Evidence of explosives in WTC buildings?

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2

Evidence of explosives in WTC buildings?
Topic Started: Sep 18 2008, 10:23 PM (1,409 Views)
scott75	Sep 23 2008, 09:41 PM Post #26
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Thanks for the pointers JFK and Headspin, I've now used them to respond :-)... http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2020699&postcount=908
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


Headspin	Sep 23 2008, 09:41 PM Post #27
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	experiment trying to recreate the yellow-orange "molten aluminium mix" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY ...a dismal failure Edited by Headspin, Sep 23 2008, 09:42 PM.
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


scott75	Sep 23 2008, 09:49 PM Post #28
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Headspin Sep 23 2008, 09:41 PM experiment trying to recreate the yellow-orange "molten aluminium mix" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY ...a dismal failure Thanks, I added this in too :-).
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


hiphopopotamus	Sep 24 2008, 03:06 AM Post #29
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08	Headspin Sep 23 2008, 04:55 AM hiphopopotamus You guys need to get off Jones' nuts; the guy is a particle physicist and not a structural engineer. <snip appalling appeal to authority argument> Jones' work is available to be scrutinised by anyone, no matter what their qualifications or experience. NIST refuse to even discuss this with him, despite their team compromising the pioneers of nanothermite technology, preferring to just deny the data. It doesn't matter that its available to the world. There are still websites promoting eugenics, but it doesn't give the idea anymore credibility than it already has. Why should they debate someone unqualified to present a rational argument? Its a waste of their time. Had the head of a structural engineering program said 'you are wrong', they would probably listen. But he isn't an engineer, and probably never took an engineering class. I know you love whatever rhetoric class you took, but understanding what type of argument I'm using doesn't make it any less valid. The guy is not qualified to present himself as an expert in this matter, and yet he does. He should apologize to his many readers for misleading them about what he has written. Edited by hiphopopotamus, Sep 24 2008, 03:07 AM.
Posts: 211 Group: Members Member #578 Joined: 05/16/08


scott75	Sep 24 2008, 06:28 AM Post #30
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Hipho, don't get me wrong, I do like the fact that experts do exist. However, I don't think that we should bow to their wisdom without question. There is also the fact that many engineers also disagree with the official theory. Instead of only focusing on credentials, I think it would be wise to focus more on the arguments themselves.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


Stundie	Sep 24 2008, 09:31 AM Post #31
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	Headspin Sep 23 2008, 09:41 PM experiment trying to recreate the yellow-orange "molten aluminium mix" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQdkyaO56OY ...a dismal failure Here is a bit of a laugh. Crazy Chainsaw, believes that the molten metal pouring from the WTC is Aluminium mixed with Nitrogen. He posted this photo of it..... As you can see, it is not. When I asked for the source of the Nitrogen, he said it was Cheap nitrocellulose CD's (Compact Discs) and the Nitrogen in our Air. Debunkers, they'll make up any excuse for it not to be Molten Steel....lol Cheers Stundie
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


scott75	Sep 25 2008, 04:16 AM Post #32
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Quote: Crazy Chainsaw, believes that the molten metal pouring from the WTC is Aluminium mixed with Nitrogen. He posted this photo of it..... As you can see, it is not. I'm assuming that is a close up photo of the tower before collapse? Also, I'm guessing the reason it isn't is because it is orange? Quote: When I asked for the source of the Nitrogen, he said it was Cheap nitrocellulose CD's (Compact Discs) and the Nitrogen in our Air. What is this about Nitrogen? Quote: Debunkers, they'll make up any excuse for it not to be Molten Steel....lol Heh :-). The only real concern I have is: doesn't Steven Jones think it might be molten iron? This point has gotten me doubting whether it's molten steel or molten iron.. or perhaps it's a bit of both (not even sure which one the tower was leaking before it fell). Edited by scott75, Sep 25 2008, 04:17 AM.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


scott75	Sep 25 2008, 08:08 PM Post #33
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Ok, some more incoming from a debunker. Please help me with the material quoted in the following post: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2023655&postcount=959
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


scott75	Sep 25 2008, 09:27 PM Post #34
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Could also use some help with the quoted material in this post: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2023758&posted=1#post2023758
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


Miragememories	Sep 26 2008, 09:12 AM Post #35
Posts: 756 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	I registered there and replied directly. MM
Posts: 756 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Headspin	Sep 26 2008, 12:25 PM Post #36
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	scott75 Sep 25 2008, 08:08 PM Ok, some more incoming from a debunker. Please help me with the material quoted in the following post: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2023655&postcount=959 Hi scott, some things here might help, regards. "One huge obstacle you have to overcome is explaining how it would even be possible to demolish a building with thermate. " - There are patents of aluminothermic demolition devices and companies that make them, so clearly it is not impossible. "Here’s what NIST has to say about the of thermite/thermate being used to demolish the towers: "Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition. 1. NIST are saying that it is possible, KennyJC is saying that it is impossible, so KennyJC seems to be in disagreement with NIST. 2. NIST confine their response to "thermite" in its basic micron powder form - iron oxide and aluminium powder that we all recognise on youtube thermite flowerpot videos. Thermate (with an "A"), however, is a derivative of thermite and can cut steel much easier than basic micron thermite powder (like a hot knife through butter), perhaps the reason NIST use the term "thermite" rather than "thermate" in their response is that they wanted to present the highest number possible for the amount of required thermite, in order to make the explanation of thermite as implausible as possible, which would make their response consistent with the political method rather than the scientific method. 3. The lead WTC investigators are the PIONEERS of Nanothermite technology (it was invented in the 1990s, maybe even earlier), particularly the form of Nanothermite that is sprayable as a fireproofing foam, yet NIST make no mention of Nanothermite in their response, perhaps they could not draw the conclusion of "unlikely" if they had considered their own invention of sprayable nanothermite fireproofing foam in their response. 4. Nanothermite is an ultra-light substance, much lighter than normal thermite powder, so it is extremely surprising that the NIST inventors of Nanothermite technology claim that "many thousands of pounds of thermite" would be required - did the NIST investigators suddenly "forget" their area of expertise?! 5. NIST makes the claim that thermite would have to have been "somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building", NIST are surely aware that in 1999 fireproofing foam sprayed onto and held in direct contact with the steel structures on exactly the same floors where the planes hit the towers and at the exact floors where the collapse initiated, see graphic here: http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=44231&t=99915 NIST's claim therefore, that their sprayable thermite foam is "unlikely" because it would have to have been "placed inconspicuously" is clearly an opinion unfounded in logic. 6. NIST also make the claim that it would be unlikely to have been "remotely ignited", when we know that NASA deals with remote explosives on spaceships, perhaps NIST are suggesting NASAs explosive spacecraft bolts are attached to an operator on planet earth with perhaps a detonation cord hundreds of millions of miles long?! 7. Nanothermite is a high explosive and is quite capable cutting steel. https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf Edited by Headspin, Sep 26 2008, 01:27 PM.
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


scott75	Sep 30 2008, 10:05 AM Post #37
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	scott75 Sep 25 2008, 09:27 PM Could also use some help with the quoted material in this post: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2023758&posted=1#post2023758 I just realized you were on here first, laugh ;-). I was thinking, man, this miragememories sure knows his stuff, lol :-)
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


scott75	Oct 6 2008, 05:54 AM Post #38
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Would like a bit of help with this claim: Quote: Originally Posted by scott3x Quote: More like exploded to the side: ************************************************ The horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of feet and the pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, ********************************************** A collapse flinging steel does not demonstrate explosion. What happens when you bend a card and let one end slip? I have a friend who works in geomorphology. He tells me that collapsing slopes pulverize rock into dust all the time. Not a big shocker that a falling building would do the same. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2036673&postcount=1175 Can geomorphology account for "a 600,000-pound chunk of steel (twice the weight of a Boeing airliner) was flung 400 feet, wedging itself deep into Three World Financial Center on Vesey Street."? I sincerely doubt it, but this is expert stuff so I'll leave it to you guys. Edited by scott75**, Oct 6 2008, 05:55 AM.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


