Molten Steel

[Disbelief]

C7 is shamelessly owning you guys.

Obviously, the TM has a different dictionary that the real world.

 

[roundhead]

Obviously, the TM has a different dictionary that the real world.

I like the sound of truth movement.

It beats the heck out of liar movement

 

[dtugg]

I like the sound of truth movement.

It beats the heck out of liar movement

Yeah truth movement does sound better than liar movement. But liar movement describes you losers much better.

 

[Christopher7]

Of course the height to the next intact floor is relevant. There is more distance for gravity to accelerate the mass of the top section.

The NIST FAQ requires all the weight of the top section to be applied to the intact floor below suddenly.

That is NOT what happened.

I am not questioning the amount of the mass or the acceleration. They are irrelevant to the point of where the weight was applied.

So if they failed they were carrying the weight of nothing.

Semantics. Irrelevant to the point which is where the weight was applied.

What was inside the core C7?

Irrelevant to the point. The core columns applied the weight they were carrying to the core area. The NIST FAQ says this weight was applied to the floor area outside the core.

The NIST FAQ is a simplistic FARCE.

Once the top section fell is is accelerating towarfs whatever is beneath it. In this case its the first intact floor below. The larger that distance the more load applied.

Irrelevant to the point which is where the weight was applied.

The top section tiults which part of the top section hits the bottom section first? Is it your perimeter columns 10 meter above the impact zone or is it the bottom of the columns of the section that is tipped? What happens to the perimeter columns below this point if the columns which have tipped drop down inside? Are they thrown outwards or inwards?

I covered that in another post. There is NO scenario that results in all the weight of the top section being applied to the floor outside the core area.

NIST say load, they do not say weight. The drop increases the load applied on the floor.

Irrelevant to the point which is where the weight was applied.

Please calculate that C7.

NIST did the calculations. They are not in dispute. They are irrelevant to the point which is where the weight was applied.

 

[roundhead]

Yeah truth movement does sound better than liar movement. But liar movement describes you losers much better.

Your the one who calls us truthers...lol

 

[A W Smith]

C7 is shamelessly owning you guys.

really? 53 pages and no physical evidence at all of molten steel? Just simile and hyperbole? I noticed you're holding your truther scorecard upside down roundhead. You might want to turn it right side up before you continue to checkoff victories. They are showing in the wrong column on your scorecard

 

[Christopher7]

really? 53 pages and no physical evidence at all of molten steel?

As you know, the physical evidence was destroyed.

Just simile and hyperbole?

No, numerous credible witnesses who confirmed the existence of molten steel at the WTC.

 

[T.A.M.]

Your the one who calls us truthers...lol

Well we though IDIOT movement was a bit harsh.

TAM

 

[lapman]

As you know, the physical evidence was destroyed.

No, numerous credible witnesses who confirmed the existence of molten steel at the WTC.

None confirmed the existence of thermite.

 

[Christopher7]

None confirmed the existence of thermite.

Double speak. They confirmed the existence of molten steel. There is no other explanation for the molted steel.

Your inability to see this is not stupidity, it's just denial.

 

[BigAl]

Double speak. They confirmed the existence of molten steel. There is no other explanation for the molted steel.

Your inability to see this is not stupidity, it's just denial.

The combustion of thermite doesn't match your eyewitness accounts of molten steel or those of anyone else.

 

[T.A.M.]

Double speak. They confirmed the existence of molten steel. There is no other explanation for the molted steel.

Your inability to see this is not stupidity, it's just denial.

Stupid speak. There is no confirmation of molten steel. There are plenty of explanations for molten metal.

TAM

 

[Christopher7]

Stupid speak. There is no confirmation of molten steel.

The numerous credible of statements molten steel confirm its existence.

Your desperate attempt to claim that Mark Loizeaux, Abolhassan Astaneh and all the others don't know what they re talking about is truly pathetic.

There are plenty of explanations for molten metal.

TAM

Name one.

 

[Christopher7]

The combustion of thermite doesn't match your eyewitness accounts of molten steel or those of anyone else.

Double talk. The molten steel is result of thermite. There is no other explanation for the molten steel.

 

[twinstead]

Double talk. The molten steel is result of thermite. There is no other explanation for the molten steel.

Double double talk. You can't make something true by using it as your mantra.

 

[T.A.M.]

The numerous credible of statements molten steel confirm its existence.

Your desperate attempt to claim that Mark Loizeaux, Abolhassan Astaneh and all the others don't know what they re talking about is truly pathetic.

Name one.

STEEL is only one kind of metal.

Please show me where Loizeaux or Astaneh state that it was Steel, and then prove how they were able to determine this (in other words provide their analysis of the molten material proving it was steel).

Thanks in advance.

Explanations for MOLTEN METAL:

1. Molten Aluminum
2. Molten Copper
3. Molten Tin
4. Molten Alloys of the above

TAM

 

[Grizzly Bear]

C7 is shamelessly owning you guys.

My memory might be a little fuzzy. When you first joined I believe you stated something to the effect that you were an engineering student or studying architecture. Or following an area of study that deal with these subjects. If my memory is in fact correct, then I invite you to submit where you believe people like myself are in error. I look forward to your demonstration.

The NIST FAQ requires all the weight of the top section to be applied to the intact floor below suddenly.

That is NOT what happened.

link
dynamic load
(dī¦nam·ik ′lōd)

(aerospace engineering) With respect to aircraft, rockets, or spacecraft, a load due to an acceleration of craft, as imposed by gusts, by maneuvering, by landing, by firing rockets, and so on.
(civil engineering) A force exerted by a moving body on a resisting member, usually in a relatively short time interval. Also known as energy load.



Source:
Moore, Fuller. "Understanding Structures" McGrawHill. 1999
Excerpts from pages 11 and 12

Since by default the columns in the area of initiation failed ensuing in the downward acceleration of the upper section the columns were not the only parts sustaining the load. You can follow along below for the rest which address everything relevant to your post.

I am not questioning the amount of the mass or the acceleration. They are irrelevant to the point of where the weight was applied.

Semantics. Irrelevant to the point which is where the weight was applied.

Irrelevant to the point. The core columns applied the weight they were carrying to the core area. The NIST FAQ says this weight was applied to the floor area outside the core.

Irrelevant to the point which is where the weight was applied.

I covered that in another post. There is NO scenario that results in all the weight of the top section being applied to the floor outside the core area.

Irrelevant to the point which is where the weight was applied.

NIST did the calculations. They are not in dispute. They are irrelevant to the point which is where the weight was applied.

Perfectly relevant. You don't have any fundamental understanding of structures and are certifiably unqualified to make assertions on what you think you know about engineering. Where the weight was applied? Chris, remember that calculation I did a page or two ago? A dynamic load of 8 times the static load, akin to adding almost 3/4 of another trade center on the structure at the North Tower's impact region; akin to adding the weight on nearly two more trade centers to the columns immediately beneath the impact region of the south tower. That assumes a drop of just one story, not three or four that we actually saw in each. The columns failed and the floors were the only solid slabs that were available to provide any resistance to the falling mass, and they failed, like the exterior columns completely. The core columns didn't even fail until after most of these floors were completely gone. Do you know why? Because they took on loads they were never designed to sustain and the connections failed under the pressure, that weight could not be transferred to the core in time to prevent it. Your claim, is baseless, lay it off, or move it to a different thread. This is off topic.... again...

The NIST FAQ is a simplistic FARCE.

I gave you the chance to demonstrate your expertise in this field and you are the last individual that I'd consider qualified to make such a statement given your lack of understanding in fundamental architectural subjects.

[FONT=&quot]ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.[/FONT]

This is not an off the cuff statement. He is specifically comparing girders that some people [like the person in the article you posted] might mistakenly refer to as "melting" [turn into liquid] with girders at the WTC that actually did melt.

Then you won't have a problem asking him why he does not believe in thermite having been involved. Or, do you believe they're all cowards who've been coerced into silence by threats to end contracts much in the same way roundhead has accused the FDNY of having been cowards coerced into silence?

 

[twinstead]

So. C7 some people here, and some people in the real world whom I have shown your threads to, who know what they are talking about are suggesting that you may not be entirely qualified to be making the bold claims you are making.

This is quite the dilemma for a layman like me. Tell me. What would YOU do in my situation? Would YOU believe you?

 

[BigAl]

Double talk. The molten steel is result of thermite. There is no other explanation for the molten steel.

None of the hundreds or thousands of people for whom we have statements mention seeing thermite or describe it's #1 sign; prodigious quantities of brilliant white light and brilliant white smoke.

You can't hide thermite.

 

[stateofgrace]

C7 is shamelessly owning you guys.

Did you tell C7 that you don't believe him ? You don't believe thermite brought these buildings down?

You said

Originally Posted by roundhead
If we swallow the OCT hook, line and sinker, no force was at work except gravity.

Seeing all those huge chunks being blown out everywhere doesnt look anything like the look of gravity to me, and i have super good eyesight.

C7, how does thermite blow hugh chunks out of a steel framed building ?

Originally Posted by roundhead
118 firefighters did. The implications of that fact were so important, that the govt fought tooth and nail to silence those testimonies in court.And then once truth won out, to totally omit any mention of them in the 9/11 commision whitewash.

C7,does thermite explode ? Is he wrong ? How did "118 " firefighters hear a thermite reaction ?

Who is right here C7, Roundhead or you ? Themite or explosives ?