Trussbolt failiures and flame cutters

[DGM]

I've never understood this one. To destroy evidence inside a building you knock it down and spill it's contents into the street? Wouldn't a shredder be easier?

 

[Grimlorn]

Sorry I just saw this thread. So is that what they used to cut this stuff?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/forumimages/Fig3-5.jpg

It shows like a grayish metal that looks like it melted on the beams. Is that normal?

 

[RedIbis]

OMG, they left out the other buildings too, what does it mean. Please, you better get a list of all building that had to be redone, cause it means the Commision Report ignored them. What does it mean? wooooooo

They rebuilt building 7. What does that mean? There were a lot of building that were damaged on 9/11. What does it mean? Why did they need to talk about WTC7 a fire not fought, a building damaged by the towers? What does WTC7 have to do with anything? Only the idiot truth movement mentions WTC7 for some goofball reasons. Why is it a big deal, gee only real dumb people like Rosie would fall for the tripe about WTC7. No rational person can be fooled with the WTC7 junk ideas.

I'm quoting this as an example of the type of post I won't be responding to. It's not my responsibility to address each and every point that is asked of me, especially if the post is incoherent and illogical.

If the collapse of WTC 7 appears irrelevent to anyone who has seriously researched the situation, no amount of research will change that. If anyone would like to discuss the "novel phenomenon" of "eutectic reactions" that WPI found in WTC steel in 2002, I'm all for it.

 

[RedIbis]

I've never understood this one. To destroy evidence inside a building you knock it down and spill it's contents into the street? Wouldn't a shredder be easier?

No blasting nearly all of the material but the steel into dust and then trucking away the beams as fast as possible would be the most expedient process, even at the risk that the air where the work was being done was toxic and deadly.

 

[uk_dave]

If anyone would like to discuss the "novel phenomenon" of "eutectic reactions" that WPI found in WTC steel in 2002, I'm all for it.

Go for it. I'm all for people discussing exotic reactions occurring within unique chaotic events.

 

[CHF]

No blasting nearly all of the material but the steel into dust and then trucking away the beams as fast as possible would be the most expedient process, even at the risk that the air where the work was being done was toxic and deadly.

Nearly everything but the steel was blasted into dust???

Even if true (which it isn't) do you have any idea how much explosives that would require?

 

[Gravy]

Sorry I just saw this thread. So is that what they used to cut this stuff?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/forumimages/Fig3-5.jpg

It shows like a grayish metal that looks like it melted on the beams. Is that normal?

Yes, it's normal to see torch cut lines and slag built up in the direction of the cut, especially on thick steel. You can even see what appears to be slag resting on top of the debris. The steel at Ground Zero was cut with oxyacetylene torches and thermic lances. There are many photos of this activity and similar resulting cuts. In contrast, there are no photos, reports, or other evidence of anything like cuts made by thermite/thermate, anywhere at the WTC.

 

[beachnut]

I'm quoting this as an example of the type of post I won't be responding to. It's not my responsibility to address each and every point that is asked of me, especially if the post is incoherent and illogical.

If the collapse of WTC 7 appears irrelevent to anyone who has seriously researched the situation, no amount of research will change that. If anyone would like to discuss the "novel phenomenon" of "eutectic reactions" that WPI found in WTC steel in 2002, I'm all for it.

Oh no, you did not respond?

DRG sells junk about 9/11. He has no real facts to support any real conclusion of 9/11 truth movement ideas. What are DRG motives? Money. He sews the seeds of ideas for you to soak up and thus creates a markets from those who think his way. They buy his book and DRG can eat dinner and live. DRG says so much junk that just does not mean anything about 9/11. It hurts to go though his stuff. His books are hearsay compilations. Can you bring something up that actually means something?

All your post have been illogical and filled with tripe about 9/11. I have to respond in kind, you bring up tripe about 9/11 and I must wonder why you leave out the real good stuff. The did mention the World Trade Center over 111 times. Does that mean something? What would DRG say?

I will try to get better but so far you are hung up about WTC7 which was not even a target on 9/11. Why are you off topic on some truther tripe search for irrelevant incoherent tripe about WTC7 which means nothing about 9/11 except you are a truther. It is a definite red flag that you have no serious facts to present on 9/11 so you bring up trivial junk about WTC7 and how it was omitted by the report that mentions the WTC 112 times. Can you please tell me what it means?

So, I use WTC7 as a red flag to prove people are no fact truther involved in the 9/11 truth movement and they have no real evidence or fact to support their ideas. Mentioning DRG is a BIG red flag that a truther is unable to see DRG has no facts. The WTC7/DRG combination is a sure sign a truther has zero evidence to support the major tenants of 9/11 truth movement conclusions. Neither does 9/11 truth.

WTC7 has not a thing to do with the terrorist and 9/11, except it was damaged and had a big fire due to the terrorist actions of 9/11. Zip to do with CT. It is a woo side show for 9/11 truth.

 

[Gravy]

Wouldn't a shredder be easier?

No blasting nearly all of the material but the steel into dust and then trucking away the beams as fast as possible would be the most expedient process, even at the risk that the air where the work was being done was toxic and deadly.

Oh, Denialism^WP, thy name is RedIbis!

What utter, sheer, complete, unmitigated, 100% barking batpoo madness.

Of course: whenever I want to destroy sensitive information, I always crash an airliner into my building, set it on fire, blow it up, and hire conspirators to haul the debris away (hoping that none of my hard drives were recovered as they were at the WTC). In fact, that's the preferred method of document disposal the world over. THERMINIX to the rescue!

 

[Grimlorn]

Thanks.

I see it seems like from pics I found on termic lances, that they would have been what cut that beam in that picture and left that residue.

I saw that Zeitgeist movie recently, so I'm trying to figure out how much truth there is to what was said in that damn movie. It seems almost everything about 9/11 in it is wrong. Its the whole reason I'm at these forums.

 

[BeAChooser]

It's not my responsibility to address each and every point that is asked of me, especially if the post is incoherent and illogical.

How about #235? I think it is coherent and logical.

Why don't you at least acknowledge the facts outlined in it.

So later on when you repeat the same allegation, we have something to "work with".

 

[beachnut]

No blasting nearly all of the material but the steel into dust and then trucking away the beams as fast as possible would be the most expedient process, even at the risk that the air where the work was being done was toxic and deadly.

When will you bring evidence of the basting stuff we never saw on 9/11? When will you have proof of explosives used on 9/11 to so what we actually saw gravity do with zero explosives?

 

[Gravy]

Grimlorn, I haven't seen Zeitgeist, but if the descriptions by others here is accurate, it is as bad as the other conspiracy videos, which means that it makes no true claims.

 

[uk_dave]

Zeitgeist has managed to stir up a hornets nest on LCF with the first part apparently being a major attack on religion.

Rei Murasme and Roxpuppy both got their hackles up on that one.

It's so sad to witness discord within the 'truth' movement.

 

[beachnut]

How about #235? I think it is coherent and logical.

Why don't you at least acknowledge the facts outlined in it.

So later on when you repeat the same allegation, we have something to "work with".

His arguments are not about logic and being coherent, they are about the "truth" as made up by 9/11 truth movement. So facts will be ignored. (notice when I just bs about his stuff he did respond; he likes bs more than facts; just an observation; I think he is running away since many people here understand his "eutectic reactions" was just a smoke screen he uses at places where the posters have not had Chemical Engineering classes before he was born.)

 

[Grimlorn]

Not to get too off topic, but I don't really care much about the religion part of that movie. You can skip through it. Its only like 30 minutes. I am a little curious if there were other messiahs or great leaders of religion born by a virgin on December 25 when the stars apparently line up in a certain way, but thats it.

But besides that it has a mix of some things that I know are true or have heard about, like the Amero (shows it being talked about on MSNBC marketwatch), talking about the head of 9/11 commision being asked to resign, National ID card, and I don't know the details about this, but I've read articles about RFID chip. Searched for the chip on here and it seems to be used as a joke. So I have a lot to look for.

I can edit this if its too off topic.

 

[R.Mackey]

Perhaps this will fit your requirement for a "major claim." If not, I'm moving on.

Griffin Claim: "The 9/11 Commission...did not devote a single sentence" to the collapse of WTC 7.

Granted, others have made note of that besides Griffin, but it is a major claim and it is true. For some reason it's not troublesome to you guys.

Everybody else beat me to it, but...

Are you kidding me??

This is not a claim, let alone a major one.

Do you even know what a claim is?

"Move On" if you want. The burden of proof remains upon you to show that Dr. Griffin got a single thing right. I've asked you several times, and the best you can do is come up with two points of trivia.

Like I said, don't assume that you've researched and we haven't. So far I see no evidence that you even know how. Feel free to ask for help if you need it.

 

[Gravy]

Perhaps this will fit your requirement for a "major claim." If not, I'm moving on.

Griffin Claim: "The 9/11 Commission...did not devote a single sentence" to the collapse of WTC 7.

Simply stunning. Please give serious thought to your inability to put forth a single correct claim by the 9/11 "researcher" you admire and champion.

 

[RedIbis]

Simply stunning. Please give serious thought to your inability to put forth a single correct claim by the 9/11 "researcher" you admire and champion.

On pg 190 Griffin references the WPI findings I alluded to a few posts back. That's certainly a major claim.

Fellas, the WPI debunking please...

See here for pictures and comments in FEMA’s report mentioning what The New York Times refers to as "evaporated" steel:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

“Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.” 1

“The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.”

“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”

Evidence of evaporated steel as reported by the New York Times:

“Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’” from:

Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” New York Times, November 29. 2001.

 

[R.Mackey]

If you read the WPI article for content, you will note that the mixture could not have survived at temperatures above 940 ^oC.

This proves the steel did not evaporate.

Claim refuted.