science proves twin towers were demolished

[Iggy]

I'd also like to speculate on ways that the conspiracy could have been pulled off without a lot of people "in" on it...

But doesn't it seem like conspiracy theories are big and complicated by nature?

 

It would be a lot easier to say that building 7 was an unintended consequence of the main event, just like it'd be easier to say that a plane hit the pentagon rather than a missile. But, once we start doing that it isn't long before we're left with Bush, Bin Laden, and a single phone call for the whole conspiracy. That's not the stuff conspiracy theories are made of.

Edited November 19, 2011 by Iggy

[Pantaz]

You need to watch a program called: loose change. ...

Viewer's Guide to 9-11 Loose Change

http://www.loosechangeguide.com

 

... The NIST explanation does not seem plausible to me...

Long before the NIST report, MIT conducted a panel discussion with civil and structural engineers:

"One month after the attack on the World Trade Center, M.I.T. structural engineers offer their take on how and why the towers came down."

http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

[md65536]

But doesn't it seem like conspiracy theories are big and complicated by nature?

 

It would be a lot easier to say that building 7 was an unintended consequence of the main event, just like it'd be easier to say that a plane hit the pentagon rather than a missile. But, once we start doing that it isn't long before we're left with Bush, Bin Laden, and a single phone call for the whole conspiracy. That's not the stuff conspiracy theories are made of.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you mean the theories are elaborate, or that they tend to be far-reaching (ie. involving a lot of conspirators)?

I suppose that if we have a lack of understanding of a situation, and think that we can fill in the details with guesses and assumptions, then it's easy to grow a conspiracy theory. It will probably have holes in it, so if you keep filling the holes with guesses it can get pretty complicated. Any theory built on layers of conjectures is probably pretty bad.

 

That goes both ways though... as soon as you put together a few assumptions like "The government has no reason to lie so they wouldn't; it would take thousands of conspirators to pull off something like this; it would be impossible for anyone to have access to the buildings before 9/11" etc, the theory can become unreliable.

 

 

Also, what do you mean by "easier"? I don't think it's easy to say that something that is not scientifically possible actually happened.

 

 

[morgsboi]

Okay, lets look at this from a chemistry point of view.

 

The actual maximum burning temperature of a Jet-A fuel (standard jet fuel type in U.S.) is 980 deg. Celsius. If you refer to the Iron-Iron Carbide phase diagram, the temperature at which steel changes from cementite and pearlite (strong phases of steel) to austenite (significantly less strong) is 702.5 deg. Celsius. Also, if a steel structure is exposed to a temperature just below or at the eutectic (702.5 deg.) for a period of time, martinsite is formed (very weak). All it would take is a few I-beams to lose their structural integrity before the "chain reaction" would start. People say that the heat from burning jet fuel cannot melt steel. It doesn't have to "melt" for it to become ineffective. Also, "very strong type of steel" is the most relative statement ever. The steel used in sky scrapers is a standard carbon steel, not heavily alloyed. In any case, the iron-iron carbide phase diagram describes all carbon steels very accurately. Also, when the buildings actually collapsed, all that potential energy was released into heat and sound, which is true for all destructive reactions. So it is kinda possible that after the buildings fell, the temperature of the rubble reached levels higher than any fire could produce. But.......... very unlikely as the building was designed to take the full force of any plane that hit it, and there were also bombs in the building, so I need to think it through a bit better.

 

There are too many factors of it and every one has lots of different explanations. I think that it was collateral as there is lots and lots of evidence to show, you just need to have the right kind of mind too understand it.

Edited November 20, 2011 by morgsboi

[Iggy]

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Yeah, I tried to be concise and ended up not saying that very well. I'll try to articulate better...

 

 

Do you mean the theories are elaborate, or that they tend to be far-reaching (ie. involving a lot of conspirators)?

Both, yes. I believe the nature of a conspiracy theory is to add layers to the explanation of a situation (layers of people and events).

 

It's like the video you mentioned of molten metal dripping from one of the towers. Speculating that it is melted aluminum from the plane wouldn't add any elements to the plot and wouldn't be conspiratorial.

 

But, speculating that termite is responsible adds all the elements that come with a controlled demolition and makes it conspiratorial. It would add a covert demolition team, structural / chemical / mechanical engineers to design the demolition system, and of course the resources of big brother to keep everyone quite.

 

It seems like the purpose of a conspiracy theory is to add elements like that. The method involves extrapolating small unexplained evidence into a large well-conceived machination. Conspiracy theories are mysterious to me, but that's how I perceive them.

 

Trying to minimize the number of people in the 9-11 conspiracy sounded at cross purposes to me because it goes against that principle of adding layers to the explanation.

 

 

Also, what do you mean by "easier"? I don't think it's easy to say that something that is not scientifically possible actually happened.

I mean that it would be easier to support the notion that a plane hit the pentagon versus a missile. For the plane there are eyewitnesses, video, wreckage, and other evidence of that sort. To support the missile idea we not only have to find some positive evidence of a missile, we have to deal with all the evidence of the plane.

 

To consider ways to cut down the number of people in the conspiracy like you said, saying "a plane hit the pentagon" or "building 7 failed from an uncontrolled fire" does that quickly.

 

If there were positive evidence of a conspiracy -- for example, surveillance images of workers bringing hundreds of boxes of material into the buildings a few weeks before the event -- then there would be difficult constraints in limiting the size of the conspiracy. We would have to consider who these people were, who trained them, who paid them, who made the thermite devices in the boxes, etc.

 

Without positive evidence nothing would prevent us from eliminating the whole lot of them from the equation.

 

My point, I guess... If a person believed there was a conspiracy and wanted to see how small the conspiracy could be while still being consistent with the evidence, it could be arbitrarily small. It could be, the example I used, George Bush calling Bin Laden on the phone and saying "It would really help me out if you attacked". No limit to how small.

 

Hopefully that makes sense.

 

 

...It will probably have holes in it, so if you keep filling the holes with guesses it can get pretty complicated. Any theory built on layers of conjectures is probably pretty bad.

 

That goes both ways though... as soon as you put together a few assumptions like "The government has no reason to lie so they wouldn't; it would take thousands of conspirators to pull off something like this; it would be impossible for anyone to have access to the buildings before 9/11" etc, the theory can become unreliable.

I wouldn't look at it like that. The official account of what happened may have holes in it (there are always unknowns in everything), but I wouldn't consider "the government could lie" and "people had access to the buildings" holes. As an analogy, I wouldn't consider "the government lies" a hole in the official moon landing account.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Iggy

[rigney]

Yeah, I tried to be concise and ended up not saying that very well. I'll try to articulate better...

 

 

 

Both, yes. I believe the nature of a conspiracy theory is to add layers to the explanation of a situation (layers of people and events).

 

It's like the video you mentioned of molten metal dripping from one of the towers. Speculating that it is melted aluminum from the plane wouldn't add any elements to the plot and wouldn't be conspiratorial.

 

But, speculating that termite is responsible adds all the elements that come with a controlled demolition and makes it conspiratorial. It would add a covert demolition team, structural / chemical / mechanical engineers to design the demolition system, and of course the resources of big brother to keep everyone quite.

 

It seems like the purpose of a conspiracy theory is to add elements like that. The method involves extrapolating small unexplained evidence into a large well-conceived machination. Conspiracy theories are mysterious to me, but that's how I perceive them.

 

Trying to minimize the number of people in the 9-11 conspiracy sounded at cross purposes to me because it goes against that principle of adding layers to the explanation.

 

 

 

I mean that it would be easier to support the notion that a plane hit the pentagon versus a missile. For the plane there are eyewitnesses, video, wreckage, and other evidence of that sort. To support the missile idea we not only have to find some positive evidence of a missile, we have to deal with all the evidence of the plane.

 

To consider ways to cut down the number of people in the conspiracy like you said, saying "a plane hit the pentagon" or "building 7 failed from an uncontrolled fire" does that quickly.

 

If there were positive evidence of a conspiracy -- for example, surveillance images of workers bringing hundreds of boxes of material into the buildings a few weeks before the event -- then there would be difficult constraints in limiting the size of the conspiracy. We would have to consider who these people were, who trained them, who paid them, who made the thermite devices in the boxes, etc.

 

Without positive evidence nothing would prevent us from eliminating the whole lot of them from the equation.

 

My point, I guess... If a person believed there was a conspiracy and wanted to see how small the conspiracy could be while still being consistent with the evidence, it could be arbitrarily small. It could be, the example I used, George Bush calling Bin Laden on the phone and saying "It would really help me out if you attacked". No limit to how small.

 

Hopefully that makes sense.

 

 

 

I wouldn't look at it like that. The official account of what happened may have holes in it (there are always unknowns in everything), but I wouldn't consider "the government could lie" and "people had access to the buildings" holes. As an analogy, I wouldn't consider "the government lies" a hole in the official moon landing account.

Your take on what happened at the WTC is right on the money. Conspiracy theories precede Cain and Abel. (Eve and that apple thing with Adam) comes to mind. The serpent in the garden, etc. etc.. History is full of them because it is easier for many to deal with mythology rather than accept plain had truth. People who see flying saucers and little green men also scare the bejabbers out of me. This link that many of you have likely seen, brings into focus what conspiracy is all about.

 

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/the-kennedy-assasination-tribute-and-the-mcgruder-footage-t47211.html

[John Cuthber]

Okay, lets look at this from a chemistry point of view.

 

The actual maximum burning temperature of a Jet-A fuel (standard jet fuel type in U.S.) is 980 deg. Celsius. If you refer to the Iron-Iron Carbide phase diagram, the temperature at which steel changes from cementite and pearlite (strong phases of steel) to austenite (significantly less strong) is 702.5 deg. Celsius. Also, if a steel structure is exposed to a temperature just below or at the eutectic (702.5 deg.) for a period of time, martinsite is formed (very weak). All it would take is a few I-beams to lose their structural integrity before the "chain reaction" would start. People say that the heat from burning jet fuel cannot melt steel. It doesn't have to "melt" for it to become ineffective. Also, "very strong type of steel" is the most relative statement ever. The steel used in sky scrapers is a standard carbon steel, not heavily alloyed. In any case, the iron-iron carbide phase diagram describes all carbon steels very accurately. Also, when the buildings actually collapsed, all that potential energy was released into heat and sound, which is true for all destructive reactions. So it is kinda possible that after the buildings fell, the temperature of the rubble reached levels higher than any fire could produce. But.......... very unlikely as the building was designed to take the full force of any plane that hit it, and there were also bombs in the building, so I need to think it through a bit better.

 

There are too many factors of it and every one has lots of different explanations. I think that it was collateral as there is lots and lots of evidence to show, you just need to have the right kind of mind too understand it.

 

LOL!

Even a candle burns hotter than 1000 C

Steel loses a lot of it's strength by the time it's at 500C. The eutectic (which, incidentally is about 1100C rather than 703C and is practically speaking, the melting point of cast iron) has nothing to do with it.

[mississippichem]

LOL!

Even a candle burns hotter than 1000 C

Steel loses a lot of it's strength by the time it's at 500C. The eutectic (which, incidentally is about 1100C rather than 703C and is practically speaking, the melting point of cast iron) has nothing to do with it.

 

LOL indeed. Here is a list of adiabadic flame temperatures:

Wikipedia: adiabadic flame temps.

 

They have even "light fuel oil" listed in the 2000's C.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The actual maximum burning temperature of a Jet-A fuel (standard jet fuel type in U.S.) is 980 deg. Celsius. If you refer to the Iron-Iron Carbide phase diagram, the temperature at which steel changes from cementite and pearlite (strong phases of steel) to austenite (significantly less strong) is 702.5 deg. Celsius. Also, if a steel structure is exposed to a temperature just below or at the eutectic (702.5 deg.) for a period of time, martinsite is formed (very weak). All it would take is a few I-beams to lose their structural integrity before the "chain reaction" would start. People say that the heat from burning jet fuel cannot melt steel. It doesn't have to "melt" for it to become ineffective. Also, "very strong type of steel" is the most relative statement ever. The steel used in sky scrapers is a standard carbon steel, not heavily alloyed. In any case, the iron-iron carbide phase diagram describes all carbon steels very accurately. Also, when the buildings actually collapsed, all that potential energy was released into heat and sound, which is true for all destructive reactions. So it is kinda possible that after the buildings fell, the temperature of the rubble reached levels higher than any fire could produce. But.......... very unlikely as the building was designed to take the full force of any plane that hit it, and there were also bombs in the building, so I need to think it through a bit better.

 

There are too many factors of it and every one has lots of different explanations. I think that it was collateral as there is lots and lots of evidence to show, you just need to have the right kind of mind too understand it.

Plagiarism is not permitted on SFN. Please cite your sources when you quote text verbatim.

[morgsboi]

Plagiarism is not permitted on SFN. Please cite your sources when you quote text verbatim.

 

It was only for the help of the topic, and I didn't claim it as my own.

[mississippichem]

It was only for the help of the topic, and I didn't claim it as my own.

 

Not giving credit to the source is the same as claiming that it was your original work.

 

Perhaps you were unaware. That's alright. Now you know.

[morgsboi]

Not giving credit to the source is the same as claiming that it was your original work.

 

Perhaps you were unaware. That's alright. Now you know.

 

I thought about that, but it didn't say a name all it said was "future engineer".

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

A link to the original source would suffice.

[morgsboi]

A link to the original source would suffice.

 

http://worldaerodata.com/forum/read.php?5,493

 

Some bits, I added.

[md65536]

It's like the video you mentioned of molten metal dripping from one of the towers. Speculating that it is melted aluminum from the plane wouldn't add any elements to the plot and wouldn't be conspiratorial.

Alright, I will agree with you that simpler explanations are better.

I will also say that a LOT of stuff happened that day, and just like the rest of life there's going to be some very unlikely things happening mixed in with all the likely things. If something seems unlikely (like WTC 7 collapsing due to heat expanding a specific beam and weakening others), that doesn't mean it couldn't have happened that way. If we debunk all of the "scientific" claims against the official explanation, then we should be left with the "likelihood" of the official explanation, and that might give us some high or low degree of confidence in the explanation, but unless it was statistically impossible I can't really say "It couldn't have happened that way."

 

However, an explanation that relies on scientific impossibilities is a complication, not a simplification.

Claiming that the molten metal is aluminum is a complication, because molten aluminum does not glow as seen in the videos.

 

An explanation I've come across in some of the videos is that it was molten aluminum well-mixed with burning office materials.

This is a complication because office materials don't mix with aluminum. They float on top.

 

 

A simple explanation for the molten metal is that it is steel melted with thermate.

There are complications with this too, including that there was no evidence of thermate found.

However this has a simple explanation too! "NIST simply never checked for the presence of thermite or thermate" [http://en.wikipedia....piracy_theories]

The simple explanation for why they never checked is: "NIST did not test for explosive compound residue in steel samples, stating the potential for inconclusive results, and noting that similar compounds would have been present during construction of the towers," [same ref as above], or "When asked why NIST did not test for explosive residues, NIST spokesman Michael Newman responded that NIST saw 'no evidence saying to go that way.'" [http://en.wikipedia....ld_Trade_Center]

 

Saying that there was no thermate in the wreckage because none was found and nobody looked for it, is like saying that length-contraction doesn't happen at human scales because no one has done an experiment that can confirm it.

 

 

If the likelihood of thermate is low (negligible, as NIST implies), then it currently falls under "Unlikely, but not impossible".

If the glow of the dripping molten metal can't be explained, then "it is molten aluminum" falls under "not possible."

The case for thermate can be considered even less likely, if there's an alternative explanation that is scientifically possible.

Edited November 21, 2011 by md65536

[John Cuthber]

"A simple explanation for the molten metal is that it is steel melted with thermate."

A simpler explanation is that it's rather hot aluminium.

It really doesn't make sense to claim that thermate is a simple explanation because, if it were there it would have shown up in the measurements made by the people who claimed to have found termite. (It's not as if they would have kept quiet about it.)

The barium would have shown up in the elemental analyses.

 

So, thermate cannot have been present or the papers cited earlier would have found it when they were analysing what they claimed was thermite.

Specifically, the dispersive Xray analysis they talk about here

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

would have shown up the presence of Barium. (The stuff on DSC is bollocks, but the Xray analyses are fairly reliable; they show what they claim is thermite- they don't seem to see a problem with the fact that it hadn't' "gone off" so to speak).

 

Barium would have stuck out like a sore arse.

It wasn't found (if it had been, those same people would have had a field day with that discovery).

It wasn't there.

There was no thermate

But without the addition of the barium nitrate, the stuff doesn't burn hot enough to cut girders.

So the girders were not cut that way.

 

Why do you insist that this is a "cover up?"

[Phi for All]

Why do you insist that this is a "cover up?"

Being wrong about a false conspiracy has little consequence, especially when one can brandish the shield of skepticism. Being right about a true conspiracy holds great value, especially when one can wield the sword of "I told you so!".

[John Cuthber]

"Being right about a true conspiracy holds great value,"

Or it gets you killed to keep you quiet.

[Pantaz]

... A simple explanation for the molten metal is that it is steel melted with thermate. ...

Please present any evidence of:

A) Molten steel

B) Thermite or thermate.

 

Note: YouTube is not acceptable an acceptable reference.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Pantaz

[Iggy]

However, an explanation that relies on scientific impossibilities is a complication, not a simplification.

Claiming that the molten metal is aluminum is a complication, because molten aluminum does not glow as seen in the videos.

I've worked with molten lead and pewter, but not aluminum so I couldn't say. I would trust John Cuthber about rather hot aluminum.

 

 

By the way, how does anyone know the temperature of the fire? I saw a

that said 980 C. I wonder where or how anyone got to that number

[md65536]

I've worked with molten lead and pewter, but not aluminum so I couldn't say. I would trust John Cuthber about rather hot aluminum.

 

 

By the way, how does anyone know the temperature of the fire? I saw a

that said 980 C. I wonder where or how anyone got to that number

I've seen conflicting information.

 

This video:

claims that it can't be molten aluminum but shows an experiment where aluminum at the supposed temperatures of the fire is seen glowing as it's poured!

 

 

At this point I would have to do further research before continuing to claim that there is anything I know to be scientifically impossible in the NIST report. I hope others will continue to bring scientific arguments to this discussion.

 

 

What's sad is that evidence provided for both sides tells just enough to support a claim, and nothing further, with no room for uncertainty. Anything more is either left out, not worth investigating, etc. The best evidence I've seen so far involves one side trying to prove a point while the evidence they're presenting shows something else, because that something else is just pure evidence, not pre-interpreted evidence presented only to support the interpretation. Another Feynman quote: "The only way to have real success in science, the field I’m familiar with, is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what’s good and what’s bad about it equally. In science, you learn a kind of standard integrity and honesty."

 

 

[runlikell]

Hey guys! I bet some of ya'll thought I gave up, didn't ya? Ha! Anyone who thought that will in time see that in truth my character lies on the opposite side of the spectrum. In actuality, I was forced to take a hiatus from the internet due to life circumstances not worth going into right now. What's important is that, I'm back now. And ready to address all the comments which can appropriately be done so in such a situation. Obviously it would not be practical to reply to every single post made since my last one (near the beginning of page 1), and so I'm wondering if there is any sort of guideline or protocol for this type of situation. Othewise, I'll just pick my battels based on those handful of posts which compel a reply the most.

 

First things first. I notice upon looking at my account that I received 2 negative feedback votes. Gosh, I can't help but feel as a knee jerk reaction that they were undeserved, but I'll try to stay within my place as the FNG and remain humble. What did I do to deserve negative feedback? I started a topic that provoked pages of conversation, and in the couple of replies, I remained polite, and was objective and logical as I know how to be. What else could I have done? I will fully respect any sincere answer, but simply rating me negatively with no explanation would be, in my opinion, cowardly move. OK, so I've laid down the challenge. Come out of the shadows, whoever you are. Having welcomed me to the forum with an most unfriendly gesture. And hey gosh, maybe I've come to the wrong forum.

 

I was hoping to have a polite, sincere, and genuine discussion about an issue that it is difficult to talk about without elliciting deep, powerful emotions in Americans. But already, I have had beleifs been pinned on me, I have been treated in a way that is biased, in being asked for a level of evidence that was never provided by anyone on the other side of the argument, which ya'll seemed to swallow unquestioningly.

 

Let me finish off my making sure anyone who *wants* me specifically to respond to a post they made, please remind me to do so. I do not want to be acccused of ignoring anyone. Even rude folk, those appearing less intelligent or well researched than me, or defensive and biased thinking replies.... they all come from human beings. And, in accordance with the humanistic principle set forth by my (as I like to call it) scientific religion of secular humanism, I think everyone deserves to be acknowledged and treated with respect. So go ahead and name call if it validates some deep insecuirty remaing from the trauma of childhood bulliying left. Or reply in haste if can simply cannot contain yourself ong enough to read over what you wrote and ask yourself whether the same level of standards have been applied to the opposing viewpoint, if you're weaknesses do not allow for a refined, difnified post. I won't talk down to someone speaking directly to them, even if I have the security of being able to hide behind my avitar on the other side of the globe. Such is besides the point.

 

My goal is the pursuit of truth despite its implications and inhernet discomfort. If that is also yours goal, can we not work together along common gruond? Please remember, you are speaking to someone who rolled his eyes at his conspiracy spoutting friends talking up Loose Change, and who did not claim to have absolute certainty one way or the other until addressing all of the main arguments and counter argunmetn and rebuttals and debunkings on both sides, as exhaustively as I could, until all that was left was fanatical ravings. It took many months, and admittedly, a lot of tears (this coming from a man who rarely cries), before I could no longer deny the overwhelming evidence for controlled demoltion. At this point, I don't even think it was necessarily an evil thing --if it is true that it was a false flag operation-- just like alowing Pearl Harbor to happen was a necessary evil that helped prevent another evil many times bigger in magnitude. 3000 deaths in the collapse of two buildings pales in comparison to what we would have seen had they crashed those planes into nuclear reactors (which they could have easily done, having flown right by one in new york. talk about failing to maximize damage). If that's what it takes to raise awareness to a level that can bring resources towards the prevention of terrorist acts with truly high scale numbering in the millions, then such a sacrafice would surely be deemed well worth it by any comptent military leader. Note of clarity: I am NOT saying I believe that the government rigged the buildings, or that it was good. I am merely illustrating one line of thought which hopefully helps my grander point become more clear. The idea that the twin towers were brought down in a controlled demolition does not have to necessarily be a bad thing. Don't be arrogant and think you have all possible explanations for motives are scenerios figured out. It could easilt have been much worse, so we've done somethign right. Right

[John Cuthber]

Just to let you know: in order to act as adequate radiation shielding during use the containment vessels of nuclear reactors are so thick and heavy that they would survive a plane crash.

 

Meanwhile, back at the topic.

Do you have any actual evidence of any explosives residues having been found in the debris from the twin towers?

Please note that

(1) thermite is not explosive

(2) thermite will not actually cut through steel (at any rate- not vertical girders and the quantity needed to cut horizontal ones is impractical)

(3) thermate might be able to cut through steel (if you box it up and carefully attach it to the girders with bolts set into neatly cut and tapped holes) but it leaves a lot of barium compounds behind which would have been found i by the elemental analyses of the debris.

So, it's a simple question. The answer is either "no" in which case that's pretty much the end of the debate or it's "yes" in which case can you please provide a reference.

 

 

Do you have any actual evidence of any explosives residues having been found in the debris from the twin towers?

[Daedalus]

I just got done watching "Loose Change 9-11" on NetFlix. This documentary covers a lot of the stuff talked about in this thread. Not sure I completely agree with everything, but it was an interesting view on the events of 9-11. Perhaps you guys should watch it.

[Pantaz]

I just got done watching "Loose Change 9-11" on NetFlix. This documentary covers a lot of the stuff talked about in this thread. Not sure I completely agree with everything, but it was an interesting view on the events of 9-11. Perhaps you guys should watch it.

 

I prefer this version.

 

A great resource for fact-checking "Loose Change" is, 9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide