• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

ALTERNATIVE THEORIES V: The Build-a-bear Workshop

muthafucka please...
We were informed by PANYNJ authorities that there were no tritium signs at the WTC, only photoluminescent ones (33). This is entirely consistent with our observations
Click to expand...
page 9 of https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf

It was determined that the two Boeing 767 aircraft that hit the Twin Towers contained a combined 34 Ci
of tritium at the time of impact in their emergency exit signs.
Click to expand...
(same .gov source)

The only possible exit signs were on the supposed aircraft, and had aircraft actually been involved, it would be clear that any tritium on board was released or evaporates during the intitial impact fireball.

I told you...you're not going to win.
 
MyFinalRest said:
muthafucka please...

page 9 of https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf

(same .gov source)

The only possible exit signs were on the supposed aircraft, and had aircraft actually been involved, it would be clear that any tritium on board was released or evaporates during the intitial impact fireball.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected.

Of course, the same paper on the same page mentions other possible tritium sources present at the WTC.
 
MyFinalRest said:
Here's what they did:


But, unfortunately, the signs of radiation did show up in the numerous and sudden cases of cancer that afflicted the wtc site workers: http://healthland.time.com/2011/09/02/study-finds-higher-rate-of-cancer-in-ground-zero-firefighters/

19 angry young Arabs wielding box cutters can't cause cancer. It wasn't asbestos related either. These are thyroid cancers and other non lung cancers.


Benzene in jet fuel? No, it would have all burned up.
We are all exposed to it in many ways including cigarette smoke, but smoking doesn't cause tumors on your hand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene

Asbestos? Not likely to cause cancer in your thyroid or hand.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/docs_launch_cancer_probe_KWSZw221nOZ5Eo1VJ9tjHL
Click to expand...

You are kidding me? The steel was hauled away as scrap. That's what is done with all scrap metal here in the U.S.A. It's sent to a scrap yard to be sorted and then it's shipped to China where it is melted down and sent back to the U.S.A. as steel beams, plates, and angle.

And a majority of the steel pulverized to nano dust? A majority of the steel in the WTC was on the outside of the building as opposed to the inside. It used a tube frame structural system which allowed for much more office space and open floor plans. So I guess they planted explosives on the outside of the building to take down this tube frame huh?

Finally I studied engineering while I was a steel fabricator. People claiming that jetfuel can't melt steel is poppycock. The actual maximum burning temperature of a Jet-A fuel (standard jet fuel type in U.S.) is 980 deg. Celsius. If you refer to the Iron-Iron Carbide phase diagram, the temperature at which steel changes from cementite and pearlite (strong phases of steel) to austenite (significantly less strong) is 702.5 deg. Celsius. Also, if a steel structure is exposed to a temperature just below or at the eutectic (702.5 deg.) for a period of time, martinsite is formed (very weak). All it would take is a few I-beams to lose their structural integrity before the "chain reaction" would start. I don't have a strong opinion on the conspiracy theory, but when people say that the heat from burning jet fuel cannot melt steel it bothers me. It doesn't have to "melt" for it to become ineffective. Also, "very strong type of steel" is the most relative statement ever. The steel used in sky scrapers is a standard carbon steel, not heavily alloyed. In any case, the iron-iron carbide phase diagram describes all carbon steels very accurately. Also, when the buildings actually collapsed, all that potential energy was released into heat and sound, which is true for all destructive reactions. So it is quite possible that after the buildings fell, the temperature of the rubble reached levels higher than any fire could produce leading to the appearance of the ground in the pictures shown and also the cars as well.
 
^ Ah...so it's possible that the Twin Towers were not destroyed, but rather made invisible by large electrical generators...

That sounds about right.
 
My link to the Philadelphia experiment was nothing to do with the 9/11 debate..

And I don't even believe in it..

Dunno why i posted it tbh :\
 
-Guido- said:
You are kidding me?
Click to expand...

No, not really.

We've been through this already Guido. Partial structural failure does not initiate a "chain-reaction." The intact structural components still create plenty of resistance and it would not seem that the weight of the upper floors was anywhere near enough to counter the total resistance that the remaing intact structure provided.
Examine this video and see how the so-called "chain reaction" or "pancake theory" just doesn't pan out in real life:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s&feature=share

"for every reaction, there is an equal and opposite reaction." That law of physics never states that for every reaction, there is a "chain reaction." NIST and Zdenk Bullshit physics would have you try to believe this madness though...
911 official theories ignore any possible "opposite reactions" such as the airplane meeting some resistance instead of sinking right through the building's exterior as seen in slow motion videos or the collapsing floors meeting some opposing resistance instead of gaining momentum.

Besides, the video recording of the towers' destruction does not show anything that resembles a "collapse." The towers dissolved within about 20 seconds. That was not a "collapse."

Guido, try running through your through your gym's exterior wall and see if you meet resistance to it or if you gain a "chain-reaction" of momentum.

You also erroneously assume that this open floor "tube" design is weak, but the towers' "tubes" contained a massive steel core tube. There was nothing inherently weak or defective about that design. There was an extreme amount of steel used in the inner core as well as the exterior tube.

But, you and Escher have been correct about one thing. There is no way that the entire building could have been rigged with the required amount of conventional explosives. It was one or more nuclear devices used in each tower that brought them down. It was the only way to so rapidly eradicate the core. Since 9/11 lots of Chinese and Indian recycled steel has been contaminated with radioactive substances:
http://www.spiegel.de/international...ve-steel-on-the-rise-in-germany-a-607840.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-bath-beyond-show-hidden-danger-of-scrap.html

It might be possible that some of that shit was from 9/11 steel, not other sources.

Steel might lose some strength at high temps, but it doesn't completely lose all ability to provide resistance against gravity and weight of the floors above and insitigate some so-called "chain-reaction." The lower 80 some floors certainly weren't hot enough to instantly yield to all above weight.
 
Last edited:
rickolasnice said:
You are regurgitating misinformed bullshit..

Thousands of engineers, architects etc have repeatedly studied the collapse of the twin towers and come up with the same conclusion..

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
Click to expand...

Hmm... I've seen that link quite a few times, but the thing that bothers me is that the core columns were not weakened below, as heat from the fire rises, not sinks... and then what's the explanation for the molten steel at the bottom?
excavating.jpg

http://ae911truth.org/news/41-artic...eel-at-wtc-site-challenge-official-story.html
 
severely etarded said:
lighter would pick up more resistance though. What flies better, a plane of lead, or a plane of aluminum? There's a reason airplane wings aren't constructed of steel ;) The objects accelerate at the same speed under gravitational force, but the object with more inertia will continue to speed up while the object with less inertia will eventually accelerate slower due to increased resistance. The heavier object will have much less resistance. Then again, aerodynamics is a big factor here. Have you taken any advanced physics classes?
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to say, but neither object will accelerate without a force acting upon it.
 
Escher's Waterfall said:
Maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to say, but neither object will accelerate without a force acting upon it.
Click to expand...

I was referencing the accelerational force of gravity alasdair referenced. Let me break that down a little more articulately.

alasdairm said:
that's not correct. under the influence of the same gravitational force, an aluminum bullet and a lead bullet would fall at the same speed.

alasdair
Click to expand...
(the) lighter (bullet) would pick up more resistance though (as it has less inertia). What flies better, a plane of lead, or a plane of aluminum? There's a reason airplane wings aren't constructed of steel ;) (The gravitational force makes the steel heavier thus harder to make airplane wings fly. An airplane with steel wings probably couldn't even get off the ground - due to the force of gravity)

The objects accelerate at the same speed under gravitational force, but the object with more inertia will continue to speed up while the lighter object will eventually accelerate slower due to increased resistance (from atmospheric pressure friction and less mass). The heavier object will have more kinetic energy vs the friction. Then again, aerodynamics is also big factor here.
 
Okay, gotcha.

Just to quibble: I wouldn't be surprised if an all-steel wing aircraft did exist in history though. While lighter-weight alloys are better due to their weight/strength ratio, I don't think it would be impossible to do the same with steel.

Hmm, a quick google search turns up early models of the Junker J1 that may have been all steel.
 
Last edited:
That would be one heck of an engineering challenge to make one out of lead, considering its properties.

Gold would be slightly better, since its ductibility is great, but the metal itself is extremely soft. 18k would be better than 24k in this regards - you may be able to find an alloy that's technically 18k that would work. I dunno.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top