Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

That's a lot of lead.

Not sure how it means controlled demolition or that explosives could survive the impacts of the jetliners.

Say Chris7 - have you ever tried to explain how the explosives survived in the first place?
 
Was there fly ash in the SFRM? Since most of that was reduced to dust, it would seem a possible source of a lot of the iron sphereules.
 
Edx said:
RJ Lee are highly experienced credentialed experts, but Christopher knows the truth because he is a truther and RJ Lee are brainwashed thats why Chris believes they will just believe impossible things because they read it in a newspaper like fire melting steel.
Click to expand...
I suggested that as a possibility.

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager [sic], speculated that flames fueled by thousands of liters of aviation fuel melted steel supports.

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 liters of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."
site: sunTimes.co.za page: www.suntimes.co.za/2001/09/12/architect.asp

[Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton] told BBC News Online: "The world trade centre was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, but that was unusual... we are trying to discover why they [ the towers ] collapsed and what needs doing to rebuild them."

"The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem."

"The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel... all that can be done is to place fire resistant material around the steel and delay the collapse by keeping the steel cool for longer."
site: news.bbc.co.uk page: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1604348.stm
 
Christopher7 said:
I suggested that as a possibility.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep posting quotes? I know they exist, its completely expected to find those kinds of quotes on 911 because we find those kinds of quotes in other fires. You must imagine these people are either completely incompetent or they are lying. Okay, fine...

... But what blows my mind and the point I am making is that you are saying your highly credentialed experts would just suddenly and casually believe someone that says something IMPOSSIBLE without question, and still fail to realise their mistake in what will soon be a decade!

Why, and how, can you call someone an "expert" if they believe stupid impossible things, that are easily shown to be stupid and impossible to people who are unqualified, just because they read in it a magazine?
 
Last edited:
Christopher7 said:
Elevated temperatures may have been caused by the collapse but not 3100[/FONT]oF
Click to expand...


How do you "know" this????? did you do the math and/or experimentation to demonstrate this to be the case? Did you have that paper published?

Or did you just pull that fact out of a dark malodorous place?


You have the certainty without evidence of a religious evangelist......
 
Christopher7 said:
I suggested that as a possibility.

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager [sic], speculated that flames fueled by thousands of liters of aviation fuel melted steel supports.

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 liters of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."
site: sunTimes.co.za page: www.suntimes.co.za/2001/09/12/architect.asp

[Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton] told BBC News Online: "The world trade centre was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, but that was unusual... we are trying to discover why they [ the towers ] collapsed and what needs doing to rebuild them."

"The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem."

"The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel... all that can be done is to place fire resistant material around the steel and delay the collapse by keeping the steel cool for longer."
site: news.bbc.co.uk page: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1604348.stm
Click to expand...


and as we all know newspaper or TV articles are always absolutely right on the technical details:rolleyes:
 
sheeplesnshills said:
and as we all know newspaper or TV articles are always absolutely right on the technical details:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

6th to 9th grade level readership on average, biased to the former... Another thing that C7 doesn't have any knowledge of.
 
"The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem."
Click to expand...

Stop right there.

Read it again.

And again. Then another time.

Let it sink in.

Anything else that would not survive the fire? Say, flammable things, such as explosives?

That sentence is all you need to debunk retarded 9/11 conspiracy theories.

"The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem."
Click to expand...
 
Could someone tell me the link between iron-rich spheres and controlled demolition?

ie how does controlled demolition create iron-rich spheres?

Until Chris, MM, and etc tell us that process then its really a moot point.
 
Edx said:
Despite all the professional commentary, despite all the research (outside of NIST) Despite the building code changes which affects everyone in the Construction industry.
Click to expand...

* yawn *

As EdX already knows, yet carries on blithely ignoring, NO BUILDING CODE CHANGES HAVE BEEN EFFECTED ANYWHERE addressing progressive collapse. The only changes that organizations have adopted relate to fire safety and mostly evacuation. We've been over this, with Architect trying to cite some bogus "European" changes which still don't address progressive collapse and which he never substantiated.
 
ergo said:
* yawn *

As EdX already knows, yet carries on blithely ignoring, NO BUILDING CODE CHANGES HAVE BEEN EFFECTED ANYWHERE addressing progressive collapse. The only changes that organizations have adopted relate to fire safety and mostly evacuation. We've been over this, with Architect trying to cite some bogus "European" changes which still don't address progressive collapse and which he never substantiated.
Click to expand...

Your post here shows exactly why you miss the point of the NIST study. If the building collapses, it doesn't matter. What does is that people are able to be evacuated as quickly as possible so that no one gets hurt when it does. Everything they recommend and designers adopted increases survival time of a structure to enable just that. Not to prevent collapses altogether.
 
When bedunkers cite the code changes it is most often an attempt to argue some kind of universal validaton of the NIST collapse explanations: that codes organizations around the world somehow "recognize" the dangers of buildings plummeting to the ground from localised office fires. Which they haven't. And don't.
 
ergo said:
When bedunkers cite the code changes it is most often an attempt to argue some kind of universal validaton of the NIST collapse explanations: that codes organizations around the world somehow "recognize" the dangers of buildings plummeting to the ground from localised office fires. Which they haven't. And don't.
Click to expand...

Even if they're arguing the wrong points it still doesn't make you anywhere near being right. And yes, to think that humans have come across and/or thought of every mode of failure possible would be pretty foolish. Hence the research. (duh)
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
When bedunkers cite the code changes it is most often an attempt to argue some kind of universal validaton of the NIST collapse explanations: that codes organizations around the world somehow "recognize" the dangers of buildings plummeting to the ground from localised office fires. Which they haven't. And don't.
Click to expand...

Sorry to stray off topic a little, but does anyone just think of the word badonadonk? You should probably stop saying that word ergo...also that link is probably NSFW.

I guess to get back on topic, how would you go about giving evidence for the claim you just made? I also recall the fires not being localized, either. Sorry if you're speaking of the towers but wasn't WTC7 considered "fully involved"?
 
fourtoe said:
I guess to get back on topic, how would you go about giving evidence for the claim you just made? I also recall the fires not being localized, either. Sorry if you're speaking of the towers but wasn't WTC7 considered "fully involved"?
Click to expand...

(My bold)

It sure was. Ergo knows it was, but he can't admit to it without destroying his religious beliefs. So, he elects to troll and lie instead.
 
uke2se said:
(My bold)

It sure was. Ergo knows it was, but he can't admit to it without destroying his religious beliefs. So, he elects to troll and lie instead.
Click to expand...

Exactly what a straight up badonkadonk would say...
tumblr_locpyxvmbv1qdgn6m.gif
 
fourtoe said:
Sorry to stray off topic a little, but does anyone just think of the word badonadonk? You should probably stop saying that word ergo...also that link is probably NSFW.

I guess to get back on topic, how would you go about giving evidence for the claim you just made? I also recall the fires not being localized, either. Sorry if you're speaking of the towers but wasn't WTC7 considered "fully involved"?
Click to expand...
Where it was possible to see in through the windows, several floors were clearly in flashover. 1000F+.

"Fully involved" works for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom