Physics Professor Reports WTC Destroyed by Controlled Demolition

[kaf11]

But my point is that there are reasonable unknowns, not mystery bombs or international conspiracies.

 

[kirovman]

http://nineeleven2001.t35.com/

Image - As the nose of the airplane approaches the front of the South Tower of the World Trade Center, fractions of a second before the actual impact, there was a kind of lightning to be seen. This lightning or maybe "ignition spark" apparently originated from a pod that was mounted on the bottom side of the fuselage, impliedly visible in the photos top right and bottom left. The photo bottom right shows a similar lightning during the approach of the airplane to the North Tower. Were these lightnings perhaps generate from a military equipment in order to cause thereby an ignition of "something"? Was it perhaps a "Tesla Howitzer" which was supposed to melt down the steel girders instantaneously?

The evidence is glaring you in the face! D:

 

[Mechagodzilla]

They are stupid questions to you because you have already made your mind up simple as that.

No, they are stupid because they rely on pseudoscience.
Pseudoscience is not smart, Clarky.
Pseudoscience is basically the opposite of smart, Clarky.

To me question like, why is there molten metal dripping out of a damaged area in one of the tower's?
Pseudoscience because you are making the unproven conclusion that whatever blurry jpeg you are using actually shows molten steel. and not something else.
Without proof, this is pseudoscience.
why so many contradictory eyewitness report's?
Eyewitness reports have repeated proven faulty in court of law. Men convicted via eyewitness account have been exhonorated later with DNA evidence.
Using this to prove bombs exist, when it has already been concluded that the don't exist, is pseudoscience.
why all that molten steel down to basement level?
You are making the baseless claim that this metal is molten steel without conducting a metalurgical analysis.
Claiming that this is steel without evidence of steel is pseudoscience, especially when the place would have been surrounded by cars and all manner of other metal objects.
why the owner mention's demoltion slang saying the word's 'pull it' in context with the building being unrecoverable when it didnt appear so and then launch an investigation into the building's collapse?
"Pull it" can mean any number of things. Such as "pulling it from the list of buildings to try and save." Claiming that it was demolition without evidence of demolition is pseudoscience.

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Some suggest that this statement could have been referring to demolition, since "pull" is alleged to be a standard industry term used at the moment a collapse is triggered. Critics of this theory argue the term "pull" was in reference to "evacuating" the firefighting team from the building.

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

Mr. McQuillan has commented that by "it," Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.

all are perfectly sensible question's and im sure even most critique's bar you perhaps would say the same.
Nope, sorry. Pseudoscience is pseudoscience regardless of how many laymen you can get to agree with you.
Your questions are not reasonable.

 

[Asknoone]

Arguing the toss.

 

[clarky003]

Well your persistant claim that the question's fringe on pseudoscience is complete bullshit mech, as we know there was molten steel observed before collapse and left for months afterwards in the basement levels, everyone knows steel reaches cherry red and lemon yellow colour's approaching near and at 1000 C, tempratures that clearly remained well after, and tempratures that are far in access of any hydrocarbon fire's, not pseudoscience , a legitimate fact with legitimate question's.

Perhaps if you would bother to stop waffling on about what you consider pseudoscience, you may want to have a look into how a building would freefall by a purely gravity driven collapse compared to a collapse of no resistance in vacuum and take these proof's that contradict the physics of official story of gravity driven freefall collapse into note.

Speed of the fall

The towers collapsed completely in intervals of time similar to that taken for a block of wood dropped from a tower's roof to reach the ground. A block of wood has about the same average density as the main components of the towers near their tops.

In a vacuum a block of wood (or lead) would take 9.2 seconds to fall from the tower's roof. In the air a block of wood, say ten inches on a side, might take 50 percent longer than in a vacuum. Fifteen seconds, a good estimate for the total time of collapse of the North Tower, is about the time it would take our block to fall from the roof. The rubble from the tower probably had similar average density to our block of wood, since the floor slabs consisted of corrugated sheet metal and lightweight concrete, and the perimeter steel columns were hollow with walls only 1/4th inch thick at the towers' tops. Air resistance alone could account for the slowing of the falls to the point where each tower took about 15 seconds to completely come down.

The official story requires that more than air resistance was slowing the descents. The falling rubble would be having to crush every story below the crash zone -- ripping apart the steel grids of the outer walls and obliterating the steel lattice of the core structure. The resistance of the intact building itself would be thousands of times greater than air resistance.

If air resistance is able to increase total collapse times by even 20 percent, then shouldn't the addition of the resistance of the buildings themselves increase the time several thousand percent, to at least tens of minutes?

Of course the idea of a collapse lasting minutes is absurd. So is the idea of a steel frame building crushing itself.

The break up of the top

There are several pieces of evidence that show the structure of the 30 stories of the South Tower above the impact zone was shattered before it started its precipitous plunge. How could the steel frame of many stories above the impact zone have broken up even before it started to fall? The proponents of gravity-driven collapse maintain that the tops of the towers crushed the floors below the impact zones as they fell. The tops functioned as pistons, according to Bazant and Zhou, crushing the stories one by one. What one actually sees in the case of the South Tower is that their piston disintegrated even before it started to fall. A gravity-driven collapse cannot account for that disintegration, nor for how a cloud of rubble could crush the intact structure below the impact zone.

The volume of dust

Both of the Twin Towers exploded into vast clouds of dust. That the clouds expanded to five times the volume of the towers within 30 seconds of the initiation of their collapses is a conservative estimate.

If the collapses were merely gravity-driven, then any clouds of debris produced in the immediate aftermath should have occupied about the same amount of space as the intact towers before they had time to significantly mix into the surrounding air. The bulk of the clouds could only come from the expulsion of gases in the buildings as they collapsed, and the mixing of ambient air into the clouds. The contribution of mixing increases over time, and is unbounded. However, the dust clouds appear to expand more rapidly than can be accounted for by mixing. This implies that heat energy was being added to the clouds in order to cause the gases to expand, and/or water to vaporize.

Could the known energy sources have accounted for the pre-mixing expansion? This question is treated in some quantitative detail in the paper: The North Tower's Dust Cloud: Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center. This paper estimates the dust cloud volume of the North Tower and shows that, even allowing for expansion due to mixing, the heat sink is many times greater than the tower's gravitational energy. Even without such quantitative analysis, it is clear that the gravitational energy of the towers alone could not have driven the dust clouds' expansion, given limitations on conversion of that energy to heat and the apparent absence of extensive mixing early in the clouds' development.

The expansion of the dust clouds presents problems for the gravity collapse theory that are evident without quantitative analysis. Here we consider the role of the two main factors that could have worked to expand the dust clouds.

* Heating of the air due to friction of the collapse
* Mixing of the cloud's gases and suspended solids with ambient air

Did Friction Multiply the Clouds' Volumes?

Suppose that nearly all of the gravitational energy of the towers was converted into friction and therefore heat. Would that have been sufficient to expand the dust clouds? A clue is that in a typical demolition, the volume of the dust cloud grows to only slightly larger than the intact building's volume immediately following the collapse. Even if the gravitational potential energy of the towers was great enough to drive the expansion, it is highly doubtful that much of it would be converted into heat in the dust clouds, for several reasons.

* Rubble falling through the air would not generate much heat energy until it hit the ground, and then most of the energy would be converted to ground movement and the finer breakup of the rubble rather than heat.
* Rubble crushing the building would convert much of its kinetic energy to friction in the steel frame in the process of shredding it. The steel frame would not have enough surface area to transfer much heat to the gases during the split second in which the building around any given piece of steel was crushed, so most of the heat would have ended up in the rubble pile.
* If much of the gravitational energy was converted to heat through friction, it would have necessitated longer collapse times than were observed.

At least one academic paper has attempted to explain the rapidity of the collapses by promoting a questionably applicable mathematical model alleged to predict a nearly frictionless total collapse. Since that model has each tower neatly pulling itself down at near the speed of free-fall, there would be very little heat produced to drive the dust cloud expansion.

Did Mixing Expand the Clouds?

Mixing of building air with ambient air could not account for the rapidity of the expansion of the dust clouds, nor their appearance. Mixing of gases can occur through diffusion or convection. Diffusion is not relevant, since it is the space occupied by suspended particles that defines the volume of the cloud. Convection could only expand the cloud if there was a high degree of turbulence on the cloud's boundary, and would have produced a diffuse boundary. That does not appear to have occurred in the early stages of the Twin Towers' dust clouds. The clouds maintained well-defined interfaces as they expanded to many times the buildings' volumes. Moreover, features on the surface of the clouds evolved slowly relative to the movement of large portions of the cloud. The distinct boundaries and persistent shapes mean the clouds were expanding primarily by pushing aside the ambient air, not by assimilating it.

If it was most likely a gravity driven collapse, why where all of these physical signs that contradict that conclusion observed?

So how about this challenge aswell since you feel you should perhaps burden the lack of explaination for signs of freefall in vacuum collapse time, the massive amount of pulverised dust, and the break up of the top as it starts to fall.

The challenge is in 5 parts, from the easiest to the most difficult.

All five require building a structure that will undergo top-down progressive total collapse -- i.e.: when disturbed near the top, it will collapse from the top down to the bottom, leaving no part standing. The disturbance can include mechanical force, such as projectile impacts, and fires, augmented with hydrocarbon fuels. Explosives and electromagnetic energy beams are not permitted.

Your structure can be made out of anything: straws, toothpicks, cards, dominoes, mud, vegetables, pancakes, etc.

The designers of the Twin Towers were able to meet all 5 challenges using steel and concrete.



CHALLENGE #1:

Build an upright structure that will undergo progressive collapse.

CHALLENGE #2:

Build an upright structure with a square footprint and an aspect ratio of at least 6.5 (6.5 times as high as it is wide) that will undergo progressive collapse.

CHALLENGE #3:

Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which, in the collapse process, will throw pieces outward in all directions such that at least 80% of the weight of the materials ends up lying outside of the footprint, but their center of mass lies inside the footprint.

CHALLENGE #4:

Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which is also capable of withstanding a 100 MPH wind without collapsing. The structure has to be closed in the sense that it cannot allow air to pass through it.

CHALLENGE #5:

Build a structure that meets the requirements of both CHALLENGES #3 and #4.

 

[General Zex]

Steel buildings do not just collapse because of fires. Anyone believing that this is the case does not want to explore further options.

To bring down the towers with planes alone, the planes would have needed to crash about 3/4 of the way down the towers, close to the ground, and would have needed to nearly soar through the entire width of the building to provide enough instability as to cause the top levels to fall onto the bottom levels. But there is also a problem with this, the top levels would TOPPLE, not fall down symmetrically.

Anyone questioning WHY the government would have to do this obviously hasn't paid attention to current events. We have seen two wars in the last 4 years, ALL BECAUSE OF 9/11. That is reason ENOUGH for WHY the government needed to take down the Twin Towers.

To analyze the metalurgical properties of the steel contained within the WTC buildings would be possible, if the government hadn't carted them away and locked them up...

 

[Glirk Dient]

Steel buildings do not just collapse because of fires. Anyone believing that this is the case does not want to explore further options.

To bring down the towers with planes alone, the planes would have needed to crash about 3/4 of the way down the towers, close to the ground, and would have needed to nearly soar through the entire width of the building to provide enough instability as to cause the top levels to fall onto the bottom levels. But there is also a problem with this, the top levels would TOPPLE, not fall down symmetrically.

Anyone questioning WHY the government would have to do this obviously hasn't paid attention to current events. We have seen two wars in the last 4 years, ALL BECAUSE OF 9/11. That is reason ENOUGH for WHY the government needed to take down the Twin Towers.

To analyze the metalurgical properties of the steel contained within the WTC buildings would be possible, if the government hadn't carted them away and locked them up...

HAHAHAHAHA funny....oh wait your serious.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh man...thats a good one. You almost had me believing you were one of those wacko conspiracy theorists...but you do a good job of pointing out how bad their arguments are. Good job, you almost tricked me, would have had me if it wasnt for the stereotypical idiotic conspiracy theorist arguments that cant hold up to anything and make claims and call others idiots despite lacking any credible evidence much less supporting facts.

Then you go to say how fire cant melt steel. Despite the jet fuel burning at a cool 2000 degrees, which can melt steel and concrete beams and causing a pancake effect. Oh man...you did a good job making up one of those conspiracy theorist strories that are such BS. The only thing funnier would be if you were serious and tried to pass that as a real argument.

 

[clarky003]

2000 degrees I assume you mean farenheit, and you do know that is a theoretical maximum providing ideal condition's that would only last aslong as the initial fuel burn time, steel melt's at around 3600 degrees farenheit.

Where do you get your figures from , that is grosely exaggerated, your probably getting farenheit confused with Celcius in the case of hydrocarbon fire and steels melting point.

The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C."

"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire."

°F > °C

Lead (Pb) Melts 621 327

Faint Red 930 500

Blood Red 1075 580

*Aluminum Melts 1221 660

Medium Cherry 1275 690

Cherry 1375 745

Bright Cherry 1450 790

Salmon 1550 845

Dark Orange 1630 890

Orange 1725 940

Lemon 1830 1000

Light yellow 1975 1080

White 2200 1205

*Structural Steel 2750 1510
Melts

*Iron Melts 2800 1538

*Thermite (typical) 4500 2500

 

[Yuri]

Steel buildings do not just collapse because of fires. Anyone believing that this is the case does not want to explore further options.

To bring down the towers with planes alone, the planes would have needed to crash about 3/4 of the way down the towers, close to the ground, and would have needed to nearly soar through the entire width of the building to provide enough instability as to cause the top levels to fall onto the bottom levels. But there is also a problem with this, the top levels would TOPPLE, not fall down symmetrically.

Anyone questioning WHY the government would have to do this obviously hasn't paid attention to current events. We have seen two wars in the last 4 years, ALL BECAUSE OF 9/11. That is reason ENOUGH for WHY the government needed to take down the Twin Towers.

To analyze the metalurgical properties of the steel contained within the WTC buildings would be possible, if the government hadn't carted them away and locked them up...

Are you a moron? Are you seriously that stupid? Do you think you know everything? Do you have any idea about any kind of physics?

You, sir, are a dumb piece of shit. I suggest you learn to use that thing inside your skull.

It wasn't the planes hitting the towers that took them down. It was the heat of the thousands of gallons of gasoline that melted all of the steel after a while. Once one floor toppled, the rest did.

I hope you're having fun making this baseless accusations in the safety of your house. Idiot.

 

[Glirk Dient]

2000 degrees.

Where do you get your figures from , that is grosely exagerated, your probably getting farenheit confused with Celcius.

Most likely since in the U.S. we use F instead of C.

Anyways...the metal was heated up and bent...it doesn't need to melt. When the plane took out some support beams that put more pressure on the others. When the other support beams heat up and begin to bend they give way under the pressure.

 

[clarky003]

So why was there molten steel, not only dripping from the side of the building....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9/11

but for weeks and weeks after large deposited hot spot's keep being discovered, remaining in the basement.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/hotSlag.jpg

We see from the photograph above that solid metal slag existed at salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approx. 1550 - 1900 oF, 845 - 1040 oC.) The temperature is well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum, and these metals can evidently be ruled out since they would be runny liquids at much lower (cherry-red or below) temperatures. However, the observed hot specimen could be structural steel (from the building) or iron (from a thermite reaction) or a combination of the two

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv

 

[Glirk Dient]

So why was there molten steel, not only dripping from the side of the building....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9/11

but for weeks and weeks large deposited hot spot's remaining in the basement.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/hotSlag.jpg

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv

Most likely because the fires were hot enough to melt it.

 

[Eg.]

Despite the jet fuel burning at a cool 2000 degrees

°F > °C

right Cherry 1450 790

Salmon 1550 845

Dark Orange 1630 890

Orange 1725 940

Lemon 1830 1000

Light yellow 1975 1080

Thank you for proving that the fires in the towers were hot enought to smelt steel. Conspiracy theorists, the bet hope for a smarter tomorrow. /sarcasm towars clarky

Oh wait Im sorry but....

The designers of the Twin Towers were able to meet all 5 challenges using steel and concrete.



CHALLENGE #1:

Build an upright structure that will undergo progressive collapse.

CHALLENGE #2:

Build an upright structure with a square footprint and an aspect ratio of at least 6.5 (6.5 times as high as it is wide) that will undergo progressive collapse.

CHALLENGE #3:

Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which, in the collapse process, will throw pieces outward in all directions such that at least 80% of the weight of the materials ends up lying outside of the footprint, but their center of mass lies inside the footprint.

CHALLENGE #4:

Build a structure as required by CHALLENGE #2 which is also capable of withstanding a 100 MPH wind without collapsing. The structure has to be closed in the sense that it cannot allow air to pass through it.

CHALLENGE #5:

Build a structure that meets the requirements of both CHALLENGES #3 and #4.

Are you saying that they built the WTC just for 9-11?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

we know there was molten steel observed before collapse and left for months afterwards in the basement levels,

No, we don't.
You are guessing that this is steel.
Without a metalurgical analysis or even the slightest clue if what you're seeing is metal, you are guessing.
Guessing is not fact.
This is pseudoscience, guesswork, assumption.
Whatever you want to call it, it isn't smart.
* claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict

Perhaps if you would bother to stop waffling on about what you consider pseudoscience, you may want to have a look into how a building would freefall by a purely gravity driven collapse

No official speed has ever been given for the fall.
Average claims are ten seconds. The pile of debris reduced the fall height by many floors.
Every video shows debris falling faster than the building falls, showing that whatever information you are using is flawed.
Flawed sources are not valid sources.
Sources that haven't been peer-reviewed are not valid sources.
* failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")
This isn't smart.

The break up of the top
The volume of dust

This is the same source that told you the tower fell in freefall, and is therefore already not reliable.
It hasn't been peer-reviewed, it has not been tested, its claims require the assumption of an international conspiracy. Occam's Razor cuts it.
* failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")
* violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible
Its claims require the rejection of experimental findings from many seperate teams.
* asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
Its claims show all the indications of pseudoscience, and have no evidence.

If it was most likely a gravity driven collapse, why where all of these physical signs that contradict that conclusion observed?

You have presented no valid evidence to support this theory.
This is not a question. This is your statement that "the physical signs contradict a gravity driven collapse".
They do not.
* claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict

challenge

By shirking the burden of proof onto others, you are refusing to put forward any tangible evidence of your own.
Claims without evidence are pseudoscience.
* a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims.

You fail at science Clarky.
You're just accepting what the conspiracy site tells you with closed eyes and an open mouth.
Please try and keep me from having to repeat what pseudoscience is again.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

According to Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 °F (593 °C)," Asif Usmani of Edinburgh University concluded that the interconnecting beams of the towers could have expanded by around 9 cm at 500 °C (930 °F), causing the floors above to buckle.

Bonus information.

The fuel-burn estimates top off at 2000 °F. You might notice that's higher than 1100.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"Steel buildings do not just collapse because of fires. Anyone believing that this is the case does not want to explore further options."

Jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, Professor of Engineering at the University of California, San Diego. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F, high enough to cause structural failure.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y

The fire at the Madrid Windsor Tower has recently put more focus on this topic. In February 2005, this 32-story building burned for nearly 24 hours resulting in a partial collapse. In the aftermath, authorities observed how the steel portions involved in the fire had, in fact, collapsed. However, the Windsor Tower was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel alone, and thus, is not a close comparison to the WTC towers.

http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Conspiracy


"To bring down the towers with planes alone, the planes would have needed to crash about 3/4 of the way down the towers, close to the ground, and would have needed to nearly soar through the entire width of the building to provide enough instability as to cause the top levels to fall onto the bottom levels. But there is also a problem with this, the top levels would TOPPLE, not fall down symmetrically."

[...]the mainstream of the academic world has yet to be convinced. Massachusetts Institute of Technology has devoted a number of staff members to the analysis of the World Trade Center collapse. Numerous aspects of the collapse have been documented and reviewed within the scientific community. The country's leading structural and civil engineers have examined the attack from the point of impact up to the point of collapse, concluding that explosives were not necessary to provide what the world observed.

Critics of the demolition theory also point out that such demolitions is a labor-intensive task that leaves signs of the work, such as stripping away building materials to expose the structural supports, and running cables from the explosives to the detonation timers.

http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/wtc.php
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

In support of the common account of the collapse, Dr. Thomas Eagar, professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has stated that the building "would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base." In other words, according to him, the structure had no choice but to fall straight down, following the path of least resistance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Conspiracy

"To analyze the metalurgical properties of the steel contained within the WTC buildings would be possible, if the government hadn't carted them away and locked them up..."

NIST is analyzing them as we speak, and the known properties already match what happened.
So much for the coverup.

 

[General Zex]

Are you a moron? Are you seriously that stupid? Do you think you know everything? Do you have any idea about any kind of physics?

You, sir, are a dumb piece of shit. I suggest you learn to use that thing inside your skull.

It wasn't the planes hitting the towers that took them down. It was the heat of the thousands of gallons of gasoline that melted all of the steel after a while. Once one floor toppled, the rest did.

I hope you're having fun making this baseless accusations in the safety of your house. Idiot.

Funny how the real morons need to resort to blatant insults. I was telling the general concensus here, who seem to believe that the planes are the only cause of the collapse of the towers.

The Twin Towers were 110 stories tall with the planes crashing into the upper stories. From a physics standpoint, not only is it impossible for the building to collapse with planes and debris merely crashing into them (if the weight was substantial enough to cause collapse, it would have instantly after the planes hit.)

As well, jet fuel and fires would have had to spread quite a ways down the building to effect enough of the structural supports to destroy the entire building.

Both towers were completely obliterated, with the collapse going down the entire length of the towers.

Now, let me ask you all something, why is it that controlled demolition is favored over the old wrecking ball? Simply because controlled demolition, destroys an entire building in one shot, much like the twin towers fell.

The wrecking ball on the other hand destroys parts of the building and even with a collapse being imminent, parts of the building that were not directly hit with the wrecking ball, will have the tendency to remain upright.

Mind you, the structure of the WTC held the weight of so many floors above it for years and years without collapsing. Nor, if the weight became such a burden that it needed to collapse, would it do so in a manner that is a poster child for controlled demolitions.

 

[Yuri]

Sorry for the blatent insults, but I felt as if it were needed.

Plus I knew mecha would be more precise.

Have fun thinking that! Here is a party hat: <=|

P.S. Also have fun talking about things you know nothing about.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I was telling the general concensus here, who seem to believe that the planes are the only cause of the collapse of the towers.

That is not the general concensus.
The general concensus is that NIST is correct, meaning that the crashes and fires combined led to the significant weakening of the supports surrounding the impact zones.
The failure of the weakened steel was the overall cause of the damage.

The Twin Towers were 110 stories tall with the planes crashing into the upper stories. From a physics standpoint, not only is it impossible for the building to collapse with planes and debris merely crashing into them (if the weight was substantial enough to cause collapse, it would have instantly after the planes hit.)

Again, you are attempting to refute a claim that does not exist.

As well, jet fuel and fires would have had to spread quite a ways down the building to effect enough of the structural supports to destroy the entire building.

Again, no-one is claiming that the entire building was consumed by fire.
You are fighting straw men here.
Instead, the real-world and official conclusion is that the top floors collapsed and fell onto lower floors, overburdening them and crashing downwards, etc.

Both towers were completely obliterated, with the collapse going down the entire length of the towers.

Correct. It would be unlikely or even impossible for the building to not fall straight downwards.
The building was simply too heavy to do anything other than cave in on itself.

wrecking ball?

Once again, you are trying to refute a claim that does not exist. No-one has claimed that the crash damage was the sole source of collapse.
You are talking to ghosts and imaginary arguments.

As I have pointed out, demolitions experts see nothing about the collapse that would require explosives.
You do not know more that them.

Mind you, the structure of the WTC held the weight of so many floors above it for years and years without collapsing. Nor, if the weight became such a burden that it needed to collapse, would it do so in a manner that is a poster child for controlled demolitions.

The weight of the falling floors would be cumulative.
That means that when a floor lands on the floor below it, they combine to have the weight of two floors.
The building was not designed to have its floors suddenly double, triple, quadruple (etc.) in weight.

As the expert opinions I quoted above mention, it would be borderline impossible for the buildings to not fall the way they did.
You do not know more than them.

And again, experts in controlled demolition saw and continue to see no reason to believe in controlled demolition.
You do not know more than them.

Based on your bizarrely tangental arguments, I would warrant that you do not know more than Erestheux either.
Your professed knowledge of physics is decidedly suspect.

Instead of inventing an opponent, please read the conclusions presented before you refute them.
The NIST and FEMA reports are both linked in this thread for you to examine.

 

[bigburpco]

That is not the general concensus.
The general concensus is that NIST is correct, meaning that the crashes and fires combined led to the significant weakening of the supports surrounding the impact zones. The failure of the weakened steel was the overall cause of the damage.

This point is so damn obvious and yet arguments are still going on.

What a stupid thread. Well Mech is just plain stating the obvious and some just reject it...

Here's what REALLY happened. George Bush got abducted by the Lich King who inserted thousands of leechs which coincidentally were Yeerks and terrorists into Bush's ear. They also converted Bush into a commie, and a rumour-monger.

I've got first hand proof. Go to this link, this and this one too. If you see, all three sources back my my theory perfectly, so you better believe it.

You better believe it 'cause I have proof.

 

[Eg.]

God i have a huge hardon for mech. Why cant he go to my school an debunk teh fools there.

 

[clarky003]

NIST is analyzing them as we speak, and the known properties already match what happened.
So much for the coverup.

lol Thats bull, your making things up, most of the steel has been sold for scrap FEMA did the only analysis ages ago and found signs of a possible thermite reaction

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."

why would NIST take this long?

Popular mechanic's seems totally politically motivated, they dont bother to address the question's of molten steel they simply say fire melt's steel, which it does not, so I find that answer very odd, they dont even debunk any characterisitic's of demolishion all they merely do is 'attempt' to explain it under the gravity driven collapse theory.

A comprehensive counter of those popular mechanic's articles can be found here

It raises some strong point's as to the physics error's the popular mechanics people apparently support, such as hydrocarbon fire's being able to melt steel, and the piledriver theory, even though its clear the piledriver breaks up as it makes its descent... etc

But its ok im sure you can carry on ignoring this mech as its you who is supporting pseudoscience.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Thats bull your making things up, FEMA did there analysis ages ago why would they take so long?

Popular mechanic's seems totally politically motivated, they dont bother to address the question's of molten steel, so I find their position very odd, they dont even debunk any characterisitic's of demolishion.

and a comprehensive counter of that popular mechanic's article can be found here

Why is molten steel an issue?

