[Closed] A thousand 9/11s...

Well why not

[img] [/img]

No doubt there are many theories to answer these questions...

[img] ?oh=8d2467ec9f473df5db8b953aea5ccffc&oe=5674B84E[/img]

Play along at home and devise your own

Facts:

- At 550 degrees C,steel has 60% of its strength.
-Jet fuel combusts at around 410 degrees.
- hydrogen, contained in Jet fuel, burns at 2210 degrees C in air.
- Steel melts at between 1370 and 1500 degrees C, depending on the grade.

No plane hit WTC 7! and no jet fuel or aluminium exploded in there either ... yet it Still fell down.
them two "Experts" on last nights prog didn't mention THAT little nugget Once.

Come on then:

September 11
Bin Laden involvement
Mecca

makes you think, eh?

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams. But the beams were not melted. Although to melt steel you need to heat it to something like 900 to 1300 degrees (can't be bothered to look it up) but at 600 degrees (a temp easily achieved with burning jet fuel and other materials in a building set alight by the jet fuel) steel has lost most of its strength, so the cause of the collapse wasn't melted steel beams, but weakened steel beams.

The WTC structures were a bit unusual anyway, weren't they? I remember seeing a documentary some years ago, before 9/11, on them and how I think BL had attempted to bomb them before as he recognized their potential for collapse.

Mecca

It's all a Bingo plot now?

Come on then:

September 11
Bin Laden involvement
Mecca

makes you think, eh?

Further irony courtesy of Huffpost this morning:

The current mosque expansion is being carried out by the Saudi Binladin Group, a company founded by the father of Osama bin Laden.

Bingo is an anagram of Boing, Boeing made the planes used in the WTC attack, plane sounds like crane

Only a fool would fail to see the connection!

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams. But the beams were not melted. Although to melt steel you need to heat it to something like 900 to 1300 degrees (can't be bothered to look it up) but at 600 degrees (a temp easily achieved with burning jet fuel and other materials in a building set alight by the jet fuel) steel has lost most of its strength, so the cause of the collapse wasn't melted steel beams, but weakened steel beams.

Find [url= http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html ]the many accounts of molten steel[/url] confusing in that case... are there any satisfactory explanations?

How did the explosives used in a controlled demolition cause puddles of molten steel?

The burning of hydrocarbons releases hydrogen to be used as fuel, which can burn at 2210 C in air, as I stated above. Not to mention other potential fuels that may have been present in the building itself. I'm sure the guidelines on using combustible materials in buildings weren't as strict when those buildings were built.

I was about to ask the same thing, what is the tinfoil explanation for the molten steel if it wasn't caused by the huge fires?

Are they saying that the clandestine agency that wanted to secretly bring down the towers used so much thermite that there were noticeable puddles of molten steel?

These guys seem like they may have a credible explanation:

Doesn't the burning temperature of a fuel depend on the conditions? Like how much oxygen?

All these people saying that jet fuel can't melt steel should go to a blacksmiths and try puming the bellows, see what happens to the iron.

These guys [s]seem like they may have a credible explanation:[/s] say what I already believe so I will cite it and claim its credible

Many doctors support homoeopathy and many bright folk believe in god
None of these appeals to authority, nor yours, prove anything

Facts:

- At 550 degrees C,steel has 60% of its strength.
- Jet fuel combusts at around 410 degrees.
- hydrogen, contained in Jet fuel, burns at 2210 degrees C in air.
- Steel melts at between 1370 and 1500 degrees C, depending on the grade.

Another fact. Aluminium (like the stuff that is used to make aeroplanes) when properly molten (not runny), is incredibly explosive when introduced to water (like the stuff used in sprinklers systems to put out fires).

It takes a lot of heat to make aluminium molten, but a makeshift kiln (made out of plasterboard and other things that are used to build buildings) would do the trick.

This is what a couple of smart folk (a chemist and a metal specialist - not engineers or firemen) reckon caused the explosions and led to the collapse.

The official report forgot to take the aluminium of the planes into account when conducting their testings as the they thought it simply disappeared on impact.

I think there was a prog on c5 last night about it.

None of these appeals to authority, nor yours, prove anything

Yes sir, sorry sir, I'm very glad the powers that be blessed us with 27.5 wheels

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Nobody is telling you don't have the right to "speak out or question"

So why would we not have the right to do the same and point it out when you post factless crap.

Yes sir, sorry sir, I'm very glad the powers that be blessed us with 27.5 wheels

when you post factless crap

How is it factless?

One of the facts presented:

The towers fell via the path of most resistance...

for example, when you have a leaning section as we see here:

[img] [/img]

under normal circumstances, it would pivot on the structure below into free space (i.e. air), whereas somehow, it managed to completely collapse the entire structure below.

Another fact...

NIST did not test for the presence of explosive residue.

under normal circumstances, it would pivot on the structure below into free space (i.e. air), whereas somehow, it managed to completely collapse the entire structure below.

Indeed - just watch this structure "pivot on the structure below into free air" like a tree rather than substantially collapsing in on itself, despite the bloke involved taking a big wedge out of it deliberately to make it pivot on the structure below:

And look, all achieved by fire! Whats the melting point of Brick again?

Ironically, if you want to topple a building like JHJ describes, rather than have it pancake straight down, you'd have to use explosives

I love the molten steel thought process and how it tangles itself up with controlled explosions, it's the perfect conspiracy theory implosion. The seismograph traces prove there were explosions, right? But explosions wouldn't cause molten steel. Ah hah, thermite! But thermite wouldn't cause seismograph traces.

But it doesn't matter if your conspiracy theory is self-contradictory, as long as it also contradicts the official story.

NIST did not test for the presence of explosive residue

They did not because they assumed the two large planes that flew into them and exploded caused the damage...the ejjitts

Nor did they test for Aliens, Elvis or JFK...makes you think eh

Find the many accounts of molten steel confusing in that case... are there any satisfactory explanations?

In 64AD during the Great Fire of Rome, the temperature was hot enough to melt the granite steps of the great boulevards. Wood, textiles and oil were the primary combustable substances, but the wind fanned the flames into a firestorm where temperatures were in excess of 1300 degrees.

High up in the towers, with the wind swirling around them feeding oxygen to the fire, the temperatures would have been substantially higher than the melting TG temperature for steel.

I once watched a steel superstructure burn UNDERWATER in the presence of pure oxygen...always remember the fire triangle.

under normal circumstances, it would pivot on the structure below into free space (i.e. air), whereas somehow, it managed to completely collapse the entire structure below.
[b]Another fact...[/b]

Nope.

It's another [b]opinion. [/b]

You really need to get the difference between those two words sorted.

It's quite important.

Opinions don't magically transform into Facts just because they happen to agree with what you have already decided.

what if you got steel really hot and then ****ted it really hard with, oh i dont know, say....an aeroplane?

Don't think there was any reason for the steel to be hot before the planes hit though ?

just meant that the steels werent in showroom/testlab condition

Lets face it, when you see a car that's been burnt out, the glass isn't still in the frame, is it? The melting point of glass is 1400-1700 degrees and the fire is generally started and fueled by petrol...

Glass in a car fire probably shatters from heat stress and distortion of the frame, rather than melting.

I agree that's what breaks the glass, but I think you're overlooking the solidified pool of silica usually found around the car.

Car fires burn so hot because of all the plastics, regardless of what starts the fire, the massive amount of plastics in the interior start to burn and easily create enough heat to melt glass

That's why it's irrelevant what temp aviation fuel burns at.

It's the contents of the building that were on fire after the first ten minutes.

Unless anyone has a list of the contents, then that train of thought is a red herring really.

under normal circumstances, it would pivot on the structure below into free space (i.e. air), whereas somehow, it managed to completely collapse the entire structure below.
Another fact...

The fact in this instance is that it's some really shady selective quoting on your part...

The pivot thing assumes the two halves of the building are stiff and rigid body's. These were not stiff and rigid. The two halves of the building weight many hundreds of thousands of tons, the structure buckles under its own weight and pulled down vertically by gravity. The construction of the towers was a central reinforced concrete core with a metal frame work supporting all the floors. The force of the impact of the plane damaged and weakened the central core so the metal frame was bearing the primary load, something it was not designed to do. As it lost strength due to heat it buckled causing the collapse in a vertical direction. Once the collapse happened the vertical momentum overstressed the concrete core in the lower part of the building causing it to pulverize and collapse...the concrete turned into dust and rubble...a bit like that chimney video.

Really there is no conspiracy. Just engineering and physics.

So why didn't NORAD intercept the planes?

So why didn't NORAD intercept the planes?

I thought that there were no planes, and it was all CGI?

The fact in this instance is that it's some really shady selective quoting on your part...

Your choice.

You can attempt to divert attention away from my perfectly valid point by claiming I misquoted you.

Or you can defend your claim that what you stated is a fact.

I presume you chose the former due to the fact it's a lot easier than the latter ?

when you post factless crap

How is it factless?

One of the facts presented:

The towers fell via the path of most resistance...

Another fact...

NIST did not test for the presence of explosive residue.

But thank you for reminding me there's better things to do with my life than argue with grumpy nitwits...

There nowt as good as a 9/11 thread !

Lets face it, when you see a car that's been burnt out, the glass isn't still in the frame, is it? The melting point of glass is 1400-1700 degrees and the fire is generally started and fueled by petrol...

The body of the car tends to still resemble a car as well rather than collapsing in a heap on the tarmac.

Funny you should mention that, there is [url= http://www.librariansfor911truth.org/carfires.html ]the case of the burnt vehicles on 9/11[/url]:

[img] [/img]

Burnt postal truck at 100 Church St. What happened to the front end? And why is the hood still intact but everything around it is gone?
Note that the truck behind it appears unharmed.

[img] [/img]

Where are the door handles, the car hood, the roof of the bus, the seats in the bus?

(For what it's worth, I'm not sure if that is a bus, I think it's another angle of the van under the left hand traffic light in this pic:

[img] [/img])

So why didn't NORAD intercept the planes?

Don't know.

What's your theory on why they didn't ?

Where are the door handles, the car hood, the roof of the bus, the seats in the bus?

Door handles are made of plastic. Why would you expect them to survive a fire, that's just wierd.

Large panels (such as car bonnets and van/bus roofs) are often Aluminium to save weight, wouldn't survive an untended car fire at 1700 degrees as aluminium melts at only 660 degrees

I knew there was some intelligence in there somewhere neal, it's taken a long while to squeeze it out, but well done 😀

I tend to agree with your analysis~ as you can see, those are quotes

(Apart from the bracketed bit at the bottom~ I'm fairly certain that wasn't a bus, hence the lack of seats...)

Nonetheless, if you click the link, you'll see that the position of many of the burnt out vehicles raise further questions, though there is every chance that also has a reasonable explanation