WTC Collapses

[scott3x]

Ok, back on topic people, chop chop

The magic jet fuel, Round 2, Part 1

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 717 in this thread.

The fire wasn't -at- the ground level. Or is this a case of the magical jet fuel that (according to the official story) managed to get itself all over the place?

The cables for some of the lifts were severed and at least one made it all the way to the basement. It is expected that jet fuel travelled down the lifts as well.

Expected by the official story anyway. Do they present any evidence to support the claim that this actually happened?

We’ve been through this one before as well Scott. It is mentioned in many of the documents I have read such as http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm
If there was thousands of gallons there don’t you think it is certainly possible?

I've heard that it is very unlikely, and yet that USA Today article said "The shafts also channeled burning jet fuel throughout both towers", as if it were an established fact.

Remember that we have discussed accounts of smelling kerosene in the basement.

You're going to have to link to where we have discussed those accounts if you actually want to debate the point.

Here are some more -

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1907291&postcount=40

JREF takes forever to load, atleast for me, so no thanks. Feel free to excerpt some relevant arguments from it if you wish.

 

[John99]

it takes about 2x this page takes to load. and you have hit this page 197,000 times.

 

[scott3x]

The magic jet fuel, Round 2, Part 2

This post is in response to the 2nd and final part of shaman_'s post 717 in this thread.

Electrical panels do not equal explosions by default.

What a meaningless response.

You are incorrect. The correct answer is: What a -meaningful- response . I had a speak and spell mini computer back when I was a kid. When I spelt something wrong, it'd say something like that. Like, I'd spell beautiful wrong say. So it'd go:
You are incorrect. The correct spelling is b-e-a-u-t-i-f-u-l, beautiful. In a condescending tone, no less. I got pretty good at it to avoid that condescending tone, laugh .

The buildings were hit by 767s at full speed. The entire building moved when it was hit. Default no longer mattered.

Just because the buildings were hit by "767s at full speed" at the top of of the towers doesn't mean you would start getting explosions at the -bottom- of the towers.

As to equipment falling over, is there any evidence that the jets or the fires they created had anything to do with things of this nature happening on the lower levels?

Yes, as mentioned above

Ah, I see, now we have magic jets capable of doing anything once they hit the twin towers, is that it?

but the explosion of jet fuel would still be felt and heard and felt on the lower levels and they may certainly describe it as an ‘explosion’.

Yes, the planes crashing into the building were indeed felt through the building. But they were -certainly- not the only explosions felt within the building. To see just how many witnesses experienced -other- explosions, one need look no further then the following page:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/shaking.html

You'll probably just say that they're only the tower coming down, so I found one that specifically deals with the ground shaking -before- the collapse of one of the North Tower, from Paul Curran, Fire Patrolman (F.D.N.Y.):

North Tower:
I went back and stood right in front of Eight World Trade Center right by the customs house, and the north tower was set right next to it. Not that much time went by, and all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet.
...
The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing.

On the affected floors, alright, I'll buy it. Way below the affected floors, however, it's a whole different story.

The collision would still be felt and explosions may still be heard.

Yes, but explosions can be felt in a directional manner- you can tell if an explosion is coming from below you or from above you.

Do conspiracy theorists ever think about how silly it would be to blow up a building which is going to be hit by planes (absurd in the 1s place) and use bombs which make a loud noise? I'm sure the government has access to something which could quietly cause a building to collapse...

People such as Szamboni have argued that the demolition's first phase took out the core- this is supported by the antenna going down first and it even seems to account for the bowing.

That does not answer my question.

I hadn't finished my response yet.

It also has the advantage that, because it was internal, it was less visible.

But it would be heard wouldn’t it?

Sigh. It was, and felt too:
Ground shaking

What you don't seem to understand is that the inside jobbers -wanted- people to believe that the planes brought the buildings down.

Yer thanks Scott I think I got that at some stage.

And yet, you ask questions like "Do conspiracy theorists ever think about how silly it would be to blow up a building which is going to be hit by planes (absurd in the 1s place) and use bombs which make a loud noise? I'm sure the government has access to something which could quietly cause a building to collapse..."

Let's assume for a second that the WTC buildings -were- the result of controlled demolitions. I will agree that while many people felt they heard explosions, I tend to agree that the explosions I myself have heard didn't sound like those made in a typical demolition; to me, it sounded quieter. This may well have been intentional.

And it's clearly still fooling a great many people. So clearly they tried to make the explosions as quiet as they could; placing them in the innermost reaches of the building would help with that.

Still avoiding the point. Why not use something silent? If thermite can cut through the steel as some people claim then why not use that?

It would have taken ridiculous amounts of it as NIST itself made clear, and it certainly wouldn't have been able to pull the job off so quickly.

According to you they had the technology. Why use something that would alert everyone to conspiracy?

They had nanothermite- while it seems to be quieter then conventional explosives, it's still not as quiet as thermite. I think the reason is rather obvious- explosives by their very nature expand well over the speed of sound; this creates shockwaves and shockwaves in an air environment are by definition noisy affairs.

Many people were actually -in- the building during the various phases of the demolition, however, and so their ruse was uncovered.

Well of course they bloody well were. Did the government expect it to be empty at 9am? You are not thinking.

Alright, perhaps that argument wasn't the best. But if we continue to assume for a moment that it was an inside job, I believe they thought that they could simply persuade the people who escaped alive that what they heard was caused by jet fuel or what not. It's apparently done a relatively good job for 7+ years now for many people, including yourself.

However, they also had lots of people to try to get people to see things the official story way.

You mean reality?

I understand that for you, the official story is what you believe to be real. For me and many others, however, it's fiction that needs to be replaced by the truth.

I also still believe that nano-thermites may well be more quiet explosives then regular explosives, but I have yet to get any evidence for against this possibility.

Right……

Glad you agree

 

[scott3x]

it takes about 2x this page takes to load.

For me, it takes much longer for some reason.

and you have hit this page 197,000 times.

Have not! I'm -positive- I haven't been on this page more then 196,999 times ;-).

Update- ok, there's no more denying it . I guess it's time to do my laundry. I'll leave you with this video...
"Africa" by Toto

 

[psikeyhackr]

I suppose only leopold knows; perhaps he was alluding to others here calling you names, perhaps he was, in fact, referring to himself. No evidence either way really :shrug:.

Wondering if perhaps you missed my post in response to leopold:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2137183&postcount=1159

Yeah, I missed it. I just responded to him when I read his post.

But this is the difference between DEBATES and SOLVING PHYSICS PROBLEMS.

Debates often turn into ego games primarily and arguing about words and the vague use of language. Physics is usually far more precise and the arguments more rigorous than that unless it is at the cutting edge of knowledge where things haven't really been figured out yet. Newtonian physics does not fit into that category.

I don't even regard the government as an issue except in what they put into the reports about what happened on 9/11. I don't care if there was a conspiracy. I don't care if the planes were switched. Sure I find it amusing that no one asks what happened to the condensed aluminum if the plane that hit the Pentagon was vaporized.

ROFLMAO

When you run a hot shower the water vapor condenses on the walls. If the plane vaporized at the Pentagon the aluminum vapor should have condensed onto the walls outside the building. I haven't heard anyone ask about that, but the whole thing is ludicrous anyway.

I am more aggravated with all of the engineering schools for not pointing out all of the obvious problems with the WTC 1 & 2 destructions than I am with the government. MIT was involved in making a video that aired in 2002 that had impossible crap in it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6633534908581013879

It shows perfectly rectangular sections of the floor slab falling loose from the core. Since that same video shows how the floor slabs were poured and formed one solid piece of concrete that is ridiculous. That wooden model that they overload with weights is absurd also. Even if the an entire floor slab fell the spandrels would still form a perimeter all of the way around the building making that twisting impossible.

Very often debates don't seem to be about resolving issues to me. They are about manipulating the audience or just scoring points in however people keep track of the psychological crap. I get banned for calling someone a liar even when it is obvious from what they typed that they were lying. Physics is irrelevant to debates. LOL

psik

 

[scott3x]

Yeah, I missed it. I just responded to him when I read his post.

k.

