This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

[CptColumbo]

Here's the video:

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Good video. You can see the sides collapsing inward before the top comes down on it.

 

[beachnut]

Open your eyes.

I have never seen more youtube junk ever, great post, the most junk ever!

I guess you have a Pulitzer Prize coming? Maybe not.

5 years and this is your best, Thermite!

Wow, Thermite, rust and powered Al. Good work. Wow, photo evidence of melting computer parts and office furniture is now Thermite.

Great, super, outstanding, sad and very amusing.

plus you trashed two thread with this outstanding Thermite fantasy

Wow, if you only had some proof!

 

[Architect]

What a fantastic post by 28th kingdom. I nominated it

I hope you don't mean that it was nominated in a good way.

 

[Architect]

28th

Just tell me where you think these UK academics got their analysis wrong then. And I'll be expecting the same degree of knowledge/understanding, not minor nitpicking issues:

http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/SC_Baltimore.pdf

 

[28th Kingdom]

Architect,

Just to note...I'm NOT gonna address anyone who so overtly avoids the incontrovertible point I made about the thermite.

Thanks for playing along, though.

 

[Architect]

I call your bluff. You say that fire could not have caused collapse. I say that it can and I have posted proper calculations and analyses in that paper in order to prove it.

Now either put up, or shut up; but I reckon you're a fraud.

 

[Flo]

Architect,

Just to note...I'm NOT gonna address anyone who so overtly avoids the incontrovertible point I made about the thermite.

Thanks for playing along, though.

Translation: "I'm not answering questions (especially those that require real competence), I'm asking them".

 

[Timble]

Just to note...I'm NOT gonna address anyone who so overtly avoids the incontrovertible point I made about the thermite.

I've seen thermite reactions in the lab and used in welding railtrack, to produce a cascade of molten metal, you'd need tons, and I think the occupants of the towers might have noticed the sacks of powdered aluminium and iron oxide stacked up around the core of the building. It burns downwards, great for burning a vertical hole through an engine block, a favorite party trick, but no good for cutting vertical pillars. How do you get thermite to burn horizontaly?

It burns for seconds, minutes at most. The weld and metal produced then start to cool. It wouldn't keep pools of metal molten for days. The reaction is between aluminium and iron oxide, so you can't claim that aluminium from the aircraft continues reacting with the steel from the girders, which would have at most superficial rusting, not enough to sustain a reaction.

So it's not thermite.

 

[GlennB]

<snip>
Does this look very familiar? See, the thing is (are you ready?) that once ignited (via spark, fuse or flame) thermite actually...get this...thermite actually turns INTO MOLTEN METAL! Yes, you read that right. Thermite is a chemical compound containing metal elements...and the really cool thing, is that once it's ignited by a simple flame...a chemical reaction goes off, and it can actually burn up to 2500°C -
<snip>

( my bolding )

Do you see what's wrong with your own argument here, 28th?

hint - check the bolded bit. Your words.

 

[Loss Leader]

So how is the NIST so sure the insulation was even knocked off significantly? Surely, there isn't any evidence to unequivocally prove that the insulation from the floors that suffered the impacts was dislodged...so aren't they completely hypothesizing without a shred of actual proof? If so, does this "expert" theory sound all that solid and/or concrete if at the very foundation...we are working from a complete and utter assumption?

Argument from incredulity.

NIST doesn't make an unwarranted assumption. NIST observed the evidence and created a hypothesis. So far, there is absolutely no evidence that contradicts this. So far, no testing of the hypothesis has produced contradictory results.

If you have contradictory evidence or testing, submit it to a peer-reviewed journal along with an improved hypothesis. Otherwise, your complaining that you just don't like the work NIST has done is logically worthless.

So again - NIST's theory is that this falling building mass (upper floors above the impact) smashed down upon the lower floors causing them to pulverize into dust.

Strawman.

NIST never claimed that the building was pulverized to dust. The evidence is obvious and overwhelming that pieces of the buildings survived that were much larger than dust.

So, how can NIST even be all that certain, that the upper mass remained intact during the entire collapse? They can't...and it's just another critical point that is left up to complete speculation.

Strawman and Incredulity as well as being just plain wrong.

Even if the upper floors had disolved to dust (which they did not), that dust still existed. It had the same mass as the uncrumbled floors, it fell at the same speed and it had the same force. Take a ten pound brick and drop it on your head from twenty feet. Then repeat with a ten pound bag of sand. Report back on which one hurt more.

I, for one - will at least present this video, which shows the collapse of WTC 2:

I don't know the name of this logical error, but I know you're making one. You have fallen into the trap of believing that pictures and video give you more information than they actually do. All pictures are 2-D and one can only guess at depth. All of them are from only one angle and one can only guess at what is happening behind any opaque images. And all of them are of a dynamic event, leaving one to only guess what came before and after. Oh, they are also from very far away, have varying light intensity, may have camera artifacts built in, etc.

In this clip, you can clearly see that the critical upper mass of WTC 2 begins to fall over and to the side, just shortly after the collapse begins. A simple lesson in one of the fundamental laws of physics i.e. inertia - states that...A body moving on a level surface will continue in the same direction at a constant speed unless disturbed. So, following...SCIENTIFIC law, the upper mass will not and cannot move itself back to it's original position i.e. directly above the lower floors.

This is a perfect example of what was said above. You have been fooled by the video into believing that you see more than you do. It is mostly an illusion.

The top floors are, in fact, leaning, however, they are doing so almost entirely within the footprint of the building. As the steel weakened, it bowed inward. The building actually got narrower at the point of impact. This makes the lean above this narrow section look more dramatic than it was.

Also, as the exoskeleton was pulled inward, the top of the building twisted. This twisting also caused the illusion of a greater lean than really existed.

But, mostly, the towers were built around a central core with the floors tethered to it and only supplementally supported by the exoskeleton. As the core failed, it pulled the building above it in and down. This placed increased pressure on the core directly below, caused it to fail and continued to pull the building inwards towards the core. So, there really was a force working to straighten the buildings. The manner of the buildings' construction actually kept the top floors from toppling over like a tree and pulled them back into alignment.

The upper mass on WTC 2 was moving away from the lower floors at the time of its disappearance into the dust cloud, so we can reasonably conclude (backed with the LAW of inertia) that the critical upper mass was NOT a sufficient force in the collapse of WTC 2.

Your conclusary statements backed with no math whatsoever are, in all cases, wrong. The top floors were being pulled into the building as it collapsed from the core outward.

As regards sufficiency of force, you should look into exactly how many tonnes of explosives in how many places would have been required to duplicate the tragedy of that day.

As has been mentioned many times before, there were lots of reports of molten metal at the scene of the WTC Towers. We are all familiar with the pools below the rumble at ground zero, but there was also some molten metal seen pouring from the floors that were damaged during the plane impacts.

Both reports have been widely debunked. There is no credible report of pools of molten metal in the WTC debris.

NIST even confirms that molten metal was, in fact, pouring out of WTC 2 shortly before it's collapse.

"The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior suggests it could have been molten aluminum."

The NIST statement does not support your claim. You say that NIST confirms molten metal and the quote you offer specifically declines to confirm it.

"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace." NIST FAQ

Hey, while we're at it...why don't we just claim that unicorns are likely to have collapsed floors 28-45 due to excessive gallivanting.

Your argument from incredulity has no weight. What logical, evidentiary reason do you have to deny that any aluminum would have been greatly contaminated with organic matter? Why should we disregard NIST's statements as ridiculous? Why should we equate contamination of aluminum with carpet, furniture, wallboard and human remains with the existence of unicorns? One phenomenon is well known, the other is known not to exist. They are not equal.

Anyway, let's just assume for a second that since NIST even admits molten aluminum is silvery and NOT red or yellow-orangish/red, that the molten metal isn't the aluminum from the plane

Unwarranted assumption.

This is where thermite comes into play.

What were the mechanisms used to trigger the thermite? How were they planted in the buildings? Who planted it? How did they know exactly which floors the planes would hit? How did the detonation mechanisms survive the plane crash?

So going back to my opening statement...what do plane impacts, thermal insulation dislodging and potential energy generated by falling building masses all have in common? THEY DON'T EVEN EXIST!

The planes never hit the buildings? That will be a relief to the families of the passengers. Shall I obtain a phone list on my own or did you want to call them yourself?

Open your eyes.

Jeez.

 

[28th Kingdom]

So it's not thermite.

How do you cut steel beams with Thermite? Well, one way is to use Thermate which is a form of Thermite...which has sulfur and barium nitrate added to it. There are devices that you can load the thermate into (then attaching the device to a steel beam) and when the thermate is ignited the reaction is ejected out in one direction in a quasi-blade shape...that can cut through steel.

I don't need to know how much thermate it would have taken to bring down the towers...nor do I need to know how they would have gotten it into the buildings...to know that the clear and straightforward analysis I gave as to why the pouring liquid metal from WTC 2 - is thermite...is irrefutable.

 

[Indolent Wretch]

Funnny

Don't ever be a DAMN FOLLOWER

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You're an idiot

 

[JimBenArm]

How do you cut steel beams with Thermite? Well, one way is to use Thermate which is a form of Thermite...which has sulfur and barium nitrate added to it. There are devices that you can load the thermate into (then attaching the device to a steel beam) and when the thermate is ignited the reaction is ejected out in one direction in a quasi-blade shape...that can cut through steel.

I don't need to know how much thermate it would have taken to bring down the towers...nor do I need to know how they would have gotten it into the buildings...to know that the clear and straightforward analysis I gave as to why the pouring liquid metal from WTC 2 - is thermite...is irrefutable.

Does the word "hubris" mean anything to you?

 

[Timble]

How do you cut steel beams with Thermite? Well, one way is to use Thermate which is a form of Thermite...which has sulfur and barium nitrate added to it. There are devices that you can load the thermate into (then attaching the device to a steel beam) and when the thermate is ignited the reaction is ejected out in one direction in a quasi-blade shape...that can cut through steel.

I don't need to know how much thermate it would have taken to bring down the towers...nor do I need to know how they would have gotten it into the buildings...to know that the clear and straightforward analysis I gave as to why the pouring liquid metal from WTC 2 - is thermite...is irrefutable.

The sulphur and barium nitrate are used to make the mixture easier to ignite, its used as an incendary device not a cutting tool.

Refuted.

The cutting device you describe doesn't exist outside of conspiracy theorists' heads, unless you can provide a reference to some other source?

 

[28th Kingdom]

How are the core columns collapsing straight down? They are vertical to the ground...so for them to disappear in a downward collapse...they would need to telescope on themselves...magico presto.

 

[Architect]

How are the core columns collapsing straight down? They are vertical to the ground...so for them to disappear in a downward collapse...they would need to telescope on themselves...magico presto.

Are you taking the mickey? They fail at the joints and then tumble straight down, saving for any modest deflection on the way.

You still having trouble responding to my technical challenge on the other thread? I should warn you that I will - loudly - continue to highlight any attempt to evade a proper technical discussion on the basis of spurious arguments or (hahaha) "common sense".

 

[Timble]

They're made up of lots of shorter sections. The joints break the columns collapse...simple.

 

[rikzilla]

Hello all,

I KNOW there has been a tremendous debate over the subject of 9/11, and from the few threads I have read it looks like most believe the, "Official Story." Well, here's what I can assure you. If you engage me in this debate, than you will NOT leave this thread without KNOWING that 9/11 was an inside job and brought down by controlled demolitions.

Of course, WTC 7 is and will forever be the smoking gun. I am, of course, referring to 47 story steel-structured building, that dissolved to the ground in mere seconds. I say - DISSOLVED into nothingness, in a mere few seconds. Whether it was 6 or 7 or 8 9 10 seconds...that's not at debate. We've all seen the video, and the fact remains...this 47 story steel-structured building literally DISSOLVED in just the blink of an eye....apparently due to a couple fires that were so LARGE they were virtually invisible from the outside. Remember...there is no official report on the cause of WTC 7's collapse. The 911 commission didn't even address it, and if you know anything about a pancake collapse...WTC 7 was NOT a pancake collapse. All 47 stories simply turned into jello all at once. And magically at that. No wait...I mean because of those small fires that melted the entire infrastructure all at once. Yea, that's what I meant to say.

Now, I think one of the main problems people encounter when analyzing an event like this is that they OVER analyze it. Especially since politics are often brought (kicking and screaming) into this discussion...it's easy for one to loose track of the real issues by dismissing another as a, "Liberal! or NeoCON!" Please, don't be blinded by political bias. In fact, let's just check that at the door. This debate has NOTHING to do with what political party you like to associate yourself with.

In conjunction: We're NOT debating WHO is responsible for 9/11 in this thread. So, regardless if you do decide to open your mind up to THE truth...it doesn't mean that you're saying or agreeing to who is actually responsible for the demolition of the WTC. The only fact about this event that we shall discuss, is whether or not FIRE was the chief cause of the collapse of WTC 1, 2, 7 or if a controlled demolition is to blame.

See, I think the main problem with the, 'Debunkers.' is that they never actually debunk this main issue i.e. the buildings came down via a demolition. And the reason they probably haven't presented any actual hard evidence (I'm not talking about an "expert's" commentary or analysis) I'm talking about actual evidence you could present in a court of law that PROVES unequivocally, that demolitions we're NOT used on the WTC buildings. And, really this is the only point worth discussing. Sorry, but calling someone a, "Nutjob!" isn't gonna work. I'm only looking for something that could be presented as evidence in a court of law. Let's get REAL left-brained and linear about this...oki doki! You know like Skeptics are SUPPOSE to be!

There is really no point in getting distracted with the small side issues and theories...because it only serves to dilute the whole point of this investigation...and that is to irrefutably prove what caused the buildings to collapse.

So if we could...I would like to pose a series of simple questions...and all I want for everyone to do is simply respond to the question at hand. If everyone can follow these simple guidelines, than it shouldn't take too long before you will have to accept the fact that the buildings collapsed because of explosives and NOT a fire that melted steel wherein initiating an improbable pancake collapse.

Question 1: Is it possible to prove whether or not (irrefutably) that in the history of the world...a steel-structured building has collapsed as a direct result of a fire? I know we've all heard that this has never happened before 9/11, but is it possible to prove that statement true or false - without a shadow of doubt? And if we can prove whether or not that statement is true, than please give your answer - yay or nay, and present your evidence.

Figured out how to use the "search" function yet?

:yawn:

Well sorry, this thread has not changed the way I look at 9/11 for even a moment much less FOREVER!!!

All this thread has accomplished is one more example of the bone-deep stupidity, laziness, and intellectual dishonesty of the Truth (with a capital T) movement.

You have joined a cult 28K, the religious dogma you've been fed may change the way you look at 9/11 forever...but to those of us who don't like to accept kool-aid out of rusty steel drums offered by madmen....well we'll just have to stick with the boredom of the real world.

-z

 

[FramerDave]

There are devices that you can load the thermate into (then attaching the device to a steel beam) and when the thermate is ignited the reaction is ejected out in one direction in a quasi-blade shape...that can cut through steel.

Happen to have a reference for that? Pictures, links, Youtube video, etc? That sounds like something I'd like to see in action.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

How do you cut steel beams with Thermite? Well, one way is to use Thermate which is a form of Thermite...which has sulfur and barium nitrate added to it. There are devices that you can load the thermate into (then attaching the device to a steel beam) and when the thermate is ignited the reaction is ejected out in one direction in a quasi-blade shape...that can cut through steel.

I don't need to know how much thermate it would have taken to bring down the towers...nor do I need to know how they would have gotten it into the buildings...to know that the clear and straightforward analysis I gave as to why the pouring liquid metal from WTC 2 - is thermite...is irrefutable.

What devices? And don't link to a US Patent office req/pat; as there is no requirement from the Patent office that the item being patented work. Show me a link to a functioning device like you describe.