Looks Like AE911 is Throwing in the Towel !!

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Lumenari
Imagine their surprise when they found out that officially, 2 planes took out three buildings.
So I leave it at that.

That’s about it really, nothing more to add
Anyone who thinks that 3 building implode, one by chance, anyway, never understood a person who said it was a plane crash

No one thinks 3 buildings imploded by chance. When you have to misrepresent the other side, you might need to rethink your position. Debate 101.

Anyway, I don't stick around these threads long. There are people here who do a lot better job than I could debunking the garbage.

No they did, they all fell on their own footprint, unheard of in history, never been done outside of controlled demolitions seve anywhere
Otherwise prove it

a reply to: Lumenari

It just so happens that all of the elements of thermite are available when an airplane crashes into a steel structure.

The steel used in buildings is pre-oxidized in order to prevent further oxidation.

An airplane (in this case) is made out of aluminum.

Then you crash an airplane into this steel structure, introduce enough heat through a gas fire to kick start a reaction. All of the sudden you have a thermite reaction.

As for gas fires not melting the steel at the oil field, it wont, and classifying the WTC using the trope about gas can't melt steel beams, is foundationally a red herring. The reports never said the steel beams were melted causing the collapse. The pins that held the unique structure of the WTC buildings gave out. More over Steel loses tensile strength far before its melting point especially that used in the WTC. The types of steel used were A36 and ASTM A242. Both of which are low alloy steels. Meaning they are less heat resistant.

www.metalsupermarkets.com...
www.metalsupermarkets.com...

The type of steel used in the Oil industry is generally ASTM A573.

The important quality here is Thermal Shock Resistance, which A242 is rather poor in.
www.makeitfrom.com...

If you want to actually do a deeper dig into the properties there are plenty of other sources.
www.researchgate.net...



There are plenty of other things that were different about the structure of the towers of the WTC that made it's collapse likely. Most of it had to do with the design and material choices. The biggest one is the tube in tube design that was a first. It was specifically designed for easy demolition, and to pancake the way it did to minimize the need/dangers associated with demolition of say the Empire state building. All of the structural supports were pushed both outward and inward into two "tubes" for a lack of a better term, and this was done for a twofold reasons. The first was it allowed for more usable area per floor. The second was it theoretically allowed for far lighter construction. The original plans for the WTC towers used a different fire retardant material for the inner tubes, however it was heavier and replaced with drywall. Drywall is fire resistant, but fragile and got blown/shattered on impact negating it's capacity to control the spread of the fire.

Due to this negated capacity the fire spread and weakened the pins that held the massive concrete and steel slabs in place. Due to the massive surface area and lack of internal supports due to the tube in tube design these pins failed. When these pins failed it caused a massive floor collapse on an already strained lower level, and the kinetic energy of this caused a cascading failure.

a reply to: dubiousatworst

It just so happens that all of the elements of thermite are available when an airplane crashes into a steel structure. The steel used in buildings is pre-oxidized in order to prevent further oxidation. An airplane (in this case) is made out of aluminum. Then you crash an airplane into this steel structure, introduce enough heat through a gas fire to kick start a reaction. All of the sudden you have a thermite reaction.

Here is a good rebuttal to that theory from Gordon Ross..

Dr. Greening is, I believe, a chemist so it is only fair to look at this field of study first of all. One of his most well known arguments is that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the tower fires. He lists those ingredients which are necessary for this natural thermite and shows that all of these ingredients were present, so his argument follows that a natural thermite reaction could have taken place. Now I will never claim to be good at chemistry but I know that if I leave margarine, flour, sugar and fruit in a cupboard, when I next open the cupboard I will not find a fruit crumble. Some mechanism is required to convert the ingredients. Similarly, if I take these same ingredients, set them alight and throw them out the window, I still will not get my fruit crumble. The mechanism must have some order. Dr. Greening fails to provide any explanation or narrative for these required mechanisms but rather relies on simply ticking off the ingredients and falling back on the unfailing support of his accolytes. It came as an enormous surprise to me that some educated people have been taken in by this, most notably and recently was Manuel Garcia, in his Counterpunch article. What we are being asked to swallow in place of our absent fruit crumble, is that the tonnes of aluminium aircraft parts were powderised upon impact, thoroughly mixed with tonnes of rust from the towers steel superstructure in exactly the required proportion to form tonnes of thermite, which then hung around for about an hour before distributing itself to key structural points throughout the tower, then igniting in a complex sequence to cause the towers' collapse. It is granted that a good imagination is a requirement for a good scientist, but this just abuses the privilege. Perhaps the name for this natural thermite should instead be intelligent thermite, or intelligent malevolent thermite.

a reply to: Flatcoat

the problem with that is that thermite reacts best when it is haphazardly thrown together. The mechanism for its reaction is quite simply the elements of it being in close proximity to one another, and the addition of an ignition source. It is not a complex reaction what so ever.

edit.

Sure it is easier to maintain and continue a prolonged thermite reaction with powdered aluminum, but a thermite reaction is still attainable with a non-powdered source of aluminum. But a prolonged thermite reaction isn't needed, as even a short burst of said reaction could easily push the structure of the WTC Towers over the breaking point, as their steels weakness is Thermal Shock.

Beyond that the structural weaknesses resulting in a cascading failure could still be achieved without the introduction of a thermite reaction.


Second edit
www.youtube.com...
A video of non powdered aluminum and non powdered iron oxide creating a thermite reaction

a repphotobucket.com...
ly to: Lumenari

A Hydrocarbon fire cant reach 500 C …..?

Well an ordinary wood fueled fire caused these steel beams to fail

How do explain this …….

a reply to: Raggedyman

No they did, they all fell on their own footprint, unheard of in history, never been done outside of controlled demolitions seve anywhere

So if WTC collapse in own footprint why was there damage to all the other building around the WTC ?

legacy.lib.utexas.edu...

Several buildings around were destroyed by collapse of WTC 3

WTC 3 - Marriott Hotel

WTC 7 was slashed open and set on fire

WTC 4, 5, 6 were crushed by debris from the collapse and set on fire

Others like 90 West st were set on fire

a reply to: Lumenari

Love your post buy why would you think the terrorist using demolitions means the government did it? I don't understand why anyone would come to that dumb conclusion. The terrorists infiltrated the building's security systems and planted charges. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

a reply to: dubiousatworst

The PNAC Document is enough for me to understand the situation. (page 51 to be exact)
www.informationclearinghouse.info...=1

Then after "the attack", Boy George Bush called the event a New Pearl Harbour... go figure

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Raggedyman

No they did, they all fell on their own footprint, unheard of in history, never been done outside of controlled demolitions seve anywhere

So if WTC collapse in own footprint why was there damage to all the other building around the WTC ?

legacy.lib.utexas.edu...

Several buildings around were destroyed by collapse of WTC 3

WTC 3 - Marriott Hotel

WTC 7 was slashed open and set on fire

WTC 4, 5, 6 were crushed by debris from the collapse and set on fire

Others like 90 West st were set on fire

I dont need to explain the obvious, do the research for yourself
Not even remotely interested in an argument over this believe as you wish

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Lumenari
Imagine their surprise when they found out that officially, 2 planes took out three buildings.
So I leave it at that.

That’s about it really, nothing more to add
Anyone who thinks that 3 building implode, one by chance, anyway, never understood a person who said it was a plane crash

No one thinks 3 buildings imploded by chance. When you have to misrepresent the other side, you might need to rethink your position. Debate 101.

Anyway, I don't stick around these threads long. There are people here who do a lot better job than I could debunking the garbage.

No they did, they all fell on their own footprint, unheard of in history, never been done outside of controlled demolitions seve anywhere
Otherwise prove it

False argument on many levels. Crew from police helicopters reported signs of structural failure and tilting before the collapse of the twin towers.

AN ANALYSIS OF THE TIPPING OF THE UPPER SECTION OF WTC 2 By
F.R. Greening

www.911myths.com...

Summary and Conclusions
The collapse of WTC 2 began with a tilting or rotational motion of the upper section of the Tower about a “hinge” at the 80th floor. This rotational motion, which commenced at a tilt angle  2, was caused by an almost instantaneous multi-column failure that eliminated the structural support on one side of WTC 2 near the impact zone. Once set in motion, the upper block moved with a nearly “free” rotational trajectory of a body pivoting under the constant force of gravity. This behavior was sustained at tilt angles up to about 25. Thereafter the motion of the block changed somewhat although the suggestion that the tilting suddenly stopped is not correct.
What appears to happen is that the tilting upper section was continuously crushed near the 80th floor by its own momentum so that the rotation was no longer that of a rigid body. Eventually the "hinge" at the northeast corner failed and the descending block took on a more vertical motion. Interestingly, once the hinge failed, and the pivot became frictionless, the motion of the center of gravity is predicted to become vertical, causing a shift in the rotational axis. Unfortunately, however, details of this stage of the WTC 2 collapse were obscured by smoke, dust and flying debris.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

North Tower collapse
After the South Tower collapsed, NYPD helicopters relayed information about the deteriorating conditions of the North Tower. At 10:20 a.m., the NYPD aviation unit reported that "the top of the tower might be leaning", and a minute later reported that the North Tower, "is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south". At 10:28 a.m., the aviation unit reported that "the roof is going to come down very shortly"[16] and indeed, the North Tower collapsed immediately thereafter, at 10:28 a.m., after burning for 102 minutes.

Gravity try’s to pull objects down straight towards the earth’s center. How are buildings about 90 percent open space supposed to fall. Like a solid tree with reaching branches?

The collapse of the twin towers damaged WTC 7. The collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 destroyed or damaged 13 buildings beyond economical repair.

So how did the towers only fall in their own foot prints. Oh, they didn’t. The argument is another truth movement falsehood.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: Raggedyman

No they did, they all fell on their own footprint, unheard of in history, never been done outside of controlled demolitions seve anywhere

So if WTC collapse in own footprint why was there damage to all the other building around the WTC ?

legacy.lib.utexas.edu...

Several buildings around were destroyed by collapse of WTC 3

WTC 3 - Marriott Hotel

WTC 7 was slashed open and set on fire

WTC 4, 5, 6 were crushed by debris from the collapse and set on fire

Others like 90 West st were set on fire

I dont need to explain the obvious, do the research for yourself
Not even remotely interested in an argument over this believe as you wish

Other words I am in my conspiracy cocoon, don’t invade my conspiracy safe space with citable facts and physical evidence. I got my fingers in my ears and I cannot hear you. Nananananana

Funny how Truthers go on about three buildings and two planes as if it were somehow significant

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
The whole "controlled demolition" argument was out of gas pretty much as soon as it started.

Yea, since structural steel reaches an elasticity point about 500 degrees centigrade above what is possible with a hydrocarbon fire...

The whole controlled demolition theory fell flat when introduced to a population that can't do math, much less think critically.

In a few days I'll go back to the oilfield and see how many of our wellsite flares have melted because of the hydrocarbon fires they produce.

/facepalm

Why did you have to do this? I usually love your posts.

My brother is a structural engineer.

And a genius.. LOL

When 911 happened, he was sitting in a room of 20 or so structural engineers that worked for Conoco-Phillips.

They watched the towers fall, talked about it and thought this would be an easy thing to solve, since it was quite obviously a controlled demolition and there should be an easy way to prove it.

Imagine their surprise when they found out that officially, 2 planes took out three buildings.

For me, I'm quite sure that we will NEVER know what happened that day.

The NIST reports I went through with my brother and he pointed out all the inaccuracies, all the implausibilities, all the impossibilities.

So what I do know is that we will never know, so there is no real reason to endlessly argue about something we will never know the truth about.

HOWEVER.

For me to accept the premise that our own government could have done this, I would have to accept that our government keeps secrets from the citizens and that they will kill their citizens to promote a political agenda.

In my career in the government I did one for a living and watched the other happen more than once.

So I'm not what you would call a Truther.

We'll never know and it doesn't matter because of that.

But the NIST reports are BS.

So I leave it at that.

Well, without making it too personal, I will just say that I hope your brother isn't designing anything I have to rely on for my life.

I originally fell for the controlled demolition theory and my thoughts on it have changed pretty drastically over the years after watching as much of the footage as I could find. You can clearly see just from watching the videos that WTC 1 and 2 were severely damaged and collapse was inevitable.

Most of the controlled demolition people are using videos that don't show the damage all that well. In many of their videos, they show angles that make it look like the damage was minimal. If you really do some digging, you can find angles that show significantly more damage and you can see how bad it really was from the start.

These buildings were mostly air. That was part of their design. They were designed to maximize floor space. They did that well in normal circumstances. The unfortunate drawback was that there was not much there to support their massive size if a substantial chunk of the building was destroyed. I'm no engineer but to me, the video footage is convincing that TOS is not far off from what actually happened.

I have no real opinion on WTC 7. It does look fishy but what do I know?

originally posted by: firerescue
a repphotobucket.com...
ly to: Lumenari

A Hydrocarbon fire cant reach 500 C …..?

Well an ordinary wood fueled fire caused these steel beams to fail

How do explain this …….

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
The whole "controlled demolition" argument was out of gas pretty much as soon as it started.

Yea, since structural steel reaches an elasticity point about 500 degrees centigrade above what is possible with a hydrocarbon fire...

The whole controlled demolition theory fell flat when introduced to a population that can't do math, much less think critically.

In a few days I'll go back to the oilfield and see how many of our wellsite flares have melted because of the hydrocarbon fires they produce.

/facepalm

Should try putting a massive 6ft thick concrete block measuring 208ft x 208ft (259,584ft³) on top of those wellsite flares, and see how they hold up.

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: firerescue
a repphotobucket.com...
ly to: Lumenari

A Hydrocarbon fire cant reach 500 C …..?

Well an ordinary wood fueled fire caused these steel beams to fail

How do explain this …….

Good post.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
The whole "controlled demolition" argument was out of gas pretty much as soon as it started.

Yea, since structural steel reaches an elasticity point about 500 degrees centigrade above what is possible with a hydrocarbon fire...

The whole controlled demolition theory fell flat when introduced to a population that can't do math, much less think critically.

In a few days I'll go back to the oilfield and see how many of our wellsite flares have melted because of the hydrocarbon fires they produce.

/facepalm

Why did you have to do this? I usually love your posts.

My brother is a structural engineer.

And a genius.. LOL

When 911 happened, he was sitting in a room of 20 or so structural engineers that worked for Conoco-Phillips.

They watched the towers fall, talked about it and thought this would be an easy thing to solve, since it was quite obviously a controlled demolition and there should be an easy way to prove it.

Imagine their surprise when they found out that officially, 2 planes took out three buildings.

For me, I'm quite sure that we will NEVER know what happened that day.

The NIST reports I went through with my brother and he pointed out all the inaccuracies, all the implausibilities, all the impossibilities.

So what I do know is that we will never know, so there is no real reason to endlessly argue about something we will never know the truth about.

HOWEVER.

For me to accept the premise that our own government could have done this, I would have to accept that our government keeps secrets from the citizens and that they will kill their citizens to promote a political agenda.

In my career in the government I did one for a living and watched the other happen more than once.

So I'm not what you would call a Truther.

We'll never know and it doesn't matter because of that.

But the NIST reports are BS.

So I leave it at that.

He's a structural engineer, so he should be able to calculate what a plane impacting a building can do structurally, weight and speed etc, and determine how compromised the structural supports were prior to a fire.

a reply to: neutronflux


Still forcing "visible core" falsehood i see. Debunked: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
The whole "controlled demolition" argument was out of gas pretty much as soon as it started.

Yea, since structural steel reaches an elasticity point about 500 degrees centigrade above what is possible with a hydrocarbon fire...

The whole controlled demolition theory fell flat when introduced to a population that can't do math, much less think critically.

In a few days I'll go back to the oilfield and see how many of our wellsite flares have melted because of the hydrocarbon fires they produce.

/facepalm

Why did you have to do this? I usually love your posts.

My brother is a structural engineer.

And a genius.. LOL

When 911 happened, he was sitting in a room of 20 or so structural engineers that worked for Conoco-Phillips.

They watched the towers fall, talked about it and thought this would be an easy thing to solve, since it was quite obviously a controlled demolition and there should be an easy way to prove it.

Imagine their surprise when they found out that officially, 2 planes took out three buildings.

For me, I'm quite sure that we will NEVER know what happened that day.

The NIST reports I went through with my brother and he pointed out all the inaccuracies, all the implausibilities, all the impossibilities.

So what I do know is that we will never know, so there is no real reason to endlessly argue about something we will never know the truth about.

HOWEVER.

For me to accept the premise that our own government could have done this, I would have to accept that our government keeps secrets from the citizens and that they will kill their citizens to promote a political agenda.

In my career in the government I did one for a living and watched the other happen more than once.

So I'm not what you would call a Truther.

We'll never know and it doesn't matter because of that.

But the NIST reports are BS.

So I leave it at that.

He's a structural engineer, so he should be able to calculate what a plane impacting a building can do structurally, weight and speed etc, and determine how compromised the structural supports were prior to a fire.

It’s just not the damage, it’s how the loads were redistributed. Also the thermal stresses on the steel structures from uneven heating and cooling. Uneven expanding and contraction.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
The whole "controlled demolition" argument was out of gas pretty much as soon as it started.

Yea, since structural steel reaches an elasticity point about 500 degrees centigrade above what is possible with a hydrocarbon fire...

The whole controlled demolition theory fell flat when introduced to a population that can't do math, much less think critically.

In a few days I'll go back to the oilfield and see how many of our wellsite flares have melted because of the hydrocarbon fires they produce.

/facepalm

You miss the point and misunderstand another one. 9/11 truthers proposed that the towers collapsed not because steel beams melted due to the fires but because thermate had severed them. So stop erecting an Aunt Sally so that you can knock it down and claim victory. It's pure obvious deception and a ridiculous argument no one can get away with anymore. If the beams had bent due to heat and then failed, pieces of the towers would have collapsed some of the way but the WHOLE tower would NEVER have collapsed all the way down as one entity because all 240 core columns broke at the very same time.
If you want to complain about a population that cannot think critically, perhaps you should start with yourself.......