|
Post by shred on Mar 21, 2013 15:59:35 GMT -5
Science experiment for you: Buy a steel can, eat / drink the contents, put the can on a bonfire and burn it for as long as you can. See what happens to the can. Trust me, it will absolutely corrode like you wouldn't believe.
The steel didn't melt, the ALUMINIUM melted. Aluminium has a melting point of 600 degrees C and the fire temps were between 800 and 1000 degrees C for months.
Reason why is this; the buildings were offices full of paper wood and plastics. We're talking tonnes of combustibles. You expect a 541m skyscraper that caught fire and collapsed to go out once it collapsed ? I don't I expect the fire to burn and burn and burn until there isn't anything left to burn. In the presence of which is aluminium and steel (ferrite carbon alloy). Ferrum and aluminium oxides if mixed together in the right proportions can become thermite. Microscopic proportions of thermite may well have been created in the debris fire, but it indicative of nothing. What happened was 19 men hijacked planes and deliberately crashed them.
All the conspiracy theories that exist about 9/11 exist to excuse those 19 men. Those men attacked YOUR country. They nearly murdered my friend Sally's uncle in the process.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 21, 2013 18:02:08 GMT -5
I'm sorry about Sally's uncle whoever he is but there's nothing you're telling me that explains what happened on 9/11 to the 3 towers. If you believe you're trying to convince me of your molten "aluminum" bulls**t you're not scratching the surface. I never heard of any fire that causes pools of molten metal (steel, aluminum, copper, zinc, whatever) to run like lava and remain too hot to go near for weeks after the fire goes out.
"All the conspiracy theories that exist about 9/11 exist to excuse those 19 men."
The only conspiracy theory that exists is the one sold to you and others who swallow it by this government. Experts have gone to great lengths and have proven that the official conspiracy theory is a massive lie. In fact, the investigators themselves have admitted these fake investigations were riddled with fraud.
No one in government who was responsible for the STAND DOWN and failure to even attempt to protect the US from the mass murder of over 3,000 people was ever held accountable. So 19 men are not being excused, the official narrative and those who sold the fairy tale are the ones who use it to excuse those responsible for the mass murder of 3,000 people. And they use that fairy tale as a pretext to commit illegal wars, war crimes, genocide and other human rights atrocities.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 21, 2013 19:41:08 GMT -5
Aluminium melts at 600 degrees C, the fire temperatures in the debris were well above that but below the melting point of steel.
Sally's uncle is Paul Berriff, he's a cameraman and documentary maker, he was in New York making a documentary about the NYFD. Back in the late 80's he made a documentary for STV called Rescue, during the making of that series he was injured when a Westland Sea King lost power flying in the Lochaber area (near Fort William)
But as I say he was in New York when WTC2 collapsed and was injured when a piece of it hit him and broke his collarbone.
The only conspiracy theory that exists is the one sold to you about controlled demolitions and cruise missiles. It's bollox. 19 Mujahideen did it end of. (edited cos I forgot 2'nd youtube link).
Build a bonfire, stick a steel can in it, burn it for as long as you can, you'll see the steel get properly corroded. That's oxidisation for you, that's what happened to the WTC steel. The thermite thing is a 100% hoax. Thermite burns quickly and brightly and goes out in moments.
The WTC debris burned for months because of all the wood paper & plastics in the debris.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 21, 2013 20:29:57 GMT -5
"Aluminium melts at 600 degrees C, the fire temperatures in the debris were well above that but below the melting point of steel."Even if that's true, so? "Sally's uncle is Paul Berriff ... yada, yada"Irrelevant, who cares? "But as I say he was in New York when WTC2 collapsed and was injured when a piece of it hit him and broke his collarbone."Sorry to hear that, and? "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mKyeVMSlF8"The video you provided the link to above is titled "Proof of pancaking". 1. There's nothing in the video that contains proof of anything other than a collapse. 2. NIST (of the official column 79 fairy tale) said the videos do not support pancaking. So even the one you buy 100% according to one of your posts contradicts the title of the video and you. "The only conspiracy theory that exists is the one sold to you about controlled demolitions and cruise missiles. It's bollox."Unless someone can reasonably show it wasn't controlled demolitions that brought down the 3 towers, it's the only possible explanation that makes sense. So even if I would agree that there's no proof that none of the 3 towers were brought down by controlled demolition, there's absolutely no way the 3 towers could have collapsed in that manner as a result of fire or even airplanes and fire regardless of your charlatan explanations. So if it's not controlled demolition, it has to be something else besides a natural gravitational collapse and there is nothing else known that makes sense. As for cruise missiles, there is no video that shows that a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon despite numerous video cameras that were pointed at the Pentagon and the FBI or whoever has the videos has deliberately covered them all up by failing to release any of them. In fact, the limited number of frames that were publicly released only make the story that an airliner hit the Pentagon more suspect. So whether it was or wasn't a cruise missile, the whole official story is riddled with massive holes. "19 Mujahideen did it end of."As you were sold. There are others who have said some of those 19 were seen alive after 9/11. I don't know if that's true or not but many of the stories about these alleged hijackers have been proven to be lies. Here's one admitted lie: www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/03/cia-and-fbi-counter-terrorism-officials-cheney-lied-about-911-hijacker.html"Build a bonfire ... yada, yada"No thanks, not interested, you build a bonfire. "The WTC debris burned for months because of all the wood paper & plastics in the debris."Sure, if you say so.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 22, 2013 4:56:34 GMT -5
"Aluminium melts at 600 degrees C, the fire temperatures in the debris were well above that but below the melting point of steel."Even if that's true, so? It is true, and that's what your "molten metal" was. Top down collapse with floors pancaking. Three floors crushed together like a stack of pancakes. On its surface, charred paper. Not full pancaking, a lot of debris from the twin towers fell away from the footprint damaging and destroying other buildings in the vicinity. "The only conspiracy theory that exists is the one sold to you about controlled demolitions and cruise missiles. It's bollox."The combined effect of structural damage and fire on those buildings has been proven, by many experts including NIST. Nobody who claims controlled demolition has been able to prove it and the onus is on them to provide evidence which they haven't. There isn't any proof of controlled demolition. They did collapse in that manner as a result of structural damage and weakening by fire. The trusses sagged inwardly, the outer columns were pulled inwardly bowing and the bowing of those columns has been observed in photographs, the load bearing area of those columns would have been halved, the strength reduced even further by heat breaking up martensite crystals. They bowed inwardly and gave way, WTC2's collapse initiating at the corner: That does not look like a controlled demolition. No video that shows a cruise missile either despite numerous claims and misquotes of witnesses. Here's Mike Walter's statement at the time: He clearly saw an American Airline's jet. "19 Mujahideen did it end of."Men of the same names may well exist, but that doesn't change what the hijackers did. www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.htmlYou aren't interested that steel will rust at an accelerated rate in fire ? "The WTC debris burned for months because of all the wood paper & plastics in the debris."What else could burn for that length of time eh ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 22, 2013 7:57:21 GMT -5
See my post in the "Pentagon" thread.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 22, 2013 10:41:27 GMT -5
More debunking of the molten metal claim. Conspiracists have stupidly claimed that this picture is a sign of "molten metal still glowing after the use of thermite" Same scene: Light came from high power lamp.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 22, 2013 12:12:50 GMT -5
"More debunking of the molten metal claim."
So all the eyewitnesses and the news reports about molten metal are all lies? And you know better?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 23, 2013 6:25:05 GMT -5
I know that the picture of firemen over a glowing light weren't looking at light from molten metal glowing very close to them, the attached video of the same scene proves it was an electric light.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 23, 2013 10:08:12 GMT -5
Unless someone can reasonably show it wasn't controlled demolitions that brought down the 3 towers, it's the only possible explanation that makes sense. So even if I would agree that there's no proof that none of the 3 towers were brought down by controlled demolition, there's absolutely no way the 3 towers could have collapsed in that manner as a result of fire or even airplanes and fire regardless of your charlatan explanations. So if it's not controlled demolition, it has to be something else besides a natural gravitational collapse and there is nothing else known that makes sense. ......in your opinion. No not just my opinion. if you've been following this thread, you would know that it's also the opinion of thousands of experts. Many of whom have provided quite of bit of their evidence based research and expertise on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 23, 2013 10:31:12 GMT -5
"One video I saw, by CNN, showed the second tower collapsing in approx. 16 seconds. In any event, "about 12 seconds or less" does not describe a "free fall." In physics, there is no "about" or "near"; either it fell at free fall acceleration or it did not."First, it's not just about free fall or near free fall. But if you want to talk about free fall, WTC7 was in free fall for over 2 seconds (8 floors) and even NIST agreed with that. Shyam Sunder even described what free fall means: “ free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it."Second, both towers disintegrated top down in uniform fashion, and in their footprints and even if you want to use 16 seconds, that is just way too fast for a tower that contains a massive steel structure, the majority of which was NOT affected by a plane or fire. "Fire cannot take out all the columns at once.
