Scientific Evidence, 9-11 was a inside Job

this is just one sample of 1 peice of evidence of heat..

''Hot debris. According to NASA’s thermal imaging, the surface temperature of the WTC 7 debris pile exceeded 700 degrees Celcius – five days after the destruction. Residual temperatures like this cannot be explained by fires or gravitational collapse. The latter can only result in a few degrees' increase in temperature.''

wtc7proof.blogspot.com...

www.google.com...

Originally posted by outsider13
reply to post by Achorwrath

 

I admit that its hard to argue with your theory, knowing next to nothing about the physics of burning planes inside collapsing buildings, and not wanting to take the time to research any of these possibilities.
I'd just like to know how you explain the evidence of thermite reactions and molten steel in WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane. Pretty please.

Areial Photos of the site durnig the clean up point us to the source of that colapse.

While not much attention was paid to WTC 5, 6 the Bankers Trust Building, the Verizon building or the old post office we know from inspections and pictures that they sustained damage (WTC 5 and 6 also collasped)

Take a look at this Link it shows debris falling across the street, also note the large amount of burning dbri that is falling from the sdies of the South Tower The same thing happened on the north tower according to many eyewitnesses. as you can see int the areal photograph WTC6 and 5 show large burned out areas. It is entirely possible that WTC7 sustained damage from falling debris that caused it massive structural damage.

Zoom in on the photograph and see how much damage other buildings took from the initial impacts and from the fall of the towers.

Most of thsoe buildings were structurally unsound for months after.

Originally posted by Redpillblues
this is just one sample of 1 peice of evidence of heat..

''Hot debris. According to NASA’s thermal imaging, the surface temperature of the WTC 7 debris pile exceeded 700 degrees Celcius – five days after the destruction. Residual temperatures like this cannot be explained by fires or gravitational collapse. The latter can only result in a few degrees' increase in temperature.''

wtc7proof.blogspot.com...

www.google.com...

I doubt very much it was the surface temperature they were reading. Also I would like to see the verification link on that complete with images, no one has been able to get them.

WTC7 was 147 meters tall made of glass and steel for outer constuction it was not nearly as sound as the taller two buildings (WTC 1 and 2) and the two on the left and right are also made with better structual qaulities ( wider base not as tall concrete used in the outer construction etc) Remember WTC 5 and 6 also completely collapsed...

Your video does not show any molten steel and the fireman mearly says "it is red hot" that is not molten. Steel will glow red hot before it melts and becomes plastic (molten). If it were motlen he would have stated that they did not want to put water on it as it could Explode also when in that video does he say look there is moltem steel at WTC7? He says starting at 00:06 "As we get closer... to the center of this, it gets hotter and hotter" I never hear him say molten metal nor the actual location. He does speculate "it must be 1500 degrees" but not factual information.

Here is a good read on the reduced structural integrity of WTC7.



[edit on 13-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

reply to post by Achorwrath


Stephen Jones claims there was molten metal and evidence of thermite reactions in WTC 7. I asked you if you had an explanation for the evidence of thermite in WTC 7. Pretty, pretty please.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by outsider13]

Originally posted by outsider13
reply to post by Achorwrath

 

Stephen Jones claims there was molten metal and evidence of thermite reactions in WTC 7. I asked you if you had an explanation for the evidence of thermite in WTC 7. Pretty, pretty please.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by outsider13]

Stephen E. Jones made his report based on "reports of motlen metal" he never viewed any, never teseted any debris. How can he conclude that it was thermite?

His theory was based on his opinion on the symetry of collapse, dust jets viewed.
Many have claimed he found pellets yet his official report does not mention any personal testing of these, mearly his opinion on the reports of them.

How is that scientific?

[edit for spelling]

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

Originally posted by outsider13

From what I understand, most of the concrete was pulverized to dust and spread out over all of New York in the the gigantic pyroclastic flow.

Underlined by me to make more visible.

I have noticed this word used in several posts and I think it might be used incorrectly.

A Pryoclastic Flow is defined as a mass of superheated gas, ash and rock.
This moves at speeds of up to 450 MPH, and can reach temps of 1000c

The dust cloud that expanded from the WTC site was just that dust, granted it containted some very toxic chemicals but it was not a Pyroclastic Flow

Link

Originally posted by Achorwrath
While not much attention was paid to WTC 5, 6 the Bankers Trust Building, the Verizon building or the old post office we know from inspections and pictures that they sustained damage (WTC 5 and 6 also collasped)

They did not. Where are you getting this information?

reply to post by Achorwrath


I agree. Density flow would fit better.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Achorwrath
While not much attention was paid to WTC 5, 6 the Bankers Trust Building, the Verizon building or the old post office we know from inspections and pictures that they sustained damage (WTC 5 and 6 also collasped)

They did not. Where are you getting this information?

arial photo of ground zero

Note the damage to the surrounding sturctures.
my mistake WTC 4 and 6 collapsed
6 was a partial collapse 4 was complete.

WTC Zite

Originally posted by Achorwrath
Note the damage to the surrounding sturctures.
my mistake WTC 4 and 6 collapsed
6 was a partial collapse 4 was complete.

