Why all the worldwide turmoil? (9/11 thread)

[hot enough]

15 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

I'll put this in bold letters so perhaps you might actually pay attention...

If you think Astaneh-Asl disagrees with collapse due to structural damange and fire. SHOW YOUR FRIGGIN' EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can I make that any clearer to you?

 

Bold letters are all you have. You have no idea of the context when he said what you quoted. 

It doesn't change the fact that he described molten and vaporized steel years before. 

The following provides a much greater context to the FEMA report. 

Quote

I. Physical Evidence

I-A. The 2002 FEMA Report

 

New York Times journalist James Glanz, writing near the end of 2001 about the collapse of WTC 7, reported that some engineers said that a “combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down,” but that this “would not explain,” according to Dr. Barnett, “steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures.” [13]

 

Glanz was referring to Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). Early in 2002, Barnett and two WPI colleagues published an analysis of a section of steel from one of the Twin Towers, along with sections from WTC 7, as an appendix to FEMA’s 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study. [14] Their discoveries were also reported in a WPI article entitled “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” which said:

“teel – which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit [1538°C] – may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon – called a eutectic reaction – occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.”

Stating that the New York Times called these findings “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” the article added:

“A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes.” [15]

In discussing “the deepest mystery,” the New York Times story said: “The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” [16] That was an understatement, because a building fire, even with a perfect mixture of air and fuel, could at most reach 1,000°C (1,832°F). [17] In fact, Professor Thomas Eagar of MIT estimated that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F [648 or 704°C].” [18]

http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

There is also much discussion there of the others who described molten metals that could not/should not have been there at WTC, temperatures that were reached far above the temperatures of the WTC fires.

Edited April 3, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

Here is molten steel pouring out of WTC 2 minutes before it was blown up/ 

WTC 2 molten steel right where collapse started

 

[segnosaur]

Just now, hot enough said:

I'll put this in bold letters so perhaps you might actually pay attention...

If you think Astaneh-Asl disagrees with collapse due to structural damange and fire. SHOW YOUR FRIGGIN' EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can I make that any clearer to you?

Bold letters are all you have. You have no idea of the context when he said what you quoted. 

I

No, I have more... I have the very article YOU quoted where Astaneh-Asl said that FIRE AND STRUCTURAL DAMAGE CAUSED THE COLLAPSE!!!!!!

YOU reference the article. YOU are ignoring what the article said.

So.... is this guy an expert? Then why aren't you listening to what he said. Is he not an expert? They why did you quote him?

This is typical of conspiracy theories... quote mining, taking things out of context, and ignoring things.

Dance away little consipiracy theorist! Dance away!

 

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

 

 

I agree with you. He said what you said he said in 2004. He also said what I said, that there was molten and vaporized steel when he arrived at WTC on I believe it was September 19, 2001. 

Beside, there are many others, who have described these high temperatures, the molten steel, the vaporized steel, the molten molybdenum [4700F], the vaporized lead [3100F]. ... 

Edited April 3, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

No, I have more... I have the very article YOU quoted where Astaneh-Asl said that FIRE AND STRUCTURAL DAMAGE CAUSED THE COLLAPSE!!!!!!

YOU reference the article. YOU are ignoring what the article said.

So.... is this guy an expert? Then why aren't you listening to what he said. Is he not an expert? They why did you quote him?

This is typical of conspiracy theories... quote mining, taking things out of context, and ignoring things.

Dance away little consipiracy theorist! Dance away!

 

This is what US government conspiracy theorists do when they meet real science. It has happened a lot in all these threads, segnosaur, and they flee, because real science they find much too disturbing. 

[segnosaur]

Just now, hot enough said:

Here is molten steel pouring out of WTC 2 minutes before it was blown up/

This is typical of conspiracy theorists.

What you are seeing there is something coming from WTC. Yet there has never been any sort of analysis done to determine what it is. You are simply jumping to the conclusion that it is molten steel, whereas there is more reasonable explanation... melted aluminum. Like from a jetliner that happened to crash into the building.

Heck, your molten steel fails in other ways too...

Such that if it were controlled demolition, why exactly would you actually see melting MINUTES before the collapse? After all, in a real controlled demolition the collapse of the building occurs within seconds of the explosives being set off. If the evil aliens from the planet Gorblax had been using thermite for several minutes, why didn't the collapse happen sooner?  So your supposed evidence isn't even logically consistent.

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

This is typical of conspiracy theorists.

Relax, segnosaur. 

[segnosaur]

3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

I agree with you. He said what you said he said in 2004.

And he has never said anything to contradict it. Stands to reason that he still believes structural and fire damage caused the collapse.

He also said what I said, that there was molten and vaporized steel when he arrived at WTC on I believe it was September 19, 2001.

Again the fact that you are quote-mining his statements doesn't mean that you have proof of anything.

The fact that the man you are getting your information from DOESN'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU CLAIM should tell you something.

Beside, there are many others, who have described these high temperatures, the molten steel, the vaporized steel, the molten molybdenum [4700F], the vaporized lead [3100F].

Uhhh... so? Unnamed anonymous "others" is not exactly very convincing.

[hot enough]

Quote

 

Heck, your molten steel fails in other ways too...

Such that if it were controlled demolition, why exactly would you actually see melting MINUTES before the collapse? After all, in a real controlled demolition the collapse of the building occurs within seconds of the explosives being set off. If the evil aliens from the planet Gorblax had been using thermite for several minutes, why didn't the collapse happen sooner?  So your supposed evidence isn't even logically consistent.

This is what US government conspiracy theorists do when the meet real science. From the extreme to the ludicrous.

[segnosaur]

3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

This is what US government conspiracy theorists do when they meet real science. It has happened a lot in all these threads, segnosaur, and they flee, because real science they find much too disturbing. 

Still waiting for your description for the events of 9/11.

come on, you can do it! Just put that massive brain into it! I'm sure you can come up with some description about how they pulled it off!

 

[hot enough]

Quote

What you are seeing there is something coming from WTC. Yet there has never been any sort of analysis done to determine what it is. You are simply jumping to the conclusion that it is molten steel, whereas there is more reasonable explanation... melted aluminum. Like from a jetliner that happened to crash into the building.

Yes there has been many analysis done. Why aren't you up to speed on this? NIST was urged to do a study but they never did. Know why? Their entire fraudulent study would have been exposed right then. 

[segnosaur]

Just now, hot enough said:

This is what US government conspiracy theorists do when the meet real science. From the extreme to the ludicrous.

So, what you're saying is that you can set off an explosion in a building, and then wait minutes before there is any damage to the building?

Wow, that's amazing. How exactly does that happen? Force fields? Giant magnets?

Seriously... I want to know how that happens. How do you use thermite or something similar to burn through a building's supports yet have that same building stand for several minutes after the supports have supposedly all been melted away.

[hot enough]

6 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Still waiting for your description for the events of 9/11.

come on, you can do it! Just put that massive brain into it! I'm sure you can come up with some description about how they pulled it off!

 

Shall we get back to the science now?

[segnosaur]

Just now, hot enough said:

Shall we get back to the science now?

No, I think I will keep pointing out one simple fact...

That you are unable to actually come up with a coherent description about what happened on 9/11.

Still waiting. Tick tock, tick tock.

 

 

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

So, what you're saying is that you can set off an explosion in a building, and then wait minutes before there is any damage to the building?

Wow, that's amazing. How exactly does that happen? Force fields? Giant magnets?

Seriously... I want to know how that happens. How do you use thermite or something similar to burn through a building's supports yet have that same building stand for several minutes after the supports have supposedly all been melted away.

Yes, seriously, buildings can be weakened before the total collapse. You aren't aware of the new super nanothermites, are you?

[segnosaur]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Yes, seriously, buildings can be weakened before the total collapse. You aren't aware of the new super nanothermites, are you?

Next thing you know you'll be coming up with super duper Extra-nanothermites.

Or maybe the aliens from Planet Gorblax used ray guns.

So if you think that buildings can be weakened before collapse, what actually triggered the collapse?

Still waiting for your complete description of what happened on 9/11. Can you do it? I think not!

 

[segnosaur]

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Yes there has been many analysis done.

Uhhh... no. Not on the material that was leaking from the building, that  you claim was melted steel but was more likely melted aluminum (which has a much lower melting point than steel.)

If you truly believe in "science" then explain why it can't be aluminium, since:

- There is a huge supply of it (from the plane)

- Temperatures in the building were high enough to melt alimimum

Occam's razor. I suggest you try it. The fact that you seem to cling to the "melted steel" idea when a more logical explaination exists flies in the face of rational thinking.

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Uhhh... no. Not on the material that was leaking from the building, that  you claim was melted steel but was more likely melted aluminum (which has a much lower melting point than steel.)

If you truly believe in "science" then explain why it can't be aluminium, since:

- There is a huge supply of it (from the plane)

- Temperatures in the building were high enough to melt alimimum

Occam's razor. I suggest you try it. The fact that you seem to cling to the "melted steel" idea when a more logical explaination exists flies in the face of rational thinking.

I will, presently. First, ... 

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

Next thing you know you'll be coming up with super duper Extra-nanothermites.

I'll take that as a "No, I don't know anything about them."

From the US Lawrence Livermore Labs, the new super nanothermites, "a new era of explosives", precisely what was found in WTC dust, residues of thermite, unreacted particles of nanothermite which when heated "exploded" producing microspheres of molten iron, a by-product of thermite, giving the chemical signature of thermite,

==================

Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives

https://str.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

At Livermore Laboratory, sol-gel chemistry-the same process used to make aerogels or "frozen smoke" (see S&TR, November/December 1995)—has been the key to creating energetic materials with improved, exceptional, or entirely new properties. This energetic materials breakthrough was engineered by ... .

These new materials have structures that can be controlled on the nanometer (billionth-of-a-meter) scale. Simpson explains, "In general, the smaller the size of the materials being combined, the better the properties of energetic materials. Since these `nanostructures' are formed with particles on the nanometer scale, the performance can be improved over materials with particles the size of grains of sand or of powdered sugar. In addition, these `nanocomposite' materials can be easier and much safer to make than those made with traditional methods."

... 

Monomolecular materials such as TNT work fast and thus have greater power than composites, but they have only moderate energy densities-commonly half those of composites. "Greater energy densities versus greater power—that's been the traditional trade-off," says Simpson.

[bush_cheney2004]

These Arab hijackers also preferred greater energy densities, like those found in fully fueled Boeing 767-200 airliners:

 

https://principallypolitical.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/the-case-for-profiling/

 

 

[Omni]

2 hours ago, hot enough said:

Nope, that isn't at all important to the issue at hand.

So actually describing a way this situation could have actually occurred is not important. OK, another troother bites the dust. Maybe Altai will try to come to your rescue. 

[hot enough]

 

 

 

 

There is much scientific consensus that there were no hijackers at all. Certainly the science of 911 doesn't support the US official conspiracy theory, in fact it outright refutes it so one has to wonder how a picture of alleged hijackers and a silly cryptic remark contributes anything to the discussion. 

Let's do remember that it is this same lady/man, B_C, that posted a number of posts that she knew to be false and misleading regarding steel framed towers versus ferro/concrete structures. When it was pointed out to her, a number of times, she simply fled without a word, with zero discussion. And now she shows up again with more misdirection. 

 

Point Flt-2: The Claim that Flight 93 Crashed Near Shanksville, Pennsylvania

<< Previous Point, Next Point >>

The Official Account

The 9/11 Commission reported that United Flight 93, having been taken over by an al-Qaeda pilot, was flown at a high speed and steep angle into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. [1]

In response to claims that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, the US military and the FBI said that United 93 was not shot down.

The Best Evidence

Residents, the mayor, and journalists near Shanksville reported that no airliner was visible at the designated crash site; [2] that contents were found as far as eight miles from the designated crash site; [3] and that parts – including a thousand-pound engine piece – were found over a mile away. [4]

[hot enough]

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

So actually describing a way this situation could have actually occurred is not important. OK, another troother bites the dust. Maybe Altai will try to come to your rescue. 

What you are trying to do is get the topic off on wild goose chases, hoping others won't read about the new super nanothermites.

We could "actually describe many ways this situation could have occurred". That could go on for years and decades and that is what you would like to see done, to sidetrack the important things, the things that scare you silly.

[Omni]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

What you are trying to do is get the topic off on wild goose chases, hoping others won't read about the new super nanothermites.

We could "actually describe many ways this situation could have occurred". That could go on for years and decades and that is what you would like to see done, to sidetrack the important things, the things that scare you silly.

It seems trying to provide some facts scares you silly. We still haven't heard how much explosive it would take and how you would install it. Now you are saying there was no hijackers? Talk about silly.

[hot enough]

23 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

These Arab hijackers also preferred greater energy densities, like those found in fully fueled Boeing 767-200 airliners:

Are you going to describe these "greater energy densities, like those found in fully fueled Boeing 767-200 airliners", or is this just another boondoggle, a big distraction to get folks to not see or think about the new USA super nanothermite, a new generation of very powerful, easily controlled, safe and with great ignition control, explosives that can be painted on, that will cut thru steel, concrete, anything, like a hot knife thru butter.