OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

[tempesta29]

But yet, this photo

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/6689/wtcmeteorite1al8.jpg

is seen by many many many people. I saw the piece myself when I went over to FK to work. Amazing. They photographed this, but not a simmilar chuck of metal?

Logical fallacy.

No, you're confused.

You are eyewitness testamony of people who were not trained to identify a molten substance by sight alone, and you're touting it as if it is conclusive. It's not. It's an uneducated opinion.

The testomony of firefighters, about a fires condition, is an EDUCATED opinion, thus, carries much more weight that an UNeducated opinion.

Yet there is eyewitness testimony of steel beams melting. It's quite likely that fire fighters were so sure what they were seeing was molten steel because they also saw steel beams melting. Perhaps they didn't mention that because they didn't think they're quotes would be challenged later on, nor did they think what they were saying was so controversial. If you've seen the fire fighters at the table describing the molten steel, then you would have seen how confident they were about it.

In the end, there are still witnesses to molten steel. Steel beams melting is confirmation that there was molten steel.

Yes. I do, because I did. I gwaked at the amazing destructive power that we had witnessed. I gawked at the absolute carnage that I was in the middle of. So, yes, we would have been amazed by a large chunk of solidified metal.

Neat story. Find someone who cares.

No, not speculative at all. Based on personal experience, and the natural curiosity of people like myself.

Funny how this turned into a story about you. Let me know when your memoirs get published.

 

[tempesta29]

And you've been explained why there is not a huge noticable deceleration in any of the videos. Remember Dave Rogers' posts?

I remember some guy telling me that there would have been just a 1% deceleration. I asked him to show how he got it and said his "working" was in his post, yet there was none. He simply said "after a quick estimate" he got a 1% decrease in the rate of acceleration.

How, after we've been told that the crash zones were badly damaged and the steel extremely weakened by fire, is there only a negligible increase in resistance from the crash zone to untouched Twin Tower structure?

 

[triforcharity]

Logical fallacy.

Really? Name it.

Yet there is eyewitness testimony of steel beams melting. It's quite likely that fire fighters were so sure what they were seeing was molten steel because they also saw steel beams melting.

Really? Where are those steel beams? Care to show any accounts from Fresh Kills? Maybe you can contact Phillips and Jordan like I did?

BTW, they said no such steel existed.

Perhaps they didn't mention that because they didn't think they're quotes would be challenged later on, nor did they think what they were saying was so controversial.

Or maybe because their conclusions were opinions? Do the people of FDNY still believe to this day that there was molten steel flowing like lava?

Prove it.

If you've seen the fire fighters at the table describing the molten steel, then you would have seen how confident they were about it.

I know most of those firefighters personally. Still talk to some of them.

In the end, there are still witnesses to molten steel. Steel beams melting is confirmation that there was molten steel.

And yet, the ONLY thing you have, is uneducated opinion.

Neat story. Find someone who cares.

So, you've admitted you don't care about the truth? How suprising...

Funny how this turned into a story about you. Let me know when your memoirs get published.

They already are.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Thanks for playing.

 

[triforcharity]

I remember some guy telling me that there would have been just a 1% deceleration. I asked him to show how he got it and said his "working" was in his post, yet there was none. He simply said "after a quick estimate" he got a 1% decrease in the rate of acceleration.

How, after we've been told that the crash zones were badly damaged and the steel extremely weakened by fire, is there only a negligible increase in resistance from the crash zone to untouched Twin Tower structure?

Maybe you should try to listen to what Dave Rogers' has posted. He gets his calculations from Bazant et al.

He knows a thing or two about physics. Dave Thomas is another good source.

 

[twinstead]

Arrogant cult members lecturing the rational because they don't believe don't impress me at all.

 

[Seymour Butz]

How, after we've been told that the crash zones were badly damaged and the steel extremely weakened by fire, is there only a negligible increase in resistance from the crash zone to untouched Twin Tower structure?

It's easy to understand.

At collapse initiaion, the upper part has zero velocity, therefore zero momentum. As it descends through the crash zones, it picks up velocity, and thefore momentum, which delivers a bigger impact then it could have a floor or 2 higher.

To simplify Dave's explanation, turn it uoside down and think of it this way. You have a 3 lb weight hanging from a wire that has a 10 lb capacity. Lift the weight a little and drop it, so that the momentum of the 3 lb weight imparts 8 lbs of force on the wire and the wire holds. Lift it a little higher so the momentum of the 3 lb weight imparts 15 lbs of force onto the wire and the wire parts, and you can probably see a decrease in acceleration pretty easily. Lift it farther still, so that the 3 lb weight imparts 60 lbs of force onto the wire, and while the weight will still decrease in acceleration, it becomes harder to see it, since the wire is being overwhelmed by such a large amount.

What Dave and others have explained to you is that the 3 lb weight, when dropped, imparts 1000 lbs of force onto the wire, and is next to impossible to record any decrease in acceleration.

IOW, it's all a matter of by how much the wire is being overwhelmed. The higher the overload, the less the decrease in acceleration.

 

[GlennB]

Earlier in the day? The buildings collapsed after one hour and an hour and a half respectively. I read what you linked to from the NIST report. There was no evidence that was bowing and not simply impact damage.

Trifor has reposted the WTC2 shot showing very clear bowing that has nothing to do with impact damage. You can watch it develop in the video if you really want. I posted the WTC1 bowing earlier in the thread.

There was progressive inward bowing in both towers. Denying this abundantly clear evidence is a very bad sign, tempesta29.

Meanwhile, shots like the one below show us that the towers fell at measurably and noticeably less than g acceleration. Therefore there was resistance.

 

[adkinsjr]

Really? Name it.



Really? Where are those steel beams? Care to show any accounts from Fresh Kills? Maybe you can contact Phillips and Jordan like I did?

BTW, they said no such steel existed.

I think the witnesses he's talking about may have seen something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE

The claim made by "truth" cult fanatics:

Molten metal seen pouring out from the north face (near north east corner) around floor 80 of the WTC2 South Tower on 9/11, timed at a few minutes before the total destruction of the building (around 9:57am).

There is also evidence of iron rich spheres in dust samples tested by Professor Steven Jones and other labs, that matches those produced by the incendiary thermate.

The question is, what kind of metal?

 

[tempesta29]

Really? Name it.

Really? You think that a lack of a photograph of something means it never existed?

Really? Where are those steel beams? Care to show any accounts from Fresh Kills? Maybe you can contact Phillips and Jordan like I did?

More logical fallacy. You're creating your own standards to define value of evidence. There are eyewitnesses of molten steel. I'm sorry that troubles you.

BTW, they said no such steel existed.

Yet eyewitnesses saw it, so rather than its never existing, they merely didn't see it. "They never saw it therefore it never existed" is about as juvenile as rhetoric can get.

I know most of those firefighters personally. Still talk to some of them.

LOL.

 

[adkinsjr]

There was progressive inward bowing in both towers. Denying this abundantly clear evidence is a very bad sign, tempesta29.

"Truthers" are in denial about that one. Gage has even said that there was no gradual deformation.

(Liar; look at that f*ck*ng smile)

Meanwhile, shots like the one below show us that the towers fell at measurably and noticeably less than g acceleration. Therefore there was resistance.

That's a good debunk, I hadn't caught that one. So much for the freefall canard. So far all they've got is 2.3 secs of freefall left with WTC7, not looking good for this "controlled demolition" cockamamie.

 

[tempesta29]

It's easy to understand.

At collapse initiaion, the upper part has zero velocity, therefore zero momentum. As it descends through the crash zones, it picks up velocity, and thefore momentum, which delivers a bigger impact then it could have a floor or 2 higher.

To simplify Dave's explanation, turn it uoside down and think of it this way. You have a 3 lb weight hanging from a wire that has a 10 lb capacity. Lift the weight a little and drop it, so that the momentum of the 3 lb weight imparts 8 lbs of force on the wire and the wire holds. Lift it a little higher so the momentum of the 3 lb weight imparts 15 lbs of force onto the wire and the wire parts, and you can probably see a decrease in acceleration pretty easily. Lift it farther still, so that the 3 lb weight imparts 60 lbs of force onto the wire, and while the weight will still decrease in acceleration, it becomes harder to see it, since the wire is being overwhelmed by such a large amount.

What Dave and others have explained to you is that the 3 lb weight, when dropped, imparts 1000 lbs of force onto the wire, and is next to impossible to record any decrease in acceleration.

IOW, it's all a matter of by how much the wire is being overwhelmed. The higher the overload, the less the decrease in acceleration.

Are you comparing the upper section collapsing on the lower section of the Twin Towers to 1000 lbs of force on a wire with a 10 lb capacity? This was an obscene amount of steel and concrete. The only way that acceleration could remain constant is if resistance and therefore damage were constant from the top crash zone to the ground. If there were plane crashes and fire all the way down, then perhaps we would see a constant rate of acceleration, but we are told that there is a massive discrepancy in resistance between the crash zone and the undamaged structure. There should be a decrease in the rate of acceleration and there is not.

Meanwhile, shots like the one below show us that the towers fell at measurably and noticeably less than g acceleration. Therefore there was resistance.

I'm tired of explaining this to you. I never claimed the upper sections fell at the rate of gravity. I'm referring to deceleration as a decrease in the rate of acceleration. There is no such decrease, therefore the upper sections are not destroying the lower.

 

[Telltale Tom]

Nor does anyone have pictures of any molten substances to my knowledge, not glass nor aluminum, yet there are many eyewitnesses that saw glowing molten substances. So either they're all lying or it's possible what they saw wasn't photographed.

Congratulations Tempesta you are the leading Muse of Truth here at JREF and you are amazingly adept at keeping the debunkers running round in circles.

Lots of strange things happened on 9/11 and I don't think we should start off by accusing the ae911truth of reporting lies. I guess the photos of puddles of molten steel are missing. We can discount the pathetic shots of compacted steel and concrete that Trifor shows.

Also missing are the photos of the flashes to go with the bangs, the flares to go with thermite, the bangs to go with the big explosions, and the NYFD must have carefully removed all evidence of the 5,000 or so thermite charges.

It is indeed a conspiracy of epic proportions. You know its the Truth.

 

[TJM]

The principle cause of both collapses was the fire right? Actually, the buildings were able to withstand the impact of a 707 at 600 mph. According to the head structural engineer of the towers, ensuing fires wouldn't be a problem structurally either.

Citation please.

[Citation Required]
\ O /
|
/ \
​

Which you have yet to cite for us.

Figure that one out yet tempesta?

 

[triforcharity]

Really? You think that a lack of a photograph of something means it never existed?

Show me ANYTHING. I was asking for pictures, due to the fact that you cannot teleport me a piece of solidified steel.

More logical fallacy. You're creating your own standards to define value of evidence. There are eyewitnesses of molten steel. I'm sorry that troubles you.

No, these are common standards. Its called corroborating evidence.

Just because people claim it is one thing, doesn't make it so.

Little story for you.

Guy was charged with arson a few months back. Claimed he was somewhere else, Had two of his friends say the same thing.

Fire marshall ruled it arson, and documented the evidence. Burn patterns, alligator markings, etc.

I was called as an expert witness for the prosecution. I came in viewed the evidence, performed lab tests, even did some live burns myself.

I was able to demonstrate that in fact, the alcohol was not spilled, but poured out over a large area, in a semi-straight line.

Turns out, guy was convicted based on my analysis, and demonstation that it couldn't have been spilled, but poured. This is called corroberating evidence.

You have.......bupkis.

Yet eyewitnesses saw it, so rather than its never existing, they merely didn't see it. "They never saw it therefore it never existed" is about as juvenile as rhetoric can get.

Phillips and Jordan was in charge of the operations at FK. If something like you claim existed, surely they or someone else at FK would have noticed it right?

LOL.

Speaking of juveni le......

 

[tempesta29]

Figure that one out yet tempesta?

I cited it. Read.

 

[triforcharity]

I cited it. Read.

No no, the ACTUAL paper?

Got paper?

 

[tempesta29]

Show me ANYTHING. I was asking for pictures, due to the fact that you cannot teleport me a piece of solidified steel.

The logical fallacy continues. The absence of a certain type of evidence does not mean anything other than there is no evidence of that kind.

No, these are common standards. Its called corroborating evidence.

Just because people claim it is one thing, doesn't make it so.

Little story for you.

Guy was charged with arson a few months back. Claimed he was somewhere else, Had two of his friends say the same thing.

Fire marshall ruled it arson, and documented the evidence. Burn patterns, alligator markings, etc.

I was called as an expert witness for the prosecution. I came in viewed the evidence, performed lab tests, even did some live burns myself.

I was able to demonstrate that in fact, the alcohol was not spilled, but poured out over a large area, in a semi-straight line.

Turns out, guy was convicted based on my analysis, and demonstation that it couldn't have been spilled, but poured. This is called corroberating evidence.

You have.......bupkis.

Longest. Red herring. Ever.

Phillips and Jordan was in charge of the operations at FK. If something like you claim existed, surely they or someone else at FK would have noticed it right?

Why is it you believe this? What do you think their role was, forensics?

 

[TJM]

I cited it. Read.

Time's up.

No. This is what Robertson, the Lead Structural Engineer of the World Trade Center Project, said:

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

http://www.members.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

"It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark."

Now I'll gladly differ to the aviation experts, but a jumbo jet, lost and looking for a place to land, would be flying at what pilots call "approach speed", Not streaking in low across a major urban area populated with very tall buildings. I can only state from my observations from living close to a major airport (SFO) that I've never seen a jumbo jet line up on approach at 600 MPH. Crazy huh?

 

[tempesta29]

No no, the ACTUAL paper?

Got paper?

It's in the book I cited. I think it's cheap on Amazon. Enjoy.

 

[tempesta29]

Time's up.
Now I'll gladly differ to the aviation experts, but a jumbo jet, lost and looking for a place to land, would be flying at what pilots call "approach speed", Not streaking in low across a major urban area populated with very tall buildings. I can only state from my observations from living close to a major airport (SFO) that I've never seen a jumbo jet line up on approach at 600 MPH. Crazy huh?

Yet the 1964 white paper analyzed a 707 crashing at 600 mph.

By the way, there is no evidence that the fire at the South Tower was even mildly threatening.