Jet fuel can't melt steel. (But it sure can weaken it)

[mudslag]

1 hour ago, monkeylove said:

You're not helping yourself in any way. The fact that debris was stolen and that investigators acknowledged that 80 percent of the debris was not examined before the report was published makes matters worse! Or are you claiming that the police and fire experts are not telling the truth?

 

 

 

 

 

You don't understand the report that you posted, you clearly have no clue what you're even arguing for.

[HawkMan]

15 hours ago, mudslag said:

 

 

You don't understand the report that you posted, you clearly have no clue what you're even arguing for.

Laymen with no understanding who also appears to willfully read it wrong and misinterpret a highly technical report, made for people who have "tech translators" to help them understand it...  this is why sometimes it's better to not release them. 

 

Then again, several people here have explained his won points and numbers to him and how he's reading them wrong and not understanding them, and how they didn't ignore 80% of the wreckage. and he keeps on trolling.

[PsYcHoKiLLa]

Yeah, this video proves nothing. He was using a very thin piece of steel, the girders in the twin towers weren't, I think, the same thickness as that, if he could do the same with support girders then I might be convinced. Also how would the heat "melt" all the support girders uniformly so that the whole structure collapses in on itself.

 

Witnesses remember hearing explosions at the base of the buildings just before the collapses which investigators stated was due to rubble and other materials falling down the lift shafts and the internal structures of the building due to the damage at the top, they couldn't possibly have been explosives on the support pillars at the base, even though other witnesses report seeing workmen there in the weeks before the tragedy.

 

The buildings both fell down in the exact manner of a controlled demolition, they didn't tip, even though they were two of the highest buildings in the world, no, they fell straight down.

 

Also, the icing on the cake, one of the hijackers passports was "allegedly" found in the debris in the street afterwards and apparently an ID card was found at the Pentagon after also, so we're to believe that the jet fuel was enough to melt the internal structure of two of the largest man-made structures on the planet but not hot enough to melt a paper/plastic passport. Although, now, apparently, the story is that the passport was handed to the FBI by some "mystery man" who wasn't detained for questioning or interviewed but left after handing it in, also wholly believable obviously.

 

Hmmmm K.

Edited March 20, 2016 by PsYcHoKiLLa

[adrynalyne]

[Jim K Global Moderator]

48 minutes ago, PsYcHoKiLLa said:

Yeah, this video proves nothing. He was using a very thin piece of steel, the girders in the twin towers weren't, I think, the same thickness as that, if he could do the same with support girders then I might be convinced. Also how would the heat "melt" all the support girders uniformly so that the whole structure collapses in on itself.

 

Witnesses remember hearing explosions at the base of the buildings just before the collapses which investigators stated was due to rubble and other materials falling down the lift shafts and the internal structures of the building due to the damage at the top, they couldn't possibly have been explosives on the support pillars at the base, even though other witnesses report seeing workmen there in the weeks before the tragedy.

 

The buildings both fell down in the exact manner of a controlled demolition, they didn't tip, even though they were two of the highest buildings in the world, no, they fell straight down.

 

Also, the icing on the cake, one of the hijackers passports was "allegedly" found in the debris in the street afterwards and apparently an ID card was found at the Pentagon after also, so we're to believe that the jet fuel was enough to melt the internal structure of two of the largest man-made structures on the planet but not hot enough to melt a paper/plastic passport. Although, now, apparently, the story is that the passport was handed to the FBI by some "mystery man" who wasn't detained for questioning or interviewed but left after handing it in, also wholly believable obviously.

 

Hmmmm K.

 

PsYcHoKiLLa  

 

yea yea yea ... we sure haven't heard all these before.

 

Face it, facts alone are insufficient to dispel or destroy the 9/11 conspiracy theories as the theory itself appeals to the receptiveness of the audience themselves rather than the accuracy of details.  9/11 conspiracy theories (and others) will continue on regardless of what information is given and received as the followers change their emphases and arguments when presented with new information.  In the end, (as Erik Sofge once wrote) it is like arguing over the marching speed of hobbits.  

 

Anyway, the reason I didn't respond directly to your points is that it is an exercise in futility.

Edited March 20, 2016 by jjkusaf
That meme fits perfect ... it was like it was meant to be

[mudslag]

3 hours ago, PsYcHoKiLLa said:

Yeah, this video proves nothing. He was using a very thin piece of steel, the girders in the twin towers weren't, I think, the same thickness as that, if he could do the same with support girders then I might be convinced. Also how would the heat "melt" all the support girders uniformly so that the whole structure collapses in on itself.

 

Try this then 

 

 

 

 

 

Witnesses remember hearing explosions at the base of the buildings just before the collapses which investigators stated was due to rubble and other materials falling down the lift shafts and the internal structures of the building due to the damage at the top, they couldn't possibly have been explosives on the support pillars at the base, even though other witnesses report seeing workmen there in the weeks before the tragedy.

 

Ear witnesses is no different then eye witnesses, it's all subjective and not the most reliable. There are many reasons for hearing what could be passed off as explosion sounds. None of which automatically equate controlled explosions. 

 

 

The buildings both fell down in the exact manner of a controlled demolition, they didn't tip, even though they were two of the highest buildings in the world, no, they fell straight down.

 

 

Actually no, it's not even close to an exact manner of a controlled demolition. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Video after video shows actually controlled demolitions and they all have commonality to them, multiple explosions going off first, then the buildings coming down from the bottom up. WTC towers 1 and 2 both fell from the impact points downward, which resulted in the pancaking from top down.  So when you say it's exactly like a controlled demolition, you're not even in the same ball park as those.

 

We haven't even touched on the fact that in order to even begin work on such a magnitude of a project of bringing down the WTC towers, that even smaller buildings takes weeks and months to setup and prepare. Even then they have to go over the lines and charges after being placed multiple times in case of faulty wiring or any other potential issues that could cause the building from setting off properly. The man hours and work forced needed for such a project would be huge and yet we're supposed to believe that no one ever let anything slip? Our gov has a history of not being able to keep secrets but somehow the untolds amount of people that would have been needed all were able to stay quiet. That sounds logical. 

 

 

 

 

 

[HawkMan]

But it's so much easier to believe that

1. Thousands of involved people in this planned destruction kept quiet

2. Hundreds of explosives where planted and wired in the buildings without anyone noticing

3. The plane hijackers managed to hit the EXACT right floors of the buildings where the bombs where placed

4. The plane crash didn't distrupt any of the hundreds of carefully placed explosives. 

5. The massive fire from the jet fuel didn't burn up any of the thousand of meters of detcord laid outfor the detonation

6. They used secret explosives that don't actually explode... or ... eh... something... Maybe those secret new Area 51 Implosives....

[monkeylove]

On 3/20/2016 at 1:29 PM, adrynalyne said:

Yeah and conspiracy theorists just make crap up to support their ridiculous claims. 

Except that what I shared isn't conspiracy theory. All points refer to the FEMA report and mainstream newspaper articles, not to mention one NIST FAQ that was supposed to counter my argument but only reinforced it.

 

[monkeylove]

On 3/20/2016 at 2:39 PM, trag3dy said:

 

This guy.

 

He keeps asking other people to prove his case for him and that's just not how things work.

 

I can't help but think he's trolling at this point. 

 

I'm not asking for a case to be proven. I'm asking why most of the physical evidence was destroyed without careful examination and for no reason at all. There is nothing in the FEMA report that answers these questions, and every counter-argument I've been getting in this thread consists of nothing but illogical excuses and claims of conspiracy (which I never made).

 

[FloatingFatMan]

Just now, monkeylove said:

I'm not asking for a case to be proven. I'm asking why most of the physical evidence was destroyed without careful examination and for no reason at all. There is nothing in the FEMA report that answers these questions, and every counter-argument I've been getting in this thread consists of nothing but illogical excuses and claims of conspiracy (which I never made).

 

And you've been answered, countless times. Actual experts determined what evidence was needed, and DID, in fact, examine that evidence. From said evidence, their expertise allowed them to determine the causes of the collapse, and that is clearly stated in their expert report, which is then dismissed by people who's only expertise lies in their ability to type nonsense.

 

[monkeylove]

On 3/20/2016 at 2:56 PM, mudslag said:

 

 

You don't understand the report that you posted, you clearly have no clue what you're even arguing for.

Completely the opposite. The fact that I shared it to disprove claims that most of the evidence was not destroyed and was examined strengthens my argument further. No one even noticed the cover sheet for the spreadsheet that shows that only around 40 out of the 150 or so pieces were kept.

 

[monkeylove]

10 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Laymen with no understanding who also appears to willfully read it wrong and misinterpret a highly technical report, made for people who have "tech translators" to help them understand it...  this is why sometimes it's better to not release them. 

 

Then again, several people here have explained his won points and numbers to him and how he's reading them wrong and not understanding them, and how they didn't ignore 80% of the wreckage. and he keeps on trolling.

Wrong! Not only did I read the report carefully, I even pointed out the fact that most of the 156 pieces was not kept. Some of them were even left at the yards!

 

The newspaper article I shared earlier refers to fire experts acknowledging that 80 percent of the debris was not examined. There is also no evidence whatsoever in the FEMA report that shows otherwise. Worse, the NIST FAQ given later even referred to ANOTHER number of pieces that were recovered. Care to explain that?

 

 

[monkeylove]

1 hour ago, HawkMan said:

But it's so much easier to believe that

1. Thousands of involved people in this planned destruction kept quiet

2. Hundreds of explosives where planted and wired in the buildings without anyone noticing

3. The plane hijackers managed to hit the EXACT right floors of the buildings where the bombs where placed

4. The plane crash didn't distrupt any of the hundreds of carefully placed explosives. 

5. The massive fire from the jet fuel didn't burn up any of the thousand of meters of detcord laid outfor the detonation

6. They used secret explosives that don't actually explode... or ... eh... something... Maybe those secret new Area 51 Implosives....

Actually, it's more difficult to prove that. One has to examine much of the steel debris to do so, among other things. But that's no longer possible.

 

[monkeylove]

13 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

And you've been answered, countless times. Actual experts determined what evidence was needed, and DID, in fact, examine that evidence. From said evidence, their expertise allowed them to determine the causes of the collapse, and that is clearly stated in their expert report, which is then dismissed by people who's only expertise lies in their ability to type nonsense.

 

There is no evidence in the FEMA report which showed that the evidence was selected carefully. In fact, the same report even pointed out that investigators had to go through unsorted pieces in less than two months. Also, a newspaper article shared earlier refers to fire experts acknowledging that 80 percent of the debris was not examined. Finally, out of the 150 or so pieces, many were even left at the yards or were "accidentally" scrapped.

 

And don't forget the NIST FAQ which refers to ANOTHER number of pieces gathered.

 

 

[trag3dy]

54 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

I'm not asking for a case to be proven. I'm asking why most of the physical evidence was destroyed without careful examination and for no reason at all. There is nothing in the FEMA report that answers these questions, and every counter-argument I've been getting in this thread consists of nothing but illogical excuses and claims of conspiracy (which I never made).

 

Geez you're a broken record.

 

Go figure it out on your own because you've already decided that what anyone else has to say isn't good for you.

[HawkMan]

2 hours ago, monkeylove said:

Completely the opposite. 

 

Your one single goto argument, NEVER ever followed up by relevant factual statements as to why this is so. when actual facts and your own report says, not it's not "completely the opposite".

 

what you're spouting IS the same cnspiracy theory BS that the conspiracy theorists throw around without understanding what they're talking about. 

2 hours ago, monkeylove said:

Wrong! Not only did I read the report carefully, I even pointed out the fact that most of the 156 pieces was not kept. Some of them were even left at the yards!

 

The newspaper article I shared earlier refers to fire experts acknowledging that 80 percent of the debris was not examined. There is also no evidence whatsoever in the FEMA report that shows otherwise. Worse, the NIST FAQ given later even referred to ANOTHER number of pieces that were recovered. Care to explain that?

 

 

 

You may have read it, but you didn't understand it, not do you have the tehcnical understanding TO understand it. 

 

yes, 80% wasn't examined because they didn't need to, Again, they knew where the biulding collapsed to less than 5% . they didn't need to examine 100%... omgidbi

[HawkMan]

2 hours ago, monkeylove said:

Actually, it's more difficult to prove that. One has to examine much of the steel debris to do so, among other things. But that's no longer possible.

 

 

Actually it's not, since 

1. they already proved it

2. no they don't need to examine all the steel, just the ones that actually failed and collapsed.

3. unlike you, they know physics. 

2 hours ago, monkeylove said:

There is no evidence in the FEMA report which showed that the evidence was selected carefully. In fact, the same report even pointed out that investigators had to go through unsorted pieces in less than two months. Also, a newspaper article shared earlier refers to fire experts acknowledging that 80 percent of the debris was not examined. Finally, out of the 150 or so pieces, many were even left at the yards or were "accidentally" scrapped.

 

And don't forget the NIST FAQ which refers to ANOTHER number of pieces gathered.

 

 

oh, you mean, besides where they point out where every detail examined piece of steel came from....

 

:motherofallfacepalms:

[monkeylove]

On 3/21/2016 at 5:56 PM, trag3dy said:

Geez you're a broken record.

 

Go figure it out on your own because you've already decided that what anyone else has to say isn't good for you.

And how do I "figure it out on [my] own" if most of the physical evidence has been destroyed?

 

Given that, I'd say the problem isn't that I'm a "broken record." It's that you can't understand the logical point that I've been raising.

 

[monkeylove]

On 3/21/2016 at 7:40 PM, HawkMan said:

Your one single goto argument, NEVER ever followed up by relevant factual statements as to why this is so. when actual facts and your own report says, not it's not "completely the opposite".

 

what you're spouting IS the same cnspiracy theory BS that the conspiracy theorists throw around without understanding what they're talking about. 

 

You may have read it, but you didn't understand it, not do you have the tehcnical understanding TO understand it. 

 

yes, 80% wasn't examined because they didn't need to, Again, they knew where the biulding collapsed to less than 5% . they didn't need to examine 100%... omgidbi

How is it a conspiracy theory when what I've presented comes from the FEMA report and mainstream newspaper articles? Or are you implying that these sources are questionable? How about the NIST FAQ which I didn't even share showing another number of pieces of steel debris kept for evidence?

 

[trag3dy]

31 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

And how do I "figure it out on [my] own" if most of the physical evidence has been destroyed?

 

Given that, I'd say the problem isn't that I'm a "broken record." It's that you can't understand the logical point that I've been raising.

 

I understand it perfectly well.

 

Your argument is that the evidence was destroyed despite what literally every other person has to say on the matter. They concluded they did not need to go over every single piece of steel yet you think they should have because apparently you know more than the experts who actually worked on the debris. It is your job to prove why they should have thus supporting your position. Which you have not done in any way, shape, or form.

 

The two arguments are one and the same which is the logical point that you keep misunderstanding, intentionally, it seems.

Edited March 25, 2016 by trag3dy

[monkeylove]

On 3/21/2016 at 7:43 PM, HawkMan said:

Actually it's not, since 

1. they already proved it

2. no they don't need to examine all the steel, just the ones that actually failed and collapsed.

3. unlike you, they know physics. 

oh, you mean, besides where they point out where every detail examined piece of steel came from....

 

:motherofallfacepalms:

That makes absolutely no sense at all! How do you know "the ones that actually failed and collapsed" are the only pieces if the rest were not examined at all? Your second point is not only contradictory but disproves the first.

 

Your third point is countered by the second one as well. Why do you think the debris is carefully sorted and analyzed in air crashes and fires?

 

 

 

 

 

[monkeylove]

13 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

I understand it perfectly well.

 

Your argument is that the evidence was destroyed despite what literally every other person has to say on the matter. They concluded they did not need to go over every single piece of steel yet you think they should have because apparently you know more than the experts who actually worked on the debris. It is your job to prove why they should have thus supporting your position. Which you have not done in any way, shape, or form.

 

The two arguments are one and the same which is the logical point that you seem to keep misunderstanding, intentionally, it seems.

What "every other person has to say on the matter"? The FEMA report shows that most of the evidence was destroyed. If you are claiming otherwise, then let us know where most of the steel debris is stored.

 

One more time: how is it possible to state that around 150 pieces of steel debris collected (with only 40 left as samples were used from some and the rest "accidentally" left at the yards) out of 350,000 tons are "representative" of physical evidence when 80 percent was not examined at all and around 5 percent stolen?

 

I have shared my sources, including the FEMA report and mainstream newspaper articles.

 

In contrast, you and others have shared nothing to prove your arguments. Where is your evidence showing that most of the evidence was not destroyed? That most of it was examined carefully? (The report says that the debris was not even sorted!) And which number should we consider: that from the FEMA report or from the NIST FAQ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

9 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

I understand it perfectly well.

 

Your argument is that the evidence was destroyed despite what literally every other person has to say on the matter. They concluded they did not need to go over every single piece of steel yet you think they should have because apparently you know more than the experts who actually worked on the debris. It is your job to prove why they should have thus supporting your position. Which you have not done in any way, shape, or form.

 

The two arguments are one and the same which is the logical point that you to keep misunderstanding, intentionally, it seems.

psst....ignore trollove and he might go away.

 

[trag3dy]

10 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

What "every other person has to say on the matter"? The FEMA report shows that most of the evidence was destroyed. If you are claiming otherwise, then let us know where most of the steel debris is stored.

 

One more time: how is it possible to state that around 150 pieces of steel debris collected (with only 40 left as samples were used from some and the rest "accidentally" left at the yards) out of 350,000 tons are "representative" of physical evidence when 80 percent was not examined at all and around 5 percent stolen?

 

I have shared my sources, including the FEMA report and mainstream newspaper articles.

 

In contrast, you and others have shared nothing to prove your arguments. Where is your evidence showing that most of the evidence was not destroyed? That most of it was examined carefully? (The report says that the debris was not even sorted!) And which number should we consider: that from the FEMA report or from the NIST FAQ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's almost like we're both typing words in english yet only one of us actually understands what they mean.

 

And for the record I have in fact not made any claims or arguments at all other than you're a broken record. Worse you're a broken record of Milli Vanilli. 

 

Anyways, don't bother replying to me again. I'm done with this thread and as jjkusaf pointed out, this is a waste of time.

[HawkMan]

7 hours ago, monkeylove said:

How is it a conspiracy theory when what I've presented comes from the FEMA report and mainstream newspaper articles? Or are you implying that these sources are questionable? How about the NIST FAQ which I didn't even share showing another number of pieces of steel debris kept for evidence?

 

It doesn't come from the FEMA report, it comes from your twisted interpretation of it. whether that twiestedness is willful or due to ignorance, I don't know. but it sure has little relevance to what the report actually says, especially since you're ignoring the other half of the report that explains everything and says you're wrong and explains why. and that has been pointed out numerous times in this thread with further explanations, references to page numbers and explanations.  

 

That leads me to believe it has to be willful, and thus conspiracy, especially since you're playing their mantras on repeat.