But this is the difference between DEBATES and SOLVING PHYSICS PROBLEMS.

Debates often turn into ego games primarily and arguing about words and the vague use of language. Physics is usually far more precise and the arguments more rigorous than that unless it is at the cutting edge of knowledge where things haven't really been figured out yet. Newtonian physics does not fit into that category.

I don't even regard the government as an issue except in what they put into the reports about what happened on 9/11. I don't care if there was a conspiracy. I don't care if the planes were switched. Sure I find it amusing that no one asks what happened to the condensed aluminum if the plane that hit the Pentagon was vaporized.

ROFLMAO

When you run a hot shower the water vapor condenses on the walls. If the plane vaporized at the Pentagon the aluminum vapor should have condensed onto the walls outside the building. I haven't heard anyone ask about that, but the whole thing is ludicrous anyway.

I believe there's a lot of evidence that no plane hit the pentagon; I believe a good site detailing this evidence is www.thepentacon.com.

I am more aggravated with all of the engineering schools for not pointing out all of the obvious problems with the WTC 1 & 2 destructions than I am with the government.

Ah, but who funds those schools? When Steven Jones started talking about the fact that the official story didn't wash, the administration of the school got some emails from some people who were 'highly placed'. They suggested that Steven Jones change tack by focusing on safety concerns for skyscrapers to prevent planes from bringing them down or things of that nature. A little before he was suspended, this emailer seemed to be telling him that even if he knew the truth, that it would be best to keep quiet about it. He persisted though and was then suspended.

MIT was involved in making a video that aired in 2002 that had impossible crap in it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6633534908581013879

It shows perfectly rectangular sections of the floor slab falling loose from the core. Since that same video shows how the floor slabs were poured and formed one solid piece of concrete that is ridiculous. That wooden model that they overload with weights is absurd also. Even if an entire floor slab fell the spandrels would still form a perimeter all of the way around the building making that twisting impossible.

Well, atleast there's one MIT graduate who is also a speaker for the 9/11 truth movement...

Very often debates don't seem to be about resolving issues to me. They are about manipulating the audience or just scoring points in however people keep track of the psychological crap. I get banned for calling someone a liar even when it is obvious from what they typed that they were lying. Physics is irrelevant to debates. LOL

I acknowledge that you definitely seem to be quite adept in physics. However, since my knowledge of physics is rather limited, I really can't follow you beyond a certain point at present. However, when it comes to debates, I think I'm rather good. I noticed that you had made a bit of a mistake in regards to leopold. Upon further consideration, I suppose he did seem to suggest certain things about your posts, but he didn't outright say it, while you jumped to the conclusion that he had, in fact, said it. The issue of lying is one that many also jump to conclusions about. shaman_ has frequently accused me of being dishonest. I have always refuted this claim and yet he kept on bringing it up.

There are 2 points to be made in defense of someone who is called a liar. The obvious one is that evidence must be provided that the person is saying something that isn't true. But that is only the -first- step. The next step can sometimes be much more difficult to prove: do they -know- that what they're saying is untrue. If you accuse someone of lying simply because they're saying something that isn't true, you could very well be mistaken.

I have also noticed that, like many others, you have sometimes resorted to base insults. In many forums, this can get you banned. Even in this one, although as a general rule the rules are a bit lax in this particular forum. Anyway, hope some of this proves helpful for you

 

[Stryder]

Another note you might like to look into on fuel. When the planes struck, it's likely the sprinkler systems kicked in. Water and Fuel doesn't mix, Fuel usually travels on the surface and if many gallons of water were being used to quelch flames, then you have an increase in fuel spread, which would either drain down the sides of the building or down the elevator shafts.

 

[scott3x]

Another note you might like to look into on fuel. When the planes struck, it's likely the sprinkler systems kicked in. Water and Fuel doesn't mix, Fuel usually travels on the surface and if many gallons of water were being used to quelch flames, then you have an increase in fuel spread, which would either drain down the sides of the building or down the elevator shafts.

I believe I've heard this argument before, perhaps from NIST itself. And yet, NIST has said previously that the sprinkler systems were probably damaged:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html#8

In regards to the South Tower, 9/11 Research also comments that "fires in the South Tower remained limited to a few floors and one side of the building -- a fact documented by numerous photographs of the attack. "

 

[Headspin]

new david chandler analysis:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19053

This would seem to bolster Tony Szambotis similar analysis about to be published. Looking forward to reading it!

 

[leopold]

I believe I've heard this argument before, perhaps from NIST itself. And yet, NIST has said previously that the sprinkler systems were probably damaged:

probably?
when those planes hit, the resulting electrical shorts no doubt blew fuses and transformers and tripped circuit breakers.
this would result in an immediate loss of water pressure.
even if the sprinkler system was left undamaged it's highly unlikely they had any real effect.

 

[leopold]

In regards to the South Tower, 9/11 Research also comments that "fires in the South Tower remained limited to a few floors and one side of the building -- a fact documented by numerous photographs of the attack. "

do you believe that scott? all that jet fuel stayed on one side of the building?

 

[psikeyhackr]

do you believe that scott? all that jet fuel stayed on one side of the building?

What does it matter what the fuel did if you don't know how much steel there was?

The jet fuel would burn at 1800 deg F in a pure oxygen environment but the atmosphere is only 21% oxygen by volume.

34 tons of jet fuel vs. how many tons of steel?

psik

 

[leopold]

What does it matter what the fuel did if you don't know how much steel there was?

The jet fuel would burn at 1800 deg F in a pure oxygen environment but the atmosphere is only 21% oxygen by volume.

34 tons of jet fuel vs. how many tons of steel?

psik

if you are so sure then why not tell MIT?, harvard?, yale?
besides, that wasn't the question.
the question was "do you believe all that fuel stayed on one side of the building?".

you made the analogy earlier about the pentagon and compared it to a bathroom.
the pentagon would not react the same as a bathroom because it's constructed of 5 concentric separated rings.

 

[psikeyhackr]

you made the analogy earlier about the pentagon and compared it to a bathroom.
the pentagon would not react the same as a bathroom because it's constructed of 5 concentric separated rings.

ROFLMAO

Let's see you provide a link to where I compared the Pentagon to a bathroom.

The search engine should handle that. This is the only post by me containing the word bathroom. I just did the search.

Oh, now I get it. I was talking about the aluminum from the supposedly vaporized airliner having to condense and you call that comparing the Pentagon to a bathroom.

ROFL

Now you see how these so called debates can go on forever Scott. People turn physics into word games.

I know what the question was. I have emailed Purdue and the NIST. It is certainly curious how official sources don't deal with something as simple as the TONS of STEEL on every level of a skyscraper designed before the Moon landing. Don't skyscrapers have to hold themselves up? LOL

psik

 

[John99]

ROFLMAO

Don't skyscrapers have to hold themselves up? LOL

psik

you mean you dont know? LOLZ

 

[psikeyhackr]

you mean you dont know? LOLZ

You mean you can't recognize SARCASM?

psik

 

[John99]

it's hard to tell with you guys.

 

[leopold]

Let's see you provide a link to where I compared the Pentagon to a bathroom.

post 1185:

Sure I find it amusing that no one asks what happened to the condensed aluminum if the plane that hit the Pentagon was vaporized.

ROFLMAO

When you run a hot shower the water vapor condenses on the walls. If the plane vaporized at the Pentagon the aluminum vapor should have condensed onto the walls outside the building.

i'm not sure about you but i take my showers in the bathroom, i'm sure 99% of the population does too.

I was talking about the aluminum from the supposedly vaporized airliner having to condense and you call that comparing the Pentagon to a bathroom.

you are the one that made the analogy, not me.

 

[psikeyhackr]

you are the one that made the analogy, not me.

The analogy was between aluminum vapor and water vapor not the Pentagon and a bathroom.

Oh, now I get it. I was talking about the aluminum from the supposedly vaporized airliner having to condense and you call that comparing the Pentagon to a bathroom.

I already figured out what you claimed to be talking about and how you chose to distort what I was saying.

psik

 

[leopold]

I already figured out what you claimed to be talking about and how you chose to distort what I was saying.

psik

put me on your ignore list, . . . please.