Could the fire burn down WTC?

Fact or Fiction? Discuss here.
katsung47
Posts: 736
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:09 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by katsung47 »



picture compare with Madrid fire
User avatar
Snooz
Posts: 4799
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:05 am

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by Snooz »

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths - Madrid/Windsor Tower
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by Ahso! »

I think Wisey has the best theory I've considered on this subject.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12323
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

If you know about the specific architecture of the Twin Towers, it becomes fairly obvious how they fell.

Same with WTC 7.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have put out a new documentary. They are up to 2500 experts that now agree and are willing to speak out that the official story is bogus. They also include interviews with psychologists who explain why people are resisting the truth.

Important information is given. Removing and destroying the steel from the rubble before investigation was actually a criminal act. It is a duty to the public to ensure the evidence was examined properly so they can prevent the problem from happening again. A building falling isn't just a tragedy, it's a crisis in the world of architects and engineers. They need to know how it happened for the good of society.

Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by Ahso! »

Wisey's theory is that the towers may indeed have been taken down but only to prevent the buildings from collapsing in a way other than on themselves. He says it's possible that the buildings were wired with explosives after the first WTC bombing attempt in the 90s. IOW, there was no conspiracy, only planning, caution and what must have been a very difficult call on someone's part.

Makes perfect sense to me.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12323
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

The design of the towers was unique.

There was no central core as we normally think of such a thing.

the outer wall structure was load-bearing in that the floors hung from the walls, with the center columns acting as much as spacers as actual weight bearing forces.

When the upper floors began to fall, they did so within the confines of the outer wall columns, and fell on the floors below, pancaking, and pulling down the outer walls as they fell.

It really was basically simple physics.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by Ahso! »

LarsMac;1403768 wrote: The design of the towers was unique.

There was no central core as we normally think of such a thing.

the outer wall structure was load-bearing in that the floors hung from the walls, with the center columns acting as much as spacers as actual weight bearing forces.

When the upper floors began to fall, they did so within the confines of the outer wall columns, and fell on the floors below, pancaking, and pulling down the outer walls as they fell.

It really was basically simple physics.I understand that much. Thanks for the simple explanation. The question I think is being asked though is whether or not the planes or fire did it, or were explosives involved?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12323
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

Ahso!;1403769 wrote: I understand that much. Thanks for the simple explanation. The question I think is being asked though is whether or not the planes or fire did it, or were explosives involved?


The foundation of the arguments for bombing and demolition are, like in the OP pictures, a building could not fall like that, just because of fire and the pictures of the other buildings are supposed to support those arguments. However, because these buildings were so unique, those arguments don't really hold.

We're back to Occam's razor.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

What you've done is take the report and assumed their physics and engineering knowledge is sound. What the Architects and Engineers do in their video is explain the fraud in what the report presents as science.

You have to be an engineer or architect to know if what you've been told is correct. I suggest you let them tell you where the fraud is.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

It's called "peer review" and it's an essential part of science.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12323
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

koan;1403772 wrote: What you've done is take the report and assumed their physics and engineering knowledge is sound. What the Architects and Engineers do in their video is explain the fraud in what the report presents as science.

You have to be an engineer or architect to know if what you've been told is correct. I suggest you let them tell you where the fraud is.


What I have done is no such thing. I have never even read the reports from the 9/11 commission, so I haven't been told anything in that respect.

I am basing my statements on information that was in my possession long before the attack of 9/11 took place.

Your engineers and architects start with a simple, but incorrect presumption that a building cannot collapse in that manner without some human intervention and planning.



Fact: the building structure was unique.

Fact: a Plane flew into it.

Fact: damage resulting from the plane's impact initiated the collapse.

Whether the attackers acted on their own or were part of a larger conspiracy may be up for grabs but how the building fell is much more simple to explain.

No, the fire did not "burn down the building", but, yes, the fire could, and probably did, create the conditions that caused the collapse.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

There was more than one building. The plane only flew into one of them.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by AnneBoleyn »

My son is an MIT trained physicist. He endorses the view from Popular Mechanics. No conspiracy. No previously implanted bombs, whatever.

Goodnight sweethearts, yeah, it's time to go. Hate to leave you but I really must say--Goodnight sweethearts, goodnight.

Hey, koan, you have 3 hours more than me! I see you're still fresh as a daisy!:D
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12323
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

koan;1403795 wrote: There was more than one building. The plane only flew into one of them.


Umm, better read up on that. Two planes, two buildings. The third was collateral damage. And that one is even more interesting.

All I can say is that if it matters that much to you, do your own research rather that trust what other people tell you. It's really that simple.

I did quite a bit of research on the WTC for a college project, many years back. If I can dig it up, I will copy and share.

Architecture Digest did a really nice piece on it back in mid seventies. You should be able to find that at the library.

There is also a documentary out there, somewhere that was done before 9/11 that gets really deep into the whole architecture of the site.

Been searching for it tonight, but so far, unsuccessful.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

Who better to trust than people with degrees in engineering and architecture?

Seriously. They start with tower 7 because there was nothing to justify the excessive heat. You are talking about science that doesn't make sense. It wasn't "uniquely" designed to crumble. There are building codes that it had to pass. It was actually designed to withstand an air plane collision. The report shows that it should not have collapsed symmetrically and on the freak chance it did, all three should not have collapsed symmetrically. The report shows that it should not have fallen at free fall yet they state it fell at free fall and don't justify it. There was no resistance from floors beneath. Even if the weight caused the other floors to collapse there would have been resistance to the collapse at each floor and that was simply not the case.

I'm not talking as an uninformed person here.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12323
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

koan;1403806 wrote: Who better to trust than people with degrees in engineering and architecture?

Um, the guys that wrote the commission report got their info from "people with degrees in engineering and architecture"

You tell me.

koan;1403806 wrote:

Seriously. They start with tower 7 because there was nothing to justify the excessive heat.

You are talking about science that doesn't make sense. It wasn't "uniquely" designed to crumble. There are building codes that it had to pass. It was actually designed to withstand an air plane collision. The report shows that it should not have collapsed symmetrically and on the freak chance it did, all three should not have collapsed symmetrically. The report shows that it should not have fallen at free fall yet they state it fell at free fall and don't justify it. There was no resistance from floors beneath. Even if the weight caused the other floors to collapse there would have been resistance to the collapse at each floor and that was simply not the case.
You fell into their trap. Which building are you talking about? And why do you take their word for it?

koan;1403806 wrote: I'm not talking as an uninformed person here.


Really?

Think about it.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

Perhaps some people believe that the towers were built with the "non-steel" kind of steel.

I like the bit from around 106 in that video. "This is high school physics. And our whole society is being led to believe that these fundamental laws of physics... Hard science... Don't apply any more. I think that should frighten us."
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

They found no traces of explosions. When asked if they tested for traces of explosions they said "no"
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12323
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

IF your BS Alarm hasn't sounded before you get through the first ten minutes of that film, you are not really thinking it through.

Particularly you, Koan, with your experience in the film/entertainment world.

Come on! Open your head, and look.

.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

I feel the same of you. I am not willing to believe a government could kill 3000 people in their own country in order to create another Pearl Harbour. That's the conspiracy line. I'm not willing to go that far. What I, the daughter of an engineer, who respects the industry, thinks is that our world will never be the same if we let people tell us that false science is true.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

You've got NIST insisting there was no molten steel to support their finding and you have the brave heroes of the NY fire department describing molten steel. And a few surviving pieces of evidence showing melted steel to back up your national heroes.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

Here's my stopping point. I can't deny that the towers fell through greater cause than air plane crashes. That's brutally obvious. My stopping point is why the investigation covered that up.

I can say quite easily that I think anyone who thinks three towers fell into their footprints and defy the laws of physics is a very gullible and silly person. What I can't say is why it was covered up. I can't count on science to help me with that one and I'm afraid of the answer.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

last post on this topic for tonight. Perhaps the building was unique in that they incorporated thermite into their steel. WTC dust yields evidence of thermite though the committee admits they didn't test for it... despite over a hundred witnesses claiming they heard explosions which would demand a test for thermite according to legal protocol. Those protocols aren't designed to assure people of terrorist vs non terrorist attack, they are industry standards established for public safety. Anyone who thinks the towers fell by plane attack should never enter another high rise again.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12323
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

If you rely on the people who published that video for your information, you are not getting the real story.

And as you say, a daughter of an engineer, if that means anything at all, I am son of an engineer, grandson of an architect, and a majority of my family are engineers (Structural, Civil, Electrical)

Science isn't about trusting someone who has a degree. Science is about studying the data and arriving at a conclusion, and THEN testing that conclusion, revising, and re-testing until you have a conclusion that is validated by testing and that works.

For your reading pleasure, I offer the following

AE911Truth.INFO » AE911Truth’s Case

As for the 911truth group, I think they are in it for the money.

Any idea how much money they are making off conspiracy junkies?
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
flopstock
Posts: 7406
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2007 2:52 am

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by flopstock »

LarsMac;1403834 wrote: If you rely on the people who published that video for your information, you are not getting the real story.



And as you say, a daughter of an engineer, if that means anything at all, I am son of an engineer, grandson of an architect, and a majority of my family are engineers (Structural, Civil, Electrical)



Science isn't about trusting someone who has a degree. Science is about studying the data and arriving at a conclusion, and THEN testing that conclusion, revising, and re-testing until you have a conclusion that is validated by testing and that works.



For your reading pleasure, I offer the following

AE911Truth.INFO » AE911Truth’s Case



As for the 911truth group, I think they are in it for the money.

Any idea how much money they are making off conspiracy junkies?


Thanks for the link. I'd seen the site(or one much like it) a while back but lost my bookmark and forgot about it.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.

Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6

gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by gmc »

If you wrote a book with the main plot being that after a terrorist attack America invades a country that had nothing to do with it it would probably not get published as being too ridiculous a plot. The real conspiracy about 911 is how did you end up invading a country that had nothing to do with it. Reality is always more interesting and sometimes unbelievable than daft conspiracy theories.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

Some engineers defend the official report on the WTC and some engineers demand an explanation that makes sense, starting with examining the most likely hypothesis: that incendiaries and explosives were used. The official report never examined that hypothesis. The only thing the engineers supporting the official report have on their side is cognitive dissonance pushing the public to want to believe them. Without that dissonance, their science falls apart.
User avatar
AnneBoleyn
Posts: 6632
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by AnneBoleyn »

gmc;1403862 wrote: If you wrote a book with the main plot being that after a terrorist attack America invades a country that had nothing to do with it it would probably not get published as being too ridiculous a plot. The real conspiracy about 911 is how did you end up invading a country that had nothing to do with it. Reality is always more interesting and sometimes unbelievable than daft conspiracy theories.


It was the Bush plan all along, his & the neo-cons. Had 9/11 never happened, Iraq would have been invaded eventually, if not sooner. It was not an open secret--it was never a secret--for anyone paying attention.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

Scholars for 9/11 Truth have some good info as well.

Glanz and Lipton summarize the findings of the white paper:

The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers' calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and the tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.

--City in the Sky, p 133

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12323
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

koan;1403938 wrote: Scholars for 9/11 Truth have some good info as well.

Glanz and Lipton summarize the findings of the white paper:

The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers' calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and the tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.

--City in the Sky, p 133

Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice


What failed was the support for floors above the impact area. When those floors fell onto the ones below, and the combined weight was more than the next floor could withstand, they began to collapse within the outer columns. The section of the building above the impact zone had lost most of its support, and the added weight of that collapsed the outer columns.

If not for the outer column strength, debris would have spread a great deal more.

