• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Fire - not explosives - brought 7 WTC down on 9/11, says report

Page 12 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: KAZANI
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Go on to read the rest about your sulfidation and eutectic environment hocus pocus claims too. That's why I said previously that you clearly don't even know what those terms mean, but you continue to trot them out as if they are something significant in regard to the collapse. As the article from the Implosionworld experts state, there was no sign of controlled demolition so whatever caused the anomalies, it wasn't a CD. The article above also points out the lack of barium. If thermate was used, where's the barium. Another GLARING problem with your thermate scenario is that thermate leaves highly visible signs of residue on steel when used as a method of cutting. With the amount of thermate that would have been necessary to perform a controlled demolition of the towers and/or WTC7, there should have been large amounts of thermate residue readily visible yet not a single expert that examined the site notes anything of the sort.

But I'm sure you'll read the above, tightly clench your eyes together, put your head down, and bull on forward in your quest for conspiracy theorist stupid because no amount of reasoning or the exposure of your ignorance will stop you from espousing your "truth." Damn those multitudes of facts that completely argue against your claims and show them as empty and vapid. Full speed ahead on that truther train, regardless of the truth.

:roll:
The implosionworld article is full of erroneous claims which hurt its credibility. For instance, on commenting on ASSERTION #1:
every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors"first
For guys who want to pose as super-experts on CD's they seem quite ignorant of widespread practices in their industry field:
Top-Down Controlled Demolition?
Another top-down CD

I would like to comment alot more further on this article but I can't be arsed with transfering text I want to quote by typing it, just because the authors put ludicrus restrictions on copying text on that pdf (nice retarding tactics :p). If you want you may read a rebuttal at http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pil...dex.php?showtopic=5126 (although I don't endorse it in its entirety)

About barium in thermate: barium nitrate is only used in military-grade thermate and is not necessary for it to work. Its addition to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and reduces the ignition temperature. http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DO...ption&id=6766744&HL=ON

We can go back and forth with these arguments-counterarguments for a long time. Why can't you people accept the fact that truthers are not slabbering cretins who gobble up any piece of misinformation thrown at their way, without critical thought?

Edit: Spelling
Because the factual errors in the claims most truthers make are absolutely astounding. Not to mention the fact that the "conspiracy" they point to is amorphous and constantly changes depending on which parts of their "evidence" are thrown out.

Please, outline a real conspiracy theory for me and explain who was involved because nobody seems to be able to do that.

Look at how the stupidity in this thread has proceeded:
- We had claims that there was molten steel which has been "ignored," only to hear that the NIST did anything BUT ignore it, they addressed their reasons for not considering it in part of their investigation.
- Then we had claims about explosives in the WTC buildings for which there isn't any evidence besides scattered reports from a few individuals claiming they heard someone else tell them there was a bomb in the building. The "explosions" that are "so obviously bombs" could basically be anything -- collapsing concrete, exploding power transformers, etc -- not to mention that the prime "explosive" most truthers cling to is thermite, which doesn't explode.
- Then we had claims that Larry Silverstein intentionally demolished the buildings. Not only does that make no financial sense whatsoever, but why would he be telling the FDNY to demolish a building?
- There are still the anti-Semetic claims that the Jews did it, but those are so ridiculous I don't think it's even worth addressing.

There are thousands of holes in the overall truther story and, instead of even addressing them, truthers bury there heads in the sand and latch onto the minutia.

A conspiracy like most truthers claim would have involved thousands of people, thousands upon thousands of pounds of explosives, miles of detonation cord, and months of discrete demolitions placing in three of the busiest buildings in Manhattan. After the towers came down, all of these people would need to be silenced and all possible shreds of evidence would need to be destroyed.

Yet, not a single person has stepped forward and said "I was involved in this conspiracy." None of the firemen who responded to 9/11 and passed away left any mention of a conspiracy. There isn't a single shred of evidence for a controlled demolition of any of the
towers.

Again, here is a list of the people involved according to event8horizon:

FDNY, NYPD, NIST, FEMA, CIA, Mossad, SA hijackers, Individuals who planted explosives, and Larry Silverstein (and I'm probably forgetting a few).

Thousands of people.

Thousands of people with nothing to gain by lying for the perpetrators of this attack. For example, why the hell would the NIST lie? Unless "the government" (who?) got to every single person in that agency, it's THEIR JOB to determine why buildings collapse.

Thousands of pounds of material.

No one has said anything.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
From the truthers' POV, no one is going to step forward and admit anything.

However, given the size of the conspiracy, does one think that everyone can keep their mouth shut and no-one (even the slime rags) can not pick up a hint of what the truthers claim.

Every truthers' claims becomes riddled with scientific holes; once that happens, they find something else and/or take the words that are mis-quoted and turn them into gospel.

Like some on this forum, cherry picking phrases to support their POV and conveniently ignoring the disclaimers before and afterwords because it would reflect poorly on their judgment.

This thread has become exactly what was feared; nothing new and another discredit that is wasting bandwidth
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: event8horizon

can u tell me who exactly silverstein talked to when he gave his famous "pull it" order.

ive been trying to find the guy on the other end of his phone but with no luck.
Come on man get with the program.

It's his buildings, he can do with what he wants with them.
(a phone in the middle of the conference table rings. Kristol picks is up.)

Kristol: Hello? Who's this? Oh, hey, Larry. A gast in shetl! I'll put you on speaker! (cups phone, presses speaker button; addresses others) It's Larry Silverstein, the WTC landlord.

Silverstein: Hey guys! Vos makht ir?

Cheney: Not bad, Larry, how goes it?

Silverstein: In dr'erd afn dek! Just awful! But we get by, you know.

Cheney: What can we do you for, Larry?

Silverstein: Oh, hey, well, a little birdie told me that you guys were planning on blowing up my building complex and blaming it on Islamic terrorists!

Cheney: We all have our hobbies, Larry.

Silverstein: Well, naturally, you have my assent. Anything to grease the wheels of international capitalism. Also, as a landlord, I love seeing my tenants burned to death and jumping out of high windows on live television and that sort of thing. Plus, I'm a Jew, you know, I have horns. Paul, how's your family?

Wolfowitz: Oh, Larry, don't ask. Clare just last week popped her bursa sac building a sukkah. But does anyone live a life without troubles these days?

Silverstein: Things just keep getting worse and worse, you're right there. Listen, fellas, about that building complex ...

Cheney: Yes?

Silverstein: Do you think you could make sure that the WTC-7 building goes down, too? See, the thing is, I just signed a new insurance deal with Industrial Risk Insurers, this could all work out very nicely for me ...

Cheney: Larry, it's such an amazing coincidence, we were just talking about that. As it happens, we need to destroy the building to get rid of the evidence anyway. So say no more about that, we'll take care of it.

Wolfowitz: Well, say no more until it happens. Then you might just want to casually mention near a PBS camera that you're planning on "pulling" the building.

Silverstein: What does "pulling" mean?

Cheney: Well, it's not a demolition term, but some will say it is. We're thinking you might just want to make a little admission in that direction.

Silverstein: Before my insurance investigation is concluded? At exactly the time when such an admission would cost me my entire settlement? Consider it done!

All: Thanks, Larry.

Silverstein: You bet, fellas! See you on the links. Mazel tov! Oh, hey, Paul--

Wolfowitz: Yes?

Silverstein: Pull my finger, Paul! Pull it!

Wolfowitz: You bet I'll "pull it," you mensch!

Silverstein: Later!

(Silverstein hangs up)

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: KAZANI
The implosionworld article is full of erroneous claims which hurt its credibility. For instance, on commenting on ASSERTION #1:
every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors"first
For guys who want to pose as super-experts on CD's they seem quite ignorant of widespread practices in their industry field:
Top-Down Controlled Demolition?
Another top-down CD
"While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize control as the structure collapses..."

Any reason you decided to omit that statement and parse the sentence? Was it because it doesn't exactly fit your narrative?

You first video in no way shows a "top-down" implosion. The first blasts began in the center and then the bottom blasts occur. Of course, as the Implosionworld article stated, and I'll repeat it for you:

"While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize control as the structure collapses..."

The second video is of a barge, not a building. So why yank anyone's chain with that crap? Are the CTs so desperate to find anything they can throw at the Implosionworld article to attempt to discredit it? And, frnakly, if conspiracy theorists want to live by the credo that if you're wrong once you're completely discredited they'd all be balled up in a corner sucking their thumbs right now.

I would like to comment alot more further on this article but I can't be arsed with transfering text I want to quote by typing it, just because the authors put ludicrus restrictions on copying text on that pdf (nice retarding tactics :p). If you want you may read a rebuttal at http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pil...dex.php?showtopic=5126 (although I don't endorse it in its entirety)
And what's this guys' credentials that he can debunk demolition industry experts? Let me guess. He flew a Cessna a few times and calls himself a pilot?

About barium in thermate: barium nitrate is only used in military-grade thermate and is not necessary for it to work. Its addition to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and reduces the ignition temperature. http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DO...ption&id=6766744&HL=ON
Steven Jones has used videos of the military variety of thermate to illustrate his claim. Not only that, but raising the ignition temperature brings more questions concerning how the thermate Jone's claims was there was ignited in the first place since even the military variety is notoriously difficult to ignite.

I noticed you completely sidestepped my statement about the thermate residue as well.

We can go back and forth with these arguments-counterarguments for a long time. Why can't you people accept the fact that truthers are not slabbering cretins who gobble up any piece of misinformation thrown at their way, without critical thought?

Edit: Spelling
If they didn't appear to be slobbering cretins grasping at weak straws to back up their story, which they do, then they wouldn't appear as such. As it is we see truthers who seem to believe that copying & pasting from websites is a form of high intellect and informed knowledge. There's absolutely no display of rationality, or reasoning skills. They deflect, evade, avoid, cherry-pick, misquote, dissemble, rely on hearsay consistently, and repeatedly try to redirect discussions when being pinned down to answer a question. That's why I think truthers are cretins.
 

Bwatkins

Junior Member
Sep 2, 2008
9
0
0
Can't believe some of the people in here who think that our government actually had something to do with the attacks of 9/11. The President as well as the soldiers stepped up to bat for this country time and time again to defend our freedom.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: Bwatkins
Can't believe some of the people in here who think that our government actually had something to do with the attacks of 9/11. The President as well as the soldiers stepped up to bat for this country time and time again to defend our freedom.
The notion itself is not uber far fetched, and members of the military or gov't have in the past, at least theoretically considered the effect of staging terrorist attacks on the US population to drum up support for this or that war.

The problem is the scale and scope and horrific logic presented in support of these allegations vis a vis 9/11 as opposed to any, ANY!, credible evidence that there is a conspiracy of the kind that is purported to be at play here. All we face in threads like these are coincidences, assumptions and unanswered questions all of which according to the CTs have a nefarious provenance instead of a benign one.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,385
1,517
126
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
From the truthers' POV, no one is going to step forward and admit anything.

However, given the size of the conspiracy, does one think that everyone can keep their mouth shut and no-one (even the slime rags) can not pick up a hint of what the truthers claim.

Every truthers' claims becomes riddled with scientific holes; once that happens, they find something else and/or take the words that are mis-quoted and turn them into gospel.

Like some on this forum, cherry picking phrases to support their POV and conveniently ignoring the disclaimers before and afterwords because it would reflect poorly on their judgment.

This thread has become exactly what was feared; nothing new and another discredit that is wasting bandwidth
This. I mean srsly, this was hashed to death in a 700 post OT thread.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
Originally posted by: ElFenix
silverstein didn't give the order to 'pull' the firefighting operations. Assistant Chief Frank Fellini did.
did u notice the time he gave.

Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.

now google frank fellini + silverstein. i still havent found who he exactly talked too.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: event8horizon
i read it. it does not mention what one of the scientist that analyzed that sample said about the wtc 7 site. your article said nothig abnormal was found.

"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."

and remember, fema wanted to research what the hell happened to that piece of steel in more detail.
nist "final" report states the structural damage did NOT contribute to the collapse sequence. they modeled the collapse without the damage too. "termal - expansion" was what they say brought the building down.

now, if what dr barnett says is correct, i dont see why he would lie, that there were "steel members in the debris pile"......that is pleural....partly evaporated. like i said before, what would they say if column 79 looked like that.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...=&spon=&pagewanted=all
http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_1_0.pdf

The second misleading editorial maneuver is that he is ?quoting Glanz?s paraphrase?
rather than Dr. Barnett?s actual words. Glanz is James Glanz of the New York Times,
who reported on this subject on 29 November 2001, and the words extracted by Dr.
Griffin are Mr. Glanz?s, not Dr. Barnett?s. This calls the word ?evaporated? into question
? not least because the vaporization temperature of steel is roughly 2700oC, an absurdly
high temperature, but also because the article itself has been edited. Comparison of the
original archived online [151] versus the final title from the Times [152] demonstrates
that the Mr. Glanz changed the focus of his column, originally referring to it as
?Engineers are Baffled,? but later retitling it ?Engineers Have A Culprit.? Indeed, in the
article none of the engineers interviewed, including Silvain Marcus, one of the original
engineers who designed WTC 7, states any disbelief or suspicion of explosives. The
debate is whether diesel fuel or utility lines were required for the structure to fall, or the
fire would have caused the collapse even without these additional fuel sources.
Can we verify that no steel ?evaporated,? according to Biederman, Sisson, and Barnett?
Indeed we can, by going directly to the source. Biederman et. al. reported on their
findings as follows:
The as-fabricated microstructure consisted of a hot worked banded structure of ferrite and pearlite.
In severely "eroded" regions where the thickness had been reduced to less than a 1/16 of an inch
significant decarburation was observed. In addition, some pearlite bands presented regions that
had re-austentized as well as regions where the pearlite had started to spheroidize. These
observations indicate that steel had experienced temperature between 550 and 850oC.
An examination of the "slag" that formed on the surface of the steel found iron oxides and iron
sulfides. It appeared that the "slag" was liquid at high temperature and easily attacked the grain
boundaries. A eutectic microstructure was seen within the "slag" of iron oxides and iron sulfides.
If these compounds were pure Wustite (FeO) and Iron sulfide (FeS), the eutectic temperature is
940oC. It appears that the severe "erosion" was due to the sulfidation and oxidation (i.e. hot
corrosion) of the steel followed by the liquid "slag" attack of the grain boundaries. [153]
Dr. Biederman clearly indicates that the temperature of the sample had never exceeded
850 oC, which is nowhere near steel vaporization temperature, well below steel melting
temperature, and quite plausible in an ordinary fire. Dr. Griffin has therefore completely
changed the words of these scientists with his misquoting.
Go on to read the rest about your sulfidation and eutectic environment hocus pocus claims too. That's why I said previously that you clearly don't even know what those terms mean, but you continue to trot them out as if they are something significant in regard to the collapse. As the article from the Implosionworld experts state, there was no sign of controlled demolition so whatever caused the anomalies, it wasn't a CD. The article above also points out the lack of barium. If thermate was used, where's the barium. Another GLARING problem with your thermate scenario is that thermate leaves highly visible signs of residue on steel when used as a method of cutting. With the amount of thermate that would have been necessary to perform a controlled demolition of the towers and/or WTC7, there should have been large amounts of thermate residue readily visible yet not a single expert that examined the site notes anything of the sort.

But I'm sure you'll read the above, tightly clench your eyes together, put your head down, and bull on forward in your quest for conspiracy theorist stupid because no amount of reasoning or the exposure of your ignorance will stop you from espousing your "truth." Damn those multitudes of facts that completely argue against your claims and show them as empty and vapid. Full speed ahead on that truther train, regardless of the truth.

:roll:

i do agree with u that his use of "evaporated" probably didnt literally mean evaporated. he say steel that was f'ed up. but my point is that he said "steel members in the debris pile"......that is pleural....like i said before, what would they say if column 79 looked like that.
i just got done watching that bbc documentary about wtc 7. dr bartlett said he picked that piece of steel up not in the debris pile but where they transported it. but from the above quote, he said "steel members". pleural. so how much of these beams were out there that looked like that. im going to email this guy (if i can find his email) and find out when and how much of this shit he saw. so they admit to slag now. maybe they will start beliving the eyewittnesses that talk about molten metal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv

as for where the sulfur came from, there is NO scientific experiment that has concluded where it came from. diesel fuel??? wallboard???? give me an experiment i can read about that fema or nist did.

fromThe fires, which began at over 1,000 °C, gradually cooled, at least on the surface, during September and October 2001. USGS's AVIRIS also measured temperatures when it flew over ground zero on Sept. 16 and 23. On Sept. 16, it picked up more than three dozen hot spots of varying size and temperature, roughly between 500 and 700 °C. By Sept. 23, only two or three of the hot spots remained, and those were sharply reduced in intensity, Clark said.

However, Clark doesn't know how deep into the pile AVIRIS could see. The infrared data certainly revealed surface temperatures, yet the smoldering piles below the surface may have remained at much higher temperatures. "In mid-October, in the evening," said Thomas A. Cahill, a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis, "when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C.

there are pics out there with temps greater then "dull red".

now check out this pic at the end of the NASA flyby.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/o...-0429/thermal.r09.html

note this was taken 5 days after. now by your logic, this steel could potentially corrude at those temps mentioned. check out where "A" is. does it look familiar. its the debris pile where wtc 7 is. look close. it looks to me that "A" is also where column 79 was. what a coincidence. and guess what, site "A" is red and if u look at the temp scale at the bottom, its the highest on their chart.

like i asked before, if column 79 came out of the pile looking like sample a from the fema report, would u want to know more about how that sample underwent such an attack.


 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: event8horizon
i do agree with u that his use of "evaporated" probably didnt literally mean evaporated. he say steel that was f'ed up. but my point is that he said "steel members in the debris pile"......that is pleural....like i said before, what would they say if column 79 looked like that.
i just got done watching that bbc documentary about wtc 7. dr bartlett said he picked that piece of steel up not in the debris pile but where they transported it. but from the above quote, he said "steel members". pleural. so how much of these beams were out there that looked like that. im going to email this guy (if i can find his email) and find out when and how much of this shit he saw. so they admit to slag now. maybe they will start beliving the eyewittnesses that talk about molten metal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv
Are you daft? Seriously? I just showed you that those were not Dr. Barnett's actual words, yet you actually place quotes around them as if they were. Do you even know what a paraphrase is?

Sheesh!

Then you go on rambling about molten steel. Was that claim made by any professional engineers or metallurgists? Nope. They were made by people that probably barely made it out of high-school. How do they know they were seeing molten steel? The WTC was composed of all kinds of metal, including a hell of a lot of aluminum. What temp does aluminum melt at?

If you're so big on tests for verification then why don't you demand a test of that "molten steel" that rely so heavily on? Oddly enough you seem to see no need to verify that claim.

as for where the sulfur came from, there is NO scientific experiment that has concluded where it came from. diesel fuel??? wallboard???? give me an experiment i can read about that fema or nist did.
FEMA's and NIST's job is to determine why the towers collapsed and to provide a lesson learned for future building designs. The fact is that it doesn't matter where the sulfur came from because it wasn't a factor in the collapse so they have no reason to test it. Besides that, if the sulfur was in the thermate to begin with it would have undergone a chemical reaction. Additionally, thermate is typically only 2% sulfur. How was enough sulfur left over after the thermate reaction to be any significant amount?

fromThe fires, which began at over 1,000 °C, gradually cooled, at least on the surface, during September and October 2001. USGS's AVIRIS also measured temperatures when it flew over ground zero on Sept. 16 and 23. On Sept. 16, it picked up more than three dozen hot spots of varying size and temperature, roughly between 500 and 700 °C. By Sept. 23, only two or three of the hot spots remained, and those were sharply reduced in intensity, Clark said.

However, Clark doesn't know how deep into the pile AVIRIS could see. The infrared data certainly revealed surface temperatures, yet the smoldering piles below the surface may have remained at much higher temperatures. "In mid-October, in the evening," said Thomas A. Cahill, a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis, "when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C.

there are pics out there with temps greater then "dull red".

now check out this pic at the end of the NASA flyby.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/o...-0429/thermal.r09.html

note this was taken 5 days after. now by your logic, this steel could potentially corrude at those temps mentioned. check out where "A" is. does it look familiar. its the debris pile where wtc 7 is. look close. it looks to me that "A" is also where column 79 was. what a coincidence. and guess what, site "A" is red and if u look at the temp scale at the bottom, its the highest on their chart.

like i asked before, if column 79 came out of the pile looking like sample a from the fema report, would u want to know more about how that sample underwent such an attack.
You put a lot of mumbo jumbo out like the above yet you never actually come to any conclusion. What is your own conclusion from the above? Tell us, for once and in your own words, what you believe the NASA fly-by proves.
 

Number1

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,557
65
91
This reminds me of the plane on a thread mill discusions. Many people just could not comprehend how the plane would take off until the mythbusters put a plane on a treadmill and it took off. Unfortunately with 911, no such demonstration is possible and we have to accept that some people will never be able to understand what really happened. TLC, you are putting a valiant effort but it is futile. They will never understand.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
Originally posted by: Number1
This reminds me of the plane on a thread mill discusions. Many people just could not comprehend how the plane would take off until the mythbusters put a plane on a treadmill and it took off. Unfortunately with 911, no such demonstration is possible and we have to accept that some people will never be able to understand what really happened. TLC, you are putting a valiant effort but it is futile. They will never understand.

maybe u could find me a scientific study that looks into where the hell that sulfur came from then???
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
tlc-
that post said nothing of barnett deneying that he used the word "evaporated". i cant verify this is actually barnett but i did find this which makes sense to me. imo barnett didnt know what to make of that steel so he used the word evaporated to describe it in the beginning.
this is from an email exchage:

Dear Prof. Barnett,
I came across the following comment made by you to James Glanz of the
New York Times of November 29, 2001, regarding the collapse of WTC 7 on
September 11, 2001:
"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."
I was wondering what prompted you to state that steel members have been
"partly evaporated in extraordinary high temperatures". Did you follow up this observation?

I would be most grateful for your observations.
Sincerely yours,
Elias Davidsson 31 Dec. 2006


barnetts response-
Those were early observations. Since then, a metallurgical study
was completed (see the ASCE/FEMA BPAT report). Please let me know
if you have any more questions.
Jonathan 2 January 2007

http://www.aldeilis.net/englis...ntent&do_pdf=1&id=2038

we will get into what i think "A" represents on that nasa flyover tom.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Jesus fucking christ I wish Larry Silverstein and his Mossad contacts would come in here and "pull" this thread.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: event8horizon
tlc-
that post said nothing of barnett deneying that he used the word "evaporated". i cant verify this is actually barnett but i did find this which makes sense to me. imo barnett didnt know what to make of that steel so he used the word evaporated to describe it in the beginning.
this is from an email exchage:

Dear Prof. Barnett,
I came across the following comment made by you to James Glanz of the
New York Times of November 29, 2001, regarding the collapse of WTC 7 on
September 11, 2001:
"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."
I was wondering what prompted you to state that steel members have been
"partly evaporated in extraordinary high temperatures". Did you follow up this observation?

I would be most grateful for your observations.
Sincerely yours,
Elias Davidsson 31 Dec. 2006


barnetts response-
Those were early observations. Since then, a metallurgical study
was completed (see the ASCE/FEMA BPAT report). Please let me know
if you have any more questions.
Jonathan 2 January 2007

http://www.aldeilis.net/englis...ntent&do_pdf=1&id=2038

we will get into what i think "A" represents on that nasa flyover tom.
Stop trying to redirect the conversation. I've asked you question after question that you completely ignore and provide no answer to. You're moving far beyond irritating now to a full fledged dipshit. Shut up with your incessant, ignorant questioning tactic and start providing some answers of your own, which you continually fail to do. Stop your evasions and thinking you're fooling anyone with your idiotic behavior, dumbass.

And to remind you:

The second misleading editorial maneuver is that he is ?quoting Glanz?s paraphrase?
rather than Dr. Barnett?s actual words.
Glanz is James Glanz of the New York Times,
who reported on this subject on 29 November 2001, and the words extracted by Dr.
Griffin are Mr. Glanz?s, not Dr. Barnett?s. This calls the word ?evaporated? into question
? not least because the vaporization temperature of steel is roughly 2700oC, an absurdly
high temperature, but also because the article itself has been edited.
 

KAZANI

Senior member
Sep 10, 2006
527
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: KAZANI
The implosionworld article is full of erroneous claims which hurt its credibility. For instance, on commenting on ASSERTION #1:
every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors"first
For guys who want to pose as super-experts on CD's they seem quite ignorant of widespread practices in their industry field:
Top-Down Controlled Demolition?
Another top-down CD
"While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize control as the structure collapses..."

