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


 Share

Recommended Posts

mudslag
7 hours ago, monkeylove said:

Video evidence is not enough. In this case, there was a lot of physical evidence that could have been gathered and analyzed carefully. But because much of the evidence was sent to salvage yards, then there was no choice but to refer to videos.

 

It's not a matter of examining each scrap but gathering as much as possible and examining as many as possible. The evidence can even be kept in storage for years, allowing for more time for the investigation. In this case, only a few weeks were spent examining the physical evidence. Out of 350,000 metric tons of steel debris, only around 150 pieces were selected and kept. You will see more details in the report linked earlier.

 

Given that, what failed was a proper investigation.

 

 

Im simply stating that video evidence is evidence in itself, as you said there was only one way to prove, which is not a true statement. It's easy for armchair investigators to make claims about 9/11, but unless you're an expert in the needed fields you can't possibly know that 150 pieces were not substantial enough to add to the pile of evidence that formed the conclusion that pancaking is what happened. My guess is you can't put a number on how many would be suffice and if they had used 500, 1000 or more you'ed still find a reason to deny the results. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

HawkMan

Well there's always this thing called physics...

Link to post
Share on other sites

monkeylove
On 3/5/2016 at 4:01 PM, mudslag said:

 

Im simply stating that video evidence is evidence in itself, as you said there was only one way to prove, which is not a true statement. It's easy for armchair investigators to make claims about 9/11, but unless you're an expert in the needed fields you can't possibly know that 150 pieces were not substantial enough to add to the pile of evidence that formed the conclusion that pancaking is what happened. My guess is you can't put a number on how many would be suffice and if they had used 500, 1000 or more you'ed still find a reason to deny the results. 

 

 

For me, armchair investigators will settle for video evidence. Experts will gather as much evidence as possible, especially physical evidence. That's especially important in events involving fire coupled with air crashes and a crime scene.

 

The only way to find out whether or not 150 pieces of steel debris is substantial enough is to spend time going through the debris, and at least keep the debris in storage. Unfortunately, according to the report most of the debris was destroyed after only a few months, and that for an investigation that spanned years.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

monkeylove
On 3/5/2016 at 4:03 PM, HawkMan said:

Well there's always this thing called physics...

Also, structural analysis, chemical analysis, etc., all of which involve documenting and analyzing physical evidence.

 

What happened was that only around a hundred or so engineers went through over 350,000 tons of steel debris and selected only around 150 pieces. After around two months, much of it was sold off as scrap.

 

At the very least, the debris should have been kept at the four salvage yards for further investigation. That would have been logical given the fact that the investigation of the issue took many more months.

 

Also, not just engineers but fire investigators and many other experts should have been included in the documentation and analysis of the debris. After all, the issue involved a major crime scene with several aircraft and building crashes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim K

Bring up your questions to the NIST.  http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

 

You obviously have an agenda ... and I'm sorry ... but this particular "conspiracy" is just getting old now.  Same crud getting regurgitated over and over.

 

Simply put - Planes hit the WTC.  Fire ensued.  Fire weakened steel.  Weakened steel + damaged structure + weight = collapse.  The end.

 

No way did the government have a hand in the actual destruction of the towers.  You have to consider the sheer number of people that would have been involved.  Hell, the President can not even get a BJ from an intern without the whole world knowing it.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

T3X4S

I just love these threads... reminds me how much more logical and educated I am compared to most... but that isnt very good for "most" - as I am a complete moron.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pishaw

How did AM radio spill onto the internet? We are still talking about this?

 

Look, if you hate the country enough to pretend that it's the X Files, then please feel free to leave. There is no fence yet. There are planes leaving every minute. Just go. Bosnia, Africa, Russia, they are ALL better than the United States, right? Leave! Go right now!

 

The Bush administration was so incompetent that every time they ordered pizza 12 people called the NY Times from the White House. Yet you would have me believe they pulled off this grand conspiracy? I'm not that dumb. Bush couldn't even speak english, FFS.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

T3X4S
8 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

Bring up your questions to the NIST.  http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

 

You obviously have an agenda ... and I'm sorry ... but this particular "conspiracy" is just getting old now.  Same crud getting regurgitated over and over.

 

Simply put - Planes hit the WTC.  Fire ensued.  Fire weakened steel.  Weakened steel + damaged structure + weight = collapse.  The end.

 

No way did the government have a hand in the actual destruction of the towers.  You have to consider the sheer number of people that would have been involved.  Hell, the President can not even get a BJ from an intern without the whole world knowing it.

EXACTLY !

The more people in on a big secret, the greater the odds of that secret getting out.  Think of all the things that are fodder for the tin foil hat groups.  Sandy Hook, WTC, some global economy, the Illuminati, reptilian aliens, Roswell, etc..     yet - people try to connect dots where there is no connection, make assumptions, be completely void of facts, logic, physics, etc. - then you add the herd mentality - and the BS grows an order of magnitude.

And people refuse to believe otherwise.  They want it to be true - it gives them purpose, and answers questions.

There is another topic where this phenomena takes place... its called religion.
 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

mudslag
2 hours ago, monkeylove said:

For me, armchair investigators will settle for video evidence. Experts will gather as much evidence as possible, especially physical evidence. That's especially important in events involving fire coupled with air crashes and a crime scene.

 

The only way to find out whether or not 150 pieces of steel debris is substantial enough is to spend time going through the debris, and at least keep the debris in storage. Unfortunately, according to the report most of the debris was destroyed after only a few months, and that for an investigation that spanned years.

 

 

 

 

So basically what you're saying is you don't know if 150 pieces is acceptable or not but given your armchair analysis it's not. Essentially you have no clue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

monkeylove
21 hours ago, jjkusaf said:

Bring up your questions to the NIST.  http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

 

You obviously have an agenda ... and I'm sorry ... but this particular "conspiracy" is just getting old now.  Same crud getting regurgitated over and over.

 

Simply put - Planes hit the WTC.  Fire ensued.  Fire weakened steel.  Weakened steel + damaged structure + weight = collapse.  The end.

 

No way did the government have a hand in the actual destruction of the towers.  You have to consider the sheer number of people that would have been involved.  Hell, the President can not even get a BJ from an intern without the whole world knowing it.

Ironically, No. 23 from the source you gave proves my argument. 236 pieces out of more than 350,000 tons of debris, with only a couple of hundred going over them in less than two months, for an investigation that ended up spanning much longer than that? No wonder investigators had to resort to videos and simulations!

 

Given that, the only thing that's getting "old" is the claim that a proper investigation actually took place.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

monkeylove
21 hours ago, T3X4S said:

EXACTLY !

The more people in on a big secret, the greater the odds of that secret getting out.  Think of all the things that are fodder for the tin foil hat groups.  Sandy Hook, WTC, some global economy, the Illuminati, reptilian aliens, Roswell, etc..     yet - people try to connect dots where there is no connection, make assumptions, be completely void of facts, logic, physics, etc. - then you add the herd mentality - and the BS grows an order of magnitude.

And people refuse to believe otherwise.  They want it to be true - it gives them purpose, and answers questions.

There is another topic where this phenomena takes place... its called religion.
 

The problem isn't "herd mentality" or conspiracy. It's the fact that much of the physical evidence was not examined properly and destroyed hastily for no reason at all. The irony is that this was confirmed by two government organizations that were part of the investigation!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

monkeylove
20 hours ago, mudslag said:

 

 

So basically what you're saying is you don't know if 150 pieces is acceptable or not but given your armchair analysis it's not. Essentially you have no clue. 

My argument is not based on "armchair analysis" but common sense: the only way to determine whether or not 150 (or is it 236?) pieces are "acceptable" is to compare them to the others. But that was no longer possible throughout much of the investigation period because all of the evidence was destroyed after only two months!

 

At the very least, they could have kept the evidence in storage (in four yards) for a much longer period of time, and brought in more experts to examine them.

 

Given that, it's not that I have "no clue" about this. It's that no one has a clue, as the physical evidence would have been helpful in proving or disproving any claims made about the event.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Astra.Xtreme

Errr... if you find a small piece of burned paper in a fire place, does it mean that the government covered up some conspiracy?  Uh no, it means that somebody threw some paper in the fire.  Just because only a small fragment remained, doesn't make it any less true that it was thrown in the fire.  That's just elementary logic...

 

Examining something over and over, and hoping for different results, is the definition of insanity.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

trag3dy
18 minutes ago, Astra.Xtreme said:

Errr... if you find a small piece of burned paper in a fire place, does it mean that the government covered up some conspiracy?  Uh no, it means that somebody threw some paper in the fire.  Just because only a small fragment remained, doesn't make it any less true that it was thrown in the fire.  That's just elementary logic...

 

Examining something over and over, and hoping for different results, is the definition of insanity.

FWIW that's not actually the definition of insanity. I realize this is off topic but it bugs me that this has become a thing people keep repeating since Far Cry 3.

