Explosive News

reply to post by hooper


Very nice job of extracting single lines out of context from my post and posting your "rebuttal" after them. You seem to forget that my entire post is just a poke of a "page up" button from yours, and anyone who wants to understand what is being said can quickly see how your statements fail to address the substance of my post.

Thank you for allowing people an excellent illustration of the very tactics I complain are pointless and add nothing to the discussion at hand. As I said, there are questions that are not going to go away, and the majority of Americans are asking them. Your answers aren't going to satisfy them any more than they satisfy me. But please, I support your right to underscore, albeit negatively, the points I am trying to make in my posts. You do it very well.

reply to post by seethelight


I understand why you use the signature that you have beneath your every post. It is an apt description of the arguments you put forward nearly every time. Thanks for warning us all about the nature of your arguments, and that they are fallacious by definition. That's very kind of you.

reply to post by Leo Strauss


It doesn't point to a cover-up at ALL.

No one on the scene claims that they heard the hundreds of timed explosions necessary if this had been a planned demo.

Did some things explode of sound like explosions?

Probably, after all three buildings collapsed, including two 100 storey skyscrapers.

Does that in ANY WAY point to controlled demo or bombs?

No, of course not.

People say that they hear explosions when meteorites enter the atmosphere. Are they covered in nano-thermite?

The point is, many things sound like explosions. That's not enough to claim there was bombs and a cover-up.

Here's some examples of how flawed your reasoning is:

Witness: Train Crash Sounded Like an Explosion
www.washingtonpost.com...

Cliff collapse 'sounded like an explosion' says witness
www.thefreelibrary.com...

It sounded like an 'explosion' when gondola landed on bus shelter
www.theprovince.com...

Princess Diana car crash ‘was like an explosion’: Witness
www.topnews.in...

Guess which of these things, all of which witnesses claimed "sounded like explosions" actually involved explosions... the answer is NONE.

People claiming that they heard something that sounded like an explosion as a building collapses IS NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING.

reply to post by without_prejudice


Awesome way to completely ignore everything I've posted.

Why not go read those links and open your mind.

Originally posted by conar
Here's a new video about NIST's report on building 7 etc

911 is only the tip of the mountain though, when 911 falls apart, the public/media will look into the anthrax attacks, JFK, MLK, Gulf of Tonkin etc etc

[edit on 24-2-2010 by conar]

Don't forget the USS Liberty attack by ISRAEL!!! ISRAEL attacks an AMERICAN naval ship which was situated in INTERNATIONAL waters, because THEY thought it was spying on their terrorist activities and their murder of innocent Palestinians!!!

Bedunkers are very funny, yea I know how I spelled it, thought that was funny too!!

reply to post by seethelight


So you agree with NIST and FEMA? There was no need to test for explosives? Let's just skip that part because we already know that the planes were responsible for the all the damage?

P.S....Your act is soooooooooooooooooooo tired! You need to come up with something new!

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by without_prejudice

 

Yes, but the Madrid building was steel re-enforced concrete.

Find ANOTHER building over 40 storeys tall built like the WTCs that's been hit by a giant jet full of fuel at top speed.

The Madrid comparison is NOT apt.

I know it seems SIMILAR, but it not THE SAME.

Concrete doesn't behave the same way as steel.

I really don't believe I said it was the SAME. I said compare it to, which implies that they seem similar. And the comparisons are between the Madrid fire and the Twin Towers, which I did not make explicit but I thought it kind of obvious by the fact that I referred to the buildings burning for less than 2 hours.

Since you seem to have difficulty in seeing how a comparison is apt, allow me to be more specific: the Twin Towers burned for less than two hours, and the temperature of that fire is limited by the burning temp of jet fuel, by the fact that most of that fuel burned outside the building in those spectacularly pyrotechnic fireballs upon impact, and as evidenced by the thick black smoke pouring out of the building and the lack of large tongues of flame engulfing the structure, which implies a lower temperature, oxygen-starved fire. That is my common sense opinion of that kind of low-flame, thick smoke fire , and I think the fact that the firemen who were on the scene thought it could be knocked out by 2 or 3 lines support that view.

If you really need me to reference the radio conversation of the firemen calling for 2 or 3 lines to fight the fire in the first tower hit, I will look up the link and post it.

Yet the Towers fell in less than two hours, and they didn't just fall over, they pulverized themselves with astonishing speed into their own footprints while explosively ejecting a substantial portion of that pulverized mass into the air and buildings around them.

Compare that to the Madrid fire, which was admittedly in a smaller, yet steel-framed high rise building. The notable differences are that the Madrid building was almost completely engulfed in flames for nearly 20 hours, in a fire hot enough that there was comparatively less smoke and substantially more flame. Also, in the Madrid fire, although the buildings facade and indeed many of its floors burned away and/or collapsed, the steel structure was left standing and it was strong and stable enough that a construction crane on its roof was used to help demolish the building after the fire was put out.

This video I just found on YouTube is illustrative of these ideas:



Now this is a video put together by one of those lying "truthers" so let us look at some other videos of the same event that were not done by anyone involved in the 9-11 debate.





Notably, despite the "collapse" of the top six floors, the building's steel frame remained, and retained a substantial portion of its integrity. Also, when those floors collapsed, the burning material wasn't pulverized, nor did it launch itself several hundred feet away from the building as it came down. In fact, the chunks that fell were quite large and retained much of their shape because their weight pulled them straight off their supports once those supports were burned away in the fire.

But you're right, there are significant differences. Like the fact that the Twin Towers were actually designed in anticipation that they could be struck by the largest plane of the day, the Boeing 707, fully laden with jet fuel. Not surprising that they would take that into account, considering that the Empire State Building, not nearly as tall, was struck by an air force fighter plane a few decades before. Oh yeah, it didn't collapse either.

But now that I think about it, the comparison between the Madrid fire and the Building 7 fire is a little more appropriate. And just as puzzling, considering how Building 7 fell, and the Madrid Windsor Building didn't.

Although Building 7 did burn for 6 or 7 hours, the fires did not "engulf" the building at any time. Building 7 may have been hit by some debris that was ejected from the Towers when they fell, though... but how far away from the Towers is Building 7 anyway? I recall approximately 100 yards, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Quite a ways for a chunk of debris to travel from the Towers just under the power of the gravity pulling it straight down.

And the construction of Building 7 was fairly typical for a building of that size, as was the Windsor building in Madrid. So while 20 hours of intensely hot flames couldn't fell their building, 5 or 7 hours of flames that could barely be seen through the unbroken windows of Building 7 crumbled it into small pieces in under 15 seconds, once the collapse started. I think we either have very poor building construction, compared to Spain.

Or maybe what we really have is much better fires. Good thing none of our fire got loose over there, or that whole city would have come down, eh?

And your stipulation of a building over 40 stories tall is obviously an arbitrary point that doesn't bear on the comparability between the two fires, it's just a cheap way to try to discredit the comparison. If you really want to go there, maybe we should start a new thread and have at it based on whatever criteria you feel are pertinent to make a valid comparison between the WTC fires and other fires that have occurred before or after 9-11?





[edit on 2/25/10 by without_prejudice]

reply to post by without_prejudice


without any prejudice intended,

maybe you could explain what happened to the 42,875 gallons of fuel that (supposedly) was stored in and under building 7.
Did this not contribute to fire in the building before or after falling.

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by without_prejudice

 

Awesome way to completely ignore everything I've posted.

Why not go read those links and open your mind.

On the contrary, I eagerly read your every word, and I read your links, too. That's why i can confidently make that statement about your signature and how it relates to the content of your posts.

In my experience, people who are going to do you an injustice always tell you that they are going to do it first. That way, they can't be blamed for whatever happens, because you were warned.

I appreciate your opinion that I am closed-minded. I do have my opinions, but they are not unchangeable, given a sound logical argument or valid evidence that disputes them. I will let my own posts stand as the evidence of whether your claim is true or false. I think your posts also bear witness to the state of your mind, regardless of how you label yourself. But, in my opinion, that sig of yours is delightful in its wry irony.

reply to post by butcherguy


Go down to your local junk yard. Find a piece of steel girder. Take it home an put some kerosene on it. Let us know how long it takes before you can bend it.

I used to run the annealing dept at a major tool manufacturing facility. Our furnaces routinely ran in the neighborhood of two thousand degrees. Even then it took over 11 HOURS to soften a load of pliers so they could be run through the coining presses. Keep in mind that pliers are much smaller than steel girders and will be softened much easier. Kerosene does not burn hot enough to alter the atomic structure of steel. I have ten years experience softening steel for a living.



[edit on 2-25-2010 by groingrinder]

Originally posted by redgy
reply to post by without_prejudice

 

without any prejudice intended,

maybe you could explain what happened to the 42,875 gallons of fuel that (supposedly) was stored in and under building 7.
Did this not contribute to fire in the building before or after falling.

I'll bite .

NIST said Diesel Fuel , Building Structure had Nothing to do with WTC7 collapse

Originally posted by redgy
reply to post by without_prejudice

 

without any prejudice intended,

maybe you could explain what happened to the 42,875 gallons of fuel that (supposedly) was stored in and under building 7.
Did this not contribute to fire in the building before or after falling.

There is a manifest for the removal of the fuel from the two tanks a week before Sept. 11. This I believe was posted on Whatreallyhappened.com

So the fuel tanks were empty, and the fuel lines are incased in concrete and the tanks were in the center of the building in the basement, so there is NO WAY anything could have hit them or ruptured the line. The debris, and there was none as building 7 is so far away from the 2 towers, could not have penetrated the 3 feet thickness of the walls and then still have the energy and inertia to puncture a concrete encased steel fuel line, please. That is an absurd claim and an insane arguement.

The fire-ravaged hotel is still standing and the hotel's website says that the project has (obviously) been postponed. According to the StructureHub blog, the hotel can be repaired but may not necessarily rebuilt. We hope something good can come from these luxury ashes.

www.hotelchatter.com...[/hea dline]

Mandarin Hotel in Beijing complete burnt to a crisp and still standing? Anyone. Debunkers of building 7 can you explain this PLEASE!!!!

[edit on 25-2-2010 by daddio]

[edit on 25-2-2010 by daddio]

Originally posted by daddio

The fire-ravaged hotel is still standing and the hotel's website says that the project has (obviously) been postponed. According to the StructureHub blog, the hotel can be repaired but may not necessarily rebuilt. We hope something good can come from these luxury ashes.

www.hotelchatter.com...[/hea dline]

Mandarin Hotel in Beijing complete burnt to a crisp and still standing? Anyone. Debunkers of building 7 can you explain this PLEASE!!!!

[edit on 25-2-2010 by daddio]

[edit on 25-2-2010 by daddio]

Yes, it was a different kind of building. They do make different types of buildings. As proof - look out the window.

Originally posted by groingrinder
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Go down to your local junk yard. Find a piece of steel girder. Take it home an put some kerosene on it. Let us know how long it takes before you can bend it.

I used to run the annealing dept at a major tool manufacturing facility. Our furnaces routinely ran in the neighborhood of two thousand degrees. Even then it took over 11 HOURS to soften a load of pliers so they could be run through the coining presses. Keep in mind that pliers are much smaller than steel girders and will be softened much easier. Kerosene does not burn hot enough to alter the atomic structure of steel. I have ten years experience softening steel for a living.



[edit on 2-25-2010 by groingrinder]

I too, am familiar with annealing ovens.
The eleven hour period you speak of is referred to as SOAK time. You didn't say what fuel you were firing in your annealing ovens, but I will venture a guess that it was natural gas.
What has more BTUs per cubic foot? Natural gas or kerosene?
I have melted steel with various fuels, kerosene included.

I am just tired of hearing that kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt steel.
Check this link out, please.
www.backyardmetalcasting.com...

Did you ever hear of a blacksmith?
They soften steel to the point that it can be bent by hand, with a fuel called charcoal.

Charcoal.

BTW, I don't need to go to a junkyard.
I am at work now, have a nice piece of 12'' steel I-beam outside my office.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by butcherguy]

[edit on 25-2-2010 by butcherguy]

Originally posted by redgy
reply to post by without_prejudice

 

without any prejudice intended,

maybe you could explain what happened to the 42,875 gallons of fuel that (supposedly) was stored in and under building 7.
Did this not contribute to fire in the building before or after falling.

I'm no fire or demolitions expert, nor have I read the NIST's reports in full on building 7. I can't explain anything about the fuel in the storage tanks, and I don't know whether or not it ignited or played a part in Building 7's collapse.

So, my uninformed, off-the-cuff, and entirely unresearched answer to your question is this: my understanding is that the stored fuel was essentially kerosene, and that kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt steel. Since the claim of the Official Story is that there was no catastrophic explosion involved in 7's collapse, though, it seems that the burning of that fuel, if it occurred, must have been contained or controlled in a long-lasting burn that I don't think could have reached the temperatures needed for the kind of collapse that happened. But I am not invested in that opinion, nor am I claiming it to be factual. It's just the thought that comes to mind from your question.

So, if you could explain from an informed and researched point of view what actually or allegedly happened, I am open to hearing that explanation, because as far as I have heard, the Official Story is very thin as to what went on there, and quite a lot of the eye-witness accounts appear to tell a story that raises more questions than provide answers.

I would also ask that, since I have answered your questions, you do me the favor of answering the questions I asked you when I answered your objection to my previous post. In particular, I am curious if you were indeed at Ground Zero on 9-11 or on any of the days shortly thereafter. After all, if you were that would add considerable weight to your statements about what happened there, and I could hardly make the kind of statement about you that I have made about Dereks or seethelight regarding whether their posts are factual or just the opinions that they have adopted from second-hand sources.

I eagerly await your reply.

In the meantime, I will spend some time familiarizing myself with the NIST reports. Are there any other documents that you feel are pertinent that tell the facts of what happened to Building 7 that I should look at as well?

The ET’s are responsible for 911 – not the OS, not controlled demolition.

ET’s communicate with us using dates, times, words used in describing the event/objects.

Building 7 imploded at 5:20 – 5 is letter “E”, 20 is letter “T”. Therefore 5:20 is ET.

Look at www.abovetopsecret.com...

There was a Sun spot which appeared at the same time/date as the Haitian earthquake. The sun spot had the same shape as the Haitian group of islands. Three or four wks later, there was an earth quake on a island group in Japan – a sun spot in that shape appeared. Then at the start of the Olympics, there was a Sun spot in the shape of the Olympic emblem.

The free fall nature of the implosion defies laws of physics – not the law of “God/ET”.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by groingrinder
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Go down to your local junk yard. Find a piece of steel girder. Take it home an put some kerosene on it. Let us know how long it takes before you can bend it.

I used to run the annealing dept at a major tool manufacturing facility. Our furnaces routinely ran in the neighborhood of two thousand degrees. Even then it took over 11 HOURS to soften a load of pliers so they could be run through the coining presses. Keep in mind that pliers are much smaller than steel girders and will be softened much easier. Kerosene does not burn hot enough to alter the atomic structure of steel. I have ten years experience softening steel for a living.



[edit on 2-25-2010 by groingrinder]

I too, am familiar with annealing ovens.
The eleven hour period you speak of is referred to as SOAK time. You didn't say what fuel you were firing in your annealing ovens, but I will venture a guess that it was natural gas.
What has more BTUs per cubic foot? Natural gas or kerosene?
I have melted steel with various fuels, kerosene included.

I am just tired of hearing that kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt steel.
Check this link out, please.
www.backyardmetalcasting.com...

Did you ever hear of a blacksmith?
They soften steel to the point that it can be bent by hand, with a fuel called charcoal.

Charcoal.

BTW, I don't need to go to a junkyard.
I am at work now, have a nice piece of 12'' steel I-beam outside my office.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by butcherguy]

[edit on 25-2-2010 by butcherguy]

Wow, things move fast in this thread. I think a blacksmith uses something called a blast furnace, which allows for the fire to superheat via the injection of streams of air through a bellows. Not exactly what you have with a fire burning in an enclosed space. And didn't most of the kerosene burn off in the fireballs outside the Twin Towers?

And to you and to redgy, is it true what daddio said about the fuel being removed from the tanks under building 7? If so, that makes kerosene a moot point in that collapse. And like I said, I haven't read the NIST report, but can either of you verify or dispute whether or not it says that those fuel tanks played no part in building 7's collapse?

Thanks!

[edit on 2/25/10 by without_prejudice]

reply to post by groingrinder

I used to run the annealing dept at a major tool manufacturing facility. Our furnaces routinely ran in the neighborhood of two thousand degrees. Even then it took over 11 HOURS to soften a load of pliers so they could be run through the coining presses. Keep in mind that pliers are much smaller than steel girders and will be softened much easier. Kerosene does not burn hot enough to alter the atomic structure of steel. I have ten years experience softening steel for a living.

Are your pliers under thousands of pounds pressure per inch? Are they
supporting hundreds of thousands of tons of building above them?

I think not...

Ever heard of plastic deformation ? When you heat something if softens
and can bend it easier

Heat the support columns and will start to creep - as columns deform
will be pulled out of plumb setting up stress on the structure. Build up
enough stress and building will collapse.

Blacksmiths I know dont have to heat their horseshoes for hours to get them hot enough to work- just need to bring up to temperature -
watching what color the steel is

reply to post by etcorngods


I would remind everyone again, that this man is an engineer (at one time a successful one).

He's part of the 1/10th of one percent of engineers that doesn't believe the OS.

He believes god told him that aliens did it and that the word they used to secretly communicate this is, "plop".

He also believes that god creates rainbows to communicate with him, specifically about business decisions.

So, this is the kind of Engineer that discounts the OS.

Of course the other 99%+ of engineers are not on the record as supporting this religion you all believe.

As for steel melting:



Watch to the end.

Fire melting steel.