Explosive News

I love it when OS'ers have an answer for everything!!

The BBC lady " had had a long day,,,,,"
Well, that explains that away nicely doesnt it??


Care to answer away the pools and streams of molten metal found under the ruïns of ALL THREE WTC's...you know, the pools that were so hot they were still glowing away weeks afterwards?? You know, the pools of molten metal that were so hot the recovery crews needed water trucks to cool the heat down? You know, the molten pools of metal that were unextinguishable??

What melted the metal??
Why did it take weeks to be extinguished?

Originally posted by benoni
care to answer away the pools and streams of molten metal found under the ruïns of ALL THREE WTC's

Care to show a valid source , or photo, of these 3 pools of molten metal....

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by Odessy

 

The WTCs were the only building ever build like the WTCs.

And guess what, they were both hit by planes and they both behaved in the same way.

If only one had fallen (which would make less sense IMO) what would you guys be saying?

They didn't fall in free fall, the amount of thermite taken would've been, literally, TONS, there was no time for conventional explosives to have been placed, in the 10s of thousands, as they would be in a controlled demo, etc. etc.



[edit on 24-2-2010 by seethelight]

umm building 7 was a wtc building and it wasn't hit by a plane, so put that in you box of things that make sense.

bomb sniffing dogs were also on regular patrol, but were pulled 2 weeks before the attacks. Countless statements by WTC employees were made because of this. So much for not having time!

one day youll see, until then, have fun picking on me for my articulation.

reply to post by benoni

The BBC lady " had had a long day,,,,,"
Well, that explains that away nicely doesnt it??

Apart from the fact that wasn't the explanation given. Although that reason is still more likely than the conspiracy, and always will be along with the other more rational explanations.

reply to post by Odessy

umm building 7 was a wtc building and it wasn't hit by a plane, so put that in you box of things that make sense.

The collapsing beams of the towers caused the substancial amount of damage.

bomb sniffing dogs were also on regular patrol, but were pulled 2 weeks before the attacks. Countless statements by WTC employees were made because of this. So much for not having time!

Have you proof of this?

Have sniffer dogs ever been used before in New York without any conspiracy behind it?

Originally posted by Odessy
bomb sniffing dogs were also on regular patrol, but were pulled 2 weeks before the attacks.

Yet another truther made up story, how do you explain the death of Police K9 Sirius, Badge Number 17...a four-and-a-half-year old, ninety pound, easygoing, yellow Labrador Retriever...was an Explosive Detection Dog with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department.
www.novareinna.com...

Originally posted by john124

umm building 7 was a wtc building and it wasn't hit by a plane, so put that in you box of things that make sense.

The collapsing beams of the towers caused the substancial amount of damage.

Are you intentionally being obtuse?


[edit on 24-2-2010 by TrustMeIKnow]

*dereks*
No problem..

"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." -- Leslie Robertson, structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, at the National Conference of Structural Engineers on October 5, 2001, James M. Williams, "WTC A STRUCTURAL SUCCESS," SEAUNEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, Volume VI -- Issue II, October 2001, p.3.

or...

"Fires burned and molten metal flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath my feet." -- Sarah Atlas, New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue, Penn Arts & Science, Summer 2002 issue.

or...

"... saw pools of 'literally molten steel' at the World Trade Center." -- Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, Lead Contractor for Site Clean-up.

or...

"I talked to many contractors, and they said they actually saw molten metal. Beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat." -- Chaplain Herb Trimpe

or...

"There was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down, but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots." -- Guy Lounsbury of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing

or...

"... numerous fires were still burning and smoldering. Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6." -- 9/11 Commission Report.

or...

"....I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being 'dipped' out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy. Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards.

Mark Loizeaux, President, CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC., 2737 Merryman's Mill Road, Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131"

Silly me...thanks dereks for asking for some more info...I should have realised you may require this before you can believe it...


Of course, given you clearly werent aware of the molten metal, I should also point out that going totally against all the above evidence and statements,John Gross, Lead Engineer of the NIST Report stated "I know of absolutely nobody -- no eyewitnesses -- nobody who has produced it," whilst giving a lecture at the Univ. of Texas / Austin on the collapse of the Twin Towers.



Doesnt this strike you as odd??

So much evidence yet NIST says it knows nothing!!

Why would NIST say this??

Can you not see the cover up??

You havent researched this have you...??

Where does the molten metal come from??
How can it still be hundreds of degrees celsius after 4 weeks??

reply to post by TrustMeIKnow

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

I'll correct myself: Steel girders would probably be a more appropriate term, rather than a beam.

reply to post by john124

So that's a yes.

In that case, I'm going to assume that you are merely playing Devil's Advocate in an effort to assist those whom you "don't agree with" (-wink-) to step up their game in order to hammer out the relevant details into a concise enough fashion.

After all, a debate can't occur without someone playing the con position. Thank you. That is all.

Originally posted by benoni
"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." -- Leslie Robertson, structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC,

Oops, you "forget" this fact "In this article it is stated that

"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."
This statement has been attributed to Leslie Robertson and used to support some of the more unusual claims regarding the 9/11 attacks. I was wondering, is this statement correct, or could you clarify it at all?

And a short time later, an email arrived from Leslie E Robertson himself:
"I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge."

So Leslie Robertson never even made that remark about molten steel, nor would he even have known that there was molten steel!

"Fires burned and molten metal flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath my feet." -- Sarah Atlas, New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue,

The Sarah Atlas story also appears to be use “molten steel” for dramatic effect, rather than anything else. How could she possibly know for sure that “molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet"? We checked with the author, and he said this information would have been a quote from someone, but he doesn’t remember who (and none of the possible subjects would really qualify as an expert witness).
www.911myths.com...

"... saw pools of 'literally molten steel' at the World Trade Center." -- Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing,

Did he actually see it?
"Note that Tully is the one claiming he saw the steel, and the article then says he called Loizeaux. So it Loizeaux simply repeating what he's heard from Tully? That would make sense, and it appears to be confirmed by this claimed email from Loizeaux:

Here is what he wrote to me today at 10:38 PST:
Mr. Bryan:

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with"

so he never saw the molten steel himself...

"I talked to many contractors, and they said they actually saw molten metal. Beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat." -- Chaplain Herb Trimpe

So not a eyewitness...

"There was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. .... -- Guy Lounsbury of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing

nice editing there, what he actually said was "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down"

so again not a eyewitness...

"....I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors

so again not a eyewitness....

There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being 'dipped' out by the buckets of excavators.

You cannot remove molten steel that way, and where are the photo's and video?

John Gross, Lead Engineer of the NIST Report stated "I know of absolutely nobody -- no eyewitnesses -- nobody who has produced it," whilst giving a lecture at the Univ. of Texas / Austin on the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Which is true...

Doesnt this strike you as odd??

not at all, as it is true! Where is the video or pictures of this molten steel? How was it removed, as you cannot use a front end loader or excavator to remove molten steel.

snardfarker.ning.com...

So we have no pictures or video of molten steel, no direct eyewitnesses, and the fact that you cannot remove molten steel using a bucket....

So still no proof of any molten steel at the WTC

reply to post by benoni

Where does the molten metal come from??
How can it still be hundreds of degrees celsius after 4 weeks??

It wasn't hot enough for molten metal by then. The temperatures needn’t have been that high to produce noticeable and dramatic effects.

www.911myths.com...

according to NASA analyses made on September 16th and 23rd.

Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier. Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800 degrees F. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16.

pubs.usgs.gov...

Over 800 degrees F is hot, but not nearly hot enough. A more speculative view on the paper suggests maximum temperatures of 1341 degrees F ( pubs.usgs.gov... ), but that's still well below the “about 2,800° Fahrenheit” we need to get "literally molten steel".

The get-out here is that NASA could only see surface temperatures, obviously. And they took their first measurements on the 16th, so temperatures could have been even higher before then. Keep in mind that the hotspots had reduced significantly by the 23rd, though, and excavators wouldn’t have been digging anywhere close to the basement levels until some time after that.

Other accounts suggest the temperatures needn’t have been that high to produce noticeable and dramatic effects.

Here's what you are referring to as molten steel, which was actually reported as molten metal.

Eaton's quote refers to "molten metal", not steel. The use of “glowing red” suggests he may not mean it’s liquid metal, either.

The "Leslie Robertson" quote comes second-hand from James Williams, SEAU President, in an account of a Robertson presentation ( www.seau.org... ). We emailed Roberston to find out if it was accuate, and his brief reply arrived quickly:

I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.
Details here

Williams notes of the presentation only talk of “molten metal”, not steel. It’s possible to construct a case that Robertson mentioned “molten steel” in the lecture, but forgot it later, and Williams wrote “molten steel” rather than metal because, ah, he just did. But short of some evidence to support that, this quote doesn’t appear to have much substance.

The site goes on with other unreliable sources for the "molten steel" idea. There's no proof, and lots of evidence that contradicts the idea.

Originally posted by john124
So it's entirely rational that with all the planning going into such a conspiracy that the govt. would waste time giving the BBC reporters a script that anyone could have stolen and caused 911gate?

You obviously don't know how the news world works. If the government wants a news story they send out press releases that are picked up by the various news outlets. The BBC does not make it's own news (except celebrity crap).

Not a script, just the normal way of doing things.

Because the fireman said it looks like it will collapse.

They did huh? So on what did they base that opinion? Remember steel buildings do not collapse from fires, well until WTC1&2 did that is.

So as I said there was no precedence for that claim. If they really thought it was going to collapse then it was for reasons other than the fires. Rumors were probably spreading that it was going to collapse, maybe some not so well informed firefighters got it mixed up. I mean someone cleared the building and it's surrounding area didn't they? Since when have you EVER heard of firefighters abandoning a burning buildings to collapse (in on itself through the path of most resistance).

Again no precedence to make the claim that the building was going to collapse from the fires. So how could they know?

Do you also listen to fire fighters who heard, and described, multi-explosives? Or were they mistaken, you seem to think what firefighters say is gospel right? Or do you just ignore the ones that contradict your opinions?

Well since the firemen on the scene provided the information, then it sounds a likely event to me. In principle it's no different to somebody predicting a player to score because he's one-on-one with the goalkeeper, and the fans celebrate a goal for a second, but actually it hit the side-netting. Ooops! It didn't go in! But look, hey he's one-on-one again and now he scores!

Do you understand what a precedence is? Can you find one that they could base the opinion that the steel framed building is going to collapse from the fires? Your analogy isn't even close and just shows you are not understanding the need for a precedence to make a claim.

Have you ever thought that maybe they new it was going to collapse because they were told it was, not because they were smart firemen who knew how to analyze damaged structure? Do you think all firefighters are trained in that? See there is always doubt in the claims you hear, you can't site it as fact.

Or maybe the whole thing you read about firefighters was simply a lie?
But of course our government never lies does it...

Human beings misinterpret events everyday, it's perfectly normal, and not a grand conspiracy.

Yes many people are misinterpreting the events of 9-11. And some things are a conspiracy, whether you like that fact or not.

Such shoddy planning for a script, yet left no paper trail and not one credible whistleblower in any of the alleged cover-up!?

What is this 'script' you keep talking about? You're just another assumption maker, basing your opinions on assumptions that don't pan out when taken apart with facts.

So now that your assumptions have been shattered will you re-think your opinion? I doubt it. No script needed. No soup for you!

[edit on 2/25/2010 by ANOK]

the only conspiricy is that bush, cheney and rumsfield had advance knowledge of the attack and thought up ways of how to use it to their advantage. it's also possible that they did what ever they could without arousing suspicion to make it as easy as possible for the hijackers to complete their mission. sort of like i know a flood is coming but don't warn anyone because im a contractor and would like as many buildings damaged so i can clean up on construction bids.



[edit on 25-2-2010 by randomname]

Originally posted by john124
Over-exaggerating frictional forces

Oh so you've calculated all the moments of inertia using the buildings' structural documents and verified how much friction should have been provided by the lower structure? WTC7 free-fell for a significant part of its "collapse." Did you calculate how much friction was opposing that free-fall? Was the building still "collapsing" while it was free-falling?

So you can only demonstrate it once, and then from then on, even if you haven't talked with me about it at all, you're just going to whine and bitch about already explaining it somewhere else instead of just explaining yourself again. Gotcha. Real professional.

Many others have tried as well, and we can't all keep trying when people simply ignore, and I really don't have the time or patience necessary to be a teacher of basic physics.

Me neither, but I haven't seen you post any physics to begin with. I think really you tried to post something technical, made a stupid assumption, someone pointed it out to you, and now you don't bother posting anything objective but just whine about how pointless it is for you instead.

For the record, I haven't had only had classes, I have a degree in Physics with several modules in Mechanics. I may not be as qualified as those with Mechanical Engineering degrees, but I'm fully aware that as each floor in the WTC collapsed; the weight above increased

Prove it. Upwards of 80% of the masses of either tower was shed over the side of the building during collapse and so less than 20% of it was still left in either footprint:












So I would love to see how you can take this information and somehow "prove" that the floors were all gaining mass as the collapse continued, even though the vast majority of it on average per floor was going over the sides. If you want to talk physics first you have to talk common sense, and I'm not seeing most of the mass still at the base of either building. If the total mass dropping into the footprint was theoretically increasing as each floor fell then to validate that theory at least 50% of the total mass of each tower (or about 55 floors' worth of mass, half the towers' height) would be piled onto the footprint. And that's obviously not there.

When the weight above far exceeds any resistive forces, we would see 99.9999% of freefall velocities.

"Weight" and "resistive forces" are not even comparable like that in physics. So this statement is total nonsense. Not to mention there is no such thing as a "freefall velocity." There are free-fall acceleration and terminal velocity. And whether or not those things are allowed is based upon kinetic energy calculations. And you would need the structural documents from the building to accurately assess the moments of inertia and etc.

WTC 7 also collapsed in the way you would expect a building to collapse due to fire.

Another total nonsense statement. There is absolutely no historical precedent for WTC7's collapse, not even another skyscraper in the history of the Earth that has totally collapsed from fire alone. So no, it could NOT have fallen the way one would "expect" it to, since even NIST attributed its collapse to a totally new phenomena and there was NO precedent for it.

There's diagrams on debunking sites that show exactly how the collapsing tower's beams struck building 7.

And even NIST concluded this damage would play no significant role in collapse. It was superficial. Meaning it only took out exterior structure, not inner columns. There was damage to the SW corner and an unknown amount of damage to the South face because no, contrary to what you claim here, there IS no clear photo of exactly what damage was done to the South face. At least not in public domain, though NIST had access to thousands of photos and video clips that haven't been released to the public.

The occasional truther reference made to other buildings which didn't collapse as quickly or at all due to fire are irrelevant. Firstly, because the buildings didn't receive an airliner impact, and secondly because the building materials are different. Each building is different.

"Each building is different" is not an excuse. You can be much more specific than simply saying "you can't compare at all, period" and then moving on and ignoring any further word on the subject. WTC4, 5 and 6 all suffered catastrophic damage from WTC1 and 2 collapsing on them, and also suffered major fires. WTC5 alone suffered much more intense fire than I ever saw in WTC7 that day. And it was made from much smaller sections of steel, thus requiring less total heat and less time to heat up to the same point of failure. And the increased loads of WTC7 would have had absolutely nothing to do with it, because if you're really a CE, then you would know that the column strengths are increased for heavier loads and the redundancy or safety factor is comparable if not greater in the larger skyscrapers. Not to mention it is a lot more steel to physically heat up. These are all valid comparisons and you can't just ignore this information because you think the buildings were vaguely "different" in some other way that you won't even explain as to how it made any difference at all to WTC7's collapse.

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE

 

Paranoid much?

You think they pulled building 7 because of something said on the BBC?

NO!...... I meant the news director pulled the news, they "TPTB" didn't pull anything! more like pressing a red button.....

[edit on 25-2-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE]

reply to post by bsbray11

Upwards of 80% of the masses of either tower was shed over the side of the building during collapse and so less than 20% of it was still left in either footprint:

Still enough to cause a pan-cake collapse.

So I would love to see how you can take this information and somehow "prove" that the floors were all gaining mass as the collapse continued, even though the vast majority of it on average per floor was going over the sides.

The mass of the collapsing system hitting each subsequent floor that wasn't ejected outwards still increases.

Not to mention there is no such thing as a "freefall velocity."

An object has a velocity if it's accelerating at freefall at any given time.

"Weight" and "resistive forces" are not even comparable like that in physics.

OK then, gravitational forces due to the collapsing buildings mass, which has the same units as the upwards resistive forces of the structure that was strong enough to keep it from collapsing under it's own weight without the big hole in the side of the building!

kinetic energy calculations. And you would need the structural documents from the building to accurately assess the moments of inertia and etc.

Precisely, and they're all a function of mass, various distances, and velocities at given times due to the acceleration of the components in motion. This all relates to the forces involved on the structure.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by john124]

Originally posted by john124
reply to post by bsbray11

 

Upwards of 80% of the masses of either tower was shed over the side of the building during collapse and so less than 20% of it was still left in either footprint:

Still enough to cause a pan-cake collapse.

Is this where you're going to whip out the physics to prove it? And just completely make up some figure for "resistance" I guess?

So I would love to see how you can take this information and somehow "prove" that the floors were all gaining mass as the collapse continued, even though the vast majority of it on average per floor was going over the sides.

The mass of the collapsing system hitting each subsequent floor that wasn't ejected outwards still increases.

So what? You act like you've already proven there was more than enough energy, given all the mass you can't count and all the other energy losses. You aren't talking physics, you're talking out of your ass.

Not to mention there is no such thing as a "freefall velocity."

An object has a velocity if it's accelerating at freefall at any given time.

An object has a velocity if it's accelerating period. There is still no such thing as "freefall velocity." You aren't going to mumbo-jumbo me and let it roll. I already told you it's either free-fall acceleration or terminal velocity, not free-fall velocity. "Free-fall" is not a velocity.

"Weight" and "resistive forces" are not even comparable like that in physics.

OK then, gravitational forces due to the collapsing buildings mass, which has the same units as the upwards resistive forces of the structure that was strong enough to keep it from collapsing under it's own weight without the big hole in the side of the building!

Yeah, so now that we've established that you can speak the English language, I'll be waiting for your numbers to prove this.

reply to post by bsbray11

An object has a velocity if it's accelerating period.

Of course it has!

There is still no such thing as "freefall velocity."

Again, I was referring to the velocity of the object during the timeframes of approx. freefall, because they're relevant.

You aren't going to mumbo-jumbo me and let it roll. I already told you it's either free-fall acceleration or terminal velocity, not free-fall velocity. "Free-fall" is not a velocity.

Already explained.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by john124]

reply to post by bsbray11

Is this where you're going to whip out the physics to prove it?

Not really... I can't be bothered to go over it all again.