Reportedly a new FOIA 2010 Video: Firefighters discuss explosions on 9/11

reply to post by plube

so back to my point...why is the landing gear embedded into the external steel mesh it such a fashion.... does it make sense to others?.

Show panel knocked from South face of North Tower (WTC 1) by debris - this was debris exiting the building
out opposite side from impact.

The aircraft tire embedded in panel came after the aircraft was shredded passing through the building - being
massive was able to hold together . Tire was separated from the landing gear assembly

Probably aware from your experience how strong aircraft tires are

reply to post by thedman




Ok once again people seem to not read there SOURCES!

(SFPE) Society for Fire Protection Engineers, NFPA (National Fire Protection Administration),
Society of Fire Protection Engineers. (1988). SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering.
Gives formula for calculating yield strength of steel as temperature increases www.wpi.edu...
Check page 22-23 for graphic representation...

Source here

And if you check the pages before and following, IE if you read it, its says NOTHING about plasticity of metal!!!

It talks about the yield strength of metal and the increase of temperature and the ELASTICITY of said metal!

Elasticity

In physics, elasticity is the physical property of a material that returns to its original shape after the stress (e.g. external forces) that made it deform is removed. The relative amount of deformation is called the strain.

You have a history of note reading and misquoting things correctly, again typical behavior for the 9/11 trolls.

Anything further about metal being plastic at temperature? :shk:

Seriously if your going to use a source and make a claim READ IT FIRST!

Originally posted by aliengenes
those buildings were imploded by shear charges set in exposed columns and were most likely implanted during building inspections or possibly even implanted during construction. there was no way in hell that a single hit from a passenger jet would have had the capability to strike at an upper level in those buildings to bring them down to ground level. the upper part of the building if failed?. would have just slid off in one massive piece.

90% of the fuel was expended on impact, so what little fire was involved, and what little fragments of aluminum were left, had no bearing on the overall support column superstructure. the planes weren't made out of magnesium, so the low melting point of aluminum would have quickly melted and cease burning within minutes. and would have not started any secondary fires.....steel wont liquefy from diesel fuel burning near it , on it, under it, around it. especially when it is 1" thick.. it has absolutely no effect on it other than scorching the paint...lol

i say since the government enjoys wasting our money on stupid #. they should completely reconstruct under supervision by trusted private contractors, one replica trade center. exactly to specification. then fly the same type aircraft into it. then lets see if the results are the same?

it shouldn't matter where the plane hits. i assure you the results wont be the same and that replica wont do anything but make a few noises and smolder for a while.

Hallelujiah !
Seriously, whomever thought of this planned and premeditated fiasco had all the hollywood in it but zero logic.
I'm now firmly convinced that IF on that day one of the planes hit THE VERY TOP FLOOR,
the buildings would have still fallen and the koolaid would STILL be gulped down by the bucket loads.
I think that when commenting on this event people should share their experience/education/employment history to help give a better idea on where some of these beliefs are founded.
Mine? Electrical 5years/Mechanical 3 years/Structural 3 years/Metallurgy 3 years - Steel Industry , Building and crane erection, Water tower tankee, total of 25 years hourly and supervision doing just this and more,
I'm not going to throw away all I know just because someone in a suit lies well and sounds convincing.
These buildings were dropped, there is no grinding machine theory, or pancake theory that will do to steel what was done to it that day, there isnt.
It's smoke and mirrors and a very well presented trick at that!

reply to post by theability

Anything further about metal being plastic at temperature?

How about 3000 years of iron working .......

Heat metal until real hot then shape it to desired form while hot - its how blacksmiths make horseshoes and
many other metal items for thousands of years

As metal is heated becomes more and more malleable - aka plastic

reply to post by thedman

How about 3000 years of iron working .......

Heat metal until real hot then shape it to desired form while hot - its how blacksmiths make horseshoes and
many other metal items for thousands of years

As metal is heated becomes more and more malleable - aka plastic

So in other words as you were saying about the WTC [which is the topic of course] that would be a no.
BTW metal techniques used years ago have little to no significance to the steel that has Molybdenum added, making the process of forging extremely difficult.

Hence the reason why the add the stuff to steel to make skyscrapers, its tough under the heat and the pressure.

Have a good day

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by thedman

 

So in other words as you were saying about the WTC [which is the topic of course] that would be a no.
BTW metal techniques used years ago have little to no significance to the steel that has Molybdenum added, making the process of forging extremely difficult.

Hence the reason why the add the stuff to steel to make skyscrapers, its tough under the heat and the pressure.

