Remembering 9-11 — Where did the buildings go?

[jasonc]

Has these endless wars actually made the u.s. safer ? Answer nope .
Isis ,Al aqueda and the taliban are still there .the Taliban not even a year after they took over harbored a known master mind .I'm not a pacifist but we need have wasted lives and overridded the 4th amendments to supposedly make it safer .I'm not saying do nothing but the way we went simply isn't the right way .

We don't need to be the world's police .

 

[hawkman]

John Prine may be singing about Vietnam, but it works here too .

"I used to sleep at the foot of old glory
And awake in the dawn's early light
But much to my surprise when I opened my eyes
I was a victim of the great compromise"

 

[jasonc]

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/step-back-lessons-us-foreign-policy-failed-war-terror#introduction

Lengthy read.

But true

 

[JLB]

Well, the planes struck the 93rd to 99th floor of the first tower and the 77th to 85th floor of the second tower. Let me ask you, do you have any idea what happens to concrete and the steel super structure within when, the towers were 110 stories tall,

Nothing other than some fire from the planes, and damage to the general area of the building where the plane hit.


Jet fuel burns at approximately 900 degrees Fahrenheit.

Structural steel melts at approximately 3500 degrees Fahrenheit.

Structural steel in the twin towers, and building 7 which wasn’t hit, melted and turned to dust.


900 degrees Fahrenheit will not cause structural steel to “turn to dust”.


Only Thermite can do that. 4000 degrees Fahrenheit.


Only a controlled demolition can make a building fall in upon itself.

 

[miamited]

Hi JLB

Fahrenheit 2777

9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories

www.scientificamerican.com

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi JLB

Also, I'm not contending that the steel girders melted, but that they lost over 50% of their tensile strength to hold up millions of tons of weight above them. That phenomenon happens around 1,200°F. However, that is when it loses 50% of it's strength. With the amount of weight being held, the steel girders may not have even had to lose more than 25% of its tensile strength. Tensile strength loss in steel begins about 600°F.

BTW your understanding of how hot jet fuel burns is likely off by a few hundred degrees when 90,000 gal. are burning. Having been up in many tall structures, the wind is pretty strong up there. This would create, much like bellows that builds up the heat in any fire place, a hotter burn also. There are a lot of variables that would have affected the burning and amount of heat that I think you just aren't aware of and because you don't understand these other variables, you can't understand what happened on 9/11.

Look, if you want to believe, as apparently Rep. Greene does, that some other destructive force such as 'Israeli lasers' were used in the process, that's ok with me. But I am going to continue to provide more factual evidence for those with more productive thinking minds to consider. Which generally supports the generally accepted results of the ground zero investigations. Just keep repeating that the steel super structure doesn't have to actually melt for steel to become very, very unstable. Just keep repeating that fairly unstable steel won't hold up 33 million tons of weight. Who knows? Maybe that will help here.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

JLB

Here's another study done on the collapse.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

While this study does agree that the temperatures didn't get near high enough to melt the steel, it does put the blame for the collapse on the initial lost support columns as the planes tore into the side of the building and then the heat from the fire softening, not melting, the remainder of the steel superstructure over a span of several floors. The study also agrees that the weight above the impact site was a fairly large reason for the total collapse that came about an hour later as the steel softened from the heat of the fire.

God bless,
Ted

 

[JLB]

I'm not contending that the steel girders melted,

The structural steel melted and ran like water down the exterior beams, and all were cut at a precise angle inwardly.


The rest of the structural skeleton vaporized in a cloud.



JLB

 

[JLB]

Main Structural Beam

 

[JLB]

JLB

 

[JLB]

To:

 

[JLB]

https://christianforums.net/conversations/picture-wouldn%E2%80%99t-paste-in-thread.114755/#convMessage-242551

 

[miamited]

The structural steel melted and ran like water down the exterior beams, and all were cut at a precise angle inwardly.

Hi JLB

I don't believe that's a true statement. Do you have pictures of molten steel in the collapsed towers? If you would indulge me, exactly how many steel beams were cut exactly the same as the one that you sent in your picture?

Personally, I believe that you've been taken in by a single picture of a single steel beam that would seem, to someone unfamiliar with 'how' exactly steel as thick as girders does actually break off when it bends beyond a certain limit. Look, I've bent thin steel to the breaking point and it generally always breaks off pretty clean. So you develop, or are taken in by someone's story, that this break in a steel girder is somehow not how it would have broken under the conditions of the WTC collapse. Show me a picture of a broken beam, under the same conditions of heat and weight, that has broken differently.

Several variations to be mindful of in this video. First, the beam is horizontal and not vertical. Second the weight is applied fairly slowly, where as the crashing weight of the WTC came within 10 seconds. Third, there is no heat being applied to the steel to soften it. All of these variables will have an effect on the final look of a broken place in a failed steel girder. So, I'm happy to look at your picture, but until and unless you can show me that a steel beam standing vertical with several million tons of weight collapsing on it within a matter of a couple of seconds would have not broken in the manner that your picture shows, I remain unconvinced that there's anything abnormal about the steel girder break in your picture. Show me!

Please consider that a steel beam that just fails suddenly from one second to the next would like look exactly as your picture shows. Even steel girders that break when bridges collapse isn't holding the kind of weight that a beam holding 110 floors of a skyscraper. So, your picture is beautiful, but until you can show me that under the exact same conditions it should have broken differently, I'm unconvinced. I'm certainly not about to go promote some wild accusatory conspiracy over something that, I honestly doubt anyone has ever reproduced to prove that the conspiracy idea is valid.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again JLB

Only a controlled demolition can make a building fall in upon itself.

That also is just not a true statement. Any building collapse where the failure begins fairly high up and the heavy top half comes crashing down because 30' or so in the middle has collapsed will collapse by falling straight down upon itself. Now, had the planes pushed them over, then it would be a different story. However, in this case the planes had crashed into the structure at least an hour earlier so the force of the plane hitting the structure was not in play at the time of the collapse. It was merely a 30' section generally in the middle of the structure just softened to the point that the weight above crashed straight down upon itself. That's exactly what a controlled demolition tries to copy. But it doesn't require a controlled demolition to create the forces that are put in play in a controlled demolition.

As I have repeatedly said, we have no similar phenomenon to measure against. The collapse of a building the size and manner in which the WTC buildings collapsed has no equal in any historical narrative. Further, your picture seems to be trying to make the point that these cuts were made prior to the impact of the planes. Do you have any idea 'how' one could strip away the concrete to get to the steel beams to make these cuts without anyone in the building knowing that such work was going on? I mean even setting up the controlled imploding of a 5 or 6 story building takes days of work. There are wires all over the place and exposed places where the charges can be put directly against the steel super structure supports. What's impossible is that such work that it would require to implode a building the size of the WTC towers could be done without anyone noticing for several days before the attack. Of course, the second thing that one would have to know, if a directed implosion had been planned to be covered up by planes flying into the building, is that there were going to be planes flying into the building. Hmmmm.

Lastly, the cut in your picture certainly is not a cut made by a saw of any kind, so how was that ragged cut made?

Look, I pity you. You have tied yourself up in wild theories and conjectures for which you cannot possibly know the truth and are attempting to promote it to others. I'm not buying it and I'm really sorry that you do.

God bless,
Ted

 

[JLB]

Hi JLB

I don't believe that's a true statement. Do you have pictures of molten steel in the collapsed towers? If you would indulge me, exactly how many steel beams were cut exactly the same as the one that you sent in your picture?

Personally, I believe that you've been taken in by a single picture of a single steel beam that would seem, to someone unfamiliar with 'how' exactly steel as thick as girders does actually break off when it bends beyond a certain limit. Look, I've bent thin steel to the breaking point and it generally always breaks off pretty clean. So you develop, or are taken in by someone's story, that this break in a steel girder is somehow not how it would have broken under the conditions of the WTC collapse. Show me a picture of a broken beam, under the same conditions of heat and weight, that has broken differently.

Several variations to be mindful of in this video. First, the beam is horizontal and not vertical. Second the weight is applied fairly slowly, where as the crashing weight of the WTC came within 10 seconds. Third, there is no heat being applied to the steel to soften it. All of these variables will have an effect on the final look of a broken place in a failed steel girder. So, I'm happy to look at your picture, but until and unless you can show me that a steel beam standing vertical with several million tons of weight collapsing on it within a matter of a couple of seconds would have not broken in the manner that your picture shows, I remain unconvinced that there's anything abnormal about the steel girder break in your picture. Show me!

Please consider that a steel beam that just fails suddenly from one second to the next would like look exactly as your picture shows. Even steel girders that break when bridges collapse isn't holding the kind of weight that a beam holding 110 floors of a skyscraper. So, your picture is beautiful, but until you can show me that under the exact same conditions it should have broken differently, I'm unconvinced. I'm certainly not about to go promote some wild accusatory conspiracy over something that, I honestly doubt anyone has ever reproduced to prove that the conspiracy idea is valid.

God bless,
Ted

Do you believe 900 degree jet fuel is capable of melting structural steel?

 

[JLB]

That also is just not a true statement.

If you choose to deny that only a controlled demolition is able to cause a building to fall straight down within its own footprint then that is your choice.

JLB

 

[miamited]

Do you believe 900 degree jet fuel is capable of melting structural steel?

Hi JLB

No. I think I've been quite clear that the 'melted steel' fallacy isn't one that I believe either. My claim is merely that the beams softened by the heat to the point where they were unable to hold the enormous weight still above the burning area. Steel begins to soften at a much, much lower temperature than it melts.

If you choose to deny that only a controlled demolition is able to cause a building to fall straight down within its own footprint then that is your choice.

Thank you. If you choose to deny the truth of the work of the real investigators on the scene, that is your choice also. But I'm going to speak out about any discrepancies for which you seem to be able to provide any proof.

There has long been a part of our society that is unable to trust those who do the real work and have hands on experience with the reality of events. Our landing on the moon. The holocaust that killed some 6 million human beings. The contrails of jets is being used to spew poisons upon us. George Bush (or fill in your favorite name) is the Anti-christ. The U.N. is using black helicopters to gain control over the U.S., etc, etc, ad nauseum.

God bless,
Ted

 

[JLB]

No. I think I've been quite clear that the 'melted steel' fallacy isn't one that I believe either. My claim is merely that the beams softened by the heat to the point where they were unable to hold the enormous weight still above the burning area. Steel begins to soften at a much, much lower temperature than it melts.

Ok, so you tend to believe 900 degrees of jet fuel burning across the street can weaken structural steel to collapse in on itself, exactly the way controlled demolition does, even though no plane ever hit it?


You have simply closed your eyes to reality.




JLB

 

[jasonc]

Jlb look a lighter using propane burner higher then a 1000 .

Jet fuel burns much hotter . That video of flames had a brick wall quite warm . The metal wires that we ordered were useless .they held shape .but I pulled one and it split in half . Steel and aluminum wires did that . Concertina wire will as designed blow tracks in tanks and also tires and not split

.

 

[miamited]

Unpacking conspiracy theories about the World Trade Center collapse, 20 years after Sept. 11

VERIFY spoke to experts in the field of conspiracies, and an author of the 9/11 Commission to help us understand why questions linger 20 years later.

www.verifythis.com