'What about building 7'?

[excaza]

I can tell all you look at id debunking sites. Sulfur is the signature of Thermate. Lowers the melting point of steel, but.....you wouldn't know that would you?

Except the thermate would melt clear through the steel, which didn't happen anywhere. It's also not an explosive. So that's out. What else?

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Ignoring the fact that it was investigated, what explosive would do this?

How was it investigated? What? The gypsum board, sorry been disproven, no gaping holes.

What could cause the holes then? Can't wait to hear the logic here.
I thought this was an educating site, not a disinfo playground!

LMFAO!!!

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Except the thermate would melt clear through the steel, which didn't happen anywhere. It's also not an explosive. So that's out. What else?

Nope, not out, need an experiment first

Tell NIST!!!

 

[excaza]

How was it investigated? What? The gypsum board, sorry been disproven, no gaping holes.

What could cause the holes then? Can't wait to hear the logic here.
I thought this was an educating site, not a disinfo playground!

LMFAO!!!

You refuse to give us your sources, yet expect us to hold your hand?

LMFAO!!!

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I can tell all you look at id debunking sites. Sulfur is the signature of Thermate. Lowers the melting point of steel, but.....you wouldn't know that would you?

And also of rubber, CRT monitors, other organic material such as paper, etc. Why argue thermate, which is not proven to have been added when there are already myriad sources for such that are known to be in an office building?

This is silly. Again, I point at the Worcester Polytechnic group. You're not viewing the entirety of the evidence. The sulfidation erosion has been explained, and it's not from thermate. That is already determined.

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Mother of God...

First of all, NIST did address the sulfidation attacks. See NCSTAR 1-3C.

Second, the erosion was determined to be expected in the fires. See Worcester Polytechnic group, including Biederman, Barnett, Sisson, et. al. There are multiple studies explaining the sulfidation erosion; there is nothing suspicious about it at all.

Nope! Can't explain it without an experiment!

What about the gaping holes and the vaporization of the steel?

 

[excaza]

Nope, not out, need an experiment first

Tell NIST!!!

Why? Thermite/ate burns hotter than the melting point of steel. If there is no melted steel, there was no thermite/ate.

 

[twinstead]

Nope! Can't explain it without an experiment!

What about the gaping holes and the vaporization of the steel?

What vaporization of the steel?

 

[superlogicalthinker]

And also of rubber, CRT monitors, other organic material such as paper, etc. Why argue thermate, which is not proven to have been added when there are already myriad sources for such that are known to be in an office building?

This is silly. Again, I point at the . You're not viewing the entirety of the evidence. The sulfidation erosion has been explained, and it's not from thermate. That is already determined.

Determined by whom? NIST? Worcester Polytechnic group?
Both fraudulent! Lets see a public experiment, like Alien thinks he can do!

 

[Sabretooth]

Nope! Can't explain it without an experiment!

What about the gaping holes and the vaporization of the steel?

Vaporization of the steel? You just clinched that you don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

How was it investigated? What? The gypsum board, sorry been disproven, no gaping holes.

No. It has not. If you're referring to the truther experiment where someone tried to burn drywall in a pile: The experiment was already addressed here, and on top of that, Greening addressed the fact that intermediate chemical species would be needed to liberate the sulfur from the drywall. That was far from being a definitive experiment.


And again: You cannot posit that the sulfidation erosion was due to thermate. Thermate is ruled out twice over:

1. The eutectic remains would've been destroyed by the temperature thermate reacts at.
2. The reaction kinetics determined by the Worcester Polytechnic group clearly demonstrates that the sort of sulfidation attack seen in the WTC steel happened over the course of hours to days. Thermate burns through far faster than that.

The evidence has been against thermate for years now. You're arguing a refuted subject.

 

[excaza]

Determined by whom? NIST? Worcester Polytechnic group?
Both fraudulent! Lets see a public experiment, like Alien thinks he can do!

Are you really calling an engineering school fraudulent? Their experiment is published, you're more than welcome to replicate it yourself.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Determined by whom? NIST? Worcester Polytechnic group?
Both fraudulent!

Evidence that this is so? And yes, do not ignore the WPI group, nor try to lump them in with NIST.

 

[phunk]

Read Appendix C in the FEMA report. 1 inch thick piece of steel reduced to paper thin curled like a scroll. Sounds like vaporization to me!

It amazes me that you people call yourself educated.
You all need to see a therapist for denial issues

Actually, it sounds like corrosion. At the temperature required for vaporization, that 'paper thin' part would not survive.

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Evidence that this is so? And yes, do not ignore the WPI group, nor try to lump them in with NIST.

Lots of evidence, it's the investigation we need!

 

[superlogicalthinker]

Actually, it sounds like corrosion. At the temperature required for vaporization, that 'paper thin' part would not survive.

Nice one! But....nope again!

 

[Tricky]

Thread closed while we do a cleanout.

Posted By: Tricky

Thread has been culled and is now being re-opened. You are all strongly advised to stick to the topic, though. Further breaches and ignoring mod-box warnings will result in escalating penalties.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[beachnut]

Strawman. Proof of controlled demolition is the near-simultaneous failure of all 58 perimeter columns.

Prove it. Go ahead, take your engineering degree, put it on the line, and prove your delusional post. Please show your work, you might want to use differential equations, and put some math stink on it. Go ahead entertain the world and earn a Pulitzer Prize for exposing the big delusional fantasy you have safe in your mind.

... darn, you will not be doing anything but spreading the delusion, 911 truth does not do the math. Sad, there is a Pulitzer if your claims were not failed fantasies. 911 truth will not be getting a Pulitzer Prize. Not a surprise given 9 solid years of failure.

 

[triforcharity]

Thread closed while we do a cleanout.

Posted By: Tricky

Thread has been culled and is now being re-opened. You are all strongly advised to stick to the topic, though. Further breaches and ignoring mod-box warnings will result in escalating penalties.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

Who said that???

 

[George 152]

Nope! Can't explain it without an experiment!

What about the gaping holes and the vaporization of the steel?

The steel did NOT vaporise.
Look at the photos of the debris piles.
What do you see?
Lots of broken concrete and steel I beams.
Are these 'gaping' holes inside the collapsed buildings ?