911 evidence - Page 5

But dont you think that going in completely the opposite direction can be as limiting to an objective perspective as someone who blindly accepts everything the government and media tell them? Aren't you leaving yourself open to being just as blinkered as a consequence?

'A lie is best hidden between two truths'? That sort of thing?

Does it ever scare you that no matter what you find out, what you read and who you talk to, you may simply never know the honest-to-goodness exact truth with things like this? Or that what you may percieve as the trutyh of something may simply be your perception of it anyway?

It took me a long time to come to terms with that, that I will probably simply never know the actual answers to a lot of the questions I've seeked in the past.

Quote:


"Fire has never done this to steel. But a thermite incendiary cutter charge does. The byproduct of thermite is molten iron. The byproduct of thousands of thermite cutter charges is tons of molten iron — as witnessed by numerous NYFD personnel and the WTC Structural Engineer, Leslie Robertson."

That picture looks like a piece of steel that was twisted, bent, torn apart. It doesn't look like it was "melted". Could the force of twisting the metal heated it up a bit and softened it somewhat? ? I'm not an expert, but just take a paperclip and bend it back and forth many times, and see how amazingly hot it gets. Nevertheless That piece is all jagged like it was torn apart while NOT in a molten state.



"Previously molten metal was found "flowing like lava" by the FDNY in the basements of all 3 WTC High-rises. Hydrocarbon fires can burn at a maximum temperature of 1,800°F which is about 1,000° short of the beginning melting temperature of steel. Where did the molten metal come from? Why do FEMA and NIST deny its existence?"

Where is the source for this "Metal flowing like lava" quote? I've only found references to newspapers talking about steel "melting" prior to the collapse, but it only seems to be referring to theories about what CAUSED the collapse, not actual rivers of molten steel. The newspapers were likely just "melt" to describe the softening of steel, as opposed to it truly liquifying, using the term inaccurately.


"The 20 to 50 ton steel columns & beams were broken apart at welded connections and ejected laterally up to 500 feet."

So what? They were being crushed by the weight of an incredible amount of material descending upon them.



"Numerous Squibs (mis-timed explosions) can be seen seen 20 to 40 floors ahead of the advancing "collapse". NIST claims that they are "puffs of air" created from the pancaking floors above. But there are no pancaking floors above, they are not air but pulverized building materials, they occur precisely at the center of the building in an "open office plan", and finally, the 160 to 200 feet per second speed of this debris suggests they could only have been propelled by explosives."

The air from building materials being pulverized as the floors pancake on top of eachother is, yes, going to be full of pulverized building material, and is going to be forced downwards explosively. And that picture shows ONE puff blowing out of one window in the floors below. How does that jibe with a "controlled demolition", which would have all the charges go off at once? And where on earth is it a "fact" that nothing can propel material as fast as a controlled demolition? That's like saying "No one can throw a baseball faster then a firecracker's explosion can". The compressed air from the pancaking floors above is forced down into the air-conditioned (and externally sealed) office floors, building up pressure, which causes SOME windows to blow out. It's kind of what happens when you press down on the handle of your bicicle pump. The handle may be way back, but air is still forced out of the air hose far away from the handle.

I hope you respond to this, because otherwise I feel you are not doing me the courtesy of having an actual conversation with me. Posting endless links and quotes from the Internet is not engaging in conversation, and it forces other people to do all the work and thinking for you. Please respond to these points here. Please to not cut and paste more photos and links.

Someone needs to learn to use the quote function methinks...

No, there was molten metal at ground zero, this is true. There are pictures out there. Don't feel like diggin it up, but suffice to say this doesn't in anyway support any sort of controlled demolition theory, the temperatures at ground zero were incredibly hot and the "pools of molten metal" were created in the days after the collapse.

And sorry for the rant earlier guys...but to me it's just very depressing to see that so many people freely give up their rights in this country because of some sort of insane loyalty to leadership, so many people vote against their interests and for the most part it feels like we're all just too distracted to fix anything about this mess that we're in.

Calling people retards for believing in something you think is crazy isn't helping. Remember that we live in a country where half the population believes that Jesus will literally return to Earth in the flesh and will do so very soon, and a hefty amount of those people also believe that after alot of crazy shit goes down that they will be magically teleported to heaven and then later on everything will be made new and we'll all enjoy a nice life of leisure with our brand new perfect bodies in beautiful Jesusland on Planet USA.

So think about that before you start calling anyone crazy. Because that's not helping us make any progress.

Thanks. I had assumed it was true, and the logical explanation (for me) was that burning material trapped under the rubble trapped heat and allowed it to build up to steel melting levels, as was done in traditional steel melting kilns built of rock or brick. The Conspiracy people claim that only "thermite" could melt steel, ignoring the fact that blacksmiths have been melting iron for centuries, in their forges, without help from "thermite".

Yeah, but eyewitnesses who knew what they were talking about? We're back to the "it sounded like a bomb" argument.

Yes, okay, I'd heard of it too, but I always assumed that when you trap a huge multi-story fire under tons of rubble, you'll get the effect of a blacksmith's forge, which similarly traps heat in an oven until it gets hot enough to melt iron and steel. The collapse created a trapped, steel-melting situation. If the melted steel could ONLY be caused by thermite melting the steel, as the conspiracy theorists claim, then why was it STILL HOT ages later? The only way it could remain hot is because it the heat was trapped by the rubble. And once you admit that what is claimed to be "thermite melted" steel remained hot because of the rubble, you have to admit that the extremelty hot fires that were trapped (and continued to consume the pulverized contents of the buiding) would also have had IT'S heat trapped, heat that would have grown hot enough to melt steel AFTER the collapse, even if it could onlly get hot enough to soften it when burning in less trapped conditions.


Why do you think these scientists are worthy of attention, from you, and from us?


Of course windows blew out (from the pressure of air forced downward through the building) all the way down. If you read about the design of the building, the engineer took an unusual approach and made the supports around the shell of the building take most of the load (this unusual design was in response to the problem of making a building that massive stable). The "core" as you put it, was PART of the support, and once the outer skin's support collapsed the central core could not hold the buildin up by itself .. it would either be dragged down and or crushed by the floors above falling on it.
And the building was designed to survive (and did survive) damage to part of it, as both building managed to stay up for quite a while, even with huge holes punched into the support structure in the outer skin. In the picture you showed, you showed one relatively tiny explosion from a window below the collapsing parts. Since the building stayed up after being hit by a huge airplane, why would a "squib" that only blew out a few windows help bring the whole buiding down? A Controlled Demolitions would involve charges the went off evenly around the whole building, and a demolition charge at the central core wouldn't just blow out a few windows. Either they were real demolition charges (in which case you'd need many more of them, of much higher explosive power) or they were not.

As for the "pancake theory", once the building starts falling, the falling portion is going to gather more and more mass as it falls, become heavier and heavier as it collects more floors as it falls. It wouldn't just slow down as it descended, in fact it would fall with ever increasing destructive power, as it gained in mass.


You are looking HERE to see what scientists and engineers think of all this? Tell me, have you done us the courtesy of reading all the material at Popular Mechanics which is full of scientists and engineers? I need to know the answer. Have you been honest and open minded? Have you read ALL the articles on that site, not just the conspiracy sites who are refuting it? I need a yes or no .. have you read that site? Have you given it a chance? Here's the link again, the first page. http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=1

And please answer, YES or NO, have you been open minded enough to read that site thoroughly?

shit, wrong thread.

yt, PLEASE look at the picture of one of the towers falling and tell me whether or not YOU think that the building is falling in a "symmetrical" pattern, or is leaning. Stop quoting the "scientists". Tell us what YOU think. (link below).
Please answer, because you've repeated this stuff about the towers falling "evenly" as if it were a "planned demolition" several times, without responding once to that picture.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4

It looks photoshopped to me!!

(I jest)

I pointed this out on the first page, in the video she linked it shows the same thing in video *incase a photoshopped claim is made*

Aluminum

I want to add that as the buildings collapsed, the air that is forced into the burning fires as those floors descend would heat the fire like a blacksmith's bellows, pumping oxygen into it and causing it to heat up fantastically. Ask any fireman what happens to an ordinary building fire in high winds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoDiggity
That picture looks like a piece of steel that was twisted, bent, torn apart. It doesn't look like it was "melted". Could the force of twisting the metal heated it up a bit and softened it somewhat? ? I'm not an expert, but just take a paperclip and bend it back and forth many times, and see how amazingly hot it gets. Nevertheless That piece is all jagged like it was torn apart while NOT in a molten state.

Why does it warrant "tests" if the obvious explanation already exists? Supposing you say "that steel looks like it was melted by the acid saliva of a space creature" does it warrant "tests" to prove or disprove it? If they decide that testing for Alien DNA on the steel beam is a waste of time and money, does that prove that they are covering up from the acid-dripping Alien?

If you have a perfectly obvious and normal explanation for why the steel is torn and bent (the collapse of a massive building that the steel was part of) you don't go looking for and testing any "theory" that anyone comes up with. The conspiracy theorists could have you spending money testing the thing forever. Once they test for Alien DNA, they could say it was melted by the weapons of Aliens, which send beams of neutrons at the steel, and when they test for neutron bombardment, and find no evidence of it, they can switch ad-infinitum to theory after theory. That people don't bother testing endless theories is not proof of a "cover-up". They simply already had a perfectly good explanation for it, and didn't want to waste time or energy on extremely unlikely alternate reasons.

There are simply some things we'll never know unless we can be in the buildings or on one of the planes at the moment of impact. Which isn't a possibility. But that gap of knowledge doesn't seem wide enough to wedge a conspiracy into.

I'm still baffled as to why people are looking for excuses here. Plane hits building, building falls, people die. Repeat as necessary. There's no mystery here. Just because a conspiracy theorist says a question is provocative doesn't mean it actually is. I bet someone somewhere thinks that scheduled maintenance taking place the weekend before is provocative, but it isn't.

You can but you should answer his question, that's why he linked that article. If you want, I'll just point you to the picture he's talking about to make it easier.

Funny, that.

Dr. Jones as no credibility (and I don't mean Indiana).

The "micro-spheres" were found to be a product of the high temperatures;
http://web.archive.org/web/200601141...logy.Final.pdf

Please look at this picture, and tell me YOUR opinion of whether or not the building was tilted as it fell. And watch the video that YOU linked us to at the beginning of the thread! It actually shows the building tilting from a different angle, and actually SAYS that it's tilting (above the flames). So I need you to look at the picture (and the portion of the video you linked us to) and tell us if the building is or is not tilting as it falls. (this explains also why the central core is being destroyed, because the outer building is pushing and pulling at the core off center). Just look at this ONE PHOTO and tell me what you think. Is it tilting or isn't it?

http://media.popularmechanics.com/im...r-collapse.jpg

YT .... the part about Demolition in YOUR video!

I watched it, and it LIES to you right in the video, while you are watching the proof that they are lying! For instance, they show you videos of buildings being demolished (small buildings compared to the WTC towers), and if you look at the videos you can see the smaller demolition charges going off, the buildings falling, and then a big cloud of dust from the building collapse spreading out from the building and expanding. The video LIES about that big cloud of dust, claiming that it is in fact the result of a DEMOLITION EXPLOSION even though the videos clearly show the demolition charges going off before the building(s) fall down! Then, after making that blatant lie about what's right in front of your eyes, they then claim that the big clouds of dust expanding from the WTC collapse were in fact caused by demolition charges going off ! Seriously, watch that video that you told us to look at and see for yourself! And please respond to this and tell me whether what I just told you is accurate or not.

P.S. I just realized what they are trying to suggest ... that the huge cloud of dust is caused by the demolition charges alone, and have nothing to do with the building crumbling! But you can see the demolition charges going off, and they make relatively small puffs of dust compared the the huge ones that appear after the building's collapse. The collapse causes the big cloud of dust, not the demolition charges.

YT ... Question your video asks, why did the second tower to be hit fall first?

Seriously, the stupid video actually asks this question, as if it were serious! The tower that got hit second fell first BECAUSE it was hit way lower down on the tower, while the second tower to be hit was hit nearer to the top. So this means that the tower that was hit lower down had a LOT more building weighing down on it from above. This has been explained over and over again, it was explained within hours of the building falling. Why does your video find it such a myster? t doesn't, it's just LYING to you in order to sell itself. I would like you to answer me as to whether you think the fact that being hit lower down is going to cause a buidling to collapse faster, because of the incresed weight pushing down on the damaged part from above.

That doesn't answer the question of whether you've actually READ the articles at Popular Mechanics. have you read them or haven't you? We don't want you to cut and paste arguments from other sites about it, we want you to actually read them first.

Have you or have you not read the articles on that site? Read them yourself, not read people saying stuff about it that you don't know is true, because you haven't read it yourself? Have you read those articles?

YT, about the "pushing through a door" analogy on YOUR VIDEO.

In the video it mocks the idea that the building would not slow down as it fell. It uses the example of someone slowing down to push through a heavy door. Well, who has more trouble pushing through a door, a little kid, or a tall fat man? The answer is the little kid has a harder time, and the Tall Fat Man has an easier time, because his larger MASS in motion applies more energy to the door and pushes aside more easily. The more massive the person in motion, the less they are slowed down by a door in their way. Similarly with the Twin Towers, only Falling parts kept gathering mass as they fell, collecting floors as it went down, so it wouldn't have been slowed down.