If thats proof that the buildings exploded...well explosions dont melt things, they blow it up.

Not to mention we do know the planes were full of fuel which was burning, so wouldn't that destroy any explosives on those floors since many floors were instantly engfulfed in burning fuel? Yet we know the collapse started on those floors, so how would explosives survive that?

 

[clarky003]

Your missing the point, its very valid because having that amount of molten steel around for so long afterwards indicates even higher temperatures in the building's at the time, that of which hydrocarbon fires cannot reach, the left over cooling molten steel was 1000 C and above, for it to be that hot for so long afterwards even hotter temperatures would of been envolved in the collapse, so the sensible uanswered question is since its impossible for fire to of caused it, what was the source?

Have you heard of thermite? they can be used to melt steel like a concentrated flame eats through ice. A plane impact would simply start off the thermite in the area if it came into contact they are not explosive they act like a fountain, but you still need the floor to fail symmetrically for it to come straight down like it did and the damage to both building's was not symmetrical.

Initially the top half didnt fail symmetrically in WTC 2 which is why it tilted, but then it disintigrated as if all its key steel connection's where being severed from the inside, gravity would have it carry on tilting as a block but something else changed its behaviour, a point all the investigation's have failed to address.

 

[Yuri]

Conclusion:

Some people will stick to what they believe in no matter how much hard evidence against it is proven, and no matter how baseless their opinions are. It doesn't even matter if they are making a mockery of the loss of thousands of other people's lives.

There is no point in arguing against people so stubborn, other than to show everyone else.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

lol Thats bull, your making things up, most of the steel has been sold for scrap FEMA did the only analysis ages ago and found signs of a possible thermite reaction

Wrong.
NIST says they are analysing WTC metal, right at the bottom of their website.
You have no reason to believe otherwise.
You do not know more than them.

You are not presenting anything that proves thermite.
You are guessing thermite was used because that is easiest for you to understand.
Guessing is not science.
Guessing is not smart.
You are inventing the cause to fit the effect.
Stop pretending that inductive reasoning that defies occam's razor is somehow intelligent.
It is not.
You do not know more than the experts who saw and continue to see nothing that indicates demolition.

Popular mechanic's seems totally politically motivated, they dont bother to address the question's of molten steel they simply say fire melt's steel, which it does not[.]

Read the actual article, smartguy.

""Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks.""

Please attempt to read the article next time.
Here it is.
You have no excuse.
You also have no reason to call them politically motivated.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y
You do not know more than this.

I find that answer very odd, they dont even debunk any characterisitic's of demolishion all they merely do is 'attempt' to explain it under the gravity driven collapse theory.

The article I posted is nine pages long. They repeatedly and consistently give expert testimony that repeatedly states that the demolition theory is unfounded and stupid.
I am guessing you are stuck refuting an older article that fell into the same trap you did, and assumed melted "metal" was steel based on media reports and not scientific analysis.
This March 2005 article has corrected that error with scientific testimony.
You do not know more than those scienticists.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html

This article is based on refuting outdated information.
Also, it hasn't been peer-reviewed, obviously.
Please stick to the corrected March 2005 article that I posted.

It raises some strong point's as to the physics error's the popular mechanics people apparently support, such as hydrocarbon fire's being able to melt steel

They do not.
As I have shown, their earlier claim to that effect was based on eyewitness guesswork, and was retracted because it is not based on any actual science.
Popular Mechanics corrected their error when they made a mistake.
You continue to not know more than them, or any of their experts.

and the piledriver theory, even though its clear the piledriver breaks up as it makes its descent... etc

It is not clear because you have presented no scientific evidence to that effect, no peer reviewed sources and no actual science of any sort.

But its ok im sure you can carry on ignoring this mech as its you who is supporting pseudoscience.

Even if I were just raping the concept science as badly as you are, that would be no excuse for you to do the same.
If you are not using pseudoscience, why do you continue to post tangental and pseudoscientific arguments?

You have shown a direct and willful ignorance of basic scientific principles and procedures.
You have ignored the article I posted and directly quoted.
You have ignored your symptoms of pseudoscience.
You are ignoring.

Please stop embarassing yourself and the thousands who died.

 

[Yuri]

Please stop embarassing yourself and the thousands who died.

I just want to stress this, because it seriously makes me sick. I don't care if you want to come off as a total moron, but you don't have to belittle the lives of all who died.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

You are claiming that the people inside the WTC were too stupid to notice demolition equipment on every floor, Clarky.

You are claiming that all the people investigating their deaths are liars, Clarky.

You are claiming their killers were innocent, or that the did not exist, Clarky.

You are making a mockery of their deaths.

You care so little for their lives that you are refusing to use science or rational thought in your self-styled onanistic "investigation", Clarky.

You are turning this tragedy into a fiction.

You are a failure at science, Clarky - and I can accept that.
But your attempts to smear that failure onto the victims of a mass murder are unacceptable.

Now please, concentrate on the discussion at hand, Clarky.
Concentrate on what pseudoscince is.
Think before you post: "Are my claims pseudoscientific?"

Please try.

 

[Sulkdodds]

That's going a little bit far. Refute the argument sure, but not start going 'YOU'RE DEMEANING THEIR DEATHS!' That's like when people say an American is unpatriotic for not supporting the Iraq war and is demeaning the memory of the troops who have died.

However, you've re-highlighted the most important question and the one that nobody has attempted to address yet: how the hell did They convince that many people to take part in the conspiracy?

 

[clarky003]

Think before you post: "Are my claims pseudoscientific?"

Im sorry but they are you dunce. If youd bother to find out the melting temperatures of steel and temperatures of hydrocarbon fires which ive already posted its clear that popular mechanic's are incorrect and do not scientifically account for molten steel, for the reason that physic's proffessor's have disputed the origional story.

However, you've re-highlighted the most important question and the one that nobody has attempted to address yet: how the hell did They convince that many people to take part in the conspiracy?

Okay well how many people may of been envolved in setting it up? I dont know, how many people would they need to convince? there are no numbers, people assume alot of service people would of had a part in the set up, but why assume thats true, all you would need are a well trained handful of people to pull it off if it did happen.

This idea that hundreds or thousands of people would of been in on it is a mad assumption that is made to make it sound like its impossible. Certain high ranking people who control security would have to of been a part of it and there motives would be monitary and political get it right and instead of waiting for years to goto war in the middle east they can get impetus to go within months, then all you need is a handful of people to set it up, remember if thermite and explosives where used it would of been in the stepped up weekly evacuation drills before 9/11 it wouldnt take a small team of highly trained covert operations people posing as security or unaccountable civilians very long to get in and get the work done over a few weeks.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Im sorry but they are you dunce. If youd bother to find out the melting temperatures of steel and temperatures of hydrocarbon fires which ive already posted its clear that popular mechanic's are incorrect and do not scientifically account for molten steel, for the reason that physic's proffessor's have disputed the origional story.

The building is full of other stuff to burn, that adds to it. Not to mention all of the carpeting, that stuff burns pretty hot and will add to the heat. Not to mention if they did use thermite and explosives why didn't the firefighters report that over their radios? Would every firefighter have to be in on the conspiracy and sacrificed themselves too?

Okay well how many people may of been envolved in setting it up? I dont know, how many people would they need to convince? there are no numbers, people assume alot of service people would of had a part in the set up, but why assume thats true, all you would need are a well trained handful of people to pull it off if it did happen.

This idea that hundreds or thousands of people would of been in on it is a mad assumption that is made to make it sound like its impossible. Certain high ranking people who control security would have to of been a part of it and there motives would be monitary and political get it right and instead of waiting for years to goto war in the middle east they can get impetus to go within months, then all you need is a handful of people to set it up, remember if thermite and explosives where used it would of been in the stepped up weekly evacuation drills before 9/11 it wouldnt take a small team of highly trained covert operations people posing as security or unaccountable civilians very long to get in and get the work done over a few weeks.

So how would this small team of covert ops sneak in and rig all of the floors with explosives? How would they sneak past the many night janitors and other personel and drill into the structure to place explosives and keep the concealed while they also wire all of the explosives together. Not to mention they would have to be near the building to set it off, putting them in danger unless they used a very long wire, which nobody has found any remains of this massive amount of wire used to connect the explosives. People would notice the work going on and the strange wires.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

That's going a little bit far. Refute the argument sure, but not start going 'YOU'RE DEMEANING THEIR DEATHS!' That's like when people say an American is unpatriotic for not supporting the Iraq war and is demeaning the memory of the troops who have died.

I disagree, my sulky friend.
This is not an ambiguous moral situation such as the Iraq War.
The questions here are fact, logic and science.
None of those are ambiguous.

To fill the gap where knowledge and facts should be,
Clarky is using pseudoscience.
Pseudoscience is, effectively, a carefully disguised lie.
Maybe it isn't intentional. Maybe it's all just another horrible mistake.
The point, however, is that it isn't true, and Clarky is repeating it with full knowledge that what he is saying doesn't fit the rigorous standards of scientific truth.

Clarky is lying to us, and the intended effect of these lies is to take the blame off al Queda and to place it on innocent people in the government, in the scientific community and more.

I don't want to claim that Clarky is an idiot, but I wrote this:

Here is a simple list of ways folks exploit pseudoscience:

* by asserting claims or theories unconnected to previous experimental results
You are basically rejecting the entire NIST report in favor of your handful of conspiracy-based questions about bombs.
* by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability);
Just for one, your oft-repeated Larry Silverstien quote: "'Pulled' means 'exploded'"? You don't know that.
Other unfalsifiable claims include the mystery magic bombs (of which no physical or photographic evidence exists).
* by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
Again, you reject the entire NIST and the conclusions of the scientific community at large.
* by habitually changing the nature of its claims to deflect criticism;
You're always saying things like "that looks like a thermite charge went off!" or "look at that explosive squib!" but then when people ask you how you came to those conclusions, you say you are "only asking questions."
* by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;
That's a big one right there. Because you are "only asking questions", you haven't provided even a theoretical situation in which you would accept that you are wrong.
It's another case of proving a negative. "Prove that unicorns don't live inside the sun."
* by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")
This is what all of your sources do, including the titular nuclear physicist of this thread.
* by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not or by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict;
You are continuously claiming that your theory predicts that NIST and common sense are incorrect without any evidence of such.
* by violating Occam's Razor, the heuristic principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible
Your questions require about a million assumptions to accept including international conspiracy, invisible mystery bombs, remote-controlled airplanes and about a billion other guessed things.
*or by a lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims.
By "only asking questions," you are making absolutely no progress in providing any evidence.

And his reply was:

thats a dreadful conclusion, why are [my questions pseudoscientific]?

