September 11

[omnivore]

Forum Sponsor

All these points are addressed in the report I linked to. Go read it.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

I read it Tim...and I don't buy it. Somehow NIST says there was zero evdience of any type of explosive blast? Yet hundreds of other scientifically backed parties found tons, literally tons of thermite everywhere. Not just in one place, but everywhere at all 3 building sites.....and this type of substance is not naturally occurring, and has no part in construction now, or back in the 70's. NIST blindly ignores this, and the molten steel. There was not one accelerant on site that could have caused steel to melt.....yet molten steel was everywhere.

 

[caboose56]

They don't have to feel the heat stress. Once a few fail from heat, the rest can buckle and fail from overload.

That being said, I still don't think jet fuel would have provided enough heat to warm columns of that size especially concrete encased columns for the most part. Just isn't realistic to me. Also The fact that it was a completely self contained collaps just doesn't really do it for me. It's possible. There is some probability out there in the universe that it could happen. But not twice on the same day at two neighbouring buildings. Anyways thats my young civil engineer in training point of view. When I get my stamp in a few months I'll let you guys know if I change my mind

That is addressed in the report as well. The impact from the plane compromised/removed the fire-proofing material from the columns.

I know I put up a huge wall of text, but that's covered in there.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

 

[caboose56]

I read it Tim...and I don't buy it. Somehow NIST says there was zero evdience of any type of explosive blast? Yet hundreds of other scientifically backed parties found tons, literally tons of thermite everywhere. Not just in one place, but everywhere at all 3 building sites.....and this type of substance is not naturally occurring, and has no part in construction now, or back in the 70's. NIST blindly ignores this, and the molten steel. There was not one accelerant on site that could have caused steel to melt.....yet molten steel was everywhere.

Cite your sources please.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Freestyle72]

That is addressed in the report as well. The impact from the plane compromised/removed the fire-proofing material from the columns.

I know I put up a huge wall of text, but that's covered in there.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

Yes that thought occured to me Tim. However even in a crash you would only bare so much steel from the column. So only exposing a small window to heat the steel from. Add to the fact that jet fuel (basically diesel/kerosene) doesn't really burn really fast or release tons of joules at once the plausibility really isn't there for me.

Also I noticed much of the bullets there just give a verbal explanation. That's great but without doing a calculation to say for example 3000L of diesel release X amount of joules in Y amount of minutes, then I am basically taking some dudes opinion/word on the subject, and not really a set of objective data as my reference.

 

[omnivore]

Cite your sources please.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

If you have 2.5 hrs, watch it...This isn't the only group of scientists that found tons of thermite based explosives, both activated and yet unactivated, on all three building sites, ....I watched it at the suggestion of my uncle, as one of the scientists testifying in it from Kingston is a friend of his.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tTMMNTisBM

 

[mmmnaked]

9/11 brings out all the scientists and structural engineers eh :lol: what a bunch of jokers.

 

[caboose56]

If you have 2.5 hrs, watch it...This isn't the only group of scientists that found tons of thermite based explosives, both activated and yet unactivated, on all three building sites, ....I watched it at the suggestion of my uncle, as one of the scientists testifying in it from Kingston is a friend of his.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tTMMNTisBM

2 minutes of Googling tells me that Richard Gage of AE911truth is not someone who I would trust.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

 

[mmmnaked]

Just another guy who figured out a way to cash in on conspiracy theory retards' gullibility.

But yeah, watch his videos :lol:

 

[caboose56]

Yes that thought occured to me Tim. However even in a crash you would only bare so much steel from the column. So only exposing a small window to heat the steel from. Add to the fact that jet fuel (basically diesel/kerosene) doesn't really burn really fast or release tons of joules at once the plausibility really isn't there for me.

Also I noticed much of the bullets there just give a verbal explanation. That's great but without doing a calculation to say for example 3000L of diesel release X amount of joules in Y amount of minutes, then I am basically taking some dudes opinion/word on the subject, and not really a set of objective data as my reference.

How much is 'so much' and how much is required to compromise the column?

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

 

[OpenGambit]

This kind of "I don't buy it" gut feeling type of arguing reminds me of people that deny evolution and global warming.

sources cite on one side are clearly bias or devoid of credibility.
the credible sources that often say "we don't understand 100 % of this" (because thats what professional do), is somehow used as a hole that discredits the whole theory.

 

[BLUE_KAWI]

These types of buildings like the Twin Towers can with stand huge amounts of added weight. Even a jumbo jet. 50% weight of the jumbo jet like that went into the tower was gone on impact and you would think another 10% was gone from the fire. In addition. All the stuff that went up in smoke also took a lot of weight out of the buildings.

Technically, weight was taken out of the towers due to the fire. Just light up an object on fire and feel the weight afterwards. Shear weight did not bring the towers down. And what history shows us of other fires from buildings. Fire can’t bring a building down.


9/11 Truth at UCSD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50WBfAH_nvc

It is impossible for anything of structure to fall at the freefall speed of gravity. Period.
The only waythat can happen is if the structure is removed simultaneously. Impossible for the weakening of columns to all give way at the same time, especially considering that 90% of them weren't even subject to heat stresses at all. As one floor falls onto another, there would have to be a momentary pause before the next tier could yield.

For all three buildings to do so, and to find molten steel (that melts at nearly 3000 dgrees), supposedly caused by jet fuel (that burns at 800 degrees), and thermite microscopic powder substances all over the entire debris site, to me, points to something alot more destrucive than a plane wreck.

 

[jc100]

It is impossible for anything of structure to fall at the freefall speed of gravity. Period.
The only waythat can happen is if the structure is removed simultaneously. Impossible for the weakening of columns to all give way at the same time, especially considering that 90% of them weren't even subject to heat stresses at all. As one floor falls onto another, there would have to be a momentary pause before the next tier could yield.

For all three buildings to do so, and to find molten steel (that melts at nearly 3000 dgrees), supposedly caused by jet fuel (that burns at 800 degrees), and thermite microscopic powder substances all over the entire debris site, to me, points to something alot more destrucive than a plane wreck.

Thermite isn't a single thing like an explosive, it's a mixture of metal powders etc...all of which, microscopically, would have been found at the site.

 

[caboose56]

Thermite isn't a single thing like an explosive, it's a mixture of metal powders etc...all of which, microscopically, would have been found at the site.

They would have found aluminum and iron oxide in the debris????? No way!

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

 

[BLUE_KAWI]

This will make you laugh:

So-called "memory expert" has the worst brain fart of his career at a TED Talk by claiming nobody saw the second World Trade Center building collapse on TV until September 12th, 24 hours AFTER the attacks of 9/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0EfWWVCLdU

 

[short stop]

This kind of "I don't buy it" gut feeling type of arguing reminds me of people that deny evolution and global warming.

sources cite on one side are clearly bias or devoid of credibility.
the credible sources that often say "we don't understand 100 % of this" (because thats what professional do), is somehow used as a hole that discredits the whole theory.

^ This.

Not to mention, the sheer vastness of an explosive-demolition conspiracy is mind-boggling. How easy is it to plant demolitions in a high-rise? How many building maintenance workers and security guards would need to be in on something like that? And then on top of it to disguise the whole thing with freaking AIRPLANES flying into the building?

It's needlessly complicated and ludicrous. If you were going to demo the buildings, just demo them and blame it on Bin Laden anyways.

Just because not every detail can 100% be accounted for, doesn't mean that there is an elaborate conspiracy at play.

 

[Freestyle72]

How much is 'so much' and how much is required to compromise the column?

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

Well if it were a direct impact you would probably bare what 2M length along the column on maybe 2 sides. This doesn't give you much surface area to absorb all the energy required for such a massive piece of steel to lose so much yield strength. I feel the window of time the collapse occured was far too short to accumulate an appreciable amount of temperature in a steel column that is mostly concrete encased. You have your opinion. I have mine. I don't feel my opinion is founded in just a gut feeling, rather my experience thus far as well as what I was taught in school.

 

[caboose56]

Well if it were a direct impact you would probably bare what 2M length along the column on maybe 2 sides. This doesn't give you much surface area to absorb all the energy required for such a massive piece of steel to lose so much yield strength. I feel the window of time the collapse occured was far too short to accumulate an appreciable amount of temperature in a steel column that is mostly concrete encased. You have your opinion. I have mine. I don't feel my opinion is founded in just a gut feeling, rather my experience thus far as well as what I was taught in school.

The impact damage was spread over 4 floors so I am inclined to think it could be significantly more than 2m of exposed column.

You actually have experience related to a plane hitting a building? I thought you were mech, I never learned anything about this in the courses I took.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Freestyle72]

I am civil actually. I work on mech stuff at work at the moment. Installing turbines to be specific. However we are currently installing some pretty big steel columns and girders to carry the overhead crane that we will be using to install various turbine parts like stator frame, and windings etc. But you took some good thermodynamics courses and would know there would be some good losses in heat transfer through the air to those columns, especially with the smoke being so sooty not only was the fuel a poor one for achieving high temperatures, it wasn't even being burnt to the best AFR it could achieve as evident by all the black clouds.

 

[caboose56]

I am civil actually. I work on mech stuff at work at the moment. Installing turbines to be specific. However we are currently installing some pretty big steel columns and girders to carry the overhead crane that we will be using to install various turbine parts like stator frame, and windings etc. But you took some good thermodynamics courses and would know there would be some good losses in heat transfer through the air to those columns, especially with the smoke being so sooty not only was the fuel a poor one for achieving high temperatures, it wasn't even being burnt to the best AFR it could achieve as evident by all the black clouds.

Oh I thought you were mech!!

Id actually think that the column itself would act as a heat sink and would impede the heating of the column to failure.

It wasnt just the jet fuel burning, and I have read a few reports that claim temps well above 1000F are possible or even probable. How long would it take for a steel column in a 1000-1800F furnace to get hot enough to compromise its strength? There are a lot of variables and I'm not qualified to answer that... but an hour doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

 

[jc100]

As I mentioned above..it doesn't need to get hot enough to melt stuff, just hot enough to soften the steel.

Forum Sponsor