News clips from 9-11-2001 **You can't debunk this**

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Ganymede, Oct 9, 2007.

  1. James911 Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    inzomnia, that is something for you figure out.

    Ok, lets go back to the subject. I need some educated response

    Now, as we are done with the Free Fall spreed issue on 911, let's go to the next topic which is....you guess it....It's the molten steel that was seen all over the crime scene on 911.

    WHY STEEL MELTED on 11 September 2001???????????????????

    See for yourself.

    youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM
    youtube.com/watch?v=jrUosvSNLCk&feature=related
    youtube.com/watch?v=P_jiCyMkrRM
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    She is on subject...and makes a good point. Why go to all the bother of hijacking a plane and crashing it into the building with unknown results, when you could just plant a bomb. Why do both? Doesn't make any sense why anyone would.

    And James911...that is the most important thing. "Why"
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James911 Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    We are not here to look at a Crystal ball...we are here to analyze the sheer number of evidence that was left after at the crime scene.

    ...and please do not divert the subject. It's becoming obvious no one want to answer the question about the 'MOLTEN METAL'
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James911 Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    Again, the 911 crash course has just started.

    WHY STEEL MELTED on 11 September 2001???????????????????

    See for yourself.

    youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM
    youtube.com/watch?v=jrUosvSNLCk&feature=related
    youtube.com/watch?v=P_jiCyMkrRM

    Any one has the nerves to answer this scientifically
     
  8. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Well I did post something on the previous page.

    There is evidence for glowing metal, which is no surprise at all. There isn't any reliable evidence for molten steel though.
     
  9. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    James911,

    Again, you misunderstand. I will correct you - again.

    I demanded you provide a) the forumula being used, b) the work and c) the identification of the subject in question (WTC1), the latter of which you have not provided. This is the standard of discussion in a scientific forum. If this is unacceptable to you, you should go elsewhere.

    I thank you for your retirement on this issue. The collapse lasted well over the free-fall time of 9.2 seconds, as can be seen on the videos and on the actual free fall of debris coming off the tower. Ergo, the building could categorically not have been in free-fall.

    In fact, this was molten aluminum from the airplane mixed with other materials in the office building. This has been dealt with above. Please address the actual arguments in your own words.

    That has certainly been my experience of you so far.

    That has certainly not been my experience of you so far.

    Best regards,

    Geoff
     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Excepting the giant chunks of airplane all over the scene.

    Again, this has been dealt with above.

    Geoff
     
  11. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Molten aluminium mixed with all sorts of detritus would be indistinguishable from molten steel to the untrained eye, under the pressure of the day.

    Here's a pic of molten aluminium;

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Here's some molten steel;

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    hard to tell apart, when both are pure.

    So you haven't established molten steel. You lose.
     
  12. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Well done, phlogistician.

    Jimmy? Comments?

    You know, the more I find out about 9/11 Troof, the more I begin to understand the human psyche's desire for hogwash. It revels in it.
     
  13. James911 Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    The US Government released the so called "911 commission report", signed by Bush himself and it says:

    "At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets. The building collapsed into itself, causing a ferocious windstorm and creating a massive debris cloud. The Marriott hotel suffered significant damage as a result of the collapse of the South Tower."

    Do you accept the government report? then swallow it and move on. It's a free fall speed
    They based their studies on seismic data not some guessing work like what you've done.

    Do you know what is seismic data? Have you learned it at university?
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2008
  14. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    If demolision charges were used during the attack...why can't you see the explosions? The WTC was designed differently than a standard office building. Most buildings have a frame of steel I-beams with support columns spaced evenly along the entire footprint of the building.

    The WTC used a "box within a box" design. An "inner box" in the center of the building, that gave support and housed all the stairs and elevators....and an "outer box" made up of the ENTIRE outer skin of the building. This design leaves the "square donut" shaped space between the two boxes completely free of columns, and made for more rentable space.

    In order to demo a building built like this, you would have to put charges around the entire skin of the building...which would be obvious, when they go off.

    So why can't you see them?
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2008
  15. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Yes, I've read that. All it says is that it collapsed in ten seconds. It doesn't give a range of confidence for the collapse, doesn't mention the peak of the seismic data. Ten seconds is clearly not 9.2 seconds. Clearly, they rounded off. But up or down? It unquestionably looks like down. NIST estimated 11 seconds. What should I say?

    Hmm. Do you? You accept the rough ten second estimate, but I wonder if you accept Chapter 7 of that report, where it discusses the identities of the 9/11 hijackers.

