[–] Are_we_sure ago
There's absolutely zero evidence that any building that collapsed on 9/11 was a controlled demolition. And more than three buildings were destroyed. WTC 4 mostly collapsed. WTC 5 and 6 had localized collapses. Why did this buildings collapse? Because towers 1 and 2 did not "collapse" into their own foot print, they peeled out and fell on other buildings. Most of the collapses were due the impact of the falling towers, but they also had fire induced collapses, particularly in WTC 5. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-20.jpg http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/fig-4-17.jpg
Why did 5 not fully collapse like the others? It was built differently.
Had an actually controlled demolition occurred, there would be plenty of evidence in the debris which was examined by structurally engineers and removed by demolition companies very familiar with controlled demolitions. Explosives would leave distinctive damage and other items like the detonators and wiring required for all the columns to go off at once would have been left over. It would have thousands of yards of this wiring. Thermite would also leave quite clear evidence as it spits out molten iron that would have been all over the columns was the reaction was done.
They would have left quite clear evidence at the time of collapse as well. The type of linear shape charges needed to cut through the thick steel of the trade center would be enormously loud. It's the speed of this pressure wave that helps cut the steel. The pressure wave would create a boom heard for miles. You can reduce this pressure wave to where it would not be heard on any of the dozens of videos of the collapse AND cut steel. You can't have the collapse without the giant Sharp boom. Thermite was once used to cut a tower at the Chicago worlds fair. They needed 1000 pounds to cut two columns and it was visible for two miles. The UV rays creaed when thermite burns cannot be viewed up close without a welders mask. It would have lit up like the sun if thermite was involved.
The conspiracists came up with a the idea of a demolition before understanding any of the science of it. They didn't talk about thermite for years. They said it was convention explosives, it was only when this was completely shut down for the reasons I just gave did they turn elsewhere. First to thermate, then to thermite and these got shot down as well, then to nanothermite a substance they imbue with mythical powers. They claim it's both an explosive that can throw steel columns hundreds of feet and a completely silent way to melt the columns. Thermite releases no gases in its reaction, so it creates no pressure wave and it not an explosive, by the way. Thermite also releases all of its energy super quickly. Nanothermite even more quickly due to the small size of the particles, yet they claim that thermite was still heating fires in the pile for weeks afterwards. It's the Tinkerbell of chemical substances. Close your eyes and believe real hard and it doesn't anything.
Thermite actually is not very energy dense. (It's a heavy mix of metals by the way). Things like paper, wood, wax, gasoline, all have way more energy per gram. Thermite goes off and then stops. It doesn't heat things for a very long time.
[–] DarkMath ago (edited ago)
"There's absolutely zero evidence"
I stopped after the word "evidence" because you didn't mention Larry Silverstein's "pull" comment and also a speech where he referred to the plans for a new WTC 7 building a full year before 9/11.
O_O
@chris this is exactly what AreWeSure does. He'll just flat out ignore evidence doesn't suit his version of events. I then provide a short refresher on the scientific method:
Bad: Conclusion -> Observation
Good: Observation -> Conclusion
To no avail I might add. That has lead me to the conclusion AreWeSure is either a shill or the most naive person on planet Earth.
:-D
[–] Are_we_sure ago
No. You stopped because you know you always get the science of 9/11 wrong and you simply don't care. You never engage honestly on this subject. . You misunderstand some really basic things. And continually reuse points that have been refuted. So you try to shift the battlefield from science to politics Because you are completely unarmed on scientific battlefield, You try to rely on politic arguments and tendentious interpretations of what someone said to.
Larry Silverstein said yada yada yada does not disprove the fact that slow reaction time of thermite makes it a terrible choice for a simultaneous collapse and the quicker high explosives that are perfectly suited for a simultaneous collapse cannot be made silent if they are also going to through up to 5 inches of steel. It doesn't disprove that high explosives or thermite or thermate would have to all wired together with some form of detonating cord/wireless receivers that never would have withstood the fires. It doesn't disprove that fact that bringing in box of thermite or high explosives on the 70th Floor would not have brought the towers down. That for either scenario to work you had to get to the bare steel of the columns which meant you had to rip apart occupied offices, break through drywall, get past plumbing an other pipes to get to the steel. Demolition via explosives would have you required to pre weaken the steel using torches that release noxious fumes. You would have to go in at night smash everything up, do your work and then put everything back the way it was with no dust/fumes left over by 7am the next day. One of the scientists the truth movement relies on for its thermite claims (the same one who won't let other scientists recreate his tests.) said 100 tons of thermite would be needed in each building. Well after the reaction, that means 70 tons of iron would be left over it weird looking blobs like this http://www.theodoregray.com/periodictable/Samples/026.14/s14s.JPG
Were any of the buildings on 9/11 brought down by a controlled demolition, there would be massive physical evdience all over the debris site. A debris site worked by many, many workers experienced in controlled demolition.