Gravity defying buildings? :D

[Sabretooth]

May I ask what melted the airplane aluminum? I mean what type of heat source and what fueled that heat source?

The office fires where more than enough to create enough heat. Desks, chairs, computers, etc...

The heat source is not in doubt.

 

[Java Man]

The office fires where more than enough to create enough heat. Desks, chairs, computers, etc...

The heat source is not in doubt.

Yes I have no doubt about that. It's the effect on aluminium that has me concerned. Take a look at the pictures I've compiled. The airplanes "burn up" rather than melt. Obviously there was no thermite involved in these accidents so basically what we have is jet fuel and plastics involved. I don't see any dripping of molten aluminum. No molten aluminum puddles underneath the aircraft. The closeup on the cabin even shows how the fuselage looks like burnt paper. Definitely no molten metal drops as we see in the WTC columns when they cut them with blowtorch.

I have a very hard time believing the airplanes that crashed into the WTC were any different than the ones shown here and that their aluminium fuselage would melt like steel rather than burn up like the aluminium alloys we see here.

So no I don't buy the idea that the blobs of molten metal were airplane aluminium alloys.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

So no I don't buy the idea that the blobs of molten metal were airplane aluminium alloys.

The cladding of the trade centers were also aluminum you've forgotten... forgetting for a moment the irony that the pictures you post of the planes anyway shows exactly that. Aluminum has a melting point of about 660oC, well within the range to make it viable. Once again, no mechanism exists for thousands of tons of the the steel as CD advocates claim to have liquefied.

And smart alic antics and sarcasm like this is invalid:

So that leaves the volcano theory. Or the alien ship's retrorockets. Take your pick.

 

[Java Man]

The cladding of the trade centers were also aluminum you've forgotten... forgetting for a moment the irony that the pictures you post of the planes anyway shows exactly that. Aluminum has a melting point of about 660oC, well within the range to make it viable. Once again, no mechanism exists for thousands of tons of the the steel as CD advocates claim to have liquefied.

So why didn't NIST state that? You know something NIST doesn't?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

So why didn't NIST state that?

Because investigating for thermite would have been akin to chasing ghosts and unicorns. Or do you think that the lack of evidence for it's presence to begin with would viably justify investigating for it?

 

[Java Man]

Because investigating for thermite would have been akin to chasing ghosts and unicorns. Or do you think that the lack of evidence for it's presence to begin with would viably justify investigating for it?

Who's talking about thermite? I mean the aluminium.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

<delete>

 

[bardamu]

Steel frame building in fire

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1824447b1cfcfa7614.jpg[/qimg]

= collapse. Your turn.

The building in your photo looks like it was damaged by fire. The collapse of WTC 7 looks a CD. Your photo doesn't help to explain why the entire perimeter failed at the same time. In fact, it gives us an idea what WTC 7 might have looked like if it had collapsed due to office fires.

So here's where we are:

Gravity is not the key to understanding why the building collapsed the way it did.

Fire is not the key to understanding why the building collapsed the way it did.

This statement is completely irrelevant considering there was no melted steel in WTC7...

Tell your friends that vague references to iron smelting are not an explanation for the sudden and total collapse of WTC 7.

 

[BigAl]

The building in your photo looks like it was damaged by fire. The collapse of WTC 7 looks a CD. Your photo doesn't help to explain why the entire perimeter failed at the same time. In fact, it gives us an idea what WTC 7 might have looked like if it had collapsed due to office fires.

So here's where we are:

Gravity is not the key to understanding why the building collapsed the way it did.

Fire is not the key to understanding why the building collapsed the way it did.
.

The fact that there was no water for firefighting is the fire is the key. The fire burned for hours.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Early iron smelting was done by people using specially designed furnaces. Are you saying that WTC 7 just happened to have all the features of a specially designed iron smelting furnace?

A coal fire isn't something "specially designed". People have coal furnaces in their homes still, plus Pennsylvania is a coal mining state. So you don't know Jack about the coal industry! I'm saying: "You don't know what happened to WTC7 & you never will!" Unless you drop these retarded CTs then you'd have a clearer mind.

 

[bardamu]

The fact that there was no water for firefighting is the fire is the key. The fire burned for hours.

Then the building in the photo posted by funk de fino must have had plenty of water poured on it. Does anybody have a link to the details?

 

[Java Man]

A coal fire isn't something "specially designed". People have coal furnaces in their homes still, plus Pennsylvania is a coal mining state. So you don't know Jack about the coal industry! I'm saying: "You don't know what happened to WTC7 & you never will!" Unless you drop these retarded CTs then you'd have a clearer mind.

Obviously the coal isn't specially designed, it's the furnace that is specially designed.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Obviously the coal isn't specially designed, it's the furnace that is specially designed.

So why wasn't there any furnaces at GZ for 9 months?

 

[bardamu]

I'm saying: "You don't know what happened to WTC7 & you never will!"

I'm pretty sure it wasn't brought down by charcoal burners.

 

[Java Man]

So why wasn't there any furnaces at GZ for 9 months?

Huh?

 

[bardamu]

Steel frame building in fire



= collapse. Your turn.

Source for this picture, anybody?

 

[funk de fino]

The building in your photo looks like it was damaged by fire. The collapse of WTC 7 looks a CD. Your photo doesn't help to explain why the entire perimeter failed at the same time. In fact, it gives us an idea what WTC 7 might have looked like if it had collapsed due to office fires.

You never saw the collapse of the building I posted. Steel frame building and fought fire = collapse. Many demo experts were a few hundred feet from WTC7 when it colllapsed and noe of the say it was a CD.

So here's where we are:

Gravity is not the key to understanding why the building collapsed the way it did.

Fire is not the key to understanding why the building collapsed the way it did.

No, here is where we are. Steel framed building can collapse from fought or unfought fires.

Tell your friends that vague references to iron smelting are not an explanation for the sudden and total collapse of WTC 7.

I have no friends here. I just have a dislike of nasty liars that infest the movement you belong to. The worst political protest movement of all time.

 

[funk de fino]

Source for this picture, anybody?

Yes, it is my personal picture. I took it. The building across from my work caught fire and collapsed.

It was a fought fire but collaped in a few hours.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Can a building defy gravity?

Theoretically yes. For example if the cores of the WTC towers were pulled down by an additional force. Note, I do NOT believe that myself , for that would require hollowing out a huge cavern under the basements of the towers and some machinery to pull down the cores faster than could have been produced by gravity alone. But, yeah, depending on what you mean by 'defying gravity' it's possible. I thought you had figured that out by now.

 

[bardamu]

You never saw the collapse of the building I posted. Steel frame building and fought fire = collapse. Many demo experts were a few hundred feet from WTC7 when it colllapsed and noe of the say it was a CD.

Bill was wondering why there were so many demolition experts watching the collapse of WTC 7.

No, here is where we are. Steel framed building can collapse from fought or unfought fires.

This is not the key to understanding why the collapse of WTC 7 looks like a controlled demolition.

I have no friends here. I just have a dislike of nasty liars that infest the movement you belong to. The worst political protest movement of all time.

It's the worst movement of all time for you, because it shows that socialists have no interest in stopping the wars-for-profit promoted by the ruling elites.

Yes, it is my personal picture. I took it. The building across from my work caught fire and collapsed.

It was a fought fire but collaped in a few hours.

No article in your local press you can link to?