• 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.

WTC Discussion: Core Column Temperature & Failure.

28th Kingdom said:
What's gonna happen if NIST's WTC 7 report - concludes that explosives are what brought it down? Hahahahahaha - Are you gonna disagree with them?

Worlds are colliding, Jerry.
Click to expand...
id probably have an aneurysm at the thought that you guys were right about something

but, i think thats a very VEYR big "if" up there
 
Remember, NIST says...the plane impacts...didn't bring down the buildings i.e. debris damage on WTC 7. Remember, NIST says that the fires in the towers, are not what brought down WTC 1 & 2 i.e. fires in WTC 7. The key factor that linked everything together was the fact that the insulation was dislodged in the twin towers.

Couldn't have happened on WTC 7. Whoopsie. NIST gots nothing on WTC 7. It's the smoking gun, and once they put out their report...I think even the left-brainers will have no choice but to accept the truth i.e. 9/11 IS AN INSIDE JOB
 
what do you mean NIST got nothing on WTC 7? YOu do forget that there was a 20 story gash in the southwest corner? One that went as far into the building as to damage one of the ELEVATOR Shafts. That is a considerable amount of damage to support in a building whos first 6 floors were open (wide open) with hardly any support.


oh and reports that fires were seen on nearly every floor...you ignore that too.

oh and reports from the firemen who were there that day who commented that the building was creeking and an expressed their concern that it would collapse at any moment...yes..ignore that as well.


Your leaps in logic makes Frogger even cringe.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Remember, NIST says...the plane impacts...didn't bring down the buildings i.e. debris damage on WTC 7. Remember, NIST says that the fires in the towers, are not what brought down WTC 1 & 2 i.e. fires in WTC 7. The key factor that linked everything together was the fact that the insulation was dislodged in the twin towers.
Click to expand...
i thought you "right brainers" were supposed to see the "big picture" or is that just when its convenient for you? no one thing led to the destruction of the towers, it was a combination of all of the above
 
28th Kingdom said:
Remember, NIST says...the plane impacts...didn't bring down the buildings i.e. debris damage on WTC 7. Remember, NIST says that the fires in the towers, are not what brought down WTC 1 & 2 i.e. fires in WTC 7. The key factor that linked everything together was the fact that the insulation was dislodged in the twin towers.

Couldn't have happened on WTC 7. Whoopsie. NIST gots nothing on WTC 7. It's the smoking gun, and once they put out their report...I think even the left-brainers will have no choice but to accept the truth i.e. 9/11 IS AN INSIDE JOB
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't read the interim WTC7 report which stated that fireproofing was missing from floors 5, according to a safety check. This floor contained crucial cantilever trusses and had diesel tanks.

Again, I ask you to explain why WTC7 should have taken more than ~6.5 seconds to collapse. Show your math. Can you?
 
Couldn't have happened on WTC 7. Whoopsie. NIST gots nothing on WTC 7. It's the smoking gun, and once they put out their report...I think even the left-brainers will have no choice but to accept the truth i.e. 9/11 IS AN INSIDE JOB
Click to expand...

You are a sad, pathetic, little person.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Remember, NIST says...the plane impacts...didn't bring down the buildings i.e. debris damage on WTC 7. Remember, NIST says that the fires in the towers, are not what brought down WTC 1 & 2 i.e. fires in WTC 7. The key factor that linked everything together was the fact that the insulation was dislodged in the twin towers.

Couldn't have happened on WTC 7. Whoopsie. NIST gots nothing on WTC 7. It's the smoking gun, and once they put out their report...I think even the left-brainers will have no choice but to accept the truth i.e. 9/11 IS AN INSIDE JOB
Click to expand...

You have made the leap, like Chris's concrete core you have your own pet theory; as wrong as Chris you tilt at your windmill, go find it...
 
28th Kingdom said:
Remember, NIST says...the plane impacts...didn't bring down the buildings i.e. debris damage on WTC 7. Remember, NIST says that the fires in the towers, are not what brought down WTC 1 & 2 i.e. fires in WTC 7. The key factor that linked everything together was the fact that the insulation was dislodged in the twin towers.

Couldn't have happened on WTC 7. Whoopsie. NIST gots nothing on WTC 7. It's the smoking gun, and once they put out their report...I think even the left-brainers will have no choice but to accept the truth i.e. 9/11 IS AN INSIDE JOB
Click to expand...

2 hours fire proofing; lasted over 6 hours; good work fireproofing!

Darn; are you still working on your indestructible steel theory?
 
28th Kingdom said:
Remember, NIST says that the fires in the towers, are not what brought down WTC 1 & 2 i.e. fires in WTC 7. The key factor that linked everything together was the fact that the insulation was dislodged in the twin towers.
Click to expand...


Huh?

The NIST says impact damage and fires brought down WTC 1 & 2.

Where did you get the idea NIST says fires were not a cause?

Oh I see, you are are trying to create more NIST DoubleThink.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Remember, NIST says...the plane impacts...didn't bring down the buildings i.e. debris damage on WTC 7. Remember, NIST says that the fires in the towers, are not what brought down WTC 1 & 2 i.e. fires in WTC 7. The key factor that linked everything together was the fact that the insulation was dislodged in the twin towers.

Couldn't have happened on WTC 7. Whoopsie. NIST gots nothing on WTC 7. It's the smoking gun, and once they put out their report...I think even the left-brainers will have no choice but to accept the truth i.e. 9/11 IS AN INSIDE JOB
Click to expand...
Were the Towers and WTC7 constructed the same way? Nope. Know how I can tell? Well, for starters, they're different shapes and sizes. So, why should the same things that brought the Towers down bring down 7?

Show the work you've done analyzing the blueprints and schematics of WTC7 and how you came to the conclusion that no amount of damage or fire could've brought them down. While you're at it, show how many explosives would've been needed, and where they were placed.

.... No?

That's the thing about you people. When asked for specifics on the demolition theory, you duck, dodge, and parry. You have no clue. It normally boils down to "You wouldn't need that many explosives.... Just a couple at a few key points." Well what would happen if those few key points were damaged by debris or weakened by fire?

And stop pretending to be Miss Cleo. The NIST report on building 7 isn't out yet. You have no idea what they have or don't have.
 
The problem with the hypothesis presented in the video is that "implosions" in the demolition sense of the word don't create a vacuum. Any sort of bombs or explosive charges would in fact have created higher pressure.

Or rather I should say, any sort of conventional bombs. Clearly what must have been used here are implosives. At last report, implosives were being developed by the Soviets at a facility in Minsk around the mid 1980s. According to documents recovered from the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, the project was supposed to have been abandoned by 1988. But perhaps it was instead merely handed off to others?

The most powerful type of implosive is the G/S or Gas-to-Solid type, but those have proven tricky to manufacture in more than minute qualities, so most field demonstrations so far have been of the less powerful but more stable G-L or Gas-to-Liquid types. The action of a G/L implosive can be seen as analogous to the detonation of a liquid explosive, in reverse. The implosive is deployed in gaseous form contained within a balloon-like plastic envelope ranging from one to several thousand cubic meters in volume, depending on the application. To facilitate the reaction, the inner surface of the plastic envelope has an invisibly thin coating of the necessary catalyst, whose composition (like that of the gas) is of course top secret. When the implosive is triggered, the catalyst causes the gas in the bag to turn into a liquid, reducing its volume by several thousandfold. This causes the bag to shrink to a tiny fraction of its former volume. This change in volume is extremely rapid. In fact, for so-called "high implosives" the collapse is faster than the speed of sound, a true "tonation" (the opposite of a detonation).

Obviously, the effect of an implosive is the reverse of that of an explosive. Instead of a pressure wave blasting outward, the implosive creates a vacuum or, more precisely, a rarefaction wave which causes all nearby materials to rush inward toward the center of the volume formerly occupied by the implosive gas. In a test in 1988, the tonation of a G/L implosive inside the fuselage of a decomissioned Antonov An-124 Ruslan (on the ground) caused the fuselage to crush lengthwise in a series of accordian-like folds. The collapse was complete in 0.23 seconds and left the enormous aircraft shortened to less than 12 meters from nose to tail.

