IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ae911truth , richard gage , wtc 7 , wtc 7 report

Reply
Old 25th March 2011, 07:06 AM   #121
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Wrong yet again. Open air means not in a jet engine.

Source?
__________________
In most cases debating with a 9/11 truther is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The customer with the knife is always right - Quohog, the bartender
Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2011, 10:20 PM   #122
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post

Source? No temperature to go with your extreme? What temperature are vapors present from lead, Pb? Present proof for your claims; like science stuff.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...kuXjKg&cad=rja



Office fires burn at about 1400oF - 760oC
At 800oC - 1470oF the amount of vaporation is zero.
At 900oC - 1650oF the amount of vaporation is negligible.
At 1000oC - 1800oF the amount of vaporation is minimal.
At 3182oF - 1750oC lead vaporizes.

Any vapor created before the collapse left the building with the smoke.
The collapse put the office fires out. Another source of heat vaporized the lead after it was crushed in the collapse.

RJ Lee Group report 2004 pg 12 [pdf pg 13]
The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool.


Quote:
The fires did not go out in the collapse, they kept burning because fuel from the WTC was still there, on fire.
There is no fire in the pulverized dust being ejected from the tower.



Quote:
I have source from my air force classes that open pools of jet fuel can reach 2,000 F. And another source fuel fires reach 1200 F in a seconds and start melting Al.
Please post the URLs

Last edited by Christopher7; 25th March 2011 at 10:58 PM.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2011, 10:47 PM   #123
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
The report you cite says "pulverized during the collapse and the combustible components were partially burned in the ensuing fires."
As everything was pulverized and mixed together on the way down, the fires went out. For a fire to keep going, the burning combustibles have to ignite other combustibles next to them but tiny burning particles of combustible material would burn out quickly.

How can pulverized combustibles in a pile burn when they are mixed with a greater quantity of pulverized noncombustible and no fire to start with?

Try to start a fire in a pile of pulverized combustibles, mixed with a greater quantity of pulverized noncombustibles like concrete,drywall and rock wool.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 08:03 AM   #124
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
As everything was pulverized and mixed together on the way down, the fires went out. For a fire to keep going, the burning combustibles have to ignite other combustibles next to them but tiny burning particles of combustible material would burn out quickly.

How can pulverized combustibles in a pile burn when they are mixed with a greater quantity of pulverized noncombustible and no fire to start with?

Try to start a fire in a pile of pulverized combustibles, mixed with a greater quantity of pulverized noncombustibles like concrete,drywall and rock wool.
Hmmm, So you are saying there were no fires in the pile? That there were no ignition sources underground? Lets see... there were cars and trucks full of fuel and with batteries, gas lines, mineral oils from transformers, thousands and thousands of tons of paper, furniture, etc, etc. The list of fuel sources is endless.

The collapse snuffed out the large fires above but undoubtedly there were hot embers and smoldering material that made it all the way down. Friction and sparks from metal settling could also ignite fuel sources.

Maybe if I tried to start a fire in a wheelbarrow full of a mix of non-combustibles and combustibles I would have some difficulty but in a debris field 16 acres square, 50 or more feel high and many stories deep... not so much.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 08:13 AM   #125
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
As everything was pulverized and mixed together on the way down, the fires went out. For a fire to keep going, the burning combustibles have to ignite other combustibles next to them but tiny burning particles of combustible material would burn out quickly.

How can pulverized combustibles in a pile burn when they are mixed with a greater quantity of pulverized noncombustible and no fire to start with?

Try to start a fire in a pile of pulverized combustibles, mixed with a greater quantity of pulverized noncombustibles like concrete,drywall and rock wool.

First of all, the "everything was pulverized" is a strawman.
__________________
In most cases debating with a 9/11 truther is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The customer with the knife is always right - Quohog, the bartender
Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 08:23 AM   #126
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
Another example from my job. This one concerning batteries, fuel, and misplaced pieces of metal. Forklift operators have a bad habit of leaving pull chains on the hoods of their machines. On a few occasions, those chains have worked their way into the engine compartment and settled on the starter. Bye bye forklift!

Starters use a heavy cable directly hooked to the battery so essentially the B+ (battery positive) on the starter is the same thing as B+ on the battery (unless the cable is bad and is dropping voltage across it). The frame of the starter is bolted to the block which is bolted to the frame which is hooked up to B- as almost all IC machines, trucks, and cars use a frame ground (a lot of old ones used to use a positive grounded frame). When the chains hit the B+ terminal while laying on the starter it directly shorts the battery, and since it's a crappy connection, it produces sparks and LOTS of heat. Dust and papers (they are also bad with paperwork all over the hoods and getting in there) then ignite. Then I get the call for the rental. lol

It isn't hard to see that same or similar situations happened to at least some of the vehicles underground. Lets not forget every emergency light in the complex was basically a battery pack as well.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 12:42 PM   #127
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
Hmmm, So you are saying there were no fires in the pile?
No

Quote:
That there were no ignition sources underground?
Yes

17 gallons of kerosene falling 1000 feet down a 10 ft by 10 ft elevator shaft would burn up before it got to the basement levels and the overpressure would be relieved out the top. Kerosene is not as volatile as gasoline, that's why it is used in lamps. The gases expand at a much slower rate and don't have a lot of pushing power.

10,000 gal kerosene. 1/3 burned up in the fireball. That leaves ~6,700 gal
Divided by 40,000 sq/ft = .1675 gal per sq/ft
A 10 x 10 ft elevator shaft = 100 sq/ft x .1675 = 16.75 gallons falling down the shaft.

Quote:
Lets see... there were cars and trucks full of fuel and with batteries, gas lines, mineral oils from transformers, thousands and thousands of tons of paper, furniture, etc, etc. The list of fuel sources is endless.
Correct

Quote:
The collapse snuffed out the large fires above but undoubtedly there were hot embers and smoldering material that made it all the way down. Friction and sparks from metal settling could also ignite fuel sources.
Everything was reduced to dust so there were no burning embers and sparks won't ignite dust that is more noncombustibles than combustibles.

Quote:
Maybe if I tried to start a fire in a wheelbarrow full of a mix of non-combustibles and combustibles I would have some difficulty but in a debris field 16 acres square, 50 or more feel high and many stories deep... not so much.
There is no difference really, the dust near the top of the pile was mixed all the way down.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 02:01 PM   #128
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
First of all, the "everything was pulverized" is a strawman.
At 1:26 "As time went by you realized that everything was pulverized. There were no desks, there were no phones. Maybe now and then you would find a fragment of something but basically, everything was just pulverized.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCrin...layer_embedded



"You don't find a desk, you don't find a chair, you don't find a telephone, computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...eos/index.html
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 02:19 PM   #129
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
At 1:26 "As time went by you realized that everything was pulverized. There were no desks, there were no phones. Maybe now and then you would find a fragment of something but basically, everything was just pulverized.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCrin...layer_embedded

Have you ever heard about figures of speech?

Have you ever seen any picture of WTC debris? Do you really think everything was literally pulverized?

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
"You don't find a desk, you don't find a chair, you don't find a telephone, computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...eos/index.html

Tell me, how could he have found a telephone keypad if everything was literally pulverized (as you are suggesting)?
__________________
In most cases debating with a 9/11 truther is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The customer with the knife is always right - Quohog, the bartender

Last edited by Carlos; 26th March 2011 at 02:23 PM.
Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 03:10 PM   #130
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
He used the word "pulverized" literally and qualified "everything" by saying:
"Maybe now and then you would find a fragment of something"

RJ Lee 2003 report pg 2
"Building contents of the WTC included computers and
other electronic equipment, fluorescent lights, furniture, office supplies, and
a myriad of other items. The brittle and friable components of these
materials were pulverized during the collapse and the combustible
components were partially burned in the ensuing fires."
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 03:15 PM   #131
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
He used the word "pulverized" literally and qualified "everything" by saying:
"Maybe now and then you would find a fragment of something"

RJ Lee 2003 report pg 2
"Building contents of the WTC included computers and
other electronic equipment, fluorescent lights, furniture, office supplies, and
a myriad of other items. The brittle and friable components of these
materials were pulverized during the collapse and the combustible
components were partially burned in the ensuing fires."
Considering this report was some 8 years ago, You now have an update (where you've clarified their positions) that you would like to discuss?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 03:16 PM   #132
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
Have you ever heard about figures of speech?

Have you ever seen any picture of WTC debris? Do you really think everything was literally pulverized?




Tell me, how could he have found a telephone keypad if everything was literally pulverized (as you are suggesting)?
Don't you see, you bold the parts where they say everything was pulverized while ignoring the parts that show everything wasn't literally pulverized. It a way to avoid being accused of quote mining while entertaining fantasy.
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 03:27 PM   #133
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
He used the word "pulverized" literally and qualified "everything" by saying:
"Maybe now and then you would find a fragment of something"
Pictures from WTC debris prove the "everything literally pulverized" is wrong.

Again: Have you ever seen any picture of WTC debris?

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
RJ Lee 2003 report pg 2
"Building contents of the WTC included computers and
other electronic equipment, fluorescent lights, furniture, office supplies, and
a myriad of other items. The brittle and friable components of these
materials were pulverized during the collapse and the combustible
components were partially burned in the ensuing fires."

You missed the hilited part.
__________________
In most cases debating with a 9/11 truther is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The customer with the knife is always right - Quohog, the bartender
Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 04:09 PM   #134
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Considering this report was some 8 years ago, You now have an update (where you've clarified their positions) that you would like to discuss?
RJ Lee 2004 report
Pg 8
"Additional Testing and Results Reported Herein:
S1: Aerosolization of Ultra Fine Fibers and Particles from WTC Dust

Pg 9
"The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2 million tons of building materials were pulverized during the WTC Event including an estimated 300 to 400 tons of asbestos,35 mainly from insulation and from fireproofing."
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 04:26 PM   #135
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
RJ Lee 2004 report
Pg 8
"Additional Testing and Results Reported Herein:
S1: Aerosolization of Ultra Fine Fibers and Particles from WTC Dust

Pg 9
"The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2 million tons of building materials were pulverized during the WTC Event including an estimated 300 to 400 tons of asbestos,35 mainly from insulation and from fireproofing."
So?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 04:57 PM   #136
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So?
The total weight of the Trade Towers was 1,500,000 tons including 50,000 tons of steel in each tower.
Total components other than steel* = 1.4 million tons.
1,400,000 - 1,200,000 = 200,000 tons not pulverized
200,000 `/. 1,400,000 = 14% of the components* in the debris pile were not pulverized.
86% of the debris pile* was pulverized dust.

This pulverized dust would leave few if any air pockets other than inside the columns in the upper portion of the debris pile.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 06:40 PM   #137
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
You know nothing
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 07:13 PM   #138
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
Christopher7 still basking in ignorance

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The total weight of the Trade Towers was 1,500,000 tons including 50,000 tons of steel in each tower.
Total components other than steel* = 1.4 million tons.
1,400,000 - 1,200,000 = 200,000 tons not pulverized
200,000 `/. 1,400,000 = 14% of the components* in the debris pile were not pulverized.
86% of the debris pile* was pulverized dust.

This pulverized dust would leave few if any air pockets other than inside the columns in the upper portion of the debris pile.
No, no it certainly wasn't. Stop lying.






__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

Last edited by A W Smith; 26th March 2011 at 07:15 PM.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 08:04 PM   #139
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
No, no it certainly wasn't. Stop lying.

Those pictures were taken weeks or months into the clean up after most of the dust had been removed.

Show pictures taken during the first few days.