I think YT broke NoDiggity with her rational..., where do we go to order replacements?

I've asked a few times.......why wont anyone here talk about how BUILDING 7 collapsed???????

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...ml?page=5#wtc7

We all know building 7 collapsed because after the conspiracy was complete, someone realized that in their perfect planning and execution they forgot to detonate it with the towers (which would have been more believable, obviously). So they waited a few hours, and then detonated it. Much high-fiving was done. Obviously.

The study ElCapitan posted on the very first page concisely explains how numerous factors contributed to the collapse of the tower. The real important findings don't even require advanced knowledge of physics and engineering to grasp.

• Heated metal loses it structural integrity. [Home test: straighten out a paper clip, hold it a couple inches above a lighter, watch the unsupported end begin to bend downwards. Note that you did not have to melt clean through the paper clip for this to happen, only heat it.]
  
• Due to the loss and weakening of support columns at and around the plane's impact, those remaining were over-burdened to the point of failure which causes the initial plummet of the upper half of the building.
  
• There is now an awful lot of weight falling towards the remaining half of the tower which is not able to absorb the impact and collapses under it.
  
• Every floor that collapses further contributes to the falling mass, rapidly increasing its kinetic energy such that the remaining floors and supports dont even have an effect on its falling momentum.

From this mechanical engineer's point of view, nothing more is honestly required to explain the collapse of the tower.

Sadly, there isn't a way to prevent a building from collapsing if it has a significant number of its supports weakened/destroyed. And while no one wants to hear it, the hijackers got lucky with the second plane, hit the tower low enough and compromised enough of the support structure to cause the collapse. The other buildings went down because of the ground level destruction the first tower caused.

It's certainly a tragedy, but the crime isn't that the WTC collapsed, the crime is that 4 airplanes were successfully hijacked by guys with boxcutters and flown into buildings. Everything else is technically collateral damage.

re. Building 7, see http://chud.com/forum/showpost.php?p...&postcount=162 It was a page back, so I can see how you might have missed it.

I'm throwing out one plausable possibility.

Gravity.

Any takers?

You. Fucking. Moron. We can't even EXPLAIN gravity. Why do all of you sheep just line up and buy the "gravity" idea bandied about by scientists and the media? I'm just asking the questions the rest of you are afraid to ask!

(Man, Snaieke, I'm grateful for you leading me to such a fun and appropriate metaphor)

Newton's theory of gravity is just that, a theory. Pay attention people.

Why isn't anyone even talking about the fact that gravitation under general relativity falls apart below the Planck Length??? Do I need to connect the dots for you people?

Who is Rodger Herbst?

Also, who are these "leading structural engineers" claiming to support this conspiracy, let's see some names and credentials.

Also the link you just posted is basically a regurgitation of every other crackpot theory on this, is there anything new there, please summarize so we don't have to waste too much time.

There is so much wrong with that "report", where do you start?

Well, let's start at the very beginning "Van Romero" quickly retracted that statement and clarified that he believed the towers were obviously knocked down due to the flames and impact. Now, this thing has a very recent date, why would they omit to inform you and all of us of that important little tidbit?

Poorly researched, or just plain written by somebody who doesn't understand the obvious facts of the attack?

Also the paper I posted in the 1st page makes all these opinions null, since it explains the similarities of what happened with a controlled demolition ... equations and all.

Where are the references? This poorly written article doesn't provide any, are they in another document?

http://media.popularmechanics.com/im...r-collapse.jpg

All you have to do to prove to us that you have an open mind is look at this photograph of the south tower collapsing, and tell us whether or not it looks, to you, like the tower was tilting as it fell. Why do you refuse to do this?

This thread has just depressed me terribly. I can't stand seeing a seemingly rational mind fall into something like this. It's painful. I'm not even kidding.

Does it sound too cynical if you find some web page claiming "the government" got to Mr. Romero?

It IS falling in that picture! In the video that you posted at the top of the thread, you can see the building from a different angle, tilting as it falls. You quoted a guy who was mocking the "plane weakened he building" theory, and saying that if the plane weakened the building then it would have tilted towards the weak spot. Well, there it is, tilting. So the question to you is, was that "expert" full of crap or wasn't he? He said the building wasn't tilting, the photo shows it definitely was. So answer the question, is this person you quoted worth paying attention to , or isn't he?

And it's NOT "vaporizing, you can see steel beams being sprayed outwards. It's not being "sucked into an implosion" the floors are collapsing onto eachother, which means they are "disappearing" into the empty space between the floors. The cloud of dust obscures what's happening behind them, but that doesn't mean it's just "vaporizing."