Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 4:53 pm Post subject: Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary
Carlhole wrote:
MacG wrote:
...I agree with the request for a serious investigation, but what if the investigation shows that there are 50-100 buildings globally which are prepared and ready for demolition? Buildings with people in them? The most prestigious buildings in the most dense urban environments imaginable?
All you are doing in your speculation is substituting one hypothetical conspiracy theory for another - without knowing all the supporting facts.
Police investigators use deductive logic in their investigations because facts are independent while theories are dependent. In other words, theories change to fit the available facts.
It's the same thing in the Scientific Method: you compile the facts and then develop theories to explain them. The best theory is the one that most simply explains ALL the facts, particularly when the theory passes various experimental tests.
Regarding 911, all the facts of the case have not been released. All the facts have not been investigated properly. The theories which have ben put forward have not explained all the available facts.
In short, many, many questions remain that pertain to the empirical evidence. For this reason, 911 needs to be investigated. In the course of that investigation, perhaps it will turn out that thousands of high-rises worldwide have been pre-rigged for demolition. Perhaps it will turn out that these prior placed explosives could be set-off in an ordinary building fire.
I hope such a fabulous rumor gets started around the world because it would inspire people to investigate whether or not it is true. And that would inspire a further investigation of the sudden, symmetrical, near freefall collapses of the Towers and the strange collapse of WTC7.
Ah, I understand that you are angry. I'm a bit angry to, but not as angry as US citizen is allowed to be for being led by lies into a meaningless war. Please don't be angry at me though. I did not lead you into a meaningless war.
We HAVE to learn to think about our own deaths without turning into xenophobic warlike crazies.
What is really fishy though is how fast this was used as an excuse for war, with plans already drawn out... Talk jumping for a fight. No year to morn, investigate, sort things out... Just jump right into war. The Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so we invaded Afghanistan (as we were planning to do)... Brilliant!
I'd try to focus the "debate" on this...
Carlhole wrote:
THAT STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE YELLOW-TO-RED-HOT TEMPERATURES OF THE RUBBLE PILES!!!
AND I'D USE LOTS-OF-CAPS TOO!
Not to say you're intentionally being a tool for the system, but...
THAT STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE STRANGE BUILDING COLLAPSES!!!!
True enough, they are a bit fishy. But it's hard to know never having seen buildings that hight brought down before. What is really fishy though is how fast this was used as an excuse for war, with plans already drawn out... Talk jumping for a fight. No year to morn, investigate, sort things out... Just jump right into war. The Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so we invaded Afghanistan (as we were planning to do)... Brilliant!
Carlhole wrote:
THAT STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE YELLOW-TO-RED-HOT TEMPERATURES OF THE RUBBLE PILES!!!
Ok, as you've probably guessed this part doesn't look all that fishy to me. Here are a couple reasons why.
EDIT: I felt this was a better reason...
steam_cannon wrote:
Another good point though is Aluminum VS Steel... Lets consider for a moment the possibility that I'm totally wrong and the heat of the collapse didn't melt anything. It wouldn't matter. The building had lots of steel and lots of aluminum in it. The rubble was loaded with fires and heat. You ever see a glowing can in a fire slowly melt? Aluminum melts in a charcoal grill and from the NASA images, the site has some fires that you could definitely cook a hotdog over. I think the fires and collapse heat was probably high enough to get to the steel melting range. But even if they were just regular fires, with all the aluminum in that building, that would be more then enough to cause aluminum to melt into molten pools under the rubble. Whatever the case, considering the construction of the building and the fires, it would be surprising if there wasn't any melted metal.
* If you had a piston with a cup of water inside on the ground outside the world trade center. And then you carried a brick up to the top of a WTC and dropped it onto the piston. The impact would probably impart enough energy to boil the water. And it would make a nice crater in someones head if they were standing there. Anything from that high up has a lot of potential energy. Just try to throw a brick that high, you'd need a cannon!
* Another way to look at it is to think about how fire piston firestarters work. They use rapid compression to accumulate intense heat in a small compressed area. http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic24024-0-asc-0.html
The compression of that much matter onto the base material is guaranteed to heat it up like a volcano. It's like socking a punching bag for a while, with a little work the bag starts heating up. In this case it was like a punching bag getting hit with tons of bricks fired from a cannon.
But unlike a uniform punching bag, with a building the heat would likely end up in the most resistant structures that tend to stay in place (steel in the base). So as it rains down, much of the concrete would explode into a hot plume that would expand and quickly cool like volcanic ash. Where as more resistant materials like steel would absorb energy from the fall and bombardment and melt instead of exploding into powder.
* Heat wouldn't indicate charges were used. Sure it looked like a demolition and maybe it was. But charges are unlikely to result in melted steel and "cutting the base" with thermite or something would probably be unnecessary, since thermite's not needed in normal demolition. Simple everyday charges around key service locations or in piping around the core would have been more then enough. Maybe crashing a jet liner would have been more then enough... But hey, cutting the base of the building or other parts with thermite would only make a demolition more dangerous.
And even if thermite was used, the amount of charges needed would probably not contribute massive heat to the structure. The potential energy in the mass of a building is much greater then the energy needed for explosives or thermite to break key support structures. So even if charges were used, most of the energy in the picture is in the mass of the building itself.
Think if you had a foot square pile of Popsicle sticks and put a small firecracker underneath. The firecracker wouldn't be able to lift that whole pile up seven feet in the air. But you could make a structure with that many Popsicle sticks that rose seven feet. And you could bring down a seven foot Popsicle stick structure with that one firecracker. So even though the structure could be brought down with a small charge, that charge by no means has as much energy as that structure, as could be demonstrated by the charges inability to lift a square foot of Popsicle sticks up even one inch.
So relative to the energy in the mass of the building, the energy in hypothetical charges would be trivial. So any molten metal seen in rubble would probably not be the result of jet fuel or cutting charges. They would be the result one would expect from that much mass coming down and of that much energy being turned into heat. Hypothetically, if charges were used heat and molten metal wouldn't be proof of it.
I'm just saying...
Last edited by steam_cannon on Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:03 pm; edited 2 times in total
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:14 pm Post subject: Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary
MacG wrote:
...Ah I understand that you are angry. I'm a bit angry to, but not as angry as US citizen is allowed to be for being led by lies into a meaningless war. Please don't be angry at me though. I did not lead you into a meaningless war.
I'm not angry. I'm a guy has a strong position in an ongoing argument - which is that 911 needs to be investigated.
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:28 pm Post subject: Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary
steam_cannon wrote:
...So relative to the energy in the mass of the building, the energy in hypothetical charges would be trivial. So any molten metal seen in rubble would probably not be the result of jet fuel or cutting charges. They would be the result one would expect from that much mass coming down and of that much energy being turned into heat. Hypothetically, if charges were used heat and molten metal wouldn't be proof of it.
This has not ever been seen in the natural world. It has not been seen in regular building demolitions and it was not considered as any part of any investigation for good reason.
I've seen one of two people pull this particular piece of crap out of their ass on internet forums once or twice and that's about the only place I've ever seen it mentioned.
However, it DOES lend itself to experiment. It would be a simple matter to invent an experiment that would cheaply test whether or not such a doubtful phenomenon could occur. But thank you for the opportunity for me to elaborate on the potential energy of the WTC Towers:
How much kinetic energy was released during the collapse of one of the towers?
FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report gives the only official estimate: "Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 10^11 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure." That is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) per tower.
So that's 400 Gigajoules total gravitational potential energy of one of the towers per FEMA (4 x 10^11 joules).
A ton of TNT or tonne of TNT is a unit of energy equal to 109 (thermochemical) calories, also known as a gigacalorie (Gcal), equal to 4.184 gigajoules (GJ).
So, 100 tons of TNT is roughly equivalent to the gravitational potential energy of one WTC Tower according to the FEMA estimate, the ONLY estimate ever given by ANY of the investigating agencies.
This 100 tons of TNT had to do all the work of:
shredding the steel skeleton structure which was designed to carry 2.5 times normal loading,
Thowing thousands of tons of steel debris upwards and outwards 500 - 600 feet away.
Pulverizing all the concrete and other non-steel materials into fine powder blanketing all of downtown Manhattan,
Causing a rapid expansion of the pyroclastic-like dust cloud to at least 5 times building volume in several seconds
Shaking the ground at earthquake magnitude 2
Creating orange-red hot 1200 - 1500 degree F rubble pile temperatures for up to 5 weeks afterwards
Creating the observed molten metal flowing in the rubble piles
And STILL possess enough gravitational potential energy left over to completely collapse the towers through the awesomely strong, intact, 47 vertical core columns, 250 perimeter columns and other integral structural framework at near freefall speed!
None of the investigating agencies analyzed the collapses from this energy availability vs energy sink standpoint.
The 911 Commission Reports and NIST failed to describe or explain the Total Progressive Collapse of the towers AT ALL. They only described events up until the "initiation of collapse". Just recently, NIST has admitted that it CANNOT explain the Total Progressive Collapse of the towers!
It is not possible that falling floors passed through that massive steel supporting structure as if it only put up about the same resistance as air.
The onus is on The 911 commsission, NIST and other defenders of the official story to prove how that is possible. They cannot prove it because it is physically impossible. Thus, the official reports completely ignored the collapse sequence, preferring to leave it completely unmentioned. _________________ "May you live in interesting times"
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:34 pm Post subject: Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary
Carlhole wrote:
I'm not angry. I'm a guy has a strong position in an ongoing argument - which is that 911 needs to be investigated.
Oh I understand, the administration fought hard to block any investigation. For any reasonable person that should be enough reason to say there should be a more thorough investigation.
steam_cannon wrote:
What is really fishy though is how fast this was used as an excuse for war, with plans already drawn out... Talk jumping for a fight. No year to morn, investigate, sort things out... Just jump right into war. The Hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so we invaded Afghanistan (as we were planning to do)... Brilliant!
Also to quote my marvelous self again, it's my opinion it would be more constructive to focus the argument around things like this, things that are obviously wrong in any democratic society.
Carlhole wrote:
THAT STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE YELLOW-TO-RED-HOT TEMPERATURES OF THE RUBBLE PILES!!!
This just doesn't seem worth mentioning. Many great physicists are against the war for reasons of ethics, going after the wrong country and such... But no respected physicists I know of see any problems with the molten rubble. A building that size had the energy of a meteor and thinking about it myself, I don't see any problem with large amounts of heat from that.
Anyway you look at it, points about temperature and how funny looking it all is divert from the biggest issue. Tricking a public into going to war is simply wrong. This was a day democracy failed and we need to investigate that.
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject: Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary
Cambridge VS Carlhole
Quote:
Cambridge Takes on the Truthers
The school of Charles Darwin, Stephen Hawking and some of the worlds top scientist and engineers has weighed in why the WTC fell and continued to collapse. As no surprise they saw nothing to the controlled demolition conspiracy theorist claims.
http://www.motorsportsartist.com/911truthiness/?p=125
A new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre has been published by a Cambridge University academic, with results that challenge conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attacks.
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2007091002
I just don't see scientific evidence weighing in on the side of this conspiracy.
Carlhole wrote:
steam_cannon wrote:
...So relative to the energy in the mass of the building, the energy in hypothetical charges would be trivial. So any molten metal seen in rubble would probably not be the result of jet fuel or cutting charges. They would be the result one would expect from that much mass coming down and of that much energy being turned into heat. Hypothetically, if charges were used heat and molten metal wouldn't be proof of it.
...I've seen one of two people pull this particular piece of crap out of their ass on internet forums once or twice and that's about the only place I've ever seen it mentioned.
Language Carl...
Carlhole wrote:
This 100 tons of TNT had to do all the work of:
This list is like describing all the work a grenade would have to do to explode...
* First the explosive grenade has to somehow burst and fragment a shell made of "bullet proof" steel.
* Then even though the force of the explosive is distributed evenly in every direction, somehow these fragments that weigh only fractions of ounces still have the energy to fly 50 feet displacing pounds of dense atmosphere and still penetrate thick body armor!
Unbelievable right?
Last edited by steam_cannon on Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:57 pm; edited 2 times in total
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary
steam_cannon wrote:
Carlhole wrote:
THAT STILL DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE YELLOW-TO-RED-HOT TEMPERATURES OF THE RUBBLE PILES!!!
This just doesn't seem worth mentioning. Many great physicists are against the war for reasons of ethics, going after the wrong country and such... But no respected physicists I know of see any problems with the molten rubble. A building that size had the energy of a meteor and thinking about it myself, I don't see any problem with large amounts of heat from that.
You'll have to supply sources or links or something. Because I have not seen any decent explanation for the exteme temperatures of the rubble. I have lots of links testifying to these temperatures and for the existence of molten metal running like lava in the piles.
steam_cannon wrote:
Anyway you look at it, points about temperature and how funny looking it all is divert from the biggest issue. Tricking a public into going to war is simply wrong. This was a day democracy failed and we need to investigate that.
I'm sure a lot of people agree with you that the US public was tricked into war.
My working hypothesis is that 911 was part of the trick. I also think that the Towers were white elephants, needed to be taken down anyway and were convenient, obvious targets.
Somebody, in the planning stages of all of this, thought they were too smart for the rest of the world. _________________ "May you live in interesting times"
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:26 pm Post subject: Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary
Carlhole wrote:
steam_cannon wrote:
Many great physicists are against the war for reasons of ethics, going after the wrong country and such... But no respected physicists I know of see any problems with the molten rubble.
You'll have to supply sources or links or something...
Yeah, I was still editing my above post when you asked this question.
Cambridge wrote:
A new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre has been published by a Cambridge University academic, with results that challenge conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attacks.
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2007091002
When this full report comes out, if they have a problem with molten aluminum or molten steel in the footprint of the towers, well they aren't saying it yet. Unlike peak oil and global warming, I haven't heard respectable scientists agreeing with the demolition theories. And I'll tell ya, as controlled as our media is if any of our lead scientists agreed with the demolition theory, it would be news.
Another good point though is Aluminum VS Steel... Lets consider for a moment the possibility that I'm totally wrong and the heat of the collapse didn't melt anything. It wouldn't matter. The building had lots of steel and lots of aluminum in it. The rubble was loaded with fires and heat. You ever see a glowing can in a fire slowly melt? Aluminum melts in a charcoal grill and from the NASA images, the site has some fires that you could definitely cook a hotdog over. I think the fires and collapse heat was probably high enough to get to the steel melting range. But even if they were just regular fires, with all the aluminum in that building, that would be more then enough to cause aluminum to melt into molten pools under the rubble. Whatever the case, considering the construction of the building and the fires, it would be surprising if there wasn't any melted metal.
Anyway you look at it, points about temperature and how funny looking it all is divert from the biggest issue. Tricking a public into going to war is simply wrong. This was a day democracy failed and we need to investigate that.
I'm sure a lot of people agree with you that the US public was tricked into war.
My working hypothesis is that 911 was part of the trick. I also think that the Towers were white elephants, needed to be taken down anyway and were convenient, obvious targets.
Somebody, in the planning stages of all of this, thought they were too smart for the rest of the world.
Another though, I'm also thinking after the planes hit, really no matter what else happened that day, the administration would have used the planes as an excuse for war. So no matter how it happened, hoodwinking the public is the main issue.
Last edited by steam_cannon on Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:58 pm Post subject: Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary
steam_cannon wrote:
Carlhole wrote:
steam_cannon wrote:
Many great physicists are against the war for reasons of ethics, going after the wrong country and such... But no respected physicists I know of see any problems with the molten rubble.
You'll have to supply sources or links or something...
Yeah, I was still editing my above post when you asked this question.
Cambridge wrote:
A new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre has been published by a Cambridge University academic, with results that challenge conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attacks.
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2007091002
When this full report comes out, if they have a problem with molten aluminum or molten steel in the footprint of the towers, well they aren't saying it yet. Unlike peak oil and global warming, I haven't heard respectable scientists agreeing with the demolition theories. And I'll tell ya, as controlled as our media is if any of our lead scientists agreed with the demolition theory, it would be news.
It does NOT mention the high temperatures in the rubble piles. It doesn't seem to be anything much beyond the Pancake Theory or Bazant's papers.
It doesn't explain the sudden onset of collapse without any period of deformation at all. This is important given that NIST has determined that temperatures at the impact zone did not exceed 480 F (250 C).
Steel weakens to 50% of it's cold strength at 1100 F. And the towers were overbuilt to hold 5 times the weight above. They were "the most redundant design ever built" - according to one Structural Engineer commenting to Peter Jennings on that day.
What caused the 1200 - 1500 F temperatures in the rubble piles that lasted for up to 5 weeks?
Seffen doesn't say. Bazant doesn't say. NIST doesn't say. FEMA doesn't say. The 911 Commission denies the extreme temperatures and the molten metal ever existed.
However, Physicist Steven Jones HAS advanced a theory that would explain the sudden, complete, symmetrical collapse as well as the lack of evidence of high temperatures at the impact zones and also the very high temperatures observed in the rubble piles. _________________ "May you live in interesting times"
It does NOT mention the high temperatures in the rubble piles.
I was getting to that...
Another good point though is Aluminum VS Steel... Lets consider for a moment the possibility that I'm totally wrong and the heat of the collapse didn't melt anything. It wouldn't matter. The building had lots of steel and lots of aluminum in it. The rubble was loaded with fires and heat. You ever see a glowing can in a fire slowly melt? Aluminum melts in a charcoal grill and from the NASA images, the site has some fires that you could definitely cook a hotdog over. I think the fires and collapse heat was probably high enough to get to the steel melting range. But even if they were just regular fires, with all the aluminum in that building, that would be more then enough to cause aluminum to melt into molten pools under the rubble. Whatever the case, considering the construction of the building and the fires, it would be surprising if there wasn't any melted metal.
What caused the 1200 - 1500 F temperatures in the rubble piles that lasted for up to 5 weeks?
Burning aluminum?
Really, it's a good question.
Thermite wouldn't do that because by definition thermite contains it's own oxidizer, so it would burn up too fast to last 5 weeks. However, regular white hot burning aluminum would get to those temperatures and if there were large pools of aluminum there could be plenty of fuel to last that long.
I read somewhere that burning aluminum can get into the range of 3,000° C, where as steel often melts at around 1370° degrees C.
Watching these videos and such, one has to consider how much heat aluminum in structure could have added if it ignited. Cans can burn up in a bonfire. Imagine the heat that could be contributed by ground up carbon aluminum office furniture or if someone had the idiotic idea to insulate a floor with aluminum foam sound insulation. And who knows, maybe they used Magnesium for the window frames, you ever see that stuff burn? You need goggles just so it doesn't blind you!
Ya know, just thinking about is... Hot spots from aluminum or magnesium fires could easily explain the heat and explain people seeing pools of melted steel and or melted aluminum. And the melted aluminum that supposedly was found would further suggest there could have been plenty of aluminum to fuel really hot fires.
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 8:19 pm Post subject: Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary
steam_cannon wrote:
..Anyway, aluminum or magnesium fires could easily explain the heat and explain people seeing pools of melted steel or melted aluminum. And the melted aluminum that was found would suggest there could have been plenty of aluminum to fuel really hot fires.
Sure.
Ordinary fires are not hot enough to ignite a powdered aluminum/iron mixture. You can hold a propane torch on thermite and it will not ignite. You need something like a magnesium fuse to ignite it.
The melting point of aluminum is 1220.58 °F (660.32 ° C). NIST has shown that tmperatures of fires in the towers in the impact zone did not surpass 480 ° F (250 ° C).
And aluminum burning by itself? Find me just one other example anywhere in the world of this happening in some sort of accident.
Lots of aircraft have crashed into flames over the years. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to find ONE example of aluminum being set on fire by one of these.
And then explain the sudden collapse of WTC7 and it's own extremely hot rubble pile afterwards. Building 7, if you recall, was not hit by an aluminum aircraft.
FEMA engineers said of the WTC7 rubble that they found there perhaps the most mysterious phenomenon of all the events of 911: The remains of "vaporized" steel beams and beams which were stretched into thin sheets full of holes - like Swiss cheese.
They also found evidence of sulfidization on them - a signature of thermate (thermite with sulfur added).
You sound like just another fruitcake who will settle for any queer idea that helps you win an argument. _________________ "May you live in interesting times"
Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:50 pm Post subject: Re: Reg Morrison: peak oil visionary
Carlhole wrote:
You sound like just another fruitcake who will settle for any queer idea that helps you win an argument.
Carl, just try reading carefully and calmly. I'm not insulting you. But I am getting the impression that you are insulting me because you don't want to hear answers. Or because these answers are getting too close to conflicting with your beliefs.
Well anyway, you still seem to have some basic questions about metal fires, so here are some answers.
