Molten Steel,Squibs,Shockwave,Penthouse goes first


Please

O

Please


Give me the blue pill if you dare :ph43r:

Debunkers love focusing on the Silverstein pseudo-admission, or the fact that there was indeed minor structural damage to the southern face of the building. In so doing, they foolishly ignore the other characteristics of its collapse which necessitate a controlled demolition.

INDEED

Sooooo


noone is man enough




typical

For some reason debunkers say weird things like:

-Molten metal was caused by exploding diesel fuel tanks

-Symmetrical collapse was caused by random fire and south side structural damage

-The East Mechanical Penthouse falling first was caused by damage to the opposite side of the building

-Steel beams (the ones that caused the symmetrical collapse...) were propelled 350 feet toward WTC 7 is a normal feature of a gravity driven collapse

-Squibs going UP the side of the building are perfectly normal features of a gravity driven collapse

-6.6 seconds for the roof to touch the ground is typical, since conservation of momentum doesn't apply to steel framed buildings

-The fact that none of the above is mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report is not suspicious

-FEMA urged further analysis of the sulfidized steel, a request ignored by NIST, is an example of good science

i lafd hard there good job

When you say molten steel, don't you actually mean metal weaken in the heat of the fire?

The blue pill? What does this mean?

Ranb

no i mean molten steel such as a steel foundry


go watch the matrix

thats some weak steel -.-


reminds me of T2 when arnold owns T1000 into the steel

No. There were pools of molten metal under buildings 1, 2 and 7.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8X5F5PttzJY

First, this is something I haven't head anyone address, a plane that ways something like 100 tons went from 500 mph to 0mph in the space of a building. Thats, according to my rough and conservative calculation, 2,266,201,476 joules. Thats a lot of energy to dissipate in very little space. How was it dissipated? Heat, a lot of heat. Couldn't that melt some steel? Thats also a lot of aluminum that could be melted and formed into your picture. I also don't understand how the residual heat supports you're guys theory, as thermite wouldn't leave residual heat, any more than, lets say a plane hitting a building at 500 mph. As for squibs, I posted my thoughts on that in the topic title squibs if you want to see my rebuttals. I would also like to see a source that says that melted metal was 1.) melted and not enormously deconformed from the building collapsing on it, 2.) is steel, and 3.) was from WTC 7. Also, if you look at the video tapes of the building collapsing, there is metal dripping from the towers. Is that from premature thermite? Or is it from the plane smashing into a building at 500mph?

Also, molten steel and molten aluminum look a lot alike. Trust me, I still have a peice of aluminum that melted when my house burnt down, and it's hard to tell the difference. A person who doesn't know the exacts of the melting temperature of steel (such as a fireman) would probably confuse molten aluminum with molten steel.

Oh, and what do you mean by "shock wave." Do you really think that a 110 story tall building collapsing wouldn't cause a huge shock wave? And I really don't see the argument behind the penthouse going first. Thats just the first place that failed structurally.

Just about everything in your post is misleading, confused, or just plain wrong. So you believe that thermite wouldnt leave residual heat, but the impact of an airplane would. Ok :rolleyes:

This is a lie. Molten steel and molten aluminum look nothing alike. One becomes bright yellow, and the other retains a silvery 'mercury' type look. Ill let you figure out which is which, genius. :rolleyes:

Stupid is as stupid does, I guess. The argument is that central columns were cut preceding the rest of the building, a la your typical planned implosion. Thats why video of WTC 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition..

You bedunkers are getting lazy.

It wasn't all steel.

http://wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf

Nice job of not answering anything I said. I didn't say that thermite doesn't cause residual heat. I said that a plane smashing into a building at 500mph would cause a lot of residual heat as well, so there's no argument in the fact that there was still heat after the building collapse. Look, your own picture has melted metal right after the plane crashed. How did that get there if the thermite charges weren't set off until much later when the building collapsed. And umm... molten aluminuim can be orange. I've seen it happen, trust me. You never answered my argument that a huge fucking plane slammed into the buldings at 500 mph, and dissipated a ton of energy into the buildings. You also didn't give me any sources that thats steel, that is not simply hot metal (other than the molten aluminum), and that it's from wtc 7 and not caused by the plan smashing into the building and heating it up.

Look, the diesel tanks that were burning were on the interior of WTC7. The collapse is going to be from the center first. So, you still don't have the penthouse argument.

With the "it looks like a controlled detonation" thing: when buildings collapse they look a certain way. When the central support is taken away, it's going to collapse downwards.

