"Molten Metal" at Ground Zero

Nevermore, here is what you should consider with your simplified list

- Plane impact
- Severing of support columns
- Removal of fireproofing
- Multi-level fires (caused by jet fuel and office material) on the upper floors
- Loss of structural integrity
- Collapse

The last entry should read "local collapse", for that is all that NIST purports to show, a local collapse of the upper structure down one floor. THey then assume that global collapse ensues, without calculation or modelling.

Even assuming NIST is correct in all they assert (hardly a safe assumption), they still fail to account for the most mysterious and unprecendented aspect - that is - the shredding of the entire steel frame into very small lengths, mostly unbuckled, and the pulverization of almost all the non-metallic contents into fine powder.

In fact, NIST admits in plain English that they did not study the behavior of the towers after collapse initiated. THus, we must look elsewhere for our explanation.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Nevermore, here is what you should consider with your simplified list

- Plane impact
- Severing of support columns
- Removal of fireproofing
- Multi-level fires (caused by jet fuel and office material) on the upper floors
- Loss of structural integrity
- Collapse

The last entry should read "local collapse", for that is all that NIST purports to show, a local collapse of the upper structure down one floor. THey then assume that global collapse ensues, without calculation or modelling.

Even assuming NIST is correct in all they assert (hardly a safe assumption), they still fail to account for the most mysterious and unprecendented aspect - that is - the shredding of the entire steel frame into very small lengths, mostly unbuckled, and the pulverization of almost all the non-metallic contents into fine powder.

In fact, NIST admits in plain English that they did not study the behavior of the towers after collapse initiated. THus, we must look elsewhere for our explanation.
Click to expand...

Fallacy of equivocation. A "local collapse" specifically means that when the collapse is over, something less than the whole building lies in rubble. A global collapse means that when the collapse is over, most/all of the whole building lies in rubble.
 
THey then assume that global collapse ensues, without calculation or modelling.
Click to expand...

No, I think they assumed that global collapse ensued because they saw film footage of the entire building crashing into the ground.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Even assuming NIST is correct in all they assert (hardly a safe assumption), they still fail to account for the most mysterious and unprecendented aspect - that is - the shredding of the entire steel frame into very small lengths, mostly unbuckled, and the pulverization of almost all the non-metallic contents into fine powder.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no evidence that "almost all the non-metallic contents" were pulverized into fine powder, TS1234 and you know it. Your repeated assertion of that point has been handily debunked many times on this board. I personally provided you with the names, address, emails and phone numbers of the men who spent months sorting through the debris. I invited you to call them and ask for yourself what debris they found. You refused.

Your willfull disregard of plain evidence and your indifference to doing any first-hand research makes you an utterly unreliable source of any information.

If Nevermore is in any way as open-minded as he claims, he would do well to consider every single assertion made by you with the utmost caution.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
In fact, NIST admits in plain English that they did not study the behavior of the towers after collapse initiated. THus, we must look elsewhere for our explanation.
Click to expand...
i believe their reason for that was because there were far too many variables to model accurately with modern computers

besides, even if they did model youd say 'well they programmed their model for a global collapse so of ocurse thats all it will produce"
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Nevermore, here is what you should consider with your simplified list

- Plane impact
- Severing of support columns
- Removal of fireproofing
- Multi-level fires (caused by jet fuel and office material) on the upper floors
- Loss of structural integrity
- Collapse

The last entry should read "local collapse", for that is all that NIST purports to show, a local collapse of the upper structure down one floor. THey then assume that global collapse ensues, without calculation or modelling.

Even assuming NIST is correct in all they assert (hardly a safe assumption), they still fail to account for the most mysterious and unprecendented aspect - that is - the shredding of the entire steel frame into very small lengths, mostly unbuckled, and the pulverization of almost all the non-metallic contents into fine powder.

In fact, NIST admits in plain English that they did not study the behavior of the towers after collapse initiated. THus, we must look elsewhere for our explanation.
Click to expand...

So you would maintain that the "local collapse" is another INUS condition in the simpified model I suggest?

A couple of questions:

- You seem to define "local collapse" as "a local collapse of the upper structure down one floor." Does the NIST report specify exactly which floor this happened in each building? If so, do you agree with the report?

- If the "local collapse" as you've defined it is an INUS condition, could the "global collapse" have happened in its absence?

- The phrase "...shredding of the entire steel frame into very small lengths, mostly unbuckled ..."" is very subjective. What are you comparing this too? Are there studies or investigations of other steel framed building collapses which suggest the debris should have looked differently?

- Does the steel being "shredded" into "very small lengths" cause the "pulverization of almost all the non-metallic contents into fine powder" or are these two non-related things?
 
There is absolutely no evidence that "almost all the non-metallic contents" were pulverized into fine powder, TS1234 and you know it.
Click to expand...
I have repeatedly provided evidence that nearly all of the non-metallic material was converted into fine powder, and expelled far and wide. The evidence is the observation of the towers turning to dust as they exlploded, and, the observation that nothing resembling even one floor is seen, much less the 220 floors that had to go somewhere. I have repeatedly asked JREFs for evidence that significant parts of the building survived, and I got one picture of a "metor" looking thing that was about 1 ton, tops.

