Thermite
Duck
this one below is one I´d missed and puzzling.
The fact is that the fires such as those in the twin towers on 911 could not
possibly `melt´ the steel though could´ve weakened it enough for a collapse,
the thermite theory argues that for several weeks after the attacks hot
molten steel remained burning in the debris, as shown by thermal satellites
and by reports by several agencies.
Again only oxygen (as in a welders torch) or an extra fuel such as thermite
can create molten steel. A normal fire, even a raging inferno (which of
course the twin towers weren´t) cannot melt steel. So why then was molten
steel seen pouring out of the building?
My first thought was if it was planted and we know the south tower at least
was powered down for recabling the preceding weekend for recabling, which
also meant security cameras and doors were also shut down as teams of
engineers passed in and out unobserved, something unprecedented in the
towers and most suspiciously completely ignored by the 911 commission
despite several attempts by many personnel to alert them to that fact but if
it was planted it would surely have been implanted in the center core and
not near the outside.
Though if enough were used it could´ve burnt through the hollow girders and
along the floor and outside.
A short demonstration of themrite from Sky One.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1837033714967622806&q=molten+metal+thermite
And from the tower itself.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774&q=molten+metal
As someone who remains open minded on the collapse of the twin towers and
there´s no shortage of evidence that says secret governments have redesigned
countries, assassinated leaders and created revolutions which is the reason
why, I still haven´t seen enough evidence to confirm there was an inside job
as far as the collapse itself.
But molten steel? In a building with office material, plastic even jet fuel?
(the majority of which was burnt off within minutes if not seconds)
Anyone any good explanations?
Duck
michael adams
"Duck" <duck...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eahrol$a7c$1...@news.datemas.de...
> I thought I´d seen just about all of the videos from the twin towers but
> this one below is one I´d missed and puzzling.
>
> The fact is that the fires such as those in the twin towers on 911 could
not
> possibly `melt´ the steel though could´ve weakened it enough for a
collapse,
> the thermite theory argues that for several weeks after the attacks hot
> molten steel remained burning in the debris, as shown by thermal
satellites
> and by reports by several agencies.
A hot molten substance of one kind or another would have been expected
to have remained burning in the debris. Nobody would dispute that.
Whether it was steel or not, is another matter
Whether any of the witnesses, or the available evidence is\were capable
of distinguishing molten steel from any other molten substance is
entirely another matter.
michael adams
...
Duck
"michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:4j3e1mF...@individual.net...
>
> "Duck" <duck...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eahrol$a7c$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
>> I thought I´d seen just about all of the videos from the twin towers but
>> this one below is one I´d missed and puzzling.
>>
>> The fact is that the fires such as those in the twin towers on 911 could
> not
>> possibly `melt´ the steel though could´ve weakened it enough for a
> collapse,
>> the thermite theory argues that for several weeks after the attacks hot
>> molten steel remained burning in the debris, as shown by thermal
> satellites
>> and by reports by several agencies.
>
>
>
> A hot molten substance of one kind or another would have been expected
> to have remained burning in the debris. Nobody would dispute that.
>
> Whether it was steel or not, is another matter
>
> Whether any of the witnesses, or the available evidence is\were capable
> of distinguishing molten steel from any other molten substance is
> entirely another matter.
>
>
The existence of these burning pools of molten steel were confirmed by:
Mark Lorieux of Controlled Demolition, Inc
Peter Tully, President of Tully Construction
and the American Free Press newspaper
http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/911PowerPointSJ4.php
Duck
michael adams
That link simply repeats the claim. It nowhere explains how these
people were able to distinguish what they took to be pools of molten
steel, from what might have been pools of any other molten material.
How exactly is it possible to distinguish molten steel in such
circumsances ?
What's so special about molten steel?
michael adams
...
>
>
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy
It shouldn't have been there. Aviation fuel flames aren't hot enough
to melt steel...thermite is though...what was thermite doing inside a
civilian building?
PPCB
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
news:3nvpc2ltc6oajh7qn...@4ax.com...
Has it actually been proven beyond doubt that thermite was in the building?
I had thought that that was not the case in fact.
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
michael adams
What shouldn't have been there ?
How do you know or anyone know it was molten steel ?
That's the question !
^^^^^^^
So much for Internet Degrees
michael adams
...
max.it
<mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
A propane flame will melt steel, though it's probably your lowest
useable flame for steel melting.Buildings can contain materials that
may burn and cause high enough temperatures to cause steel to melt in
certain areas of the structure.
I spent quite a while in the remains of buildings that had been blown
to millions of pieces.
Sometimes steel melts.
max.it (the orange cage)
michael adams
"max.it" <m...@teatime.co.uk> wrote in message
news:44cd1e4d...@news.btopenworld.com...
Yes. But so does loads of other material found in and on buildings -
copper and bronze cladding for example. So how did anyone know these
pools of molten material were actually steel?
That's the question.
michael adams
...
Duck
>> Mark Lorieux of Controlled Demolition, Inc
>> Peter Tully, President of Tully Construction
>> and the American Free Press newspaper
>>
>> http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/911PowerPointSJ4.php
>>
>>
>> Duck
>
> That link simply repeats the claim. It nowhere explains how these
> people were able to distinguish what they took to be pools of molten
> steel, from what might have been pools of any other molten material.
>
> How exactly is it possible to distinguish molten steel in such
> circumsances ?
>
or blue and molten aluminium appears as a silvery grey similar to lead in
daylight and burns with a bright white flame.
Besides, engineers from FEMA, Controlled Demolition and the fire department
among others would have enough experience to tell.
> What's so special about molten steel?
>
>
*The foundations were a sealed unit encased in thick slurry walls to keep
the water from the river out,when 110 stories falling from such a height
were compressed into it, it´s surprising there was a fire at all.
Add to that the collapse itself which would´ve had the effect of both
beating it out and showering it with enormous amounts of concrete dust.
Never mind the fact that it didn´t have the fuel capable of melting it. It
didn´t have the air either.
Thermite on the other hand doesn´t require air.
Both sides have good arguments and the official theory that sulphur
oxidization contributed to the burn makes sense but while it stands up as a
theory why has never happened before in other steel frame buildings which
burned for far longer, more extreme and over a greater area?
I can accept that the rubble could´ve had any amount of chemicals which
could´ve kicked off some unprecedented reaction but half way up the tower,
from an office pouring out as if attacked with a blowtorch??
If only we had the evidence...
Duck
Duck
"Hal Ó Mearadhaigh." <home...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4j4e4iF...@individual.net...
*No, that´s the question.
> I had thought that that was not the case in fact.
>
>
*No evidence so no facts, only theories..
Duck
Duck
>
>
*With a high rate of oxygen.
>though it's probably your lowest
> useable flame for steel melting.Buildings can contain materials that
> may burn and cause high enough temperatures to cause steel to melt in
> certain areas of the structure.
*I扉e looked in detail at all the major steel framed buildings that caught
fire and not one had molten steel, especially fireproofed construction steel
such as the twin towers.
An employee from the underwriters for the steel wrote a letter in protest
saying the steel was good for anything that those fires could produce, twice
as much in fact.
He was fired shortly after.
> I spent quite a while in the remains of buildings that had been blown
> to millions of pieces.
> Sometimes steel melts.
>
>
*For example?
Duck
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy
<mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
What else might it be?
>So much for Internet Degrees
The amount spewed was substantial. You can see film footage of the
event:
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/02/dr-steven-jones-utah-seminar-video.html
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
My honest appraisal of the available evidence, that I have seen, is
that there are some extremely unsettling questions left by the way I
saw those buildings collapsed...You've probably seen film footage of
the entire event, watch it again and this time think about how fast
the buildings drop when they do...far far too quickly to be due to
flame...so quickly as to approach free fall and there was *no*
resistance from floor to floor...I would expect that if a tower were
to drop due to burning in an aviation fuel/air conflagration that
there would be seeming pauses as each floor collapsed to the lower but
all the floors seemed to go at once...that seems to me to be a
physical impossibility unless there happened to be explosive charges
already set...
From
http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html
I note:
Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).
the temperature of an aviation fuel / air fire is:
from
http://www.nci.org/a/atactbl.htm
"in hydrocarbon fuel-air fire---average fuel temperature of 800 C"
http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064
"Summarizing:
We have assumed that the entire quantity of jet fuel from the aircraft
was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the
jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this
floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction.
We have found that it is impossible the jet fuel, by itself, raised
the temperature of this floor beyond 280° C (536° F). "
All in all...I'm concerned about these accounts because it implies
some uncomfortable conclusions.
PPCB
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy
Big chunks of magnesium perhaps...not likely really is it?
>I spent quite a while in the remains of buildings that had been blown
>to millions of pieces.
>Sometimes steel melts.
Critique this
http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064
Summarizing:
We have assumed that the entire quantity of jet fuel from the aircraft
was injected into just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the
jet fuel burnt with the perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this
floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction.
We have found that it is impossible the jet fuel, by itself, raised
the temperature of this floor beyond 280° C (536° F).
Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin
explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.
It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C
(1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere
near the quotes of 1500° C
I'm concerned about this.
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy
wrote:
>
>"max.it" <m...@teatime.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:44cd1e4d...@news.btopenworld.com...
>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:08:44 +0100, "michael adams"
>>
>>
>> A propane flame will melt steel,
>
>*With a high rate of oxygen.
>
>
>>though it's probably your lowest
>> useable flame for steel melting.Buildings can contain materials that
>> may burn and cause high enough temperatures to cause steel to melt in
>> certain areas of the structure.
>
>*I´ve looked in detail at all the major steel framed buildings that caught
>fire and not one had molten steel, especially fireproofed construction steel
>such as the twin towers.
>
>An employee from the underwriters for the steel wrote a letter in protest
>saying the steel was good for anything that those fires could produce, twice
>as much in fact.
The physics bears this out.
>He was fired shortly after.
I'd like confirmation of this so that I may use it in future.
>
>> I spent quite a while in the remains of buildings that had been blown
>> to millions of pieces.
>> Sometimes steel melts.
>>
>*For example?
It melts if you use high explosive...in fact it vapourises...the point
is though that it is impossible the jet fuel, by itself, raised the
temperature of this floor beyond 280° C and steel doesn't become
molten (depending on the alloy) at 1300+° C.
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy
wrote:
>
>"michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>news:4j486oF...@individual.net...
>>
>> "Duck" <duck...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> The existence of these burning pools of molten steel were confirmed by:
>>> Mark Lorieux of Controlled Demolition, Inc
>>> Peter Tully, President of Tully Construction
>>> and the American Free Press newspaper
>>>
>>> http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/911PowerPointSJ4.php
>>>
>>>
>>> Duck
>>
>> That link simply repeats the claim. It nowhere explains how these
>> people were able to distinguish what they took to be pools of molten
>> steel, from what might have been pools of any other molten material.
>>
>> How exactly is it possible to distinguish molten steel in such
>> circumsances ?
>>
>*By the colour of the flame for one, Copper and Bronze normally burn green
>or blue
Hence the possibility of colours in fireworks.
>and molten aluminium appears as a silvery grey similar to lead in
>daylight and burns with a bright white flame.
Magnesium burns, unbearably brightly, to ash without becoming molten.
>Besides, engineers from FEMA, Controlled Demolition and the fire department
>among others would have enough experience to tell.
>
>> What's so special about molten steel?
>>
>*The foundations were a sealed unit encased in thick slurry walls to keep
>the water from the river out,when 110 stories falling from such a height
>were compressed into it, it´s surprising there was a fire at all.
>
>Add to that the collapse itself which would´ve had the effect of both
>beating it out and showering it with enormous amounts of concrete dust.
>Never mind the fact that it didn´t have the fuel capable of melting it. It
>didn´t have the air either.
>
>Thermite on the other hand doesn´t require air.
>
>Both sides have good arguments and the official theory that sulphur
>oxidization contributed to the burn makes sense but while it stands up as a
>theory why has never happened before in other steel frame buildings which
>burned for far longer, more extreme and over a greater area?
>
>I can accept that the rubble could´ve had any amount of chemicals which
>could´ve kicked off some unprecedented reaction but half way up the tower,
>from an office pouring out as if attacked with a blowtorch??
Thats the weird bit...see it here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603
>If only we had the evidence...
Well...I've seen enough, imho, to warrant a re-examination of the
situation...
Joseph
wrote:
> Anyone any good explanations?
>
>
>Duck
>
***Well, how about this. George Bush's younger brother, Marvin Bush,
was in charge of security at the World Trade Center. Is that enough to
heighten your suspicions? (See the following link.)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html
Duck
<Joseph> wrote in message news:1t9rc2phh30onj80i...@4ax.com...
hot on the trail of Osama, John O´neill was told by the Bush administration
to back off with his investigations, he was that disgusted he resigned in
protest that summer and was promptly offered a top job in the security of
the twin towers and began work two before the attack dying along with
everybody else. Who knows what he really knew.
I´ve no doubt plenty in the government knew what was about to happen and if
they didn´t directly plan it they certainly facilitated it but it still
doesn´t add up to a demolition job on the twin towers and the shock value of
the attack alone was probably sufficient without the extra problems that
would´ve been involved in it´s planning and conspiracy.
Unless you can provide good evidence the public at large will always back
the official story as it´s easier for them to handle, unfortunately we´re
out of unrebutted evidence and there´s a mountain of strong evidence
elsewhere that might people sit up and listen if they stuck to what can be
proven illogical.
Like fanatical Muslims about to meet Allah drinking alcohol and especially
in a strip club.
No Muslims on any of the passenger lists nor have any Muslim bodies been
recovered.
The fact that they were secretly planning this for some time but yet freely
used credit cards, rented cars when taxis would´ve been safer, left Quarans
about like the Gideons, flight manuals and prayers.
5 major exercises (including simulated hijackings) planned by various groups
which tied up jets, confused air traffic controllers and left New York
defenseless despite the fact that the administration later claimed they had
no idea that anyone would ever use an airliner as a weapon .
The fact they were crap pilots yet one flew so well they thought he had to
be an experienced military pilot when he conducted his steep spiral dive
from several thousand feet to hit the only part of the Pentagon reinforced
shortly beforehand and conveniently hitting the complete opposite side to
the brass including Rumsfelt.
The fact that Bush sometime later stated that when he saw the first plane
hit he thought it was an accident and the guy was a terrible pilot despite
the fact the first hit was only caught on film and not shown live anywhere.
The fact that Atta the lead hijacker was wired 100´000 from the Pakistani
ISA who have close links with the CIA.
The fact that in the two weeks before 911 extraordinary put options (a bet
that the stocks will fall) were placed on Boeing and American Airlines and
millions were made and millions even now have still to be collected.
The fact that everything that´s happened has been well documented and
advocated years ago by the very same people in government today.
The fact that a plane can dive into a field but yet scatter it´s debris
several miles against the wind.
The fact that despite an airplane crash and a fire that was apparently
melting steel a paper passport can work out of a pocket, out of a blazing
plane and a burning building to land conveniently for an official to pick it
up and it just happens to be one of the hijackers and was never again
mentioned.
The fact the Bush administration was inoculated a full month before the
Anthrax attacks which stopped immediately once it was discovered it was
military grade and could only have come from US supplies.
Even WTC7 is a better argument but it still lacks evidence and while there
is a lack of it there´s always going to be arguments against it and rather
than make a point it simply becomes the focus of personal attacks and
endless books while those responsible sit back and watch the real issues
disappear.
I´ve no doubt that you´ll never see an honest investigation with any power
but you still have a chance to influence the people before the last of any
power they presently holds slowly evaporates under accusations by right
wingers of lunacy and anti-Americanism.
You´ll never convince them by arguing something that will never be proven,
you can only keep an open mind and present what real facts you do have.
Duck
Duck
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:29:34 +0100, "Duck" <duck...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"max.it" <m...@teatime.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:44cd1e4d...@news.btopenworld.com...
>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 21:08:44 +0100, "michael adams"
>>>
>>>
>>> A propane flame will melt steel,
>>
>>*With a high rate of oxygen.
>>
>>
>>>though it's probably your lowest
>>> useable flame for steel melting.Buildings can contain materials that
>>> may burn and cause high enough temperatures to cause steel to melt in
>>> certain areas of the structure.
>>
>>*I´ve looked in detail at all the major steel framed buildings that caught
>>fire and not one had molten steel, especially fireproofed construction
>>steel
>>such as the twin towers.
>>
>>An employee from the underwriters for the steel wrote a letter in protest
>>saying the steel was good for anything that those fires could produce,
>>twice
>>as much in fact.
>
> The physics bears this out.
>
the metal itself alight as it´s own fuel. There was a small amount of debris
saved and it showed holes which is believed to have come from oxidization,
thermite would do the same so either way we´re none the wiser.
My point was how could it get enough sulpher (also an ingredient of
thermite) to start that process from what seems to be coming from the floor
of an office.
Even then that´s still a theory as it´s still unprecedented in steel
building fires.
>>He was fired shortly after.
>
> I'd like confirmation of this so that I may use it in future.
>>
>>> I spent quite a while in the remains of buildings that had been blown
>>> to millions of pieces.
>>> Sometimes steel melts.
>>>
>>*For example?
>
> It melts if you use high explosive...in fact it vapourises...the point
> is though that it is impossible the jet fuel, by itself, raised the
> temperature of this floor beyond 280° C and steel doesn't become
> molten (depending on the alloy) at 1300+° C.
>
>
*It´s not a solid figure and thermite isn´t an explosive, it just needs the
right ingredients so that could explain the molten foundations but it´s
strange when it´s in an open space behaving like lava further up.
Duck
Duck
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603
>
*Second time I´ve watched that and it´s still a dramatic account and
surreal.
It proves pretty conclusively that there were explosions but it can´t say
what caused them, the towers did have diesel tanks below, who knows.
One point I thought that was stretching it was the helicopter wading through
the smoke and seemed to emit flashes just seconds before the tower fell.
It only happened over one tower surely if that was the cause whatever they
were supposed to have done whould´ve had to be done to both.
It clearly wasn´t flashes anyway it was obvious it was a constant light (sun
reflection of the cockpit maybe) being obscured by the smoke, like
travelling in a car and sunlight glinting through gaps in the trees.
>>If only we had the evidence...
>
> Well...I've seen enough, imho, to warrant a re-examination of the
> situation...
>
>
*It won´t happen, it can´t.
Duck
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
I think you are raising hares in all of this! There may well have been
thermite involved, no doubt. It could perfectly easily have been in the
luggage of the perpetrators on the aeroplane. But please, why would anyone,
apart from terrorists, and for whatever reason, have the slightest cause to
destroy two towers that were significant in the American culture as icons of
American power and success generally? Especially when one considers the loss
of life for some 3000+ persons, not to mention the fact that but for a sheer
fluke these buildings would have contained far more personnel. It is very
easy, with hindsight, to re-write the occasion to suit ones own suspicions,
however genuinely held. However, FWIW, I find that this is all very paranoid
and unlikely. The following link goes a long way to explain, factually, and
in engineering terms, why the towers collapsed the way that they did:
http://tinyurl.com/mr5e
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Joseph
***What a bunch of blithering idiots, although yet another possibility
comes to mind in this instance. One way to discredit truth in the
psy-ops world is to disseminate and permeate it with ridiculous
disinformation. It's a tactic as old as the hills.
If so, its not going to work. The real perpetrators of 9-11 are going
to hang by the neck until dead, in full public view.
michael adams
>
> "michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
> news:4j486oF...@individual.net...
> >
> > "Duck" <duck...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> >>
> >> The existence of these burning pools of molten steel were confirmed by:
> >> Mark Lorieux of Controlled Demolition, Inc
> >> Peter Tully, President of Tully Construction
> >> and the American Free Press newspaper
> >>
> >> http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/911PowerPointSJ4.php
> >>
> >>
> >> Duck
> >
> > That link simply repeats the claim. It nowhere explains how these
> > people were able to distinguish what they took to be pools of molten
> > steel, from what might have been pools of any other molten material.
> >
> > How exactly is it possible to distinguish molten steel in such
> > circumsances ?
> >
> *By the colour of the flame for one, Copper and Bronze normally burn green
> or blue and molten aluminium appears as a silvery grey similar to lead in
> daylight and burns with a bright white flame.
....
And molten steel ?
...
>
> Besides, engineers from FEMA, Controlled Demolition and the fire
department
> among others would have enough experience to tell.
...
I thought the point about the molten steel was that it was so unusual.
You'd imagine with controlled demolitions they wouldn't need to heat
anything to melting point, but use explosions etc instead and so their
experience with molten steel would be pretty limited.
If anyone was "clever" enough to dream up such a stunt, you'd imagine
the self same people would have been clever enough to plant and find
plenty of WMD in Iraq. So as to keep everyone happy.
Yet they couldn't even manage that.
...
>
>
>
>
> > What's so special about molten steel?
> >
> >
> *The foundations were a sealed unit encased in thick slurry walls to keep
> the water from the river out,when 110 stories falling from such a height
> were compressed into it, it´s surprising there was a fire at all.
>
> Add to that the collapse itself which would´ve had the effect of both
> beating it out and showering it with enormous amounts of concrete dust.
> Never mind the fact that it didn´t have the fuel capable of melting it. It
> didn´t have the air either.
>
> Thermite on the other hand doesn´t require air.
>
> Both sides have good arguments and the official theory that sulphur
> oxidization contributed to the burn makes sense but while it stands up as
a
> theory why has never happened before in other steel frame buildings which
> burned for far longer, more extreme and over a greater area?
>
> I can accept that the rubble could´ve had any amount of chemicals which
> could´ve kicked off some unprecedented reaction but half way up the tower,
> from an office pouring out as if attacked with a blowtorch??
>
> If only we had the evidence...
...
Planes flying into skyscrapers is a pretty rare if not unique event.
There are no actual real world events to work on. Just the same sort of
computer modelling and calculations as they use when designing the things.
And so all the "experts" of whatever hue, are making it up as they go along
to a large extent. Many of these buldings may be massively over/under
engineered
for all anyone can tell - and its only when catastrophes happen that
questions start getting raised.
michael adams
...
>
>
> Duck
>
>
David Raleigh Arnold
Don't entertain this thermite idiocy. Thermite burns white hot.
If there really were any, it would have burned through the floors to the
basement too quickly to melt enough girdirs to collapse the structure.
daveA
Si
Duck wrote:
>
> Again only oxygen (as in a welders torch) or an extra fuel such as thermite
> can create molten steel. A normal fire, even a raging inferno (which of
> course the twin towers weren´t) cannot melt steel. So why then was molten
> steel seen pouring out of the building?
>
For the sake of discussion lets assume it was thermite.
First off do you know what thermite is? Do you know what materials were
used in the building of the WTC? Do you think it inconcievable that
these materials might have been pulverised and mixed in the collapse
since they were likely to have been in contact within the structure?
And do you not think that the friction caused by the collapse of
millions of tonnes into a small area might have been enough to surpass
the quite high threshold energy for thermite ignition? If the answer to
any of those questions is even maybe then there is no room for your bad
guys planted it scenario. William of Occam rules apply.
Si
"Bog snorkler extraordinaire"
Si
Si wrote:
> Duck wrote:
> >
> > Again only oxygen (as in a welders torch) or an extra fuel such as thermite
> > can create molten steel. A normal fire, even a raging inferno (which of
> > course the twin towers weren´t) cannot melt steel. So why then was molten
> > steel seen pouring out of the building?
> >
>
> For the sake of discussion lets assume it was thermite.
>
> First off do you know what thermite is?
[snip]
I forgot the second bit.
Secondly if thermite was used to demolish the WTC how incompetent were
the demo team? Since it appears they left enough material for a highly
energetic (read very fast burning) compound to continue buring for days
after. Why use thermite in particular. Normal exposives would be much
more effective at cutting the structural elements. Thermite, or any
thermal as opposed to explosive (i.e. supersonic expanding gas),
approach would 'flow 'and not be as controlable. If I were a black
helicopter dude thermite would be the last thing I'd use to demolish a
building. Back to William of Occam again.
Si
"Bog snorkler extraordinaire"
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy
How do you explain the speed with which the towers fell when they did
then?
Si
Duck wrote:
>
> And from the tower itself.
>
> http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774&q=molten+metal
>
>
If you are trying to tell me that the stuff pouring out of the tower is
thermite I would have to seriously reserve judgement there. It's hard
to say looking at the video image but the colour is wrong. It is too
cool to be thermite. That looks like it is around 1000C mark whatever
it is. It is too yellow. If it were thermite it would be bright white.
Take a look at this:
http://i7.tinypic.com/21l1wg8.jpg
That's an Aerojet Hi-Pat engine firing. The photo is taken through a
filter to get rid of the some of the saturation. The chamber is
actually a parallel cylinder and not the sperical thing you see that's
just the film saturating. The wall temperature there is about
1900-2000C. The colour fidelity is pretty good.
Thermite gets up to 2500C.
Si
"Bog snorkler extraordinaire"
David Raleigh Arnold
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:03:06 -0400, David Raleigh Arnold
> <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:57:01 +0100, michael adams wrote:
>>
>>Don't entertain this thermite idiocy. Thermite burns white hot. If there
>>really were any, it would have burned through the floors to the basement
>>too quickly to melt enough girdirs to collapse the structure. daveA
>
> How do you explain the speed with which the towers fell when they did
> then?
The weight of all the floors above on each one in succession. daveA
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy
<darn...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 07:04:51 +1200, Post.Post.Colonial.Boy wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:03:06 -0400, David Raleigh Arnold
>> <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:57:01 +0100, michael adams wrote:
>>>
>>>Don't entertain this thermite idiocy. Thermite burns white hot. If there
>>>really were any, it would have burned through the floors to the basement
>>>too quickly to melt enough girdirs to collapse the structure. daveA
>>
>> How do you explain the speed with which the towers fell when they did
>> then?
>
>The weight of all the floors above on each one in succession.
Thats the point though...they all fell at once, there were no pauses
as one would expect...it was all but free fall...thats the point.
Watch the video footage again...
Duck
>
> "Duck" <duck...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eajlpc$2qb$1...@news.datemas.de...
>>
>> "michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> >
>> > circumsances ?
>> >
>> *By the colour of the flame for one, Copper and Bronze normally burn
>> green
>> or blue and molten aluminium appears as a silvery grey similar to lead in
>> daylight and burns with a bright white flame.
>
> ....
>
> And molten steel ?
>
>
...
>
>>
>> Besides, engineers from FEMA, Controlled Demolition and the fire
> department
>> among others would have enough experience to tell.
>
> ...
>
> I thought the point about the molten steel was that it was so unusual.
>
*Unusual in that is unprecedented but since no steel buildings has ever
totally collapsed before it´s not impossible that some reaction took place
in the crush of the base, there was certanily plenty of material.
It doesn´t explain how it could happen in the open space of an office.
> You'd imagine with controlled demolitions they wouldn't need to heat
> anything to melting point, but use explosions etc instead and so their
> experience with molten steel would be pretty limited.
>
> If anyone was "clever" enough to dream up such a stunt, you'd imagine
> the self same people would have been clever enough to plant and find
> plenty of WMD in Iraq. So as to keep everyone happy.
>
> Yet they couldn't even manage that.
>
>
*If they did invent WMD´s the focus would be back on all the anomolies of
911 and there is always the risk of being found out, if they transported
some rockets for example into Iraq Russia, China or any other intelligence
satellites would´ve spotted them. Even if they succeded to smuggle them in
or build them on the spot how would explain how they were´nt there the day
before they were found, assuming there would be a good chance other agencies
would be keeping a watchful eye on all of Iraq.
Either way it´s certainly a high risk in enemy terrority with unsympathetic
news crews also watching every move.
As it happened they have successfully deflected the issue, strung it out
over years and even produced Saron and Mustard gas which ineffectual or not
is good enough for the many people in the US who believe the campaign.
Producing cans is easy since it doesn´t require a lauch site nor
transportation to a site nor has to show any evidence that it was there
before the troops invaded but as we all know and has been successfully
squashed by the administration in general is the fact they were always using
invented evidence of rockets as WMD not gas but it does produce some
irrelevant arguments among the populace.
Much was known of the truth of Pearl Habor which also came out in congress
but millions signed up practically overnight to join a war that previously
had little support, the effect matters more than the truth.
*If both towers fell simply from accidental fires you really believe there
wouldn´t be more questions raised and that the evidence would´ve been
shifted off.
We can´t tell what caused the collapse and we probably never will but we can
tell why we can´t.
Duck
Duck
"David Raleigh Arnold" <darn...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.07.31....@cox.net...
for molten metal flowing out of a building??
Duck
Duck
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:03:06 -0400, David Raleigh Arnold
> <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:57:01 +0100, michael adams wrote:
>>
>>Don't entertain this thermite idiocy. Thermite burns white hot.
>>If there really were any, it would have burned through the floors to the
>>basement too quickly to melt enough girdirs to collapse the structure.
>>daveA
>
> How do you explain the speed with which the towers fell when they did
> then?
>
>
Duck
David Raleigh Arnold
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:20:13 -0400, David Raleigh Arnold
> <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 07:04:51 +1200, Post.Post.Colonial.Boy wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:03:06 -0400, David Raleigh Arnold
>>> <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:57:01 +0100, michael adams wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Don't entertain this thermite idiocy. Thermite burns white hot. If
>>>>there really were any, it would have burned through the floors to the
>>>>basement too quickly to melt enough girders to collapse the
>>>>structure. daveA
>>>
>>> How do you explain the speed with which the towers fell when they did
>>> then?
>>
>>The weight of all the floors above on each one in succession.
>
> Thats the point though...they all fell at once, there were no pauses as
> one would expect...it was all but free fall...thats the point.
One would *not* expect any "pauses" since the weight was cumulative.
I's a really very very stupid notion that there was thermite.
Think. Try to understand. Again, thermite burns *white hot*. Each
charge would melt a hole and fall through the concrete. If there really
were any, it would have burned through the floors to the basement too
quickly to melt enough girders to collapse the structure. There would be
absolutely no point to thermite without a large amount of fuel somewhere
that it could ignite. That was not indicated, since the aircraft would
be certain to explode on its own.
As each floor fell, the weight tended to become more and more concentrated
at the center of each floor, so that pieces of the top floors were
falling on edge, ramming and breaking the lower floors. That's what
it looked like, too. daveA
Si
Duck wrote:
> *It won´t burn through concrete floors, perhaps you´ve a better explanation
> for molten metal flowing out of a building??
>
Yes how about Aluminium? It melts at 700C. Planes are made of it so are
big chunks of buildings: False ceilings, ductwork, windows, extruded
studwork, desks, chairs, mirrors etc.
Si
"Bog snorkler extraordinaire"
Duck
"Si" <simonicu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154353959.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Duck wrote:
>>
>> Again only oxygen (as in a welders torch) or an extra fuel such as
>> thermite
> can create molten steel. A normal fire, even a raging inferno (which of
> course the twin towers weren愒) cannot melt steel. So why then was molten
> steel seen pouring out of the building?
>
>For the sake of discussion lets assume it was thermite.
>First off do you know what thermite is? Do you know what materials were
used in the building of the WTC? Do you think it inconcievable that
these materials might have been pulverised and mixed in the collapse
since they were likely to have been in contact within the structure?
And do you not think that the friction caused by the collapse of
millions of tonnes into a small area might have been enough to surpass
the quite high threshold energy for thermite ignition? If the answer to
any of those questions is even maybe then there is no room for your bad
guys planted it scenario. William of Occam rules apply.
>I forgot the second bit.
Secondly if thermite was used to demolish the WTC how incompetent were
the demo team? Since it appears they left enough material for a highly
energetic (read very fast burning) compound to continue buring for days
after.
*It would扉e been impossible to account for any reactions in the mix that
was the rubble which is why I wouldn愒 argue the point and I惻l quite
happily accept the official version as far the molten debris.
>Why use thermite in particular. Normal exposives would be much
more effective at cutting the structural elements. Thermite, or any
thermal as opposed to explosive (i.e. supersonic expanding gas),
approach would 'flow 'and not be as controlable. If I were a black
helicopter dude thermite would be the last thing I'd use to demolish a
building. Back to William of Occam again.
*Conspiracist believe it was explosives from the squibs of smoke that were
forced out through the windows as the towers fell and the fact many girders
were thrown vertically, I don愒 all that can be explained by concrete
exploding under pressure and the air pressure of a squeeze box and I would
think explosions would be more obvious, since they would扉e known every tv
crew in the world would扉e been focused on the event I doubt they would扉e
taken the risk when Thermite cuts just as well.
Though there were major explsions before the towers fell which will never be
explained since the evidence has been shipped off by Bush愀 brother (who
also for time handled the security of the towers) and cousin Wirt Walker III
of Controlled Demolition.
Anyway like I扉e said I扉e never argued the molten debris but if you can
explain how molten metal can pour out an office from a moderate fire when
only a substance like thermite or sulphur, which of course also makes up
thermite can produce such an effect.
I doubt the towers were brought black helicopter dudes based on all the
evidence I扉e looked at but I惴 stuck for an explanation of this, maybe you
can.
Duck
Westprog
Duck wrote:
I'd like to see a definitive witness statement that there was observed
molten metal. Supposed quotes reported from supposed experts aren't the same
thing as definite claims from people who were on the spot.
J/
SOTW: "Peaches" - The Stranglers
Duck
would be the likes of magnesium , it´s also closer, in a confined space and
in the fire the center of it looks practically the same to me.
There is also different variations of thermite and in this case they believe
it to be a sulphur enhanced thermite as it lowers the melting point of steel
and so probably would not burn just as bright.
Again if it weren´t how did it get to those extremely high temperatures?
Duck
Duck
"Hal Ó Mearadhaigh." <home...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4j5ua9F...@individual.net...
*I don´t believe there was I´m just asking questions.
>It could perfectly easily have been in the luggage of the perpetrators on
>the aeroplane.
*I doubt a shoulderbag of the stuff could´ve made much difference.
>But please, why would anyone, apart from terrorists, and for whatever
>reason, have the slightest cause to destroy two towers that were
>significant in the American culture as icons of American power and success
>generally?
*Because they destroyed two towers that were significant in American culture
and icons of their power and success?
Can you ever imagine what is happening today in Iraq without it?
People within the military had advocated it before and that´s documented,
you think these people have changed their minds and dissapeared?
The military killed hundreds of thousands of people before with atom bombs
to save millions, in their words.It´s the same mindset, you think they
could´ve just dropped those bombs in the sea by Japan and made the same
point or was shock and awe their prefered method?
Sacrificing people for the greater good as they see it has been long
accepted as collateral damage and without securing the energy supply the US
will become obsolete but they can´t come out and say it in congress or to
the media, though even then the same people have documented that fact, what
more do you need?
.
>Especially when one considers the loss of life for some 3000+ persons, not
>to mention the fact that but for a sheer fluke these buildings would have
>contained far more personnel. It is very easy, with hindsight, to re-write
>the occasion to suit ones own suspicions, however genuinely held. However,
>FWIW, I find that this is all very paranoid and unlikely. The following
>link goes a long way to explain, factually, and in engineering terms, why
>the towers collapsed the way that they did: http://tinyurl.com/mr5e
>
>
*Answer the many points I´ve made without passing them off as spurious or
coincidence and I´ll accept your point.
Duck
Duck
Si
> would be the likes of magnesium , it´s also closer, in a confined space and
> in the fire the center of it looks practically the same to me.
>
> There is also different variations of thermite and in this case they believe
> it to be a sulphur enhanced thermite as it lowers the melting point of steel
> and so probably would not burn just as bright.
>
> Again if it weren´t how did it get to those extremely high temperatures?
>
>
It doesn't matter thermite is a hetrogeneous reaction the temperature
of the reaction product, iron, is not limited by the energy released in
the reaction and the specific heat capacity of the products as is the
gas of a gaseous reaction, but by the latent heat of vaporization of
Aluminium. I doubt any addatives will effect that. Most addatives to
thermite are to help start ignition at a lower energy. Aluminium boils
at 2500C. Any iron produced by thermite will be at 2500C. That's bright
white...blue in fact. No yellow.
The color of the molten metal in the image you produced is yellow.
Steel melts around 1500C. That's white, yellow white, but white. Ergo I
doubt it is steel. Hard to say in an image of that quality. I'm not
buying it.
It is comon industrial practice to exercise extreme caution when
grinding or welding steel in the presence of aluminium. It is of no
surprise to me that thermite would have been created in the collapse of
the towers. That it was buring days later is evidence that it was a
result of the collapse and not the cause.
Si
"Bog snorkler extraordinaire"
Duck
Duck wrote:
*You´ve already made the point it wasn´t exactly bright white hot, Aluminum
burns brilliant white and even with a blue tinge.
Ping
Duck
Duck
"Westprog" <west...@hotmail.ie> wrote in message
news:eanqoo$a5q$1...@news.datemas.de...
You too can be a witness...
Duck
michael adams
> Can you ever imagine what is happening today in Iraq without it?
From a conspiracy POV, the strongest evidence IMO, is Bush's filmed
non-reaction to the events as they unfolded. Sitting there in that
classroom in front of the children, as shown on Michael Moore's
Farenheit 911. Although rather than being complicit, Bush appears as
more a clueless patsy, at the beck and call of the Neo-Cons. That would
be the claim anyway, on the basis of that film. Which was quite
frankly chilling.
However the fact remains that Bush got re-elected, while the Dems
nomimated a living corpse, in the shape of John Kerry.
Which is even more chilling still IMO, if you want conspiracies.
It's probably a mistake IMO to confuse the Neo Cons and Securocrats
undoubted success in capitalising on 911 in the way that they did,
with the idea that it was actually pre-planned.
One problem being how you would persuade anyone, let alone supposedly
disaffected Muslims to conduct a suicide mission on behalf of the
infidel USA. Unless of course the planes were being flown remotely,
there being no actual muslim terrorists on board at all, never mind
armed with knives. And all the communications with the planes which
emerged subsequently were faked as well.
michael adams
...
>
>>
> Duck
>
> Duck
>
>
Duck
Duck wrote:
> "Si" <simonicu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >
> >
> *I don´t know what to say here it´s doesn´t look bright white to me which
> would be the likes of magnesium , it´s also closer, in a confined space
> and
> in the fire the center of it looks practically the same to me.
