• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

POSITIVE EVIDENCE for WTC7 Controlled Demolition

BenBurch said:
Elementary!

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Sherlock_holmes_pipe_hat.jpg/450px-Sherlock_holmes_pipe_hat.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Boy,would I LOVE to see Holmes debate the Truthers...since the Truthers violate just about every one of his rules of logic on a daily basis.
Sherlock's rule about not drawing any conclusions until you have finished collecting date,because forming an opinion early will cause you to begin to twist the evidence to fit your conclusion is one rule that the truthers violate dozens of times a day.
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
Thanks for the explanation about CD.

However, surely they place a fair bit of explosives that severe most of the lower columns at once or rather quickly.

So to suggest that fire created the same results, seems illogical to me for a few reasons.

1. most of the lower columns were not severed
2. and even if they did, would fire cause them to all severe (bend, whatever) at the same time, just like demolition?

In one way you are saying WTC7 was not unlike demolition, except fire is the cause. But then in a whole other breath you are saying it was nothing like a demolition. Which is it?
Click to expand...

Fire destroys the steels ability to survive tension loading by breaking down the Crystalline lattice electron structure, that gives steel its strength.
Didn't any of the PhDs on the truther side tell you that?
Metals get their strength from the crystalline structures, without them they fail.
Just as you have failed here.
 
bwinwright said:
:)Are all these engineers and architects insane? Why would they be attempting to establish the truth about how WTC 7 actually collapsed? It seems pretty clear, based on these facts and expert testimony that WTC was an inside job.

What's so frightening about many of the folks who believe the "official version" is that many of them still believe Osama bin Laden was responsible for the crime.

These gullible believers of the official version (GBOTOV) remind me of the atheist who wants people to believe that law and orderliness does not require intelligent direction and that something can come from nothing. Absolutely ludicrous!!!!
Click to expand...

Based on what you have concluded Bw, your observation skills qualify you to repeat more than 3 times "IHNRL".
 
beachnut said:
Trying to be so innocent like at first, and now you just post the dumbest 9/11 truth ideas there are. Without researching them first on your own.
Are you a full blown truther? You come with the intention of trying to show how many facts you have. You are unable to see that you came only with hearsay, false information, lies, and far out junk science ideas. You believe 9/11 truth and have joined the cult of Jones and thermite.

You continue your false information spree of woo questions.

BTW, do you have a wood stove? My wood stove goes to 1500 degrees when I shut off most of the air supply. It becomes a catalysis, like a breeder reactor of wood, making charcoal and burning it. If I would leave the air open, the fire would burn out in a few minutes, but I close off the air and it burns for hours! Minutes to hours, 100 times longer! You need to study and understand the real world. You need to stop listening to liars from 9/11 truth and learn how to find neutral information.

Most the posters here are giving you rational answers for your piles and piles of woo, you keep dishing out as if you were falling into darkness, a kind of 9/11 ignorance. The more rational ideas people give you, the more junk you dig up. Are you degenerating into Dylan Avery, or some dim witted truther?
Click to expand...

Do I have to choose a side? And if I choose your side do I then have a responsibility to address others in the fashion you address me?

My mother has a wood burning furnace/heater. If I leave the door of the furnace open long enough, the steel flute (chimney) glows red due to heat, and my mother gets mad. The fire burns fast and hot and it wastes all the wood.

If I close the door, the fire burns much longer. However the steel flute (chimney) never glows red.

Less oxygen may cause a fire to burn slower, but certainly not hotter.

Steel was thinned and temps were estimated at near 1000C in JOM.

Did the office fires get that hot? And if not, how can less hot falling rubble piles increase (by about 200 or more degrees C) in temperature when cut off from oxygen sources?

That is the question.
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
Do I have to choose a side? And if I choose your side do I then have a responsibility to address others in the fashion you address me?

My mother has a wood burning furnace/heater. If I leave the door of the furnace open long enough, the steel flute (chimney) glows red due to heat, and my mother gets mad. The fire burns fast and hot and it wastes all the wood.

If I close the door, the fire burns much longer. However the steel flute (chimney) never glows red.

Less oxygen may cause a fire to burn slower, but certainly not hotter.

Steel was thinned and temps were estimated at near 1000C in JOM.

Did the office fires get that hot? And if not, how can less hot falling rubble piles increase (by about 200 or more degrees C) in temperature when cut off from oxygen sources?

That is the question.
Click to expand...

Here's a simple comparison, Sizz: you comparing something organic, such as wood, to many things chemical and the resulting chemical reaction taking place.
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
Do I have to choose a side? And if I choose your side do I then have a responsibility to address others in the fashion you address me?

My mother has a wood burning furnace/heater. If I leave the door of the furnace open long enough, the steel flute (chimney) glows red due to heat, and my mother gets mad. The fire burns fast and hot and it wastes all the wood.

If I close the door, the fire burns much longer. However the steel flute (chimney) never glows red.

Less oxygen may cause a fire to burn slower, but certainly not hotter.

Steel was thinned and temps were estimated at near 1000C in JOM.

Did the office fires get that hot? And if not, how can less hot falling rubble piles increase (by about 200 or more degrees C) in temperature when cut off from oxygen sources?

That is the question.
Click to expand...
cherry pick the stuff, you are a truther, not a learning person

sorry, my fire gets hotter with less air, it must be physics or something

Steel fails in fire, you are too young or not doing the research to understand steel fails in fire, very quickly! as on 9/11@! wowzer

Do some research or make stupid posts of woo, your choice, to be rational and figure this out, or be a man of woo, and stay in ignorance on 9/11
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
cherry pick the stuff, you are a truther, not a learning person

sorry, my fire gets hotter with less air, it must be physics or something

Steel fails in fire, you at too young or not doing the research to understand steel fails in fire, very quickly! as on 9/11@! wowzer

Do some research or make stupid posts of woo, your choice, to be rational and figure this out, or be a man of woo, and stay in ignorance on 9/11
Click to expand...

Steel does not always fail in office fires. In fact there are more examples of it not failing than failing.

Also, fire does not cause steel to fail in the manner explosives or thermite cutters do.

Those are facts that you fail to address.
 
Looks pretty hot to me, but then again I'm no fireman.



BTW, what does it say when the fire turns blue? Does this have something to do with chemical reactions or heat and energy?
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Looks pretty hot to me, but then again I'm no fireman.



BTW, what does it say when the fire turns blue? Does this have something to do with chemical reactions or heat and energy?
Click to expand...

So how hot was it?

800 degrees C max?
 
Pardalis said:
How am I supposed to know?

And how are you?
Click to expand...

We can compare other office fires that have a known temperatures.

WTC7 was not an unusual fire.

I've seen other steel framed highrise fires that actually looked hotter estimated to be 800C.

So I'm using that temperature. Hasn't nist released preliminary temps yet?
 
Sizzler said:
Did the office fires get that hot?
Click to expand...
Sure. Read the NIST report.

And if not, how can less hot falling rubble piles increase (by about 200 or more degrees C) in temperature when cut off from oxygen sources?
Click to expand...
Second time: present your evidence that the fires in the piles could not have have burned as they did.

Next, present your evidence that explosives or incendiaries like thermite cause months-long, spreading fires in rubble piles.

Time to poop or get off the pot, Sizzler. Do it.
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
WTC7 was not an unusual fire.
Click to expand...
WTC 7 was pounded by skyscraper debris and burned without being fought for 7 hours. No skyscraper in history had similar construction and sustained similar damage and fires. Is anything unclear about that, Sizzler? Anything at all?

I challenge you to talk to the people who were on the building's south side late in the afternoon and tell them that the fires they saw weren't unusual.

You won't because you're afraid to learn.
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
We can compare other office fires that have a known temperatures.

WTC7 was not an unusual fire.

I've seen other steel framed highrise fires that actually looked hotter estimated to be 800C.
Click to expand...

Just by visual comparisons?

No thanks, I'll pass. Better people, better informed and more knowledgable can do it, not us.
 
Gravy said:
Sure. Read the NIST report.

Second time: present your evidence that the fires in the piles could not have have burned as they did.

Next, present your evidence that explosives or incendiaries like thermite cause months-long, spreading fires in rubble piles.

Time to poop or get off the pot, Sizzler. Do it.
Click to expand...

So the reported temperature of near 1000C in JOM is an anomoly?

And intergranular melting/rapid oxidation/sulfidization are then anomilies too?

My question is, how did the fires go from 800C to near 1000C or more in the rubble piles?

And, if I took a red hot steel beam and covered it with dust in a pile with other red hot steel beams, would those steel beams rapidly oxidize and increase in temperature to the point where they begin to melt themselves?

All the while being oxygen starved in a rubble pile?

And if crushed gypsum board is added will that really lower the melting point of steel? In theory the element exists, but in reality would it seriously be able to do the job?

And what official report of recent even covers these issues?
 
Sizzler said:
We can compare other office fires that have a known temperatures.

WTC7 was not an unusual fire.

I've seen other steel framed highrise fires that actually looked hotter estimated to be 800C.

So I'm using that temperature. Hasn't nist released preliminary temps yet?
Click to expand...

Looked hotter?

Seriously?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom