So still think the towers were brought down without bombs?

[Nbadan]

These conspiracy threads are so old. And predictable.

a) Here I'll make something up to advance my view point, knowing nothing about the exact mechanics of metalworking, but I did check google and wikipedia.
b) And here I make some random comment that ties to point A.
c) Despite the fact that this grey colored assumed gas could be 38,267 different substances, I'll single one out as definative proof of my view.


Either way, in 13 pages, nothing has been proven except trash-talking and question-dodging skills.

Once again, applying the scientific method to the official explaination has nothing to do with presenting or proving alternative theories and everything to do with being able to duplicate a theory, or hypothesis, in a controlled situation. Alternative theories, like the use of thermite, only serve to muddy up what is already a very convoluted discussion, but I've tried to show that all the evidence it there for this type of reaction. Can I safely assume that thermite was used on 911? No, just that the scientific evidence is there and cannot be completely discounted as Chumpy so eagarly wants to do.

[Nbadan]

Does an large passenger jet impacting a building at 400 mph affect its structural integrity?

Affect it's structural integrity how? Can it create a 'kink point'? yes, Would it explain the complete collapse of both towers? No.

[Nbadan]

Does fire affect steel's ability to bear loads?

Only at temps much higher than that generated by burning jet fuel. In fact, the jet fuel would have burned off very quickly, leaving only office furniture as the sole source of the fire. Not nearly hot enough.

[Nbadan]

Are there noises that sound like explosions that are not bombs?

I'm not really sure what you are asking here. Random explosions would not go off in a sequential manner as there is evidence on some 911 tapes, there would be one or two big explosions.

[Nbadan]

Do explosions tend to create debris velocities greater than 20 mph?

Depends on the size of the explosions used. Shape charges would. This would also explain why some debris was thrown much greater distance than the debris pile of both towers. The explosions would have expelled the debris vertically. I can show you evidence that this is exactly what happened.

[Nbadan]

If the buildings are brought down at free fall, then why do the pictures show debris falling through the air BELOW the collapsing wave front of the building?

It's resistance. The debris is not what matters, that's just a distraction by debunkers, the debris clearly starts falling well before the building core collapses and should fall first. What matters is the speed at which the central core of the building collapses because the trusses are bolted together and the law of conservation of motion states that this resistance would considerable slow the rate of decent. For those of you unlearned, this means that it would have been impossible for the buildings to fall at 10 seconds under any other condition than that presented by a artificial va e, like bombs.

[Nbadan]

When the frame couldn't hold the upper floors in place any longer, those floors began to collapse downward, one on top of the next. The reaction was more like a zipper being undone, which readily explains why the sides of the building appeared to peel away as its inner structure fell straight downward.

This is why I keep repeating that the pancake theory is bogus, this was posted by FWDT on page 5. So if the concrete didn't pancake, what happened to it?

[Nbadan]

The facade of the building could have fallen appreciably faster than the internal support columns and were that the case we wouldn't be able to confirm that theory from the available video takes of the collapse. After all, we can only see what occured to outside of the building. The flip side is that the support columns could have crumbled before the s of the building followed suit. Again, no existing video clips of the collapse can confirm or debunk either theory because internal footage of the collapse, the 'smoking gun' element in this argument, does not exist...

According to Chumpy, it was the weight of the top collapsing on the bottom floors that caused the whole building to crumble, but not pancake, although we still don't know what happened to the concrete from all those floors, but the fascade would have fallen at free fall speed with no resistance.

I question your theory on the internal core collapsing first. There is just no way that would be possible since the core would have been the strongest part of the building.

[Nbadan]

According to Phenominal, the whole internal-core collapsed first, but as this photo shows, NOT LIKELY.

[Obstructed_View]

Exhibit B:

Here is one of the pics we are talking about, for those of you who haven't seen it:



Notice the beam directly behind the rescurer is cut at an angle. seemingly, some contend, by what is known by demolition experts as a thermite charge used to bring the building down at a known angle.

So how exactly would putting a charge on a column that is less than 50 feet from the ground make a building collapse from a thousand feet higher? Both buildings failed from the top, not from the bottom. There's plenty of video evidence of that.

Ask any demolition expert and they'll tell you that once you get the chain reaction started at the top that there's no stopping it and, with a building that large, no redirecting it.

I also find it incredibly puzzling that one portion of the conspiracy community says that the building was brought down from explosives because of the large amount of dust, but another portion questions what happened to all the concrete.

[Obstructed_View]

Only at temps much higher than that generated by burning jet fuel. In fact, the jet fuel would have burned off very quickly, leaving only office furniture as the sole source of the fire. Not nearly hot enough.

That isn't remotely true. Steel loses half its strength at the same temperatures that jet fuel burns at out in the open, and this fire was in a building that was burning like a cigarette, so the temperatures were...

Wait a second, what am I doing? You aren't debating an issue based upon facts, you are pushing a political agenda by repeating things that you hear from others with the same agenda and you don't care how much you have to lie or cheat as long as the information is out there to discredit your enemies. Funny, that's what you constantly accuse other people of doing. Too bad you aren't as enlightened or intellectual as you like to let on.

[ChumpDumper]

Can I safely assume that thermite was used on 911? No, just that the scientific evidence is there and cannot be completely discounted as Chumpy so eagarly wants to do.

However, everything you say points to thermite can much more easily point to something else.

Much, much more easily.

At any rate, I have a whole working theory about what happened on 9/11.

Do you?

[ChumpDumper]

What Chumpy's not telling you is that the devil is in the details...look at one of the pics that he keeps posting again...



Look closely....

Now look at the pic I posted again...



Notice the difference at the cut points? the pic I posted shows evidence of a chemical reaction consistant with thermite hot enough to melt steel, the pics he posted do not.

The pic you posted shows evidence that something was hot.

If you can tell me how every beam was cut during the rescue, recovery and cleanup phases of the WTC disaster - I'll give you a cookie.

[ChumpDumper]

According to Chumpy, it was the weight of the top collapsing on the bottom floors that caused the whole building to crumble, but not pancake, although we still don't know what happened to the concrete from all those floors, but the fascade would have fallen at free fall speed with no resistance.

Well, you're reading part of my posts anyway. I said pancaking was a result of the initial upper-floor collapse -- not the initial cause of the collapse in itself. This is evidence enough to make me comfortable to use the word "pancaking" to describe what happened to the lower floors.





Whatever parts of the building that were freed of the structure indeed fell at near free-fall speeds.

Because they were free falling.

Faster than the rate of collapse of the entire building.

It's been shown numerous times and I frankly can't understand why anyone would try to say the building is collapsing faster than the debris which is free-falling.

Look at this one more time tell me the building is collapsing faster than this debris is falling.

[Nbadan]

I also find it incredibly puzzling that one portion of the conspiracy community says that the building was brought down from explosives because of the large amount of dust, but another portion questions what happened to all the concrete

It's very important because of the explosive power necessary to transform all that concrete in fine particles of dust, which is likely what happened.

[ChumpDumper]

Concrete dust can only be made by explosions?

[Nbadan]

The pic you posted shows evidence that something was hot.

If you can tell me how every beam was cut during the rescue, recovery and cleanup phases of the WTC disaster - I'll give you a cookie.

hot as in, chemical reaction hot....yes. The picture by itself is inconclusive, but when you add it up with other possible evidence of thermite use, like the molten together boulder of steel and concrete you just posted (what generated that heat?), white smoke coming from both towers at the base and at the point of impact, fires burning for weeks after the towers collapse, yada, yada, yada...and then the reports from NIST and FEMA turn out to be completely bogus, according to architectural designs recently leaked by a whistle-blower, you gotta start wondering...

[Nbadan]

Concrete dust can only be made by explosions?

Again, we are talking explosive power here. In order for that much concrete to turn to dust there had to be more explosive power than just the PE and KE generated by the collapse.

[Nbadan]

Wait a second, what am I doing? You aren't debating an issue based upon facts, you are pushing a political agenda by repeating things that you hear from others with the same agenda and you don't care how much you have to lie or cheat as long as the information is out there to discredit your enemies. Funny, that's what you constantly accuse other people of doing. Too bad you aren't as enlightened or intellectual as you like to let on.

What facts are those? and why is it that those who use no new facts always say they are basing their argument on facts?

[Nbadan]

That isn't remotely true. Steel loses half its strength at the same temperatures that jet fuel burns at out in the open, and this fire was in a building that was burning like a cigarette, so the temperatures were..

Hey mr. facts, what is the combustion temp and burn rate of jet fuel?

[ChumpDumper]

hot as in, chemical reaction hot....yes. The picture by itself is inconclusive, but when you add it up with other possible evidence of thermite use, like the molten together boulder of steel and concrete you just posted (what generated that heat?)

I thought you might try to attribute that to heat. Here's a closeup of one of the "molten" objects:



Now I suppose you could tell me what kind of paper can survive a thermite reaction, couldn't you?

white smoke coming from both towers at the base and at the point of impact, fires burning for weeks after the towers collapse, yada, yada, yada...

It's funny, for all the conspiracy theorists' wild ideas, they demonstrate a decided lack of imagination when it comes to visualizing the effects of a catastrophe of this scale. I showed a picture of the twisted mass and Dan can't even consider that it could be the result of really heavy falling on top of it -- nope, gotta be thermite. Fire burning for weeks? Can you imagine the amount of combustible material in the twin towers complex, above and below ground? , we had a pile of mulch burn for three months.

THERMITE IN HELOTES!

and then the reports from NIST and FEMA turn out to be completely bogus, according to architectural designs recently leaked by a whistle-blower, you gotta start wondering...

Architectual designs <> working construction blueprints.

When the word "thermite" is used to describe everything that happened on 9/11, you gotta start wondering.

[Gerryatrics]

hot as in, chemical reaction hot....yes. The picture by itself is inconclusive, but when you add it up with other possible evidence of thermite use, like the molten together boulder of steel and concrete you just posted (what generated that heat?), white smoke coming from both towers at the base and at the point of impact, fires burning for weeks after the towers collapse, yada, yada, yada...and then the reports from NIST and FEMA turn out to be completely bogus, according to architectural designs recently leaked by a whistle-blower, you gotta start wondering...

Still waiting for you to explain these "thermite charges", or how thermite can be used to cut through vertical steel columns in a controlled manner. Take your time though, don't want to rush you.

[Extra Stout]

Idiot.

Liar.

[Extra Stout]

Thermite is used in shape charges to weaken trusses at angles to force the building to fall the direction you want it to fall.

Lie.

[Extra Stout]

Ironworker at WTC site cutting column with a blowtorch.

Nbadan is a pathological liar. We all know he will never give it up.