Eutectics Debunk Debunkers


Fake, do you realize, that what you have actually claimed in front of the world, is that the Exothermic reaction of Steel with Sulphur from drywall, and water, created in fact an 1800F degree Eutectic liquid?

You have debunked yourself

The thermate reaction is always a eutectic and an exothermic reaction.
BUT, every exothermic reaction is NOT a eutectic producing reaction.

If the whole water+steam paradigm did NOT create a caustic metallic lava, then what caused the metals showcased in the fema report to corrode?

reply

If the whole water+steam paradigm did NOT create a caustic metallic lava, then what caused the metals showcased in the fema report to corrode?

Prove it did not in the pile and LOL once again you say liquid, we are talking corrosion straight to gas. While you are at it little man, tell me how thermite on one beam in the South tower caused the North Tower to fall, not to mention how one beam took down the South Tower.

Fake, do you realize, that what you have actually claimed in front of the world, is that the Exothermic reaction of Steel with Sulphur from drywall, and water, created in fact an 1800F degree Eutectic liquid?

Take it anyway you want moonbat, there are many logical explanations for this...

A: In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

B: Yet the NIST replicated the fires by burning office furniture in a controlled experiment and found the ceiling temperature to reach 1,100 degrees C (2012 F)

C: "ABC News reported that, "the temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to." http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

Those temperatures you cite are controversial. But sticking to the debate on your corrosion conspiracy theory, FEMA says the corrosive liquid was about 1800 degrees eating away at these pieces of steel from WT 1 or 2, and 7.

Was your exothermic corrosive reaction an 1800F degree reaction just counting your gypsum drywall contamination, steam, heated steel, fire engine water, and heat sources?

Simple question. Actually everything hinges on it. Because if your Metal+Steam=Metal Oxide & Hydrogen thingy cannot explain the corroded metal samples specifically, and not just the elevated pile temperatures at Ground Zero, then there is a big problem.

reply

Wrong, The NIST state it may have been in the pile and I have shown you three sources of that heat.

Those temperatures you cite are controversial.

That the best you have, LOL. Show me a picture of the sample.

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

Well to be honest, so does FEMA. Neither agency is admitting or convinced that the erosion took place before or after collapse. That's telling. Because according to you, it had to be only one way, not the other. Why aren't they so sure? Why are you so sure?

reply

I've shown you four ways that it could have occurred and you yell thermite with no evidence, and 93 was a inside job too I am sure, LOL.

What a scarred little boy, run from your shadow and the UFO's. They are out to get you.

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

Fake, do you realize, that what you have actually claimed in front of the world, is that the Exothermic reaction of Steel with Sulphur from drywall, and water, created in fact an 1800F degree Eutectic liquid?

You have debunked yourself

The thermate reaction is always a eutectic and an exothermic reaction.
BUT, every exothermic reaction is NOT a eutectic producing reaction.

If the whole water+steam paradigm did NOT create a caustic metallic lava, then what caused the metals showcased in the fema report to corrode?
Blah, Blah, Blah...

Okay alfa let's assume everything you believe is true and 9/11 was indeed a conspiracy by the US Gov. to destroy several landmark buildings and in the process commit mass murder, what are you going to do about it?

Are you just going to just sit there and spend the rest of your sad life posting messages on some obscure internet forum, debating with the only person who, it seems, is willing to counter your BS on a regular basis?

reply

hi spins,
the one thing I will not do about it is anything remotely illegal...if that's where you're going.

The general or popular drive is towards agitating for social awakening. If there is a problem, it will continue until checked, hence the danger of future false flags. If there is criminality, it will continue until checked or balanced somehow. In case you haven't noticed, but the US and the World is creeping towards instability, locally, internationally, even environmentally. Truthers dislike and oppose this anarchy. Not all are anarchists. Activism at a minimum, is teaching one at a time, or at least, raising questions in one mind at a time. This puts an aggregate pressure on the forces of anarchy. Debating here is activism, believe it or not. The present Junta in the WH thrives on fear and ignorance in the populace. Just getting people to ask questions is better than everyone going along with them in the name of being "patriotic" and fearing ridicule. And then of course there is the need to know. We DONT know what happened on 911, beyond a few basic facts.

a) planes hit buildings
b) buildings were destroyed
c) something happened at the pentagon

besides those three things, we probably know not a thing, not even if the planes said to be involved were the actual planes involved.