Even if your opinion is correct, it didn't have to."There is no way these 3 towers could have collapsed in the manner they did as seen on video unless all the columns on each floor (about an acre in size) were taken out at the exact same time for WTC7 and in perfect sequence for the twin towers. "Have you ever broken a piece of concrete with a sledge hammer?"Sledge hammers did not destroy the 3 towers. "What I haven't seen is an explanation of the significance of that dust."There's quite a bit on that and more here:
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 23, 2013 11:42:57 GMT -5
Richard Gage's idea of 'evidence' based research: LOL, "expert" ? My foot is Richard Gage an expert. Here's the world's foremost expert on the damage to those buildings (he should know he designed them): Leslie Robertson is still deeply haunted by the terrorist attacks on his towers.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 23, 2013 12:18:42 GMT -5
"There are many experts who support the "official conspiracy" theory. Many of those you mention have no expertise which would be necessary to evaluate the events of 9/11."
Which experts are you talking about now, the ones who support the official theory or those who don't? Either way, whether that's true or not, many do have that expertise. You certainly are not in a position to make any judgement other than your opinion.
"I'll go with Leslie Robertson."
You can go with Einstein or Mickey Mouse, that's your prerogative. Leslie Robertson flip-flopped, he said one thing before 9/11 and contradicted himself after 9/11. He is only one person and certainly has a right to his opinion. Thousands of other experts disagree.
"no amount of "evidence based research" will ever definitively prove which theory is correct"
You can't prove anything if you don't try. There was no forensic criminal investigation into the events of 9/11. A lot of research that was done by those with no political connections to government proved that the official theory was based on lies, fabrications and fraud. In fact, the alleged "investigators" themselves said their conclusions were based on lies. None of the research done by independent experts actually proved what actually did happen, most of it proved what did not happen but was fraudulently published as "truth".
"What slowed it after two seconds?"
The question you should be asking is why was it was in free fall for 2 seconds. What slowed it is obvious, it was after all a massive building. You're trying to ignore a critical problem with the official story.
"...in your opinion."
Yes some of what I post is my opinion and some of what you post is your opinion. So? A lot of what I post is my opinion which is also shared by thousands of experts.
"I am not interested in what he/they [experts and thousands who agree] said"
I gathered that. You are only interested in what you've been sold by those who publicly admitted their lies. That's quite biased of you, not to mention illogical.
"I asked you for YOUR interpretation of the significance"
Why does that matter to you? Isn't it more important what those who have expertise say on the subject? I'm just as anonymous as you are, I am not the right source for your information just as you are not the right source for my information. I post what I know and you post what you know. You and I accept or reject on that basis. We're only here to discuss issues and preferably back up our opinions with whatever tools we have at our disposal. What should matter most is what real experts have to say, not just one or two but the collective, preferably those who have credibility. If you feel none of the thousands of people I provided links to have any credibility and only one or two (or more) that you selected do, then that's your choice. It makes no sense to me but if it makes sense to you, certainly go with it, it's your business and no one else.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 23, 2013 12:36:59 GMT -5
"Richard Gage's idea of 'evidence' based research:"
No, that's just a picture, you do know the difference, right?
"My foot is Richard Gage an expert."
No your foot is not Richard Gage or an expert but perhaps it is the source of your expertise.
"Here's the world's foremost expert on the damage to those buildings (he should know he designed them):"
No Leslie Robertson is not the "world's foremost expert on the damage to those buildings". Just because he designed them does not mean he knows what happened. Apples and oranges (as usual).
Here some contradictory statements by the designers:
“A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing” - John Skilling, co-designer (only a few days prior to 9/11)
“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire… The building structure would still be there.” - John Skilling
“little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.” - Leslie Robertson (1984)
“To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire” - Leslie Robertson (after 9/11). This is interesting, it means he believed there would be little likelihood of a collapse no matter what, but doesn't know what would happen if there was jet fuel (which is enhanced kerosene).
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 23, 2013 14:32:16 GMT -5
Leslie Robertson designed the towers in the 1960's. At the time, structural fire engineering was limited in knowledge. At the time it was assumed a steel column would always fail at 500 degrees Centigrade, later discovered that it's point of failure depends on the effect of temperature profile and the effect of load and can in some cases fail at the much cooler temperature of 300 degrees C, in others fail at 1300 degrees C.
The Cardington Fire tests of the 1990's & early 2000's were carried out to improve knowledge of structural fire engineering because there wasn't enough knowledge of the effects of fire upon steel as a material at the time.
I must reiterate, the twin towers coped with the impact of a 767 at 600mph. It was the subsequent effect of widespread fire weakening the already damaged structure that caused material weakening bending moment and collapse. If fireproofing had remained intact those towers would still be standing.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 23, 2013 14:53:24 GMT -5
"Leslie Robertson designed the towers in the 1960's ... yada, yada"
So then you contradict yourself and Leslie Robertson is actually not the "world's foremost expert on the damage to those buildings"?
"It was the subsequent effect of widespread fire weakening the already damaged structure that caused material weakening bending moment and collapse."
Repeating your opinion ad nauseum does not make it any more true.
"If fireproofing had remained intact those towers would still be standing."
Interestingly, there was an article about that the fireproofing was reinforced prior to 9/11. I posted that in another forum but I would have to dig it up, not that I'm sure you're interested anyway because it's just another point that contradicts your claim. You've shown time and again that you're not interested in any facts that contradicts your claims.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 23, 2013 17:51:39 GMT -5
"You certainly are not in a position to make any judgement other than your opinion.
Nor are you.................."
Agreed, no argument there.
"They didn't prove what did or did not happen..........they expressed opinions and gave the reasons for those opinions."
That's your opinion, in my opinion they proved what didn't and couldn't happen with regard to the official conspiracy theory, what was suspect in the official stories and expressed opinions and gave reasons. At least those I personally find credible. There are many non-government sponsored opinions that I don't hold credible.
"It did not fall at free-fall velocity;"
That was measured from the videos and agreed to by Shyam Sunder. Like I said, you're not in a position to make that judgment, they are. Some of them lie but they're still in that position regardless.
"I am not interested in what he/they [experts and thousands who agree] said"
"You are only interested in what you've been sold by those who publicly admitted their lies. That's quite biased of you, not to mention illogical.
False statement. I have formed opinions based upon my knowledge and what I have observed, only somewhat supplement by what experts and would-be experts on both sides of the controversy have said."
Nice contradiction since you already said "I am not interested in what he/they [experts and thousands who agree] said".
"it was not brought down by CD."
In your opinion.
"I shall now bow out and leave this thread to you and shred."
I was hoping you'd stay because I only have Shred to shred here if you leave. But anyway, don't let the door hit you.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 23, 2013 18:04:23 GMT -5
"I am not interested in what he/they [experts and thousands who agree] said"BTW, if you ever get interested in what real experts have to say, this site has over 60 articles, many of them are quite fascinating: journalof911studies.com/articles.htmlAnd BTW, I found this statement of yours quite interesting: "I have formed opinions based upon my knowledge and what I have observed"But you admit a lot of that doesn't come from experts ( "only somewhat supplement by what experts ... have said"). So that begs the question: Where do you get your "knowledge" from if not from experts?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 24, 2013 11:12:26 GMT -5
Journalof911 studies ?? LOL that's not a journal, it's a comic. They're just as daft as Scholars for 911 'truth' and the A&E Liars.
No reputable science journal would peer review the conspiracy crap put out by the so called 'truth' movement so they had to invent a journal of their own.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 24, 2013 11:36:24 GMT -5
Journalof911 studies ?? LOL that's not a journal, it's a comic. They're just as daft as Scholars for 911 'truth' and the A&E Liars. No reputable science journal would peer review the conspiracy crap put out by the so called 'truth' movement so they had to invent a journal of their own. That's coming from someone who recommended an anonymous "debunking" site as the best source of information on 9/11 and fairy tale government propaganda as 100% fact. Your opinions have zero credibility, as least for any person with a reasonable level of intellect. Those who want to learn will read the many articles and judge for themselves. Those who don't want to learn will remain just as ignorant as you and others like you (Lucid for example) who admit they would rather not review what experts have to say.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 24, 2013 11:48:47 GMT -5
It's a better source of information than your recommendations matey.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 24, 2013 12:27:07 GMT -5
It's a better source of information than your recommendations matey. Well again, that's your opinion. The difference between ignorant and gullible people such as yourself and intelligent people is that in your case, you attack and denigrate those you don't agree with and try in your childish way to steer people away from their sites. Intelligent people read everything that makes sense to them and judge for themselves, they don't pay attention to anonymous hucksters such as you for direction. I personally recommend that those who want to learn go to all sites, including ones recommended by you and judge for themselves. I've read your "debunking" site and many others that pride themselves on "debunking" those who question the official narrative. I've seen many of the videos, read many of the papers and have come to my own personal conclusion(s). I certainly suggest that everyone who really wants to know do the same. When one reads these many articles, one should also take into consideration who the authors are and determine credibility. Obviously, anonymous opinions might mean lesser credibility than those from known authors. So you see, I have no problem with "debunking" sites other than their admitted agenda, as classified by their self-described label. They certainly don't terrify me unlike the sites you seem to fear. And I know you fear these sites and authors of the many articles I recommended just by the contents of your posts. You are quite easy to analyze.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 24, 2013 13:09:51 GMT -5
If 'matey' is an attack in your mind I pity you.
The issues are this: Two tube in tube New York skyscrapers were hit by fuel laden airliners at 600mph, they would have survived if it had been structural damage alone. WTC1 was hit at 8.46am collapsed at 10:28am WTC2 was hit at 9:03am and collapsed at 9:59am
Why go to the extremely difficult and hugely risky trouble of rigging these buildings for demolition when the impact of an airliner and subsequent fire in the building would be shocking enough ?
Many eyewitnesses saw an American Airlines jet crash into the Pentagon. Pentagon staff died in that attack. Why would Pentagon workers lie that they had seen airliner parts in the building, that they had seen pieces of people, that they had seen charred corpses still strapped into airline seats ?
WTC7 is alleged to have been the command centre from which the terrorist attack was organised. There is no evidence of that theorem being correct. But speaking hypothetically, WHY destroy it? To hide evidence ? Why not just shred any paper and erase any hard drives with a random number generator.
Why over the course of many years has it been impossible for a self proclaimed truth movement to demonstrate the cutting of a vertical beam by Thermite/Thermate/Nano Thermite despite their many wonderous claims about this incendiary compound ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 24, 2013 14:03:52 GMT -5
"If 'matey' is an attack in your mind I pity you."
No that's not what I'm referring to Einstein and I'm sure you know it.
"The issues are this ..."
Those are your issues, mine and those of many others are quite different. Our issues are with the the lies and fraud we've been fed.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 24, 2013 14:23:26 GMT -5
My questions towards the so called truth movement are valid.
You should be angry with ae911'truth' for they are the liars and fraudsters feeding you.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 24, 2013 14:54:07 GMT -5
"My questions towards the so called truth movement are valid."
Absolutely. If you believe they're valid then I have no reason to believe they're not.
"You should be angry with ae911'truth' for they are the liars and fraudsters feeding you."
That's your opinion and you certainly have a right to it and I will protect and defend your right to your opinion. I can't possibly be angry at anyone who questions the 9/11 lies, that would be illogical.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 24, 2013 15:29:42 GMT -5
The Thermite lie is one of the biggest 9/11 lies. Haven't you ever asked how it would be possible for a rapidly (and messily) burning incendiary to cut a vertical steel beam as neatly as the cutting torches used in the clean up ?
Doesn't it worry you that they're making bold claims yet they have not demonstrated how their claim could work? If someone is going to say it's an inside job, I say show me the evidence. So far I've seen none.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 24, 2013 15:43:28 GMT -5
"The Thermite lie is one of the biggest 9/11 lies."
It's called nano-thermite. Nano-thermite can't be produced just anywhere and it doesn't exist in office buildings but it showed up in abundance in 4 separate dust samples. There's a ton of information on nano-thermite at the sites I provided links to, if anyone needs guidance on the subject, I'll post the link(s). You?
"If someone is going to say it's an inside job, I say show me the evidence. So far I've seen none."
It's difficult to see anything with blindfolds on.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Mar 24, 2013 15:50:49 GMT -5
Nano is shorthand for nanometre, so microscopic particles of thermite measuring in nanometre sizes = nanothermite. Microscopic nanometre sized quantities of thermite forming in the debris fires from the oxidisation of steel and aluminium is quite possible and the presence of thermitic material in itself is not an explanation as to how the towers collapsed.
How can thermitic material be made to cut a large vertical steel beam ? I want to see a full scale demonstration of this before I believe the theory to have any validity at all.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Mar 24, 2013 15:54:00 GMT -5
"... no, I have not looked at any 9/11 conspiracy theory debunking websites; they simply aren't necessary."
That goes without saying Einstein, knowledge is not for you, you admitted you get yours mostly from non-experts. At least the "debunking" sites took the time to read all the information gathered since 9/11. Of course the problem with those sites are that their admitted agenda is to try to destroy that information. But still, their opinions serve to increase one's knowledge about this particular subject. So it's not for you, I agree.
To come to a personal conclusion, one must weigh all sides of the issue. Bias is ignorance.
|
|