user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
9/11 Was an Inside Job: Donna Marsh O'Connor Speaks Out
Mother of a woman who died in the WTC on 9/11 speaks in front of the U.N. at a 9/11 truth rally.
This is heartbreaking, this woman’s anger at the Bush pnac murderers of her daughter is heartrending and palpable.
youtube. com/watch?v =Eym YwYc4 3iE&mode =related &search=
Dr. Robert M. Bowman Says 9/11 Was An Inside Job
Robert M. Bowman was the Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force in the Ford and Carter administrations, and is a former United States Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions. He holds a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from the California Institute of Technology.
When a man with these credentials says 9/11 was an inside job, LISTEN TO HIM.
you tube. com/watch? v=M6X_ r4DppWk
I just don't know, Ken. It's still a reach for me to believe that a conspiracy of this magnitude could be pulled off and kept secret when our politicians can't even keep the Congressional menu a secret. I hasten to add that I do not put anything above anyone in this world, and I will await further evidence.
Over 45,000 leading US scientists and professors say it wasn't.
From CBS NEWS:
"Of the 76 full members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, only four are listed as having backgrounds in physics, three in engineering; the other 69 "scholars" are mostly in the humanities and social sciences. Not quite what you'd expect when you hear that a group of "leading academics" supports the theory that the government was behind the attack."
WOW! I'm convinced now. 
"Over 45,000 leading US scientists and professors say it wasn't."
Not like that will ever convince him. 45,000 vs 7.
'Over 45,000 leading US scientists and professors say it wasn't.'
by Bostonian
You don't speak on behalf of or for the academia of the United States I can assure you, post your ballot that proves that sweeping statement you just made there is true.
These people speak on behalf of the majority of those other 44,500 who give them their their blessing and tacit approval.
What's a few thousand goyim? Larry Silverstein bought a white elephant and wanted to help Benjamin Netanyahu "secure the realm". 
Here is a list of few of the alledged "scholars" areas of expertise
English literature, Radiology, Medical hypnosis, architecture, theater, theres even a guy who's stated area of expertise was... "researcher 9/11, JFK" LOL
The most amusing part is a guy with an article on Scholar for truth goes by the name of "Scooby Doo."
"Professor James Fetzer, 65, a retired philosopher of science at the University of Minnesota"
He was actually a Philosophy Professor - nothing to do with traditional science.
Let's look at the evidence, we have the conspiracy nuts;
They believe, for example, that on 9/11 some clown named Osama bin Laden picked up his cell phone in a cave in Afghanistan and directed 19 Muslims, none of them professional pilots, to hijack four airliners and fly them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, thereby bringing down three steel-skeleton skyscrapers, the only time in world history that has ever happened.
A humdinger of a conspiracy, that one. My conspiracy nut friends know it's true because they have it on good authority -- George Bush told them so.
These conspiracy nuts also believe Osama is part of some mysterious worldwide "terrorist" organization of "Islamic fascists" that hates us because of our freedoms and democracy, and have enough power to destroy us -- despite our thousands of nuclear warheads, ships, warplanes, tanks, and countless men under arms. A fearsome enemy, to be sure, as President Bush frequently tells us.
For once, I agree with George Bush; 9/11 was a conspiracy. We just disagree on who was involved in that conspiracy. That is, we MAY disagree -- if he really believes what he told us. In other words, whether or not he was in or out of the loop.
9/11 was an inside job. The facts are indisputable. There was no way that Osama bin Laden and 19 Muslims could have pulled it off...
(To be continued)
Let look at that handful who have anything remotely like a tradional science background.
"Of those with specialties in physics, their areas of professional research and interest aside from their 9/11 pursuits are the following: solar and nuclear engineering, alternative energy, optics, robotics, and astrophysics. One, Jeffrey Farrer, is indicated as having expertise in physics and materials science, but the BYU website only identifies him as being a lab manager. Another, Judy Wood, is identified as having expertise in mechanical engineering. Her CV indicates that her exclusive area of research apart from 9/11 matters has been in the science of dental materials."
"In addition to the 77 full members, there are 138 associate members and 46 “society associates” (unclear as to what these labels mean), in addition to 58 student members. Total number of members, associate members and society associates: 261. Total number of these identified as having expertise in civil or structural engineering: Zero. Total number of these identified as having expertise in controlled demolitions: Zero. Of the student members, total number identified as studying civil or structural engineering: Zero. Total number of articles published in peer reviewed science journals by any of the group's 319 total members arguing that the WTC collapsed by controlled demolitions: Zero. "
Draw your own conclusions.
I'll repeat this one little line...
"Total number of articles published in peer reviewed science journals by any of the group's 319 total members arguing that the WTC collapsed by controlled demolitions: Zero. "
"Total number of articles published in peer reviewed science journals by any of the group's 319 total members arguing that the WTC collapsed by controlled demolitions: Zero. "
by wolf_nipple_chips
'Ground Zero' more like, the most extensive and exhaustive research carried out on the demolitions was by a man who was a staunch republican and voted for Bush in the last election, one of America's leading physic professors, Steve Jones was horrified by what his two years of research uncovered, he KNOWS the towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives.
You aren't fit to kiss this man's boots, I believe him over Bush or a layman like you anyday.
^Do you believe Scooby Doo as well?
Face it. Even if the Bush administration did not carry out the attacks, odds are they knew about them and just let the event take place.
Did the Government carry out those attacks: Plausible. although it's hard to swallow.
by isay on Wed Sep 27, 06 6:59pm
[+]
One thing that gets me out of all those cameras around the Pentagon itself and other cams from other sites, Not one shows a jet airliner hitting the building. I find that strange!
by isay on Wed Sep 27, 06 7:28pm
[+]
(Continued from above)
Let's look at the evidence, we have the conspiracy nuts;
They believe, for example, that on 9/11 some clown named Osama bin Laden picked up his cell phone in a cave in Afghanistan and directed 19 Muslims, none of them professional pilots, to hijack four airliners and fly them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, thereby bringing down three steel-skeleton skyscrapers, the only time in world history that has ever happened.
A humdinger of a conspiracy, that one. My conspiracy nut friends know it's true because they have it on good authority -- George Bush told them so.
These conspiracy nuts also believe Osama is part of some mysterious worldwide "terrorist" organization of "Islamic fascists" that hates us because of our freedoms and democracy, and have enough power to destroy us -- despite our thousands of nuclear warheads, ships, warplanes, tanks, and countless men under arms. A fearsome enemy, to be sure, as President Bush frequently tells us.
For once, I agree with George Bush; 9/11 was a conspiracy. We just disagree on who was involved in that conspiracy. That is, we MAY disagree -- if he really believes what he told us. In other words, whether or not he was in or out of the loop.
9/11 was an inside job. The facts are indisputable. There was no way that Osama bin Laden and 19 Muslims could have pulled it off…
Official story -- AKA Alternative Reality
Let's examine some of the absurdities that official government story on 9/11 would have us believe:
Nineteen hijackers were sent to the U.S., some of them taking flying lessons, apparently because Al Qaeda couldn't find any trained pilots. They didn't bother with aliases. One of them leaves his copy of the Koran at a bar, some of the others leave flight manuals in Arabic in parked cars.
They use undetected box cutters to overwhelm the crew and passengers of four different airliners and then engage in some miraculous precision flying to crash two of them into the WTC and one into the Pentagon. The fourth is shot down and crashes, leaving a trail of wreckage eight miles long.
President Bush, meanwhile, is reading to some school kids when he is told about the hijackings. With the United States apparently under attack, he seems unconcerned and stays with the kids for quite some time.
Though the whole sequence of events takes more than an hour, none of the hijacked planes are intercepted, or even seen, by the Air Force.
The WTC South Tower collapses less than an hour after it was struck by one lone airplane; the North Tower falls in less than two hours. A third building, unhit by planes, falls later.
If you believe all of this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you....
(To be continued)
Have another cold one, Ken.
I just did, t'was lip smackingly delicious so it t'was ... hummmm... thank you, nothing more satisfying than the cold ...gulp gulp ...intrinsic ...hummmm....gulp gulp truth filtering into your veins, ahhhh ... that hit the spot. ;o)
"Professor Jones said it was impossible for the twin towers to have collapsed in the way they did from the collision of two aeroplanes. He maintains jet fuel does not burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel beams and claims horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled explosions used to bring down the towers."
By Ken_from_Dublin (ballot)
Fact: The commission report never once stated that steel "melted" prior to the collapse.
Fact: The "horizontal puffs of smoke" seen during the collapse was from forced air being pushed out from lower floors due to each subsequent upper floor crashing down.
"The group also maintains World Trade Centre 7 - a neighbouring building which caught fire and collapsed later in the day - was only partially damaged but had to be destroyed because it housed a clandestine CIA station."
By Ken_from_Dublin (ballot
Fact: The WTC 7 building burned for seven hours without being fought by firefighters. Fireproofing on steel is only good for a maximum of about 2 hours duration of continual intense heat.
Fact: Even the greatest physicist of the 20th century, Albert Einstein made mistakes.
Voted : If all these leading academics tell us it's an inside job, we better listen!
Fahrenheit 451
The combustion temperature of fire in still air = 451 F = 233 degrees Celcius.
Melting point of Iron = 1650 C
Flame temperature of fire 233 C < 1650 C melting point of steel.
It's simple mathematics!
Atmospheric air pressure fires CANNOT melt steel and cause giant buildings to collapse, 56 minutes and 70 minutes after being set on fire or hit by jet planes (twin towers), and especially not after a 6 hour delay without being hit by anything, not even a jet! (WTC 7).
Even if fire could melt steel, it is IMPOSSIBLE for concrete to stay strong and solid for so long and suddenly convert itself to zero strength fine powder! (without explosives) because concrete has a tensile yield strength of over 4000 psi (or between 27 to 42 MPa)... CONCRETE IS EXTREMELY STRONG IN COMPRESSION and held up all 3 WTC buildings for so long! Concrete is also fireproof and cannot shatter or become pulverised into fine powder without the aid of explosives.
The ONLY way buildings can leave behind large pools of molten metal in their basements (like in the cases of all 3 WTC buildings that collapsed on September 11), is through the use of controlled demolition technology. (eg. thermite used to cut the steel and weaken it severely, then explosives are used to blast away the concrete supports)... This is the ONLY valid scientific explanation for free-fall imploding collapses of solid strong buildings... eg. the twin towers collapsed in about 10-11 seconds EACH, where all the materials below where the jet planes hit (which were not damaged and were not affected by any fires), suddenly and instantly lost all their strength and collapsed at accelerating free-fall speeds. Watch it on all the collapse videos!
seeloosechange . com
st911. org
Also look at ballot 93275 and
make a vote please!
SPREAD THE WORD!
Anger is not evidence no matter how angry you are. Speculation is not evidence however paranoid the speculator is. Hearsay is not evidence. If I heard a car backfiring and I thought it was a gunshot I would be torn apart on the witness stand by any lawyer in the world if I started insisting that it was a gunshot and that a murder must therefore have taken place.
Here are some examples of evidence; Recordings from black boxes on airliners, Testimony from people who retrieved human remains of passengers at the Pentagon, Testimony from dozens of people who receieved phone calls from hijacked airliners, Testimony from the people who built the WTC explaining how the steel in the trusses warped.
The above is evidence which would be accepted in court because it is grounded in reality.
Obviously this is not going to convince the, well, idiots who want to believe in conspiracies but it does convince the following people;
1) People with a modicum of intelligence. 2) People who live in the real world.
Message for Jinn...
Knowing that the melting point of Aluminium is about 550-650 C, were you able to melt that aluminium foil with a simple candle flame yet? (which you claim was burning at 1400 C?)
Try this at home: Try to create molten aluminium using a cigarette lighter, candle flame or even your own gas stove! Put some aluminium foil over those flames and see if you will get drops of molten aluminium (melting point about 600 C)...
Then do the same to a bar of steel or a little steel bridge carrying a very heavy load that makes it deflect a lot (on the verge of collapse) ! Set up a small bridge experiment, eg. use a thin steel ruler, support it at both ends and heat up the steel with flames or even your own gas stove. Keep the steel bridge exposed to as much fire and flames as possible for over an hour and see if it collapses and loses all its strength under fire or flames.
Don't believe anybody here, not even me, just try this experiment at home for yourself and see if steel really can become weak when exposed to atmospheric air fires.
Try kerosene fuel fires in your back yard if you are still not convinced!
To maintain the fire, use a steel baking pan or a large
steel frying pan, full of kerosene or aviation fuel (if you
can get some). Load up the bridge so that it bends severely
almost on the point of permanent deformation (but steel will
be able to bend a LOT elastically before buckling). I did
this little flame test for over AN HOUR until many concerned
neighbours came over wondering if the fire was out of control! There was a huge amount of smoke generated, I'm
just glad no firefighters were alerted!
Try it yourself! See what happens! See if the little
overloaded (on the verge of collapsing) steel bridge will
collapse and fail by becoming rubbery and guey!
After an hour, the steel beam still held strong... I took
off all the bricks and it sprung back into a straight shape
again, not even damaged one bit! I got the impression that
all I did was waste fuel, because it was no different to
running a barbeque really! Have you ever noticed your hot
plates and grills going all rubbery and soft on you each
time you cook a steak? Go ahead and poke the steel hard,
and apply as much force on it as possible while it is hot.
You will find that steel DOES NOT weaken under normal fire
temperatures. Also take a look at:
911research.com/wtc/analysis/fires/steel.html
Look at the strength of steel at 233 C or 250 C and see how much strength it still has...
Correct me if my eyesight is failing, but do I read "100%" strength?
MUST SEE ALL 7 VIDEOS... VERY EDUCATIONAL!
youtube . com/watch?v=xMAC40ystdI&mode=related&search=
(rem0ve spaces around the . )
Also visit st911 . org
The thing is Black Cat that nobody has claimed that the steel in the WTC melted. It warped and this is possible at much lower temperatures. The average temperature at the WTC fire was something like 1400 of your human degrees with some spots being as high as 1800 degrees so obviously the steel didnt melt but it did warp and if you look at any photo of a steel frame building after a fire you will know that this is possible.
Try again black cat.
1, The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers.
2, When steel reaches 650 celcius it looses half it's strengh, when it reach 1,000 degrees, it only has ten percent of it's original strengh.
^Sorry, bad spelling.
Isn't it funny when the LYING SHILLS try to pretend that there were no explosives found in the WTC buildings?
Video of firemen reporting bombs in WTC
"Bomb in the building. Start clearing out"
"What did you say? Secondary device?"
"Bomb in the building, start clearing out"
youtube . com / watch ? v = W53 wdu8IG lE&NR
{When steel reaches 650 celcius it looses half it's strengh, when it reach 1,000 degrees, it only has ten percent of it's original strengh.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Thu Sep 28, 06 3:12am}
That's wonderful, but the temperatures never got that high.
You know why we can tell? NO MELTING GLASS.
Apart from what NIST own reports say.
The temperatures of the fires never went above 360C, and apparently were around 250C, which is well below the 550C at which steel only barely begins to lose it's elasticity. Glass melts at 700C - There are no reports of melting glass at the towers, and the glass in the storeys above the fire didn't break so the temperature was clearly way below 700C. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC - Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. Kevin Ryan of UL had cited a similar figure (250C).
So, maybe NIST contradicts what you claim that they said.
This must be a new definition of the word "leading" I have not heard before. Is Hartlepool United a leading soccer team? Was the Confedaracy the leading side in the civil war? If by say the word leading you mean fourth rate, discredited and a joke then I have to agree with you.
Around 75 fourth and fifth rate "professors" and unqualified "scientists" think that the world in a giant Burrito oops I mean are certain that Cheney flew those damn planes himself.
paper pushing non-soldier, are you PAYING ATTENTION?
YOU LOST ALREADY.
Isn't it funny when the LYING SHILLS try to pretend that there were no explosives found in the WTC buildings?
Video of firemen reporting bombs in WTC
"Bomb in the building. Start clearing out"
"What did you say? Secondary device?"
"Bomb in the building, start clearing out"
youtube . com / watch ? v = W53 wdu8IG lE&NR
^Rumour.
There are clips of firefighters saying there were actually 8 hijacked planes, one of which was heading for the Empire States Building, does that make it fact?
No. Rumour.
You have evidence that no glass melted do you lovelynice?
What a rediculous claim. Did not see those flames licking up the outside of the building? Perhaps someone kindly opened the window first.
As I said... "NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius"
"Isn't it funny when the LYING SHILLS try to pretend that there were no explosives found in the WTC buildings? "
You have evidence of these found explosives do you? Excellent, I'm waiting. Pictures of the blasting caps, or detonation chord will do fine.
Lovelynice I would never accuse you of being a liar. I do consider you to be a rather stupid person at best and mentally unstable at worst though.
Dont worry though people like me will always protect you from the real bad guys.
{^Rumour. by wolf_nipple_chips on Thu Sep 28, 06 6:28am}
No, FACT. Watch the video and see for yourself. I only quoted EXACTLY what the firemen said.
Deal with it. They FOUND EXPLOSIVES IN THE WTC
Yes I watched it, and it looked like someone spreading rumours. Jesus!
Do you really think that a fireman saying "bomb in building", is 100% proof that there was a bomb in the building?
My god! You really don't have a clue do you?
There are clips of firefighters saying there were actually 8 hijacked planes, one of which was heading for the Empire States Building, so I guess that's fact as well? Right?
I supposed I must have missed the plane hitting the Empire State Building.
FLAME
TEMP....% LOSS IN STRENGTH
250 C = NO LOSS IN STRENGTH
400 C = 5% LOSS IN STRENGTH
600 C = 50% LOSS IN STRENTH
So if flame temperatures are generally under 400 C, how can you possibly get all that steel to fail suddenly (even the steel on all the lower floors), especially if the buildings were designed with 600% (6 times) strength redundancy!??? ie. they were 6 times stronger than worst case expect loading? Why was the extremely strong steel core not even left behind? Right down to the ground floors???
DON'T BELIEVE MY WORDS, TRY THESE TESTS FOR YOURSELF!!!
Go ahead and try it. Make a fire, using as much fuel or kerosene as you like, and try to melt aluminium or steel with it... Go ahead and see if you can weaken steel in normal still air fire! Make a little bridge using a steel beam, and load it up with bricks until the steel beam deflects a little (eg. use a thin 5 mm thick piece of steel bar, 1 m long is fine, supported by 1 brick at each end as shown below)... Load up the bridge until it is on the verge of collapsing under the weight of all the centre load of Bricks BBBBBBBB below:
(ignore the dots in the diagram below)
..... BBB
..... BBB
______________
B.... fire ....B
B = brick
____ = 4 or 5 mm solid steel bar, about 1 or 2 metres long.
and put as much fire under the metal as you like, using as much fuel as you like, for as LONG as you like... and try to get the heavily loaded steel beam to collapse due to fire!
eg. fill up a big metal baking tray or metal pot with kerosene or avgas fuel (the more the better, so the fire can last over an hour), light up the fire with a burning newspaper or burning piece of cardboard, and watch what happens to the steel as it is engulfed in flames (yes, even an inferno), for over an hour.
TRY IT! See if the steel bar is softened significantly to cause a collapse!
Now repeat this experiment using concrete. Expose concrete to as much fire as you like. Wait even 56 minutes if you have to! And see of the concrete all converts into a cloud of fine powder, or crumbles into a pile of pulverised concrete dust particles!
ENOUGH WITH ALL THE QUOTES OF WRONG FIGURES AND MISLEADING (YES, DECEITFUL) NIST REPORTS! TRY THIS FOR YOURSELF AT HOME AND SEE IF A HIGHLY OVERLOADED (EVEN BENDING) STEEL BRIDGE/BEAM WILL COLLAPSE DUE TO EXPOSURE TO AS MUCH FIRE AS YOU LIKE, FOR AS LONG AS YOU LIKE!!!
See if you can also powderise concrete with fire, because that is the only way those 3 WTC buildings could collapse at free-fall speeds...
Otherwise you will have to consider the very very rare possibility of engineering materials saying to themselves: "Look, I'm tired of maintaining my full atomic bonds and full strength! It has been about 56 minutes since the materials above me got hit by a jet plane, so I guess I should just give up all my strength, turn into fine powder with zero strength, and just free-fall at accelerating speeds! There's no point supporting the rest of the upper floors anyway, so as an engineering material, I should just change my mind and display zero strength all of a sudden... are all you perimeter column supports, pillars and floor slabs all with me? Are you all ready to convert to FINE clouds of powder? Come on fellas! Let's all show a sign of solidarity and drop our compressive yield strengths exactly at the same time to allow for a perfect vertical collapse into our building's footprint, to avoid damaging other buildings and to make it easier for FEMA and the 'Controlled Demolition Inc' to cleanup... these poor guys have been waiting here in New York since September 10, yesterday... On the count of 0, Ready? 3, 2, 1 (boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom)... weeeeeeee!!!! Free falling is fun!"
Steel beams say to themselves:
"Ok, perimeter columns? Rebar? central core? Are you with the concrete? Are you all ready to give up your 400 MPa + tensile strength and drop this all to zero, when all the concrete pillars powderize themselves? Yes!!! Ok, listen for their 'zero' count... steady... (boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom) See ya at the bottom guys! Last one in the pool of molten metal is a rusty piece of scrap !!!"
(several days and weeks later...)
"Gee, I'm so relieved I can just sit around here in the basement relaxing in this pool of molten metal, simmering at over 700 C for several days! Hmmmm, it's so nice to take a break from carrying the load of that building!"
This could have been what engineering materials were conspiring to do on September 11, 2001, which supports the "Official Stories" shown on TV... why doesn't the full explanation of this collapse mechanism get any coverage on FOX NEWS or on NIST reports, or on Popular Mechanics? It's possible, isn't it? Engineering materials deciding to change their yield strengths and melting points at will? Sure! I'm convinced this is what REALLY happened!!!
;-p
"Jin Said: 'A mere candle flame is 1400 Celsius (2552 F).'
This is DEFINITELY NOT the temperature of a hydrocarbon flame in still air. Where did you get this wrong information?...That's total BS Jinn!"
by blackcat06 on Sun Sep 17, 06 3:50am
"Jinn, Wikipedia is DEAD WRONG about candle flame temperatures in still air. Wikipedia has been wrong about a lot of things on other topics too."
by blackcat06 on Sun Sep 17, 06 10:10pm
"Message for Jinn...were you able to melt that aluminium foil with a simple candle flame yet? (which you claim was burning at 1400 C?)"
by blackcat06 on Thu Sep 28, 06 2:26am
Firstly Blackcat, this is not my claim. Secondly, Wikipedia is not wrong. And lastly, I will provide you with a few more references (below) on candle flame temperature, to prove to you that this is not my claim, nor is Wikipedia mistaken.
Candle Flame (1400 C)(2552 F) - Source: Wikipedia Encyclopedia
Candle flame temperature is 1400 C - Source: Fire Science and Technology Inc.
Candle flame temperature is 1400 C - Source: Webexhibits
Candle flame temperature is 1400 C - Source: NASA Glenn Research Center
Candle flame temperature is 1400 C - Source: The Physics Factbook(TM)
Candle Flame temperature (1400 C)(2552 F) Source: Reference Encyclopedia
Now I ask you Blackcat, just who is mistaken?
Poor Jinn, so desperate that you have to cite WIKIPEDIA THE ENCYCLOPEDIA THAT ANY IDIOT CAN EDIT as a source.
You really can't deal with Blackcat blowing your lies away all the time, can you?
1400 C? Then why can't I melt steel with it?
^because the melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). That's why dimwit!
Normal building fires and hydrocarbon fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers.
Enough to reduce the steel in that area to roughly 10 percent of its usual strengh.
>>The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit)
Yes, that's correct... it ranges from about 1,500 C to about 1,650 C at white hot temperatures... Try to get steel this hot in an open air fire! Go ahead! At 1,650 C, a crucible full of molten metal is COMPLETELY liquid. The pouring temperature is usually around 1,600 C in most foundries.
Still you miss the point... It is NOT steel that holds up highrise buildings entirely... it is the CONCRETE.
The big question is: Why did the concrete all fail, and display signs of ZERO strength, all around the perimeter of each of the twin towers (EXPLODING from the top down), and Building 7, so that all buildings could collapse at around FREE-FALL accelerating speeds, of around 9.81 m/s^2 ?
The Twin Towers collapsed in about 10 seconds each. Free-fall time is 9 seconds. Where are the pancakes? What happened to all the floors of solid concrete which should be stacked one on top of each other, if the pancaking effect did happen?
WTC 7 collapsed in about 6 seconds, also a free-fall time.
Free-fall collapse time MEANS zero resistance, ie. ZERO material strength from lower undamaged materials, including zero strength displayed the strong steel cores of those buildings... ie. NO RESISTANCE, NO STRENGTH TO HOLD UP THOSE BUILDINGS TO SLOW DOWN THE COLLAPSES...
This was all documented and recorded by live TV crews and amateur videos!
Please do yourself a favour and open your eyes to what really happened, and stop reading the lies of the Bush-loving mass media and war profiteers who are determined to mislead and deceive you.
Watch the collapse videos yourself.
plaguepuppy . net/public_html/collapse%20update/
(remove spaces around the dot)
The speed of the collapses and magnitude of ground tremors (from the explosions, as detected by nearby seismic monitoring labs)... is consistent with planned controlled demolition operations.
The huge cover-up operation and deliberate prohibition of independent investigations being allowed to take place at Ground Zero, which followed, orchestrated by FEMA, the FBI and the US Government, indicates guilt, complicity and possible involvement with the planning of these events.
They covered up big time!
Honest people with nothing to hide would not go to extraordinary lengths to STOP independent scientists and engineers from examining the WTC steel... Honest people with nothing to hide would not quickly ship out all the WTC steel to be melted quickly and shipped overseas without a thorough examination to explain how super strong engineering materials could suddenly display signs of zero strength when exposed to low temperature fires. Honest people with nothing to hide would not go around threatening firefighters and eyewitnesses demanding that they not go public with their eyewitness testimony of seeing and hearing explosions, or bad things will happen to them. An honest mass media would perform detailed independent investigations on all the strange events surrounding September 11, 2001, including deliberate refusal to allow the "hijacked planes" to be intercepted by jet fighters, the high levels of trading of put options on United and American Airlines stocks (predicting a fall in share value, just in the few days before Sep 11).
The whole thing stinks of deliberate deception and fraud and there is NO REASON for any sane person to be afraid of Bin Laden and a rag-tag group of cave dwellers on the other side of the world... this too is all fiction and propaganda, designed to make you all hate dark skinned Muslims and Arabs, so you can be a dumb gullible racist and join an endless war which is all about oppression, civilian torture and oil theft. But yes, you SHOULD be afraid of the REAL terrorists, THE REAL PERPETRATORS OF FABRICATED TERRORISM (the kind that wear expensive business suits and pretend to comfort the families of victims who died on 9/11)... because any of us could be the next innocent victim, like those 2749 people who died on September 11.
I am surprised that Americans are not all totally outraged at the deliberate mass-murder that occurred, the huge cover-up efforts and the ongoing stone-walling or avoidance of detailed scientific investigations.
FLAME TEMPERATURES FROM WIKIPEDIA?
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG !!!
Again, you have been lied to big time!
Do yourself a favour and borrow or buy a materials properties textbook or materials engineering handbook... eg. I have the "Mark's Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers 9th Edition" with me right now... ISBN 0-07-004127-X
Page 4-62: Tm = normal melting point temperature (K = Kelvin = Celcius C + 273 )
ALUMINIUM Tm = 933.5 K = 660.5 C
IRON Tm = 1811 K = 1538 C
Try to melt aluminium foil (melting point of 660.5 C) in a simple fire! Try to get molten drops of aluminium in a candle flame.
PROVE IT TO YOURSELF! GET A CIGARETTE LIGHTER, CANDLE FLAME, ANY FIRE BURNING IN STILL AIR AND TRY TO CREATE MOLTEN DROPS OF ALUMINIUM FROM A PIECE OF ALUMINIUM FOIL HELD IN THE FLAME (which means you can exceed the temperature of 660 C with a fire)
Tell me if you can create drops of molten Aluminium from your own tests... EVERYONE should try this!
"Still you miss the point... It is NOT steel that holds up highrise buildings entirely... it is the CONCRETE."
Do some research, the only part that was concrete was the floor slabs. They played no part in the integrity of those buildings, the steel did.
And by the way, I clock the towers as falling in about 13 seconds, a lot longer if you include the cores.
>> Enough to reduce the steel in that area to roughly 10 percent of its usual strengh.
Even if fire was hot enough to melt all the steel, it is the CONCRETE that holds up the buildings, and last I heard, concrete is a masonry and is fireproof. It cannot melt or become powderised due to ordinary air fires. Don't believe me? Run those tests I mentioned above for yourself...
What's really funny is that wolf and Jinn are IGNORING THE FACT that lower levels of steel and concrete structural members (below where the jet hit), were not affected and still displayed signs of full strength BECAUSE THEY STOOD STABLE AND STRONG FOR OVER 56 MINUTES after the jets hit them.
When concrete fails, yes it will crack and may split up the solid, but it will still remain as large solid pieces and will NOT convert into fine powder particles... Pulverising concrete (especially before they even hit the ground) requires HUGE AMOUNTS OF EXPLOSIVE ENERGY, and gravity and fire alone simply cannot make concrete explode into fine particles. It has NEVER EVER HAPPENED BEFORE IN HISTORY and you can even prove this with your own experiments. But watch all the collapse videos! You will see explosive squibs, or small jets shooting outwards, even several floors below the falling wave of debris. Basically, both WTC Twin Towers DISINTEGRATED into giant clouds of fine powder, from the jet impact floors all the way down, BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GIANT SOLID FLOORS OR CONCRETE SLABS (PANCAKES) REMAINING BEHIND, STACKED ONE ON TOP OF EACH OTHER, AFTER THE COLLAPSES. THEY ALL GOT CONVERTED TO FINE POWDER... HOW?
Also, how come so much molten metal was found in the basements of all 3 WTC buildings, which lasted for several weeks simmering at temperatures well above 600 C? How can the 1500C melting point of steel be reached by simple 233C fires to create so much molten metal?
Wolf and Jinn have SO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS that they cannot answer...
Your timing of the collapses depends on when you consider the falling to have stopped, but did you notice any SLOWING DOWN which would have been necessary for a floor-by-floor pancaking effect to take place? No slowing down of the collapses? Just acceleration straight down? How could all the lower materials provide no structural support or show any strength all of a sudden, if they were not damaged by fires or the impact of the plane?
The engineering tensile strength of steel ranges from 270 MPa (mild steel) to over 500 MPa (high strength grades). The engineering tensile strength of concrete ranges from about 27 MPa to around 42 MPa. WTC 7 was a different design to the WTC 1 and 2, and came down in a classic controlled demolition type fall (bottom levels blown up and the entire structure falls like a giant solid). You can see little demolition explosions around each WTC building just before the collapses! boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom... watch the movie 9/11 again, and you can hear this faintly while watching the puffs shooting out of the North Tower, just before it collapsed! Several NYFD firefighters reported exactly the same thing: boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom! Are they lying too? Are they conspiracy theory nutcases?
Steel is typically more than 10 times stronger than concrete, and is used mainly for uniaxial tensile loading. Concrete is used mainly for compressive loading as it is much weaker in tension.
So WHAT MADE ALL THE LOWER STEEL MEMBERS all suddenly and symmetrically FAIL (I mean, all the way around the perimeter of each floor) and display signs of zero strength, if the lower levels were not on fire and were not affected by the impact damage? How could all those buildings collapse PERFECTLY DOWNWARDS, VERTICALLY? The fact that they didn't lean over significantly requires that all lower perimeter supports (at each level that had to be weakened to give way) failed exactly at the same time and all the way around each level, because all the collapses were vertical, straight DOWN, perfectly into their footprints. How could this perfect symmetry of collapses be achieved if the planes could not have wiped out all supports symmetrically? And if the fires could not have weakened all the floors symmetrically? (assuming fires can). What happened to the extremely strong box structures at the cores of both twin towers? The actual skeleton of the twin towers? How could these massive structures display signs of zero strength, all the way down to the ground floors?
Watch the videos yourself.
seeloosechange .com about halfway through this movie, they show the explosive squibs appearing to pop out on undamaged levels, in a downward sequential manner. Unmistakable evidence of controlled demolition explosions.
WRONG AGAIN!
>>The "horizontal puffs of smoke" seen during the collapse was from forced air being pushed out from lower floors due to each subsequent upper floor crashing down.
FORCED AIR BEING PUSHED OUT???
YOU MEAN, 10-20 FLOORS BELOW THE WAVE OF FALLING DEBRIS??? WTF?
If this was true, then HOW COULD AIR BUILD UP SO MUCH PRESSURE if there are leaks everywhere in the ceiling??? (what ceiling? the upper levels have all been pulverised into fine powder or all broken up) How can you BUILD UP AIR PRESSURE with so many leaks above?
This is a ridiculous assumption. To build up a lot of air pressure, enough to BLAST CONCRETE AND WINDOWS, you need almost leak proof conditions in the ceiling above, and the positions where those horizontal squibbs appeared are WAY WAY WAY below the falling cloud of debris. How could air be trapped by broken ceilings with huge gaping holes and giant cracks in them? Especially floors that have all their windows popped out?
You are in a state of obvious DENIAL of the facts. It's really sad to think you would believe such rubbish. I have a lot of experience with pneumatics and air pressure products, and from all my experience, it takes a lot of effort to trap air... to think you can build up enough air pressure to pop out glass so far below (several floors) the descending demolition wave, is highly wishful thinking.
You obviously have need seen the plague puppy videos. eg. as the South Tower collapses, you can see a giant squibb appear at around the 30th floor, DOZENS OF FLOORS below the demoltion wave. Watch the videos again. You are highly mistaken and seem to be in denial.
Try to melt aluminium foil (melting point of 660.5 C) in a simple fire! Try to get molten drops of aluminium in a candle flame.
PROVE IT TO YOURSELF! GET A CIGARETTE LIGHTER, CANDLE FLAME, ANY FIRE BURNING IN STILL AIR AND TRY TO CREATE MOLTEN DROPS OF ALUMINIUM FROM A PIECE OF ALUMINIUM FOIL HELD IN THE FLAME (which means you can exceed the temperature of 660 C with a fire)
Tell me if you can create drops of molten Aluminium from your own tests... EVERYONE should try this!
Try readin this time blackcat. I'll repeat...
Do some research, the only part that was concrete was the floor slabs. They played no part in the integrity of those buildings, the steel did. The outer steel columns and the internal core were what kept those buildings up.
Blackcat said..."Wolf and jinn are IGNORING THE FACT that lower levels of steel and concrete structural members (below where the jet hit), were not affected and still displayed signs of full strength BECAUSE THEY STOOD STABLE AND STRONG FOR OVER 56 MINUTES after the jets hit them."
And? What's your point?
The buildings then collapsed. You had 30 odd stories, approximately 200 million pounds worth of debris, falling as one chunk on the floors below, what do you expect? That they just stay standing? 200 million pounds!!!! Jesus!!
Blackcat, do you not read my posts? Other than Wikipedia, I also provided you with several other text and science sources that all same the same thing. That a candle flame is 1400 C. How many sources do you need before you decide YOU are wrong? Go back a read my post again. Even the NASA scientists say the same thing.
And get of this silly notion about steel melting.
NO official investigators into the WTC collapses ever concluded that steel "melted" prior to the collapse. The 9/11 commission report DOES NOT anywhere state that "steel melted" prior to the collapse.
Further more, it doesn't take much heat and temperature to weaken metal as you think. Especially when the steel is holding up thousands of tons of stress and weight. Also, in the WTC towers most all of the stress and weight had shifted onto far less supports that the engeneered design had intended.
Hell, I can take a piece of 1/4 inch rebar steel rod and bend it until it breaks. At the break point the steel is hot enough to give you a serious burn. In fact, try this with a wire coat hanger. Bend it back and forth until it breaks, then see how hot the broken end is. When the steel is heated it weakens, it does NOT need to melt. You got it now?
This is why I know that you know there is no conspiracy. Your agenda is motivated by hate. Because no person can possibly be that stupid and still type sentences on a keyboard.
More nonsense from arch denialists Jinn and Wolf, they whinge about copying and pasting -do you know why?
- Because they have sweet f*ck all to copy and paste themselves!
Because there is no serious literature out there to back up any of their denialist spoonfed Bushit! (sic)
They eagerly swallow every scrap of the ballsology and lies that is thrown to them like the hungry stupid dogs that they are.
I feel sorry for them, they are strays from the truth, will Asslie come home? - Sorry Lassie?
IT'S HOPELESS trying to force people, especially non-technical non-engineers, to open their own eyes...
>> And? What's your point?
My point is: If the South Tower could remain standing, stable and strong, UNAFFECTED BY FIRE, BECAUSE EVEN YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T MELT, then why couldn't the South Tower stay standing for 60 minutes, instead of just 56 minutes after it got hit by the jet? Why couldn't WTC 2 stay standing even a little longer? What TRIGGERED THE INSTANT COLLAPSE, if it was not fire? What made all those solid and strong engineering materials convert to ZERO STRENGTH in order to allow free fall collapse to occur all of a sudden?
WHAT KEPT THE BUILDINGS STANDING UP FOR SO LONG? ANSWER: ATOMIC BONDING FORCES. ENGINEERING MATERIALS SHOWING FULL STRENGTH, DO NOT JUST SUDDENLY DISPLAY ZERO STRENGTH FOR NO GOOD REASON (YOU EVEN SAID THAT FIRE DID NOT MELT THEM, AND EVEN IF THEY DID, WHERE ARE ALL THE TWISTED BEAMS? WHY DIDN'T THE BUILDINGS LEAN OVER ON AN ANGLE LIKE A FELLED TREE, OR DISTORT OR TWIST OUT OF SHAPE, IF THE STEEL IS STILL IN ITS SOLID PHASE?
>>The buildings then collapsed. You had 30 odd stories, approximately 200 million pounds worth of debris, falling as one chunk on the floors below, what do you expect?
DUHHH!!!! THE BUILDING WAS CARRYING THAT MUCH AMOUNT OF MATERIAL WEIGHT FROM THE START ANYWAY! (and engineers had designed them to be 6 times stronger than the maximum expected loading, that's a 600% strength overdesign)... South Tower stood strong for 56 minutes after the jet impact... North Tower stood strong for about 1 hour 20 minutes after the jet impact... WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE STOOD STABLE AND STRONG A LITTLE LONGER? WHAT MADE THEM ALL GIVE UP THEIR STRENGTH? WHAT TRIGGERED THEIR COLLAPSES?
>>That they just stay standing? 200 million pounds!!!! Jesus!!
You obviously have no education in materials engineering.
Go and squeeze a small piece of solid concrete on a hydraulic compression test machine... squeeze it until failure point! Even a tiny cylinder of concrete the size of a small bottle of Liquid Paper, could support the weight of over 63 fully loaded semitrailer trucks. Concrete is AMAZINGLY STRONG in compression... But, even under extreme stress, it will fail by cracking and sliding on a 45 degree slip plane, known as the plane of maximum shear stress (typical for most brittle materials and even brittle metals)... Go ahead and do these tests... I guarantee you that you will NOT get giant clouds of fine powder particles as a result of concrete failure under vertical loading... you will end up with smaller solid boulders...
SO NOW COMES THE QUESTION... What created those HUGE clouds of concrete powder that chased people down those streets in New York??? What created the MASSIVE CLOUDS OF FINE CONCRETE POWDER PARTICLES, if it is known that concrete cannot fail like this from uniaxial compression tests?
OPEN YOUR OWN EYES AND DO YOUR OWN TESTS!! TRY TO MELT A PIECE OF ALUMINIUM (MELTING POINT OF 660 C) WITH A CANDLE OR FIRE and see if fire temperatures can exceed even 660 C...
This is not a joke, do this test yourself... it's a very easy and cheap experiment... prove to me that aluminium can melt in normal 101.3k kPa air pressure fire!!! and don't talk to me about steel dropping to 10% of its strength, if you cannot even get flame temperatures above 660 C (the melting point of aluminium), where steel is still at about 50% of its full yield strength.
By the way, there are 2 definitions of material strength: Yield strength (0.1% offset proof load) and Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS, the highest possible stress the material can sustain in a uniaxial tensile test)... The strength I am talking about is the UTS.
Don't talk to me about steel getting softer than 50% of its maximum strength if you cannot even melt aluminium in air fire... go on and try to get liquid aluminium from a candle or cigarette lighter flame! Do that burning steel bridge experiment I mentioned above! Don't believe in hearsay from other people, who could be lying to you, and DON'T EVEN BELIEVE THE WORDS THAT I AM SAYING. GO AND PROVE THINGS FOR YOURSELF! TRY TO SEE IF STEEL WILL WEAKEN IN AS MUCH FIRE AS YOU LIKE! EVEN LOAD UP THE STEEL BRIDGE WITH AS MUCH WEIGHT AS YOU LIKE (WITHOUT COLLAPSING IT BEFORE PUTTING IT ON FIRE)... EXPOSE IT TO AS MUCH FIRE AS YOU LIKE, FOR AS LONG AS YOU LIKE, AND SEE IF IT COLLAPSES!
This is so simple to do, and will take far less time and effort than it takes for you to copy and paste incorrect flame temperature data from other websites, and argue with me using wrong information...
You like to quote other people with PhDs and Doctors of science... well I AM ONE and I teach material properties, product design and manufacturing engineering for a living... NO BS...
IT'S HOPELESS trying to force people, especially non-technical non-engineers, to open their own eyes...
>> And? What's your point?
My point is: If the South Tower could remain standing, stable and strong, UNAFFECTED BY FIRE, BECAUSE EVEN YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T MELT, then why couldn't the South Tower stay standing for 60 minutes, instead of just 56 minutes after it got hit by the jet? Why couldn't WTC 2 stay standing even a little longer? What TRIGGERED THE INSTANT COLLAPSE, if it was not fire? What made all those solid and strong engineering materials convert to ZERO STRENGTH in order to allow free fall collapse to occur all of a sudden?
WHAT KEPT THE BUILDINGS STANDING UP FOR SO LONG? ANSWER: ATOMIC BONDING FORCES. ENGINEERING MATERIALS SHOWING FULL STRENGTH, DO NOT JUST SUDDENLY DISPLAY ZERO STRENGTH FOR NO GOOD REASON (YOU EVEN SAID THAT FIRE DID NOT MELT THEM, AND EVEN IF THEY DID, WHERE ARE ALL THE TWISTED BEAMS? WHY DIDN'T THE BUILDINGS LEAN OVER ON AN ANGLE LIKE A FELLED TREE, OR DISTORT OR TWIST OUT OF SHAPE, IF THE STEEL IS STILL IN ITS SOLID PHASE?
>>The buildings then collapsed. You had 30 odd stories, approximately 200 million pounds worth of debris, falling as one chunk on the floors below, what do you expect?
DUHHH!!!! THE BUILDING WAS CARRYING THAT MUCH AMOUNT OF MATERIAL WEIGHT FROM THE START ANYWAY! (and engineers had designed them to be 6 times stronger than the maximum expected loading, that's a 600% strength overdesign)... South Tower stood strong for 56 minutes after the jet impact... North Tower stood strong for about 1 hour 20 minutes after the jet impact... WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE STOOD STABLE AND STRONG A LITTLE LONGER? WHAT MADE THEM ALL GIVE UP THEIR STRENGTH? WHAT TRIGGERED THEIR COLLAPSES?
>>That they just stay standing? 200 million pounds!!!! Jesus!!
You obviously have no education in materials engineering.
Go and squeeze a small piece of solid concrete on a hydraulic compression test machine... squeeze it until failure point! Even a tiny cylinder of concrete the size of a small bottle of Liquid Paper, could support the weight of over 63 fully loaded semitrailer trucks. Concrete is AMAZINGLY STRONG in compression... But, even under extreme stress, it will fail by cracking and sliding on a 45 degree slip plane, known as the plane of maximum shear stress (typical for most brittle materials and even brittle metals)... Go ahead and do these tests... I guarantee you that you will NOT get giant clouds of fine powder particles as a result of concrete failure under vertical loading... you will end up with smaller solid boulders...
SO NOW COMES THE QUESTION... What created those HUGE clouds of concrete powder that chased people down those streets in New York??? What created the MASSIVE CLOUDS OF FINE CONCRETE POWDER PARTICLES, if it is known that concrete cannot fail like this from uniaxial compression tests?
OPEN YOUR OWN EYES AND DO YOUR OWN TESTS!! TRY TO MELT A PIECE OF ALUMINIUM (MELTING POINT OF 660 C) WITH A CANDLE OR FIRE and see if fire temperatures can exceed even 660 C...
This is not a joke, do this test yourself... it's a very easy and cheap experiment... prove to me that aluminium can melt in normal 101.3k kPa air pressure fire!!! and don't talk to me about steel dropping to 10% of its strength, if you cannot even get flame temperatures above 660 C (the melting point of aluminium), where steel is still at about 50% of its full yield strength.
By the way, there are 2 definitions of material strength: Yield strength (0.1% offset proof load) and Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS, the highest possible stress the material can sustain in a uniaxial tensile test)... The strength I am talking about is the UTS.
Don't talk to me about steel getting softer than 50% of its maximum strength if you cannot even melt aluminium in air fire... go on and try to get liquid aluminium from a candle or cigarette lighter flame! Do that burning steel bridge experiment I mentioned above! Don't believe in hearsay from other people, who could be lying to you, and DON'T EVEN BELIEVE THE WORDS THAT I AM SAYING. GO AND PROVE THINGS FOR YOURSELF! TRY TO SEE IF STEEL WILL WEAKEN IN AS MUCH FIRE AS YOU LIKE! EVEN LOAD UP THE STEEL BRIDGE WITH AS MUCH WEIGHT AS YOU LIKE (WITHOUT COLLAPSING IT BEFORE PUTTING IT ON FIRE)... EXPOSE IT TO AS MUCH FIRE AS YOU LIKE, FOR AS LONG AS YOU LIKE, AND SEE IF IT COLLAPSES!
This is so simple to do, and will take far less time and effort than it takes for you to copy and paste incorrect flame temperature data from other websites, and argue with me using wrong information...
You like to quote other people with PhDs and Doctors of science... well I AM ONE and I teach material properties, product design and manufacturing engineering for a living... NO BS...
IT'S HOPELESS trying to force people, especially non-technical non-engineers, to open their own eyes...
>> And? What's your point?
My point is: If the South Tower could remain standing, stable and strong, UNAFFECTED BY FIRE, BECAUSE EVEN YOU SAY THEY DIDN'T MELT, then why couldn't the South Tower stay standing for 60 minutes, instead of just 56 minutes after it got hit by the jet? Why couldn't WTC 2 stay standing even a little longer? What TRIGGERED THE INSTANT COLLAPSE, if it was not fire? What made all those solid and strong engineering materials convert to ZERO STRENGTH in order to allow free fall collapse to occur all of a sudden?
WHAT KEPT THE BUILDINGS STANDING UP FOR SO LONG? ANSWER: ATOMIC BONDING FORCES. ENGINEERING MATERIALS SHOWING FULL STRENGTH, DO NOT JUST SUDDENLY DISPLAY ZERO STRENGTH FOR NO GOOD REASON (YOU EVEN SAID THAT FIRE DID NOT MELT THEM, AND EVEN IF THEY DID, WHERE ARE ALL THE TWISTED BEAMS? WHY DIDN'T THE BUILDINGS LEAN OVER ON AN ANGLE LIKE A FELLED TREE, OR DISTORT OR TWIST OUT OF SHAPE, IF THE STEEL IS STILL IN ITS SOLID PHASE?
>>The buildings then collapsed. You had 30 odd stories, approximately 200 million pounds worth of debris, falling as one chunk on the floors below, what do you expect?
DUHHH!!!! THE BUILDING WAS CARRYING THAT MUCH AMOUNT OF MATERIAL WEIGHT FROM THE START ANYWAY! (and engineers had designed them to be 6 times stronger than the maximum expected loading, that's a 600% strength overdesign)... South Tower stood strong for 56 minutes after the jet impact... North Tower stood strong for about 1 hour 20 minutes after the jet impact... WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE STOOD STABLE AND STRONG A LITTLE LONGER? WHAT MADE THEM ALL GIVE UP THEIR STRENGTH? WHAT TRIGGERED THEIR COLLAPSES?
>>That they just stay standing? 200 million pounds!!!! Jesus!!
You obviously have no education in materials engineering.
Go and squeeze a small piece of solid concrete on a hydraulic compression test machine... squeeze it until failure point! Even a tiny cylinder of concrete the size of a small bottle of Liquid Paper, could support the weight of over 63 fully loaded semitrailer trucks. Concrete is AMAZINGLY STRONG in compression... But, even under extreme stress, it will fail by cracking and sliding on a 45 degree slip plane, known as the plane of maximum shear stress (typical for most brittle materials and even brittle metals)... Go ahead and do these tests... I guarantee you that you will NOT get giant clouds of fine powder particles as a result of concrete failure under vertical loading... you will end up with smaller solid boulders...
SO NOW COMES THE QUESTION... What created those HUGE clouds of concrete powder that chased people down those streets in New York??? What created the MASSIVE CLOUDS OF FINE CONCRETE POWDER PARTICLES, if it is known that concrete cannot fail like this from uniaxial compression tests?
OPEN YOUR OWN EYES AND DO YOUR OWN TESTS!! TRY TO MELT A PIECE OF ALUMINIUM (MELTING POINT OF 660 C) WITH A CANDLE OR FIRE and see if fire temperatures can exceed even 660 C...
This is not a joke, do this test yourself... it's a very easy and cheap experiment... prove to me that aluminium can melt in normal 101.3k kPa air pressure fire!!! and don't talk to me about steel dropping to 10% of its strength, if you cannot even get flame temperatures above 660 C (the melting point of aluminium), where steel is still at about 50% of its full yield strength.
By the way, there are 2 definitions of material strength: Yield strength (0.1% offset proof load) and Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS, the highest possible stress the material can sustain in a uniaxial tensile test)... The strength I am talking about is the UTS.
Don't talk to me about steel getting softer than 50% of its maximum strength if you cannot even melt aluminium in air fire... go on and try to get liquid aluminium from a candle or cigarette lighter flame! Do that burning steel bridge experiment I mentioned above! Don't believe in hearsay from other people, who could be lying to you, and DON'T EVEN BELIEVE THE WORDS THAT I AM SAYING. GO AND PROVE THINGS FOR YOURSELF! TRY TO SEE IF STEEL WILL WEAKEN IN AS MUCH FIRE AS YOU LIKE! EVEN LOAD UP THE STEEL BRIDGE WITH AS MUCH WEIGHT AS YOU LIKE (WITHOUT COLLAPSING IT BEFORE PUTTING IT ON FIRE)... EXPOSE IT TO AS MUCH FIRE AS YOU LIKE, FOR AS LONG AS YOU LIKE, AND SEE IF IT COLLAPSES!
This is so simple to do, and will take far less time and effort than it takes for you to copy and paste incorrect flame temperature data from other websites, and argue with me using wrong information...
You like to quote other people with PhDs and Doctors of science... well I AM ONE and I teach material properties, product design and manufacturing engineering for a living... NO BS...
Watch the 9/11 video again, showing the collapse of the North Tower on amateur video... You can several puffs or demolition squibbs SHOOTING OUT OF THE NORTH TOWER, near where the jet had impacted, and you will hear a faint:
boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom
sound BEFORE the building collapses. These puffs could not have been caused by trapped air pressure BECAUSE THE BUILDING HAD NOT YET EVEN STARTED MOVING DOWNWARDS!!!!
Sorry blackcat, any ounce of credibility that you had dissapeared when you claimed that it was the concrete that kept those buildings up.
"Because there is no serious literature out there to back up any of their denialist spoonfed Bushit! "
Serious literature? By that I assume you mean peer reviewed scientific papers, of which you have none Kenneth. Well done.
"WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE STOOD STABLE AND STRONG A LITTLE LONGER?"
Did you not see that fire? Did you not see those plane hit?
What rediculous logic.
Thats like saying "why couldn't the space shuttle columbia stay intact a little longer so that they could land safely, and let the crew get off?"
I'll repeat...
Normal building fires and hydrocarbon fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers.
Enough to reduce the steel in that area to roughly 10 percent of its usual strengh.
When that point had been reached the steel in that area could not hold the 200 million pound load above it. So that 200 million pound load fell, as one, on to the floors below.
Someone tell me how attas passport survived that impact and inferno and landed on the street? out of all those passports it had to be his that survived. Which brainiac can explain that?
by isay on Fri Sep 29, 06 5:08pm
[+]
Isay, it may have survived. There also pictures of seat cushions and items of mail from the planes, bieng found on the streets below.
Anyway, why would they bother planting it? What does it add to the story? There was no need to “plant passports”. We’ve never seen anyone say “they must have been on the planes because look, the NYPD found that passport”. It’s completely unnecessary, and is only ever used as evidence of an “inside job”.
^In addition to that there are also many reports of passengers credit cards bieng found, they also found one womans United Airline Mileage Card next to the remain of her right hip. Just lying on the street.
Ok Wolf... what about WTC 7? Are you saying that WTC 7 was not held up by any concrete columns? How did WTC 7 collapse? It was not even hit by any plane and only suffered 2 small fires? How could WTC 7 collapse about 6-7 hours after the Twin Towers collapsed? It was also a 47 storey steel & concrete highrise building that stood strong and stable for so long after the collapses of the Twin Towers.
So where did all the huge clouds of concrete powder come from? What CAUSED all those solid concrete floor slabs in the Twin Towers to convert into fine dust? (If you know that concrete is fireproof?) How can FIRE do that to concrete?
Which came first? The CHICKEN (collapse) or the EGG (fire) ?
You cannot get a collapse starting without some event to START IT, so my question to everyone here is: "WHAT STARTED THE COLLAPSES OF ALL WTC BUILDINGS, SINCE THEY STOOD UP STRONG AND STABLE FOR SO LONG?" Without movement of the building, you cannot get any momentum building up to cause downward collissions of floors impacting on top of other floors... WHAT STARTED THE ORIGINAL FALLING MOVEMENT OR COLLAPSE SEQUENCE?
If you say that FIRE cannot melt steel, and if you know that temperatures of atmospheric pressure air fire does not exceed typically 600 C... (NOT EVEN ENOUGH TO MELT ALUMINIUM!... You can prove this to yourself by trying to melt aluminium in a big man-made fire if you like)... Those NIST temperatures are probably nothing but guesses... totally wrong (unlesst they had temperature probes installed in the WTC Twin towers, they would never know the exact steel temperatures... 1000 C flames can only be artificially created by introducing huge amounts of oxygen eg. from very strong winds, oxygen that is not normally available in still air to increase the combustion rate of the fuel... (80% nitrogen, 19% oxygen, 1% trace gases like helium)
THEN HOW ON EARTH does so much steel, below where the jets hit, all fail at the same time, and all fail symmetrically (all around the perimeter of EACH weakened floor), so that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 could ALL collapse perfectly into their building footprints???
What started each collapse? Black smoke fires, burning at about 233 C? Or the "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom" explosions SEEN and HEARD by eyewitnesses on the scene, AND BY VIDEO FOOTAGE of explosions going off, just before the buildings collapsed?
Do you DENY that these explosions took place? Do you believe that the puffs of focused jets or demolition squibbs shooting out of all collapsing buildings (before the buildings even started moving), are just caused by trapped air pressure? Do you really believe that firefighters whose close friends DIED on that day, would choose to invent a big conspiracy theory about explosions going off everywhere before the buildings started collapsing?
Do you also DENY the evidence of large pools of hot molten metal at the basements of each of those 3 WTC buildings, simmering at red hot temperatures above 700 C for several days after the collapses! I am talking about red hot SOLIDIFIED steel beams that have obviously MELTED from intense heat above the MELTING POINT OF STEEL, BEING 1500 C!!! How in hell can so much molten steel be created from jet fuel fires burning in normal air pressure?
Look at ALL THE COLLAPSE videos and ALL THE PHOTOS OF THE WTC Twin Tower collapses...
THE FACT THAT YOU SEE LARGE EXPANDING CLOUDS OF GREY CONCRETE PARTICLES is enough evidence to prove that explosive events occurred, because it is IMPOSSIBLE for concrete to disintegrate like this just because of fire or gravity (even pancaking impacts, which should have left behind a lot of steel-reinforced concrete slabs still sitting on top of each other, like a pile of solid pancakes still remaining behind).
The FACT that most of that surrounding area was covered in several INCHES of fine concrete powder (which had to be scooped up in buckets), is enough evidence to prove that a huge amount of energy was used to pulverise and powderize so much concrete. Remember that concrete has a tensile yield strength of over 4000 psi, 27 - 42 MPa, typically. Concrete cannot be melted in normal still air fires, and it is impossible to get this all converted to fine powder without explosives.
Why were the large concrete floor slabs destroyed in this way? Because it would take a lot more work trying to transport away all the giant boulders and huge floor sections of a 110 storey building.
I have geniune photos from the Ground Zero site, showing massive steel columns standing up out of the ground, many of which appear to have been SLICED at sharp 45 to 60 degree angles... the sliced edges look perfectly straight at their edges with a black, molten looking residue, typical of cutting charges, like thermite/thermate, which generate temperatures above 2000C, and which can quickly cut through steel. I can believe thermite can create giant pools of molten metal, but I know that aviation fuel reacting with oxygen in still air fires simply CANNOT create molten metal.
Prof Steven Jones ran several materials analysis tests on WTC steel samples from Ground Zero, and found the chemical "fingerprint" or residues of thermate... a hotter and faster cutting version of thermite... Some of the steel that he analysed was taken from 9/11 Memorial sites, which used original steel from the WTC Ground Zero. Now why would clean-up crew want to use thermite to cut steel wreckage, if they could cut steel just as easily with a more conventional oxy-acetylene torch?
What more proof do you need?
Still air fires which give off black smoke (oxygen starved fire) burns at around 233 C. Fires in strong winds burn a bit hotter (not enough to melt even Aluminium foil... try this yourself!)... but overall, steel does NOT lose any strength or weaken due to heat even up to 250 C. At 650 C, it is about half of its full strength, but even if this were the case, if the structure is over 6 times stronger than it needs to be (with a 600% overdesign safety factor used for extra strength), then the TRUE strength of the building is still 3 times stronger than it needs to be (300% extra strength), and HAS NO WAY OF COLLAPSING.
Even if the levels where the planes hit were severely weakened, then why didn't the twin towers just BEND OVER and LEAN IN THE DIRECTION OF THE PARTS THAT WERE MOST DAMAGED? There is NO reason why all the lower levels of steel columns had to all lose strength and fall. They were not damaged or weakened mechanically or thermally.
That is why the Twin Towers stood up for so long after the impacts. They were designed to absorb the impact of a 707 jet plane, each, and they did. THERE IS STILL NO SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION FOR WHAT TRIGGERED OR STARTED THE COLLAPSES, ESPECIALLY THE COLLAPSES OF THE LOWER UNDAMAGED LEVELS... and no explanation for HOW SUCH HUGE clouds of fine concrete powder could be created, even before the buildings started collapsing.
Solid materials just DO NOT EXPLODE by themselves, before moving. This is NOT how concrete fails under compression loads. Sure, concrete can crack and slide, but no lab experiments in the past (or even in the future) can prove that concrete fails by EXPLODING SIDEWAYS under vertical loading. This is scientifically impossible, because gravity points downwards.
Do yourselves all a favour and watch the collapse videos again.
Steel is over 10 times STRONGER than concrete and is fireproof. NIST has no way of telling that flame temperatures reach 1000 C, because they didn't have any sensors or any experimental proof that this is accurate, because they are only trying to describe create an explanation to fit in with scientific facts, trying to explain how collapses could occur with the prejudiced belief that it was fire that weakened the steel columns and materials...
Do the steel bridge experiment and set it on fire, and see if it collapses under extremely heavy loading while being engulfed in flames for as long as you like... I HAVE DONE THIS MYSELF, AND I WANT YOU ALL TO PROVE THIS TO YOURSELVES... STEEL STRENGTH IS NOT AFFECTED BY STILL AIR FIRE BECAUSE THE COMBUSTION TEMPERATURE OF FIRE IN STILL AIR IS FAHRENHEIT 451 F = 233 C which causes 0% loss in original room temperature strength.
Try it! Don't trust my results, do the experiments for yourself... and try to melt aluminium (liquid aluminium forms at 660 C)... and try to pulverise solid pieces of concrete blocks using fire alone. Go on smarty pants! You can talk as long as you like, quoting as much hearsay and wrong information as you like... until you are blue in the face... but the TRUTH is what can be proved in real world experiments... not from hot air coming out of your mouth...
>>"WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE STOOD STABLE AND STRONG A LITTLE LONGER?"
>>>Did you not see that fire? Did >>>you not see those plane hit?
Yes, I saw the fires and all the black smoke, indicating very low temperature flames (around 250 C).
>>What rediculous logic.
So what started the collapsing? Did the steel columns just "change their mind" and decide to all LOSE ALL THEIR STRENGTH all of a sudden ? (perfectly symmetrically, for all major columns surrounding the perimeter of each floor, including the columns of the central core?)
>>Thats like saying "why couldn't the space shuttle columbia stay intact a little longer so that they could land safely, and let the crew get off?"
You are definitely a SOPHIST full of specious reasonings that don't make any sense. The Space Shuttle Columbia was obviously damaged by some ice or a hard object that chipped away some of the heat shielding upon take-off. The heat shielding ceramic tiles were necessary for protecting the internal wing structures from the 3000 C + temperatures (??? I forgot the exact figure) of re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere... 3000 C temperatures can easily melt away any steel or metal wing structures, causing the shuttle to violently tumble and break up. That makes sense.
But to have 233C atmospheric air fires supposedly reaching 1000+ Celcius for no good reason, weakening ALL the WTC steel in ALL the 78+ levels below where the jets hit them... simultaneously, all the way around, to create a perfect vertical FREE FALL causing minimal damage to surrounding buildings... AND TO SEE 47 STOREY HIGHRISE BUILDING suffering 2 small fires, suddenly collapsing even though it was not hit by any jet...
NOW THAT IS RIDICULOUS!
>>I'll repeat...
>>Normal building fires and hydrocarbon fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers.
YOU ARE CLEARLY IGNORANT, UNEDUCATED AND HAVE NO HANDS-ON EXPERIENCE WITH MEASURING FIRE TEMPERATURES OR USING ENGINEERING MATERIALS...
>>Enough to reduce the steel in that area to roughly 10 percent of its usual strengh.
Yes, you got that bit right, but YOUR FIRE TEMPERATURES are dead wrong, almost LAUGHABLE... if it wasn't for the deaths of 2749 innocent civilians... all I am asking you to do, is try to MELT ALUMINIUM (melting point 660 C) in a still air fire... candle, cigarette lighter, or a man-made fire of any size that you like... go on... or are you CHICKEN?
>>When that point had been reached the steel in that area could not hold the 200 million pound load above it.
You are basing your conclusions on wrong fire temperatures, deliberate lies intended to deceive you.
>>So that 200 million pound load fell, as one, on to the floors below.
Even if the impacts did happen, you still cannot explain how all the lower undamaged materials all lost all their strength simultaneously to allow accelerating FREE-FALL speeds to occur, as if the materials were not even there to even slow down the collapses. You still have no explanation for the giant pools of molten metal found in all the basements of all 3 WTC buildings, 1, 2 and 7, which remained sizzling hot at over 700C for several weeks. How did so much molten metal end up in those basements? WAIT, I KNOW! OSAMA BIN LADEN & HIS MUSLIM FREEDOM-HATERS DECIDED TO COME IN WITH BIG TRUCKS, THEY POURED IN A LOT OF MOLTEN METAL INTO THOSE BASEMENTS WHILE THE CLEAN-UP CREW WERE ALL ON THEIR BREAKS (WITHOUT ANY EYEWITNESSES AROUND TO SPOT THEM)... AND THEY DID THIS BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO SLOW DOWN THE CLEAN-UP CREWS because they hate America's freedoms that much!
If you cannot even prove that you can melt Aluminium foil (melting point 660 C) in fire, then PLEASE stop repeating the lie that fires burn at 1100 C!!! It's just as stupid as repeating WRONG popular opinions that many people once believed, like:
1. The world is flat and you could sail off its edges if you go too far!
2. No manmade vehicle that is "heavier than air" (ie. heavier than a hot air balloon), can possibly fly.
3. Human beings will suffer health problems if they exceed 60 km/hour speeds.
4. All muslims and arabs must be evil suicidal terrorists because FOX NEWS and over 90% of our mass media tells me so.
You have been brainwashed with a lot of BS ideas and lies, deliberately, so you can be fooled into becoming a dumb gullible racist who can justify bombing and killing innocent civilians, torturing them to extract coerced and most likely incorrect information (just so the tortured people can stop their own suffering), invading other countries that have not attacked your country first, occupying them indefinitely (so that western oil corporations can make huge profits from stealing their oil, arms manufacturers can make record sales from the supply of weapons, ammunition, reconstruction no-bid contracts can all be given to Dick Cheney's and George Shultz's rich corporate friends, and so the mass media can keep selling more horror stories and even lies, to make record profits)... and if you are unlucky, you might even DIE in Iraq, or Iran, for NO GOOD REASON... because these Muslims do not present any threat to Americans and Western people. They have never attacked Europeans or white countries first, and if you would just look at all the links above, you will realise that war profiteers are the ones organizing and executing all these fabricated terror attacks. They are only USING YOU to serve their agenda of world domination and control of the middle-east, so they can get filthy rich from imperial wars and occupations.
News stories about Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Islamic terrorists, those beheadings & kidnappings... ALL LIES! This BS was all invented and fabricated to fool all of us into hating arabs and Muslims...
The military industrial complex of the USA needs enemies in order to justify its existence. Since the collapse of Russia as a Communist threat and world power, the US Military had no more major enemy to justify billions in US defence spending... no enemy? NO PROBLEMS! "LET'S JUST INVENT ONE! LET'S JUST CREATE FABRICATED TERROR ATTACKS AND FOOL PEOPLE INTO BELIEVING THEY ARE UNDER ATTACK, TO GAIN THEIR SUPPORT FOR MORE MILITARY SPENDING! WHO CARES ABOUT THE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DEBT MONEY THAT MUST BE REPAID TO BANKERS, LET THE FUTURE GENERATIONS OF OUR CHILDREN LIVE WITH THE HUGE TAX BURDEN OF PAYING BACK ALL THAT DEBT... AND LET'S ALL JUST GET FILTHY RICH AND BECOME PLEASURE-SEEKING MILLIONAIRRES WHO CAN LIVE LIFE IN LUXURY BY STEALING ARAB & MUSLIM OIL!!!! GREAT IDEA!!! WHO CARES ABOUT FUTURE GENERATIONS OF PEOPLE WHO WILL COME AFTER US - WE ARE GOING TO DIE ANYWAY, SO LET'S LIVE IT UP! SCREW THE WORLD! WE NEED TO LOOK RICH AND IMPORTANT AND POWERFUL, BECAUSE WE ARE AMERICANS! HURRAH!!!!"
That pretty much summarises the morally and mentally corrupted state of western world leaders...
More nonsense from arch denialists Jinn and Wolf, they whinge about copying and pasting -do you know why?
- Because they have sweet f*ck all to copy and paste themselves!
Because there is no serious literature out there to back up any of their denialist spoonfed Bushit! (sic)
They eagerly swallow every scrap of the ballsology and lies that is thrown to them like the hungry stupid dogs that they are.
I feel sorry for them, they are strays from the truth.
by Ken_from_Dublin
"Serious literature? By that I assume you mean peer reviewed scientific papers, of which you have none Kenneth. Well done."
by wolf_nipple_chips
No YOU have none, otherwise you would be quoting and pasting segments from them to back up your bullshit Bush shit.
Steven E. Jones Ph.D., (no relation), described some of the findings in the official 911 report that led him to write the FIRST scientific, peer-reviewed analysis on the issue.
(By that I assume you mean peer reviewed scientific papers, of which you have none Kenneth. Well done."
by wolf_nipple_chips - Caught red handed lying again Nipple!)
Stating that "no steel frame skyscraper before or after September 11, 2001 has ever fallen as a result of fire," he went on to describe the steel beam construction that comprised the core of the 110-story towers; the melting point of steel and how jet fuel could not sustain a fire close to that temperature; the way the towers collapsed instantly straight down, indicating the support beams had been cut simultaneously by explosive charges; the pools of molten steel found underneath the rubble, pointing to the use of thermite in the explosive charges; and finally the collapse of World Trade Center Building number 7 that occurred after 5 pm, September 11.
That building, not hit by any aircraft and sustaining only relatively minor fires, Jones said, collapsed in a classic, controlled-demolition fashion "in about 10 seconds, which is almost exactly the speed it would collapse in freefall." The significance of that, the Brigham Young University professor added, is that it belies the government theory of "pancaking" floors falling one atop the next to cause collapse.
One panel on Saturday examined the historical role of dissent in political movements.
Rebecca Cerese, a North Carolina filmmaker, spoke on the topic of her recent work, "February One," the story of the Greensboro lunch counter sit-ins in 1960. She was joined by Chuck Knowles, a Miami-based filmmaker with a particular interest in the White Rose, a group of courageous German students who spoke out against Hitler in the 1940's; Ralph Schoenman, who spoke of his lifelong involvement with left and labor causes, and stated that "the 10 trillion dollars spent on weapons in the U.S. over the last 40 years has come from the excess value of the labor of working people;" and Janice Matthews, a Kansas City mother of six studying populist actions around the world as blueprints for change here.
In a later afternoon session, David Slesinger, from Washington, D.C., led a discussion on the history and strategy of non violent civil disobedience.
"Improbable Collapse" was the evening's film offering, featuring the work of Dr. Steven E. Jones. At one point he described how virtually all the structural steel from the collapsed towers was carted away and recycled in Asia without being examined for clues, commenting "It's hard to imagine how at a crime scene you can destroy evidence so thoroughly and quickly and get away with it." The gravity of his low key presentation, however, was undercut at times by the filmmaker's excessive use of eerie music, apparently in attempts to underscore important arguments.
Attendees were given a 45-minute preview of another film, "Press for Truth." Filmmakers Kyle Hence and Ray Nowosielski apologized that it couldn't get a full debut, because they are in the process of shopping their work to international distributors for a formal release before September 11 this year. "If that doesn't happen," Hence said, "we will be counting on you to get the DVD version shown in art houses and living rooms across the country."
"Press for Truth" featured the work of independent investigator, Paul Thompson, who has constructed a minute by minute timeline of the days leading up to and including September 11, 2001, from hundreds of news media sources. In an interview on the film, Thompson said one thing he noticed as he did his research, was that for almost any area covered by the official 911 report, "A different narrative could be constructed if you look deeper into the news reports."
On Sunday afternoon it was time to hear reports from the various work groups regarding next steps - ranging from coordinated call-ins on radio shows, to supporting a general strike if President Bush invokes martial law during the remainder of his term.
Congressional candidate Bowman then strode to the microphone to bring the weekend's events to a close. In addition to announcing his support for social programs like single-payer health care, he told the overflow audience that "As an old interceptor (fighter) pilot who flew over 100 missions in Vietnam, I know the drill. I flew those missions. I know how long it would've taken pilots to intercept the planes" that flew into the World Trade Center buildings.
"This was not incompetence," Bowman said, referring to the failure of military commanders to order fighter jets to shoot down the airliners before they hit the buildings, "this was treason." Judging by the reaction from his audience, it was clear he was not alone in that sentiment.
Look what Americans and western countries are doing in Iraq & Afghanistan... look at the graphic photos and dead bodies in Image Galleries 3 and 4:
dahrjamailiraq . com
(Look at the image gallery, page 3 and 4, "WARNING: GRAPHIC PHOTOS" )
einswine . org
And just recently, the US Senate is expected to approve a bill that legalizes torture of terrorist SUSPECTS (people who look Arab or Muslim or Middle-Eastern can be LEGALLY RAPED, EVEN ANALLY, to try to "break them" in the hope that they will reveal information about the next terrorist attack)...
prisonplanet . com
"Serious literature? By that I assume you mean peer reviewed scientific papers, of which you have none Kenneth. Well done."
by wolf_nipple_chips
No YOU have none, otherwise you would be quoting and pasting segments from them to back up your bullshit.
Steven E. Jones Ph.D., (no relation), described some of the findings in the official 911 report that led him to write the FIRST scientific, peer-reviewed analysis on the issue.
~"By that I assume you mean peer reviewed scientific papers, of which you have none Kenneth. Well done."
by wolf_nipple_chips -
Caught red handed lying again Nipple!
See what I mean folks? - you can't believe a word that come out of these lying denialists mouths*
^No Ken, none of your precious scholars have had any of the papers regarding this subject reviewed by their peers in any of the standard scientific journals or papers.
Blackcat said...
"How did WTC 7 collapse? It was not even hit by any plane and only suffered 2 small fires? "
Yawn, why do you people parrot the laughable loosechange? Are you incapable of researching this stuff?
For about the tenth time...
Firefighters reported a 20 storey gash in WTC7, a buldging in the outer structure - 4 floors deep - to the point where they anticipated a collapse. They also reported fire on almost every floor, when viewed from the south, they also had to pull all firefighters back because of the risk of local collapses. Try looking and some other sites. Look at firehouse . com and read some of the firefighter testimonies.
You do not have any evidence of a controlled demolition of WTC7.
Firstly, there were no loud cracking sounds, or hundreds of bright flashes.
No demolition chord, no blasting caps and no shock tubes were found. Unless of course you have pictures you would like to share.
Finally the fact that the penthouse was seen collapsing far before anything else mean that localised collapses were happening.
blackcat, are you incapable of just writing one small comment at a time?
As for the WTC tower, I've already explained the theory behind that. When the steel had been weakened sufficiently, the 200 million pounds of building above, was too much pressure for it to hold. What do you think a 200 million pound wrecking ball would do to concrete floors slabs 3 inches thick? Nobody has said that the fire destroyed the concrete.
And by the way, freefall speeds were not achieved, not by a long way. The core was still standing a good 18 seconds after the start of the collapse.
I assume you've seen the footage of the molten metal dripping out of the impact floors on the south tower, just before it collapsed? Whether it's aluminium from the plane, or steel from the building, thats hot enough to effect the integrity of the building. Melting point of aluminium - 660.32 °C
STEEL & CONCRETE BUILDINGS DO NOT COLLAPSE DUE TO FIRE DAMAGE:
911research . com / wtc / analysis / fires / steel.html
Remove spaces around the . and /
Blackcat said "YOU ARE CLEARLY IGNORANT, UNEDUCATED"
You can talk - coming from the guy who thought it was 3 inch thick concrete floor slabs that kept the WTC towers up, not steel.
correction - 4 inch floor slabs.
Did you try the overloaded steel bridge experiment like I asked you to?
Or did you try to melt aluminium yet in a normal air fire?
NO??? WHY NOT??? ARE YOU AFRAID OF SEEING THE TRUTH ABOUT REAL FLAME TEMPERATURES?
It's documented in ALL the textbooks, yes, and you can even measure it for yourself with high-temperature sensors or thermocouples or heat cameras... go ahead!
Measure the melting point of Aluminium (around 660 C), and TRY TO MELT IT WITH AS MUCH FIRE, FOR AS LONG AS YOU LIKE!
Try to soften steel with fire. I have said these things MANY MANY TIMES, but you continue to IGNORE these simple exp | |
