Coincidences: Turner Contruction's hand in 9/11

[watermock]

Aidan Monaghan
9/11 Blogger
Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Turner Construction, who supervised the 2000 demolition of the Seattle Kingdome, participated in the post-9/11 Ground Zero clean-up and performed extensive renovations within the World Trade Center towers just prior to 9/11, was in fact performing unspecified renovation work throughout the WTC complex until the very morning of September 11, 2001. The Port Authority of NY/NJ now claims that records describing such work or other projects were destroyed on September 11, 2001. A December 2000 WTC property assessment described required renovation work to be completed within one year, upon steel columns within elevator shafts of both WTC towers that was immediately pending or already underway.

Terror devastates A/E/C firms

12 employees of Turner Construction were located in an office in the third subbasement of Tower 1, the north tower. Turner had been performing renovation work in various parts of the center and had occupied various office spaces.



http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-79439506.html

In 1997 Turner Construction also constructed the new headquarters for the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). The Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center, a laboratory managed by NAVSEA was described during the 1990s as the “National Center for Energetics”, the “Pentagon’s jargon to broadly describe explosive materials, propellants and pyrotechnics” and as the “only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States”.



http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-574412.html

Turner Corporation 1997 10-K Report

During 1997, the company completed work on … the Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters (NAVSEA) for the Navy in Washington, DC.



http://www.buck.com/10k?tenkyear=97&idx=T&co=!TURNERC&nam=DEMO2&pw=DEMO2

Naval Sea Systems Command



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

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites



http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

Previous work performed by Turner Construction at the WTC included fireproofing of the only floors that were struck by United and American airlines flights on September 11, 2001 and that later burned and “failed”.



http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272

A December 2000 WTC property assessment recommended immediate renovation work upon steel columns contained within elevator shafts of both WTC towers:
---------------------------------------

http://www.prisonplanet.com/port-authority-of-nynj-records-for-reported-wtc-renovation-work-destroyed-on-911.html

[watermock]

The CEO of the company is now the Mayor of Dallas and has connections to George W. Bush -


"The CEO for Turner Construction Company appointed in 1999, was Tom Leppert, who joined the board of Turner in 1998, is currently the mayor of Dallas, Texas and who has ties with former president George W. Bush and Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, a bureau of the Department of Commerce, was assigned to investigate the collapses of the WTC 1,2 and 7.

Thomas C. Leppert Named To Succeed E.T. Gravette, Jr. As Chairman Of The Turner Corporation

http://www.turnerconstruction.com/corporate/content.asp?d=1222&p=1153

PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT FOR MAYOR LEPPERT

President George W. Bush appointed Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert to the President’s Commission on White House Fellows.

http://www.tomleppert.com/PR/docs/fellows_commission.pdf

Mayor Leppert meets with Bush

Dallas Business Journal

Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert, along with a group of 11 other mayors, met with President George W. Bush and Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez Wednesday at the White House to discuss a free trade agreement with the South American countries of Peru and Colombia.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2008/01/21/daily26.html?jst=m_... "

Logged



_CREATIONIST_
Sr. Member

Online

Posts: 388


Re: Turner Construction: inspection of steel collumns in WTC
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2009, 11:02:58 PM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: hal 9000 on April 24, 2009, 01:29:10 PM
Just came upon this article on 9/11 blogger. Very interesting indeed -

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19889#comment

"Turner Construction, who supervised the 2000 demolition of the Seattle Kingdome, participated in the post-9/11 Ground Zero clean-up and performed extensive renovations within the World Trade Center towers just prior to 9/11, was in fact performing unspecified renovation work throughout the WTC complex until the very morning of September 11, 2001. The Port Authority of NY/NJ now claims that records describing such work or other projects were destroyed on September 11, 2001. A December 2000 WTC property assessment described required renovation work to be completed within one year, upon steel columns within elevator shafts of both WTC towers that was immediately pending or already underway.

Terror devastates A/E/C firms

12 employees of Turner Construction were located in an office in the third subbasement of Tower 1, the north tower. Turner had been performing renovation work in various parts of the center and had occupied various office spaces."


http://www.911blogger.com/node/19889#comment



The CEO of the company is now the Mayor of Dallas and has connections to George W. Bush -


"The CEO for Turner Construction Company appointed in 1999, was Tom Leppert, who joined the board of Turner in 1998, is currently the mayor of Dallas, Texas and who has ties with former president George W. Bush and Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, a bureau of the Department of Commerce, was assigned to investigate the collapses of the WTC 1,2 and 7.

Thomas C. Leppert Named To Succeed E.T. Gravette, Jr. As Chairman Of The Turner Corporation

http://www.turnerconstruction.com/corporate/content.asp?d=1222&p=1153

PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT FOR MAYOR LEPPERT

President George W. Bush appointed Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert to the President’s Commission on White House Fellows.

http://www.tomleppert.com/PR/docs/fellows_commission.pdf

[watermock]

In 1997 Turner Construction also constructed the new headquarters for the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). The Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center, a laboratory managed by NAVSEA was described during the 1990s as the "National Center for Energetics", the "Pentagon's jargon to broadly describe explosive materials, propellants and pyrotechnics" and as the "only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States".

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-574412.html
.

[watermock]

Don't you find it interesting the SAME COMPANY WAS INVOLVED IN CONTROLED DEMOLITION, NONO-THERMITE, NAVESA AND THE NIST INVESTIGATION?

Top it off, the CEO was appointed Mayor of Dallas by Bush?

[W*GS]

You're an idiot, 'mock.

[The Lone Bolt]

A) I've already posted numbers suggesting that nanothermite sprayed on to a steel girder would only increase the temperature of said girder by 30 celcius.

B) I already examined the documentation surrounding the WTC towers rennovation in question and there is no indication of how long the work took in those documents.

C) Since nanothermite is highly unlikely to have had any substantial effect, what you are suggesting is that dozens of workers smuggled tons of explosives and rigged both towers for demolition over the course of several months without anybody noticing or saying anything.

D) Just because Turner Construction built a building for NAVSEA doesn't prove they had any connection with demolition materials.

I could go on but why bother? Your case is weak, circumstantial nonsense.

[Rohirrim]

Don't you find it interesting the SAME COMPANY WAS INVOLVED IN CONTROLED DEMOLITION, NONO-THERMITE, NAVESA AND THE NIST INVESTIGATION?

Top it off, the CEO was appointed Mayor of Dallas by Bush?

I would consider being the mayor of Dallas some form of punishment. ;D

[watermock]

Otis built, ran and maintained those elevators till they were replaced by Turner for "renovations" in 2000-2001.

In 1997 Turner Construction also constructed the new headquarters for the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). The Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center, a laboratory managed by NAVSEA was described during the 1990s as the “National Center for Energetics”, the “Pentagon’s jargon to broadly describe explosive materials, propellants and pyrotechnics” and as the “only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States”.

[The Lone Bolt]

Otis built, ran and maintained those elevators till they were replaced by Turner for "renovations" in 2000-2001.

:oyvey:

Once again building an office for NAVSEA proves only that they did some constrution work for them. Also, nanothermites were most likely inadequate for the purpose of demolition, so your argument is a dead end.

[watermock]

Does a rock have to hit you on the head?

They do demolition, salvage, and construction, and yes, were involved in at least the construction at Indian Head.

Are you some expert on nanothermite? Since there is only 1 relable facility and it top secret, I doubt it.

It doesn't take TONS to cut a beam(s). Especially since they HAD ACCESS AT ON AND PRIOR TO 9/11.

[The Lone Bolt]

Does a rock have to hit you on the head?

They do demolition, salvage, and construction, and yes, were involved in at least the construction at Indian Head.

Are you some expert on nanothermite? Since there is only 1 relable facility and it top secret, I doubt it.

It doesn't take TONS to cut a beam(s). Especially since they HAD ACCESS AT ON AND PRIOR TO 9/11.


I'm no expert on nanothermite and NEITHER ARE YOU (as far as I know). I previously posted a comment from another forum however which goes over the math and why nanothermite, even give Stephen Jones' own numbers, would be inadequate for melting (or even significantly weakening) steel girders.

Here are some similar comments from a forum with a lot of qualified experts posting:

Pure, ordinary thermite only contains about 4 MJ/kg of chemical energy. Nanothermite, because as the aluminum gets milled finer the inert aluminum oxide shell on the particles becomes a significant fraction of its total mass, is even lower density; Dr. Tillotson remarks about 1.5 MJ/kg is typical. If you then replace some of these ingredients with (potentially flammable, but requiring oxygen) Viton, you're going to reduce that energy density even further. And again, just for comparison, gasoline is about 40 MJ/kg.

Back to the original question, nanothermite can actually react with a supersonic flame front. However, as far as I can determine, this is caused strictly by thermal effects, such as radiation, and not through compression. There is no applicable Rankine-Hugoniot curve since compressing the nanothermite itself could lead to a temperature rise, but through different mechanisms, such as abrasion between the tiny little particles.

The upshot is that nanothermite can be a high explosive, but this is solely a function of grain size which drives the speed of the flame front. Because it is not a pressure-driven effect, while it can still produce a shockwave, it will be a particularly weak one. Unless packed with some medium that produces a large volumetric change when heated, it is unlikely to create much of an explosion. If so packed, it will be in all likelihood the least energetic explosive known to science.

I think the melting angle is less ludicrous than treating it like an explosive, personally. Thermite does, nonetheless, retain the ability to create high temperatures. But if used in this fashion I just don't see what making it "nano" would buy you.

Nor have I ever seen a plausible explanation for how it was controlled after it reacted. Again, see the Mythbusters exercise, using 1000 pounds of thermite, which didn't even come close to totally melting a light truck chassis. This demonstrates just how meager its effect can be on steel until the issue of controlling it is solved. It just isn't an efficient approach.

'Thermite' or 'nanothermite' requires a consistant high temperature (such as a blow torch) to ignite. It is notoriously unpredictable, difficult to ignite and control. Thin layers painted on would not be sufficient. Bags and bags of the stuf would have to packed around each column and at specific sites on evry floor.

ETA: Here is a layman's treatment from LLNL. The key feature is high temperature, which is achieved because the heat content is high relative to the mass and thermal capacity of the reactants. However, the total heat content is absurdly small, about 1/20th that of ordinary paper, pound for pound. Thus, the best use of nanothermite is where tiny, precise application of extreme heat is valuable -- melting tiny platinum wires, applying to miniscule samples of moon rock to boil off volatiles for spectroscopy, that kind of thing. Burning through huge steel columns? Heck, no.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=146957

[The Lone Bolt]

OK, here's the analysis I posted earlier:

I notice that many of the truthers here are quite taken with the "nano-thermite" paper that was recently published for a fee in a vanity journal. Personally, I think the best review of said paper was by a poster named tsig at the JREF forums:

Quote:
Analysis of paper.

Jones et. al. burned some paint chips with a propane torch, cooked the data and then put the paper in a pay-to-publish rag.
Yep, that about sums it up.

The paper is rubbish, let the truth movement say what it may. But just for fun, let's try to figure out what the alleged nano-thermite paint would do if it actually worked as speculated and you applied some to a steel column and managed to ignite it somehow.

Data. The paper gives a large range of values for available energy, but the highest is 7 kilojoules per gram. We'll use that one.

My steel box column will measure 14 inches by 14 inches by 11 feet 6 inches (0.36 meters by 0.36 meters by 3.5 meters). I'll have the thickness of the steel be 1/4 inch (0.64 centimeters).

The density of steel is 7900 kilograms per cubic meter.

The box column has a volume (minus the empty space inside) of 0.032 cubic meters. That means that the beam is comprised of about 250 kilograms of steel.

The surface area of the four outer faces of the beam is about 50 square feet. One gallon of paint covers about 400 square feet -- at least according to the label of a can of house paint I just checked. So the total paint on the beam will be about 0.12 gallons, or 466 grams' worth. Let's round that up to 500 grams.

We have 7,000 joules per gram of paint, and 500 grams of paint. The total available energy is 3,500,000 joules.

The question before us is, how much will that amount of energy raise the temperature of the steel due to combustion of the "nano-thermite" paint?

If you'll kindly consult your physics books, you'll find that the increase in temperature of a material equals the energy input, divided by the mass of the material multiplied by the material's specific heat capacity:

Delta-T = E / cm

Where Delta-T is the temperature change, E is the energy input, m is the mass of the material, and c is the material's specific heat capacity.

The specific heat capacity for steel is 460 joules per kilogram-Celsius (from table 17-1 of my copy of Schaum's 3000 Solved Problems in Physics).

We now have all three values needed to solve our equation:

Delta-T = 3,500,000 J/ (250 kg * 460 J/kg*C)

Delta-T = temperature of steel increases by 30 degrees celcius.

Yeah, that's going to do a lot.

Truthers, please notice that I'm allowing 100% of the available energy to go into heating of the steel. That wouldn't happen in real life. Some of that energy would go into heating the surrounding air and/or any fireproofing insulation that may have been around the column.

I've read that Ryan Mackey did some calculations which gave a 24 degree celcius increase in the steel's temperature. I haven't actually seen those calculations, however. Mackey probably had a slightly higher ratio of steel to paint - or his model might have been more rigorous than mine. In any event, our numbers agree well, and I'm sure he concurs strongly with me that this alleged "nano-thermite" paint ain't gonna fail a column. No way.

~

Truthers, the following links should give you an idea of the objections we skeptics have to the Bentham paper. I challenge you to point out anything we have wrong:

Megalodon's brief analysis of the Bentham paper.

JamesB notes the huge variance of energy values in the paper.

Ryan Mackey's response to JamesB.

Okay, nano-thermiters, what do you have to say for yourselves now?

~

Post-script:

In the post I linked to above, Megalodon has this to say:

Quote:
Also, the authors seem to conflate the energy release of a substance with their potential as an explosive. Analyzing a chocolate bar might have taught them something.
That's an important point. Let's take a moment to discuss it.

I don't have a chocolate bar handy, but I do have a package of Pepperidge Farm cookies (white chocolate macadamia). The Nutrition Facts box tells us that there are 130 Calories per cookie. Note that we're talking about food calories -- note the capital C.

Very well. One food calorie equals 4186 joules. At 130 Calories per cookie, each cookie contains 544,180 joules of chemical energy.

There are 8 cookies in the package, which means the total chemical energy of all the cookies is 4,353,440 joules.

The net weight listed on the front of the package is 206 grams. That means we have roughly 21,000 joules per gram of chemical energy in our cookies.

Compare that to 7,000 joules per gram of chemical energy in Jonesy's "nano-thermite" paint.

Moral of the story: just because you have a lot of joules per gram of energy, that doesn't mean you can implode a building with it. Just like Megalodon said -- read the quote again.

Unless you think the twin towers might have been imploded with Pepperidge Farm cookies or chocolate bars.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=62309

[watermock]

So what DID bring down WTC7?

What WERE the secondary explosions in the sub-basment where Turner had offices.

Hell, I was as gung ho as anyone after 9/11, I gave to the USO, I trcked our march to Baghdad.

It's not a matter of a few unsolved questions.

[watermock]

I just viewed a video of building 7, it's a rare video showing southside fires, however i do not agree with authors verison of facts relating to fires bringing building 7 down (Note: there were a lot of important paper work from enron and various other criminal matters in build 7 + it was the controll center for the controlled demo., which I believe was the motive to bring it down, etc... etc.. ).

In viewing I had an idea pop into my mind, which is this: has anyone analized photos of the actual steel I-Beams from photos showing that the beams were cut in sharp angles, which is the way they set up the thermite charges? I discovered from some other video that all the steel from the twin towers did not have to be cut they were all in twenty foot lengths which were easily loaded on the trucks, interesting to say the least.

Video link : www.abovetopsecret.com...

comments?

[edit on 23-2-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 23-2-2007 by PHARAOH1133]



copyright & usage
Click here for more 9/11 Conspiracies topics
Hot Topics | Top Topics | This Week | Subscribe | Home


reply posted on 23-2-2007 @ 08:26 PM by mirageofdeceit



Larry Silverstein is on record as making the decision to "pull" the building. Firefighters have been caught in various bits of video as casually saying "watch the building - it is coming down later". These points are raised in "Loose Change", as well as in a few other films.

If you search Google or YouTube you're sure to find them. I think it is certain that WTC7 was a demolition.

One theory suggested that debris from WTC1 and WTC2 hit it, weakening the structure, causing it to collapse, yet other surrounding buildings sustained significantly greater damage, yet still remain standing even now.

[edit on 23-2-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

All that is asked for is an INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION, not by:


"The CEO for Turner Construction Company appointed in 1999, was Tom Leppert, who joined the board of Turner in 1998, is currently the mayor of Dallas, Texas and who has ties with former president George W. Bush and Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, a bureau of the Department of Commerce, was assigned to investigate the collapses of the WTC 1,2 and 7.

Got problem with that? Over 120 and counting engineers don't.

Just remember, this started 2 wars, neither of which are critical, meanwhile, our own country is going into a depression and becoming ever more warlike in aggression.

[Bronco Bob]

So what DID bring down WTC7?


Debris from the collapse of WT1 & WT2.



What WERE the secondary explosions in the sub-basment where Turner had offices.



Why do you think there were?

[watermock]

object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8n-nT-luFIw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8n-nT-luFIw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>.

[watermock]

It's funny how each incosistency is dismissed as being a "troofer", yet the body of evidence in totality points to a very different reality, no matter how disturbing.

In totality, the 9/11 atack not only raises questions, warranting a seperate invesigation, but the concious blame on Bin Laden, and the wars after.

Not to even mention the destruction of the sec investigation of enron or madoff or even the emergency dept of NY, evecuated for what reason?

No other building collapsed. No ther building has ever collapsed like WTC 7.

As far as the sub-basement of WTC1, there were yea explosions at or neat the Turner working places.


All in all, there are too many inconsistencies to bury tis as a "get Bin Laden".

Hell, we could of got him in48 hours, yet alone 8 years.

Get real.

When Obama tells us to efend the poppy fields with 80K troops, does he mention BinLaden?

Jesus.

[TDmvp]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/auciker/PhilCrazy.jpg

[watermock]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032

.

[TDmvp]

But we still love yas Mock LOL ...

[watermock]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/auciker/PhilCrazy.jpg

Wow. Dr. Phil. I'm impressed.

[TDmvp]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/auciker/PhilCrazy.jpg

Wow. Dr. Phil. I'm impressed.

ROFL! It was the first pic when i googled bat$hit crazy heheh

[Spider]

the easy thing to do would be calling you an Idiot mock , but that doesnt get the Bull off the ice .............I dont have any answers

[watermock]

Sure ya do.

Your mocking, so be it.

Run along.

you don't know love, nor pity.

[watermock]

the easy thing to do would be calling you an Idiot mock , but that doesnt get the Bull off the ice .............I dont have any answers


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032


Why not listen to the full text?
Huh?

[Spider]

Sure ya do.

Your mocking, so be it.

Run along.

you don't know love, nor pity.

mocking, hardly ,last time I mentioned the collapse of the towers and how odd it was , I was told about egg cartons ........I dont want ot go through that again

[watermock]

ROFL! It was the first pic when i googled bat$hit crazy heheh


Good for you. That's scientific, huh, dumbass.

[watermock]

STFU and watch the video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032

[watermock]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032

Look at 1:59.

[TDmvp]

If you mean 1min 59secs , It proves 44% of the people polled are nut bars ...

was a interesting documentary tho ... I'm a sucker for documentaries even if I disagree ... Seen most that stuff in other docs tho.

[watermock]

Yeah, so what.

[watermock]

yeah,your a real sucker.

[watermock]

If you mean 1min 59secs , It proves 44% of the people polled are nut bars ...

was a interesting documentary tho ... I'm a sucker for documentaries even if I disagree ... Seen most that stuff in other docs tho.


So what?


yur a sucker?

[watermock]

If you mean 1min 59secs , It proves 44% of the people polled are nut bars ...


No , it was a analysis of the implosion.

[Spider]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032


Why not listen to the full text?
Huh?

i can watch and listen til the cows come home , and the chickens come home to roost , it wont mean a thing , I am not an architect, I wouldnt know Nano Thermite from cat **** ,all I have is one side saying bull**** , the other side saying 9-11 was an inside job ......... Problem is i dont know enough to know when one side is bull****ting ........

[TDmvp]

i can watch and listen til the cows come home , and the chickens come home to roost , it wont mean a thing , I am not an architect, I wouldnt know Nano Thermite from cat **** ,all I have is one side saying bull**** , the other side saying 9-11 was an inside job ......... Problem is i dont know enough to know when one side is bull****ting ........

funny things is I was going to school to be a Architect right before 9/11 ...

Friends of mine who finished CaD love to shoot holes in the truther BS ...

My friend from Raytheon wrote a piece in some Science news letter just @$$ raping the stupid truthers and the fact most have a high school education if any at all ...

So sorry truthers , I'll trust my friends from Raytheon and other fields who went to school for 6 plus years and are not trying to profit , over some moron truther who has a hard on to prove everyone wrong and make a buck in the process .

[The Lone Bolt]

Mock. Watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926

I think it proves beyond any reasonable doubt that explosives could not have been used to demolish the WTC towers. And as nano-thermites also look like a poor candidate, this pretty much sinks the entire demolition hypothesis, doesn't it?

[Bronco Bob]

Mock. Watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926

I think it proves beyond any reasonable doubt that explosives could not have been used to demolish the WTC towers. And as nano-thermites also look like a poor candidate, this pretty much sinks the entire demolition hypothesis, doesn't it?

Notice too that in controlled demolitions the building collapse from the
bottom up, not from the upper middle like in WTC1 and WTC2.
If it was a controlled demolition, what was the advantage of blowing
up the top of the building in hopes that it would bring the rest of
the building down. When the terrorists tried using explosives in 1993,
they put them in the basement, not on an upper floor.

[mhgaffney]

Thermite burns at 4500 F -- way way way over the melting point of steel, which is 2800 F

Thus, Lone Bolt shows his ignorance. He thinks nano thermite could not have done the job at 4500 F -- yet

he believes that jet fuel, rugs and furniture did. (None of these items burn at higher than 1800 F (and that only under the best conditions, which did NOT prevail on 9/11)

That's a full 1000 F too low.

And please don't tell me the fires weakened the massive core columns. The NIST fire simulation study showed the fires in the WTC core were coool. NIST even admits in its report that the fuels in the core of the WTC were "negligible"

With no fuels -- you can't generate sustained high temps."Negligible" is verbatim - straight from the NIST report.

No way to get from here to a collapse -- without explosives.

Sorry.

[mhgaffney]

Mock. Watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926

I think it proves beyond any reasonable doubt that explosives could not have been used to demolish the WTC towers. And as nano-thermites also look like a poor candidate, this pretty much sinks the entire demolition hypothesis, doesn't it?

I found the first problem with Roberts' analysis at 1:42 into the film

He says the outer perimeter wall bowed inward and then buckled -- causing the collapse.

But the bowing was only seen in one part of the tower. Even if the outer wall had collapsed in that part -- which is far far from certain -- this would only have led to a partial asymmetrical failure of a part of the wall.

The outer wall functioned like a truss. It was inherently stable. The loss of one side would not lead to a collapse. Even if you cut all of the columns on one side at the bottom -- it would NOT lead to a collapse. This was known at the time of construction.

There is no way a local failure high in the WTC leads to the total and perfectly symmetrical collapse of the entire building. Instead, you would see a partial, random, and asymmetrical collapse of just a few floors.

To get a total collapse you must have the simultaneous failure of EVERY column. Remember, as the building collapses the steel columns get thicker and thicker. The building fell through the path of GREATEST resistance. Again, the only way this can happen is with explosives.

[W*GS]

gaffney is being deliberately obtuse.

If he's not, he's an incredible moron.

[Bronco Bob]

Thermite burns at 4500 F -- way way way over the melting point of steel, which is 2800 F

Thus, Lone Bolt shows his ignorance. He thinks nano thermite could not have done the job at 4500 F -- yet

No. You are the one showing your ignorance. By confusing temperature
with heat. A small butane welding torch, of the type they used to sell
at Radio Shack, also can produce a flame with a temperature of up
to 3600 F. But you are hardly going to be able to cut a steel beam
with one of those.



he believes that jet fuel, rugs and furniture did. (None of these items burn at higher than 1800 F (and that only under the best conditions, which did NOT prevail on 9/11)

That's a full 1000 F too low.

And please don't tell me the fires weakened the massive core columns. The NIST fire simulation study showed the fires in the WTC core were coool. NIST even admits in its report that the fuels in the core of the WTC were "negligible"

You never answered the question, does metal expand when heated?



With no fuels -- you can't generate sustained high temps."Negligible" is verbatim - straight from the NIST report.

No way to get from here to a collapse -- without explosives.

Sorry.

Except the fires were still burning while the buildings collapsed.

[BroncoBuff]

gaffney is being deliberately obtuse.

If he's not, he's an incredible moron.

He does alot of conflating of small, specious "inconsistencies" into webs of escalating coincidental circumstances that result in bizarre, disconnected theories that - PRESTO - reach the conclusion he had in mind all along.

It's called backwards reasoning ... bad lawyers and appellate judges do a lot of it. At least with gaff it's entertaining.

[W*GS]

You are the one showing your ignorance. By confusing temperature with heat.

Exactly.

[mhgaffney]

He does alot of conflating of small, specious "inconsistencies" into webs of escalating coincidental circumstances that result in bizarre, disconnected theories that - PRESTO - reach the conclusion he had in mind all along.

It's called backwards reasoning ... bad lawyers and appellate judges do a lot of it. At least with gaff it's entertaining.


Right -- except you have it exactly backwards.

If you had read the 9/11 Commission Report or the NIST Report -- you would know this is what THEY did. Not me.

The official investigations worked backwards from the predetermined conclusion-- and tried to find evidence to fit the conclusion.

Everything that did not fit -- including lots of evidence pointing to the unthinkable - was excluded.

But of course, Buff, like 99% of Americans, you do not read official reports (i.e., cover ups). It's a lot easier to attack guys like me.

Shame on you.

MHG

[mhgaffney]

Bronco,

If you ask a stupid question -- do not expect an answer from me.

it will resonate through eternity.

[W*GS]

Poor gaff-o - the OM is the only place where he thinks he has friends.

What a sad, pathetic loser of a 'wad. He hasn't gotten laid in decades. He doesn't even remember what it smells like.

[mhgaffney]

No. You are the one showing your ignorance. By confusing temperature with heat. A small butane welding torch, of the type they used to sell at Radio Shack, also can produce a flame with a temperature of up to 3600 F. But you are hardly going to be able to cut a steel beam with one of those.


You never answered the question, does metal expand when heated?


Except the fires were still burning while the buildings collapsed.

WRONG.

You show YOUR ignorance. Butane is a simple carbon chain -- like propane. Maximum temperatures are 1800+ F. Any college student who has taken organic chemistry 101 knows this.

This is the maximum temp you can get with any simple carbon chain with most efficient mixing with air -- like on a stove top, in a heater, or a jet engine.

Yes, you can melt steel with an oxy-acetylene torch -- by 1. pumping in pure oxygen and 2. because acetylene has triple carbon bonds -- hence more stored energy. This is a specialized process.

Your distinction between heat and temp is erroneous.

[W*GS]

Your distinction between heat and temp is erroneous.

You're wrong, dickhead.

Find a sparkler - you know, as in the Fourth of July. Set aside your revulsion at the concept of America for a moment and set it alight. Now, plunge the burning tip into a Dixie cup with water in it. What happens?

The sparkler is burning at a temperature between 1800 and 3000° F - waaaaay above the boiling point of water. How come it doesn't evaporate every single molecule of water from the cup and keep burning?

Same reason sprayed-on "nanothermite" won't melt through a steel I-beam.

You don't understand the difference between temperature and heat.

[Requiem]

He also doesn't know that a penis goes in a vagina, but he might come around eventually; but I think he likes the penis in the butthole approach to most things.

[Rohirrim]

gaffney is being deliberately obtuse.

If he's not, he's an incredible moron.

I think he's just invested so much of hisself into this thing that he can't possibly admit his mistake and back off now. He's going down with the ship.

[mhgaffney]

You're wrong, dickhead.

Find a sparkler - you know, as in the Fourth of July. Set aside your revulsion at the concept of America for a moment and set it alight. Now, plunge the burning tip into a Dixie cup with water in it. What happens?

The sparkler is burning at a temperature between 1800 and 3000° F - waaaaay above the boiling point of water. How come it doesn't evaporate every single molecule of water from the cup and keep burning?

Same reason sprayed-on "nanothermite" won't melt through a steel I-beam.

You don't understand the difference between temperature and heat.


No, you are the one who doesn't get it.

The sprinkler burns under water for the same reason that thermite will also burn under water. The oxygen needed for the reaction is chemically bound in the sprinkler itself.

The point is: the oxygen does NOT come from the air. This was my point, Dufus.

You cannot achieve temperatures above 1800 F with carbon fuels mixed with air -- you must add pure oxygen -- either chemically bound as in thermite or bottled as in oxy acetylene.

The claim that a butane torch can reach 3600 F is garbage -- totally bogus. You claim to be a scientist -- yet -- don't know this?

Your distinction between temperature and heat is also bogus -- its a distinction without a difference.

Thermite and nano thermite most certainly can -- and did --bring down the WTC. Only a complete idiot -- someone in total denial -- would ignore the hard evidence of residues in the WTC dust.

[mhgaffney]

BTW I was mistaken when I said acetylene has a triple carbon bond. It's a double bond -- expressed as follows: C=C

But the double bond still can release a lot more energy than the single bonds found in butane.

[TDmvp]

BTW I was mistaken when I said acetylene has a triple carbon bond. It's a double bond -- expressed as follows: C=C

But the double bond still can release a lot more energy than the single bonds found in butane.



I was mistaken when I said your brain is held together by triple bond of silly putty

It obviously has a double bond of horse sh@t.

It is expressed as the following B+S

But that double bond can still release a lot of bull$hit in a constant stream ...