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:
What a great list of sites, that will really help you reach an unbiased opinion, won't it?
blackcat just likes to SPAM (advertise) B&W with other websites. It makes you wonder how much she is getting paid. Of course, you are supposed to post URLs at all, although we usually let one slide. This is just an advertisement ballot.
It is all a bunch of nonsense. Same ballot reposted 5 million times.
Logical Fallacy of Ad Nauseum. If you keep repeating something then it must be true. Utter RUBBISH.
The conspiracy theory that the U.S. government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks is the worst and most ridiculous conspiracy theory I have ever encountered. In fact at times its quite laughable.
MY OPINIONS, BASED ON WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS SINCE 9/11:
Why September 11 was planned and executed...
Here are some obvious reasons why 2749 people were murdered in public, on September 11, 2001, and why tens of thousands of muslim civilians and thousands of US soldiers have died since that tragic day...
THE TRUTH SOMETIMES HURTS... especially when it goes against popular (misguided) opinion...
WHY 9/11? TO FOOL PEOPLE INTO HATING MUSLIMS AND ARABS, SO THEY CAN SUPPORT & CONDONE ALL THE EVIL PRE-EMPTIVE WARS, INVASIONS AND ENDLESS OCCUPATIONS OF MUSLIM COUNTRIES.
1. PROFIT: stealing oil, billions in unnecessary defence spending going into the pockets of military arms and supply corporations - war gives these people a reason to exist and to keep making huge profits, no-bid multi-billion dollar contracts being given to Dick Cheney's friends (eg. Halliburton) and George P. Shultz's company (Bechtel). Find out which oil corporations are making record profits from Iraqi oil right now! (Exxon, Chevron, BP, etc. friends of the Bush family) Most of the Republicans who support the war hold huge shares in these war profiteering companies and have succeeded in "Getting Rich Quick" at the cost of thousands of civilian and military lives (the gullible patriots who believed their lies).
2. To give Israel absolute control in the Middle East, because Israelis have always hated Muslim countries. Remember that it was Israel that first invaded Palestine and occupied their lands by military force. The Jews who own and control the worlds biggest banks (Central Banks and Federal Reserve) are trillionairres, and they want full control of the middle east and all its oil.
The President of Iran is justified in suggesting that Germany or Europe should make some space there to relocate Israel, because it is Israel that has always started the aggressive wars and attacks on its neighbouring Muslim countries, including this recent unprovoked Israeli attack and invasion on Lebanon, where they claimed that 2 Israeli soldiers were "kidnapped" or captured within Israeli territory by Hezbollah fighters, which is a total lie. In fact, these Israeli soldiers and a tank crew were inside southern Lebanese territory and were attack by Hezbolla defence forces within Lebanon's borders. This was a deliberate attempt to start a war and provoke Syria and Iran to coming to the aid of a fellow Muslim ally.
3. To boost newspaper and magazine sales, reporting on endless shocking horror stories from the war; and, to make the news as shocking and entertaining as possible so we will all tune in and be "brainwashed" by all the propaganda, anti-Muslim speculation and conjecture and contemptuous opinions of clever but racist mind controllers who want us all to serve their agenda of imperialism and oil theft.
4. To install and justify new fascist laws that will turn your country into a police state, where nobody can oppose the will of the wealthy few. (neo-feudalism)
READ THIS SCIENTIFIC REPORT ABOUT THE WTC COLLAPSES, BY PROF STEVEN JONES
by Professor Steven Jones
physics911. net /stevenjones.htm
Then look at all the movies at:
st911. org (top right hand of the home page)
No I am not spamming, I am just keeping this issue active and on the "Newest Ballots" list.... if you have seen this before, you need not comment, just ignore me or better still, look at these links and find out why this information is so important. Spread it around to everyone you know so they can make up their own mind. Try to DISPROVE the claims made in the videos or analytical reports. And of course, try to melt (liquify) steel or aluminium, or make solid concrete explode, in a normal kerosene fire, burning for as long as you like, as large as you like, using as much fuel as you like, until Kingdom come, if you like... Which none of you have been able to do!
^No thanks. Perhaps when I'm looking for a good laugh I will.
You have posted almost identical ballots on this and other subjects. Then you and your aliases vote spam them so they stay in rotation. Soon the totals will be overwhelmingly in favor of the conspiracy BS.
It is just more website promotion BS.
{The conspiracy theory that the U.S. government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks is the worst and most ridiculous conspiracy theory I have ever encountered.
by Jinn_the_Kafir on Thu Oct 05, 06 8:37am}
Then you haven't heard the REALLY STUPID AND RIDICULOUS conspiracy theory that "Arabs Did It With Boxcutters"
In it, we're expected to ignore basic facts;
Such as it's impossible to make cellphone calls from passenger planes flying at cruising altitude six miles up and flying at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation (technology which wasn't available prior to 2004 and is still in testing stage), and it's a FACT that cellphone calls from a vehicle moving at over 450mph (even if successfully make the handshake when flying at low altitude) will only last a few seconds since there is no time for the hand-off; the call will ALWAYS drop out in just a few seconds - minutes long cellphone calls are IMPOSSIBLE.
And ignore real facts, like that before and after Sept 11 2001 that no steel-framed hi-rise or tower-style buildings have ever collapsed straightdown at close to freefall speed into their own footprint - except with controlled demolitions, and that it is IMPOSSIBLE without a controlled demolition according to the laws of PHYSICS necause it would require the steel-framed hi-rise building to collapse THROUGH IT'S OWN STRUCTURE. That of course, is impossible without destroying all the steel supports.
The "Arabs Did It With Boxcutters" also want us to ignore logic which EVERYONE PLAINLY KNOWS, such as that it's impossible to have a symmetric collapsefrom assymetric damage. It makes absolutely NO RATIONAL SENSE in their silly claim that despite only SOME of the steel supports being damaged, and only SOME of the steel supports being exposed to fire, that ALL of the steel suports and box columns failed at exactly the same time, EVEN THE UNDAMAGED ONES! That's what I call an insane and silly idea!
The "Arabs Did It Wiht Boxcutters" maniacs want us to ignore that that NOBODY has ever successfully simulated the collapses of WTC 1, 2, & 7 without considering controlled demolition, and that means NOBODY. Not NIST, not, NOVA, Dr Eagar, FEMA, MIT, Bazant & Zhou, nor Dr Frank Green, nor anyone else. NOBODY has succeeded; those who have claimed to have done so, have ALWAYS been proven to be LIARS when their mathematical formula were checked.
They also want us to ignore the hundeds of witnesses to explosions at the WTC buildings, and that these witnesses claims are supported by video evidence showing long lines of EXPLOSIONS blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and ignore the TOO SHORT tremors which are SHORTER THAN THE COLLAPSE TIMES!
Until the "Arabs Did It With Boxcutters" loonies can cite a link, source, and quote from SOMEBODY, ANYBODY, whose mathematical simulation or computer simulation based on the EMPIRICAL DATA (without distortion, deviation, or bullshit fictions) PROVES that there was enough energy for a gravity-driven collapse, THEY HAVE NOTHING! And yes it is VERY IMPORTANT. If it wasn't important, then engineers wouldn't even bother trying.
{Soon the totals will be overwhelmingly in favor of the conspiracy BS.
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Thu Oct 05, 06 1:05pm}
No they won't be. Soon the vote totals will be overwhelmingly against the "Arabs Did It With Boxcutters".
The OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY = BULLSHIT
The US version of events is INSANE and you would want to be INSANE to beLIEve a word of it.
GET REAL BOZO'S
HEADS OUT OF THE SAND!
IT'S TIME FOR AN INDEFINITE REALITY CHECK!!!
NO WAY WOULD ANY PLANE GET NEAR THE PENTAGON IN PEACE TIME WITHOUT BEING BLOWN OFF THE FACE OF THE PLANET BEFORE GETTING WITHIN A THOUSAND MILES OF IT WITHOUT US GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT!
- AND THIS JUST AFTER TWO PLANES HAD HIT NEW YORK!!!
- YOU GUYS ARE DELUSIONAL BONKERS IF YOU BElieVE THAT!!!
^^^ US govern mental version I meant ^^^
"Until the "Arabs Did It With Boxcutters" loonies can cite a link, source, and quote from SOMEBODY, ANYBODY, whose mathematical simulation or computer simulation based on the EMPIRICAL DATA (without distortion, deviation, or bullshit fictions) PROVES that there was enough energy for a gravity-driven collapse, THEY HAVE NOTHING!"
Nothing accept solid, physical evidence backed up with video footage, eyewitness testimony and the work of thousands of researchers, scientists and investigators.
Having the cornerstone of your doubt resting on a mathematical is truly bizarre. Mathematical models have never been, or ever will be, proof of anything.
You wait for your model - the rest of us will be satisfied with the tangible physical evidence we already have. You know, stuff like plane wreckage and DNA identified remains of victims - that kind of thing.
lolloosechange. co. nr
And for some much needed balance you may want to check the following video link (it's in full on my user page).
It is a long, hard look at Loose Change.
"NO WAY WOULD ANY PLANE GET NEAR THE PENTAGON IN PEACE TIME WITHOUT BEING BLOWN OFF THE FACE OF THE PLANET BEFORE GETTING WITHIN A THOUSAND MILES OF IT WITHOUT US GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT!"
Yeah, no way!
Except those hundreds of planes landing a couple of miles away at Ronald Reagan International Airport.
Nonsensical claims are nothing but hand-waving exercises trying to divert our attenbtion away from the fact that there is no solid, physical evidence to back up ANY conspiracy theory claims.
Jeez you post some crap - you have to be on the hell train with the 'make it up as you go along nonsense' you and your fellow travellers are now reduced to posting - a sure sign we have you traitors on the run.
It's great to see you go down in flames like this.
The truth is a very powerful weapon my friend and it is knocking you senseless! lol!
Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. 34-year Air Force career.
"The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. …
With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged.
Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. …
As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history."
physics911. net/ george nelson.htm
'make it up as you go along nonsense'
So Ronald Reagan Airport is NOT a few miles from the Pentagon?
And if flight 93 didn't crash near Shanksville how did the remains of both aircraft and victims get there?
Sure what would you know you traitor? - you'll lie through your teeth and spread your bum cheeks for Bush - do anything in fact to cover for these false flag terrorists, you should be all over this website apologising to the families for all the lies you have posted here about them and their next of kin.
You should listen to men like American heroes like Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority with 34-year Air Force career you disgusting traitor -
Suck on this;
"The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view.
With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged.
Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged.
As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history."
physics911. net/george nelson.htm
Opinion, speculation, incredulity and ignorance are not proof of anything.
How do you and Col. Nelson propose that the plane wreckage and victims remains got there?
Your petulant tone, childish insults and blithe waving away of questions you can't answer speaks volumes about your integrity, honesty and ability to conduct a serious debate.
It's embarrassing.
loosechangeguide.com
"Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged."
oh look, one of your previous claims, before you decided it WAS the plane, and it was shot down. mind explaining how you can argue so many contradicting things at once?
nobody's buying it, murderer. you can't protect them.
KFD: "NO WAY WOULD ANY PLANE GET NEAR THE PENTAGON IN PEACE TIME WITHOUT BEING BLOWN OFF THE FACE OF THE PLANET BEFORE GETTING WITHIN A THOUSAND MILES OF IT WITHOUT US GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT!"
WHOK: "Except those hundreds of planes landing a couple of miles away at Ronald Reagan International Airport."
KFD: "Jeez you post some crap"
WHOK: "So Ronald Reagan Airport is NOT a few miles from the Pentagon?"
KFD: "Sure what would you know you traitor? - you'll lie through your teeth and spread your bum cheeks for Bush"
There you are ladies and gentlemen, intelligence in action.
Beware the arguing skills of KFD!!!
{keanu voice}
what are you trying to tell me? that i can dodge questions?
{/keanu voice}
although iguess for ken, this would be more appropriate:
{carrie-anne voice}
how did you do that? you move like they do.
{/carrie-annne voice}
Ken - you really are getting desperate. Sad.
Opinions are opinions, hearsay is hearsay, but you can't argue with physical science which requires facts and laws to be provable and testable in a lab. Just because you saw jet planes crash into buildings and those twin towers collapsed about 56 and 80 minutes later, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TWO EVENTS ARE RELATED, AND DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE FIRE CAUSED THE STEEL TO GO ALL SOFT OR MELT, DISPLAYING ZERO STRENGTH ALL OF A SUDDEN to allow free-fall accelerating collapses to occur (incidentally, perfectly symmetrically, requiring all core and perimeter supports needed simultaneous instant weakening as the sequential collapses progressed down each twin tower building)...
DOES EVERYONE AGREE ON THESE FOLLOWING MATERIAL PROPERTIES?
Melting point of Aluminium = 660 C
Burning temperature of a hydrocarbon fuel flame in still air = 233 C = Fahrenheit 451 F
Melting point of steel = 1530 C
Strength verses Temperature graph for Steel:
911research. com /wtc/analysis/fires/steel.html
(Remove spaces around the com )
Does anybody here disagree with the above Engineering Data?
Also remember that a metal or object heated up by an energy source (eg. like a flame), cannot get HOTTER than the temperature of its energy source. (2nd Law of Thermodynamics: Energy is neither created or destroyed in any closed system volume or process)... eg. a piece of metal exposed to a 250 C flame cannot get hotter than the 250 C flame temperature.
If you agree to the above, then try to create a kerosene fire or fuel-fed flame to melt aluminium (660 C) and get liquid drops appearing from solid aluminium. eg. at about 660 C, steel still has about HALF of its maximum strength.
Wolf and FiddleFaddle and Jinn, proponents and believers of the "Official" 9/11 story, believe it was hot fire that softened the steel in those WTC buildings (down to around 10% of their maximum strength at room temperature), therefore, causing all buildings to collapse due to having almost zero strength.
So I suggest you all go and try this and prove this with your own experiments. See if you can get flame temperatures higher than 660 C, by melting aluminium foil in a kerosene or petrol fire in still air. Then try that steel bridge experiment described in ballot:
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!
Then ask yourself: What created all that powdered concrete on 9/11? What was the source for the incredible heat needed to melt steel at over 1530 C, to create giant pools of molten metal found in the basements of all 3 WTC buildings which collapsed? Huge pools of red-hot metal simmering at temperatures around 800C - 1000 C+ for several WEEKS after 9/11 ???
How could all those solid engineering materials suddenly display ZERO STRENGTH after such a long delay period (over 56 minutes to 80 minutes since the jets hit them), if fires did not weaken the lower levels of steel columns and there was not fire damage on lower levels below where the planes hit?
How can 233C black smoke fires create this much damage?
Do you observe this much destruction to your steel or aluminium frying pans or cooking pots when you expose them to gas stove fires, or barbeque grill fires? Have you ever noticed your barbeque hot plates going all soft and weak even after an hour of being exposed to fire? Try to poke it hard with a metal spoon or sharp knife, and see if it flexes or appears very rubbery and weak.
Believe what you can prove in your own tests... and don't believe in hearsay and conjecture, or things that cannot be repeated or proven in scientific experiments.
oh look, another account. grow up, murderer
Suck on this too;
Barbara Honegger – Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, the Navy’s advanced science, technology and national security affairs university (1995 - present). White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant to President Ronald Reagan (1981-83).
"The US military, not al Qaeda, had the sustained access weeks before 9/11 to also plant controlled demolition charges throughout the superstructures of WTC 1 and WTC2, and in WTC7, which brought down all three buildings on 9/11. ... A US military plane, not one piloted by al Qaeda, performed the highly skilled, high speed 270 degree dive towards the Pentagon that Air Traffic Controllers on 9/11 were sure was a military plane as they watched it on their screens. Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the "Friendly" signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building. Only the US military, not al Qaeda, had the ability to break all of its Standard Operating Procedures to paralyze its own emergency response system."
blog.lege. net/content/ Seven_Hours_i n_September.pdf
MEANING OF THE TERM "AL QAEDA" IN ARABIC
Existence of "Al-Qaeda" Is Crap; Quite Literally
Did Osama really choose to name his terror network after potty humor or was it a computer database he used to chat with his CIA handlers?
The origins of the name "Al-Qaeda," and its real arabic connotations prove that every time the Bush administration, Fox News, or any individual who cites the threat of "Al-Qaeda," as a mandate for war and domestic authoritarianism, they are propagating the myth that such a group ever existed.
An organization by the name of "Al-Qaeda" does not exist and has never existed outside a falsely coined collective term for offshoot loose knit terror cells, the majority of which are guided by the Pakistani ISI, Mossad, the Saudis, MI6 and the CIA, that were created in response to America's actions after 9 11 - as the recent NIE report shows.
According to the BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares, the infamous footage of Bin Laden marching around with armed soldiers was a ruse on the part of Osama himself, graciously propagated by the lapdog press, in which actors were hired off the streets, given uniforms and guns and told to look aggressive.
Bin Laden only took on the Al-Qaeda mantle post- 9 11 after the U.S. government began parroting the term. The only error is the now debunked myth that 9 11 was carried out by "Al-Qaeda."
So if the group doesn't exist, where did the name come from?
You have heard before that "Al-Qaeda" roughly translates into "the base," but were you aware that "Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is arabic colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet"?
Would hardened terrorists hell bent on the destruction of the west name their organization after a euphemism for taking a shit?
The truth about where the name "Al-Qaeda" originated explains why no would-be fundamentalist suicide martyr could have been involved in its creation.
Former Leader of the House of Commons Robin Cook, who admirably resigned in protest of the 2003 Iraq invasion, penned a piece in the London Guardian shortly before his death that shed light on the true genesis of the name.
"Al-Qaida," states Cook, "literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."
Former French Military Intelligence official Pierre Henry Bunel expands, noting that "Al-Qaeda," was an early form of intranet, which was used by Islamic nations and influential families to communicate with each other. It was also used by the "American agent," Osama bin Laden to send coded or covert messages back to his CIA handlers from Afghanistan.
It's worthy to conclude with Bunel's assertion that "Al-Qaeda" as an organization is about as genuine as George W. Bush's Texas brush clearing cowboy image.
