Merged National Geographic Special - "9/11 Science and Conspiracy" Debunks Thermite Myth

NutCracker said:
Errr... please explain how your "free fall" (which it wasn't) implies that the events of 9/11 where an inside jobby-job.

You see, you can't. That's why you and your fellow ignorant delusional idiots are a massive fail.
Click to expand...
Why can't you see I never claimed it was an inside job? Delusional?

Anyway, that's it for me for now. Sleep calls.
 
twinstead said:
I'm actually trying to figure out how a shaped explosive charge could hold thermitic material sideways long enough against thick metal to cut through it. I'd like to see an example of that from kyle because it sounds a little tricky to me.
Click to expand...

Twinstead,

I tried to use some of my knowledge of explosives to explain things to Kyle, but he isn't interested in facts (big surprise). He doesn't even know that the component that makes a shaped charge work is the copper element that penetrates the target. The actual explosives themselves don't directly do the penetrating and/or cutting.

L.
 
Last edited:
kylebisme said:
If you are impressed by the beam test, think the name of the person who designed it has any relevance, and choose to ignore the flaws I pointed out in it, that says enough for me.
Click to expand...

Hey, if you were an engineer, your objections might carry a bit more weight. Unfortunately, man qualified engineers have looked at these matters, and have produced science-based understandings of the collapses. You haven't refuted those in the slightest.

I will offer you some direct evidence of softened steel floor trusses, but I expect that you'll find an excuse why those aren't valid. We'll see how willing you are to accept hard evidence over speculation....



In the picture above, there is clear evidence of sagging floors. Further evidence of sagging/weakening due to fire is provided by images like the second one. Here, perimeter columns are bowing inwards. There is no truther refutation of this evidence, just avoidance.



btw, the temperature reached by the jet fuel fire in the NG test was roughly 2000 fahrenheit, which is slightly less than 1100 celsius. It is an established fact that common fires and hydrocarbon fires can reach 1200 celsius, or 2192 fahrenheit.

http://projects.bre.co.uk/FRSdiv/ecsc/
'As can be seen in the above table, peak measured temperatures exceeded 1300oC in five tests, this measurement being supported by the observation of total heat fluxes of up to 350 kW/m2 and velocities of over 15m/s.

These values are somewhat higher than those observed in typical full-scale compartment fire tests and can be attributed in part to the highly insulating walls, the inclusion of plastic in the fuel and the short residence times (due to high flow rates).'

The large wtc fires burning in buildings 1,2, 5,6 and 7 did in fact weaken structural steel. There is no controversy in the mainstream scientific community about this. There is ample, direct, hard evidence (take a look at building 6 sorry, 5, for example, and the structural failures due to fires, controlled only by firefighters) which proves this as fact.

Image of failures inside WTC5


No amount of truther diversion is going to change these facts, sir. That is precisely why you will continue to be a marginal, fringe group.

Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Lupie said:
Twinstead,

I tried to use some of my knowledge of explosives to explain things to Kyle, but he isn't interested in facts (big surprise). He doesn't even know that the component that makes a shaped charge work is the copper element that penetrates the target. The actual explosives themselves don't directly do the penetrating and/or cutting.

L.
Click to expand...

He seems remarkably resistant to facts. Coincidence?
 
WildCat said:
Do you know the name of the show? I have never seen any version of this but the truther version, which sorely lacks in context. And the audio seems doctored to me, the explosive sound is way too clear. At the levels needed to pick up speech clearly the mic preamp would have overloaded and the wave form would have shown massive clipping from an explosion.
Click to expand...

Wildcat.

I was wrong by an hour. The analysis is still after both collapses, but it is about 10:30 to 11 oclock.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/A_WTC7_explosion_video
 
TruthersLie said:
Wildcat. I would swear it was a legitimate explosion sound. And it was from a BBC special. but it does not show a series of rapid fire explosions before the towers collapse. It was filmed at about 1130am well after both towers collapsed.

But it doesn't matter because AFTER the collapse there were at least a dozen explosions.
Click to expand...
I've got to give you props here, as this is the sole example I've seen here of a defender of the official story taking issue with his fellow defenders arguments. While they were insistent on denying any possibility that the video was legitimate and instead dismissing it on the grounds of "truths lie", even with your name expousing that argument you showed the intellectually honesty to confront their denials. So again, you have my respect for that.
alienentity said:
Hey, if you were an engineer, your objections might carry a bit more weight.
Click to expand...
If you could address my objections themselves rather than resorting to ad hominem, your arguments could actually have weight.
alienentity said:
Unfortunately, man qualified engineers have looked at these matters, and have produced science-based understandings of the collapses. You haven't refuted those in the slightest.
Click to expand...
Are there any that don't adress the subject as a lab exprement under controlled conditions, where evrey varable can be accounted for, to consruct their conlcusions? I've yet to see one.
alienentity said:
I will offer you some direct evidence of softened steel floor trusses...
Click to expand...
If you wouldn't waste your time attempting to prove to me what I never denied, and rather have always claimed was obvious, you'd come off as considerably more competent.
Mr.D said:
Always? Really? ...
Click to expand...
My bad, see below.
 
Last edited:
TruthersLie said:
Wildcat.

I was wrong by an hour. The analysis is still after both collapses, but it is about 10:30 to 11 oclock.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/A_WTC7_explosion_video
Click to expand...
Thanks. Still inconclusive.

At any rate, what seems obvious is that whoever filmed it doesn't seem to think the noise, if it was on the original, was particularly important. No one comments on it. And besides, firemen performing rescue operations in WTC7 didn't evacuate the building until mid-afternoon so there certainly weren't bombs going off in it.
 
Last edited:
kylebisme said:
I see that now, my bad.
As for orientation, an "H" provides more vertical support than an "I", having two lengths of steel holding the weight rather than one.
Click to expand...
This is an incorrect assumption. The axial strength of a wide flange beam or column is determined by the axis with the greatest depth measurement. Typically for horizontal wide flange members the best configuration is along the strong axis ('I').

03044226fotobig.jpg


They used a reasonable configuration on this one, so this part of your argument is insignificant...
 
Last edited:
kylebisme said:
Like trees rely on gravity and the being vertical thing to be able to stand, but if you cut away enough of the base of the tree, what happens? Your argument ignores the fact that "has never" and "physical impossibility" are hardly the same.


I was explicit as possible, lacking omnipresence as I do.


Remember, I suggested noble purposes, nothing black hearted.
Click to expand...

Now, I can understand if the TT's stood on a single axis. Like, almost if they turned the tower that had the antenna upside down. All the weight of a tree is directed to a single point. Spread that load over 47 different little trunks, and you might have something resembling the TTs.

What is noble about putting bombs near where people work, and live?? What is not dangerous about that?? Remember to take into consideration that explosives degrade and become unreliable and unpredictable over a very short time, even just a few hours.
 
Brainache said:
It really is like being stuck in some godawful time loop with these people isn't it?

Toppling buildings, molten steel, thermite, etc... 2006 here we come again...and again.... and again...

ETA:
OOOOOH whether it's MIHOP,
or whether it's LIHOP,
We need to know the Truth
and make this war stop....
Click to expand...

Sorry sir, it was my turn to kick the record player when it started doing that, but I keep forgetting. Sorry!! Dag-gum acient things they are.....:D
 
kylebisme said:
You don't think that video showed real world physics?

Rather, I'm just not so narrow minded as to think that whatever I don't know of doesn't exist, unlike you were doing previously with your "no molten steel" argument.

I know how kilns work, they require a fuel source.
Click to expand...

Yes, and what do you think happened to the following things?

Computers
chairs
tables
desks
paperwork
copiers
couches
carpet
electrical componets
personal effects
clothes
people

ETC,ETC, ETC. It WAS the ******* FUEL!!! Holy crap son, seriously....listen to what I am saying. STUFF BURNS!! ALL THOSE THINGS ARE FUEL FOR FIRE!!

People whom are obviously much more educated on things are telling you, that your ideas are fatally flawed. Why don't you listen??

If you want more help on fire, and its properties, please feel free to contact me. I would be more than willing to help, just be open to learning. That is all I ever ask.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
This is an incorrect assumption. The axial strength of a wide flange beam or column is determined by the axis with the greatest depth measurement. Typically for horizontal wide flange members the best configuration is along the strong axis ('I').

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/3822/03044226fotobig.jpg

They used a reasonable configuration on this one, so this part of your argument is insignificant...
Click to expand...
Good call. I had mistaken the beam they used in the program as having a much considerably wider flanges, but after rewatching the video I see it is much like the one in the picture you presented, which of course is stronger in orientation used.
 
kylebisme said:
If you wouldn't waste your time attempting to prove to me what I never denied, and rather have always claimed was obvious, you'd come off as considerably more competent.
Click to expand...

You claimed that the NG experiment wasn't representative, which apparently in your mind falsified the hypothesis that fires were hot enough to soften or weaken steel.

I provided you with evidence directly from the towers, to show you that steel structure was indeed sagging.

I was simply corroborating the validity of the weakened steel/fire hypothesis, that's all. If you disagree with the hypothesis, by all means offer your evidence.

So far I've seen nothing from you but denial. That's not evidence.

Thanks for responding, however.
 
triforcharity said:
Now, I can understand if the TT's stood on a single axis.
Click to expand...
Can you understand what would have happened had this building been considerably taller?

triforcharity said:
What is noble about putting bombs near where people work, and live?? What is not dangerous about that?? Remember to take into consideration that explosives degrade and become unreliable and unpredictable over a very short time, even just a few hours.
Click to expand...
Again, it depends on what explosives are used and what precautions are taken.
 
triforcharity said:
How much MORE death and destruction do you think would have occured?? More than the destruction in the picture I linked to above??? How many more people would have been killed?? Not nearly as much. There were firefighters that were killed because the building collapsed. People that were still in the stairwells were killed. If the top had "slid off" *snicker* it wouldn't have killed NEARLY as many people. Not even close.
Click to expand...




And this, right here, is the single biggest flaw with the "CD in the public interest" theory. I might accept that the general public would be kept in the dark to avoid panic, but it's absolutely asinine to suggest that the firefighters would also be kept completely ignorant of this plan. What, they didn't expect there might ever be some small fires in these buildings?
 
The idea that the government or whomever goes around secretly planting explosives in skyscrapers for public safety concerns is one of the stupidest things that I have ever read on this forum and that's saying a lot. And twoofer, have you answered this yet: Why the **** did they blow up the towers with people still inside if your insane fantasy is true?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom