9/11 conspiracies are nonsense

Originally posted by nt327
Or maybe Jesus planned 9/11.........and Bush is christian.........OMG........... there is another CONSPIRACY!!!!

Jezus did it! The Christians says the antichrist is the person you least expect right?
Well? Who would you least expect.

Dude, I never said the fires were dying, nice tangent.

This is about the 9/11 Conspiraces being non-sense, but am I suppose to do? Argue that they are? I'm argueing that they aren't, and thus providing the argument.

Haha open your eyes punks.

No seriously, LEFT BEHIND, where did I say the fire was dieing.

K.

I was point out they were cooling. You know what gets old, people like you, Howard, and other people asking about the fires dying, what kind of tangent are you going off of?

Conclusion from my last post? Do I have to teach you reading comprehension for Pre K? Or do you just not understand what you read?

My conclusion from what I said? Read it back over, I was arguing about the black smoke providing evidence of oxygen starved fires, thus they cooled and weren't as hot as the fires in the previous (that were fueled by jet fuel, in case you forgot).

Where did you get dieing from?

So are you done arguing the black smoke issue or are you going to keep going, I can play this game til my life ends my friend.

-----------------------------------------

K now to go for reallynobody's post

Just to let you know, I'm talking about WTC 1 and 2, not the WTC 7 when talking about the fuel changing.

Care to address how the fuel, unique and magically transfers in WTC 1 and 2?

By the way, if you guys need an impact wrench of reasoning to get it through your head again.

BSZZZZTTTT.

I'll say it for the 101st time. How did the WTC 1 and 2 change fuels? On a global scale, the same stuff was burning (materials wise) before the jet fuel was totally consumed and after. Did someone pour new materials into the building? What can you really expect to be different in the building?

But see, this all derides the point. With the jet fuel, the fire was consuming hydrocarbons, the jet fuel, (kerosene), which burns pretty conservatively and efficiently. So that combined with the office materials, provides good grounds for being an efficient fire.

I.E. Good fuel/air ratio.

So when the jet fuel was gone, you were left with the office materials (computers, desks, staplers, all pretty unsigificant) and the building supplies (insulation (asbestos), wall panels, floor panels). So you had that burning after the jet fuel was gone.

And guess what?

You had fuel, such as thus, that didn't burn efficiently and couldn't, because it lacked oxygen for the fuel/air ratio to make the fires efficient, so what happens, you get more carbon, thus more black smoke.

You can keep putting tangents on this issue all you want, the point still stands about the black smoke = oxygen starved. How do you get around? Keep going and try.

And since the fires weren't efficient, the flames were cooler, so any MAJOR damage that could of happened, occured in the 15 minutes there was jet fuel, not when there were office supply flames afterwards, which I still don't feel could of caused enough fire damage to the trusses to cause them so sag.

But we're not arguing that right now, we're arguing the black smoke/different fuel issue, which you still seem to lack evidence with.

Come on, waiting for the next person.

[Mod Edit: Removed unnecessary quote of Entire preceeding post]


:BARF: is exactly what came to mind after reading your post. Do you have actually arguments other then presenting your own ignorance by asking stupid questions which you know you don't have the answer for either?

If you spent less time fooling around making an idiot of yourself and read the entire thread, you would have encountered the post of Vushta on page 12 where he explains that "If heat cannot escape via convection, conduction or radiation, a oxygen starved fire can produce higher temperatures than an free burning oxygen rich fire."

So much for fire cooling down. And unless you are an expert in material combustion I don't see how you can say what it means for smoke to change color during a fire.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/1/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

So what exactly is your point then with the black smoke masi?

You keep saying it made it cooler, so what?

What does that have to do with anything?

The fire tests done by NIST showed that ordinary office fires can produce high enough temperatures to weaken steel.

If all your trying to prove is that the jet fuel burned off, what does that have to do with explosives planted in the building?

All I'm saying is that you can't tell what temperature a fire is or whether or not it is dying just by the color of the smoke.

I guess you have magical temperature judging qualities. Is this fire cooler than it was 15 minutes ago?

He's saying the fires were no where near powerful enough to bring THREE buildings down in their footprints on the same day. I can see the top half on each collapsing, but the lower half of the bulding which was holding that weight for years and years was not weakened by these fires, the only plausible way some of us see three buildings collapsing in their footprints is due to controlled demolition.

[edit on 7/1/2006 by aecreate]

Originally posted by aecreate
He's saying the fires were no where near powerful enough to bring THREE buildings down in their footprints on the same day. I can see the top half on each collapsing, but the lower half of the bulding which was holding that weight for years and years was not weakened by these fires, the only plausible way some of us see three buildings collapsing in their footprints is due to controlled demolition.

[edit on 7/1/2006 by aecreate]

Heat goes through steel dude, steel conduces heat. The bottom half was just as heated as the top.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Well, It looks like you haven't done much research into any of these claims before posting. Considering that none of your counterclaims actually address the issues proposed by the claims in any serious manner, I'll let you go over these:

A declassified document from 1962 detailing a plan to execute a situation nearly identical to 9/11 to use as an excuse for war with Cuba.

www.gwu.edu...

Yet i wonder why people like you don't mention anything about the book written by two high ranking Chinese military officers, with the consent of the CCP, that describes a new "unrestrictive warfare" against the United States, which includes terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, using people like Osama Bin Laden to attack places such as the WTC....and that book was written back in 1999.

By Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui
Introduction by Al Santoli

As incredible as it may be to believe, three years before the Sept. 11 bombing of the World Trade Center a Chinese military manual titled Unrestricted Warfare touted such an attack – suggesting it would be difficult for the U.S. military to cope with.

Here is an excerpt from Unrestricted Warfare:

“Whether it be the intrusions of hackers, a major explosion at the World Trade Center, or a bombing attack by bin Laden, all of these greatly exceed the frequency bandwidths understood by the American military...”

Surprisingly, Osama bin Laden is mentioned frequently in this book.

www.boredguru.com...

The more important subtext is that China engages these regimes because it shares their goal of cutting down U.S. power. And, incredibly, China may be attracted to using their methods as well. Bin Laden himself has a fan club in some quarters of China's People's Liberation Army (PLA). In their 1999 book ``Unrestricted Warfare,'' two PLA political commissars offer praise for the tactics of bin Laden. They note that bin Laden's tactics are legitimate as the tactics that Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf used in the Persian Gulf war. Of bin Laden, they state that the ``American military is inadequately prepared to deal with this type of enemy.''

While some U.S. analysts downplay ``Unrestricted Warfare'' as written by officers with no operational authority, it is well known that the PLA is preparing to wage unconventional warfare, especially cyber warfare. Should China attack Taiwan, the PLA would want to shut down the U.S. air transport system.

The PLA now knows this can be done with four groups of terrorists, or perhaps by computer hackers that can enter the U.S. air traffic control system and cause four major airline collisions.

www.yale.edu...



[edit on 3-7-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by aecreate
He's saying the fires were no where near powerful enough to bring THREE buildings down in their footprints on the same day. I can see the top half on each collapsing, but the lower half of the bulding which was holding that weight for years and years was not weakened by these fires, the only plausible way some of us see three buildings collapsing in their footprints is due to controlled demolition.

Not really....once the collapse of the top 12 floors began, which kept adding up in mass and weight as each floor collapsed, falling against the lower floors which were not built to resist that kind of pressure, the whole building would collapse.

BTW, there was more than just "the fires" which brought down the towers and wtc7... but of course some people just want to ignore the facts...

Where have all the rational people gone. I am really tired of reading and dealing with people who are of the opinion that all 3 (wtc7 included) buildings 'collapsed' because they were weakened by fire alone.

Look at the evidence, do not forget the lack of investigation and remember that you were not born a fool.

You all have a brain - try and use it.


[edit on 3-7-2006 by aob982]

Did you even bother to read all the posts? Cause there is not a single piece of evidence that wasn't debunked in this thread. No joke. Read the thread then post counterarguments, with what you just posted you only prove that it is easier to talk retoric than to make a good argument.


Ah who am I kidding, there is no way you would read the entire thread. So here goes:

-The initial impact and shockwave could have done damage to both towers in the form of macro and micro ruptures. Building 7 did either not suffer an impact at all or a smaller impact (from debris) compared to than the towers but still stood in the shockwave. This might explain the reason why it collapsed later than the towers.

-The jetfuel fire could indeed only reach a certain temperature, but like all heat- conducive metals, steel can become warmer than the fire it is exposed to. Kinda like your car in the sun. This heating was estimated by some to have reduced integrity with 60%, and by others with 90%. Considering there was a lot of weight resting on those beams, reducing their integrity even by half greatly increases the chance of collapse.

-Building 7 also had a nice big juicy tank of generator fuel in the basement to fuel generators. One pressurized line that went to one of the levels is thought to have kept the fire going for longer then presumed.

-Emergency generators where on many of the other floors in building 7 and probably also in the twin towers, adding to the fire.

-Heat was conducted throughout the framework, without any way for the steel to cool down. The coating which was applied to the steel and kept the fire from touching the steel was not applied properly as later examination showed. There where areas where much of the coating wasn't applied aswell as it should, and after the initial heating of the steel the remainder of the coating would actually have trapt the heat inside; preventing it from being released.


So it wasn't 'just' fire.

After the first floor fell, the one below, held up by weakened beams, simply couldn't hold up anymore. The floor below that had even more weight to endure, etc etc. Building 7 simply took longer to collapse.



[edit on 3-7-2006 by reallynobody]

[edit on 3-7-2006 by reallynobody]

Originally posted by reallynobody
Heat goes through steel dude, steel conduces heat. The bottom half was just as heated as the top.

Is this a serious conclusion you have come to or just a flippant comment that you'd like to reconsider? Are you implying the whole building was heated to the point of collapse?

Originally posted by reallynobody
-The jetfuel fire could indeed only reach a certain temperature, but like all heat- conducive metals, steel can become warmer than the fire it is exposed to.

Without bothering to argue with you over most of the assumptions in the rest of your post, this is physically impossible. Maybe you should read up on what you're talking about before making suggestions like this?

First law of thermodynamics:

The increase in the energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.

You cannot possibly heat materials beyond the energy you're putting in. You cannot put a piece of metal into a 600 C fire and expect the metal to even come out even at 600 C, no matter how long it's in there. It will always be COOLER. Not warmer, not even the same temperature as the fire it's exposed to. Energy is always lost in transfer.


What you're thinking of with heat conductivity, is a material's ability to transfer heat. Like, when the steel in the buildings was heated, the steel would have transferred the heat and spread it out, wicking it away, as Steven Jones puts it. This would make the steel cooler, in addition to the fact that you can't heat any material to the same temperature as the source of heat to begin with.

This heating was estimated by some to have reduced integrity with 60%, and by others with 90%.

Funny thing is that I can say that most any steel on any given floor lost about 1% integrity from fire, and I would have more physical evidence going for my claim than either of the figures you reference here. NIST only found two samples heated to 250 C. That's virtually no integrity loss. Around 50% is lost at heating to around 600 C, but the correlation between temperature and integrity loss is not a linear one. At 600 C you would have seen steel columns glowing red in broad daylight. How many did you see?

-Heat was conducted throughout the framework, without any way for the steel to cool down.

Of course. Which was why the whole buildings were glowing so intensely, right? From simple localized office fires. Yeah.

[edit on 3-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Wrong. And deflective.

The claim seems to be that that fires and other forces were not enough to cause failure.

Is this based on the idea that the steel would have to melt?

Vushta, provide a little more of a response than that to explain yourself.

So you agree with reallynobody, Vushta, that metal can be heated beyond the temperatures of the fire that's heating it?


And,

Originally posted by Vushta
Is this based on the idea that the steel would have to melt?

considering I just posted this,

Funny thing is that I can say that most any steel on any given floor lost about 1% integrity from fire, and I would have more physical evidence going for my claim than either of the figures you reference here. NIST only found two samples heated to 250 C. That's virtually no integrity loss. Around 50% is lost at heating to around 600 C, but the correlation between temperature and integrity loss is not a linear one. At 600 C you would have seen steel columns glowing red in broad daylight. How many did you see?

I don't think you even bothered to get a grasp on the post before responding.

[edit on 3-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
So what exactly is your point then with the black smoke masi?

Meant the fire cooled

Originally posted by LeftBehind
You keep saying it made it cooler, so what?

With the cooler fires, the damage that NIST predicted happened and other people believe within the impact-collapse time shouldn't occured (At a maximum) within the 15 minutes of the jet fuel. So why not fall then? Bad rationalization? Nope, if the trusses were put on such a stress and tension, then in the 15 minutes the fires were at their hottest, they should of gave out then. Why give out an hour later by cooler fires?

Yeah, that's what.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
The fire tests done by NIST showed that ordinary office fires can produce high enough temperatures to weaken steel.

Where's your link to that, and how hot were these fires. Actually, just give me the link so I can check it out.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
If all your trying to prove is that the jet fuel burned off, what does that have to do with explosives planted in the building?

And I'm imposing that explosives must of been used to help take down the building rather than fires caused by jet fuel.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
All I'm saying is that you can't tell what temperature a fire is or whether or not it is dying just by the color of the smoke.

Does the terminology work the same with watching a car break from a high speed to a lower speed? In the sense we saw the fire go from a hotter flame to a cooler one due to the lack of efficieny and absence of hydrocarbons?


Thank you, come again.

Originally posted by Muaddib
Not really....once the collapse of the top 12 floors began, which kept adding up in mass and weight as each floor collapsed, falling against the lower floors which were not built to resist that kind of pressure, the whole building would collapse.

BTW, there was more than just "the fires" which brought down the towers and wtc7... but of course some people just want to ignore the facts...

What facts? The NIST report? That was just their best guess at what happened to match what they can pull off.

And addition of mass as it fell. Sir, I recall as the building fell it was losing mass, as the concrete was being pulverized, and steel structure was flung out to the sides of the building as it was coming. Hardly a HUGE crushing mass.

LeftBehind, we're not just looking at one photo and determining by that photo whether or not the fires were cooling.

We're looking at photos over time and comparing smoke from earlier, to smoke from later. It goes from lighter, to sooty. Over time. Multiple images. Single point of reference. Did not start off sooty. Started off with a cleaner burn.

You must seriously be messing with us, because there's no way in hell you're having this much trouble and confusing the argument so badly when I remember discussing it with you weeks, if not months ago in the Progressive Collapse Challenge thread. It's not a difficult concept at all. I'm not surprised that you disagree, but that you still confuse it so badly, posting single images of fires that started off fuel-rich and asking a bunch of asinine questions. I don't know how many times we have to repeat the circumstances of the WTC fires before you realize they come with the argument itself. They didn't start off like fuel-laden truck fires that were sooty from the get go, and neither are we only looking at a single image to determine any of this.

Originally posted by bsbray11

The increase in the energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.

You cannot possibly heat materials beyond the energy you're putting in. You cannot put a piece of metal into a 600 C fire and expect the metal to even come out even at 600 C, no matter how long it's in there. It will always be COOLER. Not warmer, not even the same temperature as the fire it's exposed to. Energy is always lost in transfer.
[edit on 3-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Only if the system can give the energy of to it's environment. If you charge a battery, does the total amount of energy stored not exceed what you put in at any given time? That is because the input is divided over time. My favourite example is the car in the sun. In a hot desert the car can't radiate heat away very efficiently since all the air around it is already hot. Less importantly but still a factor, is that it is also isolated from the ground with rubber. The metal heats up quickly to the point where you can fry an egg on the hood, even though you can stand in the sun and not boil to death (unless you stand a loooong time).

A human body is better at getting rid of heat to begin with, but the sun's rays still aren't at boiling temperature. Over time, the temperature of the car will rise way above those of the suns rays, or even the air surrounding the car. Why did you think that cars break natural laws? Or did you ignore my example. Here is another one: Leyden Jar lightning machines. Do you think they break natural laws?


The law is still correct, but there is a timefactor here. The increase in the system energy is still almost equal to the input, but only if you take the time-factor into account.

[edit on 3-7-2006 by reallynobody]

Originally posted by Masisoar
[With the cooler fires, the damage that NIST predicted happened and other people believe within the impact-collapse time shouldn't occured (At a maximum) within the 15 minutes of the jet fuel. So why not fall then? Bad rationalization? Nope, if the trusses were put on such a stress and tension, then in the 15 minutes the fires were at their hottest, they should of gave out then. Why give out an hour later by cooler fires?

Oh come on that does NOT make sense. Metal collapses when it can no longer hold the weight, not when the temperature is the highest. If the fire was on it's peak, the rate of damage inflicted on it may have been the highest, but it might simply not yet have been enough damage to cause it to collapse. Like the drop that causes the bucket to spil, even a cooler fire would be higher than what is good for the metal, and slow down the rate at which the heated metal can cool down.
Cause heated metal will stay warm for a good while too. Don't tell me you never noticed?

Further there is another force pushing against it. It's called GRAVITY. With an entire building there is a lot of weight on those beams, it might just take a while for it to fail sufficiently enough to fail completely. Just because the building was looking fine on the outside does not mean it was healthy on the inside.