Belz...
Fiend God
It stayed up. 7 fell down. Now, what does that tell us, in and of itself ?
It stayed up. 7 fell down. Now, what does that tell us, in and of itself ?
Indeed, but after the S tower collapsed it looked like this :
Clearer photos freely available on the net.
Attachments
Last edited:
Nothing whatsoever. I was arguing against the phrase "dumping another building on top of it" used earlier in relation to WTC7, and using WTC3 as visual evidence of what "dumping another building on top of it" might look like.
Mentioning that it stood up was irrelevant and emotive.
True. I am abashed. Told myself I wouldn't sit here spouting half-learnt, half-digested factoids and failed at the first hurdle.
Hi GlennB, welcome to the forum.
I presume you're talking about this FEMA Appendix C. If you read it closely, it comprehensively shows quite the opposite of what you claim.
The first clue is in the comprehensive chemical analysis of both samples, shown on pages 5 and 9-13. The EDX spectra show all of the compounds found in each. Had this been caused by a thermite reaction, you would see significant quantities of aluminum oxide co-located with these chemicals -- but there are none.
Thermate, as you claim, is even less likely. Thermate is roughly 2% sulphur, and 30% barium nitrate. If the sulphur compounds were created as a result of thermate combustion, not only would you find aluminum oxide, you would also see a barium signal far stronger than any sulphur compound. Again, there are none. EDX rules out thermate.
A second clue is found on page 2, in the temperatures that created this phenomenon:
The eutectic temperature of a mixture is the lowest melting point of any constituent chemical compound. The mixture is "eutectic" in the sense that once the lowest melting temperature is reached, the entire mixture may be treated as liquid. Think of water ice well mixed with frozen alcohol -- once you melt the alcohol, the entire thing is a slurry; you do not have to reach the melting temperature of ice.FEMA said:
This finding is significant because it implies the original steel was never heated far beyond this temperature. If it had, the different compounds would be expected to separate or form other products. 1000oC is far below the temperature one would expect from a "thermate cutting charge," or for that matter any form of deliberate demolition whatsoever! It is, however, completely consistent with a raging office building fire with additional diesel fuel tanks.
As the FEMA report notes in its conclusion, this observation is a rare event and the mechanics are not well understood. The source of the sulphur is unknown.
However, as sulphur makes up about 2.9% of the Earth, there are several possibilities. One that we have discussed here is, again, the diesel fuel, of which thousands of gallons were stored in WTC 7. Diesel in the USA is high in sulphur. Other elements in diesel are volatile organics that do not bond with iron, and could be expected to burn off and therefore not show in the EDX analysis, unlike thermate. While this speculation has not been proven as far as I know, it is credible. Thermite and thermate are strictly ruled out by this analysis.
If you have other evidence that you believe points to thermate, please feel free to bring it here for discussion. But thus far, the thermate hypothesis, in addition to suffering from numerous practical difficulties, has no support in evidence.
Yes, the evidence is very strong indeed that it does.
The urge to leap feet first into a vigourous debate is a dangerous thing.
My abashedness meter has redlined.
Regards
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
According to NISTNCSTAR1-7 Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Operations there were approximately 8,900 people in WTC1 and 8,600 people in WTC2, for a total of 17,500 people.
In addition, in the same report they estimated that, had the building been fully occupied, evacuation would have taken over four hours.
The Pentagon does not have an air traffic monitoring role.
There were no air patrols of US airspace pre 9/11.
Monitoring of communications is relatively limited and does not happen even close to real time. The only people monitoring communications with airliners were the air traffic controllers. Until they notified NORAD, the military knew nothing. NEADS were notified of AA11 9 minutes before it crashed. They were told about UA175 precisely as it crashed. AA77 they found out about 2 minutes before it hit The Pentagon. They were not told about UA93 until 4 minutes after it had crashed.
I assume you mean Vigilant Guardian?
No one knew there was a terrorist suicide attack until UA175 hit WTC2 at 0903. Even Boston Centre, the FAA, and NEADS (who knew that AA11 was hijacked) did not find out that AA11 was the aircraft that hit WTC1 until about 90 minutes later.
The actions of The President are IMHO, the single gaping hole in the official story. All other tattered threads have a number of logical and fairly mundane explanations, but I have never heard an explanation for why the President reacted as he did. I can speculate on a number of reasons, but they are nothing more than speculation. I too would like to see some detailed information concerning events with the President and his personnel in the first hour of 9/11.
-Andrew
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
The FIM-92 Stinger has a range of 4,800m. The Pentagon is 3,430m from the White House (as per Google Earth).
AA77 impacted The Pentagon at 460 Kt - 236 m/s (as per the NTSB FDR report). That means (ignoring issues with altitude for a second) AA77 was within range for a Stinger located at the White House for 5.8 seconds before impact (4800-3430 / 236).
The Stinger has a speed of about 750 m/s, so once fired, would take 4.5 seconds to reach The Pentagon (for now we'll ignore the extra distance required to hit AA77 BEFORE it hits The Pentagon).
That gives the Stinger crew 1.3 seconds to identify the target and fire.
Are any US military folks here familiar with The Stinger? How would you feel about having 1.3 seconds to select a target and fire?
-Andrew
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
This, by definition, is negligence. You cannot be held as negligent unless you were aware of the flaw/threat/risk/danger/whatever and did nothing to address it.
I used to work in the traffic and safety department of New Zealand's largest city that dealt with claims for things like blown tyres from people driving over potholes. Unless they could prove Auckland City knew about the pothole PRIOR to the incident, and had done nothing to address the situation, the council were not negligent and did not have to pay.
In order to prove criminal negligence on the part of the US Government you would have to provide evidence that they had specific warning of the attacks prior to them occuring. In this context that would (at a minimum) require information on the date of the attacks and methodology to be employed.
-Andrew
Belz...
Fiend God
Considering the amount of steel that came down on it, I'd agree that a building fell down on it.
Last edited:
I was thinking in terms of the photos available in the NIST preliminary report, pp 16-17
In particular p16 shows the entire roof from above, after the collapse of both towers. It shows "minor damage to parapet wall"
Let me ask you, if they planted explosives in WTC 1, 2 and 7, then why didn't they plant explosives in WTC 3, 4, 5 and 6?
If you've seen the NIST WTC 7 preliminary report, you might try backing up to pg. 15, or if you prefer look at the chart on pg. 20. While WTC 2 didn't actually topple onto the roof of WTC 7, the damage it sustained to its south wall was tremendous, and the impact was enough to knock elevator cars free of their moorings.
Bad stuff.
Belz...
Fiend God
Well, I was talking about number 3, but seeing as a good portion of 20 of the 7th building's 50 floors was scooped out, I'd call that major damage.
IIRC, The Stinger would not have had time to lock on to the target in that small a window. The Gunner would have to do what is basically a ballistic launch, which in those cimcumstances & target angle would be for all intents & purposes, an impossible shot...1.3 seconds is barely enough time aquire the target in the sight.
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 17,396
I did no investigation to the thermate/-mite-hype at all,
because chemistry is not my world and i don´t like wild
specualtions, but would´nt have someone noticed
- all these guys
- ripping all the walls open
- over several weeeks
- to place anything to the main-beams to bring seven down?
Correct me if i´m wrong, but these speculations about
thermate/-mite seems to me "kicking a dead cow" over
and over again.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 17,396
Well, give me a short explanation if i´m wrong. Maybe
you could wake up my attention to this.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
No, I'm agreeing with you. Having to continually readdress these same debunked ideas on demolition over, and over, and over again is like beating a dead horse. My link was merely a visual representation of what the CTists are doing.
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 17,396
But why do the people in here still argue about it?
Some kind of slow and painful self-mutilation? :-D