Setting multiple implosives off across several dozen floors of a large building would obviously present serious practical problems, especially if the building were on fire. (A smoke screen, however, might plausibly be used as cover for the deployment, and be mistaken for a fire.) Multiple gas envelopes would surely be needed, and the tonation of all the devices would have had to have been precisely synchronized to create the necessary vacuum. It's up to others now to determine how this was achieved and, more important, why it was so important that wtc7 collapse in 4.5 seconds instead of, say, 10 seconds that such a massive effort be undertaken. We should all be asking: what was the hurry?

I hope these facts help to shed some light on this mystery.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
I hope these facts help to shed some light on this mystery.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

I just thought you should see this. Video of a tonation of an implosive device.




The building was already on fire, so all we need to do now is figure out how they flipped it over into the vat of cold water.....
 
Myriad said:
The problem with the hypothesis presented in the video is that "implosions" in the demolition sense of the word don't create a vacuum. Any sort of bombs or explosive charges would in fact have created higher pressure.

Or rather I should say, any sort of conventional bombs. Clearly what must have been used here are implosives. At last report, implosives were being developed by the Soviets at a facility in Minsk around the mid 1980s. According to documents recovered from the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, the project was supposed to have been abandoned by 1988. But perhaps it was instead merely handed off to others?

The most powerful type of implosive is the G/S or Gas-to-Solid type, but those have proven tricky to manufacture in more than minute qualities, so most field demonstrations so far have been of the less powerful but more stable G-L or Gas-to-Liquid types. The action of a G/L implosive can be seen as analogous to the detonation of a liquid explosive, in reverse. The implosive is deployed in gaseous form contained within a balloon-like plastic envelope ranging from one to several thousand cubic meters in volume, depending on the application. To facilitate the reaction, the inner surface of the plastic envelope has an invisibly thin coating of the necessary catalyst, whose composition (like that of the gas) is of course top secret. When the implosive is triggered, the catalyst causes the gas in the bag to turn into a liquid, reducing its volume by several thousandfold. This causes the bag to shrink to a tiny fraction of its former volume. This change in volume is extremely rapid. In fact, for so-called "high implosives" the collapse is faster than the speed of sound, a true "tonation" (the opposite of a detonation).

Obviously, the effect of an implosive is the reverse of that of an explosive. Instead of a pressure wave blasting outward, the implosive creates a vacuum or, more precisely, a rarefaction wave which causes all nearby materials to rush inward toward the center of the volume formerly occupied by the implosive gas. In a test in 1988, the tonation of a G/L implosive inside the fuselage of a decomissioned Antonov An-124 Ruslan (on the ground) caused the fuselage to crush lengthwise in a series of accordian-like folds. The collapse was complete in 0.23 seconds and left the enormous aircraft shortened to less than 12 meters from nose to tail.

Setting multiple implosives off across several dozen floors of a large building would obviously present serious practical problems, especially if the building were on fire. (A smoke screen, however, might plausibly be used as cover for the deployment, and be mistaken for a fire.) Multiple gas envelopes would surely be needed, and the tonation of all the devices would have had to have been precisely synchronized to create the necessary vacuum. It's up to others now to determine how this was achieved and, more important, why it was so important that wtc7 collapse in 4.5 seconds instead of, say, 10 seconds that such a massive effort be undertaken. We should all be asking: what was the hurry?

I hope these facts help to shed some light on this mystery.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Although you left out any study of post-implosion/tonation effects, I still nominated your post for The Language Award. Doesn't every implosion ultimately becomes an explosion?

Respectfully,

Skinny
 
Mr. Skinny said:
Although you left out any study of post-implosion/tonation effects, I still nominated your post for The Language Award. Doesn't every implosion ultimately becomes an explosion?

Respectfully,

Skinny
Click to expand...

No, I think it becomes a replosion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom