9/11: Blueprint for Truth. The Scientifically Disproven Official Story.

reply to post by Varemia


And....not a single source was given that day!

Say what you will..

You just can't beat the "Official Story".

www.youtube.com...

Now that is how it all happened.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


doubtful you even graduated from your so called public education sysem.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


if you have any of that hot burning fuel that you seem to think exists. i'd be happy to see if it will melt by bbq.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by jibajaba

 

Obviously you're not hugely bright.

Propane CAN burn very hot, but in a grill it does NOT.

It's alll about the mixture of oxygen and fuel.

More boneheaded Truther BS.

hey moron cap'n of the govment baloney ostrich squad:
"If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then 3,500 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed."

Quote from the FEMA report into the collapse of WTC's One and Two (Chapter Two).

What we propose to do, is pretend that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with the perfect quantity of oxygen, that no hot gases left this floor and that no heat escaped this floor by conduction. With these ideal assumptions (none of which were meet in reality) we will calculate the maximum temperature that this one floor could have reached. Of course, on that day, the real temperature rise of any floor due to the burning jet fuel, would have been considerably lower than the rise that we calculate, but this estimate will enable us to demonstrate that the "official" explanation is a lie.

Note that a gallon of jet fuel weighs about 3.1 kilograms, hence 3,500 gallons weighs 3,500 x 3.1 = 10,850 kgs.

Jet fuel is a colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid. Its principal uses are as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides.

It is also know as, fuel oil #1, kerosene, range oil, coal oil and aviation fuel.

It is comprised of hydrocarbons with a carbon range of C9 - C17. The hydrocarbons are mainly alkanes CnH2n+2, with n ranging from 9 to 17.

It has a flash point within the range 42° C - 72° C (110° F - 162° F).

And an ignition temperature of 210° C (410° F).

Depending on the supply of oxygen, jet fuel burns by one of three chemical reactions:

(1) CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 => n CO2 + (n + 1) H2O

(2) CnH2n+2 + (2n+1)/2 O2 => n CO + (n + 1) H2O

(3) CnH2n+2 + (n+1)/2 O2 => n C + (n + 1) H2O

Reaction (1) occurs when jet fuel is well mixed with air before being burnt, as for example, in jet engines.
...
Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

911research.wtc7.net...

Their only claim is that melting steel brought down those towers....

ONE PROBLEM

Steel does not melt at an open environment it needs a closed area such as a furnace....they obviously added something else in order for the steel to be melting

but not once could they answer why WTC7 collapsed in free fall speed their only reply was "debris and fire"

Originally posted by ApplesOnFire
Their only claim is that melting steel brought down those towers....

ONE PROBLEM

Steel does not melt at an open environment it needs a closed area such as a furnace....they obviously added something else in order for the steel to be melting

but not once could they answer why WTC7 collapsed in free fall speed their only reply was "debris and fire"

reply to post by jibajaba


Well re the Cardington fire tests DID they damage the structure before the test ie fly a plane into it?
Did they use the same type of structure? I will answer that for you NO!!

Here is some data from their tests

Air temp first fig time in mins others temps in degrees C at various locations

30.0 1034 917 889 819 837 998 996 738 714 782

Now some steel temps

Primary Beam grid line e location b14 first fig time temps all in degrees C

30.0 781 799 738 612 872

Steel V temp graph



Now at 600 c your about just over 40% strength at 800 c just over 10% and at 872c about 6-7%

Now one truther on here claimed that core steel had been tested to 2500 degrees for several hours I asked for a link after showing him this graph he didn't reply I wonder why!

This data is on the spreadsheets you can download from their site.

So temperatures can reach high enough to cause problems imagine a 1 acre floor fire!

Originally posted by Maslo
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1f530ca17e8b.gif[/atsimg]

Can someone please explain to me why so many of the public buy the official story of the collapse of these storage shelves?

The fork lift truck didnt move with enough force to displace all those items on the shelves and the structural damage to a single support would not have been enough to weaken all shelves to the point of collapse.

The way the shelving fell into its own footprint despite the fact we are told and "shown" it was struck from the side is clear evidence of foul play and controlled demolition.

The neighbouring storage shelves were not even hit by the fork lift truck but they also collapsed. If that does not prove to you this was a field test for optical stealth anti-shelving clean demolition missiles then you are a deluded sheep.

You are not seriously offering this in response to the OP as somehow relevant?

Originally posted by esdad71
1. Formulate a question. - What led to the WTC collapsing on 9/11.
2. Perform research and record observations - I have video, audio and witness evidence that supports two planes struck the WTC and they burned intensely for over an hour. They eventually failed and then collapsed. Here
3. Construct hypothesis and make predictions - Will a plane striking a skyscraper cause it to collapse...I predict it will not
4. Test with experiments - click here
5. Analyze results, draw conclusions - The towers fell. I saw the live video of that day, not the edited versions that circulate the net sites, that show where and when they failed...and then collapsed.
6. Determine whether or not hypothesis is corrobrated, then either try again or report results - There is no prior event in which an airliner hit a building and it collapsed however when a bear #s in the woods it still smells if no one is there.

Nice thread though....

South Tower fires did not burn for over 1 hour prior to collapse...nice reply though...

911review.com...

......By the time of its collapse 56 minutes after its jet impact, the South Tower was emitting only a thin veil of smoke. The color of smoke is also telling. Both towers emitted light smoke for the first few minutes after their impacts, and thereafter emitted darkening smoke, once the jet fuel had burned off. Whereas subsequent changes in the color of the North Tower's smoke are difficult to ascertain, it is clear that the color of the South Tower's smoke continued to darken, and was almost black by the time of its collapse.

Originally posted by eyesdown
A lot of good information OP. I have read most but not all, and due to # internet connection none of the videos, but i do have a question I hope one of you could answer for me. On another thread on ATS today, the "i used to be a deluded truther" the guy in the video mentions that he doesn't believe the controlled demolition theory because that building was on fire for hours and how would the explosives not have detonated.

So yes thats my question, Why did the fires not detonate or destroy the explosives?

Because the explosives were not on the same floors as the explosives...plus the buildings were not on the fire for hours...plus charges such as these do not detonate due to a fire...

Originally posted by Akasirus

Originally posted by TupacShakur
The scientific method has concluded otherwise. If you can debunk the 10 pieces of evidence used to support the prediction that the buildings collapse woulde exhibit characteristics of a controlled demolition, maybe you'll at the very least get your foot in the door. But babbling on about how the buildings aren't constructed the exact same way is getting you nowhere.

Please stop hiding behind your gross perversion of the scientific method. You have conducted no experiments that can be independently replicated and verified. You have not tested your hypothesis by trying to disprove it. You have not analyzed your results and formed conclusions

You linked to secondary and tertiary research, you 'tested' your hypothesis by picking and choosing data that confirmed it, and you analyzed your preformed conclusion to determine the results. This is not the scientific method, as their is nothing scientific about what you have done in your original post.

There is nothing wrong with providing articles and resources that support your theory, but trying to elevate it under the guise of the 'scientific method' is a disservice to the validity of some of the research you have presented.

Also, due to the chaotic nature of fire and the many variables present in a buildings construction, you cannot use case studies of other burning buildings to conclusively rule anything out. Even two buildings built to the exact same specs and set on fire at the same location would burn very differently. It can provide some good insight as to what would potentially happen, but on its own doesn't prove anything.

So we have two buildings (the twin towers) that were built to exact specifications, in the same location, and were impacted and set on fire in DIFFERENT locations (i.e., floors and height) and yet the same result? Wait, the one impacted and on fire the LEAST amount of time collapsed FIRST...whoa...

tho it's been said before - one can never overstate it - tower 7 collapsed ! yes a third tower collapsed wtc7 collapsed of course silverstein made the decision to ....'pull it...."
let me say it again.
tower 7 collapsed onto itself for no apparent reason.

i found these - interesting articles while checking out devvy.com
www.globalresearch.ca...
www.globalresearch.ca...

truthers are gaining - putting more pressure on the socalled msm.

reply to post by jibajaba
Thanks, jiba. Just two more nails in the coffin of the OS.

Originally posted by ApplesOnFire

Their only claim is that melting steel brought down those towers....

Not even close to what NIST said.

Uneven load distribution after the plane impacts, plus moderate temp, high load viscoplastic creep caused the towers to collapse.

Try doing some research...

and her in lies the reasons for the Viscoplasticity - or rather how the 47 steel support beams were burned though.
..."
Iron-rich microspheres were so common in the WTC dust that EPA’s WTC panel discussed their use as one of the signature components to distinguish the WTC dust from so-called “background” dust (i.e. common office-building dust).

RJ Lee Group, evaluating the contamination of the Deutsche Bank building at 130 Liberty Street, also described these iron-rich spheres, and actually used them as one of their signature markers. In other words, dust wasn’t regarded as WTC dust unless it contained these spheres. The chemical composition and micro-images of two WTC iron-rich spheres were documented by the US Geological Survey...."
www.ae911truth.org...

reply to post by jibajaba


Thanks, jiba. That's simply another fact that the'boys' want to discount. They made a valiant effort to spirit away all the evidence, and ignore what they couldn't destroy, but certainly any new investigation would find this very interesting.

Originally posted by jibajaba
and her in lies the reasons for the Viscoplasticity

I thought that you might actually have a valid technical argument that would say that viscoplastic creep buckling would not be possible.

I expected to see something like:

1- loads couldn't have risen above xamount because of this study done ....

2- nor could the core columns have been above y degrees C because this here gas temp curve, combined with the known dimensions/mass of the core columns in this region, and cross checked with heat transfer formulas found on this website says so.

3- therefore, the time/load/heat curve that would result in viscoplastic buckling could never have been reached.

But instead, we get this drivel:

or rather how the 47 steel support beams were burned though.

Which demonstrates that you have absolutely zero idea that columns being melted to the point of turning into the liquid state is unnecessary for them to fail.

Do some research, kid...

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Not totally understanding the issue of viscoplasticity, but it would seem to me the entire supporting middle columns of the WTC 1 and 2 would need to reach the temperature required for failure...how does this result in iron-rich microspheres?