eots
no fly list
ooooh more bullshit videos
that building had a CONCRETE CORE
what building ? there are multiple building fires shown in this video
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ooooh more bullshit videos
that building had a CONCRETE CORE
I don't have an explanation for the lack of slag on the exterior of the left plate.My mistake.
This was NOT the second time I posted the question.
It WAS the first.
Now tell me if the interior of the left plate along with the exterior surfaces of the top and right plates are visible in this photo?
No they are not.
Now explain something to me. Why is there slag on the EXTERIOR of the bottom plate, but there is NO slag on the EXTERIOR of the left plate? Please explain.
Steven Jones said:A number of FGs straw-man arguments were also identified and dispelled. On May 11, 2009, I wrote to FG: Nor is your conflation of "thermate" with "nanothermite" valid. Nor did I EVER write or say that thermate alone would suffice to bring down the Towers, but rather wrote that explosives would be needed (in addition).
During the discussion, I briefly expressed my hypothesis that nanothermite served as an igniting agent, as in the super-thermite matches described in our paper, to ignite more conventional explosives such as C4 or HMX, in the destruction of the WTC buildings. Thermate (sulfur plus thermite and possibly the form thermate-TH-3) was ALSO in evidence and probably intended to weaken critical steel members (e.g., residue/ material flowing with orange glow from the So. Tower just minutes before its collapse and the sulfidation of WTC steel reported in the FEMA report but ignored by NIST). Thermite incendiary without sulfur is not in evidence at the WTC to date.
But sulfur is NOT needed for the function of explosive nanothermite and would not be expected to appear in the red/gray chips. Reliable and robust super- or nano-thermite ignitors would each be ignited by an electrical pulse generated by a radio-receiver, in turn igniting shaped charges to cut steel, the sequence beginning near where the planes went in for the Towers and computer-controlled, so that the destruction wave would proceed via explosives in top-down sequence. Thus, this was no conventional (bottom first) controlled demolition, agreeing on this with B. Blanchard, but I never claimed it was! (For the Towers; the demolition of WTC7 appears to be bottom-first and more conventional.) The top-down destruction of the Towers in this model would doubtless require more explosives than would a conventional controlled demolition. Thermate (an incendiary, not an explosive) is not the be all and end all explanation (FGs terminology), nor did I ever claim it was I have consistently pointed to evidence that explosives were used in bringing down the Towers.
How many of those responding regularly to this thread believe there is NO good reason for an INDEPENDENT investigation into the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001?
yeah, and no plane hit that building either
Question for you eots concerning the Windsor Tower in that video. What is the difference between the Windsor Tower and WTC7, WTC1, and WTC2? It wouldn't happen to be the fact that it had a concrete core would it?
Is that why the STEEL structure around the CONCRETE core collpased, yet the CONCRETE core stood?
The following is a link about the Windsor Tower, it's design, and the fire. Notice the picture on this page BEFORE the fire. What collapsed eots? I thought office fires didn't burn hot enough to collapse steel???
Please explain.
Case Studies: Historical Fires: Windsor Tower Fire
Question for you eots concerning the Windsor Tower in that video. What is the difference between the Windsor Tower and WTC7, WTC1, and WTC2? It wouldn't happen to be the fact that it had a concrete core would it?
Is that why the STEEL structure around the CONCRETE core collpased, yet the CONCRETE core stood?
The following is a link about the Windsor Tower, it's design, and the fire. Notice the picture on this page BEFORE the fire. What collapsed eots? I thought office fires didn't burn hot enough to collapse steel???
rPlease explain.
Case Studies: Historical Fires: Windsor Tower Fire
From Republic Magazine Vol 16 P.23:According to David Chandler's calculations the 2.25 seconds of free fall covered a distance of approximately 8 stories.Hold on a second George.
You say the roof-line took 6.5 seconds to collapse, yet freefall happened for only 2.23 seconds of it.
What happened that it didn't free-fall the ENTIRE 6.5 seconds???
Least resistance, right George? So what resisted the other 4+ seconds, if all the beams and connections were cut?
The destruction of the remaining 39 floors were slowed by 40,000 tons of structural steel and 90,000 tons of concrete not to mention the gypsum planking, drop ceiling tiles and fire proofing.
Do you think there's any connection between the collapse of the mechanical penthouse and those eight stories of free fall?
Are you saying that the only way to create free-fall is to cut the columns and beams completely and that failing steel columns/beams in a structure, due to loss of strength or thermal expansion caused by heat, cannot cause the same thing?
find a credible sourceFrom Republic Magazine Vol 16 P.23:According to David Chandler's calculations the 2.25 seconds of free fall covered a distance of approximately 8 stories.
The destruction of the remaining 39 floors were slowed by 40,000 tons of structural steel and 90,000 tons of concrete not to mention the gypsum planking, drop ceiling tiles and fire proofing.
Do you think there's any connection between the collapse of the mechanical penthouse and those eight stories of free fall?
Are you saying that the only way to create free-fall is to cut the columns and beams completely and that failing steel columns/beams in a structure, due to loss of strength or thermal expansion caused by heat, cannot cause the same thing?
"In its final report NIST reversed itself on its denial of free-fall, but it couched its revised statement in deceptive language and failed to address how free fall could be compatible with its fire induced progressive collapse analysis.
"For the observed straight-down collapse, a thick network of heavy steel columns and beams had to be forcibly removed and more than 400 structural steel connections had to fail per second evenly all across each of the eight floors..."
"Moreover, in what looks like an attempt to bury the discussion, its change of stance on the question of free fall was omitted from the list of changes in its final report."
what content?Refute this content.
If you can.
"A free-falling object can not exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own its own fall."what content?Refute this content.
If you can.
what about it?"A free-falling object can not exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own its own fall."what content?Refute this content.
If you can.
David Chandler's calculation of 2.25 seconds of free-fall speed correlates to a distance of 100 feet or approximately 8 stories.what about it?"A free-falling object can not exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own its own fall."what content?
how is that relevant?
no, they didntDavid Chandler's calculation of 2.25 seconds of free-fall speed correlates to a distance of 100 feet or approximately 8 stories.what about it?"A free-falling object can not exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own its own fall."
how is that relevant?
The Republic article makes the claim on page 23 that "... more than 400 structural steel connection had to fail per second evenly all across each of the eight floors involved."
"These failures had to occur ahead of the collapsing section--NOT caused by it--because a free-falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall."
here's georgephilip's idol, chomsky, on the issue. still waiting for george to listen to him on this issue.no, they didntDavid Chandler's calculation of 2.25 seconds of free-fall speed correlates to a distance of 100 feet or approximately 8 stories.what about it?
how is that relevant?
The Republic article makes the claim on page 23 that "... more than 400 structural steel connection had to fail per second evenly all across each of the eight floors involved."
"These failures had to occur ahead of the collapsing section--NOT caused by it--because a free-falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall."
and as shown by the full video, some started way before you saw the remaining building collapse
why are you going back to already debunked issues again?
When you use the word "they" are you referring to the 400 structural steel connections that would have had to fail across each of the eight floors for free fall to occur?no, they didntDavid Chandler's calculation of 2.25 seconds of free-fall speed correlates to a distance of 100 feet or approximately 8 stories.what about it?
how is that relevant?
The Republic article makes the claim on page 23 that "... more than 400 structural steel connection had to fail per second evenly all across each of the eight floors involved."
"These failures had to occur ahead of the collapsing section--NOT caused by it--because a free-falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall."
and as shown by the full video, some started way before you saw the remaining building collapse
why are you going back to already debunked issues again?