insane_alien Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 hydrocarbons have different maximum temperatures for different conditions. it is perfectly possible to get a kerosene fire up to 2500*C y'know, one of these days i'm gonna go get a steel drum, some rubble and a bunch of kerosene and prove it.
Tree99 Posted June 12, 2007 Author Posted June 12, 2007 insane_alien You may find that the following academic paper will help you with that. The PDF Link http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf Again, if you could give me your views.
insane_alien Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 why does that begin with talking about fusion? really. come on. anyway, is it so hard to imagine that what was falling out the building was burning jet fuel. there was only around 10000 gallons up there per building. and is it also so hard to imagine that there would be suitable conditions for at least localised hot spots especially considering the amount of combustibles in the building. not to mention the things that don't usually burn. like metals. the conditions would have been good for a good number of things to burn. and then there are thermite reactions. not only between aluminium and ironoxide but other things like copper. there are a lot of things there that could produce very high temps. especially with the winds and ability to draw air up through the stair wells and lift shafts. these would further increase the temperature of the fires.
Tree99 Posted June 12, 2007 Author Posted June 12, 2007 He is talking about fusion for a start in order to give a background of his academic credentials. I was also hoping that you would spend a little longer then 15 minutes considering the paper, and then would respond to the assertions made. As I said before, I would like people to provide a scientific critique, and not to make generalised comments which most people without a science education tend to do.
insane_alien Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 oh right, so a scientist whose field is in fusion is going to pretty well informed about structural engineering and the chemical aspects of it yeah. of course it all makes sense now. i only spent 15 minutes on it cause i'm tired and couldn't really be arsed to be frank. its the same old crap again and again.
theCPE Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 It might be helpful for you too read up on the iron age. That might quell your disbelief of the energy sources necessary and temperatures necessary to work with steel. Then again, W and his administration might have had operatives that staged the iron age with the WTC plot in mind for thousands of years later.
Tree99 Posted June 12, 2007 Author Posted June 12, 2007 I have to say, I find the emotional responses of 'theCPE' & 'insane_alien' a little alarming. I did not expect the science aspect of this to be so upsetting to those with a science eduction. Since you are both unable to offer anything of any substance to reject the paper, I have to assume that you are either incapable of providing a critique due to a lack of suitable knowledge, or, you do not have the thinking discipline to address this from a purely scientific perspective. The general public could be forgiven for responding in such an emotional manner, those with an ample science education can not.
insane_alien Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 well, if you had bothered to do a simple search on these forums you would see that we have answered it ad nauseum
theCPE Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 I have to say, I find the emotional responses of 'theCPE' & 'insane_alien' a little alarming. I did not expect the science aspect of this to be so upsetting to those with a science eduction. Since you are both unable to offer anything of any substance to reject the paper, I have to assume that you are either incapable of providing a critique due to a lack of suitable knowledge, or, you do not have the thinking discipline to address this from a purely scientific perspective. The general public could be forgiven for responding in such an emotional manner, those with an ample science education can not. Right, point out one of my emotional responses please. I suppose my sarcasm about the stone age might come close but I have repeatedly stated why the document you presented was weak. Your inability to understand is not my fault, many people have CONTINUALLY stated why the whole "molten steel takes X temperature......" argument is wrong, weak, and only supported by the unobjective observer.
Tree99 Posted June 12, 2007 Author Posted June 12, 2007 'insane_alien' you again seem to be skirting around my point of addressing this from a scientific perspective. Since the above paper is dated May 2007, I fail to see how you could of addressed the assertions made within it. As I have stated, I'm not peddling a conspiracy theory, just asking for an objective scientific critique. If you embrace science, then I see no reason why you can not apply your knowledge to at least counter what Dr Steven Jones is saying in this specific paper. If anything, you seem to be frightened to do so.
insane_alien Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 fine i'll analyse it. come back tomorrow i'll have a pretty in depth one ready.
Tree99 Posted June 12, 2007 Author Posted June 12, 2007 Thank you 'insane_alien'. I do appreciate you giving up your time.
bascule Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 The documentary deals with both the above suggestions. I think the main point here is that a hydrocarbon fire does not provide sufficient heat to turn steal molten. Two problems: 1) Aluminum (from the fuselage of the plane), not steel 2) Hydrocarbon fires have been used to melt steel for thousands upon thousands of years (ever heard of a blacksmith? coal?) You're confusing "hydrocarbon" with jet fuel. And if you are suggesting that it turned molten after the buildings collapsed because it was insulated, then you have to keep in mind that it will only heat up to the maximum temperature of a hydrocarbon fire. You're not only confused as to the details of the particular bit of misinformation you're trying to put forward (maximum temperature of a jet fuel fire), you're glossing over the other combustable materials present in the fire and their contribution (carpets, office furniture, computers, etc.) I would suggest you spend more time studying the official account than looking at the strawman version presented by the 9/11 conspiracy movement.
insane_alien Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 WARNING: huge mega post. may cause anneurisms in conspiracy nuts. Righty ho! since tree99 is being anal about this i might as well do it. *NOTE: some quotes were edited for formatting reasons and to aid clarity. the content was not changed(well, appart from a snip which is explained) Introduction In this paper I focus on the application of the scientific method to the study of what really happened on 9/11/2001' date=' particularly in the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings.1 There is something here to look at in depth: this is serious business. It is not just “nutty fringe science” or “conspiracy theory” that can be rejected without even considering the data. There is need for scientific scrutiny as I hope to demonstrate in this paper. In fact my colleagues and I now feel that we have sufficient data to conclude that the collisions of jets with the two Towers are NOT sufficient to explain the complete and rapid collapses of both Towers and WTC 7. We conclude that the evidence is compelling that the destruction of the WTC buildings involved planted cutter charges (such as explosives and incendiaries). We will consider this evidence.2 [/Quote'] complete collapse, i'll go for that. but the collapse wasn't rapid, it happened hours after the impact. hang on whats this! a conclusion in the introduction? seems a bit predjudiced. it also mentions incendiaries, is that something like burning jet fuel perhaps? Background My first major publication in which I was lead author was a paper on muon-catalyzed fusion.3 Unlike thermonuclear fusion which occurs on the sun at high temperature' date=' this type of fusion occurs at room temperature. The muon, which is basically a heavy cousin of the electron, pulls hydrogen nuclei of the isotopes of deuterium and tritium closely together so that tunneling occurs through the Coulomb barrier leading to nuclear fusion. ... 3 pages of the same. snipped because its mostly irrelevant to the discussion. if you want to read it then you can go check it out in the article ... It’s remarkable isn’t it? Metal-catalyzed (cold) fusion is a very unpopular field in the United States because of misunderstandings and guilt by association and so on. Yet there’s a lot of hope here at least for understanding nature -- and we may eventually get to an energy source based on fusion. We haven’t hit a fundamental barrier yet as we did with muon-catalyzed fusion. We continue studying this approach to fusion as we seek for ever higher fusion energy yields and there are several students working with our team.[/quote'] muon catlysed fusion is all very interesting and that but it really doesn't have much to do with 11/9 does it? tree99 mention that he was just giving examples of his scientific background. now, there would be nothing wrong with this if it were a background in structural engineering, {some field to do with fires or something} or even chemistry as it was chemical reactions that brought the building down and this is the angle i come from. but muon catalysed fusion? yeah i can totally see how that is intricately related to the event. in the world of logic this is known as a 'straw man'. it also puts off people trying to be critical, first time i read this article i got a few paragraphs down and thought 'a screw it' and took a quick scroll down The Scientific Method Consider the scientific method as it applies to the study of the events surrounding September 11' date=' 2001. First we gather observations. Everybody has seen the collapse of the Towers. That’s just the first observation: the Towers did not topple over -- they were completely destroyed. [/quote'] finally, we get to the point. this is legit. the towers were destroyed as buildings usually get when they fall down. And then we add that several hours later' date=' at 5:20 pm the same day, World Trade Center 7 collapsed. This was a 47story skyscraper that was never hit by a jet, yet it collapsed straight down on the same day.[/quote'] but it was hit by debris from two of the biggest buildings in the world that just fell down next to it. Then we can time how fast the buildings collapse. The total time for the Towers collapse turns out to be around 10-14 seconds; for WTC 7 the fall time of the southwest corner is (6.5 +- 0.2) seconds. uh oh! no sources or even mention of how this was calculated! most people would just say 'he timed it from a video' and be fine about it. but tree is being pernickity about it so i will too. did he use a stop watch? did he play it frame by frame? what frame rate was it recorded in as this can vary from what its displayed at? did he use measurements from multiple cameras to check his results? could he see the ground from the angle? i want to know! Many more interesting observations were witnessed that day and recorded including orange flowing materialpouring out of the south tower minutes before the collapse. Dust and debris which were gathered for later analysis contain valuable information which we can observe and analyze. All these observations constitute hard physical facts and evidence. this i have no problem with. all true' date=' all verifiable(though still no sources in the article) and no inferences. The next step in the scientific method is to formulate a hypothesis to explain the observationswhich is consistent with the data as much as possible. The final steps of the scientific method are crucial. The hypothesis is rigorously tested by performing tests and experiments which generate more data. The new observations add to the original observations and the hypothesis may require revision or outright rejection. Sometimes a new hypothesis is needed to describe the growing list of observations. I hope you see that the scientific method involves an iterative process of testing hypotheses against hard physical evidence. An immensely critical step in the scientific method is publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal. This has long been a part of the modern scientific method ever since the time of Newton. The entire cycle is repeated with others joining in studying the phenomena. After many experiments, a model explaining the body of acquired facts is established. This is what scientists refer to as a theory. In everyday vernacular, the word “theory” normally refers to what scientists prefer to call a “hypothesis.” A scientific theory is a thoroughly tested model of reality which explains the observations. The synthesis of a scientific model or theory only occurs after all the iterative steps in the scientific method are performed: experimentation, interpretation, analysis, and publications. as anyone who's done a basic science class should have drilled into them by their teacher. The Official Conspiracy TheoryIn the case of 9/11' date=' a model of reality was immediately presented without requiring anyone to do much thinking or work. This alone should make scientists skeptical of the official “theory.” Everyone was told that nineteen hijackers crashing planes into two towers caused the total collapse of three sky scrapers. Richard Cheney, shortly before the attack on Iraq, laid out the official theory: "All of that [the US military role of the 20th century'] changed on September 11th... We saw on 9/11 nineteen men hijack aircraft with airline tickets and box cutters and killed more than 3,000 Americans in a couple of hours.10" Is this the full story? Where were the famous US air defenses that day? Why do so many uncritically accept the “9/11 official story” that a few hijackers in each of four planes overpowered well-trained airline pilots using box-cutters who subsequently brought down three World Trade Center skyscrapers and damaged the Pentagon without being intercepted by a single military jet? yeah the media reported a model. doesn't mean thats what they were given. if the people incharge had a model then there would have been no investigation. since there is then we can be sure that they are checking out their hypotheses. at the time the plan was, get something out there. let the public know we're working on it. ass for the questions after Cheney's quote, the pilots were highly trained, at flying planes, not so highly trained at counter terrorist operations. after they had control there wasn't much else to do other than point the planes in the right direction. also referring to this as 'the official conspiracy theory' thats just bad science. its like claiming newton was covering up general relativity when he published his laws of gravity. Americans and people around the world have been told this story repeatedly ad nauseum. Mostseem to blindly accept it without scrutiny. To challenge this story is to risk being smeared with the dreaded conspiracy-theorist label. Accepting the official story without scrutiny is much easier than considering that the official story may be wrong or that our leaders may have known about the impending attacks beforehand. As scientists' date=' we are not – or at least should not be – so uncritical. We should demand close scrutiny of the facts and perform our own tests. We demand nothing less than the truth, and many responsible citizens of the world demand an end to the 9/11 wars.[/quote'] if this guy was watching close he would have noticed the story changed in the details as new facts were brought up. this would happen if they were looking into it like in any investigation. Consider Mr. Cheney’s explanation of events which I consider a summary of the “officialconspiracy theory”. Those 19 hijackers surely did not work independently and individually. They conspired. That is itself a conspiracy theory. Contrary to the official conspiracy theory' date=' we will explore the hypothesis that explosives (generally, cutter-charges to include the possibility of incendiaries) were used to help bring the WTC buildings down. Of course, the Towers were hit by planes -- actually, not even everybody accepts that, but the evidence is very strong that real planes hit the towers11. All the acquirable evidence must be examined as a necessary part of doing good science. In the remainder of this paper, two models will be compared: 1) two planes and subsequent fires solely caused the collapse of three skyscrapers; and 2) pre-planted cutter-charges were additionally used in the buildings.[/quote'] what? only considering 2 hypotheses out of many? he should know that science is very rarely an either-or situation and there are often shades of grey. he also reffers to the official story as a conspiracy theory. this is to plant the idea in the readers mind. it is a psychological tactic that would not be employed in a proper scientific paper. A major interim goal that I have' date=' along with other scientists, is to publish the accrued body ofevidence and analysis in a reputable mainstream scientific journal. A major publication will, based on my prior experience in other controversial areas, propel the observations, the hard facts, into public view.[/quote'] ahh he has an agenda. very impartial mindset to be in. /sarcasm The rapid, symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 Consider the collapse of building seven, a 47-story skyscraper in the WTC complex which was never hit by a plane. We can learn a lot by measuring the time for descent of the southwest corner of the roof as it begins its steady drop to the ground. A simple way to perform this measurement yourself is to use a stopwatch and time the descent of the southwest corner of the roof from several different perspectives. Videos can be found at wtc7.net. Some activity in the central area of the building can be seen since a kink appears. Shortly after, the southwest corner of the roof begins a steady fall to the ground. The time has been measured to be (6.5 +- 0.2) seconds. (Below: WTC 7 before 9/11, and on the afternoon of 9/11/2001 after the collapse of the WTC Towers (WTC 7 still standing, right).) i've clipped the pictures. if you want to see them go read the pdf. i have an issue with the title of this section. the collapse was NOT symmetrical. one end started falling before the others. look on youtube and you'll see plenty of videos of it. as for the proposed method of measuring the time taken, its very inaccurate both because of human involvement and the lack of knowledge of the initial frame rate. in tv the cameras record at a different framerate than they are broadcast. this can introduce a bit of error as well. also, it is unknown if the ground level can be seen in the videos he used. if it can't then the time cannot be taken as accurate since we don't know if he stopped timing when he couldn't see it anymore or if he used a fudge factor. either way would be wrong. Personally, when I first saw these videos at WTC7.net and noticed the straight-downsymmetrical collapse of this building, my curiosity was roused as a scientist.12 Of course, you should observe the collapse yourself and consider if the rapid collapse of the building does not look a bit strange and worth further scrutiny. a personal opinion. he is not a demolition expert or someone who knows ho buildings fail. this cannot be taken as scientific evidence just as it wouldn't be used as evidence in a court of law. Is 6.5 seconds a reasonable collapse time? For comparison, consider how fast a brick droppedfrom the corner of the roof would fall. How long does it take the brick to hit the ground? The answer is 6.0 seconds (and that’s in a vacuum). The roof fell at very nearly free-fall speed! again, from my previous comments we cannot tell if 6.5s is accurate. the fact that it fell slower than free fall is an example of physics working. if it fell at or faster than freefall acceleration then i would be curious. How is this possible? There’s a lot of steel and concrete between the roof and the ground so therapid fall immediately raises questions. After all, in science, we must consider conservation of momentum, a fundamental law of physics. I do like to teach physics, and conservation of momentum is one of my favorite topics. no mention of the failure mode. it would fall differently if the major failure was at the top or bottom. it would fall faster if it failed at the bottom rather than the top. from watching the videos it seems that the building broke somewhere near the bottom as the main chunk of the building collapses at the same time. if it collapses from near the top it would look more like the towers. How is this possible? There’s a lot of steel and concrete between the roof and the ground so therapid fall immediately raises questions. After all, in science, we must consider conservation of momentum, a fundamental law of physics. I do like to teach physics, and conservation of momentum is one of my favorite topics. Now we’re going to apply conservation of momentum as we consider the collapse of Building Seven at 5:20 pm on September 11, 2001 about seven hours after the collapse of the towers.13 oh goody. some hard science at last. it'll either be right or wrong. lets see what we get. I have timed a number of controlled demolitions that are done by explosives. The time it takesfor the roof to hit the ground is near freefall time, a little over. To find the freefall time of the roof with nothing in the way, find the height of the building (y) and then calculate the time by solving the standard equation for the time of fall (y = 1⁄2 gt2). For controlled demolitions, buildings fall close to freefall time, just as the descent of WTC7’s roof-corner is close to freefall time. But with no explosives (the “official theory”) and the law of conservation of momentum, material below the roof – including intact steel columns – must significantly slow the motion of the roof. What is happening? It is as if something is moving the material out of the way beneath the roof, something like explosives, for example. Furthermore, it appears impossible for this 47-story steel-frame building to collapse rapidly and symmetrically onto its footprint as it did when random fires and damage were present; could the support columns fail abruptly, simultaneously?14 what? i was promised momentum not a poncy y=0.5gt^2. also, if there were explosives 1/ we would hear and see them 2/ explosives in demolitions don't move material out of the way they just weaken the structure. gravity does the hard work. so, we have a building that is damaged and structurally weakened by fire. it fell almost straight down. doesn't seem impossible to me. also, have you seen a building primed with explosives? there is det cord EVERYWHERE i'm sure workers would have notice clambering through a spider web of explosives. and it didn't collapse symmetrically. this guy said we would get a momentum analysis. not one bit of momentum calculations there. A FEMA report discusses the collapse of WTC 7. The writers admit that how fires caused thebuilding to collapse is “unknown at this time.” FEMA adds: “The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.” Now it is to their credit they make that admission, that their best hypothesis “has only a low probability of occurrence.” This remember is the official hypothesis, that fires and some damage were followed by complete, straight-down and rapid collapse of WTC 7. low probability does not mean it can't happen. bad use of probability got to jail do not pass go do not collect £200. Now if your hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence, as a scientist what do youdo? You think, “We must consider another hypothesis.” None of the US government reports seriously consider the hypothesis that cutter-charges could have been used in WTC 7, despite the growing evidence for that hypothesis.15 because cluster charges are NOTICABLE! THEY ARE VERY VERY LOUD! they also explode. i didn't see any explosions. someone would have heard the sharp whip like crack, the large puffs of smoke and debris(since it presumably wasn't shielded) before it fell. it would even be visible on the videos. okay, look this is going way off topic. and i'm not even half way through. i'm going to fast forward to the bits related to molten metal. Molten Material Pouring out of the South Tower Now we’ll move on to the subject of molten material pouring out of the south tower before the collapse. If you look at this, you see yellow and orange material coming out of floor 80; you can see metal flowing out of the third and fourth windows over, of the North face, the north east corner or Tower 2.29 so it goes from 'yellow and orange material' to 'metal flowing'. this ladies and gentleman is called an ASSUMPTION a leap of faith if you will. he is assuming that the yellow orange material is glowing liquid metal. the substance does indeed behave like a liquid. it cannot be denied. lets look at the candidates, 1/ burning jet fuel is liquid and yellow/orange. lots of fuel was rather violently deposited in the towers leaveing a big gaping hole for it to flow out of. 2/ the fire reached an intensity such that the structure began to melt. this resulted in molten steel flowing out of the building. 3/ other burning liquid substances such as platics 4/ other glowing liquids such as glass. since we are primarily looking at steel as this is your area of contention we will note what is missing. sparks. have you ever watched steel being poured in a refinery? sparks shoot everywhere as it ignites these are missing. therefore it cannot have been steel. as 1/ would be the most abundant it is probable that it was indeed 1/ Note the white ash floating away from time to time, from this flowing material. It is not thedarker gray smoke which comes from the fires in the building. Could this white ash provide a valuable clue to something significant? could be paper ash. it was an office building. At this corner is where the flow is, NIST displays a photo of an unusual flame and they note: “An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out.” 30 could possibly be a magnesium alloy. could also cause the white ash. there was more than one combustible material present i'm sure, given enough time, i could walk into an office and find something that burns brightly with white smoke. Thus, an unusual reaction region is visible in this photo generating a plume of white smoke. Keep thatin mind as we look at thermite demonstrations later. NIST reported just before 9:52, a few minutes before collapse, a bright spot appeared at the window, followed by a glowing liquid. This is significant: a bright flash, white plumes of smoke, and then molten metal flowing out of nearby windows. What could it be? What kind of experiments can we do to produce these same phenomena? (Top photos WTC 2 Tower; lower left: molten iron/thermite reaction; lower right, molten aluminum.) NOTE FROM ME: i have snipped pictures again page 16 of the pdf down the bottom of the page I suggest four possibilities for these observations: 1. Perhaps the structural steel in the buildings melted and is flowing out. 2. Perhaps it is molten aluminum from the aircraft that melted and is flowing out, perhaps with added organics from burning office materials. 3. A mix of the two (above) including office materials, etc. 4. Molten metals (e.g., molten iron) produced by highly exothermic chemical reactions (e.g., aluminothermic/thermite reactions) ooo missing the burning jet fuel again. what do you think it all burnt up within seconds? ignoring possibilities. not good science. also, similarity does not mean they are the same. i look like my dad. but that does not mean that i am my dad(that would be very very weird and violate causality or something.) same with reactions. The first hypothesis to explore is molten steel from the buildings; however: “The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.”31 “Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the [WTC] steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt.”32 NIST found no steel which exceeded about 600 °C, according to the NIST report.23 Steel does not melt until it reaches temperatures over 1500 °C. There is no way the fires of building materials were hot enough to melt any structural steel. (If someone claims THAT, let them do a careful experiment to test their claim.) no one is contending that the steel did melt. it didn't need to melt only needed to soften which the temperature were more than capable of doing. To test the second hypothesis, we performed experiments with molten aluminum. We meltedaluminum alloy in a steel pan and poured out the aluminum. It appeared silvery, not glowing orange as observed at the South Tower. We then heated the steel pan until it was glowing yellow-hot and poured out the aluminum, and the flowing aluminum was still observably silvery. How do you get aluminum to 1000 °C (orange-hot temperature) if the aluminum is liquid and free to flow, unless there’s a big pan in the building to hold the aluminum while you heat it past its melting point? again this assumes that it was a metal. there is no evidence for that. and it goes on to explain why it wasn't aluminum because of their experiments , because a garage is soo much like your standard kerosene soaked inferno. that does actually render the experiments themselves useless. so, i'll conclude. the guy blatantly ignores possibilities doesn't provide any hard evidence and in general doesn't follow the scientific principles that well. sorry this metric assload of post but it was at tree99's request. 3
Tree99 Posted June 12, 2007 Author Posted June 12, 2007 'bascule' I think it would be a little less embarrassing for you if you were also to provide a critique of the Dr S Jones paper listed a little further up on this page. You'll see what I mean when you read the PDF. It would also appear that you need bringing up to speed on what is meant by a Hydrocarbon fire. See the documentary I provided: http://www.911revisited.com You are assuming too much because you have not viewed the reference material provided. If you enjoy science, you should find it quite interesting.
insane_alien Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 The first thing i notice when watching that 'documentary' is the fact that they use opinions of laymen on the fact that there was an explosion. there are many things people would describe as an explosion but are not actual explosions. such as collapses. it has been used to describe rockfalls and when icebergs break off an ice shelf. and unless you believe that it's a secret government demolition team breaking off icebergs then you'll know that that just isn't true. <edit> the video won't play past 10 minutes.
insane_alien Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 actually, it was more a case of way too much time, a liberal application of booze and boredom.
bascule Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 I think it would be a little less embarrassing for you... I love people who condescend in utter ignorance It would also appear that you need bringing up to speed on what is meant by a Hydrocarbon fire. A "hydrocarbon fire" is completely meaningless. Hydrocarbons vary greatly in both composition and properties. See the documentary I provided: http://www.911revisited.com So you don't care about discussion, you just want to pimp some conspiracy theorist propaganda. You are assuming too much because you have not viewed the reference material provided. What exactly am I "assuming"?
insane_alien Posted June 12, 2007 Posted June 12, 2007 an example of a hydrocarbon fire melting steel is an oxy-acetylene torch. acetylene is a hydrocarbon. when the torch is ignite the hydrocarbon is on fire. 2000*C flame. used for welding and cutting steel.
bascule Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 an example of a hydrocarbon fire melting steel is an oxy-acetylene torch. acetylene is a hydrocarbon. when the torch is ignite the hydrocarbon is on fire. 2000*C flame. used for welding and cutting steel. Or... coke, which is the traditional fuel used in the steelmaking process
Rasori Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 I_A, I read that whole post. Kudos to you for having the patience to do that much. I'm starting a pool with my buds right now determining whether or not tree99 is going to come back to this thread again, and if he does whether or not he will even acknowledge your post.
insane_alien Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 well, most times when i make a mega post debunking something someone has been throwing about as evidence they usually disappear. i don't have high hopes.
Tree99 Posted June 13, 2007 Author Posted June 13, 2007 'bascule said' "A "hydrocarbon fire" is completely meaningless. Hydrocarbons vary greatly in both composition and properties." Then you will note that the two examples which have been provided (blast furnace & oxy-acetylene torch) are both meaningless since in both circumstances you are talking about a controlled burn. A debris pile which is starved of oxygen can not be likened to either example, so perhaps you would like to think of a more suitable example? Jet fuel does not have the habit of lingering around that long, and would have burnt away within the first few minutes, leaving combustible office materials to provide the heat source. The buildings were specifically designed not to act as a chimney (funnelling air up the stair wells & lift shafts). You will notice that the buildings have 2 distinct bands 1/3 and 2/3 up the building, this is where one set of elevator shafts ends and a new set begins. The designer of the building discusses this in the video provided. 'insane_alien' I can only hope that all people who try to debunk the mounting evidence provide a critique as in depth as yours, very amusing, thanks for that. And to further your point about Dr Steven Jones not being a structural engineer, you may be interested to know that his work is being done in collaboration with the following engineers and architects: http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php This list is by no means complete. But of course, you will no doubt be far better informed about the behaviour of structures then those provided in the following link.
insane_alien Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 i went to all that work and all you can say is 'very amusing' this is why i usually can't be bothered. you give them something and they completely ignore it.
Recommended Posts