Why all the worldwide turmoil? (9/11 thread)

[hot enough]

Watch Peter Ketchum, a former NIST employee, who illustrates in his short 13 and a half minute talk how all the science had been, has been so easily hidden for 15 years and how NIST engaged in a patently deceptive study. 

Truth Is Where Our Healing Lies | Part 5: Peter Michael Ketcham Makes First Public Appearance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb2NOBbD88c&index=5&list=PLUshF3H0xxH0-LxNZYGPIJqIp8-roEJY4

 

[betsy]

3 hours ago, hot enough said:

An engineer investigating the remains of the World Trade Center sees melted girders and other evidence that the towers experienced extreme temperatures on 9/11. Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley.

He later recalls, “I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center.” [PBS, 5/10/2007] 
 He notes that steel has bent at several connection points that had joined the floors of the WTC to the vertical columns. He describes the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, “If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted—it’s kind of like that.” He adds, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot—perhaps around 2,000 degrees.” [CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 12/7/2001] 
 Astaneh-Asl says that steel flanges have been reduced “from an inch thick to paper thin.” [BERKELEYAN, 10/3/2001] 
 He finds a foot-long twisted shard of steel that is “like a piece of bread, but it was high-strength steel.” He comments, “I haven’t seen anything like this [before].” [BERKELEY DAILY PLANET, 10/20/2001] 
 He finds “severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes].” He believes this is the result of the planes having destroyed the elevator walls, thereby allowing burning jet fuel to pour down into the building, igniting fires hundreds of feet below the impact floors. [CBS NEWS, 3/12/2002] 

 Astaneh-Asl sees a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7, which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11. “The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.” [NEW YORK TIMES, 10/2/2001] 
Other individuals will report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center in the weeks and months after 9/11 (see September 12, 2001-February 2002), and data collected by NASA reveals dozens of “hot spots” (some over 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit) at Ground Zero (see September 16-23, 2001). But Thomas Eagar—an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—later comments that the “temperature of the fire at the WTC [on 9/11] was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.” [EAGAR AND MUSSO, 12/2001] Yet Astaneh-Asl will later put forward the “tentative” conclusion, “The collapse of the [Twin Towers] was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents.” [ASTANEH-ASL, 11/30/2003 ] Astaneh-Asl is a member of the team assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers to investigate the World Trade Center site after 9/11 (see September 12, 2001), though he will resign from this because he disagrees with its decision to keep findings secret until the initial inquiry has been completed. [NEW YORK TIMES, 10/2/2001; ASSOCIATED PRESS, 9/6/2002]

http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=molten+metal+Abolhassan+Astaneh&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

 

So, what's his conclusion?  What does that mean?

Edited February 26, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

10 hours ago, hot enough said:

I think we should address the science and the actual issues raised. The implications are daunting, I know.

 

11 hours ago, hot enough said:

There is so much turmoil in the world. Why? We hear oh so frequently from oh so many sources that this turmoil has come about because of terrorism, specifically one "grouped" terrorist act. We all know what that is and it is truly a lie of gigantic proportions, not unlike all of the other lies of gigantic proportions. 

Premise: It is completely impossible that the alleged 911 hijackers caused the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7. 

Proof one: The existence of molten metals; steel, molybdenum, iron at WTC the existence of vaporized steel at WTC, the existence of nanothermite at WTC all attest to the fact that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7. 

The only fuel that the hijackers are said to have brought to the WTC, according to the official government story, is jet fuel. Add office furnishings and you have fuels that can reach a maximum of about 1,800F. Steel melts at about 2,800F. Molybdenum melts at about 4,700F. Vaporized steel needs higher temperatures.

Point TT-6: The Claim that There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC
Point TT-6: Buildings

http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-6/

Pictures of the vaporized steel 

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

There are, of course, many other proofs that show that the alleged 911 hijackers did not cause, could not have caused the collapse of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7.

There is currently a two year study of WTC7 being conducted at University of Alaska, Fairbanks. It is scheduled for total completion in May 2017. The study is essentially finished and in preliminary reports, the lead professor/engineer said, when asked by a lawyer, and I paraphrase,

Lawyer: On a scale of one to a hundred what are the chances the official NIST story of the collapse of WTC7 is true and accurate?

Professor: Zero.

Lawyer: If a graduate student of yours submitted such a report would you flunk him?

Professor: Yes. 

 

Here's the rebuttal to that:

 

 

 

Quote

 

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The World Trade Center

 

The following content is from an in-depth investigation of the conspiracy theories surround the attacks of 9/11, which was published in the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics. That cover story was expanded and published in August 2006 as a book titled Debunking 9/11 Myths. The fully revised and updated 2011 edition of the book is now on sale.

 

"Melted" Steel

Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

 

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

Edited February 26, 2017 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

3 hours ago, betsy said:

 

Ask Donald Trump.

Because, Hillary Clinton and Obama actually created ISIS, and other Islamic terrorists that are creating most of the turmoil all over the world.

 

 

You would accept such an accusation at face value with no evidence or even anecdotal evidence to support it? I think that statement reflects more poorly on Trump (and you) than it does on Obama and Hillary. I think the turmoil you speak of comes from the environment created by the batshit crazy halfwits like the Trump supporters who went after the Sandy Hook parents.

[Altai]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Skyscrapers like the world trade center are very different than stone structures. They are relatively light for the volume they occupy, but overall because of their massive size the weight was about 500,000 tons in each tower. About 20% of that weight was steel. Unlike a shorter structure where gravity load might be the prime consideration, a tall structure like the world trade center deals with massive wind loads and that becomes the dominating factor in the engineering design. Note that the planes did not crash into the top floor, but between 15-25 floors down from the top depending on which tower was hit. That means that there was anywhere from 60,000 to 100,000 tons of weight above where the fire weakened and buckled the structure.

Does not matter stone or metal or whatever. Lower floors "have to be" much more stronger and upper floors should be light (and therefore weak too) as much as possible, if you dont want it to collapse easily. 

Below a Wiki page shows where the planes hit the buildings. They hit the upper floors.

https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosya:World_Trade_Center_9-11_Attacks_Illustration_with_Vertical_Impact_Locations.svg


 

[hot enough]

19 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

So, what's his conclusion?  What does that mean?

To my knowledge, this gentleman, an Iranian immigrant has drawn no conclusions. But the conclusions have been drawn by many other scientists working off his findings and their own work. Molten steel means that the alleged hijackers were not responsible for the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 and 7. Their "explosive/fuel" was roughly 1,400 degrees F short of being able to melt steel, Some 3,600 degrees F short of being able to vaporize steel.

In a word, they have been falsely accused.

[betsy]

29 minutes ago, hot enough said:

To my knowledge, this gentleman, an Iranian immigrant has drawn no conclusions. But the conclusions have been drawn by many other scientists working off his findings and their own work. Molten steel means that the alleged hijackers were not responsible for the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 and 7. Their "explosive/fuel" was roughly 1,400 degrees F short of being able to melt steel, Some 3,600 degrees F short of being able to vaporize steel.

 

 

They've been rebutted.

 

 

Quote

In a word, they have been falsely accused.

 

Now you confuse me.

Who's been falsely accused?  Be specific.

Edited February 26, 2017 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

22 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

They've been rebutted.

 

 

 

Now you confuse me.

Who's been falsely accused?  Be specific.

Obama and Hillary by you and Trump? 

It's funny that it causes you no cognitive dissonance that he could make that accusation but not pursue it now that he's in power. Doesn't it bother you that the founders of ISIS are free to walk the streets? What kind of weak, ineffective leader would just let that go?

I suspect you know he's lying but would rather have a leader who openly bears false witness than someone who would care for the downtrodden.

Edited February 26, 2017 by BubberMiley

[?Impact]

51 minutes ago, Altai said:

Does not matter stone or metal or whatever. Lower floors "have to be" much more stronger and upper floors should be light (and therefore weak too) as much as possible, if you dont want it to collapse easily. 

Below a Wiki page shows where the planes hit the buildings. They hit the upper floors.

You don't seem to be following the issue with wind load.

'upper' floors is a meaningless term. If you look at those pictures you will see there is about 15 floors above where the plane hit in tower 1, and 28 floors in tower 2. That is where the weight comes from. This is a huge building, 110 stories tall and 208 feet square. The part of the building above the plane crashes is larger than most other buildings around. It would take 5 or more typical 30 story apartment buildings to fit into the same volume as the part above the plane crash.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, hot enough said:

Watch Peter Ketchum, a former NIST employee, who illustrates in his short 13 and a half minute talk how all the science had been, has been so easily hidden for 15 years and how NIST engaged in a patently deceptive study. 

Truth Is Where Our Healing Lies | Part 5: Peter Michael Ketcham Makes First Public Appearance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb2NOBbD88c&index=5&list=PLUshF3H0xxH0-LxNZYGPIJqIp8-roEJY4

 

Oh joy. Another 911 conspiracy kook. Ketchum is a nobody conspiracy loony.

Peter Michael Ketcham, an iPhone app developer from Wisconsin, has a masters degree in mathematics and worked as a mathematical data visualization programmer at NIST from 1997 to 2011. He had no involvement in the 9/11 investigation (or any other investigation), and has no background in structural engineering or physics.

So what we have here is just some guy who watched the 9/11 documentaries, and became convinced by them. Nothing wrong with that per se, the documentaries can be quite convincing - most documentaries are, that's their function. But he's just some guy, like me (I've even done work on computational fluid dynamics, and developed iPhone apps). The fact that he worked on mathematical visualizations at NIST is entirely irrelevant. It's an example of an appeal to false authority. AE911 are claiming that there's something significant here because, as their email headline puts it "BREAKING NEWS: Former NIST Employee Speaks Out".

https://www.metabunk.org/false-authority-thoughts-from-a-former-nist-employee-on-9-11.t8182/
 

Edited February 26, 2017 by Argus

[Argus]

3 hours ago, hot enough said:

To my knowledge, this gentleman, an Iranian immigrant has drawn no conclusions. But the conclusions have been drawn by many other scientists working off his findings and their own work. Molten steel means that the alleged hijackers were not responsible for the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 and 7. Their "explosive/fuel" was roughly 1,400 degrees F short of being able to melt steel, Some 3,600 degrees F short of being able to vaporize steel.

In a word, they have been falsely accused.

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat.Apr 7, 2010  http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

[Altai]

3 hours ago, ?Impact said:

You don't seem to be following the issue with wind load.

'upper' floors is a meaningless term. If you look at those pictures you will see there is about 15 floors above where the plane hit in tower 1, and 28 floors in tower 2. That is where the weight comes from. This is a huge building, 110 stories tall and 208 feet square. The part of the building above the plane crashes is larger than most other buildings around. It would take 5 or more typical 30 story apartment buildings to fit into the same volume as the part above the plane crash.

and I am saying that "it does not matter", because the above part is NOT heavy enough to cause a collapse. The below part of buildings can still stay strong, its quite illogical that whole building collapse, even not only collapse but being smashed to smitheereens. 

Another thing, please stop abusing my lack of English during a discuss. I am sure you understand very well what I mean.

[?Impact]

14 minutes ago, Altai said:

Another thing, please stop abusing my lack of English during a discuss. I am sure you understand very well what I mean.

I'm sorry you interpreted my comment as referring to your English, that was not the intent at all. I am referring to the logic that just because the plane hit one of the "upper floors" that there was not sufficient weight above it. Perhaps "relative" would be a better term to use, there is still a substantial part of the building above the where the plane hit; as in my comparison it was about the equivalent of 5 or so 30 story apartment buildings. That is a lot of weight. The experts have estimated it to be around 40,000 tons in one tower and 70,000 tons in the other.

[hot enough]

39 minutes ago, Argus said:

However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat.Apr 7, 2010  http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

That doesn't explain how WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 8 floors, 105 feet, for 2.5 seconds. Free fall speed is impossible without a controlled demolition. A controlled demolition on one tower means a controlled demolition on all three towers. 

Vaporized steel, requiring 5,000+F means that the hujackers didn't cause the collapse of the three towers. Who could have? Who had access to superthermite/nanothermite? 

 

 

[hot enough]

6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I am referring to the logic that just because the plane hit one of the "upper floors" that there was not sufficient weight above it. Perhaps "relative" would be a better term to use, there is still a substantial part of the building above the where the plane hit; as in my comparison it was about the equivalent of 5 or so 30 story apartment buildings. That is a lot of weight. The experts have estimated it to be around 40,000 tons in one tower and 70,000 tons in the other.

There's no logic in that at all. It goes against the laws of physics. There was no jolt, the collapse was uniform in an accelerating manner for the entire distance the fall could be measured. 

Everything that makes contact with another body, whether that body is stationary or in motion, experiences a jolt, a slowing down. This is the conservation of momentum. 

Are you familiar with the study that NIST/the official story relies on as their bible?

 

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

That doesn't explain how WTC7 fell at free fall speed for 8 floors, 105 feet, for 2.5 seconds. Free fall speed is impossible without a controlled demolition. A controlled demolition on one tower means a controlled demolition on all three towers.

See, this is the thing about you conspiracy types. The instant something gets debunked you jump to something else. Now it's how fast the floors fell.

Well, here's a little elementary logic for you. The speed at which a building falls when it's a controlled demolition, which takes out supporting girders, would naturally be the same as the speed it would fall when a jet fuel fire weakens the supporting girders enough to break. In both cases, the weight above smashes down and flattens everything below like a pancake.

[?Impact]

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

There's no logic in that at all. It goes against the laws of physics. There was no jolt, the collapse was uniform in an accelerating manner for the entire distance the fall could be measured.

The collapse of the twin towers was not free fall speed, This is very easily verified by looking at photos where the exterior columns broke off of the structure and they are falling faster than the collapse of the main building. You don't even to rely on math to understand that something is slowing down the collapse of the tower. It was basically a [vertical] domino effect, where the weight of the falling building from above would cause something below to stress to the point of breaking and then another floor (or more) would collapse and add to the weight. Yes there was acceleration because as more and more of the structure fell it took less and less time for the next load bearing structure to stress to the point of breaking.

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

The speed at which a building falls when it's a controlled demolition, which takes out supporting girders, would naturally be the same as the speed it would fall when a jet fuel fire weakens the supporting girders enough to break. In both cases, the weight above smashes down and flattens everything below like a pancake.

Your notion is completely false. It goes against the laws of physics.

The pancake theory was never accepted, even by NIST. It was propaganda churned out to help confuse the masses. It worked.

It's important that on these complicated issues, you understand what you are advancing. 

WTC 1 burned for about an hour with low temperature fires. There have been numerous fires in many steel framed high, 15 and more hours, most floors fully engulfed and not a one has ever collapsed.  

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

The collapse of the twin towers was not free fall speed, This is very easily verified by looking at photos where the exterior columns broke off of the structure and they are falling faster than the collapse of the main building. You don't even to rely on math to understand that something is slowing down the collapse of the tower. It was basically a [vertical] domino effect, where the weight of the falling building from above would cause something below to stress to the point of breaking and then another floor (or more) would collapse and add to the weight. Yes there was acceleration because as more and more of the structure fell it took less and less time for the next load bearing structure to stress to the point of breaking.

I never said that WTCs 1 and 2 fell at free fall speed. Do you know what theory the official story/NIST relies on?

[hot enough]

17 minutes ago, Argus said:

See, this is the thing about you conspiracy types. The instant something gets debunked you jump to something else. Now it's how fast the floors fell.

That what science does, studies things to their logical conclusions. Do you think that scientists should stop a quarter way, a half, three quarters of the way thru their study and then stop, throw up their hands and say, "then a miracle happened"

[Altai]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

I'm sorry you interpreted my comment as referring to your English, that was not the intent at all. I am referring to the logic that just because the plane hit one of the "upper floors" that there was not sufficient weight above it. Perhaps "relative" would be a better term to use, there is still a substantial part of the building above the where the plane hit; as in my comparison it was about the equivalent of 5 or so 30 story apartment buildings. That is a lot of weight. The experts have estimated it to be around 40,000 tons in one tower and 70,000 tons in the other.

There is an easy way to understand it. Someones should prepare small models of TTowers and we should animate the event again. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Altai said:

There is an easy way to understand it. Someones should prepare small models of TTowers and we should animate the event again. 

What, with little aeroplanes and tiny Saudis?  Where would you get the nano box cutters?

Edited February 26, 2017 by bcsapper

[Argus]

23 minutes ago, hot enough said:

WTC 1 burned for about an hour with low temperature fires. There have been numerous fires in many steel framed high, 15 and more hours, most floors fully engulfed and not a one has ever collapsed.  

It burned at a very high temperature of jet fuel mixed with all the chemical fuel it found in the offices and their furnishings. This is a closed issue. All sane people in the world have long accepted it.

[hot enough]

5 hours ago, betsy said:

 

 What does that mean?

The entire 911 issue and all the resulting world conflict, world problems, "radical Islam", everything bear on this one single point, Betsy. 

1. The only fuel that was available to the alleged hijackers was jet fuel and office furnishings. They have a MAXIMUM burning temperature of 1,800F, in ideal burn conditions. There were not ideal burn conditions. US official conspiracy theory folks describe maximum burn temps in the twin towers as being around 1,400F.

2. Melting points/vaporization points

a. steel - 2,800F

b. molybdenum [Mo] 4,700F

c. vaporized steel 5,000+F

d. iron, about the same as steel

So, the only fuels available to the alleged hijackers was 1,400 degrees F short of being able to melt steel. There was molten steel, much of it, reported by many people. There are videos of the Meterorite, the famous one and there are others. These are fused agglomerations of molten steel and concrete. It is not possible that the alleged hijackers melted those metals. 

The only logical conclusion one can draw from that is that the alleged hijackers had nothing to do with the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 and 7. They have been falsely accused.

The most important implication that comes to mind [there are hundreds and hundreds of very serious implications] is, who then could have melted all those metals and caused the collapse of the three towers.

[hot enough]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

It burned at a very high temperature of jet fuel mixed with all the chemical fuel it found in the offices and their furnishings. This is a closed issue. All sane people in the world have long accepted it.

What "very high temperature? And provide links to your sources, if you wouldn't mind.