OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

[CHF]

Yeah I know, there's never officially been a thermite demolition...:rolleyes:....but let's say someone were to try it.

As I understand it, thermite is a gravity driven incendiary that starts cutting/burning/melting through steel the moment it comes into contact with it.

Seems like a really crappy demolition tool to me, but then I'm no expert.

So how would one would take down a skyscraper with thermite if they decided for some reason to go that route instead of explosives?

Wouldn't you actually need someone to physically place the thermite on the desired target in order for the reaction to take place? Or could you plant thermite and have it start reacting later via remote control?

And wouldn't thermite be seriously compromised by, say, a jet impact or a raging fire?

Hey, I'm just asking questions.

[DC]

Yeah I know, there's never officially been a thermite demolition...:rolleyes:....but let's say someone were to try it.

As I understand it, thermite is a gravity driven incendiary that starts cutting/burning/melting through steel the moment it comes into contact with it.

Seems like a really crappy demolition tool to me, but then I'm no expert.

So how would one would take down a skyscraper with thermite if they decided for some reason to go that route instead of explosives?

Wouldn't you actually need someone to physically place the thermite on the desired target in order for the reaction to take place? Or could you plant thermite and have it start reacting later via remote control?

And wouldn't thermite be seriously compromised by, say, a jet impact or a raging fire?

Hey, I'm just asking questions.

there is a patent, it describes another usage, not the thermite reacting itself is in contact with the steel that has to be cut.
the hot gas that is created during the thermite reaction are directed to the steel surface that is to be cut.
its actually not the thermite that is cuting it, it is the gas.

the fires should not start the thermite reaction.

[CHF]

there is a patent, it describes another usage, not the thermite reacting itself is in contact with the steel that has to be cut.
the hot gas that is created during the thermite reaction are directed to the steel surface that is to be cut.
its actually not the thermite that is cuting it, it is the gas.

the fires should not start the thermite reaction.

Half of that didn't even make sense!

OK, so how would this device work in taking down a building?

Walk me through it.... Where's it placed? How is it activated?

[beachnut]

Yeah I know, there's never officially been a thermite demolition...:rolleyes:....but let's say someone were to try it.

As I understand it, thermite is a gravity driven incendiary that starts cutting/burning/melting through steel the moment it comes into contact with it.

Seems like a really crappy demolition tool to me, but then I'm no expert.

So how would one would take down a skyscraper with thermite if they decided for some reason to go that route instead of explosives?

Wouldn't you actually need someone to physically place the thermite on the desired target in order for the reaction to take place? Or could you plant thermite and have it start reacting later via remote control?

And wouldn't thermite be seriously compromised by, say, a jet impact or a raging fire?

Hey, I'm just asking questions.
The aircraft impacts would destroy the thermite, sending the powder all over the place. Fires would destroy the fuses and all the other junk and the thermite would not go off.

Thermite is the dumbest idea, started by a failed fusion physicist. He posted a crazy idea and dummies on the internet eat it up like candy. How can anyone be dumb enough to believe an idiot idea of thermite being used to bring down the WTC complex. I know Jones made it up 4 years after 9/11. Now at 7 years only people lacking knowledge on a broad range of topics fall for the fantasy idea made up by Jones.

[DC]

Half of that didn't even make sense!

OK, so how would this device work in taking down a building?

Walk me through it.... Where's it placed? How is it activated?

this device would have to placed on the steel beam to cut, direct on the steel surface.
you can activate it by remote control. afaik there are remotecontrolled magnesium ignitors.

[DC]

The aircraft impacts would destroy the thermite, sending the powder all over the place. Fires would destroy the fuses and all the other junk and the thermite would not go off.

Thermite is the dumbest idea, started by a failed fusion physicist. He posted a crazy idea and dummies on the internet eat it up like candy. How can anyone be dumb enough to believe an idiot idea of thermite being used to bring down the WTC complex. I know Jones made it up 4 years after 9/11. Now at 7 years only people lacking knowledge on a broad range of topics fall for the fantasy idea made up by Jones.

when you are done with your ranting, you can maybe talk about the technical side of the issue.

[CHF]

this device would have to placed on the steel beam to cut, direct on the steel surface.
you can activate it by remote control. afaik there are remotecontrolled magnesium ignitors.

Uh huh....

So how would it cut horizontally?

And let's say a plane slammed into this thermite CD set-up. Would that affect things at all?

[beachnut]

Yeah I know, there's never officially been a thermite demolition...:rolleyes:....but let's say someone were to try it.

As I understand it, thermite is a gravity driven incendiary that starts cutting/burning/melting through steel the moment it comes into contact with it.

...
The truth movement has ever laid out the fusing, to execution. The truth movement does not have the expertise or knowledge to lay out a coherent plan. Thermite is a fantasy, Jones made it up.

No one can do it, they all lack the skills to make a plan about thermite. They are dumb enough on the topics needed to understand thermite, and as such they believe a lie made Jones! Not a single shred of evidence for thermite, and the truth movement is too challenged to lay out a plan.

I don't think anyone in the truth movement has the knowledge to answer your OP.

[DC]

Uh huh....

So how would it cut horizontally?

And let's say a plane slammed into this thermite CD set-up. Would that affect things at all?

the Patent describes a noozle or so, a opening on one side of the device, where the gas is coming out, this opening has to be directed towards the surface to cut.

a plane hit willl for sure rip the device from its place and destroy the device. in case they are placed at a location where a plane hits.

[CHF]

I don't think anyone in the truth movement has the knowledge to answer your OP.

Yeah I know but it's still fun to see them pretend. :D

[Grizzly Bear]

when you are done with your ranting, you can maybe talk about the technical side of the issue.

The application would be a rather confusing issue, regardless, given where the collapse initiated and that it was where the planes slammed through the structure I would put my money that any attempt to thermite the hell out of the towers would have been... how should I say... unsuccessful... given that the impact of the planes alone would have inhibited any such application of remote activation. And this graciously assumes that the application and activation methods you set forth are feasible for such a scheme

[defaultdotxbe]

there is a patent, it describes another usage, not the thermite reacting itself is in contact with the steel that has to be cut.
the hot gas that is created during the thermite reaction are directed to the steel surface that is to be cut.
its actually not the thermite that is cuting it, it is the gas.
the patent was filed in 2006, just a few years too late for 9/11, also the only working model ive seen was used to cut a 1in peice of rebar, i havent seen anything that can cut a beam

the fires should not start the thermite reaction.
correct, but could the casing and mounting of the device survive the fires?

this device would have to placed on the steel beam to cut, direct on the steel surface.
you can activate it by remote control. afaik there are remotecontrolled magnesium ignitors.
see above, can your remote controlled ignitor survive the fires?

[DC]

The truth movement has ever laid out the fusing, to execution. The truth movement does not have the expertise or knowledge to lay out a coherent plan. Thermite is a fantasy, Jones made it up.

No one can do it, they all lack the skills to make a plan about thermite. They are dumb enough on the topics needed to understand thermite, and as such they believe a lie made Jones! Not a single shred of evidence for thermite, and the truth movement is too challenged to lay out a plan.

I don't think anyone in the truth movement has the knowledge to answer your OP.

thats why you should stop ranting and use your super duper engineering skills to debunk the whol thingy.

your rants are not convincing at all. they are childish and laughable, we all know by now that the death TM failed in all aspects. we also know noone in the TM is an expert on anything and so on. we can read that in every single of your posts.

[beachnut]

And wouldn't thermite be seriously compromised by, say, a jet impact or a raging fire?

Too stupid to lay it out!

The impact and fires would render all the device DEAD.

The dumbest ideas are the radio control ones. They can't specify the device used, the frequency or any real details. They just post the stupid idea and run!

If they can find the perfect frequency the firemen and police will have radios that work in buildings. LOL

By remote control! They offer no details, just real stupid ideas!

The truth movement is not prepared to go into details. Even the guy who made up thermite has no clue! Clueless truth movement with stupid ideas.

No a single detailed plan by anyone. Zero! This is because it is a fantasy! No one has, no one can.

What radio freq would they use? Cell phones? lol

1 truther came up with the amount to melt some steel, but he never came up with a device. His rant was flawed. He never had a plan. He should have gone to Kerry.

Some idiot ideas include stupid rant about remote control with no wires but don't detail the receivers and transmitters used. And still no complete plan. I would say it takes about 10 pages just to outline the plan and include some details.

As an engineer it was so easy to see Jones made up thermite. I was not surprised when he was fired for making up a big lie.

Any layperson can easily see Jones made up thermite, FOUR years after 9/11. And he has not made progress in 3 years. I was not surprised when he was fired for making up a big lie.

Any rational person can see Jones made it up and has no evidence. But gee, it would be neat if some fact less truther could post the SIOP for thermite used at the WTC.

[CHF]

the Patent describes a noozle or so, a opening on one side of the device, where the gas is coming out, this opening has to be directed towards the surface to cut.

Could you link me to this thermite demolition Patent you speak of?

a plane hit willl for sure rip the device from its place and destroy the device. in case they are placed at a location where a plane hits.

So would it be safe to say then that a collapse which starts from the very location where the plane hit pretty much rules out thermite?

[DC]

ok bye bye kids :)
was fun for you

[defaultdotxbe]

a plane hit willl for sure rip the device from its place and destroy the device. in case they are placed at a location where a plane hits.
since the collapse started where the plane hit we may have a problem here

[beachnut]

Could you link me to this thermite demolition Patent you speak of?



So would it be safe to say then that a collapse which starts from the very location where the plane hit pretty much rules out thermite?
The truth movement is not prepared to present a plan. Jones just made it up without thinking about it. Why have a viable plan?

There are cutting device but the movement does not present a working copy that cuts WTC columns. A full up model, or even a plan with diagrams. Sad.

The idiot ideas never cover the fact the thermite has to be in contact with the steel column. Never telling us how they remove 3 inches of gypsum board to get next to the columns.

They never discuss how thermite remains were not found during clean up.

Jones lies and says clean up cuts were proof of thermite. His lies do not phase truth movement followers, they let there minds drift to believe lies and fantasy. There goes skeptical thought, all they do is repeat failed ideas. Skeptical thinkers would question Jones work and point out he lies about the cuts made after 9/11.

Thermite is easy when you know Jones made it up. September 2005, Jones made up thermite without thinking. September 2008, truthers still mention thermite without thinking; just like Jones.

[GlennB]

Could you link me to this thermite demolition Patent you speak of?

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/thermitecutter.jpg




Here's a sample diagram from the patent. Note the device is very bulky for the volume of thermite it contains, and that doesn't even include any attachment mechanism. Apart from the issue of surviving the crash and fires a lot of drywalling and fireproofing would have to be removed to snuggle these up to the steel, and the drywalling was itself very bulky and tight to the steel. For example :



http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg274/sap-guy/partitionwallsystem.jpg



So these "devices" would necessarily be left sticking out all over the place, in offices, stairways, restrooms, corridors and so on. And this is without even considering the problem of scale, which is to say a device that can cut 1" of rebar while its casing survives cannot necessarily survive while cutting a 4" thickness of box column.

All in all, it's piffle.

[ref]

The guys at JONES (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/Answers-to-Frequently-Asked-Questions-Regarding-Thermite-by-Robert-Moore.pdf) have also been drooling over this patent from February 2001, so the patent existed before 9/11: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6183569/description.html

Of course, they totally ignore this sentence:

Preferably, the cutting apparatus of the present invention may be employed, for example, to cut steel bars of up to one inch in diameter. It is believed that the diameter of a bar which can be successfully cut by the present invention is proportional to the diameter of the thermite charge employed in the cutting apparatus of the present invention.

[Orphia Nay]

You'd think that "36%" of the population could raise enough money for Jones to actually demonstrate how this works and answer all the questions in the OP. :rolleyes:

[leftysergeant]

I do not think that was the deevice DC had in mind. That would be a grenade-like thing that the militart uses. You throw it down a gun tube or set it on an engine block to destroy equipment, either to neutralize captured enemy equipment that you haven';t time to guard or to render abandoned equipment useless.

The illustrated device seems rather small to demolish a skyscraper. I am still trying to figure out what sort of initiator linkage your would use.

From the techincal drawings of the structure provided, I do not see how it could be placed in direct contact with the steel.

Most thermite charges I have ever made have had chemical initiators, either liquids applied directly to an incendiary mixture which produces a hypergalic reaction or by an initiation train similar to that of a tear gas or smoke grenade. In either case, you need a mechanical device of some sort to initiate the reaction.

Do you see how complicated this is getting?

Now, in the towers, how would you use them to initiate collapse or to keep it in progress?

Since the cores stood so long, it is clear that nothing done to the cores had any role in the collapse after initiation. To have initiated collapse, the thermite would have to have been attached to the columns only on the floors where collapse began. Now we have the problem of how any initiation train would survive the fires.

To use it to keep the collapse going, it would have to have been placed on the perimeter columns. Now we have to explain how they could have been cut with thermite in such a way that, after cutting through the steel, the thermite would not have shot showers of sparks, white smoke and incandescent molten steel in all directions out of the building. We clerarly do not see this occuring anywhere.

Thus, we are left with no reasonable way that it could be used in an occupied building without detection.

In an unoccupied building, I would simply strip all the sheet rock, attach cast charges running as much as five pounds each, to the uprights on all floors and set them to go off in sequence and hope that the fl;lors do not fall faster than planned.

How I would initiate them, I have no idea.

I am SO not going to go into a building and drop reagent on the igniter hole with a medicine dropper.

[Seymour Butz]

So these "devices" would necessarily be left sticking out all over the place, in offices, stairways, restrooms, corridors and so on. And this is without even considering the problem of scale, which is to say a device that can cut 1" of rebar while its casing survives cannot necessarily survive while cutting a 4" thickness of box column.

All in all, it's piffle.

They'd have to be on all 4 sides of the columns too, due to the size of them and the distance away that the "other" side of the column would be.

Another theory I've heard is using thermate in the traditional :rolleyes: vertically down manner, cutting the stabilizing floor beams on several floors. This would permit buckling of the columns. But it's equally insane cuz of all the material that would need to be removed, and them sticking out all over the place.

And I'm not so sure that THEY wouldn't need to be on more than just 1 side too.

Piffle.... I like that word.

[JamesB]

Well given that they couldn't even figure out how to take down a metal sign with 60lbs of thermite for their "truthburn" fiasco, I don't think you will be hearing any coherent theories anytime soon.

[ktesibios]

I think that there would be another real problem with using thermite for the sort of building demolitions the commercial demolition industry does- timing.

Getting a building to collapse the way you want it to depends, among other things, on breaking the structural members in the right sequence at the right times. Shaped charges do their work in milliseconds, so that cutting column "A" a specified time before you cut column "B" is a matter of delaying the detonation of charge "B" with respect to that of charge "A". This can be done easily enough that a demolition engineer can plan out how and when all the charges will detonate with a high degree of confidence.

With thermite, you ignite the incendiary material and then wait until it has melted enough steel that the column gives way. While it's probably possible to calculate how long that should take for a column of given dimensions under a given load, what are the tolerances involved?

It's also common to use a shaped charge to cut a column and a "kicker" charge detonated a short time afterward to displace the cut ends and prevent them from jamming together and continuing to support the compressive load. If the cutting were done with thermite, the heat might mess up the kicker charge.

Trying to burn through columns instead of cutting them with shaped charges just seems like a rather sloppy way of accomplishing something which is normally done with a lot of precision.

[CHF]

Well given that they couldn't even figure out how to take down a metal sign with 60lbs of thermite for their "truthburn" fiasco, I don't think you will be hearing any coherent theories anytime soon.

Oh that's right! I'd forgotten all about Truthburn...

And didn't that 60lbs of thermite produce a molten slag that cooled off in like 10-20 minutes?

Something to think with regards to all that "molten steel" lasting for weeks at GZ...

[beachnut]

Oh that's right! I'd forgotten all about Truthburn...

And didn't that 60lbs of thermite produce a molten slag that cooled off in like 10-20 minutes?

Something to think with regards to all that "molten steel" lasting for weeks at GZ...
Truthers try to use thermite for cutting columns; they failed to bring down a 20 foot wide sign. They had 70 pounds of thermite, but just burned it up, and sent the stuff to Jones! They say Gage came to talk. Gage, the guy who repeats Jones made up theory? How truthy. http://911truthburn.blogspot.com/ (http://911truthburn.blogspot.com/) how much do they pay for bandwidth?

Is the scam to raise money for the thermite cutter charge, 10,000 bucks! Is this 9/11 truth stuff a cottage industry of frauds? Act dumb, ask for money from real dumb people.

Some truthers are doing something, albeit taking money from dolts in 9/11 truth. I have not been taken by 9/11 truth, but I have been a victim of fraud by not paying attention and not using logic and research to connect the dots before I was soaked. Truthers may learn.

Is truthburn to make money! Skim some off the donations for the 10,000 buck cutter charges and you have the likes of "The Producers". This is funny stuff

http://911truthburn.blogspot.com/ (http://911truthburn.blogspot.com/) who paid for the sign, I was tied of reading junk? Is Gage nuts enough to put up thousands of dollars. The prices they quote as they ask for donations seem inflated.

[Quad4_72]

ok bye bye kids :)
was fun for you

Yes I would run away too if I was you. You know, the whole lack of evidence thing.

[DC]

Someone made a device where the hot gas is used to cut steel vertically.

looks interesting.

jpPNRrylH00

jump to 5:52

i know the problems to place those huge devices remain. also non of those devices was found. etc etc.

[Jackanory]

Someone made a device where the hot gas is used to cut steel vertically.

looks interesting.

jpPNRrylH00

jump to 5:52

i know the problems to place those huge devices remain. also non of those devices was found. etc etc.

Is it possible to use Thermite, Thermate to weaken or cut steal?.......Absolutely! Yes! Defo! Without a doubt! Nobody is saying NO!

The time factor? The amount? The manpower? The shelf life? The process?

Once all of the above is sorted we would then need to hide the worlds biggest sparkler...................twice!

Thermite was and always will be the dumbest of dumbest conspiracy theories. Cool!

These CT's rock!

[DC]

Nobody is saying NO!

:rolleyes: Many have said NO it is not possible to use it vertically.

[Jackanory]

:rolleyes: Many have said NO it is not possible to use it vertically.

Irrelevent!............but in the context of 911 and a 'CD' show me that they are wrong!

What is Thermite, Thermate?

What is it used for and why?

Give me 5 reasons why it can't or wouldn't be used for 'CD'.

Give me the characteristics and sig of Thermite, Thermate.

Direct me to just one 'demolition expert' who will go public with the 'thermite' theory.

Explosive experts are laughing in their DMS boots and pissing in their kevlar pants. lol.

[DC]

Irrelevent!............but in the context of 911 and a 'CD' show me that they are wrong!

What is Thermite, Thermate?

What is it used for and why?

Give me 5 reasons why it can't or wouldn't be used for 'CD'.

Give me the characteristics and sig of Thermite, Thermate.

Direct me to just one 'demolition expert' who will go public with the 'thermite' theory.

Explosive experts are laughing in their DMS boots and pissing in their kevlar pants. lol.

:confused: what's wrong with you?

[Jackanory]

:confused: what's wrong with you?

I'm ok...........are you? Seen any more youtube vids lately? lol.

I'm ok..........are you? Care to answer the questions about Thermite? lol.

I'm ok...........are you? beep beep..........................

[DC]

I'm ok...........are you? Seen any more youtube vids lately? lol.

I'm ok..........are you? Care to answer the questions about Thermite? lol.

I'm ok...........are you? beep beep..........................

i doubt you are ok :boggled:

[DC]

Thermite was and always will be the dumbest of dumbest conspiracy theories. Cool!

so you think spacebeams and no plane theories are less dumb?

[Unsecured Coins]

I doubt you'll answer a single question

[DC]

I doubt you'll answer a single question

this is so laughable......

maybe read the stuff i wrote below the video.
there are still huge problems (not to say impossible) with that CT.
I merely posted a video with an experiment that showed, that a device similar to the patents do indeed work, they can cut steel vertically.
Something that was denied as it came without any evidence that it is indeed possible, and now someone shows that it is possible.
i thought it might be of interest, so for accuracy reason maybe?

so people that believe thermite cannot be used vertically dont claim that anymore and get debunked.

:rolleyes:

[triforcharity]

And yet, still have yet to show how it would or even COULD be used on steel as thick as that found in the WTC.

[jaydeehess]

Someone made a device where the hot gas is used to cut steel vertically.

looks interesting.

jpPNRrylH00

jump to 5:52

i know the problems to place those huge devices remain. also non of those devices was found. etc etc.

Well finally someone actually tried it. I do have to commend the guy who did this.
OTOH he keeps speaking abouit 'explosive' nano-thermite.
An explosive is an explosive whether it has nano-thermitic compounds incorporated in it or not. Bigger boom for less material but still a big enough boom to sever a large box column will sound very much the same whether its RDX or an explosive containing nano-thermitic material.
So that's a non-starter.

However, he used incindiary thermite to sever, or at least severly weaken a vertical column so congrats to him on that. I see that doing so took on the order of seconds to accomplish though. So now we run into a problem that has been discussed many many times in these threads. You cannot time multiple thermite burns to occur in the manner required to bring down a large structure in any controlled manner. It certainly could not be used to sever columns or beams or connections all down the structure either since we can see quite plainly in the actual collapse, that it takes much less than a second for any particular level to fail.

The video author also shows that he could severly weaken the bolts connecting box columns. At no time however did he actually sever a vertocal column and here we run into a problem especially if one is trying for any type of control in a demolition. As stated above , explosive demo's incorporate a second, 'kicker' charge to offset the section of the column to allow that they move past each other rather than have the top settle on the lower and continue to hold a vertical load. There is no such thing in a thermite burn.

Now if thermite was used only to sever truss to column connections in order to enable column buckling due to long lengths with no bracing the problem with the way the video protrays this is that the best way to do it and not have it seen would be to only do so at the core connections and leave all perimeter connections intact. It puts inward tension on the perimeter columns (since the floor pans are still hanging onto the perimeter columns)while eliminating column bracing for both perimeter and core columns.

However if it was done the way the author of the video contends, thermite severing of both perimeter and column truss connections he must also believe in the NIST and Bazant model that once the initial collapse occured the building was doomed since we see no similar heating of perimeter columns anywhere on the structure the way we do at the actual fire floors. Nor do we see any evidence of thermite burns anywhere below the fire floors.

All of this means that the thermite theory is reduced to saying that thermite was used to weaken the structure until it gave way at the fire floors and that once this initial failure occured the building crushed down on itself.

This is EXACTLY what NIST said occured except that they contend that all the heat needed to weaken the structure sufficiently was contained in the office fires themselves AND a century of fire engineering backs this contention up.

By Occam's Razor then the simplest explanation does not include dozens of thermite cutting devices and instead concludes that the office fires coupled with the initial imapct damage caused the initial collapse and that, as the video author also must agree with, after this occured the building was doomed to complete a global collapse.
:rolleyes: Many have said NO it is not possible to use it vertically.

Actually many may have said that but I for one simply asked why it was that Jones and Fetzer would not try to do so and instead simply poo-pooed Nat Geo's attempt to do so.
Again I commend the author for doing more to support the contention than Jones ever has.

so you think spacebeams and no plane theories are less dumb?

Of course not! They are another , lower level of dumb. Congrats on being above them.

[DC]

i didnt post the video to defend his theory, nor do i believe his theory, i think the building collapsed and was NOT demolished in a controlled way.

BUT it shows an argument that was bought up against me when i believed in a CD a while ago. That Thermite cannot cut vertically, this argument is now shown to be wrong, it does however not show the WTC collapse was a CD.

i dont believe the WTC Collapse was a CD, i hope thats clear now.

[adkinsjr]

Isn't it true that this would be the first time in history that thermite was used to demolish three steel framed high-rises on the same day, all of which are larger than any building that's ever been demolished, all of which were being used for office space at the time, and all of which were successfully rigged in complete secrecy? What's that old rhetorical question often posed by "truthers" ? Doesn't the same apply to them? Or are they exempt from their own "logic"?

http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/haggard-overseer.jpg

Even if thermite can theoretically be used to demolish a building, the cult's hypothesis is still preposterous. Richard Gage believes that his controlled demolition fantasy is necessary to explain several features of the collapse which include the pulverization of concrete and steel, as well as the lateral ejection of debris. So there appears to be a fundamental contradiction; this can be easily understood by looking at some of Gage's own ridiculous statements

"If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an incendiary to cut the beams. You would NOT use explosives which would give away your project."
-Richard Gage

"The explosives had to be so intense, because this is not a typical controlled demolition, so intense such as to hurl these beams at 65 mph laterally, landing five hundred feet away."
-Richard Gage

So the conspirators didn't use explosives, since this would be too loud. So instead they used an incendiary to simply cut the steel. But they did in fact use explosives to laterally eject debris? LOL, what a joke...:rolleyes:

[ozeco41]

....What's that old rhetorical question often posed by "truthers" ? Doesn't the same apply to them? Or are they exempt from their own "logic"?
Truthers are excused both logic and consistency. But they demand both of them from 'us'.

[tempesta29]

Isn't it true that this would be the first time in history that thermite was used to demolish three steel framed high-rises on the same day, all of which are larger than any building that's ever been demolished, all of which were being used for office space at the time, and all of which were successfully rigged in complete secrecy? What's that old rhetorical question often posed by "truthers" ? Doesn't the same apply to them? Or are they exempt from their own "logic"?

It seems more evident that you're exempt from employing logic altogether. The point of highlighting the collapses on 9/11 as unprecedented has a specific function: to underscore the unlikelihood of such an occurrence. When you're talking about the conscious decision-making of individuals, in this case using thermite in demolition, probability has little relevance, because that occurrence did not take place as the result of seemingly random events; someone simply chose to use a highly volatile incendiary in a controlled demolition.

In fact, the two occurrences are inextricably linked: because no demolition of this magnitude had ever been executed, it is only logical that unprecedented methods may be used.

[adkinsjr]

It seems more evident that you're exempt from employing logic altogether. The point of highlighting the collapses on 9/11 as unprecedented has a specific function: to underscore the unlikelihood of such an occurrence.

Oh yeah, thermite being used to demolish three steel framed high-rises on the same day, all of which are larger than any building that's ever been demolished, all of which were being used for office space at the time, and all of which were successfully rigged in complete secrecy, uh yeah, no unlikelihoods in that occurence. :D

someone simply chose to use a highly volatile incendiary in a controlled demolition which had to be rigged up in complete secrecy in three occupied buildings taller than any that have been demolished in history.

Fixed that for ya, let's not minimize the incomprehensible dimensions of this UNPRECEDENTED task. I think I'll simply choose to go to mars and start my own colony before the New Year. Probablilities aren't important, it's just a matter of sheer will.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/haggard-overseer.jpg

[tempesta29]

Oh yeah, thermite being used to demolish three steel framed high-rises on the same day, all of which are larger than any building that's ever been demolished, all of which were being used for office space at the time, and all of which were successfully rigged in complete secrecy, uh yeah, no unlikelihoods in that occurence. :D


Fixed that for ya, let's not minimize the incomprehensible dimensions of this UNPRECEDENTED task. I think I'll simply choose to go to mars and start my own colony before the New Year. Probablilities aren't important, it's just a matter of sheer will.


Again, these are conscious human decisions. It's clearly over your head.

[adkinsjr]

Again, these are conscious human decisions. It's clearly over your head.

No, nothing you've said has went over my head. Just because human decision making is involved doesn't mean unlikelyhoods are not. What do you think the probability of me landing on mars before the New Year is? I'll simply choose to go. These are concious human decisions here! Therefore, there aren't any unlikelyhoods right?

:p

Clearly that didn't register when you read my last post.

[jaydeehess]

i didnt post the video to defend his theory, nor do i believe his theory, i think the building collapsed and was NOT demolished in a controlled way.

BUT it shows an argument that was bought up against me when i believed in a CD a while ago. That Thermite cannot cut vertically, this argument is now shown to be wrong, it does however not show the WTC collapse was a CD.

i dont believe the WTC Collapse was a CD, i hope thats clear now.

, and as I said above (I did , didn't I?) I have not said it was not possible. I said it had not been demostrated and that the only group that tried, oddly enough, was Nat Geo.

[tempesta29]

No, nothing you've said has went over my head. Just because human decision making is involved doesn't mean unlikelyhoods are not. What do you think the probability of me landing on mars before the New Year is? I'll simply choose to go. These are concious human decisions here! Therefore, there aren't any unlikelyhoods right?

:p

Clearly that didn't register when you read my last post.

What are the obstacles in your landing on the moon? There are serious logistical issues there, so it isn't simply a matter of choosing to go to the moon. The logistical obstacles are far less in the situation under review.

[adkinsjr]

What are the obstacles in your landing on the moon? There are serious logistical issues there, so it isn't simply a matter of choosing to go to the moon. The logistical obstacles are far less in the situation under review.

I know my example is extreme, but the principle is the same. Just because human decision making is involved in a task doesn't mean unlikelyhoods are not. It's very unlikely that some of the tallest office buildings in the U.S. were rigged with thermite demolition devices in complete secrecy as claimed by the "truth" cult. It's preposterous.

[sheeplesnshills]

:rolleyes: Many have said NO it is not possible to use it vertically.

Actually I'm pretty sure I could work out a way of doing it.........and in any case you only have to heat the beam up not cut it...........

I absolutely do not think it was used but I'm pretty sure I could use it to demolish a building.

[jaydeehess]

Actually I'm pretty sure I could work out a way of doing it.........and in any case you only have to heat the beam up not cut it...........

I absolutely do not think it was used but I'm pretty sure I could use it to demolish a building.

Keep in mind I know you are not advocating for this theory.

(BTW my apologies to DC as I had forgotten he is no longer a 'truther'.)

Do you think you could work out a way of using it in a controlled fashion to make the building fall they way you want it to?

Using thermite to heat up, ie. simply weaken, key parts of the fire floor levels seems to me to be just making up stuff for the sole reason that one cannot envision the events not being a vast gov't conspiracy.

NIST and common sense ( who? what? where did that phrase come from?) explain the heating up of the steel as a result of the office fires which were lit and spread to be very large area, multi floor fires within seconds by the introduction of thousands of gallons of liquid acellerant.

[tempesta29]

I know my example is extreme, but the principle is the same. Just because human decision making is involved in a task doesn't mean unlikelyhoods are not. It's very unlikely that some of the tallest office buildings in the U.S. were rigged with thermite demolition devices in complete secrecy as claimed by the "truth" cult. It's preposterous.

You compared choosing to add thermite to the mix to going to the moon. Are they comparable? No. There is no analogy here. You are blindly grasping for one, but it isn't there.

[TheRedWorm]

You compared choosing to add thermite to the mix to going to the moon. Are they comparable? No. There is no analogy here. You are blindly grasping for one, but it isn't there.


You're right. Going to the moon is at least possible.

[adkinsjr]

You compared choosing to add thermite to the mix to going to the moon.

No, I compared thermite being used to demolish three steel framed high-rises on the same day, all of which are larger than any building that's ever been demolished, all of which were being used for office space at the time, and doing it all in complete in complete secrecy with going to mars

There are logistical obstacles to overcome, some of which may be impossible to overcome. Rigging the towers with demolition devices in complete secrecy is a serious obstacle that you conveniently ignore when you say that they "simply chose to use thermite."

The controlled demoltion hypothesis delusion is preposterous.

[tempesta29]

No, I compared thermite being used to demolish three steel framed high-rises on the same day, all of which are larger than any building that's ever been demolished, all of which were being used for office space at the time, and doing it all in complete in complete secrecy with going to mars

There are logistical obstacles to overcome, some of which may be impossible to overcome. Rigging the towers with demolition devices in complete secrecy is a serious obstacle that you conveniently ignore when you say that they "simply chose to use thermite."

The controlled demoltion hypothesis delusion is preposterous.

I haven't conveniently ignored it at all. And really, there isn't much to respond to on this topic. There is certainly nothing 'impossible' about putting these explosives in those buildings. Yes, it is a serious obstacle, the most serious as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't make it impossible. For a website about critical thinking, it's astonishing how frequently people use the word impossible.

[adkinsjr]

I haven't conveniently ignored it at all. And really, there isn't much to respond to on this topic. There is certainly nothing 'impossible' about putting these explosives in THE THREE TALLEST BUILDINGS TO HAVE EVER BEEN DEMOLITIONED, WHILE THEY ARE BEING USED FOR OFFICE SPACE, AND DOING IT ALL IN COMPLETE SECRECY.

Fixed that for ya AGAIN, because you convenienty ignored the most important obstacle AGAIN. :rolleyes:

If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an incendiary to cut the beams. You would NOT use explosives which would give away your project."
-Richard Gage

[tempesta29]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impossible

Here you go.

[triforcharity]

I haven't conveniently ignored it at all. And really, there isn't much to respond to on this topic. There is certainly nothing 'impossible' about putting these explosives in those buildings. Yes, it is a serious obstacle, the most serious as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't make it impossible. For a website about critical thinking, it's astonishing how frequently people use the word impossible.

Yes there is. Why you ask? Thermite is NOT an explosive. Ever.

[tempesta29]

Yes there is. Why you ask? Thermite is NOT an explosive. Ever.

Quote where I claimed thermite was an explosive.

[sheeplesnshills]

Keep in mind I know you are not advocating for this theory.

Correct.

(BTW my apologies to DC as I had forgotten he is no longer a 'truther'.)

Do you think you could work out a way of using it in a controlled fashion to make the building fall they way you want it to?

Yes

Using thermite to heat up, ie. simply weaken, key parts of the fire floor levels seems to me to be just making up stuff for the sole reason that one cannot envision the events not being a vast gov't conspiracy.

True but thats not the same as saying would be impossible to bring down a building using thermite. The WTC was not, as there is zero evidence that it was, utterly impractical to set and ignite charges or to leave no evidence of those charges.
We should be careful about saying things are impossible just because no one has tried to do it.

NIST and common sense ( who? what? where did that phrase come from?) explain the heating up of the steel as a result of the office fires which were lit and spread to be very large area, multi floor fires within seconds by the introduction of thousands of gallons of liquid acellerant.


Agree 100%, why waste time with thermite etc when you have an airliner.......

[sheeplesnshills]

Fixed that for ya AGAIN, because you convenienty ignored the most important obstacle AGAIN. :rolleyes:

If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an incendiary to cut the beams. You would NOT use explosives which would give away your project."
-Richard Gage

An incendiary was used......a Boeing 767 fill of fuel!
Thermite would be just as obvious as explosives as it would leave traces of the thermite itself, damaged beams and ignition systems all over the debris pile.

[GlennB]

Quote where I claimed thermite was an explosive.

Er, triforcharity quoted your exact words in his post, to which you are now responding. Unless by "these explosives" you're thinking of something other than therm?te. But that would be plain weird, given the thread and its current course.

[tempesta29]

Er, triforcharity quoted your exact words in his post, to which you are now responding. Unless by "these explosives" you're thinking of something other than therm?te. But that would be plain weird, given the thread and its current course.

If I said explosives then yes, I was not referring to thermite specifically, by definition. I have never referred to thermite as an explosive. You are claiming I have.

Quote it.

[triforcharity]

I already HAVE quoted it. In the context of this thread (assuming you understand "context") it is absolutely what you claimed.

If not, please clarify this post.

I haven't conveniently ignored it at all. And really, there isn't much to respond to on this topic. There is certainly nothing 'impossible' about putting these explosives in those buildings. Yes, it is a serious obstacle, the most serious as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't make it impossible. For a website about critical thinking, it's astonishing how frequently people use the word impossible.


There you go. Just in case.

[tempesta29]

What is there to clarify? I'm claiming explosives were used in the destruction of these buildings. What isn't clear to you that needs clarifying?

[triforcharity]

What is there to clarify? I'm claiming explosives were used in the destruction of these buildings. What isn't clear to you that needs clarifying?

But this thread is NOT about explosives, is it?

A simple "Yes" or "no" will suffice.

[adkinsjr]

What is there to clarify? I'm claiming explosives were used in the destruction of these buildings. What isn't clear to you that needs clarifying?

Then why did you say:

someone simply chose to use a highly volatile incendiary in a controlled demolition.


LOL, The fact of the matter is that you referred to thermite as an explosive, you were corrected, and now you're trying to save yourself the embarrassment by playing with words..."oh I never said that EXACTLY!"

Hurry think of something! Oh let me guess, they used both thermite AND explosives in the demolition right? Maybe you can pretend like that's what you were getting at all along, anything to avoid admitting your fluke.

[twinstead]

When one can make stuff up as one goes along, one is guaranteed to never lose a debate, huh? ;)

[tempesta29]

Then why did you say:

LOL, The fact of the matter is that you referred to thermite as an explosive, you were corrected, and now you're trying to save yourself the embarrassment by playing with words..."oh I never said that EXACTLY!"

You're either too incompetent to decipher the facts or you're just being dishonest. Where do I specifically refer to thermite as an explosive? Be very thoughtful in your response to this because as of now you're just failing.

Hurry think of something! Oh let me guess, they used both thermite AND explosives in the demolition right? Maybe you can pretend like that's what you were getting at all along, anything to avoid admitting your fluke.

That's exactly what I meant. In fact, I believe I've even posted just that in this forum. That is also the predominant theory of those would believe these buildings were brought down in this fashion.

But if you want to get technical about my posts rather than just being reasonable: quote exactly where I claimed thermite was an explosive. It's simply reading comprehension: I claimed explosives were used, and I also claimed thermite was used. I never mixed the two. You did. Try harder, and be honest in your exchanges.

[Sam.I.Am]

Once again I'll have to point out to the truthers that no matter what type of devices they wish to invent in their fantasy world it must be able to reliably withstand the impacts and/or observed fires completely unscathed for at least 45 minutes in the real world. That means all of the device, from the initiation mechanism(s) to the final substance being ignited (be it explosive or incendiary) with the additional requirement that it be undetectable (at the very least to the untrained eye) in it's placement both during and after its installation.

That's what's impossible. I have no doubt that you can rig up devices that might work given enough time and space to meet the first of those requirements, but not the second. Only people relying upon a faulty Electric Monk make claims that it can be done while maintaining a straight face.

[adkinsjr]

But if you want to get technical about my posts rather than just being reasonable: quote exactly where I claimed thermite was an explosive. .

We're talking about thermite demolition, tempesta. The context of this discussion was the plausibility of rigging three tall occupied office buildings with demolition devices which are specifically based on thermite , and completing this task in secrecy. I said that there are major obstacles to overcome, some of which may be impossible. Your response to me was:

"There is certainly nothing 'impossible' about putting these explosives in those buildings"

You're obviously referring to the demolition devices that I was discussing as "these explosives." Stop trying to save face here, you're already in the "truth" cult, and that's rock bottom.

[tempesta29]

We're talking about thermite demolition, tempesta. The context of this discussion was the plausibility of rigging three tall occupied office buildings with demolition devices which are specifically based on thermite , and completing this task in secrecy. I said that there are major obstacles to overcome, some of which may be impossible. Your response to me was:

You're obviously referring to the demolition devices that I was discussing as "these explosives." Stop trying to save face here, you're already in the "truth" cult, and that's rock bottom.

How ironic. It was your post, post #55, in which you turn the discussion from thermite itself to a discussion of how one would rig such high profile structures in secrecy. At that point, you changed the conversation from thermite being used in demolition to the plausibility of rigging the buildings at all.

Now, here you are trying to pin this sharp turn in topic on me.

No, I compared thermite being used to demolish three steel framed high-rises on the same day, all of which are larger than any building that's ever been demolished, all of which were being used for office space at the time, and doing it all in complete in complete secrecy with going to mars

There are logistical obstacles to overcome, some of which may be impossible to overcome. Rigging the towers with demolition devices in complete secrecy is a serious obstacle that you conveniently ignore when you say that they "simply chose to use thermite."

The controlled demoltion hypothesis delusion is preposterous.

Until your above post, I was on topic, referring only to thermite itself as the variable. I discussed only the logistics involved in adding thermite to the demolition technology. It was you in the above post who just tossed in the secrecy factor. How is rigging the Twin Towers with explosives so different from rigging them with an explosive/thermite combination? Does one require more 'secrecy' than the other? Is robbing a bank with an MP5K so much different logistically than robbing a bank with an AK74?

A bit of logical consistency would be nice, but apparently that's asking too much.

[adkinsjr]

How ironic. It was your post, post #55, in which you turn the discussion from thermite itself to a discussion of how one would rig such high profile structures THERMITE in secrecy. At that point, you changed the conversation from thermite being used in demolition to the plausibility of rigging the buildings WITH THERMITE at all.


Fixed that for ya.

:p

[Telltale Tom]

So I think that the You Tube videos on this site prove that large amounts of thermite can cut beams both vertically and horizontally. So the demo team would have used very big thermite devices to cut the 4in flanges and webs columns.

I am sure they could have easily smuggled the tons of thermite into the buildings and welded them to the internal and perimeter columns without anyone noticing. How clever and daring our government are. And since the NYFD, NYPD and the engineering community seem to be in on it that explains why supposedly "nobody noticed anything odd during the clear up."

You can see why thermite is consistent with the 14 Pillars of Evidence that are shown on the ae911truth web site.


1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration.
Only possible by the simultaneous melting of all columns in the middle of the towers. Not sure if this had to occur at all levels to achieve nearly free-fall acceleration.
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution Yes without thermite around the full perimeter of the building how could it fall straight down.
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction.
Yes the special fire protection to the thermite was designed to last even the most severe fire. The collapse started in the fire zone when the thermite was detonated and only something like that could make 250 columns fail simultaneously...
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
Thermite takes a long time to cut things, so thats why the first responders saw the flames and explosions an hour before the collapse... oops thermite doesn't explode...well we probably had some other explosives just in case the thermite didnt work. Sadly none of the flashes were caught on camera.
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
This must have been thermite in association with a conventional explosives. Our government are very very clever and probably wanted to confuse the investigation.
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking Could only have been done by thermite blasts at every level.
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds.
If you look at the videos of thermite reaction you can see that it is the closest thing to a volcano... which explains the pyroclastic-like clouds.
8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found Yes we usually try and keep this point as far away from the first point; as if it did fall straight down, it would not also fall straight out. But you would expect one of these with a thermite demolition and we have both the bases covered.
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front Yes this is clear evidence of sequential thermite detonations at every floor level, milliseconds before each floor collapses. Since thermite cannot do that, since its a slow burn; then this is definitely where nanothermite was used. Nano thermite is a top secret compound with many properties that are amazing and hard to believe.
10. Total building destruction: Well what more would you expect from nano-thermite.
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises Yes clear evidence of melting steel into a big puddle. These NYFD folks must have cut it into small bits when no-one was looking. Seems there was nothing bigger than a partially melted chiller.
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples. Although aluminum and iron are not normally considered explosive we can prove they are in particular conditions.
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples And of course its in all the dust for the reasons cited above.
14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire. We tend to ignore the plane impact thing here; but you can imagine that it couldn't be done without copious amounts of nana-thermite.

[dafydd]

I haven't conveniently ignored it at all. And really, there isn't much to respond to on this topic. There is certainly nothing 'impossible' about putting these explosives in those buildings. Yes, it is a serious obstacle, the most serious as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't make it impossible. For a website about critical thinking, it's astonishing how frequently people use the word impossible.

How was it done?

[GlennB]

I am sure they could have easily smuggled the tons of thermite into the buildings and welded them to the internal and perimeter columns without anyone noticing.

Ah!

That clears it all up for me. Thanks.

[AJM8125]

There is certainly nothing 'impossible' about putting these explosives in those buildings.

Yes, there is.

[adkinsjr]

How was it done?

It wasn't.

[twinstead]

It's not enough to claim it WAS done. It's not even enough to explain how it COULD be done. There needs to be evidence it actually WAS done. This is the skeptic trifecta.

[tempesta29]

It's not enough to claim it WAS done. It's not even enough to explain how it COULD be done. There needs to be evidence it actually WAS done. This is the skeptic trifecta.

The upper sections of the Twin Towers do not decelerate when they encounter undamaged structure. This is proof that the upper sections are not destroying the lower sections, therefore something other than the force of the upper sections is destroying the lower sections. I propose that explosives were used.

[dc1971]

The upper sections of the Twin Towers do not decelerate when they encounter undamaged structure. This is proof that the upper sections are not destroying the lower sections, therefore something other than the force of the upper sections is destroying the lower sections. I propose that explosives were used.

Well your proposal has been rejected... many, many, many, many, many times! :rolleyes:

[A W Smith]

The upper sections of the Twin Towers do not decelerate when they encounter undamaged structure. This is proof that the upper sections are not destroying the lower sections, therefore something other than the force of the upper sections is destroying the lower sections. I propose that explosives were used.

Yet if explosives are used in a cd scenario the remaining columns are still there immediately below the severed sections. Impact onto these severed stumps of columns would result in a visible deceleration. (a jolt) There is no difference in acceleration during the event. QED, your CD delusion is proven false by applying your own conditions.

[tempesta29]

Yet if explosives are used in a cd scenario the remaining columns are still there immediately below the severed sections. Impact onto these severed stumps of columns would result in a visible deceleration. (a jolt) There is no difference in acceleration during the event. QED, your CD delusion is proven false by applying your own conditions.

Impact onto what stumps? The columns are taken out level by level, and they are generally cut at an angle. They wouldn't impact "stumps" because at that point more charges have been set off below that impact point, facilitating the descent of the upper section. Your argument doesn't even make sense.

[adkinsjr]

Impact onto what stumps? The columns are taken out level by level, and they are generally cut at an angle.
They wouldn't impact "stumps" because at that point more charges have been set off below that impact point, facilitating the descent of the upper section.

This is pure drivel. What did you just say?

http://media.katu.com/images/070828_Miss_SC.jpg

[AJM8125]

Impact onto what stumps? The columns are taken out level by level, and they are generally cut at an angle. They wouldn't impact "stumps" because at that point more charges have been set off below that impact point, facilitating the descent of the upper section. Your argument doesn't even make sense.

Cunning bastards, they prepared the building for a controlled demolition and still got the buildings collapse from the point of the aircraft impacts down.

[tempesta29]

This is pure drivel. What did you just say?

That's what it sounds like when someone has to respond to drivel.

[A W Smith]

Impact onto what stumps? The columns are taken out level by level, and they are generally cut at an angle. They wouldn't impact "stumps" because at that point more charges have been set off below that impact point, facilitating the descent of the upper section. Your argument doesn't even make sense.

on every level? level by level? do you know how stupid you sound? 77 or 93 storys of explosive cd cutting every column progressively? Do you not see the stupiduity you have backed yourself into?

77 floors in the south tower X 47 core columns and 256 perimeter columns (303) = 23,331 explosive charges, North tower? 93 floors = 28,179 explosive charges, for a total of 51,510 explosive charges. Even if you only rig the core thats 3619 and 4371 charges combined equal 7990 charges and that EXCLUDING building seven. All done in absolute secrecy, Please don't go anywhere, You are a useful example of the idiocy of the truth movement, Continue to post, I insist.

[adkinsjr]

on every level? level by level? do you know how stupid you sound? 77 or 93 storys of explosive cd cutting every column progressively? Do you not see the stupiduity you have backed yourself into?


No he doesn't.

Please don't go anywhere, You are a useful example of the idiocy of the truth movement cult, Continue to post, I insist

;)

[tempesta29]

on every level? level by level? do you know how stupid you sound? 77 or 93 storys of explosive cd cutting every column progressively? Do you not see the stupiduity you have backed yourself into?

77 floors in the south tower X 47 core columns and 256 perimeter columns (303) = 23,331 explosive charges, North tower? 93 floors = 28,179 explosive charges, for a total of 51,510 explosive charges. Even if you only rig the core thats 3619 and 4371 charges combined equal 7990 charges and that EXCLUDING building seven. All done in absolute secrecy, Please don't go anywhere, You are a useful example of the idiocy of the truth movement, Continue to post, I insist.

I didn't say floors. I said level, an arbitrary value. I didn't say every level either. You're insulting, and you have poor reading comprehension skills. I did not say there were charges on every single floor of the Twin Towers, just as I never said that thermite was an explosive. Try to learn to be more polite, and if you're confused about one of my posts, just ask me to clarify rather than going on an offensive rant.

Thanks.

[A W Smith]

I didn't say floors. I said level, an arbitrary value. I didn't say every level either. You're insulting, and you have poor reading comprehension skills. I did not say there were charges on every single floor of the Twin Towers, just as I never said that thermite was an explosive. Try to learn to be more polite, and if you're confused about one of my posts, just ask me to clarify rather than going on an offensive rant.

Thanks.


I think you're the one that's confused. Define you're "value". Remember now, you cant have any column stubs that will impact and show deceleration. How are you going to do that by leaving column sections intact on floors? Go ahead sport! Show us.

[AJM8125]

I didn't say floors. I said level
:dig:

[Telltale Tom]

on every level? level by level? do you know how stupid you sound? 77 or 93 storys of explosive cd cutting every column progressively? Do you not see the stupiduity you have backed yourself into?

77 floors in the south tower X 47 core columns and 256 perimeter columns (303) = 23,331 explosive charges, North tower? 93 floors = 28,179 explosive charges, for a total of 51,510 explosive charges. Even if you only rig the core thats 3619 and 4371 charges combined equal 7990 charges and that EXCLUDING building seven. All done in absolute secrecy, Please don't go anywhere, You are a useful example of the idiocy of the truth movement, Continue to post, I insist.

I would guess that they would only have to have charges at every third floor level to avoid deceleration! Probably also had these fire proof charges at the upper levels just in case the planes hit higher.

But when we talk about squibs and explosions during the collapse, we mean every floor: you can see it so clearly on the YT videos that ae911truth refer to.

I think ae911truth once calculated the quantity of thermite in tons and have assumed several thousand charges. I am glad that you guys are starting to understand the truth.

[JamesB]

Why would it be necessary for them to avoid deceleration? What exactly is the point of going to extra work, in order to not only make your plot more difficult and expensive to pull off, but more suspicious. What, were they traying to get caught?

[adkinsjr]

"I didn't say floors. I said level, an arbitrary value. I didn't say every level either."


:eek:

You have got to be kidding me, I've rarely seen anybody engage in this kind of wordplay. It's absolutely ridiculous tempesta; ridiculous.

No one here has poor reading comprehension skills. You just keep playing with words to save face, it's a ridiculous game you play and it's really getting annoying.

[Telltale Tom]

Impact onto what stumps? The columns are taken out level by level, and they are generally cut at an angle. They wouldn't impact "stumps" because at that point more charges have been set off below that impact point, facilitating the descent of the upper section. Your argument doesn't even make sense.


Tempesta29, I think this is what you said.... level by level

And indeed some of us are proud to believe that there were 10,000 to 50,000 nano-thermite charges placed on the twin towers. Rome wasn't built in a day you know.

Say 10 a night, placed by a demo team of two. So with a team of 100 demo experts plus guards, cleaners etc they could have done it in 20 to 100 days.

How many charges do you think were placed? What's your truth? I am sure we can find out by an investigation with subpoena power.

[Dave Rogers]

The upper sections of the Twin Towers do not decelerate when they encounter undamaged structure.

We're still waiting for you to provide some numbers to back up this assertion.

Now, let's see how much deceleration we might expect.

The downward acceleration of the upper block was measured at something around 2/3g, so we're seeing a retarding force of about 1/3mg. However, there are two major causes for retardation of the upper block, namely conservation of momentum due to acceleration of stationary components of the lower block, and structural resistance. Clearly, damage to the lower block will have a negligible effect on the first component, because the mass is not affected; columns have been weakened or broken, but only an insignificant part of the mass has fallen away. So we need to know what proportion of the 1/3g retarding force is due to structural resistance. Referring to Frank Greening's work at http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf, an estimate of retardation times gives 2.4 seconds for momentum conservation and 0.2 seconds for WTC1, indicating that momentum conservation is in fact the dominant term.

Let's assume that the structural resistance is about 10% of the overall retardation. So now we need to know by how much that was reduced in the damaged part of the building. NIST estimates that about 10-15% of the core column strength was removed by the airliner impacts, and we know that something like half a set of perimeter colums was also severed on the impact face. Overall, a figure of 15% looks like a reasonable one for the weakening of the damaged section.

So let's multiply all that together to get an idea of the reduction in retardation we'd expect. 0.33 x 0.1 x 0.15 = 0.005. So, as a result of the damage to the structure, we expect the downward acceleration to reduce from 0.667g to 0.662g - less than a 1% decrease in acceleration.

Simply put, tempesta29, the effect you're looking for is too small to see. I've analysed the data you're referring to, and the error in acceleration values is close to ±100%. Claiming, on the basis of data that noisy, that you're failing to see a 1% step change in acceleration is like claiming Islam is a false religion because when you look east you can't see Mecca.

Dave

[tempesta29]

I think you're the one that's confused. Define you're "value". Remember now, you cant have any column stubs that will impact and show deceleration. How are you going to do that by leaving column sections intact on floors? Go ahead sport! Show us.

First you call them stumps; now you call them stubs. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Why would it be necessary for them to avoid deceleration? What exactly is the point of going to extra work, in order to not only make your plot more difficult and expensive to pull off, but more suspicious. What, were they traying to get caught?

Is there any other way? How can you have a sequential demolition below a falling mass without producing a constant rate of acceleration? If they had gone out of their way to design a system that produced jolts or periods of deceleration the collapse may not have been a success.

[Dave Rogers]

Is there any other way? How can you have a sequential demolition below a falling mass without producing a constant rate of acceleration? If they had gone out of their way to design a system that produced jolts or periods of deceleration the collapse may not have been a success.

If they had simply initiated the collapse and allowed it to propagate, it would have looked like a collapse that was initiated at a specific level then propagated naturally. You're suggesting that they went out of their way to design a system that didn't look like a naturally propagating collapse, for no reason at all.

Dave

[A W Smith]

First you call them stumps; now you call them stubs. I have no idea what you're talking about.

evasion noted. You cannot support your claim.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#digression

[tempesta29]

:eek:

You have got to be kidding me, I've rarely seen anybody engage in this kind of wordplay. It's absolutely ridiculous tempesta; ridiculous.

No one here has poor reading comprehension skills. You just keep playing with words to save face, it's a ridiculous game you play and it's really getting annoying.

Well quite simply: you're wrong. I've discussed this very topic over at politicalforum.com. You're welcome to search their database and in doing so you'll find that I've been over this very same game of semantics and made clear what my position was. When I say "level by level" I mean all charges on a given floor are detonated simultaneously, then that is repeated some number of floors below that. I've never once claimed that there were charges on every floor, nor will I allow you to draw me into a childish back-and-forth on the subject.

[tempesta29]

evasion noted. You cannot support your claim.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#digression

You don't even specify whether your stumps/stubs are on the upper section or lower. It's really just funny.

[tempesta29]

If they had simply initiated the collapse and allowed it to propagate, it would have looked like a collapse that was initiated at a specific level then propagated naturally. You're suggesting that they went out of their way to design a system that didn't look like a naturally propagating collapse, for no reason at all.

Dave

There is nothing to suggest that simply initiating collapse would evolve into the upper sections just plowing through the lower all the way to the ground. I don't think this would have occurred at all. After the initial collapse due to the first set of charges, the upper sections would have hit the lower structure like a car on a brick wall. These upper sections would have lost energy at every floor and would have either halted or simply fallen over onto the ground. These aren't hot knives through butter. The fact that acceleration is constant proves that these upper sections didn't destroy the lower.

[A W Smith]

You don't even specify whether your stumps/stubs are on the upper section or lower. It's really just funny.


you didn't specify whether your "levels" were every forth floor, third floor, second floor, upper section or lower, Your evasion is really quite amusing as you appear to have backed yourself into a corner. Are you ready to define your arbitrary "level" yet? or will you continue to dance? :dl:


I didn't say floors. I said level, an arbitrary value. I didn't say every level either. You're insulting, and you have poor reading comprehension skills. I did not say there were charges on every single floor of the Twin Towers, just as I never said that thermite was an explosive. Try to learn to be more polite, and if you're confused about one of my posts, just ask me to clarify rather than going on an offensive rant.

Thanks.




When I say "level by level" I mean all charges on a given floor are detonated simultaneously, then that is repeated some number of floors below that.

Come on sport, what happens to the floors in between your "arbitrary levels"

[tempesta29]

you didn't specify whether your "levels" were every forth floor, third floor, second floor, upper section or lower, Your evasion is really quite amusing as you appear to have backed yourself into a corner. Are you ready to define your arbitrary "level" yet? or will you continue to dance

Is a precise definition of "level" required? If so, demonstrate why it's requisite. You're asking me about stubs and stumps. I don't even know what you're talking about, really.

Come on sport, what happens to the floors in between your "arbitrary levels"

Define "floor". For the most part a floor is space. Are you asking what is happening to space? What happens to the mass in between the severed points of these columns is the same thing that happens in any such controlled demolition. Seriously, what are you asking?

[Dave Rogers]

There is nothing to suggest that simply initiating collapse would evolve into the upper sections just plowing through the lower all the way to the ground. I don't think this would have occurred at all. After the initial collapse due to the first set of charges, the upper sections would have hit the lower structure like a car on a brick wall. These upper sections would have lost energy at every floor and would have either halted or simply fallen over onto the ground. These aren't hot knives through butter. The fact that acceleration is constant proves that these upper sections didn't destroy the lower.

You know where you said you didn't have any physics or engineering background? Well, I believe you. You've demonstrated a total ignorance of physics or structural engineering. Now, that wouldn't normally be something to worry about; the vast majority of people know very little about these subjects. However, assuming, from a basis of ignorance, that you know better than physicists and engineers, is your whole problem. Everything that's known about the design and construction of the Twin Towers makes it perfectly clear that, once the collapses got going, the structure would be unable to prevent them, because the energy lost at every floor was less than the energy gained from the release of gravitational potential energy. Even the more intelligent truthers realise this, which is why they're retreating to ever more subtle arguments, not realising that this invalidates their starting position and making it perfectly clear that their position is faith based and that their conclusions precede their reasoning.

And even the more foolish are rarely foolish enough to proselytise their religion based on the claim that they should be able to see a 1% decrease in acceleration from a dataset with ±100% error bars. I'm still waiting to see you address that one.

Dave

[A W Smith]

Is a precise definition of "level" required? If so, demonstrate why it's requisite. You're asking me about stubs and stumps. I don't even know what you're talking about, really.

oh you know what I am talking about. You are just avoiding an answer, You sound just like Clinton during the lewinski hearings. Its really looking bad for you. If you have a length of intact column covering the span of several storys, What happens to that length when the ends collide where you took out a section during your cd?

Define "floor". For the most part a floor is space. Are you asking what is happening to space? What happens to the mass in between the severed points of these columns is the same thing that happens in any such controlled demolition. Seriously, what are you asking?bingo! so why should we see a difference in gravitational acceleration? What would arrest a collapse given no CD?

[tempesta29]

Everything that's known about the design and construction of the Twin Towers makes it perfectly clear that, once the collapses got going, the structure would be unable to prevent them, because the energy lost at every floor was less than the energy gained from the release of gravitational potential energy. Even the more intelligent truthers realise this, which is why they're retreating to ever more subtle arguments, not realising that this invalidates their starting position and making it perfectly clear that their position is faith based and that their conclusions precede their reasoning.

The core of the Twin Towers was a continuos structure, so what is happening "at every floor" is irrelevant. The upper section isn't just impacting the lower on a floor by floor basis. I hope you're not insinuating that the upper section just falls through air after it 'clears a floor'. It is encountering continuous resistance both from the core and the perimeter all throughout its descent. Once the collapses "got going" the structure would just allow the collapsing section to completely plow through it all the way to the ground? Got going for what distance? Surely you realize that's a significant measurement. If the upper sections were dropped from a 1000 feet in the sky they would apply significantly more force than that applied in the 9/11 scenarios. "Got going" is about as vague and nebulous as you can get.

And no, I've never encountered a truther that just wholly accepts that the upper sections were unstoppable masses. Regardless, there is no energy lost as the upper sections destroy the lower because that didn't happen. I know this because the upper sections do not decelerate when they hit undamaged structure.

And even the more foolish are rarely foolish enough to proselytise their religion based on the claim that they should be able to see a 1% decrease in acceleration from a dataset with ±100% error bars. I'm still waiting to see you address that one.

1% decrease? Where did you get that figure?

[GlennB]

These upper sections would have lost energy at every floor ....[quote=tempesta29;6695951]There is nothing to suggest that simply initiating collapse would evolve into the upper sections just plowing through the lower all the way to the ground.

Yes there is. Engineering studies, for example.

I don't think this would have occurred at all.

Who cares? Show your figures, not your unsupported beliefs.

After the initial collapse due to the first set of charges, the upper sections would have hit the lower structure like a car on a brick wall.

And a car can plough a hole through a brick wall, depending on its mass and speed. So what's your point?

These upper sections would have lost energy at every floor ....

You're neglecting the mass of debris that accumulates with each successive floor that's impacted

.... and would have either halted or simply fallen over onto the ground.

That's just laughable
.
The fact that acceleration is constant proves that these upper sections didn't destroy the lower.

The average acceleration is 'constantly' < g because the impacts are sufficiently off-square for any theoretical 'jolts' to be spread out and unmeasurable, that's all. With a perfect implementation of your 'plan' the acceleration would have been much closer to g

Your entire position is one great long unsubstantiated assertion, but amusing in parts.

[tempesta29]

oh you know what I am talking about. You are just avoiding an answer, You sound just like Clinton during the lewinski hearings. Its really looking bad for you. If you have a length of intact column covering the span of several storys, What happens to that length when the ends collide where you took out a section during your cd?

They can be cut at an angle and the force will shift those sections out of the way. Are you suggesting that despite their being cut they just stack up like Legos?

bingo! so why should we see a difference in gravitational acceleration? What would arrest a collapse given no CD?

The core and perimeter are continuous. Both the perimeter and core were damaged by the plane crashes at those respective zones. Allegedly, fire also weakened this steel significantly. This damage didn't occur further down. Where this damage wasn't present, there should have been measurable deceleration of the upper mass at this stage.

[tempesta29]

And a car can plough a hole through a brick wall, depending on its mass and speed. So what's your point?

How many brick walls will this car plow through before it stops?

You're neglecting the mass of debris that accumulates with each successive floor that's impacted

So you're suggesting that the force created by the gravity of this accumulating mass is greater than the resistance this mass provided against the falling mass? What if just the top 3 floors of each tower had collapsed? Would this mass just get more powerful at every floor as it gained mass? Would these 3 floors just crash through the 100+ below them all the way to the ground? Hell, maybe you just need 1 floor's worth of mass. Cause once it "gets going" as someone said, that's all it takes!

That's just laughable

Sounds like an unsupported belief.

The average acceleration is 'constantly' < g because the impacts are sufficiently off-square for any theoretical 'jolts' to be spread out and unmeasurable, that's all. With a perfect implementation of your 'plan' the acceleration would have been much closer to g

Spread out? What the hell are you talking about? We have an allegedly heavily-damaged crash zone which initiates collapse and a huge undamaged section waiting to offer far greater resistance. This resistance would have absolutely decelerated the upper mass had the upper mass been responsible for the destruction of the lower.

[A W Smith]

They can be cut at an angle and the force will shift those sections out of the way. Are you suggesting that despite their being cut they just stack up like Legos?

they are held at their locations by the concrete slabs on the storys between your alleged angle cuts. What will shift those floor braced columns?

The core and perimeter are continuous. Both the perimeter and core were damaged by the plane crashes at those respective zones. Allegedly, fire also weakened this steel significantly. This damage didn't occur further down. Where this damage wasn't present, there should have been measurable deceleration of the upper mass at this stage.

Why? Show your math. Your intuition (incredulity) won't cut it here.

[Dave Rogers]

The core of the Twin Towers was a continuos structure, so what is happening "at every floor" is irrelevant.

So why did you say "These upper sections would have lost energy at every floor" when it's irrelevant?

The upper section isn't just impacting the lower on a floor by floor basis. I hope you're not insinuating that the upper section just falls through air after it 'clears a floor'. It is encountering continuous resistance both from the core and the perimeter all throughout its descent.


Yep. Care to try working out how much resistance? Because, until you start working out some numbers, you're just basing your conclusions on uninformed guesses.

Once the collapses "got going" the structure would just allow the collapsing section to completely plow through it all the way to the ground? Got going for what distance? Surely you realize that's a significant measurement.

Once the upper block has descended about four metres, it's unstoppable by the lower structure. This is well established by calculation.

