Author Topic: The Latest 9/11 conspiresists  (Read 1672 times)

Offline RAIDER14

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2554
The Latest 9/11 conspiresists
« Reply #45 on: February 14, 2006, 05:55:00 PM »
they 767 destroyed most of the workthe fire just finished it off

Offline xrtoronto

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4219
The Latest 9/11 conspiresists
« Reply #46 on: February 14, 2006, 06:13:01 PM »
thought I'd share this favourite shot (of many) that I have on NYC.

*sigh*


Offline RAIDER14

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2554
The Latest 9/11 conspiresists
« Reply #47 on: February 14, 2006, 06:21:03 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by xrtoronto
thought I'd share this favourite shot (of many) that I have on NYC.

*sigh*




:lol

Offline RAIDER14

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2554
The Latest 9/11 conspiresists
« Reply #48 on: February 14, 2006, 06:34:48 PM »



Offline RedTop

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5921
The Latest 9/11 conspiresists
« Reply #49 on: February 14, 2006, 09:31:02 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Saintaw
This one's interesting... it's almost two hours long.

Loose Change 9-11 Alex Jones Conspiracy
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194


It was interesting.
Original Member and Former C.O. 71 sqd. RAF Eagles

Offline RAIDER14

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2554
The Latest 9/11 conspiresists
« Reply #50 on: February 14, 2006, 09:50:11 PM »
Quote
It was interesting


yep

Offline Slash27

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12798
The Latest 9/11 conspiresists
« Reply #51 on: February 14, 2006, 09:59:30 PM »
" The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never.

One might say, of course, that there is a first time for everything, and that a truly extraordinary fire might induce a collapse. Let us examine this idea. What would count as an extraordinary fire? Given the properties of steel, a fire would need to be very hot, very big, and very long-lasting. But the fires in the towers did not have even one of these characteristics, let alone all three.  

     There have been claims, to be sure, that the fires were very hot. Some television specials claimed that the towers collapsed because the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. For example, an early BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as saying: “steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel.” Another man, presented as a structural engineer, said: “It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. . . . The columns would have melted” (Barter, 2001).[7]

     These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit.[8] And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene---which is what jet fuel is---can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.[9] We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted." -  PHD handsomehunk






No way is someone this dumb. Steel elongates at 1200 degrees and causes trusses to fail.( as pointed out already) There are plenty of dead firefighters to contradict "no large steel frame building has ever collasped" theory. This handsomehunk needs beat about the head and shoulders with some IFSTA manuals for a hour or so.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2006, 10:26:22 PM by Slash27 »

Offline RAIDER14

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2554
The Latest 9/11 conspiresists
« Reply #52 on: February 14, 2006, 10:04:27 PM »
The Aviation fuel along wiyh some materials in the buildings probaly made the fires extra hot but the fires did not cuase the building to collapse the planes severely damaged the support beams and the fire melted the beams becuase the fire resistant material on the beams was blown off by the impact

Offline lasersailor184

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8938
The Latest 9/11 conspiresists
« Reply #53 on: February 14, 2006, 10:06:07 PM »
Slash, next time please use quotes.  I was starting to get pissed off thinking you actually believed that.


I have been thinking about it.  It is a possibility that the steel columns melted after the collapse.  Jet Fuel wasn't the only thing burning.  Thousands upon Thousands upon Thousands of pounds of office materials like Paper, chemicals and other things.

Now, the heat caused column failure, but the building then fell upon itself.  So the entire building itself as well as the ground and the fuel (not necessarily jet fuel) created a huge insulated fire.  I'd guess (I am not perfectly certain) that because of those conditions, the fire could get hot enough to melt steel.
Punishr - N.D.M. Back in the air.
8.) Lasersailor 73 "Will lead the impending revolution from his keyboard"

Offline lasersailor184

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8938
The Latest 9/11 conspiresists
« Reply #54 on: February 14, 2006, 10:11:01 PM »
Quote
The Aviation fuel along wiyh some materials in the buildings probaly made the fires extra hot but the fires did not cuase the building to collapse the planes severely damaged the support beams and the fire melted the beams becuase the fire resistant material on the beams was blown off by the impact


No.  The fires did cause the building to collapse.  The fireproofing (fire resistant material) isn't necessarily fireproof.  It is just insulation.  Over time, heat ( /temperature differences) will get through any insulation.  The fireproofing is there to extend the time occupants have to get out of the building.  The fireproofing (literally a sprayed on foam) will resist heat for about 2 hours before it starts to give out in an ideal situation.  

The explosion and concussion from impact blew off the fireproofing foam (you can buy solid fireproofing, but it is many times more expensive).  So the steel was instantly exposed to the fire.


The word "Melt" is getting thrown around way too loosely here.
Punishr - N.D.M. Back in the air.
8.) Lasersailor 73 "Will lead the impending revolution from his keyboard"

Offline Slash27

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12798
The Latest 9/11 conspiresists
« Reply #55 on: February 14, 2006, 10:25:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by RAIDER14
The Aviation fuel along wiyh some materials in the buildings probaly made the fires extra hot but the fires did not cuase the building to collapse the planes severely damaged the support beams and the fire melted the beams becuase the fire resistant material on the beams was blown off by the impact



The fire did cause the collapse. The steel didnt have to melt, the steel failed because of the fire weakened it. Like Laser said, "melt" is getting tossed around way too much here.









Sorry about no quotes Laser, I was rather angry when posting. I just dragged my bellybutton off a house fire and came back to read that load of crap.:rolleyes:

Offline RAIDER14

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2554
The Latest 9/11 conspiresists
« Reply #56 on: February 14, 2006, 10:34:02 PM »
I guess it was to hectic that tuesday morning but why didn't they think of rooftop rescues with helicopters?

Offline lasersailor184

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8938
The Latest 9/11 conspiresists
« Reply #57 on: February 14, 2006, 10:37:18 PM »
Except for the problem of all the heat rising from the huge fires.  

Again, I know very little about this specific subject, but I think piloting a helocopter over the building would be very difficult with very little reward.  I.E. You can land the chopper with extreme difficulty and danger, but you can only put 3 or 4 more people on it.
Punishr - N.D.M. Back in the air.
8.) Lasersailor 73 "Will lead the impending revolution from his keyboard"

Offline RAIDER14

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2554
The Latest 9/11 conspiresists
« Reply #58 on: February 14, 2006, 10:39:42 PM »
if they had a blackhawk nearby which they probaly did patroling and you could see several helicopters flying around the towers on the news

Offline Pooh21

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3145
The Latest 9/11 conspiresists
« Reply #59 on: February 14, 2006, 10:41:49 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by RAIDER14
I guess it was to hectic that tuesday morning but why didn't they think of rooftop rescues with helicopters?
and which 3-4 in a panicked mob of a couple hundred people will be allowed on?
Bis endlich der Fiend am Boden liegt.
Bis Bishland bis Bishland bis Bishland wird besiegt!