Have a good day

But if the metal was so perfect the way it was, it would not have needed fireproofing. The fact of the matter is that the plane MUST have sheared off the fire-proofing on a lot of the steel upon impact. It created a huge hole for crying out loud, so I think it's not far-fetched to imagine it scraped some stuff off the metal.

reply to post by Varemia

But if the metal was so perfect the way it was, it would not have needed fireproofing. The fact of the matter is that the plane MUST have sheared off the fire-proofing on a lot of the steel upon impact. It created a huge hole for crying out loud, so I think it's not far-fetched to imagine it scraped some stuff off the metal.

I don't understand your positioning, are you for or against the OS? You seems to fight for both sides and that is well difficult to digest.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Varemia

 

I don't understand your positioning, are you for or against the OS? You seems to fight for both sides and that is well difficult to digest.

That's because I'm not for or against a side. I am looking into every possibility and trying to determine what really happened. The OS has a lot of stuff that makes complete sense and is why my arguments usually seem to support it, but then again, there are minor things the OS doesn't explain if true. For that reason, I often deviate from the OS and look seriously into alternative ideas. It's just when it is something straight-forward and logical like "big thing hits other thing, and both get damaged," or "fire plus damage usually equals not good," I tend to get a little aggressive about people trying to pretty it up to make it seem like nothing happened at all and that the buildings fell out of spite.

reply to post by Varemia


So in other words, you don't know where you stand, gotcha thanks!

I believe there are to many untold facets in the video as seen in the OP, IE more of these videos where first responders talk about being in, or witnessing explosions.

Originally posted by Varemia
I am looking into every possibility and trying to determine what really happened.

Then you should check out What Really Happened.

And remember what your father says: the government lies about EVERYTHING.

Well, yeah. My father was part of the secret government for a bit. The thing about it is that there were rumors of the secret government being the outer secret government, and that there was an inner secret government that even the secret government didn't know about. Who knows what the heck is going on there. It's just people who have gotten so ingrained in the system since the beginning of the US that nobody even knows they're there doing anything anymore.

The point I make is that the majority of truther arguments are unfounded. There are probably a few gems buried underneath the fallacies, and those are what I look forward to when I'm arguing with truthers. I want to see the real evidence, and not the "he's an OS, ignore and laugh at him."

Originally posted by Varemia
The point I make is that the majority of truther arguments are unfounded.

According to who? You? Government disinfo websites like 911Myths.com? Other professional debunkers who spend all their time in the 9/11 forum?

Give me just one example of a real truther argument that you consider "unfounded."

reply to post by GoldenFleece


You know, calling something government dis-info doesn't make it suddenly false. You have to prove that the points they are presenting are not true. So far, every argument by the "dis-info agents" has made complete sense and followed not just partial observations of the event, but the complete observation. Most truther arguments select a single point out of the entire day and try to say that their one idea caused everything, when there is no supporting evidence from the rest of any of the footage to corroborate that idea.

reply to post by Varemia


The more you speak the funnier it gets,

The fact is , is that nothing you say has had a shred of even possible truth in it,, other than planes hit the building, after that point none of it even resonates with the other debunkers,

I am so fascinated by your apparent belief that damage and heat of such nature can entirely smash and vaporize an amazingly intense-grid structure...

Personally a jet like those smashing into ANY building will not cause this to happen, and yet you think it can happen here...

Continue posting, it keeps the thread going i guess.

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by Varemia

 

The more you speak the funnier it gets,

The fact is , is that nothing you say has had a shred of even possible truth in it,, other than planes hit the building, after that point none of it even resonates with the other debunkers,

I am so fascinated by your apparent belief that damage and heat of such nature can entirely smash and vaporize an amazingly intense-grid structure...

Personally a jet like those smashing into ANY building will not cause this to happen, and yet you think it can happen here...

Continue posting, it keeps the thread going i guess.

The more I hear people on this site speaking, the sadder it looks. People here abandon logic completely and instead embrace fallacies. You work on the premise of "if it's too complicated to understand, it must be false."

Life doesn't work like that. Sometimes things that have never happened before in the history of the world, happen. There's an extensive list of first-time events in 9/11, all of which go ignored when truthers want to compare demolitions of regular buildings, yet when I compare buildings to the trade centers that happen to support the idea of a progressive collapse, my video gets scrutinized and told that it was nothing like the towers. How convenient that truthers can only use their arguments against others and not themselves!

Edit: In fact, I bet that if the OS was that explosives took down the buildings while the plane crashes were a distraction, that truthers would be declaring that there were no explosives, showing that there weren't enough squibs at the moment of collapse, that there wasn't enough noise, and bringing up countless witnesses who had neither heard nor seen explosions in the towers.

We do not CARE that new things happened, just because that these things happened does NOT make them outside the realms of consideration,, my god man have you NO ability to think for yourself ??

The way you speak is that since all this NEW stuff went on, that it can only be explained how the official story goes, well sorry, ANYONE can see that steel does not CAN NOT , will NEVER annihilate itself in this manner, it is only YOUR imagination that can see it happening,,

I have watched buildings on fire with FAR greater temps than that, where you can barely stand 100 yards away , and observe a crane in the middle of it all, with a huge weight on it at the end and it just sagged abit, NOONE can honestly believe that if i dropped some weight on it that was ALREADY TOUCHING IT, that its gonna smash it to the ground, even though fire is encompassing the whole thing,

The amount of asinine logic you use to defend this even being remotely possible is really breathtaking,

You ignore the fact that an improper investigation has taken place at every turn, and yet tell us that we do not look at the evidence you see, perhaps you need a diagram to be drawn out for you,

I am in serious shock at you people, and sincerely hope you are paid, cause if you are not, many more things in the near future are going to as they say , blow your mind.

reply to post by GrinchNoMore


This is what I keep saying. It was a NEW event. Therefore, it CANNOT BE COMPARED TO ANYTHING. Understand yet? In comparing the WTC collapses to anything else, you are removing multiple factors that contributed to the WTC collapses. Most buildings are designed to survive fire. The WTCs, all of them had damage AND fire. Not just the one. Number 7 even had generators that caught fire. At least one WTC had a big battery room on fire.

Yet these considerations based on entirely unique circumstances are ignored and truthers keep looking in the past for answers, and because they can't find anything like it happening before (and I elaborate that anything means a plane loaded with tons of fuel going 500 mph and crashing into a tube-in-tube steel building or a building with three main supports and structural damage and fires caused by a collapsed steel structure's debris with no water and no firefighter attempts to fight the fires), they say it is impossible for it to happen. *sigh* and you say I'm the one not using my brain.

"why is the landing gear embedded into the external steel mesh it such a fashion.... does it make sense to others?."

So this tire embedded itself into the steel panel, which subsequently dropped approximately 80 floors to the ground below. After dropping approximately 800 feet to the ground and impacting with the street below, the tire did not dislodge and continued to remain embedded into the steel panel. Yeah, right!

1. How come the tire did not dislodge from the steel panel after dropping from such a height and impacting violently with the street below?

2. How was this tire able to propel out of the airplane (landing gear was up) and align itself to perfectly embed into a steel panel from the building? What are the chances of that happening?

3. How come the sidewalk and the street do not display any significant damage such as cracks or depressions. If such a heavy piece of steel drops from 80 stories high, surely it would cause noticeable depressions or cracks on the street and sidewalk below.

Check out the two different pictures of the same tire below:

cryptome.org...

cryptome.org...

Look closely at the center of the aircraft tire. Does this look like the same tire to you in both pictures? One picture of the tire has obvious circular holes while the other has irregular shapes.

In conclusion, these pictures have fake written all over them. I guess they ran over budget and could not afford a professional graphic designer to do some simple Photoshop work.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

You know, calling something government dis-info doesn't make it suddenly false. You have to prove that the points they are presenting are not true. So far, every argument by the "dis-info agents" has made complete sense and followed not just partial observations of the event, but the complete observation. Most truther arguments select a single point out of the entire day and try to say that their one idea caused everything, when there is no supporting evidence from the rest of any of the footage to corroborate that idea.

So in other words, you still can't give me a single example of a truther argument that you consider "unfounded?"

reply to post by Varemia


We understand physics, and we do NOT try and reinterpret it all because this never happened before in this exact scenario, we do NOT need to change reality and try to imagine that because it was not done purposefully like this ever before in this exact building at that exact speed that we can somehow feed new numbers and ideology and innuendo into thinking this caused almost a million tons of steel to pulverize itself into nothing.

It is like you are in another dimension, the one that shocked you , and because of THAT all the temperatures, and damage from speeding jets, and jet fuel, suddenly changed and all of these miracles of total complete destruction became reality,,

Well, I am done with your reality, and frankly done with this topic...

We get nowhere even entertaining this discussion with those who support such nonsense, except we get friction, well thanks for the generation of heat lol...

Now i will cool down, and not even contemplate it any longer... i advise you do the same.