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

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: event8horizon
beau-
so why was nist denying molten steel at the sites in the beginning.
beau said
"Second, the debris pile was very hot, some measurements reading over 2,800 degrees. "

thats hot enough to melt steel isnt it??
so are all these peoples claims to see molten steel correct now. im aware that other metals are also mixed in.

http://video.google.com/videop...ist+molten+steel&hl=en

how did an office fire reach these temps.

and that engineer that saw "vaporized" steel, he thought the steel beam "vaporized" first then fell into the pit.

thats how one would expect to analyze the towers collapse. by analyzing the steel. have office fires ever caused steel to evaporate or vaporize.

now do u remember that nasa flyover that showed "hot spots". column 79 was right on one.

now i ask u, if they pulled column 79 out of the pile and it showed what engineers said looked like "evaporation" or "vaporation", would u like to find out why.

So what?

Honestly, I think those questions all have reasonable answers that you're just ignoring, but it doesn't really matter because all you've got is vague questions, absolutely NO comprehensive theory or support for that theory, and insinuations that because you don't understand everything, the only logical explanation is a vast conspiracy. Instead of nitpicking events to death based on your limited understanding of the science and engineering involved, how about a step by step theory of what "really" happened to WTC 7, along with supporting evidence to back it up?

Of course we know why no such theory has EVER popped up in the many, many pages of discussion on this topic...it's the beauty of a good conspiracy theory. By attempting to cast doubt on the official story, the conspiracy theorist believes he or she is somehow "proving" that the official story is wrong. But while sometimes folks like you raise interesting questions, they NEVER rise of the level of disproving the official explanation of proving an alternative one. Conspiracy theories are, for lack of a better term, a hole in human reasoning. When people think they've discovered a lie from the government, you turn confirmation bias into a religion, and the mere questioning of the official story becomes as good as proof. But the fact that it sounds good to you doesn't make it sound logic.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: event8horizon
tlc
the sulfur did not easily come from wallboard. even this debunker is saying more studies need to be made. i agree with many points this guy has.
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

from your own debunkers
The Worcester Polytechnic Institute is continuing to experiment with sulfur compounds in an effort to recreate the reactions seen in the recovered steel. Given the complexity of the debris fires and the many chemicals present, it appears plausible that sulfidization could have occurred after collapse. Whether or not this could occur prior to collapse remains an open question, and if true, could be a factor in future building fires.

The author is of the opinion that chemical processes had a negligible effect on the WTC collapses. However, this too is an open question and deserves further attention. The ongoing work of Dr. Biederman et al. may provide further insight into the sulfidized steel and other unusual phenomena seen in the WTC fires. The upcoming NIST report on WTC 7 may also address this problem directly. While the NIST Report does not require any chemical weakening mechanism to explain the collapses, a more thorough understanding of the chemical processes in a modern office fire will lead to better recommendations on future construction."
Great. Maybe it will help to prevent corrosion issues in the future IF they discover that it happened prior to the fires. However, maybe you didn't notice but nothing they say implies the sulfidation came from thermate. In fact, much of the information on that page argues why thermate was not present and that Jones has no proof of thermate being used whatsoever. So thanks for linking to yet another page that throws cold water on your claims.

Now you still have some other questions to answer.

i dont think u get it. they havent figured out where the hell that elemental sulfur came from. they have ideas. and the fema report stated that the "corrosion could have started before collapse". now the engineer stated that the beam that came from wtc 7 looked as though it "vaporized" before it fell. that blows the lid off nist that the molten metal had nothing to do with the collapse.

have there been any fires which caused steel to do this.

jones might have found some thermite on those red chips though.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: event8horizon
tlc
the sulfur did not easily come from wallboard. even this debunker is saying more studies need to be made. i agree with many points this guy has.
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

from your own debunkers
The Worcester Polytechnic Institute is continuing to experiment with sulfur compounds in an effort to recreate the reactions seen in the recovered steel. Given the complexity of the debris fires and the many chemicals present, it appears plausible that sulfidization could have occurred after collapse. Whether or not this could occur prior to collapse remains an open question, and if true, could be a factor in future building fires.

The author is of the opinion that chemical processes had a negligible effect on the WTC collapses. However, this too is an open question and deserves further attention. The ongoing work of Dr. Biederman et al. may provide further insight into the sulfidized steel and other unusual phenomena seen in the WTC fires. The upcoming NIST report on WTC 7 may also address this problem directly. While the NIST Report does not require any chemical weakening mechanism to explain the collapses, a more thorough understanding of the chemical processes in a modern office fire will lead to better recommendations on future construction."
Great. Maybe it will help to prevent corrosion issues in the future IF they discover that it happened prior to the fires. However, maybe you didn't notice but nothing they say implies the sulfidation came from thermate. In fact, much of the information on that page argues why thermate was not present and that Jones has no proof of thermate being used whatsoever. So thanks for linking to yet another page that throws cold water on your claims.

Now you still have some other questions to answer.

i dont think u get it. they havent figured out where the hell that elemental sulfur came from. they have ideas. and the fema report stated that the "corrosion could have started before collapse". now the engineer stated that the beam that came from wtc 7 looked as though it "vaporized" before it fell. that blows the lid off nist that the molten metal had nothing to do with the collapse.

have there been any fires which caused steel to do this.

jones might have found some thermite on those red chips though.

So what?

Honestly, I think those questions all have reasonable answers that you're just ignoring, but it doesn't really matter because all you've got is vague questions, absolutely NO comprehensive theory or support for that theory, and insinuations that because you don't understand everything, the only logical explanation is a vast conspiracy. Instead of nitpicking events to death based on your limited understanding of the science and engineering involved, how about a step by step theory of what "really" happened to WTC 7, along with supporting evidence to back it up?

Of course we know why no such theory has EVER popped up in the many, many pages of discussion on this topic...it's the beauty of a good conspiracy theory. By attempting to cast doubt on the official story, the conspiracy theorist believes he or she is somehow "proving" that the official story is wrong. But while sometimes folks like you raise interesting questions, they NEVER rise of the level of disproving the official explanation of proving an alternative one. Conspiracy theories are, for lack of a better term, a hole in human reasoning. When people think they've discovered a lie from the government, you turn confirmation bias into a religion, and the mere questioning of the official story becomes as good as proof. But the fact that it sounds good to you doesn't make it sound logic.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
this is a very interesting discovery-

Dr. Steven E. Jones Announces New Discovery:
Red/gray Bi-layered Chips in WTC Dust

http://video.google.com/videop...iaCQ&q=red+chips&hl=en

At the Boston Tea Party conference last Saturday, I announced that I had found peculiar "red chips" in the WTC dust, and the possible significance of the findings. The chips are bi-layered, red on one side, gray on the other -- and present in all four samples that I and colleagues are exploring in depth at this time. Paul Payne (great work Paul!) was there and taped the talk, and asked if he could extract for now the part where I announced the discovery, and if I would provide the PPT slides (etc). I did so, and I congratulate Paul for doing this video clip so very quickly.

Yes, the discovery is original work and with other scientists now examining the microspheres and red chips in the WTC dust -- this new evidence, there is hope of a breakthrough, pending confirmations. I will refrain from further comment here; hope you all will watch the clip (and the full talks from the Boston conference as they become available). Again, many thanks to Paul Payne for this work.

 

KAZANI

Senior member
Sep 10, 2006
527
0
0
Rainsford, I think you are missing the point here. What we are trying to achieve is a new investigation, not necessarily prove the official theory wrong. If you have even some honesty you must admit that there is alot of wierdness involved in 9/11 events and the authoritie's response. Are you content that 3 million went on the comission report or that NIST didn't bother to check what was that molten metal at all?
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
i already know the responses to those red chips that basically expode when he lit it up.....its paint chips....the metal spheres are fly ash. he is actually writing a paper on the subject from what ive read. and he has sent these "red chips" to other labs to eval.
 