"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money."
That last article was copied from prisonplanet . com , written by Paul Joseph Watson.
The 'Power of Nightmares' didn't for one minute say that the group surrounding Osama Bin Laden didn't exist, just that the name of the group was made up and it's global reach overhyped. Try watching it again(I doubt you've even seen it)
The name 'Al Qeada' was coined during the 1998 indictment case against Bin Laden, under the Bill Clinton administration, for which they used existing laws which had previously been used against mafia organisations. Which of course meant that they had to have a name for Osamas "organisation".
It's just a name, and anyone with half a brain would realise that Islamic Wahabist Fundamentalism does exist.
"Bin Laden only took on the Al-Qaeda mantle post- 9 11 after the U.S."
isn't that funny. you said he was long dead by that time...
"Your petulant tone, childish insults and blithe waving away of questions you can't answer speaks volumes about your integrity, honesty and ability to conduct a serious debate.
It's embarrassing.
by wideheadofknowledge "
Couldn't have said it better.
"it's impossible to make cellphone calls from passenger planes flying at cruising altitude six miles up and flying at over 450mph without an onboard cellular basestation (technology which wasn't available prior to 2004 and is still in testing stage), and it's a FACT that cellphone calls from a vehicle moving at over 450mph (even if successfully make the handshake when flying at low altitude) will only last a few seconds since there is no time for the hand-off; the call will ALWAYS drop out in just a few seconds - minutes long cellphone calls are IMPOSSIBLE."
by Loveleynice.
So What? What does this have to does with 9/11? Nothing.
"Burning temperature of a hydrocarbon fuel flame in still air = 233 C = Fahrenheit 451 F"
So a bunsen burner that is using a hydrocarbon gas does so at the same temperature on with its air hole closed (yellow flame) and open (blue flame)?
Being selective with the data is not impressing anyone.
Methane/air 1,920-1,949 C
Butane/air 1,977 C
Propane/air 1,977 C
Wood/air ~1977 C
Hydrogen/air 2,210 C
Acetylene/air 2,632 C
Oops. Google flame temperatures.
And don't forget any wooden items that caught fire (like a desk) would have been burning at around 1700 C
Lovelynice, you may wish to have a look at the flight 93 cockpit transcript, released after the Moussaoui trial. 10 minutes after the plane is hijacked, and a good 15 minutes before it crashed, the pilots are heard saying "down, down, down" followed shortly by "seven thousand".
Proof, that the plane was not at 35,000 all the time, and proof that phonecalls could have been made.
i . a . cnn . net / cnn / 2006 / images / 04 / 12 / flight93 . transcript . pdf
"Why have most Americans just GONE WITH THE FLOW AND ALLOWED THIS DICTATOR TO GET AWAY WITH DESTROYING THE US CONSTITUTION AND LEGALIZING TORTURE AND INCARCERATION WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OR WARRANT OR FAIR TRIAL?"
careful, ken, stick to the smokescreen. you're supposed to keep away from the real stuff, remember? they'll have your badge if you start straying from the script.
"Proof, that the plane was not at 35,000 all the time, and proof that phonecalls could have been made."
ha! i knew there was something theywere manipulating. every fucking time, they adjust one thing to fit their impossible claims. like the whole manipulated timer on the south tower collapse. 12 seconds starting 2 seconds after the collapse starts, ending halfway through it. i saw a thing on the news a couple days ago about an actual demolition of an average sized office building, and they said it took 20 seconds to collapse, and the collapse pattern was completely different. but then again, he'll make some bullshit claim about them being demolition explosions (which don't exist).
these are concious manipulations, they know they're wrong.they don't believe it themselves, they're working for bush, trying to throw us off the scent.
Message to Mr wide-head-of-wrong-knowledge:
If you really are sure those temperatures are CORRECT, then try the little experiments below and believe the results of your own tests.
Try to MELT Aluminium foil (you will get liquid drops at 660 C or higher) in a fire, or even a wood fire...
>> And you data on flame temperatures in still air are also WRONG becaues you have zero hands-on engineering experience with molten metals, don't you?
Your data for burning in STILL AIR:
Methane/air 1,920-1,949 C
WRONG!
Butane/air 1,977 C
WRONG!
Propane/air 1,977 C
WRONG! That is why propane gas furnaces can barely melt Aluminium and Copper, but NOT steel (with a melting point at 1530 C)
Wood/air ~1977 C
WRONG! The melting point of steel is 1530 C, so this means that all our barbeque grills and steel pots and frying pans should all be turning into white hot pools of liquid! How ABSURD!
Hydrogen/air 2,210 C
WRONG! NOT CORRECT FOR STILL AIR!
Depends on the quantity of hydrogen and oxygen (flowrate and pressure) of gases available to the reaction.
Acetylene/air 2,632 C
WRONG! AGAIN, STILL AIR DOES NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH OXYGEN TO GET TEMPERATURES THAT HIGH!
Look, I am an engineer and a scientist who teaches at one of Australia's best practical Universities. I hold an Honours degree in Engineering and a PhD (Doctorate) too in Engineering, so I know a lot more than most people about material properties. I teach engineering material properties, design against failure (von Mises, combined loading) and design for manufacture including topics relating to foundry practice, sand casting and investment casting design and metal pouring and practice! I use these technologies as a practicing engineer and product designer almost every year, and I have operated induction furnaces and poured molten iron and molten aluminium liquid at those temperatures:
1600 C for molten iron.
660 C for molten aluminium.
Go to any foundry or look up any engineering materials handbook (published before 9/11) and look up the melting points of these metals.
I even studied metallurgy and mass spectroscopy analysis, and I have plenty of hands on experience with oxyacetylene (C2H2) flame cutting and welding of steel structures. True, oxy-acetylene torches can achieve temperatures above 3200C, to slice through steel easily, but this requires high pressure compressed oxygen being forced to feed the flame at about 150+ kPa absolute pressure, along with the C2H2 gas.
None of those flame temperatures you mentioned are correct for still air, but they could be true for very high velocity air flowrates, not normally found in the type of air that we breathe... simply because there is simply NOT enough oxygen to sustain a high combustion rate.
Try it! Have a go at melting aluminium foil in a still air fire! Or try to melt a steel spoon or knife in a still air fire! Or turn your metal aluminium or steel frying pan into a super-hot puddle of liquid, using a still air flame... Even use an electric fan to feed in more oxygen to get the fires as hot as possible, and see if you can melt aluminium or steel!
Your figures are incorrect for normal 101.3 kPa air fires, because there is only about 19% oxygen by mass (80% Nitrogen & 1% trace gases) in the air that we breathe. The minimum temperature required for combustion of a fire is around 233 C (eg. for cellulose or paper/wood fires) = Fahrenheit 451 F = 233 C... fuel fires burn at around 250 C typically in still air. In strong winds, you might get temperatures approaching 400-600 C, but rarely do you ever see even Aluminium or glass melt in a fire.
Your data is incorrect for normal air fires. Get some practical experience with engineering materials and fire temperature testing!
Even at those ridiculously high temperatures, have you ever seen solid concrete explode into fine powder?
Don't believe me? Then go to any University or Materials testing lab and use a temperature sensor to measure flame temperatures in air. The temperature of the flame depends on combustion rate, or how much fuel can react with available oxygen to create byproducts CO, CO2, H2, HEAT and /or water. The key ingredient for a fire is oxygen. If there is not enough oxygen, the fire gives off black smoke (unburnt hydrocarbon fuel evaporating with the smoke), because carbon is black, like soot, and this indicates a cold flame, usually under 300 C, depending on the wind speed.
Read ballot 102585
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! give it up, ken, you're not fooling anyone.
Blackcat - of course my temperatures are the maximum possible given the correct conditions.
My point is that to imply that the temperatures could nevber have been high enough is erroneous, underhanded and demonstrably wrong.
Twisting facts to fit your agenda is not science - it's lying.
Whoever said the steel in the WTC buildings melted before they collapsed? That is not stated in the 9/11 commission reports. Not once! The engineers and scientists that contributed their findings to the 9/11 commission report never stated that the steel in the WTC buildings melted prior to the buildings collapsing. Not once, not ever.
So why do the tinfoil hat conspiracy quacks continue talking about melting steel???? Because it is dishonest subliminal deception, that's why.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary;
The word "Melt"
1: to become altered from a solid to a liquid state usually by heat, to reduce from a solid to a liquid state usually by heat.
2 a: DISSOLVE, DISINTEGRATE; the sugar melted in the coffee. b : to disappear as if by dissolving.
good question jinn. maybe you can explain why you do THE EXACT SAME THING when you're trying to justify your bigotry against muslims.
hypocrite
"How can 233C black smoke fires create this much damage?"
Strawman. Ignores the ctatstrophic damage done by the impact AND the fact that other combustible materials were present.
Just out of interest does anyone remember the burning Kuwaiti oil fields in the Gulf War? I seem to remember thick black smoke and those fires weren't oxygen starved. Now let's be clear - I am not suggesting that there was crude oil in the twin towers but I am pointing out that black smoke isn't always a sign of oxygen starvation.
Not quite so clear cut when you apply logic is it?
I AM TALKING TO A BUNCH OF INEXPERIENCED NON-TECHNICAL PEOPLE HERE...
>>Whoever said the steel in the WTC buildings melted before they collapsed? That is not stated in the 9/11 commission reports. Not once!
Exactly!!! The 9/11 Commission was run by prominent "oil industry" people hand-picked by Bush, who like the idea of invading other countries to steal their oil. They deliberately ignored eyewitness and firefighter's testimonies about multiple explosions going off. They ignored the obvious fact that normal air fires cannot weaken structural steel significantly... PLUS the 9/11 Commission did not include any details about huge POOLS OF ONCE MOLTEN LIQUID METAL found simmering at red-hot temperatures (well above 800 to 1100 C) in all the basements of the 3 WTC buildings that collapsed on 9/11... To get molten metal, you need temperatures of those metals exceeding 1530 C at some point in the past to cause large steel beams to change from solid into large POOLS of molten iron liquid...
This is documented on videos at ground zero! Even several days and even SEVERAL WEEKS after 9/11, you SEE RAGING INFERNOS of fire coming out from the basements, you SEE super-hot steam shooting out of the Ground Zero rubble, and even the rubber/plastic boots of clean-up crew workers were melting from the intense heat. NASA planes that flew over Ground Zero a few days after 9/11 measured hot-spots ranging from about 800 C to 1100+ C around the Ground Zero site, and that was SEVERAL DAYS after 9/11 ! Engineering materials simply cannot get this hot from normal fires... you can prove this to yourself by trying to melt aluminium, or by exceeding its 660 C melting point with any kind of air fire that you like. There is simply not enough oxygen in air to get temperatures much hotter than 600 C, and 250 C is the typical temperature in still air fires.
>>The engineers and scientists that contributed their findings to the 9/11 commission report never stated that the steel in the WTC buildings melted prior to the buildings collapsing. Not once, not ever.
EXACTLY! THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED THE "9/11 OMISSION REPORT"
The people who wrote that report are friendly to Bush and the oil corporations that want Wars in the Middle East, just to steal their oil (eg. Exxon, Chevron Texaco, BP, etc)... The 9/11 Commission was a huge cover-up operation and they DID NOT ATTEMPT ANY SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE WTC BUILDING COLLAPSES...
The proof of molten metal found in the basements of those 3 WTC buildings is UNDENIABLE... it's all there in the videos and you will see huge amounts of steam being generated as firefighters pumped in huge amounts of water to try to cool all that molten metal. Metal simply cannot stay that hot FOR SEVERAL WEEKS after a normal fire, because those jet fuel fires did not last very long anyway... eg. for the South Tower, most of the jet fuel was ignited or burned outside the WTC building (hence, the HUGE fireball outside)... so how on Earth could fire, which normally burns at around 250 C, reach temperatures above 1530 C to create molten metal?
The North Tower stood for about 1 hour 20 minutes (?), and was hit first. The South Tower was hit 2nd and stood for about 56 minutes but it collapsed fist, even though most of the jet fuel exploded outside the building, since the plane hit it near a corner of the building.
HOW ON EARTH CAN AIR FIRES CAUSE CONCRETE TO EXPLODE INTO LARGE HORIZONTAL CLOUDS OF FINE POWDER ABOUT AN HOUR OR MORE AFTER THE JET IMPACTS? ... even BEFORE the buildings started to move downwards in a sequential collapse?
Watch the 9/11 Mysteries video before you answer, and understand what I am talking about before you comment.
st911 . org
(Watch the 3 movies in the top right part of this website, remove the spaces around the . )
Watch 9/11 Mysteries... it's a must see video, better than Looes Change 2 !!!
On the videos, you will see molten (liquid) yellow and white-hot iron pouring out of the South Tower, just before it collaped (starting with several huge explosions)... How can FIRE create molten metal? Have you ever see your barbeque grills, hotplates, steel frying pans or cooking pots turn into puddles of white hot liquid after exposure to fire? What you see in those videos is molten iron being created from a different heat source... Thermite can easily produce temperatures above 2000 C, quickly melting steel usually on a sharp angle to the vertical, so when it is weak enough and blasted, the building can slide sidewards and down diagonally, to allow free-fall collapses to occur.
Engineering materials do not have the intelligence to change their strength levels at all! They displayed full strength for about an hour or more, without any movement, so why, all of a sudden, do they have to display ZERO STRENGTH?
Plus, don't forget, those Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2) stood standing for a very long time, about 56 minutes and 80 (?) minutes before their collapses. They stood straight, stable and very strong, as proven on all the news videos.
Then, all of a sudden, all the solid materials in the floors below their impact zones displayed ZERO STRENGTH , as if they did not exist or were not able to provide any support strength to slow down the falls. The buildings collapsed vertically downward, doing minimal damage to neighbouring buildings, essentail COLLAPSING at accelerating free-fall speeds INWARDS INTO ITSELF AS IF NONE OF THE 78+ LOWER FLOORS HAD ANY STRENGTH AT ALL... So why did none of the lower floors have any strength all of a sudden? What made all the unaffected, unburned steel and concrete on the lower levels say to themselves: "FUKC IT!!! Let's just collapse for no reason right down to the ground levels and also take down this HUGE SUPER STRONG central steel core with us too, RIGHT DOWN TO THE GROUND FLOORS, and leave behind a huge pool of molten metal that will sit around for several weeks."
Look carefully at the collapse videos. You will see large horizontal clouds appear at lower levels FAR BELOW where the upper falling materials appear... ie. the videos show levels that are collapsing FASTER than the fall of gravity, because fall objects above the demolition wave (blowing up several floors about 10 floors at a time, sequentially going down each tower)... all falling objects above have not yet even CAUGHT UP or dropped down to the same levels as the lower floors that are EXPLODING sideways into large clouds of concrete powder. The destruction of the lower floors of the WTC Twin Towers was actually FASTER than falling objects, so that the entire building could drop quickly at free-fall speeds (around 10 seconds)... offering not enough time for a pancaking effect to occur. IF THE PANCAKING CHAIN-REACTION WAS TRUE, the floor-by-floor collapse cycle of one floor hitting another that is starting at rest, to build up speed so it can hit the lower floor, and so forth, would take about 1 second to occur, for each floor... so 78 levels below the impact zone of the plane should have caused the collapse to occur in over 1 minute, say, 78 seconds. So why did this all take only 10 seconds? Almost FREE-FALL speeds, as if the lower materials were not even standing in the way to slow down the collapse sequence? It is as if all the lower materials HAD ZERO STRENGTH TO PROVIDE ZERO SUPPORT to the falling materials above!
Why? Now ask yourself... Where are the pancakes? Where are the SOLID slabs of concrete floors which should appear stacked one on top of each other? What happened to ALL the solid concrete in those WTC buildings? How did they all just turn to powder, if each floor is like a SOLID ROCK???
Look at the HUGE clouds of concrete powder chasing people down the streets, and blanketing almost the entire area in New York, for several city blocks!!! Almost all of the solid concrete of those WTC buildings got converted into fine powder! No big giant boulders or huge solid slabs of floors at all! Just powder that had to be scooped up in buckets!
Now I guarantee you, if you dropped a giant piece of concrete from off the top of a highrise building, it would NOT convert into fine powder (as it is falling) and it would NOT all convert into pulverised fine talcum powder when it lands on the hard pavement below... It will break up into small chunky boulders or solid pieces and scatter everywhere, due to big cracks... Why ? Because the tensile yield strength of concrete is about 27 to 42 Mega Pascals (MPa), well over 4000 psi (pounds per square inch), so even an impact with the ground just from gravity alone would not create that much powder, hardly any! WHERE ARE THE BIG BOULDERS AND CRACKED PORTIONS OF FLOORS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMAINING IN A LARGE PILE OF PANCAKED FLOORS? HOW DID ALL THAT SOLID CONCRETE ALL GET PULVERISED DURING WHILE FALLING DOWNWARDS THROUGH AIR, AND HOW ON EARTH DID IT ALL TURN INTO FINE POWDER?
The only logical explanation is: TIMED EXPLOSIVES that were pre-planted in those buildings, before the planes hit... You see, the planes were just a diversion, a red herring, to make people believe that the plane impacts actually caused the buildings to collapse...
Also, the WTC 7 building was not hit by any plane, but why did it collapse about 6-7 hours after the Twin Towers? How can a 47 storey steel & concrete sky-scraper, bigger than MOST HIGHRISE BUILDINGS IN MOST CITIES, all collapse vertically INTO ITSELF (without damaging nearby buildings), DISPLAYING NO STRENGTH AT ALL DUE TO FREE-FALL 6.5 sec COLLAPES... just because of fire? And why would the WTC Lease Owner, Larry Silverstein agree that this was a controlled demoltion by saying "maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it... and then we watched the building collapse"... to the NYFD fire chief.... "PULL" is a controlled demolition industry slang term for demolish using explosives and steel cutting charges (like thermite, used to melt the steel)...
Don't forget that physics Professor Steven Jones (Brigham Young University), found chemical residue of thermite used to cut the structural steel of the WTC buildings, after analysing WTC steel samples.
The mass media and the war profiteering elite who organized these vicious, evil mass murders of innocent civilians, do not have the right to rewrite the laws of physics and engineering materials... they do not have the right to change the burning temperatures of fire or claim that steel buildings can collapse symmetrically due right down to their ground floors, after about an hour delay period, due to small fires.
If it was THIS EASY to completely destroy modern high-rise steel buildings, THEN WHY DO THE CONTROLLED DEMOLTION ENGINEERS GO TO ALL THE TROUBLE OF USING THERMITE (TO CUT STEEL BEAMS QUICKLY) AND INSTALLING HUGE EXPLOSIVES... TO BRING DOWN HUGE BUILDINGS???
WHY DON'T CONTROLLED DEMOLITION CREWS SIMPLY USE KEROSENE OR AVIATION FUEL TO COLLAPSE GIANT BUILDINGS RIGHT DOWN TO THEIR GROUND LEVELS? Could it have something to do with the fact that NO steel & concrete building has ever collapsed into itself due to fire before September 11, and not even one since then? Ever? NEVER AT ALL IN HISTORY? (except for September 11???) Name me just ONE steel building that has completely collapse due to fire in the past, except for the 3 that collapse on 9/11... JUST NAME ONE!
Watch 9/11 Mysteries... it's a must see video, better than Loose Change 2 !!!
On the videos, you will see molten (liquid) yellow and white-hot iron pouring out of the South Tower, just before it collaped (starting with several huge explosions)... How can FIRE create molten metal? Have you ever see your barbeque grills, hotplates, steel frying pans or cooking pots turn into puddles of white hot liquid after exposure to fire? What you see in those videos is molten iron being created from a different heat source other than fire, because fire in still air could never exceed the melting point of steel (1530 C) due to the lack of available oxygen... Thermite can easily produce temperatures above 2000 C, quickly melting steel usually on a sharp angle to the vertical, so when it is weak enough and blasted, the building can slide sidewards and down diagonally, to allow free-fall collapses to occur. Look at the photos of steel beams of Ground Zero. Many of them APPEAR SLICED AT 45 TO 60 DEGREE ANGLES to the vertical, with black molten metal appearing at their straight cut edges, indicating a super hot melting process was used to slice those beams (very typical of thermite cutting charges, used to melt steel quickly, so the upper steel can slide down and sideways, in a diagonal manner), while explosives are used to blast away the columns and any concrete.
Engineering materials do not have the intelligence to change their strength levels at all! They displayed full strength for about an hour or more after the plane impacts, without any movement, so why, all of a sudden, do they have to display ZERO STRENGTH? What triggered or started the collapses? Could it have something to do with the rapid BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM explosions heard on amateur videos and in the horizontal puffs of explosions appear well below the falling wave of collapsing debris, as shown on all the collapse videos? Several Police and Firemen describe seeing and hearing the same things, before the collapses... Are they conspiracy theorist tinfoil hat people too?
Plus, don't forget, those Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2) stood standing for a very long time, about 56 minutes and 80 (?) minutes before their collapses. They stood straight, stable and very strong, as proven on all the news videos.
Then, all of a sudden, all the solid materials in the floors below their impact zones displayed ZERO STRENGTH , as if they did not exist or were not able to provide any support or strength to slow down the falls. Each building collapsed vertically downward, doing minimal damage to neighbouring buildings, essentally COLLAPSING at accelerating free-fall speeds INWARDS INTO ITSELF AS IF NONE OF THE 78+ LOWER FLOORS HAD ANY STRENGTH AT ALL... So why did none of the lower floors have any strength all of a sudden? What made all the unaffected, unburned steel and concrete on the lower levels say to themselves: "Let's just collapse for no reason right down to the ground levels and also take down this HUGE SUPER STRONG central steel core with us too, RIGHT DOWN TO THE GROUND FLOORS, and leave behind a huge pool of molten metal that will sit around for several weeks." How did all that molten metal found in the basements get so hot, and sit around at red-hot temperatures over 700 to 1100 C for several weeks???
Look carefully at the collapse videos. You will see large horizontal explosive clouds appear at lower levels FAR BELOW where the upper falling materials appear... ie. the videos show levels that are collapsing FASTER than the fall of gravity, because you see falling objects still far above the demolition wave (blowing up several floors about 10 floors at a time, sequentially going down each tower)... even the falling objects from higher floors above have not yet even CAUGHT UP or dropped down to the same levels as the lower floors that are EXPLODING sideways into large clouds of concrete powder. The destruction of the lower floors of the WTC Twin Towers was actually FASTER than falling objects, so that the entire building could drop quickly at free-fall speeds (around 10 seconds)... offering not enough time for a pancaking effect to occur. IF THE PANCAKING CHAIN-REACTION WAS TRUE, the floor-by-floor collapse cycle of one floor hitting the one below that is starting at rest, to build up speed so it can hit the lower floor, and so forth, would take about 1 second to occur, for each floor... so 78 levels below the impact zone of the plane should have caused the collapse to occur in over 1 minute, about 78 seconds. So why did the complete collapse take only 10 seconds? Almost FREE-FALL speeds, as if the lower materials were not even standing in the way to slow down the collapse sequence? It is as if all the lower materials HAD ZERO STRENGTH TO PROVIDE ZERO SUPPORT to the falling materials above!
Why? Now ask yourself... Where are the pancakes? Where are the SOLID slabs of concrete floors which should appear stacked one on top of each other? What happened to ALL the solid concrete in those WTC buildings? How did they all just turn to powder, if each floor is like a SOLID ROCK???
Look at the HUGE clouds of concrete powder chasing people down the streets, and blanketing almost the entire area in New York, for several city blocks!!! Almost all of the solid concrete of those WTC buildings got converted into fine powder that had to be scooped up in buckets! Not many big giant boulders or huge solid slabs of floors at all! Just powder that had to be scooped up in buckets!
Now I guarantee you, if you dropped a giant piece of concrete from off the top of a highrise building, it would NOT convert into fine powder (as it is falling) and it would NOT all convert into pulverised fine talcum powder when it lands on the hard pavement below... It will break up into small chunky boulders or solid pieces and scatter everywhere, due to big cracks... Why ? Because the tensile yield strength of concrete is about 27 to 42 Mega Pascals (MPa), well over 4000 psi (pounds per square inch), so even an impact with the ground just from gravity alone would not create that much powder, hardly any! WHERE ARE THE BIG BOULDERS AND CRACKED PORTIONS OF FLOORS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMAINING IN A LARGE PILE OF PANCAKED FLOORS? HOW DID ALL THAT SOLID CONCRETE ALL GET PULVERISED WHILE FALLING DOWNWARDS THROUGH AIR, AND HOW ON EARTH DID IT ALL TURN INTO FINE POWDER?
The only logical explanation is: TIMED EXPLOSIVES that were pre-planted in those buildings, before the planes hit... You see, the planes were just a diversion, a red herring, to make people believe that the plane impacts actually caused the buildings to collapse... Controlled demolition experts started the downward sequence of floor-by-floor explosive events starting at the floors that were hit by the jet planes. The planes were just distractions, used to FOOL YOU into thinking that they can demolish buildings. Big jet planes are made of fairly soft aluminium, but steel is more than 3 times STRONGER and harder than aluminium.
Also, the WTC 7 building was not hit by any plane, but why did it collapse about 6-7 hours after the Twin Towers? How can a 47 storey steel & concrete sky-scraper, bigger than MOST HIGHRISE BUILDINGS IN MOST CITIES, all collapse vertically INTO ITSELF (without damaging nearby buildings), DISPLAYING NO STRENGTH AT ALL DUE TO FREE-FALL 6.5 sec COLLAPES... just because of fire? And why would the WTC Lease Owner, Larry Silverstein agree that this was a controlled demoltion by saying "maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it... and then we watched the building collapse"... to the NYFD fire chief.... "PULL" is a controlled demolition industry slang term for demolish using explosives and steel cutting charges (like thermite, used to melt the steel)... Watch the DVD video: 9/11 In Plane Sight.
Don't forget that physics Professor Steven Jones (Brigham Young University), found chemical residue of thermite used to cut the structural steel of the WTC buildings, after analysing WTC steel samples. After detailed analysis with all types of instruments, he concluded that the residue on the WTC Steel samples he examined shows that "thermate" was used to quickly slice steel beams.
The mass media and the war profiteering elite who organized these vicious, evil mass murders of innocent civilians, do not have the right to rewrite the laws of physics and engineering materials... they do not have the right to change the burning temperatures of fire in air or claim that steel buildings can collapse symmetrically due right down to their ground floors, after about an hour delay period, due to small fires.
If it was THIS EASY to completely destroy modern high-rise steel buildings, THEN WHY DO THE CONTROLLED DEMOLTION ENGINEERS GO TO ALL THE TROUBLE OF USING THERMITE (TO CUT STEEL BEAMS QUICKLY) AND TAKE A LONG TIME TO INSTALL HUGE EXPLOSIVES... TO BRING DOWN HUGE BUILDINGS PERFECTLY IN AN EVEN, VERTICAL COLLAPSE INTO THEIR OWN FOUNDATION FOOTPRINTS? Why can't they can fill up one level with some fuel and light it up, wait an hour, and watch all the concrete and steel beams collapse like they have no strength?
WHY DON'T CONTROLLED DEMOLITION CREWS SIMPLY USE KEROSENE OR AVIATION FUEL TO COLLAPSE GIANT BUILDINGS RIGHT DOWN TO THEIR GROUND LEVELS? Could it have something to do with the fact that NO steel & concrete building has ever collapsed into itself due to fire before September 11, and not even one since then? Ever? NEVER AT ALL IN HISTORY? (except for September 11???) Name me just ONE steel building that has completely collapsed due to fire in the past, except for the 3 that collapse on 9/11 (the first ones that allegedly collapsed due to fire in ALL RECORDED BUILDING FIRE HISTORY)... JUST NAME ONE other steel highrise building that had collapsed due to fire!
>>Blackcat - of course my temperatures are the maximum possible given the correct conditions.
NO MATE, YOUR TEMPERATURES ARE ALL WRONG FOR FIRE BURNING IN AIR... DEAD WRONG...
Don't believe me! Test it for yourself and try to melt steel or aluminium in an air fire! Try to get liquid white-hot molten steel in a wood fire!
>>My point is that to imply that the temperatures could nevber have been high enough is erroneous, underhanded and demonstrably wrong.
SO PROVE IT! TRY TO MELT ALUMINIUM FOIL OR STEEL IN AN AIR FIRE! DO THIS AT YOUR NEXT BARBEQUE OR USE YOUR OWN GAS STOVE FLAMES...
>>Twisting facts to fit your agenda is not science - it's lying.
What do I have to gain by twisting facts??? I am not being paid to promote lies, unlike the mass media and the war mongers and fear mongers in power today... I am merely trying to UNBRAINWASH people, helping them to start thinking for themselves and thinking on facts, rather than fiction.
Do yourself a favour and watch the 9/11 Mysteries video, or you will not have a clue about anything I have mentioned. There is just TOO MUCH SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE available that proves the official 9/11 stories all false... even the crash sites of Flight 77 (which supposedly hit the Pentagon) and the crash site of Flight 93, do not show any large air craft components like giant wings, big jet engines, fuselages, passenger bodies, luggage, NOTHING! ZILCH! NADA!
There is ZERO physical evidence supporting the official 9/11 stories, including the claims that 19 Arab hijackers took over 4 planes... about 6 or 7 of whom are still alive today, insisting on their innocence and claiming that they had NOTHING to do with 9/11 !
But I prefer to stick with hard scientific evidence, like engineering material properties and free-fall collapses of solids (due to gravity), because I teach this stuff to mechanical engineering and manufacturing students at University.
Don't trust anything I say, but prove things to yourself and believe what you observe in experiments. Now go and try to melt steel in fire, and try to make solid concrete explode in fire. Don't be afraid! Make the fire as big as you like, and burn it for as long as you like (but be careful and be ready to extinguish the fire with a shovel and plenty of sand, or kitty litter, or some kind of big flat board that can suffocate the fire by covering it completely)...
Run the tests I mentioned above.
MUST READ THIS: LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE OF RED-HOT MOLTEN METAL IN THE BASEMENTS OF THE 3 WTC BUILDINGS, BURNING AT TEMPERATURES WELL OVER 700 C, UP TO 6 WEEKS AFTER 9/11 !!!!
Look at the red-hot molten core of melted steel beneath the rubble of the 3 WTC buildings... look at the photos and videos...
Remove all the spaces in the following link, the copy and past it and enjoy this detailed peer-reviewed scientific paper.
You will need Adobe PDF Reader to view this file (get it from adobe . com for free)
scholarsfor911truth. org / Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse . pdf
nobody's buying it, murderer.
Please, anyone, everyone, whoever.
Google flame temperatures.
Don't take my word for it - find the information yourselves.
For example: blackcat states that fires burn at 250 C. This is actually lower than the ignition temperature of most wood. Forest fires can reach around 1000 C.
Blackcat is being highly selective with the truth.
wide, why are you talking as if this new character is not ken?
The Google and Wikipedia fuel fire temperatures are obviously incorrect, because temperature all depends on COMBUSTION RATE, or how much oxygen is available to react with available fuel to create a lower energy state + Heat + by products of the reaction. Your flame temperatures are OBVIOUSLY WRONG if you cannot even melt aluminium (melting point 660 C) in air fire or even with your gas stove flames. Low oxygen = low heat. It's that simple!
Fuel-fed Fires burning in air (especially black smoke fires) burn at around 250 C. Even paper fires (wood or cellulose fuel) burn at Fahrenheit 451 F = 233 C. Why? Because these kinds of fires are oxygen starved. There is not enough oxygen in the air we breathe at 101.3 kPa air pressure (standard 1 atmosphere) to get very hot combustion rates with fuel, since oxygen by mass make up only 19% of the air we breathe (the rest is 80% Nitrogen and about 1% Helium and other trace gases).
Try this yourself! Try to even exceed the melting point of Aluminium (660 C) by trying to get liquid molten aluminium from some Aluminium foil or aluminium solid placed over a fire, like a barbeque fire, gas stove flames, kerosene fire, wood fire or candle fire, burning in air! See what happens! Make a fire as big as you like, burning for as long as you like, in normal air.
So how could large pools of formerly molten metal, still sizzling orange hot ( 940 C), ranging from 800 C to 1100 C, be found in the basements of all the 3 WTC buildings that collapsed on 9/11... staying this hot for over 6 WEEKS AFTER THE COLLAPSES? This hot WTC metal was formed from the melting of solid steel beams and columns, which at one time in the past, would have exceeded 1530 C (the melting point of steel), so how could air fires from jet fuel (most of which exploded in that giant initial fireballs, igniting outside the South Tower after impact)... produce so much heat, when it is known that flames only burn typically between 250 C to 400 C in air fuel fires? (depending on wind strength and the amount of oxygen feeding the fires)
Then you have the problem of explaining how fire could make so much solid concrete explode and convert into giant clouds of fine powder, even before hitting the ground during the free-fall collapses of the twin towers!???
How can so much solid super-strong engineering materials go from full strength to zero strength all of a sudden, especially in the lower levels below where the jet planes hit, which were not affected by any heat? These buildings stood standing strong for over 56 minutes after the fires started!!! Think about it...
And how could that 47-story skyscraper, WTC 7, all collapse at free-fall speeds about 7 hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, when it only suffered 2 small fires and was not hit by any plane at all?
These are FACTS that cannot be denied!!!
st911 . org
physics911 . net
Don't forget, I am a PhD qualified engineer and Engineering materials expert, with an Honours degree in Mechanical Engineering, just as qualified as any of those scientists you quote, who support the original mass media version of 9/11. I am not willing to reveal my identity publicly because my own superiors at my University have told me to avoid publicizing this information, because they don't want any scandal and they don't want me to be charged with sedition or investigations into my claims. But to hell with that! People are DYING because of the huge 9/11 lies and this War for Profit SCAM!!!
Go ahead and look up the melting point temperatures of Aluminium and Steel in any engineering materials handbook. Then try to create molten steel or aluminium in open air, using your own tests. Go head!
Then try to make solid concrete explode using only air fire.
Look, I started this Thread/Ballot... Ken from Dublin is a different person who doesn't talk about engineering or physics as much as me, even LovelyNice is another different person who has a totally different writing style... why are you imagining that I am pretending to be all these characters? I don't have to LOG IN to pretend to be different characters, just to get my message across...
And why are you calling me a murderer, when all I am doing is presenting you real scientific facts, and opportunities to do your own flame tests, to see if air fire can melt aluminium, reaching temperatures at over 660 C?
Try it! Try to get liquid aluminium from putting aluminium fire over your gas stove flames! Don't believe me, believe what you see, and check the melting point temperature of aluminium in any engineering textbook... then ask... how can steel temperatures of 800 C to 1100 C be measured for the huge pools of formerly molten metal found in the basements of all WTC buildings? How could steel reach over 1530 C and melt to form those huge deposits of orange hot metal that were sitting under the rubble at those high temperatures FOR OVER 6 WEEKS!??? How? Knowing that fire temperatures typically only range from 250 C to 400 C, rarely 600 C... and knowing that most, if not all, the jet fuel was burned up in the initial fireballs at impact, or before the WTC collapses started?
Answer these questions if you can.
Look at the red-hot molten core of melted steel beneath the rubble of the 3 WTC buildings... look at the photos and videos...
Remove all the spaces in the following link, the copy and past it and enjoy this detailed peer-reviewed scientific paper.
You will need Adobe PDF Reader to view this file (get it from adobe . com for free)
scholarsfor911truth. org / Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse . pdf
I repeat. Whoever said the steel in the WTC buildings melted before they collapsed? That is not stated in the 9/11 commission reports. Not once! The engineers and scientists that contributed their findings to the 9/11 commission report never stated that the steel in the WTC buildings melted prior to the buildings collapsing. Not once, not ever.
