For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

love it!!!

a reply to: pheonix358

That is the biggy in this argument. The jet fuel exploded into massive fireballs External to the building

Watch one of the videos with the fireball. Freeze frame. Measure the fireball. You will be amazed at how huge it was.

I do not believe the 90,000 L of jet fuel did all burn instantly in the fireball, anyway my calculation give a requirement of 856,000 cubic meters of air required for ideal combustion. That give a sphere of air of a diameter of 118 meters.

My estimate of the fireball volume is 360,000 cubic meters.

originally posted by: blackaspirin

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

Proof is in the footage. You just see it differently.

The relocation of the oem command center for the 9/12 simulated terrorist attack operation.

The original location of the oem center on the 23rd floor of #7, and the just in time completion of the 13 million dollar addition to #7 prior to 9/11.

The acquisition of the entire WTC by Manhattan developer Larry Silverstein just six weeks before 9/11.

First time the WTC had changed hands in thirty years and the first time it had ever come under private control.

Only 56 minutes to fall.

Timeline.

Insurance.

They knew it was coming, and gave it a helping hand.

They've been at it ever since.

Please stick to the claims, instead of throwing out the usual scattershot 'factoids'

Call it what you want, I'll disagree.

'whataboutisms' you say?.... How bout coincidences, cause there is alot of them.

You mean the evidence like the jet fuel 'factoids'? .... That stuff was gone almost immediately and thats easy to see.
The only so called fuel in the fires was the office combustibles, which was office debris that was fire coded.

What an idiot ,how much was he paid to make this stupid video ? piece of steel rod heated in a forge ? the fuel burned off in the [basically] open air, and was NOT a FORGE conveniently heated [taking more than seconds]to the Right temp !! to bend ,plus the fact it was heavy Structural steel ,not a piece of steel rod the thickness of your thumb ,doesn't prove one thing, apart from the fact he is an idiot ,the jet fuel burnt off in seconds, this is pure BS spouted by a Dil . Dickhead, you should know better ,go back to dropping anvils on Road Runners ,about the limit of your brain capacity.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Hey, it has been posted before, the thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It doesn't matter though, the thread gets turned into the same old arguments.

It is a good video though.

originally posted by: pheonix358
Well done!

That is the biggy in this argument. The jet fuel exploded into massive fireballs External to the building

Watch one of the videos with the fireball. Freeze frame. Measure the fireball. You will be amazed at how huge it was.

P

This is true, but not significant. For a start, you can't see how much of the explosion occurred on the other side of the tower's exterior wall (i.e., inside the building). But there must have been some, because straight after the initial fireball has dissipated, the interior of the tower is already on fire.

I think you're failing to distinguish between the initial explosions from the plane impacts and the fires that gradually took hold of the towers after each impact. The initial pyrotechnics were enormous, but they didn't bring down the towers - the fires did,, after roughly an hour in each case.

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Here would be my question. How much man power does it take to control demolish a sky scrapper?

Far more easy to just persuade a bunch of radicals to hijack four jets and fly them into buildings.

That's all it would take to start the war you where looking for. No need to over complicate things by ALSO demolishing the buildings through explosive. No need for the extra planing, the extra loss lips, and cost of the property damage.

Controlled demolition just doesn't pass the logic test.

Show me a video of the team of people laying the explosives; till then the jets took down the buildings.

One, the original stance by the truth movement the towers fell near free fall speed is a false statement. The floor system fell at 2/3rds the rate of free fall. The core columns fell last at 40% of free fall speed.

Two, the AE 9/11 Truth put their theories in a cage by stating the witnessesed collapse speed only could be achieved by the removal of resistance of each floor. In short, all floors in their false narrative had to be rigged with demolitions.

Three, large amounts of water at the WTC was used to cool and prevent fires in the smoldering rubble. Molten metal basically explodes when hit with water.

originally posted by: butcherguy
Even though it only had to weaken the steel in the WTC, kerosene (jet fuel) is capable of producing temperatures of 3,800 degrees F when burned.
The melting point of carbon steel is 2,800 degrees F.
adiabatic flame temperatures
engineering toolbox

Do you want me to believe that burning jetfuel fires on 8 or 10 floors of a 110 story building, low intensity fires at that, managed to weaken the entire structure causing it to collapse at near free fall speeds?

Do you want me to believe that those fires caused molten iron for about 3 months?

Sorry Charlie, no can do.

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

Call it what you want, I'll disagree.

'whataboutisms' you say?.... How bout coincidences, cause there is alot of them.

You mean the evidence like the jet fuel 'factoids'? .... That stuff was gone almost immediately and thats easy to see.
The only so called fuel in the fires was the office combustibles, which was office debris that was fire coded.

Yes, I know how this works for conspiracy theorists - don't ever focus on why a particular claim you make is being explained as wrong-headed, just keep moving on to the next supposed thing.

Then, when it's over - pretend there's "so much there" because you never stopped and followed any of the points to their absurd conclusions. Much of what gets tossed around is just false (buildings fell at free fall speed, the molten metal was steel, all three buildings collapsed in the same manner, etc), but if someone rebuts it, it will simply get repeated again in the next go-round. It's a conclusion searching for an argument.

Did you watch the Twin Towers collapse, and focus on the floors below the point of collapse yet? Probably not, but they get crushed. Go watch it, and watch the floors below stay in place until they get crushed.

That has not changed in the last 16 years. Neither has the conspiracy narrative, it was false then and it's false now.

Do you want me to believe that burning jetfuel fires on 8 or 10 floors of a 110 story building, low intensity fires at that, managed to weaken the entire structure causing it to collapse at near free fall speeds?

Do you want me to believe that those fires caused molten iron for about 3 months?

a reply to: Salander

Been over this before Gruber......

One the jet fuel acts like lighter fluid sprayed on charcoal in a grill - it lit off everything combustible in the area

It was the contents burning that weaken the steel structure

Two - was not molten metal for 3 months

When uncovering the pile recovery crews encountered steel beams heated red by fires burning in the pile

FDNY Chief describing red hot debris

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: FyreByrd

I've seen something like this before.

While steel does melt at a much higher temp that what burning jet fuel can produce, the steel does not have to be melted to become structurally-compromised.

Good video.

So what about all the steel that was not compromised by heat.

#2 fell in 56 minutes! #1 fell in 85 minutes!

1975 WTC #1 fire burned for 3 hours on the 11th floor while spreading to many floors. This fire was more intense (hotter), and suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.

I think another member mentioned that the structure was not held together through welded joints. It was bolted together. Given enough force from the impact, the fires and the collapse, those bolts were nothing more than sheer pins that broke easily.

In other words, the pancake effect.

So the tower's construction and massive weight was trusted by bolts since day one?

The core (47) columns were mostly welded, but only to maybe 1/2 depth and only on 2 sides. But the top ..... 15-20 were bolted.

The exterior columns were mostly bolted except for the bottom few floors.

Why didn't Tower #1 collapse in the 1975 fire that burned for 3 hours at a way lower level (many floors around floor 11), which had a lot more weight above than 9/11.

4- as others have noted, lower floors have heavier thicker steel. Heavier thicker steel heats slower the the plane impact floors

You're welcome

Save the "your welcome" stuff for someone else.

You asked. I answered. If you choose to remain incredulous and ignorant then that's your choice.

None of the buildings should not have fell the way they did.

Why not?

More incredulity and ignorance I suspect.

"Lower floors have heavier thicker steel"... exactly. Heavier and thicker steel that wasn't compromised by heat, but oh i forgot, the bolts sheared easily.

Yes. But not the bolts holding any columns, neither core nor exterior.

The bolts that attached the floors to the columns sheared easily when they were overloaded by the mass of falling debris.

You guys say we repeat the same points, well...ditto.

Yes we do.

Mainly cuz you guys don't listen, nor learn.

originally posted by: blackaspirin
Gentlemen,

Once the initial failure occurred in the Twin Towers, it was game over. The steel that is farther below the impact points does not need to be heated in order to fail, once the failure at the impact points allowed the entire span of floors above it to come crashing down - that force alone crushed everything beneath it, all the way down as it continued.

So in summary, the steel did not have to 'melt', it merely had to fail. Once that happened, the force exerted by the mass above was too much to bear.

Someone brought up the fact that the 2nd tower to be hit fell more quickly than the 1st. Do you know why?

Because the 2nd tower was hit substantially lower - which means more floors, more mass, was pushing down on the impact point of that tower while the steel was being heated at the impact point. It is perfectly consistent with, wait for it - a top down collapse caused by the impact of the planes and ensuing fires.

Conversely, what is the 'controlled demolition' explanation for why the 2nd tower to be hit collapsed first? The demolition team forgot which building they were supposed to blow up first, and hit the wrong button?

This is not hard to understand, unless you're hell-bent on believing in a government conspiracy, and try to twist yourself in knots to make it work.

Um no
The top third of the building could not in any way crush the lower undamaged part of the building. If the top third was so badly damaged that all support was removed, the top third would have rotated and toppled over. Think for a moment that you are cutting down a tree, if you could remove a section two thirds of the way up and support it so that all of the weight of the upper section can be released to fall straight down on the lower section, what would happen?
The lower section, made of the same material as the upper section would do what?
The lower section would be damaged the exact same amount as the upper section. Since there is more structure below, the most damage possible to the lower section is the entire size of the upper smaller section. This means that if the top damaged section of the tree/building was the top third, then there will still be the lowest third of the building remaining.
However the tree example in real life, like in this attack, would damage one side of the tree more than the other and instead of the top third of the tree crushing the lower 2/3 's all the way to the ground, it would twist and topple over.
Physics lesson concluded.

originally posted by: xdriver14

Um no
The top third of the building could not in any way crush the lower undamaged part of the building. If the top third was so badly damaged that all support was removed, the top third would have rotated and toppled over. Think for a moment that you are cutting down a tree, if you could remove a section two thirds of the way up and support it so that all of the weight of the upper section can be released to fall straight down on the lower section, what would happen?
The lower section, made of the same material as the upper section would do what?
The lower section would be damaged the exact same amount as the upper section. Since there is more structure below, the most damage possible to the lower section is the entire size of the upper smaller section. This means that if the top damaged section of the tree/building was the top third, then there will still be the lowest third of the building remaining.
However the tree example in real life, like in this attack, would damage one side of the tree more than the other and instead of the top third of the tree crushing the lower 2/3 's all the way to the ground, it would twist and topple over.
Physics lesson concluded.

I would encourage you to contact some physicists at respected universities, and run that logic by them. I hope you aren't adversely affected by laughter.

In short, a tree is nothing like a skyscraper (a large structure interconnected my a multitude of parts), and any attempt to compare the two is absurd. Gravity will also dictate that once that failure at the impact point occurs, the mass above will attempt to go straight down, and crush everything below it. Have your local physicist calculate the amount of force that is generated by that mass, and what it would take to stop it. Once that initial failure occurred, the buildings were coming down - and no, they don't 'topple to the side', there's nothing pushing them sideways.

If what you summarized is correct, there's a perfect way to proceed - have a qualified physicist put it into a technical paper and introduce it to respected physics journals, and see how it fares.

You guys can't keep claiming all of this is 'so obvious', and yet refuse to do the work within the scientific community. After 16 years, it's still message boards and YouTube. Physicists around the world aren't in on some big conspiracy to hide the truth from you, the more likely explanation, by far, is - you don't know what you're talking about, despite being certain that you do.

a reply to: ozb1777

plus the fact it was heavy Structural steel ,not a piece of steel rod the thickness of your thumb

It was exactly a rod of steel the size of your thumb.
Look up steel floor trusses.
See that zig zag rod between the top and bottom?
That's the real support.

The design of wtc RELIED on these trusses to brace the inner core and outer steel.
Neither could hold themselves straight for 110 stories.
That's the real flaw in the design of wtc.

originally posted by: blackaspirin

originally posted by: xdriver14

Um no
The top third of the building could not in any way crush the lower undamaged part of the building. If the top third was so badly damaged that all support was removed, the top third would have rotated and toppled over. Think for a moment that you are cutting down a tree, if you could remove a section two thirds of the way up and support it so that all of the weight of the upper section can be released to fall straight down on the lower section, what would happen?
The lower section, made of the same material as the upper section would do what?
The lower section would be damaged the exact same amount as the upper section. Since there is more structure below, the most damage possible to the lower section is the entire size of the upper smaller section. This means that if the top damaged section of the tree/building was the top third, then there will still be the lowest third of the building remaining.
However the tree example in real life, like in this attack, would damage one side of the tree more than the other and instead of the top third of the tree crushing the lower 2/3 's all the way to the ground, it would twist and topple over.
Physics lesson concluded.

I would encourage you to contact some physicists at respected universities, and run that logic by them. I hope you aren't adversely affected by laughter.

In short, a tree is nothing like a skyscraper (a large structure interconnected my a multitude of parts), and any attempt to compare the two is absurd. Gravity will also dictate that once that failure at the impact point occurs, the mass above will attempt to go straight down, and crush everything below it. Have your local physicist calculate the amount of force that is generated by that mass, and what it would take to stop it. Once that initial failure occurred, the buildings were coming down - and no, they don't 'topple to the side', there's nothing pushing them sideways.

If what you summarized is correct, there's a perfect way to proceed - have a qualified physicist put it into a technical paper and introduce it to respected physics journals, and see how it fares.

You guys can't keep claiming all of this is 'so obvious', and yet refuse to do the work within the scientific community. After 16 years, it's still message boards and YouTube. Physicists around the world aren't in on some big conspiracy to hide the truth from you, the more likely explanation, by far, is - you don't know what you're talking about, despite being certain that you do.

2 similar materials will deform and destruct at the same rate. Less material above than below means it can not crush it to the ground. I can not fathom how you don't get this. The crushing of a lower floor by the floor above it will consume 1 floor above and below. There were insufficient floors above the damage to destroy all the floor below.
The tree analogy works perfectly. The material above and below is the same. Trying to stay civil under the stress of trying to explain simple physics. Let's talk collision physics. Imagine you had 2 model train cars set up on a track and you are going to collide them together. Each car is exactly the same weight but made of cement. Just for clarity only 1 car is in motion the other stopped by something immovable. You will see that both train cars are equally damaged. Same forces on each.
Now make the non moving train car twice a 's large and leave the moving car the same weight. The smaller train car will disintegrate and leave the non moving car shorter but still but still there.

Neat. But that theory only works if all the floors are glowing, as dude showed us in his video. The entire tower structure(s) had to be from a furnace...to suffer a global collapse. He clearly supported the anvil with a piece of 'unheated' structural steel, didn't he?
Thanks for keeping this travesty of justice alive, not!

originally posted by: loveguy


Neat. But that theory only works if all the floors are glowing, as dude showed us in his video. The entire tower structure(s) had to be from a furnace...to suffer a global collapse. He clearly supported the anvil with a piece of 'unheated' structural steel, didn't he?
Thanks for keeping this travesty of justice alive, not!

[/quote

The video in the open is nice but deceptive. First of all the steel was loaded in compression. Steel is very strong in this mode. If you noticed when he banged the rod on the anvil it did not collapse. It is more maleable on a side load than under compression.
Secondly the piece of steel was very small and it took a small forge quite a few minutes to heat it up. In the building the steel would have absorbed the heat and moved it along the steel. Spoon in hot coffee idea.

The biggest red flag as has been mentioned by other in this thread is that the failure took the highest resistance route to the ground. That does not happen in real life. Ever.
Every foot of damage to the lower section would create a foot of damage to the upper section.
Last experiment to run past you. Take 3 bricks stand them end to end on top of each other. Take a 4th brick raise it to any height you like and then drop it on the 3 stacked bricks. I bet you can repeat this 1000 times and you will always have 2 bricks left over.

a reply to: xdriver14

Hhhhhhhhhhh,

Slow down. Lets think.

One, any given floor of a high-rise has a specific load limit. If the load exceeds the load rating for that floor, it will fail. If the load rating for the floor below is equal to or less than the floor that just failed. Why would it stop the falling mass.

The long sections of vertical columns were left standing after the complete collapse of the floor system. The vertical columns buckeled in relation to the jet impacts and fires from drooping and contracting floor trusses.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

Once the upper mass of the tower started to fall, the columns were stripped of floor connections and trusses. The vertical columns only tumbled down after the lose of large selections of side to side bracing.

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
app.aws.org...


AE 9/11 Truth is not truthful

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

Can you state a theory and provide credible evidence?

originally posted by: xdriver14

2 similar materials will deform and destruct at the same rate. Less material above than below means it can not crush it to the ground.

I can not fathom how you don't get this. The crushing of a lower floor by the floor above it will consume 1 floor above and below. There were insufficient floors above the damage to destroy all the floor below.

Look up static load vs. dynamic load.

At the moment of failure, the upper floors dropped through the impact point on to the lower floors. This is no longer the WEIGHT of the upper floors vs. the stability of the lower floors. It is now a dynamic load, not a static one.

If you don't understand, imagine resting a concrete block on your head. You can do that, right? Now, imagine someone dropping it from 6 inches above your head. Then imagine someone dropping it from a foot above your head.

Are all of those scenarios the same amount of FORCE on your head? HELL NO. Yeah, the weight of the concrete block is the same in all three instances, but the FORCE is vastly different. I encourage you NOT to try the latter two examples - they will do far more damage to your head than the first.

This is what you fail to understand. If I am not convincing enough, because you and I are both laypersons - I again challenge you to go to the nearest university and find a physics teacher. Show them our dialogue, and see what they have to say.

originally posted by: xdriver14The tree analogy works perfectly. The material above and below is the same. Trying to stay civil under the stress of trying to explain simple physics. Let's talk collision physics. Imagine you had 2 model train cars set up on a track and you are going to collide them together. Each car is exactly the same weight but made of cement. Just for clarity only 1 car is in motion the other stopped by something immovable. You will see that both train cars are equally damaged. Same forces on each.
Now make the non moving train car twice a 's large and leave the moving car the same weight. The smaller train car will disintegrate and leave the non moving car shorter but still but still there.

Two words - waterjet cutter. You clearly do not understand what you're talking about. Don't take my word for it (I know you won't), go talk to some physics teachers and try to learn something. Posting on conspiracy message boards, where others pat you on the back and tell you how right you are...is why you still don't understand after 16 years.

a reply to: blackaspirin

Why listen to sane free science when you can purchase what you want to hear and pseudoscience from AE 9/11 Truth?