WTC Collapses

[Uno Hoo]

The video depicted Aluminium melting, this is understandable considering the entire face of the building was clad in aluminium sheeting.

And both towers had recently acquired some portion of 200 tons of Aluminum apiece.

 

[Uno Hoo]

ah, okay. i guess we both know who this someone is.

where were you when scott was presenting "evidence" in the FORMAL DEBATES forum from people we couldn't even verify existed?

you can start by producing the evidence that bomb debris was found at ground zero.

wrong.
copper melts at a MUCH LOWER temperature than steel.

And Aluminum melts at even lower temperature than Copper.

 

[Uno Hoo]

i have no idea what you are referring to.

what "bomb debris" would you expect to have been found?

yes, copper melts at nearly 1100 celcius. given it flows out of the building and down through the air remaining molten despite the cooling as it loses heat to the air, what temperature do you think the material started at inside the building if it were copper? even if you believe it could be copper, where did that amount of copper come from?

here is an interesting video that i have never come across before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzzi2nruRuw

From an awful lot of electric wiring and an awful lot of plumbing piping in the world's tallest building(s) ( briefly ). Or maybe you think they they used candles and lead pipes.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

From an awful lot of electric wiring and an awful lot of plumbing piping in the world's tallest building(s) ( briefly ). Or maybe you think they they used candles and lead pipes.

Sorry Un Hoo but your logic fails when it comes to this corner flow of molten metal.

It is highly unlikely that a large amount of copper was in any one spot and then flowed to this corner. We know it was not Aluminum, since it does not fluoresce yellow orange. The only logical conclusion is that it was steel/iron, which was the most abundant metal in the building, and does fluoresce yellow orange when molten.

 

[Uno Hoo]

No, you are still missing the point.

Camera's are designed to take photons in to create a picture, if the photon output is too high it can cause a change in regards to how a picture develops. Namely if the central piece is a bright light, then the surroundings will appear dark.

There is something else that I've not mentioned to, it involves Aluminium filings and a candle. I don't suggest doing this experiment in an enclosed environment, however if you blow the filings across the candle, the cloud of aluminium will erupted into a flash. (It's the basis of Flash Powder used in Fireworks)

As you should know with fireworks, when they are shot into the sky the bright flash can linger and that's really due to fuel verses flash powder consistency, if there isn't enough powder then it will burn out, if the powders thick enough it can glow for a while before dying out.

I only mention this because Molten aluminium dripping hundreds of feet, isn't going to suddenly cool. It will glow as the velocity of the hot metal is actually fuelled by oxygen on it's decent.

You guys that don't understand Metallurgy really should check out a Foundry or two. Just if you go for a visit, don't start bombarding them with "WTC conspiracies" otherwise you'll miss what you can take in about what actually occurs with metals.

In addition, ( and i am sure I will be misunderstood by somebody ) remember that Thermite is, in one of its most common variations, simply Aluminum plus an Oxidizer ( often Iron oxide ).

Hot Aluminum burns. When it burns it makes a high temperature. While it is burning, it does not cool off. While it is burning, it gets hotter.

 

[Uno Hoo]

Uno,

I tried to pm you this, but you don't accept pm's.

Please go to Scott's formal debate proposal thread and offically accept the challenge. James has approved the go ahead of the debate...and Scott really wants this one bad.

I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

Mac

Dear Mac, I have noticed your post too late to take it into account about whether to get into the debate. Your generous psychological support of my activities is appreciated as if you were one of my paid consultants. Though since you are not actually on my payroll, I can only say that I value your advice re my actions as being worth every penny I pay for it.

 

[Uno Hoo]

My analogy was intended to be ridiculous. Just for humor's sake..you know me. As ridiculous as 2+2=5 is...to me, this is just as ridiculous as your assertion that mini-nukes could have been used to bring down the towers. I'm just saying.

But, mini nukes could have been used. You obviously don't have a clue just how mini a nuke can be, when there is no regard for explosive efficiency or for safety prior to the detonation.

Don't even think about asking. Uno Hoo is not going to explain to anybody how to make a itty bitty nuke.

 

[Uno Hoo]

No one's going to let me live down the mini nukes . Steven Jones wrote an article discrediting the mini nukes theory over in the Journal for 9/11 studies:
“Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers”

I still haven't read it but if I once again begin believing that mini nukes might have played a part rest assured that I'll read it .

Update- I had a peak at Steven Jones' article against the mini nukes theory- he really lays into the alleged evidence, laugh .

There has been no report of greater radiation level than background at WTC. So there is no reason to seriously suspect that mini nuke technology ( almost an oxymoron ) was used at WTC. But a nuke can be amazingly mini.

 

[EndLightEnd]

Questions: (may have been answered already, if so sorry)

What were the official collapse times of both towers?
What is the free fall time from this height?

 

[gluon]

I have read all the evidence now. It's taken me a while to read... all 100 pages of this subject. I must say, with the evidence in hand, it seems that the 9/11 catastrophy may be asking more questions that what it inexorably can or can't answer.

It seems very strange our any metallic structure (welded together in a building lattice) would concurrently collapse upon the interaction of a plane. How indeed the inner lattice (or the metallic structure) of the building quite literally became as weak as sandstone seems rather strange, as there is a massive amount of evidence which suggests that no building with such a structure inevitably crushes under similar conditions, and some even worse, considering how entire buildings can remain contact (and yet lay on their sides) from earthquakes.

...

 

[Uno Hoo]

Sigh. All of it's relevant. If only part of it were, I would have provided the excerpt. Anyway, here's most of 9/11 Research's Thermite article:
Theories that Aluminothermic Reactions Were Used to Destroy the Twin Towers

The idea that thermite or similar preparations were used exclusively or in combination with other methods to destroy the Twin Towers remained unexamined for several years after the attack, despite its merits.

Aluminothermic reactions are exothermic chemical reactions in which aluminum is oxidized while an oxide of another metal is reduced. Although high temperatures are required to initiate such reactions, they are easily self-sustaining once started due to the heat they generate. The most common example of an aluminothermic reaction is thermite, in which powdered aluminum reacts with an iron oxide. Because aluminum has a greater affinity for oxygen than iron, oxygen is transferred from the iron oxide to the aluminum, releasing a great deal of energy and leaving behind molten iron and aluminum oxide.

Professor Steven Jones has noted that a number of features evident both before and after the falls of the Towers fit the theory that thermite was used. These include:

* A spout of orange molten metal seen just before the South Tower's fall in videos of the Tower's north face around the crash zone
* Reports of molten metal in the remarkably hot rubble of Ground Zero
* Minute solidified droplets of previously molten iron in samples of World Trade Center dust
* Remains of the Towers' structural steel showing severe corrosive attack involving sulfur
* High levels of metals found in aluminothermic incendiaries -- such as manganese, zinc, and barium -- in samples of World Trade Center dust

Basic thermite preparations can be modified and augmented in various ways to change their properties. The fineness of the aluminum powder determines the speed of the reaction. The use of ultra-fine aluminum powder gives the reaction an explosive quality, resulting in 'super-thermites'. The addition of sulfur in preparations called thermates enhances the ability of the reaction to cut through steel.

Findings reported in Appendix C of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study seem to fit the thermite theory remarkably well[:]

Thank you scott3x for an excellent post re what Thermite is.

As I have already explained, I am presently on the fence as to whether 9/11 was an outside job or inside job. So there will be times i will post to uphold scientific veracity and seem to be on one side of the issue or the other. I am not on any specific side, but on the side of science accuracy. Thank you for upholding scientific accuracy and clearly describing what Thermite is.

I have finally discovered sites having the Structural Blueprints of WTC. The structural concept is really beautiful in its elegant simplicity. And, generally speaking, the twin towers were structurally strong as hell in essential concept. However, there was possibly an Achilles Heel. It is too early to be sure as there are structural parameters that were used but not yet known to me, but it seems at this moment that a relatively small amount of force, at the hand of a strike by a hijacked airplane, could have indeed weakened the building enough so that subsequent fire induced floor sagging could have pulled the apparently robust perimeter columns inward and thus caused collapse.

It is very important to notice that the WTC was not equivalent structurally to anything previously designed. My new found understanding of its structure makes me believe that comparison to any other tall building that had been involved in fire is unfair. No previous building had been designed to be so robust. But no previous building had such a possible Achilles Heel.

At this moment i believe that probably fire alone could not have caused collapse. But, i believe that after an aircraft strike had weakened the perimeter columns ( because of the Achilles Heel ), then it would have entirely possible for fire to make the floors sag and pull the weakened perimeter columns into failure.

It is also very important to notice that it is probably very unlikely that conspirators would have discovered the possible Achilles Heel. There is not really any such thing as a smart crook. In my opinion, conspirators would have decided that the columns needed to be weakened by Thermite. Therefore, ironically, Keystone Kops Konspirators could very well have gone to excruciating clandestine labors to place Thermite, probably in locations other than Achilles Heel locations, in addition to orchestrating aircraft strikes.

Stalemate.

 

[Uno Hoo]

Sorry Un Hoo but your logic fails when it comes to this corner flow of molten metal.

It is highly unlikely that a large amount of copper was in any one spot and then flowed to this corner. We know it was not Aluminum, since it does not fluoresce yellow orange. The only logical conclusion is that it was steel/iron, which was the most abundant metal in the building, and does fluoresce yellow orange when molten.

Double sorry, Tony, but your logic is doing even worse.

Copper electric wires and Copper plumbing pipes were probably ubiquitous, not in just one place you claim.

Your beloved steel/iron needed a much higher melting temperature than was likely.

In case you have forgotten, each building had recently gained access to 200 tons of Aluminum.

Fluorescing is only easily obvious in the dark. 9/11 happened in clear-skied broad daylight.

 

[Uno Hoo]

I have read all the evidence now. It's taken me a while to read... all 100 pages of this subject. I must say, with the evidence in hand, it seems that the 9/11 catastrophy may be asking more questions that what it inexorably can or can't answer.

It seems very strange our any metallic structure (welded together in a building lattice) would concurrently collapse upon the interaction of a plane. How indeed the inner lattice (or the metallic structure) of the building quite literally became as weak as sandstone seems rather strange, as there is a massive amount of evidence which suggests that no building with such a structure inevitably crushes under similar conditions, and some even worse, considering how entire buildings can remain contact (and yet lay on their sides) from earthquakes.

...

None of the WTC buildings had structures that were welded together. Almost all of the structural connections were bolted connections, according to the Structural Blueprints. Only a very few connections were specified to be welds.

Building Codes require seismic resistance such that often a building may be designed to be strong enough to be theoretically cantilevered on its side and remain intact.

 

[KennyJC]

Questions: (may have been answered already, if so sorry)

What were the official collapse times of both towers?
What is the free fall time from this height?

Free fall from the top of the Towers is 9.22 seconds.

The South Tower collapsed in 14-15 seconds and the North Tower took more than 20 seconds to collapse.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Double sorry, Tony, but your logic is doing even worse.

Copper electric wires and Copper plumbing pipes were probably ubiquitous, not in just one place you claim.

Your beloved steel/iron needed a much higher melting temperature than was likely.

In case you have forgotten, each building had recently gained access to 200 tons of Aluminum.

Fluorescing is only easily obvious in the dark. 9/11 happened in clear-skied broad daylight.

The molten metal flow occurred at a damaged corner of WTC 2. How far was that from any lavatories or copper pipes, which were in the central core? The only aluminum in the vicinity was the perimeter column covers on the outside and aircraft debris inside. The flow came from inside the building. You are wrong about fluorescing only occurring in the dark. The molten metal color was yellow orange and Aluminum is silver gray in daylight. Even the NIST acknowledged this and tried to say it was Aluminum with organic matter mixed in causing the yellow orange color. The only problem there is that experiments have shown that the organic matter will not mix with molten Aluminum.

The only logical explanation for that molten material coming from that corner, just before WTC 2 collapsed, is that it was steel. This comports with the molten steel found in the rubble of only the three collapsed buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. WTC 5 and WTC 6 burned fiercely for hours but did not collapse and guess what, there wasn't any molten metal found under them.

 

[Headspin]

Fluorescing is only easily obvious in the dark. 9/11 happened in clear-skied broad daylight.

fluorescing of aluminium is only visible in the dark.

picture taken in DAYLIGHT:

its not aluminium, it is molten steel

Your beloved steel/iron needed a much higher melting temperature than was likely.

Yes, not likely from an office/jet_fuel fire.

compare:

 

[Stryder]

fluorescing of aluminium is only visible in the dark.

That's nonsense. When Aluminium reaches a temperature high enough to produce a "glow", it outputs photon's at a higher number than the light of day.

You are still making conclusions based on Aluminium at it's melting point:

Aluminium Melting point: 933.47 K (660.32 °C, 1220.58 °F)

 

[Headspin]

That's nonsense. When Aluminium reaches a temperature high enough to produce a "glow", it outputs photon's at a higher number than the light of day.

and what temperature would that be?

 

[scott3x]

That's nonsense. When Aluminium reaches a temperature high enough to produce a "glow", it outputs photon's at a higher number than the light of day.

Where did you hear this?

 

[scott3x]

That's nonsense. When Aluminium reaches a temperature high enough to produce a "glow", it outputs photon's at a higher number than the light of day.

and what temperature would that be?

I believe that Stryder erroneously believes that when it glows in the dark it also glows in daylight conditions. It's for this reason that I've asked him where he heard that aluminum can glow orange or yellow in daylight conditions.