9/11

[a completely inoffensive name]

Just remember, a good lie is mostly truth.

This is asinine. A good lie is one that comes from a place of repetition and/or authority. People who are convinced the news is lying to them are just too dumb to understand that news has always been filtered through the perspective of those that present it. Today's media has an openness never seen before since sources are more open about their biases. Smarten up and realize that Murrow is not going to be holding your hand anymore. You are your own judge for interpreting the world, read both sides and let the adversarial process uncover the truth.

[Risasi]

This is asinine. A good lie is one that comes from a place of repetition and/or authority. People who are convinced the news is lying to them are just too dumb to understand that news has always been filtered through the perspective of those that present it. Today's media has an openness never seen before since sources are more open about their biases. Smarten up and realize that Murrow is not going to be holding your hand anymore. You are your own judge for interpreting the world, read both sides and let the adversarial process uncover the truth.

Hmm, interesting. So in other words you are calling me stupid? Why the vitriol? Just because I don't any accept any official story about the 9/11 incident? Whether it's a 9/11 "truther" or the mainstream news media? If I'm supposed to accept the mainstream media which one? The US? France? Al Jazeera? Pravda? BBC?


Since you mention Murrow I'll assume for now you're American? So Brian Williams was unbiased? Yeah, he never lied. And Fox News is fair and balanced too...

I think you miss my point. You say read both sides and then let adversarial process uncover the truth. Who has time to do that? There are only 24 hours in the day.
I'm saying there are no "both sides". It's all ice cream, you just pick your flavor. And every one of them tastes good, makes you feel good for awhile, but eventually you're going to regret eating it.
Every source is tainted to one degree or another. And the only real agenda you can follow is money, or power...or sex. They are interwoven and you can trade one for another.

As to my "a good lie" comment, that is self evident. If you can't see that I don't know how to help you. Perhaps you could explain why Snopes is rife with so many articles marked as status: "mixed" or "multiple"? Many people have fallen for those silly little chain emails. Just imagine how elaborate the lie if you have a media publisher in your pocket.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

ACIN is basically correct - it the steel was heated it would buckle, it does not need to melt and the fact that we have TWO forum mods claiming it does or did is something I find disturbing.

Here's a quick vid of the collapse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft2uIYucsXo

See all the smoke? The towers were on fire for ages, what happened was the fire spread and as a certain point enough of the steel core of the building was hot enough that there was a cascade failure, then because the outside of the building is fairly rigid it appears to telescope into itself - you can actually see that's not exactly what happened, and n fac the Second tower is coming apart as it collapses.

[Papewaio]

Not all metal is melted and cast. There is a whole industry based on manipulating hot iron and steel.

So steel bends as its gets hotter and at temperatures a person with a bellows can create using coal. Then using a hammer a person can generate enough force to bend steel.

This person is called a smith. It used to be such a common profession that one of the most common surnames is Smith.

Now take a hot temperature going for longer then used in a forge and apply not the pressure of a human wield hammer but the weight of twenty stories. Once it starts collapsing it would be a cascading failure as the momentum would add even more force. It goes from being a hammer used as a paper weight to one of a hammer being used to strike a blow as twenty plus stories collapse 3m onto the floor below and then they combine and collapse further with more speed and hence more energy.

[Fisherking]

If fire had caused the building collapse there are several things missing.

Each of the structural members had a safety factor of at least 5, meaning they could support 5 times the load placed upon them. Straight down was the path of greatest resistance.

Had it been fire which caused the failure then you would expect to see the building lean in the direction of least resistance until the effected area toppled over leaving the floors beneath substantially unaffected. Had it pancaked as NIST theorised there would have been a number of substantial jolts and left a collapsed structure about 30 stories high.

Instead we have building 1 coming down in 11 sec. and building 2 in only 9 sec. There was very little of the building left above the first two floors and those who escaped after the collapse reported seeing blue sky overhead. Essentially 900,000 tons of reenforced concrete and steel were pulverised to dust before it ever hit the ground. There were pools of molten metal and the rubble pile remained hot for weeks.

The black smoke coming from the buildings is also an indicator of the temperature of the fires inside. Black smoke is oxygen starved and would indicate fires of only about 600° to possibly 800° C, NIST acknowledges the presence of molten iron and steel but offers no explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=OmuzyWC60eE

Just who is ignoring the physics and engineering behind it?

[Greyblades]

Its 2015 and we're still going on about this.

[Viking]

The black smoke coming from the buildings is also an indicator of the temperature of the fires inside. Black smoke is oxygen starved and would indicate fires of only about 600° to possibly 800° C, NIST acknowledges the presence of molten iron and steel but offers no explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=OmuzyWC60eE

That's wrong. Molten materials are treated at points 21 and 23 here.

[Fisherking]

That's wrong. Molten materials are treated at points 21 and 23 here.

They are showing ignorance if anyone thinks that glowing orange yellow metal is aluminium. Melted aluminium is silver and dose not glow unless it is in the presence of an electrode used in the smelting process. It would scum over with a white film in its reaction to the air but would not glow. As for being mixed with other materials that would just result in a blackening of the scum rather than forming a glowing mass. This explanation is grasping at straws.

It is also extremely unlikely that any melting could take place in the pulverised remains of the collapsed buildings, as they would have been oxygen deprived and lacking any ready fuel source.