So why do the tinfoil hat conspiracy quacks continue talking about melting steel???? Because it is dishonest subliminal deception, that's why.
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary;
The word "Melt"
1: to become altered from a solid to a liquid state usually by heat, to reduce from a solid to a liquid state usually by heat.
2 a: DISSOLVE, DISINTEGRATE; the sugar melted in the coffee. b : to disappear as if by dissolving.
"Ken from Dublin is a different person who doesn't talk about engineering or physics as much as me, even LovelyNice is another different person who has a totally different writing style..."
who said anything about lovelynice?
you've given yourself away yet again, murderer. your masters should give you better scripts.
and look how different your writing is:
"These are FACTS that cannot be denied!!!"
once again the acronym "Falsified Arguments to Conceal the Truth" shows up, in it's own paragraph, followed by exclamations. exactly like your other accounts. there's 2 ways you can go with this. either:
you are one person
or
you are seperate people, but you all get your lines from the same government source.
you spout the same government-approved nonsense, in the same way. you falsify the same evidence, in the same way. you argue the same way. you slander the same way. you have the same goal, you serve the same government, you defend the same crimes, you are an accomplice to the same murders.
i bet if i took a screenshot of an old post of yours, you wouldn't be able to tell me which account you used.
"WHY DON'T CONTROLLED DEMOLITION CREWS SIMPLY USE KEROSENE OR AVIATION FUEL TO COLLAPSE GIANT BUILDINGS RIGHT DOWN TO THEIR GROUND LEVELS?"
What a pathetic question.
I have another pathetic question. Why don't controlled demolition crews crash airliners into buildings in order to demolish them?
Trawling through such utter garbage it painful in the extreme.
No one claims that the towers fell due to fires. They due to a combination of catastrophic damage AND subsequent fires.
See how the conspiracy claims work? They are simply refuting ridiculous claims that THEY THEMSELVES make!
yes, they collapsed from impact damage, fire, and primarily, gravity. all it would have taken is a snap at it's weakest point, causing a jolt which breaks the next weakest point, which causes a chain reaction, and the end result is essentially a tall office building being dropped from the sky onto a taller office building.
Here are the main reasons why I cannot believe that the 9/11 WTC building
collapses were simply due to the aeroplane impact damage, fire and
gravity:
1. Solid structural concrete cannot be weakened by air fires. Concrete has
a very very high melting point (??? varies) and behaves as a masonry or
a solid rock, able to withstand temperatures above 2000 C without cracking
or failing due to temperature. The tensile fracture strength of concrete
is typically over 4000 psi, or ranges between 27 MPa to 42 MPa. If vertical
gravity is considered the main cause of concrete failure for the collapse of
the WTC buildings, consider these well known engineering facts: (1) Under
extreme vertical loading where concrete is compressed beyond its maximum
fracture stress, a solid concrete column or test sample will fail by cracking
along a single plane that is inclined at a 45 angle to the axis of loading.
This fracture plane is known in solid mechanics as the "plane of maximum
shear stress". (2) When concrete fails in this way due to uniaxial vertical
compression, the single solid will divide into two parts each showing cracked
45 degree angled surfaces, but the two remaining parts are still solid and
VERY LITTLE OR NO POWDER IS CREATED. (3) It takes an incredibly large amount
of explosive energy to pulverise solid concrete into fine powder (especially
to create the kinds of giant pyroclastic clouds that blanketed much of New
York on 9/11). Several horizontal clouds of concrete powder are seen and
heard (as captured on all the WTC collapse videos) exploding sideways, out
of the WTC buildings, before the buildings even started falling and moving
downwards. The small horizontal "puffs" cannot be explained as being caused
by trapped air pressure because they occur even before the buildings start
to even move downwards. Also, the positions of many explosions appear very
far below the collapsing levels, exploding sequentially several floors below,
and this cannot be due to trapped air pressure because the ceilings and floors
above have been destroyed with obviously cracked open with giant holes, making
them unable to trap any air and create large air pressure buildups below to
cause those horizontal explosions, especially 10 or 20 floors below the
downward moving collapsing levels. These small horizontal explosions cannot
be explained due to gravitational collapse or fire in the upper levels, but
they are very consistent with what is observed in controlled demolition
operations.
2. If the pancaking effect really did take place, where are the pancakes? Where
are all the large solid slabs of concrete floors that should be left remaining
piled one on top of each other? Why was NOTHING left behind, not even the
huge, super-strong steel core (skeleton) of the WTC Twin Towers, right down
to the ground floor levels? If a higher floor falls and hits the floor below,
it takes time for each collapsing floor to get the floor below to build up
speed, starting from rest, so it can collapse and continue the collapse
sequence, because each solid concrete floor has inertia and takes time to
accelerate. Assuming a free-fall time of 1 second for each floor, with 70+
undamaged floors below the impact zone, it should take over 70 seconds for the
Twin Towers to each collapse. So why did they both collapse in about 10 or 11
seconds each? At almost freefall speeds? Also, the same goes for WTC 7, which
collapsed about 7 hours after the twin towers, but it was not hit by any plane?
3. Fire burns at around Fahrenheit 451 F or about 233 degrees Celcius,
typically around 250 C for black smoke fires. Not enough temperature
to even reduce the strength of steel, due to insufficient oxygen in
normal 101.3 kPa (absolute) air pressure in the open air that we breathe.
If you look at the Strength vs. Temperature graph shown on this page:
911research . wtc7 . net / wtc / analysis / fires / steel.html
Notice that even at red hot temperatures for steel (around 700 C, which
normal fires cannot even reach because they cannot even exceed the
melting point of solid aluminium at 660 c)... steel still has about 40%
of its full strength, so there is NO WAY that both those Twin Towers
can fall at accelerating free-fall speeds, as if all the lower undamaged
and unburned materials converted from full strength to zero strength all
of a sudden. This is scientifically impossible and cannot be explained
due to fire alone. Steel has a melting point of about 1532 C, so even if
steel could soften and weaken in hot fires fed by strong winds, even at
around 600 C, at 50% of its full strength, steel would merely twist and
bend, causing damaged buildings to lean over like a Swiss Army knife being
folded, with the core and perimeter columns all still intact and joined.
Why is it that almost ALL of the large steel columns photographed at the
WTC Ground Zero site show clear signs of being sliced at 45 to 60 angles,
with black solidified (once molten) metal appearing along its sliced edges?
(Something very typical of steel columns sliced by controlled demolitions)
Don't forget that solid iron is widely used for many applications
involving direct explosure to high pressure and/or high temperature flames.
eg. internal combustion engines, pistons & engine blocks are made of iron
materials, steam engine boilers hold in a large amount of steam pressure
while exposed to fire, cooking pots and frying pans made of steel and
aluminium suffer no major weakening problems when exposed to fire and gas
stove flames, barbeque grills and hotplates do not display and weakness or
any noticeable strength loss when exposed to air fires. It is also
difficult, if not impossible, to melt solid aluminium into liquid molten
metal in a fuel fed still air fire (melting point of aluminium, 660 C).
4. The large pools of once-molten hot metal found in the basements, indicates
that at some time the metal beams were exposed to temperatures well above
the melting point of iron (1532 C), which is impossible for fuel air fires
burning for only a short period of time, since most of the fuel from the
jet planes was consumed in the initial fireballs and explosions when the
planes impacted with the towers. Black or dark smoke flames indicate low
temperature flames, typically below 300 C, and these were seen burning in
both twin tower buildings for about an hour or more before their collapses.
It could not have been very hot in those twin towers, because people could
be seen through those large impact holes on the sides of the building, some
appear alive and well and waving to television cameras. For people to be
alive and walking around in temperatures over 1000 C (to cause the steel to
become very weak), is ridiculous and impossible. Dr Steven Jones has also
pointed out that these hot temperatures in the basements persisted for over
6-weeks after September 11, 2001, something that an air fire fed by a very
limited amount of jet fuel, most of which was burned up in the initial
fireball explosions, cannot possibly accomplish. Read his latest paper at:
scholarsfor 911truth. org / Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse. pdf
911research. com /sept11/ evidence. html
911research. com /wtc/ evidence/ rubblefires. html
911research. com /wtc/ evidence/ moltensteel. html
5. All 3 WTC buildings collapsed vertically, into themselves, and at close to
free-fall speeds, as if the lower materials displayed zero strength or were
not even there to help slow down the collapses, all of a sudden. Engineering
materials do not display full strength and convert to zero strength all of a
sudden, for no reason, especially for the steel and concrete in the lower
levels that were not affected by fires or structural damage. It is also
interesting to note, that for straight-down collapses to occur, ALL the core
and perimeter columns (and/or concrete pillars) of a highrise building must
fail SIMULTANEOUSLY and symmetrically to prevent the buildings from leaning
or bending over sideways, which could lead to neighbouring buildings being
severely damaged. Watching super strong steel and concrete buildings falling
downwards into themselves at free fall speeds, after about an hour delay
period after they were initially damaged, is like chopping a tree, setting it
on fire at the point where you weakened it, waiting about an hour, and then
watching it all disintegrate into fine sawdust and woodchips from the top,
all the way down to the roots, at free fall speeds. And the WTC steel and
concrete is even far stronger than wood and are fireproof materials!
6. How could fire alone create large explosions and minor earthquakes of 2.0 and 2.1
magnitude, just prior to the collapses of all 3 WTC buildings?
7. There are many eyewitness reports and videos showing several explosions
and demolition squibbs occuring around those 3 WTC buildings before they
collapsed. Even on the 9/11 Movie, just before the North Tower collapsed,
you can see and hear explosions (bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang sounds)
erupting before the North Tower collapsed. Several videos showing the WTC
collapses can be seen at:
8. WEBSITES SHOWING ACTUAL VIDEOS OF THE WTC COLLAPSES (remove spaces):
video . google . com / videoplay? docid= -670819007 1483512003
plaguepuppy . net / public_html /collapse%20update/
seeloosechange . com
prisonplanet . com (Click on 9/11 Archives)
9. Why would the WTC Lease Owner, Mr Larry Silverstein, admit openly on the PBS
Documentary "America Rebuilds" these exact words just after the Narrator was
discussing the collapse of Building 7 (the one that was not hit by any plane,
but it suffered from 2 small fires)... Silverstein slipped up and said:
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they would be able to contain the fire; and I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is PULL IT, and they made that decision to PULL and then we watched the building collapse."
The word "PULL" means "demolish with explosives" in the controlled demolition industry.
Even the actual owner agrees that the WTC 7 collapse was caused by controlled demolition!
So the question is: If it takes several days, often over a week, to plan and rig a large
47-story skyscraper like WTC 7 full of explosives, then how could they have done all this
in the short 6 hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, when the air was still full of
concrete and asbestos dust and WTC 7 was still on fire? How? WTC 7 was already ready
and rigged to be demolished long before September 11, 2001, indicating an INSIDE JOB...
There is just so much scientific evidence that disproves the original 9/11 stories.
In fact, none of the "assumptions" about concrete being converted to powder and
steel melting in air fires can even be proven in scientific experiments. So those
who still believe in the "Official" mass-media version of what happened on September
11, 2001, will have a hard time trying to give good explanations for the above facts
which point to deliberate pre-planted explosives and cutting charges present in
the 3 WTC buildings... explosives that were planted there long before the planes
even hit the twin towers on 9/11... causing the deaths of 2,749 civilians who were
mass-murdered on 9/11.
nobody's buying it, murderer. you can't protect them.
Watch all the movies and read the reports at:
truth911 . net
(Remove spaces around . above)
try citing a non-government sponsored source, murderer
Watch the videos:
(Remove spaces below)
belowground surface . org
truth911 . net
st911 . org
neothe1 talks like a d!ckhead moron with severe braindamage... poor guy!
typical neocon response. forget the issues, smear your opponent, and you think you win. that might work in an election campaign, but it doesn't work here. you have no power here, no supreme court on your side, you can't rig this one.
FACT 1:
Flame temperature of hydrocarbon fuel in air = 233 C = 451 F (Fahrenheit 451 F). Even up to 260 C, steel loses none of its maximum room temperature strength.
Air fire cannot melt steel to create molten metal, because the melting point of iron is 1530 C. (Especially the kind that lingers at over 800C for over 6 weeks, long after all the jet fuel was consumed on 9/11)
Air fires also cannot cause giant steel columns to be flung hundreds of metres away to get stuck in the sides of neighbouring highrise buildings, if gravity force only points downwards... what caused the horizontal components of force?
FACT 2:
Concrete cannot explode into fine powder after about a 1 hour delay, due to heat from air fire. The large clouds of concrete dust (being ejected at high speed, like explosions shooting out of the WTC buildings) appear BEFORE any of the buildings start falling downwards.
Concrete is also fire-resistant and does not weaken in air fires.
FACT 3: None of the levels below the impact zones where the planes hit were even damaged and did not suffer any fire damage. So how come they behaved as though they had zero strength, in order to "get out of the way" of the falling materials above, so that they could drop at free-fall accelerating speeds? As if none of the lower materials had any strength at all? Even the super strong central cores were mysteriously destroyed right down to the ground levels?
WHY? WHY? WHY?
Clearly, from an engineering standpoint, the official stories about the WTC collapses are bogus, nothing but LIES AND FANTASIES of the technically incompetent sheep who are in love with Bush & Cheney, or those who have big shares in war profiteering corporations... Air fire demolishing huge high-rise buildings right down to their foundations, even pulverising all the concrete into fine dust, converting CONCRETE from solid materials into giant clouds of powder???
LOL, ROFLMAO.... anyone who believes that BS still believes in Santa Claus and is the kind of person who still thinks the planet is flat! The official 9/11 stories are the biggest lies and conspiracy theories anyone can imagine... too bad it doesn't agree with scientific and engineering facts, and too bad nobody even to this day can create molten metal with air fire, because in the basements of all those 3 WTC buildings that collapsed on 9/11, clean-up crews found huge pools of once-molten solid metal, still orange and red hot, for over 6 weeks after 9/11... to get molten metal, the steel needs to have been at least exposed to temperatures over 1530 C (the melting point of iron), which is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve in air fires that only burn between 233 C to about 600 C.
Fact the fact: 233 C < 1532 C
Why is that so hard to believe?
Look at the videos here:
(remove the spaces)
below ground surface . org
Stop pretending you have intelligence neothe1 :D Sad pathetic creature!
you'refinished, murderer. go report your failure to your superiors.
FACE THE FACTS AND ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS...
Can air fires melt steel?
FACT 1: Melting point of iron (steel) : 1532 C.
FACT 2: Burning temperature of hydrocarbon fuels in air: 250 C
FACT 3: At 250 C, steel does not lose any of its strength. At
600 C, steel is around 50% of its maximum room temperature
strength, but these temperatures cannot be reached by air
fires simply because there is not enough oxygen in 101.3 kPa
or 1 atmosphere normal air pressure. (oxygen makes up only
about 19% of the air we breathe, inert gas nitrogen 80%)
FACT 4: Most of us drive in cars that use internal combustion
engines which contain high pressure explosions and raging
hot fires; even the pistons are made of iron. The same
kind of material used for barbeque grills! We all use steel
cooking pots and frying pans, constantly exposed to gas stove
fires, to cook our food every day. What about steam engine
boilers exposed to fires! Do they fail, or go all soft and
mushy due to air fire?
Have you ever been able to melt solid aluminium into molten
liquid metal using fire? Go on and try it. If you can, you
have proven that your flame temperatures can exceed 660 C, the
melting point of aluminium. If not, then there is NO WAY THAT
AIR FIRE CAN REACH 1532 C and create giant pools of molten
metal in all the basements of all 3 WTC buildings that collapsed
on 9/11... which stayed sizzling hot at red to orange hot
temperatures (between 700 C to 1100 C) for up to 6-WEEKS after
the collapses, despite a lot of water being pumped into the hot
oven-like basements to try to cool down the once-molten steel.
Even the rubber boots of clean up crews were MELTING due to the
intense heat under the WTC rubble, several weeks after 9/11...
Can air fires make solid concrete explode into fine powder after a 1 hour delay period?
FACT 4: Concrete has a tensile yield strength over 4000 psi (around 27 MPa to 42 MPa) and is much stronger
in compression.
FACT 5: Air fires burn at around 250 C, much much lower than the melting point of concrete (between 1800C -
2500 C)
meg . co . uk / meg / app10 . htm
FACT 3: When a solid concrete column or pillar fails under intense
vertical loading stress, it will crack and try to slide along a
45 degree angle fracture plane, known in "Solid Mechanics" studies
as the "Plane of Maximum Shear Stress". This fracture surface is
at 45 degrees to the direction of loading and appear fairly flat
and planar, because brittle materials tend to fail catastrophically
by rapid crack propagation and the 45 degree angle offers the highest
shear stress direction for cracking to occur. Concrete will NOT FAIL
by exploding into a giant cloud of fine dust particles. This has NEVER
been observed in any fire experiments, or in any hydraulic compression
failure tests. In fact, very little crushed powder is actually found,
and the failed test pieces still appear as strong solid pieces, like
2 halves of the original specimen, still intact. If the WTC Twin Towers
did fail due to vertical loading caused by gravity, where are the large
concrete boulders? Where are all the large floor slabs? Where are all
the "pancakes" of solid floors that should be left over sitting one on
top of each other, like McDonald's pancakes? Why are there NO solid
concrete floor slabs remaining? How did ALL THE SUPER STRONG building
materials turn into molten iron and giant clouds of concrete powder?
How could so much concrete powder be created as the WTC Twin Towers were falling, if they stood strong and
stable for over 56 minutes to about 80 minutes after jet plane impacts? Also, how did Building 7 just
collapse into itself 7 hours after the twin towers collapsed, when it was not hit by any plane? How could
all the explosions of concrete powder appear, even before the collapses started?
ANSWER: Pre-planted controlled demolition explosives being triggered sequentially, so that all the support
steel could be sliced quickly with cutter charges (like thermite) and any concrete columns could be blasted
away by explosives, to allow a free-fall (zero resistance) vertical collapse.
Visit:
below ground surface . org
truth911 . n | |