I'm still not sure where you are getting your information?

Four World Trade Center was a 9-story low-rise office building in the southeast corner of the site, in Lower Manhattan, New York City. It was damaged beyond repair as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks and was later demolished.

en.wikipedia.org...

Not a global collapse.

The collapse of the South Tower (2 WTC) split the hotel in half (such damage can briefly be seen in the film documentary 9/11), and the collapse of its twin destroyed the rest of the hotel aside from a small section as seen on the picture, due to the structural strengthening of the steel framework after the 1993 bombing.

en.wikipedia.org...

That's WTC 3. Notice it was 22 stories, got split in half by tower 2 and then mostly crushed by tower 1 but still remained partially standing.

Five World Trade Center was a 9-story low-rise office building built in 1970-72 at New York City's World Trade Center. It suffered severe damage and partial collapse on its upper floors as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The entire building was demolished by January 2002 as part of the WTC removal project.

en.wikipedia.org...

Six World Trade Center was the U.S. Customs House: a 537,693-square-foot (49,953-m²), 8-story building in Lower Manhattan, New York City, part of the World Trade Center. Construction finished in 1975. It was destroyed on September 11, 2001, from the collapse of 1 World Trade Center and 2 World Trade Center.

Debris from the North tower covered the area near 6 WTC digging a deep crater into the building's basement. The building's ruins were demolished to make way for reconstruction. AMEC Construction handled the demolition,[1] in which the building was weakened and then pulled down with cables.

en.wikipedia.org...

So, the only WTC buildings to globally collapse are 1, 2 & 7 if you discount some partial core structure in a tower and part of a corner facade I remember seeing in pictures of the towers. So, I guess to be exact, they didn't completely globally collapse either (the towers).

The point is though that WTC 7 globally collapsed from far less damage than the other 6 WTC buildings that didn't globally collapse.

[edit on 3/16/2009 by Griff]

[edit on 3/16/2009 by Griff]

In your own external link it say 6 was "Destroyed".

As I said 6 was a partial collapse, as was 5. 4 was flattened.
I already admitited I made a mistake about 5.

but again look at the damage to the tops of the buildings like ther Verizon Building and the Old POst office you can clearly see imapct damage.

Also an 8 story building and a 47 story under supported building react differently.



[edit on 16-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

Originally posted by Achorwrath
In your own external link it say 6 was "Destroyed".

"Destroyed" does not mean globally demolished.

When your insurance company says your car is "totaled", does that mean it is completely demolished? Or does it mean that the car could be drivable and salvaged, but it would cost more than the car is worth?

As I said 6 was a partial collapse, as was 5. 4 was flattened.

If something is "flattened", why would they have to "later demolish" it?

I already admitited I made a mistake about 5.

Good. I like people who can admit their mistakes. You'll notice I admitted to mine in the other thread about FBI agents.

but again look at the damage to the tops of the buildings like ther Verizon Building and the Old POst office you can clearly see imapct damage.

And these buildings also stood. Have you checked what NIST says about the "magic column" (BTW, that phrase is coined by me. ) The magic column wasn't anywhere near the damage from WTC 1.

Also an 8 story building and a 47 story under supported building react differently.

In every single instance except on 9/11? Possibly, but, IMO, highly doubtful. Unless of course we want to get into the conspiracy that the towers and 7 were of shoddy construction.

But, god forbid we place any blame on anyone for their negligence. Whether from the builders to the government who turned a blind eye to the threats. No, no, we wouldn't want to do that now would we?

I think the builders of WTC7 should be held accountable.

As for WTC they tested their design with what they had available at the time (even they admit to that) they did not have a method for testing the way the building would actually react to an impact, they used scale models etc today we have higher standards and use both computer models and scale models

They also only estimated the damage from fire (from burning jet fuel).

While this is short sighted it is not negligence.

I admit that computer simulations are only as accurate as the programming and data put into the simulation, they are not perfect.

Colum #79 was along the front face of WTC7 (if I remember correctly)

watching the videos of falling debri there are pictures of large chucks hitting WTC7 directly on the top of the roof.

WTC7 Construction

take special note of the picture of the central supports and the support extension that does not attach to the ground.

The building was constructed above a Con Edison substation that had been on the site since 1967.[3] The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories containing 600,000 sq ft (55,700 m²).[4] The final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building covering a larger footprint than originally planned when the substation was built.[5]

The structural design of 7 World Trade Center included features to allow a larger building than originally planned to be constructed. A system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders was located between floors 5 and 7 to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.[3] Existing caissons installed in 1967 were used, along with new ones, to accommodate the building. The fifth floor functioned as a structural diaphragm, providing lateral stability and distribution of loads between the new and old caissons. Above the seventh floor, the building's structure was a typical tube-frame design, with columns in the core and on the perimeter, and lateral loads resisted by perimeter moment frames.[4]

Notice the smaller foundation and the lateral trusses. This does weaken the support in the event of a significant impact (opinion on my part but a valid observation)



[edit on 16-3-2009 by Achorwrath]