The weakened beams would have toppled the building. Not drop it in its own footprint, following the path of greatest resistance and there is no way it should have fallen at near free fall speeds accelerating as it went.

[Risasi]

<snip>
The weakened beams would have toppled the building. Not drop it in its own footprint, following the path of greatest resistance and there is no way it should have fallen at near free fall speeds accelerating as it went.

Agreed, generally speaking. The odds of all three buildings falling within their own footprint, not deviating in any direction except straight down? What are the odds? I mean all it would take is one set of bolts in those girders to not fail and the path of least resistance has now shifted to a topple.

All one has to do is view some videos of demolition jobs of large buildings to realize that the WTC buildings coming down are pretty eerie.

You'd think at least one of them would look more like one of these: https://youtu.be/DDuUR7l3bgc

[Viking]

They are showing ignorance if anyone thinks that glowing orange yellow metal is aluminium. Melted aluminium is silver and dose not glow unless it is in the presence of an electrode used in the smelting process. It would scum over with a white film in its reaction to the air but would not glow. As for being mixed with other materials that would just result in a blackening of the scum rather than forming a glowing mass. This explanation is grasping at straws.

And how many experiments with melted aluminium in conditions similar to those at the WTC have you performed to come this conclusion with such confidence?

It is also extremely unlikely that any melting could take place in the pulverised remains of the collapsed buildings, as they would have been oxygen deprived and lacking any ready fuel source.

That doesn't sound very "open minded".

First, you would have to confirm the amounts of melted metal to calculate the energy required for the phase transformation (the smaller the individual melted pieces, the more local the intense heat could be). Then, with these numbers, you would have to look at what could act as fuel in the rubble; including things like local pockets of jet fuel, furniture etc. Potentially, a mix of different materials could be a potent fuel source under the right circumstances. You'd also have run a lot experiments to check whether the ruins would definitely block all ways of getting oxygen from the surroundings.

You'd also have to rule out, as with the above, that the fires/kinetic energy of the airplane in some small areas provided enough heat to melt steel.

(fun fact: at least some steel can burn)

The weakened beams would have toppled the building. Not drop it in its own footprint, following the path of greatest resistance and there is no way it should have fallen at near free fall speeds accelerating as it went.

Again, which experiments have you run?

All one has to do is view some videos of demolition jobs of large buildings to realize that the WTC buildings coming down are pretty eerie.

You'd think at least one of them would look more like one of these: https://youtu.be/DDuUR7l3bgc

Unless you believe that they were brought down by demolition, it's not strange that they didn't look like demolitions.

[Fragony]

Hmm, interesting. So in other words you are calling me stupid? Why the vitriol? Just because I don't any accept any official story about the 9/11 incident? Whether it's a 9/11 "truther" or the mainstream news media? If I'm supposed to accept the mainstream media which one? The US? France? Al Jazeera? Pravda? BBC?


Since you mention Murrow I'll assume for now you're American? So Brian Williams was unbiased? Yeah, he never lied. And Fox News is fair and balanced too...

I think you miss my point. You say read both sides and then let adversarial process uncover the truth. Who has time to do that? There are only 24 hours in the day.
I'm saying there are no "both sides". It's all ice cream, you just pick your flavor. And every one of them tastes good, makes you feel good for awhile, but eventually you're going to regret eating it.
Every source is tainted to one degree or another. And the only real agenda you can follow is money, or power...or sex. They are interwoven and you can trade one for another.

As to my "a good lie" comment, that is self evident. If you can't see that I don't know how to help you. Perhaps you could explain why Snopes is rife with so many articles marked as status: "mixed" or "multiple"? Many people have fallen for those silly little chain emails. Just imagine how elaborate the lie if you have a media publisher in your pocket.

Not calling you an idiot but Acin is right on how metal works, wielders would get out of business if metal couldn't be bended. As for the other buildings, it is highly likely that they were already equiped with explosives, but that doesn't mean anything at all. Secret services are really effective so they probably knew way in advace that this could happen. Damage control. It's rediculous to believe this was an inside job, not implying you say that

[Risasi]

Not calling you an idiot but...

"This is asinine."

as·i·nine
ˈasəˌnīn
adjective
extremely stupid or foolish.

"People who are convinced the news is lying to them are just too dumb to understand"...

"Smarten up and realize that"

Sure he wasn't. Don't worry, I'm not offended. I'm merely pointing out that much of his counterpoint was attack.

...Acin is right on how metal works, wielders would get out of business if metal couldn't be bended. As for the other buildings, it is highly likely that they were already equiped with explosives, but that doesn't mean anything at all. Secret services are really effective so they probably knew way in advace that this could happen. Damage control. It's rediculous to believe this was an inside job, not implying you say that

I find the part I bolded extremely interesting. Is that your explanation for Building 7? I mean...I guess that makes sense, since the alphabet soup agencies were tenants of that building. I'm sure they just happened to have enough explosives laying around to cause the building to pancake in on its footprint too. Or are you saying they kept the entire building wired up for just such an emergency?

Also, secret services are really effective? Meaning they should have known about the attack ahead of time? Or they are just really effective in controlled demolition, but not intelligence?

I've also seen some of the girders from the WTC site, in person (well, allegedly they are). It is in a memorial site in the middle of the United States. As far as I know rest of the evidence...er, I mean debris was promptly sold for scrap and shipped to Russia or China, I think.