9\11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

[TruthSeeker]

TruthSeeker!

I was almost convinced by your arguments that 911 wasn't an inside job until this recent discovery of multi-dollar treasure in afghanistan.

Xeeshan,

I didn't "argue" that 9-11 wasn't an inside job. It is simply a fact. Al Qaeda did it.

 

[zagahaga]

Xeeshan,

I didn't "argue" that 9-11 wasn't an inside job. It is simply a fact. Al Qaeda did it.

yes cave liveing camel riders did all of that SHURE .... one thing NONE of the members answered is that how canjet fuel melt steel? there clear evidence of it ... if you can answer this then ill change my views

 

[sparklingway]

yes cave liveing camel riders did all of that SHURE .... one thing NONE of the members answered is that how canjet fuel melt steel? there clear evidence of it ... if you can answer this then ill change my views

You will not change your views, nothing can change your views for that you have proven over the past few pages.

There is no need to argue over jet fuel causing fires which spread like wildfire in an enclosed environment or even the simulations conducted in this regard for you have made up your mind and the delusions cannot be cured by any sane or rational argument.

 

[ptldM3]

yes cave liveing camel riders did all of that SHURE .... one thing NONE of the members answered is that how canjet fuel melt steel? there clear evidence of it ... if you can answer this then ill change my views

First off it was aluminum.


Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires.

NIST replicated the fires by burning office furniture in a controlled experiment and found the ceiling temperature to reach 1,100 degrees C.

Look at the following picture, the aluminum melted.




So now you know.


I know what some of you are thinking, but what about the steel columns, how was the fire strong enough to melt columns to the point of causing a calapse? Like i mentioned earlier they didn't melt, they were weakened by to fire and the immense weight of the structure.


Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage

If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3

if you can answer this then ill change my views

I answered you, so what is your view?

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

There is no way a conspiracy as big as 911 could be kept secret..

 

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

yes cave liveing camel riders did all of that SHURE .... one thing NONE of the members answered is that how canjet fuel melt steel? there clear evidence of it ... if you can answer this then ill change my views

I remembr a large building fire once the large beam in the ceiling was hanging down in a U Shape where the fire had weakend the steel and their was not tons of jet fuel involved.

 

[zagahaga]

hmmm..... fine i do kinda belive that WTC had sum coponents to make it weak yes that it true but pdl3 one thing i dont get why you always give a much larger number for a open fuel fire when its onlu burn around 400 to 500 degrees? but in other case i have to give a hand to you that you do have a very convincing argument and that one must respect you educated answers

 

[zagahaga]

You will not change your views, nothing can change your views for that you have proven over the past few pages.

There is no need to argue over jet fuel causing fires which spread like wildfire in an enclosed environment or even the simulations conducted in this regard for you have made up your mind and the delusions cannot be cured by any sane or rational argument.

all right let me put this throught go suck your self ... lil faggggot

 

[ptldM3]

hmmm..... fine i do kinda belive that WTC had sum coponents to make it weak yes that it true but pdl3 one thing i dont get why you always give a much larger number for a open fuel fire when its onlu burn around 400 to 500 degrees? but in other case i have to give a hand to you that you do have a very convincing argument and that one must respect you educated answers

The NIST condicted an experiment in which they burned office furniture, the result yeilded a temperature of 1,100 degrees C near the ceiling (not the actual fire). Given than the WTC had a massive hole in its side it's safe to assume that the fire in the WTC was even hoter due to the circulation of oxogen. Moreover, office furniture can't replicate all of the rubber, aluminum and other synthetic materials that were in the aircraft that hit the WTC.

 

[zagahaga]

The NIST condicted an experiment in which they burned office furniture, the result yeilded a temperature of 1,100 degrees C near the ceiling (not the actual fire). Given than the WTC had a massive hole in its side it's safe to assume that the fire in the WTC was even hoter due to the circulation of oxogen. Moreover, office furniture can't replicate all of the rubber, aluminum and other synthetic materials that were in the aircraft that hit the WTC.

hmmmm... true... so would is melt the metal fully? and if it melted the metal wouldent we see some or alot of molten steel pouring out of Wtc i mean LARGE AMOUNTS OF IT not the one the where dripping out i seen that photo and video .... baically what i am trying to say is that wouldent it melt alot of the metal and instead of dust pushing out ward wouldent a big splash of molten aluminum come towards the ground which can be seen from a clear prespective.

 

[gambit]

yes cave liveing camel riders did all of that SHURE .... one thing NONE of the members answered is that how canjet fuel melt steel? there clear evidence of it ... if you can answer this then ill change my views

First...It is a false argument that aviation fuel cannot get hot enough to melt steel. Certain conditions, like the afterburner of a jet engine, has temperature hot enough to melt steel...

Afterburner Basics

Since the temperature of an afterburner can reach 1700 deg. C, the flame is usually concentrated around the jet pipe axis, allowing a portion of the discharge gas to flow along the wall of the jet pipe and therefore maintain a safe wall temperature.

The temperature here is in the flame, has an exit path and that is why this section of the jet engine is immune to that high temperature.

Second...These columns are load bearing, or more specifically, VERTICAL load bearing. That mean there is no need for any fire source to reach four-digits temperature. Look at the blacksmith below...

A section of the steel bar is hot enough to be pliable with hammer strikes but still retain its general shape. Another section of the steel bar is cool enough that the man can touch it with his bare hand. So for a steel column that has a vertical load, all the fire has to do is heat up a section of the column soft enough and let gravity do the rest.

Third...Steel expand when heated...

Thermal Expansion Expt

The photograph to the right shows railroad tracks distorted because of thermal expansion on a very hot July day.

This is on a hot summer day, probably around 100-104, nothing unbearable. But these steel structures warped anyway. Each segment curved because it had nowhere to go. For the WTC steel columns, the ones that got heated also had nowhere to go. This is compounded by the fact that unlike railroad tracks, the stress (vertical) they bear are tons and it is constant. Gravity does not let up, except in the alternate universe inhabited by loony 9/11 conspiracy theory believers.

Finally...We have a combination of severed columns and heat weakened columns. For the remainder that are structurally intact, there is now lateral stress they have to bear that was not there before.

None of these individual factors will collapse a structure but a combination of them will and that is how we collapse a condemned building. We compromised a few strategic internal structures and let gravity, aka vertical load stress, do the work. An aircraft severing a large number of columns in this 'matrix' of columns is really no different than if we had placed shaped explosive charges on them.

 

[gambit]

hmmmm... true... so would is melt the metal fully? and if it melted the metal wouldent we see some or alot of molten steel pouring out of Wtc i mean LARGE AMOUNTS OF IT not the one the where dripping out i seen that photo and video .... baically what i am trying to say is that wouldent it melt alot of the metal and instead of dust pushing out ward wouldent a big splash of molten aluminum come towards the ground which can be seen from a clear prespective.

No...It does not mean so. The fire was internal so if any aircraft sourced aluminum melted it would have been out of sight. Whatever molten aluminum that was ejected out of any window could have been from metal furnitures or some from the aircraft itself.

 

[Xeeshan]

Xeeshan,

I didn't "argue" that 9-11 wasn't an inside job. It is simply a fact. Al Qaeda did it.

Indeed, it is a "fact" that Al-CIAda did it.

 

[All-Green]

I do not think any construction agency can guarantee a building which can withstand direct hits from commercial airline jets.
Certainly not possible in case of the worlds tallest building.

The 2006 Earthquake in Pakistan left many buildings standing whereas other seemingly more sturdy structures collapsed around them.
Some buildings fell after a few days.
There is no guarantee what damage external forces can do, forces which cannot be compensated for in a building design.

You can plan for a lot of things and still something can go wrong.
In this case, who plans to construct the tallest building in the world to make it aircraft proof?

The momentum imparted by such a large aircraft is something that would have weakened the structure, the fact that it did not collapse immediately does not mean that the collapse did not occur due to the aircraft hit.
The fire only worsened the condition but the major damage done was due to the initial impact which would have been tremendous.

The focus should be on what happened on board the aircraft, conspiracy theories regarding the building collapse may make for interesting reading but having seen the planes collide, there is no way the building would not have suffered tremendous structural damage.

 

[MastanKhan]

First...It is a false argument that aviation fuel cannot get hot enough to melt steel. Certain conditions, like the afterburner of a jet engine, has temperature hot enough to melt steel...

Afterburner Basics

The temperature here is in the flame, has an exit path and that is why this section of the jet engine is immune to that high temperature.

Second...These columns are load bearing, or more specifically, VERTICAL load bearing. That mean there is no need for any fire source to reach four-digits temperature. Look at the blacksmith below...

A section of the steel bar is hot enough to be pliable with hammer strikes but still retain its general shape. Another section of the steel bar is cool enough that the man can touch it with his bare hand. So for a steel column that has a vertical load, all the fire has to do is heat up a section of the column soft enough and let gravity do the rest.

Third...Steel expand when heated...

Thermal Expansion Expt

This is on a hot summer day, probably around 100-104, nothing unbearable. But these steel structures warped anyway. Each segment curved because it had nowhere to go. For the WTC steel columns, the ones that got heated also had nowhere to go. This is compounded by the fact that unlike railroad tracks, the stress (vertical) they bear are tons and it is constant. Gravity does not let up, except in the alternate universe inhabited by loony 9/11 conspiracy theory believers.

Finally...We have a combination of severed columns and heat weakened columns. For the remainder that are structurally intact, there is now lateral stress they have to bear that was not there before.

None of these individual factors will collapse a structure but a combination of them will and that is how we collapse a condemned building. We compromised a few strategic internal structures and let gravity, aka vertical load stress, do the work. An aircraft severing a large number of columns in this 'matrix' of columns is really no different than if we had placed shaped explosive charges on them.

Hi,

Thanks Gambit for that example----the reader need to understand that first of all the impact of the plane into the building would have shattered / sheared many a steel coloumns---secondly--- a lots of fastners ie nuts and bolts would have torn apart from their position of holding the beams.

Now where gambit is showing the picture of hot iron rod at one end---put this rod statight up---weld it to a top plate and bottom plate--put approritate weight on it and start heating the metal rod---with the weight on top---you will be surprised to see the rod bending and going out of shape long before reaching its melting point.

The column will indeed shear of where heat and stress fractures have caused weak points.

It is also a known facts that high rise buildings cannot take extra weight on them---they are only designed to take a certain ammount of weight----like hospital buildings where a helicopter can land on top of it---is rated for a certain weight of helicopter---not all kinds of helicopters can land on---it would crush the building.

There is no building in this world that can take the load of a helicopter that would supposedly weigh 50000lbs---when we talk about a plane that weighs a 100000 lbs---it is a totally different story.

Even if the plane had been put on top of the building nicely---in due time---it would have crushed the building---.

I donot know if any of you remember the bridge that collapsed in, I believe wisconsin---they found out that they had a sand and concrete dumped on the bridge roadway---there was a heavy road roller and a concrete truck parked in the same viccinity on the bridge---what did that all do to the bridge---they simply were parked at the wrong place at the wrong time---they just crushed the bridge and brought it down.