Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)
- Thread starter Dabljuh
- Start date
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Can't use that. The corpse would disintegrate completely, and we'd be back to DEW or aliens...
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2007
- Messages
- 8,746
1337m4n
Alphanumeric Anonymous Stick Man
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 3,510
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Wow. That was lame, even by your standards.
Hardly kids. Ian Burgess is the head of the Department of Civil and Structural Engineering at the University of Sheffield. Roger Plank is the Head of the School of Architecture at that same university. Seng-Kwan Choi is now a structural fire engineering lecturer at the University of Ulster.
Huh... didn't know 3ds Max did "thermal analysis"1. Or possibly this is Dabljuh making stuff up again. Hmmm... wonder which?...
I'll let the engineers give the proper explanation, but that paper doesn't seem like an analysis of a building implosion, but rather a thermal analysis of how a steel truss reacts in a fire.
And the journal Engineering Structures may not exactly be found on a Barnes and Nobles shelf, but it's hardly some obscure publication with no critical standards where the author has to pay for publication.
1That was the first page, in the first paragraph.
Hardly kids. Ian Burgess is the head of the Department of Civil and Structural Engineering at the University of Sheffield. Roger Plank is the Head of the School of Architecture at that same university. Seng-Kwan Choi is now a structural fire engineering lecturer at the University of Ulster.
Huh... didn't know 3ds Max did "thermal analysis"1. Or possibly this is Dabljuh making stuff up again. Hmmm... wonder which?...
I'll let the engineers give the proper explanation, but that paper doesn't seem like an analysis of a building implosion, but rather a thermal analysis of how a steel truss reacts in a fire.
And the journal Engineering Structures may not exactly be found on a Barnes and Nobles shelf, but it's hardly some obscure publication with no critical standards where the author has to pay for publication.
1That was the first page, in the first paragraph.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Oh, I know, I know... I've said this a million times over it seems, and even once or twice in this thread here, but just because I address a conspiracy peddler doesn't necessarily mean the info is aimed at him. It's for lurkers, newbies, etc. etc.
Dabljuh devolved into a brick wall all the way back when he brought up the old canards about the towers' redundancy and the "never in history" claim. Everything else since then has been about showing people what the right information is. Remember, this is the poster that started out talking about explosions and brought up arguments Steven Jones doesn't even use anymore. I know he's a brick wall. Walls are good for hanging the right picture on. You just got to hammer the nail a bit harder when the brick resists.
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
Inconceivable!
Dub, your analogy is rubbish because it starts with,
Dubljuh:
The cyanide represents thermite or thermate or whatever the loonies come up with next. The only trouble is, apart from Jones' totally unreliable analysis and conclusions, which are so flawed they wouldn't even make it past any scientific establishments internal reports, let alone a paper published in a respected journal, you have NO credible evidence of thermite being present. None, zilch. zero.
Still, this doesn't bother you. You keep saying the same thing. "I have proved that therm?te was used."
It's hopeless talking to you reasonably, because you insist that black is white. If this thread lasts long enough you'll still be doing it in 20 pages time. You're the only person here who thinks you've proved thermite was used. You're the only person here who can't understand the arguments repeatedly presented to you showing why it's use was impossible. Besides that, your little excursion into 6 terrorists being alive (oh dear, that was embarrassing, but it does show how little research you've bothered doing) and a suggestion that there may not have been any Al Qaeda terrorists in the first place put you firmly in woo-woo camp central.
I wouldn't bother replying, but I'm genuinely curious about your mental health. Have you ever had psychiatric treatment?
Bananaman.
Dubljuh:
The cyanide represents thermite or thermate or whatever the loonies come up with next. The only trouble is, apart from Jones' totally unreliable analysis and conclusions, which are so flawed they wouldn't even make it past any scientific establishments internal reports, let alone a paper published in a respected journal, you have NO credible evidence of thermite being present. None, zilch. zero.
Still, this doesn't bother you. You keep saying the same thing. "I have proved that therm?te was used."
It's hopeless talking to you reasonably, because you insist that black is white. If this thread lasts long enough you'll still be doing it in 20 pages time. You're the only person here who thinks you've proved thermite was used. You're the only person here who can't understand the arguments repeatedly presented to you showing why it's use was impossible. Besides that, your little excursion into 6 terrorists being alive (oh dear, that was embarrassing, but it does show how little research you've bothered doing) and a suggestion that there may not have been any Al Qaeda terrorists in the first place put you firmly in woo-woo camp central.
I wouldn't bother replying, but I'm genuinely curious about your mental health. Have you ever had psychiatric treatment?
Bananaman.
ORLY?
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Perfectly corroborates Jones' findings and a thermate hypothesis, although of course FEMA themselves didn't go as far as suggesting thermate was used - their metallurgic analysis was not nearly as extensive and sophisticated as Jones' in any case.
Oh, and then there's this
Also 100% consistent with being an iron-rich, eutectic thermate product, entering the screen around 1200°C-1300°C hot and cooling before the fall to below 1000°C, producing visible golden sparks typical of iron as it falls and cools.
Alternative explanations could all be dismissed.
- Aluminium would have to be far over 2300°C hot to be even nearly as bright, and even then, the color range observed does not corroborate this being aluminium at all.
- The temperatures in the WTC were not hot enough to heat the glass windows above 700°C where they blow, also, glass, depending on composition has a melting point in the range of 1500°C to 2300°C
- Lead (from lead-acid batteries which would have exploded above 100°C) liquifies in the 300°C range and would have run off long before reaching red-hot, much less yellow-hot temperatures
- The color range is not consistent with radioactive materials or fireflies
- The most important piece of evidence is the temperature of the substance itself - with an appearance of over 1300°C merely when it enters the screen, the fire can't possibly be the source - In fact, the hot substance appears to light a fire in the corner. Without a temperature source in the immediate vicinity, it can be expected to come from the core, which means it must have started out at a vastly higher temperature and cooled significantly before it even enters the screen.
Oh noes, evidence! What are you going to do now!? Quick, ignore the evidence and stick with your preconceived notions just like every religious nut!
Last edited:
Actually I wonders about that. What happened to the alleged hijackers that turned out alive? When did the debunking happen?
I mean, how do you debunk it when a supposedly dead person shows up? Of course you can allege identity theft, but that doesn't resolve the mystery of who really would have been on the plane.
To what end was this "debunked"? It certainly wasn't in this thread or anywhere else satisfactorily that I'm aware of.
You're probably thinking that because of your ADHD, the chances for this wild guess were high. Nope. Imagine that - not everyone who has a different point of view than you is mentally unstable. It may just be you who is wrong. Especially when the evidence slaps you in the face.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
The "hijackers alive" myth is long dead and buried. You're not aware of the refutations of it because you're not paying attention.
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Hijackers
In the aftermath of the attacks, there was confusion about names on the list issued by the FBI, as well as lists obtained by the Boston Globe and other media outlets...
...
Why the confusion?
- One source of confusion is the fact that hijackers often varied the spelling of their names when renting rooms, banking, and other activities. For example, Hani Hanjour, whose full name is "Hani Saleh Hanjour", also used "Hani Hanjoor", "Hani Saleh", "Hany Saleh", and "Hami Hanjoor".[13]
Arab News explained how names and photographs of Saudi pilots trained in the U.S. were published and mistaken for the hijackers.
- Also, some of the names, particularly "al-Ghamdi" and "al-Shehri" are extremely common names in Saudi Arabia, as Smith is common in the United States.[14]
“ In the rush to reveal information, these were published without due authentication. According to a US source, the FBI committed some errors in its inquiries at the beginning of the investigation. First, it asked about pilots or trainees at airlines whose names resembled those of the hijackers. This was on the presumption that the hijackers should be pilots or experts in aviation. This led to the confusion about the names of pilots Saeed Al-Ghamdi who turned up in Tunis, Abdul Rahman Al-Amri who was in Jeddah and Waleed A. Al-Shehri, who showed up in Rabat. These three men have been cleared of any association with the alleged hijackers.[15]”
http://911myths.com/html/still_alive.html
http://emptv.com/research/loose-change-4#the-hijackers
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67247
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117050
None of what you've presented as evidence actually passes muster as evidence of therm?te. If any of it did then the whole world would know about it damn fast.
That's what people have been trying to explain to you over and over and over again. But, sadly, in vain. You'll just keep screaming you've proved it.
That's why I started to wonder about you.
Bananaman.
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Ehr, something hot and sparkling. Could be a lot of things. But I'll give you this (now don't be too happy about it): It does resemble those thermite experiments we have seen.
The reason you shouldn't be too happy is that if you want to claim that this is thermite, you also have to acknowledge that thermite burns spectacularly and visibly, and obviously, this single event, even if it were thermate, could not have structurally compromised the building (let alone both towers). So when one thermite burn is so spectacular, where is the evidence of all the others?
In fact not particularly typical of iron, because iron at this temperature will start to burn when exposed to open air, so we should actually see flying, white-hot sparks, not just falling orange drops.
No.[TM]
Fault. The color of a material is mainly dependent on its temperature. Thus, at 1200°C, aluminum will have the same color as steel of the same temperature. But, since aluminum is much less combustible, it will not burn.
Mmmm, the windows were not blown then from whence did all the smoke seen to pour out of the building come?
Could we imagine that it collected somewhere inside the building, getting heated, before finding its way to the outside? Well, I can.
EHr, I don't think the color range is the main problem here, but to each his own.
And you find it impossible to imagine that it may have originated farther inside and higher up in the building?
Vastly higher? Ehr, we see that it runs quite quickly, so it may have found its way from a different location in a matter of seconds.
Evidence that some metal melted in a large fire and ran to the edge of the building? I guess I'll just accept it at face value. Things melt in fires.
Well, you sure make a good role model in that respect.
Hans
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
They did not turn out alive. Are you really that simple? Remember those miners who were reported alive? Well, they are dead.
Dab said:
Did not show up. The parents and families, Saudi officials, UBL and Al Qieda all say they are dead.
Dab said:
You do not look, that is your problem.
Dab said:
Your not mental, you just make very stupid and ignorant posts. A very special type of vintage stupid.
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
On the contrary, it confirms eutectic corrosion also noted in the Worchester Polytechnic analysis and actually disproves Jones's findings. Thermate would have destroyed any evidence of a eutectic mix.
CptColumbo
Just One More Question
It's amazing that this still needs to be explained to people. Even the "twin" towers were not identical.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
It would be a simple thing to prove someone is alive, no? Surely, one of you crack truthers would have Atta et al all over the pages of prisonplanet by now if they were actually alive.
The "hijackers are still alive" stuff is so ridiculous only the most brain-dead truthers still make the claim, and that's an elite club!
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
Oh, Gawd, don't accidentally encourage him... Last thing Morocco needs is another visit from some Barrett wannabe. US/Moroccan relations will be set back a decade if that happens.
