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


Recommended Posts

monkeylove
14 minutes ago, mudslag said:

 

 

He can't provide a number but his armchair spidey sense tells him it's not enough.

Please state the guidelines from experts which shows that only around 150 pieces are needed.

 

2 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

Okay. Here is the problem. You assume from the get go that it was a crime scene for and thus you need evidence to support your theory.

 

What if, and bear with me here because it might sound crazy, but what if it wasn't actually a crime scene and instead a terrorist attack? The people doing the investigation were looking at evidence for a terrorist attack and not an attack made by it's own government. It sounds crazy, I know, but I think I'm on to something here.

You do understand that a committing terror is a crime?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
trag3dy
1 minute ago, monkeylove said:

Please state the guidelines from experts which shows that only around 150 pieces are needed.

 

Please show the ones that don't. It's  your claim. Do your own research to back it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeylove
1 minute ago, mudslag said:

 

Your comment doesn't make sense, so I guess that makes sense why you're confused. You're not an expert and you've yet to show why they are wrong. You just keep expressing they are wrong without supporting your claim. You want to keep saying the experts are wrong, prove it. Stating something lacks common sense doesn't even begin to support your view. 

 

 

 

You're the one making the argument that the evidence gathered was not enough, you're the one that has yet to show that to be true. That puts it on your to back it up, something you still haven't done. 

No, it makes lots of sense. What doesn't is resorting to videos, including simulations, after much of physical evidence is destroyed for no reason at all.

 

I didn't argue that the evidence gathered isn't enough. I argued that there's no proof that the evidence gathered was enough. The only way to prove either case is to compare what was gathered with what was destroyed, but that's no longer possible for obvious reasons.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeylove
3 minutes ago, trag3dy said:

Please show the ones that don't. It's  your claim. Do your own research to back it up.

You made the claim that the evidence was sufficient, remember? You have to prove your argument now.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
trag3dy
4 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

You made the claim that the evidence was sufficient, remember? You have to prove your argument now.

 

I never made any claims as far as I can remember.  None that require proving at any rate.

 

On the other hand haven't you been repeatedly claimed that what we got wasn't sufficient? That is your claim is it not? It's up to you to prove it and thus far all you've done is repeat after yourself which doesn't actually make it true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag
34 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

Please state the guidelines from experts which shows that only around 150 pieces are needed.

 

 

Again from your link

 

 
Quote

It is important to note that the quality of the pieces, rather than the number of pieces, is significant to this study.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag
44 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

No, it makes lots of sense. What doesn't is resorting to videos, including simulations, after much of physical evidence is destroyed for no reason at all.

 

I didn't argue that the evidence gathered isn't enough. I argued that there's no proof that the evidence gathered was enough. The only way to prove either case is to compare what was gathered with what was destroyed, but that's no longer possible for obvious reasons.

 

 

You do realize this report is just part of a larger one right?   

 

Quote

This report presents observations, findings, and recommendations regarding the performance of buildings affected by the September 11 attacks on the WTC towers in New York City. The report also describes the structural and fire protection features of the affected buildings and their performance in response to the terrorist attacks.

 

Do you also realize that the report you posted regarding the 150 pieces is more about the pieces placement within the building? They even show you in the spreadsheet where in the buildings they believe the pieces originated from. The report you linked to doesn't even directly deal with the structural Integrity of the impact zone. This report is regarding an performance overview of the whole building. You don't even realize what you're ranting about. 

 

 

 

I didn't argue that the evidence gathered isn't enough. I argued that there's no proof that the evidence gathered was enough. The only way to prove either case is to compare what was gathered with what was destroyed, but that's no longer possible for obvious reasons.

 

As you have pointed out here, this is your argument that no proof that the evidence gathered is enough, that puts the burden on you to show why proof is even needed as you're the one suggesting that it is. This is on you since you're the one doubting. 

Edited by mudslag
Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan
1 hour ago, monkeylove said:

The problem is that we're not looking at one small piece but much of physical evidence destroyed hastily and for no valid reason.

 

 

Read my earlier rpely to that. they loked at all the metal, then they took what they needed for actual detailed analysis, more than enough to see what they needed. besides that, unlike you, and me they know their physics. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
+xrobwx71
On 12/24/2015 at 9:27 AM, FloatingFatMan said:

I won't bother with the rest as it's ALL been proven to be bullpoop.  However, this one is amusing.

 

Do you understand physics? Even a little bit?

 

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO FALL AT GREATER THAN THE RATE OF GRAVITY WITHOUT SOME MEANS OF THRUST!

 

Jeez... No wonder people take the ###### out of these idiots... Talk about dumb as a rock...

 

I believe the term is: terminal velocity?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan
10 hours ago, monkeylove said:

Completely the opposite! That's why crime scenes, investigation of fires and of air crashes involve gathering as much physical evidence as possible. That's not what happened in this case.

