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

To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

Options
1…7374767879…102

Comments

  • Options
    #2252
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,783 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Office fires don't get hot enough to evaporate steel. Dr Barret knows this to be true and I know it to be true, you don't.

    Jesus christ

    You'd do well to actually read what he thinks rather than cherry-picking and second-guessing

    http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/professor-jonathan-r-barnett.html


    "Those were early observations. Since then, a metallurgical study was completed (see the ASCE/FEMA BPAT report). Please let me know if you have any more questions.

    Jonathan 2 January 2007"

    "I would suggest that the crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulferization. As that effect is a certainty (the effect of the pulverized wallboard), and thermite is an unsupported theory, I'll settle for the certainty."

    "None of this was ignored. But having looked at the debris myself, I saw no sign of an explosion or explosions. The collapse of towers 1 and 2 occurred exactly as one would expect from a fire.....I don't know what else to say. Finally, there was no predetermined theory. As you know I was part of the original investigation and a group leader. Neither I nor anyone else in the process went into the investigation with predetermined ideas. In fact, as this was the first collapse of a protected steel structure due to a fire, we were very open in our conversations as we looked for the truth."

    "You may post our discussion.

    1. I had not heard of the power down. Nor do I know its source of validity, etc.

    2. As a structural engineer and as a fire protection engineer and as someone who did his PhD research on the effect of fires on steel structures, I am not at all surprised that the towers collapsed on 9/11. The collapse mechanism makes perfect sense and is clearly understandable by someone with my background.

    I will admit I cannot prove that explosives were or were not present. But I reiterate the most important point, explosives were not needed to cause the collapse of the towers. The towers collapsed as an engineering analysis would predict.
    "


  • Options
    #2253
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Jesus christ

    You'd do well to actually read what he thinks rather than cherry-picking and second-guessing

    http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/professor-jonathan-r-barnett.html


    "Those were early observations. Since then, a metallurgical study was completed (see the ASCE/FEMA BPAT report). Please let me know if you have any more questions.

    Jonathan 2 January 2007"

    "I would suggest that the crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulferization. As that effect is a certainty (the effect of the pulverized wallboard), and thermite is an unsupported theory, I'll settle for the certainty."

    "None of this was ignored. But having looked at the debris myself, I saw no sign of an explosion or explosions. The collapse of towers 1 and 2 occurred exactly as one would expect from a fire.....I don't know what else to say. Finally, there was no predetermined theory. As you know I was part of the original investigation and a group leader. Neither I nor anyone else in the process went into the investigation with predetermined ideas. In fact, as this was the first collapse of a protected steel structure due to a fire, we were very open in our conversations as we looked for the truth."

    "You may post our discussion.

    1. I had not heard of the power down. Nor do I know its source of validity, etc.

    2. As a structural engineer and as a fire protection engineer and as someone who did his PhD research on the effect of fires on steel structures, I am not at all surprised that the towers collapsed on 9/11. The collapse mechanism makes perfect sense and is clearly understandable by someone with my background.

    I will admit I cannot prove that explosives were or were not present. But I reiterate the most important point, explosives were not needed to cause the collapse of the towers. The towers collapsed as an engineering analysis would predict.
    "

    Everything he just mentioned there I have talked about already. The FEMA report is about steel members found and had melted by high temp and sulphur. He ignoring the implications of this finding for his own personal reasons

    The gypsum wallboard is a debunked theory this is old stuff long discredited for years. He wrong about where the sulphur came from. He also wrong about how the steel melted.

    This statement below just hogwash and an appeal to authority. He can't say this when he can not find steel melted from any office fire previously.
    As a structural engineer and as a fire protection engineer and as someone who did his PhD research on the effect of fires on steel structures,

    This statement is true.
    I will admit I cannot prove that explosives were or were not present.


  • Options
    #2254
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol
    So when he says that the towers fell by fire, we can't trust his expertise.
    But when he says "he can't disprove the idea of explosives" it's an incontrovertible truth.

    You are so adorable Cheerful.

    Also since you kept ignoring it, I assume that you do believe the fire department commander was the true mastermind behind 9/11.
    Could you confirm this?
    Ignoring the point is an admission you believe that


  • Options
    #2255
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol
    So when he says that the towers fell by fire, we can't trust his expertise.
    But when he says "he can't disprove the idea of explosives" it's an incontrovertible truth.

    You are so adorable Cheerful.

    Also since you kept ignoring it, I assume that you do believe the fire department commander was the true mastermind behind 9/11.
    Could you confirm this?
    Ignoring the point is an admission you believe that

    Dr Barret knows damn well steel did melt and was observation made by FEMA. They found an abundance of elemental sulphur on the steel that evaporated and melted.

    His ignoring sulphur is substance found in thermate and can be added to nanothermite ( and nanometal explosives) Sulfur is also used as plasticizer in explosives.

