SEISMIC EVIDENCE PROVES WTC WAS NUKED + VIDEO OF TOWERS JUMPING BEFORE COLLAPSE!!!
![Anti-Debunkers United for Scientific Truth [ADUST]'s profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
Anti-Debunkers United for Scientific Truth [ADUST]
>
>
>"Satyr" <saty...@nopressedpighotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9ime9.1234$i84.447@fe02...
>> On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 13:15:11 -0400, Douglas Berry wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 20:31:46 -0400, a wanderer, known to us only as
>> > Satyr <saty...@nopressedpighotmail.com> warmed at our fire and told
>> > this tale:
>> >
>> >
>> > The towers were designed to take the impact of a 707 doing 180mph.
>> > That's about 493 mega-Joules. The actual impacts were between 9 and 14
>> > times over this limit.
>>
>> That is what I understand. However, no one has claimed the towers failed
>> as a result of the impact. What we're in search of is the safety factor
>> for the gravity support system of the towers.
>>
>
>Under the official engineering plan, a 707 could hit either one of the
>towers at 290 kph and not cause sufficient damage to destroy it. In reality
>the planes which crashed into the towers were travelling at 760 kph and 950
>kph.
No they weren't, they had to seriously slow down to
get the right trajectory.
>Steel loses half its strength at a temperature of 550 degrees c, and melts
>at 1370 degrees c. The exploding fuel from the planes hitting the towers
>had a temperature of 980 degrees c. More than half of the strength of the
>steel supports would, therefore, have been lost, making the support of
>many, many tones of concrete, glass and everything else that goes into the
>construction of a highrise block, impossible.
>
>A nuclear device can be ruled out as there is no fallout, and a nuclear
>device would have caused a greater seismic record than the 0.9 scale
>actually recorded on impact of the plane in the north tower and 2.3
>recorded on collapse of the north tower.
It could've been a mini-nuke, which has no radioactive fallout.
>
>--
>The Revanchist
>'Revenge is mine' saith the Lord, 'so, let's talk franchising.'
>TLC (tinlc)(tm) #2002, F6C, GSF1200S, BgR, Pr.Int.
>revanchist [at] go [.] com
>revanchist [at] she [.] com
>
>
Arties only friend
Another post from Artie to Artie.
Garry Bryan
: In article <ald1f5$q3m$3...@newsread1.arcor-online.net>, The Revanchist says...
:>
:>
:>"Satyr" <saty...@nopressedpighotmail.com> wrote in message
:>news:9ime9.1234$i84.447@fe02...
:>> On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 13:15:11 -0400, Douglas Berry wrote:
:>>
:>> > On Thu, 05 Sep 2002 20:31:46 -0400, a wanderer, known to us only as
:>> > Satyr <saty...@nopressedpighotmail.com> warmed at our fire and told
:>> > this tale:
:>> >
:>> >
:>> > The towers were designed to take the impact of a 707 doing 180mph.
:>> > That's about 493 mega-Joules. The actual impacts were between 9 and 14
:>> > times over this limit.
:>>
:>> That is what I understand. However, no one has claimed the towers failed
:>> as a result of the impact. What we're in search of is the safety factor
:>> for the gravity support system of the towers.
:>>
:>
:>Under the official engineering plan, a 707 could hit either one of the
:>towers at 290 kph and not cause sufficient damage to destroy it. In reality
:>the planes which crashed into the towers were travelling at 760 kph and 950
:>kph.
: No they weren't, they had to seriously slow down to
: get the right trajectory.
Possibly correct. ..
:>Steel loses half its strength at a temperature of 550 degrees c, and melts
:>at 1370 degrees c. The exploding fuel from the planes hitting the towers
:>had a temperature of 980 degrees c. More than half of the strength of the
:>steel supports would, therefore, have been lost, making the support of
:>many, many tones of concrete, glass and everything else that goes into the
:>construction of a highrise block, impossible.
:>
:>A nuclear device can be ruled out as there is no fallout, and a nuclear
:>device would have caused a greater seismic record than the 0.9 scale
:>actually recorded on impact of the plane in the north tower and 2.3
:>recorded on collapse of the north tower.
: It could've been a mini-nuke, which has no radioactive fallout.
Why invoked a nuke when thermite could have done the job as well. . .
Garry
:>
:>--
:>
:>
Ugly Bob
"Garry Bryan" <ga...@soco.agilent.com> wrote in message
news:10316003...@cswreg.cos.agilent.com...
Art mighta got sumpthin' right, fer wunce :-)
> :>Steel loses half its strength at a temperature of 550 degrees c, and
melts
> :>at 1370 degrees c. The exploding fuel from the planes hitting the towers
> :>had a temperature of 980 degrees c. More than half of the strength of
the
> :>steel supports would, therefore, have been lost, making the support of
> :>many, many tones of concrete, glass and everything else that goes into
the
> :>construction of a highrise block, impossible.
> :>
> :>A nuclear device can be ruled out as there is no fallout, and a nuclear
> :>device would have caused a greater seismic record than the 0.9 scale
> :>actually recorded on impact of the plane in the north tower and 2.3
> :>recorded on collapse of the north tower.
>
> : It could've been a mini-nuke, which has no radioactive fallout.
>
> Why invoked a nuke when thermite could have done the job as well. . .
Call me crazy, but I think that the over fourty thousand pounds
of fuel onboard may have had something to do with it. What is
this nuke shit? The towers weren't vaporized. Neither is any of
the debris radioactive. No one was falling down from radiation
sickness. Tens of thousands of pounds of kerosene will work
just fine, thank you very much.
-Ugly Bob
The Wholeflaffer Happening!! <> <> <> <>
Widdershins
Why invoke any extra chemicals when the vaporized fuel from the aircraft
would have been hot enough to start the fire with a horrific explosion,
and the residual aircraft fuel, along with other fuel sources in the
buildings were sufficient to heat the steel to the point that it failed
structurally?
Review the videos of the collapsing towers. They started failing from
the top, collapsing inside the exterior walls, where the loading was the
greatest. According to the engineers who built the fucking things there
were no surprises in the way the structures failed.
Widdershins
Sorry to disappoint the FTB conspiracy theorists.
No I'm not.
Widdershins
> In article <ald1f5$q3m$3...@newsread1.arcor-online.net>, The Revanchist says...
snip
>> >A nuclear device can be ruled out as there is no fallout, and a
nuclear
> >device would have caused a greater seismic record than the 0.9 scale
> >actually recorded on impact of the plane in the north tower and 2.3
> >recorded on collapse of the north tower.
>
> It could've been a mini-nuke, which has no radioactive fallout.
>
You are one ignorant sumbitch!
In a nuke blast, there are three types of radiation. Alpha and Beta
particles (the weakest), and Gamma rays. Gamma rays are the strongest,
and like X-rays
can go the through solids. They are stronger than x-rays, and can
pass
through stuff like steel building supports. As they pass through, they
leave
a pretty powerful signature trace that can be easily detected.
There were no such traces in the ruins of either tower. Even a "mini
nuke"
would have left the ground floor and basement levels of ground zero
too
hot to work in for very long without the rescuers themselves being
effected.
Fallout is a result of vaporised debris, and dust particles picked up
in
the rising cloud of a nuclear explosion. As the air currents inside
the
mushroom cloud cool, the ambient winds collect the dust and other bits
and blow them away from ground zero. Gravity goes to work, and the
dust,
etc. are released from the cloud and fall to earth.
Widdershins
Garry Bryan
: The Wholeflaffer Happening!! <> <> <> <> <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message news:<5vef9.39896$15.1...@www.newsranger.com>...
But how did the fuel on the 78th floor melt steel supports in the basement
6 stories below ground? How dod it reach the 2200 deg F necessary to do that
damage?
Garry
Widdershins
: According to the engineers who built the fucking things there
> : were no surprises in the way the structures failed.
>
> But how did the fuel on the 78th floor melt steel supports in the basement
> 6 stories below ground? How dod it reach the 2200 deg F necessary to do that
> damage?
>
> Garry
Did you watch any of the news stories that followed 9/11/01? The fires
contimued to burn for weeks after the buildings collapsed. With
sufficient O2 to continue burning in an enclosed space (which ocurred)
the rubble on
top of and around the fires acted as oven or a large kiln.
HTH
Widdershins
Garry Bryan
But even NASA thermal imaging revealed that the temps never reached the 2200
deg F needed to melt, not weaken, melt the steel support structures. . .so
where did the high temps come from?
Garry
: Widdershins
Garry Bryan
To debunk this popular claim:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
Particularly:
"But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith.s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the
temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 5000C to 6500C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich.hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the m
aximum of 1,0000C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750.8000C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,5000C are using imprecise terminology at best. "
So where did the heat come from that melted the steel into puddles such as
that found in the basement?
Garry
:>
:> >Garry
:> >:>
:> >
:> >
Michael Davis
Um, sorry Garrrrry, but this link does not debunk his
statement. It supports him 100%. It also explains how the
towers collapsed in spite of the steel never getting close
to its melting point. Way to go, kook. The one time you cite
a reasonable source it naturally doesn't back up your claim.
Your reading comprehension really sucks.
The reason the towers fell is because two planes full of
fuel were deliberately rammed into them by a bunch of
fanatical fuckheads, period. There was no thermite, no
demolition charges, no baby nukes, no nothing else. Only
kooky and clueless kooks think otherwise.
>
> Particularly:
> "But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith.s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the
> temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 5000C to 6500C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich.hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the m
> aximum of 1,0000C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750.8000C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,5000C are using imprecise terminology at best. "
>
> So where did the heat come from that melted the steel into puddles such as
> that found in the basement?
Where did you get this bullshit from? What melted puddles of
steel? Please share your source for this claim.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club
"There's a sucker born every minute" - David Hannum (often
erroneously attributed to P. T. Barnum)
Garry Bryan
: Notorious net kook Garrrry "Clueless" Bryan frothed:
I wasn't disputing that oh most Clueless Troll, but questioning that the
temperatures were not anywhere near teh temperatures to turn the steel
molten as was found in the basement. The article even says that he had doubts
that it got near the heat some claimed and :
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 4250C and loses about half of its strength at 6500C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even wi
th its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 6500C fire.
The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 1500C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted
in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
My contention was questioning the melting of steel into a puddle underground
6 stories with little air. This all talks about two forces, one you never
mentioned in your "expert" conclusions as to why it collapsed, distortion
of the center steel supports. . .produce any evidence that you mentioned that
point. . .you can't cuz you didn't. . .now go away troll. ..
:>
:> Particularly:
:> "But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith.s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop t
he
:> temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 5000C to 6500C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich.hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to th
e m
:> aximum of 1,0000C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750.8000C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,5000C are using imprecise terminology at best. "
:>
:> So where did the heat come from that melted the steel into puddles such as
:> that found in the basement?
: Where did you get this bullshit from? What melted puddles of
: steel? Please share your source for this claim.
Umm, the original article that started this thread, but you dont care about
that you just want to jump in the middle and start slinging shit. .
"Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.
AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. "
http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/bollyn2.htm
Garry
Michael Davis
As was found in the basement? You are stating it as if it is
a fact. All you have is a claim from a fringe publication. I
did a web search and found no other sources making this
claim. Why are you assuming it is true, and not just more of
the made up bullshit surrounding 9/11?
> The article even says that he had doubts
> that it got near the heat some claimed and :
>
> It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 4250C and loses about half of its strength at 6500C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even wi
> th its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 6500C fire.
>
> The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 1500C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted
> in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
>
> My contention was questioning the melting of steel into a puddle underground
> 6 stories with little air. This all talks about two forces, one you never
> mentioned in your "expert" conclusions as to why it collapsed, distortion
> of the center steel supports. . .produce any evidence that you mentioned that
> point. . .you can't cuz you didn't. . .now go away troll. ..
>
> :>
> :> Particularly:
> :> "But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith.s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop t
> he
> :> temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 5000C to 6500C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich.hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to th
> e m
> :> aximum of 1,0000C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750.8000C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,5000C are using imprecise terminology at best. "
> :>
> :> So where did the heat come from that melted the steel into puddles such as
> :> that found in the basement?
>
> : Where did you get this bullshit from? What melted puddles of
> : steel? Please share your source for this claim.
>
> Umm, the original article that started this thread, but you dont care about
> that you just want to jump in the middle and start slinging shit. .
Well it's true I haven't read the whole thread, but you are
the one slinging out utter bullshit by repeating nonsense.
>
> "Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.
>
> AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. "
>
> http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wot/bollyn2.htm
That story just doesn't have the ring of truth. First off,
nobody but the American Free Press is carrying it. That
alone makes it suspect. Secondly, they claim explosions in
the basements initiated the collapse, which is just plain
wrong. The buildings could clearly seen in all the hundreds
of videos taken that day to begin collapsing at or near the
points of impact and the collapse propagated downward. It
did *not* start at the bottom. Thirdly, the story claims the
puddles of molten steel were found in the bottoms of the
elevator shafts only a few weeks after the collapse when in
reality it took months to excavate down to that level.
Fourthly, high explosives don't melt steel, they shatter it.
And if something like thermite had been used as you
suggested, it still doesn't work because thermite doesn't
explode. It just burns real hot. So the claims about the
seismic data are just plain impossible. There were no
explosions in the buildings after the impacts.
