try to convince me it was anything other than the official story.

[Fizz]

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.

In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

 

[eots]

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.

In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

the most misunderstood part for fuzznuts is how to post a link to his irrelevant articles

 

[CurveLight]

Were ATC trained on being able to recognize Atta's voice? If not all you have done is presented an assumption as fact.

Okay, then what is the alternative to the voice the ATCs heard?

What are the alternatives to the 60 or so phone calls that were all made from hijacked aircraft that day--alternatives to the actual phone caller being whom they said they were?

Your entire (little) list here is just assumptions trying to be passed off as fact.

No, they are all facts. You're just being a typical twoofer who watched too much television and played too much Playstation.

Actually it times precisely (almost precisely anyway) the impact with the Pentagon. It also removes any doubt as to what took down the light poles. The fact that there were five poles taken down disqualifies a missile being involved in the attack (as if the wreckage of AA77 didn't do it already).



Pole hit by aircraft wing.
Pole falls down on car.

The only one regurgitating ignorance is you.

Your pondscum remark just sums up your camp very well. You cannot support your claims so you resort to childishness.

Call them as I see them. I'll try being nicer if you try being smarter.

Do you have any idea how many qualified and intelligent people, both in the military and on the civilian side, do not believe the bush version? I don't think you care.

You're right, I don't.
The physical evidence doesn't lie.
Five poles not in a straight line were knocked down.
AA77 wreckage was found in and around the Pentagon.
AA77 is missing--still to this day.
Phone calls from passengers of AA77 reported a hijacking.
Nobody who boarded AA77 was ever heard from again.

If you can put an expert up that can explain away all of those bits of physical evidence, I'll be happy to listen.
The trouble is that none of them can or will. They simply make blanket statements about their experiences and never address any of the physical evidence staring them right in the face.

So there is no way to confirm they actually heard Atta yet you claim troofers make assumptions and avoid facts?

Why do you keep harping about a missile? Is that another one of your assumptions? Must be because I've not said one thing about a missile.

Creativedreams started a thread with several military and aviation experts totally squashing what you claim to be facts. Why haven't you addressed it? Why do simply repeat the childish tactics of strawmen and unfounded assumptions?

 

[CurveLight]

its not that it isnt true, its that they left stuff out
its not the inside job you assholes think, but they covered up the failures that ALLOWED us to be that vulnerable in the first place
and rumors have it they are going back to some of those same policies prior to 9/11 which could leave us vulnerable once again

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds???? This is what it sounds like:

"The Official full and complete investigation into 9/1
1, which isn't really a 'complete' report, supports the original theory as stated by key members of the Bush Administration even though there are omissions. We know it is true because everything that was omitted is evidence the Official Version is true and accurate and we can prove this by pointing to the omissions."

WTF? And you call troofers whacky?

wow, talk about needing to take a class in READING COMPREHENSION
take one and get back to me in about 20 years, cause thats about how long it would take you to get up to speed

Every single time you get stuck you neg rep with name calling followed by repeating that same childishness on the threads. Don't you ever get tired of whining?

 

[eots]

stupid little ****...hey.. tells us that story about how you used to date atta again ...its one of my favourites

hey moron, i said i met him in a bar in the philippines. can't you cant even keep facts that are only a few hours old straight. no wonder you have so much trouble with the WTC facts!!

he didnt like me much anyway. it seems he isnt very fond of americans.

let me guess..it was a strip bar.. he was tipping heavily and drinking hard and chanting death to America...you sensed something odd about this man for a moment but then went back to your beer.. but as he staggered out...he dropped his passport reveling his true identity...LMAO

 

[CurveLight]

you know if this was faked....then somalia would have to have been faked...the cole....wtc the first time...the embassy hits....bali....madrid...london....all of them....

That's some silly shit.

no more silly than 9/11 was an inside job....or are you saying aq was capable of pulling all those off not to mention waging a guerilla war in multiple theares but not capable of pulling off 9/11

how about .... what was the motive .....

It's a silly false dichotomy. All the others could have been real and this one could have been made to imitate on the assumption people would not question the claim it was alkida. It true, safe assumption, wouldn't you agree?

Pointing to the other attacks actually helps cast doubt alkida pulled this off by themselves. Before and after 9E was has been their most technically and logistically advanced attacks? Suicide bombers. Backpacks. Ramming a truck into a checkpoint. Ramming a boat into a docked Navy ship. All of those are primitive by modern standards but we are supposed to accept without question they could successfully hijack 4 planes, with fucking box cutters, then fly 3 of them into their targets? You really believe the crew and PILOTS would give up their planes to some ragtags with boxcutters? Look again at the level of sophistication of attacks because it gets overlooked very easily.

Now on to your claim about alkida waging wars in "several theaters." What are you talking about? They've only been in afghanistan and we did not send enough troops to defeat them by design. I know you didn't fall for the propaganda by the bush admin that said alkida was in iraq. That was used specifically to claim a link between 9E and Iraq but that group was made up of iraqis and had no connection to bin laden's alkida.


As for motive....are you serious? Do you have any idea how much motive is behind earning billions of dollars while having great logistical control over the world's most important sources of the international economy? We also know the bush admin wanted to invade iraq and afghanistan way way before 9E. Hell, in September 2000 Cheney and Rumsfeld both signed an agenda statement saying they wanted to invade those nations and put in military bases but a new pearl harbor was needed.

I don't know what happened that day so to call me a conspiracy theorist is dishonest on several levels and if you defend the bush admin's version then it is you who is a conspiracy theorist.

 

[SFC Ollie]

A very major difference. Non alloy steel "melts" at about 2400 deg F. any alloy of steel will tolorate much higher temps before failing. Non alloy steel loses about half its strength at around 1400 deg F.

Jet fuel ignites in regular air at about 410 deg F. With a concentration of oxygen it can burn much hotter. That did not occur in the trade centers. The only way to concentrate the oxygen would be to add it to the combustion by chemical proccess, preasurizing the combustion chamber as in tubocharging or fan compression or a direct infusion of pure oxygen. None of those proccesses were available.

I don't care how much you want to believe this or that theory. It was not physically possible for the jet fuel to weaken the steel enough to cause it to fail. Period!

if it "loses HALF its strength" at 1400° then at what temp does it START to lose its strength?
like how hot would it need to be to lose 10% of its structural integrity?
and since it is known that the temps from a jet fuel fire can reach temps in excess of 2000° it is very possible the temps got more than high enough

Pay attention I'm getting tired of trying to school you. I know what I am talking about and you do not. Period!

Half its strength is still very strong. A 1 foot wide by 2 ft high I beam with a 1 inch thickness made of mild steel can easily support a load in the hundreds of thousands of pounds in the middle of a 20 ft span. shear is approximately 10,000 lbs per sq in. You do the math. Alloys are stronger. Half the strength is way more than needed. Vertically the same beam can support millions of pounds.

I though I was clear that jet fuel does not reach temps anywhere 2000 deg. You could not get jet fuel to burn at anything higher than between 500 deg F. and 1000 deg F in the open like how the fires were in those buildings. To get higher temps you need added oxygen. Also the fuel in the buildings burned off in a couple of minutes. You would have to heat those beams with a steady fire of over 2000 deg right on the steel ...not feet away but right on it for over a couple of hours to get the steel to raise in temp even up to 5 or
600 degs.

You need to be trying to fool someone else. I weld and bend steel almost everyday.

So go ahead and tell a building inspector that you are only going to use steel that is rated at half the strength that the codes call for. Or explain to a potential buyer of a high rise thet they shouldn't worry because half the strength called for will do the job just fine..... Give me a break.

Now why do you act as if it was only jet fuel that was burning? There was everything from carpeting to plastics and god only knows what in those offices that was burning, and the more fuel you add the hotter the fire. The jet fuel was only the catalyst that started the fires.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Pay attention I'm getting tired of trying to school you. I know what I am talking about and you do not. Period!

Half its strength is still very strong. A 1 foot wide by 2 ft high I beam with a 1 inch thickness made of mild steel can easily support a load in the hundreds of thousands of pounds in the middle of a 20 ft span. shear is approximately 10,000 lbs per sq in. You do the math. Alloys are stronger. Half the strength is way more than needed. Vertically the same beam can support millions of pounds.

I though I was clear that jet fuel does not reach temps anywhere 2000 deg. You could not get jet fuel to burn at anything higher than between 500 deg F. and 1000 deg F in the open like how the fires were in those buildings. To get higher temps you need added oxygen. Also the fuel in the buildings burned off in a couple of minutes. You would have to heat those beams with a steady fire of over 2000 deg right on the steel ...not feet away but right on it for over a couple of hours to get the steel to raise in temp even up to 5 or
600 degs.

You need to be trying to fool someone else. I weld and bend steel almost everyday.

sure ya do
you are a fucking idito that owns a restaurant
at least that's what you've claimed before
so fuck of moron

I never said that. Go fuck yourself idiot. I work for my own business in a machine shop nearly every day. I am expert in this field and you are a moron. I've been a machinist for over twenty years. Piss on you. You are a willfully ignorant asshole.

Gee, I thought you said you were a bad ass drug smuggler.

 

[Terral]

Hi Mr. Fizz with Gam mentioned:

Mr. Fizz is here to push Official Cover Story LIES no matter what anybody says. Period.

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat . . .

Everyone should read my post on How To Spot A Disinformation Agent (here) to realize that Mr. Fizz cool: like Gam ) fits the profile to a TEE. When these Govt Stooges ask you to "Convince Me it Was Anything Other Than The Official Story," they intend on focusing ALL attention on the highly-complicated WTC Controlled Demolition (my WTC-7 CD Topic + see #3) Topics. We must always remember that many crimes were carried out on 9/11 'and' these Govt Stooges 'always' take the Official Govt Cover Stories as 'the gospel.' Let us see if Mr. Fizz or Mr. Gam can explain the EMPTY HOLE in the EMPTY FIELD outside Shanksville, PA:

My Flight 93 Topic:

If the Official Cover Story is true (NOT), then where is the missing 100-Ton Jetliner????? These Govt Stooges bring out a few pictures of plane parts that weigh perhaps a few hundred pounds, when in reality a real 100-Ton Jetliner . . .

. . . includes a 60-Ton Titanium Frame, massive wing sections, two 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines . . .

. . . more than 200 seats, indestructible landing gear . . .

. . . and a massive tail section . . .

. . . that stands more than 40 feet above the tarmac. However, to date the Govt has FAILED to produce even one 'time-change part' of hundreds and hundreds (Col. George Nelson story). These Govt Stooges pay NO ATTENTION whatsoever to the 'fact' that we are all looking at the same EMPTY HOLE . . .

. . . in all the Shanksville pictures, because their intention is to continually harp on the complexities of the WTC Controlled Demolition Cases (AE911Truth.org). Guess what? These Govt Stooges also have no answer for the absolute fact that this SAME EMPTY HOLE appears in the same EMPTY FIELD in the U.S. Geological Survey Photographs taken on April 20, 1994!!!!

Click Here To See For Yourself

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s"]Watch The Short Flight 93 Video[/ame]

Then, guess what??? We have the same exact "Empty Hole" situation at the Pentagon!!!

My Pentagon Topic:

How do Mr. Fizz and Mr. Gam explain the same EMPTY HOLE at the Pentagon????

This is the same West Wedge E-Ring Wall where these Govt Stooges want you to believe a real 100-ton Jetliner did one of these numbers:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTJehfQkuyE"]Watch The Short Pentagon Video[/ame]

Here we have the same exact "Empty Hole" Scenario that includes 'no' 100-Ton Jetliner, but where can we find a Topic from Mr. Fizz or Mr. Gam on either of these (Flight 93, Flight 77) Topics?????? No sir. These Govt Stooges fit the 'Disinformation Agent' Profile TO A TEE, which means they continually harp on the same STUPID WTC "Building Fires Did It" Topic, even though they HAVE NO CASE!

My WTC-7 Topic:

Always remember that WTC-7 was struck my NO 100-Ton Jetliner and you can see NO SIGNS of 'fire' in any of the unbroken windows! Then remember that WTC-7 collapsed CD-Style into its own footprint in mere seconds . . .

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A&feature=player_embedded"]Watch Short CD Clip[/ame]

. . . into this neat little pile!

Another Picture

There is no precedent anywhere for overbuilt skyscrapers collapsing CD-Style into their own footprints from building fires! None!

Look at this picture of the WTC-1 Collapse to realize that the upper half of WTC-7 stands FAR above the debris. And yet, these Govt Stooges want to focus attention on the townhouse collapse . . .

Click Here

. . . but they have no explanation for how 'any' fires were started in the 'upper half' of WTC-7 in the first place. Then, how did the nonexistent fires get so hot as to cause the catastrophic failure of 'all' the roof supports at the very same time? WTC-7 was filled with hundreds and hundreds of 2800-degree girders, columns and beams 'and' some of those girders were 9 feet tall!

All of these massive girders had to be 'cut' during the Controlled Demolition Process having NOTHING to do with any building fires or any building debris from either of the Twin Towers. We know that for a FACT, because the nearest of the Twin Towers (WTC-1) stood more than 350 feet away . . .

. . . 'and' that Controlled Demolition included the pancaking of the floors straight down into the WTC-1 footprint. In every case, the Official Cover Story LIES fail to hold water 'and' in every case these Govt Stooges push Official Cover Stories LIES anyway. Why? That is simple: That is exactly what these Govt Stooges were sent here to do by the same exact DoD Inside-Job Terrorists who planned and carried out the attacks in the first place. Why? Americans are STUPID and will believe just about anything; which is the reason that the USA will definitely be destroyed (#7-10).

GL,

Terral

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Hi Mr. Fizz with Gam mentioned:

Mr. Fizz is here to push Official Cover Story LIES no matter what anybody says. Period.

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat . . .

Everyone should read my post on How To Spot A Disinformation Agent (here) to realize that Mr. Fizz cool: like Gam ) fits the profile to a TEE. When these Govt Stooges ask you to "Convince Me it Was Anything Other Than The Official Story," they intend on focusing ALL attention on the highly-complicated WTC Controlled Demolition (my WTC-7 CD Topic + see #3) Topics. We must always remember that many crimes were carried out on 9/11 'and' these Govt Stooges 'always' take the Official Govt Cover Stories as 'the gospel.' Let us see if Mr. Fizz or Mr. Gam can explain the EMPTY HOLE in the EMPTY FIELD outside Shanksville, PA:

My Flight 93 Topic:

If the Official Cover Story is true (NOT), then where is the missing 100-Ton Jetliner????? These Govt Stooges bring out a few pictures of plane parts that weigh perhaps a few hundred pounds, when in reality a real 100-Ton Jetliner . . .

. . . includes a 60-Ton Titanium Frame, massive wing sections, two 6-ton Rolls-Royce Engines . . .

. . . more than 200 seats, indestructible landing gear . . .

. . . and a massive tail section . . .

. . . that stands more than 40 feet above the tarmac. However, to date the Govt has FAILED to produce even one 'time-change part' of hundreds and hundreds (Col. George Nelson story). These Govt Stooges pay NO ATTENTION whatsoever to the 'fact' that we are all looking at the same EMPTY HOLE . . .

. . . in all the Shanksville pictures, because their intention is to continually harp on the complexities of the WTC Controlled Demolition Cases (AE911Truth.org). Guess what? These Govt Stooges also have no answer for the absolute fact that this SAME EMPTY HOLE appears in the same EMPTY FIELD in the U.S. Geological Survey Photographs taken on April 20, 1994!!!!

Click Here To See For Yourself

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s"]Watch The Short Flight 93 Video[/ame]

Then, guess what??? We have the same exact "Empty Hole" situation at the Pentagon!!!

My Pentagon Topic:

How do Mr. Fizz and Mr. Gam explain the same EMPTY HOLE at the Pentagon????

This is the same West Wedge E-Ring Wall where these Govt Stooges want you to believe a real 100-ton Jetliner did one of these numbers:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTJehfQkuyE"]Watch The Short Pentagon Video[/ame]

Here we have the same exact "Empty Hole" Scenario that includes 'no' 100-Ton Jetliner, but where can we find a Topic from Mr. Fizz or Mr. Gam on either of these (Flight 93, Flight 77) Topics?????? No sir. These Govt Stooges fit the 'Disinformation Agent' Profile TO A TEE, which means they continually harp on the same STUPID WTC "Building Fires Did It" Topic, even though they HAVE NO CASE!

My WTC-7 Topic:

Always remember that WTC-7 was struck my NO 100-Ton Jetliner and you can see NO SIGNS of 'fire' in any of the unbroken windows! Then remember that WTC-7 collapsed CD-Style into its own footprint in mere seconds . . .

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A&feature=player_embedded"]Watch Short CD Clip[/ame]

. . . into this neat little pile!

Another Picture

There is no precedent anywhere for overbuilt skyscrapers collapsing CD-Style into their own footprints from building fires! None!

Look at this picture of the WTC-1 Collapse to realize that the upper half of WTC-7 stands FAR above the debris. And yet, these Govt Stooges want to focus attention on the townhouse collapse . . .

Click Here

. . . but they have no explanation for how 'any' fires were started in the 'upper half' of WTC-7 in the first place. Then, how did the nonexistent fires get so hot as to cause the catastrophic failure of 'all' the roof supports at the very same time? WTC-7 was filled with hundreds and hundreds of 2800-degree girders, columns and beams 'and' some of those girders were 9 feet tall!

All of these massive girders had to be 'cut' during the Controlled Demolition Process having NOTHING to do with any building fires or any building debris from either of the Twin Towers. We know that for a FACT, because the nearest of the Twin Towers (WTC-1) stood more than 350 feet away . . .

. . . 'and' that Controlled Demolition included the pancaking of the floors straight down into the WTC-1 footprint. In every case, the Official Cover Story LIES fail to hold water 'and' in every case these Govt Stooges push Official Cover Stories LIES anyway. Why? That is simple: That is exactly what these Govt Stooges were sent here to do by the same exact DoD Inside-Job Terrorists who planned and carried out the attacks in the first place. Why? Americans are STUPID and will believe just about anything; which is the reason that the USA will definitely be destroyed (#7-10).

GL,

Terral

It never gets old watching you take the disinformation agents here to school Terral.They sure must get paid well by the government for the regular ass beatings they keep coming back for more for.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds???? This is what it sounds like:

"The Official full and complete investigation into 9/1
1, which isn't really a 'complete' report, supports the original theory as stated by key members of the Bush Administration even though there are omissions. We know it is true because everything that was omitted is evidence the Official Version is true and accurate and we can prove this by pointing to the omissions."

WTF? And you call troofers whacky?

wow, talk about needing to take a class in READING COMPREHENSION
take one and get back to me in about 20 years, cause thats about how long it would take you to get up to speed

Every single time you get stuck you neg rep with name calling followed by repeating that same childishness on the threads. Don't you ever get tired of whining?

thats how he always acts when confronted with facts and evidence he cant refute which is why i put him on ignore years ago.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Wow a recap of all the stupidity, that was hard to take.

They found enough of each plane to identify them, in Shanksville they even found the black boxes and if I remember right the black boxes were also found at the pentagon.

At the Pentagon they found pieces of fuselage with enough writing on them to Identify the plane as American Airlines.

There is some talk that they found the black boxes at the WTC but that is like most of your facts, simply rumor.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I never said that. Go fuck yourself idiot. I work for my own business in a machine shop nearly every day. I am expert in this field and you are a moron. I've been a machinist for over twenty years. Piss on you. You are a willfully ignorant asshole.

no, piss on you you fucking liar

You are the biggest pussy on this board. The reason you are such a pussy is because you are so ignorant and missinformed. It gives you an inferiority complex. Drop by the shop sometime. It's in Ballard..market street ..Fenpro building.
I'll teach ya a little something about steel. Then you won't be such an ignorant pussy....at least about steel.

No matter how many countless numbers of people tell ditzcon this,he never will consider it that its the truth.so sad this guy is.

 

[Terral]

Hi Inside Job:

It never gets old watching you take the disinformation agents here to school Terral.They sure must get paid well by the government for the regular ass beatings they keep coming back for more for.

And yet, these readers and most of these registered USMB members will continue to fall for their Official Cover Story NONSENSE AND STUPIDITY!!! These Govt Stooges are in NO WAY prepared to debate me on all of these related 911Truth Topics. All they can do is throw more dust into the air and hope nobody is paying that much attention . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi Ollie:

Wow a recap of all the stupidity, that was hard to take . . .

All you can do is sit there and 'take it,' because Ollie has 'no' evidence to support his Official Cover Story LIES . . .

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2THs3oNooM]Right??? Of Course ;0)[/ame]

GL,

Terral

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The only common denominator of any conspiracy theory is that it requires a leap of faith to subscribe to it. Once a person has made that leap of faith, they automatically claim to be in the "know", those that dismiss them are "sheep", and those that argue with them are "enemy agents".

All rational thought is suspended. Theories are supported by evidence that is shoddy. Holes in the theory and lack of evidence are attributed to the widening conspiracy. Answers are demanded for items that support their conspiracy. Facts that refute it and simple logic are ignored. Like a religion, certain sacred tenets that are especially powerful are adhered to and brought out repeatedly.

The conspiracy theorists begins to associate with like minded individuals with further reinforces their belief that the "rest of the world is crazy".

Literally, this outline applies to every conspiracy theory.

It's easy to see why it is so seductive to some people. Everyone wants to be "in the know" or the savior who is bringing light to a dark world.

the only conspiracy THEORY is the one you disinformation agents have that the fires caused the towers to collapse. your such a fucking liar its pathetic,the facts refute the official version.simple logic is ignored by you agents when we tell you the truth how the towers fell because of explosives.your clearly an agent like half the people here on these boards saying crap like-everybody wants to be a saviour who is bringing light to a dark .you Bush/Obama dupes who propagate the official version are the conspiracy THEORISTS.

 

[HUGGY]

if it "loses HALF its strength" at 1400° then at what temp does it START to lose its strength?
like how hot would it need to be to lose 10% of its structural integrity?
and since it is known that the temps from a jet fuel fire can reach temps in excess of 2000° it is very possible the temps got more than high enough

Pay attention I'm getting tired of trying to school you. I know what I am talking about and you do not. Period!

Half its strength is still very strong. A 1 foot wide by 2 ft high I beam with a 1 inch thickness made of mild steel can easily support a load in the hundreds of thousands of pounds in the middle of a 20 ft span. shear is approximately 10,000 lbs per sq in. You do the math. Alloys are stronger. Half the strength is way more than needed. Vertically the same beam can support millions of pounds.

I though I was clear that jet fuel does not reach temps anywhere 2000 deg. You could not get jet fuel to burn at anything higher than between 500 deg F. and 1000 deg F in the open like how the fires were in those buildings. To get higher temps you need added oxygen. Also the fuel in the buildings burned off in a couple of minutes. You would have to heat those beams with a steady fire of over 2000 deg right on the steel ...not feet away but right on it for over a couple of hours to get the steel to raise in temp even up to 5 or
600 degs.

You need to be trying to fool someone else. I weld and bend steel almost everyday.

So go ahead and tell a building inspector that you are only going to use steel that is rated at half the strength that the codes call for. Or explain to a potential buyer of a high rise thet they shouldn't worry because half the strength called for will do the job just fine..... Give me a break.

Now why do you act as if it was only jet fuel that was burning? There was everything from carpeting to plastics and god only knows what in those offices that was burning, and the more fuel you add the hotter the fire. The jet fuel was only the catalyst that started the fires.

That's just stinkin thinkin there Ollie Ollie All come free. The fact is that half rated steel was not being used. My statement was to show that the steel even at half strength was totally sufficient in strength to withstand the forces safely. Ya there were other combustibles but as I stated earlier the space was well ventilated with all the broken windows so there was no way the heat could be concentrated enough and even if there were pockets of heat the temps could not get high enough to degrade the steel. There is a big difference in "room temp" and "direct flame contact".

I frequently work with a forge..a small blast furnace. It takes a long time and many thousands of degrees of direct contact with gas flame to get steel hot enough to make it maluable. Divecon and fizzled out are blowhards with no knowledge of the characteristics of the materials we are disscussing.
They are just pubescent assholes that can't stand to be wrong and will go on endlessly calling names and throwing fits to try to win a losing arguement.

I do not have a conspiracy theory. All I can say for sure is what DID NOT HAPPEN. The steel did not fail because of the airplanes or the ensuing fires.. I realise that the crashes looked real impressive and destructive. If they did not knock the buildings down on impact then they were not the cause of the collapse.

 

[HUGGY]

sure ya do
you are a fucking idito that owns a restaurant
at least that's what you've claimed before
so fuck of moron

I never said that. Go fuck yourself idiot. I work for my own business in a machine shop nearly every day. I am expert in this field and you are a moron. I've been a machinist for over twenty years. Piss on you. You are a willfully ignorant asshole.

Gee, I thought you said you were a bad ass drug smuggler.

I was a bad ass drug smuggler from 74-80. The reason I will accept "bad ass" is the fact that I survived. A lot of the people I worked with thought they were bad ass and did not.

I have also been a mechanic since I was 12 when I rebuilt my first motor and transmission. People can do many things along the paths they chose in life. Some of them simultaniously. I owned a couple of car shops between 72 and 75. After I retired from flying pot I owned another car shop between 80-84. In about 90 I started learning machining and have encorporated it in my last 5 years of working on inventions. So I lied...it hasn't been 20 years..it has been 19.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Hi Inside Job:

It never gets old watching you take the disinformation agents here to school Terral.They sure must get paid well by the government for the regular ass beatings they keep coming back for more for.

And yet, these readers and most of these registered USMB members will continue to fall for their Official Cover Story NONSENSE AND STUPIDITY!!! These Govt Stooges are in NO WAY prepared to debate me on all of these related 911Truth Topics. All they can do is throw more dust into the air and hope nobody is paying that much attention . . .

GL,

Terral

This is the post I always love to post that has overwhelming evidence and proof explosives brought the towers down that they have never been able to refute despite their hundreds of pathetic attempts on this thread and in the past.

NIST has failed to disprove the controlled demolition hypothesis and clings to a gravity-assisted collapse hypothesis. This is a disservice to Americans and the world--as GROWING numbers of people doubt the 9/11 official myths.

The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:

1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”

2. Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)

3. Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)

4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos

5. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust

6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

7. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves

8. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

9. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint

10. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away

11. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet

12. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.

13. Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)

14. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

15. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

16. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

Witnesses heard explosions in the basement seconds BEFORE the plane struck the tower above with one office worker who had severe scar burns from the explosions.

Nasa thermal images recorded intense heat readings weeks after being sprayed down with tons of water that were FAR too intense to be office fires.

proof positive explosives were used is photographs showed many steel columns MELTED,impossible since jet fuel fire or office fires CANNOT accomplish this feat.

NIST admits to freefall speed.only explosives can do that.

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.

1. Slow onset

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

Massive interlaced vertical columns of the North Tower are seen falling outward--their ends severed and glowing white--while streaming smoke from the ends. Gravity? Thermate? NIST admits to NOT TESTING any WTC debris for explosives/demolition residue. This amounts to criminal negligence--and underlies all the debate in this thread. Had NIST done its proper job--recognizing that there were over 500 eyewitness reports, many of which identified "explosions" which were NOT COINCIDENT with the planes crashing or the buildings collapsing. News footage reveals explosions. It took a Freedom of Information Act petition to get to these eyewitness testimonies about explosions--testimonies that were OMITTED from the 9/11 Commission Report.

Typical of many 9/11 "discussions" several participants here rely upon tactics of ridicule rather than intelligent debate with evidence. When you finally awake to who you have been, you will be horrified at what you have done.

 

[CurveLight]

if it "loses HALF its strength" at 1400° then at what temp does it START to lose its strength?
like how hot would it need to be to lose 10% of its structural integrity?
and since it is known that the temps from a jet fuel fire can reach temps in excess of 2000° it is very possible the temps got more than high enough

Pay attention I'm getting tired of trying to school you. I know what I am talking about and you do not. Period!

Half its strength is still very strong. A 1 foot wide by 2 ft high I beam with a 1 inch thickness made of mild steel can easily support a load in the hundreds of thousands of pounds in the middle of a 20 ft span. shear is approximately 10,000 lbs per sq in. You do the math. Alloys are stronger. Half the strength is way more than needed. Vertically the same beam can support millions of pounds.

I though I was clear that jet fuel does not reach temps anywhere 2000 deg. You could not get jet fuel to burn at anything higher than between 500 deg F. and 1000 deg F in the open like how the fires were in those buildings. To get higher temps you need added oxygen. Also the fuel in the buildings burned off in a couple of minutes. You would have to heat those beams with a steady fire of over 2000 deg right on the steel ...not feet away but right on it for over a couple of hours to get the steel to raise in temp even up to 5 or
600 degs.

You need to be trying to fool someone else. I weld and bend steel almost everyday.

So go ahead and tell a building inspector that you are only going to use steel that is rated at half the strength that the codes call for. Or explain to a potential buyer of a high rise thet they shouldn't worry because half the strength called for will do the job just fine..... Give me a break.

Now why do you act as if it was only jet fuel that was burning? There was everything from carpeting to plastics and god only knows what in those offices that was burning, and the more fuel you add the hotter the fire. The jet fuel was only the catalyst that started the fires.

Nobody denies there were fires. The point of contention is contrasting the OV explanation to the critiques of engineers, architects, and other experts. One of the problems is the towers came down an hour after being hit. When dealing with hundreds thousands gazillion tons of steel it requires time for the fires to weaken them enough for collapse. I believe after nist released its first explanation it got slammed so hard they had to re-write their conclusion.

As for wtc 7 the most obvious issue is it took years to explain the collapse. That makes absolutely no sense. That amount of time is indicative of coming up with bullshit.