9/11 What evidence would make you believe in a conspiracy?

Originally posted by jfj123
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F which is not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat.

So what casued the molten steel in the basements and debris?

and not not every floor reached those temps either

I really have to wonder why is it that you continually refuse to answer certain questions Ultima. You refused to answer a simple question of whether you thought Perdue were in on it or fools. And NOW you can't even answer this simple question.
You can imagine what I must be thinking now about your credibility.
But it is common for "truthers" to bend things to be accommodating to their theories so I expect it.

Just to redux.

Oh and Ultima.......

How many airplane (of a compariable type to the 747) collisions with a building in mid-air have you had to deal with in your time as a whatever?

Considering as I pointed out before.
Hitting and sliding along the ground is vastly different then say running into a wall going really fast.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F which is not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat.

So what casued the molten steel in the basements and debris?

Are you referring to liquid steel or red hot steel? We know a heat source caused steel debris to glow red. We know that jet fuel can burn hot enough to do this. We know that and office fire with proper ventilation can create enough heat to make steel glow red.
As to what exactly caused it, I don't know and nobody knows exactly what did as far as I know so your question is asking me to speculate which I have already done. Hopefully this helps.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


And that question is one that has already been answered you MULTIPLE times.
A few times from me.
And at least once just a page or two back.
I know I just read it.

Fun to watch the psychological dance steps some take.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by jfj123
Are you referring to liquid steel or red hot steel? We know a heat source caused steel debris to glow red. We know that jet fuel can burn hot enough to do this. We know that and office fire with proper ventilation can create enough heat to make steel glow red.

Liqid. Also according to reports there was no steel seen to be glowing red.

The jet fuel was burned off in a few minutes according to most reports.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
And that question is one that has already been answered you MULTIPLE times.

Not really, not with any evidecne to support any of the theories or opinions.



[edit on 21-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Are you referring to liquid steel or red hot steel? We know a heat source caused steel debris to glow red. We know that jet fuel can burn hot enough to do this. We know that and office fire with proper ventilation can create enough heat to make steel glow red.

Liqid.

Are there any photos of actual liquid steel?

Also according to reports there was no steel seen to be glowing red.

You posted pictures showing steel glowing red hot so we know that isn't true unless those pictures were faked.

The jet fuel was burned off in a few minutes according to most reports.

Most of the reports I've seen mentioned 10-14 minutes which is quite a bit longer then 2 or 3 minutes which would be considered, "a few".

Even if we don't know EXACTLY why a few pieces of steel were glowing red hot, it doesn't prove a conspiracy of any kind.

Originally posted by jfj123You posted pictures showing steel glowing red hot so we know that isn't true unless those pictures were faked.

I posted photos of red hot and molten steel AFTER the towers were down. There are no photos or red hot steel in the towers BEFORE the collapse.




[edit on 21-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123You posted pictures showing steel glowing red hot so we know that isn't true unless those pictures were faked.

I posted photos of red hot and molten steel AFTER the towers were down. There are no photos or red hot steel in the towers BEFORE the collapse.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Yes but you didn't say that and I didn't imply that.

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes but you didn't say that and I didn't imply that.

I posted this in response to your post "We know that and office fire with proper ventilation can create enough heat to make steel glow red"

Also according to reports there was no steel seen to be glowing red.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes but you didn't say that and I didn't imply that.

I posted this in response to your post "We know that and office fire with proper ventilation can create enough heat to make steel glow red"

Also according to reports there was no steel seen to be glowing red.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

The steel got red hot somehow. It also doesn't prove any conspiracy.

Wow, this is quite the thread. I actually read all 13 pages....I know, I'm surprised myself.

So here's my take on "the evidence" or lack thereof;

I think there are some inaccuracies regarding some of the "facts."

When you watch Towers 1 & 2 fall, they don't fall at or even near free fall speeds. What is falling at or near free fall speed is the debris outside the building. The debris cloud is so thick that you cannot possibly be watching the building fall. Despite what the video narrators tell the observer of the video, the smoke and debris is so thick that one cannot discern actual building collapse times visually.

If someone has the seismic record of the collapse, I would love to see it. That would be definitive evidence.

Were beams cut at approximately 45 degree angles? Yes. But when? I have not seen any evidence to establish actual time of these cuts.

Did puffs of dust, debris and possibly smoke shoot out of windows when the buildings were collapsing?

Yes. But those were most likely caused by higher air pressure inside the building due to vertical compression. (Much like a piston compresses a fuel air mixture in a combustion chamber of an engine.) The difference is that the engine is build to take this pressure, WTC 1 & 2 were not. They built those buildings with the intent of keeping the outside out, much like we build any building. I doubt the engineering plan took into account several atmospheres of pressure from the inside.

Those particular points in the conspiracy theory have really bugged me. They can completely be debunked.

Ok, that being said- I would be completely convinced that there was NOT a conspiracy IF the government had performed any sort of forensic testing upon the metal from the WTC towers 1, 2, and 7. Without that evidence, there will always be questions in my mind.

I do believe that there was some very questionable occurrances, which could be coincidental if they all didn't occur within the WTC arena. Things like:

Why were there drills being conducted with the very same premise on that day?
How, from all the fiery wreckage, does a passport land on the ground in still readable condition? Further, amongst all the debris, how is it identified so readily from amongst thousands of tons of debris?
Why did WTC collapse? And how does it collapse upon itself so neatly?
What was the source of the explosions witnessed by FD members prior to the collisions?
How is it that the US Intelligence Agencies could key in on OBL so quickly after the incident but rarely mentioned him before, except to take his munitions orders?


I would be convinced it was a conspiracy if the government would investigate and publicize the money trail that "didn't matter." I would be convinced if the physical and fiscal evidence were there.


What I believe is that it was a conspiracy, whether the Federal Gov. made it happen or let it happen, I do not know. But there is too much circumstantial evidence and too many coincidences for me to believe that a small group of religious zealots with a few bucks and some razor blades could pull it off.

I wanted to add a reference for anyone that cares to look:

www.tcforensic.com.au...

This is a collection of combustion data tables. I'm not a scientist, but I'm sure there are a few of them on this board, along with pseudo-scientists. I just thought that rather than discuss how hot an office fire is without any data, we could do it in a more informed manner.

I would like to draw your attention to section 3.1. It discusses melting temperatures of metals. Steel is listed at 1100-1650*C. It also says:

* loses 50% of its structural strength and sags at 550°

[edit on 21-3-2008 by kelbtalfenek]

Edited to clear up an error on my part. Sorry.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by kelbtalfenek]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by kelbtalfenek]

reply to post by kelbtalfenek


www.muggyweld.com...

www.muggyweld.com...

www.muggyweld.com...

www.derose.net...

look at all the pre heat charts also the give what the metal should be pre heated befor welding.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

reply to post by plasmacutter


Ooops, my bad the reference was in *C. I'll fix it now.

astronautics.usc.edu...

for you chemist to realy give us the answer.

www.newton.dep.anl.gov...

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

911.yweb.sk...

This is what all the buildings should have looked like in a pan cacke .

www.thepowerhour.com...

www.attivissimo.net...

www.investigate911.com...

i231.photobucket.com...

www.informationliberation.com...

www.reopen911.org...


and look at that huge amount of molten meta falling thats tons, cubic tons . use a person hanging out a window for scale

heres more scale to think about.

The avergae airliner has about 4000 pounds of paint on its surface.

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 21-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 22-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

Originally posted by jfj123
The steel got red hot somehow. It also doesn't prove any conspiracy.

Yes, but how did the steel get red hot and molten AFTER the buildings collapsed?

Since when is finding the truth a conspiracy?



[edit on 22-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Yes, but how did the steel get red hot and molten AFTER the buildings collapsed?

I'd suggest the fires in the pile of rubble did that and there's no doubt they were hot as you posted pics of red hot metal being removed during cleanup. I've yet to see the 'lakes of molten steel' and at best there's been a few lumps of consolidated material including some steel - the 'meteorite' for example.

Your own earlier post:

I posted photos of red hot and molten steel AFTER the towers were down. There are no photos or red hot steel in the towers BEFORE the collapse.

Interesting point there. Could it be that the towers didn't collapse because of molten metal?

The whole thermite thing seems to have been proposed because no explosions of sufficient size to destroy such a massive steel core structure were observed so it was a desperate attempt to find a silent means of doing it which doesn't make it a fact by any means.

Also interesting is that the NIST model did manage to produce collapse initiation with no added explosives or incendiary devices. Granted they had to push their variables to the extreme to make it happen like impact velocity and fire temperature but even then they didn't require steel to melt. I'm certain they overlooked something related to the buildings for whatever reason but it wasn't demolition charges.

My feeling on the molten steel thing is that it's simply a post-collapse symptom and has nothing to do with the collapse apart from the fact that the fires started prior to collapse. There can't be any argument about the buildings being on fire prior to and during collapse and that's one of the very few things we can be sure of.