Joined: 09 Feb 2007 Posts: 630 Location: Manchester
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:06 am Post subject:
This is what NIST state in their FAQs:
Quote:
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
I just reread the above and it’s a bit more ambiguous than I initially thought. The question (heading) refers to the towers, whilst the answer refers to “the first exterior panels.”
I haven’t yet heard a standard explanation regarding the vertical distribution of debris, but my take is as follows:
We know from the resultant debris field that large chunks of exterior columns travelled over 100m laterally. So at the moment these chunks left the tower we know they must have had sufficient lateral velocity to travel that distance. One moment they are attached to the tower, but the next moment they are ejected sideways; i.e. they were accelerated by a short but intense force.
Now suppose the direction of that short but intense force is fairly random. Then one would expect to see a randomized distribution of initial velocities including upward, lateral and downward directions. This would result in a vertical distribution of the debris, with some chunks clearly moving ahead of the main field.
Or in short, the thing exploded.
As a general point, it's probably not wise to pin too much on any one anomaly; e.g. freefall spead. There's so many anomalies, lies and unanswered questions that the sheer weight of them is likely to be what wins through. _________________ Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
I just reread the above and it’s a bit more ambiguous than I initially thought. The question (heading) refers to the towers, whilst the answer refers to “the first exterior panels.”
I haven’t yet heard a standard explanation regarding the vertical distribution of debris, but my take is as follows:
We know from the resultant debris field that large chunks of exterior columns travelled over 100m laterally. So at the moment these chunks left the tower we know they must have had sufficient lateral velocity to travel that distance. One moment they are attached to the tower, but the next moment they are ejected sideways; i.e. they were accelerated by a short but intense force.
Now suppose the direction of that short but intense force is fairly random. Then one would expect to see a randomized distribution of initial velocities including upward, lateral and downward directions. This would result in a vertical distribution of the debris, with some chunks clearly moving ahead of the main field.
Or in short, the thing exploded.
As a general point, it's probably not wise to pin too much on any one anomaly; e.g. freefall spead. There's so many anomalies, lies and unanswered questions that the sheer weight of them is likely to be what wins through.
Yes. This is why I would like to build a resevoir of irrefutible evidence. Much of what is currently accepted as gospel may be flawed. That said, I now know that the tower in my previous post was collapsing at free-fall speed. I measured the distance travelled by the fastest-moving debris and the top edge of the tower. To all intents and purposes they were moving together. In fact the tower edge moves slightly faster than the fastest-moving debris, probably due to wind resistance slowing the debris more.
I used to think the freefall evidence was perhaps open to interpretation, but this measurement clinches it as being for real. I can't post the graphic because even in Print Screen the image is still being controlled by the media player. I will post in on this page when I figger out how to stop the damn thing moving!
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 Posts: 630 Location: Manchester
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:36 pm Post subject:
Quote:
I just reread the above and it’s a bit more ambiguous than I initially thought. The question (heading) refers to the towers, whilst the answer refers to “the first exterior panels.”
I was having a think about this. I don’t know how sensitive the seismic recording is, but I would have thought it to be very questionable that it could have identified “the first exterior panels” hitting the ground. _________________ Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Is the power-down completely confirmed? And why not in the other tower too? If both towers had a power-down and maintenance the w/end before 911 you would have to think they were putting in the detonators making the thermite primed. Sniffer dogs likely don't smell thermite (if it even has a smell being inorganic) but would certainly sniff detonators. I read sniffer dogs were removed from the area a few days before 911. Likely this co-incided with the 'reduced security alert'.
I conclude after a quick look around the web that there may indeed be some doubt surrounding the south tower power-down. Evidence can't be based on one mans words. If anybody has got any other witness statements with regards to the power down then please add them to this thread.
Re 'Scott Forbes' - did he not leave an email? I pm'ed him but got no reply
I was always rather dubious about that thread as anybody can create a false ID on a forum such as this.
I always thought that the power-down was a fact but I'm finding it difficult to find anybody else reporting it except Forbes. I'm not saying Scott is a lier just that we need other witnesses before we can accept his statements as evidence. I'm hoping this is evidence because if it's not then we might have go back to the beginning and start questioning everything very closely. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 Posts: 630 Location: Manchester
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:21 pm Post subject:
Scott Forbes states that they were notified of the power-down by the Port Authority.
Why would the Port Authority have anything to do with it? I thought the lease had been transferred to Silverstein Properties. _________________ Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Scott Forbes states that they were notified of the power-down by the Port Authority.
Why would the Port Authority have anything to do with it? I thought the lease had been transferred to Silverstein Properties.