 

 

you talk and you talk and you make claims, you're not providing any proof or evidence.

 

this isn't a crime scene. a crime scene includes human factors.

 

what we have here is a big set of known factors where a simulation actually tells us FAR MORE than any amount of scrap iron.

 

and do you really think they went around and picked up random pieces of steel, or do you think these very smart investigators possibly filtered out the steel they needed that would tell them what happenes form the areas they need to investigate to build the sims and investigate the steel for heat properties change...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan
10 hours ago, monkeylove said:

Point out the report which documents all of the pieces gathered, why only around 150 were selected from that, and why the rest were destroyed.

 

as has been told you and EXPLAINED to you why, about 50 times at least in this thread, because that's MORE than they needed and because they told them what they needed to know. they didn't need all of the steel to see what happened to the steel, more importantly they didn't need the steel from the supports of 110 floors to tell them what happened in 5-10 floors. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan
10 hours ago, monkeylove said:

No, it makes lots of sense. What doesn't is resorting to videos, including simulations, after much of physical evidence is destroyed for no reason at all.

 

I didn't argue that the evidence gathered isn't enough. I argued that there's no proof that the evidence gathered was enough. The only way to prove either case is to compare what was gathered with what was destroyed, but that's no longer possible for obvious reasons.

 

physical evidence of wrecks don't tell you much. 

 

think about it. what are they going to do, rebuild the entire tower from the scrap ? that somewhat works for planes, but even on planes, rebuilding them are in general useless and is only done when they don't know what happened at all to get a clue where the failure originated, then they focus on the part that actually failed, a part that often is a matter of years of investigating a SINGLE damn bolt. 

 

with the tower they already knew where the failure was, and they had a pretty good idea what happened. so they didn't need the steel from the whole tower. because you know, they already knew which floors failed and caused the collapse. so the steel from all the floors above and below are useless for anything but control, and for control you'd only need a couple of small pieces. 

 

So in fact looking at it form that angle, and being logical and thinking with your own mind and not the conspiracy theory hive mind, not only do they have enough steel to investigate with, they have far far more than they need. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Draconian Guppy

Out of curiosity, has there been a poll with a simple yes o no, "do you believe it happened   or  conspiracy" ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan
9 hours ago, xrobwx said:

I believe the term is: terminal velocity?

Well technically, gravity is a force and doesn't have a speed limit.

 

On this planet there's only two things limiting the speed at which gravity can accelerate an object to.

 

- Air resistance. The shape of the object against he air resistance limits the speed at which gravity can pull you, and thus you have temrinal velocity.

- The ground. this one is pretty much terminal. as far as velocity goes anyway ;)

3 minutes ago, Draconian Guppy said:

Out of curiosity, has there been a poll with a simple yes o no, "do you believe it happened   or  conspiracy" ?

Do you REALLY want to know how many people believe in these conspiracies ? it might effect your mental health and sanity knowing :p

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Draconian Guppy
3 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

Well technically, gravity is a force and doesn't have a speed limit.

 

On this planet there's only two things limiting the speed at which gravity can accelerate an object to.

 

- +1.Air resistance. The shape of the object against he air resistance limits the speed at which gravity can pull you, and thus you have temrinal velocity.

- The ground. this one is pretty much terminal. as far as velocity goes anyway ;)

+2Do you REALLY want to know how many people believe in these conspiracies ? it might effect your mental health and sanity knowing :p

+1 I remember physics class, dropping a coin and a 1lb metal ball, both dropped at the same rate, then, when adding a high speed fan, ball fell faster whilst coin span(sp?)

 

2.

Sure, for teh lolz :p how are are we to segregate em :shifty: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan
Just now, Draconian Guppy said:

+1 I remember physics class, dropping a coin and a 1lb metal ball, both dropped at the same rate, then, when adding a high speed fan, ball fell faster whilst coin span(sp?)

 

2.

Sure, for teh lolz :p how are are we to segregate em :shifty: 

In some countries they may be many enough and crazy enough that they could end up ruling in that case :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
+xrobwx71
14 hours ago, Draconian Guppy said:

+1 I remember physics class, dropping a coin and a 1lb metal ball, both dropped at the same rate, then, when adding a high speed fan, ball fell faster whilst coin span(sp?)

 

2.

Sure, for teh lolz :p how are are we to segregate em :shifty: 

#2 look up: State Prison Farms on Youtube George Carlin ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Draconian Guppy
59 minutes ago, xrobwx said:

#2 look up: State Prison Farms on Youtube George Carlin ;)

ah i am well versed in Georgies ways :laugh: 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeylove
On 3/9/2016 at 7:29 PM, trag3dy said:

I never made any claims as far as I can remember.  None that require proving at any rate.

 

On the other hand haven't you been repeatedly claimed that what we got wasn't sufficient? That is your claim is it not? It's up to you to prove it and thus far all you've done is repeat after yourself which doesn't actually make it true.

I didn't claim that the evidence isn't sufficient. I claimed that only around 150 pieces were examined carefully and that most of the evidence was destroyed. Given that, there's no way to tell whether or not the fraction of physical evidence stored is sufficient.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeylove
On 3/9/2016 at 7:52 PM, mudslag said:

 

 

Again from your link

 

 

 

The only way to tell whether or not the evidence collected is of such quality is to compare it with the rest. Where is that shown in the report? And don't forget to read the title page of the collection spreadsheet: out of the 156 pieces, only 41 were kept. 45 were left at the yards, only samples of 19 were taken, and the rest were discarded or "accidentally processed" for salvaging.

 

In short, only 41 pieces and samples from 19 were kept, and that's after only examining around 20 pct of the debris:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/wtc-girder-key-collapse-puzzle-article-1.489475

 

Around 80 pct were not examined at all, with around 250 tons stolen:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1357981/250-tons-of-scrap-stolen-from-ruins.html

 

Given all that, how do we know the evidence eventually stored (less than 1 pct of the total debris) is of such quality?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeylove
On 3/9/2016 at 5:59 AM, HawkMan said:

physical evidence of wrecks don't tell you much. 

 

think about it. what are they going to do, rebuild the entire tower from the scrap ? that somewhat works for planes, but even on planes, rebuilding them are in general useless and is only done when they don't know what happened at all to get a clue where the failure originated, then they focus on the part that actually failed, a part that often is a matter of years of investigating a SINGLE damn bolt. 

 

with the tower they already knew where the failure was, and they had a pretty good idea what happened. so they didn't need the steel from the whole tower. because you know, they already knew which floors failed and caused the collapse. so the steel from all the floors above and below are useless for anything but control, and for control you'd only need a couple of small pieces. 

 

So in fact looking at it form that angle, and being logical and thinking with your own mind and not the conspiracy theory hive mind, not only do they have enough steel to investigate with, they have far far more than they need. 

If that's the case, then why do investigators of fires, aircraft crashes, and crime scenes go through physical evidence extensively?

 

The purpose of collecting evidence is to rebuild towers? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
monkeylove

That's what happens when much of the physical evidence is destroyed: we're left with videos, polls, simulations, and conspiracy theories.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim K
10 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

If that's the case, then why do investigators of fires, aircraft crashes, and crime scenes go through physical evidence extensively?

 

The purpose of collecting evidence is to rebuild towers? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

Because they want to know why/where the fire occurred, they want to know what brought the plane down, and they want to know why/how/who committed the crime.  The examples you listed are poor because they typical start with the unknown variable.

 

With the WTC ... they already knew the main culprit so the “unknown” was established even before they fell.  With further investigation ... they determined that the heat weakened the steel + the damage from the impact = tower collapse.  Not exactly rocket science.

 

What other "evidence" do you want.  Have you applied to the NIST so you can give them your insight?  Or are you just playing armchair investigator on a tech site?

 

6 minutes ago, monkeylove said:

That's what happens when much of the physical evidence is destroyed: we're left with videos, polls, simulations, and conspiracy theories.

No ... this is what happens when armchair investigators do not comprehend what the investigators found.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
trag3dy
1 hour ago, monkeylove said:

I didn't claim that the evidence isn't sufficient. I claimed that only around 150 pieces were examined carefully and that most of the evidence was destroyed. Given that, there's no way to tell whether or not the fraction of physical evidence stored is sufficient.

 

Yes and we've been over that haven't we? Let's assume that the people who were conducting the examinations know a little bit more about what they're doing than you think you know what they should have been doing.

 

Okay? With me so far?

 

How much do you think would have been enough? Because apparently what the experts decided and what you from your armchair decided do not line up equal with each other.

 

You seem to have something in mind and it's your job to prove your argument and so far you haven't provided a single shred of proof of even a solid reason for why it wasn't good enough for you other than you just think so.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
mudslag
1 hour ago, monkeylove said:

The only way to tell whether or not the evidence collected is of such quality is to compare it with the rest. Where is that shown in the report? And don't forget to read the title page of the collection spreadsheet: out of the 156 pieces, only 41 were kept. 45 were left at the yards, only samples of 19 were taken, and the rest were discarded or "accidentally processed" for salvaging.

 

In short, only 41 pieces and samples from 19 were kept, and that's after only examining around 20 pct of the debris:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/wtc-girder-key-collapse-puzzle-article-1.489475

 

Around 80 pct were not examined at all, with around 250 tons stolen:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1357981/250-tons-of-scrap-stolen-from-ruins.html

 

Given all that, how do we know the evidence eventually stored (less than 1 pct of the total debris) is of such quality?

 

 

Which would imply that they went through the pieces and picked out the quality ones. If you want to suggest that wasn't done, then you need to provide evidence of that otherwise your argument has failed. 

 

I like how you skipped over the next post, I don't think you realize what those pieces even represent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • 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?