The great thermite debate.

doc111

Well-Known Member
how about the word strength as a technical specification do you know the what strength even is refering too?

i was gone for few hours

you dont and it has nothing to do with temperature or cohesion so fact check on . . . .

your half assed attempt to make me look stupid, has further cemented my thought that your nothing other then a wikipedia punk

here is some wiki junk for you to learn

Ultimate tensile strength (UTS), often shortened to tensile strength (TS) or ultimate strength,[1][2] is the maximum stress that a material can withstand while being stretched or pulled before necking, which is when the specimen's cross-section starts to significantly contract. Tensile strength is the opposite of compressive strength and the values can be quite different.

do you know what compression is, and if strength is the opposite measument well then the weight and gravity argument associated with you charts mean poopy


i have simply said that the media and whom ever, you, have ignored the facts of molten steel being a part of this biulding destruction and iam even more conviced now that somthing being covered up for whatever reason, it doesnt have to mean anything other than that so keep trying at your feeble attempts to disprove facts
What facts am I ignoring? I've tried to address all of the points brought up by the conspiracy folk. If I don't address one it's probably because I've already addressed it numerous times and don't feel it needs addressing again. I've put up numerous links from credible sources. I haven't seen many of YOUR links, and I KNOW you haven't read any of mine, have you?:-P
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
i can tell you lots but every single time im gonna have to have some site or some piece of information regugitted by somone else then by me and if you dont want to listen then find out yourself then im not going to explain things nice

im sorry if im come off a little abrassive but i have little patients for conjecture mixed with niave assumptions, and beleive me i dont think your stupid, but i do think you think your smarter then your are, it takes very little time to understnd metal or its proccess but you have to have a technical perspective or it all means butkiss
Conjecture? Point out what I've put up as "conjecture". You keep saying you're putting up "facts". I may have missed these "facts" but I just am not seeing them. All of this has been regurgitated at some point or another so none of it is really original thought at this point. Links I put up bolster or in some cases prove what I'm saying. I understand more about metal than you realize. My family owns a very large scrapyard and I have 2 uncles with advanced degrees in metallurgy. I am no metallurgist but I have some pretty good resources at my fingertips. You are focusing on the properties of steel and seem stuck in that. Understandable since that's YOUR area of expertise. I wouldn't try to tell you that you are wrong about any of that shit. My areas of expertise are firefighting and building collapse. 15+ years experience in it coupled with the fact that I WAS ACTUALLY THERE, would seem to bolster my argument in the same way your expertise in metals would seem to bolster your argument. However, most of the conspiracy folk like to simply brush off my experience and knowledge in favor of theirs (which usually consists of some conspiracy blog). That's not how it works. I don't care what the data sheets say, whether it bolsters my argument or not, I've seen steel frame structures collapse from fire alone. I could literally sit here and tell you stories of the weird, unexplainable shit I've seen over the years that simply shouldn't be possible but I've seen these things. Like the guy who was in a building which had a gas leak and blew up. The building was instantly blown to rubble. Only the smoldering foundation and a pile of rubble remained. This guy walks out of the middle of the pile of rubble with barely a hair out of place. Now how is that possible? Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING was destroyed. Unrecognizable! The concrete was pulverized to dust! Yet somehow this guy dusts himself off and WALKS out of the middle of this pile of rubble! Damnedest thing! I could sit here for perhaps days telling you all stories like this one. Probabilities and Odds don't mean shit in the real world. if something has even the smallest chance of happening, it probably will at some point.bongsmilie
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
molten steel friend
Please explain your point. Because I'm not getting what you're getting at. Molten steel has NEVER BEEN PROVEN. A few anecdotal reports of molten metal have turned into this big sticking point for conspiracy theorists? What does this prove? Nothing IMO.
 

hazyintentions

Well-Known Member
Please explain your point. Because I'm not getting what you're getting at. Molten steel has NEVER BEEN PROVEN. A few anecdotal reports of molten metal have turned into this big sticking point for conspiracy theorists? What does this prove? Nothing IMO.
Ahh but it you can't prove soemthing how can you possibly disprove something?