And yes, the original design was capable of withstanding the impact of the plane, but the designers did not consider the heat that would be introduced by the amount of petroleum a fully fueled 757, or 767 would bring.

koan;1403938 wrote: The only thing the engineers supporting the official report have on their side is cognitive dissonance pushing the public to want to believe them. Without that dissonance, their science falls apart.


You serious?

I would suggest the opposite. That the images being used as evidence for the "truthers" to support their theories drives them to it, because they cannot resolve those images with the "official Government Report" so they reject the report, and rather that consider scientific method to explain the images, they grab on to equally bizarre theories to feed their emotional turmoil.

I agree that we should indeed test the ideas, but I don't see the arguments they make as being all that scientific.

The 9/11 Truth Movement - 911truth.org

All I see from them is rhetoric.

Show me the science.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

The official report concedes that the towers fell at "free fall" but they fail to explain how that free fall was accomplished since the laws of physics demand that resistance of the floors at each level would have caused a pause. There was no pause. Free fall is accomplished by being met with no resistance.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12323
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

koan;1403997 wrote: The official report concedes that the towers fell at "free fall" but they fail to explain how that free fall was accomplished since the laws of physics demand that resistance of the floors at each level would have caused a pause. There was no pause. Free fall is accomplished by being met with no resistance.


Are you saying this because you read it in the NIST report, or because yo saw it on the Video?
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

It's on page 45 of the final report.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12323
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

koan;1404001 wrote: It's on page 45 of the final report.


Page 45?

Hmmm.

I think you and I are reading from different documents.

Care to share?

The one I am reading is found HERE
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

Mine was published by NIST November 2008 vs your earlier December 2005. They revised it to allow for the obvious freefall captured on video.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12323
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

Actually, the one you are looking at is WTC 7 document. I have been reading the Towers document.

However, I can shift gears to focus on WTC 7.

Interesting point, there.

Watching the film you can actually see the structure on roof fall, long (relatively) before the the outer walls collapse.

Even as the narrator is commenting that you don't see any signs of the internal collapse.

That structure was supported by the internal support structure, rather than the outer walls.

Watch very carefully, and focus in the roof, particularly to the viewers' left.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

Not only have I watched it carefully, I've watched it with calculation lines drawn over the screen. Here's the thing: NIST took three years to compile their report and gave other engineers and architects three weeks to peer review it. They revised their report because they couldn't refute a portion of the free fall. Their computer came up with a possible explanation as to how that occurred. When asked for the parameters given to the computer they refused to release the data. That the other engineers were able to discredit a three year report in three weeks says a lot. Does it not then make you wonder what else they are right about? Since when do we not want our science peer reviewed?

All theories on what brought down the towers are "conspiracies" the official storyline is a conspiracy theory.

First conspiracy theory goes that one radical Muslim and 19 cohorts hijacked planes, miraculously evaded authorities for over an hour and pulled off the plans of their co-ordinating leader, who was hiding in an Afghanistan cave (perhaps with a two way radio and the internet). They were so wildly successful they even managed to take down a tower they didn't hit. These bandits were able to overcome all odds that the towers would hold up to an impact they were designed to withstand. And they overcame the odds three times... well, they didn't even have to hit one of them... and we know one dude's name because his passport was recovered, unburned, at Ground Zero even though the explosions and fires from the plane the passport fell from were hot enough to melt steel.

Is that so much easier to believe?
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

Ignoring that this interview was obtained by Loose Change, please watch this video of testimony to being trapped inside WTC7 due to an explosion in the lower floor prior to the first two towers falling. The explosion caused the stairwell landing to give way and he was hanging from a pole, from which he climbed back to up and they went back into the main building. He looked out the window where he was trapped and watched the towers still standing and burning. He was rescued and had to walk out the lobby over dead bodies.

Jennings is now dead. His testimony was removed from the original film because he feared harassment. Loose Change released the footage because Jennings changed his story later on.

User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12323
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

koan;1404075 wrote: Not only have I watched it carefully, I've watched it with calculation lines drawn over the screen. Here's the thing: NIST took three years to compile their report and gave other engineers and architects three weeks to peer review it. They revised their report because they couldn't refute a portion of the free fall. Their computer came up with a possible explanation as to how that occurred. When asked for the parameters given to the computer they refused to release the data. That the other engineers were able to discredit a three year report in three weeks says a lot. Does it not then make you wonder what else they are right about? Since when do we not want our science peer reviewed?

All theories on what brought down the towers are "conspiracies" the official storyline is a conspiracy theory.

First conspiracy theory goes that one radical Muslim and 19 cohorts hijacked planes, miraculously evaded authorities for over an hour and pulled off the plans of their co-ordinating leader, who was hiding in an Afghanistan cave (perhaps with a two way radio and the internet). They were so wildly successful they even managed to take down a tower they didn't hit. These bandits were able to overcome all odds that the towers would hold up to an impact they were designed to withstand. And they overcame the odds three times... well, they didn't even have to hit one of them... and we know one dude's name because his passport was recovered, unburned, at Ground Zero even though the explosions and fires from the plane the passport fell from were hot enough to melt steel.

Is that so much easier to believe?


Well, actually, the heat of fires was not enough to melt steel.

And, there are all sorts of recorded events where something that logic suggests should have been destroyed was found undamaged, or only slightly damaged.

I could go browsing for such examples if you wish, but I am sure you have heard of some.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

Thank you for acknowledging that the fires couldn't have melted the steel.

Now we have the evidence of molten steel to deal with (there wasn't any you say?) and the red grey particles in the dust that contain thermitic material.

FAQ #7: Aren’t the Red-Gray Chips Identified in the WTC Dust Merely Primer Paint from the WTC Steel Structural Elements?
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

I would like to hear your thoughts on the passport that allowed them to put names and faces to "the enemy."

We agree that the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel, can we also agree that they were hot enough to damage a paper passport?
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12323
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

koan;1404127 wrote: Thank you for acknowledging that the fires couldn't have melted the steel.

Now we have the evidence of molten steel to deal with (there wasn't any you say?) and the red grey particles in the dust that contain thermitic material.

FAQ #7: Aren’t the Red-Gray Chips Identified in the WTC Dust Merely Primer Paint from the WTC Steel Structural Elements?


Molten Steel? LINK

Red-gray chips

Link
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12323
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

koan;1404146 wrote: I would like to hear your thoughts on the passport that allowed them to put names and faces to "the enemy."

We agree that the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel, can we also agree that they were hot enough to damage a paper passport?


Oh, I am sure they were quite hot, and not knowing where the passport was in the moments before the collision, we can only spculate on how it ended up where it was found.

But I am also sure that there was a moment as the collision between the plane and the building that the structural integrity of the plane rapidly decreased, and items in the plane were suddenly out of the plane, and could have fallen anywhere.

When the fuel ignited, it did so, very rapidly, causing an explosion much like the one we can see when the plane collided with tower 2. That explosion preceded the fire, and the concussive effect would have scattered a lot of items that were once in the tower, or in the plane out into the world, where they ended up in odd places about Manhattan that day.

For example the wallet of one of the passengers from Flight 11, a bank card from another passenger on the same flight, The flight itinerary from Flt 175, for example.

So it is not entirely out of the question that the passport of one of the passengers might survive. That it was a passport from one of the suspected hijackers certainly raises an eyebrow, of course.

But, he was on the passenger list/manifest for the flight, and if he was on the plane, it makes sense that his passport was, as well.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12323
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

I should point out that I have long been a fan of conspiracies. I love finding evidence of conspiracies.

I also am a skeptic, however, so I will question every such piece of evidence, and I only except the best evidence.

If there was a "government conspiracy" here, I offer that blowing up buildings would have been significant overkill, and the tasks required for the effect would have required far more manpower than the end result would have justified.

And as I said before, the more people in on a secret, the more risk of exposure.

It would have been very simple to allow the attackers through security, getting a few airport security guys distracted for a minute, and let them do their deed, than to put together this massive deception the truthers have come up with.

The ineptitude of the attackers is very evident. Had they been a little sharper, they could have coordinated the attacks better, so that all four planes hit within a 20 minute window. The evacuation of the second tower - planned or otherwise - probably saved a thousand or more lives. Flt 93 would have hit its target, because the people aboard would not have known about the WTC attacks and would not have fought back.

It was this lapse in planning that, to my mind, proves the attack was the work of a small number of extremists.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

I'm not ready to think about the bigger picture of who and why. All I want is for the obviously bad science to be corrected. All the evidence supports a controlled demolition. Lets start with verifying that.

As far as how... this type of thermite could have been sprayed on support structures during the renovations and upgrades that were going on and the people spraying them would likely believe they were rustproofing with paint. The how might come about when they investigate the proper hypothesis. The NIST people started with the hypothesis they'd already designed and made the evidence fit as well as they could. Even without the reports of hearing explosions, which they claim there were no reports of despite numerous people on live tv and rescue workers statements, there had been previous attempts to bomb the WTC in the past so it should have been an automatic inclusion of possibility.

Wouldn't that conspiracy story have made more sense? They could have said that the terrorists had managed to get some explosive material in the building and used the plane impacts to ignite it. Still doesn't explain WTC 7 but it would have helped people buy the story. As it is, there is nothing left to cling to but a hope we can go back to the real science and work forward from there.

A lot of "Truthers" are mentally unstable. I'm focusing on the ones who aren't.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

LarsMac;1404157 wrote: Molten Steel? LINK

Red-gray chips

Link


I checked your "myth" site for all the names on this video presenting the evidence of molten metal and most of the big ones aren't refuted. They also have what was dubbed "the meteorite" which is a chunk of metals all welded together by extreme heat an managed to survive the shipping off to China for recycling. There is also a shot of a massive melted beam that was photographed by a documenter that isn't refuted in your myth page. Of course some of the people retracted their statements, it's not a stretch to think they might be afraid. ;) Even just afraid of being labelled insane "Truthers"

The red chips exist they are numerous and they are being tested retested and tested again by multiple groups.



I read your links I'm hoping you are actually watching/reading mine.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 12323
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: Far Out, Man

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by LarsMac »

There really is some interesting stuff there.

The "Molten steel" in the pit during clean-up, I can buy, because after the collapse, and lot of burning stuff was buried under a lot of crap, and there was enough air pulled up from underneath to keep fires supplied with oxygen, and yet limit combustion. So we have a rather nice furnace where temps could easily reach 1200-1400 C which is plenty hot enough to melt steel.

The thing that interests me in that video is the apparent sparking, one of the things that the truthers hold up as evidence of thermite.

I "think" it is a major electrical cable, shorting against the metal girder of support, and looks like a arc welder.

Not sure that was addressed by the commission, and not sure what the condition of the electrical system was a that time.

Very curious.

I doubt it was actually thermite, because of reasons already stated, but would be nice to get that checked off.

So, basically, no, I do not believe that finding molten metal, molten steel or the like in the rubble is really a surprise, and it does not, IMHO, show proof of any explosives, or thermite.

I like the one eye witness stating he saw a fire truck, that was burning, and it was glowing like molten steel.

Umm, if it was molten steel, I doubt it would still look like a fire truck.
Control is an illusion. The Chaos is all part of the fun.
-Susan Hattie Steinsapir
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Could the fire burn down WTC?

Post by koan »

NIST believed that finding molten steel would have been evidence to investigate explosives so why wouldn't you believe it. You'd be the only one thinking it doesn't matter. (Other than your anti-Truthers) They claimed that there wasn't any. That there was forces them to reinvestigate.

The thermite isn't just what could have been the cause of something else. The thermite is what they actually found in the dust. They have it. It's in their hands... their labratories... their testing machines... available for anyone to confirm... which has been done. It's thermite. It came from the dust. No video needed.

Return to “Conspiracy Theories”