What brought down WTC7

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tell me the truth in this observation. an engineer actually forensically investigating the wtc 7 debris.

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

remember, this was only 8 dyas after the attack. 15.9 mm of a36 steel gone.

and dr astaneh also said:
ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf

The fact is that Mr. Astaneh-Asl concluded that the impacts and fires brought down the towers. He actually concluded later that it was because of a faulty design and never himself suggests that it was a demolition or that thermite was used. So why do you cite an expert yet ignore his conclusions?

Yours is a perfect example of how truthers glom on to one statement and try to blow it up into a huge conspiracy. That is their version of what the "truth" consists of. Fuck the forest and the trees. Focus on that one little leaf instead.

 

[BeauJangles]

Is there hard evidence proving that the buildings did collapse from the fire?

For the love of god, YES. Every single sign points towards the buildings collapsing from the fires that were started by the planes hitting the towers. There are two separate government agencies (NIST, FEMA) that concluded that fact. Both have written extensive reports detailing how, and why, the buildings collapse. Both reports discuss the possibility of foul play and quickly discount it based on hard evidence.

Read the NIST report. I will not continue to cover for your apparent illiteracy or phobia of government websites.

Is there proof that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks?

Yup. There is a lots of proof. Everything from CIA reports that outline the attack prior to it happening to conclusive proof linking those who were on the planes with Al Queda.

Is there proof that Iraq had WMD or was linked to the attacks on 9/11?

Nope. This is a great example of complete deflection though.

Anyway, the burden of proof here is on you. There is a very good and truthful story out there about what happened. The reports contain physical evidence, they employ some of the best and brightest minds out there, they detail how and why things happened they way they did.

So here are some questions for you:

Who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks? The US government?

Is the NIST report total bullshit? Was the NIST bribed to conclude what they did? Was FEMA in on it? Did the US military refuse to take action to stop the planes? Were they in on it? Is every single person that agrees with the NIST report in on it too?

How did they sneak explosives into the buildings without being detected?

Did the conspiracy perpetrators use thermite or explosives?

Why did they hijack airplanes?

Why did they blow up WTC 7 when it wasn't hit by a plane?


That's a starter pack. Should be pretty easy for a guy like you. Yet, you continually skirt questions and simply try to attack an established position. Let me remind that the NIST report has: experts, physical evidence, a cohesive story, and a complete timeline of events. As far as I can tell, you've got nothing except an over-inflated ego and a belief that you aren't one of the sheeple.

 

[Number1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: LegendKillerSince I work in NYC, I know many people who were actually IN the towers, ...and yet not a single one says anything about charges or controlled demolition.
...

This is not a fucking game, It is not something open to interpretation or to bandy about theories. It is not fodder for your insane imaginations.

It was an exceedingly hectic day, and an overwhelmingly emotional experience, so it's not surprising that many could be confused as to what actually happened. It's also not surprising that many would be adverse to acknowledging anything which contradicts the accepted conspiracy theory, as so many have found some level of solace and piece of mind in believing they have a solid understanding of what happened that day.

To everyone:

I'm simply noting the physical impossibility of fires causing a system of interconnected mass to collapse with an observable period of free fall acceleration. I am not presenting an interpretation or a theory, nor am I imagining anything here, and I'm most certainly not playing any game. I'm talking about facts here, and the fact is that the official story of the fall of WTC7 is based in is physically impossible. Being aware of the relevant facts which prove this, deaning as much would require me to surrender a portion of my sanity to believe in Loony Tones physics, and your verbal pummelings aren't going to persuade me into doing anything of the sort.

So I beg you; please look at the facts I presented in the OP. Then ask yourself, without even thinking of 9/11; could fires cause a system of interconnected mass to collapse with an observable period of free fall acceleration? Please don't try to interpret how you believe it once did, don't imagine up theories of how it could, and don't rely on other people to do your thinking for you; but rather seek proof of what can be done in physical reality. Also, please ask your friends to do the same. If you are unwilling to do as much, then please at least respect the fact that you are arguing from a position of faith here, and stop trying to shout me down for doing otherwise.

Pompous ass. The information you presented was thoroughly disproved by several people in this thread yet you persist in repeating the same mantra. When we showed you videos of buildings crumbling down at or near free fall speed with no need for explosives or preparation you simply ignore it.

When asked to supply mathematical calculations to prove you assertion you again ignored the request.

Other threads you created on other forum on this subject got you thoroughly ridiculed.

Yet you persist in professing the same bullshit over and over again.

Your faith is unshakable. Your stupidity knows no boundaries.

Well at least you're using a spell checker now after I and other suggested you do. But you won't even want to acknowledge this. It would mean you were wrong for blaming your dyslexia as an excuse for your poor writing skills.

That means you not infallible kyle. Your judgment fails you at times. Think about it.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tell me the truth in this observation. an engineer actually forensically investigating the wtc 7 debris.

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

remember, this was only 8 dyas after the attack. 15.9 mm of a36 steel gone.

and dr astaneh also said:
ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf

The fact is that Mr. Astaneh-Asl concluded that the impacts and fires brought down the towers. He actually concluded later that it was because of a faulty design and never himself suggests that it was a demolition or that thermite was used. So why do you cite an expert yet ignore his conclusions?

Yours is a perfect example of how truthers glom on to one statement and try to blow it up into a huge conspiracy. That is their version of what the "truth" consists of. Fuck the forest and the trees. Focus on that one little leaf instead.

there are plenty of leaves to make a forest full of "vaporized" and "evaporated" steel.

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

"steel members" the man says...........read up on:
rj lee report
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC...20Morphology.Final.pdf

and
Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

http://www.journalof911studies...icles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

get it through your brain that extremly high temps were reached at the wtc sites. how you might ask?

aluminothermics!!
Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

http://www.bentham-open.org/pa...02/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Abstract
"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tell me the truth in this observation. an engineer actually forensically investigating the wtc 7 debris.

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

remember, this was only 8 dyas after the attack. 15.9 mm of a36 steel gone.

and dr astaneh also said:
ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf

The fact is that Mr. Astaneh-Asl concluded that the impacts and fires brought down the towers. He actually concluded later that it was because of a faulty design and never himself suggests that it was a demolition or that thermite was used. So why do you cite an expert yet ignore his conclusions?

Yours is a perfect example of how truthers glom on to one statement and try to blow it up into a huge conspiracy. That is their version of what the "truth" consists of. Fuck the forest and the trees. Focus on that one little leaf instead.

there are plenty of leaves to make a forest full of "vaporized" and "evaporated" steel.

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

"steel members" the man says...........read up on:
rj lee report
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC...20Morphology.Final.pdf

and
Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

http://www.journalof911studies...icles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

get it through your brain that extremly high temps were reached at the wtc sites. how you might ask?

aluminothermics!!
Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

http://www.bentham-open.org/pa...02/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Abstract
"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

Look, kiddo. You can't link anything on 9/11 that I haven't seen already. Your links prove nothing because YOU say nothing. You pretend to link to some "OMG" moments but you are nothing but a link and run type. You post copy & paste jobs yet can't even begin to explain what they mean in your own words. I've been on this merry-go-round with you enough times to know your MO so stop providing your crap to me because I know that you're a pretender and nothing more.

Besides that, you fail to address my previous comment. Why do you cite an expert and ignore his real conclusion? Answer the question.

 

[Number1]

To the twuthers:

I wonder what your view are on vaccines?

How about the swine flu and it's origins?

How about vaccines and the supposed link to autism?

For some reason I don't think you people are willing to accept the official mainstream views on this subject just like you don't accept the official explanation of 911.

Just wondering.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tell me the truth in this observation. an engineer actually forensically investigating the wtc 7 debris.

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

remember, this was only 8 dyas after the attack. 15.9 mm of a36 steel gone.

and dr astaneh also said:
ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf

The fact is that Mr. Astaneh-Asl concluded that the impacts and fires brought down the towers. He actually concluded later that it was because of a faulty design and never himself suggests that it was a demolition or that thermite was used. So why do you cite an expert yet ignore his conclusions?

Yours is a perfect example of how truthers glom on to one statement and try to blow it up into a huge conspiracy. That is their version of what the "truth" consists of. Fuck the forest and the trees. Focus on that one little leaf instead.

there are plenty of leaves to make a forest full of "vaporized" and "evaporated" steel.

