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

reply to post by kelbtalfenek


Here is a link showing the seismic data tables. Hope this helps.

www.popularmechanics.com...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

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]

Well to start, we don't know that the steel got red hot AFTER the building collapsed. It may have been red hot before and then been buried after the collapse.

You say you don't believe the government reports so you are saying those reports are wrong. The government says they're right. This means you believe in a cover up of what "really" happened. Thus a conspiracy.

Ready to tell me why you wish to dodge this question so much Ultima?

I find it telling that someone who talks CONSTANT rhetoric about evidence and truth would avoid such a simple question.

As you have done before.................

And another 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.

reply to post by jfj123


I think the only real conspiracy dealing with the WTC falling is why some wants us SOO badly to believe it based on what little BS they can point to.

Especially in the light of not being able to get them to answer certain questions.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

While we're on this subject of red-hot and molten steel there's a couple of things to think about like what does red heat signify, what is the colour of steel at the point where it melts and even whether the colour is unique to steel. The colour is an indication of temperature related molecular activity (visible radiation) and red heat indicates around 800C and any material can reach incandescent temperature provided its boiling/sublimation point is higher at the local atmospheric pressure.

I raise this because a pic of supposed molten steel held in the jaws of an excavator shows a red-hot material seemingly dripping off it. The fact that an excavator can hold it suggests it's solid for starters, also steel does not melt at a red-heat temperature, it actually melts at white heat which is more than twice as hot so whatever it is that's dripping is not likely to be steel. I'd suggest it's an alloy of some kind with a melting point well below 1000C (steel melts at approx 1500C)

Colour/temperature approximations:
dull red 650C 1200F
bright red 800C 1500F
orange 930C 1700F
bright yellow 1100C 2000F

Simple example: the boiling point of lead is about 1700C so it can achieve almost orange heat prior to vaporizing.

Red hot liquid is not necessarily steel and actually couldn't be steel is what I'm trying to point out.

I still fail to see any conspiracy in metal getting hot in a fire after the main event (collapse of a large building)

reply to post by Pilgrum

I still fail to see any conspiracy in metal getting hot in a fire after the main event (collapse of a large building)

Yep, me too. I'm having the same problem. The red hot metal thing keeps coming up for no reason so far ????

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by kelbtalfenek

 

Here is a link showing the seismic data tables. Hope this helps.

www.popularmechanics.com...

Thanks, that shows some very interesting information. I wish I knew how to interpret all of it. Looks like I've got some reading to do.

metal cant stay molten unless a fire is present keeping it molten, no ands if or butts its not a matter of opinion its a thermal dynamics fact.

the very fact tat there was molten anything that day pierod, should have been sighns of chemical accelerant of some kind,

and that some kind of heat was greater than 2800 degrees farenhiet to keep steel of that quality molten for any length of time.

the buildigs where colapsed ,and no fires consentrated enough to keep any metal on the surface molten(its thermo dynamicly imposible unless chemicals are used).

and to see any kind of flowing molten metal unless you are in a volcano or a steel plant imposible. , metal hardens way way to fast without costant heat ,

no flash open air fire will ever melt steel .

unless u r applying heat to the metal at the very time it becomes molten,and keep that heat applied,

as soon as the heat drops below molten temps to any degree the molten process stops and becoms just glow red.

i cant controll this, NIST cant controll this , Bush cant controll this, popular mecanics cant stop this it is thermo dynamic ,

no one but the allmighty him self could stop that thermal chemical reaction.

i wish thermal dynamics was wrong then i wouldnt have to be so parinoid,

ever since 9/11 and saw the buildgs fall the way they did ive been paranoid , theres just no way it could have happend the way it happed

metal just dosent fail .lookk at the towers did they fall after the plane hit???NO

They stood till they where blown they did what steel is suposed to do,

transfer wieght away from the weakest link. thats what lattice structures do

wether the flame made the steel glow red is irelavent ,unless every single beam became the same temperature to all fail at the same time

the floors of the tower or building 7 in order to colapse starit down the total air mass would have had to been atleast 2000 degrees F for 2 hours

Or the heat had to be hotter then 2000 tousand degrees F.

And to make the beams fail on all 4 side evenly that means there had to be enough heat to heat ( 46 4 inch thick beams ,and 120 2 inch thick outer beams ,and all the truss floor joices (X 110 floors ,and ,all at the same time ,
no flame that day could have done that .

one beam getting red ot or several getting red hot wont make it fall(built in redundencies like a sreen window ) it will transfer weight to the ones not hot or weak and so on and so on untill they all have reached the same temp ,and then and only then can u have a simultainious collapse of all the beams , other wise it would be a very slow lean to the weakes link,

If u have 2 chains that can each hold 10,000 pounds but u link them together with a 200 pound link, your 2 10,000 pound chains can only lift 200 pounds now no matter what.



[edit on 22-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

All i am saying is this i dont know what happend that day i dont know if it was an inside job ,or some very savy terroist,dosent matter to me ,

what dose matter is whay any kind of molten metal was found, It had to be chemical, that being the case

either it was an inside job or faild job by our gov and security at WTC complex

Gov for letting planes hit and WTC security for not finding the acelerant that was used to create molten metal


there is to much fact that the items burning that day (all office crap and jet fuel) cant get hot enough to create molten metal


The only other sinerio is (if its not a conspierecy) is (a plane is made out of alluminium

But if i where to tell the world a story to make them believe , atleast mine is 100% doable and a whole lot harder to disprove , maybe they should have asked me to make up thier story.

Atleast my senerio will create actualy (iron oxide)molten metal ,

But since they destroyed the evidence they cany prove there was rust on the beams, to bad for them huh.

Thats all im saying. I dont care who didnt i just want to know what realy happend



[edit on 22-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 22-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

Originally posted by plasmacutter
All i am saying is this i dont know what happend that day i dont know if it was an inside job ,or some very savy terroist,dosent matter to me ,

what dose matter is whay any kind of molten metal was found, It had to be chemical, that being the case

There could have simply been underground fires keeping everything nice and hot.

not the molten (cubic tons falling from the buildig or the molten metal in front of the fire truck)

Its on solid ground unless ther is a lava tube under that spot

not the molten (cubic tons falling from the buildig or the molten metal in front of the fire truck)

Its on solid ground unless ther is a lava tube under that spot.

and what kinda fuel under ground is keeping it molten??? wood?? jet fuel??? (most of it was that huge ball of flame when the first hit) even a ruptured gas main would keep it molten , not a controlled enough burn,


even a jet and car engine have to presureize and inject its fuel to get it to burn

[edit on 22-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 22-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

Originally posted by plasmacutter
not the molten (cubic tons falling from the buildig or the molten metal in front of the fire truck)

Its on solid ground unless ther is a lava tube under that spot.

[edit on 22-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

I haven't seen any photos of anything other then a few pieces of molten metal being dug out of the debris so that is what I'm referring to.

www.thepowerhour.com...

see the size of tha molten metal falling thats is huge amounts.

the molten metal in front of the fire truch should have been cooled slag long befor it made to that spot .

theres nothing keeping it molten as its falls to the ground ( i saw now flame following the metal falling to the ground keeping it liquid 1000 feet above the ground)

So its chemical not heat indused by a flame

www.attivissimo.net...

www.investigate911.com...



i231.photobucket.com...

www.informationliberation.com...

[edit on 22-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

[edit on 22-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

reply to post by plasmacutter


Maybe I'm missing something but if a blacksmith can do that, why can't a massive, wind blown office fire, initially fueled by jet fuel, do that?

try running the length of a foot ball field with some molten metal (dont use bare hands) and see how long it takes to turn solid , it had to fall over 3 football lengths not going to happen cant stay liquid unles u run with a torch ((( or u can do it with thermite)

a black smith uses an open harth fueld by bellows pumping to create more qxygen come on now !!!!! an open air flame (no extra oxygen added ) can only burn so hot depending on whats burning jet fuel open air is only about 800 F jet fuel in a controlled burn is 1500 F (bellows pumping air or a turbine )

[edit on 22-3-2008 by plasmacutter]

Originally posted by plasmacutter
a black smith uses an open harth fueld by bellows pumping to create more qxygen come on now !!!!!

Yes, it's a very reasonable comparison.

an open air flame (no extra oxygen added ) can only burn so hot depending on whats burning ,(wood coal,fuel,or chemicals) jet fuel open air is only about 800 F jet fuel in a controlled burn is 1500 F (bellows pumping air or a turbine )

Remeber u have to fan that flame to get to burn hoter

regular atmosfere sux for getting anything to burn real hot,so we fan the flame (add oxygen ) aww U know man.


[edit on 22-3-2008 by plasmacutter]