9/11/2001 What do you believe happened?

Posted by ycandrea 5 years, 1 month ago to Government
45 comments | Share | Flag

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel. What temperature does steel melt in Fahrenheit? For example, according to www.911research.wtc7.net, steel melts at a temperature of 2,777 degrees Fahrenheit, but jet fuel burns at only 1,517 degrees F. No melted steel, no collapsed towers. Being totally Objective, and without thinking of the implications and without blaming anyone in particular, I found this video so very interesting and thought provoking. It is about Dr. Steven Jones. Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist. Among scientists, Jones became known for his long research on muon-catalyzed fusion and geo-fusion. Jones is also known for his association with 9/11 controversies.
SOURCE URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkaX5n3pfZE


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 10
    Posted by $ Technocracy 5 years, 1 month ago
    Steel doesnt have to melt to have its properties changed.
    Heat treating
    Annealing
    Tempering

    None require the steel to melt.
    A steel structure building under load will collapse if the structure is weakened enough. Weakening does not require the melting of the members.

    Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500. Wind though the structure will boost that some, similar to a bellows in a forge. Changing the temper of the steel is all that is needed to have the pressure on it exceed its strength.

    Once any movement in the structure starts to relieve the strain it won't be stopped. Once one floor dops, the transmitted shock will exceed the strength of even undamaged structural members.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 1 month ago
      Yes. I agree with all of that.

      "Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500."
      The temperature at which something burns does not set an upper bound on how hot you can get something by containing heat from the combustion. Can a chem E or physicist set me straight please if I'm wrong?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Technocracy 5 years, 1 month ago
        Correct it defines ignition points and flash points. Once you feed oxygen to it, numbers change.

        The more oxidizer available the hotter the burn, just as SaltyDog said.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by BrettRocketSci 5 years, 1 month ago
          Really? That's not how combustion works as I know it. For example, you are saying paper burns hotter in a pure oxygen environment than air with 20% oxygen? We probably agree it burns faster.
          Good thing the intense fire that melted steel (not just weakened it) didn't detroy the passport of one of the terrorists that someone found in the debris. Amazing and convenient, eh? Quite a passport protector he must have had.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Technocracy 5 years, 1 month ago
            Actually the example I would use would be an oxy-acerylene torch. Add oxygen acetylene flame can be upped from yellow in free air to blue. Very hot at thatbpoint, push the oxygen feed and it gets hotter still to cut With. Amount of available oxidizer at combustion point does matter.

            As for the passport, in every plane crash I have ever seen data or reportage on a surprising amount of wallets, purses, etc survive. Not only survive, but in fairly good condition and aid in identification.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by BrettRocketSci 5 years, 1 month ago
              Ok, oxygen does make a difference on the flame temperature. It still strains reason to believe that oxygen would come from somewhere well enough to melt steel at the WTC.
              If you take an honest and diligent look at the plane crashes of 9/11 and compare to others, you can't say with any credibility that they were typical. Start with Flight 93 please. That was the crack in the door that led me into full awareness.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Technocracy 5 years, 1 month ago
                I am not one of the ones claiming the steel melted.
                My position is that given the load stresses on a building of that height, and the structural damage from the impacts and subsequent fires/explosions, the stresses on the individual structure members were altered profoundly. At that point, all that was needed was to change the temper on the steel to weaken it. Once weakened enough, a beam or three would bend/shift/twist and start to move. Any movement and the already dangerous balance of forces begins to shift. Once significant movement of the structure starts, it wont be stopped.

                The second tower hit came down first because it was struck lower. The lower strike meant much more weight/force above the impact zone. Also a larger angle on the impact so even more imbalance to the strain after impact.

                Melting the steel would not be required. Temper changes do not need that kind of heat. And temper changes can weaken a steel structure enough to fail.

                Most of its strength was the outer shell by design. But once a span dops and moves down, the floors start to pancake, and its over. It is coming down and will not stop.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zero 5 years, 1 month ago
            Not that I really want to play - but a bellows in a forge proves the point about oxygen and temperature.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by BrettRocketSci 5 years, 1 month ago
              Thanks Zero. That's a very good point and example. I learned something from you.
              It still is unrelated to too many other disturbing pieces of evidence from that day. For instance, the flight data for Flight 93 (which hit the Pentagon) released by the government shows that the cockpit door open signal was never activated. Hmmm....as I said, scratch the surface and weird things show up all over.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by dbhalling 5 years, 1 month ago
    So K and I watched the video and Steven Jones appears to be sincere in his opinions and not a nut. However I was immediately skeptical that fire had not ever caused a steel building to collapse and the structure of the WTC towers were very unique. The two strongest points of the video were WTC building 7 and his thermite like particles in the dust.

    However the fire dept. evacuated the area because they expected WTC 7 to collapse. Second it seems very odd that in all the dust and debris there would be that much un-reacted thermite.

    Here are a couple of helpful videos on point
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWpC_...

    and

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-n...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
      Thank you Db and K for watching the video. I have also watched the videos you provided. As I told Zen above, I am not a conspiracy theorist, (even though I did enjoy X-Files), but I do not trust the leaders of our country. I think they are like AR exposed them in AS: Idiots. But it is beyond horror if someone in our country orchestrated 911. The videos you provided were comforting to me, but I will still wonder about building 7. Thank you for your response.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 5 years, 1 month ago
    The jet fuel didn't have to melt the beams and girders, it just had to soften some whose integrity was already severely damaged by the jet impact. The sheer weight of the building above the point of impact combined with the weakened beams and girders were enough to bring the building down on itself.

    I believe the design of he building, essentially tube structures, was intended to have it collapse in on itself. Considering Manhattan falling to any side would have been even more catastrophic.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by BrettRocketSci 5 years, 1 month ago
      Hi AJ. I'm assuming you are sincere and have honest intentions, so let me ask you some questions. Are you aware that molten steel can be verified to exist from multiple independent sources?
      After I collected and digested lots of evidence, I realized that what I saw wasn't two buildings collapsing on themselves. Here's a hypothetical question to test your premises: if the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition, what would that have actually looked like?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 5 years, 1 month ago
        Because of how they were engineered they would have collapsed as they were designed to - as they did.

        "Are you aware that molten steel can be verified to exist from multiple independent sources?"

        I didn't say no steel melted - its very likely some had. I just stated that it didn't have to melt for its load bearing capacity to be adversely impacted and for gravity to do the rest.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by BrettRocketSci 5 years, 1 month ago
          Well, I honestly don't know what you have seen, and not seen. I know what a building collapse would have and should have looked like. I also know what an explosive cloud looks like. Steel and concrete don't turn into ash clouds when they fall into each other from gravity. The buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from an airliner actually. Plenty of information to find out there if you look for it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 5 years, 1 month ago
            What I've seen?
            "Steel and concrete don't turn into ash clouds when they fall into each other from gravity." I never said anything on that matter either way. In fact, all I did was offer a different look at the potential reason for the failure of the girders.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 5 years, 1 month ago
    I generally avoid discussing this anymore as a result of the 'cognitive dissonance' I invariably encounter, even from some of the more intelligent amongst us.

    I've spent a number of years in explosives manufacturing; in mining and the uses of explosives (300-ton chemical timed and sequenced); in metal and mineral extraction and processing; in metals smelting, casting, hot roll milling and cold roll milling, annealing, tempering, and alloying; in situ fragmentation and self-fueled retorting of shale oil, kerosene and other oil derivatives from oil shale; and in large scale heavy manufacturing construction.

    I've read much of the peer reviewed literature available on the incident and I'm comfortable stating that 'We were deceived and lied to', and the cost to each of us has been a severe loss of freedom and an economy teetering on the edge of disaster.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by pnj442 5 years, 1 month ago
      So what do you think really happened ?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 5 years, 1 month ago
        I can't say 'what really' happened, only what really didn't happen. Bldg.'s 1 and 2 didn't collapse from two planes crashing into them and Bldg 7 didn't collapse from office fires at free fall. And nano-thermite particles aren't generated in kerosene fires and don't exist in nature.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
      I am not generally a conspiracy theorist, but my husband and I have done a lot of research on 911 as well. Believe me, I do not want to believe our gov't could be so evil as to do something on this scale to bring us all under their control. I just do not trust our leaders but I think they are too stupid to pull something like this off. At least I hope they are. Thank you, Zen, for your response.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 5 years, 1 month ago
        I've lived through the assassinations of the Kennedys, being drafted after LBJ's 'Black Flag' Gulf of Tonkin incident, lies about Cambodia and Laos, Nixon's Watergate and Pentagon papers, Agnew's retiring to avoid prosecution, Reagan's Columbia and Nicaragua and Iran weapons deals with Nancy consulting an Astrologer, Bush's 'Read my lips', and on and on and on.
        If you believe and try to defend anything told to you by our government or media--well you really have no business trying to talk to me. You're the primary reason this country is in the state it is.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
          I think you misunderstood me Zen. I have lived through all of that too. I am 66 and I do not believe or trust our gov't. I have seen it all unfolding. I just do not want to jump to conclusions when I do not have all of the facts.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 5 years, 1 month ago
            I meant the 'you' as the general term, not you personally. But you bring up another problem which is that we will never have all the facts. That's the trick the government always manages to pull off in these situations. The facts might have been there in the days immediately following the collapse, but the 'We're investigating' answer puts the rest of us in a 2,3,4,5 year delay. By then, what can be determined beyond all doubt.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 1 month ago
        Hillary said it best, "Never let a good crisis go to waste. No matter who did it." Out of 9/11 they got the first american protective echelon, Sentenced every citizen without trial to a life sentence of TSA, Enlarged the police state and replaced probable cause with suspicon of.

        It's like the AIDS deal. Some claimed it was the US that did it. I doubt that BUT it was the government that failed to contain it when it was low numbers.

        the Cycle of Repression doesn't care who is harmed as long as it advances the party.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ sjatkins 5 years, 1 month ago
    I believe there was an in country plot to make it go down the way it did. How much of an external plot was capitalized upon and from what stage I can't say. But I don't for a minute believe things like hitting the pentagon with a large passenger jet doing impossible maneuvers over an hour after we know we are under some kind of attack when it has its own anti-aircraft batteries and is some of the most guarded airspace in the country. That doesn't happen without some powerful help. If did happen with no help then something is very seriously amiss in our defenses. Nor do I believe that in mere minutes any skyscraper is going to collapse from fire. much less another that wasn't even on fire in the first place.

    No, too many things went too maximally wrong to be mere happenstance or for the official story to make sense. I don't know exactly what happened. But I am 99% certain that the official story is not exactly and only what did happen.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ sjatkins 5 years, 1 month ago
      My suspicion is some quite powerful people planned much of this and the rest of government played along because they viewed it as much worse if the actual truth came out. I don't think they failed to see as much discrepancy as I do.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by BrettRocketSci 5 years, 1 month ago
    Andrea and others, I could make many replies within this thread but let me make my first comment as a new item.
    By 2012, I had been heavily involved in two private and independent investigations into major commercial aviations accidents (TWA800 and AA587). As an aerospace engineer and Objectivist committed to knowing the truth and acknowledging reality, I became certain that the official findings were a total lie. I can point you to websites if you like but you can use Google yourself if you care (and think you can handle it, as Jack Nicholson's character would say). These experiences led me to be more curious about the Pentagon attack on 9/11. One thing led to another. In a nutshell, the govenrment's conspiracy theory or hypothesis (the same language applies) is a mile wide but only one inch thick. It is up to each person to have the courage, logic, and honesty to investigate the facts and stories for themselves. It took me over 1 year to come to terms with it. Many questions still remain, but there is ample evidence and physics to prove controlled demolition of 3 buildings and it was no airliner that hit the Pentagon. Fantastic claims, but I've stopped trying to pretend otherwise.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
      I have done a lot of research since 911 myself, along with my husband. It is so very hard to come to grips with something this sinister perpetrated by the monsters governing us and by corporate America. But come to grips I must. There is compelling proof on both sides of the issue, but one side tilts more. I hate what our country has become.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by BrettRocketSci 5 years, 1 month ago
        Yes, the implications are what prevent most people from an objective and diligent look at the evidence IMO. This is why it is imperative for those of us who truly want to live in a Gulch and not the other world of Atlas Shrugged need to get busy creating that better reality for ourselves.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 5 years, 1 month ago
    According to this article about the firestorm in Dresden Germany in WWII, the temperature hit 1500 degrees C (2700 degrees F) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...

    If a similar effect occurred in the WTC attack, the steel could have melted.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 1 month ago
      Most killed not by explosions or fire but by asphyxiation as the fire sucked all the available air out of buildings, basements etc.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by BrettRocketSci 5 years, 1 month ago
        When you see extreme temperatures without any oxygen source to keep combustion going, you have an exothermic reaction. You'll find that documented at the WTC site if you look for it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 5 years, 1 month ago
          I was thinking more of the Dresden and other cities as a result of the bombings in WWII the results creating a fire storm which used available air and oxygen. That accounted for the unburned bodies found in sub basement levels. I hadn't thought of the WTC in that manner except the fire being hot enough to ignite the structural metal something similar to the British warship during the Falklands War. Anything will burn if it 's hot enough. But exothermic adds a lot to the picture. We were taught to use hand emplaced thermite grenades daisy chained to achieve some of those same effects.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by SaltyDog 5 years, 1 month ago
    The jet fuel was merely the accelerant. Once flammable material started burning, a draft was established...hot air rises, surrounding air rushes in at an ever increasing pace as the fire expands, and a fire storm has started. Oxygen is what gives a fire it's heat; more air rushing in, fire gets hotter. Fire gets hotter, more air rushes in. The only way to stop it at that point is let the flammable material burn out and the fire runs out of fuel. And at those temperature, almost anything becomes flammable.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 5 years, 1 month ago
    All of these assumptions are fine. But please watch the video of this physicist before you totally rule out the idea that all 3 buildings did not collapse in their own footprint, (implode) because of fire. High rise buildings on fire have never, ever, ever imploded in on themselves. Being objective is what we are all about. Science means something.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by SaltyDog 5 years, 1 month ago
      The support of the structure was the exoskeleton, and this was by design, to collapse inward in the event of a catastrophic failure. If it was built like traditional structures it would have gone over sideways, and the devastation and loss of life would have been much, much worse.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 5 years, 1 month ago
    Americans got conned into giving up liberty again.
    "No one ... is exactly what he appears."
    You want truth, send the panel that wrote the 911 report to Gitmo for persuasion. Then execute them as traitors since the 5th amendment doesn't apply any more.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo