|
9/11 Documentary - WATCH it in here (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
"Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down.""
I think you should read this report: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
What proof do you have that the goverment carried it out? :conf:
I mean really, if you criticize others because they believe in something supported by plenty of facts, but you believe in something just because there is a lack of facts for something else, who's being the stupid then? |
Your hypothesis has a fatal flaw:
The steel was damaged or bent by the fall of the building.
It's like trying to investigate a homicide that was involved in a car wreck and fire. Did the deceased expire from the bullet, car crash or fire?
I am sure you can find plenty of bent metal beams from collapsed buildings.
If you had access to the steel from the WTC site you and others would be able to determine if the metal was stressed from fire or kinetics. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
If you had access to the steel from the WTC site you and others would be able to determine if the metal was stressed from fire or kinetics. |
Excellent point in that reply!
Of course, the "evidence" from the WTC pile was systematically and illegally destroyed within several months after 9/11, not only illegal (same thing as destroying crime scene evidence) which prevented independent studies in why the buildings collapsed but also ways to make sure this wouldn't happen again. But it is obvious the government was against that and made sure all evidence was destroyed before someone could stop them. Horrible ... |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| Even with weakened support pillars, they should still have been able to with stand atleast three times more stress. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
Your hypothesis has a fatal flaw:
The steel was damaged or bent by the fall of the building.
It's like trying to investigate a homicide that was involved in a car wreck and fire. Did the deceased expire from the bullet, car crash or fire?
I am sure you can find plenty of bent metal beams from collapsed buildings.
If you had access to the steel from the WTC site you and others would be able to determine if the metal was stressed from fire or kinetics. |
Well, all I'm saying is that it is likely that the buildings simply fell apart due to the jet fuel and the following fires, which the previous poster doubted was possible.
Did you ever hear about the NIST investigation? They actually looked for evidence that a bomb was the causing factor but didn't find any evidence that such would be the case. But guess they were only 80 public sector experts and 120 private sector experts, all among the best in the field (but of course they were all kept quiete by the CIA :rolleyes: ), and of course you and other conspiracy theory supporters know more about structural engineering than those experts? |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Even with weakened support pillars, they should still have been able to with stand atleast three times more stress. |
Source? |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Well, all I'm saying is that it is likely that the buildings simply fell apart due to the jet fuel and the following fires, which the previous poster doubted was possible.
Did you ever hear about the NIST investigation? They actually looked for evidence that a bomb was the causing factor but didn't find any evidence that such would be the case. But guess they were only 80 public sector experts and 120 private sector experts, all among the best in the field (but of course they were all kept quiete by the CIA :rolleyes: ), and of course you and other conspiracy theory supporters know more about structural engineering than those experts? |
Didnt find any evidence? Well, of course! Because most of the critical evidence was destroyed and shipped out within weeks after 9/11!!!
I've seen in some video clips the remnants of the actual plane that hit one of the towers, WITH ITS FUSELAGE ALMOST COMPLETELY INTACT!!!
Now if the fuselage of the plane wasnt melted down, why were the several-inch-thick pure steel core of the buildings melt? I know you'd ask for evidence, but all I can say is that I saw it on one of the different videos about 9/11.
Experts experts ... just like the 9/11 Commission, its not very difficult to change the main story the way the government wants to see it. But I wont get into that, I dont want to ...
| quote: |
What proof do you have that the goverment carried it out? :conf:
I mean really, if you criticize others because they believe in something supported by plenty of facts, but you believe in something just because there is a lack of facts for something else, who's being the stupid then? |
And you think YOU have proof? Not really. We are just arguing and commenting each other. All of this "proof" is questionable and can be easlily discarded if looked from another "proof" standpoint. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Didnt find any evidence? Well, of course! Because most of the critical evidence was destroyed and shipped out within weeks after 9/11!!!
I've seen in some video clips the remnants of the actual plane that hit one of the towers, WITH ITS FUSELAGE ALMOST COMPLETELY INTACT!!!
Now if the fuselage of the plane wasnt melted down, why were the several-inch-thick pure steel core of the buildings melt? I know you'd ask for evidence, but all I can say is that I saw it on one of the different videos about 9/11. |
Again, the steel in the WTC was NOT melted down, it was merely weakened a whole lot (as described in my post).
| quote: | | Experts experts ... just like the 9/11 Commission, its not very difficult to change the main story the way the government wants to see it. But I wont get into that, I dont want to ... |
You do realise how many people who must be kept quiet in order for this conspiracy to work out? And none has "leaked" so far even as a publicity stunt?!
Anyone with a little bit critical thinking would realise the impossibilities in that...
| quote: | | And you think YOU have proof? Not really. We are just arguing and commenting each other. All of this "proof" is questionable and can be easlily discarded if looked from another "proof" standpoint. |
I have a hell of a lot more proof than you do. All the "proof" you got is amateur engineers that think they can discard the official proof, so in fact you got no proof of anything at all - all you got is critique of "our" proof. Please show me your proof (lack of proof for something else is NOT proof) that the government did it and I will show you 100 times more that they didn't. |
|
|
| pharos |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Again, the steel in the WTC was NOT melted down, it was merely weakened a whole lot (as described in my post). |
So if the beams weren't melted down, how would you explain the pools of molten steel?
Anyway, the steel beams were straight, not buckled. They came down in 30 foot sections.
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
You do realise how many people who must be kept quiet in order for this conspiracy to work out? And none has "leaked" so far even as a publicity stunt?!
Anyone with a little bit critical thinking would realise the impossibilities in that... |
And the Stealth bomber was initially developed in the 1970's and how in the world did they keep that one a secret for so long. Area 51 has been around for a very long time as well and to this day nobody really even knows what they are doing there, either. How in the world could they keep that secret? Huhhhh?
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
I have a hell of a lot more proof than you do. All the "proof" you got is amateur engineers that think they can discard the official proof, so in fact you got no proof of anything at all - all you got is critique of "our" proof. Please show me your proof (lack of proof for something else is NOT proof) that the government did it and I will show you 100 times more that they didn't. |
I take it that you didn't bother to watch the video that I posted a few posts before yours. (fast forward to about 19 minutes)
The NIST study was a joke. Revisionist history. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Source? |
A BYU Prof, Steven Jones research:
| quote: | | "But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.) |
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
I guess you didn't get your invitation to the Bohemian Club. Don't worry neither have I. |
Today I found out by accident wha the heck this "Bohemian Club" was, hehe, accidentally after watching an Alex Jones DVD, "American Dictators".
Today I also found out about the President's directive W199-EYE-WF-213589 (199 Eye W.F. 213589 or W199I), that insisted months before 9/11 that FBI, CIA, Police and other law enforcement agencies NOT to attempt to arrest, jail or interfere with terrorist plans on 9/11.
I tried to google it, couldnt find any "government sites" that talk about this, and any previous links to them are no longer existing. See the google results about this, if you want to know more about it:
http://www.google.ca/search?num=20&...+213589&spell=1
http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22W1...f&start=20&sa=N
|
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Well, all I'm saying is that it is likely that the buildings simply fell apart due to the jet fuel and the following fires, which the previous poster doubted was possible. |
What proof do you have? All you have is your history by your contemporaries since you have no first hand knowledge.
| quote: | | Did you ever hear about the NIST investigation? They actually looked for evidence that a bomb was the causing factor but didn't find any evidence that such would be the case. But guess they were only 80 public sector experts and 120 private sector experts, all among the best in the field (but of course they were all kept quiete by the CIA :rolleyes: ), |
Nothing to see here folks, go back to your homes:
The end-of-tour cable from the station chief, spelling out an assessment of the situation on the ground, is a less-formal product than a National Intelligence Estimate. But it was drafted by an officer who is highly regarded within the C.I.A. and who, as station chief in Baghdad, has been the top American intelligence official in Iraq since December 2003. The station chief oversees an intelligence operation that includes about 300 people, making Baghdad the largest C.I.A. station since Saigon during the Vietnam War era.
2 C.I.A. Reports Offer Warnings on Iraq's Path
A bit off topic but I believe the point is made.
| quote: | | and of course you and other conspiracy theory supporters know more about structural engineering than those experts? |
And you have a PhD. from where?
There is visual and audible evidence that the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 was caused by demolition rather than fire.
The only proof there is of fire "softening"/"buckling"/"weakening" was lost when the steel was damaged not only from the fall of said buildings but also from their expedited scrapping overseas.
Back to your NIST question:
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
To this end, NIST must release the 6,899 photographs and over 300 hours of video recordings – acquired mostly by private parties – which it admits to holding (NIST, 2005, p. 81). Evidence relating to WTC 7 and its mysterious collapse must not be held back. In particular, photos and analyses of the molten metal observed in the basements of both Towers and WTC7 need to be brought forth to the international community of scientists and engineers immediately. Therefore, along with others, I call for the release of these and all relevant data for scrutiny by a cross-disciplinary, international team of researchers. The explosive-demolition hypothesis will be considered: all options will be on the table.
AFTERWORD
In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the carefully planned use of explosives/incendiaries. I have presented ample evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is testable and falsifiable and yet has not been seriously considered in any of the studies funded by the US government.
At the same time, I acknowledge that other notions have sprung up in the near vacuum of official consideration of this very plausible hypothesis. These notions must be subjected to careful scrutiny. I by no means endorse all such ideas. A March 2005 article in Popular Mechanics focuses on poorly-supported claims and proceeds to ridicule the whole “9-11 truth movement” (Chertoff, 2005). Serious replies to this article have already been written (Hoffman, 2005; Baker, 2005; Meyer, 2005).
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
This man has a PhD and I expect the silly little trolls to put him down. |
But go ahead and continue writing, thiking you know it all.
Before you flame me go grab something to drink and read his paper. Cause if you don't then you're trolling and offering nothing but a way to increase your postcount. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Today I found out by accident wha the heck this "Bohemian Club" was, hehe, accidentally after watching an Alex Jones DVD, "American Dictators".
Today I also found out about the President's directive W199-EYE-WF-213589 (199 Eye W.F. 213589 or W199I), that insisted months before 9/11 that FBI, CIA, Police and other law enforcement agencies NOT to attempt to arrest, jail or interfere with terrorist plans on 9/11.
I tried to google it, couldnt find any "government sites" that talk about this, and any previous links to them are no longer existing. See the google results about this, if you want to know more about it:
http://www.google.ca/search?num=20&...+213589&spell=1
http://www.google.ca/search?q=%22W1...f&start=20&sa=N
|
W199-EYE-WF-213589
(large format gif)
 |
|
|
|
|
