Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Collapse of World Trade Centre 7
Options
Comments
-
I find it strange that Norad fooked up so badly that day and were told to stand down. Im following the thread have a question if someone wouldn’t mind answering it.
Does the fact that this thermite test was undertaken where oxygen was present mean that it wasn’t present in the building or is that just standard scientific procedure for actually testing for the presence of thermite?
No.
All you have to know about termite is in the document i have referenced. It is only a small piece of the 9/11 picture trust me.
Best of luck on your quest for the truth. Question everything.0 -
-
Yep all those times where I was asking for evidence and asking for to explain your in more detail mean I'm closed minded.
And weren't you the one who said:
That doesn't sound very open minded.
As for research I have done plenty.
I've never seen a single conspiracy accusation stand up to scrutiny.
But why not prove me wrong?
Unless of course your one of the many people who until the true story of what happened on 9/11 is aired on every mainstream media network and published in newspapers conspiracy theory site worldwide you just wont believe anything else?
Ok then...As for the paper itself, the 4 samples where collected weeks after the attacks. It doesn't exclude any other explanations that might explain the thermite like substance. And it jumps to a conclusion it can't reach if it was being an honest paper.
This quote proved to me that you are being ignorant and lowered my repect and credit to you and your beliefs/arguments.
If (like i asked you nicely too) you had of actully read this paper you would see that sample 1 was taken 10 minutes after the first towers collapse (all referenced) and that the final one was taken one week after 9/11 not weeks after as you describe.
This paper could not be more honest...again READ IT!And going to back this up?
How do you know it is steel exactly?
Your standard thermite reaction-
Fe2O3 + 2Al -> 2Fe + Al2O3 + Heat
A video of a thermite reaction-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCsbZf1_Ng&feature=related
You can clearly see from the photos and from firemans statements that it was pulvarised mid air.No-one is claiming it was pulverised mid air.And all those floors were completely clean of everything where they? And stayed that way despite raging fires.
This comment in no way presents an explanation as to how the squibs appeared. It seems here like you are just trying to deny everything I say without giving it any thought at all...Except there isn't a scrap of evidence for explosives.
Ok then explain how all the mass from both towers exploded outward over 70m from the towers, concrete got pulvarised, core columns fell to the ground or what caused the pyroclastic clouds? In my opinion it can be nothing else except explosives...It'd didn't and it never had "100% success rate".They weren'tThere wasThere was
Where are you getting your information from? At this point i was fed up earlier. You seem so sure of your points, and then scrutanise me at every turn demanding more references, and yet here you make these bogus claims with no logic or reference at all... Any person who claims to have done so much research surely would know what im talking about on my last points.
Video evidence of the crash site in Shanksville showing no evidence of a plane crash-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s
What do you think?0 -
markomongo wrote: »No.
All you have to know about termite is in the document i have referenced. It is only a small piece of the 9/11 picture trust me.
Best of luck on your quest for the truth. Question everything.
nice one.., there are plenty of things which dont add up about 9/11. I never trusted Bush hes a total creep always has been always will his father was the exact same I wouldnt put anything past him or his evil cronies, all these things which have happened because of this event you have to wonder about it, I think its right to ask questions when people stop asking questions then we have a problem.0 -
Your right I was mistaken. Those samples where sent in years after the attacks. In 2006, 2007, and two in 2008.markomongo wrote: »This quote proved to me that you are being ignorant and lowered my repect and credit to you and your beliefs/arguments.
If (like i asked you nicely too) you had of actully read this paper you would see that sample 1 was taken 10 minutes after the first towers collapse (all referenced) and that the final one was taken one week after 9/11 not weeks after as you describe.
This paper could not be more honest...again READ IT!
And for an honest paper they didn't seem too willing to under go proper peer review
Aluminium and rust?markomongo wrote: »Your standard thermite reaction-
Fe2O3 + 2Al -> 2Fe + Al2O3 + Heat
Nope certainly none of that in the Twin Towers at all.
Certainly no heat either.
Wow that thermite cools rather quickly. Nor leaves a whole lot of molten anything.markomongo wrote: »A video of a thermite reaction-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCsbZf1_Ng&feature=related
And you know this can't happen in a normal collapse because?markomongo wrote: »You can clearly see from the photos and from firemans statements that it was pulvarised mid air.