Miragememories	Oct 6 2008, 08:32 AM Post #39
Posts: 756 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	scott75 Oct 6 2008, 05:54 AM Would like a bit of help with this claim: Quote: Originally Posted by scott3x Quote: More like exploded to the side: ************************************************ The horizontal ejection of steel beams for hundreds of feet and the pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, ********************************************** A collapse flinging steel does not demonstrate explosion. What happens when you bend a card and let one end slip? I have a friend who works in geomorphology. He tells me that collapsing slopes pulverize rock into dust all the time. Not a big shocker that a falling building would do the same. http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2036673&postcount=1175 Can geomorphology account for "a 600,000-pound chunk of steel (twice the weight of a Boeing airliner) was flung 400 feet, wedging itself deep into Three World Financial Center on Vesey Street."? I sincerely doubt it, but this is expert stuff so I'll leave it to you guys. I've pretty much given up on that site. It combines the worst of JREF behavior with the added irritation of next to no moderation and a major lack of attendance. There is little point in spending precious time replying to what appears to be only a few people who have absolutely no interest in considering opposing arguments. Regarding the ejected steel, you might ask yourself, why were so few of these heavy steel sections tossed such great distances if this phenomenon is a normal expectation? Here we have the world's tallest building collapsing at close to freefall speed, supposedly buckling and crushing thousands of heavy structural steel perimeter and core columns. The Official Theory denies artificial explosive forces were applied. The Official Story accepts the projected steel as the consequence of an overwhelming transfer of kinetic energy unleashed by the falling upper section. If these thousands of steel columns did not move forward as a result of internal explosions, than they must have behaved as, and sprung forward like, released springs**. Given the extraordinary speed of the collapse, if thousands of these rapidly compressed columns were capable of behaving springlike, why wasn't there much more evidence of this behavior? You also have to ask yourself what force was capable of flinging steel column assembles, weighing hundreds of tons such great distances after quickly removing the connections at all points? I can understand a card, unsecured, held in place only by friction, sustaining tension and springing forward as one end slips free releasing it's stored tension energy. I can't understand massive steel column assemblies, securely connected at all sides, by welds and bolts, simultaneously breaking all those connection points, bending, and within a fraction of a second, slipping free and springing forward hundreds of feet. This was not a house of cards. MM
Posts: 756 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Headspin	Oct 6 2008, 08:53 AM Post #40
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Miragememories Oct 6 2008, 08:32 AM This was not a house of cards. it most definitely is!
Posts: 967 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Stundie	Oct 6 2008, 09:45 AM Post #41
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	Miragememories Oct 6 2008, 08:32 AM I've pretty much given up on that site. It combines the worst of JREF behavior with the added irritation of next to no moderation and a major lack of attendance. There is little point in spending precious time replying to what appears to be only a few people who have absolutely no interest in considering opposing arguments. Regarding the ejected steel, you might ask yourself, why were so few of these heavy steel sections tossed such great distances if this phenomenon is a normal expectation? Here we have the world's tallest building collapsing at close to freefall speed, supposedly buckling and crushing thousands of heavy structural steel perimeter and core columns. The Official Theory denies artificial explosive forces were applied. The Official Story accepts the projected steel as the consequence of an overwhelming transfer of kinetic energy unleashed by the falling upper section. If these thousands of steel columns did not move forward as a result of internal explosions, than they must have behaved as, and sprung forward like, released springs. Given the extraordinary speed of the collapse, if thousands of these rapidly compressed columns were capable of behaving springlike, why wasn't there much more evidence of this behavior? You also have to ask yourself what force was capable of flinging steel column assembles, weighing hundreds of tons such great distances after quickly removing the connections at all points? I can understand a card, unsecured, held in place only by friction, sustaining tension and springing forward as one end slips free releasing it's stored tension energy. I can't understand massive steel column assemblies, securely connected at all sides, by welds and bolts, simultaneously breaking all those connection points, bending, and within a fraction of a second, slipping free and springing forward hundreds of feet. This was not a house of cards. MM I understand exactly what you are saying MM. Most people who say it is impossible are not true skeptics, how can you be a skeptic if something is impossible, but this is used as an argument as to why the reason for CD theories are not looked at let alone evaluated. These so called official theories have changed cost over $20 million and evolved over the years from pancaking, pile driver collapse theories etc, all which have errors, defy basic physics or doesn't fit the evidence and data available. All of these strange official collapses theories are running out fast, even a more realistic crush up vs crush down model using both inelastic and elastic collisions is riddled with a simple physics problem. There must be a point when the weakness of these official story/NIST related theories where you realise that it as to make an honest person ask, why not look at the evidence to support the possibility of a demolition and test theories around that idea? I'm not a scientist, so I was wondering if you know how long it takes before all avenues of a probable heat fed gravity collapse theory which don't work do you decide to give up on it and start looking at other alternative theories? Or do we continue to flog a dead horse of fire induced collapse theory? Cheers Stundie Edited by Stundie, Oct 6 2008, 09:51 AM.
Posts: 888 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


Grit1645	Oct 6 2008, 09:55 AM Post #42
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	scott75 Can geomorphology account for "a 600,000-pound chunk of steel (twice the weight of a Boeing airliner) was flung 400 feet, wedging itself deep into Three World Financial Center on Vesey Street."? I sincerely doubt it, but this is expert stuff so I'll leave it to you guys. It's already been mentioned that the piece could not have weighed 600,000 pounds, and that the FEMA caption on the picture where it appears is an obvious typo. As far as flinging stuff, some of the exterior walls can be seen peeling away like banana peels from the rest of the building. If the wall is peeling away from a height of 700-900 feet, lots of things can end up being thrown pretty far out.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Miragememories	Oct 6 2008, 10:17 AM Post #43
Posts: 756 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	scott75 Can geomorphology account for "a 600,000-pound chunk of steel (twice the weight of a Boeing airliner) was flung 400 feet, wedging itself deep into Three World Financial Center on Vesey Street."? I sincerely doubt it, but this is expert stuff so I'll leave it to you guys. Grit1645 "It's already been mentioned that the piece could not have weighed 600,000 pounds, and that the FEMA caption on the picture where it appears is an obvious typo. As far as flinging stuff, some of the exterior walls can be seen peeling away like banana peels from the rest of the building. If the wall is peeling away from a height of 700-900 feet, lots of things can end up being thrown pretty far out." Don't just say it Grit1645, explain it. Sure, lightweight materials could "peel away", and from such great height be expected to drift a significant distance horizontally during it's slow gravity-induced descent to the ground. But large, heavy, multi-ton steel column assemblies? What mechanism are you talking about, that would empower these column assemblies to tear free of their connections and not "peel and drop", but "peel and project horizontally" hundreds of feet? MM
Posts: 756 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Miragememories	Oct 6 2008, 10:25 AM Post #44
Posts: 756 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Here's a question. If professionally imploded buildings are at risk of 'projecting' heavy structural steel, why do we never hear of it happening, and what do demolition experts do to prevent this serious problem? MM
Posts: 756 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Grit1645	Oct 6 2008, 11:01 AM Post #45
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	mm Don't just say it Grit1645, explain it. Sure, lightweight materials could "peel away", and from such great height be expected to drift a significant distance horizontally during it's slow gravity-induced descent to the ground. But large, heavy, multi-ton steel column assemblies? What mechanism are you talking about, that would empower these column assemblies to tear free of their connections and not "peel and drop", but "peel and project horizontally" hundreds of feet? I'm not talking about lightweight pieces. Imagine one exterior wall, lets use the word "falling" out sideways, like a huge sheet of plywood standing on one end and falling over onto its side. Suppose the top of the "sheet" is at 800 feet high. If it were to simply fall over, and remain one piece (like plywood) the topmost part would land on the ground 800 feet from the base, right? Now consider that if you had ONE of the exterior or interior WTC columns, freestanding in space ground to roof, it could not stand under its own weight. The least deformation would cause large bending moments that would overcome the capacity of the column. Likewise, a whole wall, unsupported in the weak direction, would buckle. So the steel frame, falling outward, is more like a flexible object bending over backwards (as opposed to the plywood), and as the bending moment at particular joints of the bending frame becomes too much for the connections, the pieces are snapping off. Ever see a cartoon where someone ties a thin flexible tree down by the top and uses it to catapult something? The pieces that are snapping off are being ejected from a section which is IN MOTION, so they will carry that motion forward like a ball thrown from your hand. Since the motion is a "bending outward" type of motion, it has a horizontal component, therefore ejected pieces will carry a horizontal motion forward. This is true regardless of how much they weigh, because the equations of motion are not dependent on the weight in the first order {x=x(0) + v(0)*t}
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Miragememories	Oct 6 2008, 11:57 AM Post #46
Posts: 756 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Miragememories "Don't just say it Grit1645, explain it. Sure, lightweight materials could "peel away", and from such great height be expected to drift a significant distance horizontally during it's slow gravity-induced descent to the ground. But large, heavy, multi-ton steel column assemblies? What mechanism are you talking about, that would empower these column assemblies to tear free of their connections and not "peel and drop", but "peel and project horizontally" hundreds of feet?" Grit1645 "I'm not talking about lightweight pieces. Imagine one exterior wall, lets use the word "falling" out sideways, like a huge sheet of plywood standing on one end and falling over onto its side. Suppose the top of the "sheet" is at 800 feet high. If it were to simply fall over, and remain one piece (like plywood) the topmost part would land on the ground 800 feet from the base, right?" Bad example to begin with since it is not comparable to the point being discussed. Grit1645 "Now consider that if you had ONE of the exterior or interior WTC columns, freestanding in space ground to roof, it could not stand under its own weight. The least deformation would cause large bending moments that would overcome the capacity of the column. Likewise, a whole wall, unsupported in the weak direction, would buckle." I agree, but again, it is not comparable to the point being discussed. Grit1645 "So the steel frame, falling outward, is more like a flexible object bending over backwards (as opposed to the plywood), and as the bending moment at particular joints of the bending frame becomes too much for the connections, the pieces are snapping off." In any of the collapse videos, did you observe any tall external perimeter column assemblies bending outward from the building prior to breaking up? Or did you see a rapidly collapsing building under a relatively symmetrical debris cloud? I never saw anything looking like a ladder falling away which would allow sections to be carried horizontally some distance. Grit1645 "Ever see a cartoon where someone ties a thin flexible tree down by the top and uses it to catapult something? The pieces that are snapping off are being ejected from a section which is IN MOTION, so they will carry that motion forward like a ball thrown from your hand. Since the motion is a "bending outward" type of motion, it has a horizontal component, therefore ejected pieces will carry a horizontal motion forward. This is true regardless of how much they weigh, because the equations of motion are not dependent on the weight in the first order {x=x(0) + v(0)t}" Now that is rich. In your previous quote you have a tall steel frame bending and breaking at connection points which "snap." Obviously, those pieces will drop from the horizontal point they reached when the connection broke. In the last quote, your example transforms into an object that now bends like a catapult. Now you have pieces "ejecting" from a "catapult" which you suggest will be thrown forward like "a ball thrown from your hand"*. Amazing. MM
Posts: 756 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


Grit1645	Oct 6 2008, 12:41 PM Post #47
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08	Miragememories Oct 6 2008, 11:57 AM In your previous quote you have a tall steel frame bending and breaking at connection points which "snap." Obviously, those pieces will drop from the horizontal point they reached when the connection broke. mm In your previous quote you have a tall steel frame bending and breaking at connection points which "snap." Obviously, those pieces will drop from the horizontal point they reached when the connection broke. But will they drop with only vertical motion if they have some horizontal motion prior to breaking free? And yes, some of the videos show sections falling outward like a ladder.
Posts: 305 Group: BANNED! Member #797 Joined: 08/12/08


Miragememories	Oct 6 2008, 01:46 PM Post #48
Posts: 756 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08	Miragememories Oct 6 2008, 11:57 AM "In your previous quote you have a tall steel frame bending and breaking at connection points which "snap." Obviously, those pieces will drop from the horizontal point they reached when the connection broke. Grit1645 "But will they drop with only vertical motion if they have some horizontal* motion prior to breaking free? And yes, some of the videos show sections falling outward like a ladder."* Please source the videos that show the phenomenon you describe. I saw one large section that looked "ejected", but not as you described. You will also notice in the photo example, that there are numerous connection points on the perimeter column assembly. Without explosives, it would seem highly unlikely that they would all "snap" simultaneously and allow for the horizontal projection you so readily accept. MM
Posts: 756 Group: Members Member #40 Joined: 01/15/08


SPreston	Oct 6 2008, 03:06 PM Post #49
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Grit1645 Oct 6 2008, 09:55 AM scott75 Can geomorphology account for "a 600,000-pound chunk of steel (twice the weight of a Boeing airliner) was flung 400 feet, wedging itself deep into Three World Financial Center on Vesey Street."? I sincerely doubt it, but this is expert stuff so I'll leave it to you guys. It's already been mentioned that the piece could not have weighed 600,000 pounds, and that the FEMA caption on the picture where it appears is an obvious typo. As far as flinging stuff, some of the exterior walls can be seen peeling away like banana peels from the rest of the building. If the wall is peeling away from a height of 700-900 feet, lots of things can end up being thrown pretty far out. Nah. That chunk of heavy steel sticking into WFC3 is 450 feet away from WTC1. Even if it was only 6000 lbs, that is a long way for a gravity collapse to throw it. A delayed explosion out of sequence hurling the piece of steel, after the top-down demolition had already sheared the welds and bolts makes much more sense. Obviously WTC 1 did not topple over on top of WFC3.



scott75	Oct 7 2008, 08:31 AM Post #50
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08	Thanks everyone for your help. I have responded to the critic here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2037424&postcount=1195 Edited by scott75, Oct 7 2008, 08:31 AM.
Posts: 152 Group: Members Member #827 Joined: 09/05/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · World Trade Center · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2