9/11 and the melting metal theory
 

Conspiracy theories have said that it is impossible for the jet fuel that burned in the towers to cause the metal supports to become super heated enough to collapse underneath the tons of metal and concrete above it.

Recently a gas truck (not get fuel which burns hotter) turned over and cause fire. The fuel burned so hot the metal supports melted and the bridge collapsed.

If that can happen with a simply overpass why can't it happen with a building that has jet fuel burning and tons and tons and tons of weight on top of it, not to mention the other flammable materials burning away in the towers

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,269196,00.html

I think that Aluminum Foil on your head is causing something else to be slowly melting...

Great Thread Prax! :slaphappy

:nutso

I wonder have many file cabinets were in those offices and home many tons of paper...............Not to mention wooded desks, tables, book cases. and no telling what other combustibles...........

As an apprentice burner and a journeyman welder working in shipyards in my younger days, I can testify with certainty that 2600 degrees can, given a very little time, indeed buckle very heavy guage steel to cause it to fold and crumble.

And dry wall and carpeting

Ahhh......thank you!

Prax, good thread. I thought the same thing when I saw where that tanker truck explosion had collapsed that freeway overpass.

Conspiracy theorists, for the most part, are idiots. They ignore common sense to their own peril.

I saw a clip they use on websites to try and say that a cruise missle or some other missle hit the pentagon and not an airplane. It is an interview with an eyewitness who says something like "It looked like a cruise missle flying into the building". The conspiracy nuts end the clip at that point which takes that statement out of context because I saw the unedited clip in which he says right after that statement something like "except it had wings, it was a jetliner"

Yes, same thing Michael Moore did. It's called a polemic. People can distort the facts or just not show ALL the facts to make a situation seem the way they want it to seem

I hope Essaias doesn't read this thread.....LOL!

We[YT="Amature Video"]8tjs5ILNkJc[/YT]

Oh goody, is he still around?

Moreso on GNC than here.

Leave it to HO to think of him!!!

I think the black helicopter folks finally got him. He is probably in some secret one world government prison on the same island they are keeping JFK in his vegatative state from the severe brain injury incurred in Dallas.

:D

This thread will be like a magnet to him.

He just started a thread the other day about another conspiracy theory that went nowhere. He was upset that nobody believed him.....LOL!

I thought of him because him and I were at it about 9/11 not too long ago and he insisted there was no way it could have happened like it did.

There is someone else who argued that no plane was involved with the Pentagon, but I can't remember who that was.

The thing with the towers is that no one was able to get up there to inspect how much of the structural steel had been damaged by the impact, so there's no telling how much damage existed before the fire got hot enough to cause the steel to buckle. The thing that still remains a mystery is how the building fell as fast as it did. According to what I have read, they both came down at such a fast rate of speed that it was as if the buildings were free falling, rather than one floor landing on top of each lower floor. There is a lot about 9/11 I doubt will ever be explained, to be honest with you.

9/11 was a true terrorist attack, and was an attempt to disarm us from our stance of preparedness. The Twin Towers came down after the impact, due to possible flaws in the original design as well as the thousands of gallons of jet fuel that exploded.

We had the same thing happen in Houston the week before yours in Ca occurred, where a tanker truck turned over and burst into flames. It was so hot it made the concrete turn to gravel. It happen where to major freeways intersect. It will be closed for at least two months to do repairs.

We also had a 6 story building catch fire and weakened the structure and had to be supported before they could go in find out where the fire began. Turns out it was arson.

A nurse had a report due to turn in the next day for a doctor she had not done the report so she just started a fire.

Three people were killed.

So I guess we can have a new conspiracy going about tanker trucks burning down major freeways. :)

....my :2cents [that is one slow developing emoticon...!]

I am quite sure (but nothing is certain) that most folks who have received the gift of the Holy Ghost and post on these kind of boards are quite confident that PLANES really did fly into the buildings. Dragging the discussion over to the extreme that it was a fiction purpetrated using video and dynamic digital editting techniques is just a silly and regrettable sidebar distraction.

I do not believe that God has called me or I have an election to have a role in pulling back the curtain to expose the darkness that may or may not exist in our national government. I am thankful that there are media outlets that offer a counterbalance to absolute power of central governments. The free press, the internet, and various advocacy/interest groups all have a part (based in their own free-market motivations) in dragging a net through the sea of available information. Folks who want to search through the catch are welcome to do so, but ithey will pay a price; spending time in sorting through the "catch of the day" a lot of stinky dead things are in the mix and it means not doing something else with the hours and days you have been given.

If our elected executive branch of government had any role in allowing an attack to proceed (what much of the speculation involves around codes being broken and Pearl Harbor), everyone of us would want somebody to pursue that possibility to let the facts be recorded.

So for those who get a good laugh out of labelling some folks as "conspiracy nuts", would you applaud your news outlets if they strickly reported what the governmental press release provided them? Would you congratulate them for being so "un-nutty"?

1. Where are the facts and figures? Prax and others here who believe this bridge failure "proves" that the two World Trade Center towers were destroyed by fires from the impact of two Boeings need to demonstrate the SIMILARITIES and the DIFFERENCES between this bridge fire and the Tower collapses.

2. Did the bridge collapse at free fall speed, as we all saw the Towers collapse?

3. Look at this -
http://www.infowars.com/images2/sept...7233646658.jpg

Now, here we have an upper level structure collapsing onto a lower level... but no "pancake effect" as was ridiculously claimed in the WTC attack. Why is that? How is it that the towers collapsed hundreds of floors on top on each other, flattening each other at free fall speed (a physical impossibility, by the way), pulverising and aerisolising the floors, the supports, the beams, the trusses, the steel (leaving tons of paper debris undamaged, by the way...) whereas this fire simply dropped one section on top of another section, leaving the support columns intact, the "floors" (roadways) still present (not pulverised or aerisolised)???

If anyone would like to present the TECHNICAL DATA regarding this fire, and attempt to show how it can account for the events of September 11, then by all means, proceed to do so.

Oh, and the personal attacks against "Essaias" are symptomatic of people who have no FACTS but only a BELIEF they wish to promote.

http://0301.netclime.net/1_5/8/R/7/114609966282566.jpg

Here is the result of a skyscraper succumbing to a compeltely out of control, raging inferno.

Does it look like what we saw on September 11th?

Not hardly...

Source.

Doesn't look like the integrity of the structure was impaired by a plane going through it. Totally different circumstance, although I see your point.

Good to see you. I knew you'd come.....LOL!

The structural integrity of the WTC towers were not so imparied by being hit by planes that they collapsed. NOBODY claims the IMPACT of the planes is what caused the towers to fall and pulverise on their way down at free fall speed.

It is the FIRE which is claimed to have "melted the steel" so badly the towers just collapsed, vaporizing on their way to ground zero.

However, the towers were DESIGNED to withstand jet plane impact. NO skyscraper EVER "collapsed" due to FIRE DAMAGE TO THE STEEL.

The picture above shows that even in a TOTALLY UNCONTROLLED RAGING INFERNO the steel does NOT "melt away into nothing".

Now, how about some FACTS?

Regarding the bridge, WHAT EXACTLY "melted" and what EXACTLY caused the upper level to collapse?

Was it the steel trusses themselves that "melted"?

Or the BOLTS?

Anyone got any FACTS for this discussion?

Hey, WATCH THE TOWERS FALL, and tell me you believe that was "a kerosene fire that melted everything so bad the towers just fell down the way they did"...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...eos/index.html

I thought Black Helicopters caused the towers to fall.

The "source" article/discussion that Elesus copied was an interesting read. If nothing else, IMO, the tone seemed to maintain a certain engineering objectivity to it.

I was very surprised to read the aspect of the material handling:
NIST (2005) says that it “did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors”. That only such a tiny percent of the columns was available was due, of course, to the fact that government officials had most of the steel immediately sold and shipped off. In any case, NIST’s findings on the basis of this tiny percent of the columns are not irrelevant: They mean that any speculations that some of the core columns reached much higher temperatures would be just that---pure speculation not backed up by any empirical evidence.

I am pretty familiar with the landfill (closed) location in Staten Island that was used to handle the logistical management of the materials removed from Ground Zero. This landfill is some 3000 acres (once the largest in the US) and has been closed for receipt of municipal waste before the events of 9/11/2001. It was not for lack of space or disruption of a municipal operation that the affected material had to be quickly transferred or SOLD to the scrap markets!

BTW, I was in New Orleans when a commercial airliner crashed into a neighborhood adjacent to MSY (in Kenner, La). The national safety lab basically reassembled as much of the plane as possible out of the debris.

If the affected materials that represented the entire structural forensics of two high rise super structures comprehensively failing, are rendered unavailable through a SALE to a salvage operation to make room at a closed 3000 acre municipal landfill, there must be someone who can give account for WHY!

SAS,

Was thousands of gallons of jet fuel the accelerate in the example you used of a skyscraper burning?


Apples and Oranges.

There will always be those who seek out elaborate conspiratorial explanations for momentous events. Has been through time.

I am glad to see SAS escaped from the Island prison the Men In Black must have been keeping him captive in.

Hopefully he has found a way to foil the tracking bug the government has planted somewhere in his body or brain.

The bulk of the kerosene onboard the planes were detonated and burned off within about the first ten minutes. In fact, the second plane impact resulted in the majority of the jet fuel exploding through and outside of the building.

Please demonstrate how burning jet fuel (kerosene, a diesel derivative) can melt over 75 percent of the entire structure of a skyscraper WITHOUT "large, raging, infernos" being in place.

By the way, does anyone here ever use kerosene lamps or kerosene camping stoves? I wonder how many folks have had their grills melted as a result of this obviously super-powerful destructive open-air conflagration under the hot dogs they tried to cook...

An d there are always those who seek out cheesy ad hominem personal attacks to hurl against those who simply ASK QUESTIONS and who point out that various THEORIES offered as "explanations" DO NOT ADD UP.

Remember, EVERY "solution" or "explanation" about what happened on 9-11 is a THEORY.

A "conspiracy theory" to be precise, since EVERY "solution" includes a CONSPIRACY of two or more people conspiring to bring the towers down.

So, it is not a question of "the truth versus conspiracy theories". It is simply a matter of "which conspiracy theory best explains the available evidence."

Now, back on topic.

Who has the facts, or at least links to articles detailing the facts, regarding the bridge collapse?

Anyone?

Every major news outlet covered it because of the terrible traffic jams it is causing. Should be on CNN, MSNBC, FOX, and major newspapers. In particular I would imagine the San Francisco ones.


Gotta go, I think I hear a black helicopter coming.

If there were bombs used inside the buildings as some have said, wouldn't folks have heard them denotate?

And then there is the question as to whether Bush is actually smart enough to pull something like that off...

1. Those towers were built to withstand plane impact according to the planes in existence in 1969! They were small compared to the planes that hit those towers!

2. First time for everything. There are lots of unexplained things that have taken place that, if the same circumstance happened again, the result would probably be different.

3. Speaking of facts, where did you get yours?

More importantly, where did the bombs come from, and how long had they been in place, since there was no way they could have placed them with all that chaos in the space of less than two hours.....that's assuming the bomb placers were on the scene already.

When someone thinks about the timeline involved, it's easy to dismiss the claims that someone sinister was in play. Even if they had the info in advance, the time it would take to put plans into place would have been longer than what they had to work with.

They had less than two hours in one tower, and less than three in the other. With all the chaos of literally thousands of people trying to escape, people on the ground burning, bodies falling, the crowd watching, and civil personnel barking orders, I highly doubt anything sinister was accomplished after the planes hit those towers, if that was indeed the plan.