There was dust and debris all over the place before the collapse it's not a stretch to imagine there might be some inside the building.markomongo wrote: »This comment in no way presents an explanation as to how the squibs appeared. It seems here like you are just trying to deny everything I say without giving it any thought at all...
But if it is a squib why is it going off after the collapse has started? And why are there only two at that level?
Every other squib I've seen goes off before the collapse and on every level.
And then there's still the complete lack of any solid evidence for explosives being present.
Firstly they're not pyroclastic clouds.markomongo wrote: »Ok then explain how all the mass from both towers exploded outward over 70m from the towers, concrete got pulvarised, core columns fell to the ground or what caused the pyroclastic clouds? In my opinion it can be nothing else except explosives...
And how can all the mass explode outward yet still fall on its own footprint exactly?
Wow completely oblivious to the irony.markomongo wrote: »Where are you getting your information from? At this point i was fed up earlier. You seem so sure of your points, and then scrutanise me at every turn demanding more references, and yet here you make these bogus claims with no logic or reference at all... Any person who claims to have done so much research surely would know what im talking about on my last points.
I do know what you are talking about very well.
Here's a few quick references:
http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/more_flight_93_photos.html
Yea nice cherry picked camera angles.markomongo wrote: »Video evidence of the crash site in Shanksville showing no evidence of a plane crash-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s
What do you think?0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't believe htey did **** up, but its a theme for another thread.I find it strange that Norad fooked up so badly that day and were told to stand down.Im following the thread have a question if someone wouldn’t mind answering it.
Does the fact that this thermite test was undertaken where oxygen was present mean that it wasn’t present in the building or is that just standard scientific procedure for actually testing for the presence of thermite?
Neither.
Lets say that you have a substance that can combust without the presence of oxygen. Lets call it bonkeyite.
You know that there are many substances which combust in the presence of oxygen...oxygen being a requirement for almost all forms of combustion.
You additionally know that bonkeyite is made up of fairly commonly-occurring materials - materials which you could find in materials (or in samples containing multiple different materials) which combust.
So, you have a sample of something. you look at its physical composition and find that the elements are present which you'd expect to find if bonkeyite is there. There's other stuff too, of course...so you don't know if you're dealing with bonkeyite, bonkeyite mixed with something, or a mix of common materials which happen to contain the same elements as bonkeyite.
You decide to perform a combustion test.
if you test in oxygen, you can determine whether or not its a combustible material - and little else.
If you test in the absence of oxygen, you can determine that its a combustible material which is based on an anaerobic reaction (i.e. one which doesn't require oxygen).
In neither case, can you definitively state that you've found bonkeyite. You can, however, rule out far, far more possibilities by showing anaerobic combustion then mere combustion.
Anti-rust paint, imperfectly applied to a surface (or applied to a surface where there were already traces of rust) would produce material which could be a match for (at least some of) the samples listed. It would contain the necessary elements. It would combust in air, but not in the absence of oxygen.
The authors did address the point that it might have been paint, I admit. They argued that their samples didn't burn like paint, and that it looked like they'd expect a thermitic reaction to look like.
Note - I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying that their methodology was poor - possibly flawed. They performed a far, far less conclusive test, and offset the different results with claims of what it did and didn't look like. The test also doesn't rule out any other possibility...where an anaerobic combustion test would rule out any possibility based on aerobic combustion (which is the vast, vast majority of them).
So going back to bonkeyite...
...We have a substance. We think it might be bonkeyite. We know it contains the right elements (as well as other stuff). We argue that it doesn't combust like one other substance (a claim that is weak in itself), and we show that it burns in air.
Is that sufficient? I don't think so.
If we showed it contained the right elements (and could explain the other traces), combusted anaerobically, and we could show why such anaerobic combustion would not be expected in any materials expected to be found in a building or its furnishings...I'm not sure that even then we'd have sufficient evidence, but we'd certainly have a far, far stronger argument.0 -
Unless of course your one of the many people who until the true story of what happened on 9/11 is aired on every mainstream media network and published in newspapers conspiracy theory site worldwide you just wont believe anything else?
Infractedmarkomongo wrote: »This quote proved to me that you are being ignorant
Infracted0 -
I don't believe htey did **** up, but its a theme for another thread.
Neither.
Lets say that you have a substance that can combust without the presence of oxygen. Lets call it bonkeyite.
You know that there are many substances which combust in the presence of oxygen...oxygen being a requirement for almost all forms of combustion.
You additionally know that bonkeyite is made up of fairly commonly-occurring materials - materials which you could find in materials (or in samples containing multiple different materials) which combust.
So, you have a sample of something. you look at its physical composition and find that the elements are present which you'd expect to find if bonkeyite is there. There's other stuff too, of course...so you don't know if you're dealing with bonkeyite, bonkeyite mixed with something, or a mix of common materials which happen to contain the same elements as bonkeyite.
You decide to perform a combustion test.
if you test in oxygen, you can determine whether or not its a combustible material - and little else.
If you test in the absence of oxygen, you can determine that its a combustible material which is based on an anaerobic reaction (i.e. one which doesn't require oxygen).
In neither case, can you definitively state that you've found bonkeyite. You can, however, rule out far, far more possibilities by showing anaerobic combustion then mere combustion.
Anti-rust paint, imperfectly applied to a surface (or applied to a surface where there were already traces of rust) would produce material which could be a match for (at least some of) the samples listed. It would contain the necessary elements. It would combust in air, but not in the absence of oxygen.
The authors did address the point that it might have been paint, I admit. They argued that their samples didn't burn like paint, and that it looked like they'd expect a thermitic reaction to look like.
Note - I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying that their methodology was poor - possibly flawed. They performed a far, far less conclusive test, and offset the different results with claims of what it did and didn't look like. The test also doesn't rule out any other possibility...where an anaerobic combustion test would rule out any possibility based on aerobic combustion (which is the vast, vast majority of them).
So going back to bonkeyite...
...We have a substance. We think it might be bonkeyite. We know it contains the right elements (as well as other stuff). We argue that it doesn't combust like one other substance (a claim that is weak in itself), and we show that it burns in air.
Is that sufficient? I don't think so.
If we showed it contained the right elements (and could explain the other traces), combusted anaerobically, and we could show why such anaerobic combustion would not be expected in any materials expected to be found in a building or its furnishings...I'm not sure that even then we'd have sufficient evidence, but we'd certainly have a far, far stronger argument.
Bonkeyite:D has a certain ring to it...ty for detailed explanation.0 -
yes it was! video evidence.No, he didn't.
No, they didn't.
You're trying to read what you want to into what he said.
Demolition term for tieing cables around a building less than 10 stories in height, pulling it off-centre, and thus collapsing it.
*Not* a demolition term for explosive-based demolition
If the building was collapsed by explosives, then yes, they would have been planted before the WTC attacks. It wasn't, however, collapsed in this way.0 -
OP needs to do a physics lesson!0
-
Advertisement
-
This is the best video i have seen and clearly shows the demolition of building 7. Wake up.
http://www.infowars.com/new-building-7-collapse-video-clearly-shows-demolition/0 -
markomongo wrote: »This is the best video i have seen and clearly shows the demolition of building 7. Wake up.
http://www.infowars.com/new-building-7-collapse-video-clearly-shows-demolition/
Posted:November 3, 2008, hardly New.
I've watched this video a few times on a few different posts and it always preceded by "clearly showing" or "its obvious" that it was a controlled demolition. Can you point out to me how it clearly shows it?0 -
markomongo wrote: »This is the best video i have seen and clearly shows the demolition of building 7. Wake up.
http://www.infowars.com/new-building-7-collapse-video-clearly-shows-demolition/
Nobody is saying the WTC7 collapse doesn't looking a bit like controlled demotion. However there are no tell tail signature blasts from the explosives going off, even the seismic record doesn't show them. There are literally hundreds of controlled demolition video on the internet and ALL of them have the clear sounds of explosive going off. So then we start talking about thermite, which has NEVER been used in controlled demolition. As Bonkey outlines above the idea that thermite was even found is dubious to say the least.
So what we have is a collapse that looks superficially like a controlled demolition but as soon as you see that the penthouse collapses into the building first you see it isn't a controlled demolition. As soon as you can't find the sounds of any explosives then you see it isn't like a controlled demolition. As soon as you learn the building had design flaws then it's even less likely to be a controlled demolition if the other reasons aren't enough.
Oh and I feel pretty awake, since you mention it.0
Advertisement