Oh and PS Spin: This is not BS. Drywall is nothing new. Office fires are nothing new. Steel used in buildings is nothing new. The only wildcard is possible molten aluminum being present. How are we going from molten aluminum and drywall and steel....to a 1800F Degree eutectic caustic lava that eats away at steel like drano? I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. I'm more than skeptical about something like that. I firmly believe that what dripped from the 81st floor in tower 2 was IRON. I am more than skeptical that any petty steam + drywall + steel could create that lava. Where is the steam even coming from before the building fell. The firefighters never reached that far. In tower two, the man said they got up to the 78th floor and saw two petty pockets of fire [no LAVA BTW] and that he believed they could put it out. Then the building came down. Did steam [from firefighter hose water & fire] on 78 cause lava on 81, but not on 78?

Ummm, liquid flows DOWN, not three floors UP.

I don't believe any of it and neither should you.

reply

In tower two, the man said they got up to the 78th floor and saw two petty pockets of fire [no LAVA BTW] and that he believed they could put it out.

YAWN, The main fire was on 80 and above. Cherry pick much?

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"

Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."

Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."

Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're on our way."

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm

It seems Palmer did only see “two isolated pockets of fire” at this point, although whether there may have been fire elsewhere on the floor isn’t clear. So does this prove the fires were much weaker than claimed? Well, no. Not even close.

NIST do not claim that the 78th floor was a “raging inferno”, for instance. In fact the NIST fire reconstruction report says “there was only light fire activity observed on the 78th floor”, page 109). No surprise: pictures in the same document clearly show this floor was at the base of the fire-affected area.


The small 80 floor fires....

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC2Floors_a.jpg



Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

How are we going from molten aluminum and drywall and steel....to a 1800F Degree eutectic caustic lava that eats away at steel like drano?


Three out of four possible sources and you want to say thermite? LOL. You work from conclusions backwards don’t you?

A: In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

B: Yet the NIST replicated the fires by burning office furniture in a controlled experiment and found the ceiling temperature to reach 1,100 degrees C (2012 F)

C: "ABC News reported that, "the temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to." http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm


Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

In light of 'C', are you claiming that your exothermic reaction of steam + drywall + heated steel = a nearly 2000F degree pile temperature>?

reply

In light of 'C', are you claiming that your exothermic reaction of steam + drywall + heated steel = a nearly 2000F degree pile temperature>?

Do you read English? See above, shees....

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

Oh I can read english. Therefore I take that as a yes, the steam + steel + drywall reaction supposedly should create 2000 degrees in exothermic heat.

reply

Oh I can read englsh.

LMFAO, I guess you can't read "englsh".

A: In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

B: Yet the NIST replicated the fires by burning office furniture in a controlled experiment and found the ceiling temperature to reach 1,100 degrees C (2012 F)

C: "ABC News reported that, "the temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to." http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

Your 'point' A is a direct quote cut and paste from NIST word for word and it is a sham of an answer pretending to explain away molten iron without ever really explaining it.

(Point Seven)

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm



And at point Nine, NIST kindof sortof admits that the fires were very very cool, oxygen starved to be precise. They mock those who claim the fires were oxygen starved...while describing the fires as exactly that in the very same breath:

"9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions."



At point Eleven, NIST claims that molten metal was aluminum from aircraft. Doesnt explain molten metal under number 7.

NIST admits they never have in fact tested for incidiary residues at point Twelve.

Here's a great critique of the report you [fake] love to cut and paste from:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18999.htm

reply

Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.

So the fires were Oxygen rich hotspots that as is spread were pushed to Oxygen deprived areas, thanks for proving that there were Oxygen rich hotspots.

At point Eleven, NIST claims that molten metal was aluminum from aircraft. Doesnt explain molten metal under number 7.

Mind of a child, In a modern office fire the only source of aluminum is a 767? Sheesss... The exterior was aluminum clad, most of the office furniture and partitions would be aluminum.

NIST admits they never have in fact tested for incidiary residues at point Twelve

Yea, They did not test for termites either! What kind of incendiaries cause a building to lean, groan and creak for three hours so much so that the FDNY says it is going to come down.



alfa3647 -Oh I can read englsh.

reply

So the fires were Oxygen rich hotspots that as is spread were pushed to Oxygen deprived areas, thanks for proving that there were Oxygen rich hotspots.


Lame excuse for black smoke, that were never hot enough to crack windows by the way, and no, crash site broken windows don't count.


Mind of a child, In a modern office fire the only source of aluminum is a 767? Sheesss... The exterior was aluminum clad, most of the office furniture and partitions would be aluminum.


Yeah, so you're admitting that Building 7 was more or less a normal office fire. No planes or jet fuel. So why do we have ANY kind of molten metal at building 7, Aluminum OR Iron, and none elsewhere, in other office fires, that is nearly as comparable? Please don't asnwer the question. I can't stand the smell of the bullshyt that comes from your mouth.

Hey, in case you ignored my link, let me quote a little debunking from it, which debunks that NIST report you love to parrot so obsessively:

NIST scientists developed a novel way to evaluate the impact of the fire on the WTC steel. According to the report, the approach was “easy to implement and robust enough to examine the entire component in the field.”[33] They found that the original primer paint used on the steel beams and columns was altered by high heat. This made it possible to determine the level of exposure by analyzing the paint on the samples.[34] But the results were surprising. NIST found no evidence that any of the steel samples, including those from the impact areas and fire-damaged floors, had reached temperatures exceeding 1,110ºF (600ºC).[35] Sixteen recovered perimeter columns showed evidence of having been exposed to fire, but even so, out of 170 areas examined on these columns only three locations had reached temperatures in excess of 250ºC (450ºF).[36] Moreover, NIST found no evidence that any of the recovered core columns had reached even this minimal temperature.[37] The startling fact is that NIST’s own data failed to support its conclusion that the fires of 9/11 heated up the steel columns, causing them to weaken and buckle.

Now, if you're gonna quote NIST, why not quote that? Again, please don't asnwer, because I can not bear the smell of bull excrement that comes from your mouth when you open it.


reply

Lame excuse for black smoke, that were never hot enough to crack windows by the way, and no, crash site broken windows don't count.

You are still a retard, it does not state they were constantly Oxygen starved, they ran out of fuel and spread, FIRES DO THAT. Learn to read.


Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.

Yeah, so you're admitting that Building 7 was more or less a normal office fire. No planes or jet fuel. So why do we have ANY kind of molten metal at building 7, Aluminum OR Iron, and none elsewhere, in other office fires, that is nearly as comparable?


Hardly but great to see you are consistently stupid.

WTC7 came down with a 20 story hole in it, a three story visible bulge and totally on fire and corner damage running up to the 18th floor.

And a lot of Fuel

Fuel Tanks for generators in WTC7

275-gallon tank on 7th floor;

one 6,000-gallon tank located between low-rise elevators in east elevator shaft between 2nd and 3rd floors

Two 6,000-gallon tanks under loading dock on ground level

Two 12,000-gallon tanks under loading dock on ground level

275-gallon tank on 5th floor

Approximately 50- to 100-gallon tank under generator on 9th floor

275-gallon tank on 8th floor on west side next to exterior wall


Moreover, NIST found no evidence that any of the recovered core columns had reached even this minimal temperature. The startling fact is that NIST’s own data failed to support its conclusion that the fires of 9/11 heated up the steel columns, causing them to weaken and buckle.

Yes, what percentage is that of all columns that were present, less than 1%? To bad this is not the CORE ........... WHAT'S THIS LOOK LIKE, MY GOD, BUCKLING!

http://www.debunking911.com/pullin2.jpg

Yes, I'm you daddy, you may kiss my ring!

alfa3647 -Oh I can read englsh.

reply

That photo is time stamped at exactly 9:59 am. That was the exact moment Tower two came down. So that is not gradual metallic buckling seen there if it is a photo of number 2. That IS THE moment of implosion/explosion. You've proved nothing bucko, other than how simple minded you still are.


And most all of the fuel was recovered from the wreckage of number 7, at least 20,000 gallons, so your fuel fairy tale which can liquify a building is another crumbling lie. Since when does any highrise on fire begin to liquify just because of diesel fuel or aluminum siding or UPS oil fuel sources.