Last edited by Christopher7; 26th March 2011 at 08:07 PM.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 08:57 PM   #140
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post

Those pictures were taken weeks or months into the clean up after most of the dust had been removed.[/font]
So?
__________________
In most cases debating with a 9/11 truther is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The customer with the knife is always right - Quohog, the bartender
Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 09:12 PM   #141
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 7,032
Find the dust!

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post

Those pictures were taken weeks or months into the clean up after most of the dust had been removed.

Show pictures taken during the first few days.

Heres an array of images taken on september 21, 10 days after the attacks, So tell me Sarns, Where did "1,200,000 tons" of your dust go in ten days?


http://www.zombietime.com/wtc_9-13-2001/
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 10:09 PM   #142
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
RJ Lee 2004 report
"The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2 million tons of building materials were pulverized during the WTC Event including an estimated 300 to 400 tons of asbestos,35 mainly from insulation and from fireproofing."

Wrong. More Than 1.2 tons collapsed (not "were pulverized") during the WTC Event.

Quote:
The catastrophic structural collapse of the WTC resulted in coarse
fragmentation as well as fine particle dust generation including asbestos and
various chemicals of concern. The hazardous materials in the dust
originated from many common sources. The National Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2 million tons of building
materials collapsed during the WTC Event containing an estimated 300 to
400 tons of asbestos.
(NRDC, 2002) Additionally, 50,000 personal computers
were destroyed, with each containing approximately 4 pounds of lead.
(NRDC, 2002) Additionally, thousands of fluorescent light bulbs, thousands
of light switches and other mercury-containing items were destroyed,
releasing thousands of grams of mercury into the surrounding environment.
These materials, properly contained and applied in their consumer products
and form, presented no particular environmental or health hazard. It was,
however, the pulverization of these items caused by the WTC collapse that
liberated and rendered them bio-accessible, thus creating an environmental
hazard.

http://web.archive.org/web/200601141...logy.Final.pdf
__________________
In most cases debating with a 9/11 truther is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The customer with the knife is always right - Quohog, the bartender
Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 10:22 PM   #143
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
Heres an array of images taken on september 21, 10 days after the attacks, So tell me Sarns, Where did "1,200,000 tons" of your dust go in ten days?
All over lower Manhattan and under the steel on top. But I see voids so I'm going to concede the point.

However

The fires were put out as the building and everything in it was pulverized.

The pulverized combustible contents of the Trade Towers were mixed in with 1,200,000 tons of pulverized building material. The combustibles would smolder if heated sufficiently but would not burn because they were dispersed in noncombustible material.


Last edited by Christopher7; 26th March 2011 at 10:28 PM.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2011, 11:04 PM   #144
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
Wrong. More Than 1.2 tons collapsed (not "were pulverized") during the WTC Event.
Originally Posted by Carlos
more than 1.2 million tons of building materials collapsed during the WTC Event ... It was, however, the pulverization of these items caused by the WTC collapse that liberated and rendered them bio-accessible, thus creating an environmental hazard.

http://web.archive.org/web/200601141...logy.Final.pdf



I think your bee suit might be impairing your brain function.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

Last edited by ergo; 26th March 2011 at 11:05 PM.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2011, 05:55 AM   #145
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by ergo View Post


I think your bee suit might be impairing your brain function.

You are acting just like a twoofer, and conveniently skipped the highlighted part.

Quote:
The National Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2 million tons of building
materials collapsed during the WTC Event containing an estimated 300 to 400
tons of asbestos. (NRDC, 2002) Additionally, 50,000 personal computers
were destroyed, with each containing approximately 4 pounds of lead.
(NRDC, 2002) Additionally, thousands of fluorescent light bulbs, thousands
of light switches and other mercury-containing items were destroyed,
releasing thousands of grams of mercury into the surrounding environment.
These materials, properly contained and applied in their consumer products
and form, presented no particular environmental or health hazard.
It was,
however, the pulverization of these items caused by the WTC collapse that
liberated and rendered them bio-accessible, thus creating an environmental
hazard.

So, after reading the entire paragraph in the correct context, tell me, do you think that "pulverization of these items" refers to the all 1.2 million tons of debris or refers only to the items mentioned above (that created an environmental
hazard)?
__________________
In most cases debating with a 9/11 truther is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The customer with the knife is always right - Quohog, the bartender

Last edited by Carlos; 27th March 2011 at 06:14 AM.
Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2011, 06:30 AM   #146
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
You are acting just like a twoofer, and conveniently skipped the highlighted part.
He didn't skip anything. That's just his "RationaleFilter-Pro" banging away on all cylinders!
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2011, 06:32 AM   #147
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
However

The fires were put out as the building and everything in it was pulverized.

Vuelve el perro arrepentido
con sus orejas caidas
con el hocico partido
y con el rabo entre las patas

Vuelve el perro arrepentido
con sus orejas caidas
con el hocico partido
y con el rabo entre las patas

(El verso es repetido 44 veces)


Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
with 1,200,000 tons of pulverized building material.

Not true.
__________________
In most cases debating with a 9/11 truther is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The customer with the knife is always right - Quohog, the bartender
Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2011, 08:42 AM   #148
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339


How much was pulverized then, Carlos? And what is the point you're trying to make?
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2011, 09:20 AM   #149
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by ergo View Post


How much was pulverized then, Carlos? And what is the point you're trying to make?

I do not know how much was pulverized, but there are no sources saying that this amount was 1.2 million tons, as Christopher7 are suggesting.

The source posted by him says 1.2 million tons of materials from WTC collapsed, it doesn't say 1.2 million tons were pulverized.
__________________
In most cases debating with a 9/11 truther is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The customer with the knife is always right - Quohog, the bartender

Last edited by Carlos; 27th March 2011 at 09:26 AM.
Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2011, 10:45 AM   #150
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
So, after reading the entire paragraph in the correct context, tell me, do you think that "pulverization of these items" refers to the all 1.2 million tons of debris or refers only to the items mentioned above (that created an environmental hazard)?
My bad. I am a contractor and "building materials" means materials used in construction so I stopped when I saw "building materials" and just copied that sentence. The NRDC does not differentiate between materials used in construction and the contents of the building.

This changes the math but not the point.

The noncombustible building materials used in the construction of the towers such as the concrete, drywall, insulation and glass were pulverized along with the noncombustible building contents like filing cabinets. There is no estimate of how much the combustible contents weighed that I know of so no accurate estimate of the proportions can be made. Sufice it to say that the dust in the debris piles contained far more noncombustible particles than combustible particles.

The combustible particles in the dust in the debris pile could not burn because they were mixed with a greater amount of noncombustible particles. If they could burn, the dust would have caught on fire.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2011, 10:50 AM   #151
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
My bad. I am a contractor and "building materials" means materials used in construction so I stopped when I saw "building materials" and just copied that sentence. The NRDC does not differentiate between materials used in construction and the contents of the building.

This changes the math but not the point.

The noncombustible building materials used in the construction of the towers such as the concrete, drywall, insulation and glass were pulverized along with the noncombustible building contents like filing cabinets. There is no estimate of how much the combustible contents weighed that I know of so no accurate estimate of the proportions can be made. Sufice it to say that the dust in the debris piles contained far more noncombustible particles than combustible particles.

The combustible particles in the dust in the debris pile could not burn because they were mixed with a greater amount of noncombustible particles. If they could burn, the dust would have caught on fire.
Is it your claim that if you mix non-combustibles with combustibles it renders to entire mixture non-combustible?


__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2011, 10:52 AM   #152
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
The source posted by him says 1.2 million tons of materials from WTC collapsed, it doesn't say 1.2 million tons were pulverized.
Incorrect, the report says:
"The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2 million tons of building materials were pulverized during the WTC Event including an estimated 300 to 400 tons of asbestos"

Pg 9 [pdf pg 10]
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%2...04.1646.mp.pdf
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2011, 10:55 AM   #153
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Is it your claim that if you mix non-combustibles with combustibles it renders to entire mixture non-combustible?
The mixture could not and did not burn on its own. If it could it would have done so.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2011, 10:57 AM   #154
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post

Those pictures were taken weeks or months into the clean up after most of the dust had been removed.

Show pictures taken during the first few days.


So they were taken after the dust was removed, revealing things beneath that weren't literally pulverized to dust.

Does anybody have any idea how large the parking areas were beneath the towers? If I can recall from '93 (OOH!! Precedent) there's at least 5 levels of parking. Is that right? One would think 1,350' of steel and concrete landing on a bunch of cars and trucks would cause them to catch fire.

Cars that are made of aluminum which can easily account for the "molten metal" at the scene. Since there were no reports of molten metal prior to the collapses, is this not a viable theory?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2011, 11:01 AM   #155
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The mixture could not and did not burn on its own. If it could it would have done so.
Then why do you twoofers keep hammering home the point that fires were still burning for weeks or months after - trying desperately to point to thermite?

How many contradictions can one movement have?
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2011, 11:05 AM   #156
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The mixture could not and did not burn on its own. If it could it would have done so.
Obviously something was burning. Where are you going with this?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2011, 12:14 PM   #157
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Incorrect, the report says:
"The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2 million tons of building materials were pulverized during the WTC Event including an estimated 300 to 400 tons of asbestos"

Pg 9 [pdf pg 10]
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%2...04.1646.mp.pdf

Well this another one say:

"The National Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) report estimated more than 1.2 million tons of building
materials collapsed during the WTC Event"


http://web.archive.org/web/200601141...logy.Final.pdf
__________________
In most cases debating with a 9/11 truther is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The customer with the knife is always right - Quohog, the bartender
Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2011, 12:38 PM   #158
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post

So they were taken after the dust was removed, revealing things beneath that weren't literally pulverized to dust.
The things in the dust in that photo were pieces of steel.

At 1:26 "As time went by you realized that everything was pulverized. There were no desks, there were no phones. Maybe now and then you would find a fragment of something but basically, everything was just pulverized.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCrin...layer_embedded

"You don't find a desk, you don't find a chair, you don't find a telephone, computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of a keypad"
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...eos/index.html

Quote:
Does anybody have any idea how large the parking areas were beneath the towers? If I can recall from '93 (OOH!! Precedent) there's at least 5 levels of parking. Is that right? One would think 1,350' of steel and concrete landing on a bunch of cars and trucks would cause them to catch fire.
That is possible but even if car's gas tanks were ruptured and a spark set them on fire, those fires would not burn long enough to heat the entire mass of eight or nine stories of debris and raise the surface temperature of the debris pile to 1376oF [747oC]

Quote:
Cars that are made of aluminum which can easily account for the "molten metal" at the scene. Since there were no reports of molten metal prior to the collapses, is this not a viable theory?
No. Molten aluminum appears silvery in daylight. Numerous qualified people like Peter Tully and Richard Riggs said there was molten steel. They would know that silvery molten metal would be aluminum.

Ground zero ironworkers on 9/11 anomalies
At 2:05
"The grapplers were pulling stuff out, big sections of iron that were literally on fire at the other end. They would hit the air and burst into flames."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCrin...layer_embedded
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2011, 12:57 PM   #159
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post

That is possible but even if car's gas tanks were ruptured and a spark set them on fire, those fires would not burn long enough to heat the entire mass of eight or nine stories of debris and raise the surface temperature of the debris pile to 1376oF [747oC]

The surface temp. of the pile was over 1,300 degrees? Why didn't the first responders melt or die from severe burns?

First responders were there within a matter of minutes and if I recall correctly, stayed for months.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2011, 01:00 PM   #160
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post

Ground zero ironworkers on 9/11 anomalies
At 2:05
"The grapplers were pulling stuff out, big sections of iron that were literally on fire at the other end. They would hit the air and burst into flames."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCrin...layer_embedded
If the grapplers could pick it up, that would indicate it wasn't molten. Just sayin...
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.