WTC Steel

[sylvan8798]

These pieces were exterior columns. It would have been physically impossible to put the typical cd wrap device around an exterior column while it was in place without breaking through the exterior of the building (no space, the columns were half in and half out). Truthers can't explain what type of device could make 45 degree cuts without even being strapped on. I'm sure CD companies would love to know!

 

[Clippy]

As a budding truther,give us your version then,or is it the usual ''Hey,I'm only asking questions''?

Thanks for your interest, dafydd. I'm not budding; I've shed what few diseased petals may have been acquired during my intial interest in 9/11, about 2 years ago, and am down to a skeptical stem. This subforum became largely uninteresting after Greening was banned, and I only occasionally come back these days to see what's up.

 

[funk de fino]

Because it was melted down and recycled for trinkets.

After it was all examined. So what?

 

[eutychus]

Anybody else thinking the towers may have been felled by an orbital kryptonite weapon?

Don't give them any ideas!

 

[Bell]

RedIbis, beside no core columns that were exposed to fires over 250C, what else was not recovered from the pile?

Evidence that the WTC was destroyed by any other means than local failure of the structure, due to impact damage and fire, resulting in a progressive collapse.

Your point?

So what? For WTC 1/2 video shows that core beams remained standing after the exterior tube and floors fell away.

For WTC7, the concept of ""core beam" is vague. Fire and lack of firefighting caused the structure to collapse.

I think you are misunderstanding what Bell is getting at.

Indeed. Meanwhile, RedIbis has not commented on my post. How clever!

 

[RedIbis]

Indeed. Meanwhile, RedIbis has not commented on my post. How clever!

I didn't know I had an obligation to comment on a vague opinion.

 

[Bell]

I didn't know I had an obligation to comment on a vague opinion.

What vague opinion

And for someone making a deal out of the fact that none of the recovered steel was exposed to temperatures above 250C, you sure know how to avoid discussing the fact that no evidence was recovered, proving the WTC collapsed by any other means than structural failure due to impact damage and fires.

Clever indeed!

 

[RedIbis]

What vague opinion

And for someone making a deal out of the fact that none of the recovered steel was exposed to temperatures above 250C, you sure know how to avoid discussing the fact that no evidence was recovered, proving the WTC collapsed by any other means than structural failure due to impact damage and fires.

Clever indeed!

Quote me, but don't misrepresent my position. I never said that "none of the recovered steel was exposed to temperatures above 250C."

Go re-read what I did say and see if you can spot the difference. I doubt you'll take up this challenge.

 

[A W Smith]

burpin and chirpin and eating dirty worms

Did I just hear a dirty lying bird admit that the WTC steel did in fact experience temperatures above 250C???

 

[Bell]

Quote me, but don't misrepresent my position. I never said that "none of the recovered steel was exposed to temperatures above 250C."

Go re-read what I did say and see if you can spot the difference. I doubt you'll take up this challenge.

Well, we have this quote:

Actually, as far as core columns go, NIST found none that reached temps above 250C. They worked off of assumption after that, which is exactly what they did for the steel they didn't have when coming up with their preposterous WTC 7 hypothesis.

And I see where you are getting at. But...

Either there were core columns exposed to temperatures above 250C, but NIST did not recover those.

Or there were no core columns exposed to temperatures above 250C, hence NIST did not recover those.

Which is it?

Also, I'm still waiting for an explanation why no evidence was found, proving the WTC collapsed by any other means than structural failure due to impact damage and fires.

 

[RedIbis]

Well, we have this quote:



And I see where you are getting at. But...

Either there were core columns exposed to temperatures above 250C, but NIST did not recover those.

Or there were no core columns exposed to temperatures above 250C, hence NIST did not recover those.

Which is it?

Also, I'm still waiting for an explanation why no evidence was found, proving the WTC collapsed by any other means than structural failure due to impact damage and fires.

I sure you hope you see it since it's two entirely different statements. At least debate in good faith.

Of your two possibilities, the second is obviously much more likely since what core column steel NIST did recover did not experience temps above 250C.

What I wouldn't do is premise a collapse hypothesis on the possibility that the former happened when you have absolutely no physical evidence for it.

After thousands of posts and a few years on this forum, I have to admit it's absurd that I'm pointing this out again.

 

[Bell]

I sure you hope you see it since it's two entirely different statements. At least debate in good faith.

The statements might be different, but the conclusions are not. Quoting yourself: "As far as core columns go, NIST found none that reached temps above 250C."

Of your two possibilities, the second is obviously much more likely since what core column steel NIST did recover did not experience temps above 250C.

Also, no evidence was found proving the WTC collapsed by any other means than structural failure due to impact damage and fires.

What I wouldn't do is premise a collapse hypothesis on the possibility that the former happened when you have absolutely no physical evidence for it.

After thousands of posts and a few years on this forum, I have to admit it's absurd that I'm pointing this out again.

What physical evidence do you have that it DID NOT happen due to impact damage and fires?

 

[cyclonic]

Are you saying that the Chinese didn't recycle WTC steel?

I can't believe you posted that after i posted a video showing where most of the steel ended up!
all these supposed 100.000s tons shipped to china and not one photo or even a drawing of it?
If it was a CD why would the chinese cover it up?

 

[BigAl]

I sure you hope you see it since it's two entirely different statements. At least debate in good faith.

Of your two possibilities, the second is obviously much more likely since what core column steel NIST did recover did not experience temps above 250C.

What I wouldn't do is premise a collapse hypothesis on the possibility that the former happened when you have absolutely no physical evidence for it.

So what? As a simplification, the exterior columns failed first. The core columns collapsed only after they lost the cross-bracing provided by the exterior columns and floors.

Collapse due to unfought fire and impact damage fits all the evidence and video we do have plus all the theory and models we can devise.

You and anyone else is welcome to come up with a hypothesis that is a better fit for any of the above.

 

[sylvan8798]

You and anyone else is welcome to come up with a hypothesis that is a better fit for any of the above.

And it's not enough to just say that it fits better. You have to model it with something. And by something I don't mean pizza boxes, eggs, lemons, or spaghetti (cooked or raw). I mean either a scaled physical model with accompanying supporting calculations or a computer model OF YOUR HYPOTHESIS.

 

[RedIbis]

And it's not enough to just say that it fits better. You have to model it with something. And by something I don't mean pizza boxes, eggs, lemons, or spaghetti (cooked or raw). I mean either a scaled physical model with accompanying supporting calculations or a computer model OF YOUR HYPOTHESIS.

Do I get access to all the physical evidence?

 

[Clippy]

Do I get access to all the physical evidence?

You seem to be avoiding this question, RedIbis. If there was incriminating evidence in the steel, why would the conspirators allow it to be shipped to China?

 

[Bell]

Do I get access to all the physical evidence?

You are aware that no evidence was found proving the WTC collapsed by any other means than structural failure due to impact damage and fires?

 

[RedIbis]

You are aware that no evidence was found proving the WTC collapsed by any other means than structural failure due to impact damage and fires?

NIST admitted they didn't test for it.

 

[dafydd]

I sure you hope you see it since it's two entirely different statements. At least debate in good faith.

Of your two possibilities, the second is obviously much more likely since what core column steel NIST did recover did not experience temps above 250C.

What I wouldn't do is premise a collapse hypothesis on the possibility that the former happened when you have absolutely no physical evidence for it.

After thousands of posts and a few years on this forum, I have to admit it's absurd that I'm pointing this out again.

Nothing new there,everything you post is absurd.