Thread: 9/11

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Where did YOU get the idea that it's "laughable"? And where did you get the idea that the Official Explanation involves "melting metal"? I'm fairly sure that the Official Explanation says that structural steel weakens at temperatures significantly below the temperature of burning jet fuel (which is, in turn, significantly below steel's melting point).

The claim that hot steel смягчается at temperatures far below the температура плавления should not exactly be controversial -- after all, it's why "Smith" (literally "кузнец") is one of the most common American surnames!

POINTS FOR NEWBIES:

POINT #1: THE HEAT ALONE DID NOT DAMAGE THE BUILDING ENOUGH FOR IT TO FREEFALL

A random Youtube question:
'Not to change the subject too soon, but I still seek someone who can please explain to me how a 700 degree jet fuel fire can melt steel girders and frames that melt reluctantly at 2200+ degrees.'

QUESTION: Was the heat (i.e. fires) hot enough to melt steel to weaken frames etc. that ultimately causes the entire structure to buckle and free fall?

Take a look:
9-11 Review: Steel-Melting Fires

The simple facts of temperatures:

1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.

POINT #2: EVEN IF THE STEEL HEATED TO THE POINT THAT IT SUPPOSEDLY CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO STRUCTURAL 'MODIFICATION' OR WARPED SURROUNDING STRUCTURE, IT WAS STILL NOT ENOUGH TO CAUSE THE BUILDING TO COLLAPSE

THE BUILDINGS ALL FELL THE SAME – BUILDING #7 HAD NO PLANE HIT IT. THEREFORE NO JET FUEL. Only fires. So, these fires burned at heat that caused the collapse?!?

9/11 Truth and the Collapse of Steel Framed Buildings | Global Research

“The 1992 edition of the National Fire Protection Association’s Fire Protection Handbook(1) says that structural steel does not even BEGIN to soften until it reaches a temperature of 425 degrees centigrade, or 837 degrees fahrenheit, and doesn’t loose half its strength until 650 degrees centigrade, or 1202 degrees fahrenheit. And W. I. Edgar and C. Musse in their 2001 article “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering and Speculation,” in the JOURNAL OF THE MINERALS, METALS AND MATERIALS SOCIETY (53/12:8-11) state that even with its strength halved, the steel in the World Trade Center could still support two or three times the stresses imposed by a 650 degrees centigrade or 1250 degrees fahrenheit fire.”

FEMA is the federal agency that later came up with a theory about thermal expansion to explain the collapse of World Trade Center 7. Yet in this FEMA statement quoted by Berhinig, we have an admission by FEMA that no such thermal expansion from fire had ever collapsed a steel framed building, even though steel framed buildings had been around for more than a hundred years, since the 1880′s.

In “Fire Inside: Strectural Design with Fire Safety in Mind,” by Carolyn Berry in the August 25, 2007 issue of SCIENCE NEWS, Allen Hay, chief fire safety officer of the New York City Fire Department said concerning World Trade Center 7: “We just expected it to burn out — we didn’t expect it to fall down.”  “It’s the only building I know of in New York City to ever collapse (strictly) from fire.”
Upon reading the SCIENCE NEWS article, it turns out that the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) computer simulation, which purported to account for for the collapse of WTC 7, did not account for that building’s collapse.  In the paragraph in the first column on page 124 of SCIENCE NEWS, Berry writes: “The NIST simulation, like all models of building failures to date, couldn’t follow the 9/11 collapses through to the end.  No computer is yet powerful enough to follow the chaotic sequence of events that ensues when components break apart and a building falls, but this is where research is headed.”

Point WTC7-1 | Consensus 911

The Official Account
NIST originally suggested1 that WTC 7 was brought down by structural damage combined with a raging fire fed by diesel fuel. However, in its Final Report (of November 200, NIST declared that neither diesel fuel nor structural damage played a role in this building’s collapse, and that this building, which was not struck by a plane, was brought down by fire alone.
The Best Evidence
Before or after 9/11, no steel-frame high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire.3 If fire were to cause such a building to collapse, the onset would be gradual, whereas the videos show that WTC 7, after being completely stable, suddenly came down in virtual free fall. This building’s straight-down, symmetrical collapse, with the roofline remaining essentially horizontal, shows that all 82 of WTC 7’s support columns had been eliminated by the time the top started down.

Lastly:
9/11 and the Evidence

If you don't read the above. We're done debating. It's not even a page and even the average high school student could read it and understand it.

As for China or Russia playing a part. Find me just one page or any article or any speculation whatsoever that either is involved. Anything. I am not sure where that is coming from. Possibly, you just don't want to investigate yourself so both of you are grasping for straws. Seems just as reasonable a conclusion as saying 'maybe one those countries did it.'

"Romney said 'Russia is still our enemy'' so maybe they did 9/11. "We don't like that China stocks all our Walmart crap so they could theoretically had a hand in 9/11' LOL But, do you try any research yourselves?!? NOPE!

Originally Posted by 14Russian

LOL But, do you try any research yourselves?!? NOPE!

Have you actually done "research," or do you simply Google for sites that support your personal biases, and then copy-and-paste from them?

In fairness, I have my own biases -- for example, I'm biased against sites that use language like (boldface added):

Professor David Ray Griffin is the nemesis of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. In his latest book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Griffin destroys the credibility of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and Popular Mechanics reports, annihilates his critics, and proves himself to be a better scientist and engineer than the defenders of the official story.

I'm suspicious of this kind of language because -- to use an analogy I've offered before -- it's typical of people like Young Earth Creationists. They brag about "annihilating" Darwin and that "evolution is a house of cards," and so forth. But evolutionary biologists don't go around boasting that they've totally pwned the stupid L00ZR creation scientists, because they don't have to brag; the weaknesses of the 6,000-year-old-Earth theory are pretty evident.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

Have you actually done "research," or do you simply Google for sites that support your personal biases, and then copy-and-paste from them?

In fairness, I have my own biases -- for example, I'm biased against sites that use language like (boldface added):

I'm suspicious of this kind of language because -- to use an analogy I've offered before -- it's typical of people like Young Earth Creationists. They brag about "annihilating" Darwin and that "evolution is a house of cards," and so forth. But evolutionary biologists don't go around boasting that they've totally pwned the stupid L00ZR creation scientists, because they don't have to brag; the weaknesses of the 6,000-year-old-Earth theory are pretty evident.

LOL! So, out of the source, you question the kind of language?

No, nevermind what is proved or what the findings are or the arguments but the language is suspicious and questionable. Ok, you pretty much have expressed explicitly that you're brainwashed like Mr. Crocodile and a waste of time.

P.S. Of course, I've researched but I'd only have to read a few pages and watch a few videos to say I've researched more than you have.

Many of the sources dedicate much of their life to investigating the event but because China/Russia doesn't show up, they're not credible? I'm not sure how you reach your argument but it's absurd.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

I'm suspicious of this kind of language because -- to use an analogy I've offered before -- it's typical of people like Young Earth Creationists. They brag about "annihilating" Darwin and that "evolution is a house of cards," and so forth. But evolutionary biologists don't go around boasting that they've totally pwned the stupid L00ZR creation scientists, because they don't have to brag; the weaknesses of the 6,000-year-old-Earth theory are pretty evident.

I partially disagree with the applicability of your example. A while ago I tried to find a material that could put up the existence of dinosaurs with the Bible and ultimately failed. Yet I can't easily 'buy' your (presumed) inference that Darwinians are unequivocally right simply because thus far Darwinian scientists have never demonstrated how the very first life came into existence from non life by an evolutionary mechanism. And this is a pivotal element. Moreover, according to other religions, Hinduism for example, life and the universe exist in cycles for eons of years and their origin is obscure and generally beyond human comprehension. So, the fact that Christian sources provide us with presumably faulty knowledge points out only on the weakness of the particular religious standpoint and can't prove that Darwinians have won the battle and provided us with the unequivocally satisfactory explanation for the origin of life. It’ just a hypnoses like the Big Bang and other scientific 'superstitions' which may not stand the test of time in the long run IMO.

Originally Posted by diogen_

I partially disagree with the applicability of your example. A while ago I tried to find a material that could put up the existence of dinosaurs with the Bible and ultimately failed. Yet I can't easily 'buy' your (presumed) inference that Darwinians are unequivocally right simply because thus far Darwinian scientists have never demonstrated how the very first life came into existence from non life by an evolutionary mechanism....

I agree with your general point, although I deliberately used the example of "Young Earth Creationism" because it runs afoul not only of biology, but also geology and nuclear physics and astronomy. But you're absolutely correct that "atheistic evolution" and "Genesis literalism" are not the only two options available. (There are theistic cosmologies from many other religions, and there are various forms of "theistic evolution" arguing that the God of Abraham -- or some other Supreme Being -- in some way or another designed and supervised the evolutionary development of life over billions of years.)