The more I think about it the more suspicious I become! Even Forbes manner in the interviews seems slightly off. But I'm not giving up on him yet. I'm going to try and dig up some evidence for the power down. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
You'll look but I don't think you'll find another witness source, Patrick. One confirmation that conventional explosives weren't entirely responsible for the collapses of 1 and 2, though they were certainly there _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
I am now struggling to obey the site rules not to be abusive.
The hard scientific evidence for controlled demolition has been posted on this site many times in many slightly different presentations.
The work of Gordon Ross and others on this issue has been posted on this site. Scholars for 9/11 Truth covers all this thoroughly.
The calculations of Gordon Ross may be fine, but his premises are shot to pieces. The calculations only begin to make sense if the impact of the falling section is perfectly evenly spread across the lower (still pristine) columns.
In fact, this is clearly not possible. Clean column ends would not meet clean column ends at all, given even a few degrees of hingeing. Column ends would meet floor areas, horizontal beams would meet other beams (etc) in a chaotic collision that Ross doesn't even begin to address. _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
I am now struggling to obey the site rules not to be abusive.
The hard scientific evidence for controlled demolition has been posted on this site many times in many slightly different presentations.
The work of Gordon Ross and others on this issue has been posted on this site. Scholars for 9/11 Truth covers all this thoroughly.
The calculations of Gordon Ross may be fine, but his premises are shot to pieces. The calculations only begin to make sense if the impact of the falling section is perfectly evenly spread across the lower (still pristine) columns.
In fact, this is clearly not possible. Clean column ends would not meet clean column ends at all, given even a few degrees of hingeing. Column ends would meet floor areas, horizontal beams would meet other beams (etc) in a chaotic collision that Ross doesn't even begin to address.
I agree about the chaotic collision, but the fall would have been slowed down nonetheless. Really I think a complete collapse of those steel structures was completely impossible without explosives. I am sure a proper computer simulation would show this. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
I am now struggling to obey the site rules not to be abusive.
The hard scientific evidence for controlled demolition has been posted on this site many times in many slightly different presentations.
The work of Gordon Ross and others on this issue has been posted on this site. Scholars for 9/11 Truth covers all this thoroughly.
The calculations of Gordon Ross may be fine, but his premises are shot to pieces. The calculations only begin to make sense if the impact of the falling section is perfectly evenly spread across the lower (still pristine) columns.
In fact, this is clearly not possible. Clean column ends would not meet clean column ends at all, given even a few degrees of hingeing. Column ends would meet floor areas, horizontal beams would meet other beams (etc) in a chaotic collision that Ross doesn't even begin to address.
I agree about the chaotic collision, but the fall would have been slowed down nonetheless. Really I think a complete collapse of those steel structures was completely impossible without explosives. I am sure a proper computer simulation would show this.
Roughly 0.0027% of the world's structural engineers seem to agree with you.
However - post some figures and I'm all ears. _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:02 pm Post subject:
Ignatz wrote:
However - post some figures and I'm all ears.
No you're not.
You have not the slightest interest in the truth about 9/11. You are a disinfo artist who has been spinning wildly unrealistic counter-assertions against every anti-OCT statement made on this site for a long time now.
I have been through all this before with you. You should be in Critics Corner. You are not an honest individual. You have more time to pursue these arguments because your activities are almost certainly sponsored.
The charge that the 3 towers were brought down by controlled demolition is proven.
It is that simple folks.
Don't listen to me. Don't listen to this creep Ignatz. First watch the video evidence.
Then go and read about the collapses on Scholars for 9/11 truth. Then read the 9/11 Commission Report. See which you find more credible.
You have not the slightest interest in the truth about 9/11. You are a disinfo artist who has been spinning wildly unrealistic counter-assertions against every anti-OCT statement made on this site for a long time now.
I have been through all this before with you. You should be in Critics Corner. You are not an honest individual. You have more time to pursue these arguments because your activities are almost certainly sponsored.
The charge that the 3 towers were brought down by controlled demolition is proven.
It is that simple folks.
Don't listen to me. Don't listen to this creep Ignatz. First watch the video evidence.
Then go and read about the collapses on Scholars for 9/11 truth. Then read the 9/11 Commission Report. See which you find more credible.
Are you a friend of TC and 4U2P? I think the way forward for this forum is evidence. If you haven't got any evidence or a comment on evidence offered then just don't bother to comment. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:31 pm Post subject:
Patrick Brown wrote:
Are you a friend of TC and 4U2P? I think the way forward for this forum is evidence. If you haven't got any evidence or a comment on evidence offered then just don't bother to comment.
No I'm not.
I have been on this forum long enough to recognise the tactics of disinfo agents, trolls, whatever one might call them.
Ignatz is not interested in the truth.
One can only post the same scientific evidence for controlled demolition so many times. Enough is enough. I suggest to the moderators that significant papers and posts relating to this issue in particular be placed on this site's homepage so that people can simply be referred to them.
As for 'evidence', are you the person to be getting on a high horse about this? The last piece of 'evidence' of yours I seem to remember reading (earlier on this thread) was an equation that went something like:
1500 Kg + 9 miles + 3500 milliamps = 0.65 fortnights
When you have worked out what real evidence actually is you might be in a position to demand it of others.
Are you a friend of TC and 4U2P? I think the way forward for this forum is evidence. If you haven't got any evidence or a comment on evidence offered then just don't bother to comment.
No I'm not.
I have been on this forum long enough to recognise the tactics of disinfo agents, trolls, whatever one might call them.
Ignatz is not interested in the truth.
One can only post the same scientific evidence for controlled demolition so many times. Enough is enough. I suggest to the moderators that significant papers and posts relating to this issue in particular be placed on this site's homepage so that people can simply be referred to them.
As for 'evidence', are you the person to be getting on a high horse about this? The last piece of 'evidence' of yours I seem to remember reading (earlier on this thread) was an equation that went something like:
1500 Kg + 9 miles + 3500 milliamps = 0.65 fortnights
When you have worked out what real evidence actually is you might be in a position to demand it of others.
Well said KBO
If you would be so good as to place a rocket up Patrick Brown's rectum then I will oblige by lighting the blue touch paper.
Are you a friend of TC and 4U2P? I think the way forward for this forum is evidence. If you haven't got any evidence or a comment on evidence offered then just don't bother to comment.
No I'm not.
I have been on this forum long enough to recognise the tactics of disinfo agents, trolls, whatever one might call them.
Ignatz is not interested in the truth.
One can only post the same scientific evidence for controlled demolition so many times. Enough is enough. I suggest to the moderators that significant papers and posts relating to this issue in particular be placed on this site's homepage so that people can simply be referred to them.
As for 'evidence', are you the person to be getting on a high horse about this? The last piece of 'evidence' of yours I seem to remember reading (earlier on this thread) was an equation that went something like:
1500 Kg + 9 miles + 3500 milliamps = 0.65 fortnights
When you have worked out what real evidence actually is you might be in a position to demand it of others.
Well said KBO
If you would be so good as to place a rocket up Patrick Brown's rectum then I will oblige by lighting the blue touch paper.
Actually you two are the ones crapping on an evidence based thread as well as casting aspersions. So I think it's easy to see who's doing what with regards to seeking the truth surrounding the events of 911.
Look why don't you two start a nice little thread about chem-trails as I'm sure that will further the aims of this forum!
Oh and if a moderator should read this feel free to remove or split the last few comments as they obviously having nothing to do with discussing the evidence. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 2:34 pm Post subject:
Patrick Brown wrote:
... but why should I bother as most members of this forum seems rather shy of evidence.
Look why don't you two start a nice little thread about chem-trails as I'm sure that will further the aims of this forum!
Oh and if a moderator should read this feel free to remove or split the last few comments as they obviously having nothing to do with discussing the evidence.
These pathetic comments tell me everything I need to know about you Patrick Brown or whatever your name is.
Most of the genuine 9/11 truthers on this site (including me) concentrate on the simple core evidence relating to the main events of 9/11, not chemtrails or any such irrelevant nonsense.
I can well understand why you want the end of this thread shut down. You are exposed as evidence-free zone whose only defence against anyone pointing this out is to feign outrage that we are not replying to your vacuous posts with evidence.
Your assertions are not worthy of a serious reply. I think your purpose is to discredit this forum in the eyes of the casual visitor and generally waste everyone's time and energy.
I feel inclined to make quite a different appeal to the moderator from yours.
Patrick - the tilt analysis does seem to show a pivot about the central core. In other words, as one side gave way (the 'molten metal' side the other side was raised. A closer analysis shows the pivot was close to the dead centre of the top cubic section rather than at the crash level. As you say, it tipped 'like a bell'. The centre of gravity during this process would in fact not move.
I have seen that evidence posted elsewhere. Let me see...
..just realised it is the same material. Is it your original work?
No not my work.
I don't think the right side does rise up which suggests that the core is cut or the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel. I don't think this evidence helps either case.
Correct me if I'm wrong ignatz but I thought you didn't support the need for an independent reinvestigation of 9/11, in which case you should not post outside of critics corner
@ Patrick. The 'bell' pivots from roughly half way between the impact level and top. You can tell this because the underhang on the left side (as viewed) = the overhang on the right. Conclusive. Not a deal breaker, but conclusive. Also tallys with the thing not toppling over.
@ Ignatz (mouse I believe - I used to occasionally mix for a funk band with similar name). For you I created this masterpiece
@ Patrick. The 'bell' pivots from roughly half way between the implact level and top. You can tell this because the underhang on the left side (as viewed) = the overhang on the right. Conclusive. Not a deal breaker, but conclusive. Also tallys with the thing not toppling over.
@ Ignatz (mouse I believe - I used to occasionally mix for a funk band with similar name). For you I created this masterpiece
Yup - Ignatz mouse of Coconino county. The one who rejected the love of KrazyKat by chucking bricks ... the wretch !!
But anyhoo, the oft-quoted collapse timings are for the first recorded impact, not the impact of the global collapse zone. Read them up again and you'll see (I very much doubt if you'll bother, but I suppose it's possible).
In the meantime here's a visual clue :
Now - if the global collapse zone was operating at free-fall (in air) speeds, did that corner section have a jetpack attached? Nah .... films show it starting out exactly as WTC1 began its general collapse.
So - "free-fall" is a misconception that CTists love to hug to their bosoms. It's based on a misunderstanding (or cherry-picking, to be uncharitable) of the collapse times as deduced from the seismic records.
But hey - nice graphics _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Correct me if I'm wrong ignatz but I thought you didn't support the need for an independent reinvestigation of 9/11, in which case you should not post outside of critics corner
Ian, I don't know what to say.
I was just getting into some meaty 9/11 debate, that's all.
However - given that the General Forum is for 9/11 issues, and you allow it to be a dumping ground for any old poop, is it so unfair that I debate 9/11 here? Words like "sauce", "goose" and "gander" spring to mind.
Best Regards
Ignatz (currently banged up in jail by Offica Pupp) _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
@ Patrick. The 'bell' pivots from roughly half way between the implact level and top. You can tell this because the underhang on the left side (as viewed) = the overhang on the right. Conclusive. Not a deal breaker, but conclusive. Also tallys with the thing not toppling over.
@ Ignatz (mouse I believe - I used to occasionally mix for a funk band with similar name). For you I created this masterpiece
Yup - Ignatz mouse of Coconino county. The one who rejected the love of KrazyKat by chucking bricks ... the wretch !!
But anyhoo, the oft-quoted collapse timings are for the first recorded impact, not the impact of the global collapse zone. Read them up again and you'll see (I very much doubt if you'll bother, but I suppose it's possible).
In the meantime here's a visual clue :
Now - if the global collapse zone was operating at free-fall (in air) speeds, did that corner section have a jetpack attached? Nah .... films show it starting out exactly as WTC1 began its general collapse.
So - "free-fall" is a misconception that CTists love to hug to their bosoms. It's based on a misunderstanding (or cherry-picking, to be uncharitable) of the collapse times as deduced from the seismic records.
But hey - nice graphics
When I can capture images from .wmv onto powerpoint without the damn think moving I can prove free-fall once & for all. I tracked the fastest falling object visible thru the smoke, and the corner of a tower from a zoomed-in shot (minimum perspective). The tower was actually falling slightly faster that the object. It was a free-fall collapse, and I am not relying on NIST or anyone else when I say that. It now goes into hard evidence in my book. I am aware of holes in some of the touted evidence which is why I want a pan-forum selection, testing, and approval of evidence that is NOT single site or peronality based, but involves AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. Many people is something the elite fear as much as the truth. Combine the 2 and we have our best chance for shaking them out of our nest. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:17 pm Post subject: hopeless case.
Ignatz wrote:
ian neal wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong ignatz but I thought you didn't support the need for an independent reinvestigation of 9/11, in which case you should not post outside of critics corner
Ian, I don't know what to say.
I was just getting into some meaty 9/11 debate, that's all.
Ignatz.
One of the principal reasons that people like you are condemned to to a special corner of this forum, is evidenced right here in this thread, ( amongst countless others) where your inability to see the obvious makes you not only a danger to yourself, but to your friends, family and any siblings you may have.
You see, for a start, on this very thread is an excellent indication that you r usual myopia is afflicting you.
I refer to the simple picture, along with the simple physics question. That cant be too much of a challenge for a man of your intellect can it ?
Surely, as someone who can get into long complicated finicky nit picking about irrelevencies in Loose change, and waxes expertly on other similar minutia , can address a simple question like which should hit the ground w-a-a-a-a-a-y first. But of course the silence is deafening.
Get talking about the Anthrax attacks, and the fake "Allah is great nonsense", and the silence is deafening.
Get talking about any of the major players in 9/11, or any of the trillion other anomalies in the official story, and , like some kind of myopic hamster, you return to the treadmill of going round and round with the same monotonous nonsense.
Herding cats springs to mind.
A while back , there were several people willing to engage the likes of yourself, the chipmunk guy, Jayref and others in a sensible debate.
Within about 4 posts , it very quickly became obvious to most of us that the "myopic hamster wheel approach" was a common ailment amidst the skeptics.
Which is why you end up where you end up.
I believe it was Chipmunk who introduced your crowd with a promise to deal with any questions in a logical fashion. He lied, lied, lied. Rather like the People who have told us that 19 muslims did 9/11, Iraq had WMDs, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:58 pm Post subject: Re: hopeless case.
Abandoned Ego wrote:
Ignatz wrote:
ian neal wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong ignatz but I thought you didn't support the need for an independent reinvestigation of 9/11, in which case you should not post outside of critics corner
Ian, I don't know what to say.
I was just getting into some meaty 9/11 debate, that's all.
Ignatz.
One of the principal reasons that people like you are condemned to to a special corner of this forum, is evidenced right here in this thread, ( amongst countless others) where your inability to see the obvious .......
<snip tacky insults>
On this thread I have posted an photo clearly showing "obvious" major debris well ahead of the collapse zone. Kindly explain how this is possible if the global collapse progressed at "free-fall" speed.
Is that hard?
Looks like "obvious" everyday logic should crack this.
Failing everyday logic, shall I refer you to Greening, or Bažant and Zhou, for actual physics? You know, real scientists? The kind who won't imagine they can see volcanoes in Manhattan?
Best Regards _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 12:18 am Post subject: Re: hopeless case.
Ignatz wrote:
Abandoned Ego wrote:
Ignatz wrote:
ian neal wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong ignatz but I thought you didn't support the need for an independent reinvestigation of 9/11, in which case you should not post outside of critics corner
Ian, I don't know what to say.
I was just getting into some meaty 9/11 debate, that's all.
Ignatz.
One of the principal reasons that people like you are condemned to to a special corner of this forum, is evidenced right here in this thread, ( amongst countless others) where your inability to see the obvious .......
<snip tacky insults>
On this thread I have posted an photo clearly showing "obvious" major debris well ahead of the collapse zone. Kindly explain how this is possible if the global collapse progressed at "free-fall" speed.
Is that hard?
Looks like "obvious" everyday logic should crack this.
Failing everyday logic, shall I refer you to Greening, or Bažant and Zhou, for actual physics? You know, real scientists? The kind who won't imagine they can see volcanoes in Manhattan?
Best Regards
I wont talk about pennies and ton weights. cos you'd look silly there too.
So lets move on.
How about the anthrax "allah is great stuff" ? It would appear that Islamics arent the only ones who hate us for our freedoms, cos they teamed up with Bush in attacking the congressmen who opposed the patriot act. What say you ?
The Ignatz photo challege. What you see are sections blown off the face of the impact zone prior to the collapse downwards commencing. This is why they are ahead of the collapse zone. The demolition sequence was -
Sever the outer columns at the collapse zone (initiating tilting in one of the towers)
Sever core columns. This starts the free-fall collapse. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
@ Patrick. The 'bell' pivots from roughly half way between the impact level and top. You can tell this because the underhang on the left side (as viewed) = the overhang on the right. Conclusive. Not a deal breaker, but conclusive. Also tallys with the thing not toppling over.
Well the only problem with the idea is that there is some how one fixed pivot point. There may well have been a degree of resistance from some central core columns causing a perceived pivot point. But it seems more likely that we are seeing the warping and compression of the core columns moving 'left to right' after the failure of core columns on the left of the tower.
In the video clip we see a large amount of molten metal being released from the left of the tower as collapse ensues. According to Steven Jones the molten metal was not aluminum but the residues of a thermite reaction.
So as I said on a different thread it all comes back to the question of how hot the fires were? We also need to investigate the circumstances in which aluminum can glow. We know that very pure aluminum is silvery at melting point (600c) but what kind of alloy was the aircraft structure made of? Ironically I remember reading Morgan Reynolds (one of Andrew Johnson buddies) suggesting that a reservoir of fuel may have pooled at the corner of the south tower which burned intensely melting the aircraft structure. Reynolds is therefore suggesting that the molten metal seen dripping from the south tower is therefore molten alloys from the airframe of the Boeing. _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
