fire melts steel. 9/11 conspiracy theorists?

Options
12467

Comments

  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    El_Kabong wrote:
    we can ask why did building 7 fall and usually they get mad b/c they can't answer it b/c the nist still can't come up w/ a good enough story...the funnies was when 69 said it was a disproportionate collapse that fell straight down in uniform fashion! do things that fall disporportionately usually look symetrical?

    easy question. take a sledge hammer and hit a concrete pole. the virbrations cause cracking. the energy absorbed into the wtc footprint caused a crumbling of the structure.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    onelongsong wrote:
    maybe you should talk to people that work in foundries. they melt steel every day. or maybe talk to welders. thier life is melting steel.
    or maybe aliens turned invisible and melted the steel with thier ray-guns because the government ordered them to. that story holds as much weight as yours.
    if you are so knowledgable in this field; why are you sitting on a message board? wouldn't you be out trying to prove what you say instead of blowing smoke up our as**s? historically; those conspiracy theorists that attack explainations; are not smart enough to understand the explainations. for example; the magic JFK bullet. 30 years later a recreation proves the original explaination by exactly recreating the path of that bullet.


    Yes but have you? No welder on the face of the planet is going to tell you steel melts with unassisted open fire. You just contradicted yourself 100%.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    onelongsong wrote:
    easy question. take a sledge hammer and hit a concrete pole. the virbrations cause cracking. the energy absorbed into the wtc footprint caused a crumbling of the structure.

    :eek: ....just :eek:
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    Rushlimbo wrote:
    http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/010507ludicrousfreeway.htm


    1. This was an open air environment where flames were able to reach their absolute maximum temperature; white-hot and shooting upwards of 200 feet in the air.

    bullshit. an open air fire burns cooler than the same fuel in a furnace situation. open air fires are subject to the cooling of the surrounding enviornment.

    2.
    Rushlimbo wrote:
    Those 200 foot flames were acting on a single support truss that was fastened to the two columns pictured here. That truss (and the connectors that fastened it to the columns) represents a small fraction of the steel that would have been found on a single floor of the towers or WTC 7. So again, far more heat focused on a single truss and no way to redistribute the load once that truss was weakened.

    and considering the wtc was basically a furnace holding in heat; it's easy to see how the metal in the structure weakened. if the roadway was connected to the columns; it would have caused a domino effect.
    Rushlimbo wrote:
    3. You'll notice that despite the intense fires ability to weaken the truss and connectors that there is NO mention of molten metal in the debris

    why do you need molten steel? it only takes the heat to weaken the support to bring the structure down. confirming the original wtc report.
    Rushlimbo wrote:
    4. You'll notice that the concrete roadway that "pancaked down" on the roadway below did not cause the lower freeway to collapse. Nor has the concrete disintegrated into a fine powder.

    you'll also notice that the lower freeway wasn't weakened by heat. you may also notice that the weight was no where near the weight of a wtc floor.
    Rushlimbo wrote:
    5. You'll notice the columns were not torn down by the collapse, nor did they evaporate into thin air, rather they are still standing (having only lost the the truss and connectors that held the roadway to them.)

    you'll notice that every freeway in the country has the roadway sitting on the columns; not connected to them. the roadway falls free of the columns.
    Rushlimbo wrote:
    So to quickly recap:

    White-hot 200 foot flames acting on a single truss (and no ability to redistribute the load once weakened.)

    No molten metal and certainly no thermate found
    No column failure
    No evaporation / pulverization of concrete
    No "pancake collapse"


    so to quickly recap; your theory doesn't hold water. you're comparing apples to oranges.
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    onelongsong wrote:
    maybe you should talk to people that work in foundries. they melt steel every day. or maybe talk to welders. thier life is melting steel.
    or maybe aliens turned invisible and melted the steel with thier ray-guns because the government ordered them to. that story holds as much weight as yours.
    if you are so knowledgable in this field; why are you sitting on a message board? wouldn't you be out trying to prove what you say instead of blowing smoke up our as**s? historically; those conspiracy theorists that attack explainations; are not smart enough to understand the explainations. for example; the magic JFK bullet. 30 years later a recreation proves the original explaination by exactly recreating the path of that bullet.


    then by your own standards aren't you a loon, too? b/c the nist report states the fire was not hot enough to MELT the steel, only partially weaken it...so i guess you ahve some insider knowledge no one else, including the nist, has that the fires got hot hot enough to melt the steel?

    their report clearly states of the beams they analuzed only a few of them got hot enough to partially weaken the steel.
    onelongsong wrote:
    easy question. take a sledge hammer and hit a concrete pole. the virbrations cause cracking. the energy absorbed into the wtc footprint caused a crumbling of the structure.


    and when you hit a tree w/ an axe does it fall straight down or towards the side that is damaged?

    so, what you're saying is one side, of 4, were damaged from debris and this damage caused the whole building to crack all the way around it, buckle in the middle and collapse straight down into itself? why did it happen so fast, shouldn't there have been more resistance as it feel?

    why didn't any of the other buildings fall, other than building 7, from this?
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Yes but have you? No welder on the face of the planet is going to tell you steel melts with unassisted open fire. You just contradicted yourself 100%.

    then just how does a mig or tig welder melt steel together without using any fire what so ever. go back to high school shop class.
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    El_Kabong wrote:
    then by your own standards aren't you a loon, too? b/c the nist report states the fire was not hot enough to MELT the steel, only partially weaken it...so i guess you ahve some insider knowledge no one else, including the nist, has that the fires got hot hot enough to melt the steel?

    their report clearly states of the beams they analuzed only a few of them got hot enough to partially weaken the steel.

    the molten steel proves the fire did get hot enough. anyone that's worked with a blast furnace or jet engine knows this is possible.

    El_Kabong wrote:
    and when you hit a tree w/ an axe does it fall straight down or towards the side that is damaged?

    so, what you're saying is one side, of 4, were damaged from debris and this damage caused the whole building to crack all the way around it, buckle in the middle and collapse straight down into itself? why did it happen so fast, shouldn't there have been more resistance as it feel?

    why didn't any of the other buildings fall, other than building 7, from this?

    a tree is soft. it absorbs the energy. try comparing something similar. wtc 7 had over 100 hits with the "sledge hammer". one for ever floor that collapsed.
    other building didn't fall because of the foundation footprint which allowed vibrations to travel within the footprint. why does one building fall in an earthquake while the building next to it is undamaged?
    on the other hand; hold a propane torch to concrete. it pops and turns to powder.
  • El_Kabong
    El_Kabong Posts: 4,141
    onelongsong wrote:
    the molten steel proves the fire did get hot enough. anyone that's worked with a blast furnace or jet engine knows this is possible.

    and there's plenty of ppl that know the melting point for steel is far greater than the heat from jet fuel

    and you need to prove to 69charger that it is, in fact, molten steel ;)


    onelongsong wrote:
    a tree is soft. it absorbs the energy. try comparing something similar. wtc 7 had over 100 hits with the "sledge hammer". one for ever floor that collapsed.
    other building didn't fall because of the foundation footprint which allowed vibrations to travel within the footprint. why does one building fall in an earthquake while the building next to it is undamaged?
    on the other hand; hold a propane torch to concrete. it pops and turns to powder.

    maybe you should work for the nist b/c they still can't explain why building 7 fell, in fact, i think the head guy said he had 'no idea' why it fell
    standin above the crowd
    he had a voice that was strong and loud and
    i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
    eager to identify with
    someone above the crowd
    someone who seemed to feel the same
    someone prepared to lead the way
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    El_Kabong wrote:
    and there's plenty of ppl that know the melting point for steel is far greater than the heat from jet fuel

    and you need to prove to 69charger that it is, in fact, molten steel ;)

    it's not just jet fuel. it's jet fuel in a blast furnace situation; which will easily reach a tempertures to melt steel. heat also causes metal to expand. it doesn't take much either. i used to heat metal tubing and place a solid insert in each end; then finish machining the ends. the tubing was then covered in rubber and used in printing machines. the expanding beams would easily snap rivets; and push away from columns. since the building was wrapped in mesh; it held the building together long enough for the heat to cause the damage it did.

    El_Kabong wrote:
    maybe you should work for the nist b/c they still can't explain why building 7 fell, in fact, i think the head guy said he had 'no idea' why it fell

    and i think the head guy was a pencil pusher without any field experience. let him spend a day with a blacksmith or at a casting plant and see what he says. let him work with a wrecking ball and see that wrecking a building that shares a foundation with another will cause the second building to fall. these experts work only from books. this was not a text book situation. to date; not one person has claimed to be able to demolish those buildings with the same results. not one implosion expert has claimed an implosion was possible on a building of that size. especially without anyone noticing the cutting required nor the semis full of explosives being delivered to do the job.

    in order to submitt a conspiracy theory; that theory must have some sort of logical grounds to prove the original decision was wrong. otherwise it's just people without sufficient knowledge giving opinions.
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    onelongsong wrote:
    then just how does a mig or tig welder melt steel together without using any fire what so ever. go back to high school shop class.


    Are you even serious? Honestly...you're joking right? There's no other logical explanation...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    onelongsong wrote:
    in order to submitt a conspiracy theory; that theory must have some sort of logical grounds to prove the original decision was wrong. otherwise it's just people without sufficient knowledge giving opinions.

    We have so that isn't the case.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • sonicreducer
    sonicreducer Posts: 713
    onelongsong wrote:
    it's not just jet fuel. it's jet fuel in a blast furnace situation; which will easily reach a tempertures to melt steel.


    jet fuel has a maximum burning temp. of around 980 degrees celsius
    steel melts at around 1500 degrees celsius

    i don't know exactly what the WTC steel specs were, but it wasn't a super alloy they use on the shuttles,...

    jet fuel has been investigated and proven not to melt steel,... i would trust NIST and other scientists, wouldn't you?

    nist IS investigating the possibility of explosives,...

    http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    El_Kabong wrote:
    we can ask why did building 7 fall and usually they get mad b/c they can't answer it b/c the nist still can't come up w/ a good enough story...the funnies was when 69 said it was a disproportionate collapse that fell straight down in uniform fashion! do things that fall disporportionately usually look symetrical?

    That guy got it right the first time.

    I've explained things to you a million times and you refuse to listen. Disproportionate means that there was an initiating event the 'kink' below the penthouse and that the collapse progressed from there. It propogated very quickly and I realise you are still looking for cartoonish representations of the words people used that day.

    I'll ask you...

    Where do you think the billions of Joules worth of kinetic energy from two falling 110 story office buildings went to? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:
    Into the structure itself,

    And that energy is converted to what?
    and outwards into the environment in various forms also.

    Such as?
    Like really so what?

    So, like, really your whole argument can be shot down using simple physics.
    Actually they keep changing their story. Not only that.... it still hasn't finished changing yet...

    Seeing the pattern?

    Yeah, it's called resposible research. That's how real science works.
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    El_Kabong wrote:
    and when you hit a tree w/ an axe does it fall straight down or towards the side that is damaged?

    so, what you're saying is one side, of 4, were damaged from debris and this damage caused the whole building to crack all the way around it, buckle in the middle and collapse straight down into itself? why did it happen so fast, shouldn't there have been more resistance as it feel?

    why didn't any of the other buildings fall, other than building 7, from this?

    JENGA THEORY?!?! AGAIN!?!?! SERIOUSLY!?!?!?!

    This is what I am talking about when I say you are looking for a cartoonish representation of reality.

    The buildings were so massive that they had one way to go and that is nearly straight down. There is nothing to give them lateral movement.

    Gravity wins!
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    69charger wrote:
    And that energy is converted to what?



    Such as?



    So, like, really your whole argument can be shot down using simple physics.



    Yeah, it's called resposible research. That's how real science works.

    Whatever you say man... purple sky party time....good times eh?

    light a few more candles around your NIST shrine... it must be a bit dark in there...
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    sonicreducer wrote:
    jet fuel has a maximum burning temp. of around 980 degrees celsius
    steel melts at around 1500 degrees celsius

    i don't know exactly what the WTC steel specs were, but it wasn't a super alloy they use on the shuttles,...

    The 'super alloy' the use on the shuttles is plain old aircraft grade aluminum. ;)
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    69charger wrote:
    That guy got it right the first time.

    I've explained things to you a million times and you refuse to listen. Dispropartionate means that there was an initiating event the 'kink' below the penthouse and that the collapse progressed from there. It propogated very quickly and I realise you are still looking for cartoonish representations of the words people used that day.

    I'll ask you...

    Where do you think the billions of Joules worth of kinetic energy from two falling 110 story office buildings went to? It has to go somewhere. Where did it go?


    Do you think this term 'Joules' is making you look more intelligent here? I've never seen you use it until recently and now it's in every reply. The word 'Joules' doesn't make your arguement for you. It's nothing more than a fancy word for an amount of energy. Yes, energy can equal heat but it doesn't mean that the amount of energy in the falling towers could cause enough heat to produce molten steel. That's just your theory.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • RolandTD20Kdrummer
    RolandTD20Kdrummer Posts: 13,066
    I've seen some half baked assumptions and quizzical stabs in the dark before but this thread really has got some pretty good ones.

    The more I look at and read the official NIST 9/11 report the more clearly I can see exactly what they've done to a lot of peoples minds.
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • onelongsong
    onelongsong Posts: 3,517
    sonicreducer wrote:
    jet fuel has a maximum burning temp. of around 980 degrees celsius
    steel melts at around 1500 degrees celsius

    i don't know exactly what the WTC steel specs were, but it wasn't a super alloy they use on the shuttles,...

    jet fuel has been investigated and proven not to melt steel,... i would trust NIST and other scientists, wouldn't you?

    nist IS investigating the possibility of explosives,...

    http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf

    jet fuel may burn at 980 in an open air condition but i can make it burn a lot hotter. make it worth my time and i'll bet on it.

Categories