Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
I want to know how this thermite ejected column trees up to 600 feet away from the footprints of the Towers.
 
twinstead said:
This confuses me too. He thinks nothing of implying that the large number of professionals and experts who contributed to those reports at best incompetent and at worst "in on it", yet he lectures us about asking for clarification about ONE person's comments.

And, to make it worse, it's almost as if he doesn't think we notice it.
Click to expand...

Especially when a debris removal specialist is most likely a heavy equipment company that has the ability to remove large things in fairly short order. I would like to see something that tells me that he has a metallurgy degree and for him to clarify his statements. Since Chris probably has a strong suspicion that this guy would not back up his claims, Chris does nothing to contact him.
 
GStan said:
I want to know how this thermite ejected column trees up to 600 feet away from the footprints of the Towers.
Click to expand...

Chris says it was both magical therm*te and magical silent explosives. I asked him before why the NWO would use both and he accused my of arguing from incredulity since I couldn't see the point. But he never answered the question.
 
GStan said:
I want to know how this thermite ejected column trees up to 600 feet away from the footprints of the Towers.
Click to expand...

I see he's back to 600 feet again. There was a while where he admitted to only 400 feet but like a "dog returning to it's vomit" he returns to his lies.
 
tsig said:
I see he's back to 600 feet again. There was a while where he admitted to only 400 feet but like a "dog returning to it's vomit" he returns to his lies.
Click to expand...

Actually, for all that Christopher has gotten wrong, don't throw errors on the pile that don't belong to him. The 600 feet is mine. I didn't know he had down-shifted to 400 feet.

The implications of his wild speculations are no less ridiculous at either distance. I sure would like to meet the man who was in charge of this fantastic conspiracy that Christopher has imagined. Mega-nano-thermite AND silent explosives, without leaving a trace of evidence either pre- or post-operation. Man they're good. I'm going to have a new red, white and blue t-shirt made:

"THEM: ****ing with you since 1789"
 
Christopher7 said:
Furthermore, NIST did not allow for the energy necessary to eject debris up to 600 feet in all directions.
Click to expand...

Well, your "thermite" hypothesis does't explain any ejections, either. Thermite/thermate never propelled anything.
 
Christopher7 said:
Saying the energy was there does not prove that it resulted in the total collapse. That is speculation, not science.

Furthermore, NIST did not allow for the energy necessary to eject debris up to 600 feet in all directions.

ETA:
NIST did not subtract the energy lost as a result of debris falling outside the perimeter. Estimates run as high as 95% [Blanchard]
Click to expand...

The correct term is that global collapse was "inevitable."

You lose.
 
Christopher7 said:
He said:
"[FONT=&quot]I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]"

Did he see melting of girders at the WTC?

Either you believe him or you don't.

Which is it?
Click to expand...

Either you understand the context of his statement or you don't, it's that simple. Coming from an engineer it may have been the wrong choice of words, but the context in which he makes the statement is perfectly clear. If that weren't enough he worked on an independent investigation which resulted in criticisms of his own concerning the tower's construction, which I kindly provided an article about and you have yet to even click the link. Nothing in that statement indicates anything close to what you're claiming it does.



Christopher7 said:
In that scenario, as many as half the exterior columns would be outside the perimeter and the weight they were carrying would not be applied to the floor below.
Click to expand...
Hopelessly wrong. The loads from that section are still transferred to where ever the in tact structure is. I would expect any qualified engineer to at least understand this much.

Christopher7 said:
Both you and glen don't seem to understand the difference between a core and perimeter frame building and a brick.
Click to expand...
A brick is solid, and a building is composed of a composite system. But that not the purpose of such an analogy. When an object is at rest it has a static load. When you add acceleration to the same object and it lands on a surface it exerts a dynamic load that will be greater than its static load. That is the only purpose behind using the brick analogy, aside from your blatant lack of understanding for this concept. Let's apply it to the towers:

If one story is 4 meters high and it takes an object 9/10 of a second to drop one story, at which time it will be traveling at 9 meters/sec.

Once the collapse initiates and falls one story it is traveling at 9 meters per second. If we crush the collapsing story into rubble half a meter thick and stop the collapse at that point, what kind of dynamic load should we expect?

The velocity decreases from 9 m/s to 0 m/s in half a meter, or about 1/18 of a second. As the mass decelerates the velocity decreases and the average velocity is half the initial. The crush time is 1/9 of a second, and we get an acceleration of -9 m/s/s divided by 1/9 of a second = -81 m/s/s

The dynamic load is 8 times that of the load at rest.

Let me ask, are you able to carry eight times your own weight?

For the north tower alone the dynamic load wasn't that of 10 stories, it was more like 80 stories, Like adding almost the entire height of the building to the impact region and subsequent floors underneath. South tower had almost 30 stories... that's something more like adding an extra 240 floors worth of dynamic load rather than the static 30. At those parts of the tower why I really don't expect them to have been designed for such ridiculously high loads. When buildings are constructed they're done so as efficiently as possible, over designing wastes money, and frankly building materials. And in reality likelihoods are that the dynamic loads were much higher, since the impact regions both involved several floors at once. Connections that hold the structure together aren't gonna stop it.
 
Last edited:
GStan said:
Actually, for all that Christopher has gotten wrong, don't throw errors on the pile that don't belong to him. The 600 feet is mine. I didn't know he had down-shifted to 400 feet.

The implications of his wild speculations are no less ridiculous at either distance. I sure would like to meet the man who was in charge of this fantastic conspiracy that Christopher has imagined. Mega-nano-thermite AND silent explosives, without leaving a trace of evidence either pre- or post-operation. Man they're good. I'm going to have a new red, white and blue t-shirt made:

"THEM: ****ing with you since 1789"
Click to expand...

I see you are right. :o

I'll get me coat. :p
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Either you understand the context of his statement or you don't, it's that simple.
Click to expand...
I understand the context perfectly. He was comparing girders in the overpass, which had failed but were not melted [turned into liquid] with the girders he had seen at the WTC which had turned to liquid.

Coming from an engineer it may have been the wrong choice of words,
Click to expand...
Please

but the context in which he makes the statement is perfectly clear.
Click to expand...
Correct, he saw melted [turned into liquid] girders at the WTC!

If that weren't enough he worked on an independent investigation which resulted in criticisms of his own concerning the tower's construction, which I kindly provided an article about and you have yet to even click the link. Nothing in that statement indicates anything close to what you're claiming it does.
Click to expand...
I read and quoted the article. He did NOT analyze the collapse, only airplane impacts.


In that scenario, as many as half the exterior columns would be outside the perimeter and the weight they were carrying would not be applied to the floor below.
Click to expand...
The loads from that section are still transferred to where ever the in tact structure is.
Click to expand...
Correct. If the top section moved to one side a few feet, as much as half of the exterior walls would be outside the perimeter. The point here is, the weight would NOT be applied to the floor, it would be applied to the exterior columns as the falling floor came in contact with them.

A brick is solid, and a building is composed of a composite system. But that not the purpose of such an analogy
Click to expand...
The rest of you analogy ignores the point.
The NIST hypothesis requires the weight of the falling top section being applied to the floor.
That is NOT what happened.
 
dtugg said:
Chris says it was both magical therm*te and magical silent explosives. I asked him before why the NWO would use both and he accused my of arguing from incredulity since I couldn't see the point. But he never answered the question.
Click to expand...
In your never ending quest to deny the statements of the witnesses, you ask questions that cannot be answered.
 
Disbelief said:
Especially when a debris removal specialist is most likely a heavy equipment company that has the ability to remove large things in fairly short order. I would like to see something that tells me that he has a metallurgy degree and for him to clarify his statements.
Click to expand...
Your absurd contention that only someone with a metallurgy degree can recognize molten steel ignores the fact that when someone sees partially melted steel beams and pools of molten metal it's bloody obvious that the molten metal is steel. Several witnesses said they saw beams dripping molten steel. Abolhassan Astansh saw melted girders. We don't know exactly what Richard Riggs saw but his statement is perfectly clear. You refuse to accept that and grope around for reasons to deny it. Your denial is also perfectly clear.
 
Christopher7 said:
... means you have no brain.[or you left it in your other pants] ...
Click to expand...
Like the OP you fail to support you can't get this right.

Is this the best you can do? Dr A, your expert, proves there was no thermite. Your own expert. Looks like you lost your pants.
 
Christopher7 said:
Wrap yourself in the security blanket of denial and go back to sleep little sheep.

Don't be deluded with witness statements about molten steel running down the channel rails or melted girders.

There was no molten steel at the WTC. The government says so and your government never lies to you.

All is well.

Sweet dreams. :)
Click to expand...
I'm not a US citizen so it's not my government. Why do you always think in such closed terms?

Hell, I'd have a job determining whether a material that was running down rails was molten/liquid steel and I'm a metallurgist FFS! I think the only people that would be able to get close to identifying a material using their eyes and a great deal of experience would be people like WhiteLion who deal with liquid metals at high temperatures everyday.

Relying on people who will say molten, but don't mean liquid, who say steel, but don't know what they are looking at is not very bright. No-one gives any quantities, no-one has recorded any temperatures, there's no video or pictures of this liquid, there's no solidified material to analyse (the meteorite was never liquid, which is obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense). You have nothing but witnesses who have used words to describe an unfamiliar situation with zero evidence to back it up. Stop with the nonsense and realise that liquid steel at ground zero is a myth. You yourself even say you don't know how this liquid steel could remain for so long. Put up or shut up - show evidence not hearsay.

If you take people at their word for what they see then you must believe in ghosts, flying saucers, aliens, and all the other nonsense that people report seeing but are mistaken. Your eyes can be deceived and if you don't have the experience or the training to know what you are looking at then your statements are anecdotal and not very worthy.
 
GlennB said:
OK another analogy to help you get it -

1. get some steel mesh and drop it on your head

2. weld the same steel mesh across the end of a 6' diameter steel pipe. Have it dropped on you so that the mesh part hits your head.

The same pain damage and pain? No.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to knock some sense into C7? ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom