911 Pentagon Video Released

[icyrus]

Because option no.2 doesn't fall within the boundary of Fact or Reason. According to the experts.

1 gallon of fuel (3 litres) = melts 3 tons of steel per gallon = in 47 minutes

Wait, which experts? Names? Credentials?

 

[kilo39]

Wait, which experts? Names? Credentials?

The Official Experts as nominated by ignacio and dominic. MIT. NIST. The Official Report (which are the only references I have used - excluding neutral references, flashpoint of fuel, etc.)

 

[Nom Chompsky]

HUh didn't you see my quotes? Steel loses 50% strength at 593 Degrees Celcius.

Furthermore, how has no-one come about leaking details about an approved 9/11 "Death match"? So many people must've been involved that it's impossible it wouldn't have been leaked.

And you can see how these crazy Muslims operate - they use "mind-control" techniques to hide away their thoughts until the last moment (look at London 7/7). Why is so hard to believe the official story? (Backed up by proper universities - not crackpots like David Griffen and a rare Ph.D scientist)

 

[Highflyer_GP]

One thing I never understood about the conspiracy theorists point of view is this:

If I was plotting to create this event to justify my future actions, which would be easier? Massive planning required to plant explosives in the buildings and create a show of how terrorists did it like has been suggest by some conspiracy theorists...

Or - just pay off some whack-job fantatical nut that already exists to do it and say he did it?

So, seeing as the second option is far far easier, cheaper and more likely to succeed, why bother contemplaiting option number one?

Problem is paying your whack-job fanatic is of no interest to the government. He has nothing to offer. Blaming it on middle-eastern terrorists provides motive to invade the middle east and to establish a US presence in that area. Notice how conveniently the Iraq attack, and the impending Iran attack (two of the worlds largest suppliers of oil) just coincidentally followed the 9/11 attacks. By establishing a presence in Afghanistan gave them a strategic point from where to launch an attack against Iraq and Iran.

US industries would crumble if their oil supply started to run short. It's these very industries who have a vested interest in politics. In the end it boils down to money and power. Nobody there gives a stuff about a few thousand people who died if they could provide future stability to their country. Also notice how quiet China is keeping in all this, despite having the largest population and a booming economy. Sooner or later the US are going to piss off the wrong people, and when they do then oil will be the least of their concerns.

 

[kilo39]

Jet A is the standard jet fuel type in the U.S. since 1950's and is only available there. Like JET A-1, JET A has a fairly high flash point of min. 38°C, with an autoignition temperature of over 425°C.

NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F (1000°C), high enough to cause structural failure.

# According to Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 °F (593 °C)." Asif Usmani of Edinburgh University concluded that the interconnecting beams of the towers could have expanded by around 9 cm at 930 °F (500 °C), causing the floors above to buckle.
-
HUh didn't you see my quotes? Steel loses 50% strength at 593 Degrees Celcius.
-
Why is so hard to believe the official story? (Backed up by proper universities - not crackpots like David Griffen and a rare Ph.D scientist)

Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.
-
The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity.
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

My experts = Your experts. The conspiracists have the information advantage.

(1 Gallon/melted 3 tons of steel per gallon)

 

[mooK]

Kilo39, why don't u devote your time to something constructive and do some deep research into Telkom's conspiracies?

At least that might turn out to be useful in some way.

 

[ignacio]

One thing I never understood about the conspiracy theorists point of view is this:

If I was plotting to create this event to justify my future actions, which would be easier? Massive planning required to plant explosives in the buildings and create a show of how terrorists did it like has been suggest by some conspiracy theorists...

Or - just pay off some whack-job fantatical nut that already exists to do it and say he did it?

So, seeing as the second option is far far easier, cheaper and more likely to succeed, why bother contemplaiting option number one?

Well put...

instead of saying 3 planes were crashed into buildings..... they say 2 planes and a missile (umm... so they managed to control 2 planes very well, but said, "what the hell, let's mix it up by throwing in a missile?")

instead of saying conventional weapons took down the WTC...... they say nuclear weapons (ummm.... fallout is supposedly undetectable?)

but most importantly, instead of saying militant arabs hijacked and crashed planes..... they say its a multinational conspiracy involving hundreds of people, different weapons systems (and personnel to plant/control each), costing billions if not trillions of dollars all for the sake of oil (never mind that oil is more expensive, they are giving Iraq back to the Iraqis so that they can do whatever the want with their oil, a dictator would have been easier to work with if they only wanted oil, Afghanistan has no oil)

Yeah - simple explanations just don't make sense to this crew.

 

[kilo39]

Kilo39, why don't u devote your time to something constructive and do some deep research into Telkom's conspiracies?

At least that might turn out to be useful in some way.

Is that the best you can say - You who have no freedom. Cellphones monitored. All transactions open to cyber inspectors. No rights. Predicated on 911. But the best the debunkers can do is Xenu and And you can see how these crazy Muslims operate - they use "mind-control" techniques to hide away their thoughts until the last moment (look at London 7/7). Why is so hard to believe the official story? (Backed up by proper universities - not crackpots like David Griffen and a rare Ph.D scientist)

Under pressure - they point to the crackpots. But - actually they have got nothing to say. Now tell me - was it a fissure in reality - or something more mundane - like a conspiracy.

 

[kilo39]

Well put...

instead of saying 3 planes were crashed into buildings..... they say 2 planes and a missile (umm... so they managed to control 2 planes very well, but said, "what the hell, let's mix it up by throwing in a missile?")

instead of saying conventional weapons took down the WTC...... they say nuclear weapons (ummm.... fallout is supposedly undetectable?)

but most importantly, instead of saying militant arabs hijacked and crashed planes..... they say its a multinational conspiracy involving hundreds of people, different weapons systems (and personnel to plant/control each), costing billions if not trillions of dollars all for the sake of oil (never mind that oil is more expensive, they are giving Iraq back to the Iraqis so that they can do whatever the want with their oil, a dictator would have been easier to work with if they only wanted oil, Afghanistan has no oil)

Yeah - simple explanations just don't make sense to this crew.

In actuality - ignacio - you have got nothing to say.

 

[mooK]

Freedom is an illusion

As long as the word exists, we will never achieve it. The awareness of it automatically constrains us.

 

[ignacio]

In actuality - ignacio - you have got nothing to say.

In actuality, scientists who are experts in the field (much more so than internet hacks or laymen like you or me), have EVERYTHING to say - and what they say DEBUNKS what you have to say. So, exactly, why do I need to say anything?

I am just posting half in disbelief that people as delusional as you exist and half out of amusement.... and I am also trying to propogate my Xenu theory - which is the most coherent one thus far.

Meanwhile - I wait for any credible site which/scientist who backs up your kooky viewpoint...

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Meanwhile - I wait for any credible site which/scientist who backs up your kooky viewpoint...

Have you actually taken the time to read LoneGunman's thread of which a link is provided in the very first post of this thread? Or do you only see and believe what you want to see and believe? There are link's by the dozens in that thread, take some time and read through it.

And if you're going to think that it's too long to read then why bother, then one can't really blame you for being so naive. The US government relies on reasoning like that. They'll believe what we tell them because it's short, to the point, and they're too lazy to go read through pages upon pages which would enable them to question the truth for themselves.

 

[icyrus]

All I know is that if there was solid evidence it would no longer be a conspiracy theory...

 

[mooK]

Why don't you argue him on the points he's saying instead of telling him to read the original post, which I may add, does not relate to what he's actually questioning.

Arguing in circles like this goes absolutely nowhere.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Why don't you argue him on the points he's saying instead of telling him to read the original post, which I may add, does not relate to what he's actually questioning.

Arguing in circles like this goes absolutely nowhere.

I'm not arguing him on anything, but a lot of his points and arguments have been addressed in LG's thread which is stated in the original post of this thread. There's no need to argue something twice, that's worse than arguing in circles because it's being ignorant to the fact that all this has been discussed before. The original post was about video footage being offically released, and not a debate as to whether 9/11 was a conspiracy or not.

 

[ignacio]

I'm not arguing him on anything, but a lot of his points and arguments have been addressed in LG's thread which is stated in the original post of this thread. There's no need to argue something twice, that's worse than arguing in circles because it's being ignorant to the fact that all this has been discussed before. The original post was about video footage being offically released, and not a debate as to whether 9/11 was a conspiracy or not.

Have you bothered to even go through LG's assortment of bogus sites, insidious implications and insinuations and random association link-fest? Instead of making me pull out any of that garbage - considering I would have to spend the next few months of my life wasting time and energy wading through a theory I consider total rubbish - why don't you pull out the credible websites and credible scientists so that we can evaluate their opinions here?

As an example of what you are suggesting here, how would you link me to get you 40 different websites "proving" Santa's existence and telling you to get back to me when you have researched them all?.... and if you don't do the "research", I will call you ignorant and say you are ignoring the facts

 

[kilo39]

In actuality, scientists who are experts in the field (much more so than internet hacks or laymen like you or me), have EVERYTHING to say - and what they say DEBUNKS what you have to say. So, exactly, why do I need to say anything?

I am just posting half in disbelief that people as delusional as you exist and half out of amusement.... and I am also trying to propogate my Xenu theory - which is the most coherent one thus far.

Meanwhile - I wait for any credible site which/scientist who backs up your kooky viewpoint...

No ignacio - I used your own links/your own experts. And if you looked at my last link - you would discover that those are experts too. Appointed by FEMA to investigate. You point to your experts (your links) - the "Official" ones - then when I use these experts knowledge, and neutral sites like boeing, wikipedia, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society - and "The Core of Science and Engineering" - Founded in Worcester, Mass., in 1865, WPI was one of the nation's earliest technological universities - official investigators for FEMA - I bring all this to you. And all you have in return is abuse. And no - your experts do not debunk what I have to say: I would say rather the opposite is true (seeing as they are your experts in the first place.) Read the last link: Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.
-
The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity.
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

Then - try say something intelligent - instead of hysterically pointing at Xenu.

and - just to remind you: Fire protection of the steelwork is provided by 3 mm thick sprayed vermiculite plaster. The core has been designed as a safety zone with emergency stairs for escape and with hydrants for active fire-fighting operations. Water for extinguishing fires is available in tanks, each of 18,500 litres capacity, which are installed on the technical services floors. Additional riser pipes are installed in the core.

 

[Highflyer_GP]

Ignacio and what makes any of your sites any more credible than any of his? There are kooky eccentric professors working in universities too. That's like saying Jacob Zuma was correct that showers cure AIDS because he was vice president of the country. FFS make up your own mind, and stop pointing to so-and-so at this-and-that universities. If you believe that the US government is being honest with you then good for you. If you believe that any politician has a genuine concern for their people and less concern for themselves, again good for you.

But I'm not so naive to believe that any government isn't after money and power. Money talks in the end, and paying of these so called "credible" people to keep their traps shut is very much possible.

Instead of making me pull out any of that garbage - considering I would have to spend the next few months of my life wasting time and energy wading through a theory I consider total rubbish

It's exactly that kind of don't care, too-lazy to make an attempt attitude that governments rely on to pass on their bullshit. Instead of asking me to provide you with the truth, how about you actually make an attempt to find it. If your attempts prove to be in vain and leads you to the same conclusion as the official explanation then good for you, at least you made an attempt.

re Santa: My personal opinion - Santa is to kids what Christianity is to adults. Both believe it unconditionally, yet it's just a story.

 

[ignacio]

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

OK.... good and finally: WPI may be half-rate, but at least you are quoting an edu and not a .fi

Do you read your own material? They had this to say about the "mystery":

Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says.

So basically - they don't know.... as with other SCIENTISTS and not internet kooks, they have some hypotheses to test.... wildly enough, nuclear bombs didn't enter into the equation. Why is that? - because they represent a totally illogical leap that only conspiracy theorists would take.

Now we are finally communicating - keep up the useful credible links that debunk your ideas further.

 

[ignacio]

Ignacio and what makes any of your sites any more credible than any of his?

CONSENSUS scientific opinion, numb-nuts - not just a few scientists

FFS make up your own mind, and stop pointing to so-and-so at this-and-that universities.

FFS don't be such an idiot - I don't have freaking PhD in structural engineering, you fool... if I came up with a fantasy like yours, it would as scientifically useless as yours... hence why I listen to the experts.

If you believe that the US government is being honest with you then good for you. If you believe that any politician has a genuine concern for their people and less concern for themselves, again good for you.

I am quite sure that the US government lies in any number of ways. They did not however nuclear bomb the WTC. Let's keep focused on this particular issue alone.

But I'm not so naive to believe that any government isn't after money and power. Money talks in the end, and paying of these so called "credible" people to keep their traps shut is very much possible.

You are worse than naive, you're an idiot... OF COURSE the government is after power and money, and they even may have really wanted to invade the middle east... but these motivations DON'T mean that they were responsible for 911. One does not necessarily flow from the other. Here is an example you might understand: I win the lottery and I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY wanted to win the lottery... does it therefore mean the lottery is fixed and I was involved in a conspiracy to win the lottery?

Instead of asking me to provide you with the truth, how about you actually make an attempt to find it.

Because I already know the truth, you blithering idiot - YOU fools are coming up with the illogical new theories, so the onus is on you to PROVE it to people who think you are full of ****. If I say the moon is made of cheese, why should the rest of the world go out of the way to prove the truth to me? No, I have to provide some rational, scientific basis to my theory to the world first.... then someone might listen.

If your attempts prove to be in vain and leads you to the same conclusion as the official explanation then good for you, at least you made an attempt.

Again - Why? Why would I waste my time? Are you going to spend lots of time debunking my moon-cheese story? No you wouldn't. Maybe if I presented something logical, coherent and scientifically backed up you would.... but it is totally and utterly pointless until then. At least the other kooks have provided arguments to back up their crazy theories - you just tell me to go find the truth, which only makes you a time-waster on top of being delusional. Bravo.