If the upper sections were dropped from a 1000 feet in the sky they would apply significantly more force than that applied in the 9/11 scenarios.

Congratulations. You're not as stupid as Anders Bjorkman.

"Got going" is about as vague and nebulous as you can get.

See above. For more detail, read Bazant and Zhou.

And no, I've never encountered a truther that just wholly accepts that the upper sections were unstoppable masses.

Your lack of familiarity with the leading members of the movement is hardly support for your beliefs.

Regardless, there is no energy lost as the upper sections destroy the lower because that didn't happen. I know this because the upper sections do not decelerate when they hit undamaged structure.

Discussed to death. No deceleration would be expected. Small changes in acceleration, which would be expected, are observed.

1% decrease? Where did you get that figure?

Scroll up. Now, let's see your figure for the espected reduction in acceleration. Please show your working in as much detail as I've shown mine.

Dave

[tempesta29]

they are held at their locations by the concrete slabs on the storys between your alleged angle cuts. What will shift those floor braced columns?

The force of the upper sections, perhaps?

Why? Show your math. Your intuition (incredulity) won't cut it here.

What a non-sequitur. Rdf < Ruf where Rdf = resistance offered by damaged floors in the crash zones and Ruf = resistance offered by undamaged floors in the crash zones.

[Dave Rogers]

What a non-sequitur. Rdf < Ruf where Rdf = resistance offered by damaged floors in the crash zones and Ruf = resistance offered by undamaged floors in the crash zones.

Yes, but 0.662 < 0.667, and if the error bars of your data are ± 0.667 you won't see the difference. If you don't know that, you're shouting in a language you don't understand.

Dave

[A W Smith]

The force of the upper sections, perhaps?



What a non-sequitur. Rdf < Ruf where Rdf = resistance offered by damaged floors in the crash zones and Ruf = resistance offered by undamaged floors in the crash zones.

LOL ruf! ruf!, bring in the laughing dogs. :dl::dl::dl::dl:

You really don't understand? do you?

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

[GlennB]

How many brick walls will this car plow through before it stops?

It depends. But if the series of walls were horizontal and the car was dropped on the first one then gravity is constantly acting on the car, and the bricks from the first wall are also impacting the second wall, no?

So you're suggesting that the force created by the gravity of this accumulating mass is greater than the resistance this mass provided against the falling mass?

??? That makes no sense. "this mass" of which you speak is also falling, and "this accumulating mass" doesn't have much of a gravitational field in itself.
Perhaps you meant momentum or kinetic energy or something else?

What if just the top 3 floors of each tower had collapsed?

I recall that Bazant suggested that collapse might have arrested.

Would this mass just get more powerful at every floor as it gained mass? Would these 3 floors just crash through the 100+ below them all the way to the ground? Hell, maybe you just need 1 floor's worth of mass. Cause once it "gets going" as someone said, that's all it takes!

It depends.

Spread out? What the hell are you talking about?

Both upper sections tilted at the beginning of their collapse. Impact with the first floor below (itself a notional concept) was not axial.

We have an allegedly heavily-damaged crash zone which initiates collapse and a huge undamaged section waiting to offer far greater resistance. This resistance would have absolutely decelerated the upper mass had the upper mass been responsible for the destruction of the lower.

The upper blocks fell at < g overall. There was resistance, so I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you a WTC "free-fall" devotee?

[tempesta29]

It depends. But if the series of walls were horizontal and the car was dropped on the first one then gravity is constantly acting on the car, and the bricks from the first wall are also impacting the second wall, no?

Yes. I've heard this argument before. Really though, in this case, we have vertical columns, in a way two large, continuous steel tubes. We don't have bricks being thrown downward into another wall of bricks by a descending mass through a space. This doesn't even take into account the fact that so much mass was ejected horizontally and not necessarily downward.

??? That makes no sense. "this mass" of which you speak is also falling, and "this accumulating mass" doesn't have much of a gravitational field in itself.
Perhaps you meant momentum or kinetic energy or something else?

Well, both really. The mass is falling and as such is generating kinetic energy the longer it falls. It is also being propelled downward by the mass that collided with it.

I recall that Bazant suggested that collapse might have arrested.

It depends.

Let's say some plane had crashed just three levels below the roof of a tower and the damage initiated collapse. What is your opinion of how far this 3 floor mass would travel? Should it not simply gain energy as it travels downward? Do you agree with the "once it gets going" hypothesis?

Both upper sections tilted at the beginning of their collapse. Impact with the first floor below (itself a notional concept) was not axial.

I don't see the relevance. You still have an overall increase in resistive force.

The upper blocks fell at < g overall. There was resistance, so I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you a WTC "free-fall" devotee?

No, I'm not. When I refer to deceleration I mean a decrease in the rate of acceleration, not merely a decrease in velocity.

[tempesta29]

Yes, but 0.662 < 0.667, and if the error bars of your data are ± 0.667 you won't see the difference. If you don't know that, you're shouting in a language you don't understand.

Dave

Why wouldn't you see a difference in this instance? This reduction in resistance was responsible for the biggest structural failures in history. Surely this discrepancy was measurable within the margin for error, or are you insinuating that the Twin Towers were on the verge of failure since their completion?

[tsig]

The force of the upper sections, perhaps?



What a non-sequitur. Rdf < Ruf where Rdf = resistance offered by damaged floors in the crash zones and Ruf = resistance offered by undamaged floors in the crash zones.

Look you said you didn't understand engineering and we accept that. You don't have to prove it every post.

[tempesta29]

Look you said you didn't understand engineering and we accept that. You don't have to prove it every post.

It was tongue-in-cheek actually. Glad you caught it.

[GlennB]

Yes. I've heard this argument before. Really though, in this case, we have vertical columns, in a way two large, continuous steel tubes.

Really though, we don't.

The two 'tubes' were not continuous. They were built with many 3-storey high components, welded and/or bolted together and connected by floor assemblies. 'Tubes' that depend on each other and those floors for structural integrity, and which are designed to function in the vertical plane (with an allowance for wind shear).

Start smashing the floors downwards and the columns are experiencing horizontal forces that were never part of the plan. And the 'tubes' are no longer braced (to use that word loosely, perhaps) against each other. Start whacking the column connections themselves with brutal and sudden sideways forces and that's another thing never in the engineers' calculations.

When I refer to deceleration I mean a decrease in the rate of acceleration, not merely a decrease in velocity.

In which case you'll need a sufficiently discrete axial impact to observe the jerk or jolt you're referring to here, and a measurement system accurate enough to detect it. We have neither at WTC. Both top sections tilted first, as has been mentioned already (search the "Szamboti's Missing Jolt paper" thread for a full discussion. eta: here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140639)). Bottom line - each floor-by-floor impact was a chaotic unsynchronised mess to the extent you couldn't call it floor-by-floor impact at all.

[Dave Rogers]

Why wouldn't you see a difference in this instance? This reduction in resistance was responsible for the biggest structural failures in history. Surely this discrepancy was measurable within the margin for error, or are you insinuating that the Twin Towers were on the verge of failure since their completion?

Like I said, shouting in a language you don't understand. I'm sorry, I can't help you here. Remedial maths classes might be a good start, then a course in reading the last few posts (if anyone offers one).

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

By the way, something I missed:

And no, I've never encountered a truther that just wholly accepts that the upper sections were unstoppable masses.

I think I've discovered a new logical fallacy, as yet unknown to the taxonomy of failed arguments, although we've encountered it many times in the wild. It sits in the intersection between the argument from ignorance ("I don't understand how this could have happened, so it can't have") and the argumentum ad populum ("Everybody thinks this, so it must be true").

I'd like to dub it the Appeal to Social Isolation:

"I've never met anyone who agrees with your argument, so it must be wrong".

Dave

[adkinsjr]

Well quite simply: you're wrong.

No I'm not, you play with words tempesta, any body who reveiws your comments can see that.

[triforcharity]

Well quite simply: you're wrong. I've discussed this very topic over at politicalforum.com. You're welcome to search their database and in doing so you'll find that I've been over this very same game of semantics and made clear what my position was. When I say "level by level" I mean all charges on a given floor are detonated simultaneously, then that is repeated some number of floors below that. I've never once claimed that there were charges on every floor, nor will I allow you to draw me into a childish back-and-forth on the subject.

Then why don't you send us the guy who DOESN'T act like a child, and who doesn't play semantics with word games, and who doesn't try to blow smoke up our rear ends.

Why don't YOU post your COMPLETE theory here. We'll wait.

[triforcharity]

There is nothing to suggest that simply initiating collapse would evolve into the upper sections just plowing through the lower all the way to the ground. I don't think this would have occurred at all.


This is called an argument from personal beliefs. This is a logical fallacy.

Let's see what the PROFESSIONALS have to say about it.

Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events
Cherepanov, G.P. 2008 Materials Science 44 (4), pp. 489-499


Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.


Have you read these? They ALL show that you are wrong.


Now, if the collapse was NOT possible, as you claim, then WHY would Zhou et al. publish THIS paper?

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187


After the initial collapse due to the first set of charges, the upper sections would have hit the lower structure like a car on a brick wall.


Sure. I guess.

These upper sections would have lost energy at every floor and would have either halted or simply fallen over onto the ground.


Show me the math that proves this. Not just your personal beliefs.

These aren't hot knives through butter. The fact that acceleration is constant proves that these upper sections didn't destroy the lower.

So, when the collapse began, what speed was it going, and what speed was it going when the collapse was complete?

Show us the math. We love math around here. Please, show us your calculations.

[triforcharity]

They can be cut at an angle and the force will shift those sections out of the way. Are you suggesting that despite their being cut they just stack up like Legos?


Show us these cuts. I'll wait.

[JamesB]

First you call them stumps; now you call them stubs. I have no idea what you're talking about.



Is there any other way? How can you have a sequential demolition below a falling mass without producing a constant rate of acceleration? If they had gone out of their way to design a system that produced jolts or periods of deceleration the collapse may not have been a success.

So? Why would they need a "successful" collapse? What goal would have been hindered by a partial collapse? Would Americans suddenly decide that we should not go after al Qaeda, because "After all, the World Trade Centers were only 40% destroyed, not completely!"

Why do truthers need to make plots as complicated and complex as possible in order to feed their fantasies?

[DGM]

Well quite simply: you're wrong. I've discussed this very topic over at politicalforum.com. You're welcome to search their database and in doing so you'll find that I've been over this very same game of semantics and made clear what my position was. When I say "level by level" I mean all charges on a given floor are detonated simultaneously, then that is repeated some number of floors below that. I've never once claimed that there were charges on every floor, nor will I allow you to draw me into a childish back-and-forth on the subject.

Maybe it will take this time.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/170744d18cd3c4d361.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22019)



For some reason I doubt it


;)

[Telltale Tom]

So? Why would they need a "successful" collapse? What goal would have been hindered by a partial collapse? Would Americans suddenly decide that we should not go after al Qaeda, because "After all, the World Trade Centers were only 40% destroyed, not completely!"
...

Sure, if the towers hadn't collapsed we would still be demolishing them, if the Deutsche BanK Building is anything to go by.

Can't see how that would have fired up congress and the Coalition of the Willing, to attack Iraq. It was essential that the towers were demolished so that Al Queda could prove to the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction... namely a fleet of passenger planes.!

[tempesta29]

By the way, something I missed:



I think I've discovered a new logical fallacy, as yet unknown to the taxonomy of failed arguments, although we've encountered it many times in the wild. It sits in the intersection between the argument from ignorance ("I don't understand how this could have happened, so it can't have") and the argumentum ad populum ("Everybody thinks this, so it must be true").

I'd like to dub it the Appeal to Social Isolation:

"I've never met anyone who agrees with your argument, so it must be wrong".

Dave

You're just being rude and obnoxious. I was responding to a post that claimed no truther believed 'blah blah blah'. Pay attention and you won't have to resort to such ignorant posts.

[tempesta29]

So? Why would they need a "successful" collapse? What goal would have been hindered by a partial collapse? Would Americans suddenly decide that we should not go after al Qaeda, because "After all, the World Trade Centers were only 40% destroyed, not completely!"

It's far more psychologically disturbing and more casualties are guaranteed. Why not completely destroy them? Also makes for easier clean up.

[DGM]

You're just being rude and obnoxious. I was responding to a post that claimed no truther believed 'blah blah blah'. Pay attention and you won't have to resort to such ignorant posts.
The funny thing is you'll never realize the irony of your post.


:rolleyes:

[JamesB]

That is idiotic. Why would easier cleanup even be a goal? The perps were willing to murder thousands of people and destroy half of lower Manhattan, but were willing to risk getting caught in order to save taxpayers a few dollars of cleanup costs?

And the smoking ruins of the two towers perched precariously over the New York skyline would not be psychologically devastating? Do you honestly think that people would just shrug it off? "Oh well, could have been worse. They could have collapsed completely." are you really that stupid?

[DGM]

That is idiotic. Why would easier cleanup even be a goal? The perps were willing to murder thousands of people and destroy half of lower Manhattan, but were willing to risk getting caught in order to save taxpayers a few dollars of cleanup costs?

And the smoking ruins of the two towers perched precariously over the New York skyline would not be psychologically devastating? Do you honestly think that people would just shrug it off? "Oh well, could have been worse. They could have collapsed completely." are you really that stupid?
You really need to ask?

[tempesta29]

That is idiotic. Why would easier cleanup even be a goal? The perps were willing to murder thousands of people and destroy half of lower Manhattan, but were willing to risk getting caught in order to save taxpayers a few dollars of cleanup costs?

And the smoking ruins of the two towers perched precariously over the New York skyline would not be psychologically devastating? Do you honestly think that people would just shrug it off? "Oh well, could have been worse. They could have collapsed completely." are you really that stupid?

What risk? Seems like they've pulled it off with ease.

Plus, the masses plowing through so many floors with ease and then suddenly not doing so might be more suspicious.

[JamesB]

What risk? Seems like they've pulled it off with ease.




What risk? So wiring 110 floors of 2 buildings, plus 47 floors of building 7 presented no risk whatsoever? Anyone could do that without any expense or chance of getting caught, either before or after the fact, or of any part of the process going wrong?




Plus, the masses plowing through so many floors with ease and then suddenly not doing so might be more suspicious.

Why would that be more suspicious? That is what you insist should have happened if the top part collapsed! :jaw-dropp

[adkinsjr]

What risk? So wiring 110 floors of 2 buildings, plus 47 floors of building 7 presented no risk whatsoever? Anyone could do that without any expense or chance of getting caught, either before or after the fact, or of any part of the process going wrong?




Why would that be more suspicious? That is what you insist should have happened if the top part collapsed! :jaw-dropp


This is a game to him, he makes it up as he goes along. This is why it's hard for 9/11 "truth" cult apologists to be consistent.

[tempesta29]

What risk? So wiring 110 floors of 2 buildings, plus 47 floors of building 7 presented no risk whatsoever? Anyone could do that without any expense or chance of getting caught, either before or after the fact, or of any part of the process going wrong?

What the hell are you talking about? You need to read and grasp context. I said "what risk" in response to being asked why they destroyed the entire buildings. I was not referring to risk involved in planting explosives.

Read.

Why would that be more suspicious? That is what you insist should have happened if the top part collapsed! :jaw-dropp

Having the upper sections plow so easily through all of that steel and concrete then suddenly not being able to might seem odd. It might actually look like some failed CDs that do just that. I never suggested that was what should have happened.

[triforcharity]

AHEM! (http://http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6696823&postcount=127) tempe, just in case you (conveniently) missed it.

[adkinsjr]

What the hell are you talking about? You need to read and grasp context. I said "what risk" in response to being asked why they destroyed the entire buildings. I was not referring to risk involved in planting explosives TO DESTROY THE BUILDING

Fixed that for ya. How would the risks involved in destroying the building exclude the risks involved in planting the "explosives" you say were used to destroy the building? I mean seriously, you're playing with words AGAIN. :mad: It's ridiculous.

[GlennB]

What risk? Seems like they've pulled it off with ease.

Plus, the masses plowing through so many floors with ease and then suddenly not doing so might be more suspicious.

I can't make a grain of sense out of that.

Are you saying that it would have been suspicious if the Towers had started to fall (naturally, from impact+fire) but had then stopped falling (naturally, through the sheer strength of the buildings)? And so the perps (who hadn't initiated the collapses anyway) felt obliged to procure full collapse through CD in order to avert suspicion from something they hadn't started in the first place?

Or that the perps merely initiated collapse through CD, but felt it would look more 'natural' to ensure it progressed to the ground, even though 'natural' would - in fact - be collapse arrest?

Just what the hell are you talking about?

[DGM]

I can't make a grain of sense out of that.



The real perplexing part is they "pulled it off with ease" because the only ones that think it's suspicious are people with the least training.



:boggled:

[GlennB]

The real perplexing part is they "pulled it off with ease" because the only ones that think it's suspicious are people with the least training.

:boggled:

Well, yeah.

I think it was a conspiracy for reasons I can't properly explain.
Hardly another soul in the world is suspicious.
Therefore, they pulled it off with ease.

I think there's a word for that kind of logic. Is it 'tautological'? Or maybe 'stupid'? Let me join you in boggledness :boggled:

[Dave Rogers]

You're just being rude and obnoxious. I was responding to a post that claimed no truther believed 'blah blah blah'. Pay attention and you won't have to resort to such ignorant posts.

Says the man who can't read the thread. Have you found out where I got the 1% reduction in acceleration from yet, or was that too hard a question?

Oh, and go back and check your own post, and remind yourself who you were replying to. Apparently you can't even keep track of your own posts.

Dave

[tempesta29]

Fixed that for ya. How would the risks involved in destroying the building exclude the risks involved in planting the "explosives" you say were used to destroy the building? I mean seriously, you're playing with words AGAIN. :mad: It's ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is your constant editing of my posts and your subsequent responses.

The specific risks in creating a conspicuous collapse are independent of the risks in overcoming security and planting explosives. One deals with the design stage of the controlled demolition and the other the execution of installation. If you can directly tie them together then go for it.

I'm not playing with words. You just don't have a high intellectual capacity for comprehension.

[tempesta29]

Says the man who can't read the thread. Have you found out where I got the 1% reduction in acceleration from yet, or was that too hard a question?

Do you want me to reverse engineer your claims? I'm not interested.

Oh, and go back and check your own post, and remind yourself who you were replying to. Apparently you can't even keep track of your own posts.

Making it even more embarrassing for the poster. He can't even keep up with his own discussion. He spoke of a specific risk, and I responded accordingly. Then he took my response, broadened it, and applied it to a different topic.

The least that could take place here is honest discourse. Apparently that's too much to ask.

[JamesB]

Now you are just being idiotic. The risk involved applies to both. Actually the risk beforehand is even more important. If the perps would have been discovered beforehand then they wouldn't have been able to pull off the plot. You obviously have never been involved in the planning of anything more complex than a surprise birthday party, if that.

[tempesta29]

Now you are just being idiotic. The risk involved applies to both. Actually the risk beforehand is even more important. If the perps would have been discovered beforehand then they wouldn't have been able to pull off the plot. You obviously have never been involved in the planning of anything more complex than a surprise birthday party, if that.

They are distinctly separate risks. Calling me idiotic does not change that. "The risk involved applies to both." Sorry but--what does that mean? Yes, I know both are risky. Both threaten to expose the conspiracy I'm alleging, but they are not directly linked. We were having a discussion about a specific risk. He was guilty of a straw man, now you are complicit in that very straw man.

For Christ's sake, use your mind.

[dc1971]

For Christ's sake, use your mind.

Yeah, 'cause man, golly, gee, shucks... none of us here really know how to do that! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[JamesB]

What it means is that someone plotting a vast illegal act is not going to care whether he get caught before, or after the act. He wants to stay out of the electric chair either way. People trying to pull off some sort of plot want to do two things; A. Successfully complete their goals and B. Keep the risk of getting caught a low as possible. Truthers always have them completing these elaborately complicated nonsensical acts for no other reason than the fact you need them to have done that to make your theories have any chance of fitting the facts. That is the reason you avoid taking any stand on what you think actually did happen, because if you did it would sound even more moronic than what you do argue.

http://www.debunking911.com/meeting.htm

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of f***** nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of f***** nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

[tempesta29]

What it means is that someone plotting a vast illegal act is not going to care whether he get caught before, or after the act.

Nope. That isn't what it means.

You asked me about a specific risk. Then you quoted me and applied my quote to a completely different risk, as if the fact that they tie in to the same topic means they are the same topic. It was dishonest rhetoric, and, as a result, I won't be dealing with you anymore. You don't care? Great. Then we can both feel good about this result.

[tempesta29]

CHENEY: Though it doesn't matter what crashes into the Pentagon because there are no videos of it, so who cares right? Yeah! Anyone want to shoot my good friend and not apologize for it? I did. It was awesome!

And really, you're implying that anyone believes that the original intention was to crash a plane in a field in Pennsylvania? Three planes hit high profile targets and you're insinuating that I and others believe the last plane was meant to hit the dirt in Nowheresville, PA?

[Dave Rogers]

Making it even more embarrassing for the poster. He can't even keep up with his own discussion. He spoke of a specific risk, and I responded accordingly. Then he took my response, broadened it, and applied it to a different topic.

This is hilarious. You're getting confused over a discussion that's clearly available for scrutiny. I find it more than amusing that you can't even keep track of a discussion in which you can scroll back up and read what you wrote the previous day. This says a lot for your ability to deduce what happened nine years ago from incomplete evidence; clearly you can't even deduce what took place a day or two ago when you've got complete evidence.

Dave

[GlennB]

Plus, the masses plowing through so many floors with ease and then suddenly not doing so might be more suspicious.

You never did get round to explaining what you meant by this remark.

[dafydd]

What risk? Seems like they've pulled it off with ease.

Plus, the masses plowing through so many floors with ease and then suddenly not doing so might be more suspicious.

Please state your engineering qualifications.

[jaydeehess]

Sure, if the towers hadn't collapsed we would still be demolishing them, if the Deutsche BanK Building is anything to go by.

Can't see how that would have fired up congress and the Coalition of the Willing, to attack Iraq. It was essential that the towers were demolished so that Al Queda could prove to the world that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction... namely a fleet of passenger planes.!

How odd that none of the supposed hijackers then were not Iraqi. One would think that if one were to go to the emmense trouble of ensuring immediate and complete destruction of the WTC towers in order to garner a war with Iraq that the supposed perpetrators would have some immediatly demonstrable connection with that regime. Odd also that the supposed mastermind and the supposed bankroller of this plot was said to be residing in Afghanistan and thus requiring a war there first before any war with Iraq is entered into. Rather a round-a-bout way of getting the war you really want.:rolleyes:

Now I understand though, why the 'coalition of the willing' against Iraq did not include a lot of nation participants. The way it played out the USA ad a great deal of support going into Afghanistan but relatively little for going into Iraq.

[JamesB]

Wow, someone who refuses to provide a straight logical answer to anyone, is refusing to answer my question. I am so hurt.

[jaydeehess]

It's far more psychologically disturbing and more casualties are guaranteed. Why not completely destroy them? Also makes for easier clean up.

So what? Despite TT's ridiculous senario above, the mere fact that 4 aircraft were hijacked and rammed into 3 major structures(killing a couple of hundred people outright) and one crashing into a field in Penn. would garner all the support from Congress one would care to have in order to attack those responsible.

We are now speaking to a senario in which those killed on the aircraft and at the Pentagon are joined only by those above the fire floors of the towers. This would be a total upwards of 1000 in there were only an average of 30-40 people on those floors.
Not enough to get Congressional support for a war? Pshaw!

You guys are really great at the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy

[jaydeehess]

CHENEY: Though it doesn't matter what crashes into the Pentagon because there are no videos of it, so who cares right? Yeah! Anyone want to shoot my good friend and not apologize for it? I did. It was awesome!

And really, you're implying that anyone believes that the original intention was to crash a plane in a field in Pennsylvania? Three planes hit high profile targets and you're insinuating that I and others believe the last plane was meant to hit the dirt in Nowheresville, PA?

You do not recognize hyperbole?

Fact is that the way you and TT are portraying the events, this fictitious conversation comes close to what your arguement amounts to.

[jaydeehess]

What is there to clarify? I'm claiming explosives were used in the destruction of these buildings. What isn't clear to you that needs clarifying?

But this thread is NOT about explosives, is it?


So let's get this straight. Despite the fact that Tempesta claimed that on "this topic" (which would certainly imply that he meant the subject of the thread) , that placing "explosives" (which he now says he does not include thermite as an explosive which reverses the previous implication) can we pretend that this thread is on topic at all?

I suggest a split of this thread, perhaps entitled "constant acelleration indicates explosives" since that has been tempesta's contention for a few pages now. (though he mysteriously cites it as 'no decelleration' which technically would refer to a decrease in velocity I believe)

[jaydeehess]

Arguement for split of the thread
(bolds mine)
The upper sections of the Twin Towers do not decelerate when they encounter undamaged structure. This is proof that the upper sections are not destroying the lower sections, therefore something other than the force of the upper sections is destroying the lower sections. I propose that explosives were used.

There is nothing to suggest that simply initiating collapse would evolve into the upper sections just plowing through the lower all the way to the ground. I don't think this would have occurred at all. After the initial collapse due to the first set of charges, the upper sections would have hit the lower structure like a car on a brick wall. These upper sections would have lost energy at every floor and would have either halted or simply fallen over onto the ground. These aren't hot knives through butter. The fact that acceleration is constant proves that these upper sections didn't destroy the lower.

[jaydeehess]

,,, and so perhaps we can be back on topic........



Keep in mind I know you are not advocating for this theory.
Correct.


Do you think you could work out a way of using it in a controlled fashion to make the building fall they way you want it to? Yes

I cannot envision using a slow acting destructive material in such a way as to allow 110 storeys to collapse as seen without telltale signs that the lower floors were under this type of attack (especially at perimeter columns as implied in the video), well before the collapse zone reaches them.


Using thermite to heat up, ie. simply weaken, key parts of the fire floor levels seems to me to be just making up stuff for the sole reason that one cannot envision the events not being a vast gov't conspiracy. True but thats not the same as saying would be impossible to bring down a building using thermite. The WTC was not, as there is zero evidence that it was, utterly impractical to set and ignite charges or to leave no evidence of those charges.
We should be careful about saying things are impossible just because no one has tried to do it.

How about, it would be highly improbable that one could use thermite to bring down a building in a fashion very closely resembling that of the WTC tower collapses?



NIST and common sense ( who? what? where did that phrase come from?) explain the heating up of the steel as a result of the office fires which were lit and spread to be very large area, multi floor fires within seconds by the introduction of thousands of gallons of liquid acellerant.
Agree 100%, why waste time with thermite etc when you have an airliner.......

, and we should be very careful about too much simplification of the event. The airliner itself caused significant damage but did not in itself bring the tower down. The liquid fuel on board ignited the contents of several floors, over a large area on each level, within seconds of impact, but the jet fuel by itself did not cause destructive heating of the remaining columns and trusses.

[adkinsjr]

I suggest a split of this thread, perhaps entitled "constant acelleration indicates explosives" since that has been tempesta's contention for a few pages now. (though he mysteriously cites it as 'no decelleration' which technically would refer to a decrease in velocity I believe)

Deceleration is somewhat of a colliqual term not often used in physics, it's just a negative acceleration, so velocity is decreasing as you say.

[jaydeehess]

Deceleration is somewhat of a colliqual term not often used in physics, it's just a negative acceleration, so velocity is decreasing as you say.

Indeed I do not recall the term being used at all in physics 101. All changes in velocity were referred to as 'acelleration' and as a vector with a specific direction.
"decelleration' would be akin to referring to 'deforce' as the opposition to "force".
(no Star Wars jokes please)

note: I have requested that Lisa split this thread.

[triforcharity]

"May De-Force be with you" :D

ETA: WAIT!! I figured it out!!

L.S. is Luke Skywalker's initials.

L.S. is also Larry Silverstein's initials.

So, Larry is actually Luke!! Proof positive that Star Wars is responsable for the collapse of the WTC!!

[jaydeehess]

As soon as I posted I knew it would happen.....................


ETA: how long is the edit window open?:covereyes:confused:

[adkinsjr]

What's ridiculous is your constant editing of my posts and your subsequent responses.
The specific risks in creating a conspicuous collapse are independent of the risks in overcoming security and planting explosives.

http://www.davidburt.co.uk/yesterday/images/LaughingDog.gif

Are you kidding me? I mean you're just...hahaha

I'm not playing with words. You just don't have a high intellectual capacity for comprehension.

http://www.davidburt.co.uk/yesterday/images/LaughingDog.gif

uh....no, you are playing with words tempesta. You're the one making absurd comments, and you're the one defending those comments with wordplay, desperately trying to disconnect the original comments from the responses you've received. You've done it 3-4 times already, that's enough.

In order to demolish the building they have to plant explosives (except in "truth" cult fantasies where they use thermite). If I'm a conspirator, and someone asks me what are the risks involved in demolishing the buildings, the first thing that would come to mind is PLANTING THE DEMOLITION DEVICES IN COMPLETE SECRECY. The two are tied together, stop being ridiculous.

[jaydeehess]

In order to demolish the building they have to plant explosives (except in "truth" cult fantasies where they use thermite). If I'm a conspirator, and someone asks me what are the risks involved in demolishing the buildings, the first thing that would come to mind is PLANTING THE DEMOLITION DEVICES IN COMPLETE SECRECY. The two are tied together, stop being ridiculous.

Glad you brought this back up adkinsjr. To try to separate the risk involved in bringing about a global collapse with the risks involved in the logistics required to get to that point is utterly ridiculous.

It illustrates the grasping at straws that persons such as tempesta are performing to try and make their contentions look better.

For instance: The risks involved in flying are greatest at take off, less so once you are at altitude and increase again as the aircraft comes in for a landing. However the risk of flying as an operation MUST include all three since a) it is impossible to get to altitude without taking off, and b) it is impossible to remain at altitude indefinately in a normal aircraft. One MUST at some point, land. One can speak to the risks involved at various points of the aircraft's flight but one cannot simply ignore those of one part of the operation for convenience sake.

[tempesta29]

You do not recognize hyperbole?

Hyperbole is generally used to highlight a point. The obvious insinuation was that the plane that crashed in Shanksville fulfilled its original intention, that some dandelions and grasshoppers were a high profile terrorist target.

[Alferd_Packer]

"May De-Force be with you" :D

ETA: WAIT!! I figured it out!!

L.S. is Luke Skywalker's initials.

L.S. is also Larry Silverstein's initials.

So, Larry is actually Luke!! Proof positive that Star Wars is responsable for the collapse of the WTC!!

Have you ever noticed that you never see Lisa Simpson and Larry Silverstein in the same room?

And is Lynard Skynard really dead?

[tempesta29]

Why not completely destroy them?

The perps were willing to murder thousands of people and destroy half of lower Manhattan, but were willing to risk getting caught in order to save taxpayers a few dollars of cleanup costs?

What risk? Seems like they've pulled it off with ease.

What risk? So wiring 110 floors of 2 buildings, plus 47 floors of building 7 presented no risk whatsoever? Anyone could do that without any expense or chance of getting caught, either before or after the fact, or of any part of the process going wrong?

This is pretty easy to follow. I was discussing the specific risk of destroying the both buildings entirely versus a less complete destruction. I don't think designing a CD that completely destroyed the towers posed any risk significantly greater than one that doesn't completely destroy them.

JamesB then acted as if I implied that there was "no risk whatsoever" in rigging these buildings without being caught. It's a straw man and a pretty easy one to spot.

It'd be like if someone said there was no major risk in taking a cab to the airport to catch a plane to Afghanistan. "Cabs aren't that dangerous. There's no major risk there." Then one of you people says "NO MAJOR RISK??? You're going to Afghanistan!" The parameters have been established initially and you're simply changing them on the fly. It's either stupid or dishonest. What's even more counterintuitive is the complete failure to recognize the fallacy.

[jaydeehess]

Hyperbole is generally used to highlight a point. The obvious insinuation was that the plane that crashed in Shanksville fulfilled its original intention, that some dandelions and grasshoppers were a high profile terrorist target.

You did not answer the question. You did realize it was hyperbole, or not?
You now realize that the fictitious(you knew it was fictitious right?) conversation is a sarcastic summary of some 9/11 conspiracy contentions, right?

[tempesta29]

In order to demolish the building they have to plant explosives (except in "truth" cult fantasies where they use thermite). If I'm a conspirator, and someone asks me what are the risks involved in demolishing the buildings, the first thing that would come to mind is PLANTING THE DEMOLITION DEVICES IN COMPLETE SECRECY. The two are tied together, stop being ridiculous.

Quote where I've ever said planting the explosives posed no risk. I'll be waiting.

[tempesta29]

You did not answer the question. You did realize it was hyperbole, or not?
You now realize that the fictitious(you knew it was fictitious right?) conversation is a sarcastic summary of some 9/11 conspiracy contentions, right?

Are you slow? I responded with my own fictitious quote (you knew it was fictitious right?). If you did know my response was fictitious, then did you not also know that this implied that I knew the prior quotes were fictitious?

[Thunder]

Tempesta29- are you an engineer, architect, etc?

I majored in Geography and Surveying, and work with many Civil Engineers, RAs, and PEs.

[jaydeehess]

This is pretty easy to follow. I was discussing the specific risk of destroying the both buildings entirely versus a less complete destruction. I don't think designing a CD that completely destroyed the towers posed any risk significantly greater than one that doesn't completely destroy them.

.

I believe you are very much wrong on this.
In order for anything to occur on 9/11 the plot must not be discovered. K.I.S.S. applies.
If we establish that there were to be 4 aircraft hijacked and used against 4 targets that in and of itself is the most important thrust of the operation. Support operations MUST be such that their individual discovery can in no way cause damage to the main battle plan, the hijacking and ramming of aircraft.
If that support operation is the installation of thousands of explosives and detonators in the specific main targets of the main battle plan the discovery of this support operation would indeed put in jeopardy of discovery, or counter operations against, the main battle plan. This support operation is also to take place over weeks, perhaps months, in and among the civilian population that will be most impacted by it and involve , by your own estimate, 100 technicians.
What is most disturbing is the complete inability to see the fallacy of purposing such an operation as posing an insignificant increase in risk of discovery.

[jaydeehess]

Are you slow? I responded with my own fictitious quote (you knew it was fictitious right?). If you did know my response was fictitious, then did you not also know that this implied that I knew the prior quotes were fictitious?

Gievn that you responded in anger that the original fictitious quote portrayed you as saying the original goal was to disturb the tranquility of grass in Penns. I would say you were responding as if that were the thrust of the post.

I then pointed out that the actual fictitious quote IS a sarcastic summary of the contentions of the 9/11 conspiracy believers, a point BTW, you have neither owned or disavowed other than the aforementioned grass redistribution in Pennsylvania.

BTW, Cheney should have at least lost his hunting lisence for a year.

(tongue firmly in cheek)

ETA: now you might note that I also have posts 170 and 178 concerning more meaty subjects you have raised.

[tempesta29]

Gievn that you responded in anger that the original fictitious quote portrayed you as saying the original goal was to disturb the tranquility of grass in Penns. I would say you were responding as if that were the thrust of the post.

I responded to the silliness of thinking that crashing a plane in Shanksville was part of any plan. He mocked that idea as if there was a substantial group of people that believed that crashing that plane in a field was intentional.

I then pointed out that the actual fictitious quote IS a sarcastic summary of the contentions of the 9/11 conspiracy believers, a point BTW, you have neither owned or disavowed other than the aforementioned grass redistribution in Pennsylvania.

BTW, Cheney should have at least lost his hunting lisence for a year.

(tongue firmly in cheek)

ETA: now you might note that I also have posts 170 and 178 concerning more meaty subjects you have raised.

Sarcasm is fun but unfortunately doesn't make for very poignant argument. It usually masks the weakness of its argument with the presumption of the opposition's stupidity.

[tempesta29]

If we establish that there were to be 4 aircraft hijacked and used against 4 targets that in and of itself is the most important thrust of the operation. Support operations MUST be such that their individual discovery can in no way cause damage to the main battle plan, the hijacking and ramming of aircraft.
If that support operation is the installation of thousands of explosives and detonators in the specific main targets of the main battle plan the discovery of this support operation would indeed put in jeopardy of discovery, or counter operations against, the main battle plan. This support operation is also to take place over weeks, perhaps months, in and among the civilian population that will be most impacted by it and involve , by your own estimate, 100 technicians.
What is most disturbing is the complete inability to see the fallacy of purposing such an operation as posing an insignificant increase in risk of discovery.

I hear what you're saying. Perhaps the risk of being caught with explosives has been overstated. I'm not saying it's an easy operation to conduct in secrecy, but there are ways to minimize risk, who does secrecy better than US black ops? I'm not accusing Time Warner Cable of installing these explosives. I'm accusing covert elements of the US government.

I find it extremely suspicious that Marvin Bush was a principal for the security company of the WTC. I also find the power down at the WTC very suspicious. If the security company were simply a government front, and you scheduled maintenance or a security overhaul, you could cover up your operation like that. It's speculative, but it's feasible. You may disagree.

[jaydeehess]

I hear what you're saying. Perhaps the risk of being caught with explosives has been overstated. I'm not saying it's an easy operation to conduct in secrecy, but there are ways to minimize risk, who does secrecy better than US black ops? I'm not accusing Time Warner Cable of installing these explosives. I'm accusing covert elements of the US government.
I am refering to explosives technicians, not the cable guys. the mere fact that you seemingly misunderstood that might be indicative of your admitted lack of education in any science or technology,,,
or
it might just be you trying to be sarcastic.

I find it extremely suspicious that Marvin Bush was a principal for the security company of the WTC. I also find the power down at the WTC very suspicious. If the security company were simply a government front, and you scheduled maintenance or a security overhaul, you could cover up your operation like that. It's speculative, but it's feasible. You may disagree.

Yes, I disagree.
As I said these techs would have to be installing these thousands of devices in a building populated by thousands of civilians who work in the offices and dozens (or hundreds) of maintenance personel

You find Marvin Bush's involvement suspicious based on NO other evidence other than his last name.

By that measure you should be suspicious that I am a Nazi based upon the last four letters in my username here.

[adkinsjr]

Quote where I've ever said planting the explosives posed no risk. I'll be waiting.

JamesB said:
"That is idiotic. Why would easier cleanup even be a goal? The perps were willing to murder thousands of people and destroy half of lower Manhattan, but were willing to risk getting caught in order to save taxpayers a few dollars of cleanup costs?"

You replied:
“What risk? Seems like they've pulled it off with ease.”

Oh let me guess, those are different risks right? You're just talking about the other risks involved in demolishing the building right? Surely the risks involved in demolishing a building in secret have nothing to do with the risks involved in planting explosives (or thermite in the minds of the deluded) required to demolish that building. LOL, you are almost too funny to be true tempesta.

Now in your next post to me, go ahead and play your laughable word games to try to desperately explain how these risks don't include the risks involved in planting explosives. I could use a good laugh, and you always come through.

[GlennB]

I find it extremely suspicious that Marvin Bush was a principal for the security company of the WTC.

Oh dear oh dear. You're quite new to this aren't you?
Even hard-core truthers abandoned this canard a few years ago, in the face of even harder-core facts.

(prediction: tempesta29 will now quibble over the grammatical significance of "was" vs. "had been")

While you're here, you never did explain what you meant by -


Plus, the masses plowing through so many floors with ease and then suddenly not doing so might be more suspicious.

[Thunder]

I responded to the silliness of thinking that crashing a plane in Shanksville was part of any plan.

please quote the post where someone suggested that crashing into a field in rural PA was part of the 9-11 plot....and not the action of last resort when the passengers were bashing into the cockpit door.

[Thunder]

I'm not accusing Time Warner Cable of installing these explosives. I'm accusing covert elements of the US government.

what Department of the Federal government?

what agency?

what division?

do you have any idea who you are actually accusing of mass murder and treason?

....thought not.

[tempesta29]

Yes, I disagree.
As I said these techs would have to be installing these thousands of devices in a building populated by thousands of civilians who work in the offices and dozens (or hundreds) of maintenance personel

And what the hell do civilian office workers know about maintenance? Do you really think in their 9 to 5 grind they're thinking about whether or not a guy with equipment might be planting bombs in the building?

You find Marvin Bush's involvement suspicious based on NO other evidence other than his last name.

LOL. Yes, actually. Since I know explosives were used based on the descents of the upper sections, I know that security must have either failed on a massive scale or have been complicit.

By that measure you should be suspicious that I am a Nazi based upon the last four letters in my username here.

No. That measure does not apply in this case.

[tempesta29]

what Department of the Federal government?

what agency?

what division?

do you have any idea who you are actually accusing of mass murder and treason?

....thought not.

You don't know what black ops are, do you?

[Thunder]

LOL. Yes, actually. Since I know explosives were used based on the descents of the upper sections, I know that security must have either failed on a massive scale or have been complicit.

you have NO physical, audio, or even visual evidence of explosives in WTC 1,2, or 7.

you have no evidence of security being complicit in explosives being planted in the WTC...or having not done their job.

so...what DO you have to contribute?

[tempesta29]

please quote the post where someone suggested that crashing into a field in rural PA was part of the 9-11 plot....and not the action of last resort when the passengers were bashing into the cockpit door.

It's pretty easy to spot, assuming you've been keeping up with this conversation for, say, the last page.

And I'm still waiting for someone to quote where I claimed thermite was an explosive and where I claimed there are no risks in planting demolitions materials in the Twin Towers.

[Thunder]

You don't know what black ops are, do you?

when did they plant the explosives?

how much did they use?

what floors did they plant them on?

exactly what type did they use?

what was the origin of these explosives?

who was their most immediate commanding officer?

who picked the date 9-11?

how have they kept all involved from blowing any whistles?

got any answers?




......thought not. 9-11 Truth has no theory, evidence, or clue.

[tempesta29]

you have NO physical, audio, or even visual evidence of explosives in WTC 1,2, or 7.

you have no evidence of security being complicit in explosives being planted in the WTC...or having not done their job.

Step 1: Search "9/11 explosions" in YouTube. Step 2: Watch.

so...what DO you have to contribute?

An ironic question considering your "contributions" thus far.

[A W Smith]

I hear what you're saying. Perhaps the risk of being caught with explosives has been overstated. I'm not saying it's an easy operation to conduct in secrecy, but there are ways to minimize risk, who does secrecy better than US black ops? I'm not accusing Time Warner Cable of installing these explosives. I'm accusing covert elements of the US government.

I find it extremely suspicious that Marvin Bush was a principal for the security company of the WTC. I also find the power down at the WTC very suspicious. If the security company were simply a government front, and you scheduled maintenance or a security overhaul, you could cover up your operation like that. It's speculative, but it's feasible. You may disagree.

So your claim is that "black ops" had an opportunity to plant over fifty thousand cutting charges in three buildings during a 48 hour power down of a few floors that only occurred in one of the towers? Please continue to post your dumbassery. Even though you are not unique you certainly are entertaining.

[Thunder]

Step 1: Search "9/11 explosions" in YouTube. Step 2: Watch.

none of the videos have any audio or video showing typical CD explosions.

unless you consider 4 "squibs" to be enough to take down 110 story buildings.

FAIL....massive one.

[A W Smith]

you have NO physical, audio, or even visual evidence of explosives in WTC 1,2, or 7.

you have no evidence of security being complicit in explosives being planted in the WTC...or having not done their job.

so...what DO you have to contribute?
entertaining dumbassery

[tempesta29]

when did they plant the explosives?

how much did they use?

what floors did they plant them on?

exactly what type did they use?

what was the origin of these explosives?

who was their most immediate commanding officer?

who picked the date 9-11?

how have they kept all involved from blowing any whistles?

got any answers?



......thought not. 9-11 Truth has no theory, evidence, or clue.

Wow. You got me. You're right. I just realized that my inability to answer any or all of these questions means that the official story of 9/11 is true.

Good logic.

[tempesta29]

So your claim is that "black ops" had an opportunity to plant over fifty thousand cutting charges in three buildings during a 48 hour power down of a few floors that only occurred in one of the towers? Please continue to post your dumbassery. Even though you are not unique you certainly are entertaining.

I never cited a specific number of charges.

The collapses of these buildings preclude their having been caused by fire.

[tsig]

They are distinctly separate risks. Calling me idiotic does not change that. "The risk involved applies to both." Sorry but--what does that mean? Yes, I know both are risky. Both threaten to expose the conspiracy I'm alleging, but they are not directly linked. We were having a discussion about a specific risk. He was guilty of a straw man, now you are complicit in that very straw man.

For Christ's sake, use your mind.

By the bowels of Jesus I beseech thee, get an education.

[Thunder]

Wow. You got me. You're right. I just realized that my inability to answer any or all of these questions means that the official story of 9/11 is true.

you can't claim that "black ops" loaded the WTC with explosives, and yet have ZERO details to back it up.

do you even know what skepticism is?

once you provide your OWN idea, you must back it up.

that's how things work here at JREF. you make a claim, you must back it up.....or get laughed at all the way home.

ball's in your court. back up your claims with facts, details, figures....or you are in the wrong forum.

[A W Smith]

I never cited a specific number of charges.

The collapses of these buildings preclude their having been caused by fire.

I was being conservative. please cite how many "levels" at a minimum would need to be rigged with cutting charges to avoid collapse arrest.

[jaydeehess]

And what the hell do civilian office workers know about maintenance? Do you really think in their 9 to 5 grind they're thinking about whether or not a guy with equipment might be planting bombs in the building?
Having worked in several buildings AS an electronic tech I KNOW first hand that employees always ask about what I am installing, often to the point of inquiring about details of how the devive works



LOL. Yes, actually. Since I know explosives were used based on the descents of the upper sections, I know that security must have either failed on a massive scale or have been complicit.

Youy admittedly have no training or education to make such a determination so your conclusions are irellevanmt

[Thunder]

Tempesta29 is arguing that the security at the WTC, which was a number 1 terror target in the USA, either utterly failed to do their job...or were "in on it".

does he have any evidence? nope.

[pgimeno]

I find it extremely suspicious that Marvin Bush was a principal for the security company of the WTC.

When did Marvin Bush have any relationship with EJ Electric? Marvin Bush was an executive of Securacom, now Stratasec, in a different city until 2000, and left the company afterwards. But Securacom was not "the security company of the WTC". EJ Electric was, together with the PAPD.

I also find the power down at the WTC very suspicious.

What makes a power down at the upper floors of WTC2 suspicious?

[triforcharity]

I never cited a specific number of charges.

The collapses of these buildings preclude their having been caused by fire.

Really? Show me the math.

PS. I love fire, and have been studying it for the better part of a decade. Please, show me the math.

[JamesB]

I hear what you're saying. Perhaps the risk of being caught with explosives has been overstated. I'm not saying it's an easy operation to conduct in secrecy, but there are ways to minimize risk, who does secrecy better than US black ops? I'm not accusing Time Warner Cable of installing these explosives. I'm accusing covert elements of the US government.

I find it extremely suspicious that Marvin Bush was a principal for the security company of the WTC. I also find the power down at the WTC very suspicious. If the security company were simply a government front, and you scheduled maintenance or a security overhaul, you could cover up your operation like that. It's speculative, but it's feasible. You may disagree.

Actually we suck at it. Nixon couldn't even break into a psychiatrist's office without getting caught. Stalin knew about the Manhattan Project before Truman did. The CIA tried for decades and couldn't even kill or overthrow a tinpot dictator 60 miles from Miami. The Iran-Contra operation didn't involve more than a handful of knowledgeable people and a couple of million dollars and resulted in Congressional hearings within months. Hell, we can't even keep tens of thousands of classified documents off of Wikileaks.

I am reminded of a famous quote from William F. Buckley.

“It had all the earmarks of a CIA operation; the bomb killed everybody in the room except the intended target!”

[A W Smith]

Actually we suck at it. Nixon couldn't even break into a psychiatrist's office without getting caught. Stalin knew about the Manhattan Project before Truman did. The CIA tried for decades and couldn't even kill or overthrow a tinpot dictator 60 miles from Miami. The Iran-Contra operation didn't involve more than a handful of knowledgeable people and a couple of million dollars and resulted in Congressional hearings within months. Hell, we can't even keep tens of thousands of classified documents off of Wikileaks.

I am reminded of a famous quote from William F. Buckley.
and Clinton wouldn't get oral in the oval without the world finding out while he was still in office, And that was a secret between only two consenting adults!

[Rolls]

Well, without actually going through all the posts in this thread, I'll hazard to add just a quick summary of my own experience with Thermite. I deployed three thermite grenades in my time in the US Army, and although each one burned as you would expect an incendiary device to burn, not a single one of them exploded. Sorry truthers, explosives are used in the role of demolitions, incendiary devices, are not. But hey, what do I know, I only actually handled and used the stuff. I'm sure some basement truther commando can pull up a link to a youtube video that proves me not only wrong, but implicates me as a NWO government loyalist shill disinfo agent...

Rolls

[Rolls]

CHENEY: Though it doesn't matter what crashes into the Pentagon because there are no videos of it, so who cares right? Yeah! Anyone want to shoot my good friend and not apologize for it? I did. It was awesome!

And really, you're implying that anyone believes that the original intention was to crash a plane in a field in Pennsylvania? Three planes hit high profile targets and you're insinuating that I and others believe the last plane was meant to hit the dirt in Nowheresville, PA?

Your posts are great entertainment, please, don't stop! ;)

[tempesta29]

Having worked in several buildings AS an electronic tech I KNOW first hand that employees always ask about what I am installing, often to the point of inquiring about details of how the devive works

Sounds like it would have been a good idea to work nights.

Youy admittedly have no training or education to make such a determination so your conclusions are irellevanmt

Umm, well I did make that determination. Either it's true or false. Saying the above however, makes no stride in proving either. If you disagree with me then just explain yourself. This is just a discussion.

[AJM8125]

Sounds like it would have been a good idea to work nights.

Nope. That makes things even more difficult.

[tempesta29]

Well, without actually going through all the posts in this thread, I'll hazard to add just a quick summary of my own experience with Thermite. I deployed three thermite grenades in my time in the US Army, and although each one burned as you would expect an incendiary device to burn, not a single one of them exploded. Sorry truthers, explosives are used in the role of demolitions, incendiary devices, are not. But hey, what do I know, I only actually handled and used the stuff. I'm sure some basement truther commando can pull up a link to a youtube video that proves me not only wrong, but implicates me as a NWO government loyalist shill disinfo agent...

Rolls

I never claimed thermite exploded. This is pretty well understood at this point. Molten steel found at the sites of all 3 collapsed buildings seems to suggest that a strong incendiary was used in some way.

[Thunder]

Molten steel found at the sites of all 3 collapsed buildings seems to suggest that a strong incendiary was used in some way.

<snip> Post edited...see note in post 213
provide evidence for molten steel at GZ...or forever be known as just another truther who makes BS claims with zero proof.

[tempesta29]

Moderated content removed.
provide evidence for molten steel at GZ...or forever be known as just another truther who makes BS claims with zero proof.

<snip> so I don't feel I owe you anything. If you haven't read the reports of molten steel by now then you don't even belong in the discussion. Go look them up yourself.

Posted edited.

Thunder, tempesta29 and anyone else this may apply to - enough with the name calling/bickering. Post on topic and address the argument vs attack the arguer (rule 11, rule 12).

[A W Smith]

Sounds like it would have been a good idea to work nights.


So instead of using 48 hours of a "power down" we are reduced to 16 hours tops to plant more than 5000 cutting charges in three buildings totaling 267 storys, OK got it, Thanks.

[A W Smith]

<snip>, so I don't feel I owe you anything. If you haven't read the reports of molten steel by now then you don't even belong in the discussion. Go look them up yourself.Moderated content removed.
We don't want anecdotes sport, We want physical evidence.

[tempesta29]

We don't want anecdotes sport, We want physical evidence.

Lemme guess, you want me to whip out molten steel from the WTC? You're just acting silly.

[dafydd]

Really? Show me the math.

PS. I love fire, and have been studying it for the better part of a decade. Please, show me the math.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/234094d1a9ae2cf65f.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22026)

[dafydd]

<snip>, so I don't feel I owe you anything. If you haven't read the reports of molten steel by now then you don't even belong in the discussion. Go look them up yourself.Moderated content removed.

Troother reports mean zilch.

[AJM8125]

Lemme guess, you want me to whip out molten steel from the WTC? You're just acting silly.

Since it's your assertion, yes.

[tempesta29]

Since it's your assertion, yes.

Let's see those terrorist plans then. Are they on a spiral notebook or something?

[AJM8125]

Let's see those terrorist plans then. Are they on a spiral notebook or something?

What the hell does that have to do with your assertion that molten steel was found in regard to all three buildings? Dodge fail.

[Thunder]

Let's see those terrorist plans then. Are they on a spiral notebook or something?

translation: "I have no evidence for my assertions, and I feel no need to provide evidence for my assertions. Only supporters of the official story have to provide evidence. Truthers do not."

thanks for playing.

[A W Smith]

Lemme guess, you want me to whip out molten steel from the WTC? You're just acting silly.
Now you are just being evasive and pedant. I want you to direct us to physical evidence of molten steel. Cite it. Wherever it may exist.

[jaydeehess]

Sounds like it would have been a good idea to work nights.
Sometimes did, sometimes did not. However, every time we were either there before everyone went home or still there when the day workers got back.
In the few instances when it was done within the overnight period we always had security people (in one building that meant RCMP) curious about the devices being installed

[tempesta29]

Now you are just being evasive and pedant. I want you to direct us to physical evidence of molten steel. Cite it. Wherever it may exist.

Please quote where I claimed to have such physical evidence.

[A W Smith]

Let's see those terrorist plans then. Are they on a spiral notebook or something?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5810097534812155210#

[tempesta29]

translation: "I have no evidence for my assertions, and I feel no need to provide evidence for my assertions. Only supporters of the official story have to provide evidence. Truthers do not."

thanks for playing.

So you have no terrorists plans then I take it?

[A W Smith]

Please quote where I claimed to have such physical evidence.
So you have not seen nor can direct us to any physical evidence for the claims you make. Thank you for admitting that.

[AJM8125]

You're a rude and obnoxious poster, so I don't feel I owe you anything. If you haven't read the reports of molten steel by now then you don't even belong in the discussion. Go look them up yourself.

Please quote where I claimed to have such physical evidence.

Right there.

Lost focus again?

[tempesta29]

Right there.

Lost focus again?

Is a report physical evidence?

[AJM8125]

Is a report physical evidence?

Yes, as matter of fact, they are. Please show your documentation.

[A W Smith]

Is a report physical evidence?
Its painful to watch you admit over and over again you cannot direct us to physical evidence that supports your claims, You can stop now, Will you be posting anything new soon? Or just the same old lame talking points I predicted you would post by your third post at the JREF forums?

[tempesta29]

Yes, as matter of fact, they are. Please show your documentation.

Google is your friend. If you haven't read the accounts by now then you might as well find another, newer topic.

Its painful to watch you admit over and over again you cannot direct us to physical evidence that supports your claims, You can stop now, Will you be posting anything new soon? Or just the same old lame talking points I predicted you would post by your third post at the JREF forums?

Did you ever even counter my initial post? How can the upper sections of the Twin Towers not decelerate when they encounter greater resistance?

How can WTC 7 accelerate at the rate of gravity for 2.25 seconds without its columns being severed?

[AJM8125]

Google is your friend. If you haven't read the accounts by now then you might as well find another, newer topic.

Ah. Google is your source. Who knew. :rolleyes:

Accounts aren't reports, by the way. Please show your documentation.

[A W Smith]

Did you ever even counter my initial post? How can the upper sections of the Twin Towers not decelerate when they encounter greater resistance?

How can WTC 7 accelerate at the rate of gravity for 2.25 seconds without its columns being severed?

Remember my reply to your third post with all the links? Two of which contained links to MIT physics lessons? Golly gee tempesta I guess all i can say is "Google is your friend. If you haven't read the accounts by now then you might as well find another, newer topic."

[tempesta29]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg&feature=player_embedded#

Greg Fuchek, vice-president of sales for LinksPoint Inc., which supplied some of the computer equipment used to identify human remains at Ground Zero:
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel

Herb Trimpe was the ground zero chaplain:
I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat.

A Messenger-Inquirer report notes that firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole said that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel."

It certainly appears that steel melted and that it was not some other metal. Steel beams that are molten is molten steel, just to clarify. Of course you want it to be aluminum, but it wasn't. Not only do we have witnesses confirming steel beams themselves dripping molten, but molten aluminum does not glow brightly enough to even be visible until very high temperatures anyway, temperatures too high for an office fire. And there is FAR more steel than aluminum in these construction. We were described rivers and pools of molten steel. And what about WTC 7? Those fires were hardly raging. We're to believe that such a fire could even produce glowing hot aluminum? It takes about 1800 degrees to do that.

Something tells me none of you would even question this if it didn't absolutely discredit the official story.

[AJM8125]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg&feature=player_embedded#

Greg Fuchek, vice-president of sales for LinksPoint Inc., which supplied some of the computer equipment used to identify human remains at Ground Zero:


Herb Trimpe was the ground zero chaplain:


A Messenger-Inquirer report notes that firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole said that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel."

It certainly appears that steel melted and that it was not some other metal. Steel beams that are molten is molten steel, just to clarify. Of course you want it to be aluminum, but it wasn't. Not only do we have witnesses confirming steel beams themselves dripping molten, but molten aluminum does not glow brightly enough to even be visible until very high temperatures anyway, temperatures too high for an office fire. And there is FAR more steel than aluminum in these construction. We were described rivers and pools of molten steel. And what about WTC 7? Those fires were hardly raging. We're to believe that such a fire could even produce glowing hot aluminum? It takes about 1800 degrees to do that.

Something tells me none of you would even question this if it didn't absolutely discredit the official story.

That's nice. Please show us your documentation.

[beachnut]

... It certainly appears that steel melted ...
And you have zero evidence. What was your point? You post nonsense based on zero evidence. Is that a lie or just ignorance?

How does thermite work in demolitions? Why were zero thermite products or evidence found at the WTC? Good luck.

You have no idea how hot melted steel is, do you?

[JamesB]

Hmm, I watched Mythbusters try to cut a car in half with 100lbs of thermite, and it lasted for about 30 seconds. So how much thermite would you need to use to keep steel melted for 6 weeks?

[A W Smith]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg&feature=player_embedded#
Didn't see one puddle of solidified formerly molten "steel" in that video. But hey welcome to 2007
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&h...f87efc6f926f13 (http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22NIST+engineer+John+Gross%22+site:randi.org&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=83f87efc6f926f13)
Greg Fuchek, vice-president of sales for LinksPoint Inc., which supplied some of the computer equipment used to identify human remains at Ground Zero:
Human remains? sorry, Not steel.

Herb Trimpe was the ground zero chaplain:A chaplain? Does he have the molten metal stowed away in his pyx?? Chaplain =/= metallurgist, all he said was metal/


A Messenger-Inquirer report notes that firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole said that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel."
Third hand anecdotal report of a fireman who wasn't even operating the crane that pulled the beam. The very definition of anecdotal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence)

It certainly appears that steel melted and that it was not some other metal. Steel beams that are molten is molten steel, just to clarify. Of course you want it to be aluminum, but it wasn't. Not only do we have witnesses confirming steel beams themselves dripping molten, but molten aluminum does not glow brightly enough to even be visible until very high temperatures anyway, temperatures too high for an office fire. And there is FAR more steel than aluminum in these construction. We were described rivers and pools of molten steel. And what about WTC 7? Those fires were hardly raging. We're to believe that such a fire could even produce glowing hot aluminum? It takes about 1800 degrees to do that.

Something tells me none of you would even question this if it didn't absolutely discredit the official story."Appearances" can be deceiving. Could be anything with a melting point far below that of steel but heat not unusual in a fire, Could be glass, Lots of glass in the world trace centers. How would you even maintain temperatures sufficient to keep steel molten for weeks? I thought you were advocating explosives? not thermite?

[tempesta29]

Remember my reply to your third post with all the links? Two of which contained links to MIT physics lessons? Golly gee tempesta I guess all i can say is "Google is your friend. If you haven't read the accounts by now then you might as well find another, newer topic."

That isn't a counterargument. It's just an insulting link posting.

[tempesta29]

And you have zero evidence.

I hear this a lot from people like you. I have eyewitness corroboration. That is evidence. Saying I have "zero evidence" is just being dishonest. When you want to have an honest discussion, give me a shout.

[tempesta29]

Hmm, I watched Mythbusters try to cut a car in half with 100lbs of thermite, and it lasted for about 30 seconds. So how much thermite would you need to use to keep steel melted for 6 weeks?

Not sure, how much kerosene do you need to keep have pits of over 2000 degrees weeks after a fire started?

[AJM8125]

That isn't a counterargument. It's just an insulting link posting.

So what was it when you posted the exact words in response to me?

[A W Smith]

That isn't a counterargument. It's just an insulting link posting.
you did not see your own words in that quoted post?

"Google is your friend. If you haven't read the accounts by now then you might as well find another, newer topic." Ironic

[triforcharity]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SLIzSCt_cg&feature=player_embedded#

Greg Fuchek, vice-president of sales for LinksPoint Inc., which supplied some of the computer equipment used to identify human remains at Ground Zero:


Herb Trimpe was the ground zero chaplain:


A Messenger-Inquirer report notes that firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole said that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel."


Wonderful. Now, show me how they can identify molten steel from molten tin, lead, or aluminum, or hell, even glass.


It certainly appears that steel melted and that it was not some other metal.


Wonderful. Now, show me how they can identify molten steel from molten tin, lead, or aluminum, or hell, even glass.


Steel beams that are molten is molten steel, just to clarify.

To an untrained eye, sure. Can you identify molten steel versus, say, molten glass?

Of course you want it to be aluminum, but it wasn't.

Speculation. How did you come to this conclusion? Show us the reasons, and back it up. No arguments from personal incredulity.

Not only do we have witnesses confirming steel beams themselves dripping molten, but molten aluminum does not glow brightly enough to even be visible until very high temperatures anyway,


False, aluminum mixed with other contaminants certainly will.


temperatures too high for an office fire.


Really? Show me the math. Show me the energy release rates. Show me the heat load for this but of information you seem to have.


And there is FAR more steel than aluminum in these construction. We were described rivers and pools of molten steel.



Wonderful. Now, show me how they can identify molten steel from molten tin, lead, or aluminum, or hell, even glass.

Also, show me the large nuggets of previously molten steel. I'll wait.

And what about WTC 7? Those fires were hardly raging.


Incorrect. There are DOZENS of accounts of huge fires raging in 7WTC, and also video and photographic evidence to back it up.


We're to believe that such a fire could even produce glowing hot aluminum? It takes about 1800 degrees to do that.


Yep. No problem there. Hydrocarbon fires generally reach 1800 deg. F quite easily.


Something tells me none of you would even question this if it didn't absolutely discredit the official story.

We would question it nonetheless, because it's false. Blatently false.

Oh, BTW, how's the math coming out? You know, the math I asked for back here?

Really? Show me the math.

PS. I love fire, and have been studying it for the better part of a decade. Please, show me the math.

Feel free to click the link for context.

[tempesta29]

"Appearances" can be deceiving. Could be anything with a melting point far below that of steel but heat not unusual in a fire, Could be glass, Lots of glass in the world trace centers. How would you even maintain temperatures sufficient to keep steel molten for weeks? I thought you were advocating explosives? not thermite?

Jesus Christ man. I really hoped I would come to this forum and be able to engage in intelligent and honest posting, but I have been very disappointed.

High quality glass has a melting point higher than steel, in some cases much higher. I mean, are you people really this desperate?

People saw beams melting. You're in denial.

[triforcharity]

Not sure, how much kerosene do you need to keep have pits of over 2000 degrees weeks after a fire started?

None whatsoever. But something in the area of 220 acres of office and other material certainly could.

[AJM8125]

Jesus Christ man. I really hoped I would come to this forum and be able to engage in intelligent and honest posting, but I have been very disappointed.

Door. Ass.

High quality glass has a melting point higher than steel, in some cases much higher.

Please show us your documentation.

People saw beams melting.

Please show us your documentation.

[JamesB]

Jesus Christ man. I really hoped I would come to this forum and be able to engage in intelligent and honest posting, but I have been very disappointed.

High quality glass has a melting point higher than steel, in some cases much higher. I mean, are you people really this desperate?

People saw beams melting. You're in denial.

So? Far more people saw a plane hit the Pentagon and you don't consider that evidence. And it is much easier to confuse molten aluminum for molten steel than it would be to mistake a cruise missile for a 767.