Any reason you decided to omit that statement and parse the sentence? Was it because it doesn't exactly fit your narrative?
Which part of first do you have difficulty understanding? He says, that they ALWAYS blow the bottom floors first. The second part of the sentence has no bearing on this.

You first video in no way shows a "top-down" implosion. The first blasts began in the center and then the bottom blasts occur.
I see, you want to see a floor by floor demolition to call it "top-down". But:

The second video is of a barge, not a building.
Well, you're a prissy little chap, aren't you? Okay, let's play your little wordplay here. The article calls it a "structure" and that is also the term used in Blanchard's article; hence get off my back! Seriously now, what are you saying, that they use the top-down implosion style for *barges* only, not...buildings?

Then you go on rambling about molten steel. Was that claim made by any professional engineers or metallurgists? Nope. They were made by people that probably barely made it out of high-school. How do they know they were seeing molten steel? The WTC was composed of all kinds of metal, including a hell of a lot of aluminum. What temp does aluminum melt at?
Aluminum is not glowing red while molten but has a rather silvery appearance resembling mercury. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...JWwhnA&feature=related

And then of course there are the "meteorites":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...w7fSG8&feature=related.
http://www.amny.com/entertainm....photogallery?index=35


But even discussing the nature of that molten metal is a unacceptable by people of your ilk, since there was no metal to begin with. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36bkCB8sTY

Those experts of yours did a great job ignoring and destroying evidence on the crime scene. Where is the systematic tagging and examination of debris that those scientists had a duty to do? Jonathan Barnett, PhD. Fire Protection Engineer charged with investigation of WTC7-collapse debris-field Why was the debris gone? Truthers have a legitimate reason to be suspicious of all these great anomalies pertaining to 9/11 and you people crying foul about "holes" in truther science is shamefull. NIST took 7 years and they still have holes in theirs, so much so that they needed to invent a new phenomenon to fill it. But I guess for you, if it's coming from some authority source it's the truth. You simply fill in the reasons why they should omit any evidence that is against the official story and, personally, I can never see myself in the same way carrying water to the mill of a government that has been documented to plan and conduct global terrorism behind various facades.

Keep training your ears to hear the explosions heard on WTC as "exploding power transformers", thinking 3 million for 9/11 investigation compared to 40 million for Lewinski BJ is a good deal and your deceitful administration will soon sell you another war.

EDIT: fixing links
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: KAZANI
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: KAZANI
The implosionworld article is full of erroneous claims which hurt its credibility. For instance, on commenting on ASSERTION #1:
every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors"first
For guys who want to pose as super-experts on CD's they seem quite ignorant of widespread practices in their industry field:
Top-Down Controlled Demolition?
Another top-down CD
"While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize control as the structure collapses..."

Any reason you decided to omit that statement and parse the sentence? Was it because it doesn't exactly fit your narrative?
Which part of first do you have difficulty understanding? He says, that they ALWAYS blow the bottom floors first. The second part of the sentence has no bearing on this.

You first video in no way shows a "top-down" implosion. The first blasts began in the center and then the bottom blasts occur.
I see, you want to see a floor by floor demolition to call it "top-down". But:

The second video is of a barge, not a building.
Well, you're a prissy little chap, aren't you? Okay, let's play your little wordplay here. The article calls it a "structure" and that is also the term used in Blanchard's article; hence get off my back! Seriously now, what are you saying, that they use the top-down implosion style for *barges* only, not...buildings?

Then you go on rambling about molten steel. Was that claim made by any professional engineers or metallurgists? Nope. They were made by people that probably barely made it out of high-school. How do they know they were seeing molten steel? The WTC was composed of all kinds of metal, including a hell of a lot of aluminum. What temp does aluminum melt at?
Aluminum is not glowing red while molten but has a rather silvery appearance resembling mercury. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...JWwhnA&feature=related

And then of course there are the "meteorites":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...w7fSG8&feature=related.
http://www.amny.com/entertainm....photogallery?index=35


But even discussing the nature of that molten metal is a unacceptable by people of your ilk, since there was no metal to begin with. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36bkCB8sTY

Those experts of yours did a great job ignoring and destroying evidence on the crime scene. Where is the systematic tagging and examination of debris that those scientists had a duty to do? Jonathan Barnett, PhD. Fire Protection Engineer charged with investigation of WTC7-collapse debris-field Why was the debris gone? Truthers have a legitimate reason to be suspicious of all these great anomalies pertaining to 9/11 and you people crying foul about "holes" in truther science is shamefull. NIST took 7 years and they still have holes in theirs, so much so that they needed to invent a new phenomenon to fill it. But I guess for you, if it's coming from some authority source it's the truth. You simply fill in the reasons why they should omit any evidence that is against the official story and, personally, I can never see myself in the same way carrying water to the mill of a government that has been documented to plan and conduct global terrorism behind various facades.

