Poll

What is the truth about the 911 attack on the World Trade Center?

Hijacked Planes were flown into the two towers.  Resulting fires caused the collapse.
14 (60.9%)
The planes were CGI and it was controlled demolition
2 (8.7%)
Something other than planes were flown into the twin towers,  missiles drones etc.
2 (8.7%)
The planes were holographic projections from a special satellite, and it was a directed energy weapon
1 (4.3%)
Something else.
3 (13%)
Denspressure
1 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Voting closed: March 06, 2017, 10:56:40 PM

911 What is the truth?

  • 6866 Replies
  • 467780 Views
*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #630 on: February 19, 2017, 05:36:06 AM »


Since when does an open tank outdoors and having a fast evaporation rate have anything to do with being volatile? It has nothing to do with stored energy.. Quite making up shit... I stated it has an high evaporation rate in an open tank outdoors...It does...

Now go troll else where....You will never answer a direct question, you only know twists and lies...there is obviously something wrong with you rather it be for a sinister reason or something not calibrated right...

Now go back where you came from
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #631 on: February 19, 2017, 05:39:49 AM »
master evar

As for aluminum melting, aluminum in broad daylight is silver to a white like color, this is easily demonstrated. So it had to be steel or "something else" not aluminum. Plus, depending on which part of the official report you read, sometimes the plane vaporized sometimes it didn't. So one part of the story there would be no aluminum to melt. Plus I didn't see a spec or a plane crash in any of the videos.
So was it aluminium or was it steel...
In any case, aluminium would have the lowest melting point, so if anything melted aluminium would also have melted. Aluminium can also be contaminated by soot and other materials.

As for specifics of the collapse etc...I will leave that up to you of what you want to talk about.
Well, anything. I won't use too specific numbers though, if I have to guess wildly guess them.

As for the why...Well in the states they passed tons of laws that removed liberties of ours. Not to mention they were trying to go to war for a while with these counties but the public kept saying no...Then this happened, and as long as we were "getting those that did this to us" everything was a yes. It is a fact rather you agree or not that this gave the government a crutch to do whatever they wanted for a time.
I still don't see a reason, that would be so strong to allow someone or some people who I hope where all right in their head to let thousands of people die.

Plus, if you wanted to talk about the back end of it, all the 1000s of impossible coincidences that made this possible...We can, it is no better than the official story of the collapse. Plus I haven't heard you mention building 7...Not to mention we havent even got into the other two flights.

There is much much much much more...It is one of those things that you really can't run out of things to talk about.
Well, you know I trust in the official story. Do you have anything you want to discuss?
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #632 on: February 19, 2017, 05:41:45 AM »
If you read my bowling ball experiment, do you disagree with me?

As I stated before the second law of thermodynamics pretty much precludes the possibility of a plumb collapse at close to or at free-fall.
(Without foul play)
I haven't read that experiment, could you repost or tell me where it is? And I don't know what a "plumb collapse" is, I guess it has something to do with the experiment?

Plumb being vertical and straight.
Level being horizontal and straight.

Here is the experiment and some supporting arguments.

I posted it before but here is NIST's lead investigator explaining why free fall of building 7 is impossible given the official story.




Here it is in my own words.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.

How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Sokarul, come on now.

I like you and markjo, it's clear you are both intelligent and critical, I don't disrespect you for a difference of opinion here. However you are very late and I think you need to address some previous points raised.

We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.

If you think I haven't read everything on the official report at least twice you are being silly.

Edit, real life example.

I work with tall buildings, I have seen them being built and I understand the loads and stresses on them, In fact there was a roof of a hospital that collapsed recently while it was being built as the tradesman forgot to install drains. The rain water built up on the roof until it collapsed. The funny thing about a progressive collapse, is that it's progressive, that is not instantaneous.

Individual structural components failed which led to the failure of other structural components and the buildings roof progressively collapsed, not neat and instantaneous like the 9/11 effectTM would predict.

I was not attempting an argument from authority far from it, I think this issue takes an open mind receptive to the truth and not blinded by what we want to believe.

Edit formatting.

Blast resistant material they say?

Now, why would you need to blast proof a building to prevent fire induced collapse? I wonder.

Quote
The idea that the towers were designed to withstand plane crashes is true but has been distorted by the conspiracy theorists.

Also we are not arguing that it is impossible the plane crash couldn't possibly have led to a collapse.

We are arguing that the plane crash causing a plumb collapse at or near free fall is impossible.

This doesn't even begin to address building 7, please see my above post.

Edit, sorry trying to keep posts to a minimum.

From the previous page Master Evar.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #633 on: February 19, 2017, 05:44:19 AM »
Master_evar...

That is very little difference that the official report fyi.

So any debunking on the official story is interchangeable with that. The connections were not weak, individually they were. However, they were conjoined and welded together with reinforced joints, it created a box frame.

This was actually a cool design then because it allowed for more sq per floor to lease. Though I do agree with the emergency exit issue...They stopped doing that in the 80s because of a fire in Japan.

Edited for my shit typing and spelling
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 05:46:48 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #634 on: February 19, 2017, 05:51:34 AM »
Blast resistant material they say?

Now, why would you need to blast proof a building to prevent fire induced collapse? I wonder.
"or use some blast-resistant material such as intumescent paint (which swells to form a protective coating when subject to) heat."
Maybe because it also works, and it doubles as proofing against bombs?
If they don't intend to blow up more buildings (if they did), why would they say something like this, if it is considered suspicious? It's like people who think the moon landing is a conspiracy, but the conspiracy is led by idiots who don't know how to be inconspicuous. Sorry, but I can't see how it would be suspicious in any way.

Quote
The idea that the towers were designed to withstand plane crashes is true but has been distorted by the conspiracy theorists.

Also we are not arguing that it is impossible the plane crash couldn't possibly have led to a collapse.

We are arguing that the plane crash causing a plumb collapse at or near free fall is impossible.

This doesn't even begin to address building 7, please see my above post.

Edit, sorry trying to keep posts to a minimum.
This wasn't written by me and isn't adressing you, I just thought it explains well how the collapse of the twin towers escalated. I will also deal with the freefall stuff next, calm down. But first, reality calls.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #635 on: February 19, 2017, 05:51:49 AM »
you know I trust in the official story. Do you have anything you want to discuss?

Was not aluminum, was steel or something that shouldn't have been there.


Though as for discussion....I suppose it's done. Just don't hate on people who disagree because the facts aren't there for the science, the inputs are hidden, and cannot stand the 1000s of impossibilities outside the science on the story itself.

It sucks, you seem like a nice fellow, we have had good conversations before and I hate seeing you mislead.. but it is what it is.

I respect your belief....Though don't agree with it since you are being lied to and I don't like that.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #636 on: February 19, 2017, 05:59:11 AM »


Since when does an open tank outdoors and having a fast evaporation rate have anything to do with being volatile? It has nothing to do with stored energy.. Quite making up shit... I stated it has an high evaporation rate in an open tank outdoors...It does...

Now go troll else where....You will never answer a direct question, you only know twists and lies...there is obviously something wrong with you rather it be for a sinister reason or something not calibrated right...

Now go back where you came from


Seriously I can't believe you don't know what volatile actually means?    Evaporation rate is in fact the very definition of volatility.   

Volatility actually does correlate to some degree with stored energy in the sense that heavier fuels are less volatile and are more energy dense than lighter more volatile fractions.  But the energy density is affected by other factors such as the chemistry of the combustion reaction.  Nitroglycerin is fairly energy dense but not especially volatile.

You never ask any sensible direct questions.  If you have I'd be happy to answer,  I've even answered some of your stupid questions.


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #637 on: February 19, 2017, 06:03:38 AM »
Quote
Several of the pager messages point to the mass of confusion and rumour-mongering that set in after the first plane hit the north tower. At 8.50am a message says that a bomb has been detonated in the World Trade Centre.

A minute later, Teresa messages: "THE WORLD TRADE CENTER HAS JUST BLOWN UP, WE SEEN THE EXPLOSION OUTSIDE OUR WINDOWS."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/nov/25/wikileaks-publishes-messages-9-11

Quote
A Secret Service page at 10:32 a.m. warned: "ANONYMOUS CALL TO JOC REPORTING ANGEL IS TARGET." Angel is the Secret Service codeword for Air Force One; JOC means Joint Operations Center. When the president's plane had departed Florida about half an hour earlier, it was en route to D.C. That anonymous threat seems to be what diverted President Bush on a high-speed flight across the country, first to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, and then to an underground command center in Nebraska.

Amidst the confusion that day, the Secret Service's New York field office gave contradictory instructions to agents. At 9:06 a.m., their pagers lit up with these orders:
"MEET AT THE BASEBALL FIELD BEHIND THE EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL ON WEST STREET NY." Ninety minutes later: "ALL NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE PERSONNEL RESPOND TO STUYVESANT HIGH SCHOOL AT THE CORNER OF CHAMBERS AND WEST STREET ASAP." Later: "ALL NYFO PERSONNEL ARE TO DISREGARD THE LAST PAGE REGARDING STUVYSANT HIGH SCHOOL."

One message said: "#2 MCLL EXEC WAS ABOARD ONE OF THE PLANES. 1 OF THE ONES WHO BETRAYED HARRY. NO TEARS HERE." Metrocall founder Harry Brock had been ousted as president six years earlier. Metrocall chief operating officer Steven Jacoby died on Flight 77 that day.

Brinks, the armored car operator, received a series of requests for immediate deliveries from banks running low on cash after Americans rushed to withdraw currency: "Micheal, branch officer, is requesting a same day cash delivery. His branch is low on cash. The charge will be $50.00. Please respond to confirm."

A press aide for then-California governor Gray Davis spent the day fending off requests for interviews and updates from KABC, the Oakland Tribune, the Long Beach Press-Telegram, the National Guard, KTTV, Fox News, and someone who wanted to know, "Are the schools going to be closed for the rest of the week?"

https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Egads!_Confidential_9/11_Pager_Messages_Disclosed

R.I.P Assange.

As for the reason I can sum it up in one word, control.

To address the issue of the casualties do the two million civilian casualties in the war on "terror" put it in perspective?

It just gets deeper and deeper.

Quote
Much like al-Qaida, the Islamic State is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region,” the Center for Research on Globalization wrote.

They went on to write that, “the fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.”

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/US-Caused-Civilian-Deaths-Versus-Toll-of-Terrorist-Attacks--20151115-0010.html
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 06:11:11 AM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #638 on: February 19, 2017, 06:03:45 AM »
master evar

As for aluminum melting, aluminum in broad daylight is silver to a white like color, this is easily demonstrated. So it had to be steel or "something else" not aluminum. Plus, depending on which part of the official report you read, sometimes the plane vaporized sometimes it didn't. So one part of the story there would be no aluminum to melt. Plus I didn't see a spec or a plane crash in any of the videos.


I agree that aluminium at melting point is silver,  but what colour is it at 800 or 900 C,   it doesn't matter if it's daylight or not.   I don't know for sure,  but I wouldn't be surprised if it was reddish in colour.

What do you mean "Plus I didn't see a spec or a plane crash in any of the videos."   That makes no sense?
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #639 on: February 19, 2017, 06:05:59 AM »
Rayzor I worded it goofy....

This is all you have has an argument....Any one who was not intentionally trying to twist words would easily see that. Nor would we even be talking about this non sense over something of substance.

As I said, be gone rayzor...We all know what you are. I would block you, but I want to make sure you aren't spreading lies as always. So unfortunately I must see you non sense
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #640 on: February 19, 2017, 06:08:01 AM »
master evar

As for aluminum melting, aluminum in broad daylight is silver to a white like color, this is easily demonstrated. So it had to be steel or "something else" not aluminum. Plus, depending on which part of the official report you read, sometimes the plane vaporized sometimes it didn't. So one part of the story there would be no aluminum to melt. Plus I didn't see a spec or a plane crash in any of the videos.


I agree that aluminium at melting point is silver,  but what colour is it at 800 or 900 C,   it doesn't matter if it's daylight or not.   I don't know for sure,  but I wouldn't be surprised if it was reddish in colour.

What do you mean "Plus I didn't see a spec or a plane crash in any of the videos."   That makes no sense?

Spec of a plane crash..It was my typo...Damn it.. I am used to using words for this shit not typing on a phone.

I need to use speech to text against trolls

*Edit for typo...Again.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 06:09:36 AM by Babyhighspeed »
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #641 on: February 19, 2017, 06:17:51 AM »
Rayzor I worded it goofy....

This is all you have has an argument....Any one who was not intentionally trying to twist words would easily see that. Nor would we even be talking about this non sense over something of substance.

As I said, be gone rayzor...We all know what you are. I would block you, but I want to make sure you aren't spreading lies as always. So unfortunately I must see you non sense

Ok,  I'll accept that was a genuine mistake.   Now will you accept that it wasn't just jet fuel burning,  and that temperatures can get up to 1000C in building fires.

I had a policy earlier of replying in kind,  but for a while I'll let your insults pass,  just don't make a habit of it. 

Unlike you I've already made my position clear on the cause of the collapses.  You haven't


 
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #642 on: February 19, 2017, 06:33:17 AM »
Rayzor I worded it goofy....

This is all you have has an argument....Any one who was not intentionally trying to twist words would easily see that. Nor would we even be talking about this non sense over something of substance.

As I said, be gone rayzor...We all know what you are. I would block you, but I want to make sure you aren't spreading lies as always. So unfortunately I must see you non sense

Ok,  I'll accept that was a genuine mistake.   Now will you accept that it wasn't just jet fuel burning,  and that temperatures can get up to 1000C in building fires.

I had a policy earlier of replying in kind,  but for a while I'll let your insults pass,  just don't make a habit of it. 

Unlike you I've already made my position clear on the cause of the collapses.  You haven't

No...With materials inside the building 600c. If there is something that shouldn't have been there, hotter.

The cause...I don't know. All I can say is structural aspects and mass would have had to been removed in advance...And something other than a plane would have had to have been the cause to equal a uniform collapse at a speed close enough to free fall speed to call it free fall.

An intact structure with that design is impossible to fall as we saw. Even if I concede many things that are impossible, once you get to the fall itself you can never make it past that. The structure and mass cannot act like that if not even a percent of its total mass and structure is comprised
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #643 on: February 19, 2017, 06:40:14 AM »
No...With materials inside the building 600c. If there is something that shouldn't have been there, hotter.

The cause...I don't know. All I can say is structural aspects and mass would have had to been removed in advance...And something other than a plane would have had to have been the cause to equal a uniform collapse at a speed close enough to free fall speed to call it free fall.

An intact structure with that design is impossible to fall as we saw. Even if I concede many things that are impossible, once you get to the fall itself you can never make it past that. The structure and mass cannot act like that if not even a percent of its total mass and structure is comprised

You are wrong about that 600C 

There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093C.
The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature.


The key factor here is the ventilation and air supply,  with gaping holes in the walls from the impact,  and lots of windows blown out,  there is plenty of air supply.

I used do a bit of consulting work on fire control systems,  and controlling AHU's to create sandwich zones in high rise is something I have a passing knowledge of,  this fire was totally out of control from the instant it started, and with no means of controlling the air circulation the fire easily exceeded the point at which steel significantly weakens.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #644 on: February 19, 2017, 06:43:50 AM »
Why was the smoke so black tho?

Rayzor your point of weakened steel is moot, it would not lead to a free fall collapse, it's been demonstrated here repeatedly.

Please peddle your wares somewhere else.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 06:46:15 AM by disputeone »
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #645 on: February 19, 2017, 06:58:01 AM »
No...With materials inside the building 600c. If there is something that shouldn't have been there, hotter.

The cause...I don't know. All I can say is structural aspects and mass would have had to been removed in advance...And something other than a plane would have had to have been the cause to equal a uniform collapse at a speed close enough to free fall speed to call it free fall.

An intact structure with that design is impossible to fall as we saw. Even if I concede many things that are impossible, once you get to the fall itself you can never make it past that. The structure and mass cannot act like that if not even a percent of its total mass and structure is comprised

You are wrong about that 600C 

There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093C.
The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature.


The key factor here is the ventilation and air supply,  with gaping holes in the walls from the impact,  and lots of windows blown out,  there is plenty of air supply.

I used do a bit of consulting work on fire control systems,  and controlling AHU's to create sandwich zones in high rise is something I have a passing knowledge of,  this fire was totally out of control from the instant it started, and with no means of controlling the air circulation the fire easily exceeded the point at which steel significantly weakens.

This does not prove that the fire was over 600c...This is actually very circular talk if you read it closely. Nor was there a giant hole compared to the total cfm.

Plus, how much fire did you actually see after the impact? I didn't see much....I saw a shit load of black smoke, which if you dealt with fire control you should know what that means. Plus there were people looking out the openings, couldn't be that hot in there.

Also, if I agree that the fire was 900c or so that doesn't make much difference. The short amount of time it burned wasn't enough to raise the steel to failure once you equal the heat load sharing of the entire structure...Just like a hot skillet handle.

Though what I saw was an oxygen starved fire, with people walking around in the opening with an ass load of oxygen starved smoke.

Not an out of control, super hot, ever expanding blaze.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

sokarul

  • 18823
  • Extra Racist
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #646 on: February 19, 2017, 07:09:48 AM »
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Which ones?

So are you asking questions for no reason? Well to be honest with you, no one knows the actual number. The Japanese and British steel mills the beams came from lost all evidence. I do know the core was a form of ASTM A 36, trusses and other beams were a mix of ASTM A 36 and ASTM A 242.

Though how they were mixed original??? Question will be there.

I can say from my personal test of the material I was able to get, I only picked up trace amounts of Cr. The biggest anti corrosive I found was copper .16-.20.... Though in some pieces there was nickel present.

However, as I said, reverse analyzing steel is not always 100 percent.

Were you going somewhere with this?

I was referring to your pictures. It doesn't matter though, The History Channel claimed in a show that if the steel contained more chromium it wouldn't have collapsed, but I'm not finding anything else that backs that claim up.

I also can't find any of the people who planted explosives in the buildings. Know any?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #647 on: February 19, 2017, 07:19:45 AM »
I was referring to your pictures. It doesn't matter though, The History Channel claimed in a show that if the steel contained more chromium it wouldn't have collapsed, but I'm not finding anything else that backs that claim up.

I also can't find any of the people who planted explosives in the buildings. Know any?

I am sorry, I didn't see this.

Chromium is never used in high amounts in any structural steel, especially in a high rise. It can provide a bit more fire resistance and rigidity...But that is the issue... Rigidity, it is too much for a building that requires flex but not breaking. Too much CR...And you will start to have fractures or even failures  very quickly.

That is why any high rise in the structural steel uses mainly nickel, copper or a combo of both for the anti corrosive.

But for amounts Incase you didn't see this

Well to be honest with you, no one knows the actual number. The Japanese and British steel mills the beams came from lost all evidence. I do know the core was a form of ASTM A 36, trusses and other beams were a mix of ASTM A 36 and ASTM A 242.

Though how they were mixed original??? Question will be there.

I can say from my personal test of the material I was able to get, I only picked up trace amounts of Cr. The biggest anti corrosive I found was copper .16-.20.... Though in some pieces there was nickel present.

However, as I said, reverse analyzing steel is not always 100 percent.

I never want to be accused of ignoring questions...
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #648 on: February 19, 2017, 07:22:59 AM »
This does not prove that the fire was over 600c...This is actually very circular talk if you read it closely. Nor was there a giant hole compared to the total cfm.

Plus, how much fire did you actually see after the impact? I didn't see much....I saw a shit load of black smoke, which if you dealt with fire control you should know what that means. Plus there were people looking out the openings, couldn't be that hot in there.

Also, if I agree that the fire was 900c or so that doesn't make much difference. The short amount of time it burned wasn't enough to raise the steel to failure once you equal the heat load sharing of the entire structure...Just like a hot skillet handle.

Though what I saw was an oxygen starved fire, with people walking around in the opening with an ass load of oxygen starved smoke.

Not an out of control, super hot, ever expanding blaze.

The black smoke doesn't always indicate an oxygen starved fire,  sometimes it can tell you a bit about what's burning,  like plastics etc, but even that's not 100% accurate.

Ok let's not get hung up on something that can never be known with precision, 



At 600C the steel is already less than half,  by the time we get to 800C it's turned into pretzels.

The fires could easily have weakened the steel to the point of collapse.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 07:34:35 AM by Rayzor »
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #649 on: February 19, 2017, 07:28:22 AM »
Oh man....Why does Rama set and master evar have to join in...They were people I actually liked....Sigh... :(

All I keep hearing is "I believe"...This isn't a Disney show, nor can we click our heals.

No need to instantly toss out insults. I am just being honest about my level of knowledge in engineering.

Can you honestly say that the sounds of the WTC collapse sound like a controlled demolition? If you don't, then how did they mask the sound?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #650 on: February 19, 2017, 07:31:30 AM »
I was referring to your pictures. It doesn't matter though, The History Channel claimed in a show that if the steel contained more chromium it wouldn't have collapsed, but I'm not finding anything else that backs that claim up.

I also can't find any of the people who planted explosives in the buildings. Know any?

I am sorry, I didn't see this.

Chromium is never used in high amounts in any structural steel, especially in a high rise. It can provide a bit more fire resistance and rigidity...But that is the issue... Rigidity, it is too much for a building that requires flex but not breaking. Too much CR...And you will start to have fractures or even failures  very quickly.

That is why any high rise in the structural steel uses mainly nickel, copper or a combo of both for the anti corrosive.

But for amounts Incase you didn't see this

Well to be honest with you, no one knows the actual number. The Japanese and British steel mills the beams came from lost all evidence. I do know the core was a form of ASTM A 36, trusses and other beams were a mix of ASTM A 36 and ASTM A 242.

Though how they were mixed original??? Question will be there.

I can say from my personal test of the material I was able to get, I only picked up trace amounts of Cr. The biggest anti corrosive I found was copper .16-.20.... Though in some pieces there was nickel present.

However, as I said, reverse analyzing steel is not always 100 percent.

I never want to be accused of ignoring questions...

The JOM published some data on the  recovered materials from the WTC    http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0711/banovic-0711.html

The steel from the WTC met or exceeded the design specifications.  The chemical analysis is there as well as the metallurgy of the WTC recovered steels.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #651 on: February 19, 2017, 07:45:56 AM »
This does not prove that the fire was over 600c...This is actually very circular talk if you read it closely. Nor was there a giant hole compared to the total cfm.

Plus, how much fire did you actually see after the impact? I didn't see much....I saw a shit load of black smoke, which if you dealt with fire control you should know what that means. Plus there were people looking out the openings, couldn't be that hot in there.

Also, if I agree that the fire was 900c or so that doesn't make much difference. The short amount of time it burned wasn't enough to raise the steel to failure once you equal the heat load sharing of the entire structure...Just like a hot skillet handle.

Though what I saw was an oxygen starved fire, with people walking around in the opening with an ass load of oxygen starved smoke.

Not an out of control, super hot, ever expanding blaze.

The black smoke doesn't always indicate an oxygen starved fire,  sometimes it can tell you a bit about what's burning,  like plastics etc, but even that's not 100% accurate.

Ok let's got get hung up on something that can never be known with precision, 



At 600C the steel is already less than half,  by the time we get to 800C it's turned into pretzels.

The fires could easily have weakened the steel to the point of collapse.

Yes, that is to assume as soon as the fire starts it is instantly that temp...It takes A lot of time to heat up the structural metal...That is alot of mass and structure to heat..They are made to share heat, not just for fires but for day to day temp changes, helps longevity of the joints etc... is why I said I had such hard time getting temp to build in the models with just simple fires on the damaged floors.

Especially in the core, that metal is very thick and very long...And that would be the key to get a collapse, these buildings were very reliant on the cores. I even played with the model to try and get the heat up in the core.

Plus remember where the fire is the hottest in fires like these rather it's from liquid fuel or office materials.

Oh man....Why does Rama set and master evar have to join in...They were people I actually liked....Sigh... :(

All I keep hearing is "I believe"...This isn't a Disney show, nor can we click our heals.

No need to instantly toss out insults. I am just being honest about my level of knowledge in engineering.

Can you honestly say that the sounds of the WTC collapse sound like a controlled demolition? If you don't, then how did they mask the sound?

Sorry Rama set...I didn't mean to put liked..I have terrible auto correct issues, I suppose I wasn't built for a smart phone and a forum. You can read through everyone harping on me, and not on just this thread. Change that to like...

Yes, listen to it loud and you can hear subtle and faint "booms"...plus there were tons of reports of the same thing from people rhere..To be honest, I have never been to a demo where the windows and sound deadening was still in and building completely intact.

Though I have heard some very quiet ones, just like that building I showed. 

It depends on the charge size and route they go....Plus I have never seen a demo that was attempted to be hid..So there are some theories on that, or exotic things like thermite. However, we are into theories again.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #652 on: February 19, 2017, 07:49:17 AM »
Plumb being vertical and straight.
Level being horizontal and straight.

Here is the experiment and some supporting arguments.

I posted it before but here is NIST's lead investigator explaining why free fall of building 7 is impossible given the official story.


The lead investigator didn't explain why it was impossible. He just said what was required to get a free-fall time. Then the creator of the video interprets the footage of the collapse (not wrongly). However we can't be certain that multiple supports couldn't have failed within a short timespan, and we don't know in which manner the inner parts of the structure collapsed.

Here it is in my own words.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.
The experiment... depends on the material used. Styrofoam reinforced with plastic straws could be one set of materials which could provide a structure similar to that of concrete reinforced with steel, and produce a near free-fall collapse. Mostly because the ball would weigh much more than the rest of the material, and once it starts cracking and bending it would collapse quickly. But WTC 7 did also collapse from the bottom, having all of that upper mass crushing down on the support near the floor. Had it collapsed further up, maybe it wouldn't have entered free-fall.

We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.
On point 1: Evidence? The planes didn't have to make it through intact, not even close.

On point 2: Evidence?

On the last bit: Well, the human perception of what is ordered and not isn't perfect. And in any case, I can drop a ball perfectly neatly and orderly. Doesn't mean that nothing happened to entropy - neat and orderly potential energy turned into disorderly heat. In the case of WTC, it also left a lot of rubble. I can assure you that entering free-fall doesn't break the laws of physics.


I work with tall buildings, I have seen them being built and I understand the loads and stresses on them, In fact there was a roof of a hospital that collapsed recently while it was being built as the tradesman forgot to install drains. The rain water built up on the roof until it collapsed. The funny thing about a progressive collapse, is that it's progressive, that is not instantaneous.

Individual structural components failed which led to the failure of other structural components and the buildings roof progressively collapsed, not neat and instantaneous like the 9/11 effectTM would predict.

I was not attempting an argument from authority far from it, I think this issue takes an open mind receptive to the truth and not blinded by what we want to believe.
Well, there's a difference between collapsing from the roof, and collapsing from the foundation or in the middle of a building.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #653 on: February 19, 2017, 07:53:28 AM »
The JOM published some data on the  recovered materials from the WTC    http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0711/banovic-0711.html

The steel from the WTC met or exceeded the design specifications.  The chemical analysis is there as well as the metallurgy of the WTC recovered steels.

Isn't that exactly what I said? He didn't want tolerances or anything of the such, he asked a very specific question. Which is not in that report...I didn't want to stretch the truth, because we don't know the exacts or anything because of the companies being defunct now.

I said the type steel it was, what spec it was which is what they said...I also let him know what I found from the material I was able to get.. Anyways this is repeating.

I answered his question directly and that report was just echoing what I already said
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #654 on: February 19, 2017, 07:58:13 AM »
Final post for the day.

If it was a controlled demolition, then how come the collapse started from the area where the planes impacted and the fires were?

If it was controlled demolition and the charges were placed exactly where the impact area was,  how did they get the charges installed?  The area was destroyed,  the lifts were out and we are 90 floors above ground.

So the charges couldn't have been carried up the 90 or so floors to be placed,  they would have to be put there beforehand,  if that's the case,  how did they know in advance where the planes were going to hit?

Further if somehow they managed to position the charges unnoticed, and also managed to crash the plane at the exact place,  why way up 90 floors,  why not down lower?

Finally suppose they the impossible and get the charges placed,  and got the planes to hit the unlikely spot 90 floors up,  How come the charges didn't detonate when hit by the impact or detonate due to the fires.

Maybe they had a magic wand?

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Heiwa

  • 9358
  • I have been around a long time.
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #655 on: February 19, 2017, 08:04:48 AM »
An easy experiment to see a structure collapsing from top down is to use any man made structure and disconnect the 10% top part from the 90% bottom part - raise the top part 3 meters - and drop the 10% top part on the 90% bottom part.

Anyone can do it! NIST, CIA, FBI, NSA, GWB, Donald Trump!

The structure may be of any type, any material, any size but the 90% bottom must be able to keep the 10% top in place before disconnection and drop for collapse attempt.

If you can find any such structure that collapses from top and describe it to me, I pay you 1,000,000:- (one million!) by bank transfer.

http://heiwaco.com/chall1.htm

I have tested many different types of structures but the 10% tops always bounces on the 90% bottom parts at contact. I wonder why? A top part slamming into a bottom part ... and there is no COLLAPSE? Am I part of a conspiracy? GWB & Co. have always said since 912 (2001) that there should be a COLLAPSE. Is GWB not telling the truth?

Or is the 90% intact bottom part always strong enough to bounce off or stop the 10% top part dropping down from globally collapsing 100%?

If you want to, you can put the 10% top part on fire and drop it on the 90% bottom part not on fire. Do not burn yourself!

A nice experiment when spring is arriving (ice melting) is to fill an open air ice hockey rink (not an inside hall one) with only 4" of jetfuel (about 140 tons) and put a heap of 140 tons of steel, aluminium, concrete and similar scrap in the centre (where the game starts). I used to play ice hockey when young. Then ignite the jet fuel and see how it burns. No fire ball! Just plenty black smoke. The scrap in the middle just gets dirty. Inform the local authorities before doing it!

« Last Edit: February 19, 2017, 11:47:11 AM by Heiwa »

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #656 on: February 19, 2017, 10:35:11 AM »
I'll accept that correction,  nice to see you being pedantic about facts.

Oh...

A presentation of facts is considered "pedantic."

That explains your difficulty.

LMMFAO!!!


*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #657 on: February 19, 2017, 11:26:45 AM »
Sorry Rama set...I didn't mean to put liked..I have terrible auto correct issues, I suppose I wasn't built for a smart phone and a forum. You can read through everyone harping on me, and not on just this thread. Change that to like...

No worries, you are just a hot-headed Texan  :D

Quote
Yes, listen to it loud and you can hear subtle and faint "booms"...plus there were tons of reports of the same thing from people rhere..To be honest, I have never been to a demo where the windows and sound deadening was still in and building completely intact.

I will give that a try.

Quote
Though I have heard some very quiet ones, just like that building I showed. 

It depends on the charge size and route they go....Plus I have never seen a demo that was attempted to be hid..So there are some theories on that, or exotic things like thermite. However, we are into theories again.

Gotcha. 
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #658 on: February 19, 2017, 11:34:00 AM »
Anyone aware of the Tehran Plasco Highrise fire and subsequent collapse due to fire?

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/01/19/tehran-high-rise-collapses-during-fire-30-firefighters-killed.html
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #659 on: February 19, 2017, 01:38:42 PM »
Anyone aware of the Tehran Plasco Highrise fire and subsequent collapse due to fire?

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/01/19/tehran-high-rise-collapses-during-fire-30-firefighters-killed.html

Funny, that building topples.