or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by monkey's mom

  Well, there are other scientists who are examing the science of the report. And claiming that its pretty faulty and can't be reproduced to see if it withstands the scientific method. That doesn't seem very credible.   I think this is pretty common for the kind of scientific reports that were coming out of the Bush camp.   So, you know, credible for you. Not so much for other folks. That's OK.  
Rapid oxidation would simply be in a fire or explosion, yes? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. In those situations, obviously, there would be much more--even significant--heat. But it's not like fire on steel or iron just results in a chemical reaction that just feeds on itself and the steel reacts. Steel is very slow to react--that's why it is so good for structures. It takes significant abuse before it is compromised--high temperatures and prolonged ones, at that.
Well, I read about half of the 130 pages and it was not so enlightening.   I think I'm going to fall on the side of the scientists who take a lot of issue with the report.   The computer modeling seemed to rely on the highest possible variables, the primary hypothisis re. collapse that floor beams expanded in one direction only (without floor sagging and bowing out the building equally) doesn't seem rooted in reality, and the dismissal that explosives couldn't...
Oh. Well, it seems at the outset that this report is not based on any forensic evidence but on computer modelling. Hmmm....pushing on.   eta: "....the remains of all the WTC buildings were disposed of before Congressional action and funding was available for this Investigation to begin."  p.37   Right. "All" of it was was disposed of. That's insane. Oh, Bush science....it's so good. LOL
  Excellent, it was my understanding that NIST did not undertake a report (initially, I guess), so I'm interested to look at that. Thank you!   Yes, a candle can become a torch but it needs more than variables like air. Which is my point about the buildings.   Oxidation produces heat that is neglible. Even in the cases of handwarmers and such a chemical reaction must take place. The metal doesn't just get exposed to air and start to super combust. Why would we build...
That's the thing...the presence of explosives does not = all fingers point to our gov't.   Did terrorists penetrate the building during that shut down and plant explosives? Were they able to use technology we weren't aware of to detonate the building? Did they employ the use of window washers to afix explosives to the outside of the building? I mean.....who knows. There are a million different possibilities, none of which directly mean that this was some evil plan...
  Ugh...nothing's working right for me. LOL. Post lost....trying again...   I would think looking for explosives would have been a natural result of so many eye-witnesses (including first responders) who said they felt/saw/heard explosions. Surely they thought those explosions were the result of more attacks and that seems very likely. Did the ATF get involved? I don't think they did. Not to mention the striking similarity that all three buildings exhibited to...
Hey, I'm not sure if I'm reading your posts wrong or if my questioning this is upseting you, but I really am just wondering about all this.   It "wasn't to my liking?" Black bags? Really? I mean, c'mon....   There are many other wild eyed conspiracy freaks (which I guess I'm now one of for asking some of these questions?) like the editor of Firefighter magazine who felt that shipping the steel off was highly unusual and a missed opportunity to gather information...
So let's say that this is all true. A very extraordinary thing happened (which is, of course, true), but that all these unique factors created a highly unique response (which, again, totally reasonable assertion). Didn't we send the steel off for recycling before we did the kind of forensic testing that would have helped us better understand all these unique factors and responses? Why would we do that?? And I don't mean that sarcastically or to point to a conspiracy or...
Ummm...yeah...Building 7. That's pretty much what we were discussing.   If it doesn't matter to you, great.   It does matter to me. My loved ones go into burning buildings. The science of how thing burn is what their lives depend upon.   I'm not saying squat about government conspiracy or making speculations about why "they" would or would not take out this building, I'm just saying this is very, very strange. To have a steel building collapse and the explanation is that...
New Posts  All Forums: