|
Post by sts60 on Jul 5, 2005 15:09:32 GMT -4
What exactly are you saying, turbonium? And don't be coy.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 5, 2005 16:21:31 GMT -4
Then where is the resistance in the towers collapsing? (Since they fell at not much over 11-12 seconds) I asked you first. According to your demolition theory the resistance has to be there -- it's just not going to go away because the collapse is triggered with explosives rather than a structural failure. How do you explain that? And why was there molten steel in all three basements? Reconcile that without explosives being used... Why would explosive produce molten steel?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2005 16:34:58 GMT -4
What exactly are you saying, turbonium? And don't be coy. LOL! I am of the opinion that the WTC 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolitions. Molten steel, three steel framed buildings collapsing in one day, when never before had even one collapsed due to fire (WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane). These fires can not melt steel to create these molten pools in all three basements. Only high powered explosives can create anywhere near the high temps to do this. Photographic and video evidence, and first hand firefighter accounts all point to manageable fires and situations prior to the sudden nearly free-fall collapses. The only support for the "planes and fires" theory are some very faulty analyses. These include incorrect structural drawings, with critical sub-structure assemblies and pieces missing, and/or grossly understated dimensional notations. Further misleading are the many "pie-in-the-sky" assumptions, with probabilities that are in the 0.01 percentiles taken as highly probable in order to allow the next stage of the " official collapse sequence" to be advanced. Working within the parameters of fire and plane impact as the only two causes of collapse gives those in charge of providing a logical, plausible explanation, a challenge not unlike being asked to fit a large square block into a smaller round hole, and make it sound at least possible given many extraordinary rare conditions.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2005 16:46:02 GMT -4
Then where is the resistance in the towers collapsing? (Since they fell at not much over 11-12 seconds) I asked you first. According to your demolition theory the resistance has to be there -- it's just not going to go away because the collapse is triggered with explosives rather than a structural failure. How do you explain that? And why was there molten steel in all three basements? Reconcile that without explosives being used... Why would explosive produce molten steel? LMAO! Tis kind of funny, this circular argument, bob! Look at vids of controlled demos online - they really are at basic free-fall speed. All support points are blown at millisecond intervals. Nothing impedes the downward progression, so that gravity is all you have left as your force against mass in air. Thermite used as the explosives in the towers would result in this. Molten steel is a by-product of the thermite reaction. Temps reach well beyond the 2500C+ needed to melt steel.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 5, 2005 17:27:17 GMT -4
LMAO! Tis kind of funny, this circular argument, bob! Look at vids of controlled demos online - they really are at basic free-fall speed. All support points are blown at millisecond intervals. Nothing impedes the downward progression, so that gravity is all you have left as your force against mass in air. I've seen plenty of videos of controlled demolitions. The demolition charges can always be seen going off throughout the entire structure within seconds of one another. The structural supports are taken out and the whole building collapses in on itself coming down in one big heap. I don't see any of this in the case of the WTC towers. They collapse from the top down with all the lower floors completely intact until impacted by the falling debris. Your description of a controlled demolition is inconsistant with the video evidence of the WTC collapse. I ask you again, please explain the process by which the WTC towers were demolished that is consistent with both the video evidence and the alleged free-fall collapse. Thermite used as the explosives in the towers would result in this. Molten steel is a by-product of the thermite reaction. Temps reach well beyond the 2500C+ needed to melt steel. And what is the point of using Thermite if you're blowing all the structural supports with demolition charges?
|
|
|
Post by sts60 on Jul 5, 2005 17:28:48 GMT -4
Thermite used as the explosives in the towers would result in this. Molten steel is a by-product of the thermite reaction. Temps reach well beyond the 2500C+ needed to melt steel.
No. Try about 2500 degrees Fahrenheit. Structure fires can and do reach such temperatures. And demolition crews use RDX for steel frame structures, not thermite. The appearance of steel which had been melted is entirely consistent with the conventional scenario. Moreover, there is no evidence of the extensive preparation work required for a controlled building implosion having been done at any of the WTC sites. As for your firefighter-report claims, I've already explained why I discount them, so there's no need to repeat them.
Factual errors aside, who do you think would attempt to perform such demoltions? And why?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 5, 2005 18:14:35 GMT -4
turbonium
Exactly how much steel was in these “pools” you speak of ? As I recall from the old Apollo Hoax board there was some discussion about a process that allowed steel mixed with sulfur from air pollution to melt at much lower temperatures than would normally be the case. It is a similar process to that that results in what is known as a blacksmiths weld. The photos referenced showed some structural steel pieces that with some spots where this process had melted holes through the steel. To distinguish between this acknowledged kind of melting and something that could would result in an amount large quantity that you seem to be inferring, I really need to know how much melted steel you think there was and what source you have for this information?
|
|
|
Post by ktesibios on Jul 5, 2005 18:55:21 GMT -4
Looks like the same sort of handwaving we see so often from HBs- "the dust plumes from the rover tires weren't high enough!" "the astronauts should have jumped higher!" "the towers fell too quickly!".
And, as with claims about dust plumes and high jumps, the obvious question to ask is "how high should they be and why?".
Assuming that the WTC tower collapses began with the giving way of the structure in the impact area, with the floors in and above that area falling onto lower floors and smashing their way down, just as the "official" explanation holds, how long should it have taken for the upper stories to reach ground level?
Until Turbonium comes up with a number which can be compared to the actual event, and shows how he derived that number, claims about the towers collapsing "too fast" amount to nothing but handwaving and blowing smoke.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2005 18:56:59 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2005 18:59:41 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2005 19:12:40 GMT -4
Regarding steel structures in fire, the Cardington Fire Tests from 1994 to 1996 proved conclusively that "despite atmosphere temperatures of almost 1200C and steel temperatures on the unprotected beams in excess of 1100C in the worst cases, no structural collapse took place" Link is here www.corusconstruction.com/legacy/fire/images/fireres_section15.pdfAnd we know as a fact that NO steel framed building had EVER collapsed as a result of fire, except on 9/11 when THREE buildings managed to do just that. And no steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire since 9/11, of course we are all quite aware.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 5, 2005 19:14:49 GMT -4
The puffs of smoke/dust you see in those pictures is caused by the internal floor trusses collapsing onto each other. The inside of the building was collapsing before the outside shell did. So the puffs of smoke/dust is consistent with the "official explanation" for how the towers fell.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2005 19:44:48 GMT -4
The puffs of smoke/dust you see in those pictures is caused by the internal floor trusses collapsing onto each other. The inside of the building was collapsing before the outside shell did. So the puffs of smoke/dust is consistent with the "official explanation" for how the towers fell. Look at the WTC 7 video. And look at the photo - the squibs are occuring near the top floors - too high, too many floors and before the collapse has even begun! Internal collapse is exactly right - from controlled demolition. The fires in this building were minimal as well - the damage was not nearly extensive enough to result in yet another "free fall speed" collapse (3rd steel frame structure in one day to collapse, none before, none since). Not to make light of it, but I think mud huts in Papua New Guinea have a higher survival rate! j/k I honestly can not buy the "official" story for one second - there are way too many things that defy science, logic, and common sense.
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jul 5, 2005 19:47:15 GMT -4
Squibs 'R' Us....OK here is some photo evidence showing demo charges going off All I see is dust and debris; certainly nothing that looks like demolition squibs. Besides, the pictures show exactly what I was describing -- the bottom floors are completely intact. This directly contradicts your explanation for how the towers fell so quickly. You said " all support points are blown at millisecond intervals". Clearly this is not true since the bottom part of the towers have not been blown. I'm still looking for an answer. Let me ask it a different way: If the WTC collapse were a controlled demolition, what about it would make the towers fall any faster than they would if is were a structural failure. And I remind you, your answer must be consistent with and supported by the video evidence.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2005 19:54:22 GMT -4
Thermite used as the explosives in the towers would result in this. Molten steel is a by-product of the thermite reaction. Temps reach well beyond the 2500C+ needed to melt steel.No. Try about 2500 degrees Fahrenheit. Structure fires can and do reach such temperatures. And demolition crews use RDX for steel frame structures, not thermite. The appearance of steel which had been melted is entirely consistent with the conventional scenario. Moreover, there is no evidence of the extensive preparation work required for a controlled building implosion having been done at any of the WTC sites. As for your firefighter-report claims, I've already explained why I discount them, so there's no need to repeat them. Factual errors aside, who do you think would attempt to perform such demoltions? And why? Thermite could be the incendiary with RDX the explosive component - what was used and how it was combined is not known yet - they shipped away all the evidence to China before you could say "Let's investigate!" There are some statements on record regarding pre-9/11 powerdowns, odd hours and places of access by various people as noted by m,aintenance workers at the WTC, etc. Not conclusive, but it is a start considering there isn't even a bloody real investigation going on (and never was). I stand by the ff's tapes and the fact that amongst hundreds of other ff's and rescue workers there was no mention at all that there was imminent danger of collapse, let alone slight structural breach as a danger - in NEITHER tower that collapsed. The possibility you suggest is far outweighed by these points, imo.
|
|