    Their theory is this mystery sulphur came from the gypsum wallboard. It was a reasonable theory in 2007. Today its discredited and debunked and experiments have been done.

    His entitled to his opinion, his wrong though.


  • Options
    #2256
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Lol yea, you definitely able to judge that.
    You've shown your skill in math and physics...

    So then you do believe that the mastermind behind the whole conspiracy was the fire department commander.
    Interesting take...
    What was his name?
    How did he manage to get every involved?
    How did he afford the conspiracy on a fire fighters pay?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2257
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol yea, you definitely able to judge that.
    You've shown your skill in math and physics...

    So then you do believe that the mastermind behind the whole conspiracy was the fire department commander.
    Interesting take...
    What was his name?
    How did he manage to get every involved?
    How did he afford the conspiracy on a fire fighters pay?

    Who is the fire commander who phoned him?

    I answered your silly irrelevant question, thanks for acknowledging it :)


  • Options
    #2258
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    You tell us, it's your mad conspiracy theory.
    You believe Larry confessed and he very clearly stated the fire commander decided to demolish the building. So obviously this fire commander was high up.

    So why have you not tracked him down with your amazing detective skills and obvious smarts?


  • Options
    #2259
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe selective quoting again

    From his own link
    Of course the mechanism of collapse is still an unknown. There were large transfer trusses in the building, so perhaps those we compromised. I don't pretend to have the answer to tower 7. But I anxiously await NIST's final report on that tower.

    https://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/professor-jonathan-r-barnett.html


  • Options
    #2260
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    You tell us, it's your mad conspiracy theory.
    You believe Larry confessed and he very clearly stated the fire commander decided to demolish the building. So obviously this fire commander was high up.

    So why have you not tracked him down with your amazing detective skills and obvious smarts?



    Going by the video the fire chief denied talking to him. He was asked who was it then Silverstein says nothing. The people asking overreacted but the question is a legitimate one.


  • Options
    #2261
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Ok, didn't bother watching the video.

    So what's this fire commanders name?
    How did he organise the whole conspiracy?
    How did he pay for it?
    How did he plant all the explosives and get access to secret experiment explosives?
    Why did he do it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2262
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, didn't bother watching the video.

    So what's this fire commanders name?
    How did he organise the whole conspiracy?
    How did he pay for it?
    How did he plant all the explosives and get access to secret experiment explosives?
    Why did he do it?

    He did not answer. He did not name anyone.
    The fire chief on the day denied phoning him.


  • Options
    #2263
    SlowBlowin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭SlowBlowin


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Dr Barret knows damn well steel did melt and was observation made by FEMA. They found an abundance of elemental sulphur on the steel that evaporated and melted.

    His ignoring sulphur is substance found in thermate and can be added to nanothermite ( and nanometal explosives) Sulfur is also used as plasticizer in explosives.

    Their theory is this mystery sulphur came from the gypsum wallboard. It was a reasonable theory in 2007. Today its discredited and debunked and experiments have been done.

    His entitled to his opinion, his wrong though.

    Sulphur is not found in standard thermite. There are mixes that use sulphur but these are not metal oxide based.

    For elemental sulphur alone to be found, and not mixed with the rest of the thermite components, it must come from a secondary source (like the heating of gypsum). If you believe it came from the mixed thermite then how did it separate from the other components ? If there was thermite, and it was made to be efficient, then it would be stoichiometric proportions and if ignited would largely all be consumed. If not ignited they would have found thermite not sulphur.


  • Options
    #2264
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    ]

    He did not answer. He did not name anyone.
    The fire chief on the day denied phoning him.
    But I'm not asking him. I'm asking you.
    It's your insane theory.
    Your theory is that the fire department commander decided to demolish WTC7. So he has yo be the one in charge.

    Why have you not done any research about the clear mastermind behind it all?


  • Options
    #2265
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    King Mob wrote: »
    But I'm not asking him. I'm asking you.
    It's your insane theory.
    Your theory is that the fire department commander decided to demolish WTC7. So he has yo be the one in charge.

    Why have you not done any research about the clear mastermind behind it all?

    We cannot get to the bottom of it. He would not reveal the name of the fire chief. We can't ask fire chief no name can we?


  • Options
    #2266
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »

    We can get to the bottom of it. His will not tell us who the fire chief was. We can't ask fire chief no name can we?
    Again it's your theory.
    Can't you just Google who was the fire chief in charge?
    You use Google for everything else.

    Again your theory is that this fire chief was behind the whole conspiracy, yet you don't seem interested at all in finding out who that was.
    Weird...

    Also I'm looking forward to you embarrassing yourself by pretending to know anything about chemistry...


  • Options
    #2267
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    SlowBlowin wrote: »
    Sulphur is not found in standard thermite. There are mixes that use sulphur but these are not metal oxide based.

    For elemental sulphur alone to be found, and not mixed with the rest of the thermite components, it must come from a secondary source (like the heating of gypsum). If you believe it came from the mixed thermite then how did it separate from the other components ? If there was thermite, and it was made to be efficient, then it would be stoichiometric proportions and if ignited would largely all be consumed. If not ignited they would have found thermite not sulphur.

    FEMA could not identify where all the sulphur came from. What they found on the steel was a eutectic liquid made of melted sulphur and iron. Oxidation and sulfidation of the steel occurred.

    They speculated a temp of 1000c + plus the sulphur started to corrode and melt the steel

    The problem and its overlooked NIST own study and they are bias they claimed the hottest a steel beam got to was 600c. It dropped to 400c in the afternoon. So there was no fire hot enough to melt steel.

    Gypsum wallboard is a debunked theory. I can show you an experiment if you need to see it?


  • Options
    #2268
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,783 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Dr Barret knows damn well steel did melt

    He's a source for your "conspiracy". You brought him into the thread. He directly contradicts you, upon this being literally pointed out to you, you decide to "turn" on his expertise

    It's hilarious watch you backtrack and try to invent your way out of it


  • Options
    #2269
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,783 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Who blew these buildings up, what were their names? anyone?


  • Options
    #2270
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    He's a source for your "conspiracy". You brought him into the thread. He directly contradicts you, upon this being literally pointed out to you, you decide to "turn" on his expertise

    It's hilarious watch you backtrack and try to invent your way out of it
    .

    But you did not post this quote, did you?

    I don't pretend to have the answer to tower 7

    WTC7 collapsed to controlled demolition. This will be proven shortly by Dr Hulsey study.

    The paradigm is going to change soon enough.


  • Options
    #2271
    SlowBlowin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭SlowBlowin


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    FEMA could not identify where all the sulphur came from. What they found on the steel was a eutectic liquid made of melted sulphur and iron. Oxidation and sulfidation of the steel occurred.

    They speculated a temp of 1000c + plus the sulphur started to corrode and melt the steel

    The problem and its overlooked NIST own study and they are bias they claimed the hottest a steel beam got to was 600c. It dropped to 400c in the afternoon. So there was no fire hot enough to melt steel.

    Gypsum wallboard is a debunked theory. I can show you an experiment if you need to see it?

    No need to link me to an experiment where they add aluminium (you would agree there was a lot of that from the planes etc) to gypsum. I have done that, here some kids doing it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r5ly2uWn-A

    In this case they used plaster of Paris as the gypsum, but the reaction is well known, try it. Remember in the towers there would have been waterfall like streams of molten aluminium falling from the hottest floors, there not much more reactive than that. The same molten aluminium would react with any rust it encountered (rust + aluminium IS thermite).

    You quoting elemental sulphur is wrong, that means pure sulphur. They are referring to sulphur dioxide, which reacts with hot iron to produce iron sulphide. Sulphur is a very common gas produced in fires.

    I am going to watch the spacex launch now, and I am pretty tired of this reply as it seems so obvious to me that there were loads of sources of sulphur in the fires.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2272
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    SlowBlowin wrote: »
    No need to link me to an experiment where they add aluminium (you would agree there was a lot of that from the planes etc) to gypsum. I have done that, here some kids doing it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r5ly2uWn-A

    In this case they used plaster of Paris as the gypsum, but the reaction is well known, try it. Remember in the towers there would have been waterfall like streams of molten aluminium falling from the hottest floors, there not much more reactive than that. The same molten aluminium would react with any rust it encountered (rust + aluminium IS thermite).

    You quoting elemental sulphur is wrong, that means pure sulphur. They are referring to sulphur dioxide, which reacts with hot iron to produce iron sulphide. Sulphur is a very common gas produced in fires.

    I am going to watch the spacex launch now, and I am pretty tired of this reply as it seems so obvious to me that there were loads of sources of sulphur in the fires.

    You're confused. The FEMA report is about WTC7 steel

    Nobody has ever claimed thermite brought down the towers or WTC7.

    Elemental sulphur means it just free it came from another source somewhere else. Gypsum wallboard is made of calcium sulphate.

    Sulphur is a very common gas produced in fires? Explain? You on about Sulfur dioxide?


  • Options
    #2273
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    FEMA WTC Building Performance Study,
    “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.... A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed....”

    Dr Barret claims the gypsum wallboard was possible source for the sulphar in 2007

    Debunked in this experiment.



  • Options
    #2274
    SlowBlowin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭SlowBlowin


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You're confused. The FEMA report is about WTC7 steel

    Nobody has ever claimed thermite brought down the towers or WTC7.

    Elemental sulphur means it just free it came from another source somewhere else. Gypsum wallboard is made of calcium sulphate.

    Sulphur is a very common gas produced in fires? Explain? You on about Sulfur dioxide?
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    You're confused.

    No I am not.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    The FEMA report is about WTC7 steel.

    Steel is made mostly of iron.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Nobody has ever claimed thermite brought down the towers or WTC7.

    Try googling that..
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Elemental sulphur means it just free it came from another source somewhere else.

    No you are wrong, it means pure sulphur not combined with anything else:

    From Wikipedia
    Sulfur or sulphur is a chemical element with symbol S and atomic number 16. It is abundant, multivalent, and nonmetallic. Under normal conditions, sulfur atoms form cyclic octatomic molecules with a chemical formula S8. Elemental sulfur is a bright yellow, crystalline solid at room temperature.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Sulphur is a very common gas produced in fires? Explain? You on about Sulfur dioxide?

    Yes, as that would be the only source of sulphur at the temperatures mentioned.
    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    Gypsum wallboard is made of calcium sulphate.

    Correct, well done a correct chemistry statement.


  • Options
    #2275
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,783 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Cheerful Spring wrote: »
    .

    WTC7 collapsed to controlled demolition. This will be proven shortly by Dr Hulsey study.

    He's being paid by a conspiracy theory group to claim that WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, not to "prove it was a controlled demolition"

    Very telling how you religiously support the non-findings of one engineer over corroborated findings of many engineers


  • Options
    #2276
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    SlowBlowin wrote: »
    No I am not.



    Steel is made mostly of iron.



    Try googling that..



    No you are wrong, it means pure sulphur not combined with anything else:

    From Wikipedia
    Sulfur or sulphur is a chemical element with symbol S and atomic number 16. It is abundant, multivalent, and nonmetallic. Under normal conditions, sulfur atoms form cyclic octatomic molecules with a chemical formula S8. Elemental sulfur is a bright yellow, crystalline solid at room temperature.



    Yes, as that would be the only source of sulphur at the temperatures mentioned.



    Correct, well done a correct chemistry statement.

    There no need nobody claims thermite brought down any building on 9/11. Provide a source if you believe otherwise.

    Steel is made of Iron mostly agreed, and?

    Sulphur is an element. Sulphur that is mined or recovered from oil and gas production is known as elemental sulphur, or brimstone. Sulphur can be combined with other elements to form various compounds
    https://www.sulphurinstitute.org/learnmore/faq.cfm#what

    What I meant was where did the sulphur come from inside building seven.

    Sulphar doixide is not a gas a fire releases into the air? I not sure what you getting at there?


  • Options
    #2277
    Cheerful Spring
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,893 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    He's being paid by a conspiracy theory group to claim that WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, not to "prove it was a controlled demolition"

    Very telling how you religiously support the non-findings of one engineer over corroborated findings of many engineers

    This study will be out soon we see what said about it then.


  • Options
    #2278
    SlowBlowin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭SlowBlowin


    Just read the above posts again, you insist you are right always and yet you change you stance completely. The paragraph you just posted on sulphur is what I have been saying, it proves you incorrect, is that why you posted it.

    Elemental sulphur was not found:
    Appendix C of the well-known FEMA Report on the collapse of buildings at the WTC on September 11th,2001, focuses on two samples of badly corroded structural steel removed from the WTC debris field, /See Ref 1/. The authors of Appendix C, namely J. Barnett, R.R. Biederman and R.D. Sisson Jr., describe metallographic sectioning and EDS (X-ray fluorescence) analyses of two samples and show that iron sulfide, FeS, surface deposits are associated with the severe corrosion of the steel. Barnett et al. note that the sulfur could also have come from the contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics, or ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate.

    I can't be bothered as you have such a poor understanding of science/logic, going to bed.


  • Options
    #2279
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    SlowBlowin wrote: »

    I can't be bothered as you have such a poor understanding of science/logic, going to bed.
    Cheerful has previously insisted that there was no such thing as molten steel in an attempt to sound educated.


  • Options
    #2280
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,484 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    Poor old Larry Silverstein. A philanthropist, a charitable guy and a family man who lost a lot of friends and colleagues in the 9/11 attacks and he has a few thousands lunatics running about online accusing him of being a mass murderer. Based on no evidence whatsoever.

    Hes being accused of killing his friends by people like Cheerful Spring.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2281
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,408 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    King Mob wrote: »
    Cheerful has previously insisted that there was no such thing as molten steel in an attempt to sound educated.

    Yet he has used the term "evaporated steel/metal" several times.

    I don't think he understands the word.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/evaporate
    cause a liquid to change to a gas,esp. by heating:

    [ I ] Some water evaporates to form clouds.

    If something such as a feeling orproblem evaporates, it disappears:

    [ I ] The issue of global warming is not just going to evaporate


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement