New 9/11 video Watch

cappucino07
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#41
Report 12 years ago
#41
It's bs.

Although you could argue 9/11 was exactly what Bush needed.
0
quote
reply
Apollo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#42
Report 12 years ago
#42
(Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
Oh I understand now. No I'll debate you.

This is getting petty, stereotypical insults 'n all.

If you expect the popularmechanics link to have any credibility then use som of he info on there to debunk my earlier points. If not then i'm not interested in a playground slanging match.
Oh i see how this goes. News broadcasters who were no where near the WTC and people saying "bomb" are considered credible? Sorry, but i don't see how "we heard what sounded like an explosion" directly translates into a government plot to kill americans.
0
quote
reply
LoveYourSlavery
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#43
Report 12 years ago
#43
(Original post by PadFoot90)
Oh i see how this goes. News broadcasters who were no where near the WTC and people saying "bomb" are considered credible? Sorry, but i don't see how "we heard what sounded like an explosion" directly translates into a government plot to kill americans.
It's cumulative evidence. Were it the only suggestion of bombs then you would be right to dismiss it but it's not.
0
quote
reply
Apollo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#44
Report 12 years ago
#44
(Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
It's cumulative evidence. Were it the only suggestion of bombs then you would be right to didmiss it but it's not.
Hmm well so far i haven't seen a thing that tells me there were bombs in the buildings, besides a short video that has a handful of firefighters saying "explosion" and a few news anchors saying the same thing. You forget that this building was on fire. Things were constantly catching fire, and the steel beams that seperated the floors buckled and snapped- there's your "explosion".
0
quote
reply
LoveYourSlavery
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#45
Report 12 years ago
#45
(Original post by PadFoot90)
besides a short video that has a handful of firefighters saying "explosion" and a few news anchors saying the same thing.
Yes. In addition to employees and many other eyewhitnesses.

The molten steel in the wreckage. The entire nature of the collapses.

(Original post by PadFoot90)
You forget that this building was on fire. Things were constantly catching fire, and the steel beams that seperated the floors buckled and snapped- there's your "explosion".
Theoreticaly it is possible that the fires could reach the required temperature to significantly weaken the steel enough but not sufficient time or heat. As indicated by the size of the fires and the black smoke and red flames indicating a cooler more ineficient fire which was suffocating.
0
quote
reply
Apollo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#46
Report 12 years ago
#46
(Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
Yes. In addition to employees and many other eyewhitnesses.

The molten steel in the wreckage. The entire nature of the collapses.
And yet the # of people who claim they heard/saw a bomb or explosion pale in comparision to those who didnt.


Theoreticaly it is possible that the fires could reach the required temperature to significantly weaken the steel enough but not sufficient time or heat. As indicated by the size of the fires and the black smoke and red flames indicating a cooler more ineficient fire which was suffocating.
True, it wasn't hot enough to melt the steel. But jet fuel can burn up to 1500 degrees F, at which point steel is at about 10-15 % of its normal strength. The office supplies burning raised the temp. inside to over 1800 degrees, easily enough to sufficiantly weaken the steel so that it collapsed.
0
quote
reply
Rusty33
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#47
Report 12 years ago
#47
(Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
Yes. In addition to employees and many other eyewhitnesses.

The molten steel in the wreckage. The entire nature of the collapses.



Theoreticaly it is possible that the fires could reach the required temperature to significantly weaken the steel enough but not sufficient time or heat. As indicated by the size of the fires and the black smoke and red flames indicating a cooler more ineficient fire which was suffocating.
His link is very conclusive. It brings EMPIRICAL data to the table by a credible source. Not speculation. Not propositions. DATA.
0
quote
reply
LoveYourSlavery
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report 12 years ago
#48
(Original post by PadFoot90)
And yet the # of people who claim they heard/saw a bomb or explosion pale in comparision to those who didnt.
How many reports of are there of people saying they heard no explosions?



In addition to the discovery of molten steel in the wreckage and the nature of the collapse displaying many characteristics of a controlled demolition.



(Original post by PadFoot90)
True, it wasn't hot enough to melt the steel. But jet fuel can burn up to 1500 degrees F, at which point steel is at about 10-15 % of its normal strength.
Accordng to the the proponents of the official account the steel needed to loose at least 50% (80% by proponents of the official account) of it's rigidity Or is this the latest revision?

(Original post by PadFoot90)
The office supplies burning raised the temp. inside to over 1800 degrees, easily enough to sufficiantly weaken the steel so that it collapsed.
The actual evidence of the red flames and black smoke refutes the theory that fires were hot enough.

However as steel is such an excellent conductor of heat the temperature of the fires is meaningless. In actual fact what is of significance is the temperature of the steel.

Even if the fires reached temperatures in the range that it is claimed, that does not mean there was sufficient time and sufficient heat i.e.(size of fire) needed to raise the steel to the reqired temperature where it will begin to lose enough of its rigidity.
0
quote
reply
LoveYourSlavery
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report 12 years ago
#49
(Original post by Rusty33)
His link is very conclusive. It brings EMPIRICAL data to the table by a credible source. Not speculation. Not propositions. DATA.
Such as?
0
quote
reply
Rusty33
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#50
Report 12 years ago
#50
(Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
Such as?
Well, you have to actually READ it to find out. I'm not bringing it to you. I watched that 25 minute video that orginated this thread. You can't read the counter?
0
quote
reply
LoveYourSlavery
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#51
Report 12 years ago
#51
(Original post by Rusty33)
Well, you have to actually READ it to find out. I'm not bringing it to you. I watched that 25 minute video that orginated this thread. You can't read the counter?
Yes I've read it before. It's a muxture of obfuscation, missenterpretation and missfocus. Quite clever really.

If there is any particular part of it you would like to discuss?
0
quote
reply
LPK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#52
Report 12 years ago
#52
(Original post by JonathanH)
Rusty: All very good questions that I have asked before. You missed one however: How did they manage to sneak in to one of the most densely-occupied pieces of real estate in the country, plant enough explosives to bring down a huge building, leave it there for a while and have absolutely no-one notice the coming, the planting, the going or the massive amount of explosives sitting there?
If you have ever watched 911 In Plane Site it explains that days before 911 maintenance work went on it both towers. All security cameras were cut, and bomb sniffer dogs were removed from the WTC.

I reckon something is not right about 911. But that does not mean i beliieve the USA did it, or that Al Qaeda did it. I think most of the accusations are strange. Some are interesting, but they then ruin it by adding in stupid ones.
0
quote
reply
Rusty33
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#53
Report 12 years ago
#53
(Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
Yes I've read it before. It's a muxture of obfuscation, missenterpretation and missfocus. Quite clever really.

If there is any particular part of it you would like to discuss?
Now you mention it, yes, there is.

(Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
There is the seismographig evidence, the collapse of the buldings i.e. Speed of collapse, squibs, molten steel in the wreckage.

CLAIM: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.



Also:




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.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
0
quote
reply
Apollo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#54
Report 12 years ago
#54
(Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
How many reports of are there of people saying they heard no explosions?
Well lets see: How many people in these videos were actually there and claim they heard an explosion? 50? 100? Compare that to the thousands of people in total that were in and around the buildings.



In addition to the discovery of molten steel in the wreckage and the nature of the collapse displaying many characteristics of a controlled demolition.
Well considering there were pockets of fire burning at ground zero until december 2001, who's to say when this "molten steel" was formed?


Accordng to the the proponents of the official account the steel needed to loose at least 50% (80% by proponents of the official account) of it's rigidity Or is this the latest revision?
Sorry? Regardless of whether it's 50% or 80% lost, the fact is that the steel lost 90% of its strength, thus sufficiant for either mark.

The actual evidence of the red flames and black smoke refutes the theory that fires were hot enough.
You must be kidding me. Do you think the 1832 degrees F was just a guess? You want us to believe that despite the fact that there is clear scientific data that tells us the fire was hot enough to weaken the steel all one has to do is look at the color of the flames? Do you think the fire was the same temp. throughout the building? Please.

However as steel is such an excellent conductor of heat the temperature of the fires is meaningless. In actual fact what is of significance is the temperature of the steel.
What's your point?

Even if the fires reached temperatures in the range that it is claimed, that does not mean there was sufficient time and sufficient heat i.e.(size of fire) needed to raise the steel to the reqired temperature where it will begin to lose enough of its rigidity.
Size of the fire? everything on multiple floors was on fire from the time the towers were hit until they fell.
0
quote
reply
Apollo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#55
Report 12 years ago
#55
(Original post by LPK)
If you have ever watched 911 In Plane Site it explains that days before 911 maintenance work went on it both towers. All security cameras were cut, and bomb sniffer dogs were removed from the WTC.
Linky?:p:
0
quote
reply
LoveYourSlavery
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#56
Report 12 years ago
#56
(Original post by Rusty33)
Now you mention it, yes, there is.

CLAIM: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.
The second graph still represents the same pattern it's just streatched out.
The spikes are there just elongated which makes them seem more gradual.

The second graph is missleading as they draw a box around the elongated spike as if it is the whole collapse.

Even more bizzare the second graph shows the collapse of th towers lasting over 40 seconds.

(Original post by Rusty33)
A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."
Without saying why this representation of their work is incorrect it's little more than a denial. Need more detail here to understand the errors in the interpretation.
(Original post by Rusty33)
The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.
Because graph 1 is at a different scale to graph 2 is no reflection on the validity of each graph. Both are representing the same data.

I am puzzled by the time axis on graph 2 though as it seems to have either the collapses lasting 45 seconds or starting 15 secons later than they did.





(Original post by Rusty33)
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.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
I've never disputed the possible temperatures of the fires

The official report constantly focuses on the temperatures of the fires as if this automaticaly means that the steel reached those temperatures too.


However the temperature of the fire does not translate to the temperature of the steel.

As steel is such an excellent conductor of heat, besides high enough temperature you would also need a significant ammount if time and heat i.e. in order to raise the steel to a temperature where it would be significantly weakened.
0
quote
reply
LoveYourSlavery
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report 12 years ago
#57
(Original post by PadFoot90)
Well lets see: How many people in these videos were actually there and claim they heard an explosion? 50? 100? Compare that to the thousands of people in total that were in and around the buildings.
And did those whitnesses say they didn't hear explosions?
(Original post by PadFoot90)
Well considering there were pockets of fire burning at ground zero until december 2001, who's to say when this "molten steel" was formed?
Even the official account says that ordinary hydrocarbon fires cannot burn hot enough to cause steel to becom molten - only significantly weaken.
(Original post by PadFoot90)
Sorry? Regardless of whether it's 50% or 80% lost, the fact is that the steel lost 90% of its strength, thus sufficiant for either mark.
No it's not the fact actually it's the official account - the result of some computer modles at best.

(Original post by PadFoot90)
You must be kidding me. Do you think the 1832 degrees F was just a guess? You want us to believe that despite the fact that there is clear scientific data that tells us the fire was hot enough to weaken the steel all one has to do is look at the color of the flames? Do you think the fire was the same temp. throughout the building? Please.
Where is this clear scientific data that you are quoting?

I think the NIST report said that pockets of fire could have reached these temperatures. And I don't dispute it. The temperature is virtually meaningless if you don't consider the other two factors.

(Original post by PadFoot90)
What's your point?
The temperature of the fire does no translate to the temperature of steel due to the excellent conductivity of steel.
(Original post by PadFoot90)
Size of the fire? everything on multiple floors was on fire from the time the towers were hit until they fell.
No the fires were actually going out - suffocating when the collapses occured.
0
quote
reply
Apollo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#58
Report 12 years ago
#58
(Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
And did those whitnesses say they didn't hear explosions?
Logically, if they haven't come forward to say they did, then they probably didn't.

