Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[lapman]

There was no reason to think WTC 7 would collapse. The debris damage was actually insignificant.
NCSTAR 1A pg 55 [pdf pg 97]
The initial westward progression and the overall speed of the collapse was not sensitive to the extent of the estimated structural damage to WTC 7 due to the debris from the collapse of WTC 1. When the global collapse was nearly complete, there was some small sensitivity to the extent of the initial damage in the southwest portion of the building.

The normal office fires were far less severe than other high rise fires.

They knew it was going to be imploded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY6rSLXSsdc

You are really that stupid.

 

[Christopher7]

Williams is repeating hearsay, and he never attributed the quote to Robertson.

Point taken.

Beachnut, you are correct about the fact that Mr. Williams was not quoting Mr. Robertson as I thought and Mr. Gage thought. This does not alter the point which is:
There are numerous credible accounts of molten steel/metal.

 

[Christopher7]

The URL is the source, and the source of the source is there!

They are talking about fires in tunnels with an unlimited supply of fuel in a single location.

Note that the temp for cellulose is 1,000^oC [1,800^oF] at 90 minutes of continuous burning in a single location. At 30 minutes, which is about the max a fire can burn in any location, the temperature is about 850^oC
"This curve is based on the burning rate of the materials found in general building materials and contents."

 

[triforcharity]

They are talking about fires in tunnels with an unlimited supply of fuel in a single location.

Note that the temp for cellulose is 1,000^oC [1,800^oF] at 90 minutes of continuous burning in a single location. At 30 minutes, which is about the max a fire can burn in any location, the temperature is about 850^oC
"This curve is based on the burning rate of the materials found in general building materials and contents."

Yeah, you're looking at the wrong curve. Look at the hudrocarbon curve.

Here is one you might enjoy....
http://www.promat-tunnel.com/en/hydrocarbon-curve.htm

Specifically for hydrocarbon fires.

 

[fess]

Christopher7;
Looking at your comments, other than quote mining, might I ask what your experience in firefighting might be?

 

[triforcharity]

My Guess?

Pi$$ing on a camp fire after drinking too many Natural Lights........

 

[BigAl]

Point taken.

Beachnut, you are correct about the fact that Mr. Williams was not quoting Mr. Robertson as I thought and Mr. Gage thought. This does not alter the point which is:
There are numerous zero credible accounts of molten steel/metal.

There are no eyewitness reports of molten steel.

none. they are all second-hand.

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by carlitos
Don't forget that you have to use explosives that "hurl the exterior beams" out of the building at a whopping "60 miles per hour." (26.8 Meters per Second)

You claim this was due to gravity which is absurd.

Demolition explosives don't propel beams.

Thermite doesn't propel anything.

 

[Kent1]

If you say Robertson said the quote you are a liar. The statement was made by James Williams, and not Robertson. Williams was not at the WTC, he was spewing some hearsay.

Gage knows he was telling a lie and explains he knows. I posted proof.

The quote you posted is hearsay, no support with facts or evidence. Robertson never said it and agrees with me. Sorry you can't get anything right about 911 after 9 years of failure.

The joke is the failure of 911 truth to produce any evidence or rational claims. The joke is 9 years of failure as you lie about Robertson based on Gage's lie. You post lies from liars on 911. That is all the action you have taken for 9 years; spreading lies due to lack of knowledge and gullibility.

Now you posted proof Roberson never said, "steel was still running". You debunk Gage and yourself. Read the article next time and do some research.

I interviewed both Robertson and Williams years ago and these fools still keep bring up this claim. It's amazing.
http://911myths.com/html/leslie_robertson.html

 

[beachnut]

Point taken.

Beachnut, you are correct about the fact that Mr. Williams was not quoting Mr. Robertson as I thought and Mr. Gage thought. This does not alter the point which is:
There are numerous credible accounts of molten steel/metal.

Chris!, all of 911 truth is like this Robertson issue! Wake UP!

What would 7 of 9 do? WWSD!


No Chris, there are zero credible accounts of molten rivers of flowing steel. It can't happen with the conditions of the WTC collapse.

Chris, your avatar, albeit it from princess bride, is better than the liars at 911 truth. Live up to your avatar and join reality. Ironic, but more real than 911 truth. (stop ruining one of my favorite movies - I liked Pan Labyrinth also - join reality and keep fantasy to movies)

 

[Christopher7]

Demolition explosives don't propel beams.

They most certainly could.

Thermite doesn't propel anything.

But gravity pushing only straight down can tear column sections apart and hurl them sideways at 70+ mph.

There are no eyewitness reports of molten steel.
none. they are all second-hand.

False

 

[lapman]

They most certainly could.

Not silently. Ever.

But gravity pushing only straight down can tear column sections apart and hurl them sideways at 70+ mph.

Learn what elastic deformation is. Provide an example of an explosived that could do that...silently.

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by BigAl
Demolition explosives don't propel beams.

They most certainly could.

And sufficient high explosive to accelerate a multi-ton beam to a few ft/sec would be heard for miles. Nothing like was heard in Manhattan on 9/11.

The millisecond (microseconds?) impulse of a cutting charge makes a particularly bad propellant.

 

[Christopher7]

Chris!, all of 911 truth is like this Robertson issue!

False. There are details that need to be corrected but the abundance of solid scientific evidence of CD is correct.

No Chris, there are zero credible accounts of molten rivers of flowing steel. It can't happen with the conditions of the WTC collapse.

Typical straw-man, add a very specific qualifier and cry foul.

There are numerous credible professionals who have confirmed the existence of molten steel/iron at the WTC site. This is supported by the USGS and RJ Lee Group reports of molten iron that was created during the event. There is also this photo:

You will deny all because that's what you do. No worries mate.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

...
But gravity pushing only straight down can tear column sections apart and hurl them sideways at 70+ mph.

False

Au contraire!

 

[Christopher7]

And sufficient high explosive to accelerate a multi-ton beam to a few ft/sec would be heard for miles. Nothing like was heard in Manhattan on 9/11.

False. There are numerous reports of explosions and a few video clips that picked up explosions. NIST is withholding nearly 7,000 video clips so you cannot claim that there are no sounds of explosions on them.

The millisecond (microseconds?) impulse of a cutting charge makes a particularly bad propellant.

Something other than gravity propelled those multi-ton framing sections horizontally at speeds up to and exceeding 70 mph.

 

[beachnut]

They most certainly could.

But gravity pushing only straight down can tear column sections apart and hurl them sideways at 70+ mph.

False

No Chris, the explosives used to do CD are small and depend on pre-cutting. They can't propel beams; only gravity and the potential energy stored in the building, over 130 tons of TNT is the energy of gravity alone, and that is what propelled junk! This is a fact of physics 911 truth does not want to share with you.

Sorry Chris; all the reports of rives of flowing steel are false. Remember the entire exterior of the WTC was Aluminum, it melts easy, in my outside fire pit, Al melts while I cook marshmallows in a wood fire. You need to stop using 911 truth and figure out 911 for yourself; be an individual stop using 911 truth.

 

[BigAl]

False. There are details that need to be corrected but the abundance of solid scientific evidence of CD is correct.

Typical straw-man, add a very specific qualifier and cry foul.

There are numerous credible professionals who have confirmed the existence of molten steel/iron at the WTC site.

Name one. Lets see what they saw and said. It's not like you are the first person to make that claim.

There is also this photo:

[qimg]http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/9400/clawph1.jpg[/qimg]

You will deny all because that's what you do. No worries mate.

Whatever it is that crane is picking up, it isn't molten. It isn't even very hot by molten metal standards. That close, the heat from molten steel would melt every hydraulic hose.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I guess in Chris's world, lateral forces don't exist in any form...

 

[beachnut]

False. There are details that need to be corrected but the abundance of solid scientific evidence of CD is correct.

Typical straw-man, add a very specific qualifier and cry foul.

There are numerous credible professionals who have confirmed the existence of molten steel/iron at the WTC site. This is supported by the USGS and RJ Lee Group reports of molten iron that was created during the event. There is also this photo:

You will deny all because that's what you do. No worries mate.

Looks like plywood to me. Oops, you showed an unknown glowing object and think it is steel. I have seen leaves the same color. Leaves. What are you showing, wood, or what. Any proof.

BTW, there is zero evidence of CD. No one killed by explosions, no blast effects on steel, no sounds of explosives (explosives), and no evidence of the things needed to set off explosives. Plus, explosives would cook off, burn up, in fires and not be effective to set off later. Your CD delusion was made up by morons who are not expert at anything more than paranoid conspiracy theories.

I would say more but my grandkids need me to start Dinosaur Train in HD! Much more reality than your failed CD delusions.