|
Post by bob0627 on May 16, 2013 7:49:57 GMT -5
Thanks for all that useless information. Back in college I was a math major and took some courses in engineering, so what? I ended up with a career in computer software consulting, so what? If I have any claim to any expertise regarding 9/11, it's that my career causes me to be detail oriented and heavily experienced in the area of analysis. It's all meaningless, same as your background if you look (or pretend to look as in your case) at 9/11 with blinders on.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 17, 2013 4:59:06 GMT -5
You ignore bending moments metallurgy and the laws of physics you are no engineer. I am.
You pretend to look at the facts, but all you look at is what the conspiracy theorists tell you to look at. You attack and insult people who provide evidence that contradicts your conspiracy theories.
I look at the facts, the hijackings of planes, the structural damage, the fire, the metal and what happened to the metal.
What you deride as "The official story" is actually the truth and if you stopped getting so uppity and aggressive and calmed down and just looked at the facts, you'd see what has been staring you in the face from day 1. Osama Bin Laden's Mujahideen declared war on the USA and attacked the USA because the USA had troops in Saudi Arabia (the home of Islam), the USA gives money and military support to Israel (the perceived enemy of Islam), the USA had enforced sanctions on Iraq which were killing children. The USA had in the 1980's shelled Beirut. Osama Bin Laden's Jihadists believed that by killing Americans they would go to heaven, they were happy to kill and die as all Jihadists are happy to kill and die. They did not believe American taxpayers to be innocent, they believed American taxpayers to be the fund givers of their (perceived enemy).
So four of them learned to fly and each qualified to earn a pilots licence, 15 of them provided muscle storming the cockpits and killing the pilots so only the hijackers could fly the planes. They had purchased GPS devices. They had training on how to set an autopilot. They had training in official Boeing simulators on how to fly 737's. They had hired planes and practiced lining up their attacks before hand. They had purchased Victorinox knives. They had hand to hand combat training.
Anyone who says they didn't is excusing their crimes.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 17, 2013 7:00:24 GMT -5
"What you deride as "The official story" is actually the truth"
The term "official story" is what it is, it's not unofficial and it is a story. That it's the "truth" is impossible since most of the 9/11 Commission members who published the 9/11 Commission Report (or the official story) publicly admitted they were lied to and didn't get all the facts. That you contradict the FACTS that you know are FACTS only serves to show you're a fake.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 17, 2013 9:29:41 GMT -5
Your claims about 9/11 Commission report are irrelevant. NIST's reports and the independent research of the steel industry proves that structural damage and fire brought down the towers, not explosives and not thermite/thermate/nanothermite/supermariothermite.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 17, 2013 9:43:10 GMT -5
"Your claims about 9/11 Commission report are irrelevant."
They're not MY claims, they are documented FACT. They're also far from "irrelevant" (except to you of course) because they document deliberate LIES, which means of course, that the official story is NOT the truth.
"NIST's reports and the independent research of the steel industry proves that structural damage and fire brought down the towers, not explosives and not thermite/thermate/nanothermite/supermariothermite."
Actually, NIST's own reports PROVES that the collapse of WTC7 was NOT a natural collapse. They also PROVE that their reports are a fraud because they're clearly contradictory. Not only does NIST's final report contradict its first report, but it contradicts itself in that NIST's admission of free fall contradicts their column 79 theory and their computer simulation program. OBVIOUS contradictions cannot be held as truth. And neither can any theory be held as truth, which is all that NIST's final report is.
|
|
|
Post by richardcavessa on May 17, 2013 22:34:43 GMT -5
shred ur a good sort but denial is not a river in africa
|
|
|
Post by richardcavessa on May 17, 2013 22:35:20 GMT -5
shred ur a good sort but, denial is not a river in africa
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 19, 2013 8:03:51 GMT -5
Actually, NIST's own reports PROVES that the collapse of WTC7 was NOT a natural collapse. Incorrect, NIST's own reports prove the collapse of WTC7 occured as a result of natural structural failure after 7 hours of weakening by fire. 2.5 seconds of a 16 seconds collapse is not free fall. WTC7 was structurally damaged It had a deformed bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13. It was leaning, firefighters who were there mentioned it was leaning firefighters were saying it had lost structural integrity, and were predicting it's natural collapse hours before it did. Because it had lost structural integrity, and because there wasn't enough water to fight the fires in it (the collapses of the twin towers had damaged water mains), firefighters were pulled out of it's vicinity. So who is lying ? Your side or the NYFD ? Major fire blowing out windows of WTC7: Major fire in WTC7 producing massive amounts of smoke gushing from the south side: Microstructural analysis of WTC7 steel indicating Eutectic formation of Iron oxide (rust) & Iron sulphide in the Steel: This cannot happen at low temperatures, this does not happen in controlled demolitions, this happens when steel is exposed to temperatures at or near to 1000C. If you're wondering where the Sulphur came from, Gypsum (aka drywall) contains Sulphur. What the microstructure of A36 grade Steel is supposed to look like:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 19, 2013 8:38:38 GMT -5
"2.5 seconds of a 16 seconds collapse is not free fall."
2.25 seconds in free fall is still 2.25 seconds in free fall even if the total collapse took an hour or six. Why are you denying free fall when even NIST wrote that WTC7 was in free fall in their report? You said the NIST report is 100% true and now you're saying it isn't. Did NIST (Shyam Sunder) lie? Answer the question Mr. Ducker.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 19, 2013 12:13:52 GMT -5
As the collapse took 16 seconds the last 2.25 seconds of it's collapse is irrelevant. It wasn't a controlled demolition. Stop ducking the facts.
WTC7 was structurally damaged by WTC1 and serious fires were burning in it which firefighters could not fight without water. Microscopic evidence from it's Steel shows that Steel temperatures from the combustion of WTC7's contents were at or close to 1000C.
RDX auto ignites at 234 degrees C. Standard controlled demolitions explosives would have burned up IF they had been in that building and no sounds of any explosive charges were heard in the moments before WTC7 fell. Thermite reactions cannot be ignited at temperatures less than 2200 degrees C and reactions burn up to 2500C. Metallurgical and Thermograph evidence shows that these temperatures were not reached. Firefighters had predicted natural collapse hours before WTC7 fell and had PULLED the firefighting operation in it for their own safety because they hadn't enough water to fight the fires. The building was evacuated, everyone was pulled out of it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 19, 2013 14:58:46 GMT -5
"As the collapse took 16 seconds the last 2.25 seconds of it's collapse is irrelevant."
Of course you're not really as dumb as you're trying to make yourself out to be. You do know how to read English even though you're in a foreign country, right? Where do you see anything anywhere about "the last 2.25 seconds of it's collapse"? How is ANY free fall collapse of this building, never mind for over 2 seconds, irrelevant? To you, anything and everything that contradicts you or your beliefs is irrelevant or "doctored" or "so-called" or anything else you want to use to dismiss FACTS.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 19, 2013 16:15:04 GMT -5
Stop ducking the issues. It doesn't matter how long ago the articles were written the laws of physics haven't changed, they had access to all the evidence and the metallurgy hasn't changed.
Their evidence utterly disproves controlled demolition theories. Demolitions charges cannot generate temperatures of 1000 degrees C and Thermite burns way too hot for the steel to produce that metallurgical microstructure.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 19, 2013 16:49:25 GMT -5
"Stop ducking the issues. It doesn't matter how long ago the articles were written the laws of physics haven't changed"
That's correct Mr. Ducker, free fall on Earth is and was free fall and has a constant rate of acceleration at 9.8m/s2 or 32ft/s2, as Newton discovered. It hasn't changed.
|
|
|
Post by richardcavessa on May 22, 2013 12:06:39 GMT -5
shred, do you have those live links stashed? not sure how hot 1000c 5/9+32* is but, steel melts @ 2800f, thermite burns @ about 4800f...wot u think of that? i do appreciate the thread guize.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 22, 2013 13:36:24 GMT -5
Steel melts at 1540 degrees C. Hot rolled Carbon Steel starts to weaken at 300 degrees C and by 1000 C the molecules in it are vibrating so much that it's load bearing capacity is down by 90% that vibration also causes thermal expansion. It also undergoes a chemical and molecular change when it reaches temperatures close to 1000 C as it's martensite and cementite break down and Austenite forms. As a result there is great need for active and passive fireproofing systems and modern intumescent coatings designed to delay the heating of steel to give firefighters a chance. www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htmRemember, Steel is an elastic substance, Steel is also used to make Piano and Guitar strings. WTC structures were damaged prior to fire, spray foam and drywall are susceptible to mechanical damage, and in the case of the twin towers, 4km3 of floorspace was immediately set alight by the deliberate crashing of aircraft. In WTC1 all core stairwells were destroyed. All Core columns were protected by were thin sheets of Gypsum drywall board. In WTC2 all but one core stairwell was destroyed. Brian Clark a survivor from above the impact zone reported gypsum wall board dislodged by the crash. www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/worldtradecentertrans.shtml
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 23, 2013 9:18:00 GMT -5
shred, do you have those live links stashed? not sure how hot 1000c 5/9+32* is but, steel melts @ 2800f, thermite burns @ about 4800f...wot u think of that? i do appreciate the thread guize. This is an experiment that may be of interest to you: Jonathan Cole-911 Experiments-The mysterious eutectic steel
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 23, 2013 11:39:42 GMT -5
Fire temps of 1000+ C explained the Eutectic steel.
Next topic.
Please can we have an fun conspiracy theory to discuss ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 23, 2013 11:51:53 GMT -5
"Fire temps of 1000+ C explained the Eutectic steel."
No one else could explain why that happened other than you, so that means no one explained it. As for the video, it speaks for itself. Jonathan Cole did a masterful job with the experiment.
"Next topic."
Feel free to start one, this topic was started by you.
"Please can we have an fun conspiracy theory to discuss ?"
Go for it, no one's stopping you.
|
|
|
Post by richardcavessa on May 23, 2013 19:50:12 GMT -5
for sum reason couldn't view, that experiment bob, a simple search eutectic refers to alloys, other than iron and carbon, Thermite burns at 2500c 5600F @ youtube/watch?v=qqvQwfH_wGQ&feature=fvwp Rethinking Thermite - Debunking 9/11 www.debunking911.com/thermite.htmDebunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Rethinking Thermite.by mixing Iron Oxide and Aluminum powder and igniting it at very high temperatures (a few thousand degrees). Thermite Identified As Culprit Of WTC Collapse prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm Apr 24, 2006 – A new branch of 9/11 research claims to have identified the cause of the collapse of the twin towers. The photographic and video evidence. this one is much better tho done 2010....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g with 911wtc footage, includes tests and a spiffy wt7 falling at the end this one is pretty good 2 Incontrovertible Proof the Government is Lying
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 23, 2013 23:30:30 GMT -5
I'm not sure why you can't view the video but try this: 911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_7_Steel_Samples_Show_Severe_Damage_Due_To_A_High_Temperature_Corrosion_Attack_Which_Melted_The_SteelJonathan Cole used all the materials that should have been present at WTC7, packed them into a steel beam and added a generous amount of diesel fuel. He built an intense fire and put the beam into the fire to let it burn for hours to see if the steel would corrode in the same manner as seen in the photos from the above link. Of course the steel was virtually intact after it cooled with no evidence of any damage, much less corrosion and holes. The point was to show that something else other than the fire in WTC7 caused such extreme corrosion. And also to show that NIST could have easily conducted the same experiment but of course did no such thing or even address the evidence of corrosion. None of your links work and I've already seen the video you posted. As for the "debunking" website, I've read the entire site. All these "debunking" sites were specifically created to try to destroy anything that contradicts the official 9/11 story. It's their only purpose. You won't find anything within those sites that questions anything about the official story even though those who helped create the official story (i.e. the members of the 9/11 Commission) admitted they were lied to, set up to fail, underfunded and claim they didn't get the entire story at all. The co-chairs recommended a permanent commission to continue their work.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 24, 2013 6:28:14 GMT -5
The BRE at Cardington carried out Standard fire tests of office materials i.e. wood, plastics and paper. These tests generated air temperatures of 1100C and steel temperatures >1000C & <1100C
WTC7 is known to have contained wood plastics carpet (and other fabrics) and paper. Even without diesel fuel all the other combustibles have the energy to generate air temperatures >1000C, metallurgical evidence shows evidence of ~1000C heat damage to steelwork, metallurgical evidence shows no evidence of melting.
Fire in the WTC debris pile (including that of WTC7) are known to have caused extreme corrosion (especially after water mains were repaired and water was sprayed onto the debris pile). Fe + H2O = FeO + 2H
There was also a lot of Gypsum from Drywall boards in the debris, Gypsum contains Sulphur. Sulphur S + Water (H2O) = H2SO4 which is Sulphiric Acid and even in weak form Sulphuric Acid is quite corrosive to Steel.
Therin ends todays lesson.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 24, 2013 6:33:12 GMT -5
for sum reason couldn't view, that experiment bob, a simple search eutectic refers to alloys, other than iron and carbon, Thermite burns at 2500c 5600F @ youtube/watch?v=qqvQwfH_wGQ&feature=fvwp Rethinking Thermite - Debunking 9/11 www.debunking911.com/thermite.htmDebunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Rethinking Thermite.by mixing Iron Oxide and Aluminum powder and igniting it at very high temperatures (a few thousand degrees). Thermite Identified As Culprit Of WTC Collapse prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm Apr 24, 2006 – A new branch of 9/11 research claims to have identified the cause of the collapse of the twin towers. The photographic and video evidence. this one is much better tho done 2010....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g with 911wtc footage, includes tests and a spiffy wt7 falling at the end this one is pretty good 2 Incontrovertible Proof the Government is Lying Those 'meteorites' are actually concrete floors crushed together (with contents) mate, they still contain paper residues (which would have been completely destroyed at the temperatures you speak of) so cannot have been produced by any sort of thermite (which isn't used in controlled demolitions anyway).
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 24, 2013 7:19:30 GMT -5
The BRE at Cardington carried out Standard fire tests of office materials i.e. wood, plastics and paper. These tests generated air temperatures of 1100C and steel temperatures >1000C & <1100C WTC7 is known to have contained wood plastics carpet (and other fabrics) and paper. Even without diesel fuel all the other combustibles have the energy to generate air temperatures >1000C, metallurgical evidence shows evidence of ~1000C heat damage to steelwork, metallurgical evidence shows no evidence of melting. Fire in the WTC debris pile (including that of WTC7) are known to have caused extreme corrosion (especially after water mains were repaired and water was sprayed onto the debris pile). Fe + H2O = FeO + 2H There was also a lot of Gypsum from Drywall boards in the debris, Gypsum contains Sulphur. Sulphur S + Water (H2O) = H2SO4 which is Sulphiric Acid and even in weak form Sulphuric Acid is quite corrosive to Steel. Therin ends todays lesson. If you bothered to check out the video, you would know that Cole used quite a bit of gypsum and packed it into the steel beam specifically because gypsum contains sulfur. If you really wanted to use logic and common sense, it would occur to you that since drywall contains gypsum and it's used in almost all buildings and it allegedly caused a reaction with steel such as seen in the photos for WTC7 then ALL steel framed buildings that are on fire would likely have the steel corrode in like manner and collapse. The problem is everyone (but you) on both sides agree they have never seen anything like it in any office building fire. The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."Starts today's lesson.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 24, 2013 7:47:01 GMT -5
"Those 'meteorites' are actually concrete floors crushed together (with contents) mate, they still contain paper residues (which would have been completely destroyed at the temperatures you speak of) so cannot have been produced by any sort of thermite (which isn't used in controlled demolitions anyway)."
That's your opinion, others say it's fused, not crushed together. In fact, it looks very much like it's fused. BTW, my understanding is that paper does NOT react with thermite, thermate or nano-thermite.
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 24, 2013 8:09:44 GMT -5
Gypsum wasn't packed into WTC steel beams, it was pulverised and widely distributed around the debris pile. Water was widely sprayed on the still burning debris pile which contained amongst other materials combustible wood plastic paper and carpet. Water reacts with Steel especially at high temperatures. Water also reacts with Sulphur. H2SO4 is quite a potent acid and reacts readily with metals such as Steel corroding them.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 24, 2013 8:22:57 GMT -5
Right, so in Cole's experiment, he did pack dry gypsum on one side and gypsum that was soaked in water on the other side of the beam and there was NO reaction. You say gypsum was not packed into the beams in any building and that's correct, so there was much less a reason for any alleged reaction with the beams due to the sulfur content in the drywall, yet the photos show an extreme reaction that was obviously not due to the sulfur content in gypsum (which some have theorized, including you).
Logic and common sense seems to escape you. You often contradict your own arguments.
|
|
|
Post by richardcavessa on May 24, 2013 9:19:26 GMT -5
"Those 'meteorites' are actually concrete floors crushed together (with contents) mate, they still contain paper residues (which would have been completely destroyed at the temperatures you speak of) so cannot have been produced by any sort of thermite (which isn't used in controlled demolitions anyway)." shredder:
bob sez: That's your opinion, others say it's fused, not crushed together. In fact, it looks very much like it's fused. BTW, my understanding is that paper does NOT react with thermite, thermate or nano-thermite like i stated befor, shred. tje photo is the best evidence, thanx for reposting, though i saved it as exibit 1 .....anyone that believes concrete crushed together produces molten steel could be accused of willing ignorance...further any paper or plastic that would come in contact with the molten mass would surely burn away, meaning the trash is an obvious facade to quell the masses. i'm pretty sure bob is right, shred obviously didn't view the vids, because he already knows the truth, but is committed to a specific agenda....and somewhere else i wrote, if it were not for irs, bengazi, and other recent gates, 911 and jfk have been revived, that's a good thing, sooner or later, for better or worse people will accept evidence, instead of a 13 yr old card trick ps thanx bob
|
|
|
Post by richardcavessa on May 24, 2013 9:22:06 GMT -5
had to laugh again about the sulphur in drywall tho....
|
|
|
Post by shred on May 24, 2013 10:48:59 GMT -5
Nothing in the WTC debris pile produced any molten steel except for small amounts when Oxy Acetylene torches were used to cut columns, none of the fires were hot enough to melt any Steel at all and thermites burn far too quickly to keep burning for the length of time the WTC fires burned.
BUT Aluminium melts at 600 C. There was a lot of Aluminium in the WTC's for example the cladding of the Twin Towers. That most certainly did melt in fire and there was enough in the way of combustibles in the debris pile to keep Aluminium molten for some time.
And Bob, your latest hero ignores that the WTC fires burned for months that Steel temperatures remained red hot in places for months and that in proximity to gypsum and water for that length of time there's not going to be a shiny smooth piece of Steel by the end is there?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on May 24, 2013 11:35:04 GMT -5
"Nothing in the WTC debris pile produced any molten steel"
The molten steel is DOCUMENTED. The videos contain eyewitness testimony and it was on the news for weeks following 9/11. Deny it all you want, it doesn't change the FACTS.
"your latest hero ..."
I don't have any heroes. The "swiss cheese" looking piece of steel is a mystery to everyone except you who always has a ready fabricated answer to everything as long as it agrees with the official account.
|
|