- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/7/17 at 3:27 pm to GumboPot
quote:
There was lots of evidence of thermite residue at all sites. Youtube thermite welding. It burns at 4500 degrees.
I googled it instead and found that there was no chain of custody on the sample found to contain thermite residue and it was just as possible that the tested debris had been in contact with "acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site or exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, while in storage, or while being transferred from Ground Zero to memorial sites". I also read that it is claimed to be thermite residue because of it's iron oxide and aluminum content and those were present in a variety of equipment and materials in the building.
Posted on 8/7/17 at 3:31 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
So you think only firefighters would've heard explosions?
It only takes a few explosions to take down a 1000 ft building?
There were also fuel tanks for back up generators in the building. Explosions are common in large fires.
Posted on 8/7/17 at 3:37 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Thus, how did WTC7 (and all the structures for that matter) collapse in near-symmetrical fashion when the damage was clearly not symmetrical?
The analysis I've read is that as fire communicated in various parts of the building, a support structure on the 13th floor failed, leading to progressive collapse.
If the sprinkler system had worked correctly, the building likely wouldn't have collapsed. I'd be more apt to believe that the sprinkler system was sabotaged, more so than any sort of theories about pre-planted explosives - at least with the evidence we have now (although we really don't have any objective evidence of either - other than negative result for the building).
And I get that - a negative result prompts us to search for a building. This was, at the end of the day, a fairly ordinary structure fire on a very extraordinary day. It just wasn't controlled in a predictable way, for a whole host of easily explainable reasons, and failed under rare but understandable circumstances.
That's not my opinion, but that's my conclusion based on the evidence. I don't discount evidence to the contrary, I'm just not seeing a whole lot of reliable evidence that way.
Let me ask it this way - do you believe that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were felled by the combination of jet impact and jet fuel fire? Or do you believe those were controlled demolitions, too (as you obviously believe WTC 7 was a controlled demolition)?
Posted on 8/7/17 at 3:38 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
So you think only firefighters would've heard explosions?
No. There were others. The first video was more than just firefighters. However the firefighters were the majority of the people at ground zero so you have more firefighter witnesses.
Posted on 8/7/17 at 3:40 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
So why do demolition crews use shaped charges instead of thermite?
To cut beams and rivets precisely.
Posted on 8/7/17 at 3:42 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Watch who you quote in this thread. That's not my words.
My bad.. I was quoting a quote.
Posted on 8/7/17 at 3:43 pm to GumboPot
So you agree that a bag of thermite is not an effective tool to demo a building.
Posted on 8/7/17 at 3:47 pm to Placebeaux
quote:
There was more than one critical column in the building. How did it fall like this when fires started on one side
The building was more or less a tube within a tube. That contributed to the more or less vertical collapse.
Just as the towers were based on a central column design, the failure appears fairly symmetrical - not necessarily unexpected. I get that it seems almost too neat and convenient - but from a distance, everything can look like that. Seeing the damage up close and it looked anything but controlled.
I'm not saying it's impossible for there have been a internal plot to drop those buildings. But, it would have had to involve literally hundreds, if not thousands of people. That's unlikely enough to ask for some reliable proof. Coincidences and symmetrical building collapse patterns are interesting and fodder for some discussion, but not proof.
Ditto for reverse engineering evidence of thermite to suggest the buildings were blown when there is no objective evidence of the charges being used and if so, they wouldn't have used thermite (precisely because it wouldn't have been predictable).
The mental gymnastics to construct this theory is pretty impressive, though. The whole disregarding of any evidence to disprove the theory is the dead giveaway that it has risen to that of faith, like a religion.
This post was edited on 8/7/17 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 8/7/17 at 3:50 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
I can definitely believe we shot down 93. That one is logical.
Yeah, I think so as well. The decision was... Do we shoot down the plane which will kill everyone on board or do we keep it in the sky as it heads to the U.S. capitol and hope the hijackers decide to land the plane instead of driving it into buildings where it will kill everyone on board plus people who are in the building it plans on crashing in?
Posted on 8/7/17 at 3:53 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
So you agree that a bag of thermite is not an effective tool to demo a building.
Placing them adjacent to beams would most certainly damage them. Would it totally melt them? IDK. I'd have to perform experiments to determine the correct amount and orientation to melt the beams. However I'm a million times more confident that I can melt steel beams with thermite than an office fire.
Posted on 8/7/17 at 3:54 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Let me ask it this way - do you believe that WTC 1 and WTC 2 were felled by the combination of jet impact and jet fuel fire? Or do you believe those were controlled demolitions, too (as you obviously believe WTC 7 was a controlled demolition)?
IDK about WTC 1 and 2. I can't get past 7.
Posted on 8/7/17 at 3:59 pm to TigersHuskers
quote:
TigersHuskers
or one of you other tinfoil hat wearing creative writers....Can you please concoct up a full detailed "theory" that works in chemtrails and flat earth theory also? Bonus points for a connection to anti-vaccine theory.
Posted on 8/7/17 at 4:00 pm to Placebeaux
That video really doesn't convince me of anything.
There was so much information coming in and it was just as easy for her to made a mistake in her reporting. What sounds more likely? The reporter made a mistake or the BBC (including the reporter) was made aware of what was going to happen, before it did and she accidently said what she knew, on air.
So an attack was planned on America, by its own government, and a lot of people were aware of it, including the reporter at BBC?
There was so much information coming in and it was just as easy for her to made a mistake in her reporting. What sounds more likely? The reporter made a mistake or the BBC (including the reporter) was made aware of what was going to happen, before it did and she accidently said what she knew, on air.
So an attack was planned on America, by its own government, and a lot of people were aware of it, including the reporter at BBC?
Posted on 8/7/17 at 4:23 pm to GumboPot
quote:
However I'm a million times more confident that I can melt steel beams with thermite than an office fire.
You're an engineer and you think the only way to compromise structural integrity of steel is to melt it. Scary.
Posted on 8/7/17 at 4:36 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
compromise structural integrity of steel is to melt it
Exactly... steel has rigidity of a wet noodle well before it melts. It will start to soften at around 1200 degrees.
I'm not a structural engineer... but I dont think softened support beams can carry the same load as their full strength counterparts....
Posted on 8/7/17 at 4:45 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
You're an engineer and you think the only way to compromise structural integrity of steel is to melt it.
What are you talking about?
Where did I say "only"?
Posted on 8/7/17 at 4:48 pm to dfintlyHmmrd
quote:
I'm not a structural engineer... but I dont think softened support beams can carry the same load as their full strength counterparts....
That's why structural engineers use a factor of safety designing steel buildings. That's why office fires have never collapsed a steel framed building in the history of steel framed high rise buildings ever except for 911.
This post was edited on 8/7/17 at 4:50 pm
Posted on 8/7/17 at 4:50 pm to TigersHuskers
quote:
TigersHuskers
I'm more convinced that you eat your own poop. As does anyone else who think the US gov orchestrated 9/11.
Posted on 8/7/17 at 4:57 pm to GumboPot
How often does that factor of safety include jet fuel being added to a fire? Or a commercial airliner being crashed into it?
And everything has never happened until it does.. theres a first time for everything.
And everything has never happened until it does.. theres a first time for everything.
Page 17 of 25
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News