sorry to jump into this thread ... I know I don't nearly have the time anymore to argue this topic but I can't help to address this point. Did you provide any compelling engineering evidence to illustrate how similar the empire state building case example was to the 9/11 attacks, because they seem to be two very different buildings with two very different set of curcumstances. I'm hoping your criticism of a very "simple statement" is backed with solid engineering counter-evidence to make such a statement simple. I'm sorry if I'm recycling arguments you've already made, but this seems like a topic that I would be willing to get into (simply because this is one comparison I've never taken the time to research before) :). |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Sorry to jump into this thread ... I know I don't nearly have the time anymore to argue this topic but I can't help to address this point. Did you provide any compelling engineering evidence to illustrate how similar the empire state building case example was to the 9/11 attacks, because they seem to be two very different buildings with two very different set of curcumstances. I'm hoping your criticism of a very "simple statement" is backed with solid engineering counter-evidence to make such a statement simple. I'm sorry if I'm recycling arguments you've already made, but this seems like a topic that I would be willing to get into (simply because this is one comparison I've never taken the time to research before) :). |
Hehe.. Nice too see you back on PDD and in this thread ;). Well, you're right about that, I didn't, mostly because of laziness :p, but also because he didn't eigther. I kept to the same [simple] standard of argument, and therefore didn't feel compelled to go into a more complex analysis. So I relied on similar (not the same) cases. The common elements of fire/plane crash are there. The point I was making was that never before has a modern steel frame skyscraper ever collapsed because of fire or a plane crash (not to mention falling neatly on itself like a controlled demolition). And I find the pancake theory, which even the FEMA reports admitted to having a very low probability and the only hypothesis they considered, highly unlikely and unbelievable. So the burden of proof weighs much more heavily on supporters the official and opposed to the skeptics (keeping in mind what I said previously).
Although, I remember the debate between you and stevieboy, which, unfortunately, didn't fully finish. Hopefully he'll follow up on it, or who know, I just might :D (if I can get my lazy ass to do it! :p).
But the whole pancake/controlled demolition theory is only one part of the bigger picture. There's way too much circumstantial evidence and eye witness testimony, from firefighters and civilians, (which I won't get into at this point) for me to accept the official version of events. And it's just too convenient for this administration and the PNAC team for me to not consider complicity. Also, people like ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern, ex-Head of Star Wars project Lt. Col. Bob Bowman (who was also trained as an interceptor pilot), these two MI-5 agents (who's names I can't remember at the moment), and many other memebers of the military and intelligence agencies who believe in a coverup and inside job, give the theory quite a bit of credibility in my eyes. Not to mention the our goverments history of carrying out false flag operations and state sponsored terrorism, documents like Northwoods etc. Ok, I'm digressing a little bit as far as my response to your post goes :p.
My was point was what I stated [way] above :).
EDIT: Jesus, I just noticed the insane number of smileys I used. :p <-(and another one, no pun intended) |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
The WTC was NOT a common steel fram skyscraper.
|
Yeah, it was specifically designed to be able to withstand a plane hit from a 707.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
There are very few buildings in the world like it. Its entire weight was supported by its exoskeleton and the central core/elevator shafts. In both buildings the planes damaged these beyond a reasonable doubt. |
Nonsese. Read above.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
Fire then weakened the steal (it did not BREAK it) to the point where the floors detached from the exoskeleton and the core (they were held on by multiple 1 1/2 inch bolts or something like that) and then pancaked down under the entense weight of the non-damaged sections above where the planes hit. |
I'm aware of the pancake theory and it's quite ridiculous really. Even if that were the case, is it even remotely plausible that it would happen at nearly freefall speed? And the main support beams still would have been standing, if not the whole thing then atleast a few hundrer feet. Now thermate on the other hand would cut through the support beams and bring them down entirely with the building.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
There was NO controlled demolition by any group of people. There is no way something like that could have been pulled off by any intelligence agency/group in the world with out anyone knowing. |
What?!?! :rolleyes: First of all 7 of the alleged 10 hijackers were found alive and well after 9-11. Hani Hanjour, one of the alleged hijackers could barely get a Cessna of the ground. His flight instructor thought his performance on the Boeing 737 was sub-standard and he discouraged him from flying at all. There is no way an amateur pilot who could babrely get a plane off the ground would be able to crash it with precision into the WTC.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
You're only spouting these absolutely RETARDED theories because you would like to blame the US for things it has not done. |
Umm... no. That's your baseless opinion which seems to be rely on a stereo type that certainly doesn't apply to me. So spare me the "you hate America" mindless BS ok? The only reason you're ignoring all the facts that don't add up and strongly imply Goverment complicity, and, cling of to the absurd pancake theory is because... [insert my opinion here]. You know why I left that out even though I have a fairly strong belief as to why you and others don't believe in elements of gov/military/intelligence agencies being behing this? Cuz that would be pointless and wouldn't lead to anything constructive. So spare me your's. For the record, I don't hate my country no matter how much you may want to believe it.
I love how supporters of the official story never tackle any of the circustantial evidence surrounding the event, and obsess over a theory that even the official FEMA reports said had an extremely low probability, where that was the ONLY hypothesis they considered. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
Conspiracy Theorist bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high raises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other first's that day they never seem to include.
There were a lot of first for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 757. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower fire had almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.
I could go on with the \"Firsts\" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.
Conspiracy sites point to the building falling straight down as proof the buildings were blown up. Even Professor Jones uses this in his paper as an indication of controlled demolition.
But Jones and others making this claim know very well that these buildings are not built like the towers. Most of the buildings they point to are steel reinforced concrete buildings or have steel reinforced concrete cores. Others are constructed with a steel web evenly distributed throughout the building. These buildings are not a \"tube in a tube\" design. The towers were steel without concrete. The towers perimeter steel walls were held in place by the trusses and those trusses were connected to the perimeter columns by small bolts. They also weren't hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour. While it's true they were designed to withstand the impact of a smaller 707, they never factored in the removal of fire proofing or fuel in the wings.
\"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse.\"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html
But it wasn't the impact which the NIST said brought the building down. That's a conspiracy theorist straw man. They show an interview with a construction manager who said the buildings steel skin should have held up by redistributing the load. He's right. This is EXACTLY what the NIST said happened. It wasn't the impact alone which the NIST said brought down the towers. It was a combination of factors. The only way conspiracy theorist can attack the report is by separating these factors and attacking them individually. It's like taking a car accident apart and saying the car shouldn't have skidded off the road because the factory said the car could grip up to .97 g's. While that might be true, the conditions on the road must be factored in. Was there rain, dirt, gravel, anything which could contributed to the crash? Conspiracy theorist are engaged in deliberate disinformation when they talk about these factors in a vacuum. They KNOW these factors can't be separated.
The PBS special did a good job of explaining the difference between the towers construction and these other building conspiracy theorist like to point to. Most steel buildings have a web of steel like this...
The towers had most of the steel in this web on its skin to save office space.
Note: What's missing from the above photo are the core columns but they are not needed to show the difference in building construction. Conspiracy theorist will be quick to point out this photo doesn't show the core columns but this isn't here to show how many stick figures someone can create. It's here to show how the building had a vastly different design than the average building. If you're a conspiracy theorist just imagine your 47 box columns in the core. (The dark area in the center) The building will still be built differently, box columns in this image or not.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
The towers and building 7 were essentially bolted together like an erector set. No concrete was used to create a ridged block or protect the columns. The steel webbing was pushed to the outer walls.
A challenge to conspiracy theorist:
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a \"Tube in a tube\" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) which had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8\" bolts.
And after all seven tests are met the building didn't fall down. Anyone dissecting this into 7 separate events is lying to you.
Anything less than meeting these seven tests is dishonest because it's not comparing apples with apples. Showing a much lighter 4, 5 or even 15 story building which doesn't even take up a city block, and has an old style steel web design leaves out the massive weight the 47 story WTC 7 had bearing down on its south face columns. Yes, this is \"moving the bar\", back to where it should have started.
It is an absurdity to expect these buildings to perform the same during a collapse. This is why it's the first time in history these buildings fell as they did. It's the first time in history buildings constructed like this collapsed.
Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.
The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.
The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.
\"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire.\"
http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/24ae78779d768010Vgn
VCM100000f932a
[Note this article has several comments from engineers who back the
WTC collapse theory.]
\"The unprotected steel roof trusses failed early on in the fire\"
http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago...rmick_fire.html
The McCormick Place fire \"is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of construction materials, not only steel.\" Wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.
http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/maga..._d/berhinig.htm
From the FEMA report of the theater fire, my comments in [ ]
www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf
On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.
pg 6/74
The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.
The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet.
The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74
The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireproofing was newer and more modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it imagine the impact of a 767]
pg 16/74
Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500° F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings
pg 17/74
Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal
discoloration and buckling steel.
pg. 21/74
The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation, leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.
pg. 26/74
Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are susceptible to damage from construction work.
The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant extreme caution by firefighters.
pg. 36/74
Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams, the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and contribute to building collapse.
pg. 37/74
Other Fires
In February 1991 a fire broke out in One Meridian Plaza a 38 story office building in Philadelphia. The building was built during the same period as the WTC and had spray-on fire protection on it's steel frame. Despite not suffering impact damage authorities were worried it might collapse.
\"All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a
possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged
floors.\"
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/...ions/tr-049.txt
About 2 years later the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed building that partially collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse entirely due to the resulting fire.
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/...ions/TR-068.pdf
Part of a floor of an unprotected steel frame building collapsed in Brackenridge, Pennsylvania, December 20, 1991. Killing 4 volunteer firemen
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/...ions/TR-061.pdf
Part of the roof of a steel framed school in Virginia collapsed about 20 minutes after fire broke out
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/...ions/tr-135.pdf |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
One of the pieces of evidence conspiracy theorist use to say the buildings were brought down is a photo with something they interpret as being left behind by a thermite reaction.
There are a number of things they claim with this photo. One is the timeline. They say the photo has fireman which means this was during the rescue operation which only lasted two weeks. Why would they have fireman after the rescue operations? This suggest to them the cut on the columns were made very close to September 11. The suggestion here is that it was done during the collapse.
Yet other is the angle of the cut which they say can\\'t be created by a welding tool and/or is designed to have the building fall in a certain direction.
The other is a yellow substance they claim is residue from a thermite reaction.
Lets examine these claims one by one to see where the evidence takes us...
Timeline and Fireman
The rescue operation took about two weeks. They figured anyone left alive would have died by then anyway, so they started clean up operations and body recovery. During this time there was always at least 50 policemen and 50 fireman left on the scene to recover their fallen brothers. There were even more than that on ground zero until the city of NY told them to leave in November 2001. The city couldn\\'t justify risking the health of 150 police and fireman for body recovery. In fact there was a protest about it which ended with the mayor allowing 50 of each department on the scene.
Citing safety concerns, Giuliani had sought to scale back the number of firefighters working at ground zero to 25. At one point there had been as many as 150 firefighters and police officers at the site.
The decision angered firefighters still mourning the loss of 343 colleagues in the attacks. Many bodies have not been recovered, and the firefighters said they wanted to help find the remains of their friends and colleagues.
The number of firefighters working at the site was increased to 50 on Thursday.
http://www.firehouse.com/news/2001/11/10_APcharges.html
Below are photos of fireman well after September 11.
October
December 15th 2001
So the fact that there are fireman in the photo doesn\\'t mean anything. That cut could have been done at any time during the clean up and recovery. Lets not forget the building went down some 6 stories underground. The fireman were recovering bodies mainly from the core and some were in the lobby when it happened. So it\\'s not unreasonable to expect fireman there well after the event. Long enough for an ironworker to cut the column.
Angle and yellow residue
Another point is the angle of the cut. The argument here is that it suggest the column was cut at an angle so the building fell in a certain direction, like a tree. But is it possible the column was cut at an angle so just the column fell in a certain direction during cleanup? This can\\'t be, surely the scholars would have asked an ironworker or someone else on the scene. I bet there isn\\'t one photograph someone can find on the internet of a column which is cut at an angle. Remember, we\\'re talking about \\\"Scholars\\\" here.
Once again, a close up of their column...
Maybe I\\'m being a little unfair. Maybe I just happened to get this from some obscure site. Maybe I work for the government and have a stash of photos the scholars aren\\'t privy too... No, actually I got this from the same place the scholars got their photo.
Scholars Photo:
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/th...yID=5&picnum=13
The above photo
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/th...yID=5&picnum=73
Note the yellow smoke and residue left behind by the ironworker.
Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn\\'t make clean cuts. It\\'s a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below.
http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php
Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?
Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g
density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc
54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3
Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.
A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg
For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:
0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb
That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it\\'s even an aluminum block but lets say it isn\\'t. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we\\'re going. You\\'d need tons.
Here\\'s a Debunking911 Fun Fact!
How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:
A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.
Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.
That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.
Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:
Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.
To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.
Example:
Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.
Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.
*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It\\'s not easy to get a good number on this. It\\'s based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.
http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magconda.htm
The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.
Some of the video stills show what look like 50 to 100 slugs in just one frame.
The thermite wouldn\\'t have only needed to make a clean cut like the photo above, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it\\'s a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column. You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn\\'t work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Nano-thermite has been talked about but it\\'s uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It\\'s in it\\'s research stage. They include possible uses for welding molecular devices and possible use as a heat signature flare decoy. Then there is the a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet, there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Even if did, they are \\\"Ganged\\\" together to make the cut. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. Once again the answer to this from the \\\"scholars\\\" is \\\"rationalized technology\\\". They need this technology to exist so it exist. There is some secret super thermite which can be placed in a canister which can survive 1,100 degree C so the primary charge doesn\\'t go off. \\\"Gee debunking, you\\'re so dumb.\\\"
Much of Jones and the \\\"scholars\\\" evidence is made up of photographs or videos accompanied suggestions on what they mean. Below is a passage from Jones\\' document.
An intriguing photograph (below right) taken by Rob Miller, photojournalist with the New York Post, provides additional photographic evidence (Swanson, 2003) for the use of thermite or a sulfur-containing derivative such as thermate. We see debris and dust as WTC 1 collapses, with WTC 7 seen in the foreground, across the street from WTC 1. The photograph on the left shows, for comparison, the thermite reaction with a grayish-white aluminum-oxide dust plume extending from white-hot molten iron \\\"blob\\\" from the reaction. (Experiment at BYU by the author in which thermite-plus-sulfur cut through a steel cup in a fraction of a second. Any thermite reaction is a dangerous reaction and should only be performed by a trained professional capable of assessing the hazards and risks.)
To illustrate how deceptive this is lets see If I can find the use of thermite using this same test.
To be fair I don\\'t know if Gallagher uses a real Nano-thermite coated Sledge-O-Matic.
Alex Jones, professional conspiracy theorist radio host has said Jones found evidence of thermite. This isn\\'t true. What Jones found was something which would have been in the debris pile anyway. Sulfur...
WTC Thermite
Sulfur
Sloppy research or purposeful deception by the \\\"scholars\\\"? I\\'ll leave that to you.
Thanks to Shagster, ScottS and David B. Benson for their research. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
And how plausible is a theory of a controlled demolition? An office building that employed 20,000 people was some how rigged with explosives and demolished? That is beyond ridiculous and honestly I feel sorry for you if you believe this as credible. It is absolutely absurd. |
No more ridiculous than the office furniture and jet fuel theory.
There were survivors from above the fire floors that managed to escape before the towers fell.
No more ridiculous than the pancake theory.
All the floors that supposedly pancaked don't look neatly stacked in any aerial photos.
If they did pancake then how come it looks as if they exploded outwards anyway:
Without the actual steel available for testing there can be NO THEORY PROVED to exist. Whether it is the pancake theory, the jet fuel and office furniture theory or demolition/thermite theory.
There can be no more further argument as to who is right or wrong.
For now there is an impasse at any theory in regards to collapse of the three buildings.
There should be no further discussion about what collapsed the buildings. They collapsed and without the actual steel available for sample no one can claim or counterclaim.
No one here is an expert. There's just trolls here that can't prove a damn thing. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
All the floors that supposedly pancaked don't look neatly stacked in any aerial photos. |
who says the pancaking has to land in a nice, stacked pile? obviously in such a chaotic environment youre gonna have debris shooting from the centre. that means nothing.
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Without the actual steel available for testing there can be NO THEORY PROVED to exist. Whether it is the pancake theory, the jet fuel and office furniture theory or demolition/thermite theory.
There can be no more further argument as to who is right or wrong.
For now there is an impasse at any theory in regards to collapse of the three buildings.
There should be no further discussion about what collapsed the buildings. They collapsed and without the actual steel available for sample no one can claim or counterclaim.
|
what a cop out. here youve been plugging your various demolition arguments ad nauseum, and as soon as i can be bothered to find some credible arguments to the contrary, you suddenly argue no one can prove a thing, without actually taking anything ive posted to task.
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
No one here is an expert. There's just trolls here that can't prove a damn thing. |
and youre different how?? we dont have to prove anything. youre the one crying conspiracy, thus the onus is on you, not us. me, ill keep putting my faith in the many many contributors of debunking911.com until someone provides anything new. |
|
|
|
|