Keep training your ears to hear the explosions heard on WTC as "exploding power transformers", thinking 3 million for 9/11 investigation compared to 40 million for Lewinski BJ is a good deal and your deceitful administration will soon sell you another war.

EDIT: fixing links
Do we really have to go through this again?

1) The metal that leaked out of the WTC wasn't pure aluminum. Therefore, showing a link to pure aluminum being melted proves zero.
2) As for your "meteorites," the NIST (remember, they're experts at this stuff) stated that they don't believe that any molten material on the ground is proof of anything involving the collapse and cite the fact that the temperatures at Ground Zero remained extremely hot for months afterwards. Again, proving zero.
3) The NIST, the ASCE, and the SEONY all state that molten metal was present at ground zero
The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
Note, there's a huge difference between mountains of molten steel and molten metal, something which shoots right over the head of most people.
4) In regards to your "crime scene" statement, it wasn't a crime scene. There is ZERO circumstantial evidence to support a controlled demolition of the buildings. None, zip, zero, nada. Nobody saw anything, nobody heard anything, nobody stepped forward, there's no physical evidence of demolitions equipment, there's no traces of explosives. Why the hell would the NIST waste time investigating something for which there is no evidence? If you wanted them to investigate for explosives, then why didn't they investigate for other possibilities such as rats eating through the steel beams or Chuck Norris kicking the WTC down?
5)
Keep training your ears to hear the explosions heard on WTC as "exploding power transformers", thinking 3 million for 9/11 investigation compared to 40 million for Lewinski BJ is a good deal and your deceitful administration will soon sell you another war.
If there were "explosions" why is there no visual evidence? Nothing. Why didn't we find any detonation cords, why didn't anybody see the thousands of pounds of explosives necessarily to stage a "controlled demolition?"

Okay, my turn.

Who blew up the WTC?
Why would they do so?
What did they use to do it?
Who planted the explosives?
How did they sneak thousands of pounds of explosives and detonation cords into three of the busiest buildings in lower Manhattan without a single person seeing them?


There were huge fires raging in WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. Last I checked, detonation cord doesn't survive exposure to open flame very well, so how, particularly in the case of WTC 7, did it survive fires for nearly eight hours without setting off any of the explosives prematurely?

Oh, and just for the record, here's who you think is involved in 9/11 based on that post:
Terrorists, NIST, FEMA, ASCE, SEONY.

Congratulations. That's basically a thousand people, most of whom are highly qualified structural engineers who have made a career out of determining why buildings collapse. What is their motivation for making stuff up?

If you want to understand why I've completely lost patience with these conspiracy theories, check out this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE

event8horizon links to it, claiming it's proof there is a bomb in WTC 7. I initially said that statements like these are hard to take at face value because of the confusion, but I did a little digging and the truth surprised me. Now the Youtube video claims this took place "seconds before the collapse." He doesn't say what collapse, but I think most people assume it is WTC 7.

I took a look at America, We will Never Forget and there is a big piece of this footage there. Well, guess what he's really talking about? The bomb scare at Stuyvesant High School, not the World Trade Center.

That example is indicative of the lack of critical thinking that is done by many who buy into the conspiracy. They WANT to believe in it, so they twist everything they can to fit their story and do zero (I mean zero) follow-up or reading on their own. They take every other truther's statements as fact, and refuse to even examine their credentials.

It is infuriating to me that the NIST, an organization that was ordered to investigate the 9/11 collapse and an organization who strives to understand what makes buildings collapse is called into question by a bunch of people with a profound inability to assess a situation without bias.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
There are no facts to research.

They hope to pull the wool over people because that is what happened to them.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: KAZANI
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: KAZANI
The implosionworld article is full of erroneous claims which hurt its credibility. For instance, on commenting on ASSERTION #1:
every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors"first
For guys who want to pose as super-experts on CD's they seem quite ignorant of widespread practices in their industry field:
Top-Down Controlled Demolition?
Another top-down CD
"While smaller supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize control as the structure collapses..."

Any reason you decided to omit that statement and parse the sentence? Was it because it doesn't exactly fit your narrative?
Which part of first do you have difficulty understanding? He says, that they ALWAYS blow the bottom floors first. The second part of the sentence has no bearing on this.
No, what he says is that they "always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure." As the video of the building you linked shows, they concentrated their efforts on the lowest floors of the structure because you can see all the lower floors crumbling first. You don't see the upper floors crumbling and coming down on the lower floors. In fact, it's quite the opposite so your own video flies in the face of your own claim.

You first video in no way shows a "top-down" implosion. The first blasts began in the center and then the bottom blasts occur.
I see, you want to see a floor by floor demolition to call it "top-down". But:

The second video is of a barge, not a building.
Well, you're a prissy little chap, aren't you? Okay, let's play your little wordplay here. The article calls it a "structure" and that is also the term used in Blanchard's article; hence get off my back! Seriously now, what are you saying, that they use the top-down implosion style for *barges* only, not...buildings?
Blanchards article uses the term "building" repeatedly.

"It is not how or when the buildings failed, but where they failed."

"Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized."

btw, if you want to play words games - "every implosion ever performed has followed the basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, "to get the structure moving."

The barge video is a demolition, not an implosion.

Then you go on rambling about molten steel. Was that claim made by any professional engineers or metallurgists? Nope. They were made by people that probably barely made it out of high-school. How do they know they were seeing molten steel? The WTC was composed of all kinds of metal, including a hell of a lot of aluminum. What temp does aluminum melt at?
Aluminum is not glowing red while molten but has a rather silvery appearance resembling mercury. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...JWwhnA&feature=related
More truther sleight of hand. From NIST:

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

That applies to the molten aluminum coming from the building prior to the collapse as well as any that would have been heated to high temps in the ground post-collapse.

And then of course there are the "meteorites":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...w7fSG8&feature=related.
http://www.amny.com/entertainm....photogallery?index=35


But even discussing the nature of that molten metal is a unacceptable by people of your ilk, since there was no metal to begin with. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v36bkCB8sTY
Stuff your disingenious bs where the sun doesn't shine. Saying there was no "molten steel" != no molten metal. But thanks for yet another stellar example of the kind of slight of hand that truthers so often engage in.

Those experts of yours did a great job ignoring and destroying evidence on the crime scene. Where is the systematic tagging and examination of debris that those scientists had a duty to do? Jonathan Barnett, PhD. Fire Protection Engineer charged with investigation of WTC7-collapse debris-field Why was the debris gone? Truthers have a legitimate reason to be suspicious of all these great anomalies pertaining to 9/11 and you people crying foul about "holes" in truther science is shamefull. NIST took 7 years and they still have holes in theirs, so much so that they needed to invent a new phenomenon to fill it. But I guess for you, if it's coming from some authority source it's the truth. You simply fill in the reasons why they should omit any evidence that is against the official story and, personally, I can never see myself in the same way carrying water to the mill of a government that has been documented to plan and conduct global terrorism behind various facades.

Keep training your ears to hear the explosions heard on WTC as "exploding power transformers", thinking 3 million for 9/11 investigation compared to 40 million for Lewinski BJ is a good deal and your deceitful administration will soon sell you another war.

EDIT: fixing links
You whine about holes while ignoring that your own paranoid, whacky ass claims have the biggest holes of all; holes that people of your ilk patently ignore because looking at them would make you realize how ignorant your claims really are. Nothing of any real substance supports your delusional ideas. If there was anything at all behind your conspiracy claims the clues would all point in one single direction. But even you truthers can't come to a single conclusion. Instead there's a whole gaggle of truthers that argue amongst themselves exactly how it happened. Missiles, no-planes, mass hypnosis, micro-nukes, the twin towers really had a concrete core, blah, blah, blah. You guys are all over the place.

Truthers are so stupid it makes one's head spin.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
tlc-
did bartlett deny saying "evaporated"
i dont think so.

barnetts response-
Those were early observations. Since then, a metallurgical study
was completed (see the ASCE/FEMA BPAT report). Please let me know
if you have any more questions.
Jonathan 2 January 2007
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
more "vaporized" steel from wtc 7.
this guy was there 8 days after 911. this piece of steel had to been on top of the pile. and note that he said it "burned first, then buckeled". so how do fires "vaporize" steel????

He arrives in New York on September 19 to conduct a two-week scientific reconnaissance of the collapsed towers, hoping to gain an understanding of how they had come down.

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.''
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F931A35753C1A9679C8B63

 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
more unusual things Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl saw conserning the wtc's. again, think about what the fema sample one said about wtc 7. did this happen before the towers fell or after??? and again, he got there 8 days after they fell.

http://www.historycommons.org/...ds#a091901astanehfinds

He later recalls, ?I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center.? [PBS, 5/10/2007]

He notes that steel has bent at several connection points that had joined the floors of the WTC to the vertical columns. He describes the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, ?If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted?it?s kind of like that.? He adds, ?That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot?perhaps around 2,000 degrees.? [Chronicle of Higher Education, 12/7/2001]

Astaneh-Asl says that steel flanges have been reduced ?from an inch thick to paper thin.? [Berkeleyan, 10/3/2001]

He finds a foot-long twisted shard of steel that is ?like a piece of bread, but it was
high-strength steel.? He comments, ?I haven?t seen anything like this [before].? [Berkeley Daily Planet, 10/20/2001]
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
beau-
i did look at those 2 clips with the fireman saying there is a bomb in the building. i think one may be doctored. its like they are both on the fireman from the same view but slighly different angles or something.
i was making an observation. i didnt know if he meant wtc 7. it doesnt say in the clip. and it doesnt say in your clip either. one just assumes because they are talking about the school. anyway, im more concerned about that "engineer" that told one of the chiefs that wtc 7 was going to collapse in 5 hrs. and one fireman said he was right on the money.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,385
1,517
126
jesus christ guys you should just stop replying

it will solve nothing and you are only wasting your time

NOTHING YOU CAN SAY WILL CHANGE HIS MIND
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY