Military C-130 Hercules plane crashed into tower block in Iran NO COLLAPSE !

Divorce Referendum

uprising2 wrote: »

READ THE QUESTION AGAIN............EXPLOSIVES...

And did you read my post after that???
Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubble

Just hold your nose and swallow....

Stop with the big bold text. Im makes you look crazy. Thermite is aliminium and iron oxide that what they said they found right?. These elements are contained in the structure of the WTC so yes they will be found in the dust. Thats what they found in their study WOW.

The Recliner

uprising2 wrote: »

READ THE QUESTION AGAIN............EXPLOSIVES...

And did you read my post after that???
Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubble

Just hold your nose and swallow....

Can you please stop posting in giant bolded font, we can all read

gizmo

I find it quite hard to believe that they'd use a substance that could be so easily identified as foreign, at least in terms of their presence, in the 1.2m tonnes of rubble left behind at the site.

uprising2

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Stop with the big bold text. Im makes you look crazy. Thermite is aliminium and iron oxide. These elements are contained in the structure of the WTC so yes they will be found in the dust. Thats what they found in their study WOW.

I said read the question again, here's a refresher for you.....enjoy your meal, if you cant swallow it hold your nose.......

"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? . . . NIST did not test for the residue of these compoundsin the steel." -- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006


Then I went on to make you look silly

Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubble Stephen C. Webster
Published: Saturday April 4, 2009

A team of scientists claim to have unearthed startling data from dust and debris gathered in the days and weeks after the World Trade Center towers collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001.

In a study published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal -- a peer-reviewed, scientific publication -- Steven E. Jones and Niels Harrit level a stark allegation: that within the dust and rubble of the World Trade Center towers lays evidence of "a highly engineered explosive," contrary to all federal studies of the collapses.

"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center," reads the paper's abstract. "One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry

EDIT: sorry recliner wont do it again, just saw the your post and its a pain to undo

Divorce Referendum

uprising what the hell are you on about? They found fecking aluminium and iron oxide chips, read the ****ing report. These two elements are in abundance in the dust of WTC which was pulverised from the materials used in the construction of the tower. They decline to note this end of.

Yitzhak Rabin

That journal is a sham of a journal. It is one of those where the author pays for the article, rather than the subscriber. Therefore, all you gotta do to get published is front up the $$$.

In fact, just to test it, someone submitted a non-sensical bunch of rubbish to it..... and guess what..... they published it!!

gizmo

yekahs wrote: »

That journal is a sham of a journal. It is one of those where the author pays for the article, rather than the subscriber. Therefore, all you gotta do to get published is front up the $$$.

In fact, just to test it, someone submitted a non-sensical bunch of rubbish to it..... and guess what..... they published it!!

Wow, I didn't think this kind of behaviour would exist at that kind of level. Evidently I was mistaken.

The Open Information Science Journal failed to spot that the incomprehensible computer-generated paper was a fake. This was despite heavy hints from its authors, who claimed they were from the Centre for Research in Applied Phrenology – which forms the acronym Crap.

Hah, at least they had a sense of humour.

squod

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

uprising what the hell are you on about? They found fecking aluminium and iron oxide chips, read the ****ing report. These two elements are in abundance in the dust of WTC which was pulverised from the materials used in the construction of the tower. They decline to note this end of.

That statement standing alone makes sense. Put it next to a video of one of the towers falling (demolition style) and it becomes a nonsense. what do you think caused the buildings to fall such a short time after the initial impact?

Divorce Referendum

squod wrote: »

That statement standing alone makes sense. Put it next to a video of one of the towers falling (demolition style) and it becomes a nonsense. what do you think caused the buildings to fall such a short time after the initial impact?

The damage to the outer columns the core columns and the fireproofing from the plane impact. The fire then did the rest to weaken the trusses which were there to offer rigidity to the structure spanning between the core columns and perimiter columns. Steel heated to 550C has 50% strength of steel at normal temperatures. Office fires regularly get to 700 to 800C

If the WTC had a concrete core it would possibly be still standing but would definitely would have stood longer. Steel is a super strong structure and the cheapest option for high-rise but subjected to fire it can weaken dramatically.

squod

Steel is also an excellent conductor (of heat), and there was lots of it in those towers. So your telling me that a fairly hot fire caused the destruction of all that steel? And that most of it ended up in pieces between ten and thirty foot long.

That this turned to http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/wtc-photo.jpg"]this in a matter of hours?

Wouldn't that kind of failure warrant the preservation of all the evidence, after all this must be the only failure of it's kind etc.

Divorce Referendum

squod wrote: »

Steel is also an excellent conductor (of heat), and there was lots of it in those towers. So your telling me that a fairly hot fire caused the destruction of all that steel? And that most of it ended up in pieces between ten and thirty foot long.

That this turned to http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/WTC/wtc-photo.jpg"]this in a matter of hours?

Wouldn't that kind of failure warrant the preservation of all the evidence, after all this must be the only failure of it's kind etc.

The steel was bolted together it wasnt one piece from the ground to the 110th floor:rolleyes:. The bolts are going to fail when the towers fall thats pretty much common sense.That site is ****ing massive how much debris should you see?. The building is mainly air you know not steel. 130,000 tons of steel were recovered from the debris. That aint nothing.

So your telling me that a fairly hot fire caused the destruction of all that steel

No im saying the fire weakened the steel causing it to collapse. This isnt new. Why the hell would they fireproof steel if fire wasnt a concern?

King Mob

yekahs wrote: »

In fact, just to test it, someone submitted a non-sensical bunch of rubbish to it..... and guess what..... they published it!!

Actually is wasn't to the same journal but to a similar one published by the same company. And they didn't just agree to publish the paper, but invited the author to become an editor, as soon as he sent his registration fee.

King Mob

uprising2 wrote: »

Here's a Prof who agree's with me

For every crank you can provide I can provide seven much better and more honest scientists to counter him.

But that's not what's important, as it's an argument from authority.

uprising2 wrote: »

How would you know if explosives or thermite was used?, NIST didn't check for it......
"Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? . . . NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel." -- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

No the NIST did not test for thermite as it has never once ever been involved in the collapse of a building.

The study you've posted has been shown to be ****e time and time again uprising, why do you keep using it?

squod

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

The steel was bolted together it wasnt one piece from the ground to the 110th floor...............
No im saying the fire weakened the steel causing it to collapse.

It collapsed within hours, similar buildings have burned for longer without collapse. The theory doen't add up.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

It collapsed within hours, similar buildings have burned for longer without collapse. The theory doen't add up.

And did these building have planes flown into them?

Divorce Referendum

squod wrote: »

It collapsed within hours, similar buildings have burned for longer without collapse. The theory doen't add up.

The fire proofing has a rating of 2 hours. It was heavily damaged by the impact and also reported to be in poor repair in inaccesible parts of the structure.

Similar? Really the buildings were built exactly the same. Perimeter 14 " quarter inch box steel columns, core steel columns, steel truss support system incorporating a metaldeck?. Similar in that they were hit with a plane? Please do show. You might find that alot of high rise buildings have a concrete core combined with structural steel ,WTC was somewhat unique in that it didnt. The theory does add up but I am a civil engineer and I understand structures.

squod

And so you'd understand the bolts holding all that steel together wouldn't fail all at once resulting in a near freefall collapse of the entire building.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

And so you'd understand the bolts holding all that steel together wouldn't fail all at once resulting in a near freefall collapse of the entire building.

Except the Building didn't actually free fall...

Divorce Referendum

squod wrote: »

And so you'd understand the bolts holding all that steel together wouldn't fail all at once resulting in a near freefall collapse of the entire building.

Oh bloody hell. The building did NOT fall a free fall speeds:mad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

squod

near

To put this in perspective;

If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength....................... This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.

Linky

Another theory, a little more plausible than the official story like.

Divorce Referendum

squod wrote: »

To put this in perspective;



Linky

Another theory, a little more plausible than the official story like.

However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over the missing columns.

This guy is obviously a tool or isnt a civil engineer. The quote above is alluding to this type of 3d structural steel setup:



He is correct that is what would happen in the empire state building for instance.

Here is the WTC:




If a column is damaged it will distribute it to the load to the truss network as this is what is holding the perimiter to the core. It wont distribute it to other columns as there is none. Its a different design to allow for free open office space. This guy can even identify the right structure. I stopped reading after that

squod

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

I stopped reading after that

Pity, you missed the best bit.

Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts

Divorce Referendum

Lol sqoud again. Were they built with the same structure as the towers and did a plane hit them.? This is getting tiresome.

squod

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Lol sqoud again. Were they built with the same structure as the towers and did a plane hit them.? This is getting tiresome.

No one is making you post here. There's a million internet forums which have posted similar stories oner the past number of years. I doubt that anyone is going to be convinced by a couple of assumptions followed by the use of lol in a sentence. If you're feeling tired...........

Penn

squod wrote: »

To put this in perspective;



Linky

Another theory, a little more plausible than the official story like.

I'd just like to point out two things from that article:

However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.

He loses most of his credibility here in my eyes. You cannot compare the Twin Towers to (a) another structural steel framed building which was not also hit by a plane, and (b) most other steel framed buildings. Design is key, and the smallest of design differences can change a lot. Whether two similar buildings collapsed or not depends on an awful amount of factors and variables.

Let’s assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into the seven levels below the street level.

WTC2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0

Notice the top floors collapsing towards where the plane struck, where the most structural damage was done.

This is also a good video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Mhhvl7vWk

I'm not going to question his credentials or say he knows nothing. I don't know anything about him. But these two points, at least, are very wrong.

Divorce Referendum

squod wrote: »

No one is making you post here. There's a million internet forums which have posted similar stories oner the past number of years. I doubt that anyone is going to be convinced by a couple of assumptions followed by the use of lol in a sentence. If you're feeling tired...........

A couple of assumptions???? I asked you two questions. Are those buildings built the same structurally as the towers? And did a plane hit them. You seem to think that you can compare a different building to the Towers to suit your theory but you are not the only one.

squod

An interesting video alright. But for all the steel to fail? And the presence of molten metal in the basement days after the collapse. Not convinced.

squod

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

A couple of assumptions???? I asked you two questions. Are those buildings built the same structurally as the towers? And did a plane hit them. You seem to think that you can compare a different building to the Towers to suit your theory but you are not the only one.

Uh-huh a couple of assumptions. And no it's not my theory.

meglome

squod wrote: »

An interesting video alright. But for all the steel to fail? And the presence of molten metal in the basement days after the collapse. Not convinced.

For example a journalist said they saw molten metal in the basement. However the reality is what they saw could have been anything. They have zero experience in telling what it is nor did they ask or check. But mainly whether you believe that the buildings were brought down by planes/fires or explosives or thermite or all of these things that still wouldn't explain how you could have molten metal in the basement days later. Unless it was some alloy with a very low melting point or some type of plastic. My guess is some type of plastic.

Divorce Referendum

squod wrote: »

An interesting video alright. But for all the steel to fail? And the presence of molten metal in the basement days after the collapse. Not convinced.

What is the molten 'metal'. Steel, Aluminium, Copper? What melted this metal do you think?

squod wrote: »

Uh-huh a couple of assumptions. And no it's not my theory.

No they are called questions and they were directed at you. Its not your theory but you believe its findings?