Let's Face It We Were ALL Duped

a reply to: pteridine

No, but I am ready for either you or Neutron to prove any element of the story, but I've known for a number of years now that NIST can't prove, and nobody else can either, for the simple reason NIST is a political document full of fantasy. So is the Commission Report a political document.

That you guys actually believe those political documents, and in so doing completely avoid the many facts that contradict it is consistent with men taught to believe at an early age in Santa and the Easter Bunny.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

No, but I am ready for either you or Neutron to prove any element of the story, but I've known for a number of years now that NIST can't prove, and nobody else can either, for the simple reason NIST is a political document full of fantasy. So is the Commission Report a political document.

That you guys actually believe those political documents, and in so doing completely avoid the many facts that contradict it is consistent with men taught to believe at an early age in Santa and the Easter Bunny.

Technically, they offer the most reasonable explanation given the evidence at hand. Can you name any of "the many facts that contradict?"

a reply to: Salander

Please, by all means explain why the tower's vertical columns buckled inward and almost instantaneous lead to an almost silent initiation of collapse!

Are you saying the vertical columns did not buckle inward?

Gave you link to a whole discussion on inward bowing with video of inward bowing???

www.metabunk.org...

The video of bowing trusses was backed by eyewitnesses and failures analysis of steel.

Are you saying trusses do not expand when heated?

Are you saying trusses made workable by heat would rather push out on more solid steel then bow downward under load?

Pseudoscience...

Funny how the truth movement wants to hide facts, rants about their conceived reality being the only truth, and gets angry when true failure analysis and evidence leads to a cause. Not a preconceived notion?

a reply to: Informer1958

SO WERE ARE THE TESTS YOU WERE BOASTING ABOUT ON THE OTHER THREAD.

Informer made made a claim that the steel from the towers had been tested to 2500 degrees for MANY hours without failing yet when challenged he CAN'T seem to prove that.

So informer when can I expect to see a link to this or was it all BS like you KNOW it was when I posted the melting point temperatures for steel.

So just to remind you here is your quote

originally posted by: Informer1958

You really don't understand how steel that was tested to burn for many hour before weakening at temperatures of 2500 degrees, weakened in just one hour due to office fires?

From my reply

The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1,130 °C (2,070 °F). Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F).

Fire resistance - Steel is inherently a noncombustible material. However,when heated to temperatures seen in a fire scenario, the strength and stiffness of the material is significantly reduced.

So what load would it have taken in your claimed test when it was almost LIQUID

So people can't really trust ANYTHING you claim can they.

a reply to: pteridine

Numerous facts, perhaps all the facts, contradict the official story.

No airliner at Shanksville, no airliner at the pentagon are 2 big ones, probably the biggest.

Controlled demolition instead of the official "natural collapse" at WTC is another. Testimony of Rodriguez that was not included in Final Report, behavior of FBI agents, and other critical details.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: pteridine

Numerous facts, perhaps all the facts, contradict the official story.

No airliner at Shanksville, no airliner at the pentagon are 2 big ones, probably the biggest.

Controlled demolition instead of the official "natural collapse" at WTC is another. Testimony of Rodriguez that was not included in Final Report, behavior of FBI agents, and other critical details.

Aircraft and body parts were recovered at both locations. There is absolutely no evidence for 'controlled demolition' so that is not a fact at all; that is a speculation. Do you have any 'numerous facts' at all?

Shall we go through topics one at a time without any deflections or side tracks? Where would you like to start?

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Informer1958

SO WERE ARE THE TESTS YOU WERE BOASTING ABOUT ON THE OTHER THREAD.

Informer made made a claim that the steel from the towers had been tested to 2500 degrees for MANY hours without failing yet when challenged he CAN'T seem to prove that.

So informer when can I expect to see a link to this or was it all BS like you KNOW it was when I posted the melting point temperatures for steel.

So just to remind you here is your quote

originally posted by: Informer1958

You really don't understand how steel that was tested to burn for many hour before weakening at temperatures of 2500 degrees, weakened in just one hour due to office fires?

From my reply

The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1,130 °C (2,070 °F). Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F).

Fire resistance - Steel is inherently a noncombustible material. However,when heated to temperatures seen in a fire scenario, the strength and stiffness of the material is significantly reduced.

So what load would it have taken in your claimed test when it was almost LIQUID

So people can't really trust ANYTHING you claim can they.

Informer won't accept anything that does not fit his/her fantasy, not the MP's of various steel alloys, the plastic nature of steel under load, or the loss of strength with temperature. Informer wants a demolition and will not accept any technical arguments against it.

originally posted by: pheonix358
Very tall buildings fall over, not down into their own footprint.

But that could have caused massive destruction in New York as buildings would go down like dominoes.

I think Building 7 was holding a union card and went down in sympathy with 1 and 2.

That is a better story than the official version.

P

Buildings fall over ? Do you have any video of a building falling like a tree? every building ive seen collapse usually ends up in the buildings basement. we have a force called gravity that tends to pull things down it doesnt like it if there is no support to hold things up.

a reply to: wmd_2008

SO WERE ARE THE TESTS YOU WERE BOASTING ABOUT ON THE OTHER THREAD.

Informer made made a claim that the steel from the towers had been tested to 2500 degrees for MANY hours without failing yet when challenged he CAN'T seem to prove that.

So informer when can I expect to see a link to this or was it all BS like you KNOW it was when I posted the melting point temperatures for steel.

So people can't really trust ANYTHING you claim can they.

Let's put this nonsense to rest, right now!

I thought I had read information on ATS many years ago that that the WTC steel had been tested to withstand temperatures up to 2500 degrees.

Apparently I was wrong. However, seeing that the designers of the WTC built the WTC to withstand multiple 707's impact and knowing that jet fuel burns at temperatures of 1800 degree, I thought I had read that the WTC steel was tested to withstand higher temperatures for many hours.

Enough of the Juvenal attacks and the tag teaming going on that I AM NOT CREDITABLE and I cannot be trusted.

Looking at your history and snide remarks against members who refuse to believe in the OS narratives speaks volumes to ATS readers.

a reply from: pteridine

Informer won't accept anything that does not fit his/her fantasy, not the MP's of various steel alloys, the plastic nature of steel under load, or the loss of strength with temperature. Informer wants a demolition and will not accept any technical arguments against it.

I believe the OS narratives are a fantasy and I will not accept it, yes, that is true.

a reply to: Informer1958

It's really simple informer1958 if like me you started your construction career in the design/drawing office of a STRUCTURAL STEELWORK company BS claims like yours are easy to spot also if you were really that interested in a subject it would have tsken a few seconds to confirm that claim was BS.

It's basically the same with EVERY other point re the collapse of these buildings the conspiracy NUTS fall for BS posted by other conspiracy NUTS.

Some prime examples how often have we see on these threads only steel buildings brought down by fire IGNORING the structural damage caused by the aircraft.

Then pictures posted of other building fires not struck by planes and actually MAINLY CONCRETE yet the steel on those buildings FAILED as well.

Also other claims using failed assumptions of how a building like that would collapse, it seems to me any judgment of what happened is hampered by preconceived notions of how you think it should when you have NO EXPERIENCE or technical KNOWLEDGE your claim re fire test being a prime example.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Also other claims using failed assumptions of how a building like that would collapse, it seems to me any judgment of what happened is hampered by preconceived notions of how you think it should when you have NO EXPERIENCE or technical KNOWLEDGE your claim re fire test being a prime example.

The fact is, The OS narratives that you dealy support have never been proven true. Your snide remarks personally attacking me only proves how desprete you are in fooling ATS casual readers that the OS narratives are true, yet none of you can prove most of it with any credible science.

But again, here you are on a conspiracy site claiming there are no conspiracies about 911, how ironic is that?

a reply to: Informer1958

Prove steel does not become increasingly workable and does not become increasingly weak as it approaches its melting point.

Common sense alone knows steel's ability to resist load IS NOT a constant then jumps to zero at its melting point.

Thanks for showing you have no common sense. And don't understand as steel increases in temperature it expands and increasingly loses its ability to resist strain.

Or you don't understand that steel does not need to be hot to bend. Steel can be bent or sheared st room temperature. Is that a false statement?

Please no ranting.

a reply to: Informer1958

Please tell us what caused the inward bowing and the immediate following collapse of WTC 2?

a reply to: neutronflux

Please no ranting.

Please prove the sky is blue?

Please prove how is air invisible?

Please prove what grade of steel was used in the WTC?

Please proved who tested it?

Please prove Peer Reviewed science proving your claims?

Please prove how office fire temperatures weaken steel in less than an hour to bring down 110 story building?

Please no ranting.

a reply to: Informer1958

Please tell us what caused the inward bowing and almost instantaneous following collapse of WTC 2.

a reply to: neutronflux

Please tell us what caused the inward bowing and almost instantaneous following collapse of WTC 2.

Please provide answers to my above questions.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

Please tell us what caused the inward bowing and almost instantaneous following collapse of WTC 2.

Please provide answers to my above questions.

It is apparent that you are unable to respond until you get your talking points from A&E memorized. Now that they have abandoned Jones' nonsense they, too, are hard pressed to come up with anything. Salander is also avoiding any definitive statements because A&E has fallen on hard times.

a reply to: Informer1958

The OBVIOUS fact is YOU dont have a clue what you are talking about the steel fire test comment PROVES that. Even the highly educated truthers forgot to take the building design into consideration.

The 9/11 threads always remind me of the Apollo hoax threads were again highly educated people claimed it was a hoax because of no Stars in the Moon surface pictures because they didn't understand photographic exposure.

If you spent some time finding out even the basics o how the floor design was fatal in this scenario or the simple FACT thermal loading on structure was calculated in the most simple way at the time of there construction you wouldn't have been suckered into the truther MYTHG.

a reply to: pteridine

It is apparent that you are unable to respond until you get your talking points from A&E memorized.

False!

It is apparent that some are unable to respond until they get their talking points memorized from fake properganda media, who sold us a fairytale. Now that they have abandoned the pseudoscience of the NIST Report they, too, are hard pressed to come up with anything. See how that works.

Salander is also avoiding any definitive statements because A&E has fallen on hard times.

Attention MODS!

It is against ATS TC to be attacking ATS members or talk bad about them.

This is not how to debate.