"The towers couldn't have fallen that way..."

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Depends on the weld, from what I'm reading. I can't seem to locate what type of welds were used in the towers, so it's not really helpful at all.

It would have been arc welding as that is what is used in construction, especially steel. It's the most effective and simple method that melts the two metals together using flux rods.

Structural steel is fabricated and erected successfully every day, using a variety of cost effective and dependable arc welding processes.

www.modernsteel.com...

reply to post by psikeyhackr


The welds are as strong as the metal because the weld is the metal.

Do you guys know how arc welding works?

The steel ends are heated up and a flux rod helps the two pieces melt together. There is no 'weld' as in brazing.

The join can be stronger than the steel itself because of the heating process, BUT the process can also weaken the metal around the joint, not the joint itself. But that weakening is minimal and won't just cause the connection to fall apart.

arc welding

Definition
Metal joining process in which the ends of pieces to be joined are heated at their interface with a continuous arc to produce coalescence, with or without the use of a filler metal from a melting electrode.

www.businessdictionary.com...

Welding Beams for Sky Scrapers...

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
Has anyone else noticed how as soon as you provide EVIDENCE to your claim ... the people who beleive the Origonal Story seem to just .... stop posting

hmmm.

What evidence? You've refused to give it EVERY time I've asked. I asked you a very simple question. Explain why this is incorrect:

www.slideshare.net...

You literally refuse every time, and not in a courteous manner. You tell me you have the "EVIDENCE" already presented. You tell me you don't have to explain yourself.

Well fine then. Two can play at that game. All the EVIDENCE supporting the OS has already been posted by me. I don't have to prove anything more to you because I KNOW that I have the TRUTH. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. (As you can tell, this gets everyone literally nowhere, so perhaps you could change your game up a bit and actually respond to my inquiry?)

If you are as sure as you say, you should be able to debunk the points made in the link I posted.

Oh, and remember, none of the steel in the tower melted.

Since we're apparently on the subject of the core, isn't it obvious that the collapse was imperfect?

Nononono....... i provided evidence supporting my theory ... ALOT of evidence .... i`m asking you to provide evidence supporting yours ... as i see none .... just reports from "experts".... your taking other people`s word for it ...

what is YOUR theory ? ........... so if none of the steel in the tower melted .... i`ll post a link to this video AGAIN and lets see if you watch it from begining to end this time www.youtube.com... paying special attention to the crucifix steel didnt melt did it not ?

explain that ...... infact .... explain the slideshow i posted a link to pages back ..... explain the squibs in detail .

ONCE AGAIN your dodging my request.

"You literally refuse every time, and not in a courteous manner. You tell me you have the "EVIDENCE" already presented. You tell me you don't have to explain yourself." .... exactly ... so why even bother trying to drag me into your game ?

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
Nononono....... i provided evidence supporting my theory ... ALOT of evidence .... i`m asking you to provide evidence supporting yours ... as i see none .... just reports from "experts".... your taking other people`s word for it ...

So which word do you think is carrying more weight, the word of the experts or the word of some anonymous person on a conspiracy forum?

reply to post by -PLB-


the word ? .... i have shown you the explosions , i have shown you "the word" of firemen that were in the towers running from explosions ..... i have not just said "it was demolition" and left it at that ..... if i provide evidence .... its not just my "word" is it ? its proof .... infact the evidence i have provided would stand in a court of law.

Numbers and squiggly lines mean nothing to me , i saw them fall, i saw the explosions as it happened , and i have shown YOU .... i have also shown you a slideshow of the steel from the towers (buckled / bent / melted / cut ) .... i have shown you just how easy it is for something like thermite to cut and melt steel .....

so please .... point out to me from everything i have provided .... point out to me where i am wrong ...

reply to post by ReptileRipper


Exactly my point. I'm not an expert. I can't tell you these things definitively, so I refer to expert opinion, analysis, and math. It is fairly easy to verify with common sense, and even application of the math if you feel like taking the time.

You tell me to identify "squibs" and "melting metal" in the towers. Somehow you refuse to acknowledge that sometimes things smolder in debris piles. I mean, I'm not really sure why tens of thousands of tons of weight can't bend steel, or crush concrete in with steel in a fairly "pancake" manner as was with the "meteorite."

Basically, you bring PURE speculation to the table. I bring experts and math and essentially science.

Which of us is doing a better job and trying to find the truth?

One more thing. Perhaps there was red hot metal in the aftermath, after the fires had time to smolder under the debris for a long period, but there was no molten steel in the towers before collapse. This is a fact. Don't you even dare bring up the red dripping from the corner, because it has been shown time and time again that there was a UPS battery storage floor there which had to be temperature regulated. Fire plus lead batteries plus office contents equals red drippy things, you catch my drift?

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
Numbers and squiggly lines mean nothing to me , i saw them fall, i saw the explosions as it happened , and i have shown YOU .... i have also shown you a slideshow of the steel from the towers (buckled / bent / melted / cut ) .... i have shown you just how easy it is for something like thermite to cut and melt steel .....

Numbers and squiggly lines? It is obvious you have never taken calculus then. Please, have at least a basic understanding of math if you're going to dismiss it as hogwash.

reply to post by Varemia


So now your admitting there was melting steel ?

Well... with your science and math ... explain to me why the steel was melting for weeks , explain to me what was melting that steel ? what created that crucifix ?

And i have not mentioned the dripping but since you have .... that was not batteries ... stop being so gullable .... it was thermite / thermate .. or something of that nature.

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
reply to post by Varemia

 

So now your admitting there was melting steel ?

Well... with your science and math ... explain to me why the steel was melting for weeks , explain to me what was melting that steel ? what created that crucifix ?

And i have not mentioned the dripping but since you have .... that was not batteries ... stop being so gullable .... it was thermite / thermate .. or something of that nature.

There was red hot steel in the aftermath after a long enough time of smoldering. You do know what smoldering is, right? Ever made a campfire and found still hot embers in the ash after a couple days? That's why you poor water on it.

How can you claim it was thermite and not batteries? There was a battery room, right on the 81st floor where the dripping was! You'd have to be a moron to deny that.

reply to post by Varemia


A basic understanding of the dribble you keep shoving in my face ? let me ask you a question .... what will it take for you to beleive it was controlled demolition ? George Bush to come out and put his hands up ? you have seen page after page of concrete evidence on this thread alone ..... why are you ignoring that ?

And what i mean by numbers and squiggly lines mean nothing to me is - i saw them collapse , i have seen it over and over , i know its not a natural collapse , we all know it , even you know it , you actually most probably beleive it was controlled demolition , your just being arkward as usual.

Care to share YOUR theory ?

reply to post by Varemia


oh so let me get this straight .... the office fires werent melting the steel ... but ... when the towers collapsed and there was very little fire left from those fires , if any , the steel melted because it was smouldering ..... what ?

Explain to me how those temperatures were reached then ... with your science and math

I wonder if your science and math can explain why both towers were obliterated into dust too ?

Dont give me links to "official" reports ...... describe how YOU see it.


Aaaaaahhhhh .... silence

Originally posted by ReptileRipper
And what i mean by numbers and squiggly lines mean nothing to me is - i saw them collapse , i have seen it over and over , i know its not a natural collapse , we all know it , even you know it , you actually most probably beleive it was controlled demolition , your just being arkward as usual.

So, by this statement, you're saying it doesn't matter what gets proven. That because YOU personally believe that the collapse wasn't possible, that it had to be demolition. Okay, strike one on the irrational position scale.

Care to share YOUR theory ?

I personally do not have a "theory." I go with what information I can find. I then decide based on my rational judgement which information is accurate and which information is purely speculation. I refuse to become emotional and allow myself to become attached to a single idea. Currently, the buildings appear to have not needed demolition in order to collapse. This is what I try to argue (although, honestly, I don't try to argue that point all that much. I just try to point out the flaws in the demolition argument.)

oh so let me get this straight .... the office fires werent melting the steel ... but ... when the towers collapsed and there was very little fire left from those fires , if any , the steel melted because it was smouldering

Basically. There were broken natural gas lines under the towers which caused massive flames. The pockets of fire then smoldered, causing a very, very slow heating process on very localized steel. When they were exposed to the air, it caused a flash burn, and they became extremely bright and extremely hot with new fire.

I wonder if your science and math can explain why both towers were obliterated into dust too ?

Dont give me links to "official" reports ...... describe how YOU see it.

They weren't obliterated to dust. That should be obvious from the debris pile.

With regard to the "official" reports, does this mean I'm not allowed to use any source that supports the "official story?" How the hell does that make any sense?

From what I can tell, you are simply attempting to propagate ignorance by actively ignoring anything that contradicts your presupposed ideas.

One last thing. The reason that I was "silent" is because this is not my job. I have class and work quite often. I come here because I'm trying to reduce the ignorance that people like you are spreading. So before you post, look at yourself and think for a moment. Are you REALLY being intelligent right now? Are you REALLY looking at all the evidence objectively? Or are you just accepting what fits your worldview and then running with it as if any other evidence doesn't exist?

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The welds are as strong as the metal because the weld is the metal.

Do you guys know how arc welding works?

Steel is not a metal it is an alloy. Steel is stronger than iron which is the metal it is mostly made from.

So heating can affect the state of the alloy.

I am not pretending to be a welding expert and I do not even consider this issue to be very important. The building did not come down because of bad welding. The joints were under compression and the mass would not have been changed.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The joints were under compression and the mass would not have been changed.

I'm pretty sure it was shearing of the horizontal supports and lateral bending of the vertical columns, not compression.

Compression would certainly halt the collapse, but that was not the force at work.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Steel is not a metal it is an alloy. Steel is stronger than iron which is the metal it is mostly made from.

Steel is produced from iron with some carbon added, it is still metal. Being an alloy doesn't stop it being metal.

Terminology

The term alloy is used to describe a mixture of atoms in which the primary constituent is a metal.

secure.wikimedia.org...

So heating can affect the state of the alloy.

Yes. The heating causes coalescence, which causes the molecules to flow and join together basically making a joint that is as strong as the metal because it is the metal.

I am not pretending to be a welding expert and I do not even consider this issue to be very important. The building did not come down because of bad welding. The joints were under compression and the mass would not have been changed.

So why are you arguing semantics with me, you're sounding like an OSer mate? I disagree, it is an important point because the OSers want people to believe the welds were weak points, unless they've dropped that argument? The evidence of controlled demolition is in details such as this.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The joints were under compression and the mass would not have been changed.

I'm pretty sure it was shearing of the horizontal supports and lateral bending of the vertical columns, not compression.

Compression would certainly halt the collapse, but that was not the force at work.

The south tower was sheared and we have no explanation for the energy that did that.

psik

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The joints were under compression and the mass would not have been changed.

I'm pretty sure it was shearing of the horizontal supports and lateral bending of the vertical columns, not compression.

Compression would certainly halt the collapse, but that was not the force at work.

How would you know what it was? You are not an engineer.

Too many people here with no background in engineering, or physics, making claims that they can't support.

If the supports sheared then there was compression. Compression is a pushing force, when objects collide there is always compression.

In the context of classical mechanics simulations and physics engines employed within video games, collision response deals with models and algorithms for simulating the changes in the motion of two solid bodies following collision and other forms of contact...

...Contact Forces

The origin of the rebound phenomenon, or reaction, may be traced to the behaviour of real bodies that, unlike their perfectly rigid idealised counterparts, do undergo minor compression on collision, followed by expansion, prior to separation. The compression phase converts the kinetic energy of the bodies into potential energy and to an extent, heat. The expansion phase converts the potential energy back to kinetic energy.

During the compression and expansion phases of two colliding bodies, each body generates reactive forces on the other at the points of contact, such that the sum reaction forces of one body are equal in magnitude but opposite in direction to the forces of the other, as per the Newtonian principle of action and reaction. If the effects of friction are ignored, a collision is seen as affecting only the component of the velocities that are directed along the contact normal and as leaving the tangential components unaffected

secure.wikimedia.org...

Originally posted by ANOK
So why are you arguing semantics with me, you're sounding like an OSer mate? I disagree, it is an important point because the OSers want people to believe the welds were weak points, unless they've dropped that argument? The evidence of controlled demolition is in details such as this.

It is NOT merely semantics.

en.wikipedia.org...

The welding could weaken the alloy. I don't know whether it does or not. But if you are going to bring it up get it right. You undermine yourself with a lot of the nonsense you talk.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The welding could weaken the alloy. I don't know whether it does or not. But if you are going to bring it up get it right. You undermine yourself with a lot of the nonsense you talk.

psik

What nonsense? Get what right? An alloy does not make steel not be a metal, and as I have already said the welding can weaken the steel around the joint, but it is not a huge problem if the welds are done correctly by a professional welder.

An alloy is any mixture of more than one material, it isn't a material in itself. Join two metal together it is an alloy, but it is still metal.

Steel is 98+% iron, adding 2% carbon does not stop it from being metal lol. Steel is a metal alloy.

www.matweb.com...

Next time before you jump on my case, get you own facts right. And I thought only the OSers were ignorant... If you had read the sources I supplied you would have had your answer without dissing me. I'm actually quit shocked to hear this from you. I don't claim to be an expert on welding either, but at least I have welded, and worked in industry. I don't get my knowledge from reading on teh net.