 

Also FWIW, examining something over and over and looking for different results is scientific theory. Not that I agree with monkeylove that you couldn't make a sufficient conclusion from 150 different pieces of steel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian W
22 hours ago, T3X4S said:

EXACTLY !

The more people in on a big secret, the greater the odds of that secret getting out.

That is what they want you to think.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Emn1ty
1 hour ago, monkeylove said:

My argument is not based on "armchair analysis" but common sense: the only way to determine whether or not 150 (or is it 236?) pieces are "acceptable" is to compare them to the others. But that was no longer possible throughout much of the investigation period because all of the evidence was destroyed after only two months!

 

At the very least, they could have kept the evidence in storage (in four yards) for a much longer period of time, and brought in more experts to examine them.

 

Given that, it's not that I have "no clue" about this. It's that no one has a clue, as the physical evidence would have been helpful in proving or disproving any claims made about the event.

 

 This all operates under the assumption that these pieces weren't analyzed thoroughly and that somehow storing them for longer than they were stored would have been helpful in any way. How would keeping the evidence longer change things? How would more experts examining them have changed things? Can you demonstrate any other reasons to do these things other than a lack of trust in the original investigation of these items?

It seems odd to me that you somehow think that just because the evidence wasn't kept for your arbitrarily selected period of time (evidence that probably wasn't easy or even cheap to store for long periods of time in the first place) that it's subject to suspicion.

The problem here, with this line of thought, is that you have declared the evidence at present insufficient and there's no real way to prove to you that it is sufficient because you've already made up your mind that it's not, regardless of what "evidence" is provided. This is why conspiracy theories are worthless, because they are based entirely on rationalization and narrative, not evidence. In fact, a lack of evidence generally propels them further into their own narratives.

This is on the same level as geo-engineering, aliens, etc. No matter what you provide to the contrary, the narrative has already accounted for that. It's an impenetrable wall of contingency theories that address every possible angle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

chrisj1968

Steel melts at like 2,000-2,500 degrees and there is NO way jet fuel can reach that temperature.

 

burning2-web.jpg

 A thermite reaction generates yellow-white hot molten iron at well over 2500°C/4000°F and white smoke. This type of material can melt and cut steel beams.

 

more about Thermite cutting through a safe

 

 

Found at ground zero in NY

 

 

 

 

Edited by chrisj1968
Link to post
Share on other sites

mudslag
1 hour ago, monkeylove said:

My argument is not based on "armchair analysis" but common sense: the only way to determine whether or not 150 (or is it 236?) pieces are "acceptable" is to compare them to the others. But that was no longer possible throughout much of the investigation period because all of the evidence was destroyed after only two months!

 

At the very least, they could have kept the evidence in storage (in four yards) for a much longer period of time, and brought in more experts to examine them.

 

Given that, it's not that I have "no clue" about this. It's that no one has a clue, as the physical evidence would have been helpful in proving or disproving any claims made about the event.

 

 

Unless you can show us that you are in fact an expert on the matters then yes you're making an "armchair analysis". You're denying the work of others but ignoring to show your own work as to why other's are wrong. Saying your view is common sense based is not a supported view. Show with actual work why the number of pieces used is inadequate to support the base view, then you can start talking about others being wrong. Til then your you're offering nothing more then an armchair analysis. 

 

1 hour ago, monkeylove said:

My argument is not based on "armchair analysis" but common sense: the only way to determine whether or not 150 (or is it 236?) pieces are "acceptable" is to compare them to the others. But that was no longer possible throughout much of the investigation period because all of the evidence was destroyed after only two months!

 

At the very least, they could have kept the evidence in storage (in four yards) for a much longer period of time, and brought in more experts to examine them.

 

Given that, it's not that I have "no clue" about this. It's that no one has a clue, as the physical evidence would have been helpful in proving or disproving any claims made about the event.

 

FYI from the very link you posted on page 4....

 

Quote

Future studies are expected based on the pieces and data collected. Coupons have been collected for metallurgical tests to determine the temperatures to which they were subjected and their steel characteristics. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is currently conducting environmental tests, abating asbestos as necessary, and shipping available pieces to its Gaithersburg, MD, facility for storage and further study. As of May 2002, a total of 41 steel pieces had been shipped to NIST. 

 

And yes people have a clue, you just don't like where the clues lead so you're in denial of what's presented. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

mudslag
14 minutes ago, chrisj1968 said:

Steel melts at like 2,000-2,500 degrees and there is NO way jet fuel can reach that temperature.

