Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oystein said:
It's cool, gms,

Bill has pretty much explained to us that, if nanothermite was used, it can't have been the explosive kind (if that existed at all). Only the incendiary kind needs to be considered. ETA: We should recruit Bill's help the next time someone makes a claim about explosives.
Click to expand...

Up high in WTC1 it looks like hi explosive was used, Something set those massive girders whirling through the air and it wasn't nanothermite incendiary. Lower down the girders did not fly out so there is a clear demarkation between the top 15 or 20% of the building and the lower 80 or 85%.
 
bill smith said:
Up high in WTC1 it looks like hi explosive was used, Something set those massive girders whirling through the air and it wasn't nanothermite incendiary. Lower down the girders did not fly out so there is a clear demarkation between the top 15 or 20% of the building and the lower 80 or 85%.
Click to expand...

What massive girders went whirling through the air :confused:
You have evidence for this?
 
bill smith said:
Up high in WTC1 it looks like hi explosive was used, Something set those massive girders whirling through the air and it wasn't nanothermite incendiary. Lower down the girders did not fly out so there is a clear demarkation between the top 15 or 20% of the building and the lower 80 or 85%.
Click to expand...

Yeah a few things
first of all would be that higher up the falling mass is still a connected block whereas lower down its faster moving collection of rubble. I will leave it to you to figure out what this means in terms of ejecting perimeter column trees.

second, if a perimeter column tree is ejected from a height of 700 feet it will drop for 6.6 seconds. It will travel a distance horizontally of its horizontal velocity times 6.6 seconds. A column tree ejected at the same velocity from 500 feet will fall for 5.6 seconds and travel its horizontal velocity times 5.6 seconds. The perimeter column tree from 700 feet will then travel horizontally 18% farther than the one ejected from 500 feet.
If the first one went 500 feet then the other one only went 424 feet.

Ain't math fun bill?
 
jaydeehess said:
shifting topics and a Les Nessman-like "think about it" type post from bill again I see
Click to expand...

That's the nature of this thread JD. Ypu surely didn't think I was going to start arguing about the falling block here did you ?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Too bad, I'll ruin it for you. You were attempting to put Bill in a position where if he argues that the collapse hypothesis of WTC 7 could not have been from fire because it's never happened in history then since thermite has never been used to bring a bldg down then his argument fails by his own logic.

Your problem is that nanoenergetics have been discussed as a viable demolition material and yet as NIST reminds us fire has never brought down a steel framed high rise, so your argument fails because your analogy is invalid.
Click to expand...
You are confusing discussed with proven.
 
RedIbis said:
You conveniently omitted the phrase, "high-rise." Even NIST admits no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed primarily from fire.
Click to expand...

There is no need to remind anyone of the goal post shifting. We all know red...steel in a high rise responds differently to fire than steel near the ground.
 
bill smith said:
Up high in WTC1 it looks like hi explosive was used, Something set those massive girders whirling through the air and it wasn't nanothermite incendiary. Lower down the girders did not fly out so there is a clear demarkation between the top 15 or 20% of the building and the lower 80 or 85%.
Click to expand...

Its called gravity, and cause and effect.
 
bill smith said:
This is a good day TAM. I'm expanding exponentially my collection of debunkers who think that WTC7 looked like a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess in the strictest of terms, yes, 7WTC when it collapsed, looked like another building that collapsed...... but of course, didn't sound like, or actually act like, a CD. But, whatever.
 
RedIbis said:
You conveniently omitted the phrase, "high-rise." Even NIST admits no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed primarily from fire.
Click to expand...

Yepo, and never in history has a building been struck by another, set ablaze, allowed to burn for 7 hours uncontrolled either. So, since were comparing apples to F-14's.........
 
There was an article about Juliette Binoche in the Life colour supplement in Sunday's edition of The Age. Some of you may remember she espoused truther views a few years ago.

The author of the article, Andrew Anthony, prefaced his discussion of that episode by saying, "On occasion, however, Binoche's 'different views' have erred on that side of excessive difference sometimes referred to as plain bonkers". :)

He went on and described 9/11 CTs as "the most pernicious and idiotic conspiracy theory of our time". I thought that was spot on. :D
 
bill smith said:
Up high in WTC1 it looks like hi explosive was used, Something set those massive girders whirling through the air and it wasn't nanothermite incendiary.
Click to expand...

No "massive girders" went "whirling through the air."

TONS of aluminum cladding, but no girders.:D

Lower down the girders did not fly out so there is a clear demarkation between the top 15 or 20% of the building and the lower 80 or 85%.
Click to expand...

By that point, the unzipping of the perimeter columns had become less chaotic, thus the cladding tended to remain attached to the perimeter columns as they toppled sedately over.
 
RedIbis said:
You conveniently omitted the phrase, "high-rise." Even NIST admits no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed primarily from fire.
Click to expand...

Your point? They then said this was the first time and went on to explain in great detail why WTC7 collapsed due to fire.
 
Fourbrick said:
You obviously didn't read it properly , Tam. It said "man made construction". You doubt that the Montgolfier Brothers flew in their man made balloon? You doubt that Otto Lilienthal flew in his "man made glider"?How about Samuel Langley and his catapulted "man made construction"?You can try to change what he said but he still gets no cigar.
Click to expand...

Not even a cuban?

TAM:)
 
RedIbis said:
Too bad, I'll ruin it for you. You were attempting to put Bill in a position where if he argues that the collapse hypothesis of WTC 7 could not have been from fire because it's never happened in history then since thermite has never been used to bring a bldg down then his argument fails by his own logic.

Your problem is that nanoenergetics have been discussed as a viable demolition material and yet as NIST reminds us fire has never brought down a steel framed high rise, so your argument fails because your analogy is invalid.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see thermite or nanothermite shown to be a viable or usable demolition material. Because it can melt steel does not make it a viable or usable demolition material...long way to go to prove that....sorry.

TAM:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom