PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by K J Gunderson

....hot underground metal....

Well, thank you for acknowledging the truth...."hot underground metal"...is a far cry from so-called "molten steel"...

Kudos to you.

This is not, I will admit, my area of expertise. HOWEVER....I have a bit of basic physics knowledge --- enough to know that, after all of that kinetic energy, in the collapse of such a large building, there is going to be a LOT of energy to dissipate, and it CANNOT all be dissipated into the air, because AIR is a poor conductor of such thermodynamic (as the kinetic energy, and forces involved turned to heat, it now enters the realm of thermodynamics....)

This kinetic enrgy has to find a conduit...and since AIR is a poor conductor (of thermal energy) it will find other conductive sources.

I offer anyone a challenge, to prove my science as "incorrect".

Best of luck to you.



I must defer, at this point, to those who are better schooled in this area...and I believe there are a FEW out there....because my area of expertise is NOT in physics, nor is it in builidng design, nor architecture, etc, etc....I think my area of expertise is well known.

Doesn't mean I can't have 'opinions' on other areas that may be outside my expert area, though....we ALL have opinions.'

I just hope that ALL of our 'opinions' are fact-based, and not....well, you know.....pulled out of some orifice. (oh, crap!!! This is gonna cost me, I can predict it already....).





[edit on 25 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

....hot underground metal....

Well, thank you for acknowledging the truth...."hot underground metal"...is a far cry from so-called "molten steel"...

You are too funny. It really does not matter if it was molten or just red hot for the particular conversation I was having. Apparently it is of great import to you but not me. If you would please pay attention to what it is that I was actually asking about, you would see why it makes not difference either way.

Then again, you said this conversation is off topic and you did not like being roped into it so please get back to whatever you seem to think you were talking about before and let Pteridine decide if he wants to complete this line of reasoning. You obviously missed the boat here and that is a good reason to stay out of conversations you were not a part of when you do not understand them.

Love the enthusiasm though, kid!

reply to post by K J Gunderson



Oh, but it IS important!!!!

You are too funny. It really does not matter if it was molten or just red hot for the particular conversation I was having.

VERY, VERY important.

Term, used (and tossed about so frequently) is "molten"....

Think about that word...."molten"....what does that word conjure, in your mnd????

ME? I think of melted butter......first (but I like to cook, so maybe that's why).

What did anyone else reading this think of?

Did you have different responses, initially???

Is this an important thing to consider, when "eyewitness" testimony is presented??

Lots to ponder, here....I hope you all think seriously upon it.

Does anyone else see my point??

(because I fear that the person I am responding to will not...sorry for being so blunt, but truth hurts.....)

Sometimes....



[edit on 25 February 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Oh, but it IS important!!!!

Are you a joke on purpose? Do you read the things you reply to? Let me try it like this. Molten or hot is not important IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DISCUSSION I WAS TRYING TO HAVE WITH SOMEONE ELSE.

Do you know what that qualifier at the end means? It means that the point of the questions and purpose of the expected answers did not rely on the state of the metal as that was not the crux of the inquiry.

This is why it is best to just stay out of conversations you were not a part of and clearly do not understand. Now had you asked nicely, I would have been happy to explain my English sentences to you so that you could actively participate but you seem perfectly happy to assume and assume incorrectly. So be it then.

Please try reading that first sentence over and over and over again and get back to me when you think you can understand what it means. Maybe you could even ask why it is not important since you do not understand. I mean if you are really so eager to participate then all you have to do is admit that you are lost and ask for directions.

You can just remain ignorant and continue responding with nonsense too though. After all, it is your choice.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


The reason we got to the underground fires is that some folks think that molten metal months later means "thermite." Thermite cools like any other hot metal. This idea was promulgated by various individuals who are looking for conspiracy and are grasping at straws.
Back on topic. The only claimed physical evidence for thermite are the red chips of the Jones paper. Unfortunately for CTer's, Jones botched the analysis. Then, he estimated that there were ten tons of unburnt thermitic chips in the dust. When confronted with the ineffectiveness of a thin layer of any kind of thermite, he then suggested that they were fuse materials. So, Jones concluded that ten tons of unburnt fuse materials were in the dust. If ten tons of fuse are unburnt, where are all the demolition charges that never went off? Energetically, these "highly engineered" fuses are inconsistent in output. This material is what Gage is referring to in his desperate attempt at publicity.
Nano Thermite? Paint.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

The reason we got to the underground fires is that some folks think that molten metal months later means "thermite." Thermite cools like any other hot metal. This idea was promulgated by various individuals who are looking for conspiracy and are grasping at straws.

Right so then what got this metal so hot that it was molten then? What was the heat source? I thought that was what I was asking the first time, sorry if it was not clear. What was the heat source that got the metal to whatever temperature it was at?

just wondering about the 42,875 gallons of fuel that was stored in and under the building.

how much did this contribute if any to hot spots or fires burning amongst the rubble.

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Despite the previous rant, think about this...

Right so then what got this metal so hot that it was molten then?

IF you're talking about the WTC Twin Towers.....there was a heckuva lot of energy involved in the global collapse, of both Towers.

Please, also, recall how deep UNDERGROUND were part of the structures.

Parking garages, as part of hte foundations.

People who rant about the buildings' falling down, seem t forget that a modern building, of that nature is mostly "EMPTY" space....filled with air, and space for the Humans who occupy the building to move around, bring their printers and computers and doughnuts ( ) inside....in other words, an office space.

In the basement parking garage levels, some of these Human 'office workers' parked their cars, those who owned cars and drove into Manhattan.

HEAT generated from the kinetic energy of the collapses....material that was left at the 'bottom' of the pile...various sorts of metals, not ALL 'steel' all with different melting points, 'softening' temperatures, etc, etc...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
IF you're talking about the WTC Twin Towers....

What the hell is your issue? Do not worry your pretty little head over what I am talking about because I am not talking about it with you! There is a reason I am asking Pteridine what I am asking him. Apparently you do not get that, despite my previous several attempts to tell you. I am so very very sorry that you are not getting the attention that you want so badly. You are here no matter what time of day I log on and post so I am certain someone else will be along to entertain you soon enough. I would really hate to put you on ignore just because you cannot butt out of conversations you are not a part of, but I will.

Please do not make me explain this to you any further. Either you need attention or you are afraid Pteridine cannot answer questions all by himself like a big boy. Either way, this is not your concern.

If you need to argue with me so badly, how about you go back to the one where you claimed the penthouse pulled the building down and then called me a liar for reminding you that you said it and then not refuting my posting your actual quotes.

Go work on that one. I am talking to Pteridine here, not you.

reply to post by pteridine


I posted the Jones paper.

reply to post by weedwhacker

"Like I said, earlier.....the 'taliban', and their atrocities, would have been sufficient to have allowed the bush neocons to create a "reason" to do what they've already done."

Well said. You don't need to engineer a fantastically risky & complex plot involving many co-conspirators & hijacked planes & bringing down enormous skyscrapers in order to invade Afghanistan.

By "you" I mean the United States, which can pretty much invade any country it chooses (within reason), the obvious example being Iraq.

And to repeat a point made elsewhere, if the plotters are willing to attempt attacks as audacious as those carried out on 9/11, why not plant weapons in some obscure part of Iraq?

Why the sudden change in approach? After killing thousands of people on american soil, they suddenly pull back when it comes to something as simple, in comparison to 9/11 and the years it must have taken to put it together, as planting a few WMDs?

reply to post by pteridine


You don't provide an example of a steel framed high rise collapsing from fire because there isn't one, not one. Providing the WTC buildings in question as examples is not appropriate.

There are NO other examples of steel framed high rises EVER collapsing from fire. There is no instance in history.

You meekly tried to throw a couple of examples onto this forum, which I eviscerated.

Please, if you can, post some examples of steel framed high rises that have collapsed from fire.

If you do not do this I would like you to admit this:

"No steel framed high rise has ever collapsed from fire, beside WTC 1, 2, and 7."

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by vicen


We had already gone to Iraq before and public opinion was not strong on going back. The people were not behind invading the country no matter how many stories they told us about how mean the Taliban was to women on their own land. There is no shortage of information on why something like 9/11 was needed. Heck, even PNAC spelled it out pretty good for you. Aside from the fact that the people did not support an invasion before 9/11, this was to achieve far more than that. Billions of dollars changed hands. Records of trillion dollar losses vanished. Crazy new laws got passed without being read. We not only invade Iraq but we are still there almost a decade later as well as Afghanistan and there is perpetual talk of going into Iran or Pakistan since the government got carte blanche on 9/11 to invade anyone they wanted. (Read: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and WMDs were either there on 9/10 or still not there on 9/12.) Money changed hands, freedoms were taken from the people, and two countries were illegally invaded. There are plenty of good reasons for them to pull off such a stunt.

reply to post by pteridine


"The duration of (air, not steel) temperatures near 1000 degrees C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 degrees C or below." (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.)

"NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers...All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing." (NIST, 2005, p. 140, emphasis added).

You may read more here:

wtc7.net...

If you're going to attempt to bring up the pictures of rescue workers looking at molten metal, Steven Jones states, within the article, that he is not sure whether they are looking at molten metal or a work light.

Maybe something like this:

"the empirical test results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th." (NIST, 2005, p. 141).

NIST, in their "Final Report," does not address the rapid (free fall) and symmetrical collapse of the buildings. Nor does it make mention of the North Towers' antenna dropping first.

In regards to Molten Metal...

"They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster." (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p.6).

"In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel," Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002).

Also from NIST:

"12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions."

NIST did not even check.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

This is CNN, September 21, 2001. In case you were wondering, that's 10 days after 9/11.

video.google.com...=-2553435320631531201
www.youtube.com...

In case you missed it:

"This is how it's been since day one...and this is six weeks later. As we get closer to the center of this it gets hotter and hotter - it's probably 1500 degrees."

Public health advisor arrived at Ground Zero and said he was reminded of a volcano upon "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel," on September 12, 2001. That's one day after 9/11, in case you were wondering.

www.neha.org...

The there's this article from November 29, 2001, in which an expert states:

"a combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures."

www.nytimes.com...

There's also this article:
www.thenewliberator.com...
In which the gentleman (an Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer) states after seeing a fire truck 10 feet below the ground, still burning, two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."

Then also there's the structural engineer responsible for the design of WTC stating that the fire was still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. You'll find the passage on page 3.
web.archive.org...://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf

Despite the abundance of evidence before you, we still have John Gross, Lead Structural Engineer of NIST, quoted on video:

"I know of absolutely nobody-no eyewitnesses-nobody has produced it."

Hmmm...somebody hasn't been doing there job.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


You apparently don't realize that there is a first time for everything. I corrected you earlier regarding any "example." You also have to include serious structural damage with the fires of you wish to seek an appropriate example.
Try again.

Here's a good video on the molten steel so the trusters will know somewhat what's going on.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1

Hmmm...somebody hasn't been doing there[sic] job.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

There, now Aquarian. Someone did their job. Try reading what I told you about thermite.
Heat that lasted for weeks in the debris could only have come from underground fires and is not proof of anything but underground fires.

reply to post by Doctor Smith


I have seen the video and yes, I agree, there are underground fires.

Scientific peer reviewed published articles ignored by Washington.

www.youtube.com...