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

squod

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

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



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

No, no, assumptions. I hardly said that I believe it's findings. Did they do reading in civil engineering school? A theory is a theory. I just said it was more plausible etc. Overall, it is.

Divorce Referendum

squod wrote: »

No, no, assumptions. I hardly said that I believe it's findings. Did they do reading in civil engineering school? A theory is a theory. I just said it was more plausible etc. Overall, it is.

Ya ya of course squod assumptions. Did you learn what a question is in home schooling?

Yitzhak Rabin

Play nice!

Boo Radley

uprising2 wrote: »

Open wide, hold your nose if its hard to swallow.......

Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubble Stephen C. Webster
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Published: Saturday April 4, 2009[/FONT][/FONT]

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 (DSC)."

Now what ya need to know about the 'journal' that published this 'scientific' study is that for $800 dollars you or me could have a paper published. It's not what I'd call peer reviewed when you can buy publication.

Link to fee list: http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/MSandI.htm

Mahatma coat

Allegedley the Orangey Molten MAterial coming out of the Corner of the Tower is LEAD :rolleyes:

Dunno about ye but I work with Lead sometimes, We Filled the Keel of a Yacht with some last week, and no matter how Hot I got it, and that included a introducing a Kerro Furnace (Riello Firebird, for those playing along at home) to the mix to see what sort of tempratures I could get it to with Burning Fuel in the mix, it neer did that, and we were melting old batteries just like the UPS devices Claimed to be theSourceof that Material.

Penn

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.

All the steel didn't fail. Some around where the planes impacted did due to damage and being weakened by fire. But, this places loading and directional forces on steel members which they were not designed to take.

bonkey

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

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.

Not only that, but he's wrong on multiple counts:

Firstly, structural steel framed buildings have collapsed because of fire.

If we refine the criteria a bit, we can say that no high-rise, well-constructed, building made solely from a structural-steel construct has collapsed due to fire.

This will rule out large steel-framed buildings which weren't high-rise but which have collapsed - the Sight & Sound in Pennsylvania , for example.

It will rule out buildings like the Kader Toy Factory (which weren't well built)

It will rule out high-rise buildings like the Windsor where the portion of the building which was structural steel framed collapsed, while the portion which was concrete-core supported remained standing.

and...

it will also rule out WTC 1, 2!!!

As I've said often before...according to the official NIST report, WTC 1 and 2 did not collapse from fire. They collapsed from a combination of structural damage and fire. Neither on its own was judged sufficient to have caused the collapse.

Divorce Referendum

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Allegedley the Orangey Molten MAterial coming out of the Corner of the Tower is LEAD :rolleyes:

Dunno about ye but I work with Lead sometimes, We Filled the Keel of a Yacht with some last week, and no matter how Hot I got it, and that included a introducing a Kerro Furnace (Riello Firebird, for those playing along at home) to the mix to see what sort of tempratures I could get it to with Burning Fuel in the mix, it neer did that, and we were melting old batteries just like the UPS devices Claimed to be theSourceof that Material.

Where did you hear this?. Aluminium alloy i thought.

bonkey

Divorce Referendum wrote: »

Where did you hear this?. Aluminium alloy i thought.

I think that this is what he's referring to.

Also...for the record, lead has a melting point just above 325C....about half that of aluminium (660C).