To many inconsistencies and obvious inaccuracies. This kooky
story simply isn't believable for anyone with a brain.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club
"Garry got up this morning and told himself 'I'm gonna post
something really, really, really fucking lame today.'" -
John Griffin
Garry Bryan
: Notorious net kook Garrrry "Clueless" Bryan frothed:
:>
:> in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
Bring it uip with Loizeaux who told of the discovery. And thanks for proving my
point that thermite would MELT the steel supports into . . .molten puddles.
I am not supporting the explosions calims although there is seismic data from
an independent source that shows to LARGE spikes prior to the towers collapsing.
I would like to figure out how molten metal ended up under WTC 7 which had
neither an explsion nor a fire. . . oh, an thanks for spreading your opinions
around as if they had value. . .where is your proof I "ranted" agains DR Drake
and spewed "bile" about him? Oh, just another one of your opinions that you
parade as fact. .. lying hypocrite.
Garry
: To many inconsistencies and obvious inaccuracies. This kooky
: story simply isn't believable for anyone with a brain.
Thanks again for your uninformed opinion on the subject, jerk.
Harry Bosch
"Widdershins" <sini...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:d8edab8c.02091...@posting.google.com...
It was discovered that some of the fire-proofing for the steel floor
trusses was missing or had never been installed properly. The heat from
the jet fuel fire caused the truss to weaken and pull away from the
fastening plates on the steel girders. Once any part of a truss fails, the
whole truss is totally useless and collapses. The fire was near the top of
the structure and once one of the trusses failed, it was just like a domino
effect, the whole floor structure collapsed into itself. This was
accelerated by the type of structure (outside wall support) and it just
folded into itself. No conspiracy just a screw up in fire-proofing
construction or maintenance.
Regards,
Harry
Garry Bryan
: Howdy Widdershins:
This is not the point in question but rather, why were there puddles of
<formerly> molten steel in the basements of the twin towers AND WTC 7? This
was reported by the same clean up crew of the Oklahoma City bombing,
Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. There was no way a
carbon fueled fire could reach the temperatures needed to do that. Loizeaux
himslef said it,"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."
Garry
Michael Davis
Did you learn that evasion tactic from Roberta? Repeat
someone else's claim as if it were fact then backpedal away
from it and say take it up with the original claimant when
called on it. Nice. Well the thing is, kook, Loizeaux isn't
here promoting this clueless bullshit, but you are. So you
are going to be the one required to produce some supporting
evidence. HTH.
> And thanks for proving my
> point that thermite would MELT the steel supports into . . .molten puddles.
No. I never said that. One particular formulation of
thermite (there are many) produces molten Iron when it
burns. This molten Iron is hot enough (naturally) to soften
steel. But I doubt it would melt much of the steel unless
outrageous amounts of thermite were used. I have actual
experience with thermite from my days as a construction
worker. It is often used for field welding large steel
parts.
But there is no sane reason to believe any thermite or
anything other than two large aircraft were used to bring
down the buildings. Neither collapse started in the
basement, there were no explosions other than the impacts of
the planes, and the fires and structural damage from the
impacts alone were enough to cause the collapses. There is
no mystery here, just a lot of hysterical bullshit being
spun by paranoid kooks and conspiracy fanatics.
> I am not supporting the explosions calims although there is seismic data from
> an independent source that shows to LARGE spikes prior to the towers collapsing.
> I would like to figure out how molten metal ended up under WTC 7 which had
> neither an explsion nor a fire. . .
You have yet to prove there actually was any molten steel
anywhere. And I don't know where you get this bullshit about
WTC 7 not burning. I recall seeing it burning in the
coverage that day. There are also numerous photos of it on
fire to be found on the web. This is not surprising really
since the building had over 40000 gallons of diesel fuel in
it to power emergency electrical generators. It burned big
time. As I recall the fire department let it burn because
the building was evacuated and so badly damaged and unstable
they were afraid it could collapse at any time and they
weren't going to make the mistake of sending yet more
firemen into a building that could collapse after losing
over 300 men earlier in the day. Nobody was terribly
surprised when it finally did collapse in the afternoon
after burning all day. Lots of cameras were trained on in it
anticipation of it falling down. I see though that hundreds
of kook web sites claim there was something mysterious about
the collapse of WTC 7. Revisionist history in action.
> oh, an thanks for spreading your opinions
> around as if they had value. . .
They do have value, kook, because they are based on facts,
unlike yours.
> where is your proof I "ranted" agains DR Drake
> and spewed "bile" about him? Oh, just another one of your opinions that you
> parade as fact. .. lying hypocrite.
Yeah, it is my opinion that you ranted and spewed bile. You
got a problem with that, kook? If you are gonna start
whining about my opinions then that is going to come back to
bite you in the ass big time, kook. Because all you ever
post are opinions. Hypocrite much? But the difference is
your opinions are kooky and usually totally devoid of any
supporting facts and only based on some bullshit you read in
some lunatic fringe web shite or tabloid publication.
Widdershins
Where was this reported?
Widdershins
Widdershins
snip
> : It was discovered that some of the fire-proofing for the steel floor
> : trusses was missing or had never been installed properly. The heat from
> : the jet fuel fire caused the truss to weaken and pull away from the
> : fastening plates on the steel girders. Once any part of a truss fails, the
> : whole truss is totally useless and collapses. The fire was near the top of
> : the structure and once one of the trusses failed, it was just like a domino
> : effect, the whole floor structure collapsed into itself. This was
> : accelerated by the type of structure (outside wall support) and it just
> : folded into itself. No conspiracy just a screw up in fire-proofing
> : construction or maintenance.
>
> This is not the point in question but rather, why were there puddles of
> <formerly> molten steel in the basements of the twin towers AND WTC 7?
Where was it reported? I don't remember seeing any reports of
"puddles of steel."
> This
> was reported by the same clean up crew of the Oklahoma City bombing,
> Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. There was no way a
> carbon fueled fire could reach the temperatures needed to do that.
Is this Loizeaux's claim, or yours? It doesn't really matter, since the claim
is wrong. I am, among other things, a blacksmith. I use a carbon fueled fire
in my forge all the time. If I don't pay attention, the steel I'm
heating melts. Regularly. I have a graphite crucible in which I melt steel
when I have the need. The fire from the fuel I use is more than sufficient
to melt steel.
Now, do you have anymore uninformed opinions to share?
> Loizeaux
> himslef said it,"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."
>
> Garry
Don't any of you woo-woos pay attention? The first attack on the towers was
a truckload of explosives in...wait for it...THE FUCKING BASEMENT!
It killed some people, did a lot of damage, but the towers remained standing.
Next fool, please.
Widdershins
Anti-Debunkers United for Scientific Truth [ADUST]
><formerly> molten steel in the basements of the twin towers AND WTC 7? This
>was reported by the same clean up crew of the Oklahoma City bombing,
>Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. There was no way a
>carbon fueled fire could reach the temperatures needed to do that. Loizeaux
>himslef said it,"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."
>
>Garry
Good point. Gee, isn't easy to expose the NSA/CIA spOOks
(Borsch, et. al) as nothing but liars. I guess most intel.
people understood this was a military job, all the way!!
It's kind of sad they would do this, but not unpredictable
or unprecedented. The way the Pres. elections
were stolen and the markets collapsing, perhaps
this all they could do to try and legitimize
Coke Busch as prez!
In article <10318701...@cswreg.cos.agilent.com>, Garry Bryan says...
Garry Bryan
: Where was this reported?
Well, I could be flippant in the Davis style and say, "It's been widely reported
don't you read?" but here are a couple of analysis:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A11614-2002Apr30
Nowhere does ANY report say the temperature were enough to melt steel,
physically impossible, so where did teh source of heat come to melt steel
particularly in the WTC 7 which had no jet fuel associated with it?
Garry
Garry Bryan
:> :> th its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 6500C fire.
:> :>
:> :> The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 1500C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which re
sul
I have been producign evidence of a direct quote from Liozeax who reported
molten steel in the clean up , evidence in the form of an analysis that the
fuel couldn't have produced enough heat to melt steel. . .
:> And thanks for proving my
:> point that thermite would MELT the steel supports into . . .molten puddles.
: No. I never said that. One particular formulation of
: thermite (there are many) produces molten Iron when it
: burns. This molten Iron is hot enough (naturally) to soften
: steel. But I doubt it would melt much of the steel unless
: outrageous amounts of thermite were used. I have actual
: experience with thermite from my days as a construction
: worker. It is often used for field welding large steel
: parts.
So can it get hot enough to melt steel or not?
: But there is no sane reason to believe any thermite or
: anything other than two large aircraft were used to bring
: down the buildings. Neither collapse started in the
: basement, there were no explosions other than the impacts of
: the planes, and the fires and structural damage from the
: impacts alone were enough to cause the collapses. There is
: no mystery here, just a lot of hysterical bullshit being
: spun by paranoid kooks and conspiracy fanatics.
So you are providing what exactly to counter the sesmic charts that show a
peak right prior to the collapse of each tower? There were unconfirmed reports
early on regarding explosions prior to collapse but they are just that,
unconfirmed. . .
:> I am not supporting the explosions calims although there is seismic data from
:> an independent source that shows to LARGE spikes prior to the towers collapsing.
:> I would like to figure out how molten metal ended up under WTC 7 which had
:> neither an explsion nor a fire. . .
: You have yet to prove there actually was any molten steel
: anywhere. And I don't know where you get this bullshit about
: WTC 7 not burning. I recall seeing it burning in the
: coverage that day. There are also numerous photos of it on
: fire to be found on the web. This is not surprising really
: since the building had over 40000 gallons of diesel fuel in
: it to power emergency electrical generators. It burned big
: time. As I recall the fire department let it burn because
: the building was evacuated and so badly damaged and unstable
: they were afraid it could collapse at any time and they
: weren't going to make the mistake of sending yet more
: firemen into a building that could collapse after losing
: over 300 men earlier in the day. Nobody was terribly
: surprised when it finally did collapse in the afternoon
: after burning all day. Lots of cameras were trained on in it
: anticipation of it falling down. I see though that hundreds
: of kook web sites claim there was something mysterious about
: the collapse of WTC 7. Revisionist history in action.
I said that it didn't invovle jet fuel and an impact. . .the report of
molten steel came from the clean up crew head, counter his report.
:> oh, an thanks for spreading your opinions
:> around as if they had value. . .
: They do have value, kook, because they are based on facts,
: unlike yours.
And what actual sources have you cited? Until then, they are just your opinions.
:> where is your proof I "ranted" agains DR Drake
:> and spewed "bile" about him? Oh, just another one of your opinions that you
:> parade as fact. .. lying hypocrite.
: Yeah, it is my opinion that you ranted and spewed bile. You
: got a problem with that, kook? If you are gonna start
: whining about my opinions then that is going to come back to
: bite you in the ass big time, kook. Because all you ever
: post are opinions. Hypocrite much? But the difference is
: your opinions are kooky and usually totally devoid of any
: supporting facts and only based on some bullshit you read in
: some lunatic fringe web shite or tabloid publication.
And you have provided backing evidence or even opinions when? Never? Sometimes?
You still haven't produced a single bit of evidence that I was in any way
dissing Dr Drake, so just another one of your baseless opinions. . .and you
are so good at spreading themas if they ar fact even you forgot the
difference. If you can't counter the evidence you attack the source very
typical Mikey.
Garry
Garry Bryan
: snip
:
:> : It was discovered that some of the fire-proofing for the steel floor
:> : trusses was missing or had never been installed properly. The heat from
:> : the jet fuel fire caused the truss to weaken and pull away from the
:> : fastening plates on the steel girders. Once any part of a truss fails, the
:> : whole truss is totally useless and collapses. The fire was near the top of
:> : the structure and once one of the trusses failed, it was just like a domino
:> : effect, the whole floor structure collapsed into itself. This was
:> : accelerated by the type of structure (outside wall support) and it just
:> : folded into itself. No conspiracy just a screw up in fire-proofing
:> : construction or maintenance.
:>
:> This is not the point in question but rather, why were there puddles of
:> <formerly> molten steel in the basements of the twin towers AND WTC 7?
: Where was it reported? I don't remember seeing any reports of
: "puddles of steel."
http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html
"Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.
AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.
"Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements."
These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said.
The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.
Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit."
:> This
:> was reported by the same clean up crew of the Oklahoma City bombing,
:> Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. There was no way a
:> carbon fueled fire could reach the temperatures needed to do that.
: Is this Loizeaux's claim, or yours? It doesn't really matter, since the claim
: is wrong. I am, among other things, a blacksmith. I use a carbon fueled fire
: in my forge all the time. If I don't pay attention, the steel I'm
: heating melts. Regularly. I have a graphite crucible in which I melt steel
: when I have the need. The fire from the fuel I use is more than sufficient
: to melt steel.
Do you stoke it with oxygen or air? You can get to to 1500 degrees with air
but need oxygen to reach hotter temps.
"This is impossible, they say, because the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons like jet-fuel burning in air is 1,520 degrees F. Because the WTC fires were fuel rich, as evidenced by the thick black smoke, it is argued that they did not reach this upper limit."
: Now, do you have anymore uninformed opinions to share?
:> Loizeaux
:> himslef said it,"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."
:>
:> Garry
: Don't any of you woo-woos pay attention? The first attack on the towers was
: a truckload of explosives in...wait for it...THE FUCKING BASEMENT!
: It killed some people, did a lot of damage, but the towers remained standing.
: Next fool, please.
Mikey will be with you shortly. . .the 1993 explosion was not spread to many
supports only one or two were hit. . .
Garry
Robert ASF.
snip
> I have been producign evidence of a direct quote from Liozeax who reported
> molten steel in the clean up , evidence in the form of an analysis that the
> fuel couldn't have produced enough heat to melt steel. . .
snipo
Why not. Depending on the conditions a candle can produce
enough heat to melt steel... Yes i am serious, or as close as i
can on a NG. Think about this Garry, you only have to weaken the
steel beams to take down the building. Then once you have the
giant pile, what was burning is still hot. Except now, instead of
burning it smolders, lots of heat with nowhere to go. So the
pile, insolated with dust and debris acts as an oven and it gets
hotter and hotter. Eventually, given enough time the heat will
increase to the point where steel will melt. Oh BTW the candle
example above, i gave no time limit on how long you have to keep
it burning or the condition of the burn... As long as heat keeps
building up it will raise the temperature until it can melt
steel, it may take a few years to do that but it still can be
done in theory at least.
Just Thought I Should Mention It
Michael Davis
No. That is just a story. It is no more evidence of anything than an "I saw a flying saucer from zeta Reticuli!" story is really evidence of anything. Actual evidence would consist of puddle shaped slabs of steel recovered from the debris. The recovery operation was filmed 24/7 from every possible angle. Can you point to any video of trucks hauling out puddle shaped slabs of steel?
> , evidence in the form of an analysis that the
> fuel couldn't have produced enough heat to melt steel. . .
Well that's not right either. Oil fired furnaces can and do melt steel all the time. But until you produce some evidence of melted steel the whole point is moot.
> :> And thanks for proving my
> :> point that thermite would MELT the steel supports into . . .molten puddles.
>
> : No. I never said that. One particular formulation of
> : thermite (there are many) produces molten Iron when it
> : burns. This molten Iron is hot enough (naturally) to soften
> : steel. But I doubt it would melt much of the steel unless
> : outrageous amounts of thermite were used. I have actual
> : experience with thermite from my days as a construction
> : worker. It is often used for field welding large steel
> : parts.
>
> So can it get hot enough to melt steel or not?
Sigh. You obviously have no clue what thermite is or how it works. Thermite isn't used to melt steel. It is used to produce molten Iron in small quantities. The chemical reaction in thermite burns Aluminum and/or Magnesium metal with Iron oxide producing Aluminum oxide and molten Iron. The molten Iron from the thermite reaction would probably just flow downhill to a low spot and not bother girders or beams much at all. Even if it were dammed somehow and forced against the girders, the cold steel would probably
just quench and solidify the molten Iron. I can't imagine a quantity of thermite large enough to melt even one large girder, let alone enough of them to bring down a building. The basement would have to be packed full of the stuff, at the very least. But again, since the buildings did not collapse from the bottom, this clearly did not happen.
> : But there is no sane reason to believe any thermite or
> : anything other than two large aircraft were used to bring
> : down the buildings. Neither collapse started in the
> : basement, there were no explosions other than the impacts of
> : the planes, and the fires and structural damage from the
> : impacts alone were enough to cause the collapses. There is
> : no mystery here, just a lot of hysterical bullshit being
> : spun by paranoid kooks and conspiracy fanatics.
>
> So you are providing what exactly to counter the sesmic charts that show a
> peak right prior to the collapse of each tower?
Nothing. I'm simply not jumping to the idiotic assumption the reports are accurate, especially since they are coming from the same yellow rag that is claiming puddles of molten steel were found. What evidence are you providing exactly to prove the reports are accurate and not just more of the myths and urban legends surrounding 9/11?
> There were unconfirmed reports
> early on regarding explosions prior to collapse but they are just that,
> unconfirmed. . .
They also didn't show up on any of the TV coverage that day. I see no reason to assume there were any explosions.
> :> I am not supporting the explosions calims although there is seismic data from
> :> an independent source that shows to LARGE spikes prior to the towers collapsing.
> :> I would like to figure out how molten metal ended up under WTC 7 which had
> :> neither an explsion nor a fire. . .
>
> : You have yet to prove there actually was any molten steel
> : anywhere. And I don't know where you get this bullshit about
> : WTC 7 not burning. I recall seeing it burning in the
> : coverage that day. There are also numerous photos of it on
> : fire to be found on the web. This is not surprising really
> : since the building had over 40000 gallons of diesel fuel in
> : it to power emergency electrical generators. It burned big
> : time. As I recall the fire department let it burn because
> : the building was evacuated and so badly damaged and unstable
> : they were afraid it could collapse at any time and they
> : weren't going to make the mistake of sending yet more
> : firemen into a building that could collapse after losing
> : over 300 men earlier in the day. Nobody was terribly
> : surprised when it finally did collapse in the afternoon
> : after burning all day. Lots of cameras were trained on in it
> : anticipation of it falling down. I see though that hundreds
> : of kook web sites claim there was something mysterious about
> : the collapse of WTC 7. Revisionist history in action.
>
> I said that it didn't invovle jet fuel and an impact. . .
You also said it didn't burn, and that was just plain wrong, like most of what you post.
> the report of
> molten steel came from the clean up crew head, counter his report.
Yawn. More stories. Got an actual piece of melted steel or even a video or photo of one? No? Didn't think so.
Why do you automatically believe any story you hear? I quess if it dovetails with your own kooky paranoia then you just assume it must be true, eh?
> :> oh, an thanks for spreading your opinions
> :> around as if they had value. . .
>
> : They do have value, kook, because they are based on facts,
> : unlike yours.
>
> And what actual sources have you cited? Until then, they are just your opinions.
How do I cite a source that proves there was no melted steel in the WTC? Once again a clueless kook is demanding the skeptics prove a negative instead of producing evidence to support his own positive claims. Get your clueless head out of your kooky ass, Garrrrry. You are the one making claims here. You are the one who needs to produce some evidence. Of course I have no expectation that you actually will. I'm sure you'll just froth and foam and evade and whine about me some more instead, just like you usually
do when asked to back up the moronic nonsense you post here.
> :> where is your proof I "ranted" agains DR Drake
> :> and spewed "bile" about him? Oh, just another one of your opinions that you
> :> parade as fact. .. lying hypocrite.
>
> : Yeah, it is my opinion that you ranted and spewed bile. You
> : got a problem with that, kook? If you are gonna start
> : whining about my opinions then that is going to come back to
> : bite you in the ass big time, kook. Because all you ever
> : post are opinions. Hypocrite much? But the difference is
> : your opinions are kooky and usually totally devoid of any
> : supporting facts and only based on some bullshit you read in
> : some lunatic fringe web shite or tabloid publication.
>
> And you have provided backing evidence or even opinions when? Never? Sometimes?
> You still haven't produced a single bit of evidence that I was in any way
> dissing Dr Drake, so just another one of your baseless opinions. . .and you
> are so good at spreading themas if they ar fact even you forgot the
> difference. If you can't counter the evidence you attack the source very
> typical Mikey.
Some sources deserve to be attacked. Face it, you usually cite only the st00pidest sources. Stuff only a brain damaged kook like you could believe in. As for your ranting about Drake. You have claimed on several occasions that he supported your claims about the origins of SETI. I have several times challenged you to produce the letter you claim supports you. You have evaded this request by demanding I produce your original claims. Well they are sitting safely in Google and I know just where to find them. When
you *finally* do as I asked and produce the document you say supports your claims, I'll be happy to dredge up your original rants and do a point by point comparison. I have no doubt the results will show you to be a liar. Your continual harping about me producing your original rants is just a way to evade producing the requested information because you know it will make you look bad (can you possibly look any worse than you do already?).
Harry Bosch
"Widdershins" <sini...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:d8edab8c.02091...@posting.google.com...
> Garry Bryan <ga...@soco.agilent.com> wrote in message
news:<10318701...@cswreg.cos.agilent.com>...
> > In alt.alien.visitors Harry Bosch <har...@chatlink.com> wrote:
> > : Howdy Widdershins:
> >
>
> snip
>
> > : It was discovered that some of the fire-proofing for the steel floor
> > : trusses was missing or had never been installed properly. The heat
from
> > : the jet fuel fire caused the truss to weaken and pull away from the
> > : fastening plates on the steel girders. Once any part of a truss
fails, the
> > : whole truss is totally useless and collapses. The fire was near the
top of
> > : the structure and once one of the trusses failed, it was just like a
domino
> > : effect, the whole floor structure collapsed into itself. This was
> > : accelerated by the type of structure (outside wall support) and it
just
> > : folded into itself. No conspiracy just a screw up in fire-proofing
> > : construction or maintenance.
> >
> > This is not the point in question but rather, why were there puddles of
> > <formerly> molten steel in the basements of the twin towers AND WTC 7?
>
> Where was it reported? I don't remember seeing any reports of
> "puddles of steel."
Nope. There were no "puddles" of molten steel. Steel melts at aprox 2800
degrees F. and there were no temps approaching this. There were only
twisted and bent steel members because as the temp. of steel rises the
useful strength decreases. With the high temps. and the amount of force
applied under tons and tons of debris, the steel was deformed not melted.
Nowhere have I seen reports of "puddles" of molten steel found anywhere in
the debris of the buildings.
>
> > This
> > was reported by the same clean up crew of the Oklahoma City bombing,
> > Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. There was no
way a
> > carbon fueled fire could reach the temperatures needed to do that.
>
> Is this Loizeaux's claim, or yours? It doesn't really matter, since the
claim
> is wrong. I am, among other things, a blacksmith. I use a carbon fueled
fire
> in my forge all the time. If I don't pay attention, the steel I'm
> heating melts. Regularly. I have a graphite crucible in which I melt
steel
> when I have the need. The fire from the fuel I use is more than
sufficient
> to melt steel.
>
> Now, do you have anymore uninformed opinions to share?
>
> > Loizeaux
> > himslef said it,"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put
explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help
collapse the structure."
Obviously this Loizeaux has no knowledge of what kind of structure the two
towers were. It would take an enormous amount of hi-explosive to bring
down the towers from the basement. About the best that could be done was
what happened in the first attempt, destroy a few floors and that is all.
> >
> > Garry
>
> Don't any of you woo-woos pay attention? The first attack on the towers
was
> a truckload of explosives in...wait for it...THE FUCKING BASEMENT!
>
> It killed some people, did a lot of damage, but the towers remained
standing.
>
> Next fool, please.
>
>
>
> Widdershins
Give em hell Widdershins.
Regards,
Harry
Garry Bryan
: Garry Bryan wrote:
: snip
: snipo
well that is a good example of a possibility but there is no evidence that
any temperatures reached that high. Here is a site on the thermal imaging
that NASA did:
http://geology.cr.usgs.gov/pub/open-file-reports/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
and there was no spot that reached temperatures to melt steel, weaken it, yes,
that was the main contributor to the collapse as well as distortion of the
main columns. There was not enough oxygen <air> to stoke a fire that hot.
Garry
: Just Thought I Should Mention It
Pete Charest
wrote:
:> But even NASA thermal imaging revealed that the temps never reached the 2200
>:> deg F needed to melt, not weaken, melt the steel support structures. . .so
>:> where did the high temps come from?
>:>
>:> Garry
>:>
>
>: Where was this reported?
>
>Well, I could be flippant in the Davis style and say, "It's been widely reported
>don't you read?" but here are a couple of analysis:
>http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A11614-2002Apr30
>
Here again, you ignorant and disloyal prick, you cut off your own useless balls
every time you open your profoundly stupid mouth.
These articles NOWHERE mention puddles of molten steel. You are a liar...
Do you understand.??? You're a LIAR and a disloyal prick.
---
Pete Charest
Truth Terrorist©
If you're not insulted, then you're not a kook.
Garry Bryan
: Some sources deserve to be attacked. Face it, you usually cite only the st00pidest sources. Stuff only a brain damaged kook like you could believe in. As for your ranting about Drake. You have claimed on several occasions that he supported your claims about the origins of SETI. I have several times challenged you to produce the letter you claim supports you. You have evaded this request by demanding I produce your original claims. Well they are sitting safely in Google and I know just where to find them.
When
: you *finally* do as I asked and produce the document you say supports your claims, I'll be happy to dredge up your original rants and do a point by point comparison. I have no doubt the results will show you to be a liar. Your continual harping about me producing your original rants is just a way to evade producing the requested information because you know it will make you look bad (can you possibly look any worse than you do already?).
So quoting passages from Dr Drakes own book IS ANYONE OUT THERE isn't enough for
you, or is that a KOOKY tm source? Why don't you try writing Dr Drake yourself?
He is quite accessible. He will tell you that yes he did jump to a sci-fi
type conclusionabout the signals, but it served as the inspiration for OZMA and
SETI. If I produce the original letter and his response you will just say that
it is not proof sinceI could have made it up. So be a good little sceptic and
do some evidence gathering yourself, or would that be too much like real work
and you might be proven wrong. . .you don't produce anything except opinions
. . .no references, no book passages, no experts. . .write Dr Drake yourself
and ask him about that night in grad school looking at the Pleades. . .
You can find his email at:
http://www.astro.ucsc.edu/people.xml
Garry
Garry Bryan
: On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 15:27:18 +0000 (UTC), Garry Bryan <ga...@soco.agilent.com>
: wrote:
I was pointing out that there were no temperatures reported due to the aircraft
that could have produced teh molten metal, so the question remains, "How did it
get in the basement". Maybe you could contact Mark Loizeaux and ask him if
he made the report to the AFP: Their website is under construction <LOL> but
you can try through this:
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/demolition%20contractor.html
Oh, and you can't follow a thread. . .
Garry
Widdershins
> In alt.alien.visitors Widdershins <sini...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> "Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.
>
> AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.
>
> "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements."
>
> These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said.
>
> The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.
>
> Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit."
>
>
> :> This
> :> was reported by the same clean up crew of the Oklahoma City bombing,
> :> Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. There was no way a
> :> carbon fueled fire could reach the temperatures needed to do that.
>
> : Is this Loizeaux's claim, or yours? It doesn't really matter, since the claim
> : is wrong. I am, among other things, a blacksmith. I use a carbon fueled fire
> : in my forge all the time. If I don't pay attention, the steel I'm
> : heating melts. Regularly. I have a graphite crucible in which I melt steel
> : when I have the need. The fire from the fuel I use is more than sufficient
> : to melt steel.
>
> Do you stoke it with oxygen or air? You can get to to 1500 degrees with air
> but need oxygen to reach hotter temps.
Jeeze, maybe you ought to tell the steel it shouldn't be melting. I use
plain air. It is sufficient.
>
> "This is impossible, they say, because the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons like jet-fuel burning in air is 1,520 degrees F. Because the WTC fires were fuel rich, as evidenced by the thick black smoke, it is argued that they did not reach this upper limit."
In the early hours, that is true. However, keep in mind, the building rubble
continued to burn for several more weeks after the collapse. The smoke
was grey. There was sufficent air to raise the temprature, and the jet fuel
being more volatile, burned off more quickly, leaving a source of carbon
rich fuels available (paper, cloth, office furniture). Iron was first
smelted in ovens fueled by charcoal.
Are you going to continue implying that I am a liar?
>
Widdershins
Widdershins
> >This is not the point in question but rather, why were there puddles of
> ><formerly> molten steel in the basements of the twin towers AND WTC 7? This
> >was reported by the same clean up crew of the Oklahoma City bombing,
> >Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. There was no way a
> >carbon fueled fire could reach the temperatures needed to do that. Loizeaux
> >himslef said it,"If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."
> >
> >Garry
>
> Good point.
Which: The placement of some alleged explosives, or the equally
alleged
puddles of molten steel?
There already have been explosives used in the basement in an aborted
attempt to bring the towers down. You may remember, unless you were
put away at the time, the attempt failed. Just like you, Artie.
Your alien Friend,
Widdershins
O'Brother
knowledge)
haven't been asked about this raging debate:
1. Who analyzed the puddles of metal to see if the were steel, they could
have easily
been any of many metals used in the construction, eh?
2. A thin steel wafer can be melted by low intensity flame, by extension,
much of the
inside construction material of the building used thinner gauge steel.
3. Who said it was the Steel construction beams that melted? Again, who
analyzed
the metal? Do you think there was aluminum and other metals there?
Until someone can produce evidence of (1) puddles (2) their composition (3)
their
source, it's all a lot of puffery and posturing.
It sounds to me like a lot of unverified and unproven bits of "evidence" are
being shaken
together to produce a large assumption which isn't justified based upon what
background
evidence I've seen.
O'
"Widdershins" <sini...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:d8edab8c.02091...@posting.google.com...
Robert ASF.
snip
> well that is a good example of a possibility but there is no evidence that
> any temperatures reached that high. Here is a site on the thermal imaging
> that NASA did:
Ahhh no. First that image would not tell us all we needed
to know about the site. Second, if and i mean if we assume the
steel melted, the obvious question would be how? Again assume
that we have an oven effect where the heat increase but cannot go
anywhere so that the temperature melts steel. What would cause
such an effect? An insulated area just like an oven. Inside my
oven i can cook food at a very high temperature but on the
outside i can still place my hand without being burnt. Why?
because my oven is insulated to keep heat in. Just like the oven
effect on the steel. Hence NASA would take pictures of the
outside of my oven but could not tell me what temperature i was
cooking in.
> and there was no spot that reached temperatures to melt steel,
Say's who? How would they know?
What then would have melted the steel in the first place?
Aliens with lasers? If you have the evidence of melted steel, and
i have seen no mention of this, then there has to be a cause.
Simple solution is high heat. Covered with debris, creates an
oven to melt the steel. Unless you were in the oven you would not
be able to tell what heat it was at.
> weaken it, yes,
> that was the main contributor to the collapse as well as distortion of the
> main columns.
When you have that much weight on top of you, it does not
take much heat to weaken those supports. When one floor goes, the
resulting inpact weakens the floor below and so on down. As more
floor colapse, the faster the thing comes down. Keep in mind
this, while watch 9/11 the show about the camera crew inside the
tower, one of the NYFD said that this is a hundred story tower,
with thousands of desks, chairs computers, you name it. You find
nothing but dust and paper. the biggest piece of equipment he
found was a half of a phone key pad. To do that has to have a lot
of force to crush then pulverise so much material...
> There was not enough oxygen <air> to stoke a fire that hot.
No so. There is a fire burning under the North Western
states that could have begun as long ago as 500 years. There is
no air in this coal fire yet it keeps burning/smoldering. It will
only burn out when it runs out of coal to burn. I have been told,
but i think it is an exaggeration that such a fire, you could
divert a river into it and come back a year later and the fire
would still not be out. The only reason why we know of this fire
is that every once in a while the coal head to the surface where
feed with oxygen it bursts into flames.
Michael Davis
>
> I want to weigh hin here and ask a few interesting questions that (to my
> knowledge)
> haven't been asked about this raging debate:
>
> 1. Who analyzed the puddles of metal to see if the were steel, they could
> have easily
> been any of many metals used in the construction, eh?
Good point! Of course kooky Garrrry hasn't actually produced
any hard evidence that there really were any puddles of
metal, but if there were, they could have been something
other than steel. The buildings were clad in Aluminum which
melts at a relatively low temperature. And of course there
were miles and miles of copper wire in the buildings too.
Copper melts at a lower temperature than steel.
> 2. A thin steel wafer can be melted by low intensity flame, by extension,
> much of the
> inside construction material of the building used thinner gauge steel.
Steel wall studs? True, they are only about the thickness of
paper. They would still need to be heated to the same high
temperature as thicker steel members to melt, but they would
require much less energy input to melt if those high
temperatures were reached anywhere in the burning rubble.
> 3. Who said it was the Steel construction beams that melted? Again, who
> analyzed
> the metal?
The story Garrrry is kooking out over contained no such
analysis. The yellow tabloid rags and lunatic fringe
publications Garrrry gets this sort of shit from are more
interested in big headlines and hype and feeding the
paranoia of their loony readers, rather than in being
accurate and verifying that the drek they print is really
true.
> Do you think there was aluminum and other metals there?
There was plenty of Aluminum. The entire outsides of both
towers were clad in Aluminum.
>
> Until someone can produce evidence of (1) puddles (2) their composition (3)
> their
> source, it's all a lot of puffery and posturing.
Don't hold your breath waiting. It'll never happen. But of
course this story is just too tantalizing for paranoid
conspiracy kooks like Garrrry and a lot of other loons out
there (they need no hard evidence to unquestioningly believe
in a story that dovetails so well with their own paranoia
and preconceived notions). It will become a widely believed
urban legend and never die. We are witnessing the birth of a
new myth. You can tell your grandchildren that you were
there when...
>
> It sounds to me like a lot of unverified and unproven bits of "evidence" are
> being shaken
> together to produce a large assumption which isn't justified based upon what
> background
> evidence I've seen.
True. The conspiracy kooks out there just need to believe
the government had some hand in what happened. They keep
proposing bombs and other nonsense to explain the fall of
the towers when the aircraft alone were clearly the true
cause. But there are people in the world who just have some
pathological need to blame everything bad that happens in
the world on the US government, no matter what contortions
of illogic they must go to in order to do so. That's why
they are called kooks.
--
The Evil Michael Davis™
Ruler For Life of AAR
http://mdavis19.tripod.com
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club
"There's a sucker born every minute" - David Hannum (often
erroneously attributed to P. T. Barnum)
>
Carl Wilson
<ra_f...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
[...]
> No so. There is a fire burning under the North Western
>states that could have begun as long ago as 500 years. There is
>no air in this coal fire yet it keeps burning/smoldering. It will
>only burn out when it runs out of coal to burn. I have been told,
>but i think it is an exaggeration that such a fire, you could
>divert a river into it and come back a year later and the fire
>would still not be out. The only reason why we know of this fire
>is that every once in a while the coal head to the surface where
>feed with oxygen it bursts into flames.
>
> Just Thought I Should Mention It
http://www.offroaders.com/album/centralia/centralia.htm
"Centralia Pennsylvania no longer exists on some maps. The story
began sometime in 1961 along the outskirts of town when trash was
burned in an old open pit mine. The fire in the open pit caught an
exposed vein of coal on fire. The coal then began to burn
underground. That was in 1961. Over 40 years and 40 million dollars
later the fire still burns through old coal mines and veins following
the coal under the town and the surrounding hillsides. The fire,
smoke, fumes and toxic gases that came up though the back yards,
basements and streets of Centralia practically ripped the town apart.
Attempts to put the fires out were unsuccessful."
Pete Charest
wrote:
>: These articles NOWHERE mention puddles of molten steel. You are a liar...
>
>: Do you understand.??? You're a LIAR and a disloyal prick.
>
>I was pointing out that there were no temperatures reported due to the aircraft
>that could have produced teh molten metal, so the question remains, "How did it
>get in the basement". Maybe you could contact Mark Loizeaux and ask him if
>he made the report to the AFP: Their website is under construction <LOL> but
>you can try through this:
>http://www.controlled-demolition.com/demolition%20contractor.html
>
Mark Loozeaux is first of all a liar and second a stinking fraud and commie
pinko fag...just like you Garrrrry.
Robert ASF.
snipo
> http://www.offroaders.com/album/centralia/centralia.htm
>
> "Centralia Pennsylvania no longer exists on some maps. The story
> began sometime in 1961 along the outskirts of town when trash was
> burned in an old open pit mine. The fire in the open pit caught an
> exposed vein of coal on fire. The coal then began to burn
> underground. That was in 1961. Over 40 years and 40 million dollars
> later the fire still burns through old coal mines and veins following
> the coal under the town and the surrounding hillsides. The fire,
> smoke, fumes and toxic gases that came up though the back yards,
> basements and streets of Centralia practically ripped the town apart.
> Attempts to put the fires out were unsuccessful."
Good show Carl!
These type of fires are rather common Garry, if in an
uncommon manner! It would explain your issue with the steel in
the World Trade Center.
Ugly Bob
"Robert ASF." <ra_f...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnaoam5q.5...@alcor.concordia.ca...
Assuming the steel melted at all.
-Ugly Bob
Carl Wilson
<ra_f...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
But such mundane explanations never satisfy the kooks. Why claim heat
from burning fuel and other materials within the building caused the
collapse/melted metal when you can cook (or is it "kook") up wild
assertions about nukes and/or thermite?
Robert ASF.
snip
> Assuming the steel melted at all.
Of course. It was probably just badly identified in the
first place. But assuming it was steel, the idea that the debris
created an oven effect would account for it.
Robert ASF.
snip
> But such mundane explanations never satisfy the kooks. Why claim heat
> from burning fuel and other materials within the building caused the
> collapse/melted metal when you can cook (or is it "kook") up wild
> assertions about nukes and/or thermite?
You have to understand Carl that they live a boring
existence and need to have a conspiracy around every corner just
to have some reason to exist.
Garry Bryan
: snip
:> Assuming the steel melted at all.
: Of course. It was probably just badly identified in the
: first place. But assuming it was steel, the idea that the debris
: created an oven effect would account for it.
But where is the evidence to back up this "oven effect"? NASA thermal imaging
didn't reveal temperatures near high enough to melt steel. . .
http://geology.cr.usgs.gov/pub/open-file-reports/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
Garry
: Just Thought I Should Mention It
Garry Bryan
: snip
:> But such mundane explanations never satisfy the kooks. Why claim heat
:> from burning fuel and other materials within the building caused the
:> collapse/melted metal when you can cook (or is it "kook") up wild
:> assertions about nukes and/or thermite?
: You have to understand Carl that they live a boring
^^^^^^
you mis-spelled "vigilent". . .
: existence and need to have a conspiracy around every corner just
: to have some reason to exist.
: Just Thought I Should Mention It
Glad that you did. . .
Garry
Robert ASF.
snip
> But where is the evidence to back up this "oven effect"? NASA thermal imaging
> didn't reveal temperatures near high enough to melt steel. . .
Same answer. If the steel was melted, it would be due to
an oven effect. If there was an oven effect, it would insulate
the area so that heat would not escape. Nasa's thermal sensors
would not be able to read internal heat, only radiated heat.
Robert ASF.
snipo
Garry are you sure you want to change this?
>: You have to understand Carl that they live a boring
> ^^^^^^
>
> you mis-spelled "vigilent". . .
>
>: existence and need to have a conspiracy around every corner just
>: to have some reason to exist.
It now reads, they live a vigilent existence and need to
have a conspiracy around every corner just to have some reason to
exist... LOL!
I don't know but it sound worse the way you put it...
LOL!