Merged David Chandler (ae911) sez "WTC7 was in free fall part of the time"

[Resolver]

Fuel has little to do with the temperature a fire burns at.

This short video is a NY Fire Dept "test burn" of a to-be-demolished apartment building. Ordinary household contents resulted in a fire that burned at 1700DegF. That's hot. There is no reason to believe the WTC fires were any cooler. Steel loses half it's strength at 800DegF. It's gone at 1700.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8682781475859149895&hl=en#​

Oh. Hmm, I just remembered reading some time ago on a different subject about how different materials such as wood and charcoal etc have different ignition and burning temperatures. Perhaps these differences are insignificant compared to other factors such as wind supplying oxygen, and maybe office equipment burns pretty hot once you surpass its ignition temperature using eg jet fuel. Thanks.

 

[tsig]

Your attempts to lump everyone who is questioning the present official explanations, for the NYC high rise collapses on Sept. 11, 2001, into the same camp and then call them insane is an adhominem itself.

Upon seeing video of the collapse of WTC 7 a rational person would have to conclude that its fall was most likely due to controlled demolition. After comparing what is seen in the video to what the NIST WTC 7 report claims, a rational person would have to reject that report, because it does not replicate the collapse. It was obviously a controlled demolition and the only logical conclusion is that the charges had to be pre-positioned, as a building of that size could not be rigged in one day, especially with fires in it.

If WTC 7 had pre-positioned charges in it, and those in official capacities responsible for explaining the collapse are not admitting to it, then the explanations for the rapid falls of the towers by those same people need to be scrutinized also.

And let us not forget that none of the steel from WTC 7 was saved for analysis and less than 0.5% from the towers, yet you want to call people insane for thinking there might be some level of impropriety there.

Rational and mature people do not want to be fed nonsense and it is ridiculous to call them insane because they don't accept it. The fact that you are doing that says more about you than it does about those rightly questioning the present explanations for these collapses.

Bit of poisoning the well.

If we do not agree with you we are not rational.

 

[Resolver]

Oops, missed the part about eg plastic burning black. Can't see where I'd delete this comment.

 

[tsig]

Debunk This!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZg&feature=player_embedded

The building is already falling when you see the puff.

 

[Resolver]

The building is already falling when you see the puff.

Ya, I think someone else pointed that out as well. CTs watching this video might jump to conclude that various puffs and random little flashes of light (as seen in other vids) far below the level of the heavy smoke and the falling portion of the building were caused by bombs to facilitate further falling. I think someone suggested the slow moving puffs are caused by pressure of the fall from above. As for the few flashes of light seen in some vids: are these from explosions? What of? Some explosive structures or materials in the building?

 

[tsig]

@16.5 Please don't call me a liar. It is an irrelevant point anyhow.

I found the MIT video myself while looking into my friends' first video.

Point is, I have some videos I would like to hear intelligent responses from people that studied the subject and preferably have a professional background in related fields.

Are you prepared to pay for professional advice?

 

[BigAl]

Ya, I think someone else pointed that out as well. CTs watching this video might jump to conclude that various puffs and random little flashes of light below (seen in other vids) were caused by bombs to facilitate further falling. I think someone suggested the slow moving puffs are caused by pressure of falling building. As for the few flashes of light seen in some vids: are these some explosions? What of? Some explosive structures or materials in the building?

There was nothing seen or heard on 9/11 that was consistent in timing or loudness with man-made demolition.

 

[Resolver]

Are you prepared to pay for professional advice?

Tsig, no I'm satisfied with the answers you've all given. I think that this thread provides very good answers to people still doubting the current NIST explanation and I'll certainly make use of it in pointing them to this material. Thanks everyone for your time.

 

[triforcharity]

Great! Thanks! I do see black smoke in those images you linked. I'm not sure what's funny. I suppose you mean black smoke doesn't mean cool fire with little oxygen? I'm looking it up.

No, it does not mean a "cool, or oxygen starved fire" as I am sure you have heard before.

The color of the smoke can tell us what type of material is burning. Hydrocarbons will usually burn jet black, or very very dark brown.

Wood and paper will burn grey or brown.

metals and such will burn white or a very light grey.

Now, if a hydrocarbon (plastics based from oil, gasoline, etc) fire goes from producing black smoke, to grey smoke, to white, we know the fire is being extinguished by some means.

Or, of course, it could also mean that you are about to get ****** up by a backdraft or flashover.

But, to say that because the smoke is black that means it is a cool fire, is absolutely false.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ7B...D11706678&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1

Very informative.

Also,

http://www.firefighternation.com/profiles/blogs/889755:BlogPost:24314

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/404420/know_what_exactly_is_burning_by_its.html

Identifying smoke is not an exact science, and there are many factors that go into the color of smoke. But, to the trained eye, I can almost always tell yu what is going on in a fire, and what the contents are that ae burning.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Sorry, as I said, I'm not a big forum dude and got lazy to quote a bunch of different things and don't have the experience it takes to tell me that it is really bad to do.

Something I'd like to suggest is this: If there's a claim in a video that you'd like addressed, most likely we've all seen it in half a dozen different forms from different truthers. However, sitting through yet another poorly made YouTube video is a bit tedious; frankly, I can't be bothered any more. So, if you want a claim addressed, summarise it in your post, because then we can all read in a few seconds an argument it would take the dull, droning voice of a conspiracy theorist five minutes to dance around vaguely enough so that nobody can spot its glaring logical errors.

Dave

 

[Drs_Res]

Ya, I think someone else pointed that out as well. CTs watching this video might jump to conclude that various puffs and random little flashes of light (as seen in other vids) far below the level of the heavy smoke and the falling portion of the building were caused by bombs to facilitate further falling. I think someone suggested the slow moving puffs are caused by pressure of the fall from above. As for the few flashes of light seen in some vids: are these from explosions? What of? Some explosive structures or materials in the building?

If you look at the videos, you will see that there are flashes of light that look like they are on the building, but you will also notice that there are also flashes of light in mid air away from the building.

Broken glass and or metal (like the aluminum cladding) falling and turning as it falls will randomly reflect light. If those pieces of glass/metal are between the observer and the building it can look like the flashes are coming from the building itself. When the glass/metal is off to the side with respect to the building and the observer, the flashes show up in mid air.

Now the really simple way to state this for those that do not understand the explanation above (not you Resolver):

Really big shiny building falls apart. Shiny parts reflect light.

 

[TokenMac]

As for thermite, it was nano-thermite found in the dust. I believe I have told you before that the American Chemical Society is quoted as saying nano-energetics are tailorable to produce just the amount of fragmentation needed while minimizing noise.

That was written by Neils Harrit not the ACS.

At this point in time, all of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives. Nanoenergetics hold promise as useful ingredients for the thermobaric (TBX) and TBX-like weapons, particularly due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management. The feature of “impulse management” may be significant. It is possible that formulations may be chosen to have just sufficient percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/w...collapse-initiation-models-t274-30.html#p7235

Why did you put these two quotes together?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I'm a little late at catching up with the repetition of the whole thermite crapola... but I really think it needs to be reminded why a paint layer of thermite theory is dead on arrival:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-pZf56L0lg

Jesse Ventura not only shot himself in the foot, but also every body else's that steeped into the same territory...