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

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Okay, we'll agree to agree that you can't discuss the blacksmith's arguments and why they do or do not support any given theory.

The reason is on page one. The presence of all the molten metals means that the alleged hijackers did not cause the collapse of WTCs 1, 2 and 7. There were many scientific arguments presented defended that central premise. 

You have not addressed a one.

Until you are ready to do so, I won't waste any more time with you.

 

Agreed....I also would prefer not to waste more time on 911 conspiracy theories.    The motivations behind such strenuous efforts to keep the plates spinning, however, are most interesting.  You have not addressed this aspect of the chase at all for obvious reasons.

The difference is that I don't care if you ever choose to do so.  This is not our first 911 rodeo.

Edited February 27, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[hot enough]

15 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

The University of Manchester has a descent high level description of the structural differences between the WTC and Windsor Tower fires, as well as the First Interstate Bank in LA fire. Certainly there have been many other high-rise fires, but are these the most extensive?

These are all well and good discussions to have, Impact. But I think it would be most advantageous and helpful to focus on the stunning anomalies.

How did the alleged hijackers melt those metals that had, at a minimum, melting points 1,000F above the temperatures that can be reached by the only fuel they brought, jet fuel?

We all know the alleged hijackers did not melt those metals. We all know that there was superthermite/nanothermite at WTC that easily explains how these metals became molten. Why are we do backflips to avoid discussing it?

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by hot enough
clearer explanation

[Altai]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

Well, then, it shouldn't be at all difficult for you to pull out your, I assume, voluminous scientific arguments that will address the issues I have raised, that only impact and Altai will discuss. 

Shall we begin with the blacksmith's arguments? Or one from the archives?

Ops,  yesterday I have searched for the resistance power of steel structures and I have just find some sources that only an engineer could understand it, it was full of formulas, formulas and formulas. I have tried to understand some of them and I think I got but then I have seen some other formulas of flexibility of the steel and I was like "Damn it"  

So I still claim that these structures wont collapse such easily just because of upper part of it collapses. Recently I have seen three buildings in my city which were destroyed by dipper dredgers and I have seen how strong these buildings were despite they are old. Dipper dredgers were broken at least 3 times while trying to destroy them. They were not collapsing despite dipper dredgers were striking strongly.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Altai

[Wilber]

Meh. And yet all these aircraft were trans continental flights headed for the west coast. They were obviously selected because they would be carrying more fuel than any other domestic flights.

[bush_cheney2004]

52 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

The University of Manchester has a descent high level description of the structural differences between the WTC and Windsor Tower fires, as well as the First Interstate Bank in LA fire. Certainly there have been many other high-rise fires, but are these the most extensive?

 

Indeed....and discussed here years ago in the Great MLW 911 Thread:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/8420-911/?do=findComment&comment=246144

 

[hot enough]

37 minutes ago, Altai said:

Ops,  yesterday I have searched for the resistance power of steel structures and I have just find some sources that only an engineer could understand it, it was full of formulas, formulas and formulas. I have tried to understand some of them and I think I got but then I have seen some other formulas of flexibility of the steel and I was like "Damn it"  

 

Your intuition, like that of every other human, save for those who will not see, who refuse to see, is dead on correct, Altai.

Could you tell the study you found and give a link? Perhaps we can help. 

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, Wilber said:

They were obviously selected because they would be carrying more fuel than any other domestic flights.

Yes, the intent of starting large fires is fairly obvious. The twin towers made a very high profile target to send a message. They couldn't fly too low because other buildings would be in the way, but the lower on the towers they were the more people who would be trapped above the fires. They may not have been able to predict that the towers would collapse on their own, but the damage they inflicted would certainly have caused them to be demolished afterwards. 

3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Could you tell the study you found and give a link?

I'm wondering if it was the University of Manchester, they do talk about the heat curves of fires.

[Altai]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

Your intuition, like that of every other human, save for those who will not see, who refuse to see, is dead on correct, Altai.

Could you tell the study you found and give a link? Perhaps we can help. 

So I think we just need to calculate resistance power of these steel beams and columns to see whether or not is it really logical that these buildings collapsed because of upper floors hit the below and all together hit the one floor below and all together hit one floor below, like an akkordeon effekt. Here one of the links I have read yesterday but its Turkish. 

http://www.muhendislikbilgileri.com/?pnum=124&pt=PROBLEM+1

Edited February 27, 2017 by Altai

[hot enough]

19 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Meh. And yet all these aircraft were trans continental flights headed for the west coast. They were obviously selected because they would be carrying more fuel than any other domestic flights.

How much fuel were they carrying, Wilber? How much fuel exploded and burned in the first, shall we call them gigantic or just big fireballs? 

How did the alleged hijackers use the jet fuel to melt metals that needed 2800F, 4700F, 5000+f temperatures when the only temperatures that US official government conspiracy scientists said the fires reached was about 1,400F?

How long did the fires burn within the twin towers compared to fires in other comparable buildings that burned, some totally engulfed in in intense flames for 15 to 23 hours and they never collapsed?

 

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Altai said:

So I think we just need to calculate resistance power of these steel beams and columns to see whether or not is it really logical that these buildings collapsed because of upper floors hit the below and all together hit the one floor below and all together hit one floor below, like an akkordeon effekt. Here one of the links I have read yesterday but its Turkish. 

http://www.muhendislikbilgileri.com/?pnum=124&pt=PROBLEM+1

Luckily, I am fluent in Turkish.

Such a study has been done, Altai. But first, we have to realize that NIST never did any such study. NIST stopped at "initiation of collapse", threw up their hands, and said, "Then a miracle occurred? They didn't do this for WTC7 and the three building collapses had many similarities.

[For anyone who doesn't know this, google, "and then a miracle occurs cartoon", click on images and you will understand the ludicrousness of NIST's stopping at initiation of collapse]

Why would the scientists from the richest country on the planet do that, when they brought up a TWA jet crash from the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, spent all the time needed to put the parts back together to determine the real cause of the crash?

The study done about WTC1 shows that, following the laws of physics, the tower's collapse, had it actually been a gravity collapse, would have self arrested within two floors.

 

 

 

[Wilber]

The 767's would be carrying around 10,000 US gallons or about 70,000 lbs. Jet fuel is like diesel and vaporizes vary slowly compared to gasoline so not very much would have been burned in the initial explosion, also there just wouldn't be enough oxygen available. To burn one pound of fuel efficiently you need about 15 lbs of air. One cubic foot of air weighs .08 lbs so you figure it out.

Most of the fuel would have spread out through the building through holes cause by damage, stairways, elevator shafts, ventilation ducts etc. I don't know what the wind was at that elevation that day but wind and convection caused by the burning fuel could have increased temperatures like a blast furnace. How much, I wouldn't know.

 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Wilber
Added info

[hot enough]

30 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, the intent of starting large fires is fairly obvious. The twin towers made a very high profile target to send a message. They couldn't fly too low because other buildings would be in the way, but the lower on the towers they were the more people who would be trapped above the fires. They may not have been able to predict that the towers would collapse on their own, but the damage they inflicted would certainly have caused them to be demolished afterwards. 

 

They, the alleged hijackers, also were not able to predict that the jet fuel would be able to reach 5,000+F temperatures to vaporize steel. 

Those same alleged hijackers, also were not able to predict that some of jet fuel from WTC1 would be able to survive the explosions within WTC1, then burn for an hour and a half then fly over to WTC7, where it was then able to reach 5,000+F temperatures to vaporize WTC7 steel. 

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Wilber said:

The 767's would be carrying around 10,000 US gallons or about 70,000 lbs. Jet fuel is like diesel, not very much would have been burned in the initial explosion because there just wouldn't be enough oxygen available. To burn one pound of fuel efficiently you need about 15 lbs of air. One cubic foot of air weighs .08 lbs so you figure it out.

Most of the fuel would have spread out through the building through holes cause by damage, stairways, elevator shafts, ventilation ducts etc. I don't know what the wind was at that elevation that day but wind and convection caused by the burning fuel could have increased temperatures like a blast furnace. How much, I wouldn't know.

 

Thank you very much, Wilber. What are the temperatures reached in a blast furnace?

[DogOnPorch]

So....if one looks out the window in NYC, in Lower Manhattan, the Twin Towers still stand...since it was impossible for two fuel laden aircraft doing 400 kts to do any significant damage to such a structure.

In similar news, Japan wins WW2 as ships don't sink when hit by bombs and torpedoes, either.

[bush_cheney2004]

Why the 911 Truther Movement soldiers on after more than 15 years...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/september-2001-truther-conspiracy-theory-1.3756431

I like the part about holographic images of airliners projected in the sky.

 

[hot enough]

14 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

So....if one looks out the window in NYC, in Lower Manhattan, the Twin Towers still stand...since it was impossible for two fuel laden aircraft doing 400 kts to do any significant damage to such a structure.

That there was significant damage is not at all at issue. That those "two fuel laden aircraft doing" any speed could cause fires with temperatures of 5,000+F to vaporize steel is an impossibility. 

Edited February 27, 2017 by hot enough
clearer explanation

[Altai]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

Luckily, I am fluent in Turkish.

Really, so beni kolyca anlaya bilyor msun ? or just kidding ? : )

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Altai said:

Really, so beni kolyca anlaya bilyor msun ? or just kidding ? : )

so beni.

I wish I was, but I'm not. 

[Wilber]

58 minutes ago, hot enough said:

How long did the fires burn within the twin towers compared to fires in other comparable buildings that burned, some totally engulfed in in intense flames for 15 to 23 hours and they never collapsed?

 

Did anyone dump 10,000 gallons of jet fuel on those fires that lasted 15-23 hrs? If not, the comparison is meaningless.

[hot enough]

4 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Did anyone dump 10,000 gallons of jet fuel on those fires that lasted 15-23 hrs? If not, the comparison is meaningless.

I'm pretty sure that's not what I asked you, but please do explain why the comparison is meaningless, Wilber.

[Altai]

1 hour ago, hot enough said:

so beni.

I wish I was, but I'm not. 

LoooL, I also wrote it with a bit broken Turkish to prevent you to use Google translate  

Okay anyway  if you want, I can teach you but if I was you, I would learn Arabic.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Altai

[Wilber]

29 minutes ago, hot enough said:

That there was significant damage is not at all at issue. That those "two fuel laden aircraft doing" any speed could cause fires with temperatures of 5,000+F to vaporize steel is an impossibility. 

You don't have to vaporize anything. just weaken it to a point where if fails. Concorde's maximum speed was limited by the operating temperature of it's aluminum skin, not because it couldn't go faster. 

Edited February 27, 2017 by Wilber
Sp

[Wilber]

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

I'm pretty sure that's not what I asked you, but please do explain why the comparison is meaningless, Wilber.

You're kidding right? You really don't think there would be a difference?

[hot enough]

5 minutes ago, Wilber said:

You don't have to vaporize anything. just weaken it to a point where if fails. Concordes maximum speed was limited by the operating temperature of it s aluminum skin, not because it couldn't go faster. 

But vaporized steel columns/beams were found at WTC7 and WTC 1 or 2. What caused them?

[Wilber]

You're the one with the answers. Can't believe I got sucked in another one of these discussions. The trouble with you truthers is you grab onto one thing like a dog with a bone and ignore everything else.

Edited February 27, 2017 by Wilber