September 11th

[abiG.2]

The article is from a book called Debunking 9/11 myths. Fucking read it, you dolt. These people laugh at you, and you use them as sourcing material. Really? You think Popular Mechanics is on the "truther(willing to accept evidence that is babyish)" side?!

Let us go to the article itself, shall we?

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Dolt.

I read it. I covered all of it in my previous post. You, like them, continue to simply deny the existence of molten steel and stick to the nonsense of the steel simply weakening.

Denial does not work no matter how much you wish it did.

 

[Amerikuracana]

Was a crazy day. Thought an immediate war would start. Thought attacks would continue.

It was an evil act. Was there some evil that lurked in those towers? No comment, but many innocent people died for nothing.

 

[HereticBD]

Unfortunately 9/11 was the day the terrorists won.

Won? Nah. Had a quick flurry, and scored a few goals? Sure.

 

[Prutfis]

Won? Nah. Had a quick flurry, and scored a few goals? Sure.

Look at the wasted trillions, the world wide security paranoia and the lives lost since. They won

 

[HereticBD]

Look at the wasted trillions, the world wide security paranoia and the lives lost since. They won

What did they win? Where is this paranoia? We're all still living our lives relatively the same as we were before the attacks. They accomplished jack shit.

I wouldn't give them credit for the war on terror. That's on Bush, and his merry band of shit heels who were going to do it, with or without 9/11. Even if those planes don't hit the WTC, he still would've invaded Iraq. The 9/11 attacks just gave them a bit more of an excuse.

 

[VivaRevolution]

The article is from a book called Debunking 9/11 myths. Fucking read it, you dolt. These people laugh at you, and you use them as sourcing material. Really? You think Popular Mechanics is on the "truther(willing to accept evidence that is babyish)" side?!

Let us go to the article itself, shall we?

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Dolt.

So try with me instead for a few posts. Here is my problem.

I understand that where the plane struck, and where the fire burned, the structure could fail, but what about the remaining 70% of the building below?

Furthermore, let's assume we can find some plausible explanation for how the whole building fails, we then have to imagine, it failing in a way that allows it to fall into it's own footprint, while approaching free fall speeds.

Now, after you have stretched the limits of plausible deniability in whatever explanation can be offered up to this point, now explain how we have this happen 3 times, once without a plane strike, and without jet fuel.

I won't claim this is impossible. I am telling you that this is a extraordinary claim, and it has not been supported by extraordinary evidence. That believing in the official narrative, is believing in a physics conspiracy theory. That the laws of physics conspired to defraud probability. Or at least that is what the NIST report appears to me to claim.

 

[Prutfis]

What did they win? Where is this paranoia? We're all still living our lives relatively the same as we were before the attacks. They accomplished jack shit.
.

You must live a pretty sheltered life. Never travel internationally etc.

 

[bushman505]

You must live a pretty sheltered life. Never travel internationally etc.

I’ve travelled internationally extensively and lived overseas for a number of years. Terrorists ain’t won shit.

 

[Prutfis]

I’ve travelled internationally extensively and lived overseas for a number of years. Terrorists ain’t won shit.

So countries are not spending 100s of billions on terror prevention that they didn't before? Going through airports hasnt become a royal pain in the ass? 1000s of lives haven't been lost in the ME and Afghanistan?
Fuck I cant even go fishing at the local harbour anymore because of anti terror fencing (really fucking bright with our easily accessible 4000 miles of shoreline)

If you don't think the world changed profoundly for the worse after 9/11 I don't know what to say.

That´s not even getting into escalated military budgets, increased surveillance etc

 

[the ambush]

TSA outed itt. lol @ gamer insult. I’m a professional game developer, happy they pay the bills. It’s one of the reasons I find myself dealing with mouth breathers like you more often than I’d like.

 

[Shoemaker]

You are horrible at this. Why do you insist on wasting our time with these flunky attempts at making some kind of point?

 

[WTF2008]

September 11th

I will always remember that day. its literally burned into my small brain.

how can people be so evil?

It was horrible. I was at work and tried to take a few guys down to the recruitment office right when I heard about it.

Looking back, it was pretty damn impressive. I totally get the conspiracy theories because how the fuck?

 

[WTF2008]

I would argue that Pearl Harbor was worse. I might argue the first battle that kicked off the Civil War was worse. Don't get me wrong, 9/11 was truly awful for this nation and so many of its peoples who lost their lives or loved ones.

Pearl harbor was soldiers.
9/11 was just people at work like a regular day.

 

[abiG.2]

I just want to prove I know the rebuttals. The friction from the collapse heated the steel to the point of melting.

Amidoingitright?

Not sure if trolling or serious. Are people actually claiming this? Legitimate scientists? Internet trolls?

The friction was enough to evaporate the steel? Is this the argument?

 

[WTF2008]

So try with me instead for a few posts. Here is my problem.

I understand that where the plane struck, and where the fire burned, the structure could fail, but what about the remaining 70% of the building below?

Furthermore, let's assume we can find some plausible explanation for how the whole building fails, we then have to imagine, it failing in a way that allows it to fall into it's own footprint, while approaching free fall speeds.

Now, after you have stretched the limits of plausible deniability in whatever explanation can be offered up to this point, now explain how we have this happen 3 times, once without a plane strike, and without jet fuel.

I won't claim this is impossible. I am telling you that this is a extraordinary claim, and it has not been supported by extraordinary evidence. That believing in the official narrative, is believing in a physics conspiracy theory. That the laws of physics conspired to defraud probability. Or at least that is what the NIST report appears to me to claim.

I'm not sure about the rest of it, but that whole building 7 thing is pretty suspect.

 

[Kiyashin]

Tragic day made worse that it happened during the shittiest administration in history.

So countries are not spending 100s of billions on terror prevention that they didn't before? Going through airports hasnt become a royal pain in the ass? 1000s of lives haven't been lost in the ME and Afghanistan?
Fuck I cant even go fishing at the local harbour anymore because of anti terror fencing (really fucking bright with our easily accessible 4000 miles of shoreline)

If you don't think the world changed profoundly for the worse after 9/11 I don't know what to say.

That´s not even getting into escalated military budgets, increased surveillance etc

This. Jihadists can play the long game. Strike some fear, let countries spiral out of control in spending blood and money and waging wars while the citizens fracture and divide.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Not sure if trolling or serious. Are people actually claiming this? Legitimate scientists? Internet trolls?

The friction was enough to evaporate the steel? Is this the argument?

That is the explanation I have seen to explain the pools of heat and red glowing steel, days after the collapse occurred.

 

[Teppodama]

Pearl harbor was soldiers.
9/11 was just people at work like a regular day.

What was my comment was responding to was Armbars comment "Sad day for the world. Worst day ever for Americans.". As far as sad day for the world, it was and I'm not arguing that. But there have been numerous sad days for the world that involved loss of life due to a terrorist attack so in that, Sept. 11th was unfortunately just another check box on the worlds calendar in that regard. It resonates with Americans though because it was the biggest such attack on American soil causing the largest loss of life in our living memory and played out in front of our eyes due to the availability of media coverage. As to the difference between Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11 being soldiers vs civilians, his comment didn't make that distinction. He just said Worst Day Ever for Americans and I pointed out two other instances that some might say were worse. I say those two not based on loss of life but rather due to all of the cascading events that followed as a result of that event. With that in mind, I could also have mentioned the start of our involvement in Vietnam. Once again, it's not so much about the loss of life or whether it was military or civilian but rather how those events effected American life and how the repercussions of those events ultimately played out and shaped our society.

 

[DoomPatrol]

I'm still amazed that in under an hour our government and all of the MSM knew exactly who did it and why.

It's almost like the towers had been a target of terrorism before 9/11...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing



Why do you continue to be a retard in every thread you enter?

 

[DoomPatrol]

I read it. I covered all of it in my previous post. You, like them, continue to simply deny the existence of molten steel and stick to the nonsense of the steel simply weakening.

Denial does not work no matter how much you wish it did.

Seriously you just don't know what you're talking about. You're not a building engineer (hint, I am). You don't build and renovate multistory buildings for a living (hint, I do). You clearly don't understand how structural engineering, building fires, and chemistry works. You need to be more honest with your research and spend more time looking at why the things you might believe are wrong, not just from conspiracy sites regurgitating bullshit you read. Learn to think for yourself.. like truly think for yourself. Not blindly believe conspiracy garbage thinking.