Conspiracies - Page 150

**DTravel** · October 21st, 2012, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squigg58

Sorry ... I'm not sure what you're referring to. All what in 9.2 seconds?

I think he's saying he can't believe that each of the WTC towers collapsed and was completely destroyed in 9.2 seconds. He can't believe that something that large and massive can be gone in less than 10 seconds.

**otokonomidori** · October 21st, 2012, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTravel

He can't believe that something that large and massive can be gone in less than 10 seconds.

Like your hard on when your discover your girlfriend is a man.

**billybunter** · October 21st, 2012, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTravel

I think he's saying he can't believe that each of the WTC towers collapsed and was completely destroyed in 9.2 seconds. He can't believe that something that large and massive can be gone in less than 10 seconds.

Call me BB DTravel.

The argument about one floor crashing the next has proven to be rubbish I thought. that's why it was built the way it was. But maybe i'm wrong. The concrete was dust by the time it had fell. If a floor was crashing another you would have large chunks of concrete too? And they would come flying out of the tower.

**squigg58** · October 21st, 2012, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billybunter

Call me BB DTravel.

The argument about one floor crashing the next has proven to be rubbish I thought. that's why it was built the way it was. But maybe i'm wrong. The concrete was dust by the time it had fell. If a floor was crashing another you would have large chunks of concrete too? And they would come flying out of the tower.

Yes ... and that's exactly what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fg1jmr3n6w

Note! The sound level varies a lot from one clip to the next, so don't turn the volume up too much on a quiet clip as you might deafen yourself when the next one starts!

The video shows the North Tower collapsing from a number of different vantage points. The final three clips (from 4.45 onwards) give some of the best views of huge chunks of masonry falling down, having come flying out of the tower.

A screenshot from one of the clearer videos showing large chunks of debris.

**squigg58** · October 22nd, 2012, 09:59 PM

A fascinating paper detailing how the structural system adopted for the Twin-Towers may have been unusually vulnerable to a major fire.

http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstrea...1/WTCpaper.pdf

There are a number of interesting features about the report.

First of all, it only looks at the effects of fire, so does not include structural damage due to the impact of the aircraft. In fact, they pose the question "had there been no structural damage would the structure have survived fires of a similar magnitude?"

It also takes the lowest theoretical temperatures for the fire, so does not exaggerate the effects of heat in order to create a "worst case scenario".

The report is based on a series of large-scale fire tests conducted on actual steel-frames structures at Cardington in 2000 (so before 9/11) by the BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering at Edinburgh University, in collaboration with the Corus Group (formerly British Steel) and Imperial College London.

The results of the calculations and mathematical modelling show that a multiple-floor fire could have resulted in collapse. Interestingly, a single-floor fire would not.

In 1975, there was a serious fire in the North Tower of the WTC, but this was confined to one floor. Some websites like to note that "the fire also spread to to other floors" but surprisingly (

) fail to quote the full report which states that the fire spread from the 11th floor through a 12" x 18" telephone cable shaft, "but the blaze did not escape from the shaft out into rooms or hallways on the other floors". Also, the duct fire which was noted on the 9th to 19th floors was "readily extinguished". In other words, there was not the multiple-floor fire which would affect the steel trusses of the floors as modelled in the report.

It should, of course, be noted that the report states in it's conclusion: "these buildings could have collapsed as a result of a major fire event." It makes no claim that they definitely did. However, the conspiracy theories are based on the fact that nothing other than high explosives, nuclear weapons, energy beams fired from space, or super-thermite charges could have brought down the buildings. No other possibilities exist.

**tamsmith** · October 22nd, 2012, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fleetwood77

Like your hard on when your discover your girlfriend is a man.

That can't be true??

**TCO95** · October 23rd, 2012, 02:10 AM

In several of the reports I read and in the documentaries I watched there was mention of "Thermite in the dust residue collected." When I read up on what the ingredients are to thermite it seemed that the ingredient list shouldn't be found in the dust of a collapsed building. However, I understand there are several ways to create thermite and a thermolitic reaction. Some of the ingredients like iron oxide, copper oxide, lead oxide and aluminum you would expect to find. But when the towers were built, 1966 - 70/71, titanium wasn't as common as it is today. What purpose would magnesium, boron and silicon have in their construction?

I have never built a skyscraper or caused a thermolitic reaction, so I may be off base on what should or shouldn't be present. Does anyone in this discussion have enough knowledge of thermite to explain how or why the ingredients could be found in the dust?

A wikipedia article with the ingredient list : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

**DTravel** · October 23rd, 2012, 03:35 AM

Silicon is rock, ridiculously common. Any stone surfaces, like the granite counters in kitchens or restrooms, will be a source of silicon.

Magnesium is, if I recall correctly, a common trace ingredient in steel.

Boron is not as common as silicon but probably still found in the same sources.

Something I feel the need to point out is that the dust and residue wasn't make up of just what when into the structural members and materials used to construct the buildings. There's all the stuff that is brought in to the buildings by the hundreds of thousands of people who worked in them. Titanium could have been used in light industrial process or prototyping, etc. There was probably some radioactives in the mix as well, from glow in the dark displays and watches if nothing else.

**MrInBetween** · October 23rd, 2012, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamsmith

Quote:

Originally Posted by fleetwood77

Like your hard on when your discover your girlfriend is a man.

That can't be true??

It is true, but the 'man' has been trying to stop it getting out for years.

**Nobody1** · October 23rd, 2012, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTravel

Silicon is rock, ridiculously common. Any stone surfaces, like the granite counters in kitchens or restrooms, will be a source of silicon.

You mean silicon dioxide (silica). Silicon is a component of Thermite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_dioxide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

October 22nd, 2012, 09:59 PM	#1495
squigg58 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: My own little world Posts: 2,476 Thanks: 14,113 Thanked 25,970 Times in 2,473 Posts	A fascinating paper detailing how the structural system adopted for the Twin-Towers may have been unusually vulnerable to a major fire. http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstrea...1/WTCpaper.pdf There are a number of interesting features about the report. First of all, it only looks at the effects of fire, so does not include structural damage due to the impact of the aircraft. In fact, they pose the question "had there been no structural damage would the structure have survived fires of a similar magnitude?" It also takes the lowest theoretical temperatures for the fire, so does not exaggerate the effects of heat in order to create a "worst case scenario". The report is based on a series of large-scale fire tests conducted on actual steel-frames structures at Cardington in 2000 (so before 9/11) by the BRE Centre for Fire Safety Engineering at Edinburgh University, in collaboration with the Corus Group (formerly British Steel) and Imperial College London. The results of the calculations and mathematical modelling show that a multiple-floor fire could have resulted in collapse. Interestingly, a single-floor fire would not. In 1975, there was a serious fire in the North Tower of the WTC, but this was confined to one floor. Some websites like to note that "the fire also spread to to other floors" but surprisingly () fail to quote the full report which states that the fire spread from the 11th floor through a 12" x 18" telephone cable shaft, "but the blaze did not escape from the shaft out into rooms or hallways on the other floors". Also, the duct fire which was noted on the 9th to 19th floors was "readily extinguished". In other words, there was not the multiple-floor fire which would affect the steel trusses of the floors as modelled in the report. It should, of course, be noted that the report states in it's conclusion: "these buildings could have collapsed as a result of a major fire event." It makes no claim that they definitely did. However, the conspiracy theories are based on the fact that nothing other than high explosives, nuclear weapons, energy beams fired from space, or super-thermite charges could have brought down the buildings. No other possibilities exist.

October 23rd, 2012, 03:35 AM	#1498
DTravel Lean Mean Screencap Machine Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Better you don't know. Posts: 23,804 Thanks: 10,480 Thanked 207,285 Times in 23,710 Posts	Silicon is rock, ridiculously common. Any stone surfaces, like the granite counters in kitchens or restrooms, will be a source of silicon. Magnesium is, if I recall correctly, a common trace ingredient in steel. Boron is not as common as silicon but probably still found in the same sources. Something I feel the need to point out is that the dust and residue wasn't make up of just what when into the structural members and materials used to construct the buildings. There's all the stuff that is brought in to the buildings by the hundreds of thousands of people who worked in them. Titanium could have been used in light industrial process or prototyping, etc. There was probably some radioactives in the mix as well, from glow in the dark displays and watches if nothing else. __________________ To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I rage and weep for my country. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. I can reup screencaps, other material might have been lost.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

October 23rd, 2012, 02:10 AM	#1497
TCO95 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: This member is not allowed in your country. Posts: 5,176 Thanks: 47,615 Thanked 64,797 Times in 5,130 Posts	In several of the reports I read and in the documentaries I watched there was mention of "Thermite in the dust residue collected." When I read up on what the ingredients are to thermite it seemed that the ingredient list shouldn't be found in the dust of a collapsed building. However, I understand there are several ways to create thermite and a thermolitic reaction. Some of the ingredients like iron oxide, copper oxide, lead oxide and aluminum you would expect to find. But when the towers were built, 1966 - 70/71, titanium wasn't as common as it is today. What purpose would magnesium, boron and silicon have in their construction? I have never built a skyscraper or caused a thermolitic reaction, so I may be off base on what should or shouldn't be present. Does anyone in this discussion have enough knowledge of thermite to explain how or why the ingredients could be found in the dust? A wikipedia article with the ingredient list : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite