Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christopher7 said:
Dumb is not being able to figure out that you could make a depression in the dirt for the molten steel.
Click to expand...

Dumb is not being able to understand that it's STILL a dumb idea.

Christopher7 said:
I said "or just allow it to cool" but you ignored that part. Dumb is always jumping to the wrong conclusion and talking about how dumb it is.
Click to expand...

The entire idea is flawed from the beginning. Do you realize how dangerous that would be? Not to mention time-consuming?

Christopher7 said:
Molten metal dripping from a steel beam is most likely steel. :rolleyes: Chris' wishful thinking notwithstanding.[molten aluminum is silvery in daylight]
Click to expand...

Except for the 10 other possibilities that it could be.


Christopher7 said:
Speak for yourself. I have worked with back hoes and the like, albeit much smaller. They are very robust and quite capable of scooping up molten metal and surviving.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how quickly the heat would travel up the arm and fail the hydraulic pistons? Please provide proof that a standard backhoe would be able to stand temperatures of 2,800 deg. F. I will take pictures as proof, or the math. Either or. Your choice.


Christopher7 said:
The bucket would probably be ruined but not from melting. The bucket and the arm could be cooled with water after dumping each scoop. So cut the denial diatribe. You don't know diddly squat about heavy equipment. It ain't fragile.
Click to expand...

It's rediculous to assume as much. Please provide proof to back up your claim. I will take pictures, or the math. Your choice.

You're right, I don't know much about heavy equipment. But, I know enough about heat and thermal dynamics to understand that extreme heat + hydraulic pistons=failure.


Christopher7 said:
He said it was steel because it's bloody obvious.
Click to expand...

Really? Please identify the materil in the pictures I have posted.

(I'll give you a hint. You ready?


You can't.


Christopher7 said:
You are calling him an idiot at best.
Click to expand...

No, not at all. I am saying that people cannot identify molten metal by steel alone. You certainly can't, I can't, hell, IIRC, even Sunsteeler, a ******** metalurgist said he couldn't. But you expect laymen to be able to?

It's foolish.


Christopher7 said:
Who the heck do you think you are?
Click to expand...

Your worst nightmare.

Christopher7 said:
It takes a lot of chutzpah to say all these people are wrong, especially when there are no viable alternatives.
Click to expand...

What about the dozen or so other metals that were in the tower that would have melted below 1800 deg. F?

You seem to forget that you have not ruled them out as a possibility. Or even a mixture of those other materials with aluminum.


Christopher7 said:
Did I mention that molten aluminum is silvery in daylight? Do you understand that?
Click to expand...

No, what's aluminum mean? Silvery? Daylight? Please define those words for me. I don't understand them. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
TheRedWorm said:
I once did that with a cropped picture of the sun. Truther thought it was orange juice...
Click to expand...

LOL!! Too funny!! Chris7 has YET to even take a stab at what those images are!!


whatisthis.jpg


mediaManager.jpg


Good luck Chris7!!
 
Java Man said:
Really? I'd swear I'm getting hammered for not posting my theory. At least that's what I understand dafydd keeps saying. So tell me where did you read that? Where you in my house without my knowledge? Are you hacking into my laptop? Or is this just a typical kneejerk reaction on your part and you're assuming that is what I said.

dafydd, see what I mean by the importance of not publishing my theory yet? Otherwise we'd end up in infinite spin cycles with folks like Tom here who believes I said something which I haven't. With your help dafydd I now don't have to spend endless hours going back to my posts and reminding people I didn't say such a thing.
Click to expand...

Dear Mr Bean,

If you read my post carefully you will see that I did not say your theory, I said our theory, meaning the ae911truth theory. While here at ae911truth we try and be very unspecific about any particular theory... from our web site you can see it involves the following:
- lots of thermite, by the evidence of 160tons of unexploded dust, and thermite signature
- lots of charges, as a classic controlled demolition, by expert corroboration and sounds of explosions immediately before collapse
- lots of elements blown up to facilitate freefall.
- lots of heat, by evidence of the pyroclastic dust clouds and several tons of molten metal.

It would be rather embarrassing to be the same as NIST now except by an explosive rather than a fire.

I am sure if you ever publish you theory it will be really good, but I tend to agree with Dafydd that you haven't got one. I think you are here simply for the sake of truth.
 
Christopher7 said:
Speak for yourself. I have worked with back hoes and the like, albeit much smaller. They are very robust and quite capable of scooping up molten metal and surviving. The bucket would probably be ruined but not from melting. The bucket and the arm could be cooled with water after dumping each scoop. So cut the denial diatribe. You don't know diddly squat about heavy equipment. It ain't fragile.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. Driving them don't count. I'm a technician for almost 20 years on trucks and heavy equipment. This would absolutely destroy them. I'd hate to see what 2000+ deg hydraulic fluid would do to all the tiny seals in the manifold let alone the gland and piston packings. If you need a machine to pick things in the molten steel heat range, you would use special attachments. That's a normal grappler. It cannot pick up stuff that is at or beyond its own melting point. All the grease in the articulating parts would be gone way before that temp.

And not for nothing, I have had and know people who currently have equipment working at ground zero. There is lots of damage to them. Mostly from rebar and junk getting into the tracks and innards of the machines. They did have some melting of hydraulic lines, packings, and other heat related problems but nothing like you would see from trying to pick molten steel.
 
Justin39640 said:
Speak for yourself. Driving them don't count. I'm a technician for almost 20 years on trucks and heavy equipment. This would absolutely destroy them. I'd hate to see what 2000+ deg hydraulic fluid would do to all the tiny seals in the manifold let alone the gland and piston packings. If you need a machine to pick things in the molten steel heat range, you would use special attachments. That's a normal grappler. It cannot pick up stuff that is at or beyond its own melting point. All the grease in the articulating parts would be gone way before that temp.

And not for nothing, I have had and know people who currently have equipment working at ground zero. There is lots of damage to them. Mostly from rebar and junk getting into the tracks and innards of the machines. They did have some melting of hydraulic lines, packings, and other heat related problems but nothing like you would see from trying to pick molten steel.
Click to expand...

Aside from the heat it'd be like trying to eat soup with a fork. Apparently the term molten covers a wide range from metal glowing red to semi-solid to flowing liquid.

This photo has more to do with computer enhancement than reality.
 
dafydd said:
Even I can spot the difference between a steel tower and a reinforced concrete building.
Click to expand...

Yea I guess you needed that engineering course to figure that one out while everyone else figured it out by simple inspection of the image.
 
Animal said:
A 21 story building is not in the same ballpark as a modern high rise. (Height to footprint ratio) And a earthquake creates a very large lateral force at its base. Troofers do like to compare apples to oranges and pretend that it means something.
Click to expand...

Yea, well it was rather hard to find a fully collapse steel structure that came down to fire. So that is why I used the earthquake example. I mean if the beams on one side of the lower levels were to fail due to fire, would it not topple over?
 
Java Man said:
Yea, well it was rather hard to find a fully collapse steel structure that came down to fire. So that is why I used the earthquake example. I mean if the beams on one side of the lower levels were to fail due to fire, would it not topple over?
Click to expand...

Not completely. A tree falls over like it does cause it's solid. The towers were 95% air by volume. The steel bending on the lower portions would fail and would offer no support. The rest of the building would then just drop mostly strait down.

These two models I built were trying to do the same thing. The first from around the middle, the second at the base. The second, I think, is a good visual reference of what you're trying to imagine.

 
Last edited:
The example java man is using was not the result of an earthquake. It was discussed here in June of 2009. Java man neither knows the building's construction nor the cause of the collapse even though this is very easily crosschecked. How everyone else got sucked into that assumption I have no idea. :\
 
Last edited:
Animal said:
A 21 story building is not in the same ballpark as a modern high rise. (Height to footprint ratio) And a earthquake creates a very large lateral force at its base. Troofers do like to compare apples to oranges and pretend that it means something.
Click to expand...

Well this closeup picture shows the side. You can see that it is pretty thin compared to the overall height.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...arthquake_-_Pina_Suarez_Apartment_Complex.jpg

As you can see the height of each floor fits in three times (aprox) to the width of it. Considering it is 23 stories high that's a 7.6 ratio. The WTC has a 6.6 ratio on all sides, not just one. So it could topple over in any direction.

This is the collapsed structure with its sister buildings

http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu159/gabok_17/con_pino.png
 
Justin39640 said:
Not completely. A tree falls over like it does cause it's solid. The towers were 95% air by volume. The steel bending on the lower portions would fail and would offer no support. The rest of the building would then just drop mostly strait down.

These two models I built were trying to do the same thing. The first from around the middle, the second at the base. The second, I think, is a good visual reference of what you're trying to imagine.

Click to expand...


Another good one (not mine):
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
[nitpick]
That one was not an earthquake, The Chinese apartment complex fell over because of a poorly designed foundation with equally poor research on the soil conditions on which the apartment was built. One of the reasons why it stayed relatively intact when it toppled over is exactly as you elaborated before, that reinforced concrete buildings tend to be more monolithic. [/nitpick]
The rest is on the money

This happened in 2009: http://www.archdaily.com/27245/building-collapse-in-shanghai/
Click to expand...

The second photo he posted was of the Conjunto Pino Suárez that collapsed in an earthquake in Mexico in 1985. That was a very unique structure, from the original images I saw, it had an open air plaza around the third or fourth floor. The description of the collapse was that it folded on itself at about the same point. The limited information on it described it as designed as a moment resisting frame.......it was a stiff building, not like the high rise towers that are designed to flex in the wind. The large magnitude quake likely exerted a ground level lateral force, something the building was not designed to resist.
 
Java Man said:
Yea, well it was rather hard to find a fully collapse steel structure that came down to fire. So that is why I used the earthquake example. I mean if the beams on one side of the lower levels were to fail due to fire, would it not topple over?
Click to expand...

No, because there is no lateral force acting on it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom