Loose Change
- Thread starter delphi_ote
- Start date
- Status
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
If I am understanding Huntsman, et al, correctly, no.
Consider this simple analogy; you build a campfire at night at your campsite. You are ready to turn in so you bury it under loose dirt. The next morning you uncover the coals and continue your fire. In this case, the loose dirt covering the fire/coals was a skyscraper's worse of concrete and metal.
Doubt
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2002
- Messages
- 8,106
No it is not possible for reasons already explained. Try reading what Huntsman has been telling you.
Thermite won't contribute to the explosive force and the explosive force will not spread the thermite in a useful way.
Now here is a mind blower for you. Think of a way to attach thermite to a vertical column so that it lasts long enough to melt the beam but does not destroy the means of attachment along with it, resulting in the thermite falling from the beam or an uneven and uncontrolled melting.
ETA: Also, molten metal days later does not indicate thermite. If it was really there, it tells you nothing about how it happened. Thermite would not be so slow acting as to still be a heat source 5 days later.
When was the natural gas turned off to the rubble?
Last edited:
brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
you could put thermite next to an explosive device, but t would render the thermite useless for melting steel. Thermite works by burning through steel, it need so be in contact with it for a while, spreading thermite over a wide area very quickly would make it much less effective than just placing it in holes drilled into the steel, if you believe that the towers where brought down by thermite, there would be no need for explosions, in fact the explosions would hinder the process rather than help.
There was no "molten" steel, there was molten aluminum, a BIG difference.
Underground fires can smolder for days, and can reach quite high temperatures. There is no mystery here.
Dave_46
Graduate Poster
This is all very interesting, I'm not sure I understand everything about explosives and thermites but I'll leave this debate to you guys who know what you're talking about. I'm way out of my league here and I trust you.
What I'm really interested in, geggy, is the possible motives you think the US government had to do such a thing.
What I think your problem is, is that you believe the US gov was in on 9/11, and willing to say anything to proove it. The theory that the US gov knew of the impending attack and didn't do anything to prevent it is not entirely impossible, I'll give you that. As a good skeptic, I consider it is one of many possibilities. I don't personnally believe any of it, but who knows. But you are so adamant at prooving this point you try to fabricate false evidence, this is dishonest and unscientific.
So let us know what you think is the motive behind 9/11.
What I'm really interested in, geggy, is the possible motives you think the US government had to do such a thing.
What I think your problem is, is that you believe the US gov was in on 9/11, and willing to say anything to proove it. The theory that the US gov knew of the impending attack and didn't do anything to prevent it is not entirely impossible, I'll give you that. As a good skeptic, I consider it is one of many possibilities. I don't personnally believe any of it, but who knows. But you are so adamant at prooving this point you try to fabricate false evidence, this is dishonest and unscientific.
So let us know what you think is the motive behind 9/11.
Last edited:
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
A reminder for our new friend:
Questions are not evidence.
Questions are not evidence.
Belz...
Fiend God
Which brings my next question.
If the EEeeevil government meant to destroy these buildings, why didn't they simply use aircraft ? Or why didn't they simply use explosive ? And in the latter case, why didn't they simply plant a single, large bomb in the lower floor so the thing would topple to its side and REeeaallly look like a terrorist bombing ?
In other words, why in the blue HELL would someone do it this way ?
Belz...
Fiend God
I swear I'm about to pop a blood vessel. It's like someone spending a week watching "House" and then thinking they can perform surgery.
Well, he DID cut up that fat lady pretty bad...
... wait a minute. You're talking about the series, right ? Woah!
senorpogo
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Messages
- 2,100
Cause globalists got style.
Belz...
Fiend God
Don't we just all love it when someone actually KNOWS what he's talking about ??
Great posts, HuntsMAN.
Oh, and please geggy, base your arguments on real facts and events that actually DID happen...
Belz...
Fiend God
Its also possible that my blinking too much on 9/11 caused the collapse. I mean, chaos theory and all. Why are you speculating, anyway ? Do you HAVe any actual, hard FACTS ? Or are you just trolling ?
Belz...
Fiend God
Rolfe
Adult human female
Aw, c'mon Geggie tell me what's wrong with the film I used to make up my mind what caused the buildings to fall?
Seems like a pretty good explanation to me. So what about it do you not understand? Why do you think these people are all engaged in a cover-up? And please leave out your own personal hunches, because my personal hunches agree with the scenario in this transcript, so I believe that cancels out.
I believe the graphics that went with the transcript are also available on the Internet somewhere, if someone can post a link.
By the way, note this little remark (regarding the striking of the south tower).
Well, not quite. Because the south tower was hit to one side, the part above the strike did indeed topple sideways when the collapse started. However it was such a small percentage of the entire height that this didn't go much beyond the footprint area, and as the pancaking was triggered the bulk of the tower went straight down. You can see this clearly on the videos.
In contrast the north tower, hit in the central column, did go straight down. Again you can see it on the videos. And none of this, as explained on that transcript, is in the slightest bit surprising.
Rolfe.
Seems like a pretty good explanation to me. So what about it do you not understand? Why do you think these people are all engaged in a cover-up? And please leave out your own personal hunches, because my personal hunches agree with the scenario in this transcript, so I believe that cancels out.
I believe the graphics that went with the transcript are also available on the Internet somewhere, if someone can post a link.
By the way, note this little remark (regarding the striking of the south tower).
If the tower had been going to topple, that's when it would have happened. When the enormous horizontal force of the plane hit. But the structure withstood the force, swayed back and forward a few times, but didn't topple. Due to tolerances designed to withstand earthquakes I believe, which I understand can produce significant horizontal force. After that point, what was going to cause it to topple? Nothing.
Well, not quite. Because the south tower was hit to one side, the part above the strike did indeed topple sideways when the collapse started. However it was such a small percentage of the entire height that this didn't go much beyond the footprint area, and as the pancaking was triggered the bulk of the tower went straight down. You can see this clearly on the videos.
In contrast the north tower, hit in the central column, did go straight down. Again you can see it on the videos. And none of this, as explained on that transcript, is in the slightest bit surprising.
Rolfe.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Just thinking. Hunches.
I knew what had happened for several hours before I saw a thing. I was at work, and I heard people talking, but I was more concerned with the fact that my printer wasn't working and I needed to print a document. Then my colleague, who had been to collect his car at a garage where there was a TV screen in the waiting room, told me what was going on. At that stage it was "one of the towers has fallen".
The Internet had seized up, so we hunted up a radio, and at that point heard that the second tower had fallen. I still had no visual reference for what these towers were. I had never registered their existence. Nevertheless, I don't think I had any vision of towers falling sideways. When I finally got home and turned on the TV, my main shock was "what, bloody enormous office-block skyscrapers!" - but not the manner of the collapse. Given that the towers stood for many many minutes past the time of the application of the horizontal force, it seemed quite intuitive to me that there wouldn't be a massive sideways movement. When they fell, nobody was pushing them over. The structures failed relatively near the top, then the floors below that pancaked. Intuitive, gut reaction says this is plausible.
I think the Loosers have been watching too much Hanna-Barbera.
Rolfe.
I knew what had happened for several hours before I saw a thing. I was at work, and I heard people talking, but I was more concerned with the fact that my printer wasn't working and I needed to print a document. Then my colleague, who had been to collect his car at a garage where there was a TV screen in the waiting room, told me what was going on. At that stage it was "one of the towers has fallen".
The Internet had seized up, so we hunted up a radio, and at that point heard that the second tower had fallen. I still had no visual reference for what these towers were. I had never registered their existence. Nevertheless, I don't think I had any vision of towers falling sideways. When I finally got home and turned on the TV, my main shock was "what, bloody enormous office-block skyscrapers!" - but not the manner of the collapse. Given that the towers stood for many many minutes past the time of the application of the horizontal force, it seemed quite intuitive to me that there wouldn't be a massive sideways movement. When they fell, nobody was pushing them over. The structures failed relatively near the top, then the floors below that pancaked. Intuitive, gut reaction says this is plausible.
I think the Loosers have been watching too much Hanna-Barbera.
Rolfe.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
I think they keep expecting it to have fallen like a tower of wooden blocks, or like a tree that, after being cut, slips off the base of the truck, falls 2-3 feet straight down, then topples over sideways.
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
If I remember my Strength of Materials courses from (many) years ago, I think explosives primarily cause metals to fail due to shear forces, rather than tension, compression, or torsion failure (though there can be combinations).
Like you, I'd expect to see heat damage where the supposed explosives were set, rather than a lot of melting with resultant slag/dripping. I'd also guess that the steel would show a rather ragged edge at the failure, kinda like if you cut the steel with an other-worldly huge pair of serrated scissors. In fact, it should look a lot like the damage done from the aircraft crashing through the side of the building, come to think of it.
Just the musings of an older mechanical engr. type.
Not really professing any real expertise here. Differing thoughts welcome.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Well, maybe, if they had been severed near the base, they would at least have started to topple, before disintegrating on the way down I assume. Indeed, the upper portion of the south tower did indeed start to do exactly that.
What I noticed at the time was how difficult it was to appreciate how high up both towers were actually hit. There was no clear view of the entire height of the things, because the bottom half or so was obscured by the surrounding buildings which were themselves skyscrapers, leading to the optical illusion that they'd been hit almost amidships. Several commentators presented graphics that fostered this misimpression. It was only those who carefully illustrated the entire height of the towers and then plotted the impacts in the correct positions who gave the right image. And both impacts were very high, in the top 10% of the structures. [ETA: Oops, that's not right regarding the south tower - still, both were hit much closer to the top than the bottom, which was my point.] This was where the damage was done.
Why were they going to topple over, again?
Rolfe.
Last edited:
- Status