Since when Santa?

And sorry, but the idea that the "fires spread" doesnt jibe with what the NIST was lying about. Please get your lies straight. They said the hydrocarbons were pushed out of the building unburned. UNBURNED, UNIGNITED, TOO COOL. YOU are saying "the fire spread, ummm, kiss my ring". You sound like an idiot.

reply

That photo is time stamped at exactly 9:59 am. That was the exact moment Tower two ame down. So that is not gradual metallic buckling seen there if it is a photo of number 2. That IS THE moment of implosion/explosion. You've proved nothing bucko, other than how simple minded you still are.

Not sure what ame means retard but how often you are wrong. The buckling you see was six minutes before collapse, then it fell, DO YOU THINK THE FREEKING BUCKLING HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH WHAT HAPPENED SIX MINUTES LATTER?

10:05 A.M.
Two World Trade Center collapses.


And most all of the fuel was recovered from the wreckage of number 7, at least 20,000 gallons, so your fuel fairy tale which can liquify a building is another crumbling lie.

Page 15 12,000 gallons lost, 20,000 recovered from two tanks, SO! Pour 12,000 gallons on your house and light it. Tell me what happens.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf

Since when does any highrise on fire begin to liquify just because of diesel fuel or aluminum siding or UPS oil fuel sources.

The building became liquid? What a retard.

They said the hydrocarbons were pushed out of the building unburned. UNBURNED, UNIGNITED, TOO COOL. YOU are saying "the fire spread, ummm, kiss my ring". You sound like an idiot.

Yea, Through open windows retard, it's called wind. Google it.




alfa3647 -Oh I can read englsh.

reply

hey master shake, it's fun watching you implode like building 7. Straight down. No trampoline. no bungy cord. LOL! Are you sure someone didnt plant thermite in your panties? cause you sure seem like youre getting excited.

rotflmfao

I'll only address the points you didnt utterly suck at:



Not sure what ame means retard but how often you are wrong. The buckling you see was six minutes before collapse, then it fell, DO YOU THINK THE FREEKING BUCKLING HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH WHAT HAPPENED SIX MINUTES LATTER?

10:05 A.M.
Two World Trade Center collapses.




Can yu read buk? Yeah? Thin if so, read da foist paradraft hea:

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

OOOOPS!

Page 15 12,000 gallons lost, 20,000 recovered from two tanks, SO! Pour 12,000 gallons on your house and light it. Tell me what happens.


yeah, and if someone lights up an aluminum sided house that has diesel fuel emergency generators and a gash in the side and some buckling in the basement, then we'll see molten metals in the basement, eutectic corrosion of structural members....

in your futile wet dreams.

reply

yeah, and if someone lights up an aluminum sided house that has diesel fuel emergency generators and a gash in the side and some buckling in the basement, then we'll see molten metals in the basement, eutectic corrosion of structural members....

Since you have been wrong on everything else today, (and seem to want to lie about collapse times just to pretend you have a point) put a skirt on and tell me why not little lady.

----------------------

Anyone can edit Wilikapedia but there is a discrepancy in the time….

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/

10:05 a.m.: The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses, plummeting into the streets below. A massive cloud of dust and debris forms and slowly drifts away from the building.

http://archives.uca.edu/special_collection/m01-15b.htm

PLUS MORON, YOUR CLAIM IS THERE WAS NO BOWING BEFORE COLLAPSE, WRONG!

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.
"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says

Several minutes before the WTC buildings collapsed, the structures of the buildings were clearly failing and the exterior steel columns could be seen buckling. This simply would not be happening if explosives caused the collapse because explosives don't go off in slow motion for several minutes. Explosives don't slowly buckle steel columns over several minutes.

Obviously, the way an actual controlled explosion happens is the explosives all go off in a matter of seconds. There simply would not be warning signs that the buildings were about to be demolished by explosives, it would of course just suddenly happen. But that is not what happened, the buildings did not suddenly collapse without any indications that they would. Instead, the fires were compromising the structural integrity of the buildings and the buildings' support structures failed. Exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers.

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)
Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled." "The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse." - Latest Findings From NIST World Trade Center Investigation Released

"According to Shyam Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam Sunder said."

"Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tilted as it came crashing down."

http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html



alfa3647 -Oh I can read englsh.

reply


Since you have been wrong on everything else today, (and seem to want to lie about collapse times just to pretend you have a point) put a skirt on and tell me why not little lady.



ahahahaha, so now you're denying that Number Two came down at exactly 9:59 AM?

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah

Your fellow debunkerists are cringing right now. They must be peeing on themselves while wishing with all their might that you would just shut up while you still have a small percentage of your sanity left.

reply

yeah, and if someone lights up an aluminum sided house that has diesel fuel emergency generators and a gash in the side and some buckling in the basement, then we'll see molten metals in the basement, eutectic corrosion of structural members....

Since you have been wrong on everything else today, (and seem to want to lie about collapse times just to pretend you have a point) put a skirt on and tell me why not little lady.

----------------------

Anyone can edit Wilikapedia but there is a discrepancy in the time….

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/

10:05 a.m.: The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses, plummeting into the streets below. A massive cloud of dust and debris forms and slowly drifts away from the building.

http://archives.uca.edu/special_collection/m01-15b.htm

10:05 Eastern Standard Time, the South Tower of the World Trade Center collapses due to the stress and strain on the foundation structure.

At 10:05 AM the South Tower collapses.

http://www.americanconservativedaily.com/2007/09/momment-of-silence-10 05-am-south-tower-collapses/

10.05am, the south tower collapsed and Rick Rescorla lost his life.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southwest/series2/rick_rescorla_septemb er_11_hero_bravery_cornwall.shtml

10:05 AM - The World Trade Center South Tower collapses

http://www.conservapedia.com/September_11,_2001_attacks

AND FROM THE FDNY TAPES, YOU MIGHT LISTEN TO THEM

The North Tower collapses. (10:05a)

http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?id=44026&sect ionId=46


------------------------------

PLUS MORON, YOUR CLAIM IS THERE WAS NO BOWING BEFORE COLLAPSE, WRONG!

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.
"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says

Several minutes before the WTC buildings collapsed, the structures of the buildings were clearly failing and the exterior steel columns could be seen buckling. This simply would not be happening if explosives caused the collapse because explosives don't go off in slow motion for several minutes. Explosives don't slowly buckle steel columns over several minutes.

Obviously, the way an actual controlled explosion happens is the explosives all go off in a matter of seconds. There simply would not be warning signs that the buildings were about to be demolished by explosives, it would of course just suddenly happen. But that is not what happened, the buildings did not suddenly collapse without any indications that they would. Instead, the fires were compromising the structural integrity of the buildings and the buildings' support structures failed. Exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers.

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)
Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled." "The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse." - Latest Findings From NIST World Trade Center Investigation Released

"According to Shyam Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam Sunder said."

"Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tilted as it came crashing down."

http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html

alfa3647 -Oh I can read englsh.

reply

Your Royal Idiocy, there is no need to go into all of that detail. I hate when you do that. Now that being said, I never ever claimed in this forum that bowing didnt exist. I just claimed that IF that photo was a tower two photo, that it mustve been a collapse moment snapshot. Now, in one of your links, which you rely upon for credibility, the North Tower is depicted as falling BEFORE the South Tower. How could they get this wrong? And why would you post that here? South Tower collapsing/imploding/exploding at 10:28 AM? That's craziness. This is your link:

http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?id=44026&sect ionId=46

How could these people make a mistake like that?

The seismic data lend credence to the 9:59 AM event. The question is, WHAT happened at the South Tower at 9:59 AM if that was NOT the collapse moment? It had to be the collapse moment:

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

What TIME does CNN have in the lower right hand corner of their live WTC2 collapse coverage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JurKP8qpiKY&feature=related

What TIME does FAUX have in the lower right hand corner of their live WTC2 collapse coverage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72yx9lxUQNg&feature=related

What happens here fake, what happens here, live, on WPIX at 9:59 AM? Mind of a child? Dude, debating you is like arguing with a kindergartener:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OehglfVeIA0&feature=related



reply

I never ever claimed in this forum that bowing didnt exist.

NICE, THANKS!

Not going to get into a big argument about time though the seismic data is in dispute and so is the time.

THE POINT IS THERE WAS BOWING MANY MINUTES BEFORE COLLAPSE INCLUDING THE PHOTO YOU CLAIMED WAS PART OF THE COLLAPSE. THAT WAS TAKEN FROM A HELICOPTER PILOT MINUTES BEFORE THE COLLAPSE.

What TIME does FAUX have in the lower right hand corner of their live WTC2 collapse coverage?

Who cares, the photo I showed you was taken and the pilot said that it fell 2 minutes latter so that is 10:01, the FDNY says 10:05, here is a hint, look at where the big and little hand on you watch are, look at your moms. Are they the same?

BOTTOM LINE: Controlled Demolition is not done by slow progressive bowing little girl. Try again.


-----------------------

Your Royal Idiocy, there is no need to go into all of that detail. I hate when you do that.

PS: I KNOW, YOUR MIND CAN NOT HANDLE COMPLEX THOUGHTS, SORRY, I'LL TRY TO DRAW MY ARGUMENTS OUT WITH CRAYON SO YOUR MOM CAN READ THEM TO YOU.

alfa3647 -Oh I can read englsh.

reply

Not going to get into a big argument about time though the seismic data is in dispute and so is the time.

Nah, no dispute. Only dispute among those who won't believe their lying eyes.

9:59 AM, Period, Case Closed, move the *beep* along.

and the pilot said that it fell 2 minutes latter so that is 10:01

And the pilot said? WTF is that supposed to mean. Didnt it ever occur to you that his watch was wrong? Or maybe he had no watch at all? Was MSNBCBS wrong? No, BBCNNBCBS had it right.


You sir, are an idiot.

reply

9:59 AM, Period, Case Closed, move the *beep* along.

In your little mind. Look above, even the FDNY goes with 10:05. They were there, WERE YOU?

and the pilot said that it fell 2 minutes latter so that is 10:01

And the pilot said? WTF is that supposed to mean. Didnt it ever occur to you that his watch was wrong? Or maybe he had no watch at all? Was MSNBCBS wrong? No, BBCNNBCBS had it right.


God, you can't understand this, never look for Waldo, It could be a lifequest.

the photo I showed you was taken and the pilot said that it fell 2 minutes latter

He saw the buckling, took the picture and said the building fell two minutes latter, lets, go with 1 minute 55 seconds, still resulted in buckling long before the collapse little girl.

CAUSE AND EFFECT BABY! CAUSE AND EFFECT!

alfa3647 -Oh I can read englsh.

reply

Hey Alfalfa!

We have buckling down now what did it do to the floors?

THEORY!

http://www.debunking911.com/sagt.jpg

FACT!

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east12.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east15.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.ht1.jpg


alfa3647 -Oh I can read englsh.

reply

Umm, still dead on arrival. The floor sagging is like, one floor. And the two walls on either side of it are NOT bowing in. Yes there are valid bowing photos, but this "aint" one of them.

reply

Umm, still dead on arrival. The floor sagging is like, one floor. And the two walls on either side of it are NOT bowing in. Yes there are valid bowing photos, but this "aint" one of them.

Try again Little boy, Floor 82 bowing inward.

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.ht2.jpg

Bowing on 82, floors sagging on 82. Hi, My name is Alfalfa, I'm a total retard, that is the classic sign of controlled demolition.

Put your pink dress back on and look for more Soviet missile launches on Y2K.


THEORY!

http://www.debunking911.com/sagt.jpg

FACT!

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east12.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/east15.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.ht1.jpg

alfa3647 -Oh I can read englsh.

reply

congrats, that is a better column bowing photo. Here's a bisquit.

reply

Yup, Bowing, Floor sag, it's the beginning of the end. Here is your binky.

alfa3647 -Oh I can read englsh.

reply

Now, if you're gonna quote NIST, why not quote that? Again, please don't asnwer, because I can not bear the smell of bull excrement that comes from your mouth when you open it.


Not sure what a asnwer is but it is funny that the little boy argue steel was exposed to 2000F in the very same thread he is now arguing the steel never got very hot.

Which is it Goldilox, Was the steel too hot, too cold or Just Right?

alfa3647 -Oh I can read englsh.

reply

c) something happened at the pentagon

Yea, 200+ eyewitnesses saw a commercial plane hit it, many right down to the AA markings.

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply