Thread: An interesting 9-11 video

Skip wrote:

I don't want to say who or what did it, but I do know those jets did not bring down the WTC.

What does jet fuel burn at? What's the hottest temp jet fuel can muster up? The reason why I ask is because when Atlanta had its record cold spell last week, my fireplace was lit up. I'm gazing into the fireplace close up and I have plenty of hot coals from wood underneath a steel grate with burning logs on top of the grate. I said to myself, gee that must be as hot as barbeque coals get. I remember when I was a kid at a barbeque and one of the adults had a thermometer that maxed out at 6000 degrees. The coals in the barbeque were like 4900 degrees (F). If that's how hot the coals got without melting my grate in the fireplace, then why do they claim that the burning jet fuel caused the steel in the attacked buildings to go soft and collaspse? Is my grate a finer steel or what, any body know?

Originally Posted by Rockfish

Skip wrote:

I don't want to say who or what did it, but I do know those jets did not bring down the WTC.

What does jet fuel burn at? What's the hottest temp jet fuel can muster up? The reason why I ask is because when Atlanta had its record cold spell last week, my fireplace was lit up. I'm gazing into the fireplace close up and I have plenty of hot coals from wood underneath a steel grate with burning logs on top of the grate. I said to myself, gee that must be as hot as barbeque coals get. I remember when I was a kid at a barbeque and one of the adults had a thermometer that maxed out at 6000 degrees. The coals in the barbeque were like 4900 degrees (F). If that's how hot the coals got without melting my grate in the fireplace, then why do they claim that the burning jet fuel caused the steel in the attacked buildings to go soft and collaspse? Is my grate a finer steel or what, any body know?

Steel melts to liquid at around 1330-1500C, depending on the alloy. The problem is that you are making a great many false assumptions.

First, steel does not to have to reach its melting point to fail under load. That's why a blacksmith can forge steel well below its melting point. At much lower temperatures, the more likely scneario is that fasteners (structural bolts) will either distend or the holes will flare allowing fasteners to pull through.

Second, you make the assumption that the jet fuel was the only thing fuelling the fire. As the burning jet fuel took other materials above their combustion points, any of a number of other materials would have begun to serve as fuels with a number of them burning at temperatures well above that of the jet fuel. Plastics in office machines, for example, would have burned quite hot. Remember that in the old days steel was forged with nothing more than charcoaled wood.

Third, I believe that you are way off the mark on your suggestion as to the burning temperature of barbecue charcoal, which typically burns at closer to 2000F (1100C). With a bellows accelerating the burn, charcoal may be briefly elevated above the melting point of raw iron (about 1500-1600C).

It was not necessary for the steel to melt to be bent and spindled as witnessed. As the structure failed, individual members would be subjected to loads many times beyond their rating and would have been mangled under such loads.

CG wrote

Third, I believe that you are way off the mark on your suggestion as to the burning temperature of barbecue charcoal, which typically burns at closer to 2000F (1100C). With a bellows accelerating the burn, charcoal may be briefly elevated above the melting point of raw iron (about 1500-1600C).

I'm talking about after the flame is gone and there's nothing but white-hot coals lit up. That's gotta be more than 2000 degrees. I could swear that this thermometer read the barbeque at 4900 degrees, but that was along time ago. I realize that steel does not have to melt to give under load. I have watched iron workers at work and have worked on numerous high rises myself as a Carpenter. Every joint that is bolted is also welded. In order for an iron worker to make any structual weld like that, he has to be certified. This cert qualifies the worker as having the skill to lay a bead of weld with no air pockets. But I realize this is not the issue, the issue is what temp was the steel subjected to? There are many other questions we should not just throw to the wayside. It is very hard to believe that the way those buildings perfectly pancaked was because of planes hitting them and not some controlled demo. By the grace of God, its a miracle that the buildings didn't break off half way up and then fall on a bigger area than they did. I believe that the only thing that would have prevented that IS a controlled demo.

Originally Posted by Rockfish

CG wrote

Third, I believe that you are way off the mark on your suggestion as to the burning temperature of barbecue charcoal, which typically burns at closer to 2000F (1100C). With a bellows accelerating the burn, charcoal may be briefly elevated above the melting point of raw iron (about 1500-1600C).

I'm talking about after the flame is gone and there's nothing but white-hot coals lit up. That's gotta be more than 2000 degrees. I could swear that this thermometer read the barbeque at 4900 degrees, but that was along time ago. I realize that steel does not have to melt to give under load. I have watched iron workers at work and have worked on numerous high rises myself as a Carpenter. Every joint that is bolted is also welded. In order for an iron worker to make any structual weld like that, he has to be certified. This cert qualifies the worker as having the skill to lay a bead of weld with no air pockets. But I realize this is not the issue, the issue is what temp was the steel subjected to? There are many other questions we should not just throw to the wayside. It is very hard to believe that the way those buildings perfectly pancaked was because of planes hitting them and not some controlled demo. By the grace of God, its a miracle that the buildings didn't break off half way up and then fall on a bigger area than they did. I believe that the only thing that would have prevented that IS a controlled demo.

Nope. Coals don't get hotter as they burn down, and 2000F is the typical hot burn for charcoal.

I think the 45 degree cuts in the steel supports with the molten material clearly visible shows that something pre-planned did in fact take place. There was nothing in those buildings capable of burning hot enough to cause a total structural collapse.

Anyone who thinks those buildings came STRAIGHT down by chance, when it takes an engineering degree and years of experience to drop one that way ON PURPOSE, is not seeing the forest for the trees.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

I think the 45 degree cuts in the steel supports with the molten material clearly visible shows that something pre-planned did in fact take place. There was nothing in those buildings capable of burning hot enough to cause a total structural collapse.

Anyone who thinks those buildings came STRAIGHT down by chance, when it takes an engineering degree and years of experience to drop one that way ON PURPOSE, is not seeing the forest for the trees.

And I think that you are leaping to some wild assumptions without having the benefit of an engineering degree. There was a peer-reviewed official report that explains precisely how the buildings could have and would have come straight down due to the nature of the collapse.

Now, I don't know that a natural collapse IS what happened, but it is not accurate to say that it absolutely did not or could not have happened, and every single one of the conspiracy sites whose information I have reviewed on this topic contains glaring misrepresentations and inaccuracies. Just as the testimony of a witness in a murder case may be impeached if he provides false or misleading testimony, so should one suspect the integrity and the motives of people who provide false and misleading information. And before anyone over-reacts, I am not talking about those who regurgitate the errors, but rather those who knowingly disseminate the information. I would say that the level of responsibility is a tad lower for someone copying information than it is for those who author it.

As for your "angled cut," perhaps you should have looked a little deeper than the naked claims of some conspiracy site. The thermite-cut beam is thoroughly debunked at this site. What is most likely being seen in the sheared beam is metal that was cut away AFTER the collapse as part of the rescue/ removal operation.

For those of you who may be following along but did not take the time to view the debunking link I provided above, the author demonstrates clearly that those making claims about the use of thermite and offering photos of angle-cut beams not only misinterpret the evidece, but that they willfully ignored the vast contrary evidence to their thesis. He demonstrates that, because the source they use for the angle-cut beam photos PLAINLY SHOWS THOSE BEAMS BEING CUT with a cutting torch as part of the clean-up process in accompanying photographs, they cound not have simply misunderstood what they were seeing. In other words, the context of the photo from the source cited by the conspiracy theorists ITSELF debunks the claim that these beams were cut during the collapse, yet these people STILL took the photo blatantly out of context and presented as something it patently is not with the intent to deceive.

One must ask what agenda could be behind such blatant misrepresentations. This is not a simple case of someone misunderstanding what he is seeing, but rather of individuals engaging in an organized attempt to mislead the American public for one or another ulterior motive. I don't hold anyone here at fault for falling for the fraud being perpetrated by these self-described "experts," but I would implore each of you to be a bit more critical of the information you choose to disseminate.

I wouldn't call it thoroughly debunked by any stretch, Crocket. I'd say at best there is an alternate theory.

Strange though, that the cut shown in the third photo is so ragged and uneven, while the cuts shown in the first two photos are uniform and precisely in line.

GC, I used to be just like you. I would get total pd-off at anyone claiming other than the NIST report. But I decided to open my mind and give the crazy nut conspiracy people a chance to explain with open ears. I was very disturbed on what I found. Numeruos inconsistency's in the "offical explaination" Bob Ryan cheif mamager at Underwriters Labratory questioned the NIST report, he said it raiosed alot of red flags. Quote "they came to a conclusion and built up the evidence to support the conclusion" he wrote a letter to NIST director. Five days later he was fired this is the guy who certified the steel used in the building of WTC back in 1969. Thats just one example , I am not looking to convince anyone that this government could be involved in something like this. The thought of it just horrifies me. But too much is going unexplained and very suspiscous.And why no explaination for WTC 7 yet? It's 2007 now. I guess that one is alittle harder to explain. The Port Authority, Bob Ryan, Firemen (that lived), Prof. Jones..etc. these are not crazy nut-jobs they are educated repectable people. The big question is WHO and WHY.

Originally Posted by PinestrawGuys

I wouldn't call it thoroughly debunked by any stretch, Crocket. I'd say at best there is an alternate theory.

Strange though, that the cut shown in the third photo is so ragged and uneven, while the cuts shown in the first two photos are uniform and precisely in line.

Alternate theory?

Go the site. There are MULTIPLE shots of the beams that have been cut away as part of the cleanup, and the shot that is being touted as "proof" of thermite is in the middle of those multiple photos. It's nothing more than an unmitigated fraud. Furthermore, the debunking site addresses the lack of other telltale residues from thermite AND readily accounts for the sulfur residue. Lastly, you have apparently never seen metal cut by thermite, because the beam that your conspiracy video shows looks nothing like a thermite-cut beam.

The only thing "strange" is that you did not consider that the cherry-picked photo shown in the video would of course be the one of all the dozens and dozens of cut beams that looked the least obviously like a torch-cut beam (even though it still looks nothing like the result of thermite).

At least you admit that the nonsense promoted by the video is not, as others have claimed, the "only" explanation and that there are other explanations that don't serve the purposes of those who want to blame our government.

As for the claim that the presence of yellow smoke MUST have been evidence of thermite, where does the yellow smoke in this shot, long after the collapse, come from?:



It's as if no one has ever seen a thermoplastic burn before!