    I use my eyes. They seem to work better. Here's the actual seismograph from the incident:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Note the essentially flat line to the left of the graph under "1st Collapse" and "2nd Collapse". Good. Now, traverse right. The 'collapse stretch' is boxed in by the good fellows at PopMech. And it almost looks like a clean 10 and 8 seconds, doesn't it? Doesn't it? Especially when it's boxed in that way. Nice and clean. Ten seconds. Which is almost 9.2 seconds! Which means free fall (even though the debris falls slower, but never mind that Rovian debris)!!! Checkmate!

    Uhh, with the exception of one teensy problem.

    See, my work involves reading electropherogram allele signatures, which look a lot like the seismic graphs in the PopMech review, and which I'm sure you wouldn't impugn, since they support your story, right?

    Or, you think they support you.

    Traverse your eyes further still to the right. Now, this area looks odd, doesn't it? It's packed with noise compared to the left flat line. In fact, it's the remaining crashing of items hitting the ground, and - unfortunately for your thesis - would almost certainly obscure the sound of the remaining upper floors hitting the ground. It's a question of relative noise; the main body will create most of it, since it's massive, but the smaller body of the upper 30 or so floors won't, since it's relatively tiny and is hitting the body of the collapsed debris inefficiently, unlike the main body of the building. So, the cutoffs set up by PopMech and the Commission are almost certainly - what? - underestimated. I'd bet this is why Pop Mech considers 11 seconds as a more accurate estimate.

    In other words, the tail of the noise distribution of the seismic data makes it almost impossible to say with certainty what the end of the collapse point was, since the impact of the smaller upper story mass would have probably been indistinguishable from that of the main body. Noise that looks like this occurs in an electropherogram, but it's not a problem for us since we correlatively score from parental genotypes. (Long story.) And also, since we don't need to know where the end of the noise is. We don't need to place it. But in this case, to decide on ten seconds, you do need to place it. Not to mention that the collapse itself in the upper stories would have started slightly before the seismic data would have detected it - maybe as much as 0.3 seconds, or maybe a lot longer.

    Or, in other words...no free fall. Unless, again, you can explain why the actually free-falling pieces of concrete coming off the Tower are falling faster than the Tower itself.

    Now, even though we know it wasn't free fall (since it was at least 10% divergent from a free-fall), let's indulge you. Perhaps you'd care to back up your analysis with a proof about how collapse of a building must necessarily be slower than free-fall. Why would demolition be faster than the free-fall of a massive body, as more weight on top of the falling point dictated less and less role of the inertia of the lower floors owing to their mass? (Pretty sure that's right; mass and inertia equations are an equality relationship, as I recall from my physics, long, long ago.) How many demolition points would there have to be? How would the seismic indications of the start of free collapse be different than demolition? Or could they be even slower, since it takes time for the free-weight of the collapsing upper part to hit the lower part?

    What do you make of this photo re: controlled demolition, which should "go straight down" in your words?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Oh, I have so many questions. For example: have you gone to university? You allude to it several times. Which university did you attend?

    Best regards,

    Geoff
     
  16. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    UPDATE: In fact, if you look at the boxed-in area again, the sharp spikes around the tail (in particular that second one from the right of the box in "1st collapse") suggest about 12-13 seconds.

    Don't be upset. Just look at the data and take a moment to consider it.

    Best regards,

    Geoff
     
  17. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Hey Mac! What up?

    Good points.

    Geoff
     
  18. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Oh, it's all gone a bit quiet since some facts were introduced. Odd, eh?
     
  19. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    A day will come when 9-11 will be remembered in a new light then an attack on a peaceful nation, 9-11 will be seen as a success in a struggle of revolutionary people to change the ways of the government that has suppressed/killed them and their assets.
     
  20. mrow Unless Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,041
    Are you serious? By attacking civilians? You've made me very sick.
     
  21. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    NO. What terrorists did was wrong and evil. But what they accomplished will be remembered in different light then it is known now. What they accomplished was strike into the heart of the nation that killed its own people for centuries, a nation located far away...they destroyed one of the hearts of the economy. People in 9-11 were not as "innocent" as one would be lead to believe, most of them were in oil business, taking over the oil of Middle East, allowing the military campaigns to be done for the sake of their goals.

    Yes many innocent people died in 9-11 but not everyone in WTC was "innocent".
     
  22. mrow Unless Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,041
    Most people were just at their daily job. I don't think the American government is peaceful or innocent, but the vast majority of its people are, and those were the ones that died. It was not a revolution. If they want a revolution they should go after the government, not killing thousands of civilians to make a point. I lost several people that day, and they were just like you and me. Who are you to judge how much those people deserved to die? You don't know anything about them. We've become the bully of the world. I wish someone would stop America. But not like that. Not ever like that.
     
  23. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    I am not judging mrow. I stated here that in future 9-11 will be seen differently, I have stated future I foresee.
     

Share This Page