What brought down WTC7

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
logic? i know exacatly what im saying. extremely high temps were experienced during the wtc collapse. see the link below. i believe you lack the logic skills. dr astaneh asl is saying the steel burned(vaporized 15.9mm of steel) then buckled. he was there 8 days after the collapse and saw this.
that makes complete since considering that sisson could only dissolve "little metal" in 24hrs. it happened while the building was on fire (as dr astaneh said). not in the rubble pile!!! i dont think dr astaneh has said anything concerning the wtc 7 collapse?

an excelerant was used. get it through your think skull.

just a sample but it should sound very familiar since dr astaneh asl and dr barnett saw "vaporized" and "evaporated" steel at the wtc 7site.

"The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic
lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool [1].
The temperature required to volatilize/boil lead is 1,740 C or 3,164 F [8]. No explanation for the origin of
the indicated ?extremely high temperatures during the collapse? is offered in the RJ Lee report."

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

Dr Astaneh-Asl is claiming that the beam was in perfectly good health prior to its corrosion. iow, he basing his findings on a beam with no prior corrosion and claiming that it corroded a certain amount in a certain time. I'm asking that you show the I-beam was in such a perfect condition prior to the collapse to make such an assertion. Seems a very reasonable question to me.

Dr Astaneh-Asl also claims that the beam was connected to a column, as he claims. Please show that as well. If you can prove those claims it helps to substantiate his others. That's what logic is all about. If you can't demonstrate what I have asked then you apparently aren't familiar with the concept of logic, or scientific inquiry.

nice try at handwaving some of the only forensic observations of wtc 7 steel. the steel holds clues as to why it fell. and as he said, it vaporized (15.9 mm gone) and then buckled and fell. that would make perfect sense considering other "steel member" (thats pleural) were also seen in the debris pile partly "evparated" and why the building fell at frefall speed. an excelerant was used.

Nice try at dodging my questions, as usual. I'm asking some very cogent and pertinent questions here that throw cold water on your own claims. For that 15.9mm (btw folks, that's approximately 1/2". Don't you love it how truthers suddenly switch to metric in this case, because "15.9" sounds more impressive than "1/2?" That's typical of the kind of shenanigans truthers employ.) to have magically disappeared it's assumed it was THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. iow, the steel was perfectly healthy prior to the attack. It hadn't corroded even one iota in decades. I'm asking you to prove that assertion. I'm asking you to show that the steel was in perfectly good shape before the collapse happened. If you cannot then the claim that 1/2" suddenly evaporated doesn' have any basis in fact and is merely speculation.

Of course, you won't know how to respond because asking a question like that take you out of your tiny little box of knowledge. You won't know how to respond because you won't be able to find a truther website or a YouTube video to link to, and it's clear you have little analytical or critical thinking skills of your own to be able to reason the question out. So I'll expect you'll come back with more of your usual repetition where you copy & paste your same old tiresome links that you've posted in here tens of times in the past, if not hundreds, asking the same questions over and over as if you're some pre-programmed truther drone. The simple fact is that you can't answer any questions outside of your small knowledge box. That much you made clear long, long ago in P&N.

five eighths is not 1/2 an inch. 1/2 an inch is 12.7mm. five eighths is 15.9mm.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizongeeky scientist?? thats YOUR man Sunder from NIST speaking. this was after yrs and yrs of research. this was before a highschool physics teacher had to teach him and nist a thing about freefall:

NISt admits freefall part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng

part 2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Uiww80&feature=related

part 3- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...cKYBm4&feature=related

It's not "my man." It's a scientist with poor public speaking skills.

You've avoided answering my question as well so I'll ask it again.

Where does the NIST report claim the time is wrong? Where in the NIST report can you demonstrate it is, for a fact, incorrect?

Answer the question and do your best not to pose as a YouTube University freshman while you're at it. Your posing is getting tiresome.

if you read sunders response, he noted that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.

then in the final update of the wtc 7 nist report, they admitted freefall thanks to a highschool physics teacher schooling sunder at the press conferance.

iow, you don't have a copy & paste script and can't answer the questions I asked. Thought so. Stop wasting my time with your foolishness, poser.

i gave you my answer. first he said freefall did nt happen, a highschool teacher had to school him, then low and behold the final report says freefall happened. so the fianl report completly contradicts sunder and his prior statements. i copy and paste to show people his exact words.

Nice attempt at conflation. The collapse of the entire building was not at free fall. The final report STILL notes that the entire collapse sequence still took 40% longer than free fall speed, which is precisely in line wit what NIST originally stated. You are trying to confuse a scant couple of seconds with the entire collapse, act as if some high scool teacher is a genius, and then make an assumption that NIST was hiding something. How completely assinine. Your kind of response demonstrates the paranoid world that truthers live in and the willfull dishonesty they employ in the claims.

I'll ask you one last time. Where does the final NIST report misrepresent the collapse timing? Put up or shut up.

so is sunder confused when he stated this. did sunder not understand his own model? 2.25 sec of freefall did occur. was sunder just bullshiting the world when he stated:

My question:
"Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. How can such a public, visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?"

Dr. Shyam Sunder replies:

"Could you repeat the question?"

[the question is repeated by the moderator, leaving out the word, "competent" as well as the last sentence]

"Well...um...the...first of all gravity...um...gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure...um...at...um...applies....to every body...every...uh...on...all bodies on...ah...on...um... this particular...on this planet not just...um...uh...in ground zero...um...the...uh...the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows...and...uh...the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is...um... 5.4 seconds. It's...uh..., about one point...uh...five seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."
--------

Note that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.


http://www.911blogger.com/node/17685

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
five eighths is not 1/2 an inch. 1/2 an inch is 12.7mm. five eighths is 15.9mm.

Oh, excuse me. I whole 1/8" difference. Wow.

btw, Dr. Astaneh-Asl never stated himself that the I-beam had vaporized. That word is a bit of artistic license from the reporter that wrote that article. Notice that the word vaporized is not in quotations in the article? That's because it is not attributable to anything Astaneh-Asl actually said himself. As far as Barnett's comments that steel had "evaporated," I'll point you to this exchange:

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/professor-jonathan-r-barnett.html

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



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barnett's 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

Here's what Barnett also had to say:

I would suggest that the crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulferization. As that effect is a certainty (the effect of the pulverized wallboard), and thermite is an unsupported theory, I'll settle for the certainty.

As I like to say, the real problem is that Bush has really been taken over by Martians; Of course, this is as ridiculous as any other pie in the sky theory.

[Jonathan] 2 January 2007

and this:

None of this was ignored. But having looked at the debris myself, I saw no sign of an explosion or explosions. The collapse of towers 1 and 2 occurred exactly as one would expect from a fire.....I don't know what else to say. Finally, there was no predetermined theory. As you know I was part of the original investigation and a group leader. Neither I nor anyone else in the process went into the investigation with predetermined ideas. In fact, as this was the first collapse of a protected steel structure due to a fire, we were very open in our conversations as we looked for the truth.

[Jonathan]
2 January 2007

But, of course, you know better than the same experts you so seriously dote on where you mine whatever statements of theirs you find usefull, often taking them out of context, and completely disregard all the rest of their statements. That's what the typically intellectually dishonest truther does because they aren't searching for truth. They are searching only for that which confirms their existing bias and discard all else, just as you are doing. Stop being such a disingenious liar. Stop focusing in those leaves while ignoring the entire forest around you. It makes you look ignorant.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Try this guys . set up some domineos . They gain speed (momentium )I know its not the same but its easy to visualize in your mind .

Do you even know WTF momentum is? p = mv? Doubt it. Can you characterize the speed of a dominos set for me?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
so is sunder confused when he stated this. did sunder not understand his own model? 2.25 sec of freefall did occur. was sunder just bullshiting the world when he stated:

My question:
"Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. How can such a public, visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?"

Dr. Shyam Sunder replies:

"Could you repeat the question?"

[the question is repeated by the moderator, leaving out the word, "competent" as well as the last sentence]

"Well...um...the...first of all gravity...um...gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure...um...at...um...applies....to every body...every...uh...on...all bodies on...ah...on...um... this particular...on this planet not just...um...uh...in ground zero...um...the...uh...the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows...and...uh...the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is...um... 5.4 seconds. It's...uh..., about one point...uh...five seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."
--------

Note that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.


http://www.911blogger.com/node/17685

Why do you feel the necessitty to constantly repost the same crap over and over. Do you not comprehend that you appear like some retard beating his head incessantly against the wall when you do that? We all got what Dr. Sunder said the last 50 times you posted the same crap.

Sunder was talking about the entire 5.4 seconds. That time, which still holds up, is 40% longer than what free fall would have been. The only time free fall happened was during a fraction of those 5.4 seconds. Got it yet, or do you even have the capability to get it in the first place? You're being misleading again. But maybe you're too ignorant to recognize that fact.

Note as well that it wasn't "his own" model. Sunder was the project lead. That meant he managed the NIST engineers performing the investigation. He didn't make the models. If you look on the NIST report it identifies who was responsbile for each aspect of the report and Sunder was not responsible for the modeling. By you claiming it was "his own model" you demonstrate a complete lack of comprehension of project strcuture, which wouldn't be the first time you've demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of things in here.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
five eighths is not 1/2 an inch. 1/2 an inch is 12.7mm. five eighths is 15.9mm.

Are you actually arguing about 1/8th of an inch? Is this really what your argument hinges upon? A building weighing hundreds of thousands of tons and you're concerned about 1/8th of an inch of steel?

 

[event8horizon]

TLC-
your the one looking ignorant-

barnett is talking about the fema bpat report appendix c. notice he didnt deny they had "evaporated", the new theory is a "slag" consisting of iron, oxygen, and sulfur at 1100C.

but guess what, sisson has stated that little metal was removed that way in 24hrs by experiment. and the piece dr astaneh asl saw was only 8 days after the attack and 15.9 mm of steel was gone.

appendic C
http://911research.wtc7.net/wt...allurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm


tell me at what temp wallboard or gypsum becomes sulfur dioxide? also tell me what percentage of sulfur are needed for a eutectic to form at 1100C.

from the fema bpat report:
?The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 210 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.?

notice that it is possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse just like dr astaneh asl said about the i beam that was five eighths of an inch thick that vaporized then buckled.

so what we got is an excelerant that was in play. that would explain the freefall.

prof sisson cant produce the corrosion rate b/c it cant be done with their theory of iron, sulfur, and oxygen at 1100.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
TLC-
your the one looking ignorant-

barnett is talking about the fema bpat report appendix c. notice he didnt deny they had "evaporated", the new theory is a "slag" consisting of iron, oxygen, and sulfur at 1100C.

but guess what, sisson has stated that little metal was removed that way in 24hrs by experiment. and the piece dr astaneh asl saw was only 8 days after the attack and 15.9 mm of steel was gone.

appendic C
http://911research.wtc7.net/wt...allurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm


tell me at what temp wallboard or gypsum becomes sulfur dioxide? also tell me what percentage of sulfur are needed for a eutectic to form at 1100C.

from the fema bpat report:
?The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 210 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.?

notice that it is possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse just like dr astaneh asl said about the i beam that was five eighths of an inch thick that vaporized then buckled.

so what we got is an excelerant that was in play. that would explain the freefall.

prof sisson cant produce the corrosion rate b/c it cant be done with their theory of iron, sulfur, and oxygen at 1100.

He doesn't say when prior to collapse it could have occurred. He doesn't say whether it was because of an excelerant or whether it had been gradually corroding over a period of years. He also specifically states that it is merely speculation, and offers up an alternative hypothesis; "it is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings," which is what the NSIT report concludes. So this is nothing more than conjecture, at best. It's not the "slam dunk" you keep thinking it is when you cite it 40 times in the thread.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
so is sunder confused when he stated this. did sunder not understand his own model? 2.25 sec of freefall did occur. was sunder just bullshiting the world when he stated:

My question:
"Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. How can such a public, visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?"

Dr. Shyam Sunder replies:

"Could you repeat the question?"

[the question is repeated by the moderator, leaving out the word, "competent" as well as the last sentence]

"Well...um...the...first of all gravity...um...gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure...um...at...um...applies....to every body...every...uh...on...all bodies on...ah...on...um... this particular...on this planet not just...um...uh...in ground zero...um...the...uh...the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows...and...uh...the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is...um... 5.4 seconds. It's...uh..., about one point...uh...five seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."
--------

Note that:
--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.


http://www.911blogger.com/node/17685

Why do you feel the necessitty to constantly repost the same crap over and over. Do you not comprehend that you appear like some retard beating his head incessantly against the wall when you do that? We all got what Dr. Sunder said the last 50 times you posted the same crap.

Sunder was talking about the entire 5.4 seconds. That time, which still holds up, is 40% longer than what free fall would have been. The only time free fall happened was during a fraction of those 5.4 seconds. Got it yet, or do you even have the capability to get it in the first place? You're being misleading again. But maybe you're too ignorant to recognize that fact.

Note as well that it wasn't "his own" model. Sunder was the project lead. That meant he managed the NIST engineers performing the investigation. He didn't make the models. If you look on the NIST report it identifies who was responsbile for each aspect of the report and Sunder was not responsible for the modeling. By you claiming it was "his own model" you demonstrate a complete lack of comprehension of project strcuture, which wouldn't be the first time you've demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of things in here.

freefall did occur. and 2.25 secs out of 5.4 sec is not a fraction of that time. thats a substantial period. if he was the project head, he should have known the model...period. and since freefall did occur, then we can learn from sunders earlier statements.

--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
TLC-
your the one looking ignorant-

barnett is talking about the fema bpat report appendix c. notice he didnt deny they had "evaporated", the new theory is a "slag" consisting of iron, oxygen, and sulfur at 1100C.

but guess what, sisson has stated that little metal was removed that way in 24hrs by experiment. and the piece dr astaneh asl saw was only 8 days after the attack and 15.9 mm of steel was gone.

appendic C
http://911research.wtc7.net/wt...allurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm


tell me at what temp wallboard or gypsum becomes sulfur dioxide? also tell me what percentage of sulfur are needed for a eutectic to form at 1100C.

from the fema bpat report:
?The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 210 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.?

notice that it is possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse just like dr astaneh asl said about the i beam that was five eighths of an inch thick that vaporized then buckled.

so what we got is an excelerant that was in play. that would explain the freefall.

prof sisson cant produce the corrosion rate b/c it cant be done with their theory of iron, sulfur, and oxygen at 1100.

The experts you cite don't agree with your conclusion. Why do you continue to ignore that glaring fact? Are you being willfully ignorant? That's the only conclusion one can come to, other than the fact that your incessant rehashing and reposting of the same old claptrap over and over would indicate that you're not too bright.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: event8horizon
TLC-
your the one looking ignorant-

barnett is talking about the fema bpat report appendix c. notice he didnt deny they had "evaporated", the new theory is a "slag" consisting of iron, oxygen, and sulfur at 1100C.

but guess what, sisson has stated that little metal was removed that way in 24hrs by experiment. and the piece dr astaneh asl saw was only 8 days after the attack and 15.9 mm of steel was gone.

appendic C
http://911research.wtc7.net/wt...allurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm


tell me at what temp wallboard or gypsum becomes sulfur dioxide? also tell me what percentage of sulfur are needed for a eutectic to form at 1100C.

from the fema bpat report:
?The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 210 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.?

notice that it is possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse just like dr astaneh asl said about the i beam that was five eighths of an inch thick that vaporized then buckled.

so what we got is an excelerant that was in play. that would explain the freefall.

prof sisson cant produce the corrosion rate b/c it cant be done with their theory of iron, sulfur, and oxygen at 1100.

He doesn't say when prior to collapse it could have occurred. He doesn't say whether it was because of an excelerant or whether it had been gradually corroding over a period of years. He also specifically states that it is merely speculation, and offers up an alternative hypothesis; "it is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings," which is what the NSIT report concludes. So this is nothing more than conjecture, at best. It's not the "slam dunk" you keep thinking it is when you cite it 40 times in the thread.

we didnt have long term heating here with the steel dr astaneh asl saw.
15.9 mm of steel "corroding" in 8 days cant be done with sissons experiments.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
TLC-
your the one looking ignorant-

barnett is talking about the fema bpat report appendix c. notice he didnt deny they had "evaporated", the new theory is a "slag" consisting of iron, oxygen, and sulfur at 1100C.

but guess what, sisson has stated that little metal was removed that way in 24hrs by experiment. and the piece dr astaneh asl saw was only 8 days after the attack and 15.9 mm of steel was gone.

appendic C
http://911research.wtc7.net/wt...allurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm


tell me at what temp wallboard or gypsum becomes sulfur dioxide? also tell me what percentage of sulfur are needed for a eutectic to form at 1100C.

from the fema bpat report:
?The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 210 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.?

notice that it is possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse just like dr astaneh asl said about the i beam that was five eighths of an inch thick that vaporized then buckled.

so what we got is an excelerant that was in play. that would explain the freefall.

prof sisson cant produce the corrosion rate b/c it cant be done with their theory of iron, sulfur, and oxygen at 1100.

The experts you cite don't agree with your conclusion. Why do you continue to ignore that glaring fact? Are you being willfully ignorant? That's the only conclusion one can come to, other than the fact that your incessant rehashing and reposting of the same old claptrap over and over would indicate that you're not too bright.

what temp does gypsum become sulfur dioxide?

im bright enough to know that extremly high temps were reached during the wtc destruction and that could explain the "evaporated" and "vaporized" steel members (thats pleural).

learn something:

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

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

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

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Stop reposting the same bullshit over and over. We've all seen it already the previous bazzilion times you copy & pasted it. Seriously, are you retarded, obsessive/compulsive, or have some such other mental illness that compels you to do that?
And 2.25 seconds out of 5.4 seconds IS a fraction of the time, approximately 2/5ths. 2/5 is a fraction, or were you not aware of that?

Sunder was talking about the entire 5.4 seconds, which, in its entirety, is NOT free fall speed. So stop twisting what he actually stated. You continue to look ignorant when you misrepresent the facts.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
we didnt have long term heating here with the steel dr astaneh asl saw.
15.9 mm of steel "corroding" in 8 days cant be done with sissons experiments.

So because Sisson can't reproduce it you immediately jump to an unfounded conclusion, one the very same experts you cite dismiss? Ridiculous. I'll take their word over yours any day of the week.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
what temp does gypsum become sulfur dioxide?

im bright enough to know that extremly high temps were reached during the wtc destruction and that could explain the "evaporated" and "vaporized" steel members (thats pleural).

It's spelled "plural," not pleural. I already told you previously that Astaneh-Asl never used the word "vaporized" either. It was an invention of a journalist but you continue to sling it around. Barnett also states that his used of "evaporated" was early on in the process before any actual tests had been done.

learn something:

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

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

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

And? This means what? You post a lot of shit links from twoofer websites without providing the first bit of explanation of what it means and assume everyone should be blown away by your copy & paste skills. Try providing some actual explanations of your own for once that span more than two poorly written and grammatically incorrect sentences.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Stop reposting the same bullshit over and over. We've all seen it already the previous bazzilion times you copy & pasted it. Seriously, are you retarded, obsessive/compulsive, or have some such other mental illness that compels you to do that?
And 2.25 seconds out of 5.4 seconds IS a fraction of the time, approximately 2/5ths. 2/5 is a fraction, or were you not aware of that?

Sunder was talking about the entire 5.4 seconds, which, in its entirety, is NOT free fall speed. So stop twisting what he actually stated. You continue to look ignorant when you misrepresent the facts.

wrong freefall did occur for 2.25 secs. freefall is freefall...period.
so we can learn from what he said regarding the absence of freefall:

--He acknowledges that freefall can only occur if there is no structure under the falling section of the building.
--He acknowledges that their structural modeling predicts a fall slower than freefall.
--He acknowledges that there was structural resistance in this particular case.
--He acknowledges that there was a sequence of failures that had to take place and that this process was not instantaneous.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
we didnt have long term heating here with the steel dr astaneh asl saw.
15.9 mm of steel "corroding" in 8 days cant be done with sissons experiments.

So because Sisson can't reproduce it you immediately jump to an unfounded conclusion, one the very same experts you cite dismiss? Ridiculous. I'll take their word over yours any day of the week.

the word from sisson is "preliminary experiments [5] at 1100 °C with mixtures of FeS and FeO placed on the steel surface and heated in air indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h."

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
[snip]

http://www.nist.gov/public_aff...eet/wtc_qa_082108.html

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST...or_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

Now stop with the stupid already. I told you that you're misrepresenting the facts of the issue. That's clear to just about everyone but your blindered, foolish self.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
we didnt have long term heating here with the steel dr astaneh asl saw.
15.9 mm of steel "corroding" in 8 days cant be done with sissons experiments.

So because Sisson can't reproduce it you immediately jump to an unfounded conclusion, one the very same experts you cite dismiss? Ridiculous. I'll take their word over yours any day of the week.

the word from sisson is "preliminary experiments [5] at 1100 °C with mixtures of FeS and FeO placed on the steel surface and heated in air indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h."

OK. Thanks for the meaningless C&P. You still haven't learned that your copying and pasting only proves that you are familiar with Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V, unless you're a right-clicker. I'd wager that you're a right-clicker myself and that keyboard shortcuts really aren't your thing.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
what temp does gypsum become sulfur dioxide?

im bright enough to know that extremly high temps were reached during the wtc destruction and that could explain the "evaporated" and "vaporized" steel members (thats pleural).

It's spelled "plural," not pleural. I already told you previously that Astaneh-Asl never used the word "vaporized" either. It was an invention of a journalist but you continue to sling it around. Barnett also states that his used of "evaporated" was early on in the process before any actual tests had been done.

learn something:

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

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

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

And? This means what? You post a lot of shit links from twoofer websites without providing the first bit of explanation of what it means and assume everyone should be blown away by your copy & paste skills. Try providing some actual explanations of your own for once that span more than two poorly written and grammatically incorrect sentences.

my explanation is extremely high temps were reached during the wtc destruction. these truther links have valuabe information and independent studies that show high temps were achieved. i havent seen anywhere that dr astaneh denied making the "vaporized" statment. the intel gained from his observation is that 15.9 mm of A36 steel disappeared due to "burning" and then the column buckled and fell. barnett saw "steel members" that were "evaporated". how many and how much steel was "evaporated" or from the new theory "corroded" would be interesting.

and i refer you back again to:
Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction
http://www.journalof911studies...icles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

and what could cause all this high temps. something that reacts hot enough to produce iron microspheres:
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Abstract:

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

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
we didnt have long term heating here with the steel dr astaneh asl saw.
15.9 mm of steel "corroding" in 8 days cant be done with sissons experiments.

So because Sisson can't reproduce it you immediately jump to an unfounded conclusion, one the very same experts you cite dismiss? Ridiculous. I'll take their word over yours any day of the week.

the word from sisson is "preliminary experiments [5] at 1100 °C with mixtures of FeS and FeO placed on the steel surface and heated in air indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h."

OK. Thanks for the meaningless C&P. You still haven't learned that your copying and pasting only proves that you are familiar with Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V, unless you're a right-clicker. I'd wager that you're a right-clicker myself and that keyboard shortcuts really aren't your thing.

got the temp for gypsum to sulfur dioxide yet?

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
[snip]

http://www.nist.gov/public_aff...eet/wtc_qa_082108.html

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST...or_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

Now stop with the stupid already. I told you that you're misrepresenting the facts of the issue. That's clear to just about everyone but your blindered, foolish self.

im not misrepresenting the facts. you are. the fact is freefall occured. period.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
we didnt have long term heating here with the steel dr astaneh asl saw.
15.9 mm of steel "corroding" in 8 days cant be done with sissons experiments.

So because Sisson can't reproduce it you immediately jump to an unfounded conclusion, one the very same experts you cite dismiss? Ridiculous. I'll take their word over yours any day of the week.

the word from sisson is "preliminary experiments [5] at 1100 °C with mixtures of FeS and FeO placed on the steel surface and heated in air indicated that the reaction was not fast and dissolved little metal in 24 h."

OK. Thanks for the meaningless C&P. You still haven't learned that your copying and pasting only proves that you are familiar with Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V, unless you're a right-clicker. I'd wager that you're a right-clicker myself and that keyboard shortcuts really aren't your thing.

got the temp for gypsum to sulfur dioxide yet?

Got the proof that the I-Beams weren't already corroded prior to 9/11?

I'm still waiting for that answer. It was asked long ago. You continue to dodge it. Dance, boy, dance.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
[snip]

http://www.nist.gov/public_aff...eet/wtc_qa_082108.html

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST...or_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

Now stop with the stupid already. I told you that you're misrepresenting the facts of the issue. That's clear to just about everyone but your blindered, foolish self.

im not misrepresenting the facts. you are. the fact is freefall occured. period.

Your dishonesty has been noted. Thanks for making it public for everyone else in here to see.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: event8horizon
[snip]

http://www.nist.gov/public_aff...eet/wtc_qa_082108.html

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST...or_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

Now stop with the stupid already. I told you that you're misrepresenting the facts of the issue. That's clear to just about everyone but your blindered, foolish self.

im not misrepresenting the facts. you are. the fact is freefall occured. period.

Your dishonesty has been noted. Thanks for making it public for everyone else in here to see.

your arguement is pointless. there is truth in my points.