Even the official account says that ordinary hydrocarbon fires cannot burn hot enough to cause steel to becom molten - only significantly weaken.
That doesn't change the fact that the fire was burning for upwards of 4 months at incredible temperatures. You're telling me that burning the same metal for 4 months at well over 1500 degrees isn't going to result in some melting? Right.

No it's not the fact actually it's the official account - the result of some computer modles at best.
So let me see- you dismiss the temperature of the fire (scientifically measured) because you looked at the pictures and made a guess from the flame color? And you also dismiss the findings of a steel engineer who, i'll hazard a guess, knows a hell of a lot more about steel than you do? Can you see why no ones believes you?

Where is this clear scientific data that you are quoting?
The National Institure of Standards and Technology report the temp. inside the buildings was 1832 degrees. Clear enough?

I think the NIST report said that pockets of fire could have reached these temperatures. And I don't dispute it. The temperature is virtually meaningless if you don't consider the other two factors.
No, they didn't say "could".

The temperature of the fire does no translate to the temperature of steel due to the excellent conductivity of steel.
No, it doesn't. It does, however, translate into the reduction in strength in the steel, which (according to pretty much everyone except yourself) was about 10% of its normal strength.

No the fires were actually going out - suffocating when the collapses occured.
The buildings collapsed in seconds. The fires burned for about an hour and a half in one tower, and about an hour in the other.
0
quote
reply
Jaffaholic
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#59
Report 12 years ago
#59
The collapses in both towers oroginate from the points of impact. In both towers, the floors that were hit are the first to go.

So your telling me this was choreographed with the planes hitting the precise floors where charges were set to detonate first?
0
quote
reply
LoveYourSlavery
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#60
Report 12 years ago
#60
(Original post by PadFoot90)
That doesn't change the fact that the fire was burning for upwards of 4 months at incredible temperatures. You're telling me that burning the same metal for 4 months at well over 1500 degrees isn't going to result in some melting? Right.

Well how can it result in melting (molten steel). 1500 degrees isn't hot enough 2750°F according to the proponents of the official collapse.

So there has to be another explanation. Or are you claiming that, contry to the NIST report, that temperatures reached 2750 F and that the presence of molten steel months after was caused by the fires?


(Original post by PadFoot90)
So let me see- you dismiss the temperature of the fire (scientifically measured) because you looked at the pictures and made a guess from the flame color?
When was the temperature 'scientifically measured'? On the day? Or is it the result of a computer model?

The colour of the flames by no means disprouves the official assertion that there were hotspots of such temperatures but it doesn't lend weight to the official account either.



(Original post by PadFoot90)
And you also dismiss the findings of a steel engineer who, i'll hazard a guess, knows a hell of a lot more about steel than you do?
Hard to dismiss it when i don't know what he said. Have you got the text.

(Original post by PadFoot90)
Can you see why no ones believes you?
It's not a question of beleif. Millions agree with me though.



(Original post by PadFoot90)
The National Institure of Standards and Technology report the temp. inside the buildings was 1832 degrees. Clear enough?
Yes they said pockets of fire could have reached these temperatures, which in no way proves that any of the steel in question reached these temperatures.

Did they find any evidence of steel that had been exposed to temperatures in this range?

(Original post by PadFoot90)
It does, however, translate into the reduction in strength in the steel,
No the temperature of fire dos not translate to the weakening of the steel. The extent to which the steel was weakened depends on the temperature of the steel, not the temperature of the fire.

You could have an extremely high temperature fire and apply it to a steel beam and depending on the ammount of heat (size of the fire) the beam may never raise its temperature more than a few degrees.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (51)
26.84%
No (139)
73.16%

Watched Threads

View All