9/11 facts - weigh in - OS VS others

page: 12
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Not one of your witnesses is qualified to make the judgement you describe. I was hoping for some evidence. Bear in mind I'm only applying your standard.


Oh how nice if you did any search you forgot a fire chief, the president of Tully Construction and the president of Controlled Demolition Inc.

Again are you saying the witnesses are lying, if so what is your evidence they are lying?

Do you have any evidence to proof me wrong?




posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rigel Kent

In metallurgy, we heat steel to 650 degrees celcius for stress relieving purposes, at this temperature it does not fail structurally. you need to get above the upper critical temperature of carbon steel for it to become really malleable and that occurs at 950 C.


What do you mean by, "did not fail structurally"? MIT materials engineer Thomas Eagar says that steel loses 50% of its strength at 650C (and he's only quoting the Natioanl Fire Protection Agency figures). Nowhere does he say it "failed structurally" or even "malleable".

For your test to be a one for one comparison to the events of the WTC, you will need to heat the steel to 650c-1000c (the estimated temperatures of the fires as per NIST), and they need to be heated UNEVENLY, as in one side of the steel hotter than the other side (to duplicate the random dispersal of the fires), while under a vertical stress load of 67000 tons (the estimated weight of the remaining building section above the plane impact area). If you haven't done this, then your test is an apples to oranges comparison and an invalid statement to be basing your judgement on.

The problem for you is, apples to oranges comparisons is all your side ever actually has to justify your absurd conspiracy stories. Anyone who honestly believes Richard Gage's stunt of dropping a cardboard box onto a table is even remotely descriptive of the WTC collapse gets an instant grade of, "F" in credibility.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by REMISNE
 


None of those would be accepted in a court of law as proof of CD.

Try again.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
None of those would be accepted in a court of law as proof of CD.

Try again.


Yes, the statements along with the evidence is enough to show reasonable doubt in the official story.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

What do you mean by, "did not fail structurally"? MIT materials engineer Thomas Eagar says that steel loses 50% of its strength at 650C (and he's only quoting the Natioanl Fire Protection Agency figures). Nowhere does he say it "failed structurally" or even "malleable".

For your test to be a one for one comparison to the events of the WTC, you will need to heat the steel to 650c-1000c (the estimated temperatures of the fires as per NIST), and they need to be heated UNEVENLY, as in one side of the steel hotter than the other side (to duplicate the random dispersal of the fires), while under a vertical stress load of 67000 tons (the estimated weight of the remaining building section above the plane impact area). If you haven't done this, then your test is an apples to oranges comparison and an invalid statement to be basing your judgement on.


The thing is that when people start talking about these temperatures they hardly ever mention the CORE TEMPERATURE of the steel. If a piece of steel is 1 inch thick doesn't the temperature 1/2 inch below the surface have to rise to the specified temperature for it to weaken? But that brings up the subject of conduction. These columns were 36 feet long and connected to other columns by steel beams. So the heat would be spread around. So how did the CORE TEMPERATURES of enough columns rise enough to weaken IN LESS THAN TWO HOURS?

The south tower came down in less than ONE HOUR and the north tower in less than TWO HOURS. So this is not just about temperature it is about QUANTITY OF STEEL and conductivity. So why is this discussion going on and on and on without demands for the quantity of steel?

Someone already did calculations on this:

911research.wtc7.net...

Why don't the people that BELIEVE an airliner could do this want accurate data and just PROVE IT? If it is really possible it should not be difficult to PROVE. But to not even be able to specify the distribution of steel in the towers is absurd. Try finding data on the beams in the core. Might as well try to dig up unobtainium on Pandora.

psik



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Why don't the people that BELIEVE an airliner could do this want accurate data and just PROVE IT?


Because the "proof" has already been established. Millions of people witnessed the even with thier own eyes. The top of the buildings collapsed after being subjected to horrendous damage and heavy fires.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Those are great calcualtions!!

Now all I have to do is ignore the fact that not all the steel needed to fail in order to facilitate the collapse and pretend that there was nothing else in the buildings that could burn!

Mission accomplished!

Oh, and I love the little line in the calculations that tells you everyone else is lying.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
None of those would be accepted in a court of law as proof of CD.

Try again.


Yes, the statements along with the evidence is enough to show reasonable doubt in the official story.


Wrong.

There is no reasonable doubt. We have evidence of planes and 3000 bodies. There was a hole blown in the side of the Pentagon with another plane with parts that were recovered. FDR from Flight 93. Where is reasonable doubt? There is a paper trail going back more than 15 years to link the terror organizations that perpetrated 9/11.

Reasonable doubt is , and I quote,



The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.


Reasonable doubt does not equal conjecture and coincidence.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

The thing is that when people start talking about these temperatures they hardly ever mention the CORE TEMPERATURE of the steel. If a piece of steel is 1 inch thick doesn't the temperature 1/2 inch below the surface have to rise to the specified temperature for it to weaken? But that brings up the subject of conduction. These columns were 36 feet long and connected to other columns by steel beams. So the heat would be spread around. So how did the CORE TEMPERATURES of enough columns rise enough to weaken IN LESS THAN TWO HOURS?


Becuase the columns didn't have any core to even have a core temperature. The main supports were built out of hollow box columns.

Support column of the WTC


The south tower came down in less than ONE HOUR and the north tower in less than TWO HOURS. So this is not just about temperature it is about QUANTITY OF STEEL and conductivity. So why is this discussion going on and on and on without demands for the quantity of steel?


The quantity of steel is irrelevent. Here's an excellent writeup by a fire chief who goes into detail how fire resistance is dependent upon mass of structure.

A Fire Chief's assessment of the WTC collapse

Essentially the more concrete, the heavier the mass and the better the fire resistance. He estimates the concrete to steel ratio of Empire State building was 60/40, while for the WTC, 40/60. This gave the WTC less mass and therefore, less fire resistance.

In short, you're having difficulties understanding how the WTC fell NOT becuase of any real scientific analysis, but becuase you're going by too many misundertandings and misrepresentations. I can already guess where you're getting these misunderstandings and misrepresentations from.

[Edited to correct a bad link]


[edit on 17-2-2010 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Those are great calcualtions!!

Now all I have to do is ignore the fact that not all the steel needed to fail in order to facilitate the collapse and pretend that there was nothing else in the buildings that could burn!

Mission accomplished!

Oh, and I love the little line in the calculations that tells you everyone else is lying.


The calculations are wrong in that it all starts with the assumption that there was a linear distribution of steel from top to bottom with twice as much at the bottom. But he also assumed no heat escaped.

But my point in bringing that up was to show that calculation which could be done are not being done because we don't have accurate data on the building but lots of people on both sides of the issue are not DEMANDING THAT THE DATA BE SUPPLIED! Mentioning trivia like other stuff in the building being able to burn doesn't explain not knowing the quantity of steel on every level or avoid the fact of the CORE TEMPERATURE of that steel needing to be raised to weaken.

So why should anyone BELIEVE that fire could bring the buildings down in less than TWO HOURS other than that being what they WANT TO BELIEVE?

A lot of people trying to portray themselves as intelligent aren't asking the obvious intelligent questions.

psik

[edit on 17-2-2010 by psikeyhackr]

[edit on 17-2-2010 by psikeyhackr]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Whatever the quantity of steel was in the building or the amount of heat, the final calculation is equal to the amount required to cause what millions of people witnessed. The total catastrophic collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.

The end.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Can someone please provide the link from YouTube containing the air traffic conversation w/ flight 93 please? It's the one that suggests it was still airborne at the time of supposed crash or something like that. Thanks!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Whatever the quantity of steel was in the building or the amount of heat, the final calculation is equal to the amount required to cause what millions of people witnessed. The total catastrophic collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.

The end.


Obviously true, but what caused the catastrophe?

It should not be that difficult to do all of the calculations on the basis of how much energy could come from an airliner, its fuel and burning building contents.

The amount of steel should be known to compute how much energy would be required to cause the destruction. Now if the airliner could not produce the visible results then...

So all of the EXPERTS that are not demanding to know the distribution of steel after EIGHT YEARS certainly look peculiar. Rather like keeping the facts swept under the rug to prevent confusion among the BELIEVERS. The 9/11 religion.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man Incident of the 21st century.

psik



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
We have evidence of planes and 3000 bodies.


Plese show the proper evidence showing this.


There was a hole blown in the side of the Pentagon with another plane with parts that were recovered.


But what parts, what do they belong to?



FDR from Flight 93. Where is reasonable doubt?


The FDR has not been matched by part or serial number to the plane.



There is a paper trail going back more than 15 years to link the terror organizations that perpetrated 9/11.


Funny though how both the FBI and DOJ have stated there is not enough evidence to charge OBL with being behind 9/11.



[edit on 19-2-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

There was a hole blown in the side of the Pentagon with another plane with parts that were recovered.


But what parts, what do they belong to?


I think I can handle that question for you...here is an analysis by a group of aerospace engineers that show the wreckage did come from a Boeing 757

Aerospace engineers' analysis of flight 77 wreckage

Not that it matters, as so many eyewitnesses specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that struck the Pentagon that there is no more room for doubt and debate that it was in fact a passenger jet.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I think I can handle that question for you...here is an analysis by a group of aerospace engineers that show the wreckage did come from a Boeing 757.


I do not see any real evidence. Still waiting.


Not that it matters, as so many eyewitnesses specifically saw that it was a passenger jet that struck the Pentagon that there is no more room for doubt and debate that it was in fact a passenger jet.


So you also had people state that they did not know what hit the Pentagon, they were told later it was a 757.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE
I do not see any real evidence. Still waiting.


Dude, you asked for evidence showign it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon and I have shown you a report by aerospace engineers that included photos of wreckage found at the Pentgon site, as well as their analysis that confirms the wreckage found at the site came from a 757. If you don't want to believe it to be true...and I know full well that you don't...then I can't help you on that.


So you also had people state that they did not know what hit the Pentagon, they were told later it was a 757.


If you're going to quote the crap those damned fool conspiracy web sites are feeding you then quote it correctly. It was ONE person who was later told it was a 757 (April Gallop), and that's becuase she was inside the Pentagon when it happened. That means she wasn't an eyewitness.



posted on Feb, 20 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
this is in response to dereks, - your posts make some excellent points, man. The innuendo & the speculation & the conjecture & the logical gyrations with a lot of these conspiracy theories, although for some reason I find them interesting, when it comes to making solid statements, building evidence & facts & a coherent case, - it's seems pretty far fetched.

Why introduce remote controlled planes, voice morphing, the ludicrous collapsing of buildings with the whole world watching on, the Mossad, rogue elements in the CIA, nefarious neoconservatives, American imperialism, - it's all very dramatic, but is any of it actually real?

A 9/11 conspiracy theorist might say, in response to questions like - why has none of this spilled out ? Why did the conspirators devise a conspiracy so unnecessarily elaborate, so transparent that any neophyte with a laptop & some spare time can crack the whole case open in 45 minutes? - the retort one occasionally hears is, - They're so ultra powerful, that they know they're untouchable.

This is kind of like the deus ex machina of 9/11 conspiracy. The super powerful cabal/conspirators who secretly rule the world can do whatever the hell they want. So what if tens of millions of people have found them out?

For me, this is a crucial issue, and all debate on 9/11 conspiracy has to answer this question of why the plot was so obvious, almost as if it had been designed precisely in order to be discovered. It's not unlike those Lee Oswald lookalikes reported in various parts of Dallas just before the assassination, spewing anti-JFK, pro Castro rhetoric. It's just all so blatant, so obvious.

Take the Pentagon as an example. The one area in that building you do NOT hit, the one area that will be a goldmine for conspiracy, is the area they did hit.

The one patsy you do not choose to pilot the Pentagon flight, the one patsy, at least according to some reports, who can hardly fly at all, ie Hani Hanjour, this is the man they choose. The worst pilot for the most difficult hit - where is the sense in this? Unless it's all part of some grotesque & perverted joke on the part of the conspirators, and anyone espousing this line really has lost his or her grasp on reality.

To me, none of this conspiracy makes sense. Let's not only smash remote controlled planes into the Twin Towers, let's actually bring those mothers down too, with a massively elaborate scheme of remote electronic demolition, and, as some believe, let's break into people's homes, tap their phones, morph their voices, pay off any dissenting relatives all of whom of course can be counted on to be complicit in the death & cover up of not only much beloved relatives but also thousands of others of poor innocents, - women, children...Jesus christ, if someone told you the love of your life had been murdered in the most horrific of ways, if you imagine his or her final terrifying moments, what he or she was thinking, praying, despite surely knowing that this is it, - I say to any conspiracy theorist, - would you take some pay off?

and who does the paying off? What sums are involved? Where is the money deposited? Is it a lump sum or in installments? The conspiracy theorist's response to these, and ten thousand other unanswerable questions,is something like, - Well, the ins and outs, the specific details, the nuts & bolts of the whole thing, we'll never really know all of this.

If this is the case, it is deus ex machina #2, - "we'll never really know" is extremely convenient, as it pretty much absolves you from having to construct a substantial theory.

I keep waiting to find something new re these theories, but they keep coming back to the same points, eg, - X doesn't believe that building 7 should have fallen the way it did, or fallen at all, therefore X concludes that they were intentionally collapsed, and who could do this but the government, therefore the whole thing is a government conspiracy. There are some extraordinary leaps here



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Dude, you asked for evidence showign it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon and I have shown you a report by aerospace engineers that included photos of wreckage found at the Pentgon site, as well as their analysis that confirms the wreckage found at the site came from a 757.


Sorry but the report is not actual evidence as stated, such as no serial numbers matching parts to the plane. Also the FBI and the NTSB are the only official investigating agencies for 9/11.



If you're going to quote the crap those damned fool conspiracy web sites are feeding you then quote it correctly.


For one, i do not quote crap i quote the facts. You really should do better research.

www.scottpcook.com...
Cook, Scott P.
We didn’t know what kind of plane had hit the Pentagon, or where it had hit. Later, we were told that it was a 757 out of Dulles, which had come up the river in back of our building, turned sharply over the Capitol, ran past the White House and the Washington Monument, up the river to Rosslyn, then dropped to treetop level and ran down Washington Boulevard to the Pentagon. I cannot fathom why neither myself nor Ray, a former Air Force officer, missed a big 757, going 400 miles an hour, as it crossed in front of our window in its last 10 seconds of flight.



[edit on 21-2-2010 by REMISNE]



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by REMISNE

Sorry but the report is not actual evidence as stated, such as no serial numbers matching parts to the plane. Also the FBI and the NTSB are the only official investigating agencies for 9/11.


This is a strawman argument. Unless you can prove me wrong, serial numbers would be thoroughly worthless to you becuase you have no ability to verify them as being either legitimate or fake. If for example they released a serial number XXXX on component YYYY that was traced as belonging to flight 77, what would you do with the information? If you have no use for it, then why are you demanding to know?

You asked for evidence of a 757 passenger jet hitting the Pentagoon and I gave you an article containing photos of wreckage found at the Pentagon site as well as an aerospace organization's professional analysis of the photos. This IS evidence that will hold up in courts of law, regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Arguing over these make believe improprieties concerning serial numbers is more of an indication of desperation out of trying to keep your conspiracy stories alive, than it is any interest in actual research.

BTW why is it relevent that the FBI and the NTSB were the investigating bodies?



For one, i do not quote crap i quote the facts. You really should do better research.



Dude, wake up out of your daydreams. They guy is openly admitting he DIDN'T see what hit the Pentagon, which likewise means he's admitting he WASN'T an eye witness. The only reason why you're quoting a non-eyewitness to conter what all the eyewitnesses who DID see what hit the Pentagon is becuase some damned fool conspiracy website put the idea into your head that his statement is relevent. Either than, or someone read the rubbish those web sites are putting out and THEY are trying to put it into your head. We both know you didn't hear about Scott Cook in a dream.

Please, explain to me how someone not being an eyewitness contradicts these people's eyewitness accounts? They were there and they DID see what hit the Pentagon-

Eyewitness accounts to the Pentagon attack






top topics



 
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join