This is quite the predicament is it not? Maybe if we just sit on our thumbs and hope the world spits out mgic answers everything will be okay. Oh, wait a minute, that is what they invented major news networks for. :)
 

Samwell Seed Well

Well-Known Member
its very simple the molten steel in the videos of the towers before they feel shooting/flowing what ever adjetive you like best, but the sparks or molten metal has been explained away as many other things that it can not be

the implosion of the towers is only possible by cutting certain support beams in the towers

the thermite stlye 45 degree cuts in seen on support beams in the ziegtgiesst videos( half shit by the way) is an unmistakeable sign of implosion techniches used on every controlled demolition in the world on steels

frame structures that are large, and the probability of both biuldings imploding in the exact same fashion being pinned on heat form planes and debrey from towers is insulting to mathamatics for one and the little

tower on ground also imploding in same fashion from zero implacts or fire at all, im not saying most conspiricay theries dont have just as many hole but this isnt a therory

these are visible truths
 

hazyintentions

Well-Known Member
its very simple the molten steel in the videos of the towers before they feel shooting/flowing what ever adjetive you like best, but the sparks or molten metal has been explained away as many other things that it can not be

the implosion of the towers is only possible by cutting certain support beams in the towers

the thermite stlye 45 degree cuts in seen on support beams in the ziegtgiesst videos( half shit by the way) is an unmistakeable sign of implosion techniches used on every controlled demolition in the world on steels

frame structures that are large, and the probability of both biuldings imploding in the exact same fashion being pinned on heat form planes and debrey from towers is insulting to mathamatics for one and the little

tower on ground also imploding in same fashion from zero implacts or fire at all, imnot saying most conspiricay theries dont have just as many hole but this isnt a therory
You know what gets me? I could find a total collapse believable in one building, but both twin towers and WTC 7 all falling in the same exact fashion.

Yeah, fuck that, something is awry.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
Ahh but it you can't prove soemthing how can you possibly disprove something?

This is quite the predicament is it not? Maybe if we just sit on our thumbs and hope the world spits out mgic answers everything will be okay. Oh, wait a minute, that is what they invented major news networks for. :)
In some debates, that's the problem..........nothing can really be proven or disproven.

All things being equal then, we each have to ask ourselves, "Does this pass the logic test?" Is it logical? Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor The principle is summarized as "The simplest explanation is usually the correct one." It's not that simple though either. What happened (the official story) that day was pretty extraordinary and pretty unlikely for hijackers to get 1 plane, let alone 4! Incredible! And without guns? Wow! But by numerous accounts this is exactly what happened! 19 guys took down planes with boxcutters and thuggery. Even so, when I look at some of the "theories" out there as to what really happened, this looks less and less unlikely and starts to take on a very plausible air. What I'm saying is life is funny. Strange shit happens that you can't apply science to. We don't have the capability to test for all variables, and we are just in our infancy when it comes to understanding of the physical world. I sincerely hope we get some real answers, but there will always be disbelievers on either side. The debate will continue and facts will continue to be conveniently ignored.:sad:
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
its very simple the molten steel in the videos of the towers before they feel shooting/flowing what ever adjetive you like best, but the sparks or molten metal has been explained away as many other things that it can not be

the implosion of the towers is only possible by cutting certain support beams in the towers

the thermite stlye 45 degree cuts in seen on support beams in the ziegtgiesst videos( half shit by the way) is an unmistakeable sign of implosion techniches used on every controlled demolition in the world on steels

frame structures that are large, and the probability of both biuldings imploding in the exact same fashion being pinned on heat form planes and debrey from towers is insulting to mathamatics for one and the little

tower on ground also imploding in same fashion from zero implacts or fire at all, imnot saying most conspiricay theries dont have just as many hole but this isnt a therory
Why do the vast majority of demolition experts say that this was no controlled demo? Were they all paid off by the government? Are there that many unscrupulous people in the world that all the people it would've certainly taken to pull this off would be able to keep their mouths shut? Sorry. I've been on this earth for better than 4 decades. I've fought in wars and been around the world. I've seen all kinds of crazy messed up shit and I actually believe SOME things are conspiracies, but this IMO, isn't one of them. :-(
 

hazyintentions

Well-Known Member
In some debates, that's the problem..........nothing can really be proven or disproven.

All things being equal then, we each have to ask ourselves, "Does this pass the logic test?" Is it logical? Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor The principle is summarized as "The simplest explanation is usually the correct one." It's not that simple though either. What happened (the official story) that day was pretty extraordinary and pretty unlikely for hijackers to get 1 plane, let alone 4! Incredible! And without guns? Wow! But by numerous accounts this is exactly what happened! 19 guys took down planes with boxcutters and thuggery. Even so, when I look at some of the "theories" out there as to what really happened, this looks less and less unlikely and starts to take on a very plausible air. What I'm saying is life is funny. Strange shit happens that you can't apply science to. We don't have the capability to test for all variables, and we are just in our infancy when it comes to understanding of the physical world. I sincerely hope we get some real answers, but there will always be disbelievers on either side. The debate will continue and facts will continue to be conveniently ignored.:sad:
I may not agree with you but I like your logic, Plus rep to you sir.

Can 3 buildings fall in the same manner when each given a set uncontrolled, unpredictable, erratic, and a radically different variables and still yield the same result with out a reasonable doubt?

Give that sort of hypothesis to any reputable chemist or physicist with a different "test subject" other than building (for obvious reasons) and see if you don't get a funny look or raise of the eyebrow.

Does that scenario clarify my point better?
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
I may not agree with you but I like your logic, Plus rep to you sir.

Can 3 buildings fall in the same manner when each given a set uncontrolled, unpredictable, erratic, and a radically different variables and still yield the same result with out a reasonable doubt?

Give that sort of hypothesis to any reputable chemist or physicist with a different "test subject" other than building (for obvious reasons) and see if you don't get a funny look or raise of the eyebrow.

Does that scenario clarify my point better?
I understand the point clearly. There were some buildings that got hit that didn't collapse that day. Some got hit with debris and collapsed. Why some collapsed and some didn't had more to do with their designs and inherent safety features. WTC had some design features which led to a very different collapse than what occurred with WTC 1 and 2. Fire induced progressive collapse is what occurred with building 7, this didn't occur with the towers for some of the same reasons that this building which had relatively little damage and relatively few fires collapsed. Design. There were clues that virtually every collapse technician I talked to pointed out on all three buildings that a collapse was impending. Check this link out:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
 

mexiblunt

Well-Known Member
I understand the point clearly. There were some buildings that got hit that didn't collapse that day. Some got hit with debris and collapsed. Why some collapsed and some didn't had more to do with their designs and inherent safety features. WTC had some design features which led to a very different collapse than what occurred with WTC 1 and 2. Fire induced progressive collapse is what occurred with building 7, this didn't occur with the towers for some of the same reasons that this building which had relatively little damage and relatively few fires collapsed. Design. There were clues that virtually every collapse technician I talked to pointed out on all three buildings that a collapse was impending. Check this link out:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
I wonder how many other buildings out there are built with the same design as WTC7? Would these all be suseptible to collapse from relativly few fires the same way WTC7 did? Those building owners should be warned and their insurance should go up......alot.
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
No they aren't! Again, You are conveniently leaving out HUGE facts to bolster your argument. WTC7 didn't fall from fire alone. It had a HUGE gash which took out key structural elements.:wall:

"Essentially" means "literally" now? Come one man! lol!
WTC7 didn't fall from fire alone? really? Cuz that is EXACTLY what the government is telling you.
NIST said:
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires.
Who you gonna believe? Me? or the Government?
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
WTC7 didn't fall from fire alone? really? Cuz that is EXACTLY what the government is telling you.


Who you gonna believe? Me? or the Government?
Primarily not totally. There was a HUGE gash taken out of the South face of the building by one of the collapsing towers. I definitely trust you more than the govt. lol!:bigjoint:
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
This one?


Funny thing that the collapse starts at the top isn't it? And the top of the building was in excellent shape.


Watch the penthouse go first.
[video=youtube;OUkvnfV606w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUkvnfV606w[/video]
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
This one?


Funny thing that the collapse starts at the top isn't it? And the top of the building was in excellent shape.


Watch the penthouse go first.
[video=youtube;OUkvnfV606w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUkvnfV606w[/video]


[Home] [WTC7 and Silverstein] [WTC7 Damage]

The story...
Located one block from the Twin Towers, WTC7 was barely scratched by the collapse of those structures.
Page 49
Barrie Zwicker, Towers of Deception
Our take...

It’s often claimed that WTC7 suffered no significant damage from the collapse of the towers. However, some 9/11 photos show debris that appears to be heading for the skyscraper (the light-brown building in the shot below)..



The angle of shot makes it difficult to say where that might hit (see this page for another view), but reports from the scene do suggest significant damage.
Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norman.html
A NIST photo may expand on that damage “at the edge of the south face”.


Page 17
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf

Chris Boyle expands on what he saw when he viewed the south side, not just the corner.
Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html
Another report talks of damage that suggested collapse was a real possibility:
...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF
Fire chief Daniel Nigro says further assessment of the damage indicated that it was severe:
The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-634
Another fireman reported damage that progressed as the day wore on.
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
So why wasn’t this damage photographed, ask people like David Ray Griffin (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html)? If they were to show you the smoke pouring from every floor of the building, then that may make it obvious... But it could also make you question the “small and limited” fires idea, which is why shots like this aren’t shown so very often.



This is cropped and resized, so be sure to view the original footage on the WTC7 Fire page (at the very bottom, if you’re not interested in anything else).

Other pictures may come still appear, though. Here’s a shot recently located by our friends at Debunking911.com.



Read more, including a statement by the photographer, on their site.

And recently a thread at the Democratic Underground message board revealed a new TV clip showing damage high on the the south face of WTC7:



The author of the original post kindly sent us a copy, which you can download here, although beware: it’s a chunky 24MB and adds little further detail. If you’re short on bandwidth then take a look at the slightly smaller YouTube version, instead.

A photo from Aman Zafar offers a larger, though still smokey view:

(We’ve cropped this to remove the surrounding buildings. See the original here.)

A poster on 911blogger.com noticed news footage that gives what seems to be the clearest view:





We haven’t seen the hi-res version of this and so cannot personally authenticate it, however others have this news footage so there seems little point in faking anything. You can view the video clip he posted here (beware, it’s a bulky 16.6 MB XviD AVI) and view the streaming version at Archive.org.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
A 4 story building is not comparable to a skyscraper, not even kind of. The steel was not covered with one of the best fireproofers known to humans, nor was there a water sprinkler system, nor were any of the steel girders box framed and there was also no CORE to the Krader toy factory. Its like Comparing a house fire to the towering inferno and saying they are the same. The krader factory fire proves nothing other than non-fire proofed steel girders can weaken in a fire. good thing the WTC didn't use steel girders in its construction.
lol wait a minute...

can a fire get hot enough to cause structural damage to steel? check
do steel frame buildings regualry collapse when on fire? check

your comparison was a steel reinforced concrete building HUGLEY different from the twin towers or wtc7

The steel was not covered with one of the best fireproofers known to humans,
this is the first time you have said that last time i asked for the impact rating of the fireproofing of the wtc

i want to draw your attention to these 2 vids
21seconds
[youtube]qNw0jOhVJ3A[/youtube]
[youtube]TJOwttgBpzE[/youtube]

now if you havent noticed thats 2 fucking great big impacts

so unless your gonna start pulling the impact rating of that insulation out of your arse to show how its "one of the best fireproofers known to humans" after a fucking plane has hit it i suggest you drop that completely idiotic line

oh and "one of the best fireproofers known to humans" isnt such a good fireproof-er when "humans" put it on sloppily




 

ginjawarrior

Well-Known Member
No they aren't! Again, You are conveniently leaving out HUGE facts to bolster your argument. WTC7 didn't fall from fire alone. It had a HUGE gash which took out key structural elements.:wall:

"Essentially" means "literally" now? Come one man! lol!
he knows full well if you add in those parts his entire argument falls apart

these arent lies and deceptions to fool us he's having to work damn hard to keep fooling himself
 
Top