Questions for 9/11 Debunkers Re: Twin Towers' Destruction.

reply to post by bsbray11


Your absolutely right, they did say melted, then they clarified their speak. They melted nothing but due to the heat and length of burning damaged it which not only makes complete sence it's what happened. With all the eyes that were on that thing, if it was brought down due to explosions, you wouldn't have to be rifling through old photos looking for a weird wire, there would be more then there is and everything anyone can come up with can be countered with a wonderful explanation.

reply to post by VintageEnvy


They "clarified their speak" only after "conspiracy theorists" repeatedly force-fed them the fact that office fires cannot melt steel, which is why you still see many people saying that today (that the fires couldn't possibly have melted the steel), as these people are probably simply under the assumption that the experts are still saying the steel literally melted.

Heating steel causes thermal expansion and strength loss at high enough temperatures, but that it would have been enough to initiate a global collapse is only your opinion. The current popular opinion. Even NIST's data shows there is no evidence or even legitimate reason to believe that there would have been enough heat generated in such a small amount of time, to cause such an extreme degree of deformations across so much of the building. NIST's theory also doesn't revolve around the massive columns losing strength due to heating, but thermal expansion and contraction effects revolving around the truss connections. Because there was too much steel in the thick columns to heat enough of them uniformly to 600 C + in such a short amount of time and NIST shows this in their own report. They later assumed even greater temperatures and heat to study a theoretical initiation point, between they HAD to have more energy to get it to work, but they weren't able to even find physical samples of steel that were heated beyond 250 C.



One other thing worth considering is that electronics technology is such today that you wouldn't NEED wires to detonate a bomb. You could do it remotely. And you could also be sure it wouldn't trip accidentally from a noise signal by requiring the reception of a very specific analog or digital sequence of data before activation. This is all basic stuff any EE should be able to figure out.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


Well once initiated, as the fountain of explosively ejecting debris (need I post the video, again..?), left little more than mere atmosphere above the remaining structure, so I'd say that air is very powerful in that it appears to have crushed the living shiit out of the rest of that building. Absent explosives, it's what I call "the foot of God hypothesis" just to illustrate the point.

But seriously, if people stray in this topic to descriptions of things which completely defy reality, like denying the EXTREMELY high temperatures encountered by steel such that it atomized into droplets, and formed a near molten and/or molten state in the pit, or, by talking about the buildings having no substance, I think they will be forced to stay on track.

Let us stick to the physical facts based on the various phenomenon which can be verified and observed for the most part, because the record of this is still very much intact, particularly the videos of the physical occurance of destruction..



Sorry I could help it. Felt it was important that no one miss this.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by bsbray11


The wire comment was just an example, not literal. Im sure there is technology that could trip something in that to brng them down from the moon but we were attacked. Do I think they knew we were going to be attacked, yes. But, I think they believed it wouldnt happen, nor did they know exactly where or when. One thing thats great about our country is our resilience. We fought off armys with our pitchforks and farm equiptment for our freedom. We are strong but we were attacked. We let our guard down because we are strong. They didn't have our technology or our resources they were the underdog and they got through and hurt us bad. I didn't like Bush but if you go back and watch his first address speech after this happened, he was clearly upset and maybe a little scared. Neither side is ever going to be able to prove to the other that it happened that way. On one hand its embarressing to admit that we let this get through and happen you just cant believe it. How acts so simple were able to happen and bring such destruction in our own country. Honeslty, theres nothing you can say that would make me think hmm, your right we did this to ourselves. And vice versa me to you. I've looked at both sides for a long time, I don't have all the answeres noone does but this was an attack, not planned out by our government.

Originally posted by VintageEnvy
Fine, for your heat problem:


Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

.

Did you not see that this article had already been linked by a post just slightly up from your own, and that it had been responded to? Why, instead of acting like you had "found the answer" did you not respond to the counterpoints that show the article is based 100% on one completely false assumption?

[edit on 9-23-2009 by Valhall]

reply to post by Valhall


Shucks ya got me. The article isnt wrong, you want it to be wrong. And it was countered by a similar article written from your sides perspective, they never can null and void one another. If your sides charlie sheen came up against our sides charlie sheen we would still side with OUR charlie sheen, its null and voided each other.

reply to post by VintageEnvy


Is that right?

Originally posted by VintageEnvy
reply to post by Valhall

 

Shucks ya got me. The article isnt wrong, you want it to be wrong. And it was countered by a similar article written from your sides perspective, they never can null and void one another. If your sides charlie sheen came up against our sides charlie sheen we would still side with OUR charlie sheen, its null and voided each other.

First, I have no side. Second, there was not 91000 L of fuel burning in the building. Third, that makes the article wrong and you wrong. Fourth, you're acting like a real jerk.

Originally posted by VintageEnvy
reply to post by bsbray11

 

The wire comment was just an example, not literal. Im sure there is technology that could trip something in that to brng them down from the moon but we were attacked. Do I think they knew we were going to be attacked, yes. But, I think they believed it wouldnt happen, nor did they know exactly where or when.

I respect your opinion, but I only recognize it as such. I'm not sure what makes you believe simply stating your opinion is going to change my mind after all I have seen.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Question One (to debunkers):

First of all, given all the talk about the HEAT from the fires at the area of plane impact causing the all the steel to weaken and bend precipitating a sequential and successive global "collapse" of the buildings, into a smoldering pile of rubble, which burned at excessively high temperatures for days, weeks, even months - my first question for all 9/11 debunkers who read this board, is:

How do you explain the EXCESSIVE HEAT recorded, such that micro-spheres of iron were found in plentiful supply in dust samples from the destruction, a destruction which also completely pulverized the entire building, uncluding just about every cubic meter of concrete used in its construction - how do you explain what amounts to the atomization (spraying) of steel, or the presence, in other words of molten steel, absent the kind of termperatures which would be present if various explosives and firing elements such a thermite or nano-thermite, and how do you explain the presence of extremely hot metals in the pit of destruction?

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

Originally posted by VintageEnvy

Fine, for your heat problem:

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

continued......

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction



On to question two..

[edit on 25-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Question Two: (from the OP)

Furthermore, how do you explain, not the collapse initation, but the ACTUAL occurance and the manner of, the complete global collapse and destruction of the buildings, in light of the fact that the buildings basically ERUPTED in an explosive cascading fountain of debris, pouring forth the pulverized building material, including everything in the building, while plummeting to the ground in no more than 4-6 seconds, of the time it would take for a car or a large steel safe or a grand piano, to traverse the same distance if dropped from the height of the twin towers, in nothing but air.

Here's how I described it in another post.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Each level of the structure was designed to uphold everything above it, and more, for the lifetime of the building.

Once initiated, the destruction resulted in a pulverized ejection of building material which formed a cascading fountain of debris, so once part way down, there was nothing "falling" on the remaining structure. Half way through the progression of destruction, there was about half less building above the remaining half, yet the pulverization continued, unabated, without any appreciable loss of momentum, all the way to the ground.

I think that those who defend the official story, are insane.

I've posted this clip from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth a number of times now, in a variety of threads, and I fail to understand how it can be ignored and glossed over. It's in plain sight, something everyone can SEE with their own two eyes.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Personally, I go by the very well written document by MIT materials engineer Thomas Eagar, who gives visuals and easy to understand explanations that support his statements-

MIT materials engineering report

I have yet to encounter one conspiracy theorist who can even come close to refuting any of this material. THAT pretty much says it all.

Did you read this paper and understand it? You can't tell tone, but I did not mean that rudely.

It is an academic paper acknowledging the ambiguity (meaning he is refuting himself) of the topic and creating a stronger argument for his theory. Therefore, the writers are coming close to refuting the material themselves as they should in a paper of this sort. The writer(s) even acknowledge other pro-OS theories and debunks them in part. Did you notice that?

This paper is not "here is exactly how it happened". It is a look at the big picture and saying, based off of the evidence here is my theory on how it happened.

That is entirely different than saying that this is "exactly" how it happened. It is unpredictable behavior, as this writer has acknowledged in the past due to the variants.

I think many times people, rightly, see MIT or Harvard and make an association of infallibility. What you do not know is that behind closed doors, as he's sitting with other staff and peers they argue among themselves these topics and he could equally play the other side in this discussion and probably has.

This professor probably has the same "Question Authority" bumpersticker pasted across his filing cabinet like every other professor on the planet.

There is nothing wrong with questioning. It is good for the brain.


[edit on 29-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 29-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 29-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Personally, I go by the very well written document by MIT materials engineer Thomas Eagar, who gives visuals and easy to understand explanations that support his statements-

MIT materials engineering report

I have yet to encounter one conspiracy theorist who can even come close to refuting any of this material. THAT pretty much says it all.

so much for another one of the perp defenders baseless claims that got destroyed as this thread progressed eh dave??

Once again neutral observers and fence sitters can see the disinfo and denier tactics of the so-called debunkers can only make claims, post links asserting its never been or can be refuted, and then they disappear from the thread even while repeated posts address and show exactly where and how the purported "evidence" disproving inside job, is flawed and baseless. Never do you see any real counter-argument to defend what they claim is false.

Can it be any more obvious that goodoledave is either a shill on the perp payroll, hasn't done any real research, or not intelligent enough to comprehend what he's defending? Even worse it appears GoodOleDave doesn't even believe in what he uses as evidence against what he claims is absolute nonsense.

truly pathetic.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Orion7911]

reply to post by Orion7911


Please, try to keep this one thread civil, for the sake of the reader who simply wants to know and understand what the truth is about this important issue. Thanks.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by Orion7911

 

Please, try to keep this one thread civil, for the sake of the reader who simply wants to know and understand what the truth is about this important issue. Thanks.

Is it wrong for someone to CALL OUT those or POINT OUT as another example for fence sitters and such, how "duhbunkers" constantly derail threads, confuse, obfuscate and make claims they NEVER support while disappearing all together from a thread?

You're looking for the truth like most should be including myself, but every now and then such obvious trolling and disinfo shills or those who aren't here for intelligent discourse need to be CALLED OUT by someone... these disinfo shills and trolls are a MAJOR factor in why there is so much confusion in threads that are intended to discuss the facts and evidence rather than be derailed by some empty or faith-based claim.

If GOODOLEDAVE wasn't going to participate in a thread he entered to make a claim and then not return to give an intelligent counter-argument for those asking valid questions challenging his CLAIMS and assertions, then what was the purpose of his contribution or even more important, what kind of AGENDA does that show about WHO these alleged "skeptics" are?

That kind of blind skepticism and wasting bandwidth peddling disinfo they have no evidence to support perpetuates confusion, derails intelligent discourse and is borderline naziesque and EVIL.

If you want to bury your head to this evil, thats your choice i suppose.

But if this type of EVIL is allowed to go un-challenged and not called out, it FLOURISHES and contributes to why the TRUTH has taken so long to reach more in the masses.

get it?

am i wrong?


[edit on 30-9-2009 by Orion7911]

Well then, on to question three... the first hand reports and eyewitness testimony, much of which was given by firefighters who were in and round the buildings after the plane strikes to the very moment of destruction, and there are some janitorial staff also who spoke of explosions in the SUB-basement levels of the building.

And these are legitamet and very serious questions, questions which were not addressed by the 9/11 Commission or the NIST "investigation".

reply to post by Orion7911


Wouldn't be possible that it might have something to do with the fact that any person who dares to dissent with the concensus of the posters in this thread get attacked from multiple angles by multiple posters up to and including ad hom now would it? Just saying..... This thread seems to be thus far little more than an trap thread so you people call tell anyone who disagrees with said consensus how cruddy you think they are.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


No, it's a thread in which very important and legitamet questions are being raised, with evidence to support each point, points which MUST be proven false if the official story is to be adopted and accepted as true, such as the exceeding high temperatures for example - that requires a response, and evidence to either somehow refute it, or, show that it's uh, normal, and to be expected in a "progressive pancake collapse". But now we're on to question three, the voluminous first hand accounts and eyewitness testimony, much of it by firefighters at the scence, where multiple specific examples can be cited, and in that case, there again, it must be shown to the impartial reader, either how they, all of them, must have been either deluded, misinterpreted or are all lying about what they saw, heard felt and experienced, in some cases getting blown off their feet by blast waves in areas of the building far away from the impact area and fires, in some cases, in the sub-basement of the building.

I'm not just making blanket statements in this thread and putting forth any claims without supporting evidence to back up the claims, evidence which requires a response, and questions which, if the "conspiracy theory" is absurd and "kooky" or ridiculous, ought to be rather easily proven false and absurd on the face of them. But it looks to me like just the opposite is occuring in this thread.

It's pretty straight forward - I've read the thread through, and the issues I've raised so far, have not been addressed, and they would have to be if the "truthers" are to be proven completely wrong, and their claims utterly baseless.

Regarding the excessive temperatures which MUST have been present, the only response to that was statements to the effect that no such temperatures could have been present and were not present, which, based on the evidence, is FALSE.

It's a fair debate, and the truthers just happen to be winning it hands down, so far..

[edit on 1-10-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Right, how many people have disagreed with the consensus thus far, out of how many pages? "Winning" is apparently subjective....

[edit on 1-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]