For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

a reply to: kyleplatinum

I have no idea where you're getting that I should be proposing a 25-second fall, that's not me saying it - it's YOU.

When you're honest enough to pick a floor below the collapse, and watch how it isn't in motion until it gets crushed, you will understand.

It looks like 16 years of willful ignorance isn't enough yet, and you're gonna go for some more. GOOD LUCK.

a reply to: canuckster


Good questions.

Nobody has EVER calculated how much fuel was onboard whatever aircraft they were that struck the towers.

So if you're looking for precise calculations to support the official conspiracy theory, don't hold your breath. They are not there. The closer one looks at the official theory, the more quickly it falls apart.

What numbers are available are the heat conducting properties of steel, and when one applies those to what we have, one quickly discovers the small fires at the impact point, burning some bit of jetfuel and office furnishings could not possibly have produced enough heat, much less could that heat be conducted throughout the structure to make it so that free fall collapse of the entire structure could occur.

The OCT is bogus.

originally posted by: lordcomac
Doesn't explain the pools of liquid metal in the rubble like, though...

of course, it was all shipped to China long before anyone could sample anything and get any real answers.

You do mean except for the 24 tons of WTC steel that was used to help build the USS New York right? Oh, and the various pieces of steel used in many monuments...

I'm not disagreeing that much was shipped to China and your argument in general. But saying it was all shipped off out of the country is completely incorrect.

originally posted by: blackaspirin
a reply to: kyleplatinum

I have no idea where you're getting that I should be proposing a 25-second fall, that's not me saying it - it's YOU.

When you're honest enough to pick a floor below the collapse, and watch how it isn't in motion until it gets crushed, you will understand.

It looks like 16 years of willful ignorance isn't enough yet, and you're gonna go for some more. GOOD LUCK.

I am simply stating, from what you believe happened, a gravitational collapse slamming down on each floor with the mass amounts of resistance of the undamaged floors below. The collapse should have been around 25 seconds to fall, not 10-14 seconds.

As for the video of the collapse, floors are blowing out a lot lower than they should be, and faster.

a reply to: kyleplatinum


Have you any thoughts about what force was responsible for the horizontal movement of large steel pieces?

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

I am simply stating, from what you believe happened, a gravitational collapse slamming down on each floor with the mass amounts of resistance of the undamaged floors below. The collapse should have been around 25 seconds to fall, not 10-14 seconds.

As for the video of the collapse, floors are blowing out a lot lower than they should be, and faster.

No, the collapse should not have been 25 seconds "according to what I believe". That's you, once again - coming up with the figure, and attributing it to me.

As for video of the collapse - grab any video you like, and point out how that the floors below the collapse are already falling as well. Draw one of those cutesy red arrows, or whatever you need to do. It simply doesn't happen, but since you've been saying this for up to 16 years, there's no way you're going to admit it's false now.

I'm sorry you painted yourself into a corner that you will never get out of.

There was no jet fuel. The planes had flown half way over US before getting to towers so were nearly out of gas.
Most of what was left went up in a giant cloud of flames immediately on impact.
Therefore there was no significant jet fuel left to create heat.

originally posted by: SagacityYou do mean except for the 24 tons of WTC steel that was used to help build the USS New York right? Oh, and the various pieces of steel used in many monuments...

""More than 200,000 tons of steel - far more than the amount required for the construction of the Verrazano Narrows Bridge - was used in the World Trade Center's construction."

hypertextbook.com...

- your 24+ tons isn't even a blip in the total. insignificant .

a reply to: RoScoLaz5

My statement stands and is correct actually. It was stated that all of the steel was shipped to China. That, by your own admission in the above post is incorrect. It was the point I was making.

So yes, 24+ tons is much less than the total of 200,000. But again, it wasn't my point.

I won't even get into the steel was was curated and chopped into pieces over the years and given to 1,500 agencies around the U.S as tributes and memorials. Because, ya' know it's not close to the total amount... Hell, there's a piece downtown where I live. There are, and have been, plenty of samples to test over the years.

For the record, I don't believe the official version of the story. So I'm not trying to bash anyone. But it doesn't help anyone when people post statements and absolutes that are patently false in nature.

Not if it ignites available fuel, like all the plastic office furniture, carpets, partitions, computers, etc., fed by winds aloft, thru slits in the office building floors with all the windows blown out: inward rushing air (like in a Venturi) drawn in like in a puddling furnace, sustained for one hour...

a reply to: intrptr

Add to that wind speed increases the higher one goes above ground level

Has to do with friction of the moving air and the ground

Can you explain how the beams unexposed to the jet fuel could deform also?
Limbo

So Where Did All The Molten Steel Come From?

www.uwgb.edu...

One particular red herring that crops up frequently is that temperatures in the rubble were high enough long after the collapse to melt aluminum. Since aluminum melts at 660o C (1220o F) I don't have the slightest doubt of it. Since a backyard trash fire can melt aluminum, so what?

Apparently, the melting of steel signifies the use of explosives or thermite cutting charges. But the purpose of either is to cut steel, not melt it. A controlled demolition simply does not produce large amounts of molten steel. You might as well argue that all the concrete dust shows the buildings were taken down by an army of gnomes armed with grinding wheels.

If the World Trade Center was hot enough to melt steel, where's all the molten concrete? Iron melts around 1500o C but so do many of the silicate minerals in concrete, and a mixture of silicate minerals would melt at a temperature lower than any of the individual minerals (I'm a geologist - I get paid to know about stuff like that). The fine particle size of the concrete dust would facilitate melting. So why wasn't there a huge puddle of molten concrete at Ground Zero? (There was some, but about what you'd expect from a large fire; certainly not what you'd expect from something hot enough to melt large amounts of steel.)

In a paper by Steven E. Jones, who bills himself as a "Physicist and Archaeometrist," there are pictures of glowing material falling from the World Trade Center, together with this comment:

Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000o C
1000o C, is about 500o C below the melting point of iron.

Oh, by the way, there would have been cutting of steel during the construction. And there's another construction process that melts steel. Welding.

www.uwgb.edu...

Is Much of the World Trade Center Missing?

Some conspiracy theorists claim that large amounts of the buildings were unaccounted for by the size of the rubble pile. Since only 12% of the building volume was solid, the towers should collapse into a pile 12% of the original height of the building, or just about 50 meters high. Since 18 meters of that pile would be filling the basement, the above-ground portion would be 32 meters high.

The actual rubble pile reached the fifth story of adjacent buildings, so well outside the footprint of the tower the pile was five stories, or about 15 meters high. The pile would have been roughly conical, and would have included a lot of void space, increasing its height and offsetting the larger diameter of the pile. Overall the rubble pile is what you'd expect.

So it simply isn't true that the rubble pile is only a small percentage of what would be expected. Some conspiracy sites allege that the rubble pile is only 5% of what would be expected. Others use a figure of 33% as the height of a rubble pile relative to the original building and then argue that the pile should have been 140 or so meters high. But when Controlled Demolition Inc. (www.controlled-demolition.com...) dropped a 23-story, 439-foot (134 m) building in Detroit in 1997, they ended up with a pile averaging 35 feet high (11 m) and a maximum of 60 feet (18 m) high. The rubble pile was an average of 8% of the height of the original building and a maximum of 14%. Scaling that up to the World Trade Center, we get heights of 33 to 58 meters. In other words, the rubble pile at the World Trade Center is totally in line with other large building collapses. 33% may work for a small building a few stories high, but a large building will compress the debris pile a lot more and also fill void spaces more effectively with pulverized debris.

a reply to: Salander

www.uwgb.edu...

All That Dust

A couple of revealing studies have been done on the dust from the World Trade Center. One was by the U.S. Geological Survey (pubs.usgs.gov...). They measured the composition of the dust and found

See chart...

Those figures are about what would be expected for a mix of concrete, drywall, and insulation. The loss on ignition indicates how much of the dust was combustible, mostly cellulose from drywall binder and paper. Titanium is partly from minerals in the concrete aggregate, and partly from paint. Titanium dioxide refracts light extremely strongly and is used in paints to make the paints opaque. The sulfur reflects gypsum, which is hydrous calcium sulfate and the principal ingredient in drywall..

Gypsum, paper, asbestos and paint were insignificant in amount compared to the concrete and steel in the towers. The mere fact that they show up at all in chemical and physical analyses completely demolishes the idea that large portions of the towers were turned to dust.

Another study (www.ehponline.org...) found that half or less of the dust in their samples was concrete, and the other half was fibers of various kinds. Most of the fiber was glass fiber, but 10-20% was cellulose. Neither study measured the bulk density of the dust because it wasn't meaningful for either study, and would depend on the length of time the dust had settled and whether or not it had rained. But all the photographs in both studies show very fluffy dust.

a reply to: blackaspirin

No, the collapse should not have been 25 seconds "according to what I believe". That's you, once again - coming up with the figure, and attributing it to me.

OK, then what do you believe? You definitely do not believe what I do, so that means you think the towers falling the way they did was perfectly normal right?

there's no way you're going to admit it's false now.

I will for sure admit something being false if that would be the case.

I'm sorry you painted yourself into a corner that you will never get out of.

Don't be sorry, because that is not true.

point out how that the floors below the collapse are already falling as well

They weren't falling, they were being blown out. It is clearly seen in almost every video.

The entire complex was meant to fail.

www.uwgb.edu...


Vaporizing Steel

Supposedly, videos of the collapse of a remnant of one tower show it vanishing into dust. In addition, many conspiracy theorists claim that much of the steel from the World Trade Center has vanished.

The USGS data above show iron contents in the dust ranging from half a per cent to 4 per cent, with an average of 1.6%. Since iron makes up 5% of the crust, we'd expect a few per cent iron in concrete. Add to that some iron oxide from corrosion by the concrete in contact with steel and mechanical abrasion during the collapse, and the numbers are consistent with the iron content we find. We do not find the iron concentrations we'd expect if large amounts of iron were powdered.

So, powdering the steel? The chemistry tells the story. It simply didn't happen. Collapsing and leaving a trail of dust behind is not the same thing as turning into dust.

Directed Energy Weapons

One of the favorite theories for bringing the towers down, apart from thermite or demolition charges, is directed energy weapons. These are especially favored by folks who argue that large parts of the towers were turned to dust or vapor.

Real directed energy weapons fall into very limited categories.

Lasers. These can deliver a lot of energy to a small space, but for long distances on earth their effectiveness as weapons is limited by the atmosphere. Laser weapons powerful enough to damage human sight are possible. A laser powerful enough to cause physical damage to materials at a long distance will ionize the air, making it opaque ("blooming")
Particle beams. These are even more limited on the earth's surface because the particles will interact with atoms in the atmosphere.
Microwaves. These can be used to heat the surface of the skin to intolerable levels and are being actively developed as nonlethal crowd dispersal weapons. One suspects lethal versions are not hard to make.
So directed energy weapons have been considered mainly for three purposes:

Space warfare, where the goal is to damage electronics or missile heat shields
Ballistic missile defense. Ground based systems have been plagued by atmospheric limitations
Crowd dispersal using microwaves.
So directed energy weapons can deliver a lot of punch to a small, visible and unobstructed target, and even air is an obstruction for these purposes. And they can deliver enough energy to frazzle human nerve endings and damage the retina. Evidence for weapons systems capable of punching into the interior of a building or powdering concrete and steel over a large area? Zero, zip, nada, bupkis.

a reply to: Salander

Nobody has EVER calculated how much fuel was onboard whatever aircraft they were that struck the towers.

WRONG AGAIN GRUBER.....

Estimates on fuel load remaining in American 11/United 175 are 9,000 to 9500 gal - Often rounded to 10,000 gal

at 6.3 lb/gal have some 60,000 lbs of fuel on board at impact

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: canuckster


Good questions.

Nobody has EVER calculated how much fuel was onboard whatever aircraft they were that struck the towers.

So if you're looking for precise calculations to support the official conspiracy theory, don't hold your breath. They are not there. The closer one looks at the official theory, the more quickly it falls apart.

What numbers are available are the heat conducting properties of steel, and when one applies those to what we have, one quickly discovers the small fires at the impact point, burning some bit of jetfuel and office furnishings could not possibly have produced enough heat, much less could that heat be conducted throughout the structure to make it so that free fall collapse of the entire structure could occur.

The OCT is bogus.

This is just from a quick wiki search:

At exactly 9:03:02, Flight 175 crashed nose-first into the southern facade of South Tower of the World Trade Center, at a speed of approximately 590 mph (950 km/h, 264 m/s, or 513 knots)[22] and striking between floors 77 and 85 with approximately 10,000 U.S. gallons (38,000 L; 8,300 imp gal) of jet fuel on board.[14][23]

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: kyleplatinum


Have you any thoughts about what force was responsible for the horizontal movement of large steel pieces?

Not too sure, but pieces of the steel columns and plates of the perimeter walls were thrown over 500 feet from the towers.

The distribution pattern with both towers, perimeter wall pieces were thrown an average of about 150 to 200 feet outward.

Very characteristic of controlled explosive demolitions.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

OK, then what do you believe? You definitely do not believe what I do, so that means you think the towers falling the way they did was perfectly normal right?

Normal given the structural damage done by the planes, and the ensuing fires, yes.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

They weren't falling, they were being blown out. It is clearly seen in almost every video.

The entire complex was meant to fail.

Take the video, and point out these explosions. Point out how each floor is 'blown out' at the PRECISE MOMENT the collapse point reaches them, in perfect succession, all the way down the building.