Explosive News

reply to post by without_prejudice
Ever heard of the chimney effect?
Address the issue that I have a problem with, please. Kerosene can burn hot enough to melt steel.

reply to post by butcherguy


OK, I gave your mentioned link a quick look. Quite a bit of interesting info there! But, and correct me if I am wrong, it seems as though the hardest metal he talks about melting is iron. Is there a link there that talks about using any of those technologies he's developed to melt structural steel? I assume you are familiar with the site so if you could point it out it would save me a lot of tine and wheel-spinning! Thanks!

Originally posted by without_prejudice And didn't most of the kerosene burn off in the fireballs outside the Twin Towers?

I don't know, I wasn't on that floor when the plane hit.

Originally posted by without_prejudice
reply to post by butcherguy

 

OK, I gave your mentioned link a quick look. Quite a bit of interesting info there! But, and correct me if I am wrong, it seems as though the hardest metal he talks about melting is iron. Is there a link there that talks about using any of those technologies he's developed to melt structural steel? I assume you are familiar with the site so if you could point it out it would save me a lot of tine and wheel-spinning! Thanks!

Look up your melting points.
Steel softens and deforms well before cast iron.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone ever come across footage of a building collapsing in the way the towers did on 9-11, but which was not a controlled demolition.

In other words, a video of a collapse that looks like this but which occurred for reasons other than CD?

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by Jezus
Why do you guys still debate the details?

The truth is so painfully obvious...

Anomalies...
Contradictions...
Coincidences…
Multiple first time ever events…

How can you possibly rationalize this all away?

A logical person can’t.

Hi Jz,
What you say is all very true, yet no betting man has come forward to reckon the odds of all that happened within 9/11 actually happening. What I fail to understand is the dogmatic stance taken by people who believe the OS version ie, 9/11 commission and NIST, both having been somewhat tainted by, irregularities in the case of the commission, and by forced corrections in the case of the NIST. The same is true when pictures of steel columns cut at an angle are paraded as being evidence of Thermite. There were columns still standing and obviously they would have to be cut down, so no joy there. There are videos of the collapses however, and these should be mulled over ad infinitum. This link is to a David Chandler piece, (he's the high school teacher who forced the NIST to rearrange their cartoon of WT7) it's a video of the South Tower collapse and maybe you have seen it before, but it has to be contemplated by all.

www.youtube.com...

Exactly, the best evidence for a conspiracy is the official story itself.

It is full of contradictions and physically impossible.

No alternative theory is needed.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by without_prejudice

 

Ever heard of the chimney effect?
Address the issue that I have a problem with, please. Kerosene can burn hot enough to melt steel.

Actually, no, I don't know what that is or how it relates to kerosene melting structural steel. I didn't mean to insult you, I just didn't see how the blacksmith analogy applied. In fact, i doubt that there are a great number of people here that know as much as you do about metallurgy, so if you could be more specific it would help me and and many others to appreciate your arguments.

But I do ask, despite whether under some circumstance kerosene can be used to melt steel, can you confirm or do you dispute that the NIST report claims the fuel in the tanks did not contribute to 7's fire and collapse? And didn't most of the jet fuel burn outside the buildings? I am not so much challenging you as trying to understand your point. Does the chimney effect bear on either fire at the WTC in some way?

Thanks, and please forgive my ignorance. I am truly trying to understand.

Originally posted by without_prejudice Not exactly what you have with a fire burning in an enclosed space.

So that's what they call a glassed in structure that a plane just flew through.
An enclosed space!
Just how did those planes go in one side of the building and come out the other with all those super-strong steel beams in the way?

Originally posted by seethelight
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 also believes that god creates rainbows to communicate with him, specifically about business decisions.

How do you explain the revelations that I disclosed -- or would you rather just be an insulting jerk who think's he's cute.

You guys have a church here -- nothing new, same old arguments, same tired people arguing.


[edit on 25-2-2010 by etcorngods]

Okay, Ive read and watched a LOT of debates about the whole 9/11 thing and I have done a fair bit of research myself on it. This is my conclusion and these are my questions regarding the issue -

Large buildings such as WTC7 do not fall on their own. Fair enough I can believe that the impact of the planes hitting the north and south tower could have caused a collapse with them being so high but I would have expected a different type of collapse than the ones we saw, they just seem a bit too perfect for me (but I could be wrong). WT7 collapsed on its own, there was no reason for it to collapse, some people say the foundations but I just dont buy that, again the collapse was just too perfect for me. And the fact that it was the first time in history sky scrapers collapsed due to fires and then BOOM! 3 on the same day. Seems like too much of a coincidence to me.

Then theres the whole 9/11 commission report being VERY dodgy if you ask me, I could be wrong here but didnt I read that WTC7 wasnt even mentioned in the report? Again, very strange.

The biggest problem I have with the official story is the hijackers. Do you really believe that these people could take over these planes and hit 3 out of 4 targets? I mean these guys had very little flight experience and i seriously doubt that they even knew where the twin towers and the pentagon were, let alone had the skills to actually fly the planes into the buildings.

The plane that hit the pentagon hit it at a 90 degree horizontal angle flying barely a few feet off the ground, no damage done to the lawn, I just think the whole story is farfetched and the 9/11 truth movement has a much more believable story to tell regarding the events on that day.

I could name over 100 other problems I have with the official story but just by looking at the basics its not hard to tell that something is not right about the official story.

reply to post by Orkojoker


Red herring and here's why:

Show me ANY building over 40 storeys tall NOT made with steel re-enforced concrete (like the WTC) that was hit by a plane full of fuel.

If can sow me one that hasn't collapsed, then it'd be interesting.

But the only two that EVER HAVE BEEN both collapsed.

So that's consistent.

And, for your info, the WTCs DON'T look like demos.

The tops slope off above where the planes hit.

And they DON'T FREE FALL like demos.

There's a brief period that they do, but a demo completely free falls... not just a bit in the middle.

PLUS if they were demo'd there would LITERALLY have been HUNDREDS of TIMED explosions.

And even if they were invisible, they would've moved air (as explosions do) and that sound would've been heard.

None of that happened.

We talk about them being similar because our ONLY FRAME OF REFERENCE for collapsing giant buildings in controlled demolitions, but ig you ACTUALLY compare them, they really aren't that similar.

There's no hundreds of explosions, the buildings only briefly fall in free fall and the collapse starts at the top.

In demos, the building basically loses all support equally across it's structure, so that it falls straight down and not over.

Like I said, if you WANT to see ONLY the similarities that's what you'll see, but if you go through my little list there and look for the characteristic traits of all known demos, you'll see the WTC doesn't have them.

reply to post by thedman


I watched the video and then had a rummage for more info and came up with this

Bay Bridge Fire

A couple of things struck me, the steel didnt melt it buckled and fell off the support.

A worker called Rodriguez was on hand to witness things:

Rodriguez went outside with a co-worker and saw the I-880 connector about 50 feet above him engulfed in fire with flames leaping up to the I-580 connector above that. "It was massive," Rodriguez said. "I saw movement and there was a man up there. I started talking to the guy. Are you the truck driver? 'Yes.' He said, 'I'm burned. I got out as soon as I could.' "

If thers a guy called Rodriguez working near you, watch out !

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by without_prejudice Not exactly what you have with a fire burning in an enclosed space.

So that's what they call a glassed in structure that a plane just flew through.
An enclosed space!
Just how did those planes go in one side of the building and come out the other with all those super-strong steel beams in the way?

I was talking about building 7 there. Perhaps I was not specific enough, but I am not a moron and I don't assume you are one either. Since the Towers fires were not enclosed, I certainly wasn't talking about them. Most of building 7's windows were intact.

I am really just trying to understand your points, but I am now beginning to wonder if you are not just being evasive.

Watch this as well.



See the way the weight is pushing the down and starts the collapse.

That's not what a demo looks like.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by without_prejudice And didn't most of the kerosene burn off in the fireballs outside the Twin Towers?

I don't know, I wasn't on that floor when the plane hit.

OK, I see your game now. Sorry I wasted my time and yours by mistaking you for someone who was contributing to the discussion here.

Very funny, though. I'll give you a star for humor and for faking me out.

reply to post by without_prejudice
Please forgive me, I didn't mean to come off snippy.
I am most definitely not a metallurgist. Just a hobbyist as far as metal is concerned.
However I am closely involved with heat treatment of metals.
My line of work is combustion. Any fuel.
The chimney effect is the inducement of draft between areas due to a difference in height and temperature.
Heated air from the fires traveled up through ducts, piping, chaises, and elevator shafts that were opened up when the plane crashed through. These conduits were open at the roof, it is typical construction practice and design. Being open they create a chimney. Fresh outside air is pulled in through the openings in the walls created by the plane crash, causing the fire inside to become like a blowtorch.
I can melt steel with newspaper,proper draft and an ignition source.

Originally posted by without_prejudice

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by without_prejudice And didn't most of the kerosene burn off in the fireballs outside the Twin Towers?

I don't know, I wasn't on that floor when the plane hit.

OK, I see your game now. Sorry I wasted my time and yours by mistaking you for someone who was contributing to the discussion here.

Very funny, though. I'll give you a star for humor and for faking me out.

Sorry about that.

I honestly don't believe that the majority of the fuel burned outside of the building, but my point was that I don't know, and I can't be sure that anyone knows for sure.

reply to post by bigyin


Sorry, but that's exactly what happened in the WTC.

Now you're starting to see.

The WTC didn't "melt" either.

The steel got hot enough to become flexible and it cause a catastrophic collapse.

You see CLEARLY that fire can cause steel structures to collapse.

You've also seen repeatedly that people out their in the real world can heat up steel with charcoal to the point where it can be bent.

You've seen that in controlled demos there are dozens of LOUD and TIMED explosions.

You've even seen footage of the building buckling at the point where the planes went in.

You have no evidence of any super secret weapon.

You do have evidence of one of the main scientific minds of the faither movement (Jones) creating propaganda to implicate his own government in murder.

You also have seen one of the (extremely rare) engineers that agrees with this faith, and heard him testify that with his decade of engineering experience he thinks aliens did it.

I'm not sure how much more clear than can be.

There's NEVER been another building that similar to the WTCs. There's certainly NO non-steel re-enforced concrete buildings over 40 storeys that anyone can name.

And both of the buildings had the same thing happen to them and both behaved in the same way.

Which is ACTUALLY what you'd expect.

If only one had fallen you'd say, that proves one was demo'd because see, one withstood the plane.

This attitude is why I call you guys faithers. You know what you believe and your simply ignore the annoying questions and take the existing info and mould it into your mindset.

It's like intelligent design. You see patterns to justify your beliefs.

Nothing is going to come of this.

Gage, periodically gets the headlines in the main stream media.

Truthers seem to get excited and expect something to happen.

BUT, nothing is going to change. There will not be a new investigation.

If there were a "new" investigation who would do it? Most likely it would be a similar cast to the NIST report. It would involve a variety of engineers who are experts in their fields. They would most likely come up with a similar model of the collapse.

Truthers would claim it as a whitewash.

Nothing would be different.

reply to post by butcherguy


OK, fair enough. You still deserve the star for the funny, though.

I can see your point about the chimney effect, and how that could create a situation not unlike what a blacksmith uses in the towers. Certainly there is smoke pouring out the top of the first tower hit. I need to review the videos of the other tower and both towers' collapse again, though, and look for those specifics.

I'm glad we made it through our misunderstanding. I really want to understand what happened, but I realize that I am just some guy sitting in my living room who saw the event and didn't feel like what I saw and was told I saw rang true. In the eight plus years since I've seen and been told a lot more things about it, and i tended to believe those things that fed my preconceived notions. Some of them, like In Plane Sight and Painful Deceptions and yes, even Loose Change, seemed very convincing at first and I didn't look too far beyond them.

The discussions I've read and taken part in here on ATS have been somewhat humbling, and I have come to grips with the fact that I only know what I have been told about the attacks, and that I have really only listened to those things that reinforced my gut reaction as I watched it on TV, namely, that it was a false-flag operation. So I have been revisiting the research I thought I'd done, and basically, I still have a lot of questions that I can't answer. Some of the things I think I know are probably wrong, but I think that is most likely true of most of us here. I do want to know what happened though, as far as that is possible, and I think that is also true of most of us here.

So when someone has apparent hands-on knowledge about some of these points, I am very interested in understanding what they have to say. If they can clearly debunk something I thought I knew about this, i welcome that information. From one of the threads here I have gained a lot more respect for the idea that flight 77 hit the Pentagon, so I am keeping an open mind about that. Could be, or maybe not; there are anomalies that i think make it impossible to tell for certain either way, and the only group that can prove it one way or another (the DOD) is steadfastly refusing to do so, and that bothers me.

Right now, however, I need to catch some zzzz's, I was up all night dealing with an non-ATS situation here at home and I'm getting a little fuzzy around the edges--and that is not a safe state of mind to post here on ATS under!