Carlhole wrote:
steam_cannon wrote:
..Anyway, aluminum or magnesium fires could easily explain the heat and explain people seeing pools of melted steel or melted aluminum. And the melted aluminum that was found would suggest there could have been plenty of aluminum to fuel really hot fires.
Sure
...You can hold a propane torch on thermite and it will not ignite. You need something like a magnesium fuse to ignite it.
I don't know about thermite, but I do know I just posted two videos of someone ignighting solid pieces of aluminum with a torch. Second charcoal gets hot enough to burn aluminum and charcoal formed during the combustion of plastics and paper could get hot enough too. Third, aluminum can slowly oxidize in a fire and contribute significantly to the heat. So even full ignition of aluminum is not necessary. It's easy to try, just toss a soda can in a fire sometime.
Carlhole wrote:
And aluminum burning by itself? Find me just one other example anywhere in the world of this happening in some sort of accident. Lots of aircraft have crashed into flames over the years. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to find ONE example of aluminum being set on fire by one of these.
These temperature estimates exceed the melting point of aluminum. See also the burning-aircraft photos in this thoughtful rebuttal of Professor Jones' lunatic "thermite" theory. http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm ("Air France flight 358 didn't hit a steel building at 500 miles an hour. It didn't even burn the fuel in the wings yet it's aluminum skin melted to the ground. It simply went off the runway and caught fire. What melted the airliner was the contents like seats, clothing and other combustibles including chemical oxygen generators. It's not unreasonable to conclude the airliner and contents didn't even need the contents of the building to melt.") (unfortunately, the author of that article also mistakenly assumed that iron is "non-combustible")
It should also be kept in mind that "aluminum ... ignites at relatively low temperature," Aluminum, "melts at about 1,220[F] degrees. At about 1,400[F] degrees, it can automatically ignite and burst into flames without any spark" "The formation of aluminum oxide is accompanied by the release of a tremendous amount of heat ... temperatures can reach around 5,000 degrees." http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/06/17/18281125.php
Simply put, all that is needed to happen is for the one of hundreds of oxygen generators on a plane to reach about 400+ degrees to burst it's seals and start an oxygen fire. Once that happens you've easily got an aluminum fire. But even without oxygen generators, fires could have easily reached ignition temperature for aluminum or magnesium present in the airframe to ignite.
By the way, sodium chlorate is an excellent oxidizer and perfect for starting metal fires, I've done it. Also aircrafts contain large amounts of magnesium parts. If you watch the videos, magnesium burns very well too. So inside the relatively "cold looking" black smoke of the towers, there were probably metal fires burning with their own oxygen. So there would be no shortage of heat. And after the towers collapsed, magnesium fires or aluminum fires could have explained the heat in the collapsed building.
Carlhole wrote:
And then explain the sudden collapse of WTC7 and it's own extremely hot rubble pile afterwards. Building 7, if you recall, was not hit by an aluminum aircraft.
Really, this is a separate argument. So I'm going to keep this short. WTC7 visibly had a chunk of building land on it and was on fire. If you like to think they torched it, maybe but there were a lot of building fires in that area that day.
Carlhole wrote:
FEMA engineers said of the WTC7 rubble that they found there perhaps the most mysterious phenomenon of all the events of 911: The remains of "vaporized" steel beams and beams which were stretched into thin sheets full of holes - like Swiss cheese.
They also found evidence of sulfidization on them - a signature of thermate (thermite with sulfur added).
Well, if FEMA says they found thermite I might belief it. But you know, that building had a big diesel tank fire that day and which would release lots of sulfur, as would burning plastics. And steel beams turning to "swiss cheese" has happened before, that's what basically happened with this burning tanker truck video...
Fuel burning out steel bridge beams http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3bvfdCogDs
Based on this bridge fire, one can see that thick steel beams can melt and disintegrate in a fuel fire. Based on visual proof, burning metals would not have even been necessary for either buildings to collapse. But hey, that's just my first impression. It's just that knowing a bit about combustion and metals, none of this sounds really surprising or impossible.
But getting back to the topic of metal fires, try burning some metals if you don't believe the videos. Ya know, they sell great magnesium fire starters at Walmart, they're lots of fun! Whatever you do I think you should take it easy with the insults, it makes you sound unreasonable.
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
