9/11Posted

Just a short video about the pentagon attack from 9/11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1aBFbyN7xY



7 of the 19 "Terrorists" that were said to be on the planes are still alive

Building 7 fell freefall speed but no planes crashed into it

The "plane" that hit the pentagon was very low to the ground and to be able to do this it would have to be a very experienced pilot, yet the terrorist that supposedly was flying it had been taking pilot lessons and they instructors said he was a poor pilot

Never in history had a high rise steel building collapse by fire. on 911, there were 3

911 Building 7 song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEAGzoK97E0

World Trade Center 911 BOMBINGS COVER UP?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jevOj3Qh-w






Can you explain why there reinforced levels on the twin towers did not stop the collapse and force the top into the street as designed

Why from the Pentagon crash did they take all the video recordings of it yet only release 2 images that show no plane

Why with the pentagon did the sniffed dogs find no traces at all of blood yet all the passengers on the plane were identified by DNA?

Why were there explosions on lower floors and why do some of the fire rescue and people in the twin towers say there was more explosions in the basement etc?

Why did the steel frame melt yet the fire was not hot enough, most of the fuel burn on impact

Why did building 7 collapses? No planes crashed into this building yet it still fall freefall speed

Why did the lease holder phone his insurance up to make sure it covered acts of terrorism weeks before it happened, and why did they remove allot of security the week it happened including all stiffer dogs?

Shayler wrote:Can you explain why there reinforced levels on the twin towers did not stop the collapse and force the top into the street as designed

Do you have a source for this? I studied the design of the WTC back when I was doing civil engineering, but I don't recall every seeing that feature.

Why did the steel frame melt yet the fire was not hot enough, most of the fuel burn on impact

This one's easy. It didn't melt, it just got hot. When it gets hot it becomes weaker. Once it became weaker, it gives way and buckles.

In buckling, it's going to generate a whole lot more heat, and possibly melt. Try taking a paper clip, and bending it back and forth and back and forth until it snaps, then touch the snapped end of the paper clip. It will be hot. (A paperclip might not be thick enough for this, might have to find something thicker).

Kazza wrote:
Do you have a source for this? I studied the design of the WTC back when I was doing civil engineering, but I don't recall every seeing that feature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jevOj3Qh-w
1:10 in

Kazza wrote:
This one's easy. It didn't melt, it just got hot. When it gets hot it becomes weaker. Once it became weaker, it gives way and buckles.

In buckling, it's going to generate a whole lot more heat, and possibly melt. Try taking a paper clip, and bending it back and forth and back and forth until it snaps, then touch the snapped end of the paper clip. It will be hot. (A paperclip might not be thick enough for this, might have to find something thicker).

Yes but there was loads of melted steel along with beams with angle cuts

The fires were localized and most fuel burnt on impact, how do these localized fires cause a collapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnjIzamnJo here explains how all the floors would fall but it should leave the solid core.


Also there was one of the terrorists passports found (paper) yet supposedly the black boxes got destroyed.

Kazza wrote:

Shayler wrote:Can you explain why there reinforced levels on the twin towers did not stop the collapse and force the top into the street as designed

Do you have a source for this? I studied the design of the WTC back when I was doing civil engineering, but I don't recall every seeing that feature.

Why did the steel frame melt yet the fire was not hot enough, most of the fuel burn on impact

This one's easy. It didn't melt, it just got hot. When it gets hot it becomes weaker. Once it became weaker, it gives way and buckles.

In buckling, it's going to generate a whole lot more heat, and possibly melt. Try taking a paper clip, and bending it back and forth and back and forth until it snaps, then touch the snapped end of the paper clip. It will be hot. (A paperclip might not be thick enough for this, might have to find something thicker).

That's something I learn about in gunsmithing. Once that steel is hot, even if the fuel had burned off, the steel is cooling slowly and is a lot weaker even after it has cooled. I would assume the steel used in the building had already been case hardened. Which is to heat it up then cool it quickly. The steel in that building had been heated very quickly and the molecular structure (Fancy term for kazza ) altered to a weaker state. Even if it had lasted through the heat of the fire and cooled, it still wouldn't have been strong enough to support the weight of the building because of it's weakened state. And once all that weight started coming down on the steel below it which had not been heated, the rest of the collapse was just a chain reaction of having several tons dropped on top of it suddenly.

Am I about right Kazza? Or just a total loon?

Shayler wrote:

Kazza wrote:
Do you have a source for this? I studied the design of the WTC back when I was doing civil engineering, but I don't recall every seeing that feature.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jevOj3Qh-w
1:10 in

Kazza wrote:
This one's easy. It didn't melt, it just got hot. When it gets hot it becomes weaker. Once it became weaker, it gives way and buckles.

In buckling, it's going to generate a whole lot more heat, and possibly melt. Try taking a paper clip, and bending it back and forth and back and forth until it snaps, then touch the snapped end of the paper clip. It will be hot. (A paperclip might not be thick enough for this, might have to find something thicker).

Yes but there was loads of melted steel along with beams with angle cuts

The fires were localized and most fuel burnt on impact, how do these localized fires cause a collapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnnjIzamnJo here explains how all the floors would fall but it should leave the solid core.


Also there was one of the terrorists passports found (paper) yet supposedly the black boxes got destroyed.

My internet connection is running slow at the moment, so I'll have to save the videos for later.

However, anyone claiming that the solid core should have remained doesn't understand the building. The WTC wasn't built like most skyscrapers - the floors weren't supported by the central core. To do so would have required a core with a ground-floor footprint larger than the actual building. Instead, the floors were supported by a steel outer frame, which is what lead to the "pancake" collapse mechanism. You wouldn't expect it to collapse like other buildings because it wasn't designed like other buildings.

Also, if you see any material collapse due to stress (in the engineering sense of the word) as opposed to buckling, you'll see that it shears along a 45 degree angle. Get a bunch of concrete or steel and keep putting stuff on it till it breaks. It will have a nice flat, 45 degree angled surface.

CarolinaHound wrote:

Kazza wrote:

Shayler wrote:Can you explain why there reinforced levels on the twin towers did not stop the collapse and force the top into the street as designed

Do you have a source for this? I studied the design of the WTC back when I was doing civil engineering, but I don't recall every seeing that feature.

Why did the steel frame melt yet the fire was not hot enough, most of the fuel burn on impact

This one's easy. It didn't melt, it just got hot. When it gets hot it becomes weaker. Once it became weaker, it gives way and buckles.

In buckling, it's going to generate a whole lot more heat, and possibly melt. Try taking a paper clip, and bending it back and forth and back and forth until it snaps, then touch the snapped end of the paper clip. It will be hot. (A paperclip might not be thick enough for this, might have to find something thicker).

That's something I learn about in gunsmithing. Once that steel is hot, even if the fuel had burned off, the steel is cooling slowly and is a lot weaker even after it has cooled. I would assume the steel used in the building had already been case hardened. Which is to heat it up then cool it quickly. The steel in that building had been heated very quickly and the molecular structure (Fancy term for kazza ) altered to a weaker state. Even if it had lasted through the heat of the fire and cooled, it still wouldn't have been strong enough to support the weight of the building because of it's weakened state. And once all that weight started coming down on the steel below it which had not been heated, the rest of the collapse was just a chain reaction of having several tons dropped on top of it suddenly.

Am I about right Kazza? Or just a total loon?

Nope, you're right. The different heating and cooling methods can result in a steel that is soft and comparitvely flexible, stiff but collapses suddenly and without warning, or something that can absorb lots of energy. And yeah, it's because of the molecular structure - how big the groups of molecules that are all lined up in the same direction are.

Though I think in this case it was even simpler than what you are explaining. I think it was just a matter of heating it up makes it weaker.

Kazza wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Kazza wrote:

Shayler wrote:Can you explain why there reinforced levels on the twin towers did not stop the collapse and force the top into the street as designed

Do you have a source for this? I studied the design of the WTC back when I was doing civil engineering, but I don't recall every seeing that feature.

Why did the steel frame melt yet the fire was not hot enough, most of the fuel burn on impact

This one's easy. It didn't melt, it just got hot. When it gets hot it becomes weaker. Once it became weaker, it gives way and buckles.

In buckling, it's going to generate a whole lot more heat, and possibly melt. Try taking a paper clip, and bending it back and forth and back and forth until it snaps, then touch the snapped end of the paper clip. It will be hot. (A paperclip might not be thick enough for this, might have to find something thicker).

That's something I learn about in gunsmithing. Once that steel is hot, even if the fuel had burned off, the steel is cooling slowly and is a lot weaker even after it has cooled. I would assume the steel used in the building had already been case hardened. Which is to heat it up then cool it quickly. The steel in that building had been heated very quickly and the molecular structure (Fancy term for kazza ) altered to a weaker state. Even if it had lasted through the heat of the fire and cooled, it still wouldn't have been strong enough to support the weight of the building because of it's weakened state. And once all that weight started coming down on the steel below it which had not been heated, the rest of the collapse was just a chain reaction of having several tons dropped on top of it suddenly.

Am I about right Kazza? Or just a total loon?

Nope, you're right. The different heating and cooling methods can result in a steel that is soft and comparitvely flexible, stiff but collapses suddenly and without warning, or something that can absorb lots of energy. And yeah, it's because of the molecular structure - how big the groups of molecules that are all lined up in the same direction are.

Though I think in this case it was even simpler than what you are explaining. I think it was just a matter of heating it up makes it weaker.

Yea pretty simple actually. Once they heated enough to give a little, the rest just a house of cards tumbling down.

Ok so if the fire can melt the steel and insinirate the black boxes, why was a paper passport intact?
And i still dont see why building 7 fell freefall speed yet no planes hit it

Shayler wrote:Just a short video about the pentagon attack from 9/11
Blah, blah, blah, blah...Government did it! Blah , blah, blah, blah...controlled demolition! Blah, blah, blah, blah...a drone was crashed into the Pentagon! Blah, blah, blah,. blah!!!

Oh my!
Must we endure this?
Read the Nist report and stop googling 9/11, for f***s sake!

Shayler wrote:Just a short video about the pentagon attack from 9/11
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1aBFbyN7xY



7 of the 19 "Terrorists" that were said to be on the planes are still alive

Building 7 fell freefall speed but no planes crashed into it ...

This has ALL been done to death in forums across the internet. I strongly recommend you research this for yourself (avoiding the 'troofer' sites), learn a bit about what is involved in controlled demolition and how steel reacts to heat, etc...

Also keep in mind... you're making the allegations, therefore the burden of proof is on you. You say WTC 7 fell at 'free-fall speed'? Prove it. 7 of the 19 terrorists involved are still alive? Prove it. If they're still alive then what hit the buildings?... and don't forget to provide proof.

You show a video clip of 'puffs' shooting out of the building below the collapsing structure and allude to the possibility they may be signs of explosives being used. Prove it.

It's not my job to convince you. You're making the allegations, therefore it is your job to convince me.

catch-22 wrote:
Must we endure this?

No dont read it if you dont want to

PaulM wrote:
This has ALL been done to death in forums across the internet. I strongly recommend you research this for yourself (avoiding the 'troofer' sites), learn a bit about what is involved in controlled demolition and how steel reacts to heat, etc...

Also keep in mind... you're making the allegations, therefore the burden of proof is on you. You say WTC 7 fell at 'free-fall speed'? Prove it. 7 of the 19 terrorists involved are still alive? Prove it. If they're still alive then what hit the buildings?... and don't forget to provide proof.

You show a video clip of 'puffs' shooting out of the building below the collapsing structure and allude to the possibility they may be signs of explosives being used. Prove it.

It's not my job to convince you. You're making the allegations, therefore it is your job to convince me.

And no im not making the allegations myself, im just saying that what the 9/11 report sais dose not fully add up, they may be holding information back to protect people i dont know. All im saying is that is dosnt ALL add up.

Im not saying planes didnt hit the building im just saying they have accused some of the wrong people.

Shayler wrote:

catch-22 wrote:
Must we endure this?

No dont read it if you dont want to

PaulM wrote:
This has ALL been done to death in forums across the internet. I strongly recommend you research this for yourself (avoiding the 'troofer' sites), learn a bit about what is involved in controlled demolition and how steel reacts to heat, etc...

Also keep in mind... you're making the allegations, therefore the burden of proof is on you. You say WTC 7 fell at 'free-fall speed'? Prove it. 7 of the 19 terrorists involved are still alive? Prove it. If they're still alive then what hit the buildings?... and don't forget to provide proof.

You show a video clip of 'puffs' shooting out of the building below the collapsing structure and allude to the possibility they may be signs of explosives being used. Prove it.

It's not my job to convince you. You're making the allegations, therefore it is your job to convince me.

And no im not making the allegations myself, im just saying that what the 9/11 report sais dose not fully add up, they may be holding information back to protect people i dont know. All im saying is that is dosnt ALL add up.

Im not saying planes didnt hit the building im just saying they have accused some of the wrong people.

I've read it and I've read it, and I've read it! It's the same bullshit every time. I'ts boring! You say you have questions but you understand nothing about the crap you pretend to be a "sudden" expert about.

What is the meaning of the term "free fall"? How does it apply to the collapse of the twin towers or WTC7? If bombs exploded in the lobbies of the towers, why did they collapse from the top, down and more specifically, from the sites of the impacts by commercial airliners?

You know nothing of the events of 9/11. You are a trained robot spitting out information that has been force-fed to you by people who are a hell of a lot smarter than you are. Conspiracy theorists make a living out recruiting stupid people like you and then sending you on your merry little way to spread their bullshit by posting idiot links back to their pissy little web sites.


{edited out, too strong!}




You may now resume your usual viewing.

Shayler wrote:
..im just saying they have accused some of the wrong people.

...and who are the "right" people to accuse and why?

It's exactly as Catch said... all you're doing is regurgitating what you have been told by people who make their living off this conspiracy theory.

As I said... this has all been done to death. You are not coming up with anything new or revealing. My suggestion still stands. AVOID the "trooffer" sites and learn something about controlled demolition and the construction of the WTC. Learn the definition of freefall. Talk to people who actually know something about engineering and physics (kazza, in this forum, is a good one to learn from). If you don't trust kazza then go to university & engineering sites... learn a bit.

Kazza wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Kazza wrote:

Shayler wrote:Can you explain why there reinforced levels on the twin towers did not stop the collapse and force the top into the street as designed

Do you have a source for this? I studied the design of the WTC back when I was doing civil engineering, but I don't recall every seeing that feature.

Why did the steel frame melt yet the fire was not hot enough, most of the fuel burn on impact

This one's easy. It didn't melt, it just got hot. When it gets hot it becomes weaker. Once it became weaker, it gives way and buckles.

In buckling, it's going to generate a whole lot more heat, and possibly melt. Try taking a paper clip, and bending it back and forth and back and forth until it snaps, then touch the snapped end of the paper clip. It will be hot. (A paperclip might not be thick enough for this, might have to find something thicker).

That's something I learn about in gunsmithing. Once that steel is hot, even if the fuel had burned off, the steel is cooling slowly and is a lot weaker even after it has cooled. I would assume the steel used in the building had already been case hardened. Which is to heat it up then cool it quickly. The steel in that building had been heated very quickly and the molecular structure (Fancy term for kazza ) altered to a weaker state. Even if it had lasted through the heat of the fire and cooled, it still wouldn't have been strong enough to support the weight of the building because of it's weakened state. And once all that weight started coming down on the steel below it which had not been heated, the rest of the collapse was just a chain reaction of having several tons dropped on top of it suddenly.

Am I about right Kazza? Or just a total loon?

Nope, you're right. The different heating and cooling methods can result in a steel that is soft and comparitvely flexible, stiff but collapses suddenly and without warning, or something that can absorb lots of energy. And yeah, it's because of the molecular structure - how big the groups of molecules that are all lined up in the same direction are.

Though I think in this case it was even simpler than what you are explaining. I think it was just a matter of heating it up makes it weaker.

Kazza,

I have a question for you. How do you explain the molten steel that stayed hot for weeks under the rubble pile at the WTC? I mean the pictures of this stuff is red to white hot almost dripping.

Independent Harry wrote:

Kazza wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Kazza wrote:

Shayler wrote:Can you explain why there reinforced levels on the twin towers did not stop the collapse and force the top into the street as designed

Do you have a source for this? I studied the design of the WTC back when I was doing civil engineering, but I don't recall every seeing that feature.

Why did the steel frame melt yet the fire was not hot enough, most of the fuel burn on impact

This one's easy. It didn't melt, it just got hot. When it gets hot it becomes weaker. Once it became weaker, it gives way and buckles.

In buckling, it's going to generate a whole lot more heat, and possibly melt. Try taking a paper clip, and bending it back and forth and back and forth until it snaps, then touch the snapped end of the paper clip. It will be hot. (A paperclip might not be thick enough for this, might have to find something thicker).

That's something I learn about in gunsmithing. Once that steel is hot, even if the fuel had burned off, the steel is cooling slowly and is a lot weaker even after it has cooled. I would assume the steel used in the building had already been case hardened. Which is to heat it up then cool it quickly. The steel in that building had been heated very quickly and the molecular structure (Fancy term for kazza ) altered to a weaker state. Even if it had lasted through the heat of the fire and cooled, it still wouldn't have been strong enough to support the weight of the building because of it's weakened state. And once all that weight started coming down on the steel below it which had not been heated, the rest of the collapse was just a chain reaction of having several tons dropped on top of it suddenly.

Am I about right Kazza? Or just a total loon?

Nope, you're right. The different heating and cooling methods can result in a steel that is soft and comparitvely flexible, stiff but collapses suddenly and without warning, or something that can absorb lots of energy. And yeah, it's because of the molecular structure - how big the groups of molecules that are all lined up in the same direction are.

Though I think in this case it was even simpler than what you are explaining. I think it was just a matter of heating it up makes it weaker.

Kazza,

I have a question for you. How do you explain the molten steel that stayed hot for weeks under the rubble pile at the WTC? I mean the pictures of this stuff is red to white hot almost dripping.

If you know how to post the pics, now would be a good time.

catch-22 wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:

Kazza wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Kazza wrote:

Shayler wrote:Can you explain why there reinforced levels on the twin towers did not stop the collapse and force the top into the street as designed

Do you have a source for this? I studied the design of the WTC back when I was doing civil engineering, but I don't recall every seeing that feature.

Why did the steel frame melt yet the fire was not hot enough, most of the fuel burn on impact

This one's easy. It didn't melt, it just got hot. When it gets hot it becomes weaker. Once it became weaker, it gives way and buckles.

In buckling, it's going to generate a whole lot more heat, and possibly melt. Try taking a paper clip, and bending it back and forth and back and forth until it snaps, then touch the snapped end of the paper clip. It will be hot. (A paperclip might not be thick enough for this, might have to find something thicker).

That's something I learn about in gunsmithing. Once that steel is hot, even if the fuel had burned off, the steel is cooling slowly and is a lot weaker even after it has cooled. I would assume the steel used in the building had already been case hardened. Which is to heat it up then cool it quickly. The steel in that building had been heated very quickly and the molecular structure (Fancy term for kazza ) altered to a weaker state. Even if it had lasted through the heat of the fire and cooled, it still wouldn't have been strong enough to support the weight of the building because of it's weakened state. And once all that weight started coming down on the steel below it which had not been heated, the rest of the collapse was just a chain reaction of having several tons dropped on top of it suddenly.

Am I about right Kazza? Or just a total loon?

Nope, you're right. The different heating and cooling methods can result in a steel that is soft and comparitvely flexible, stiff but collapses suddenly and without warning, or something that can absorb lots of energy. And yeah, it's because of the molecular structure - how big the groups of molecules that are all lined up in the same direction are.

Though I think in this case it was even simpler than what you are explaining. I think it was just a matter of heating it up makes it weaker.

Kazza,

I have a question for you. How do you explain the molten steel that stayed hot for weeks under the rubble pile at the WTC? I mean the pictures of this stuff is red to white hot almost dripping.

If you know how to post the pics, now would be a good time.

not so good at embedding pictures yet. But here you go, some links of pictures of the stuff they were pulling out of ground zero for a couple of weeks after the fact.

http://www.debunking911.com/Molten.jpg
http://9eleven.info/MetalGlow.jpg you can't really see well, but it looks like pieces of the fire truck are glowing hot too.

Here's a video that has witnesses talk about the molten steel underneath the rubble pile
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/jones_firemen.jpg&imgrefurl=http://sparkoflife.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/911-truth-molten-medal-theory-disinfo/&usg=__yAsa-NZ8r2EinvPknLPwtqNNdf4=&h=327&w=444&sz=21&hl=en&start=14&um=1&tbnid=y-zC7Q4nHzUZEM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3D911%2Bmolten%2Bsteel%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

and finally the picture by nasa showing hot spots under all 3 buildings, I think this was take 9 days later. Including building 7 that was never hit by fuel or a plane.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.gif

Independent Harry wrote: not so good at embedding pictures yet. But here you go, some links of pictures of the stuff they were pulling out of ground zero for a couple of weeks after the fact.

http://www.debunking911.com/Molten.jpg
http://9eleven.info/MetalGlow.jpg you can't really see well, but it looks like pieces of the fire truck are glowing hot too.

Here's a video that has witnesses talk about the molten steel underneath the rubble pile
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/jones_firemen.jpg&imgrefurl=http://sparkoflife.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/911-truth-molten-medal-theory-disinfo/&usg=__yAsa-NZ8r2EinvPknLPwtqNNdf4=&h=327&w=444&sz=21&hl=en&start=14&um=1&tbnid=y-zC7Q4nHzUZEM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3D911%2Bmolten%2Bsteel%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

and finally the picture by nasa showing hot spots under all 3 buildings, I think this was take 9 days later. Including building 7 that was never hit by fuel or a plane.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.gif

I'm confused!
What are you saying that those photos show evidence of?

Independent Harry wrote:

Kazza wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

Kazza wrote:

Shayler wrote:Can you explain why there reinforced levels on the twin towers did not stop the collapse and force the top into the street as designed

Do you have a source for this? I studied the design of the WTC back when I was doing civil engineering, but I don't recall every seeing that feature.

Why did the steel frame melt yet the fire was not hot enough, most of the fuel burn on impact

This one's easy. It didn't melt, it just got hot. When it gets hot it becomes weaker. Once it became weaker, it gives way and buckles.

In buckling, it's going to generate a whole lot more heat, and possibly melt. Try taking a paper clip, and bending it back and forth and back and forth until it snaps, then touch the snapped end of the paper clip. It will be hot. (A paperclip might not be thick enough for this, might have to find something thicker).

That's something I learn about in gunsmithing. Once that steel is hot, even if the fuel had burned off, the steel is cooling slowly and is a lot weaker even after it has cooled. I would assume the steel used in the building had already been case hardened. Which is to heat it up then cool it quickly. The steel in that building had been heated very quickly and the molecular structure (Fancy term for kazza ) altered to a weaker state. Even if it had lasted through the heat of the fire and cooled, it still wouldn't have been strong enough to support the weight of the building because of it's weakened state. And once all that weight started coming down on the steel below it which had not been heated, the rest of the collapse was just a chain reaction of having several tons dropped on top of it suddenly.

Am I about right Kazza? Or just a total loon?

Nope, you're right. The different heating and cooling methods can result in a steel that is soft and comparitvely flexible, stiff but collapses suddenly and without warning, or something that can absorb lots of energy. And yeah, it's because of the molecular structure - how big the groups of molecules that are all lined up in the same direction are.

Though I think in this case it was even simpler than what you are explaining. I think it was just a matter of heating it up makes it weaker.

Kazza,

I have a question for you. How do you explain the molten steel that stayed hot for weeks under the rubble pile at the WTC? I mean the pictures of this stuff is red to white hot almost dripping.

Simply insulation I would imagine. If there's nowhere for the heat to go it's going to stay hot for a very, very long time.

We deal with that here all the time. A bushfire can go through an area, and weeks later if a hot wind blows it starts up again because it was still red hot a few inches below the surface.


In any case, a controlled demolition wouldn't cause that any more than what happened in the official story. The amount of heat generated by cutting charges is incomparable (I would think) to the amount generated by a collapsing building. If the heat to make those white hot had come from an explosive, it would have quickly dissipated into the nearby steel that hadn't been cut. What actually happens is that as the building collapses (regardless of whether it's because of demolitions or planes) the steel gets grossly deformed, and as a result gets very hot.

Independent Harry wrote:
and finally the picture by nasa showing hot spots under all 3 buildings, I think this was take 9 days later. Including building 7 that was never hit by fuel or a plane.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.gif

Like I said above, the steel isn't red hot because of cutting charges. It's because of all the energy released when a building collapses. At least I'm pretty sure that's why. I'm not an expert on building collapses.


In any case, if you want to go further with this you need more evidence, and I haven't got time right now to search for it myself.

- Show me a satellite photo of a building of comparable size that was brought down by explosives.

- Show me a satellite photo of a building of comparable size that was brought down by fire.

These shouldn't be too hard to get your hands on.

Kazza wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:
and finally the picture by nasa showing hot spots under all 3 buildings, I think this was take 9 days later. Including building 7 that was never hit by fuel or a plane.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.gif

Like I said above, the steel isn't red hot because of cutting charges. It's because of all the energy released when a building collapses. At least I'm pretty sure that's why. I'm not an expert on building collapses.


In any case, if you want to go further with this you need more evidence, and I haven't got time right now to search for it myself.

- Show me a satellite photo of a building of comparable size that was brought down by explosives.

- Show me a satellite photo of a building of comparable size that was brought down by fire.

These shouldn't be too hard to get your hands on.

There isn't a comparable building brought down by fire. From what I understand these are the first modern steel structures ever to collapse from fire.

As for the other, that wasn't a satelite phonto, it was a nasa plane that took an infared picture. I doubt there is much of that out there for other buildings.

catch-22 wrote:

Independent Harry wrote: not so good at embedding pictures yet. But here you go, some links of pictures of the stuff they were pulling out of ground zero for a couple of weeks after the fact.

http://www.debunking911.com/Molten.jpg
http://9eleven.info/MetalGlow.jpg you can't really see well, but it looks like pieces of the fire truck are glowing hot too.

Here's a video that has witnesses talk about the molten steel underneath the rubble pile
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/jones_firemen.jpg&imgrefurl=http://sparkoflife.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/911-truth-molten-medal-theory-disinfo/&usg=__yAsa-NZ8r2EinvPknLPwtqNNdf4=&h=327&w=444&sz=21&hl=en&start=14&um=1&tbnid=y-zC7Q4nHzUZEM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3D911%2Bmolten%2Bsteel%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

and finally the picture by nasa showing hot spots under all 3 buildings, I think this was take 9 days later. Including building 7 that was never hit by fuel or a plane.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.gif

I'm confused!
What are you saying that those photos show evidence of?

They show evidence of molten hot steel in the collapse footprint burried under the twin towers. What did you think I was saying they show evidence of.

In my younger years I did a lot of steel work in boiler shops and I can tell you that it is not so much as a fire but rather the intensity in that fire that will cause steel to bend and buckle. We used a heating torch to heat only a small section of a large I-Beam to make it either curve or straighten out. the metal only has to reach a certain degree of heat to lose its strength at any given point of it. Take the strongest chain in the world and put tension on it and then heat just one part of one link. when it reaches a certian degree of heat it will give and snap just as those girder beams in those building buckled from the intense heat caused by the jet fuel. Under certain circumstances steel is just like putty and can be molded just like making a horse shoe fit the horse.

Shayler wrote:
Also there was one of the terrorists passports found (paper) yet supposedly the black boxes got destroyed.

I don't know how this slipped passed everybody...
Do you even know what the famed "black box" of an airplane is? It's not a little lunchbox that the pilots puts everybody's passports and trinkits in. It is a digital recorder that records all of the plane's flight information and transmissions. So what the box was incinerated. That doesn't mean everything else in the plane was incinerated along with it. If that was the case you wouldn't have any wreckage at all.

Your only "evidence" is your little youtube videos? Start by reading a credible source on the subject. You cite the 911 report. Have you read the 911 report? All 585 pages of it? Or are you just going off what someone told you? I bet it's the latter.

Here is a good place to start with your research young'n.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Shayler wrote:Ok so if the fire can melt the steel and insinirate the black boxes, why was a paper passport intact?
And i still dont see why building 7 fell freefall speed yet no planes hit it

I think I might be able to field the passport thing...Have you ever seen what paper or light objects do when thrown on a large fire? That's right, the paper lifts from the heat. If the heat was intense enough to melt a "black box" then certainly, as soon as the plane hit and exploded, I could totally see many lighter items being spread out from the heat, far enough away from the towers so as to escape the flames because of the explosion...Just a theory...Pete

Old Timer wrote:In my younger years I did a lot of steel work in boiler shops and I can tell you that it is not so much as a fire but rather the intensity in that fire that will cause steel to bend and buckle. We used a heating torch to heat only a small section of a large I-Beam to make it either curve or straighten out. the metal only has to reach a certain degree of heat to lose its strength at any given point of it. Take the strongest chain in the world and put tension on it and then heat just one part of one link. when it reaches a certian degree of heat it will give and snap just as those girder beams in those building buckled from the intense heat caused by the jet fuel. Under certain circumstances steel is just like putty and can be molded just like making a horse shoe fit the horse.

that's a given. The issue I have is with the pool of basically molten steel at the bottom of the towers that were white hot. And took weeks to cool. I want to know what caused that? I don't think friction is the answer either.

edit: in fact NIST denied there was even molten steel at the bottom of the towers. pretty interesting, even if it was simply a case of not knowing. It shows the type of investigation they did on it. Not a very good one...

Big Slick wrote:

Shayler wrote:
Also there was one of the terrorists passports found (paper) yet supposedly the black boxes got destroyed.

I don't know how this slipped passed everybody...
Do you even know what the famed "black box" of an airplane is? It's not a little lunchbox that the pilots puts everybody's passports and trinkits in. It is a digital recorder that records all of the plane's flight information and transmissions. So what the box was incinerated. That doesn't mean everything else in the plane was incinerated along with it. If that was the case you wouldn't have any wreckage at all.

Your only "evidence" is your little youtube videos? Start by reading a credible source on the subject. You cite the 911 report. Have you read the 911 report? All 585 pages of it? Or are you just going off what someone told you? I bet it's the latter.

Here is a good place to start with your research young'n.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

That crap piece written by popular mechanics that was so full of holes and didn't actually explain anything away...right...

Right and all the bullshit conspiracy theories are air tight right. I said it was a good place to start, numnuts, not the end all be all, write it in blood, scripture.

Big Slick wrote:Right and all the bullshit conspiracy theories are air tight right. I said it was a good place to start, numnuts, not the end all be all, write it in blood, scripture.

I've looked at both sides, NIST ignored all other outcomes but the ones they were pre-determined to examine. The same with popular mechanics. There are aspects to this that were completely ignored. Interesting how you get so emotional and have to resort to personal attacks so quickly...

Independent Harry wrote:

Kazza wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:
and finally the picture by nasa showing hot spots under all 3 buildings, I think this was take 9 days later. Including building 7 that was never hit by fuel or a plane.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.gif

Like I said above, the steel isn't red hot because of cutting charges. It's because of all the energy released when a building collapses. At least I'm pretty sure that's why. I'm not an expert on building collapses.


In any case, if you want to go further with this you need more evidence, and I haven't got time right now to search for it myself.

- Show me a satellite photo of a building of comparable size that was brought down by explosives.

- Show me a satellite photo of a building of comparable size that was brought down by fire.

These shouldn't be too hard to get your hands on.

There isn't a comparable building brought down by fire. From what I understand these are the first modern steel structures ever to collapse from fire.

As for the other, that wasn't a satelite phonto, it was a nasa plane that took an infared picture. I doubt there is much of that out there for other buildings.

In that case, this is nothing more than an argument from incredulity - you find it unbelievable that a collapsing building could cause that much heat.

Creationists find it unbelievable that we evolved due to natural selection. That argument doesn't hold any weight either.

Kazza wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:

Kazza wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:
and finally the picture by nasa showing hot spots under all 3 buildings, I think this was take 9 days later. Including building 7 that was never hit by fuel or a plane.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.gif

Like I said above, the steel isn't red hot because of cutting charges. It's because of all the energy released when a building collapses. At least I'm pretty sure that's why. I'm not an expert on building collapses.


In any case, if you want to go further with this you need more evidence, and I haven't got time right now to search for it myself.

- Show me a satellite photo of a building of comparable size that was brought down by explosives.

- Show me a satellite photo of a building of comparable size that was brought down by fire.

These shouldn't be too hard to get your hands on.

There isn't a comparable building brought down by fire. From what I understand these are the first modern steel structures ever to collapse from fire.

As for the other, that wasn't a satelite phonto, it was a nasa plane that took an infared picture. I doubt there is much of that out there for other buildings.

