Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Was 9-11 an inside job? Options · View
LadyX
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 8:34:05 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,773
you're welcome. happy1
Guest
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 8:42:18 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 821,042
Let's just wait until they kill the wikileaks guy, he said if anything happened to him, all the remaining secret documents he is hiding would see the light.

Nah, just joking. I dont really believe it was an inside job, what could be the porpuse, the war in Iraq? They would have invaded Iraq anyways, why kill 4.000 people (American people), and make a whole of an international fuss, and risk been caught?

That's just a gut feeling, I have no more info about 9/11 than any other citizen, but I just refuse the thought of politicians ordering such a terrible action, there are limits, even for politicians.

lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 8:43:39 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,577
Location: Alabama, United States
I don't believe it was an inside job. No. I'm no fan of Pres W. Bush.. but I don't think he's a traitor and murderor.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
mercianknight
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 9:37:57 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 2,025
Location: whispering conspiratorially in your ear, Bermuda
Xuani, my sweet, you are a brave girl to spearhead this thread from my TSA rant going on elsewhere Airport security rant

I look forward to hearing the conspiracy theorists on this and the 'type' of inside job they think it was, however, I still remain convinced it was a bunch of 'zealot nut jobs' who took advantage of a fondly remembered liberal (ouch, did I just say a bad word?) US travel philosophy. Aah yaes, I remember being able to rush up to the airline counter at Bermuda International airport, show my Bermuda drivers licence and be in New York 2 hrs later **sighs**



"Whoa, lady, I only speak two languages, English and bad English." - Korben Dallas, from The Fifth Element

"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must man be of learning from experience?" - George Bernard Shaw
Butterfly
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 10:03:55 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/21/2008
Posts: 1,238
Location: fluttering about , United States
javier wrote:
I have no more info about 9/11 than any other citizen, but I just refuse the thought of politicians ordering such a terrible action, there are limits, even for politicians.


I have to agree with that ^. I don't believe it was an inside job, and if it were...just evil and shameful.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 10:52:30 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,865
Location: Cakeland, United States
lafayettemister wrote:
I'm no fan of Pres W. Bush.. but I don't think he's a traitor and murderor.


What makes you think he had a clue? He'd have been the very last dude invited in on something like that.

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 11:09:52 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,865
Location: Cakeland, United States
mercianknight wrote:
I look forward to hearing the conspiracy theorists on this and the 'type' of inside job they think it was, however, I still remain convinced it was a bunch of 'zealot nut jobs' who took advantage of a fondly remembered liberal (ouch, did I just say a bad word?) US travel philosophy.


What's another two or three more plausible conspiracy theories, Merc...you've been believing the official conspiracy theory which was trumpeted out to us within 90 minutes and confirmed just less than 96 hours later - of the criminal masterminds behind the act as well as 75% of 'how they accomplished it all". Hell, we even found a passport in the rubble of the WTC within 24 hours, identifying one of the thugs!

No need to invite the NTSB in on this, "It's a criminal act and so the FBI will lead." First time in US history (that the NTSB has been around) that has occurred, Merc.

None of the four planes or crash sites were investigated by NTSB crash investigators. That probably doesn't mean squat to you or any other non-American, but it was just the first thing that was odd about any follow up and legitimate investigations.

According to Vern Grose, a highly respected air disaster analyst and former NTSB member:
“First of all, after any aircraft crash, the NTSB [normally] launches what they call a ‘go team’
within two hours and that go team will have up to twelve people on it. Specialists in airframe,
in engines, in electronics, in human factors. And these folks all go to the scene—they isolate the scene.

From that point on, it’s the NTSB’s responsibility.”

But with the crashes on 9/11, Grose says, “it’s my understanding that it did not occur exactly
like that. They may have launched an NTSB crew, but it never took the same course a normal investigation would have.”


Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 11:41:45 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,865
Location: Cakeland, United States
Surely you've seen this video, shot from a nearby hotel
security camera showing the huge fireball at the Pentagon?
I don't see how anyone can miss the jet.



Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
mercianknight
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 12:22:41 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 2,025
Location: whispering conspiratorially in your ear, Bermuda
The only thing missing from that 'rare footage' is some 'Twilight Zone' music. binky

As for NTSB's effective exclusion from the investigation? Well, I have no cause to doubt the voracity of the claim and can only shake my head in disbelief. The NTSB are renowned experts for investigating such events and should have been allowed to to conduct the investigation THEIR way whilst allowing the FBI oversight.

....which, by the way, does not make me a believer of the conspiracy theory.....yet!

"Whoa, lady, I only speak two languages, English and bad English." - Korben Dallas, from The Fifth Element

"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must man be of learning from experience?" - George Bernard Shaw
Bunny12
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 1:21:13 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 1,033
Location: My own little world, United States
I have absolute faith that my government is in NO WAY organized enough to pull off half the secret crap some would like to think that it does! So "inside job" not a chance.

Bunny12


Bunny Rabbits cute and fuzzy they want to love you but they have razor sharp teeth - don't piss them off!
Playmale
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 1:23:47 PM

Rank: Smiley Guru

Joined: 7/16/2008
Posts: 551
Location: United States
mercianknight wrote:
....which, by the way, does not make me a believer of the conspiracy theory.....yet!


Excuse me for clarifying, but the official story is that 19 men haphazardly trained, and armed with boxcutters, hijacked 4 planes, crashed 3 into buildings and lost control of the fourth. The subsequent fire from those impacts knocked down two buildings designed to withstand exactly that kind of impact, and never before known to succumb to that type of fire and also knock down a third building a block away that was hit by (?) .

That sir is the conspiracy theory.
magnificent1rascal
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 1:28:28 PM

Rank: Divine Rapscallion

Joined: 8/15/2010
Posts: 3,017
Location: On the ragged edge of disaster
The NTSB investigates accidents, not hijackings. Those planes came down as a result of criminal acts, not some sort of rudder problem or weather phenomenon.

Maggie Rascal
Jillicious
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 2:00:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2009
Posts: 1,293
This is so awesome. I so love hearing conspiracy theories! They are usually wrong as this one is.

Lets start with simple math, a little physics, and some thought; should we?


The Fire
This is one of those contentious things for the conspiracy theorists. I don't know why. With a little thought and a little math we can show that it was completely possible. So lets look at it for a second. Conspiracy theorists claim that the steel didn't melt and so the building could not have fallen. Well, would you know it? They are right about one thing. The steel did not melt. But that does not mean the steel frame was compromised by the heat of the fire. It is estimated that the fire was burning somewhere around 1800 degrees fahrenheit, just slightly higher than jet fuel. This would be accurate considering the amount of jet fuel and all the other fuel in the building; framing, desks, ect... At that temperature steel looses 90% of its structural integrity.

The WTC towers were both around 500,000 tons. So we have compromised structural steel trying to hold up a large chunk of that weight. Combine that weight with the conservative force of gravity (32 ft/s^2 or 9.8 m/s) and you have a destructive combination. The force acting upon one tower was about 1/3 of the weight of the tower, as the planes hit the top 1/3 of the building. (500,000/3)(32)=5,333,333 lb/ft. 5 fucking million pound feet! Compromised structural steel would not be able to hold it up


Should we go on? Should I talk about the "smoke plume" that could have only been caused by a bomb? I might. Think about the volume of the WTC and how the gases had to have been quickly compressed in the fall.

I've also heard people complaining about the large amounts of titanium found in the dust. Just a little thought on that; what makes paint white? Oh, titanium. How many offices had their walls painted white?

So before we spout of conspiracy theories lets take a second and actually think about it.

Thousands of user submitted stories removed from the site. You are nothing without your users or their freely submitted stories.
Guest
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 4:25:50 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 821,042
Jillicious wrote:
This is so awesome. I so love hearing conspiracy theories! They are usually wrong as this one is.

Lets start with simple math, a little physics, and some thought; should we?


The Fire
This is one of those contentious things for the conspiracy theorists. I don't know why. With a little thought and a little math we can show that it was completely possible. So lets look at it for a second. Conspiracy theorists claim that the steel didn't melt and so the building could not have fallen. Well, would you know it? They are right about one thing. The steel did not melt. But that does not mean the steel frame was compromised by the heat of the fire. It is estimated that the fire was burning somewhere around 1800 degrees fahrenheit, just slightly higher than jet fuel. This would be accurate considering the amount of jet fuel and all the other fuel in the building; framing, desks, ect... At that temperature steel looses 90% of its structural integrity.

The WTC towers were both around 500,000 tons. So we have compromised structural steel trying to hold up a large chunk of that weight. Combine that weight with the conservative force of gravity (32 ft/s^2 or 9.8 m/s) and you have a destructive combination. The force acting upon one tower was about 1/3 of the weight of the tower, as the planes hit the top 1/3 of the building. (500,000/3)(32)=5,333,333 lb/ft. 5 fucking million pound feet! Compromised structural steel would not be able to hold it up


Should we go on? Should I talk about the "smoke plume" that could have only been caused by a bomb? I might. Think about the volume of the WTC and how the gases had to have been quickly compressed in the fall.

I've also heard people complaining about the large amounts of titanium found in the dust. Just a little thought on that; what makes paint white? Oh, titanium. How many offices had their walls painted white?

So before we spout of conspiracy theories lets take a second and actually think about it.


yesss! this is what i want! science and hard numbers!
Guest
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 4:52:51 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 821,042
Jillicious wrote:
This is so awesome. I so love hearing conspiracy theories! They are usually wrong as this one is.

Lets start with simple math, a little physics, and some thought; should we?


The Fire
This is one of those contentious things for the conspiracy theorists. I don't know why. With a little thought and a little math we can show that it was completely possible. So lets look at it for a second. Conspiracy theorists claim that the steel didn't melt and so the building could not have fallen. Well, would you know it? They are right about one thing. The steel did not melt. But that does not mean the steel frame was compromised by the heat of the fire. It is estimated that the fire was burning somewhere around 1800 degrees fahrenheit, just slightly higher than jet fuel. This would be accurate considering the amount of jet fuel and all the other fuel in the building; framing, desks, ect... At that temperature steel looses 90% of its structural integrity.

The WTC towers were both around 500,000 tons. So we have compromised structural steel trying to hold up a large chunk of that weight. Combine that weight with the conservative force of gravity (32 ft/s^2 or 9.8 m/s) and you have a destructive combination. The force acting upon one tower was about 1/3 of the weight of the tower, as the planes hit the top 1/3 of the building. (500,000/3)(32)=5,333,333 lb/ft. 5 fucking million pound feet! Compromised structural steel would not be able to hold it up


Should we go on? Should I talk about the "smoke plume" that could have only been caused by a bomb? I might. Think about the volume of the WTC and how the gases had to have been quickly compressed in the fall.

I've also heard people complaining about the large amounts of titanium found in the dust. Just a little thought on that; what makes paint white? Oh, titanium. How many offices had their walls painted white?

So before we spout of conspiracy theories lets take a second and actually think about it.



Careful Jill. Don't want to think too much around here. A treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by the government is so much more fun. geek
Magical_felix
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 5:00:17 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 7,925
Location: California
This subject hurts my brain, but I also think that the pentagon attack is the biggest headscratcher in all of this....

Conspiracy!

Good starting point is the wiki page for this. (for the new conspiracy theorists)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911_conspiracy



WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 6:35:17 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,865
Location: Cakeland, United States
magnificent1rascal wrote:
The NTSB investigates accidents, not hijackings. Those planes came down as a result of criminal acts, not some sort of rudder problem or weather phenomenon.


The NTSB had previously investigated every airplane crash on American soil, regardless if the flight which crashed was hijacked or not. It has even been invited overseas to investigate numerous crashes since I've been alive, and I'm fifty years old.

And we all only saw one depiction of a crashing jet liner. I mean, in real time. There's a fuzzy and poorly focused video supposedly shot by a fireman, which indicates something flew into the first tower. But that something doesn't look any more like a positively identifiable 80 ton jetliner than the debris at the Pentagon looks like it used to belong to another 80 ton jetliner.

But since there was no investigation, we must believe the official government conspiracy theory. There, it's all neatly buttoned up for us.

'Don't fret America, we'll get the folks who attacked us that day. Go shopping!"



Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 7:07:36 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,865
Location: Cakeland, United States
Jillicious wrote:
Lets start with simple math, a little physics, and some thought; should we?


The Fire
This is one of those contentious things for the conspiracy theorists. I don't know why. With a little thought and a little math we can show that it was completely possible. So lets look at it for a second. Conspiracy theorists claim that the steel didn't melt and so the building could not have fallen. Well, would you know it? They are right about one thing. The steel did not melt. But that does not mean the steel frame was compromised by the heat of the fire. It is estimated that the fire was burning somewhere around 1800 degrees fahrenheit, just slightly higher than jet fuel. This would be accurate considering the amount of jet fuel and all the other fuel in the building; framing, desks, ect... At that temperature steel looses 90% of its structural integrity.


Not to change the subject from this hypothesis that you're putting forward, I shall return to that with some real science shortly.

I have a wood burning stove. It is now nearly 8 years old and I have burnt approximately 50 cords of seasoned hickory and oak and walnut in this contraption since I installed it. It is not made of structural grade, fire hardened, blast furnace conditioned steel. It is made of rolled steel and cast iron. Totally different manufacturing process and heat tempering between my wood stove and the steel used to build hi-rise office and residential grade buildings. The structural steel is tempered to withstand much higher temperatures (should fires ever occur around the beam material in buildings which house people). Fire proofing or not, that steel is top shelf shit.

My stove has burned as hot if not hotter (since I have vents upon it which draw air to fuel the organic fuel inside it to nearly blast furnace temperatures) for eight to ten hours a night, 4 months of nights for 8 years. It has yet to structurally weaken and melt upon itself. The flue, which carries the 400 to 900 F non-fully burnt hydrocarbon exhaust up out of the stove and through sheet metal which is about the thickness of aircraft aluminum (but is stainless steel with again a much higher melting temp point) has never failed and is still capable of handling this job for another 20 years before I should maybe think of replacing it.

400 to 900 degrees Fahrenheit, Jill. Wood is organic. I can create near blast furnace temps for short times with my stove by opening the intake vents to draw in fresh combustible oxygen, and even if I left those on fully open (and I have many times) the temps jump up to a sustained 1050 degrees for over two hours and the stove just stills there (not even glowing red).

Jet fuel, contrary to popular misbelief is not some magical fuel. It too is (if we are to believe Rockefeller, a limited and organic hydrocarbon). A 'fossil fuel'. In fact, it is distilled kerosene. Not too dissimilar from the fuels used in portable space heaters (like the one out in my workshed which has never melted either). Ever seen one of those melt or even start to structurally weaken from kerosene burning? Me neither.

Jet fuel aka kerosene aka Fuel Oil #1 ignites at 210C or 410F. It will sustain a burn at just over 400 degrees. Where you got your estimate of over a four fold increase in Fahrenheit burning temperature, I haven't a clue. For a smart person like yourself, I am rather shocked that you're quoting disinformation rather than looking this information up. But that's what some people do. We look things up we don't know about before we spew Estimations as fact.

Here is where I gained my insight: http://www.interfire.org/res_file/aec_20ig.asp

6. Fuel oil no. 1- (kerosene, range oil, coal oil, Jet - A (aviation) fuel); Chemical formula is a carbon range of C9 - C17; flash point 110 degrees F - 162 degrees F (42 degrees C - 72 degrees C); ignition temp. 410 degrees F (210 degrees C); explosive limits 0.7% - 5%; vapor density .7 - 5; specific gravity 0.81; Toxicity (3). A colorless, combustible, straight run petroleum distillate liquid having a characteristic odor miscible in petroleum solvents and immiscible in water. Principal uses as an ingredient in lamp oils, charcoal starter fluids, jet engine fuels and insecticides. K-1 kerosene has a low sulfur content and is used in portable space heaters.

So Jill...the fire and temperature analysis 'estimates' you provide in your 1st paragraph are pretty much shown now to be bunk.

I'll get to the rest of your scientific analysis in a bit. Where is Terd at, he's a fireman, surely he can add a bit of subject matter expert opinion on the burning temperatures of Fuel Oil/Jet Fuel.



Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
Playmale
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 10:29:07 PM

Rank: Smiley Guru

Joined: 7/16/2008
Posts: 551
Location: United States
I have proof that there was a plane.

What I want to know is how did you escape WMM?



Oh, I also want to know what brought down building 7? Fire experts, architests and engineers agree, it wasn't an office fire.
Jillicious
Posted: Friday, December 3, 2010 11:45:30 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2009
Posts: 1,293
WellMadeMale wrote:
So Jill...the fire and temperature analysis 'estimates' you provide in your 1st paragraph are pretty much shown now to be bunk.


Point conceded. The number I used was a random number my physics teacher threw out during a conversation we had. That is my fault for not having actually done much research and throwing around numbers that were casually mentioned. You got me there.

But I still stand by what I said despite how hot your wood stove gets; which is not holding up a skyscraper. The structural steel in the building was compromised. I also have found an online journal JOM. They share their credentials and publishing process on their home page. It is an acceptable source in academics and peer review is something they do, unlike the 911truth squad. Anyways, they have a great article as to why the tower collapsed and do a much better job of explaining the fire than I did. They even explain the difference between your wood stove and the fire at the WTC. Hopefully this is sufficient for your needs.

There is also a short article, An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7, which points out the structural damage that building 7 had. Their pictures of the damage to the steel should be enough to show you what happened. But, it is still a lot easier to believe a random blog, 911 fur tha truth!, than it is to believe a peer reviewed journal.

Despite what is said you are free to believe what you will.

Thousands of user submitted stories removed from the site. You are nothing without your users or their freely submitted stories.
Playmale
Posted: Saturday, December 4, 2010 12:22:34 AM

Rank: Smiley Guru

Joined: 7/16/2008
Posts: 551
Location: United States
Interesting article Jill, but they are claiming a eutectic formation of Iron and Sulfur caused a high temperature erosion of the steel. The problem with that is that there is no source for the sulpher, and the eroded steel was exactly not what you find with a weakened metal. So they are proving the presence of sulfur, which has no explaination for being there.

“A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges–which are curled like a paper scroll–have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes–some larger than a silver dollar–let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending–but not holes.”

“[T]o form a molten iron-oxygen-sulfur eutectic at about 1000° C would require a very high concentration of sulfur… The fact that sulfur evaporates at a low temperature, 445° C, along with the very low levels of elemental sulfur in office buildings appears to preclude the possibility that the eutectic could have formed as a result of a slow sulfidation process in the debris pile.”

Sulphidated Steel

Jillicious
Posted: Saturday, December 4, 2010 12:45:31 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2009
Posts: 1,293
Playmale wrote:
The problem with that is that there is no source for the sulpher,

Gypsum (calcium sulfate) is used in drywall, plaster, and portland cement.


Playmale wrote:

And a reputable source would be cool too. Maybe something with some scientific credentials?

Thousands of user submitted stories removed from the site. You are nothing without your users or their freely submitted stories.
Playmale
Posted: Saturday, December 4, 2010 2:08:54 AM

Rank: Smiley Guru

Joined: 7/16/2008
Posts: 551
Location: United States
Jillicious wrote:
[quote=Playmale]The problem with that is that there is no source for the sulpher, Gypsum (calcium sulfate) is used in drywall, plaster, and portland cement.



Gypsum "Above 1450oC, material can decompose and release sulfur dioxide (SO2) and oxides of carbon." Hopefully a National Gypsum MSDS is a good enough source. 1450 deg C is above the thermal ceiling mentioned previously.

It's odd that the amount of sulpher in those materials would cause a kind of degredation in the structural steel never seen before in a high rise fire. Presumably when those materials would have been present in other high rise fires, with no previous collapse of a steel highrise structure.

From the article I quoted, “[T]o form a molten iron-oxygen-sulfur eutectic at about 1000° C would require a very high concentration of sulfur… The fact that sulfur evaporates at a low temperature, 445° C, along with the very low levels of elemental sulfur in office buildings appears to preclude the possibility that the eutectic could have formed as a result of a slow sulfidation process in the debris pile.”

Notice that says elemental sulfer. Quite different from wallboard or cured cement.

Playmale wrote:

Jillicious wrote:
And a reputable source would be cool too. Maybe something with some scientific credentials?


Attacking a source is an easy way to ignore a fact. The mentioned article references what are at lease reasonable sources and yes with scientific credentials.

I believe that the architects and engineers for 911 truth is a reputable and growing group of rigourous poeple, you may not like them, but "1377 verified architectural and engineering professionals (licenced or degreed)" is not a small number, and I suspect that they know a thing or two about building construction.

You don't like that the article quotes FEMA Study, yet you seem to be trying to defend the official version of the story.

The Worchester Polytechnique Institute? Sounds suspicious. Probably a diploma mill.

and

Steven E. Jones1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Gregory S. Jenkins3, Frank Legge4, James Gourley, Kevin Ryan,
Daniel Farnsworth, and Crockett Grabbe5.
1 S&J Scientific Co., Provo, Utah
2 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah
3 Physics Department, University of Maryland at College Park, Maryland
4 Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia
5 Department of Physics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

No real scientific credentials there.
Playmale
Posted: Saturday, December 4, 2010 2:22:31 AM

Rank: Smiley Guru

Joined: 7/16/2008
Posts: 551
Location: United States
Jillicious wrote:
There is also a short article, An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7, which points out the structural damage that building 7 had. Their pictures of the damage to the steel should be enough to show you what happened. But, it is still a lot easier to believe a random blog, 911 fur tha truth!, than it is to believe a peer reviewed journal.


The truly funny thing about this is that you seem to miss the point that this is not the kind of damage that comes with softened steel, like you first argued for, it is a corrosion that is apparently unique, and the electron micrographs and EDS analysis shows it, with a sulfur peak jumping out big as life right in the middle of the second plot. On steel from a building that fell down at freefall speed, with no airplane impact, a block away from the other buildings.

So which is it really, the steel melted prematurely, or there was a unique chemical corrosion, only found in this incedent?

sprite
Posted: Saturday, December 4, 2010 2:23:26 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 20,345
Location: My Tower, Spain
Thing is, with conspriacies, you can keep them quiet for a day or so... maybe a week or even a month if you're really careful, but eventually, someone says the wrong thing or someone uncovers something damning... i can't imagine that a government as inept as ours seems to be at times managed to keep this one secret for 9 years which to me means one thing - there is no conspiracy. add it to the silliness of the JFK assassination - fun for people to debate, but totally baseless.



Love not hate.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, December 4, 2010 8:49:01 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,865
Location: Cakeland, United States
Jillicious wrote:
WellMadeMale wrote:
So Jill...the fire and temperature analysis 'estimates' you provide in your 1st paragraph are pretty much shown now to be bunk.


Point conceded. The number I used was a random number my physics teacher threw out during a conversation we had. That is my fault for not having actually done much research and throwing around numbers that were casually mentioned. You got me there.

But I still stand by what I said despite how hot your wood stove gets; which is not holding up a skyscraper. The structural steel in the building was compromised. I also have found an online journal JOM. They share their credentials and publishing process on their home page. It is an acceptable source in academics and peer review is something they do, unlike the 911truth squad. Anyways, they have a great article as to why the tower collapsed and do a much better job of explaining the fire than I did. They even explain the difference between your wood stove and the fire at the WTC. Hopefully this is sufficient for your needs.

There is also a short article, An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7, which points out the structural damage that building 7 had. Their pictures of the damage to the steel should be enough to show you what happened. But, it is still a lot easier to believe a random blog, 911 fur tha truth!, than it is to believe a peer reviewed journal.

Despite what is said you are free to believe what you will.


Jill, you're doing what NIST did. You're throwing out a bunch of unrelated estimates and 'could've beens' and seeing how much of it sticks to a wall. Where that technique comes in handy is that NIST and your physics teacher and then by inference, anyone your teacher (who has your respect and admiration) comes into contact with, all keep repeating the same erroneous information as if it were indeed fact.

A little common sense comes into play with actual investigating. For instance, it is as crucial to know what not to look for as it is to know what to look for. Recognition such as this is both sides of the same coin. There was very little real investigation going on during the over four year long NIST process. I hesitate to even call it The NIST / FEMA investigation (which is central to the official government conspiracy folklore).

The wildly overstated temperatures of the interior fires in both towers is the basis of all else that follows for NIST and for people like you. It's been proven that your fire information is overstated by, at minimum a factor of two and at maximum, a factor of four.

There were no blazing infernos inside either tower. There was no rushing air, no forced air into either hole in either tower, feeding the internal fires with a crucial ingredient needed to create the 1800* F 'estimated' blast oven conditions.

Black to charcoal colored, heavily laden with soot and unspent hydrocarbon filled smoke was indeed rolling out of the towers. The smoke itself is indicative of the internal temperatures (ask Terd or any other fireman about how those 'estimates' area arrived at). At best those fires were smoldering, as at least 50% of the initial accelerant (the magical jet fuel) was exhausted in those horrific fireballs we all witnessed in the only explosion any of us saw that day, the second tower to be hit.

Who knows what occurred in the 1st tower, there never was any real visual evidence besides a blurry something which appeared to enter that building.

I examine NIST and FEMA 'reports' to base most of my disagreement with the official conspiracy theory. It took NIST over three years to spew out their garbage report and ahem, conclusions. Most all of their report is babbling estimates and theories without any actual or pertinent facts included. It is rife with the sort of estimated temperature data you mentioned with your leading comment (I would guess this is where your professor gathered his misinformed data too).

I'm in a bit of a technical and situational shortfall at present - my primary hard drive where I have most of my 911 data is located within reach of the 7 year old AMD motherboard of mine which finally gave up the ghost last week, so everything I need to share is now having to be looked up anew. But this thread is not going anywhere and like NIST, I can take my sweet time as well.

Have a nice weekend everyone, I'm going to. icon_smile

*incidentally, I find this topic fascinating, because there is a lot of misinformation spewed by both the government's lackeys as well as people who fervently hope to pin this all on Bush/Cheney and their people.

I have never been one of those people. I've just always wanted the facts. Not the fairy tales of either side. I can pick apart NIST/FEMA and the 911 commission's horseshit as easily as I can pick apart 80% of the nutbars in the ahem, Truther Movement (which I am sure the CIA has also infiltrated with their own brand of fkctarded hypothesis to infect the 'other side')

Of course, our CIA would never do such a thing. Ahem, Yellowcake Uranium claims only jump-started the Iraq war and that came out of the CIA.



Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
Guest
Posted: Saturday, December 4, 2010 10:24:57 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 821,042
Not a damm chance cant even run the U S Post Department right without losing money.
nicola
Posted: Saturday, December 4, 2010 12:23:51 PM

Rank: Matriarch
Moderator

Joined: 12/6/2006
Posts: 27,626
Playmale wrote:


Best chop ever! laughing9
Jacknife
Posted: Saturday, December 4, 2010 12:44:33 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/27/2008
Posts: 197
Location: United Kingdom
Been watching a Loose Change a few too many times have we.

Come on people, while we are here lets discuss all ridiculous conspiracy theories. I heard the moon landings were fake and Elvis is still alive.

Jillicious
Posted: Saturday, December 4, 2010 1:11:42 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/28/2009
Posts: 1,293
WellMadeMale wrote:
Jill, you're doing what NIST did.


Well fuck, you have convinced me. It must have been a government conspiracy.

Thousands of user submitted stories removed from the site. You are nothing without your users or their freely submitted stories.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.