9/11/2001 What do you believe happened?
Posted by ycandrea 8 years, 7 months ago to Government
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
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.
"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?
The more oxidizer available the hotter the burn, just as SaltyDog said.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
"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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If a similar effect occurred in the WTC attack, the steel could have melted.
"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.