Please observe this photo and tell me where are 220 acre-sized floors.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/21a_flattenedManhattan_1701.jpg

21a_flattenedManhattan_1701.jpg
 
do you honestly expect to find much of anything bigger than the size of a football, after it has fallen 110 storeys down, most of it with a tremendous amount of weight atop of it.

I am surprised that the compressed floors that gravy showed you via that photo were able to survive as they did.

brittle thinks break. Paper doesnt break...it floats to the ground. light plastics would crack, many would break. Human remains - become piles of flesh and broken bones. Concrete gets crushed, crumbles, then crumbles some more. Gypsum Wallboard turns to dust, as that is what it is inside its paper covering.

What is your point TS.

TAM
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Please observe this photo and tell me where are 220 acre-sized floors.
Click to expand...

The number of things wrong with your statements are vast so I'll just pick one.

The towers were not built as traditional skeletal steel buildings. Instead, the floors were tethered to a central core. This was done to increase rentable space. When the collapse began, the core failed at the impact point. This pulled the floors down and in. That stress caused the core to continue to fail and for the building to continue to be twised and pulled inward. So there wouldn't be any pancaking of floors in any case. The inward forces would tore each floor apart.

But all of this has been explained to you. With pictures. And you ignored it all. I personally think it is because you are mentally ill. But, then, so does your brother-in-law, doesn't he?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The point is that gravity does not provide anywhere near enough energy to account for all of the work that we observe to have been done.
Click to expand...
So calculate the amount of explosives you think would do the trick... or admit you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
So there wouldn't be any pancaking of floors in any case.
Click to expand...
Really? Then what caused the squibs? I thought they were caused by floors pancaking ahead of the main collapse front, piston-style, and pushing air out the center window? Isn't that what NIST says?

You guys know that a building cannot crush itself into fine powder and shredded steel. This is why you are so intent on denying what all of the picture and video evidence tell us.

Are you guys really trying to claim that the concrete only pulverized when it hit the ground? This is easily contradicted by all of the data, such as this

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/27_mushroom_site1061.jpg

Think people. If two quarter mile high builidngs really "fell down", dont'cha think there would something left besides this

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/21a_flattenedManhattan_1701.jpg
 
Appeal to intuition, from start to finish. False, false, and more false.

Feel free to back up your intuition with some mathematics.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Really? Then what caused the squibs? I thought they were caused by floors pancaking ahead of the main collapse front, piston-style, and pushing air out the center window? Isn't that what NIST says?

You guys know that a building cannot crush itself into fine powder and shredded steel. This is why you are so intent on denying what all of the picture and video evidence tell us.

Are you guys really trying to claim that the concrete only pulverized when it hit the ground? This is easily contradicted by all of the data, such as this

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/27_mushroom_site1061.jpg

Think people. If two quarter mile high builidngs really "fell down", dont'cha think there would something left besides this

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/21a_flattenedManhattan_1701.jpg
Click to expand...

I like that first photo because it actually shows large pieces of rubble clearly demonstrating that it wasn't, in fact, pulverized into fine powder. It also doesn't suggest that the dust shown was, in fact, pulverized concrete. It only shows there was a dust present, which could be made of any number of substances, such as fiber glass, drywall, glass, smoke, porceline, corrugated cardboard, plastic, etc. and, ironically, decades worth of dust, and finally probably some concrete. That building wasn't empty.

As to your second photo, you also must remember that there was an underground parking garage and the foundations of the building were laid 60 feet below ground. That's 2,795,584 cubic feet of rubble buried below. So I do expect more, and it's there, just not visible.

I'm not intent on denying anything really, but think about what you're saying for a second. You and everyone on your side continually assumes that any dust from the building must be from concrete; that's ridiculous, just take a walk around your house and look at the thousands of things in it that will and do produce dust, it's everywhere.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The point is that gravity does not provide anywhere near enough energy to account for all of the work that we observe to have been done.
Click to expand...

We can make a pretty good estimate of the energy that was available from gravity in those towers. Do you have any idea of how much explosives it would take to rival that? Or better yet, to far surpass it?

These calculations have been done multiple times, right here in this forum. Are you brave enough to find out the answer?

I think your line of logic, if I can call it that, is heading right towards positing a nuclear bomb, or maybe the "upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction."
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Think people. If two quarter mile high builidngs really "fell down", dont'cha think there would something left besides this

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/21a_flattenedManhattan_1701.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah, they might have some of this http://www.lvmpdsar.com/jpgs/ny3.jpg

Or this http://www.fema.gov/kids/images/911heroes/military_wtc.jpg

Or this http://www.fema.gov/kids/images/911heroes/usr0287.jpg

Or even this http://www.baltimoresun.com/media/photo/2001-09/682773.jpg

And while we're at it, why don't you take a look at one of the guys you're disparaging with your BS? Kevin Shea. There's one disturbing shot on that page of him in the rubble, so some people might want to skip that link.

Oh, and if "controlled demolition" "pulverizes" the building, why didn't the "CD" of WTC7 do the same thing? http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/docs/b7_3.jpg

Enough for tonight? I think so...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom