WTC7 Demolition on mainstream news site

PolyNewbie · April 5, 2007

cybercoma Occam's razor should play a part here.
1) Terrorists crashed jets into WTC 1 and 2, which collapsed and caused enough damage to WTC 7 to cause it to also collapse.

or

2) Terrorists crashed jets into WTC 1 and 2, which collapsed; however, the government decided to plant explosives in the severely damaged WTC 7 building, to further a "warmongering agneda", which caused it to collapse.

I'm guessing the simpler of the two hypotheses is true and it's much easier to prove.

Occams Razor does not state that the most simple minded explanation is usually the most correct. Occams razor says that the simplest explanation for the observed evidence is usually the correct one. The official version does not explain the melted steel and the hot spots therefore it is not correct.

Riverwind · April 5, 2007

The official version does not explain the melted steel and the hot spots therefore it is not correct.

You are assuming that the molten metal observed during the cleanup is actually steel - it is most likely aluminium with many impurities mixed in. You are also assuming that fires trapped under the collapsed structure had a way to dissipate the heat. Fires could be trapped with no way to dissipate heat which would allow the temperature to increase way beyond the temperature of the original burning materials.

PolyNewbie · April 5, 2007

Riverwind You are assuming that the molten metal observed during the cleanup is actually steel - it is most likely aluminium with many impurities mixed in.

No, I'm not. I'm assumming that the temperature of these exceeds that of burning fuel.

Riverwind You are also assuming that fires trapped under the collapsed structure had a way to dissipate the heat. Fires could be trapped with no way to dissipate heat which would allow the temperature to increase way beyond the temperature of the original burning materials.

Thats stupid and very wrong.

So what kind of engineer are you ?

Riverwind · April 5, 2007

No, I'm not. I'm assuming that the temperature of these exceeds that of burning fuel.

Materials found in a office can burn at up to 1000C. Aluminium melts at 660C. Finding melted aluminium in the rubble is not a surprise. IOW - your claims mean nothing unless you can prove that the molten material was not aluminium.

Thats stupid and very wrong.

Prove it then. If the heat energy has no where to go then it must cause the materials near by to heat up. I realize that truthies are trying to get everyone to believe that it is impossible to exceed the temperature of a burning substance but I have found no credible source that supports the truthie claim. So if you want to make that claim then prove it.

PolyNewbie · April 5, 2007

Prove it then. If the heat energy has no where to go then it must cause the materials near by to heat up. I realize that truthies are trying to get everyone to believe that it is impossible to exceed the temperature of a burning substance but I have found no credible source that supports the truthie claim. So if you want to make that claim then prove it.

I think that is obviously wrong to anyone that did science in grade 8. What kind of engineer are you ? Are you related to Bill O'Reilly ?

Riverwind · April 5, 2007

Prove it then. If the heat energy has no where to go then it must cause the materials near by to heat up. I realize that truthies are trying to get everyone to believe that it is impossible to exceed the temperature of a burning substance but I have found no credible source that supports the truthie claim. So if you want to make that claim then prove it.
I think that is obviously wrong to anyone that did science in grade 8.

I explained why it is not obvious. Heat is nothing more than energy. When something burns it releases energy. The amount of heat generated by something burning depends on the substance being burned, however, once the heat is created it has to go somewhere. If this heat is trapped for some reason then this energy can accumulate in a location and theoretically cause the temperature to rise higher than the temperature of the flame. You would not see this is normal situations because the heat dissipates faster than it is produced.

IOW - your claim that fires can _never_ heat materials to temperatures that exceed the temperature of the burning substance is false because it presumes that the heat is _always_ able to dissapate faster than it is created. You cannot prove that heat would always be able to disappate fast enough everywhere in a pile of rubble from a collapsed building.

If you disagree then prove it. If you can't prove it then you must admit that it is your 'opinion' and that it cannot be used to invalidate the generally accepted explaination for what happned on 9/11.

PolyNewbie · April 5, 2007

I explained why it is not obvious. Heat is nothing more than energy. When something burns it releases energy. The amount of heat generated by something burning depends on the substance being burned, however, once the heat is created it has to go somewhere. If this heat is trapped for some reason then this energy can accumulate in a location and theoretically cause the temperature to rise higher than the temperature of the flame.

I know, thats why I am wondering what kind of engineer you are and am explaining that anyone that has studied grade 8 science can see that you have no idea what you are talking about, as pointed out in so many other examples (I can list them if you continue with this).

I'm saving that one in my collection of Riverwind scientific quotes.

ScottSA · April 5, 2007

It's sad that allegedly intelligent human beings can believe the most incredible things in spite of the evidence right in front of their eyes, by blithely dismissing the explanations as nothing more than the "gatekeeper" machinations of some giant plot. It surely must be a pathology.

PolyNewbie · April 5, 2007

Again ScottsA says nothing but offers empty criticism. Troll.

Riverwind · April 5, 2007

I know, thats why I am wondering what kind of engineer you are and am explaining that anyone that has studied grade 8 science can see that you have no idea what you are talking about, as pointed out in so many other examples (I can list them if you continue with this).

I will ask again: what proof do you have that a flame can never heat a material to a temperature higher than the temperature of the flame? Each time you refuse to answer the question you simply demonstrate that your are incapable of addressing a scientific argument.

PolyNewbie · April 5, 2007

Riverwind what proof do you have that a flame can never heat a material to a temperature higher than the temperature of the flame? Each time you refuse to answer the question you simply demonstrate that your are incapable of addressing a scientific argument.

Go to a library or consult an elementary school teacher. Its a stupid question - especially from someone that claims to be an engineer. Its proof that you are a liar.

stignasty · April 5, 2007

Riverwind what proof do you have that a flame can never heat a material to a temperature higher than the temperature of the flame? Each time you refuse to answer the question you simply demonstrate that your are incapable of addressing a scientific argument.

Go to a library or consult an elementary school teacher. Its a stupid question - especially from someone that claims to be an engineer. Its proof that you are a liar.

Why don't you just tell him, all wise and knowledgeable one? Is it that you don't have the answer yourself?

Riverwind · April 5, 2007

Go to a library or consult an elementary school teacher. Its a stupid question - especially from someone that claims to be an engineer. Its proof that you are a liar.
Why don't you just tell him, all wise and knowledgeable one? Is it that you don't have the answer yourself?

Polly is a fraud. He does not understand basic scientific concepts and tries to hide that by throwing insults and evading questions.

Polly tried to claim that the existence of molten metal 'proves' that explosives were used when he does not understand what a scientific proof is. It is generally not possible to 'prove' such things because there are so many variables that cannot be measured or verified. He would like us to believe that the molten metal observed was steel but he has already admitted that he does not have any evidence of that. He also would like us to believe that the relationship between the heat of a fire and the temperature of a material being heated is some fundamental property of the burning material. It is not - it is a property of the material being heated and the environment where the heating is taking place. In most situations metal will conduct heat away from the fire which ensures the temperature of the metal will never exceed that of the flame. However, it is wrong to claim that it is impossible for a flame to heat the metal above the temperature of the flame.

wendy · April 5, 2007

Award winning 911 truther Steven E. Jones, Physicist PhD was on Alex Jones today.

http://prisonplanet.com/

Click on the "Listen Live" link on the left. 24 hr/day refeed.

Great news about 911 truth movement and Steven Jones being asked about coming on the VIEW with other scientists.

PolyNewbie · April 5, 2007

stignasty Why don't you just tell him, all wise and knowledgeable one? Is it that you don't have the answer yourself?

If I do will you make him go away ? Its silly to ask such a question when you claim to be an engineer which Riverwind does.

You should also know the answer to that as should anyone with a high school education.

cybercoma · April 5, 2007

Poly will not be persuaded by anything and that is proof enough that he is not objectively looking at the situation. He will not even consider the simplest evidence given to him. It's obvious that his objective here is to confirm a belief and not actually consider all viewpoints and come to an intelligent and reasoned conclusion.

Poly, if you were so certain of your hypothesis, you would test other angles to see if there is any truth to them.

You're absolutely certain charges were set and WTC7 was blown up by the government, or people acting for the government. The overwhelming evidence you would need for that is much greater than saying, "it's not possible for the structure to give way". Physical evidence has shown that the building was damaged extensively on the (I think) south side, which caused it's collapse.

I listed a few ways in which a fire could be started in the building and it's only obvious that office buildings have all kinds of combustible materials (for example paper, wood, fabrics, cleaning chemicals, and fuel powered generators off the top of my head). The steel frames would not have had to reach the melting point before they gave way. Some of the supports were destroyed by debris from towers 1 and 2, which left the other supports bearing much more weight than they were designed for. The fires only had to reach a temperature high enough to weaken those supports (which were already supporting more than they should) enough to fail.

What possible evidence could you have to support an elaborate cover-up which involves settings hundreds of charges throughout the building? Logically, how could all of those be set without anyone working in that building being aware of what was going on at the time, or put 2 and 2 together after te fact? Even the time frame is all messed up. Logically, after the trade centers were hit, how would they have had enough time to set the charges and run the hundreds of feet of wire that would be needed amongst all the commotion of what was going on and amidst the debris of the other towers falling? Or do you think the charges were set beforehand? And if the charges were set before hand, do you feel the government had prior knowledge of the attacks and just allowed it to happen?

You see, instead of answering questions, your answer is simply a thousand more questions that need to be asked. If you look at what other people are saying, the answer to everything is right there. You need to justify your position with some intelligent answers, instead of simply saying people are wrong for believing the wake of towers 1 and 2 falling caused enough damage to tower 7 to make it fall. Right now there is an abundance of evidence to support that idea and not a hell of a lot supporting a massive government coverup.

cybercoma · April 6, 2007

Award winning 911 truther Steven E. Jones, Physicist PhD was on Alex Jones today.
http://prisonplanet.com/

Click on the "Listen Live" link on the left. 24 hr/day refeed.

Great news about 911 truth movement and Steven Jones being asked about coming on the VIEW with other scientists.

Steven Jones is a retired professor whose specialty is not related in any way to structural engineering. What he says about the WTC destruction is no more relevant than someone working at starbucks in Washington State.

PolyNewbie · April 6, 2007

What possible evidence could you have to support an elaborate cover-up which involves settings hundreds of charges throughout the building?

The hot spots that were measured by infrared that no one denies was hotter than burning fuel or burning contents of buildings. This proves that there had to be another heat source besides fuel or typical content fires.

The building collapsed straight down into its own footprint - never happened before without controlled demolition. This violates the second law of thermodynamics if the accepted version is to be accepted according to Stephen Jones and others.

The rate collapse shows a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. The breaking buildings (wtc1 & wtc2) had to slow the collapse down by a few seconds minimum.

Stephen Jones has found evidence of high temperature sulfidization, that sulfidization is also mentioned in the FEMA report.

The FEMA report itself says the official version has only a "very low probability of occurance". NIST hasn't said what caused wtc7 to collapse yet.

The cover up, removal of evidence, restrictions on qualified investigators from entering the area, photos restricted, general guilty behaviour.

Physical evidence has shown that the building was damaged extensively on the (I think) south side, which caused it's collapse.

That was smoke from another building. It looked like it was from wtc7 from where the photos were taken but other photos show a different story with a nearby building generating all that smoke. wtc7 had only very small fires. You can see these pictures by doing a search "wtc7 fires prisonplanet" - loads of them.

What is the official version as to why building 7 collapsed ? What evidence do you have that supports the official version ?

PolyNewbie · April 6, 2007

cybercoma Steven Jones is a retired professor whose specialty is not related in any way to structural engineering. What he says about the WTC destruction is no more relevant than someone working at starbucks in Washington State.

Thats like saying a mathemetician isn't qualified to balance a checkbook because he isn't an accountant. Of course a Phd in physics could do a structural analysis of the building and be able to determine what is or isn't scientifically possible.

You don't have to understand structural analysis to see that the collapse of wtc7 due to fires is impossible.

If this is the case - wtc7 collapsed from fires, why won't NIST or FEMA just say that ?

Riverwind · April 6, 2007

The hot spots that were measured by infrared that no one denies was hotter than burning fuel or burning contents of buildings. This proves that there had to be another heat source besides fuel or typical content fires.

It means nothing since I have already pointed out that it is at least theoretically possible for heat to be trapped in a way that would explain any hot spots. However, that is not the only explaination: there could have been material in the rubble that burned hotter or the measurements could have been wrong.

The building collapsed straight down into its own footprint - never happened before without controlled demolition. This violates the second law of thermodynamics if the accepted version is to be accepted according to Stephen Jones and others.

These buildings are uniform structures - once they started to collapse the only direction they could move in is straight down. In fact, it would be very difficult to get these types of buildings to collapse in any direction other than straight down.

The rate collapse shows a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. The breaking buildings (wtc1 & wtc2) had to slow the collapse down by a few seconds minimum.

Such energy calculations are a waste of time because they require many assumptions that cannot be verified and also rely on measurements that are extremely inaccurate.

Stephen Jones has found evidence of high temperature sulfidization, that sulfidization is also mentioned in the FEMA report.

The existance of sulfidization means nothing in itself because there are many possible sources.

PolyNewbie · April 6, 2007

What kind of engineer are you Riverwind ?

It means nothing since I have already pointed out that it is at least theoretically possible for heat to be trapped in a way that would explain any hot spots.

I have poineted out that you are a fool and have no idea what you are talking about wrt anything scientific.

If I explain (prove) why its impossible for a heated substance to get hotter than the heat source applied will you stop polluting my posts with your "scientific expertise" ?

Riverwind · April 6, 2007

If I explain (prove) why its impossible for a heated substance to get hotter than the heat source applied

Go ahead - try to prove that the temperature of closed system containing a flame will never exceed the temperature of the flame. You will need to explain exactly what happens to all of the energy released by the combustion.

PolyNewbie · April 6, 2007

If I explain (prove) why its impossible for a heated substance to get hotter than the heat source applied will you stop polluting my posts with your "scientific expertise" ?

A simple yes or no answer is all that is required.

Riverwind · April 6, 2007

A simple yes or no answer is all that is required.

Evade, evade, evade. Can you provide a proof or not? You are the one who claims to believe in science based arguments. I am giving you science based arguments and you refuse to answer. I suspect it is because you are not really interested in the science based arguments.

Incidently, I am not convinced that the closed system conditions required to trap heat would exist within the pile of rubble. I only bring up the argument because it demonstrates at least one hole in your so called 'proof'. There are others holes to discuss. For example, a massive amount of kinetic energy had to be absorbed by the rubble when the building hit the ground. Much of this energy would go into the materials in the pile of rubble. This would be a large source of heat that could also explain any hot spots.

ScottSA · April 6, 2007

If I explain (prove) why its impossible for a heated substance to get hotter than the heat source applied will you stop polluting my posts with your "scientific expertise" ?
A simple yes or no answer is all that is required.

If we all admit that Beelzebub emerged from the earth, hooked up with the Cathars, the Knights templar and any number of nasty plotters, will you stop monopolizing every single thread with this infantile horsecrap?