ghost009 Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 This is thermite- http://www.yikers.com/video_thermite_destroys_all.html But is this termite?- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11"]Video Is that thermite? Now notice the fire above it. It isn't bright hot like that. And if that was an electrical fire wouldn't the sparks fizzle out immediately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 Is it just me, or did the "brianiacs" in the video not look too intelligent. I mean, they're not even wearing gloves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 that would appear to be jet fuel on fire pouring out of the building. There was a lot of fuel on that plane so it either goes down the inside or the outside. Where it sparks when it hits the building is just the liquid splashing. just like water, thats on fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost009 Posted February 25, 2006 Author Share Posted February 25, 2006 Ok but I have another question. Could thermite have been used to weaken the steel so smaller, less noticeable, explosives could have been used to bring it down? Like this http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/wtc-1_jets.mpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 Yes but why would you need explosives and thermite when a plane with a crap load of fuel has just flew into it at about 250 mph! the burning fuel is enough to structurally weaken the steel enough so it collapses under the stress of the above building and the weight of the 737 thats suddenly dumped its weight onto it. i think your just another 9/11 conspiracy theorist. it was jet fuel that brought the towers down, not thermite. [/end stream of consiousness] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost009 Posted February 26, 2006 Author Share Posted February 26, 2006 Yes but why would you need explosives and thermite when a plane with a crap load of fuel has just flew into it at about 250 mph! the burning fuel is enough to structurally weaken the steel enough so it collapses under the stress of the above building and the weight of the 737 thats suddenly dumped its weight onto it. i think your just another 9/11 conspiracy theorist. it was jet fuel that brought the towers down, not thermite. [/end stream of consiousness] Do you realize that only 3 steel buildings in history have fallen due to fires. They are the North Tower of the World Trade Center, the South Tower of the World Trade Center, and World Trade Center 7. Do you really believe jet fuel can bring down a building perfectly symmetrically. The World Trade Centers were designed so that multiple 707 jets would hit them. Thats why the designers were stunned when the building fell. Prof. Steven Jones of BYU wrote a paper about how the World Trade Centers had to have been brought down with the use explosives, so it was a controlled demolition. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html Oh, and I consider myself to be a coincidence theorist, not a conspiracy theorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 WTC 7 was brought down by WTC1&2 coming down on top of it. The buildings were designed to take a hit or 2 from aircraft but they made the assumption that the planes would not be fully loaded with fuel. Jet fuel(Kerosene) burns hot enough to structurally weaken steel a lot. your average office interior on the other hand doesn't really burn hot enough or have enough fuel for the fire to weaken the structue. also in your average office building fire the structure hasn't just undergone the incredible stresses of a 100 tonne plane flying into it. the building fell down the way it did because it was designed to. think about it. eventually the building would have to be demolished to make way for new (probably taller) buildings. the quickest way is demolishion. also you don't want the thing to fall over sideways in an accident. so the architects designed it so the most likely way for it to fall was straight down. this undoubtedly saved a lot of lives considering the size of the towers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost009 Posted February 26, 2006 Author Share Posted February 26, 2006 How much proof do you people need? http://www.newsfocus.org/silverstein.wmv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 you havent answered my point about the kerosene burning hot enough to weaken the structure so it collapses.. that video didn't really say much about anything BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost009 Posted February 26, 2006 Author Share Posted February 26, 2006 you havent answered my point about the kerosene burning hot enough to weaken the structure so it collapses.. that video didn't really say much about anything BTW. The kerosene question is probably answered physics BYU paper that I linked on here. I don't know anything about Physics but the guy who wrote that is a physics professor. THE VIDEO SHOWED THE OWNER OF WORLD TRADE CENTER 1, WORLD TRADE CENTER 2, AND WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 ADMITTING THAT WORLD TRADE CENTER 7 WAS PULLED. TO "PULL" A BUILDING IS SLANG FOR DEMOLISHING A BUILDING. http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit2.mp3 Just in case you didn't catch it the first time. http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV Analysis- http://www.infowarsmedia.com/video/clips/sept11/alex_analysis_wtc7.wmv By the way. IT TAKES AROUND A MONTH TO PLANT EXPLOSIVES IN A BUILIDNG AND PLAN A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. So if you think that there is some good reason as to why Building 7 was demolished, there isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted February 26, 2006 Share Posted February 26, 2006 No, it's just another lame conspiracist's theory. The windswept flames from the 5000+ gallons of fuel only needed to drop the top of the building by one or two floors to get the whole building moving straight down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmallIsPower Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Thermite. All 3 buildings collapsed symetrically. Collapse happens when the fractures PLUS the melting of the steel weaken the structure so that it can't support the weight above. How could the fractures be equal everywhere? A fraction of a second would produce noticable assymetry. Designed that way? How could the architects (around '74) believe that it would fall in anything but a controlled demolition. If a HUGE wind (maybe 180 mph) were to hit, I doubt it would pancake. The quake by the fall of WTCs1&2 would have also caused an asymetical fracture as well in WTC7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Small is power, you wouldn't happen to be ghost009, would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmallIsPower Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 No, I'm not ghost. I have 2 semesters of physics, and enough of a science background to try to visualise the problem, then work it out. It took me a long time to believe the conspiracy theory, it pains me greatly to think our government could sink so low, but it sure looks to me like physics backs it up. If you can refute my contentions, please do, while I'm knowledgable, I'm no expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 That removes all doubt, you are ghost009. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost009 Posted March 4, 2006 Author Share Posted March 4, 2006 That removes all doubt, you are ghost009. What is that supposed to mean? How did that remove all doubt? I can guarantee you that small is power isn't me. I just decided to stop by and check the responses. By the way, I didn't vote. So none of the votes in the poll are from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 a) there are very easy ways that we can use to determine if you're SmallIsPower (just wait for a moderator to pop in), b) this has been discussed before: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18608 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Small is power, you wouldn't happen to be ghost009, would you?Similarities but nothing definite, tough to tell. Different IPs, different ISPs, join dates a week apart. Both from GMT-8 time zone. Conspiracy breeds paranoia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 It isn't paranoia if we really are out to get him *grins more insanely than any emoticon in existance* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmallIsPower Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 WTC7 is the smoking gun! It could not be hit by falling debris, there was at least one building between it and WTC 1&2. As the most distant tower in the complex, the vibration of the fall would be the least. The weights of each tower were 1 billion pounds each, the towers almost 1400 feet high, so the average distance debris fell is 700 feet. The total force of a falling building is 700 billion foot-pounds. Using an online converter, I find that equals .0002 megatons. 1 Megaton = a 6.0 earthquake. A drop of a thousand = 2 points on the Richter scale so the total force is equal to a 3.5 earthquake, except most of that cancels out: the buildings, in a free fall would collapse in 10 seconds, the force distibuted over that time, with any dust taking longer to fall. A piece of the tower will depress the ground, then as the ground bounces back another piece hits the ground canceling out the rebound. The readings of 2.1 and 2.3 corrospond to about 1% of the force not cancelling out, or about the impact of a floor. Sounds logical to me, but I don't have enough physics to say for sure. Let's pretend that the maginitude 2.1 & 2.3 were just numbers a conspiracy theorist made up, that the actual energy that wasn't cancelled out was 10% of the energy of the fall wasn't cancelled out. This would be equivalent to a Magnitude 2.8 earthquake.How could two Magnitude 2.8 quakes cause WTC7 to fall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Perhaps you could wait for NIST to release its (independent) report on what caused WTC7 to fall down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmallIsPower Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 Wouldn't buildings in downtown Manhattan be designed so they'd survive the fall of nearby buildings if there were no significant debris strikes? Of course, the designers couldn't anticipate 9/11, but an incident, maybe a hurricane, tsunami etc that would require one of the twin towers to be taken down in a controlled demolition. Wouldn't the designers want WTC7 to stay stucturally sound in that case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmallIsPower Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 The hot spots are burning at several thousand degrees K, judging from the color, , correspondinding to the black body temperatures of burning thermite, or its hotter burning thermate. Additionally, much of the heat is coming from something molten (most likely metal), as opposed to combusting wood, paper etc. Bearing that in mind, now take a look at the second video on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Additionally, much of the heat is coming from something molten (most likely metal), as opposed to combusting wood, paper etc. Bearing that in mind, now take a look at the second video on this thread. Did you compare it to the heat emitted by burning jet fuel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmallIsPower Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.(Halfway down the page.)Themite burns at 2500C. Thermate with sulfur burns hotter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now