>
> There is also different variations of thermite and in this case they
> believe
> it to be a sulphur enhanced thermite as it lowers the melting point of
> steel
> and so probably would not burn just as bright.
>
> Again if it weren´t how did it get to those extremely high temperatures?
>
>
It doesn't matter thermite is a hetrogeneous reaction the temperature
of the reaction product, iron, is not limited by the energy released in
the reaction and the specific heat capacity of the products as is the
gas of a gaseous reaction, but by the latent heat of vaporization of
Aluminium. I doubt any addatives will effect that. Most addatives to
thermite are to help start ignition at a lower energy. Aluminium boils
at 2500C. Any iron produced by thermite will be at 2500C. That's bright
white...blue in fact. No yellow.
*I guess we´re just not going to agree, here is white from Aluminium.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2747781054435060028&q=aluminium
*here´s a further part of the thermite video and the contrast of the
compressed video is probably even then exagerrating the contrast.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEmHJORTlqk&search=thermite
*Completely different to me, maybe it´s my eyes but which is closer to the
fire in the tower?
The color of the molten metal in the image you produced is yellow.
Steel melts around 1500C. That's white, yellow white, but white. Ergo I
doubt it is steel. Hard to say in an image of that quality. I'm not
buying it.
It is comon industrial practice to exercise extreme caution when
grinding or welding steel in the presence of aluminium. It is of no
surprise to me that thermite would have been created in the collapse of
the towers. That it was buring days later is evidence that it was a
result of the collapse and not the cause.
*I`ve no argument on the theories of the molten rubble, that´s plausible.
Your argument on the Aluminium though is based on my apparently faulty
eyesight
Duck
Si
Duck wrote:
> "Si" <simonicu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1154353959.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> more effective at cutting the structural elements. Thermite, or any
> thermal as opposed to explosive (i.e. supersonic expanding gas),
> approach would 'flow 'and not be as controlable. If I were a black
> helicopter dude thermite would be the last thing I'd use to demolish a
> building. Back to William of Occam again.
>
> *Conspiracist believe it was explosives from the squibs of smoke that were
> forced out through the windows as the towers fell and the fact many girders
> exploding under pressure and the air pressure of a squeeze box and I would
> crew in the world would´ve been focused on the event I doubt they would´ve
> taken the risk when Thermite cuts just as well.
>
No it dosen't that was my point. It flows. You would need a hefty
containment structure to keep it in place long enough to transfer
enough heat to the structural component to get it to melt. Timing this
would be a heinous nightmare. Why bother. Use a shaped charge with a
liquid metal slug, copper maybe. Something like a heat round placed
just beside the member. The explosive power would be much lower than
traditional demolition explosives and would not blow out the windows.
It would still cut the member on schedule like a guillotine.
>
> Anyway like I´ve said I´ve never argued the molten debris but if you can
> explain how molten metal can pour out an office from a moderate fire when
> only a substance like thermite or sulphur, which of course also makes up
> thermite can produce such an effect.
>
Aluminium will be melted by normal fire. That is why very little
aircraft structure survives a fire if it gets to the fuel. It is also a
common building material. Is that really too hard to accept? Hell who
knows there could have been a drinks can recycling box in that corner.
Whatever that was it didn't look like molten steel to me. Unfortunately
I have seen some of that in the test cell. There are many other options
too for molten metal. Zinc (500C), Lead (400C), gold (1000C they were
banks after all). The flaw in your thinking is assuming what you saw
was steel. To my mind it wasn't.
Si
"Bog snorkler extraordinaire"
Si
Duck wrote:
>
>
> *I guess we´re just not going to agree, here is white from Aluminium.
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2747781054435060028&q=aluminium
>
Err nope that's an electric arc from a TIG welder.
Si
"Bog snorkler extraordinaire"
Duck
>
> "Duck" <duck...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eanu90$hg6$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
>> Can you ever imagine what is happening today in Iraq without it?
>
>
> From a conspiracy POV, the strongest evidence IMO, is Bush's filmed
> non-reaction to the events as they unfolded. Sitting there in that
> classroom in front of the children, as shown on Michael Moore's
> Farenheit 911. Although rather than being complicit, Bush appears as
> more a clueless patsy, at the beck and call of the Neo-Cons. That would
> be the claim anyway, on the basis of that film. Which was quite
> frankly chilling.
>
want someone that can think. It bothers most of us when someone like Sadam
is shown on tv wearing a military uniform yet nobody minds when he does it,
that´s when he doesn´t have an axe or a chainsaw to reinforce his maschismo,
that and his fumbling of words and his macho language like` bring em on´ I´m
sure the troops faced with those attacks were pleased with that statement
from someone saying it from the safety of his bodyguards and who deserted
himself.
That goes for much the rest of the administration who have either dodged or
deserted from military service and few if any have let their children join,
fine example.
> However the fact remains that Bush got re-elected, while the Dems
> nomimated a living corpse, in the shape of John Kerry.
>
*Considering the evidence that both elections were fixed by faulty machines
that only go faulty in democratic areas and results that only go against the
exit polls when there´s no paper trail on certain machines (again in
democratic areas) and many (again in democratic areas) that couldn´t vote at
all because they were written off because of a criminal record which
included driving offenses and in many cases no record at all, apart from
being black.
> Which is even more chilling still IMO, if you want conspiracies.
>
> It's probably a mistake IMO to confuse the Neo Cons and Securocrats
> undoubted success in capitalising on 911 in the way that they did,
> with the idea that it was actually pre-planned.
>
*If they force the likes of J.O´neill to stop investigating when his reports
on Osama were known to be accurate what other reason can there be to stop
someone for doing a good job but then we can´t ask him now.
That´s just one in a hundred peices of a jigsaw puzzle that says they
certainly knew and facilitated it if not directly planned it but not the
adminstration itself, I´m sure there´s no shortage of unaccountable groups
within the military more than willing to do their duty as they saw it.
> One problem being how you would persuade anyone, let alone supposedly
> disaffected Muslims to conduct a suicide mission on behalf of the
> infidel USA.
*Committing sucide hasn´t been a problem for Muslim fanatics (though the
alcohol and strip joints say they certainly weren´t) but what if they were,
if a supposed traitor of the US offered to help out I´m sure they wouldn´t
refuse.
>Unless of course the planes were being flown remotely,
> there being no actual muslim terrorists on board at all, never mind
> armed with knives. And all the communications with the planes which
> emerged subsequently were faked as well.
>
>
*It would explain the lack of names on the passenger lists, the lack of
phone calls on the supposed mobile calls and the lack of Muslim bodies not
to mention the fact they were crap pilots flying military maneuvers on the
day, the fact that the guy flew over the Pentagon before having to execute a
extremely difficult spiral dive because of it when he easily could´ve flew
straight into it, but that would´ve got the top brass themselves, better to
hit the reinforced section. Not to mention that the flight management
should´ve kicked and prevented those sort of G´s.
Again when I first posed those remote control I was asking questions but
after debating with Si I now consider it plausible and it would answer a lot
of questions no matter how fantastic it sounds.
Duck
Duck
Duck wrote:
> "Si" <simonicu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1154353959.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Why use thermite in particular. Normal exposives would be much
> more effective at cutting the structural elements. Thermite, or any
> thermal as opposed to explosive (i.e. supersonic expanding gas),
> approach would 'flow 'and not be as controlable. If I were a black
> helicopter dude thermite would be the last thing I'd use to demolish a
> building. Back to William of Occam again.
>
> *Conspiracist believe it was explosives from the squibs of smoke that were
> forced out through the windows as the towers fell and the fact many
> girders
> were thrown vertically, I don´t all that can be explained by concrete
> exploding under pressure and the air pressure of a squeeze box and I would
> think explosions would be more obvious, since they would´ve known every tv
> crew in the world would´ve been focused on the event I doubt they would´ve
> taken the risk when Thermite cuts just as well.
>
No it dosen't that was my point. It flows. You would need a hefty
containment structure to keep it in place long enough to transfer
enough heat to the structural component to get it to melt. Timing this
would be a heinous nightmare. Why bother.
*Well say for example you went to the center core in the service area were
the beams meet the floor what´s the problem with a container against the
beam? Where´s it gonna go?
Use a shaped charge with a
liquid metal slug, copper maybe. Something like a heat round placed
just beside the member. The explosive power would be much lower than
traditional demolition explosives and would not blow out the windows.
It would still cut the member on schedule like a guillotine.
*Explosive give off unmistakable shock waves, there wasn´t any before the
collapse.
There was a major one on WT7 though just before it collapsed as shown in
that video that PCB posted.
>
> Anyway like I´ve said I´ve never argued the molten debris but if you can
> explain how molten metal can pour out an office from a moderate fire when
> only a substance like thermite or sulphur, which of course also makes up
> thermite can produce such an effect.
>
Aluminium will be melted by normal fire. That is why very little
aircraft structure survives a fire if it gets to the fuel. It is also a
common building material. Is that really too hard to accept?
*If it burnt brilliant white I would agree and as far as I know it burns
similar to magnesium with energetic sparks. Whatever was burning on the
towers looked much heavier.
Hell who knows there could have been a drinks can recycling box in that
corner.
Whatever that was it didn't look like molten steel to me. Unfortunately
I have seen some of that in the test cell. There are many other options
too for molten metal. Zinc (500C), Lead (400C), gold (1000C they were
banks after all). The flaw in your thinking is assuming what you saw
was steel. To my mind it wasn't.
*AFAIK Zinc also burns brilliant white, haven´t a clue about lead but I
can´t imagine so much being in one place which we saw melting. If it was
Gold I´m sure the amount of people trying to debunk the theories would´ve
pointed out that it was the floor of a bank and probably Gold. Besides that,
Gold still melts far higher than jet fuel or anything contained in your
average office so Gold gives the same problems.
If they even stored the Gold up there, we do know there were vaults down
below worth millions and interestingly Gold trucks with Gold were found
pulverized in the rubble trying to escape before the towers fell, how did
they guess when the authorities didn´t?
It could be coincidental and they were moving it anyway for some other
reason but nowadays it´s all paper and computer and it´s likely the Gold
rarely moves, just the transactions.
It might be some other metal but only Aluminium and Steel beams could´ve
been in such quantity in the one place.
Duck
Duck
Duck wrote:
>
>
> *I guess we´re just not going to agree, here is white from Aluminium.
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2747781054435060028&q=aluminium
>
Err nope that's an electric arc from a TIG welder.
*I know but I couldn´t find any Aluminium burn apart from again thermite.
Point was it´s still a brilliant white blue burn and clearly different.
Duck
Si
LOL
That is because in a pure solid form aluminium is hard to burn. You are
thinking about aluminium powder. Similarly for other metals. If you
doubt me then get your arse away from the internewt and carry out a
real world experiment, it's an old concept been around since the age of
reason. Just throw your empties into the fire at your next luau. I'll
make a prediction you'll get puddles of metal no big bang or bright
shiney lights, if the fire is big enough. Of course you could even find
some old steel cans to throw in as a baseline too.
Si
"Bog snorkler extraordinaire"
Si
Duck wrote:
>
>
> *Explosive give off unmistakable shock waves, there wasn´t any before the
> collapse.
>
>
<slaps head> Of course it must have been thermite then! Or maybe, just
maybe some planes flew into the building, set up massive full floor
fires that overstressed the curtain wall clips of the floor trusses
which failed. Dropping millions of tons 13 feet to the next floor which
wasn't stressed for such a dynamic load and failed too. All the way
down in fact. Hey it's just a theory....
Si
"Bog snorkler extraordinaire"
Duck
Duck wrote:
> "Si" <simonicu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1154451599.1...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Duck wrote:
> >
> >
> > *I guess we´re just not going to agree, here is white from Aluminium.
> >
> > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2747781054435060028&q=aluminium
> >
>
> Err nope that's an electric arc from a TIG welder.
>
>
> *I know but I couldn´t find any Aluminium burn apart from again thermite.
>
> Point was it´s still a brilliant white blue burn and clearly different.
>
LOL
>That is because in a pure solid form aluminium is hard to burn. You are
thinking about aluminium powder.
*You´re right my mistake, in fact after a quick google it doesn´t have a
burn at all yet those towers did and as I pointed out to Michael it also
dissapates heat rapidly and melts with a silvery grey appearance and
apparently as fluid as mercury, none of which fits that fire.
Duck
Duck
Duck wrote:
>
>
> *Explosive give off unmistakable shock waves, there wasn´t any before the
> collapse.
>
>
><slaps head> Of course it must have been thermite then!
*<Rolls eyes> I never said it was, I´m asking questions and you´re off
elsewhere.
>Or maybe, just maybe some planes flew into the building, set up massive
>full floor
fires that overstressed the curtain wall clips of the floor trusses
which failed.
*The pancake theory isn´t a good one as it leaves out the strongest steel
part of the structure the center core and something which is left out of the
official diagrams.
> Dropping millions of tons 13 feet to the next floor which
wasn't stressed for such a dynamic load and failed too. All the way
down in fact. Hey it's just a theory....
*Once it dropped I´ve no problem with that but this is still avoiding the
point being made.
And again it doesn´t apply in any way shape or form to WT7 but we´ve already
covered that in detail before and then too I got more irrelevances thrown at
me than explanations so I´m not interested in having another twin tower
debate .
Duck
Si
>
>
>
> >That is because in a pure solid form aluminium is hard to burn. You are
> thinking about aluminium powder.
>
> *You´re right my mistake, in fact after a quick google it doesn´t have a
> burn at all yet those towers did and as I pointed out to Michael it also
> dissapates heat rapidly and melts with a silvery grey appearance and
> apparently as fluid as mercury, none of which fits that fire.
>
>
!
Let me get this straight:
The towers burned, liquid metal was seen.
Couldn't be aluminium because aluminium burns.
Aluminium dosen't burn but melts.
Ah but the towers burned therfore it couldn't be aluminium.
Forgive me but Eh?
You're determine to believe what you want aren't you? It fits perfectly
with that fire if you doubt me then do the experiment. Throw an empty
pop can (aircraft grade aluminium BTW) into a decently big fire. A
molten metal will not dissipate heat that quickly. Otherwise how would
we manage to make anything at all out of it? If a molten metal flows
over something that is wet for example then a thin layer of superheated
steam suspends it from the surface and conducts comparatively little
heat away from the molten stream. If it happens to be concrete or
gypsum then similarly the first thing to happen will be driving off the
moisture, not much heat transfer there. Thereafter it will be purely
conduction into what are poorly conducting materials without the water.
So it fits perfectly. you appear to be searching for a question that
fits your answer. Is this keeping an open mind?
Si
"Bog snorkler extraordinaire"
kateh
> Let me get this straight:
> The towers burned, liquid metal was seen.
> Couldn't be aluminium because aluminium burns.
> Aluminium dosen't burn but melts.
> Ah but the towers burned therfore it couldn't be aluminium.
> Forgive me but Eh?
I've been saying "eh?" since the beginning of this thread. I'll have to
wait for Nicholas Cage to explain it all ...in the movie "World Trade
Center".
KateH :)
max.it
wrote:
>
>Duck wrote:
>> "Si" <simonicu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1154456006....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >That is because in a pure solid form aluminium is hard to burn. You are
>> thinking about aluminium powder.
>>
>> *You=B4re right my mistake, in fact after a quick google it doesn=B4t hav=
>e a
>> burn at all yet those towers did and as I pointed out to Michael it also
>> dissapates heat rapidly and melts with a silvery grey appearance and
>> apparently as fluid as mercury, none of which fits that fire.
>>
>>
>
>
>!
>
>Let me get this straight:
>The towers burned, liquid metal was seen.
>Couldn't be aluminium because aluminium burns.
>Aluminium dosen't burn but melts.
>Ah but the towers burned therfore it couldn't be aluminium.
>
>Forgive me but Eh?
(Rolled) Aluminium melts, but it melts from the inside out.
It will bend and sag until the outside reaches a melting point, then
it just collapses into a puddle.
Why would anyone make a great big structure from aluminium ?
max.it (the orange cage)
Duck
Duck wrote:
> "Si" <simonicu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1154456006....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >That is because in a pure solid form aluminium is hard to burn. You are
> thinking about aluminium powder.
>
> *You´re right my mistake, in fact after a quick google it doesn´t have a
> burn at all yet those towers did and as I pointed out to Michael it also
> dissapates heat rapidly and melts with a silvery grey appearance and
> apparently as fluid as mercury, none of which fits that fire.
>
>
!
Let me get this straight:
*I know it´s a rare event on usenet for someone to admit when they are wrong
but it´s common enough for someone to capitalize on it when someone does.
The towers burned, liquid metal was seen.
*I´d prefer molten as in an iron forge, liquid suggests it might run as thin
as Aluminium does which it clearly wasn´t.
Couldn't be aluminium because aluminium burns.
*Milk it for what it´s worth.
Aluminium dosen't burn but melts.
*Now you got it.
Ah but the towers burned therfore it couldn't be aluminium.
*Correct.
Forgive me but Eh?
You're determine to believe what you want aren't you?
*No I´m determined to believe the evidence, my eyesight is fine
It fits perfectly
with that fire if you doubt me then do the experiment.
*Well here´s something I got not from staring at a pop can in a fire but
from guys who work with the stuff, I guess the net has some virtue after
all.
You can clearly see it´s unlike the magma type of thickness of Iron or Steel
but like I said closer to mercury and even though it´s way past it´s melting
point (which doesn´t have to be red hot to melt) it still is silvery both on
the surface and as soon as it leaves the container because like I said it
dissipates heat rapidly.
If that was Aluminium as you think it was it would´ve ran down and coated
the sides of the tower, it didn´t. On the extremities of the molten metal it
would´ve also appeared silvery grey, it didn´t.
But despite what we can both see you accuse me of believing what I want.
But you did say something important which just clicked with me and that was
Gypsum (plasterboard as we call it) I´d asked where could the Sulphur have
come from to produce the reaction if not thermite and the answer is Gypsum
which main ingredient is a Sulphate which when heated gives off a Sulphur
gas.
So I checked and found an air specialist had examined ground zero and said
the levels of Sulphur gas were alarming and that the stair wells were
covered in three layers of the stuff as well as other service areas and of
course office partitions, it also explains why the dust in the street was so
fibrous.
So there you go in being cocky you´ve inadvertantly solved the thermite like
reaction and there´s no need to fret over Gold, Zinc or Aluminium because
the Sulphur reacting with the Steel would´ve been enough and certainly
explains the pools in the debris and neither of us had to get our hands all
dirty building a fire.
Actually now I´ve checked I´m not the only one to come to that conclusion so
there´s no need to phone the Bush adminstration with a major breakthrough
though the 911 commission´s pancake theory is still a crock of shit as the
first tower to fall first twisted on it´s central core and tipped. Though it
is interesting that they deliberately ommited the central core in their
diagrams in their attempt to explain it, personally I think they´ve been
playing around with pop cans too long rather than using a bit of logic.
It still doesn´t explain everything yet though, Newtons law says that when
that tower did tip it should´ve kept on tipping and even snapped off
separately yet it tipped to a certain angle then stopped, how does that
work?
It could be that the floors underneath still being attached to the central
core actually pulled on it and dragged it down with the rest, which fit´s
with Newton's law, being the opposite reaction required but that negates the
argument that the top 10 storeys fell 12 foot crushing the floors below
kicking off the chain reaction toward collapse. Both can´t be correct so we
still have a puzzle.
Nor does it explain the reason why no other burning Steel building in
history has fallen yet all organic material not just Gypsum gives off a type
of Sulphuric gas which should´ve also caused a similar oxidization in other
fires and most of the others burnt for days and in many cases enveloped the
buildings.
I may write to Pepsi for answers and ask if any of their scientists have
been in their hearths playing lately.
Duck
Si
>
> It fits perfectly
> with that fire if you doubt me then do the experiment.
>
> *Well here´s something I got not from staring at a pop can in a fire but
> from guys who work with the stuff, I guess the net has some virtue after
> all.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qdwhl
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nyozb
>
> You can clearly see it´s unlike the magma type of thickness of Iron or Steel
> but like I said closer to mercury and even though it´s way past it´s melting
> point (which doesn´t have to be red hot to melt) it still is silvery both on
> the surface and as soon as it leaves the container because like I said it
> dissipates heat rapidly.
Ah I get it now you are on about the apparent viscosity of the material
in that video. There is nothing to prevent a metal exceeding its
melting temperature (700C say). To the point where it might glow yellow
(1000C). Properties such as viscosity are temperature dependent.
Normally it goes down. I have nothing to hand about molten Aluminium.
however for the sake of argument I will conceed that it's not
Aluminium.
>
> If that was Aluminium as you think it was it would´ve ran down and coated
> the sides of the tower, it didn´t. On the extremities of the molten metal it
> would´ve also appeared silvery grey, it didn´t.
I don't know I haven't done the experiment. You are drawing conclusions
based on dataless assumptions and some photgraphs from the web.
>
> But despite what we can both see you accuse me of believing what I want.
>
See the above statement.
> But you did say something important which just clicked with me and that was
> Gypsum (plasterboard as we call it) I´d asked where could the Sulphur have
> come from to produce the reaction if not thermite and the answer is Gypsum
> which main ingredient is a Sulphate which when heated gives off a Sulphur
> gas.
>
> So I checked and found an air specialist had examined ground zero and said
> the levels of Sulphur gas were alarming and that the stair wells were
> covered in three layers of the stuff as well as other service areas and of
> course office partitions, it also explains why the dust in the street was so
> fibrous.
>
> So there you go in being cocky you´ve inadvertantly solved the thermite like
> reaction and there´s no need to fret over Gold, Zinc or Aluminium because
> the Sulphur reacting with the Steel would´ve been enough and certainly
> explains the pools in the debris and neither of us had to get our hands all
> dirty building a fire.
>
I'm sorry you're loosing me there. How does heating gypsum give off
sulpher? Not saying it dosen't just saying it's a new one on me. I
thought if you heat gypsum you get plaster of paris. Gypsum is a
fireproofing agent, if it gave off combustable sulpher I would have
though it would loose its fireproofing status. Secondly how does
sulphur melt steel? And finally that molten metal (assuming it is a
metal) in the video is still too cool to be steel (1000C).
> I may write to Pepsi for answers and ask if any of their scientists have
> been in their hearths playing lately.
>
>
> Duck
Ooh catty you......... <snif> need a bigger fire than a hearth anyway.
Si
"Bog snorkler extraordinaire"
Duck
Duck wrote:
> "Si" <simonicu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1154458213.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> It fits perfectly
> with that fire if you doubt me then do the experiment.
>
> *Well here愀 something I got not from staring at a pop can in a fire but
> from guys who work with the stuff, I guess the net has some virtue after
> all.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/qdwhl
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nyozb
>
> You can clearly see it愀 unlike the magma type of thickness of Iron or
> Steel
> but like I said closer to mercury and even though it愀 way past it愀
> melting
> point (which doesn愒 have to be red hot to melt) it still is silvery both
> on
> the surface and as soon as it leaves the container because like I said it
> dissipates heat rapidly.
Ah I get it now you are on about the apparent viscosity of the material
in that video. There is nothing to prevent a metal exceeding its
melting temperature (700C say). To the point where it might glow yellow
(1000C)
*It愀 true you can heat anything to any temperature if you supply enough
energy but generally jet fuel nor your average contents of an office won愒
itself heat it but it can cause a reaction.
. Properties such as viscosity are temperature dependent.
Normally it goes down. I have nothing to hand about molten Aluminium.
however for the sake of argument I will conceed that it's not
Aluminium.
*Fair enough.
>
> If that was Aluminium as you think it was it would扉e ran down and coated
> the sides of the tower, it didn愒. On the extremities of the molten metal
> it
> would扉e also appeared silvery grey, it didn愒.
I don't know I haven't done the experiment. You are drawing conclusions
based on dataless assumptions and some photgraphs from the web.
*And some fore knowledge, I扉e seen enough bonfires to see the effects of
heat on bedsprings, steel rims and even the steel wire within tyres to name
just a few and despite the sometimes near white heat I扉e never seen steel
or iron melt but alloy tyres run like water and the next day it looks like
the Terminator愀 had a go.
A good example below and notice the steel car body is fine..
http://i2.tinypic.com/21osnwl.gif
>I'm sorry you're loosing me there. How does heating gypsum give off
sulpher? Not saying it dosen't just saying it's a new one on me. I
thought if you heat gypsum you get plaster of paris. Gypsum is a
fireproofing agent, if it gave off combustable sulpher I would have
though it would loose its fireproofing status. Secondly how does
sulphur melt steel?
*You愉e right the plasterboard is fire retardent and is something
conspiracists have mentioned that the amount of it would扉e put out the
fires which also true but although it doesn愒 fuel a fire it causes heated
metals to lower their oxidization point which heats metal itself. Something
that was seen in WWII with iron tanks where the iron itself had began to
burn. The plasterboard itself is made of a Sulphate though I can愒 remember
which offhand, the gas itself doesn愒 ignite just causes a reaction.
Incidently it also puts a lie to the governments claim that the heavy carpet
of dust was safe, it wasn愒.
Next time you see a clip of an iron forge pouring out the molten metal watch
as the crust forms it appears like cool spots and it probably is having used
up it愀 energy but it愀 actually instant rust/oxidization, same thing. Rust
always raises the temperature of the metal though it愀 not enough of a
reaction to heat a cold bar at room temperature but the hotter the bar the
faster the reaction, Sulphur lowers that lower still.
Blacksmiths add Sulphur to their charcoal for that reason and have done for
thousands of years
And since thermite doesn愒 require air then so the right mix of Aluminium
and Iron/Steel should act the same since it愀 basically the same thing which
is one reason I扉e never argued that the molten metal in the debris required
thermite but the office fire was a bit more confusing, the Gypsum makes that
possible.
Still doesn愒 explain why it hasn愒 happened in all the other buildings
round the world and I惴 sure many would扉e used plasterboard as well.
And finally that molten metal (assuming it is a
metal) in the video is still too cool to be steel (1000C).
*If you mean the towers how do you know the temperature?
> I may write to Pepsi for answers and ask if any of their scientists have
> been in their hearths playing lately.
>
>
> Duck
Ooh catty you......... <snif> need a bigger fire than a hearth anyway.
*You know what they say small cans big hearth.
Or something like that..
Duck
Si
>
> *It´s true you can heat anything to any temperature if you supply enough
> energy but generally jet fuel nor your average contents of an office won´t
> itself heat it but it can cause a reaction.
>
Google flashover. The temperature is around 1000C . Higher in some
interfacil areas. Secondly I have unfortunately seen much molten metal
in my time firing engines. I have also seen metal at temperatures in
excess of the melting points of traditional engineering materials.
Temperature of solids or liquid metals correlates quite well to the
color. As a rough estimate.
> *And some fore knowledge, I´ve seen enough bonfires to see the effects of
> heat on bedsprings, steel rims and even the steel wire within tyres to name
> just a few and despite the sometimes near white heat I´ve never seen steel
> or iron melt but alloy tyres run like water and the next day it looks like
> the Terminator´s had a go.
>
> A good example below and notice the steel car body is fine..
>
> http://i2.tinypic.com/21osnwl.gif
>
So there is some educational merit to the 11th?
>
>
>
>
>
> >I'm sorry you're loosing me there. How does heating gypsum give off
> sulpher? Not saying it dosen't just saying it's a new one on me. I
> thought if you heat gypsum you get plaster of paris. Gypsum is a
> fireproofing agent, if it gave off combustable sulpher I would have
> though it would loose its fireproofing status. Secondly how does
> sulphur melt steel?
>
> *You´re right the plasterboard is fire retardent and is something
> conspiracists have mentioned that the amount of it would´ve put out the
> fires which also true but although it doesn´t fuel a fire it causes heated
> metals to lower their oxidization point which heats metal itself. Something
> that was seen in WWII with iron tanks where the iron itself had began to
> burn. The plasterboard itself is made of a Sulphate though I can´t remember
> which offhand, the gas itself doesn´t ignite just causes a reaction.
>
Not quite what I said. Fireproof. Not Fire retardant. Gypsum has no
fire retarding properties. It resists fire and limits the heat transfer
to non engaged material such as underlying studwork but it does not
supress the fire.
Gypsum is CaSO4·2H2O. Heating it knocks off the some of the water to
give you plaster of Paris. TTBOMK the S stays with the Ca so there is
no Sulfer given off. Not at typical temperatures at any rate.
> Next time you see a clip of an iron forge pouring out the molten metal watch
> as the crust forms it appears like cool spots and it probably is having used
> up it´s energy but it´s actually instant rust/oxidization, same thing. Rust
> always raises the temperature of the metal though it´s not enough of a
> reaction to heat a cold bar at room temperature but the hotter the bar the
> faster the reaction, Sulphur lowers that lower still.
>
Still won't lower the melting point of steel to 1000C.
> And finally that molten metal (assuming it is a
> metal) in the video is still too cool to be steel (1000C).
>
> *If you mean the towers how do you know the temperature?
>
I thought I covered this earlier. Temperature correlates to color. The
material dosen't matter too much on that score. Steel, gold, rhenium,
niobium will all look the same at 1000C. Redish/Yellowish white.
How about copper then?
Si
"Bog snorkler extraordinaire"
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy
<darn...@cox.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:50:45 +1200, Post.Post.Colonial.Boy wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:20:13 -0400, David Raleigh Arnold
>> <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 07:04:51 +1200, Post.Post.Colonial.Boy wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:03:06 -0400, David Raleigh Arnold
>>>> <darn...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:57:01 +0100, michael adams wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't entertain this thermite idiocy. Thermite burns white hot. If
>>>>>there really were any, it would have burned through the floors to the
>>>>>basement too quickly to melt enough girders to collapse the
>>>>>structure. daveA
>>>>
>>>> How do you explain the speed with which the towers fell when they did
>>>> then?
>>>
>>>The weight of all the floors above on each one in succession.
>>
>> Thats the point though...they all fell at once, there were no pauses as
>> one would expect...it was all but free fall...thats the point.
>
>One would *not* expect any "pauses" since the weight was cumulative.
>I's a really very very stupid notion that there was thermite.
>Think. Try to understand. Again, thermite burns *white hot*. Each
>charge would melt a hole and fall through the concrete. If there really
>were any, it would have burned through the floors to the basement too
>quickly to melt enough girders to collapse the structure. There would be
>absolutely no point to thermite without a large amount of fuel somewhere
>that it could ignite. That was not indicated, since the aircraft would
>be certain to explode on its own.
>
>As each floor fell, the weight tended to become more and more concentrated
>at the center of each floor, so that pieces of the top floors were
>falling on edge, ramming and breaking the lower floors. That's what
>it looked like, too. daveA
I quite understand, I've done this sort of work...I'm convinced that
you're wrong.
PPCB
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
kevin...@yahoo.com
Sorry to re-hijack (or is that commandeer missle?) yer thread. However,
because this discussion actually began in the Irish Electricity thread,
I figure its fair play. I'm attending meetings at our State Department
of Ecology discussing implementation of a more restrictive state
alternative on mercury emissions to the cap and trade system included
in the (amended) federal Clean Air Act. Per earlier posts in the former
thread, Ireland derives 25% of its power from coal-fired plants. I have
two questions:
1) What type of mercury do/did these plants emit?
2) What measures were taken/are proposed to deal with those emissions?
(The one here emits elemental mercury)
Thanks,
Kevin McCabe
Si
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy wrote:
>
>
> I quite understand, I've done this sort of work...I'm convinced that
> you're wrong.
>
>
Parking a 1985 Ford Sierra estate out side the Europa Hotel with a few
bags of Net Nitrate and Net Urea in the back dosen't count.
Si
"Bog snorkler extraordinaire"
Si
Duck wrote:
> "Si" <simonicu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1154456689.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Duck wrote:
>
> *The pancake theory isn´t a good one as it leaves out the strongest steel
> part of the structure the center core and something which is left out of the
> official diagrams.
>
Your assumption here is that core is somehow independent of the rest of
the structure. I'd like to see your numbers on that. I have no issues
whatsoever with the accepted failure scenario. Particularly given the
aspect ratio of the core without the floor trusses and the curtain
walls to stabilize it. Buckling failure due to compression loads is
highly non linear. If you get out of alignment then the pillar fails
pretty much immedately. That's a feature of compression loading as
opposed to tension loading. Put it another way for the core to have any
chance to survive the collapse independent of the floor trusses and
curtain walls, three things have to happen.
1. The core has to remain completely intact, aligned and perfectly
symmetrical after the impact. That is none of the vertical members have
been even misaligned in the impact and susequent fires and they are not
in motion.
2. The floor truss collapse has to be a perfect pancake collapse i.e.
The whole floor has to drop perfectly horizontal and impact the floor
below everywhere at exactly the same time.
3. The material properties across all the vertical elements have to be
identical. No variation.
Any deviation from those three conditions and vertical supports have
significant lateral loads and are no better than butter. Possible in
theory but impossible in practice.
> And again it doesn´t apply in any way shape or form to WT7 but we´ve already
> covered that in detail before and then too I got more irrelevances thrown at
> me than explanations so I´m not interested in having another twin tower
> debate .
>
Eh who mentioned WT-7? Where did that come from? You started this thing
musing about the two towers. Again. Right I'm stopping this. I'm
getting a rash.
Si
"Bog snorkler extraordinaire"
kateh
Sorry to re-hijack (or is that commandeer missle?) yer thread. However,
because this discussion actually began in the Irish Electricity thread,
I figure its fair play. I'm attending meetings at our State Department
of Ecology
You're really taking this environmentally-friendly-stuff .....seriously,
aren't ya? :)
You'd be proud of me. I'm doing my part for the environment. I hit a deer
last week (my third no-fault-wreck since Christmas morning).....so I'm
cycling everywhere, there's one less critter defoliating the local
vegetation.....*and* my truck's outa commission for the next several weeks.
Win/Win/Win for everyone except the insurance company and the deer.......I
guess! :)
Kate(NOT that I hit it on purpose, or anything)H
kevin...@yahoo.com
So, venison steaks for dinner, I presume? Yeah, I'm taking it fairly
seriously. Hell, before I got on this Sierra Club Energy Committee
thingy, I didn't even know we had a coal-fired electrical plant in
Washington, much less another coal plant (IGCC, but no sequestration)
trying real hard to open its doors over on yer side of the Cascades. I
thought all that nasty stuff was back East (Con Ed, like). Now, I'm
learning all about the dirty little dudes. Its actually pretty
exciting. I took a fair amount of environmental law in law school. But,
then I got entranced by the adrenaline thing that goes with litigation
and stayed on at ACA. Its nice to have more than one focus - adds
balance and perspective. Anyways, I've not bought a cycle yet, but I'm
still fairly faithfully walking and taking the bus. Gotta admit,
though, I am rolling up the miles in the cars on nights and weekends
heading out for a swim at Lake Washington. It was real hot there for a
bit.
Kevin(whose gonna tell his daughter you offed Bambi)McCabe
Post.Post.Colonial.Boy
wrote:
>Post.Post.Colonial.Boy wrote:
>>
>> I quite understand, I've done this sort of work...I'm convinced that
>> you're wrong.
>
>Parking a 1985 Ford Sierra estate out side the Europa Hotel with a few
>bags of Net Nitrate and Net Urea in the back dosen't count.
<cough>
Indeed it wouldn't...
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
news:e36rc2poicvbs7lhu...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:18:36 +0100, "Duck" <duck...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"michael adams" <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
>>>> Mark Lorieux of Controlled Demolition, Inc
>>>> Peter Tully, President of Tully Construction
>>>> and the American Free Press newspaper
>>>>
>>>> http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/911PowerPointSJ4.php
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Duck
>>>
>>> That link simply repeats the claim. It nowhere explains how these
>>> people were able to distinguish what they took to be pools of molten
>>> steel, from what might have been pools of any other molten material.
>>>
>>> How exactly is it possible to distinguish molten steel in such
>>> circumsances ?
>>>
>>*By the colour of the flame for one, Copper and Bronze normally burn green
>>or blue
>
> Hence the possibility of colours in fireworks.
>
>>and molten aluminium appears as a silvery grey similar to lead in
>>daylight and burns with a bright white flame.
>
> Magnesium burns, unbearably brightly, to ash without becoming molten.
>
>>Besides, engineers from FEMA, Controlled Demolition and the fire
>>department
>>among others would have enough experience to tell.
>>
>>> What's so special about molten steel?
>>>
>>*The foundations were a sealed unit encased in thick slurry walls to keep
>>the water from the river out,when 110 stories falling from such a height
>>were compressed into it, it´s surprising there was a fire at all.
>>
>>Add to that the collapse itself which would´ve had the effect of both
>>beating it out and showering it with enormous amounts of concrete dust.
>>Never mind the fact that it didn´t have the fuel capable of melting it. It
>>didn´t have the air either.
>>
>>Thermite on the other hand doesn´t require air.
>>
>>Both sides have good arguments and the official theory that sulphur
>>oxidization contributed to the burn makes sense but while it stands up as
>>a
>>theory why has never happened before in other steel frame buildings which
>>burned for far longer, more extreme and over a greater area?
>>
>>I can accept that the rubble could´ve had any amount of chemicals which
>>could´ve kicked off some unprecedented reaction but half way up the tower,
>>from an office pouring out as if attacked with a blowtorch??
>
> Thats the weird bit...see it here:
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603
>
>>If only we had the evidence...
>
> Well...I've seen enough, imho, to warrant a re-examination of the
> situation...
I think you are raising hares in all of this! There may well have been
thermite involved, no doubt. It could perfectly easily have been in the
luggage of the perpetrators on the aeroplanes. But please, why would anyone,
apart from terrorists, and for whatever reason, have the slightest cause to
destroy two towers that were significant in the American culture as icons of
American power and success generally? Especially when one considers the loss
of life for some 3000+ persons, not to mention the fact that but for a sheer
fluke these buildings would have contained far more personnel. It is very
easy, with hindsight, to re-write the occasion to suit ones own suspicions,
however genuinely held. However, FWIW, I find that this is all very paranoid
and unlikely. The following link goes a long way to explain, factually, and
in engineering terms, why the towers collapsed the way that they did:
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.
Westprog
<kevin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154540820....@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> Sorry to re-hijack (or is that commandeer missle?) yer thread. However,
> because this discussion actually began in the Irish Electricity thread,
> I figure its fair play. I'm attending meetings at our State Department
> of Ecology discussing implementation of a more restrictive state
> alternative on mercury emissions to the cap and trade system included
> in the (amended) federal Clean Air Act. Per earlier posts in the former
> thread, Ireland derives 25% of its power from coal-fired plants. I have
> two questions:
> 1) What type of mercury do/did these plants emit?
> 2) What measures were taken/are proposed to deal with those emissions?
> (The one here emits elemental mercury)
>
I'm not sure who would have that information. The Irish government? Hardly.
The Greens? I don't think so. The Irish environmentalists are so Sellafield
obsessed that they are unlikely to notice their home grown pollution.
You could try in...@greenparty.ie . Or http://oasis.gov.ie/environment/ .
--
J/
SOTW: "Peaches" - The Stranglers
kateh
> So, venison steaks for dinner, I presume?
I'm thinkin' there should be cheaper ways to tenderize a steak.
> Yeah, I'm taking it fairly
> seriously. Hell, before I got on this Sierra Club Energy Committee
> thingy, I didn't even know we had a coal-fired electrical plant in
> Washington, much less another coal plant (IGCC, but no sequestration)
> trying real hard to open its doors over on yer side of the Cascades. I
> thought all that nasty stuff was back East (Con Ed, like). Now, I'm
> learning all about the dirty little dudes. Its actually pretty
> exciting. I took a fair amount of environmental law in law school. But,
> then I got entranced by the adrenaline thing that goes with litigation
> and stayed on at ACA. Its nice to have more than one focus - adds
> balance and perspective.
What w/Hanford and the Umatilla Depot upwind from us.....I hardly ever worry
about coal-fired plants.
> Anyways, I've not bought a cycle yet, but I'm
> still fairly faithfully walking and taking the bus. Gotta admit,
> though, I am rolling up the miles in the cars on nights and weekends
> heading out for a swim at Lake Washington. It was real hot there for a
> bit.
It hit 111 in the shade here, one day......glad it's cooled off.
> Kevin(whose gonna tell his daughter you offed Bambi)McCabe
Aww.....that's not fair.
It was a huge, old Kamakazee-Deer-zilla......not a cute little Bambi.
Kate(trust me....I saw it up close)H :)
kevin...@yahoo.com
Féachadóir wrote:
> Scríobh "Westprog" <west...@hotmail.ie>:
>
> --
> 'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
> © Féachadóir
Thanks for the link (couldn't get the first one, but the second one -
epa - had the requested information. That said, Westie's right. you
should really be ashamed of yourselves. All your committed to do with
regard to Mercury is to study the problem (and, that won't pass into
law until next year). Europe has led on renewables and CO2. But,
believe it or not, Shrub's watered down CAMR has you beat. Bummer..
McCabe
kevin...@yahoo.com
I met my first, real, live, European Green a couple of weeks ago.
Brilliant, attractive young woman doing doctoral work at the UW in
chemical engineering via Berkley. She gave us a preliminary lecture on
an algae system she's working on that eats CO2, emit oxygen, and
produce oil. Talk about selfless, she wants the whole thing to be open
source. Talk about GREEN, her actual goal is production of marketable
oil as a necessary evil. Her real goal in producing oil is to provide a
more stable form of carbon for geo-sequestration (as in, liquid oil is
a better way of sequestering CO2 than IGCC gas because the gas might
leak). Her final presentation is later this month and should be up on
the web.
McCabe
kevin...@yahoo.com
kateh wrote:
> <kevin...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > So, venison steaks for dinner, I presume?
>
> I'm thinkin' there should be cheaper ways to tenderize a steak.
Not after you factor in the costs of a real adrenaline rush. most folks
pay a mint for a trip to Vail and more for the venison to get what you
got for the cost of yer deductible.
>
> > Yeah, I'm taking it fairly
> > seriously. Hell, before I got on this Sierra Club Energy Committee
> > thingy, I didn't even know we had a coal-fired electrical plant in
> > Washington, much less another coal plant (IGCC, but no sequestration)
> > trying real hard to open its doors over on yer side of the Cascades. I
> > thought all that nasty stuff was back East (Con Ed, like). Now, I'm
> > learning all about the dirty little dudes. Its actually pretty
> > exciting. I took a fair amount of environmental law in law school. But,
> > then I got entranced by the adrenaline thing that goes with litigation
> > and stayed on at ACA. Its nice to have more than one focus - adds
> > balance and perspective.
>
> What w/Hanford and the Umatilla Depot upwind from us.....I hardly ever worry
> about coal-fired plants.
Hanford I understand. what's the Umatilla Depot?
>
> > Anyways, I've not bought a cycle yet, but I'm
> > still fairly faithfully walking and taking the bus. Gotta admit,
> > though, I am rolling up the miles in the cars on nights and weekends
> > heading out for a swim at Lake Washington. It was real hot there for a
> > bit.
>
> It hit 111 in the shade here, one day......glad it's cooled off.
We only got over a hundred one day. Mostly, it was in the nineties. I
actually kinda liked it. It was so hot that the only real alternative
was the lake. Been years since I've done that much swimming and
tanning. It felt good.
>
> > Kevin(whose gonna tell his daughter you offed Bambi)McCabe
>
> Aww.....that's not fair.
> It was a huge, old Kamakazee-Deer-zilla......not a cute little Bambi.
> Kate(trust me....I saw it up close)H :)
Oh, ok, I take it back. I'll tell her nibs about my friend the monster
slayer.
McCabe
Duck
Duck wrote:
> "Si" <simonicu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1154523395.9...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> *It´s true you can heat anything to any temperature if you supply enough
> energy but generally jet fuel nor your average contents of an office won´t
> itself heat it but it can cause a reaction.
>
>Google flashover. The temperature is around 1000C . Higher in some
interfacil areas. Secondly I have unfortunately seen much molten metal
in my time firing engines.
*A welders torch will produce plenty of molten metal also but if a guy was
seen in that office with a torch I wouldn´t be asking the question, a normal
office fire won´t.
>I have also seen metal at temperatures in
excess of the melting points of traditional engineering materials.
*Of course no argument, it will then go on to it´s boiling point but what´s
your point?
>Temperature of solids or liquid metals correlates quite well to the
color. As a rough estimate.
*It´s not so much the melting point which is important here but the thermite
reaction which takes it higher. Magnesium melts at only 650C which is lower
than most other metals yet burns bright white.
> *And some fore knowledge, I´ve seen enough bonfires to see the effects of
> heat on bedsprings, steel rims and even the steel wire within tyres to
> name
> just a few and despite the sometimes near white heat I´ve never seen steel
> or iron melt but alloy tyres run like water and the next day it looks like
> the Terminator´s had a go.
>
> A good example below and notice the steel car body is fine..
>
> http://i2.tinypic.com/21osnwl.gif
>
So there is some educational merit to the 11th?
*I learnt to stay in.
>
>
>
>
>
> >I'm sorry you're loosing me there. How does heating gypsum give off
> sulpher? Not saying it dosen't just saying it's a new one on me. I
> thought if you heat gypsum you get plaster of paris. Gypsum is a
> fireproofing agent, if it gave off combustable sulpher I would have
> though it would loose its fireproofing status. Secondly how does
> sulphur melt steel?
>
> *You´re right the plasterboard is fire retardent and is something
> conspiracists have mentioned that the amount of it would´ve put out the
> fires which also true but although it doesn´t fuel a fire it causes heated
> metals to lower their oxidization point which heats metal itself.
> Something
> that was seen in WWII with iron tanks where the iron itself had began to
> burn. The plasterboard itself is made of a Sulphate though I can´t
> remember
> which offhand, the gas itself doesn´t ignite just causes a reaction.
>
>Not quite what I said. Fireproof. Not Fire retardant. Gypsum has no
fire retarding properties.
*There´s me being nice by not mentioning my correction and you go pedantic
on me. Fireproof is resistant against fire on the other hand fire retardant
resists a fire but unlike fireproof is not impervious to it. Plasterboard is
broken down by fire and also loses all of it´s strength but does stop it
spreading.
>It resists fire and limits the heat transfer
to non engaged material such as underlying studwork but it does not
supress the fire.
*Maybe you mean a fire suppressant?
>Gypsum is CaSO4·2H2O. Heating it knocks off the some of the water to
give you plaster of Paris.
*You do know what plasterboard is?
>TTBOMK the S stays with the Ca so there is
no Sulfer given off. Not at typical temperatures at any rate.
*It´s calcium sulphate which contains tiny crystals of sulphur when they are
heated they give of sulphur dioxide, a gas.
As I said all organic materials contain a certain amount of sulphur which is
why fossil burning power stations have to extract the sulphur from the air
as that´s what causes acid rain and guess what the by product is from that
extraction? Gypsum, the same principle in reverse.
We lived beside an industrial estate and the factory behind us had to
extract the sulphur and lumps of the suff were stacked up behind it. They
didn´t start doing that until the mid eighties until then the estate stunk
of it.
> Next time you see a clip of an iron forge pouring out the molten metal
> watch
> as the crust forms it appears like cool spots and it probably is having
> used
> up it´s energy but it´s actually instant rust/oxidization, same thing.
> Rust
> always raises the temperature of the metal though it´s not enough of a
> reaction to heat a cold bar at room temperature but the hotter the bar the
> faster the reaction, Sulphur lowers that lower still.
>
Still won't lower the melting point of steel to 1000C.
*A thermite reaction doesn´t lower it either it only has to ignite the
aluminium which would´ve come from the plane it only takes a small amount to
spread once it starts.
> And finally that molten metal (assuming it is a
> metal) in the video is still too cool to be steel (1000C).
>
> *If you mean the towers how do you know the temperature?
>
>I thought I covered this earlier. Temperature correlates to color. The
material dosen't matter too much on that score. Steel, gold, rhenium,
niobium will all look the same at 1000C. Redish/Yellowish white.
*Make your mind up, I was the one saying it had the yellow white flame and
it had the same colour as thermite which burns up to 2500 so that theory´s
out the window for a start, covering something earlier doesn´t mean you´re
automatically correct.
>How about copper then?
*Burns green or blue.
Duck
Duck
*It was a flexible structure and designed that way, on windy days on the
higher floors according to one employee the venetian blinds would clack
against the windows because it swayed that much. I´ve been working in high
rise flats and I could feel the movement as I walked across the floor.
When the planes hit the buildings they swayed 20ft and didn´t stop swaying
for 15 minutes.
The central core itself is 137ft wide, the buildings themselves are only
200ft and as you seen before the second plane at least made it right through
till it emerged seemingly unscathed some 40 odd foot until it exploded into
smithereens. It couldn´t have hit the core without some obvious damage and
as a wing undoubtebly did hit the center it would´ve most likely gave and
snapped off, especially as it went in left wing down spanning two floors.
The official theory says, far from being a perfect collapse, the floor truss
gave way like a zipper running round the edge of the floor. So since they
argue that the floor was such a strengthing feature that it would´ve fallen
backwards towards the damaged sectionand and not the opposite way it did.
The only thing I can think of is that the center was severly damaged and the
floor was actually holding it like tent rope and when it tipped the floor
actually lifted but again that still doesn´t explain why it defied physics
and stopped tipping, the only answer can be that it was pulled from beneath
which raises more questions than it answers.
> And again it doesn´t apply in any way shape or form to WT7 but we´ve
> already
> covered that in detail before and then too I got more irrelevances thrown
> at
> me than explanations so I´m not interested in having another twin tower
> debate .
>
>Eh who mentioned WT-7? Where did that come from?
*"Of course it must have been thermite then! Or maybe, just
maybe some planes flew into the building, set up massive full floor
fires that overstressed the curtain wall clips of the floor trusses
which failed. Dropping millions of tons 13 feet to the next floor which
wasn't stressed for such a dynamic load and failed too. All the way
down in fact. Hey it's just a theory"-Si
>You started this thing
musing about the two towers. Again. Right I'm stopping this. I'm
getting a rash.
*I don´t blame you.
Duck
kateh
> kateh wrote:
>> What w/Hanford and the Umatilla Depot upwind from us.....I hardly ever
>> worry
>> about coal-fired plants.
>
> Hanford I understand. what's the Umatilla Depot?
It's where the gov stores/destroys nasty, old chemicals.
>> > Anyways, I've not bought a cycle yet, but I'm
>> > still fairly faithfully walking and taking the bus. Gotta admit,
>> > though, I am rolling up the miles in the cars on nights and weekends
>> > heading out for a swim at Lake Washington. It was real hot there for a
>> > bit.
>>
>> It hit 111 in the shade here, one day......glad it's cooled off.
>
> We only got over a hundred one day. Mostly, it was in the nineties. I
> actually kinda liked it. It was so hot that the only real alternative
> was the lake. Been years since I've done that much swimming and
> tanning. It felt good.
That sounds like fun. It's good to get back to what's *really* important,
eh? :)
I wonder if the combo of heat-wave, power outages, sky-rocketing fuel prices
and the documentaries (Al Gore's slide show and "Who Stole The Electric
Car?") are starting to wake folks up to what's happening w/the climate.
>> > Kevin(whose gonna tell his daughter you offed Bambi)McCabe
>>
>> Aww.....that's not fair.
>> It was a huge, old Kamakazee-Deer-zilla......not a cute little Bambi.
>> Kate(trust me....I saw it up close)H :)
>
> Oh, ok, I take it back. I'll tell her nibs about my friend the monster
> slayer.
Accidental-monster-slayer, thanks.
KateH :)
kevin...@yahoo.com
kateh wrote:
> <kevin...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > kateh wrote:
> >> What w/Hanford and the Umatilla Depot upwind from us.....I hardly ever
> >> worry
> >> about coal-fired plants.
> >
> > Hanford I understand. what's the Umatilla Depot?
>
> It's where the gov stores/destroys nasty, old chemicals.
Well, destruction is a good thing. They're working on that for nuclear
waste. They use an accelerator reactor dealer-m'bob. I think its all
drawing board/test facillity stuff right now. They really have little
pressure to act. For one thing, most Americans think we dont have much
nuclear power anymore. For another, the medium term storage is good for
three hundred years and is pretty safe (compared to putting the stuff
in old oil drums and burying them to rust, like at Hanford). Bottom
line: we're running 20% of our total off old nukes that could be
replaced with safer tech and just sort of shuffling the waste off for a
generation or so. We'll be lucky to see them actually clean up Hanford
before it hits the Columbia, let alone see any kind of logical national
change.
>
> >> > Anyways, I've not bought a cycle yet, but I'm
> >> > still fairly faithfully walking and taking the bus. Gotta admit,
> >> > though, I am rolling up the miles in the cars on nights and weekends
> >> > heading out for a swim at Lake Washington. It was real hot there for a
> >> > bit.
> >>
> >> It hit 111 in the shade here, one day......glad it's cooled off.
> >
> > We only got over a hundred one day. Mostly, it was in the nineties. I
> > actually kinda liked it. It was so hot that the only real alternative
> > was the lake. Been years since I've done that much swimming and
> > tanning. It felt good.
>
> That sounds like fun. It's good to get back to what's *really* important,
> eh? :)
There's this Irish/English techno duo called VNV Nation. Wrote a song
called Empty Sky. Its about living in the moment. I imagine its as
close as I'll get to Zen. That and a public beach. Its all good.
>
> I wonder if the combo of heat-wave, power outages, sky-rocketing fuel prices
> and the documentaries (Al Gore's slide show and "Who Stole The Electric
> Car?") are starting to wake folks up to what's happening w/the climate.
I think so. The renewable energy initiative made this November's ballot
with room to spare. My sense is that it all hinges on the next couple
of elections. Right now, the Republicans have the House, Senate, Oval
Office, and Supreme Court. Real change will require a different balance
of power. While the several states might be able to pull it off without
the feds, its a lot slower process because you've got fifty different
solutions. Problem is, we don't have time for slow. The next couple of
decades will determine whether a large brain and opposable thumb are a
successful evolutionary combination.
>
> >> > Kevin(whose gonna tell his daughter you offed Bambi)McCabe
> >>
> >> Aww.....that's not fair.
> >> It was a huge, old Kamakazee-Deer-zilla......not a cute little Bambi.
> >> Kate(trust me....I saw it up close)H :)
> >
> > Oh, ok, I take it back. I'll tell her nibs about my friend the monster
> > slayer.
>
> Accidental-monster-slayer, thanks.
> KateH :)
OK, OK, accidental monster slayer. Now, about those venison steaks....
McCabe
kateh
> kateh wrote:
> We'll be lucky to see them actually clean up Hanford
> before it hits the Columbia, let alone see any kind of logical national
> change.
True. I'm not holding my breath, though like I said.....we're down-wind.
There are a lot of cancers here. We just lost a neighbor to cancer
(actually the second wife of the old high school pricipal and his first wife
died ...of cancer). I'm not sure you can blame Hanford, though.....being
farm country, the pesticide/herbicide use here is pretty amazingly cavalier.
If you come over to tour the windmills......you give me a holler, eh?
>> >> > Anyways, I've not bought a cycle yet, but I'm
>> >> > still fairly faithfully walking and taking the bus. Gotta admit,
>> >> > though, I am rolling up the miles in the cars on nights and weekends
>> >> > heading out for a swim at Lake Washington. It was real hot there for
>> >> > a
>> >> > bit.
>> >>
>> >> It hit 111 in the shade here, one day......glad it's cooled off.
>> >
>> > We only got over a hundred one day. Mostly, it was in the nineties. I
>> > actually kinda liked it. It was so hot that the only real alternative
>> > was the lake. Been years since I've done that much swimming and
>> > tanning. It felt good.
>>
>> That sounds like fun. It's good to get back to what's *really*
>> important,
>> eh? :)
>
> There's this Irish/English techno duo called VNV Nation. Wrote a song
> called Empty Sky. Its about living in the moment. I imagine its as
> close as I'll get to Zen. That and a public beach. Its all good.
Techno......yep! :)
Sounds very soothing....kinda the opposite of bluegrass. :)
>> I wonder if the combo of heat-wave, power outages, sky-rocketing fuel
>> prices
>> and the documentaries (Al Gore's slide show and "Who Stole The Electric
>> Car?") are starting to wake folks up to what's happening w/the climate.
>
> I think so. The renewable energy initiative made this November's ballot
> with room to spare. My sense is that it all hinges on the next couple
> of elections. Right now, the Republicans have the House, Senate, Oval
> Office, and Supreme Court. Real change will require a different balance
> of power. While the several states might be able to pull it off without
> the feds, its a lot slower process because you've got fifty different
> solutions. Problem is, we don't have time for slow. The next couple of
> decades will determine whether a large brain and opposable thumb are a
> successful evolutionary combination.
Yep, time to buy vinyard property in British Columbia. No kidding. The
Canadian climate conference we attended last year is predicting you'll be
able to grow almonds and citrus in Brish Columbia .......by 2020.
> OK, OK, accidental monster slayer. Now, about those venison steaks....
Bring the wife and daughter over......we'll put a banjo in the kid's hand
and cook venison on the grill. Just wait till October, when we have a bambi
in the freezer. You and the Fish Dr can talk global crisis. :)
KateH
Doc Aay
"kateh" <kat...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:tL2Bg.85$zK3...@fe03.lga...
> Bring the wife and daughter over......we'll put a banjo in the kid's hand
> and cook venison on the grill. Just wait till October, when we have a
> bambi in the freezer. You and the Fish Dr can talk global crisis. :)
> KateH
>
Aprops of not much and way off topic but....the tragedies in my family go on
and on. A nephew was killed in a car crash last week in Yakima Washington.
He was the only child and just 22. While going through the obituaries in
the Yakima paper I noticed a 16 year old nicknamed 'Barbedwire' was killed
in a hunting accident. Is the Wild West still alive out that way?
Doc
kevin...@yahoo.com
kateh wrote:
> <kevin...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > kateh wrote:
> > We'll be lucky to see them actually clean up Hanford
> > before it hits the Columbia, let alone see any kind of logical national
> > change.
>
> True. I'm not holding my breath, though like I said.....we're down-wind.
> There are a lot of cancers here. We just lost a neighbor to cancer
> (actually the second wife of the old high school pricipal and his first wife
> died ...of cancer). I'm not sure you can blame Hanford, though.....being
> farm country, the pesticide/herbicide use here is pretty amazingly cavalier.
Sorry about your neighbors. Unless the farmers have changed a great
deal in the thirty years, they still do try and watch out for folk.
When I was seventeen, I went over to Chelan for a few days with a
buddy. We didn't have a lot of dough and most of it was devoted to the,
er, beverage/sundries budget. We slept by an orchard outside of town in
the car. About 3 AM this dog started barking ceaselessly. Next thing I
knew, there was a tap on the driver's side window and a shotgun in my
buddy's face. After politely, but firmly, determining that we were not
criminals on the loose, the farmer cautioned us against eating the
fruit because it had just been sprayed. Still, probably doesn't help a
lot if you live there and drink the water.
>
> If you come over to tour the windmills......you give me a holler, eh?
Will do. Thanks.
>
> >> >> > Anyways, I've not bought a cycle yet, but I'm
> >> >> > still fairly faithfully walking and taking the bus. Gotta admit,
> >> >> > though, I am rolling up the miles in the cars on nights and weekends
> >> >> > heading out for a swim at Lake Washington. It was real hot there for
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > bit.
> >> >>
> >> >> It hit 111 in the shade here, one day......glad it's cooled off.
> >> >
> >> > We only got over a hundred one day. Mostly, it was in the nineties. I
> >> > actually kinda liked it. It was so hot that the only real alternative
> >> > was the lake. Been years since I've done that much swimming and
> >> > tanning. It felt good.
> >>
> >> That sounds like fun. It's good to get back to what's *really*
> >> important,
> >> eh? :)
> >
> > There's this Irish/English techno duo called VNV Nation. Wrote a song
> > called Empty Sky. Its about living in the moment. I imagine its as
> > close as I'll get to Zen. That and a public beach. Its all good.
>
> Techno......yep! :)
> Sounds very soothing....kinda the opposite of bluegrass. :)
You know, its actually a very calm/soothing song. It has almost no
drums. Techno is actually the wrong word for these guys. I think the
genre is actually called something like futurewave. They're music is
understated, lyrical, and thematically humane. Anyways, I messed up
the song name (again) its called "Endless Sky."
>
> >> I wonder if the combo of heat-wave, power outages, sky-rocketing fuel
> >> prices
> >> and the documentaries (Al Gore's slide show and "Who Stole The Electric
> >> Car?") are starting to wake folks up to what's happening w/the climate.
> >
> > I think so. The renewable energy initiative made this November's ballot
> > with room to spare. My sense is that it all hinges on the next couple
> > of elections. Right now, the Republicans have the House, Senate, Oval
> > Office, and Supreme Court. Real change will require a different balance
> > of power. While the several states might be able to pull it off without
> > the feds, its a lot slower process because you've got fifty different
> > solutions. Problem is, we don't have time for slow. The next couple of
> > decades will determine whether a large brain and opposable thumb are a
> > successful evolutionary combination.
>
> Yep, time to buy vinyard property in British Columbia. No kidding. The
> Canadian climate conference we attended last year is predicting you'll be
> able to grow almonds and citrus in Brish Columbia .......by 2020.
They're probably right. My advice - buy inland. You might wind up with
a view of the sea.
>
> > OK, OK, accidental monster slayer. Now, about those venison steaks....
>
> Bring the wife and daughter over......we'll put a banjo in the kid's hand
> and cook venison on the grill. Just wait till October, when we have a bambi
> in the freezer. You and the Fish Dr can talk global crisis. :)
> KateH
Sounds cool. They both like venison.
McCabe
kevin...@yahoo.com
Sorry about your nephew Doc. Yakima is a pretty damn tough town. Lots
of drugs and bikers. Racial tensions up the ying-yang. Its not where I
would tell folks to buy retirement property. But, Seattle's not been
much better these last few weeks. I know the Jewish charit center
attack made national headlines,but it came the day AFTER a headline
that said nine slayings in as many days. Its been weird, too weird.
McCabe
kateh
> Aprops of not much and way off topic but....the tragedies in my family go
> on and on. A nephew was killed in a car crash last week in Yakima
> Washington. He was the only child and just 22. While going through the
> obituaries in the Yakima paper I noticed a 16 year old nicknamed
> 'Barbedwire' was killed in a hunting accident. Is the Wild West still
> alive out that way?
Doc, I am so sorry. You folks can't get a break, can you? :(
That just breaks my heart. 22 is waaay too young. I'm sorry.
The answer to your Wild West question is....."yep".
Kevin's right, Yakima is a rough town. I race (sighthounds) there, a couple
of times a year but, I wouldn't want to live there. There are some very
cool pictographs on the canyon walls, where the Yakima and the Naches rivers
come together. http://www.spokaneoutdoors.com/pr.htm Hundreds of faces
painted on this basalt cliff wall overlooking the rivers.....it's an awe
inspiring place. The local Indians don't know who painted the wall. It was
done well before their time.
It looks like a Wild West movie set between here and Yakima... sage brush,
rattlesnakes and canyons.
http://www.alanbauer.com/images/Desert/Palouse%20River%20Canyon%20below%20Palouse%20Falls-Horz.jpg
We take the kids swimming, just below here.
KateH
kevin...@yahoo.com
Its really pretty country. I went rafting on the Titian river one year.
There's a couple three weeks a year when they release water from a dam
upstream and its a ton of fun. It is real pretty, but the town is just
plain rough. Again, deepest regrets for the loss of your nephew, Doc.
McCabe
eugene
<kevin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1155019537.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Too bad. Makes you sit up and wonder when so many people die so young. Well,
makes me wonder anyway.