Don't ever call me stupid or lazy again. The only reason to result to ad hominem arguments is that you have no logical thing to say against my arguments.

...was taken very shortly before collapse. Thermite cutter charges were likely detonated first, then the cascade of explosives that sounded to witnesses like "pop, pop, pop" delivered the fatal blow.

"The diesel tanks that were burning"? Your source that they were burning is... what?

And how do all central core columns collapse simultaneously?

You really need to do some research into the experiments of Steven Jones. This is a good start.

Ok, Ill try to ignore how stupid and/or lazy you might be for the moment...

[Absolutely not. And this is another point where Im guessing you might be lazy...As hydrocarbon fires cannot reach the temperature needed to melt steel. Nor can the energy released from an impact.]

Your brilliant theory then, is that since a plane hit a building at 500 miles per hour, we see thermal hot spots where the buildings fell 5 weeks later. Ok :blink:

Just to review, everyone:
Skep would have you all believe that the molten yellow metal was aluminum, that the squibs that we observed going UP the side of WTC 7 were just puffs of air from the pressure (of god knows what, since the building had barely moved at that point), and that the impact of a plane can leave thermal hot spots up to 5 weeks later...But only at ground zero, since this phenomenon was not observed at the Pentagon or Shanksville.

I've seen that video, and that metal was coming out several minutes before the collapse. Also, the primary support columns of the towers were in the center, how did the molten metal flow all the way to the edges of the building? Also, explosions generally directly precede the destruction of a building, there is absolutely no reason to wait to blow the rest of the charges. The "pop, pop, pop"'s were probably from the steel failing. In catastrophic instantaneous failures you have strange noise being made, thats just how it is.

The diesel tanks in the WTC 7 building. The fires the firefighters were trying to put out for hours on September 11. I didn't realise that I need to support a building that had hundreds of firefighters in it, and had been close to two collapsing sky scrapers, and had large diesel tanks in it, and that was bellowing black smoke was on fire. I can't argue with you if we can't establish some grounded facts.

Umm, there were two main support columns in WTC 7, the one under the penthouse collapsed, then that caused the other one to fail. So, no they didn't collapse simultaneously, as you pointed out, the penthouse collapsed first.

This is molten aluminium:


This image is from a shop that makes bikes, that has nothing to do with conspiracy theories on either side. It's about as neutral as you can get.


Next, Zombie bill hicks:

With some of your coments, I wouldn't be calling any one lazy.

so, it was through the steel.... so the steel heated up.... so if that much energy went into the steel (your words, not mine), why wouldn't the steel melt?

Umm... I wasn't talking about the fire. I was talking about the kinetic energy of the plane. Next time read my argument.

I wasn't saying that the residual heat spots would support my theory, I simply said they don't support either theory, so you have to look at the less complex answer. There would likely be residual heat with either theory. Thermite burns in seconds (it has to to take down a building in less than, let's say 15 seconds, (let's not go into the time thing)).

first, give me your explanation of how the hot spots were still there, then I can respond to your random argument that a plane crashing into a building doesn't leave heat. Umm.... yes, they were puffs of air, whether your theory is right, or mine is, they were puffs of air, no matter the cause. Also, air isn't that immaterial. Have you ever seen what a tornadoe can do? Thats pure air pressure. Why couldn't air pressure from thousands of tons of material cause even less damage (just windows being blown out)?

Also, do you really want me to review what you want me to believe?

You claim to know how Building 7 collapsed. Even NIST admits ignorance as to the cause of collapse. Perhaps you could enlighten them.

In addition, you might like to be the FIRST "DEBUNKER" EVER to respond to this video, which includes CONCLUSIVE WITNESS TESTIMONY that there were bombs in WTC7.

:lol:




;)

Since when did a plane hit wtc7?

Umm.... yeah.... that explosion was like five hours before the building collapsed. Why would they set off a bomb like five hours before they wanted to collapse the building? Instead, maybe it was the diesel fuel tanks starting on fire that just sounded like a bomb. Either that or your conspirators are too inept to accurately time an explosion enough to actually do what they supposedly did. I'm not saying I knew all the very minor details, but it does seem to be that a collapse caused by the failure of the major supports is a likely explanation, and is at least as likely as a cabal in the government setting off timed explosives to bring it down. Yeah.

Did i ever say a plane hit WTC 7?

Another irrelevant hypothetical. You do not need to understand the planners' intent to know what they did. Challenge us on the facts.

You obviously did not watch the entire video, to get to the clip when Jennings explains why it could NOT have been the fuel tanks, or to the final clip in which Jennings says that the explosions he heard occurred even BEFORE the towers collapsed. HOW WOULD THE FUEL TANKS CATCH FIRE IF THE TOWERS HAD NOT YET COLLAPSED?

you brought of planes


wtf dose that have to do with this topic then?


you are off topic go else where




stick with the topic please that goes for everyone

How do you know it was steel? Watch the Matrix? No thanks.

Ranb

Please watch this video (ALL OF IT), Mr. Debunker, and give us your interpretation.

ill join in happily if you can remain civil --

You wanted to focus on wtc7

I know the concept/theory of molten steel under WTC 1 and 2 is there a article /account of it being found under or dripping from wtc7?
I have never seen these actual accounts - if you would be nice enough to give me a neutral confirmation of this I would be very thankful?

Same really goes for the squibs.

And what do you mean by penthouse - we have seen it was the point of the intial collapse - I am not sure what point your refuting here.

Several of your photos (if not all of them) were from the towers. I was trying to explain the molten metal in the towers. As for the molten metal under WTC7, can I see a reliable source that says there was molten steel under that building?

So, the people who pulled off the biggest cover up the biggest conspiracy in history decide to blow up WTC before they want to collapse, before Silverstein gives the order, for some random reason you can't even guess at? This seems like trying to avoid my question because it strikes too close to home.

It makes no sense. None, zero, zip. Someone saying "I heard a bomb" really means I heard an explosion. Or some other really loud bang, which does not necessarily equal explosion. It could have been the debris hitting the building where there was that gouge. So instead of answering my question, you say that it is irrelevant and give only conjecture as to how we know they did it. No, no they didn't. So, I've watched your video twice, and it hasn't strengthened your argument at all. Umm... there wasn't just one diesel tank, there were multiple, tanks. Also, could I get another eyewitness, I don't mean to question this random guy I don't know anything about, but maybe more than just a single eyewitness when there were thousands of people around the area would bring more light to the situation. And it doesn't matter how the diesel tank caught fire because it's irrelevant... I don't care what you say, or your response, it's irrelevant. No really, there was still a lot of debris from the towers, like pieces of it when the airplane hit. And this guy was shocked. This was 9/11, and he was there. He may not recall all the information correctly (or chronologically).

seeing how it was weeks after


what was it?

melted chairs :lol:

Well that was 7 minutes of my life I will never get back. I watched that stupid video thinking I was going to get info on molten metal. I think you linked the wrong video.

Soooooooooooo, how do you know it was molten steel that you saw?

Ranb

I can play your game too =D


How do you know it wasnt?

System - any chance you will answer these when you can - I just would like to discuss your thought on these questions.

The major problem that debunkers have is that they want so hard to believe what they are saying.
The fact of the matter is that neither NIST, Popular Mechanics, or internet 'debunkers' have given a satisfactory explanation of the destruction of WTC 7 that best fits the evidence:

1. Near free-fall rate of speed for "collapse"
2. Sudden and symmetrical fall
3. "Collapse" produced molten metal nearly 1100 degrees 6 weeks later
4. "Collapse" produced a cloud of debris and dust not unlike a pyroclastic surge
5. Building 7 displayed a 'crimp' during the "Collapse"
6. Squibs are observable in video going up the side of the building
7. Eyewitness testimony of blast wave and explosions
8. The rubble pile was no higher than 2 stories tall
9. The remains of WTC 7 were hauled away as quickly as possible
10. Controlled demolition is considered an art by professionals

Near free-fall is not the same thing as free fall. Please, give me a single expert who thinks it was too fast. Once a building starts to collapse, I don't see a reason that it wouldn't give away quickly after that.

but... the penthouse disproves both of these. The penthouse went first, which means it's not symmetric, and the total fall was 18 seconds, which wasn't that sudden. (Also, if your hypothesis about the explosion at the begining of the day is true, how could you call the collapse sudden?)

I would need to see the evidence of this in order to coment

in the demolitions I have seen, I have never seen a pyroclastic surge caused by an explosion. There is no reason that that dust cloud was caused by anything but a building collapsing.

whats a crimp? How does it prove anything? If it's what it sounds like, a bend while it's falling, that would be an proof of assemtry in the fall.

I have never seen this on the WTC7, would you mind showing me the video?

explosions does not equal explosives. Neither do blast waves. They simply don't. There are plenty of possible things, such as large pieces of debris hitting the building that could sound like and explosion.

What would this prove? Why would explosives make the pile smaller?

Source? I addressed this to someone else already. To investigate the remains, you need to remove the top layer. The only source I saw said that 70 tons had been hauled off by the largest company removing debris by January. Considering that the buildings were 500,000 tons each, thats not very fast 'disposal of evidence.'

WTF does this have to do with your argument?

You want just one "single expert"? Ill give you several:

Danny Jowenko, Jowenko Demolition
Charles N. Pegelow, PE, Civil Engineer
Dennis J. Kollar, P.E., Structural Engineer
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect B. Arch.
Chester W. Gearhart, P.E., B.S. Civil Engineering, Retired
Tim Rohach, P.E., Mechanical Engineer MSME
J. Marx Ayres, MSME, P.E., Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner
Peter D. Morse, P.E., Mechanical Engineer
Haluk Akol, Architect & Structural Engineer
Anthony Szamboti, BSME, Mechanical Engineering
David Leifer, Registered Architect B.Sc, B.Arch, M.Ed, Ph.D

And you are pointing in the correct direction here. Since the supporting columns were cut first, Building 7 followed the classic demolition (bottom-up) style, thus removing any resistance from the bottom to slow the buildings "collapse". Hence, "near free-fall" is of importance. In fact, Heikki Kurttila, an accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety Technology Authority has stated:

"The observed collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 second. That is...half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account....The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."
Lets not treat WTC 7 the way NIST treated the Twin Towers. We must consider the behavior of the building after the initiation of collapse.

Yes, the East Mechanical Penthouse does fall initially, indicating that core columns had been cut first. This is typical of the demolition industry.
The "collapse" was sudden. This means thats six and a half seconds after it started (around 5:20 PM), it was over. There was no partial collapse, no leaning, nothing indicating that the building would fall straight down, except of course for the eyewitness testimony of explosions and prior knowledge. Even so, point taken. Lets say "near symmetrical".

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...11SciMethod.pdf

Molten iron was indeed present at the World Trade Center. The only debatable aspect is for how long.

So by this logic, the 4 inch thick layer of dust that covered lower Manhattan was not possibly caused by explosions, but merely the building collapsing. Ok :rolleyes: And how many demolitions have you seen exactly? Which leads me to this gem:

Video
here.

The 'crimp' is a common feature of a planned implosion. In a typical demolition, the roof crimps somewhere near the middle of the building, and then it falls like a curtain. This is what we observe in the video of WTC 7 "collapsing".

They must find it difficult, those that have taken authority as the truth, rather than the truth as authority; simply because you decree that explosions do not equal explosives, does not make it so. I think I will stick to taking eyewitness testimony as it is, rather than by your interpretation.

...Because when a buildings supports fail, said building will topple over, or partially collapse. When a building does not topple over, and instead falls straight into itself, this is the result of controlled demolition. You've got to "crack" the building apart from the bottom up. Gravity will not accomplish this.

Well, FEMA's owns report states:

Since it is considered an art by professionals, its pretty amazing that random fire and minor structural damage was able to produce the exact results that timed explosions would produce.


Look, I don't care if you won't agree with ANY premise of the 9/11 Truth movement. But can you at the very least admit that there is ample evidence and reason to have a REAL investigation into the events of 9/11?

What is the free fall speed for the tower? I keep hearing that it was "near" free fall, but by how much? Was it within fifty percent? My calculations put free fall speed from 610 ft to be 4.3 seconds, which would be significantly shorter than 6.5 seconds.

I've looked at the WTC 7 collapse, from the start of the collapse, when the penthouse collapsed, it was 18 seconds, not 6.5 (So how did you get the 6.5 seconds? from what point of collapse?). With the penthouse falling, wouldn't it be likely that the structure was extremely weakened and pulled down significantly?

When did he say that? Under what circumstances? The day after before he could have made an indepth analysis? Did he do any computer modeling? Was he just making a conjecture based on a common sense guess or did he actually study it?

Could I see where you got this list? It would be very helpful, thanks, so that I can figure out under what circumstances they supported this theory.

Umm... but it wasn't six and a half seconds after the penthouse started falling, it was 18 seconds, which leads to a difference of 11.5 seconds, which is seems extremely not symmetric. That also means it not sudden, and if there really was a bomb seven hours earlier, as someone earlier claimed, then that wouldn't be sudden at all.

And now your admitting that the cores were 'cut' at different times, which is the exact opposite of what you were saying earlier.

The first sources only evidence is the word of firefighters that wouldn't possibly know the difference between molten steel and molten aluminium, or some other low temperature metal. So... not a single actually shred of evidence other than people talking about molten steel when it could have been any melted metal what so ever.

Seconds proof was melting aluminum in a steel plan, and I don't think that sounds like a very "scientific method," as the top of the aluminum could be cooler than the bottom, or the aluminum could be being cooled by the air. I've already showed a picture of red hot aluminum.

Anyways, I've been having a hard time understanding why thermite supposedly weeks earlier would be more likely to cause the retention of the heat anymore than, let's say the building collapsing.

Um... to your question... yes, it was caused by over a million tons of steel, concrete, gypsum, office supplies, and people falling from as high as 110 stories high. I am saying that it was possible that it was caused by an explosion. No matter the cause of the collapse, the amount of energy contained in the building was way more (as in probably several orders of magnitude) than any possible demolition charges that could have possibly been used. If you want my really in depth to jimmy hoffman's 'study' check the squibs thread.

I've seen dozens that have been recorded previously, and none have had a 'pyroclastic surge.' (in fact, pyroclastic surge is completely incorrect, as it implies a fire of some sort, which there is none during the collapse).

first, how does this clear leaning inward support your symmetry argument?

with the collapse of an inner support on the penthouse, it makes sense that the building would crimp, as it would be pulled in by the penthouse that was already falling...

saying I heard a bomb does not equal I saw a bomb, especially when there are thousands of things that could sound like a bomb, and tons of chaos that day. Listen, if your only argument on this is that "Thats what the authority says" then you need to just stop talking period, to any one, any where. That's a non argument, and has nothing to do with our discussion. I never once said that it was true due to the fact that it was in the official story.

Um.. it was pulled from the inside by the penthouse that collapsed.... by the diesel fuel tanks feeding raging fires in the middle of the building. Why won't gravity and a huge diesel fire from several diesel tanks cause this? Weren't the diesel tanks near the base of the building? I still don't understand this. If the support is destroyed by explosives, or by a fire, there is no reason to think that the result would be any different.

The first part is completely and totally consistent with what I beleive happened, i.e., the diesel fuel tanks caused and internal collapse. From what I heard of that quote, that's taken out of context. FEMA doesn't say that making a building fall in it's own footprint is hard, they saying doing it without damaging buildings around it is hard. I'm pretty sure buildings around WTC 7 were damaged around it.

Sometimes random things happen. Think about it, why would this massive conspiracy make the demolition look like a demolition if this is true? My above statement is a bad argument, I still made it, I don't know why. Anyways, sometimes random things happen, why would this company take care to make sure that the building fell into it's own footprint? If it's so unlikely, it seems like they would just let it happen.

Look, the collapse of the world trade center is the most studied collapse of any building in history. Why do we need another study when you have not been able to give a single convincing shred of evidence? Who do you want running this investigation? If this investigation agrees with the 'authority' will you just say that he's a sell out to the man, or will you accept the truth? I will not admit anything about the statements you are saying are in any way ample to take any action whatsoever, as you are effectively saying gibberish.

Skep try this on for size. Proof that aluminuim cannot become red hot as you so expertly said.

Also there where large explotions detected before, during and after the towers fell.

Test where already done on the free fall speed of tower 7.

Skep your debunked!

I already posted a picture of aluminum being red hot. This guy heats up aluminum in an pan with a blowtorch, and the fact that it doesn't stay red hot is "proof". How do we know what temperature he raised it too? Umm.... jees, you guys are trying hard to find anyone at all who will support your theories.

dude, I'm tired of answering this one
there are a lot of things that sound like, or are explosions, like I said earlier:

people guesstimating the height of a building, and then plugging it into a website is not a test. That's random ass people guessing. You 'truthers' always go to the same type of sources, random people with no credentials, posting videos on you tube, or people who were 'eye' witness to a 'bomb' that they only 'heard'.

No the stuff floating on top of the aluminum was turning red from the CONSTANT HEAT. Yet as they pour it out even the red hot areas FLOATING on top died down.
Quit trying to make things up to suit your own ideas of events.

Nothing sounds like a explotion more than a explotion. Trust me on this I know. I worked with demo and other weapons while I was in the service. I know what a explotion sounds like. Can you show us some things that may be thought of as explotions?

Problem for your arguement here is that the officals are also getting their tests from the footage just like truthers. To say thats this isnt a real test is also saying that NIST also didnt do real test. What do you want us to do? Build a exact replica of building 7 and have it fall just to test it. Sorry but the best way it to examin the tapes and figure out fall speeds from that. Same as all test on Free Fall from the WTC.

In the End Skippy you talked a lot without saying much.

DEBUNKED!