Sewer Bank
1:27 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
kch, yes you're right, hands up, it's all a totally plausible explanation, fiireballs hurled 100 yds from one previously collapsed building,( which didn't explode of course) and embedding themselves into another and then burning to the point where without any degradation, it suddenly drops in 7 seconds. All makes sense now, thank god NIST were able to clear it all up for us!!
Thanks for enlightening me!
|
kch
1:23 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
"kc/egg - oh of course, that's conclusive then because pre camera phones the bloke would never have been able to get under his black cloth and snap in time !!"
so why mention phones then ? what with your superior intellect and critical thinking abilities and all.
you haven't really thought any of this through, have you ?
|
kch
1:20 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
"NIST's explanation of WT7's catastrophic collapse, as a result of "fires due to office furnishings""
NIST's final report (which I have linked to) clearly says that the collapse was due to fires caused by impact of debris. The debris impacts caused damage to the structure of the south west of the building between floors 7 and 17 (eight columns severed out of eighty-one).
So structural damage followed by fires.
here it is again:
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
and if that has too many hard words for you, here's something easier for you to digest:
https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation
I'm still waiting for links to reports/papers debunking the NIST report (and, no, http://www.911truth.org doesn't count)
|
gph
1:18 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
I don't want to address it as it is your avoidance strategy.
|
gph
1:16 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
'Also clear up constructers describing molten steel running "like a foundry" days after the event'
Any constructor saying that is simply mistaken. And anyone believing them has as little acquaintance with metal as someone from the Stone Age.
Anyone who's used a frying pan knows how quickly metals transfer their heat to their surroundings.
|
Sewer Bank
1:11 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
Oh FFS, not the best attempt at complete avoidance of a question you do not want to address, or a surprise!
|
gph
1:08 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
You said "melt".
"Isn't softening the beginning of a melting process? "
Are you seriously trying to get away with "beginning of a process" = "end of a process"?
I'm not going to deal with WTC7 until you say whether you think it was necessary for the steel to melt for the building to collapse, and if you don't, why bring up an "objection" to the official line that is irrelevant to it?
This had all been sorted 15 years ago, but you loons go want go through the old argument again and again.
If it's not just to make yourselves feel important, for fuck sake, WHY?
|
Sewer Bank
1:05 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
Haha, maybe Harold was fiddling for his Nokia 8210 and that's why he didn't see the dastardly projectile approaching on the blind side!!
So what about the WT7 question then? Any thoughts?
|
Sewer Bank
12:57 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
Alex
steel doesn't have to melt for collapse to occur (only weaken), nor does any credible explanation suggest that it did.
But there is evidence, images of rubble being cleared on sight with glowing molten metal clearly visible. Also clear up constructers describing molten steel running "like a foundry" days after the event.
|
gph
12:56 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
It would have made it so much easier for historians if someone had taken a selfie with King Harold's body in 1066 - they could have avoided all this debate about whether he really got one in the eye.
Did no-one around realise what a momentous event the Battle of Hastings was?
|
Sewer Bank
12:54 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
kc/egg - oh of course, that's conclusive then because pre camera phones the bloke would never have been able to get under his black cloth and snap in time !!
|
Sewer Bank
12:52 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
gph 2.10
How can you come to a judgment on the plausibility of the official line if you don't know what it is?
It isn't that the steel melted.
The official line is, columns severed by aircraft impact, loads redistributed to other columns, fireproofing dislodged, columns "softened" by high temperature, this leading to sagging etc etc.
Isn't softening the beginning of a melting process?
I am not a metallurgist and so my opinion has not come from my own knowledge, it has come from listening to those that do understand this subject, in exactly the same way as if we were sat on a jury, you listen to evidence presented by experts and form an opinion, clearly you and I have formed opposing views having heard/ read the same information. I disagree with your conclusion, but respect it.
But all I would ask you, politely is to give me your answer to this really simple question.
If aircraft impact and softening of steel were the causes of the twin towers dropping, do you find NIST's explanation of WT7's catastrophic collapse, as a result of "fires due to office furnishings" a little on the suspicious side, or entirely credible? That is not a loaded question and shouldn't be tricky to give a straight response to.
|
gank
12:02 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
I work in the steel industry and I can tell you that there is no way this event could have generated enough heat to melt the steel structural frames of that building.
However, given their length, you could easily snap them in half by flying a plane into them.
|
Biggie Biggs
11:57 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
It's just laughable that people still think this is a conspiracy -
|
Eggbert Nobacon
11:35 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
as kch said, first camera phone wasn't realeased in the US until November 2002
http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/camera-phone-history/
|
kch
11:00 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
"nobody took out a phone/camera and recorded its arrival, really"
you do realise that in 2001, no phones had cameras (the first gen iphone was released in 2007, the first camera phones in 2002) ?
|
kch
10:40 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
from
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat.
and
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."
|
lowlife
8:43 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
I'm waiting for 'Sandy Hook was a hoax' to appear on this thread.
Can you imagine living with a conspiracy theorist? What would happen if you went shopping and came back with some items missing? 'They didn't have any' would be turned into some convoluted story about how it would be impossible for a shop to be out of stock on a certain item on the 1st Monday of the month, because they get their deliveries in the early hours of that day and always have the shelves restocked by opening time.
|
Alex V
2:12 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
>>> However, from my imbecilic understanding of the events in NY on 9/11, the point at which steel melts is just a little bit relevant.
It's not really relevant, for reasons that have just been clearly explained on the thread - steel doesn't have to melt for collapse to occur (only weaken), nor does any credible explanation suggest that it did.
|
gph
2:10 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
SB: All those posts denouncing people for following "the official line", and you don't know what the official line is...
How can you come to a judgment on the plausibility of the official line if you don't know what it is?
It isn't that the steel melted.
|
Cheezey Bell-End
1:51 Mon Apr 3
Re: Pentagon releases "new" photos from 9/11
|
To me, melting means liquefied. Heated steel will be weakened far before it has turned to liquid.
|
| 
