- This topic has 424 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 2 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Controlled demolitions don’t produce molten steel. And how do you know it was steel anyway? There was masses of aluminium, copper and lead in the Twin Towers.
The workers on the ground said it was steel. I’ve seen a photo of it and it looks like steel, not lead, copper or aluminium. But let’s not worry about that detail. You tell me how such quantities of any-metal can collect in such massive amounts to stay molten for that long. I can theorise a scenario where multiple thermite cuts on the same vertical steel column create a large pool of molten steel at its base. What’s your plausible theory for copper/lead/aluminium?
But the Twin Towers didn’t fall as though they’d been expertly explosively demolished*; debris was all over the place. They certainly didn’t fall “into their own footprints”. They fell as would be expected, considering their structure.
(* WTC7 almost did, which is why I think it was demolished.)
I don’t have evidence of a large pool of molten steel. There’s Leslie Robertson who described a trickle of molten metal, which he called steel but didn’t get tested, running down the walls of the sub-levels. There’s a firefighter who describes “molten steel, running down the channel rails”. This firefighter looked like Frank Zappa and had a similarly colourful turn of phrase. But if he saw molten steel, what were the “channel rails” made of? Titanium or something? They must have been made of something with a higher melting temperature than whatever was running down them or the molten metal would’ve melted them too.
There are photos of glowing metal being pulled out of the debris pile; glowing, but not molten. There’s an impression of radiant heat coming out of that hole, but the workers were working by floodlight.
Energy sources? Well, there were severed gas and electricity mains, all the oil in the tens of thousands of viscous dampers the Twin Towers needed to prevent motion sickness, all the fuel of office contents including paper, cardboard, wood, fibreboard and especially plastics, all the sulphuric acid of the batteries in the uninteruptable power supply rooms for data centres in the Twin Towers, presumably the oxygen cylinders of the ~300 firefighters who perished in WTC2, all the lithium batteries of however many laptops were in the buildings at the time, all the acrylic carpets, however much ammunition that many US Americans keep in their office drawers, the aluminium of the aircraft wreckage which could undergo a thermite reaction with steel, and all the things I haven’t thought of yet.
Enough of the above for 110 storeys, all compressed into less than a tenth of the volume and nicely insulated in the sub-levels with a load of concrete rubble from the floor assemblies on top. The collapses themselves must have been like a combined compression / combustion stroke of a cylinder in an enormous combustion engine, all that fuel-air mix. Oh, and the jet fuel.
I doubt there was a shortage of energy.
It’s easy to say “lots of heat, therefore demolition” but the plausibility is superficial.
All these people say there were huge amounts of molten steel for weeks afterwards:
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/442-witnesses-of-molten-metal-at-ground-zeroYou reject the scenario I suggested to explain it. What’s your alternative explanation? Describe a plausible scenario involving the fuels you listed.
– “The workers on the ground said it was steel. I’ve seen a photo of it and it looks like steel, not lead, copper or aluminium”
What about a mixture? Mixtures melt at a lower temperature than the pure substances.
No mixture. Girders were still melting weeks later.
Agreed; part molten girders is what the witnesses said. But that’s evidence for ongoing fires, not a pointless, fantasy-tech demolition.
At your link it says:
– Joe O’Toole, firefighter: “Underground fires raged for months…”
Dunno see as that’s evidence for demolition, but it helps explain hot or molten metal.
– “Describe a plausible scenario involving the fuels you listed.”
Er, there was an underground railway line beneath, which could have provided an air supply. If they got the trains running again, or trains were still running nearby in a connected tunnel, the trains push air ahead of themselves, as anyone familiar with the London Tube can confirm. This could have fanned fires.
But I don’t see how months of fires suggest thermite or demolition anyway.
Agreed; part molten girders is what the witnesses said. But that’s evidence for ongoing fires, not a pointless, fantasy-tech demolition.
More plausibly, it is evidence for large pools of molten steel, trapped and insulated by the wreckage. Steel that was heated so high above its melting point that it remained molten for weeks. Smaller pools would have soon solidified.
Huge streams of molten steel cascaded down the outside of building therefore it’s reasonable to speculate that even more was running down the main support columns forming large pools. Girders semi-submerged in the pools were partially molten when uncovered by ground workers.That’s my scenario. I’m still waiting for yours.
[nested replies isn’t working for me either]
You are not constructing a scenario, you are saying … er , well perhaps that stuff was the fuel, er, and maybe the air came from over there, er ….
… and abracadabra … these unconnected and improbable elements combine randomly to make a steel foundry.
One stream of molten unknown metal was seen. NIST said aluminium from the aircraft; I suspect lead from a battery room known to have been near the origin.
– “…therefore it’s reasonable to speculate that even more was running down the main support columns”
No, because you’re proposing demolition by melting and (1) that’s too slow to sequence, you need explosives, which weren’t heard during collapse and (2) look at the debris; the bolts were ripped out of the perimeter box-column ends; the ends weren’t melted off. You think none of the workers would have noticed had all the ends been melted off?
I don’t know why “fires raged for months”, but that’s what the witnesses said, so there was fuel and air, and it explains heat, so you don’t need demolition, not for the heat, nor for the collapse. Occam’s Razor – dispense with demolition. It’s good to dispense with because it would have been an unacceptable risk of exposure.
Yeah, threading has failed for some posters but not others. Site Admin just upgraded site software. There are open bugs regarding threading on the software support forum.
Node, you should be raging at Chandler along with me, because it’s obvious what’s happened; Chandler has misled 3000 (out of ~300,000 just in the US) architects and engineers with his “Downward Acceleration”, causing them to construct a false narrative around the “impossibility” of progressive collapse.
Maybe you should read this.
(a) We’ve already established that your obsession with Chandler is irrational (see conversation from 2 days ago). You just can’t admit it.
(b) Is there the slightest possibility in your mind that 3000 architects & engineers and a physics teacher might be know more than you about the laws of physics?
(c) Regarding your sarcastic and insulting link about conspiracy theorists, has it occurred to you that someone who lives in a glass house propped up by such a ludicrous conspiracy theory that he cannot point to one single person in the world who agrees with him shouldn’t throw stones?I was there up the street north about 4 blocks. Of a sudden No. 7 sank smoothly. Faster than 7 seconds. In the morning I was standing on W Broadway and Canal and saw the First WTC tower slowly smoothly sink maybe that took 8 seconds.
Please, tell me more.
Westley Wood, please tell me more, I meant. I thought threading was working now.
Node, your remarks are all about me; you said above that you disapproved of that, so if you have any evidence or physics to discuss…
3000 architects and engineers who accept a physics in which things can’t go past each other can’t be wrong I suppose… Even if 99% of architects and engineers say otherwise.
So Node, you seem to be saying that you only believe something if others believe it too. Isn’t that the very definition of a sheeple? Follow the herd; you just picked a smaller one
Without deviance, progress is impossible 😀 Maybe that’s why your lot have made no progress in nearly 19 years.
CLARK you are obviously an intelligent person, though a trifle polemic I suspect. Crystal Palace was constructed from cast iron and plate glass not steel. Science theory is just that, a theory.Scientific fact will probably never be established in this case how can it be?As for numbers of for and against, many of our greatest scientist were often found to be in the minority.that is until they proved the majority wrong.I think your input is a worthy stabilising factor in this debate providing balance to a topic that can go off the rails.Thank you.
Paul+Peppiatt, you’re right that science doesn’t deal in certainties; science is organised scepticism, and every theory is provisional upon new information. But we’re nowhere near science’s cutting edge with the collapses of the Twin Towers. Calling those collapses impossible is like claiming that heavier-than-air flight is impossible, as the Wright Brothers were told; calculably false and demonstrably false.
I run a wood stove; if I let it get too hot the heat warps the baffle plate. I weld, so I know full well that heat softens steel. Why else would building regulations require that structural steel be coated in fireproofing material? Go search the Internet for steel structures that have collapsed due to fire; war museums have plenty of exhibits.
CLARK. I have often questioned quoting burning temperatures of accelerants it serves no purpose unless you factor in the variables.Fuel on its own will have its temperature but burning in the right enclosure with oxygen being forced in you would then have conditions similar to that of a furnace .As you rightly say all theories need consideration until proven to be false but in this case this is impossible , you have no crime scene and any evidence was sold to China a bit lively, its these actions that gave life to the many theories almost creating a kind of information smog obscuring and obstructing any viable investigation.
Paul P, I have various interests in 9/11, but my main objective here is something more important, namely the public understanding of: science, the scientific community, the scientific process and rational thought itself.
Twin Tower demolition theory assaults the only possible process by which we can iterate towards facts; the most valuable, most powerful and indeed the most dangerous thing ever developed. And it does so by masquerading as the very process that it undermines.
We daren’t just abandon rational thought every time there’s a cover-up. We mustn’t just pick a scenario, proclaim that’s what’s been covered up, and then crowd-source immitation rationality to “prove” it. In addition to the damage to the public’s ability to reason, it’s a gift of false cover stories to real perpetrators.
What was the real target of 9/11?
The 9/11 conspiracy theorists are predictably unanimous in saying that it was a pretext for the War on Terror. It is true that 9/11 enabled the invasion of Afghanistan to be a NATO operation rather than solely US, but the neocon US administration could have just ordered it and the US would have gone in alone. Just two years later for the Iraq invasion 9/11 was impotent and fake weapons of mass destruction had to be concocted. The Libya, Syria and Yemen wars derived no plausible justification from 9/11.
Al Qaeda had nothing to gain by it, though that wouldn’t have stopped them, and the hijackers probably did believe that they were working for al Qaeda.
Actually the most lasting legacy of 9/11 is the displacement of rationality by conspiracy theory, including the mainstream conspiracy theory. The Saudi hierarchy (oil money) funded and enabled it and the neocon US administration (oil money) made sure it succeeded. It was the start of the new millennium and the most important task humanity faced was achieving global unity to eliminate CO2 emissions to stop global warming; an economic disaster scenario for the aforementioned perpetrators. Was 9/11 actually an attack upon climate science, by attacking science and rationality themselves? It may as well have been.
