Study concludes explosives used on 911

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

This doesn't make any sense at all. Are you being purposely obtuse?[

I was assuming you were?

Is that a question?

It is apparent that you don't understand much about the technical details and are obviously parroting what you have read on the A&E site. It is unfortunate that they are just as much in the dark as you are.

a reply to: pteridine

It is apparent that you don't understand much about the technical details and are obviously parroting what you have read on the A&E site. It is unfortunate that they are just as much in the dark as you are.

Unfortunately that is your "opinion," based on no evidence

Again pot calling kettle.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

It is apparent that you don't understand much about the technical details and are obviously parroting what you have read on the A&E site. It is unfortunate that they are just as much in the dark as you are.

Unfortunately that is your "opinion," based on no evidence

Again pot calling kettle.

I see you are back to pots and kettles, again. Are you desperate because you have no evidence for explosives?

a reply to: pteridine

I see you are back to pots and kettles, again. Are you desperate because you have no evidence for explosives?

I see you are back calling your "opinions" fact again. Are you desperate because you have no evidence that scientifically debunks explosives?


Study concludes explosives used on 911

The Op topic is not about me, You haven't debunk the Op yet.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

I see you are back to pots and kettles, again. Are you desperate because you have no evidence for explosives?

I see you are back calling your "opinions" fact again. Are you desperate because you have no evidence that scientifically debunks explosives?


Study concludes explosives used on 911

The Op topic is not about me, You haven't debunk the Op yet.

There is nothing to debunk. It is speculation.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

You really don't understand colliding steel in motion results in the changing of vectors?

You really don't understand how steel that was tested to burn for many hour before weakening at temperatures of 2500 degrees, weakened in just one hour due to office fires?

Again you have skirted all my questions and have ignored my sources.

I have not skirted anything. How many times have you been told structural steel loses 40 to 60 percent of its ability to resist load around half it melting point. That is scientific fact!

How many times have you been told the WTC structural steel fire proofing was inadequate.

How many times have you been told the WTC just stated upgrading its steel fire proofing when 9/11 happened.

How many times have you been asked why structural steel needs fire proofing if its impervious to office fires.

How many times have you been told structural steel is shaped / forged Into i beams and columns at 60 percent of its melting point. It can actually be shaped at lower temps, but the higher temps helps lessen the strain on rollers, presses, and dies.

a reply to: Informer1958

A study by a religious NUT JOB not a structural engineer.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

If lateral ejection at the WTC was impossible, then how does turning potential energy into kinetic energy cause the balls of a Newton's cradle swing higher than their starting height?

Lateral ejection at WTC was not impossible--it actually happened, it is a fact. There were many pictures taken of that fact, it was well documented.

What you cannot grasp, it seems, is that the lateral ejection fact is fatal to the NIST report which claimed the collapse of the towers to be a natural event, gravity driven. The NIST explanation has been discredited in many ways, and the lateral ejection of material is but one.

We were all deceived on that day, and many for years afterwards. It was a staged event, and the most likely cause of that lateral ejection was some sort of very special tactical nuclear devices, awesome energy.

a reply to: Salander

1300 FT HIGH FALLS how far do you think they could end up in theory

Nuclear device with NO blast/ heat wave or emp exactly how is that done

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

You really don't understand colliding steel in motion results in the changing of vectors?

You really don't understand how steel that was tested to burn for many hour before weakening at temperatures of 2500 degrees, weakened in just one hour due to office fires?

Again you have skirted all my questions and have ignored my sources.

oh 2500 degress

The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1,130 °C (2,070 °F). Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F).

Fire resistance - Steel is inherently a noncombustible material. However,when heated to temperatures seen in a fire scenario, the strength and stiffness of the material is significantly reduced.

Show me the test results for this test as I worked in the design/drawing office of a STRUCTURAL steelwork company please show and ACTUAL test with results or don't ever post on a 9/11 thread again if all you can do is LIE

a reply to: Salander

Newton's cradle shows a moving object falling only through the action of being let go and gravity can transfer its kinetic energy through a series of static steel balls. That kinetic energy transferred to the most opposite and outer ball causes a lateral ejection.

m.youtube.com...#

You only need kinetic energy from falling steel and collisions to cause lateral ejection.

Please prove what is magical about kinetic energy from a detonation vs impossible kinetic energy from falling steel?

Is it different kinetic energy?

Are there only equal and opposite reactions for detonations?

a reply to: Salander

special tactical nuclear devices, awesome energy.

Still on the Nuke thing despite no evidence of radiation at the WTC, either during the collapse or afterwards
in the rubble

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

You really don't understand colliding steel in motion results in the changing of vectors?

You really don't understand how steel that was tested to burn for many hour before weakening at temperatures of 2500 degrees, weakened in just one hour due to office fires?

Again you have skirted all my questions and have ignored my sources.

2500 degress

The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1,130 °C (2,070 °F). Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F).

Fire resistance - Steel is inherently a noncombustible material. However,when heated to temperatures seen in a fire scenario, the strength and stiffness of the material is significantly reduced.

Show me the test results for this test as I worked in the design/drawing office of a STRUCTURAL steelwork company please show and ACTUAL test with results or don't ever post on a 9/11 thread again if all you can do is LIE

It is pointless to show Informer anything. He/she wants what he/she wants [a demolition] and has closed his/her mind to reason and reality. I pointed out the fallacy of the 2500F "test" and was told that Wikipedia was full of errors and that the MP of steel shown in Wikipedia was wrong. Whatever reference you use, it will be wrong or an "opinion," one of his/her favorite go-to words. The fact that A&E is nothing but opinion and is staffed with idiots and fraudsters is ignored by all who live in the 9/11 fantasy world.
As you can see, Salander is also into deflection. Now, he reverts to the tactical nuke argument which approaches the death rays from space and dustification in blatant stupidity. The switch of topic is common amongst the demolition brethren when they are cornered as they cannot stand up to any sort of scrutiny nor make logical arguments about the theories dictated to them by the fraudsters.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Salander

1300 FT HIGH FALLS how far do you think they could end up in theory

Nuclear device with NO blast/ heat wave or emp exactly how is that done

Since Nagasaki and Hiroshima, do you suppose there has been any further research in nuclear weapons and devices? Have you no imagination?

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Salander

1300 FT HIGH FALLS how far do you think they could end up in theory

Nuclear device with NO blast/ heat wave or emp exactly how is that done

Since Nagasaki and Hiroshima, do you suppose there has been any further research in nuclear weapons and devices? Have you no imagination?

Having an imagination is one thing. Not understanding anything about nuclear explosives, radiation, and fallout is something else. You might as well claim that it was magic.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Salander

1300 FT HIGH FALLS how far do you think they could end up in theory

Nuclear device with NO blast/ heat wave or emp exactly how is that done

Since Nagasaki and Hiroshima, do you suppose there has been any further research in nuclear weapons and devices? Have you no imagination?

Do YOU actually have any idea how nuclear weapons work . Your as daft as informer who thinks Steel was load test for hours when just a couple of hundred degrees below melting point.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Salander

1300 FT HIGH FALLS how far do you think they could end up in theory

Nuclear device with NO blast/ heat wave or emp exactly how is that done

Since Nagasaki and Hiroshima, do you suppose there has been any further research in nuclear weapons and devices? Have you no imagination?

Please state how many nuclear devices that have been tested and detonated since the 40's. Then you may discover your own naivety.

The number of atomic bombs detonated in the atmosphere will blow your mind!

a reply to: Salander

en.m.wikipedia.org...

As of 1993, worldwide, 520 atmospheric nuclear explosions (including 8 underwater) have been conducted with a total yield of 545 Megaton (Mt): 217 Mt from fission and 328 Mt from fusion, while the estimated number of underground nuclear tests conducted in the period from 1957 to 1992 is 1,352 explosions with a total ...

a reply to: Salander

How many nuclear physicist running around saying nukes brought down the WTC buildings?

How many nuclear physicists supporting AE911TRUTH?

a reply to: wmd_2008

I can easily remember that in US Army training in the 60's, the US Army was in possession of "tactical nukes" such as Davey Crockett. I know that a "suitcase nuke" was shown to members of congress way back when, including Barry Goldwater.

You can pretend all you wish that such things did not exist, but I know better. By 2001, one can only imagine what kind of progress has been made in tactical nuclear devices.