insane_alien Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 'insane_alien' when your analysis is fuelled by alcohol and boredom, and the structure of that analysis is to cherry pick a few paragraphs, then I think I have been quite charitable in labeling it as "amusing". You must admit, you’re not exactly the ideal standard bearer for productive debate if this is the manner in which you conduct your analysis. Anyway, let’s respond to your 'debunking' efforts. To try and keep the size of this post down I will only quote the responses 'insane_alien' gave. i'd had a drink but i wasn't drunk. to be frank i just can't stand people who blatantly ignore things. When global collapse occurs in roughly 11 seconds, I think it is fairly safe to say that the collapse was 'rapid'. The buildings stood for 56 mins and 102 mins before collapse. okay, if you want to look at it from that perspective, 11 seconds may seem rapid for the laymen but for demolition crews that would be slightly longer than average for a building that size. Using the term 'incendiaries' in an explosives scenario does not mean jet fuel (rolls eyes). The conclusion at the beginning, again this is 'nit picking' he is simply stating what conclusions have been drawn from the facts, and then goes on to explain the facts. Not exactly the most confident of starts 'insane_alien' oh really? what would it describe then? napalm? thats chemically similar. maybe i'm just under the impression that incendiary means 'something that incinerates' We’ve already covered this one. He lists his work as it shows that he has been involved in controversial areas of research before, and has published many papers which have been subjected to peer view. A tried and tested career in scientific study and analysis. How many papers have you published 'insane_alien' in your distinguished career? Since his work is supported by over 100 engineers and architects whose knowledge far exceeds any brief flirtation you may have had on the subject, I don't think you are suitably qualified to call their collective judgment in to question. The last part of your paragraph does well to demonstrate the level of your scientific rigor. i've not started my career yet. i also don't give a damn what he's done in his life. i care about the science he shows. hell even albert einstein was wrong about a heck of a lot.(QM for one) its an arguement from authority and a poor one at that. I'm sure our engineers and architects would be fascinated to hear this in depth analysis, they must have missed that bit. i can't critisize something thats correct can i? might be how you fly but not me. If anything this part of you 'analysis' only helps to demonstrate the poignancy of your SFN statement that "stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast." This is the political method, put out a conclusion and then see what facts you can gather to support that conclusion. believe me, if there was anything substantially wrong they would have corrected it as the information became available. its not like they made any huge leaps though. planes fly into the towers, not a huge leap of faith to assume that they were hijacked nor that the hijackers were terrorists and so on... 'insane_alien' I will assume that you are not a pilot due to your ill informed statement about the flying abilities of the alleged hijackers. Perhaps you might explain to the pilots at pilotsfor911truth.org that really there was nothing to it. These professional pilots can not believe that individuals with a limited amount of training in single engine sessner planes could achieve the highly skilled flying necessary to guide these planes to their targets, particularly when the people training the alleged hijackers note how poor their flying abilities were. i've logged 28 hours of flying experience. not a fantastic amount but it covers taxiing, 2 take offs, a landing, some basic navigation and manouvers along with some basic aerobatics. the hardest bit was the landing. basic piloting is easy. all you have to do is move the yoke about. i could teach a five year old how to point a plane in any direction in ohh 2 minutes. funnily enough, i found it easier than driving. you still didn't adress the fact that pilots are not trained in counter terrorism operations. You also seem to misunderstand what is meant by the term 'conspiracy'. If 19 Arabs 'conspired' with Osama Bin Laden to fly jets in to American targets then this is a 'conspiracy', and it remains a 'theory' because no hard evidence has been brought against the so called mastermind of the event. By all means check out the FBI most wanted website, Osama is there, but no reference is made to 9/11. Thus Dr Jones is quite rightfully referring to it as 'the official conspiracy theory'. fine i'll chock that one up to my crappy linguistic skills. The only reason why some of the facts have been changed is because the official story has so many holes in it that they are trying to plug those holes with hasty retractions and additions of information, this would happen if you find your 'straw man' theory slowly being pulled apart. so you think the whole of science is crap then? seriously this is what happens in science, we make a guess, we observe, we change bits so its more accurate. its an iterative process. No, but he is physicist who understands the laws of physics better then most, and so is amply qualified to raise an eyebrow when something does not seem right, not to mention the backing of over a hundred engineering professionals who certainly do know how a building should behave. gravity at a newtonian mechanics level on this scale is very very simple to grasp. its the fracture mechanics of the building underneath that gets a little tricky. This should be obvious to anyone spending a little time watching the video evidence. Failure occurs first at the top of the building (see the penthouse sink first) and then globally across the entire floor plan of the building from the bottom, exactly like a controlled demolition. no, major structural failure occured at the bottom. i explained this. 'insane_alien' seems not to like this formulae, but gives no alternative, nor does he state why this formulae should not be used in this scenario. Of course, there are many witness testimonies of explosions; we even see 'streamers' appearing from the side of the building just after the initiation of collapse. Your explanation of explosives in demolitions would certainly seem to fit the bill here, how would you suggest that the building can come down in this manner? i don't like it because it has nothing to do with momentum(the title of the section) it is a useful formula when things are simple and falling from a height but not in tis case where there are other factors to be addressed. any 14 year old doing a basic science course knows that formula. streamers could be anything, dust from the shocks in the structure from the collapse probably. In a typical demolition det cord do not have to be concealed, this does not mean that it is impossible to conceal this cord. if you want the demolition to go tits up yeah. also, you would need a lot of time and those floors would need to be shut off from everyone while they done it. unless someone found a way to make ethernet cables act like det cord. No it does not, but it certainly calls for other more fitting hypothesis to be put forward. On the other hand, explosives would represent a very high probability. If the collpase exhibits all the signs of a controlled demolition then why continue to put forward a hypothesis with low probability? if explosives were used you would see the high velocity debris shoot out at the sides, not the low velocity debris pouring over the sides of the standing structure. it would have behaved very differently. this practically excludes explosives from the list of possibilities. 'insane_alien' you only help to illustrate your lack of knowledge on the subject by insisting that option 1) is the most likely candidate. FEMA suggests that the jet fuel would of burnt off within about 10 mins, this material was noticeable just prior to collapse, some 56 mins after the plane impact. For you to even think that this jet fuel was still lingering around 56 mins later, and in such abundance that it flows out of the building, you only serve to discredit yourself. Perhaps you would like to try again? Oh yes, it could not have been steel because we do not see sparks, extremely thorough job on that one. fine it could have been any number of other substances. steel does give off sparks if it is poured when molten. have you ever seen liquid steel sparks shoot off in all directions as it oxidises with the air. Could be, but when considered with the other evidence suggesting the use of thermite, the white smoke would certainly be a known characteristic of a thermite reaction. exept there was not a large flurry of light and sparks. the main problem with thermite and explosives hypothesis is that they are OBVIOUS. Again, could be, but when considered with the other evidence, thermite becomes a likely candidate. why not, magnesium alloys are used in windowframes all the time. it was certainly present unlike allegations of thermite. 'insnae_alien' seems to love this notion that highly flammable jet fuel is just lounging around nearly an hour after the plane impact, again this only shows his lack of understanding of the facts, and the little alcohol induced rant at the end about himself and his dad, very scientific it was an analogy. and jet fuel could have hung around, maybe not in as massive quantities as there were initially but certainly in some quantity. Yes, but the fact remains that it did melt, and we have yet to here a suitable explanation from anyone as to how this occurred, 'theCPE' with his 'blast furnace / kiln' hypothesis is pure nonsense, and fails to take in to account the magnitude of material that was pulverized and ejected laterally away from the centre of collapse and the oxygen restricted conditions of the debris pile. The debris pile was mostly steel, most of the concrete and buildings contents had been pulverized. yes, because a loose pile of conctrete and steel beams with tunnels under it is perfectly air tight. Dr Jones experiment is purposely kept simple for clarity, what he is doing is demonstrating the melting point of aluminum, and the experiment is perfectly valid for doing this. What this experiment shows is that we can debunk claims which have been made suggesting that the material flowing from the side of the building was aluminum. So 'insane_alien' is suggesting any experiment in which you wish to melt aluminum has to be done in a kerosene soaked inferno, or else the experiment is useless, err O.K 'insane_alien' good luck with that one. if your going to do an experiment to prove something happened then you need to recreate the conditions as precisely as possible.
theCPE Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Well shit. Looks like the 100 or so names just posted and these accountants have proven us and the millions of other engineers and scientist in the World wrong, proven the iron age is boogus, a gas truck never melted an overpass, and apparently both parties of our government were involved with this massive evil plan to destroy the WTC towers. I knew I should have majored in accounting. I'm getting off the short bus, was an interesting ride.
Jennifer Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 I am but a young college student who has only taken High School Physics, so I won't offer anything about the document. I just wanted to point out that I thought the conspiracy theory had to do with the Bush Admin creating and/or helping along the attacks, not whether the planes themselves destroyed the buildings. Also, don't forget that one of the towers was hit by two planes.
bascule Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 ...the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01... Your point? If you're attempting to use this as the basis of an argument, that's appeal to authority. I can turn up similar lists of scientists who deny evolution or global warming. However, a big list of names isn't an argument. An argument is an argument.
insane_alien Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 there was a big list of people who disagreed with galileo. does that mean we live in a geocentric universe? no.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 What caused the molten metal. Molten metal found under WTC 1,2 .Both hit by aircraft. Molten metal found under WTC 7 . Not hit by an aircraft. (No jet fuel) No molten metal found anywhere at the Pentagon.Hit by an aircraft, jet fuel fire. Aluminum melts at 660 C. There are a vast number of different metals inside large buildings that can melt - you can't assume it's all steel. The Pentagon, being a shorter building, had actual firefighters actually able to try to contain the fire. That's harder eighty floors up. Urchin, don't bother - these eminent scientists just can't (or won't) see it. They can't grasp their conservation of energy laws and the vast dissipation of energy used to do the work in pulverising the steel and concrete of the buildings whilst collapsing, and why the collapse is not slowed down due to this work done and energy lost in destroying the structure of the building. You forget the mass momentum thousands of tons of steel and building materials get when they begin to accelerate downward. If each floor even slowed down the falling building by 1/4 second whilst the huge pulverisation was going on, it would take a further 22 seconds to collapse, assuming that the collapse started around the 90th floor. Assuming I could send electric shocks through the Internet, I'd... oh, wait, I can't. Assumptions don't help. But hey, their administrator doesn't even question why the collapse at free-fall speeds is so crucial, as he tells us that the steel must have been weakened to the point it had zero strength and resistance, even at temperatures around 300* in the lower half of the building where the firefighters were (not to mention the fact the people were seen waving for help out of the large holes in which the aircraft plunged through the walls, so it couldn't have been that hot, even in that area!!) . Err, gee, that's what's called a strawman argument. I did not suggest that the lower half of the building was significantly weakened. I suggested that by the time the collapse reached the stronger part of the building, it was moving quickly enough to easily destroy any support structures in place. Just think: how would you try to catch several stories of a tall building, with contents and all, with some steel beams? It's not an easy problem. Where did all this additional energy come from to maintain the collapse at free-fall speeds?? There was only a certain amount of potential energy at the start of the collapse, and it didn't half do a great deal of work at free-fall speeds. I can't remember the equations exactly, it was a long time since I was taught them at school, but it is something like mass x height for potential energy. But that's it, without any other enery source, there could not have been any further energy. Even assuming that no pulverisation took place, the laws of conservation of momentum would have slowed the collapsing floors. The more floors that start moving, the more mass is involved, and the more force the collapse imparts to lower floors. Also, gravity has a nice way of accelerating things downward. Anyway, I've had enough of arguing with these eminent scientists, most of them are still students anyway. The real scientists, the Drs and Professors in the USA (the psuedo-scientists as theCPE refers to them as) are working on their research to disprove the official story of the 911 Commission. Time will tell. Bye bye all. Okay. I'm a skeptic. That means I wait for the evidence before I believe something. So when these doctors and professors come up with the evidence, I'll believe them. But right now, you're full of baloney. We’ve already covered this one. He lists his work as it shows that he has been involved in controversial areas of research before, and has published many papers which have been subjected to peer view. A tried and tested career in scientific study and analysis. How many papers have you published 'insane_alien' in your distinguished career? Since his work is supported by over 100 engineers and architects whose knowledge far exceeds any brief flirtation you may have had on the subject, I don't think you are suitably qualified to call their collective judgment in to question. The last part of your paragraph does well to demonstrate the level of your scientific rigor. Appeal to authority. I'm sure our engineers and architects would be fascinated to hear this in depth analysis, they must have missed that bit. It's OK now, 'insane_alien' with the help of alcohol has enlightened us all, nothing to see here, lets pack up and go home. You do realize ad hominem attacks are against our rules, don't you? If anything this part of you 'analysis' only helps to demonstrate the poignancy of your SFN statement that "stupid ideas seem smarter when they come at you really fast." This is the political method, put out a conclusion and then see what facts you can gather to support that conclusion. And I see no reason to believe that you are doing anything but that. 'insane_alien' I will assume that you are not a pilot due to your ill informed statement about the flying abilities of the alleged hijackers. Perhaps you might explain to the pilots at pilotsfor911truth.org that really there was nothing to it. These professional pilots can not believe that individuals with a limited amount of training in single engine sessner planes could achieve the highly skilled flying necessary to guide these planes to their targets, particularly when the people training the alleged hijackers note how poor their flying abilities were. It's not like they were trying to keep the passengers comfortable or anything. They didn't need to worry about, say, exceeding the design limits of the aircraft, or anything like that... anything that breaks would be of little importance. The only reason why some of the facts have been changed is because the official story has so many holes in it that they are trying to plug those holes with hasty retractions and additions of information, this would happen if you find your 'straw man' theory slowly being pulled apart. That's the problem: you're attacking the straw man you yourself constructed, not the arguments the rest of us are putting forward. There comes a point at which we have to say 'that is symmetrical enough', no demolition is completely symmetrical, but you can certainly term them as being symmetrical when compared to buildings which collapse without the aid of controlled explosives. You are also wrong to say that one end collapses first. If you had paid a little closer attention to the video, you would notice that the penthouse begins to drop first suggesting the internal columns of the building were severed first, a classic technique used in controlled demolition, as this pulls on the exterior walls of the building helping to achieve a collapse where virtually all the material falls within the plan area of the building. Your other point about collapse time has been answered above. The penthouse is, err, on top, isn't it? No, but he is physicist who understands the laws of physics better then most, and so is amply qualified to raise an eyebrow when something does not seem right, not to mention the backing of over a hundred engineering professionals who certainly do know how a building should behave. Appeal to authority. 'insane_alien' you only help to illustrate your lack of knowledge on the subject by insisting that option 1) is the most likely candidate. FEMA suggests that the jet fuel would of burnt off within about 10 mins, this material was noticeable just prior to collapse, some 56 mins after the plane impact. For you to even think that this jet fuel was still lingering around 56 mins later, and in such abundance that it flows out of the building, you only serve to discredit yourself. Perhaps you would like to try again? Oh yes, it could not have been steel because we do not see sparks, extremely thorough job on that one. Reference? 'insnae_alien' seems to love this notion that highly flammable jet fuel is just lounging around nearly an hour after the plane impact, again this only shows his lack of understanding of the facts, and the little alcohol induced rant at the end about himself and his dad, very scientific. There's plenty of other flammable stuff in the building. You will note that insane_alien points out the possibility of plastics or glass providing the effect. Yes, but the fact remains that it did melt, and we have yet to here a suitable explanation from anyone as to how this occurred, 'theCPE' with his 'blast furnace / kiln' hypothesis is pure nonsense, and fails to take in to account the magnitude of material that was pulverized and ejected laterally away from the centre of collapse and the oxygen restricted conditions of the debris pile. The debris pile was mostly steel, most of the concrete and buildings contents had been pulverized. You'll need to prove it's "pure nonsense" first. Please also note that I will begin to hand out warning points to people using ad-hominem arguments (and other fallacies) in their posts. You've been warned.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Oh yes, and I thought I'd bring this up again. I find it rather irritating when people ignore certain arguments against them. And because you sly conspirators have evaded the question so well, I feel why not post it again! How did the fuel tanker truck catch fire and melt an overpass including the reinforcing steel thus causing its colapse? In open air (no kiln effect like with the WTC) far less fuel to propell the fire, cooler burning fuel and yet a steel overpass melted....... News article: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL
spivver Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 In response to my question regarding the non-collapse of the steel framed building in Madrid, Insane_Alien commented, a couple of pages back: yes it mainly stood and no it didn't collapse at freefall speeds. but it was a completely different scenario. the buildings were constructed differently and different types of steel were used during construction. and the fire was of a whole different type (this didn't have a jet plane smack into it and rip the fireproofing off.) The reason why I personally have given no response to the question regarding the collapse of the bridge (oh, and by the way, weren't any quantities of steel minute compared to that in the WTC's??) is for exactly the same reasons as Insane_Alien. Now, not being a scientist, I have always been under the impression that bridges are different to buildings, but, of course, you being eminent scientists may argue otherwise. Oh, and by the way, did this bridge fall at free-falls speeds and pulverise all the steel and concrete? Just how much steel did the bridge contain? Also what proportion of truck fuel to steel was there, and also was there any other combustible material available, such as office fixtures, fittings and equipment, or perhaps materials such as bitumen? You see, I'm having a little struggle correlating the similarities here. But of course, I'm different, I'm not a scientist, I'm a "conspiracy theorist". Except, of course, I've not stated any conspiracy, I'm merely questioning exactly how come two 110 story buildings can collapse at free-fall speeds. Now going back to my argument regarding the finite initial potential energy available to each building to both collapse at free-fall speeds (and also the third WTC7 building) and completely pulverise the steel and concrete into what looked liked mostly dust, please do tell me where Dr David Griscom's arguments are in error, see: http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2007/01/hand-waving-physics-of-911.html In anticipation of the outcry which you generally use to dodge the points, no, it is not a peer reviewed paper, but nevertheless it represents an argument based on science and you are, after all, supposed to be scientists (and I readily admit I'm not). So, for the unenlightened such as myself, do, pray, please tell me where this gentleman's arguments are in error. I'd love to know, and then I shall contact the said physicist and put your arguments to him, and seek a reply. I'm very interested. I apologise, I wasn't going to have any further input into this debate, but I am wanting to know information and you all are, after all, holding ourselves out as experts.
urchin Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Aluminum melts at 660 C. There are a vast number of different metals inside large buildings that can melt - you can't assume it's all steel. Have a look at the meteorite http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html
urchin Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Thermal imaging 10 days after collapse http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
urchin Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Your point? If you're attempting to use this as the basis of an argument, that's appeal to authority. I can turn up similar lists of scientists who deny evolution or global warming. However, a big list of names isn't an argument. An argument is an argument. Please do so.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Have a look at the meteorite http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html So now you have to explain how thermite would keep burning in the rubble days after the collapse. Please do so. That has no relevance to this thread.
Tree99 Posted June 16, 2007 Author Posted June 16, 2007 Oh yes, and I thought I'd bring this up again. I find it rather irritating when people ignore certain arguments against them. And because you sly conspirators have evaded the question so well, I feel why not post it again! How did the fuel tanker truck catch fire and melt an overpass including the reinforcing steel thus causing its colapse? In open air (no kiln effect like with the WTC) far less fuel to propell the fire, cooler burning fuel and yet a steel overpass melted....... News article: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL OK 'Cap'n Refsmmat' I've had a look at the link which has been provided above citing the melting of an overpass due to a gasoline truck fire, and I think the 'official conspiracy believers' are trying to mislead us on this one. This link http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL is from the San Fransisco Chronicle website. So lets have a look at the references which are made about the structure melting, and by melting we mean steel which has actually turned molten (as in WTC 1,2 & 7), not just steel which has deformed through heat. Quote "Engineers said the green steel frame of the I-580 overpass and the bolts holding the frame together began to melt and bend in the intense heat -- and that movement pulled the roadbed off its supports." This statement makes no mention of the steel turning molten. It notes that the steel "began to melt and bend" and "that movement pulled the roadbed off its supports" but this is describing deformation of steel, the words 'melt and bend' do not represent steel in its molten form. The only other reference is an eye witness, his name is Isaac Rodriguez, a 53-year-old sanitation supervisor who works the graveyard shift at East Bay Municipal Utility District's sewage treatment plant. Quote "It looked like a big slab of plastic because it was melted. It's made of steel and concrete and it was bent at both angles of the pillar." Again, no mention of molten steel, instead the term 'melted' is being used in a context which describes the way the bridge has deformed across its span, not because the steel has actually turned molten. The only thing the bridge collapse example achieves is to blur the line between the scientific definition of molten steel and the media definition of melted steel. You would find that a lot of people would describe steel deformed through heat as having been 'melted' but this should not be mistaken to mean 'molten'. So lets make it clear so we can arrest this type of confusion. In the WTC scenario we are talking about metal which is molten (2750F) not metal which has deformed because of heat and is then described as 'melted'. To conclude, in the bridge collpase scenario we have an ambigous choice of words which actualy describe steel deformation, as oppose to the very accurate description we see made about the WTC steel melting: This extract from the FEMA report on examined WTC steel notes: "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.... Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation."
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 This statement makes no mention of the steel turning molten. It notes that the steel "began to melt and bend" and "that movement pulled the roadbed off its supports" but this is describing deformation of steel, the words 'melt and bend' do not represent steel in its molten form. Err, yes, so they said "melt," but they didn't really mean it. Right. Regardless, my point is that explosives were not needed to bring down the towers - if steel can be significantly weakened or melted by gasoline, it can be melted by jet fuel, if perhaps by a different amount. The molten bits of metal found in the rubble could have been any metal with a low melting point.
bascule Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 So, again: Molten aluminum from the fuselage of the plane. Aluminum melts at 1220F, not 2750F. Jet fuel (alone), maximum burning temperature: 1796F. That's more than enough to produce molten aluminum, let alone the carpets, furniture, paper, computers, etc. in the building
Tree99 Posted June 16, 2007 Author Posted June 16, 2007 Err, yes, so they said "melt," but they didn't really mean it. Right. Regardless, my point is that explosives were not needed to bring down the towers - if steel can be significantly weakened or melted by gasoline, it can be melted by jet fuel, if perhaps by a different amount. The molten bits of metal found in the rubble could have been any metal with a low melting point. Oh come on 'Cap'n Refsmmat', you've been caught with your hand in the cookie jar with this one. It's obvious that they are describing heat induced deformation of steel and not molten steel. And 'bascule' we are not talking about molten aluminum, look at this extract again from the FEMA report on examined steel: "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.... Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation." This is not just 'any metal' it's a steel girder. So can you kindly explain how these sorts of temperatures were acheived?
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 "The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.... Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation." This is not just 'any metal' it's a steel girder. So can you kindly explain how these sorts of temperatures were acheived? Apparently eutectic reactions did, although a chemist will have to explain those. Also note the mention of sulfidation. http://httd.njuct.edu.cn/matweb/gas/ka_ht/ht_sulfd.htm Some sulfides have low melting points, or form low melting point eutectics with the metal and in these cases attack is rapid above a critical temperature, usually taking the form of intergranular crack formation. For nickel this critical temperature is 645°C and for iron it is 998°C. If the steel had above-normal sulfur content, or contamination, etc., well there you go. Suddenly girders lose significant amounts of strength, and not necessarily at their melting point.
spivver Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Apparently eutectic reactions did, although a chemist will have to explain those. Also note the mention of sulfidation. http://httd.njuct.edu.cn/matweb/gas/ka_ht/ht_sulfd.htm If the steel had above-normal sulfur content, or contamination, etc., well there you go. Suddenly girders lose significant amounts of strength, and not necessarily at their melting point. Couldn't be sulphur from a thermate reaction could it Cap'n?? See 3/4 way down the page at http://ae911truth.org/twintowers.php Oh dear, I know, I know, another "conspiracy theorist" website. Well, at least that means that you can conveniently ignore these architects and engineers, doesn't it. I wonder just how much of an eminent scientist you are Cap'n? So maybe a good scientist ought to look at all the possibilities before discounting those which are impossible. In ya go Tree.
Haezed Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 These explanations seem completely compelling to my lay eye. Oh, I see that this article was already "debunked" by a conspiracy web rag. Let me ask a question: Can anyone cite to a single scientific peer reviewed article that supports the conspiracy POV? A laundry list of architects is meaningless as it constitutes probably .00001% of the architects in the world. I'd like to see peer reviewed science; in fact, I'd fully expect it to be demanded on this board.
Haezed Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 So, again: Molten aluminum from the fuselage of the plane. Aluminum melts at 1220F, not 2750F. Jet fuel (alone), maximum burning temperature: 1796F. That's more than enough to produce molten aluminum, let alone the carpets, furniture, paper, computers, etc. in the building One of the points made in the article I cited is that the structure wouldn't have had to melt to have been weakened by the fire along with assorted over stresses.
Haezed Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Just so I understand, how do conspiracy theorists get around the detailed and respected 9/11 commission report which details how the 9/11 attackers came into the country, gathered their resources, and then attacked? Is the theory that they were US government agents? Was Osama also in our pocket when he claimed credit for the attacks? I guess that's why we never found him?!
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Couldn't be sulphur from a thermate reaction could it Cap'n?? See 3/4 way down the page at http://ae911truth.org/twintowers.php Iron (the main component of steel) is almost always found with sulfur, which must be removed. If it isn't...
spivver Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Haezed, you would like some peer reviewed papers - these any good? http://www.journalof911studies.com/ Oh, and Haezed, take a look at just how independent the 911 Commission was, it might just shock you. Most are cronies of Bush and the GOP's. Should not a public inquiry be fully independent, able to subpeona witnesses and examine them under oath, demand access to important papers etc etc... Need I go on??
Tree99 Posted June 16, 2007 Author Posted June 16, 2007 Just so I understand, how do conspiracy theorists get around the detailed and respected 9/11 commission report which details how the 9/11 attackers came into the country, gathered their resources, and then attacked? Is the theory that they were US government agents? Was Osama also in our pocket when he claimed credit for the attacks? I guess that's why we never found him?! A very valid point 'Haezed', well lets see what the 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton had to say about the integrity of the information they were given in creating this 'respected' report. Quote, "Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue." Oh dear, I suppose they must be 'conspiracy nuts' too.
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted June 16, 2007 Posted June 16, 2007 Haezed, you would like some peer reviewed papers - these any good? http://www.journalof911studies.com/ Right. So you want us to trust a journal created with the intent of proving a point. Hardly unbiased. Oh, and Haezed, take a look at just how independent the 911 Commission was, it might just shock you. Most are cronies of Bush and the GOP's. Five democrats, five republics. Hardly "most." Should not a public inquiry be fully independent, able to subpeona witnesses and examine them under oath, demand access to important papers etc etc... Need I go on?? That would be nice, but it would be worrisome to have an independent group going around subpoena-ing things.
Recommended Posts