JohnnyGage

Senior member
Feb 18, 2008
699
0
71
Originally posted by: event8horizon
this is a very interesting discovery-

Dr. Steven E. Jones Announces New Discovery:
Red/gray Bi-layered Chips in WTC Dust

http://video.google.com/videop...iaCQ&q=red+chips&hl=en

At the Boston Tea Party conference last Saturday, I announced that I had found peculiar "red chips" in the WTC dust, and the possible significance of the findings. The chips are bi-layered, red on one side, gray on the other -- and present in all four samples that I and colleagues are exploring in depth at this time. Paul Payne (great work Paul!) was there and taped the talk, and asked if he could extract for now the part where I announced the discovery, and if I would provide the PPT slides (etc). I did so, and I congratulate Paul for doing this video clip so very quickly.

Yes, the discovery is original work and with other scientists now examining the microspheres and red chips in the WTC dust -- this new evidence, there is hope of a breakthrough, pending confirmations. I will refrain from further comment here; hope you all will watch the clip (and the full talks from the Boston conference as they become available). Again, many thanks to Paul Payne for this work.


Will you please answer the questions posed to you by TLC, instead of droning on with the same non-sense. And no, you can't anwer with a question. He's asked you several times and taking up several pages--yet you still avoid them.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: event8horizon
tlc
the sulfur did not easily come from wallboard. even this debunker is saying more studies need to be made. i agree with many points this guy has.
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

from your own debunkers
The Worcester Polytechnic Institute is continuing to experiment with sulfur compounds in an effort to recreate the reactions seen in the recovered steel. Given the complexity of the debris fires and the many chemicals present, it appears plausible that sulfidization could have occurred after collapse. Whether or not this could occur prior to collapse remains an open question, and if true, could be a factor in future building fires.

The author is of the opinion that chemical processes had a negligible effect on the WTC collapses. However, this too is an open question and deserves further attention. The ongoing work of Dr. Biederman et al. may provide further insight into the sulfidized steel and other unusual phenomena seen in the WTC fires. The upcoming NIST report on WTC 7 may also address this problem directly. While the NIST Report does not require any chemical weakening mechanism to explain the collapses, a more thorough understanding of the chemical processes in a modern office fire will lead to better recommendations on future construction."
Great. Maybe it will help to prevent corrosion issues in the future IF they discover that it happened prior to the fires. However, maybe you didn't notice but nothing they say implies the sulfidation came from thermate. In fact, much of the information on that page argues why thermate was not present and that Jones has no proof of thermate being used whatsoever. So thanks for linking to yet another page that throws cold water on your claims.

Now you still have some other questions to answer.

i dont think u get it. they havent figured out where the hell that elemental sulfur came from. they have ideas. and the fema report stated that the "corrosion could have started before collapse". now the engineer stated that the beam that came from wtc 7 looked as though it "vaporized" before it fell. that blows the lid off nist that the molten metal had nothing to do with the collapse.

have there been any fires which caused steel to do this.

jones might have found some thermite on those red chips though.

No. He does not state that. He states that part of the beam "vaporized" after examining a beam that was removed from the WTC center site. He DOES NOT state that he believes this beam "vaporized" before collapsing.

Originally posted by: event8horizon
beau-
so why was nist denying molten steel at the sites in the beginning.
beau said
"Second, the debris pile was very hot, some measurements reading over 2,800 degrees. "

thats hot enough to melt steel isnt it??
so are all these peoples claims to see molten steel correct now. im aware that other metals are also mixed in.

http://video.google.com/videop...ist+molten+steel&hl=en

how did an office fire reach these temps.

and that engineer that saw "vaporized" steel, he thought the steel beam "vaporized" first then fell into the pit.

thats how one would expect to analyze the towers collapse. by analyzing the steel. have office fires ever caused steel to evaporate or vaporize.

now do u remember that nasa flyover that showed "hot spots". column 79 was right on one.

now i ask u, if they pulled column 79 out of the pile and it showed what engineers said looked like "evaporation" or "vaporation", would u like to find out why.

No, the people who claimed to have seem molten steel still may not be correct. The temperatures recorded varied considerable across the debris and many of those you point to claiming to see have seem "molten steel" are claiming that before the buildings fell.

How did an office fire reach those temperatures? What, did the government now pour oil onto the WTC debris to destroy evidence? That's the most asinine statement you've made so far. The fact of the matter is that there was a 100 million tons of debris, a good portion of which is suitable to fuel a fire. Who knows exactly how the temps got that high, but who gives a shit. The temperatures were observed at over 2800 degrees in parts of the WTC rubble, that's what we know.

Office fires didn't cause the steel to "evaporate" or "vaporize." I don't know where you pull this shit from, but you're so wrong you're humiliating yourself. You can't even read what these experts are telling you. Look, THERMITE does not "vaporize" steel. To achieve what was observed, you need an acid, not an explosive.

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

Again, explosives don't remove "parts" of the flat top of an I-beam.

http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm -- the WTC debris pile was full of all sorts of chemicals, including sulfuric acid.

Please, take your kiddie theories home already.
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,376
5,337
146
Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: skyking
OMG it sounds like........



paint.

does paint have the same chemical signature as thermite???

I took the time to look at your link. that was Dec 17. Where are the independent study results?

 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: skyking
OMG it sounds like........



paint.

does paint have the same chemical signature as thermite???

:D

I :heart: this thread. Remember that episode of mythbusters where they looked at the Hindenburg? Remember what they found? No? I'll remind you:

It seems that this covering was coated with aluminum oxide and an acetate infused with an aluminum powder. Apparently these are the same ingredients as you'll find in thermite, which is a very flammable compound indeed. But could it actually cause the disaster that we've all seen?

So the Hindenburg was painted in thermite.

Nice try. Game over. You can't even get off-the-cuff remarks right.

Further, Thermite doesn't answer any questions. It doesn't explain the "explosions," the collapse, the melting steel, anything. You're clinging to it like it has all the answers, it doesn't. We've gone over this.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
Originally posted by: skyking
Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: skyking
OMG it sounds like........



paint.

does paint have the same chemical signature as thermite???

I took the time to look at your link. that was Dec 17. Where are the independent study results?

he is writing a paper right now. he sent his samples to different labs. im awaiting the results.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
You're still not addressing the point of this discussion.

Nobody who buys into your conspiracy theory, including yourself, has any other theory with any factual support that isn't self-contradicting.

Until you come up with one, you can happily try and poke non-existent holes in the theories that exist, but you're making mountains out of molehills. Half the guys who you quote as authorities agree one one thing -- that planes brought down the WTC. Both engineers we've discussed have issues with the NIST and FEMA reports, but over their methodology, not their results. You claim thermite is the answer, but thermite doesn't explode, thermite must be held in close contact with the steel to melt it, and estimates about the amount of thermite needed range into the thousands upon thousands of pounds.

Here's a list of things you cannot explain:
1. The sounds of explosions
2. Who planted the thermite
3. How such poorly trained pilots managed to fly into specific offices in the WTC.
4. Whether or not Larry Silverstein, the FDNY, NIST, FEMA, NYPD, George Bush, Israel etc, etc were involved AND how they were involved.
5. How the thousands of pounds of explosives and miles of detonation cord were purchased with no trace.
6. How said explosives were placed in the building with nobody noticing.
7. How every shred of evidence you've presented so far concerning foreknowledge of the attacks is simply wrong.
8. Why Larry Silverstein would give the "pull it" order to firefighters while being filmed on TV.
9. How the government has managed to quiet the thousands of people you've implicated.
10. That the "experts" you rely on to prove your point (youtube video concerning aluminum melting) never worked for the NIST and that the "experiment" was done in some guys backyard. (ie, why wasn't it done in a real lab?)
11. That your other so-called "experts," for the most part, have zero qualifications to be talking about the WTC collapse ( http://www.ae911truth.org/ )
12. That the other experts you rely on to "poke holes" in the theories are, universally, agree that planes brought down the WTC and their quibble with the official investigators is a small one (methodology, not results). They do not say the investigation was unscientific or improper, rather that THEY (their opinion) believe slightly different things happened when the planes hit. And that the guy you've cited up and down the last ten posts never saw any steel at ground zero and never made any statements about when the corrosion started -- he simply noticed it, just like he noticed the bent girders.
13. That all your evidence focuses on the minutia, but offers no grand theory (or even medium-sized theory).

That's what I can think off the top of my head, but basically you have nothing. No theory, no evidence, nothing. To distract us from that fact you zoom in, guide the discussion to the next idiot-catered article you can find and demonstrate zero ability to critically assess what you read.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
beau-
how do u interpret this steel being "vaporized" after the buckeling. he says it burned first, then buckled. by the word burned, from the context of the article, he was talking about the "vaporized" steel.

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.''
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: event8horizon
i dont think u get it. they havent figured out where the hell that elemental sulfur came from. they have ideas. and the fema report stated that the "corrosion could have started before collapse". now the engineer stated that the beam that came from wtc 7 looked as though it "vaporized" before it fell. that blows the lid off nist that the molten metal had nothing to do with the collapse.

have there been any fires which caused steel to do this.

jones might have found some thermite on those red chips though.
No, it's you that doesn't get it. I've already explained but it doesn't sink in. It doesn't matter where that sulfur came from because it didn't cause the collapse, nor did it come from any demolitions. As far as FEMA and NIST are concerned, the sulfur is a non-issue for determining WHY the towers collapsed. Maybe in the future they'll have the time and funds to determine if the sulfidation occurred pre- or post-collapse? Unlikely though because it's just not that an important issue to their reports on 9/11.

Jones did not find thermite or thermate. He found iron nodules. That doesn't imply thermate whatsoever. It's discussed in the very page you linked previously but clearly you ignored it because it destroys your narrative.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: event8horizon
beau-
how do u interpret this steel being "vaporized" after the buckeling. he says it burned first, then buckled. by the word burned, from the context of the article, he was talking about the "vaporized" steel.

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.''

Burned is not vaporized. That article doesn't state when he thinks the "vaporizing" occur ed, but again you ignore everything I say.

IF it vaporized then how does "thermite" or any other explosive explain that?

Plus, if this guy is so hung up on the "vaporized" beam, why hell does he continue to believe that planes brought the WTC down?

This is another example of your bullshit. Grow up and take your kiddie theories home. They have no validity and it's not my fault, the NIST's fault, FEMA's fault, or the government's fault that you're in such denial about what happened on 9/11.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
beau said
"How did an office fire reach those temperatures? What, did the government now pour oil onto the WTC debris to destroy evidence? That's the most asinine statement you've made so far. The fact of the matter is that there was a 100 million tons of debris, a good portion of which is suitable to fuel a fire. Who knows exactly how the temps got that high, but who gives a shit. The temperatures were observed at over 2800 degrees in parts of the WTC rubble, that's what we know.

Office fires didn't cause the steel to "evaporate" or "vaporize." I don't know where you pull this shit from, but you're so wrong you're humiliating yourself. You can't even read what these experts are telling you. Look, THERMITE does not "vaporize" steel. To achieve what was observed, you need an acid, not an explosive. "

1.its an asinine question but u state "who knows exactly how the temp got that high.........hummm......ok

2. i know that normal office fires dont cause steel to "evaporate or vaporize". im pulling this shit from quotes from engineers that saw steel from wtc 7. that is the way they described them. and no, it wasnt an "acid". it was slag that had iron and sulfur in it that caused the steel to appear the way it did in the fema sample 1 report. now where did the sulfur come from. tlc and i have gone round and round. no one has an answer.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: event8horizon
beau said
"How did an office fire reach those temperatures? What, did the government now pour oil onto the WTC debris to destroy evidence? That's the most asinine statement you've made so far. The fact of the matter is that there was a 100 million tons of debris, a good portion of which is suitable to fuel a fire. Who knows exactly how the temps got that high, but who gives a shit. The temperatures were observed at over 2800 degrees in parts of the WTC rubble, that's what we know.

Office fires didn't cause the steel to "evaporate" or "vaporize." I don't know where you pull this shit from, but you're so wrong you're humiliating yourself. You can't even read what these experts are telling you. Look, THERMITE does not "vaporize" steel. To achieve what was observed, you need an acid, not an explosive. "

1.its an asinine question but u state "who knows exactly how the temp got that high.........hummm......ok

2. i know that normal office fires dont cause steel to "evaporate or vaporize". im pulling this shit from quotes from engineers that saw steel from wtc 7. that is the way they described them. and no, it wasnt an "acid". it was slag that had iron and sulfur in it that caused the steel to appear the way it did in the fema sample 1 report. now where did the sulfur come from. tlc and i have gone round and round. no one has an answer.


Again, you ignore everything in favor of minutia of no consequence. You can't keep your facts straight, you can't present a coherent argument and you want to know how the temperatures got they high? Who cares?

Unless you have credible evidence that suggests the high temperatures of the debris is part of a conspiracy, then how they got that hot is completely inconsequential. What matters is that parts of the debris were over 2800 degrees. Again, unless you can find evidence that the government or Mossad or the Jews or whoever were artificially heating the debris, it does not matter.

It doesn't help your thermite "theory."

It does not prove anything, beyond giving you a new talking point.

Even your own truthers accept the fact that the debris pile was hot and don't seem to really care how it got that hot:
The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties (Photo 13). More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared ?extinguished? on Dec. 19, 2001.

 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: event8horizon
i dont think u get it. they havent figured out where the hell that elemental sulfur came from. they have ideas. and the fema report stated that the "corrosion could have started before collapse". now the engineer stated that the beam that came from wtc 7 looked as though it "vaporized" before it fell. that blows the lid off nist that the molten metal had nothing to do with the collapse.

have there been any fires which caused steel to do this.

jones might have found some thermite on those red chips though.
No, it's you that doesn't get it. I've already explained but it doesn't sink in. It doesn't matter where that sulfur came from because it didn't cause the collapse, nor did it come from any demolitions. As far as FEMA and NIST are concerned, the sulfur is a non-issue for determining WHY the towers collapsed. Maybe in the future they'll have the time and funds to determine if the sulfidation occurred pre- or post-collapse? Unlikely though because it's just not that an important issue to their reports on 9/11.

Jones did not find thermite or thermate. He found iron nodules. That doesn't imply thermate whatsoever. It's discussed in the very page you linked previously but clearly you ignored it because it destroys your narrative.

no u havent explained it to me. u link frank greening who hasnt figured how the sulfur got there. actually fema wanted a furthur study but didnt get one.
jones spheres are spent thermite from his hypothesis. the "red chips" are a form of thermite.
the sulphur should be a very big issue if they cant explain it and the possibility that it could have contributed to the collapse. even your debunking site wants more info on that sulfur.
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: event8horizon
beau said
"How did an office fire reach those temperatures? What, did the government now pour oil onto the WTC debris to destroy evidence? That's the most asinine statement you've made so far. The fact of the matter is that there was a 100 million tons of debris, a good portion of which is suitable to fuel a fire. Who knows exactly how the temps got that high, but who gives a shit. The temperatures were observed at over 2800 degrees in parts of the WTC rubble, that's what we know.

Office fires didn't cause the steel to "evaporate" or "vaporize." I don't know where you pull this shit from, but you're so wrong you're humiliating yourself. You can't even read what these experts are telling you. Look, THERMITE does not "vaporize" steel. To achieve what was observed, you need an acid, not an explosive. "

1.its an asinine question but u state "who knows exactly how the temp got that high.........hummm......ok

2. i know that normal office fires dont cause steel to "evaporate or vaporize". im pulling this shit from quotes from engineers that saw steel from wtc 7. that is the way they described them. and no, it wasnt an "acid". it was slag that had iron and sulfur in it that caused the steel to appear the way it did in the fema sample 1 report. now where did the sulfur come from. tlc and i have gone round and round. no one has an answer.


Again, you ignore everything in favor of minutia of no consequence. You can't keep your facts straight, you can't present a coherent argument and you want to know how the temperatures got they high? Who cares?

Unless you have credible evidence that suggests the high temperatures of the debris is part of a conspiracy, then how they got that hot is completely inconsequential. What matters is that parts of the debris were over 2800 degrees. Again, unless you can find evidence that the government or Mossad or the Jews or whoever were artificially heating the debris, it does not matter.

It doesn't help your thermite "theory."

It does not prove anything, beyond giving you a new talking point.

Even your own truthers accept the fact that the debris pile was hot and don't seem to really care how it got that hot:
The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties (Photo 13). More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared ?extinguished? on Dec. 19, 2001.

try massive amounts of this. that might heat that fire up alittle.
http://video.google.com/videop...iaCQ&q=red+chips&hl=en
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: BeauJangles
Originally posted by: event8horizon
beau said
"How did an office fire reach those temperatures? What, did the government now pour oil onto the WTC debris to destroy evidence? That's the most asinine statement you've made so far. The fact of the matter is that there was a 100 million tons of debris, a good portion of which is suitable to fuel a fire. Who knows exactly how the temps got that high, but who gives a shit. The temperatures were observed at over 2800 degrees in parts of the WTC rubble, that's what we know.

Office fires didn't cause the steel to "evaporate" or "vaporize." I don't know where you pull this shit from, but you're so wrong you're humiliating yourself. You can't even read what these experts are telling you. Look, THERMITE does not "vaporize" steel. To achieve what was observed, you need an acid, not an explosive. "

1.its an asinine question but u state "who knows exactly how the temp got that high.........hummm......ok

2. i know that normal office fires dont cause steel to "evaporate or vaporize". im pulling this shit from quotes from engineers that saw steel from wtc 7. that is the way they described them. and no, it wasnt an "acid". it was slag that had iron and sulfur in it that caused the steel to appear the way it did in the fema sample 1 report. now where did the sulfur come from. tlc and i have gone round and round. no one has an answer.


Again, you ignore everything in favor of minutia of no consequence. You can't keep your facts straight, you can't present a coherent argument and you want to know how the temperatures got they high? Who cares?

Unless you have credible evidence that suggests the high temperatures of the debris is part of a conspiracy, then how they got that hot is completely inconsequential. What matters is that parts of the debris were over 2800 degrees. Again, unless you can find evidence that the government or Mossad or the Jews or whoever were artificially heating the debris, it does not matter.

It doesn't help your thermite "theory."

It does not prove anything, beyond giving you a new talking point.

Even your own truthers accept the fact that the debris pile was hot and don't seem to really care how it got that hot:
The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable. This heat was also a concern for the search-and-rescue dogs used at the site. Many were not outfitted with protective booties (Photo 13). More than one suffered serious injuries and at least three died while working at Ground Zero. The underground fire burned for exactly 100 days and was finally declared ?extinguished? on Dec. 19, 2001.

try massive amounts of this. that might heat that fire up alittle.
http://video.google.com/videop...iaCQ&q=red+chips&hl=en

You've got to be kidding me.

Let me get this straight:

1. Thousands of pounds of thermite melt the girders.
2. The terrorists planted EVEN MORE thermite in the buildings to melt the debris?

Now, terrorists have brought thousands and thousands of pounds of thermite into the WTC, undetected and made sure there was enough left over to melt debris?

Why melt the debris at all and if they didn't intend to melt the debris, why bring literally thousands of more pounds of material into a building when you didn't need it?

I've got a much easier explanation for you.

There were many floors that never caught on fire during the collapse, so more than 90% of the fuel available in the WTC towers was unburnt at the time of collapse. All that flammable rubble reduced in size to a debris pile measuring what, well over six stories in height, with fires already present in some of the now compressed floors? That means there is a lot fuel there for a fire, as well as a fair amount of insulation to trap the heat given off by it: When you're talking about fires, think of the energy (not just temperature) liberated by the combustion and the amount of energy the system releases or traps work out to give you the temperature of the system. A given amount of fuel releases a given amount of energy, measurable in any unit you want that applies - ergs, calories, joules, whatever - and that energy then heats the environment up to a certain temperature. Release a lot of energy into an environment that does not release it in turn - i.e. an insulative environment - and the temperature goes up.


 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: KAZANI
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChickenWhy do you constantly cherry-pick your "evidence"

Could you guys stop using that cliche because it's making me nauseous. If someone is being selective, that is you. You are not being honest enough to admit a top-down demolition in front of you.
I can use the term "selective quoting" instead. Doesn't matter though because it's what truthers do. We've seen many examples of it right here in this thread.

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.

You have issues understanding sarcasm, I see. Gross was on the site and he damn well saw those pools and he chose to ignore them in investigation. Why did he do that? Because he deemed examination of those specimens to give inconclusive information pre-collapse. Why couldn't he be more forthcoming when questioned about it and, more importantly, why did he have to lie about the witness reports? He could have just as easily dismissed them with the same argument but he chose to lie. In conclusion, those pools of molten whatever were one of those issues that the authorities and you, their loyal cohorts, don't want to be brought to public's attention. That is the core agenda of your side's fierce opposition to outside scrutiny and not some excessively touted respect to "science" or "facts". NIST can play the authoritative card ad infinitum but the truth remains that they act in a very unscientific way. Especially under the light of the total failure of America's defenses on 9/11 they should have stepped up their investigative spirit and exhaustively examined every detail on the site of the WTC, not systematically try to hide those pesky anomalies encountered under the carpet.

Alas, it took one and a half year of public outcry before an investigation even begun and that was intended by your deceitfull government to fail. The president and the vp testified only after a huge load of pressure, jointly and under a veil of utter secrecy.

Your side has systematically trolled this thread from the begining with the ignominious tolerance of the mods and even now you continue to resort to childish name-calling to give your weak arguments the clout that they lack in reality.

EDIT: ...enough to admit a top-down demolition in front of you.
[/quote]
Erm, Gross was specifically asked about "molten steel." There was no proof of molten steel. Molten metal != molten steel. There was no lie, only a weak attempt at conflation on your part.

And all your paranoia about the government amount to nothing except for, well, paranoia on your part. "My" side has consistently shown you guys to be wrong time after time after time, yet you still trot the same old baloney out. You seem to think that placing it in a new wrapper will make it any more palatable. It doesn't. It's the same old spoiled, rotten fruit as before. Heck, it's not even meat because we're constantly asking you guys 'Where's the beef?' and you fail to deliver. Bring some meat instead of trying to act like some poor, pitiful, persecuted victim here. Thus far you have failed massively.

And, once again, even the bluntest tool in the P&N shed should be able to see that the link you provided was not any sort of "top-down" demolition. Of course the truthers have to make such ridiculous claims these days. How pathetic.