Controverisal Topic

Nik00117

Fully Optimized
Messages
4,032
I have shown CF the Loose Change video. I have come across a paper, not writen by some smart cocky 21 year old college student covering physics of the collaspe of the towers. BUT A PH.D PROFESSOR IN A RESPECTED AMERICAN UNIVERSTY.



SOme quotes from the long paper

There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 (“Twin Towers”) and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero and stated in The Structural Engineer,
For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)
A video clip provides further eyewitness evidence regarding this extremely hot metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv . The observer notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddish-orange some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location.
Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt.
Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire."
We also noted that while a steel pan holding the aluminum glowed red and then yellow hot, the molten aluminum inside retained its silvery-gray color, adding significantly to the evidence that the yellow-white molten metal dripping from the South Tower shortly before its collapse was NOT molten aluminum. (Recall also that the yellow color of the molten metal (video clip above) implies a temperature of approximately 1100 oC -- too high for the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires burning in the building.)
While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
A New York Times article entitled “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” provides relevant data.
Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:
Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were heard and reported by numerous observers in and near the WTC Towers, consistent with explosive demolition. Firemen and others described flashes and explosions in upper floors near where the plane entered, and in lower floors of WTC 2 just prior to its collapse, far below the region where the plane had struck the tower (Dwyer, 2005)
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. Ideally, a blasting crew will be able to tumble the building over on one side, into a parking lot or other open area. This sort of blast is the easiest to execute. Tipping a building over is something like felling a tree. To topple the building to the north, the blasters detonate explosives on the north side of the building first…
“If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.” (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)
The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)
World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators. The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings….
Basically waht the guy is saying is that its physically impossible for the WTC 1, 2 and 7 to wall the way they did.

I'll let the facts speak for themselves.
 

alvino

Golden Master
Messages
19,967
Oh boy, another one of these threads. The truth will never be known, and even with these facts, it won't persuade the government to change their tune.
 

01001010

Golden Master
Messages
7,888
Personally, I don’t want to be reminded about September 11 again. I've seen it all over forums.
 

jon2231

Daemon Poster
Messages
584
Yeah, it was a tragedy leave it be, everyone knows.

Hey, but thanks for reminding everyone :)
 

root

Site Team
Staff member
Messages
8,181
Location
UK
alvino said:
Oh boy, another one of these threads. The truth will never be known, and even with these facts, it won't persuade the government to change their tune.
Actually this kind of preassure does lead to the government changing their views... note that earlier this year security footage from the pentagon crash was [officially] released to help dispell these kinds of rumours.
 

Nik00117

Fully Optimized
Messages
4,032
Actually this kind of preassure does lead to the government changing their views... note that earlier this year security footage from the pentagon crash was [officially] released to help dispell these kinds of rumours.
Our founding fathers gave us freedom of speech for a reason. That is to prevent the gov from doing things without fear of public outlash. If this paper were to get enough recongition then guess what, maybe somthing will change, maybe a new investigation will happen who knows. None the less the paper is and important.

For the aggorant poeple giving me neg rep cause I bring up a topic you don't like, get used to it.
 

Brookfield

Golden Master
Messages
10,056
Nik00117 said:
I have shown CF the Loose Change video. I have come across a paper, not writen by some smart ass 21 year old college student covering physics of the collaspe of the towers. BUT A PH.D PROFESSOR IN A RESPECTED AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
:( Come on Nik, please drop this thread, or can I nip it in the bud, & close it now?, you've seen the the comments, I won't admonish you this time, just no more threads on this subject, thanks.
 

Nik00117

Fully Optimized
Messages
4,032
Come on Nik, please drop this thread, or can I nip it in the bud, & close it now?, you've seen the the comments, I won't admonish you this time, just no more threads on this subject, thanks.
Nothing in this thread breaks forum rules, therefore it can stay open until it dies naturally.
 

Deathstar1

BSOD
Messages
756
The "new evidence" only raises the same old questions, basically, we'll never know the truth because even if the Government is involved it'll be 50+ years before the files are declassified

Remember the Kennedy files?

nuff said

Nik00117 said:
Nothing in this thread breaks forum rules, therefore it can stay open until it dies naturally.
Hear hear,

@ Brookfield you have already received your neg rep points for your input, now leave the thread, you obviously have nothing constructive to add.
 

Brookfield

Golden Master
Messages
10,056
Deathstar, I don't give a damn about neg points, ["sticks & stones"], it's obvious by the reactions that the members dont want this, & Nik, this is one thread too far :mad: .

THREAD CLOSED
 
Top