If that's not the result of extreme stupidity or willful ignorance, I don't know what is.
This is like Forrest Gump investigating Terri Schiavo.
It's a grim spectacle of stupidity, failure and human misery.

 

[clarky003]

There good question's but a standard fire fueled by building content's is know to reach at most around 650 C, with get fuel that can peak as high as 1000 C when its burning efficiently, but these where diffuse flames alot of heat is taken away by the air, the theoretically 1000 C cannot be a constant temprature because of the limited jet fuel and the amount of energy dissapated by the air, its a standard hydrocarbon fire as indicated by the black smoke.

have you not read anything about the subject?

The building's had increased evacuation test's pre 911 where they evacuated the whole building on a number of occassion's, meaning the building would of been empty for the time it was taking place.

Claiming im stupid when your the one ignoring simple temprature's and melting point's that are well known is quite funny, as its quite clear that popular mechanic's are not very 'mechanical' in their omission that fire created the molten steel, how is that possible .. they dont explain it, its about as scientific as a rabbit. I asked why because you didnt bother to explain why you just omissively say they are.

Your making it personal, directing the debate away from the material evidence and toward personal credability, but since you havnt answered any of the questions that are in the spotlight I can see you arnt really bothered and are clearly driven to ignore the reality of the questions by the politcal nature of the situation meaning you obviously cant understand why people might do this so you immediately assume it cant happen. Need I remind you these disputes to the lack of answered questions are by trained physicist's aswell as members of the public.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Im sorry but they are you dunce. If youd bother to find out the melting temperatures of steel and temperatures of hydrocarbon fires which ive already posted its clear that popular mechanic's are incorrect and do not scientifically account for molten steel, for the reason that physic's proffessor's have disputed the origional story.

claiming im stupid when your ignoring simple temprature's and melting point's that are know is quite funny.

Goddamn it Clarky, read!
Concentrate, Clarky!
FOCUS!
LOOK:

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

Are you retarded?
Seriously, are you?
I am serious. Do you go to a special school?
Do you wear a helmet?

I spend around four paragraphs explaining how they got experts to fix their error, (which is the same error you are making: the assumption that molten metal was steel from the fire) and you absolutely skipped over what I said!

How am I supposed to take you seriously when you are actively ignoring everything I say?

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt

You do not know more than them.

 

[clarky003]

Yet they found large amounts of molten steel! *slaps forehead*

They do not explain this melted steel, hence why it is still a valid question.

I know you want to discredit me, but the reality here is there is no adequet answer in the official theory that can satisfy this particular question.

your the acting like an idiot now, trying to make it seem like i dont know the tempratures and blowing your text size up doesnt negate the fact that there was molten steel found, and seen before the collapse as is in the physical evidence its clearly molten.

 

[kirovman]

Tesla Howitzers :shh:

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Molten steel according to who?

That was reported by the media, but has never been scientifically confirmed.
Show me your evidence. Show me your facts. Show me your analysis of this mystery metal.

You are guessing that it was steel.
Guessing is not science!
Guessing is not science, Clarky!

YOU ARE GUESSING THAT IT WAS STEEL.
GUESSING IS NOT SCIENCE!

The worst part is that I am repeating the same thing I have said nearly six times to you.

 

[Glirk Dient]

The pictures I have seen of what claims to be molten steel looks more like a cleaning crew that cut through the piece of steel to remove it.

 

[Yuri]

That's going a little bit far. Refute the argument sure, but not start going 'YOU'RE DEMEANING THEIR DEATHS!' That's like when people say an American is unpatriotic for not supporting the Iraq war and is demeaning the memory of the troops who have died.

No, Sulky. Its not like saying that at all, in the slightest.

People seem to think its "cool" to say that the WTC was a huge consiracy. That they are being "rebellious." Gullible youths get all caught up in it.

But its making a huge mockery of those who died. None of what any WTC-deniers state makes any sense, they are just so convinced that its some sort of conspiracy. It has movies, TV show episodes, references everywhere. How do you think the families react to this shit? I would guess that its the same way that victims of the Holocaust react when someone publisizes that the Holocaust didn't happen.

I have very little respect for my government, and even less so for George Bush. But I'm not going to just throw accusations out that hurt other people because its "cool" and "rebellious."

 

[clarky003]

Having to answer this shows how little mech know's about metal's.

You can identify its composition from its colour and physical appearance.

the approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal.

The colour of the metal is a cherry and lemon which equates to around 1000 C, it appears quite solid aluminium can be ruled out because it would be a runny substance as it melts at 660C (at a blood red colour), the only other large amounts of metal in the building are Iron and steel, Iron's melting point is higher than structural steel, so its one or the other Iron or steel because the colour corresponds to the soft and not runny composition of steel or Iron at 1000 C.

We see from the photograph above that solid metal slag existed at salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approx. 1550 - 1900 oF, 845 - 1040 oC.) The temperature is well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum, and these metals can evidently be ruled out since they would be runny liquids at much lower (cherry-red or below) temperatures. However, the observed hot specimen could be structural steel (from the building) or iron (from a thermite reaction) or a combination of the two.

There is an image of one of the retrieved pieces of cooled molten steel slag pieces 1/4 of the way down the page here, http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html this leads me to believe you havnt even bothered to read the article this whole thread is based on.

So I say your an idiot for actively trying to deny the presence of molten steel and possibly Iron.

Its not about being cool and rebelious, its simply about answering what hasnt been answered.