 

burning2-web.jpg

 A thermite reaction generates yellow-white hot molten iron at well over 2500°C/4000°F and white smoke. This type of material can melt and cut steel beams.

 

more about Thermite cutting through a safe

 

 

Found at ground zero in NY

 

 

 

 

 

The argument isn't that the steel beams melted, it's that they were weakened by the fires. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

chrisj1968
13 minutes ago, mudslag said:

 

The argument isn't that the steel beams melted, it's that they were weakened by the fires. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

my contention is, NO tower EVER worldwide EVER collapsed due to fire damaging the steel. However Thermite or thermate with sulfur CAN burn through steel up to 4,000 degrees F fuel is only in the low 1,000-1,500 range maybe less maybe a little more but nowhere near enough to melt the beams.

Link to post
Share on other sites

chrisj1968

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

J_R_G
  • Government officials were made aware of a terrorist plot several months prior to the attacks but never acted on it. Condoleezza Rice is on record stating this.

This is the one that kills me. You can tell it's total irrational hatred at this point. Bush is both guilty of an insider plot to blow up the WTC towers (with explosives), and guilty of allowing terrorists to do so (with planes). :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

mudslag
3 hours ago, chrisj1968 said:

my contention is, NO tower EVER worldwide EVER collapsed due to fire damaging the steel. However Thermite or thermate with sulfur CAN burn through steel up to 4,000 degrees F fuel is only in the low 1,000-1,500 range maybe less maybe a little more but nowhere near enough to melt the beams.

 

No tower anywhere in the world was hit in the manner that the WTC ones were, your contention is moot. There is only one other case of something even remotely happening and even then it still didn't cause even close to the same amount of damage that happened on 9/11. That was a B-25 striking Empire State Building in 1945. It wasn't flying at full speed, it didn't damage the main support structure of the building, it wasn't fully loaded with fuel and the fires didn't rage out of control like it did in WTC. It also wasn't flown into the building with intent to cause damage. 

 

Again you keep saying the steel beams melted but wasn't the case in WTC, they were weakened, which is all that was needed for the upper floors weight to not be supported. Hence the upper floors came down causing the pancaking effect on the rest of the building. Sorry but your argument has failed to live up to reality. 

Edited by mudslag
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

FloatingFatMan
2 hours ago, chrisj1968 said:

my contention is, NO tower EVER worldwide EVER collapsed due to fire damaging the steel. However Thermite or thermate with sulfur CAN burn through steel up to 4,000 degrees F fuel is only in the low 1,000-1,500 range maybe less maybe a little more but nowhere near enough to melt the beams.

OK, so you're making a positive claim here; you know what's next.

 

Prove it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

HawkMan
4 hours ago, monkeylove said:

Ironically, No. 23 from the source you gave proves my argument. 236 pieces out of more than 350,000 tons of debris, with only a couple of hundred going over them in less than two months, for an investigation that ended up spanning much longer than that? No wonder investigators had to resort to videos and simulations!

 

Given that, the only thing that's getting "old" is the claim that a proper investigation actually took place.

 

Videos and simulations tell you more than twisted steel can, and they only needed a very smll cross section of steel to tell them everything, namely the steel from the floors the plane crashed. they just needed to see if the steel had been heated enough to change characteristic and become soft. 

 

seriously.... 

 

fisix be hard

Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Usman Khan Lodhi
      Twitter cracks down on QAnon conspiracy group, bans 7,000 accounts
      by Usman Khan Lodhi



      Twitter announced that it would permanently ban accounts that violate the platform's policies while tweeting about QAnon, the conspiracy theory movement that asserts "deep state" actors are plotting against Donald Trump. In the last several weeks, about 7,000 accounts, which violated the firm's rules against spam, platform manipulation, and ban evasion, have been banned. In a suspension later rolled out this week, the circulation of roughly 150,000 additional accounts will be limited, as they'll stop appearing in recommendations, trends, and search.

      Per online conspiracies, the term "deep state" refers to a combination of elites from intelligence, political, business, and entertainment sectors, and QAnon's theories assert that the "deep state" is a secret war with Trump.

      Twitter stated that QAnon-related links will be blocked from being shared on the platform, and accounts associated with the conspiracy movement will no longer be promoted in search, conversations, or trending topics. The firm didn't elaborate on which forums or sites might be impacted.

      Last year, QAnon was designated as a potential domestic extremist threat by the FBI when it issued a warning about "conspiracy theory-driven domestic extremists."

      Source: Reuters

    • By Jonathan Nolan
      YouTube takes on conspiracy videos, offering fact-check links while watching
      by Jonathan Nolan

      YouTube announced this week that it is partnering with information site Wikipedia to offer users "additional information" when viewing videos that might be considered controversial or related to a conspiracy theory.

      The measure was revealed by the company's CEO Susan Wojcicki at the South by Southwest Festival in Austin, Texas. The festival is a major event for 'creating and discovering' for professionals in the video, music, and interactive industries. The plan is that in the near future, should you be watching a video that falls into such a category, a text box called an "information cue" will pop up below the video suggesting you to look further into the matter rather than taking what is said in the video as the full story.

      With respect to the viewing experience, Wojcicki said:

      Conspiracy theories have become an issue for the Google-owned company who previously made changes to search engine results to promote more "authoritative results". It's unclear how many videos may be labeled as such or exactly which ones, with an example mentioned during the presentation concerning the 1969 Moon landing. As it stands, the effectiveness of this change remains to be seen.

      Source: CNBC

    • By Hum
      If there is anything worse than losing a child, it is losing a child and having people taunt you over the loss.
       
      That is what happened to the family of Noah Pozner, a 6-year-old with tousled brown hair and lollipop-red lips, the youngest of the 26 children and staff members gunned down in 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
       
      In the years since the massacre that shook the country and opened new anxiety over gun violence, the family has received hate-filled calls and violent emails from people who say they know the shooting was a hoax. Photos of their son — some with pornographic and anti-Semitic content — have been distributed on websites.
       
      These outlandish theories, which hold that the Newtown school shooting was a staged mass murder engineered by gun control advocates, have lived until now in the dark corners of the Internet.
       
      But they have gained fresh momentum in the last several months, residents here say, at a time when conspiracy theorists across the country have attained the status of celebrities, and the nation as a whole is engaged in a contentious debate over the nature of truth.
       
      President Trump and his national security advisor, Michael T. Flynn, have been open enthusiasts of Alex Jones’ Infowars, a Web-based radio and video network that has relentlessly pushed the theory that Sandy Hook was staged by Democrats to advance a gun control agenda. 
       
      An unabashed Trump supporter during the campaign, Jones says he received a personal call of thanks from the president-elect days after the election.
       
      Although Trump has not spoken publicly about Sandy Hook, many residents here say he is nurturing the culture of exaggeration and paranoia on which conspiracy theorists thrive.
       
      Mark Fenster, a law professor at the University of Florida and author of a book about conspiracy theories in American politics, said the Sandy Hook hoax theory was a response to a Democratic-controlled White House of a kind that often shows up in political extremist circles.
       
      An unemployed waitress was arrested in December in Florida on charges of making death threats against Pozner, with repeated phone calls to his home in which she muttered ethnic and racial slurs and profanities. Another man is in Rikers Island prison in New York fighting transfer to Connecticut for a deluge of harassing phone calls to the home and office of the medical examiner who signed the coroner reports for Sandy Hook victims.
       
      Another man was convicted of stealing memorial signs erected in playgrounds to commemorate the dead children. He later called the children’s parents and said they shouldn’t mind because their children never existed.
       
      Most of the families associated with Sandy Hook have removed or protected their social media accounts and unlisted their telephone numbers; some have changed homes.
       
      Newtown residents are distrustful of outsiders. On the fourth anniversary of the massacre in December, there was a low-key prayer vigil in a Catholic Church. An unmarked police car was stationed outside the elementary school to keep an eye out for hoaxers who show up frequently, photographing children and confronting families.
       
      The “Sandy Hook truthers,’’ as they called themselves, tormented not only the grieving families, but teachers, police, photographers, first responders, neighbors, government officials and witnesses — they all were said to be part of the ever-expanding conspiracy to fake the massacre.
       
      The conspiracy theorists have shown unflagging energy. The most persistent, Wolfgang Halbig, a 70-year-old Florida man who describes himself as a retired school safety expert, said he had made 22 trips to Connecticut, wiped out his pension and spent more than $100,000, which he raised online.
       
      His theory is that between 500 to 700 people were involved in the “conspiracy” — including the schoolchildren, parents, teachers and police, all the way up to President Obama.

      full article
    • By Sszecret
      Here's a quote from one of the attendants of the Davos panel (can't be bothered to look up her name): "if  you look nationally, internationally at whether or not there are any human rights, if there's any constitutional protections for something like freedom of thought, or mental privacy or cognitive liberty, nothing like that exists yet."
       
      I am quite interested in neuroscience and this as a scientific advancement is worthy of thought. That said, I can't help but see the potential for massive amounts of nefarious use. Thoughts?