In that case, this is nothing more than an argument from incredulity - you find it unbelievable that a collapsing building could cause that much heat.

Creationists find it unbelievable that we evolved due to natural selection. That argument doesn't hold any weight either.

I see, so you are saying that wthout doing any hard calculations, that the heat was created from friction. And then likening my disbelief to creationism. So your belief is based on what then? Its not fact, because no one has actually tried to show how the molten metal was created. It sounds like you're taking this whole situation on a much bigger leap of faith than me...

I haven't really checked this out too much, but if interested, here's a site dedicated to debunking the conspiracy theories of 9/11.

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

Independent Harry wrote:

catch-22 wrote:

Independent Harry wrote: not so good at embedding pictures yet. But here you go, some links of pictures of the stuff they were pulling out of ground zero for a couple of weeks after the fact.

http://www.debunking911.com/Molten.jpg
http://9eleven.info/MetalGlow.jpg you can't really see well, but it looks like pieces of the fire truck are glowing hot too.

Here's a video that has witnesses talk about the molten steel underneath the rubble pile
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://drjudywood.com/articles/dirt/dirtpics/jones_firemen.jpg&imgrefurl=http://sparkoflife.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/911-truth-molten-medal-theory-disinfo/&usg=__yAsa-NZ8r2EinvPknLPwtqNNdf4=&h=327&w=444&sz=21&hl=en&start=14&um=1&tbnid=y-zC7Q4nHzUZEM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3D911%2Bmolten%2Bsteel%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

and finally the picture by nasa showing hot spots under all 3 buildings, I think this was take 9 days later. Including building 7 that was never hit by fuel or a plane.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.gif

I'm confused!
What are you saying that those photos show evidence of?

They show evidence of molten hot steel in the collapse footprint burried under the twin towers. What did you think I was saying they show evidence of.

I don't know! That's why I asked.

But what is the point? So what? Molten steel. Big deal!
What is the significance of it?

Independent Harry wrote:

Old Timer wrote:In my younger years I did a lot of steel work in boiler shops and I can tell you that it is not so much as a fire but rather the intensity in that fire that will cause steel to bend and buckle. We used a heating torch to heat only a small section of a large I-Beam to make it either curve or straighten out. the metal only has to reach a certain degree of heat to lose its strength at any given point of it. Take the strongest chain in the world and put tension on it and then heat just one part of one link. when it reaches a certian degree of heat it will give and snap just as those girder beams in those building buckled from the intense heat caused by the jet fuel. Under certain circumstances steel is just like putty and can be molded just like making a horse shoe fit the horse.

that's a given. The issue I have is with the pool of basically molten steel at the bottom of the towers that were white hot. And took weeks to cool. I want to know what caused that? I don't think friction is the answer either.

edit: in fact NIST denied there was even molten steel at the bottom of the towers. pretty interesting, even if it was simply a case of not knowing. It shows the type of investigation they did on it. Not a very good one...

They did a pretty good job seeing as they were asked to find out what caused the buildings to collapse rather than what happened afterwards.

Big Slick wrote:Right and all the bullshit conspiracy theories are air tight right. I said it was a good place to start, numnuts, not the end all be all, write it in blood, scripture.

Go slick!

Independent Harry wrote:

Big Slick wrote:Right and all the bullshit conspiracy theories are air tight right. I said it was a good place to start, numnuts, not the end all be all, write it in blood, scripture.

I've looked at both sides, NIST ignored all other outcomes but the ones they were pre-determined to examine. The same with popular mechanics. There are aspects to this that were completely ignored. Interesting how you get so emotional and have to resort to personal attacks so quickly...

So, they both did their job! You're not criticizing them for that, surely?

catch-22 wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:

Big Slick wrote:Right and all the bullshit conspiracy theories are air tight right. I said it was a good place to start, numnuts, not the end all be all, write it in blood, scripture.

I've looked at both sides, NIST ignored all other outcomes but the ones they were pre-determined to examine. The same with popular mechanics. There are aspects to this that were completely ignored. Interesting how you get so emotional and have to resort to personal attacks so quickly...

So, they both did their job! You're not criticizing them for that, surely?

Yes, I'm criticizing them for not taking into account all possibilities and examining all evidence to extrapolate the probabilities. They simply put together a poor model to explain the collapse when the evidence doesn't even match the model they used...

Independent Harry wrote:

catch-22 wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:

Big Slick wrote:Right and all the bullshit conspiracy theories are air tight right. I said it was a good place to start, numnuts, not the end all be all, write it in blood, scripture.

I've looked at both sides, NIST ignored all other outcomes but the ones they were pre-determined to examine. The same with popular mechanics. There are aspects to this that were completely ignored. Interesting how you get so emotional and have to resort to personal attacks so quickly...

So, they both did their job! You're not criticizing them for that, surely?

Yes, I'm criticizing them for not taking into account all possibilities and examining all evidence to extrapolate the probabilities. They simply put together a poor model to explain the collapse when the evidence doesn't even match the model they used...

That's a fairly broad statement. What did they leave out? How does the evidence differ from the model they used? Hijacked planes were diliberately flown into the towers and exploded causing massive damage to the structures. I don't see what other model could have been used!!

Perhaps they should have gotten you to put together the report (rather than a huge team of highly qualified engineers and scientists) but I shudder to think what you may have come up with.

Independent Harry wrote:

Kazza wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:

Kazza wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:
and finally the picture by nasa showing hot spots under all 3 buildings, I think this was take 9 days later. Including building 7 that was never hit by fuel or a plane.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/hotspot.key.tgif.gif

Like I said above, the steel isn't red hot because of cutting charges. It's because of all the energy released when a building collapses. At least I'm pretty sure that's why. I'm not an expert on building collapses.


In any case, if you want to go further with this you need more evidence, and I haven't got time right now to search for it myself.

- Show me a satellite photo of a building of comparable size that was brought down by explosives.

- Show me a satellite photo of a building of comparable size that was brought down by fire.

These shouldn't be too hard to get your hands on.

There isn't a comparable building brought down by fire. From what I understand these are the first modern steel structures ever to collapse from fire.

As for the other, that wasn't a satelite phonto, it was a nasa plane that took an infared picture. I doubt there is much of that out there for other buildings.

In that case, this is nothing more than an argument from incredulity - you find it unbelievable that a collapsing building could cause that much heat.

Creationists find it unbelievable that we evolved due to natural selection. That argument doesn't hold any weight either.

I see, so you are saying that wthout doing any hard calculations, that the heat was created from friction. And then likening my disbelief to creationism. So your belief is based on what then? Its not fact, because no one has actually tried to show how the molten metal was created. It sounds like you're taking this whole situation on a much bigger leap of faith than me...

I'm not saying it was definitely caused by friction, I'm saying that it's a plausible explanation. The burden of proof is on you here, not me. You're postulating a massive conspiracy using the fact that you find it incredulous that molten steel could have formed during a building's collapse. That's an argument from incredulity.

Independent Harry wrote:

catch-22 wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:

Big Slick wrote:Right and all the bullshit conspiracy theories are air tight right. I said it was a good place to start, numnuts, not the end all be all, write it in blood, scripture.

I've looked at both sides, NIST ignored all other outcomes but the ones they were pre-determined to examine. The same with popular mechanics. There are aspects to this that were completely ignored. Interesting how you get so emotional and have to resort to personal attacks so quickly...

So, they both did their job! You're not criticizing them for that, surely?

Yes, I'm criticizing them for not taking into account all possibilities and examining all evidence to extrapolate the probabilities. They simply put together a poor model to explain the collapse when the evidence doesn't even match the model they used...

The problem with that is you can have 100 different "experts" extrapolating probabilities and end up with 100 different conclusions. Bottom line is nobody knows. If we really knew there wouldn't be a discussion. The best people can do is theorize. What bothers me is everytime something tragic happens there is always someone who wants to scream 'conspiracy'. Sometimes shit just happens and there is no way you will ever get all of the answers.

Harry, I would hardly call my response to you emotional. But if you want to put words in my mouth and not actually read what I wrote then you can expect me to correct you when you make false assumptions. I never said the PM article was the best nor the only source on the matter, but they do address some of the conspiracy junkies' claims. And they do a good job explaining away the bullshit. Did they address every possible theory? Of course not, they'd still be writing the article to this day if they did. Nobody is going to be able to address every single possibility and theory and answer every single question, that's just not realistic.

I have looked at both sides as well and I don't buy into the conspiracy side of this one. Sure the government covered some of the evidence but that doesn't mean the government launched a missle at the Pentagon or whatever other crazy story is out there. Police keep some of the evidence from the public in a crime investigation but that doesn't mean the police are out commiting these crimes. People expect full disclosure of investigations at the time of the investigation, but it doesn't work that way, so what do people do? They take that and say, "oooh, they must be hiding something."

Big Slick wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:

catch-22 wrote:

Independent Harry wrote:

Big Slick wrote:Right and all the bullshit conspiracy theories are air tight right. I said it was a good place to start, numnuts, not the end all be all, write it in blood, scripture.

I've looked at both sides, NIST ignored all other outcomes but the ones they were pre-determined to examine. The same with popular mechanics. There are aspects to this that were completely ignored. Interesting how you get so emotional and have to resort to personal attacks so quickly...

So, they both did their job! You're not criticizing them for that, surely?

Yes, I'm criticizing them for not taking into account all possibilities and examining all evidence to extrapolate the probabilities. They simply put together a poor model to explain the collapse when the evidence doesn't even match the model they used...

The problem with that is you can have 100 different "experts" extrapolating probabilities and end up with 100 different conclusions. Bottom line is nobody knows. If we really knew there wouldn't be a discussion. The best people can do is theorize. What bothers me is everytime something tragic happens there is always someone who wants to scream 'conspiracy'. Sometimes shit just happens and there is no way you will ever get all of the answers.

Harry, I would hardly call my response to you emotional. But if you want to put words in my mouth and not actually read what I wrote then you can expect me to correct you when you make false assumptions. I never said the PM article was the best nor the only source on the matter, but they do address some of the conspiracy junkies' claims. And they do a good job explaining away the bullshit. Did they address every possible theory? Of course not, they'd still be writing the article to this day if they did. Nobody is going to be able to address every single possibility and theory and answer every single question, that's just not realistic.

I have looked at both sides as well and I don't buy into the conspiracy side of this one. Sure the government covered some of the evidence but that doesn't mean the government launched a missle at the Pentagon or whatever other crazy story is out there. Police keep some of the evidence from the public in a crime investigation but that doesn't mean the police are out commiting these crimes. People expect full disclosure of investigations at the time of the investigation, but it doesn't work that way, so what do people do? They take that and say, "oooh, they must be hiding something."

It doesn't really matter what I say at this point because you've made up your mind. I'm saying that the government fought the entire way to have the 911 incident investigated. They dragged their feet on the commission. Initially the allotment of money was 4 million dollars for the 911 commision. That's it, NIST came up with theories critized by their own. It's been a huge quagmire, and no one it seems was really interested in trying to explain the truth.