• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gravity defying buildings? :D

bardamu said:
How can uncontrolled fires bring down the building if it's "absolutely impossible" to do it with controlled (targetted) fires?
Click to expand...

Dodge noted.

But as an observation, I don't recall anyone saying anything remotely close to "it's absolutely impossible to [bring down WTC7] with controlled (targetted) fires". I'm not fishing this thread to confirm it either. Show me the post.

And I'll ask again: You obviously don't believe that uncontrolled fire+gravity was the culprit for the collapse of WTC7. What facts and/or evidence lead you to believe otherwise?
 
sabretooth47 said:
Dodge noted.

But as an observation, I don't recall anyone saying anything remotely close to "it's absolutely impossible to [bring down WTC7] with controlled (targetted) fires". I'm not fishing this thread to confirm it either. Show me the post.

And I'll ask again: You obviously don't believe that uncontrolled fire+gravity was the culprit for the collapse of WTC7. What facts and/or evidence lead you to believe otherwise?
Click to expand...

bump - since bard's scroll wheel seems to be broken...
 
bardamu said:
Smelting is a human activity. It doesn't just happen by chance like NIST's Probable Collapse Sequence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ferrous_metallurgy
Click to expand...

Actually you didn't read that link you just put up. It says & I quote:

Beginnings

Early iron smelting used charcoal as both the heat source and the reducing agent. By the 18th century, the availability of wood for making charcoal was limiting the expansion of iron production, so that England became increasingly dependent for a considerable part of the iron required by its industry, on Sweden (from the mid 17th century) and then from about 1725 also on Russia.
Click to expand...

Notice the hilited sections Bard? Charcoal & wood produce fire, you know, FIRE! You're wrong about NIST!
 
9/11 Chewy Defense said:
Actually you didn't read that link you just put up. It says & I quote:

Notice the hilited sections Bard? Charcoal & wood produce fire, you know, FIRE! You're wrong about NIST!
Click to expand...

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?
 
bardamu said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

You want to try again? It's only been 9 years...
 
sabretooth47 said:
This statement is completely irrelevant considering there was no melted steel in WTC7...
Click to expand...

Then aliens came and abducted the blackboxes??? Didn't Leftysargeant mention that the fires did away with the blackboxes?

What caused the molten blobs underneath the ruble? An underground volcano in downtown Manhattan?
 
There was no melted steel, fires in the debris pile yes. Thermite, none. No viable means to keep such mixture for thermite intact, no viable means to ignite it, nothing. Thermite demolition is a non-starter since the evidence for it does not exist period.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
There was no melted steel, fires in the debris pile yes. Thermite, none. No viable means to keep such mixture for thermite intact, no viable means to ignite it, nothing. Thermite demolition is a non-starter since the evidence for it does not exist period.
Click to expand...

So that leaves the volcano theory. Or the alien ship's retrorockets. Take your pick.
 
Java Man said:
Then aliens came and abducted the blackboxes??? Didn't Leftysargeant mention that the fires did away with the blackboxes?

What caused the molten blobs underneath the ruble? An underground volcano in downtown Manhattan?
Click to expand...

Let us review:

BARDAMU said: (EDIT: I orginally stated that Java Man made this statement. That is my error.)
bardamu said:
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?
Click to expand...

I said:
sabretooth47 said:
This statement is completely irrelevant considering there was no melted steel in WTC7...
Click to expand...

Unless aircraft hit WTC7 and there were black boxes in there, that makes 2 consecutive posts from you EDIT: truthers that are completely irrelevant.

To answer your dumb question, there was no melted steel at WTC1 or 2 either. The black boxes were most likely destroyed beyond recognition by the impact/fire and subsequent collapse of the towers. Black boxes are tough, but they are not designed to go through that kind of hell.
 
Last edited:
sabretooth47 said:
Let us review:

YOU said:
Click to expand...

I never said that. Secondly WTC7 fell due to fire damage. What initiated the WTC 1 & 2 collapse? As far as I understand you defend the theory it was due to fire damage. If it wasn't fire damage in a way similar to WTC7 then what was it? Explosives?
 
bardamu said:
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?
Click to expand...

Steel frame building in fire



= collapse. Your turn.
 
Java Man said:
I never said that. Secondly WTC7 fell due to fire damage. What initiated the WTC 1 & 2 collapse? As far as I understand you defend the theory it was due to fire damage. If it wasn't fire damage in a way similar to WTC7 then what was it? Explosives?
Click to expand...


You are correct, that is my mistake...Bard actually made the first comment...I shall edit my statement to fix my error. I don't have any trouble admitting that I sometimes screw up.

However, this does not qualify your statement as relevant as bard and I were both referring to WTC7 and that has nothing to do with black boxes.
 
sabretooth47 said:
You are correct, that is my mistake...Bard actually made the first comment...I shall edit my statement to fix my error. I don't have any trouble admitting that I sometimes screw up.

However, this does not qualify your statement as relevant as bard and I were both referring to WTC7 and that has nothing to do with black boxes.
Click to expand...

The relevance is in the fires that lead to the collapse. Fire (normal fire) induced steel weakening is stated as the cause of the three buildings. If there was no molten metal in WTC7 then surely according to your theory there should be non in WTC 1 & 2. Or was there? And if so why?
 
Java Man said:
The relevance is in the fires that lead to the collapse.
Click to expand...

Fine.

Java Man said:
Fire (normal fire) induced steel weakening is stated as the cause of the three buildings.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Java Man said:
If there was no molten metal in WTC7 then surely according to your theory there should be non in WTC 1 & 2.
Click to expand...

See below.

Java Man said:
Or was there? And if so why?
Click to expand...

Yes, there was "molten metal". However, just for clarity, "metal" does not always = "steel". That being said, here is what NIST said:

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires...http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Click to expand...

Quote taken from: http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom