Explosives don't melt steel, they only vaporize it.
9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)
- Thread starter Stryder
- Start date
- Status
If you look at the article you will see that the words are actually those of the author James Glanz. He is paraphrasing Barnett, not quoting.
Don’t be ridiculous.
If you actually read the article it says they found the cause of the collapse. The cause had nothing to do with explosives. They later released their report stating that they found no evidence of temperatures anywhere near the 2700C needed to evaporate steel.
Utter stupidity. As he was not even quoted saying it we can't be sure that even said those words.
Hey spidergoat
. Welcome to the discussion. I assume you're attempting some humour. In point of fact, however, there is much more evidence of melted steel then there is of evaporated steel. Here is an article on the melted steel evidence:http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
And here is a video on the evidence:
http://comics.magnify.net/video/WTC-Melted-Steel-Destruction-De
You have a small problem of evidence….
NIST believe that the temperature did reach those numbers. As established, unprotected steel will reach temperatures marginally lower than that of the atmosphere.
But you are still playing dumb. There is evidence that the steel reached a temperature that caused it to get very soft. Abolhassan Astaneh commented that he thought the steel reached temperatures over 1000C.
Why not? There is ample evidence that they can and did reach temperatures that high. The Cardington tests had temperatures reaching 1000C. This has been pointed out to you about a dozen times.
Only if you wish to leave reality and ignore all the evidence you don’t like.
Once again, explosives explode, they don’t just make the temperature higher.
The thousands of liters of jet fuel initiated a massive office fire over many floors. Eventually the fuel was burnt out but the fires were roaring by that stage. To then state that the jet fuel didn’t cause the high temperatures is a stupid attempt to misrepresent the truth. Only the very stupid or gullible would fall for that.
No that was not the point. Re-read it. They are claiming that the steel was totally obliterated during the collapse. This is completely wrong.
There was steel at the WTC site for about six months and thousands had access to it. To say that is was rapidly removed or destroyed is wrong. You will no doubt keep saying it though as facts are not important to your conspiracy fantasy.
Fine. The above quote from NCSTAR-1F seems to essentially be saying the same thing as before- that the maximum air temperature was 1000C for 15 to 20 minutes. The steel certainly wasn't mentioned.
I'm not so sure of that, but you didn't answer my question.
You'd have to ask Dr. Barnett.
I definitely disagree with you there:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2082459&postcount=2203
I, on the other hand, would argue that you are the one who doesn't want to ponder anything that might disagree with the official story, such as Dr. Barnett's comment on evaporated steel.
Exactly:
[personal attack edited out]. We were discussing the cause of that collapse. That is a photo of the building after the collapse had started.
1- Quit making personal attacks.
2- Based on your previous statement, I believe my response made sense.
With the help of some high powered explosives, I'd agree. Fire alone has never brought down a steel-frame high-rise before or since.
I have already listed a bunch of points from the A&E web site that make it clear that it was a controlled demolition. The fact that it also had some unusual characteristics for a controlled demolition doesn't change the fact that it's still the best theory to explain what happened. It only means that the CD was somewhat unusual.
I'm saying that it was highly probable, not merely possible.
All matter weighs -something-. Spread out dust, however, doesn't weigh all that much per cubic meter. And breaking up is putting it mildly; I think exploding outwards covers it better. There's also the issue that much of the WTC towers' debris fell outside of their footprints; all that debris simply couldn't have aided in the hopelessly flawed pancake collapse theory, because it wasn't even falling down on the rest of the building.
True. However, a lot of the steel was ejected outside of the WTC2 footprint and the concrete was pulverized into fine dust, much of which -also- was ejected outside of the WTC2 footprint.
If you want a technical argument as to why the pancake theory is hopelessly flawed, you may want to attempt to understand an article from Gordon Ross, who holds degrees in both Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering:
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id1.html
I personally don't understand it, but I've seen other arguments regarding the conservation of momentum that are certainly simpler, such as physicist Steven Jones' argument:
**********************************
The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several engineers/scientists (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the southwest corner) falls to earth in less than 6.6 seconds, while an object dropped from the roof would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum — one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case — somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans.
How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses (Harris, 2000).
**********************************
http://physics911.net/stevenjones
The above mentioned behaviour shows no such thing; it only shows that a part of the WTC tower didn't have sufficient explosives to get it to yield at a certain point quickly enough; thus, the partial toppling that was arrested by the top part of the structure simply disintegrating in mid air (yet more evidence of explosives being used).
Who said that the explosions in the basement caused the collapse at the top?
Not sure if the lamp posts were cut using explosives, thermite, or simply something else.
Yep...
Very funny, but if you're interested in finding out what -else- thermate/nano-thermite can do, you may want to ask NIST. You see, they know quite a bit about it:
"The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites"
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/nist_thermite_connection.html
As has been demonstrated to you, the temperature of the steel will be only marginally below that of the atmosphere.
So the temperatures reached that high, just as seen in the tests and the simulations. This is corroborated by the other evidence such as the bowing, molten material, soft steel ect. All the different pieces of evidence point to the temperatures being near 1000C.
Your question was a pointless one.
Why don’t you think about it.
The problems with that molten metal page have been pointed out to you numerous times. Your faith in your conspiracy religion prevents you from seeing reason.
Nope. I went looking for corroborating evidence and instead what I found was the report by his team that estimated temperatures near 1000C. The very article has the headline explaining that they found the cause of the collapse and it wasn’t bombs. Looking at the article you can see that he isn’t even being quoted saying those words, it is a paraphrase. I have done some work to asses the validity of the claim while you have just ignored the bits you don’t like and clung desperately to the conspiracy that you just know has to be real whatever the evidence illustrates.
If you want to make a case of my comment I encourage you to do so. I have been very, very patient with you Scott and I think a moderator will see that if they read from the start. Meanwhile although you do not make personal attacks, your behavior borders on intellectual dishonesty and trolling.
No your response was a stupid one. You have posted a photo of a building halfway through a collapse, you think it looks like a building exploding so you think explosives caused the collapse. If you watch the video and not just look at a still photo it is clear that the building is not exploding it is collapsing.
High powered explosives to not warm up and soften steel.
Pointless drivel. Others and myself have explained why that comment is meaningless numerous times.
Last edited:
Those points have all been debunked and are complete and utter idiocy.
No they were characteristics unlike a controlled demolition. This is the problem with your religion and trying to fit evidence to the conclusion already reached. Can you not see what you are saying here? They are trying to point to characteristics like a CD. The characteristics that are very much unlike a CD you just say “well they are evidence as well… evidence of an unusual CD! ” .
What?
Its an absurd theory with no credible evidence to support it.
The top thirty floors of WTC2 were not mostly dust and did weigh quite a lot.
Complete nonsense. The top thirty floors are falling downwards. It is clear that they are falling, not exploding.
I thought you and your ae911 buddies said it collapsed into it’s own footprint? Make your mind up.
So because there was some ejected debris you therefore claim that the top thirty floors exerted no downward force at all. Right? You want to think about that one? Are you capable of recognizing how stupid that is?
Of course there was dust outside the footprint. Watch the video. The dust was spread out during the collapse and then fell several hundred meters to the ground. It’s not going to be sucked back into the square footprint. ?
All you have done is apply the same flawed reasoning.
That seemed to what you were saying. Perhaps you were saying there were explosions in the basement that had no effect at all. Either way it is a stupid theory.
Or a plane knocking them over…. like the many witnesses confirmed.
Last edited:
And the iron alumino spheres found on the roofs of neighbouring skyscrapers? And the alumino-iron spheres found within ONE HOUR of the collapses? And the molten material seen pouring out of the tower seconds before the collapse?
Besides all this is the fact that UNREACTED nano-thermite has been found! that is not part of any cleanup cutting!
Pictures of unreacted thermite 1 minute 25 seconds into this clip:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/18459
You are only able to dismiss evidence of molten metal as being from cutting torches because the very first person whose job it was to inspect the steel only arrived on site 10 days after 911! so any molten material seen after that can be assumed to be from cutting torches by people who wish to believe the official story.
Nanothermite is both explosive and a chemical incendary.
Welcome Stryder!!
Scott, HS, Psi...meet Stryder...he's a super mod here...and the mod of my computer forum. Sooo...have a little respect
So..Stryder...you must be feeling the need to for massive frustration, to be posting here....now if I can only get Ben the Man in here.
But does not reach temperatures high enough to vaporize steel. Nanothermite, and regular thermite are chemically identical. The only difference between the two is nanothermite is ground into microscopic size particles, massively increasing the surface area for burning. It only makes the reaction happen much much faster. (not the best thing for cutting through stuff..see the video where they had to use a flower pot to slow the thermite reaction down, so it could cut through the car). The explosive force created by superheating of the air around the nanothermite would do nothing to the support columns.
I'd like to make another common sense argument on why I don't think thermite, nanothermite, or thermate was used. I'll tell a little story to illustrate my point.
Scott, HS, Psi...You're wife has been bugging you for months to build her a garden shed in the backyard to store her gardening stuff in. You have been putting it off for months. You poured the slab foundation this summer, but that's about as far as you got. It is now time to frame out the shed...so you've gone down to Home Depot and bought 50 or so 8 foot long 2x4's to build the frame....but this is really a two man job...and you know ole Mac is quite handy, and has a set of tools that rivals Bob Villa's...so you give me a call and ask me to come over to help.
The first job that we need to do is cut the 2x4's to length. I go to the back of my truck and offer you 3 choices of tools to cut the boards:
A. A laser guided miter saw:
B. A hack saw:
C. A steak knife:
Please select which tool you would use to cut the boards. We'll continue in the next post...as you can only post 3 picture per post...
Scott, HS, Psi...You're wife has been bugging you for months to build her a garden shed in the backyard to store her gardening stuff in. You have been putting it off for months. You poured the slab foundation this summer, but that's about as far as you got. It is now time to frame out the shed...so you've gone down to Home Depot and bought 50 or so 8 foot long 2x4's to build the frame....but this is really a two man job...and you know ole Mac is quite handy, and has a set of tools that rivals Bob Villa's...so you give me a call and ask me to come over to help.
The first job that we need to do is cut the 2x4's to length. I go to the back of my truck and offer you 3 choices of tools to cut the boards:
A. A laser guided miter saw:
B. A hack saw:
C. A steak knife:
Please select which tool you would use to cut the boards. We'll continue in the next post...as you can only post 3 picture per post...
Continued....
After we have cut the boards to their proper length, we will have to attach them together with large framing nails. Again..I give you 3 choices for tools to drive the large framing nails into the boards.
A. A compressed air driven framing nail gun:
B. An 8oz. ball pin hammer:
C. A wing-tipped loafer:
Please choose your tool.
If you chose "A", then you chose correctly, Why? because these are the tools that professionals use. After years of doing the job everyday, they have determined these tools to be the best.
If you chose "B", then you're kinda right. These tools are really made to do other jobs, but could possibly be used to do this job. They would take much longer to do the job and not give as precise as results...not the best chose, but at least feasable.
If you chose "C", then you're an idiot, or your a contestant on "Survivor", because the only time you would use "C" class tools, is if you were stranded on a desert island, and had nothing else.
To me thermite, nanothermite, and thermate are all "B" class tools. They really aren't designed to do the task at hand. It doesn't make sense to choose a "B" class tool, when "A" class tools are readily available. Professionals use high explosives to cut through structural steel, that's the "A" class tool for the job. It's specifically designed for it.
It would be so much easier to get a hold of commercial-grade demolition charges, tools made for the job, than it would be to design a system that would allow thermite or the likes to cut horizontally.
People do things the easiest way possible. Just as you would have chosen the mitre saw over the hack saw....the insiders would have made then same choice.
After we have cut the boards to their proper length, we will have to attach them together with large framing nails. Again..I give you 3 choices for tools to drive the large framing nails into the boards.
A. A compressed air driven framing nail gun:
B. An 8oz. ball pin hammer:
C. A wing-tipped loafer:
Please choose your tool.
If you chose "A", then you chose correctly, Why? because these are the tools that professionals use. After years of doing the job everyday, they have determined these tools to be the best.
If you chose "B", then you're kinda right. These tools are really made to do other jobs, but could possibly be used to do this job. They would take much longer to do the job and not give as precise as results...not the best chose, but at least feasable.
If you chose "C", then you're an idiot, or your a contestant on "Survivor", because the only time you would use "C" class tools, is if you were stranded on a desert island, and had nothing else.
To me thermite, nanothermite, and thermate are all "B" class tools. They really aren't designed to do the task at hand. It doesn't make sense to choose a "B" class tool, when "A" class tools are readily available. Professionals use high explosives to cut through structural steel, that's the "A" class tool for the job. It's specifically designed for it.
It would be so much easier to get a hold of commercial-grade demolition charges, tools made for the job, than it would be to design a system that would allow thermite or the likes to cut horizontally.
People do things the easiest way possible. Just as you would have chosen the mitre saw over the hack saw....the insiders would have made then same choice.
Heck why stop there, if the conspiracy had weight and the government planned it all and had planted such charges, why use Commercial Grade when you can go to town with Military Grade hardware?
In honesty the only way that any conspiracy like this could bare any weight is if the building did have charges fitted in case the building couldn't be saved so as to create a kind of controlled collapse so as to save the surrounding area, but even then that would pushing it.
After all for people to plant such charges that would just sit there in the event of such an occurrence is bound to allow someone to have a slip of a confidentiality agreement and a statement made to someone that would have fear mongered about such explosives existing prior to 9/11.
All I can see with this conspiracy is a dead horse being flogged repeatedly, there is no way it's going to get up and pull a cart.
Btw MacG, Great Anology.
- Status