How the Towers Fell?

TriedandTested · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:17

growse said:
Again, nice, but wrong. I apparently am qualified to talk about the effects of heat on steel, and you apparently aren't. That much is obvious to me.

Apparently, but i'll guess we'll never know for sure...unless we just take your word for it.

And acidhell, you're welcome to respond to:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9888560&postcount=123

..whenever you're ready.

TriedandTested · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:19

Doohickey said:
However, WTC 7 still has *all* the hallmarks of a controlled demolition...

which, in turn, would suggest perhaps this also would apply to WTC 1 and 2.

Gillywibble said:
Hmm, a nice personal and derogatory post. For what reason?

Hmm, yes, they seem to have a habit of these little personal attacks.

TriedandTested · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:20

stickroad said:
Intresting video.

What else could them flashes be out of curisoty?

Air according to some. No doubt they wont offer a response to this video.

I'm watching through it now actually, uncanny how simiar the exposives ejecting from the sides of the buildings look like the ones on the WTC.

Glaucus · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:21

Tried&Tested said:
Interesting...MIT Engineer:

pt1.

From a start he's say only 200 pieces of the building where saved. Why would you keep more. the investigation team had both access to the site and to the storage yards. Before the metal and concrete was recycled.

growse · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:22

Gillywibble said:
Hmm, a nice personal and derogatory post. For what reason? I know much more than you about some subjects and you know much more than me on other subjects. But your point is?

This is a "discussion". I'm talking to "you". If that's not personal, then I don't know what is. My point is that you're entirely unconvincing. Apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Doohickey said:
I just remembered something about something (haha) that was found on x-ray fluorescence, which is 90% specific to thermite. Worst presented point ever I know I'm not watching that massive video again to come up with what it was.

It seems natural to me that you'd find the by-products of a thermite reaction in the wreckage of this particular building collapse, due to the large amounts of aluminum that was "introduced" to it at 500mph+. You're right about building 7 though in that it looks very similar to a controlled demolition though. Doesn't necessarily mean that it was one

Tried&Tested said:
Apparently, but i'll guess we'll never know for sure...unless we just take your word for it.

Don't take my word for it. Do some research, find out how different steels behave under different temperatures. This isn't the stuff of opinion, you can go and measure it - I certainly have.

growse · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:23

Tried&Tested said:
Hmm, yes, they seem to have a habit of these little personal attacks.

"You're gay" is a personal attack. "I think you're talking rubbish" isn't.

Tried&Tested said:
Air according to some. No doubt they wont offer a response to this video.

I'm watching through it now actually, uncanny how simiar the exposives ejecting from the sides of the buildings look like the ones on the WTC.

It's difficult to say, because all you've got is a few videos with a few flashes of light on it. Personally, they look more like windows blowing out and being caught in the sun. Given how smoke seems to come out of them just after the flash.

Just because things look similar, doesn't mean they are. Yes, they look similar to explosives blowing them out, but it also looks similar to hundreds of tonnes of steel falling on it and blowing pulverized concrete etc out of it.

TriedandTested · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:24

growse said:
Don't take my word for it. Do some research, find out how different steels behave under different temperatures. This isn't the stuff of opinion, you can go and measure it - I certainly have.

I wasn't questioning the info you have posted in this instance, just you referring to your self as 'qualified'.

Glaucus · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:25

Tried&Tested said:
I wasn't questioning the info you have posted in this instance, just you referring to your self as 'qualified'.

\as he's quoting he doesn't need to be qualified, the people who came up with these results need to be qualified.

Doohickey · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:25

collisster said:

That video is going to be easily debunked I know. However the sections around 3:40 and 5:40 with the *multiple* flashes all over the place is interesting. I suppose that could easily be debunked and attributed to gas canisters though...or something.

@ Growse

I accept your point about the aluminium from the aircraft

I can't remember if was anything aluminium based though that I was talking about. Will have to check.

TriedandTested · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:26

growse said:
"You're gay" is a personal attack. "I think you're talking rubbish" isn't.

Depends on the context really doesn't it.
The way you worded it towards him was meant to undermine him and his opinions and to bolster yours.

growse · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:27

Tried&Tested said:
I wasn't questioning the info you have posted in this instance, just you referring to your self as 'qualified'.

I have, like, a degree in which I, like, studied this sort of thing, and, like, actually went and measured the properties of different grades of, like, steel under, like, different temperatures, like.

If you want/need "proof" of that, i'm not going to give it to you. But like i said, you don't need to take my word for it. Ask someone you *know* is a metallurgist.

growse · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:27

Tried&Tested said:
Depends on the context really doesn't it.
The way you worded it towards him was meant to undermine him and his opinions and to bolster yours.

Nothing bolsters opinions other than evidence. If you're swayed by mere semantics then anything will sway you.

Doohickey · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:29

Come on guys, we've almost kept this thread on interesting and intelligent debate, which is very rare for threads on this subject!

TriedandTested · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:29

AcidHell2 said:
\as he's quoting he doesn't need to be qualified, the people who came up with these results need to be qualified.

Don't know why i'm bothering to answer this (read his post), but he was stating he was qualified. As though he has some expertise in this area.

growse · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:29

Doohickey said:
That video is going to be easily debunked I know. However the sections around 3:40 and 5:40 with the *multiple* flashes all over the place is interesting. I suppose that could easily be debunked and attributed to gas canisters though...or something.

@ Growse

I accept your point about the aluminium from the aircraft I can't remember if was anything aluminium based though that I was talking about. Will have to check.

The reason thermite is aluminium / iron oxide is the very high reactivity of aluminium. Aluminium reacts phenominally well with oxygen and it will quite happily rip the oxygen from iron oxide. There's lots of energy released involved doing this, hence the high temperatures produced. That's why it works so well.

TriedandTested · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:31

growse said:
I have, like, a degree in which I, like, studied this sort of thing, and, like, actually went and measured the properties of different grades of, like, steel under, like, different temperatures, like.

Oh dear. I think after that outstanding post i won't bother with you any more. Read it back, it's actually a little embarassing.

BACK ON TOPIC please people!!

growse · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:31

Tried&Tested said:
Don't know why i'm bothering to answer this (read his post), but he was stating he was qualified. As though he has some expertise in this area.

If I present to you sources for my information, it's only necessary for me to be qualified to claim I understand them. You have to trust the people who came up with the stuff I referenced to trust the evidence behind what I was saying.

growse · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:32

Tried&Tested said:
Oh dear. I think after that outstanding post i won't bother with you any more. Read it back, it's actually a little embarassing.

BACK ON TOPIC please people!!

My point is simply that I'm qualified, and there's no reason you should actually trust me. Do some research - how steel behaves isn't the subject of debate. It's not rocket science. If you don't want to "bother with me anymore", I've no problem with that. But I implore you to at least get good information about everything *before* you jump to a conclusion.

*edit* and I'm in no way embarassed about actually having studied something.

collisster · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:33

Doohickey said:
That video is going to be easily debunked I know. However the sections around 3:40 and 5:40 with the *multiple* flashes all over the place is interesting. I suppose that could easily be debunked and attributed to gas canisters though...or something.

@ Growse

I accept your point about the aluminium from the aircraft I can't remember if was anything aluminium based though that I was talking about. Will have to check.

yh the flashes are interesting, but they will probs be blamed on something like the MD of a bank having some petrol in the 3rd drawer down

Also I disagree with some of the points on how the towers should have fell. I think it is unreasonable to expect a tower to fall in a uniform manner, iirc no one has ever built a couple of WTCs and flown aircrafts into them and documenting exactly how they fell. it is ludicrous to say some things (not just here on youtube aswell) like glass is mixed with paper in the debris, I think that everything will be mixed together there has been an explosion of jet fuel

.

edit: I do like these theories don't get me wrong and I'm sure something isn't quite kosher but try and keep it believable

collisster

Glaucus · 13 Aug 2007 at 01:33

Can anyone tell me how the demo was wired, how they done it in secret and how they did it in a few afternoons of evacuations (which are likely due to a threat from intel)?

it's a very fundamental question which needs awensering if you believe in controlled demolition.