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

"steel members" the man says...........read up on:
rj lee report
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC...20Morphology.Final.pdf

and
Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

http://www.journalof911studies...icles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

get it through your brain that extremly high temps were reached at the wtc sites. how you might ask?

aluminothermics!!
Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

http://www.bentham-open.org/pa...02/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Abstract
"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

Look, kiddo. You can't link anything on 9/11 that I haven't seen already. Your links prove nothing because YOU say nothing. You pretend to link to some "OMG" moments but you are nothing but a link and run type. You post copy & paste jobs yet can't even begin to explain what they mean in your own words. I've been on this merry-go-round with you enough times to know your MO so stop providing your crap to me because I know that you're a pretender and nothing more.

Besides that, you fail to address my previous comment. Why do you cite an expert and ignore his real conclusion? Answer the question.

this is also of interest. the fbi had to pre approve wtc photographs before they were released for public view.

"as of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. what concrete that wasnt pulverized into dust will continue to be removed for weeks to come. the structural steel is being removed and shipped by barge to be recycled.
all photographs shown on tv, shot on site were preapproved by the FBI. we were shown photographs that were not released for public view."

http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

ive read somewhere that there is a FOIA request to get the "not released for public view" shots.

the guy that wrote the article is james m williams president of SEAU.

so now we have the FBI restricting photos (from the context of the article, shots of molten metal), and regarding NIST?s work on the World Trade Center, everything had to be approved by the the National Security Agency!!!!!!

 

[Number1]

The debate never ends with the twuthers. As soon as you conclusively disprove one of their ideas, they conveniently make another one up.

There is an infinite amount of speculation on the web about 911. They simply switch from one subject to the other and on and on and on.


Convenient, isn't it?

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Number1
To the twuthers:

I wonder what your view are on vaccines?

How about the swine flu and it's origins?

How about vaccines and the supposed link to autism?

For some reason I don't think you people are willing to accept the official mainstream views on this subject just like you don't accept the official explanation of 911.

Just wondering.

you forgot to ask my view on nanothermite....

my answer:
the reaction gets hot, real hot.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Number1
The debate never ends with the twuthers. As soon as you conclusively disprove one of their ideas, they conveniently make another one up.

There is an infinite amount of speculation on the web about 911. They simply switch from one subject to the other and on and on and on.


Convenient, isn't it?

i ask again number 1:
tell me the truth in this observation. an engineer actually forensically investigating the wtc 7 debris.

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

remember, this was only 8 dyas after the attack. 15.9 mm of a36 steel gone.

and dr astaneh also said:
ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, (he is talking about a bridge) it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb...07/overpass_05-10.html

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
[snip]

I don't care about your meaningless, vapid attempts at avoiding answering my question.

Why do you cite an expert and ignore his real conclusion? Answer the question.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
[snip]

I don't care about your meaningless, vapid attempts at avoiding answering my question.

Why do you cite an expert and ignore his real conclusion? Answer the question.

simple, all the evidence was not presented to him. hows the training going with your new pseudoskeptics?



Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe


http://www.bentham-open.org/pa...02/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
abstract
"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
simple, all the evidence was not presented to him. hows the training going with your new pseudoskeptics?

Hahahaha. So now you throw out his conclusion and claim he doesn't know what he's talking about, except the singular statements by him that you want to believe? He's an expert but he's not that informed?

What an assinine riot you truthers are. You have provided a pristine example of how duplicitous you are. 'This guy's an expert, but not so much.'

lol.

 

[event8horizon]

gotta go for now.
to the pseudoskeptics-
this is your mission if you choose to accept it. think about how 15.9mm of a36 steel "corrodes" in just 8 days. that would be wtc 7 steel. i wanna see corrosion rates, how much sulfur content is needed for a eutectic to form at 1100C and all that jazzzzzzzz.
peace

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
simple, all the evidence was not presented to him. hows the training going with your new pseudoskeptics?

Hahahaha. So now you throw out his conclusion and claim he doesn't know what he's talking about, except the singular statements by him that you want to believe? He's an expert but he's not that informed?

What an assinine riot you truthers are. You have provided a pristine example of how duplicitous you are. 'This guy's an expert, but not so much.'

lol.

he did the best he could with the available information he had. now we know that
Active Thermitic Material has been Discovered in the Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
he did the best he could with the available information he had. now we know that
Active Thermitic Material has been Discovered in the Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.

He issued his last report in 2007. He had plenty of time to gather further information. He visited the WTC site on 3 different occassions. You are full of shit. Either that or your "expert" doesn't have a clue. Make up your mind.

btw, it's truthers that believe "Active Thermitic Material has been Discovered in the Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". However, others in here, including myself, already know the explanation for that because it's like announcing that silica was discovered in the desert. So who do you think you're fooling with your regurgitated, debunked garbage? You're like a one-trick pony, always trotting out the same old lame links that you've been C&Ping for years in P&N and which have been thoroughly destroyed. Get some new material.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
[snip]

I don't care about your meaningless, vapid attempts at avoiding answering my question.

Why do you cite an expert and ignore his real conclusion? Answer the question.

simple, all the evidence was not presented to him. hows the training going with your new pseudoskeptics?



Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe


http://www.bentham-open.org/pa...02/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
abstract
"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

Flakes of rust found in a steel building? Shocking. I bet next thing you will suggest is airplanes are made of aluminum.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Is there hard evidence proving that the buildings did collapse from the fire?

For the love of god, YES. Every single sign points towards the buildings collapsing from the fires that were started by the planes hitting the towers. There are two separate government agencies (NIST, FEMA) that concluded that fact. Both have written extensive reports detailing how, and why, the buildings collapse. Both reports discuss the possibility of foul play and quickly discount it based on hard evidence.

Read the NIST report. I will not continue to cover for your apparent illiteracy or phobia of government websites.

Is there proof that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks?

Yup. There is a lots of proof. Everything from CIA reports that outline the attack prior to it happening to conclusive proof linking those who were on the planes with Al Queda.

Is there proof that Iraq had WMD or was linked to the attacks on 9/11?

Nope. This is a great example of complete deflection though.

Anyway, the burden of proof here is on you. There is a very good and truthful story out there about what happened. The reports contain physical evidence, they employ some of the best and brightest minds out there, they detail how and why things happened they way they did.

So here are some questions for you:

Who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks? The US government?

Is the NIST report total bullshit? Was the NIST bribed to conclude what they did? Was FEMA in on it? Did the US military refuse to take action to stop the planes? Were they in on it? Is every single person that agrees with the NIST report in on it too?

How did they sneak explosives into the buildings without being detected?

Did the conspiracy perpetrators use thermite or explosives?

Why did they hijack airplanes?

Why did they blow up WTC 7 when it wasn't hit by a plane?


That's a starter pack. Should be pretty easy for a guy like you. Yet, you continually skirt questions and simply try to attack an established position. Let me remind that the NIST report has: experts, physical evidence, a cohesive story, and a complete timeline of events. As far as I can tell, you've got nothing except an over-inflated ego and a belief that you aren't one of the sheeple.

Fair enough... I am gonna take a serious look at those reports. In the meanwhile, you can try to answer why they claimed the presence of molten steel was irrelevant to the investigation, and why the NIST director tried to deny its existence in such a manner that even the very notion of molten steel should supposedly be inconceivable and laughable.

 

[LunarRay]

Using the WTC 1 with the 15 story bloc as the mass attacking the floor below one might find there are about 2 gigajoules of energy available to pulverize 600 tons of concrete. Me thinks that is well enough energy to do this and proceed to the next floor and so on.

The pulverization and the energy consumed to do so does not invalidate the hypothesis that Planes and Fire only destroyed WTC 1 and since WTC 2 had a bigger bloc I conclude that WTC 2 also fits that criteria.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: munky
Fair enough... I am gonna take a serious look at those reports. In the meanwhile, you can try to answer why they claimed the presence of molten steel was irrelevant to the investigation, and why the NIST director tried to deny its existence in such a manner that even the very notion of molten steel should supposedly be inconceivable and laughable.

The problem is that you can't prove it was molten steel and not just molten metal. Aluminum, of which there was copious amounts, can easily melt under the temps produced. Prove it was molten steel first then ask your question. At the moment you're putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Number1]

from wiki:
The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in fringe fields where opposition from those within the scientific mainstream or from scientific skeptics is strong.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Number1
from wiki:
The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in fringe fields where opposition from those within the scientific mainstream or from scientific skeptics is strong.

Damn those scientists proving the fringe wrong. Fairies exist. It's true. Haven't you seen the pictures?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
tell me the truth in this observation. an engineer actually forensically investigating the wtc 7 debris.

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''

remember, this was only 8 dyas after the attack. 15.9 mm of a36 steel gone.

and dr astaneh also said:
ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf

The fact is that Mr. Astaneh-Asl concluded that the impacts and fires brought down the towers. He actually concluded later that it was because of a faulty design and never himself suggests that it was a demolition or that thermite was used. So why do you cite an expert yet ignore his conclusions?

Yours is a perfect example of how truthers glom on to one statement and try to blow it up into a huge conspiracy. That is their version of what the "truth" consists of. Fuck the forest and the trees. Focus on that one little leaf instead.

there are plenty of leaves to make a forest full of "vaporized" and "evaporated" steel.

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

"steel members" the man says...........read up on:
rj lee report
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC...20Morphology.Final.pdf

and
Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

http://www.journalof911studies...icles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

get it through your brain that extremly high temps were reached at the wtc sites. how you might ask?

aluminothermics!!
Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

http://www.bentham-open.org/pa...02/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Abstract
"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

Look, kiddo. You can't link anything on 9/11 that I haven't seen already. Your links prove nothing because YOU say nothing. You pretend to link to some "OMG" moments but you are nothing but a link and run type. You post copy & paste jobs yet can't even begin to explain what they mean in your own words. I've been on this merry-go-round with you enough times to know your MO so stop providing your crap to me because I know that you're a pretender and nothing more.

Besides that, you fail to address my previous comment. Why do you cite an expert and ignore his real conclusion? Answer the question.

this is also of interest. the fbi had to pre approve wtc photographs before they were released for public view. --- thats bull...link please????


"as of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. what concrete that wasnt pulverized into dust will continue to be removed for weeks to come. the structural steel is being removed and shipped by barge to be recycled.
all photographs shown on tv, shot on site were preapproved by the FBI. we were shown photographs that were not released for public view."

http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

ive read somewhere that there is a FOIA request to get the "not released for public view" shots.

the guy that wrote the article is james m williams president of SEAU.

so now we have the FBI restricting photos (from the context of the article, shots of molten metal), and regarding NIST?s work on the World Trade Center, everything had to be approved by the the National Security Agency!!!!!!

this is also of interest. the fbi had to pre approve wtc photographs before they were released for public view. --- thats bull...please provide a link concerning the FBI pre-approving .....pretty please????

 

[totalnoob]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe


http://www.bentham-open.org/pa...02/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
abstract
"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

to the pseudoskeptics-
this is your mission if you choose to accept it. think about how 15.9mm of a36 steel "corrodes" in just 8 days. that would be wtc 7 steel. i wanna see corrosion rates, how much sulfur content is needed for a eutectic to form at 1100C and all that jazzzzzzzz.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

btw, it's truthers that believe "Active Thermitic Material has been Discovered in the Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". So who do you think you're fooling with your regurgitated, debunked garbage?

Do you have a proper "debunking" explanation? I think it's pretty clear that the material was NOT simply rust, but a thermitic material. Calling people "troofer morons" for bringing up these questions is not a satisfactory answer.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: munky
Fair enough... I am gonna take a serious look at those reports. In the meanwhile, you can try to answer why they claimed the presence of molten steel was irrelevant to the investigation, and why the NIST director tried to deny its existence in such a manner that even the very notion of molten steel should supposedly be inconceivable and laughable.

The problem is that you can't prove it was molten steel and not just molten metal. Aluminum, of which there was copious amounts, can easily melt under the temps produced. Prove it was molten steel first then ask your question. At the moment you're putting the cart before the horse.

In the photos over the web, you can clearly see pieces of rubble glowing orange from the heat. Last I checked, molten aluminum, which does melt at much lower temperatures than iron, doesn't glow orange hot. And the photos show solid chunks of metal glowing orange from the heat. Sounds like aluminum to you? Not to me it doesn't.

Then I have to wonder what would cause the rubble to sustain such high temperatures for weeks after the collapse, especially after being dumped with rainwater, and being doused by fire fighters.

And, that still doesn't explain the ridiculous reaction from the director when being questioned about it.